Why Planck's Formula For Black Body Radiation Is Used To Measure The Cbr?

[exchemist]

 

The topic at this thread is the Cosmic Background Radiation, the validity of Planck's BBC EM radiation density and the reasonability that such an

earthly formula be applied at the edge of the universe (which I keep saying that is wrong, a falsification).

 

Now the thread is drifting toward the abundance of elementary particles (protons and electrons) and their density as well as the density of primary

atoms (H and He) and isotops in the whole universe. We are analyzing the chances that, since this elemental components compose most of the

mass of the universe in some kind of gaseous (difuse or nebular) existance, they may be the origin of wideband radiation that we perceive as CBR.

 

It has to be taken into account the average low density of matter (about 2 to 8 atoms per m³) and the existance of electric and magnetic forces

beyond any human comprehension between galaxies (or within them), wich may produce accelerations of protons and electrons almost equal to "c".

 

This particles (cosmic rays) keep bombarding elementary nucleii (like those of H and He), creating a cascade of high energy radiation (gamma),

electrons, muons, etc. Synchrotron and linear acceleration produced by plasma bridges and rotating plasma (what is NEGATED by current science)

keep producing wide band radiation and the whole soup of radiative forces, byproducts and radiating elements form a uniform scenario with zillions of

EM waves filling the whole space.

 

This is NOT something that happens at the edge of the known universe, but everywhere. Questions wich arise:

 

• What is that which is measured as CBR here?
• Where does it originates?
• How is the depth of its origin measured, if there are not references for such kind of measurements, except the fallacious "petitio principii" excuse that
• CBR is a leftover of the big bang?
• If I forbid the use of the big bang theory under life-term imprisonment penalty, how come CBR could be explained?

 

1) I don't understand your question: can you rephrase?

2) supposedly from the surface of last scattering

3) I am not sure what is meant by the "depth" of its origin. What we are looking at, according to my understanding, is  in effect the surface of last scattering, redshifted by the subsequent expansion of the universe. According to the BB model, at least. 

4) According to the model, it is a leftover from the plasma that is thought to have filled the universe until 380,000yrs after the start.

5) That is up to others to suggest

[exchemist]

As it seems to be relevant to the contentions of Marmet, I thought I would post a link to this discussion from physics stack exchange about why a gas cannot be a black body: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290528/difference-in-thermal-radiation-in-condensed-matter-and-gases

 

Marmet seems to have the idea that all matter emits what he calls Planck radiation. It appears that it does not. 

[exchemist]

1) It refers to the real origin of CBR: BBT or random noise?

3) Depth is meant to measure the thickness (within the visible universe's spherical volume) from which we can detect

    the strongest and the faintest components of CBR below 1 Thz. As EM radiation is under the inverse square law, there

    are max and min values which are detectable. Everything below min values is power undetectable, because it's below the

    noise threshold of our receivers (which have several sources of noise by themselves).

4) It's an undue answer, because the bullet shouldn't be there, and the paragraph is an extension of 3).

5) We can suggest. We are free people and laws don't forbid us to think.

1) no obviously it is not noise. The radiation temperature is clear. Ocean Breeze has even picked it up on his research ship. It is the tiny inhomogeneities in it , of the order of a hundred thousandth of the signal itself, that are hard to detect accurately.

 

3) I still do not know what you mean by "thickness", nor do I understand why the inverse square law is relevant. That is relevant to emission from a point source, but this radiation comes from all over the sky.

 

5) Sure you can. So long as you account for the observations and make predictions for testing the alternative hypothesis.   

[exchemist]

I double check everything, especially on physics stack exchange, where contradictory answers thrive. Planck radiation is emitted by all matter according to wiki and every other source I looked up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

 

It appears matter does emit planck radiation.

 

Marmets theory seems plausible http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/cosmic/index.html and might be worth a full and proper discussion. 

I did that too, but view that Wiki article with a little scepticism, as it talks in generalities about the emission/absorption process and does not seem to deal with the specifics of gases at all.

 

Whereas I can see the guy on stack exchange knows his stuff. He is mentioning all the different ways that the (electronic) band absorption and emission of molecular gases might stretch into broader regions of the spectrum, (via Doppler broadening, red shifts etc), to make the gas seem more like a black body, but even after doing this it is clear they cannot be.

 

I have also checked other sources, as I could not see how a non-polar diatomic gas could possibly emit and absorb so-called "Planck radiation". What I have found is that indeed they can't. So it seems to be an untrue statement that "all matter" emits and absorbs Planck radiation. 

 

If you think about it, this fits with the observation that on Earth, temperature decreases with altitude. Air is heated by the ground, not by heat from the sun passing through. That is because the main constituents N2, O2, have no way of absorbing the radiation.  

 

I have read Marmet's article and find it highly unconvincing. It seems littered with errors. Our previous conversation about atomic and molecular hydrogen provides another example. I was explaining how the formation of molecular hydrogen is actually quite difficult in the very rarefied environment of interstellar space. But Marmet claims, contrary to everybody else*, that there is actually lots of molecular hydrogen and we just can't detect it because it is transparent - but then claims it emits "Planck radiation", which I don't believe it can do, for the reasons I've just given. So he seems to me to be trying to have it both ways and defying physics in the process.  

 

So frankly I'm not surprised he got sacked from his academic job and resorted to self-publishing stuff. I expect he went a bit crazy - certainly looks that way to me. This article of his simply does not appear at all credible, at any rate, to this physical chemist :).

 

 

 

* Acc Wiki, the interstellar medium of the Milky Way is <1% molecular hydrogen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium

Edited June 3, 2019 by exchemist

[exchemist]

Whilst the wiki link you posted above indicates < 1 % molecular hydrogen :)  it appears to contradict some of your other conclusions above and since it is generally accepted wiki is a dodgy source.

 

I dug up a better link on the interstellar medium. H2 can not be detected directly, but it does exist in dark clouds in space http://casswww.ucsd.edu/archive/public/tutorial/ISM.html 

 

Edit when H1 binds with H1 to form H2 it is exothermic, and will give of radiation.

It's certainly possible it contradicts something I've said. I don't claim to be an astrophysicist, merely a physical chemist who can usually read and understand physical science from other disciplines. I'd be very interested to know what in detail. Can you give an example?  

 

I can't open the link, unfortunately. Does it come up with a higher abundance of H2 than Wiki?

 

Lastly, I notice this is the second time you have asserted that radiation is emitted when 2 hydrogen atoms combine to form a molecule. Can you provide evidence for this claim? I have some difficulty with the idea, for the reasons I have explained. 

[exchemist]

It's certainly possible it contradicts something I've said. I don't claim to be an astrophysicist, merely a physical chemist who can usually read and understand physical science from other disciplines. I'd be very interested to know what in detail. Can you give an example?  

 

I can't open the link, unfortunately. Does it come up with a higher abundance of H2 than Wiki?

 

Lastly, I notice this is the second time you have asserted that radiation is emitted when 2 hydrogen atoms combine to form a molecule. Can you provide evidence for this claim? I have some difficulty with the idea, for the reasons I have explained. 

QUOTE:

In May 1999, the head of the physics department came to Marmet’s office and said: “Ce n’est pas ton bureau que nous voulons, ton problème est que tu remets en question les principes fondamentaux de la physique.”   (“We do not want your office,  your problem is that you keep questioning the fundamental principles of physics.”)  Three months later, a letter was sent requiring Marmet's office to become unoccupied before the end of the month. 

 

UNQUOTE

[exchemist]

I deleted a post defending Marmet, where I said that he hadn't been sacked.

 

He was sacked, indeed. He explain it by himself at his site, mantained by his son and others:

 

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/info/author.html

 

Quote from the son's Obituary:

 

  His interest in astronomy led him to study the numerous anomalies observed by astronomers, especially the inconsistent redshifts reported in the works of H. Arp.  To explain these anomalies, Dr. Marmet suggested that an energy loss mechanism resulting from dipole emission could leave the same signature on spectral absorption lines as the Doppler redshift.  The dipole is created by momentum transfer of a photon in its interaction with a single molecule in a low density gas.  Observations of massive quantities of molecular hydrogen by the European Space Agency's Infrared Space Observatory confirms there is enough interstellar gas to support his hypothesis that the cosmological redshift is not entirely of Doppler origin.  The mechanism still waits for a detailed quantum mechanical development and experimental verification in the laboratory.  He also proposed other models to explain non-intuitive quantum mechanical phenomena and relativity.  He is said to be a strong critic and a mighty rebel in physics.  He leaves many incomplete ideas and many colleagues still wishing to discuss with him.

 

He will be missed as a good experimentalist and also as my father.

 

----------------- End of quote-------

 

No wonder he was black-listed. He followed theories from Halton Arp, a bigger figure than him in the fight against "stablishment's dogmas".

 

The history of his final years adventure is related by his son (I pressume and quote):

 

In 1997-99, physicists of the establishment showed fierce disagreement with the fact that Marmet’s research implied that the fundamental principles of physics were being questioned.  Although the experimental work, which could determine the energy of numerous quantum stated was highly appreciated and even honored, the physics establishment required that the author should stop questioning the fundamental principles of physics.  The author was first informed by NSERC (Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada) to stop doing that fundamental research despite the fact that, being theoretical, it required no research funds - all research grants were used for the experimental work needed for the electron impact apparatus.  Since the fundamental research was still going on the following year, the grant was cut to zero, putting an end to experimental work using the monoenergetic electron beams. 

  In May 1999, the head of the physics department came to Marmet’s office and said: “Ce n’est pas ton bureau que nous voulons, ton problème est que tu remets en question les principes fondamentaux de la physique.”   (“We do not want your office,  your problem is that you keep questioning the fundamental principles of physics.”)  Three months later, a letter was sent requiring Marmet's office to become unoccupied before the end of the month.  Without research grant and being expelled from his office, Dr. Marmet continued his research alone at home.

  This was the irrevocable death of a unique instrument in the world, which was able to measure the electronic structure of negative ions and their ionization efficiency curve using a high resolution monoenergetic electron beam.  A few months later, the instrument was destroyed.  Also, this shows that physics is not only a science, it is a doctrine.  Therefore, there are heretics.   It's not different from Galileo’s time!

 

--------------------------------

 

More clear than this, impossible.

 

Stablishment (tptb) doesn't like to fund dissidence. Only coincidence.

Yes, he was sacked. From reading the linked article we have been discussing I am not surprised. 

 

What is curious about Louis Marmet's obituary is that he talks as if the cosmological redshift is of Doppler origin. Looks as if the poor physics has continued from father to son.  

Edited June 3, 2019 by exchemist

[exchemist]

exchemist, I have a question for you regarding how the whole thing of CBR started 80 years ago.

 

Back in the late '30s and early '40s, some "cosmologists" (it wasn't an stablished branch of astronomy yet) theorized about the average

temperature of the whole universe, discounting the hot spots that galaxies were.

 

Out of our earthly understanding of temperature, related to the kinetic theories of gaseous atmosphere, to talk about temperature in the

space is a very tricky subject, because only theories of radiating heat can apply (as far as I know).

 

There are two formulae which are used in astrophysics, when temperature is an issue, and both are related directly to radiation.

 

The oldest one (Stefan, 1879) is very simple and connect radiating power per unit area with the fourth power of temperature (in °K). It was used

by Stefan himself to estimate the Sun's surface temperature 150 years ago, and remain as an undisputed tool in astrophysics to derive a lot of

info about stars (temperature, size, luminosity) even today.

 

The second one (Planck, 1901) is quite more complex because it involves statistical behaviors (Maxwell-Boltzmann-Gibbs statistical mechanics).

The complexity lies in its three components: 1) the amount of resonance modes of EM waves inside a cavity (independant of temperature); 2) the

unit energy quantum of a given EM wave (h.f) and 3) the statistical distribution of energy along the spectrum, which is the exponential part that

makes the difference between Rayleigh's PDF (flat) and Planck's PDF (gaussian like curved shape being function of f and T).

 

I'd like very much if you help to reconstruct the history of the current CBR behavior, starting with the original thoughts of the first ones who dared

to approximate a value of average temperature for the whole universe. The values that appeared between the 30's and the 50's varied in a wide

range between 4°K and 50°K.

 

My question to you is this: What theory did the early cosmologists used to estimate the temperature of the universe?

 

I think that they should have worked very hard to discount "singularities" in the isotropic conception of the universe, like the billion-trillions of galaxies

which were not meant to be considered. It was already known by then that distances between galaxies were huge, in the order of tens of Bly. So,

assuming that they discounted the accumulated energy of such hot-spots into the "volume" of the universe, the above question is:

 

Did they approximated results by Stefan? Did they averaged part of the Planck's spectrum (area under the curve)? Another theory that I'm not aware of?

 

I'd really appreciate your comments about the early stage of the development of the CBR theory that we know today.

Sorry, no. I am not a cosmologist and have neither the time nor the interest to go digging through the history to see how estimates of "temperature", if there were any, may have been arrived at. But there is nothing stopping you from doing that and providing us with the most concise and clear links you can find.  

 

All I can do is try to keep the physics and chemistry people use in these discussions more or less on the rails, to the best of my ability.

 

You are quite right that temperature is indeed a dodgy concept in interstellar space. The atoms and molecules are too far apart for a thermal equilibrium energy distribution to be set up. Without that, temperature is undefined.

 

This is yet another reason to be suspicious of our friend Marmet, with his imagined and highly dubious clouds of molecular hydrogen, which he thought can magically radiate like a black body, even though they have no dipole (i.e. no appropriate "oscillator" in black-body-speak) and would thus be transparent in the microwave and IR regions.     

Edited June 3, 2019 by exchemist

[exchemist]

After a long thread questioning why Planck's formula for Black Body Cavity Radiation was

being used to describe the Cosmic Background Radiation, this post is the final in this journey.

 

The next figure represents the instrumentation used at COBE's FIRAS to measure the CBR.

 

I've been researching about the kind of instrumentation used on-board at COBE satellite, and

all remits to the 1946 R. Dicke's paper where he proposed to mix and substract Planck's noise

from CBR, by using a switching amplifier plus a mixer plus a "Dicke bolometer". He patented it.

 

In few words, his instrumentation substracts Planck's noise (from references) from the received

CBR. He does so by amplifying the differences between Planck's noise and the CBR, and the

difference is amplified and "read" using a "Dicke's bolometer". This allowed to see anisotropies.

 

As Dicke's assumption (and also NASA's assumption) is that CBR has the form of Planck's

radiation, everything what was done was a "self-fulfilling" prophecy, so it's fallacious.

 

And, as I suspected, everything around COBE, WMAP and PLANCK's satellites and the results

for the detailed measurement ARE WRONG, FALSIFIED.

 

Every time this kind of measurements were performed, on Earth or in outer space, there was a

prior assumption that it SHOULD FOLLOW Planck's radiation.

 

After all, the genial Planck provided the only available formulae to predict radiation spectra of a

black body cavity as a function of frequency and absolute temperature. Science HAS NOT any

other alternative than using this theory, even when Planck would disapprove it, because it's a

violation of the Kirchoff's theorem, which driven the search for an answer for the second half

of the XIX century among thermo-electro-dynamicists.

 

Sad, but true: The basis for the Big Bang Theory ARE FALSIFIED. And everyone has to shut up.

 

What is Planck's "noise", please? I am not familiar with this term.

[exchemist]

I don't wish to reopen the thread. 

 

Here is the link again, it seems the end of the URL became corrupted http://casswww.ucsd.edu/archive/public/tutorial/ISM.html just in case it does it again it should read ISM.html at the end.

 

I understand that to break H2 into H + H requires energy, it seems logical to a none chemist when they come together that they must lose energy. I may be wrong as 

I remember very little about chemistry. 

You are quite right of course about that but the point is how can that energy be lost before the atoms rebound again? In chemical kinetics this is a real issue. Because energy is conserved, when a bond forms the reacting species, by definition, have enough energy to break the bond again and fly apart. In the case of reacting gases at what we think of as normal pressures, the frequency of intermolecular collisions is high enough to provide ways for the energy of what is called the "activated complex" to be redistributed to other molecules before this happens.  

 

But in the hard vacuum of interstellar space this is not so. There will sometime be occasions when there is another molecule is close enough to help do this but it will be fairly infrequent. Yes, the only other available process would be spontaneous radiation, by the activated complex excited state created when the two atoms interact. However I am not sure such a process exists. Bear in mind there are plenty of spectroscopic energy level changes that do NOT occur because they are forbidden by the so called selection rules (rules to do with the symmetry of the wavefunctions before and after)  I can't find evidence for this radiation process.

 

What I do find is research like one: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730011435.pdf. which is all about hydrogen recombination when there is a third body to stabilise the activated complex.  

Edited July 1, 2019 by exchemist

[exchemist]

I am going to have to demonstrate my ignorance. :) At near absolute zero in the near vacuum of space, two H atoms forming H2 would lose potential energy not kinetic/thermal energy to another atom, which is not available in the vacuum of space. If they did not they would just fly apart would they not? Energy comes in the form of kinetic or potential energy. If the process was radioactive, Energy is radiated in the form of either  Alpha, Beta, Gamma or Xrays

 

Gamma and Xray are normally associated with high energy radiation. Alpha radiation is to do with Helium atoms being ejected so is not applicable to hydrogen. That leaves perhaps Beta radiation or some form of very low level EM radiation, as the only mechanism for losing energy when H2 is formed from H in the vacuum of space, at near absolute zero.

Well up to a point. Forget β radiation: that is made up of electrons, so it would leave you with an ion. Forget γ as well, as that is far too energetic and comes from nuclear reactions. X-rays come from very energetic transitions in the cores of multi-electron atoms with high nuclear charge, so these would not be relevant either. No it would have to be some process for photon emission, in the UV I imagine, by which the electrons can lose energy.

 

The problem I see can be illustrated in the molecular orbital diagram in this: https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Chemical_Bonding/Fundamentals_of_Chemical_Bonding/Chemical_Bonds/Molecular_Orbitals_of_H2

 

(I tried to cut and paste the diagram but the website won't let me, so you'll have to follow the link.)

 

 

As the 2 atoms approach one another the 2 1s orbitals influence one another and two new molecular orbital states are formed, one bonding and one antibonding. Until some form of energy release can occur, one electron goes into each state, the sum of the energies remains the same as that of the free atoms, and the net bonding effect is zero. So effectively, you are proposing that the electron that starts to find itself going into the antibonding orbital has a radiative process by which it can drop down and join the one in the bonding orbital. 

 

I am saying I am not sure that is possible. Generally, these transitions need to involve a change of one unit of angular momentum, because the emitted photon carries away one unit of angular momentum. So for example in the spectrum of atomic hydrogen, a transition from a p orbital to an s is allowed, but between two s orbitals is forbidden. Such considerations give rise to what are known as the spectroscopic "selection rules", which limit the number of lines you can actually see compared to all the potential combination of changes in state that you could imagine.  

 

It's too glib to say the 2 atoms just radiate away the energy: they may not be able to, because of the laws of quantum physics.  

Edited July 1, 2019 by exchemist

[exchemist]

If H +H cant get rid of energy would they be stable ? H2 is stable, so maybe you are right they lose energy via low level photon emission resulting in very low level radiation throughout all of space.

 

An interesting thing about H2 being hard to detect, it is a candidate for dark matter.  https://principia-scientific.org/is-molecular-hydrogen-h2-the-dark-matter-that-explains-the-galactic-rotation-anomaly/ which might make Verlindes entropic gravity which I favour on occasion and MOND theories a little tenuous, and amusingly might also call into question the Hot big bang.

You seem to be confusing two things: the thermodynamics and the kinetics. The latter is the route by which bonding and energy changes can take place, during a chemical reaction. I've already explained hydrogen molecules can easily form, if there are molecular collisions with third body molecules to help carry off the energy that is released. The paper I linked to focuses on that.  

 

So yes H2 is thermodynamically stable, but you need a kinetic route by which the reaction can go to completion. Part of that is solving the problem of how the energy is carried away from the newly forming bond, so that the atoms don't just bounce apart again. What I suspect is that they still need these 3rd body molecules to do this and so the rate of reaction in interstellar space will be very low, as only when, by chance, you get 2 atoms plus a "chaperone molecule" together at once will you get a successful reaction.

 

But of course the universe has billions of years to do this, so I am not saying it can't occur: evidently it does or we would not have the molecular clouds.

 

I'll leave the entropic gravity stuff to you, as I'm not sure I understand it. 

[exchemist]

 

Verlindes entropic gravity is a convoluted argument, and not easy to follow or swallow at times, but amusing never the less.

 

Molecular clouds of H2 might still be a plausible dark matter candidate, as it is hard to detect.

 

Entropic Gravity does not require dark matter to explain the rotation curves of galaxies. 

 

If Dark matter exists then entropic gravity may be wrong, and vice verca. I could have been wasting my time reading about it.

 

BEC of Hydrogen atoms have been formed at near absolute zero. 

 

Would 3 Hydrogen atoms not fit the bill for forming H2 if one of them carries of the energy?

 

Liquid Hydrogen H2 molecules are stable below 33K, when talking about gas clouds, is it possible they are liquids and not gases ?.

 

I suppose maybe a 3rd atom could do the job. If it got close enough to modify the symmetry of the confining potential the electrons experience, that could alter the symmetry of the wave function by perturbing it, and processes otherwise forbidden by symmetry rules could become possible. 

 

H2 is stable once it has formed. This issue is how to let the atoms release the energy as they come together. This is where a 3rd body comes in. In more complex molecules it is less of an issue, as there are many internal degrees of freedom (e.g. bond vibrations) to which energy can be transferred. But forming a diatomic gas from atoms does not provide this: the only bond available is the one it is trying to form.

 

It actually does not make sense to talk about a molecule being in a liquid state. Solid, liquid and gas states are descriptions of bulk matter, i.e. large assemblages of molecules. In solids and liquids, intermolecular forces prevent the molecules from escaping the attraction of their neighbours. But the molecules we are talking about are far apart. They are in effect part of a very tenous gas.

 

In fact, they may not even be a real gas. Even in a gas, there are enough collisions to enable the molecules to form an energy distribution (Maxwell-Boltzmann) that is in equilibrium. This enables us to define bulk properties, such as a temperature and a pressure for the gas. For some of these interstellar clouds I doubt that this is the case.      

Edited July 2, 2019 by exchemist

[Dubbelosix]

A hydrogen atom can be only stable in two ways....

[Dubbelosix]

Either it exists in a ground state in a vacuum, or it is being ''watched.''

[exchemist]

 

Verlindes entropic gravity is a convoluted argument, and not easy to follow or swallow at times, but amusing never the less.

 

Molecular clouds of H2 might still be a plausible dark matter candidate, as it is hard to detect.

 

Entropic Gravity does not require dark matter to explain the rotation curves of galaxies. 

 

If Dark matter exists then entropic gravity may be wrong, and vice verca. I could have been wasting my time reading about it.

 

BEC of Hydrogen atoms have been formed at near absolute zero. 

 

Would 3 Hydrogen atoms not fit the bill for forming H2 if one of them carries of the energy?

 

Liquid Hydrogen H2 molecules are stable below 33K, when talking about gas clouds, is it possible they are liquids and not gases ?.

 

I've now found (better late than never I suppose) a discusson of exactly the problem we have been discussing, here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/263544/the-exact-mechanism-of-energy-release-durning-bond-formation-on-the-atomic-level

 

You will see that they too start talking about the need for surfaces or other things to carry away the energy before the thing breaks apart again. That introduces another mechanistic option: adsorption on dust grains. This would be quite an efficient way of converting H atoms into molecules, I should think. :)

[exchemist]

In large cold gas clouds as might have existed, made up of H atoms. 

The following would apply 

"Similarly, if there is another collision by a 3rd body, for example, the HH atoms are in a gas at some reasonable pressure (either H2H2 or a un-reactive gas say at a few hundred torr) then there is a good chance that the collision will remove energy from the nascent H2H2 and so stabilise it. (Here I assume that the gas is cold enough to remove vibrational energy on average rather than add it.)"

 

Does it follow that if a 3rd hydrogen atom was to carry away the energy from two hydrogen atoms forming H2. It would be at a higher energy level and would eventually cool giving of a photon of energy, depending on the energy level the H atom was at originally. 

https://web.phys.ksu.edu/vqm/tutorials/hydrogen/hyd9.html

https://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/advanced/spectraltypes/energylevels.asp

 

 

Prior to any of this happening at the point of (re)combination immediately after baryogenisis and the quark epoch, when electrons combined with Hydrogen ions. Photons would be released.

 

 

Hot or cold or both big bang?

 

If the big bang was a quasi instantaneous event then it would be very hot at the point of recombination giving of photons. Baryogenesis forming atoms from quarks would also give of photons when they form to make atoms prior to (re)combination.

 

Chicken and egg Hot or Cold or both?

 

Speculations invited Hot or Cold. Were particles created from condensates of quarks appearing out of the quantum vacuum, at below 2.75Kelvin, which when they combined gave of photons, eventually raising the temperature of the universe to a point whereby no more condensates can form naturally outside of a lab.

 

Mathematically an inflationary stage of the universe happening almost instantaneously breaking all the laws of physics occurred preceding a hot big bang. Realistically could the conditions arising for a hot big bang not have evolved over a preceding eternity, slowly expanding and heating the universe. 

I'll just deal with the question about the 3rd hydrogen atom, since I need to go and practice for a concert I am singing in tonight.

 

The most likely thing is that the atom is given translational kinetic energy - which means both the atom and the molecule, since momentum has to be conserved in the interaction. Any electronic excitation would involve it absorbing a photon, I think, which gets us back to the symmetry problem of how the molecule could emit. So I doubt the atom would emit a photon subsequently.

 

All this stuff would, it seems to me, be largely invisible to a distant observer, save that the atoms and molecules involved will from time to time intercept a passing photon from elsewhere and absorb and re-emit it, which is something we can in principle detect if enough of it happens.