Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Dave Lev on 31/01/2023 07:09:53
-
What is the redshift of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)?
https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/what-is-the-redshift-of-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb/
"Mark asked how we know the redshift of the CMBR if it has no emission or absorption lines, which is the usual way to determine redshifts of e.g. stars and galaxies."
So, do we all agree that there is no emission or absorption lines in the CMBR and therefore there is no way to extract the redshift value from the CMBR data?
However, our scientists used their understanding about the Big Bang theory in order to calculate the expected CMBR redshift as follow:
1. The requested temp that is needed to for the electrons to finally combine with the protons and form neutral hydrogen. That temp is estimated for 3,000K
"as the Universe expands, the temperature just decreases in inverse proportion to its size. Double the size of the Universe, and the temperature will halve.
When the Universe had cooled to about 3,000K it was cool enough for the electrons to finally combine with the protons and form neutral hydrogen. At this temperature the photons were not energetic enough to ionise any hydrogen atoms, and the electrons had lost enough thermal energy that they too could not ionise electrons bound to protons. Finally, for the first time in the Universe’s history, neutral hydrogen atoms could form."
2. The current CMBR temp:
"so, the blackbody produced at the time of decoupling will have retained its blackbody spectrum through to the current epoch. But, because the Universe has expanded, the peak of the spectrum will have been stretched by the expansion of space (so it is not correct to think of the CMB spectrum as having cooled down, rather than space has expanded and stretched its peak emission to a lower temperature). The peak of a blackbody spectrum is related to its temperature in a very precise way, it is given by Wien’s displacement law,
"In 1990 the FIRAS instrument on the NASA satellite COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) measured the spectrum of the CMB to high precision, and found it to be currently at a temperature of (as an aside, the spectrum measured by FIRAS was the most perfect blackbody spectrum ever observed in nature)."
3. The redshift formula
"It is thus easy to calculate the current redshift of the CMB, it is given by
z \text{ (redshift)} = \frac{3000}{2.725} = 1100
and “voil ”, that is the redshift of the CMB. Simples"
Hence, the expected CMBR redshift value based on the BBT calculation should be 1100.
However, we know by now that based on the observed CMBR data it doesn't carry any redshift.
Therefore, do you confirm that there is no correlation between the real redshift based on CMBR data to the expected redshift based on the BBT calculation/Theory?
If so, why our scientists hide this vital information?
Why do they claim that the CMBR redshift is 1100 while this value is totally incorrect based on the real CMBR data?
-
CMBR data it doesn't carry any redshift.
The CMBR exhibits a dipole, suggesting a motion of our star in our galaxy of about 600km/sec, relative to the CMBR. https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/Cosmic+Microwave+Background+Dipole
BBT calculation/Theory?
If this is a subtle way to sneak a New Theory into a mainstream thread, it will be demoted quickly...
-
I only ask about the CMBR redshift (1100)
Is it correct that the redshift of the CMBR has no emission or absorption lines?
If there is no redshift in the CMBR data, then do you agree that it is a severe mistake to claim that the redshift of the CMBR is 1100?
-
"Mark asked how we know the redshift of the CMBR if it has no emission or absorption lines, which is the usual way to determine redshifts of e.g. stars and galaxies."
The only plausible source for radiation with no structure (no lines or bands etc) is the recombination of hydrogen nuclei and electrons. (if you think this is wrong, then please check; if you still think it's wrong, please keep checking)
So, what you seem to be presenting as a "problem" is, in fact the answer.
Hence, the expected CMBR redshift value based on the BBT calculation should be 1100.
However, we know by now that based on the observed CMBR data it doesn't carry any redshift.
Yes it has.
It has been red shifted from the hard UV down to the microwave region.
How did you get the idea that it was not red shifted?
-
Is it correct that the redshift of the CMBR has no emission or absorption lines?
No, that's a category error.
A red shift is a number, it is 1100 in this case.
How can a number have lines?
-
Is it correct that the redshift of the CMBR has no emission or absorption lines?
No, that's a category error.
A red shift is a number, it is 1100 in this case.
How can a number have lines?
There is no error!
https://lco.global/spacebook/light/redshift/
How Do Astronomers Measure Redshift?
The most accurate way to measure redshift is by using spectroscopy. When a beam of white light strikes a triangular prism it is separated into its various components (ROYGBIV). This is known as a spectrum (plural: spectra). Astronomers can look at the spectra created by different elements and compare these with the spectra of stars. If the absorption or emission lines they see in the star's spectra are shifted, they know the object is moving either towards us or away from us."
Therefore, the emission & absorption lines are critical for the redshift measurements.
Do you agree by now that as there is no emission or absorption lines in the CMBR then there is no redshift in the CMBR data?
-
The most accurate way to measure redshift is by using spectroscopy.
I know.
I'm a spectroscopist.
If the absorption or emission lines they see in the star's spectra are shifted, they know the object is moving either towards us or away from us."
You seem not to have appreciated the importance of the word "if" at the start of that quote or you have failed to recognise that the whole emission spectrum is a very broad "line".
Therefore, the emission & absorption lines are critical for the redshift measurements.
No
All you need to do is look at the peak of the blackbody spectrum.
Indeed, that's all you can look at. It's essentially the only number you get which refers to the wavelength.
Do you agree by now that as there is no emission or absorption lines in the CMBR then there is no redshift in the CMBR data?
No, Of course I don't agree with that.
It is wrong.
You can easily measure the red shift.
We know what the effective temperature is when hydrogen recombines.
And we know what the temperature of the CMBR is.
And the ratio of those gives us the red shift- about 1100. (It's a bit more complicated than that- not every atom has to be ionised; but since you don't even understand the basics, we can leave the complicated bits aside for now).
All you have done here is show that you don't understand what you are trying to talk about.
The same as usual.
-
The most accurate way to measure redshift is by using spectroscopy.
Yes, that is clear.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:53:26
If the absorption or emission lines they see in the star's spectra are shifted, they know the object is moving either towards us or away from us."
You seem not to have appreciated the importance of the word "if" at the start of that quote or you have failed to recognise that the whole emission spectrum is a very broad "line".
Sorry, even in the following article it is stated:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86083.0#quickreply
"The redshift of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is not measured, it is calculated."
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:53:26
Therefore, the emission & absorption lines are critical for the redshift measurements.
No
All you need to do is look at the peak of the blackbody spectrum.
Indeed, that's all you can look at. It's essentially the only number you get which refers to the wavelength.
Now you claim that there is no need for emission & absorption lines.
You can easily measure the red shift.
We know what the effective temperature is when hydrogen recombines.
And we know what the temperature of the CMBR is.
And the ratio of those gives us the red shift- about 1100. (It's a bit more complicated than that- not every atom has to be ionised; but since you don't even understand the basics, we can leave the complicated bits aside for now).
Sorry, this is the same explanation for how to estimate/calculate the redshift based on the BBT understanding which I have already highlighted.
There is no spectroscopy in this explanation.
So, why do you claim: "You can easily measure the red shift." while you do understand that we do not measure it from the CMBR data?
Therefore, do you confirm that we do not measure the redshift value from the CMB radiation data by spectroscopy?We know what the effective temperature is when hydrogen recombines.
You assume that the hydrogen recombines temp is 3000K.
Can you please prove it?
Even if that value is correct, do you agree that we have calculated the CMBR redshift by the following formula?
z \text{ (redshift)} = \frac{3000}{2.725} = 1100
Hence, why do you insist that we measure CMB redshift (by using spectroscopy), while you fully confirm that the redshift is calculated based on the hydrogen recombines idea (without any spectroscopy)?
-
"The redshift of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is not measured, it is calculated."
And I told you (roughly) how they calculate it from the thing they measure.
We know what the effective temperature is when hydrogen recombines.
And we know what the temperature of the CMBR is.
And the ratio of those gives us the red shift- about 1100. (It's a bit more complicated than that- not every atom has to be ionised; but since you don't even understand the basics, we can leave the complicated bits aside for now).
Your argument is like saying "he didn't measure the temperature; he measured the length of a thread of mercury".
Now you claim that there is no need for emission & absorption lines.
And again.
I explained this
you have failed to recognise that the whole emission spectrum is a very broad "line".
There is no spectroscopy in this explanation.
Yes there is.
They measure the peak emission wavelength of the CMBR's spectrum.
Why are you arguing about that?
So, why do you claim: "You can easily measure the red shift."
Because we can, and we did. See above.
Therefore, do you confirm that we do not measure the redshift value from the CMB radiation data by spectroscopy?
In reality, we measure the shift using spectroscopy.
It's not my fault that you can't understand it.
You assume that the hydrogen recombines temp is 3000K.
We have measured it.
Even this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_hydrogen_welding#:~:text=The%20process%20was%20invented%20by,3400%20to%204000%20%C2%B0C.
Gives you a pretty good estimate.
It's not an assumption.
You just assume that nobody understands it- because you don't understand it.
That's the sort of thing I expect from young children.
Can you please prove it?
I really don't see the point.
Nobody who understands the issues doesn't already know the answer, but see above.
Even if that value is correct, do you agree that we have calculated the CMBR redshift by the following formula?
Yes
Hence, why do you insist that we measure CMB redshift (by using spectroscopy)
Because the temperatures were measured by spectroscopy.
How did you think we did it?
A thermometer on a very long stick?
while you fully confirm that the redshift is calculated based on the hydrogen recombines idea (without any spectroscopy)
Again.
The problem here is that you refuse to pay attention.
Here is the spectroscopy that proves the hydrogen recombination issue.
The only plausible source for radiation with no structure (no lines or bands etc) is the recombination of hydrogen nuclei and electrons.
-
What is the redshift of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)?
https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/what-is-the-redshift-of-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb/
"Mark asked how we know the redshift of the CMBR if it has no emission or absorption lines, which is the usual way to determine redshifts of e.g. stars and galaxies."
So, do we all agree that there is no emission or absorption lines in the CMBR and therefore there is no way to extract the redshift value from the CMBR data?
Did you not read the article you supplied?? The article you supplied refutes your conclusion.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on 31/01/2023 15:54:26
You assume that the hydrogen recombines temp is 3000K.
We have measured it.
Even this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_hydrogen_welding#:~:text=The%20process%20was%20invented%20by,3400%20to%204000%20%C2%B0C.
Gives you a pretty good estimate.
It's not an assumption.
You just assume that nobody understands it- because you don't understand it.
It is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_hydrogen_welding#:~:text=The%20process%20was%20invented%20by,3400%20to%204000%20%C2%B0C
Atomic hydrogen welding (AHW) is an arc welding process that uses an arc between two tungsten electrodes in a shielding atmosphere of hydrogen. The process was invented by Irving Langmuir in the course of his studies of atomic hydrogen. The electric arc efficiently breaks up the hydrogen molecules, which later recombine with tremendous release of heat, reaching temperatures from 3400 to 4000 °C.
The hydrogen gas is normally diatomic (H2), but where the temperatures are over 6,000 °C (10,800 °F) near the arc, the hydrogen breaks down into its atomic form, absorbing a large amount of heat from the arc.
There are several expected temp levels in that "Atomic hydrogen welding" process, but none of them is actually 3000K.
So why the 3000K had been selected?
Why not 3400 °C, 4000 °C or even 6000 °C?
Please be aware that the redshift formula is as follow:
Z= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest
We already know that the λrest is equal to the peak in the CMBR (2.75K).
So why we do not use the peak in the "Atomic hydrogen welding" to set the λobserved?
At the maximal level of 6000 °C (or 6273K) the redshift should be about:
Z = (6275 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 2,281
At the minimal level of only 3400 °C (or 3673K) the redshift should be about:
Z = (3673 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 1,334
However, how do we know for sure that the CMBR λobserved is exactly the same as the "Atomic hydrogen welding"?
Don't you agree that the CMBR λobserved means that this is something that we should observe/mesure in the CMBR?
Actually, we can clearly observe galaxies at a very far away distance.
Some of them had been created soon after the recombination process (or "Atomic hydrogen welding").
Today we have very sensitive and advanced observation tools.
Therefore, we should have the technology to detect/observe the CMBR around those far away galaxies.
Do we really observe that the CMBR λobserved over there is as high as expected (based on the age of the early universe)?
Therefore, do you finely confirm that we have never measured the CMBR λobserved?
We only measured the "Atomic hydrogen welding" temp. However, based on the BBT we had been told that this "Atomic hydrogen welding" temp represents the CMBR λobserved.
Hence, why do you refuse to accept the understanding that the CMBR λobserved is a direct hypothetical idea from the BBT?
How can we claim that the real redshift of the CMBR is exactly 1100?
Why our scientists don't say clearly that based on their understanding about BBT the CMBR λobserved should be 3000K (or 3673K - 6275K)?
Therefore, the CMBR BBT redshift = 1100 (or 1,334 - 2,281), but the real CMBR redshift is unknown as we have never measured the real CMBR λobserved?
-
Today we have very sensitive and advanced observation tools.
Therefore, we should have the technology to detect/observe the CMBR around those far away galaxies. Do we really observe that the CMBR λobserved over there is as high as expected (based on the age of the early universe)?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. It seems like you are saying the CMBR wavelength we detect around those galaxies should be different than the CMBR wavelength we detect on earth, but that doesn't make any sense.
-
So why the 3000K had been selected?
(It's a bit more complicated than that- not every atom has to be ionised; but since you don't even understand the basics, we can leave the complicated bits aside for now).
However, how do we know for sure that the CMBR λobserved is exactly the same as the "Atomic hydrogen welding"?
Nobody said they were.
The only person who got close is you.
So why we do not use the peak in the "Atomic hydrogen welding" to set the λobserved?
At the maximal level of 6000 °C (or 6273K) the redshift should be about:
Z = (6275 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 2,281
How can we claim that the real redshift of the CMBR is exactly 1100?
Has anybody actually made that claim, or are you trying to use a straw man argument?
Therefore, do you finely confirm that we have never measured the CMBR λobserved?
We have observed the temperature we observed.
2.72548±0.00057 K.
We have observed the wavelength we observed
1.063 mm
And you seem, as usual, not to have understood the science.
-
Z= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest
Z = (6275 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 2,281
Why did you suddenly shift from using wavelengths to temperatures?
Don't you see the problem there?
-
We have observed the temperature we observed.
2.72548±0.00057 K.
We have observed the wavelength we observed
1.063 mm
That is correct.
We have observed the the CMBR wavelength, but we only use the measured peak temperature as the λrest in the redshift formula.
We didn't use any wavelength in the following CMBR redshift formula.
Z= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest
Only the temp of 2.75K had been used.
However, what about the λobserved?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:36:48
So why the 3000K had been selected?
(It's a bit more complicated than that- not every atom has to be ionised; but since you don't even understand the basics, we can leave the complicated bits aside for now)
As you clearly understand the basic, would you kindly prove that the REAL CMBR λobserved is 3000K (without using the BBT)?
Z= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest
Z = (6275 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 2,281
Why did you suddenly shift from using wavelengths to temperatures?
Don't you see the problem there?
No, there is no problem?
Why do you calim for wavelengths, while our scientists are using temp in the redshift formula?
Don't you agree that the 2.75K and the 3000K are temperatures?
Therefore, our scientists have assumed that based on the BBT, the temperature of the λobserved should be 3000K.
If you think differently, then please explain.
Today we have very sensitive and advanced observation tools.
Therefore, we should have the technology to detect/observe the CMBR around those far away galaxies. Do we really observe that the CMBR λobserved over there is as high as expected (based on the age of the early universe)?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. It seems like you are saying the CMBR wavelength we detect around those galaxies should be different than the CMBR wavelength we detect on earth, but that doesn't make any sense.
Please look at the following diagram:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/FbcY1.gif
We see that based on the BBT, 12 B years ago, the expected CMBR temp is 15K.
So, in less than 2 billion years the expected CMBR (based on the BBT) had been cooled down from 3000K to 15K.
I couldn't find the expected CMBR temp at 13 B Years ago, but I assume that is should be higher than this 15K.
We clearly see galaxies at a distance of more than 13BLY away.
Those galaxies had been formed more than 13 B years ago.
So, as we see those galaxies, why can't we monitor the ambient-temperature-of-the-universe around those ultra-far away galaxies?
If we would find there the expected ambient-temperature, then it can show us that the assumption that the universe was hotter in its early life time is realistic.
If we don't see the expected higher ambient-temperature , then it proves that the idea that the early universe was hot is not realistic.
In any case, in real science the λobserved must be measured from the ambient-temperature of the Universe itself.
As long as we can't prove this 3000K by real measurements from the Universe, we can't use it in our redshift formula.
It is perfectly ok to claim that the CMBR BBT redshift is 1100 (or 2,281).
However, it is forbidden to claim that this is the real redshift in the CMBR as we can't measure the real ambient-temperature of the Universe at that requested age of the Universe.
Therefore, any scientist that claim that the real CMBR redshift is 1100 mislead himself.
-
We see that based on the BBT, 12 B years ago, the expected CMBR temp is 15K.
So, in less than 2 billion years the expected CMBR (based on the BBT) had been cooled down from 3000K to 15K.
I couldn't find the expected CMBR temp at 13 B Years ago, but I assume that is should be higher than this 15K.
We clearly see galaxies at a distance of more than 13BLY away.
Those galaxies had been formed more than 13 B years ago.
So, as we see those galaxies, why can't we monitor the ambient-temperature-of-the-universe around those ultra-far away galaxies?
The simple answer is that the photons we see from the galaxy itself are 12 billion years old and the photons we see from the CMBR that were in the vicinity of that galaxy are 13.6 billion years old.
-
The simple answer is that the photons we see from the galaxy itself are 12 billion years old and the photons we see from the CMBR that were in the vicinity of that galaxy are 13.6 billion years old.
The simple answer is that our scientists can't prove that the real CMBR λobserved is 3000K.
That value had been set by the BBT.
As long as this value is based on the BBT, then we all must agree that it doesn't reflect the real CMBR redshift!
-
The only plausible source for radiation with no structure (no lines or bands etc) is the recombination of hydrogen nuclei and electrons.
As I understand it, a thermal/black-body spectrum can also come from a plasma (in this case composed almost entirely of hydrogen & helium).
- However, a dense plasma is pretty opaque to light, so the light is being continually scattered (thermal equilibrium)
- So you can normally only observe it from the edge
- As far as we know, the universe has no "edge"
The Big Bang theory suggests that as the universe expanded, it cooled and became less dense
- So the peak of the Black Body radiation spectrum shifted to longer wavelengths/lower frequencies
- When the temperature of the universe dropped low enough for the last of the hydrogen protons & electrons to combine into neutral hydrogen atoms, the universe became transparent to all wavelengths up to UV (photons <13 eV)
- So what we now see in the CMBR is the plasma black-body radiation, red-shifted from a temperature of around 3000K to 2.7K
- The formation of atomic hydrogen was not the source of the radiation, but more the "camera shutter" through which we can now see the plasma of the universe's early fireball.
form neutral atoms of mostly hydrogen. Unlike the plasma, these atoms could not scatter thermal radiation by Thomson scattering, and so the universe became transparent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
we should have the technology to detect/observe the CMBR around those far away galaxies.
The galaxies formed after the Big Bang, so there is no CMBR around the galaxies.
- The James Webb IR telescope should give us a better idea of how soon galaxies formed after the Big Bang
- But the highest galactic redshift seen so far is HD1 at z=13.3
(List continually updated at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects )
- This means that HD1 is far from the "surface of last scattering", which is the source of CMBR at z=1100
There are several expected temp levels in that "Atomic hydrogen welding" process
Hydrogen welding is conducted in hydrogen gas, which has several additional degrees of freedom than the atomic hydrogen which is believed to be the source of the CMBR.
we only use the measured peak temperature as the λrest in the redshift formula
It's true that some earlier studies of CMBR only looked at a fairly narrow range of wavelengths.
But some of the more recent space-based CMBR satellites have measured the spectrum of the CMBR at many wavelengths.
For example, the WMAP probe measured the shape of the CMBR spectrum from 23 GHz to 94 GHz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe
-
I noticed you ignored my response to your claim so I assume you realized your error
As long as this value is based on the BBT, then we all must agree that it doesn't reflect the real CMBR redshift!
No, I don't agree at all.
It has been explained in this thread and in your own citation how the redshift of the CMBR was calculated, so I am at a loss on how to help you.
-
The Big Bang theory suggests that as the universe expanded, it cooled and became less dense
- So the peak of the Black Body radiation spectrum shifted to longer wavelengths/lower frequencies
- When the temperature of the universe dropped low enough for the last of the hydrogen protons & electrons to combine into neutral hydrogen atoms, the universe became transparent to all wavelengths up to UV (photons <13 eV)
- So what we now see in the CMBR is the plasma black-body radiation, red-shifted from a temperature of around 3000K to 2.7K
Thanks
You have just offered the basic explanation of the BBT.
That explanation is very clear to me.
I do not argue about the BBT and I fully understand your explanation why based on the BBT the 3000K had been selected.
This means that HD1 is far from the "surface of last scattering", which is the source of CMBR at z=1100
Sorry, the idea of "surface of last scattering" is based on the BBT idea.
Therefore, the 3000K is a direct outcome from the BBT.
Hence, the 1100 redshift in the CMBR is also a direct outcome from the BBT.
The CMBR by itself has a redshift/blueshift that only indicates about our motion in the local space.
You have already explained it:
The CMBR exhibits a dipole, suggesting a motion of our star in our galaxy of about 600km/sec, relative to the CMBR. https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/Cosmic+Microwave+Background+Dipole
"This radiation, now called the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB, has an extremely uniform temperature of 2.725 Kelvin if one accounts for the smooth gradient in its temperature (from 0.0035 Kelvin below average in the direction of the constellation Aquarius, to 0.0035 Kelvin above average in the direction of the constellation Leo) across the sky. It was quickly realised that this dipole was the result of our Galaxy moving at 600 km/sec with respect to the CMB radiation, and it is now known that this reflects the motion of the Local Group of galaxies towards the Great Attractor."
Hydrogen welding is conducted in hydrogen gas, which has several additional degrees of freedom than the atomic hydrogen which is believed to be the source of the CMBR.
It is fully clear that once we believe in the BBT we also believe that the atomic hydrogen idea (at 3000K) is the source of the CMBR.
However, there is no other/direct prof that the CMBR λobserved is 3000K.
- So what we now see in the CMBR is the plasma black-body radiation, red-shifted from a temperature of around 3000K to 2.7K
- The formation of atomic hydrogen was not the source of the radiation, but more the "camera shutter" through which we can now see the plasma of the universe's early fireball.
Do you agree that the 3000K is a direct outcome from the BBT, while we only get the 2.725 Kelvin from the CMBR?
Hence, do you confirm that the λobserved had been set to 3000K as direct outcome from the BBT theory?
If so, why can't we agree that:
The CMBR BBT redshift = 1100
While
The real CMBR redshift only suggesting a motion of our galaxy of about 600km/sec?
-
As far as we know, the universe has no "edge"
I knew that about 15 Years ago.
At that time the science community claimed that our universe is quite compact.
The black body radiation in the CMBR shows that our universe has no "edge" or infinite. (I can prove it if you wish)
However, why do you call it no "edge"?
What's wrong with Infinite Universe?
But the highest galactic redshift seen so far is HD1 at z=13.3
If we could jump to that far away galaxy, we would observe the same CMBR.
Therefore, do you agree that at any location that we will be in the universe with no "edge", it is expected to get the same CMBR from all directions?
One more question:
I had been told that If the Universe has no edge or infinity, then the Big Bang should take place at that infinite universe at the same moment.
Hence, based on the BBT, the whole universe with no edge was very hot at the first moment.
So how the expansion idea could cool down a Universe with no edge (or infinite universe) if all of it was already hot at the first moment?
-
Therefore, the 3000K is a direct outcome from the BBT.
No.
It's a direct consequence of hydrogen.
If the material doing the emitting was helium, the corresponding temperature would have been roughly twice as high. (And the emission would have had more band structure to it).
The CMBR by itself has a redshift/blueshift that only indicates about our motion in the local space.
Where did it come from?
How is it so nearly homogeneous?
Why does it lack any band structure?
-
However, there is no other/direct prof that the CMBR λobserved is 3000K.
Good.
Because lambda is not a temperature.
You have got the maths wrong as I pointed out here.
Z= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest
Z = (6275 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 2,281
Why did you suddenly shift from using wavelengths to temperatures?
Don't you see the problem there?
And nobody on a science page will take you seriously until you fix your maths .
Once you have got that correct, you need to explain what (apart from red shifted very hot hydrogen atoms) cold produce the right spectrum for the CMBR.
Remember, it has to look like BBR with no superimposed structure; no lines, no bands.
-
At that time the science community claimed that our universe is quite compact.
Nope.
Here's what Wiki said 20 years ago.
"The size of the Observable Universe can be calculated as a sphere with a radius equal to the age of the Universe in light years. Thus the observable universe is a sphere with a radius of 15 billion light years. However due to initial inflation of the Universe soon after the Big Bang, the actual size of the Universe is much bigger than what is observable. ...
The Universe has no boundary but may be finite. This may be understood by a three-dimensional analogy: the Earth has no edge despite the fears of putative flat-earthers that they might fall off the edge if they travelled too far, but nonetheless the surface of the Earth has a finite area."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=291910
Did you get confused about finite and bounded?
-
The real CMBR redshift only suggesting a motion of our galaxy of about 600km/sec?
Obviously not. Since the the wavelength of the CMBR is the same in all directions, that would mean the galaxy is traveling in all directions at 600 km/sec, which hopefully you realize is not possible.
-
At that time the science community claimed that our universe is quite compact.
Nope.
Here's what Wiki said 20 years ago.
"The size of the Observable Universe can be calculated as a sphere with a radius equal to the age of the Universe in light years. Thus the observable universe is a sphere with a radius of 15 billion light years. However due to initial inflation of the Universe soon after the Big Bang, the actual size of the Universe is much bigger than what is observable. ...
The Universe has no boundary but may be finite. This may be understood by a three-dimensional analogy: the Earth has no edge despite the fears of putative flat-earthers that they might fall off the edge if they travelled too far, but nonetheless the surface of the Earth has a finite area."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=291910
Did you get confused about finite and bounded?
I do recall that in the past our scientists believed that the size of the Universe was about 92BLY.
However, this is not the issue.
As they claim today that the universe has no edge and it is bigger than a radius of 15 billion light years, than why they can't tell us how big it is.
You might claim that our scientists don't know. - I would claim that if they don't know the real size of the Universe, than how do they know that what they don't know is correct or incorrect?
the Earth has no edge despite the fears of putative flat-earthers that they might fall off the edge if they travelled too far, but nonetheless the surface of the Earth has a finite area."
If we discuss about the surface of the earth (two dimensions) than it has no edge, but in three dimensions it has a very clear edge.
However, there is no other real physical z dimension is our universe.
" The Universe, proper, is the single largest object with a name, and represents the culmination of full three-dimensional space interacting with time, forming a four-dimensional existence."
The space-time four-dimensional is excellent mathematical concept, but it doesn't add any real 4th physical dimension to our universe.
In the article it is also stated:
"There is some speculation that multiple universes exist in a higher-level multiverse. "
As our scientists are ready to consider so dramatic speculation of multiple universes exist in a higher-level multiverse, why they refuse to consider the possibility that the Universe could be just flat and infinite in its size?
Why our scientists are willing to consider all that possibilities/speculations for the universe just in order to bypass the key possibility that the universe could be infinite?
Could it be that they know that there is a possibility that the universe is infinite or at least - very very big.
Therefore, there is a possibility that any size that they might offer for the universe, would be too small for our real universe
However, if they would offer a too big size, (or even infinite) than the BBT would die.
So, could it be that in order to keep the BBT alive, our scientists bypass this key problem with the message of a "Universe with no edge"?
Therefore, the 3000K is a direct outcome from the BBT.
No.
It's a direct consequence of hydrogen.
If the material doing the emitting was helium, the corresponding temperature would have been roughly twice as high. (And the emission would have had more band structure to it).
I fully agree that the CMBR is a direct consequence of hydrogen as hydrogen is the most common atom in the nature.
However, why do you insist that the Atomic hydrogen welding (AHW) process (the 3000K) must be ALWAYS used in the CMBR redshift formula??
Let me ask you the following:
1. What is more dramatic speculation idea:
The idea of multiple universes exist in a higher-level multiverse, or the idea of a single flat & infinite Universe?
Do you agree that there is a possibility (at any chance) that the Universe is flat and is so big that technically it could be considered as infinite?
2. Do you agree that there is a possibility that the Universe age is much older than 13.8B years?
3. Do you agree that that there is a possibility that the CMB radiation is the reflection of that infinite Universe and not due to the Big bang that took place about 13.8By ago?
4. Even if the chance that the real CMBR reflects the radiation of the infinite universe is just one to one million of a trillion, why do you refuse to accept the understanding that in this very minor chance, the redshift in the CMBR can't be considered as 1100?
-
The real CMBR redshift only suggesting a motion of our galaxy of about 600km/sec?
Obviously not. Since the the wavelength of the CMBR is the same in all directions, that would mean the galaxy is traveling in all directions at 600 km/sec, which hopefully you realize is not possible.
The CMBR exhibits a dipole, suggesting a motion of our star in our galaxy of about 600km/sec, relative to the CMBR. https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/Cosmic+Microwave+Background+Dipole
-
the size of the Universe was about 92BLY....(or) 15 billion light years, than why they can't tell us how big it is.
There are some people on this forum who can explain this...
My simplistic understanding of what they said is:
- Roughly 15 (or 14) billion light years is the distance from "where the source was when the light was emitted" to "where we are now"
- Roughly 100 50 billion light years is the distance from "where the source is now" to "where we are now"
- There is an even smaller number (1.5 Million Light years) which represents the distance from "where the source was when the light was emitted" to "where we were back then"
As relativity illustrated, all times and distances are relative to which frame of reference you are talking about
- And anything outside your light cone is irrelevant to you (eg if some object is now 100 billion light-years away, light from that object will probably never reach us, due to the expansion of the universe).
I apologise to those whose clear-sounding explanation I have mangled.... Please post an accurate description.
PS: See more corrections from Halc, below
-
My simplistic understanding of what they said is:
- Roughly 15 (or 14) billion light years is the distance from "where the source was when the light was emitted" to "where we are now"
It's actually about 1/10000th of that. In cosmic coordinates (the only coordinate system I know that describes the universe), the oldest light we see (that of the CMB) was emitted at a proper distance of about 1.5 million LY away. The reason it took 13.8 billion years to get here is due to the very high expansion rate of the universe back at the time of the recombination event, perhaps 3M km/sec/mpc compared to 70 km/sec/mpc today.
Roughly 100 billion light years is the distance from "where the source is now" to "where we are now"
That would put it beyond the size of the visible universe which means we could not see it. So around 45 billion light years is the proper distance from "where the source is now" to "where we are now".
- There is an even smaller number which represents the distance from "where the source was when the light was emitted" to "where we were back then"
Well since we have not moved significantly in that time, that distance is also that 1.5 MLY figure. Cosmic coordinates has the Earth at the center, unmoving. You have to assign the origin somewhere.
As relativity illustrated, all times and distances are relative to which frame of reference you are talking about
Yes, which is why I carefully specified the cosmic frame and not say some inertial frame, which isn't valid at all at large distances since spacetime isn't Minkowskian.
And anything outside your light cone is irrelevant to you (eg if some object is now 100 billion light-years away, light from that object will probably never reach us, due to the expansion of the universe).
Correct. Any recombination light emitted from what is currently over about 58 BLY away will never reach us. Any light emitted today from over 16 BLY away will also never reach us. That latter figure is the current distance to the event horizon.
-
The real CMBR redshift only suggesting a motion of our galaxy of about 600km/sec?
Obviously not. Since the the wavelength of the CMBR is the same in all directions, that would mean the galaxy is traveling in all directions at 600 km/sec, which hopefully you realize is not possible.
The CMBR exhibits a dipole, suggesting a motion of our star in our galaxy of about 600km/sec, relative to the CMBR. https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/Cosmic+Microwave+Background+Dipole
I errored in my reply.
The point is the CMBR is obviously not due to the our motion through space because the CMBR is very uniform in all directions, which would mean that for your idea to be correct we would have to be traveling in all directions, which is not possible. By the way, a speed of 600 km/sec would give you only a very small wavelength shift and it would not be a uniform shift.
-
I do recall that in the past our scientists believed that the size of the Universe was about 92BLY.
You "recall" things like this
I knew that about 15 Years ago.
At that time the science community claimed that our universe is quite compact.
But it' not true.
I would claim that if they don't know the real size of the Universe, than how do they know that what they don't know is correct or incorrect?
Yes, you would claim that but, as we have pointed out, your grasp of logic is shaky.
Uncertainty about the size of the universe doesn't stop scientists knowing things.
If we discuss about the surface of the earth (two dimensions) than it has no edge, but in three dimensions it has a very clear edge.
No, it doesn't.
It has a surface.
Please try to keep up with reality.
why they refuse to consider the possibility that the Universe could be just flat and infinite in its size?
Because that wouldn't be stable. It would collapse.
Grown-ups don't typically spend time on things that they know are impossible.
I fully agree that the CMBR is a direct consequence of hydrogen as hydrogen is the most common atom in the nature.
If the commonest atom in the universe was anything other than hydrogen, the CMBR would have a different spectrum.
Do you understand that?
There would be two differences.
It would have a different temperature
It would have a band structure.
For any element apart from hydrogen the CMBR wold have a band structure.
It doesn't.
So we know that the CMBR was formed by hydrogen.
And once we know what element emitted that radiation, we know what temperature it must have been at (because we know the recombination temperature).
And, since we know what the current temperature is, we can calculate the red shift.
Can you follow that logic?
why do you insist that the Atomic hydrogen welding (AHW) process (the 3000K) must be ALWAYS used in the CMBR redshift formula??
As I already pointed out, I
Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/02/2023 05:36:48
However, how do we know for sure that the CMBR λobserved is exactly the same as the "Atomic hydrogen welding"?
Nobody said they were.
The only person who got close is you.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/02/2023 05:36:48
So why we do not use the peak in the "Atomic hydrogen welding" to set the λobserved?
At the maximal level of 6000 °C (or 6273K) the redshift should be about:
Z = (6275 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 2,281
-
1. What is more dramatic speculation idea:
The idea of multiple universes exist in a higher-level multiverse, or the idea of a single flat & infinite Universe?
The flat universe like that you suggested before is impossible so the other option is more plausible.
-
. Do you agree that there is a possibility that the Universe age is much older than 13.8B years?
The question isn't well defined.
We certainly don't have any evidence of its existence before that time.
It is possible that it was farted by a unicorn.
But there is no science in any such speculation.
Certainly, the objects in the observed universe are not older than 13.8 Bn years.
Do you agree that that there is a possibility that the CMB radiation is the reflection of that infinite Universe and not due to the Big bang that took place about 13.8By ago?
No, it is not a reflection of an impossible thing.
. Even if the chance that the real CMBR reflects the radiation of the infinite universe is just one to one million of a trillion
It's not that big.
It is zero.
What could it be reflected in?
-
Do you agree that that there is a possibility that the CMB radiation is the reflection of that infinite Universe and not due to the Big bang that took place about 13.8By ago?
No, it is not a reflection of an impossible thing.
Do you claim that Infinite universe is impossible?
How could it be that you are so sure about it?
In the following article it is stated that "Cosmologists aren't sure if the universe is infinitely big or just extremely large"
https://www.space.com/whats-beyond-universe-edge
"Cosmologists aren't sure if the universe is infinitely big or just extremely large. To measure the universe, astronomers instead look at its curvature. The geometric curve on large scales of the universe tells us about its overall shape. If the universe is perfectly geometrically flat, then it can be infinite. If it's curved, like Earth's surface, then it has finite volume."
So, there are two options for the Universe:
1. Infinite Universe - "If the universe is perfectly geometrically flat, then it can be infinite".
2. Finite Universe - "If it's curved, like Earth's surface, then it has finite volume."
It is also stated:
"Current observations and measurements of the curvature of the universe indicate that it is almost perfectly flat."
Hence, based on the Current observations and measurements the universe is almost perfectly flat and therefore it is infinite.
However, it is also stated:
"But even if the universe is finite, it doesn't necessarily mean there is an edge or an outside. It could be that our three-dimensional universe is embedded in some larger, multidimensional construct. That's perfectly fine and is indeed a part of some exotic models of physics. But currently, we have no way of testing that, and it doesn't really affect the day-to-day operations of the cosmos."
"You might think this means the universe is infinite. But it's not that simple. Even in the case of a flat universe, the cosmos doesn't have to be infinitely big. Take, for example, the surface of a cylinder. It is geometrically flat, because parallel lines drawn on the surface remain parallel (that's one of the definitions of "flatness"), and yet it has a finite size. The same could be true of the universe: It could be completely flat yet closed in on itself."
Sorry, there is no other space dimension in our real universe.
It is a pure imagination to believe that if we will go all the way to the left in our real universe, then at some point we would come from the right (as in a cylinder Universe example).
If you wish to hold this imagination, first you have to prove that there is a 4th space dimension in the universe.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/02/2023 04:11:16
. Even if the chance that the real CMBR reflects the radiation of the infinite universe is just one to one million of a trillion
It's not that big.
It is zero.
What could it be reflected in?
As long as Cosmologists can't prove that there is a 4th space dimension in the universe then we all must understand that the universe must be infinite in its size.
The chance that the Universe has a 4th space dimension is Zero and therefore, the chance that the Universe is finite is also Zero.
They also add that even if it is finite - "our universe does indeed have an outside"
"Granted, it sounds impossible for there to be a finite universe that has nothing outside it. And not even "nothing" in the sense of an empty void — completely and totally mathematically undefined. In fact, asking "What's outside the universe?" is like asking "What sound does the color purple make?" It's a nonsense question, because you're trying to combine two unrelated concepts.
It could very well be that our universe does indeed have an "outside." But again, this doesn't have to be the case. There's nothing in mathematics that describes the universe that demands an outside."
I claim that the Black body radiation proves that there is no outside the Universe and therefore it must be infinite.
The CMBR that we get is the radiation of the current infinite Universe and therefore at any location that we would be in that infinite universe, we would get the same BB radiation.
I'm quite sure that all the Cosmologists know that.
However that breakthrough understanding might have negative impact on the BBT.
Therefore, in order to keep it alive they prefer to offer some unrealistic ideas as other dimension in space.
Hence, do you agree that as our "Cosmologists aren't sure if the universe is infinitely big or just extremely large" there is a possibility for infinite Universe?
Uncertainty about the size of the universe doesn't stop scientists knowing things.
Sorry, a theory for infinitely big or just extremely large Universe is different from a theory of compact finite Universe that had been created in only 13.8By!
Hence, the real size of the universe is critical for our understanding!
So please, do you agree by now that it is a severe mistake to claim that the CMBR redshift of the Infinite universe (or extremely large) is 1100?
Hence:
Can we agree that only the following message is correct:
CMBR BBT redshift is 1100
-
So please, do you agree by now that it is a severe mistake to claim that the CMBR redshift of the Infinite universe (option/possibility) is 1100?
No we cannot agree on that. A universe that started at the big bang can still be infinite.
Can we agree that only the following message is correct:
CMBR BBT redshift is 1100
Sure.
-
So please, do you agree by now that it is a severe mistake to claim that the CMBR redshift of the Infinite universe (option/possibility) is 1100?
No we cannot agree on that. A universe that started at the big bang can still be infinite.
Thanks dear Origin
You are absolutely correct.
"A universe that started at the big bang can still be infinite"
Therefore, if the universe is infinite then you have to agree that the problem is not with the infinite universe but with the BBT.
Can we agree that only the following message is correct:
CMBR BBT redshift is 1100
Sure.
Thanks again
Hence, we fully agree that the 1100 is a direct out come from the BBT
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/02/2023 04:11:16
why they refuse to consider the possibility that the Universe could be just flat and infinite in its size?
Because that wouldn't be stable. It would collapse.
Let's make it clear.
Only based on the BBT theory an infinite universe wouldn't be stable.
However, we might find other theory which can explain why an infinite universe could be perfectly stable.
Therefore, the impossible for the BBT might be very possible for other theory.
However, as long as our Cosmologists would keep the BBT and you would believe that the redfshift is there ONLY due to the BBT then it would stay impossible.
-
Let's make it clear.
Only based on the BBT theory an infinite universe wouldn't be stable.
No.
Based on gravity and the conservation of energy a static universe would be unstable.
-
Do you claim that Infinite universe is impossible?
How could it be that you are so sure about it?
OK I expressed myself poorly.
The reflection is impossible.
If you have a mirror that is infinitely far away, you can't see anything reflected it in.
I thought something that obvious didn't need a particularly careful explanation.
-
As long as Cosmologists can't prove that there is a 4th space dimension in the universe then we all must understand that the universe must be infinite in its size.
Non seq.
And nonsense.
I don't need a cosmologist to tell me that we are in 4 dimensions.
That makes no difference to the size of the universe.
You posted that gibberish in response ot me asking this
What could it be reflected in?
But your reply did not answer the question.
Try again.
Hence, we fully agree that the 1100 is a direct out come from the BBT
No.
I keep saying this and I don't think you understand that it is improtant.
For any element apart from hydrogen the CMBR wold have a band structure.
It doesn't.
So we know that the CMBR was formed by hydrogen.
And once we know what element emitted that radiation, we know what temperature it must have been at (because we know the recombination temperature).
And, since we know what the current temperature is, we can calculate the red shift.
Can you follow that logic?
Again, I'm asking you to actually answer a question which I asked.
Not responding to points that people raise means that you are preaching.
That will get the thread closed.
Is that what you want?
-
Let's make it clear.
Only based on the BBT theory an infinite universe wouldn't be stable.
No.
Based on gravity and the conservation of energy a static universe would be unstable.
Sorry, you have failed to understand how tidal gravity really works.
Based on tidal heat transformation new energy can be created in our Universe.
so how it really works:
Tidal event between the SMBH to the orbital stars in the galaxy generates internal heat in the SMBH
That heat is the source for the mighty SMBH' EM energy:
In M87 "Along the magnetic field lines, the particles are accelerated so efficiently that they form a jet out to scales of 6000 light years
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/933864
The SMBH' EM energy is based on tidal gravity force.
Therefore, SMBHs have severe EM energy due to tidal heat transformation.
So, we actually transform the gravity force to tidal heat and then to EM energy.
However, due to that tidal heat transformation, the stars around the SMBH must shift outwards.
The reflection is impossible.
If you have a mirror that is infinitely far away, you can't see anything reflected it in.
I thought something that obvious didn't need a particularly careful explanation.
I do not discuss about a reflection from mirror that is infinitely far away, but about a radiation from any object in this infinite Universe.
Sorry if I didn't explain it correctly.
For any element apart from hydrogen the CMBR wold have a band structure.
It doesn't.
So we know that the CMBR was formed by hydrogen.
And once we know what element emitted that radiation, we know what temperature it must have been at (because we know the recombination temperature).
And, since we know what the current temperature is, we can calculate the red shift.
Can you follow that logic?
I have already answered this issue.
We all agree that the CMBR was formed by hydrogen and the hydrogen recombination temperature.
However, this recombination temperature can't work after the bang.
Please be aware that electron has electric charge.
A bang (even a Big Bang) can't create electric charge.
Therefore, if you wish to create electrons (or quarks that carry electric charge), real electric charge must be supplied.
EM is the ultimate source for electric charge.
Therefore, in order to create any electric particle EM energy must be involved.
The BBT doesn't offer any real source of EM
Therefore, that bang can't create any real particle and any hydrogen atoms.
Please also don't forget that any particle in the nature comes with its anti - particle.
The BBT doesn't offer real process of how to split between the pair.
Therefore, based on the BBT, even if a bang could create imagination particle pair, that pair should be annihilated at the same moment of creation.
Therefore, your claim for recombination temperature is not realistic as not even a real single electron could be created by that bang and survive the annihilation process.
Please also be aware that our scientists call it recombination.
What's wrong with combination. So why they add the re to the combination?
Could it be that they know that a Hydrogen combination is not realistic?
Therefore, in order to bypass the unrealistic process of first Hydrogen combination/creation they add the word re as the Hydrogen was already there?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:01:44
Hence, we fully agree that the 1100 is a direct out come from the BBT
No.
I keep saying this and I don't think you understand that it is improtant.
I do understand, but I disagree.
The redshifty of 1100 is based on Hydrogen recombination process, while the idea that process took place at the early universe is based on the BBT.
Therefore, the redshift of 1100 is based on the BBT.
The following message from origin is correct:
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:15:22
Can we agree that only the following message is correct:
Can we agree that only the following message is correct:
CMBR BBT redshift is 1100
Sure.
-
However, the recombination temperature is not realistic.
The recombination temperature is a measured property of hydrogen.
Are you claiming the universe got it wrong?
-
I do not discuss about a reflection from mirror that is infinitely far away, but about a radiation from any object in this infinite Universe.
Sorry if I didn't explain it correctly.
If you don't understand what the word "reflection" means, maybe you shouldn't use it.
Based on tidal heat transformation new energy can be created in our Universe.
so how it really works:
You lost the argument about perpetual motion in a previous thread.
You were told not to reintroduce it.
Are you seeking a ban?
-
However, the recombination temperature is not realistic.
The recombination temperature is a measured property of hydrogen.
Are you claiming the universe got it wrong?
The recombination temperature is a measured property of hydrogen and it is 100% correct.
I claim that the idea that it took place 380,000 years after the Big Bang is based on the BBT.
Therefore, the redshift that is based on that idea is also based on the BBT.
Anyhow, if you still don't agree with that - then let's agree that we don't agree.
I don't have any further open questions and I do appreciate your support so far.
-
Therefore, if the universe is infinite then you have to agree that the problem is not with the infinite universe but with the BBT.
I don't even agree there is a problem.
Your habit of telling people what they think is extremely annoying. I would recommend that you stop doing it, unless being annoying is one of the goals.
-
However, this recombination temperature can't work after the bang.
What do you mean by that?
A bang (even a Big Bang) can't create electric charge.
Do you think electrical charge existed before the big bang?
Therefore, if you wish to create electrons (or quarks that carry electric charge), real electric charge must be supplied.
EM is the ultimate source for electric charge.
Therefore, in order to create any electric particle EM energy must be involved.
The BBT doesn't offer any real source of EM
Therefore, that bang can't create any real particle and any hydrogen atoms.
Please also don't forget that any particle in the nature comes with its anti - particle.
The BBT doesn't offer real process of how to split between the pair.
Therefore, based on the BBT, even if a bang could create imagination particle pair, that pair should be annihilated at the same moment of creation.
Therefore, your claim for recombination temperature is not realistic as not even a real single electron could be created by that bang and survive the annihilation process.
None of this makes very much sense based on the actual BBT. I think you should read up on the theory.
Please also be aware that our scientists call it recombination.
What's wrong with combination. So why they add the re to the combination?
Could it be that they know that a Hydrogen combination is not realistic?
Therefore, in order to bypass the unrealistic process of first Hydrogen combination/creation they add the word re as the Hydrogen was already there?
You seriously think scientist made something up and to trick us all into believing this lie they put a prefix on a term? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
-
Sorry, you have failed to understand how tidal gravity really works.
Based on tidal heat transformation new energy can be created in our Universe.
so how it really works:
Tidal event between the SMBH to the orbital stars in the galaxy generates internal heat in the SMBH
That heat is the source for the mighty SMBH' EM energy:
In M87 "Along the magnetic field lines, the particles are accelerated so efficiently that they form a jet out to scales of 6000 light years
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/933864
The SMBH' EM energy is based on tidal gravity force.
Therefore, SMBHs have severe EM energy due to tidal heat transformation.
So, we actually transform the gravity force to tidal heat and then to EM energy.
However, due to that tidal heat transformation, the stars around the SMBH must shift outwards.
Like Bored Chemist said, don't go there.
-
I claim that the idea that it took place 380,000 years after the Big Bang is based on the BBT.
The red shift is not defined by time.
It's defined by the wavelengths involved.
So this
Therefore, the redshift that is based on that idea is also based on the BBT.
is another example of the sh1t that you insist on trying to smear across this website.
Stop doing it.
-
Please also be aware that our scientists call it recombination.
What's wrong with combination. So why they add the re to the combination?
Could it be that they know that a Hydrogen combination is not realistic?
Therefore, in order to bypass the unrealistic process of first Hydrogen combination/creation they add the word re as the Hydrogen was already there?
Because that's the word for the process an it was in use before the BBT was published.
https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.32.918
But, this is a distraction.
In a way you are correct.
This is "combination".
The protons and electrons are forming hydrogen atoms from the protons and electrons produced from the cooling of the primordial "whatever the hell it was" created by the BB.
This is the first time that hydrogen atoms were formed and the universe became "transparent" to any EM radiation on a large scale.
-
Sorry, you have failed to understand how tidal gravity really works.
Based on tidal heat transformation new energy can be created in our Universe.
so how it really works:
Tidal event between the SMBH to the orbital stars in the galaxy generates internal heat in the SMBH
That heat is the source for the mighty SMBH' EM energy:
In M87 "Along the magnetic field lines, the particles are accelerated so efficiently that they form a jet out to scales of 6000 light years
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/933864
The SMBH' EM energy is based on tidal gravity force.
Therefore, SMBHs have severe EM energy due to tidal heat transformation.
So, we actually transform the gravity force to tidal heat and then to EM energy.
However, due to that tidal heat transformation, the stars around the SMBH must shift outwards.
Like Bored Chemist said, don't go there.
As we shouldn't go there, would you kindly explain the meaning of "these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves"?
https://www.universetoday.com/138456/outflows-black-holes-creating-new-molecules-destruction/
"In the past few years, astronomers have also observed fast molecular outflows emanating from AGNs which left them puzzled. For one, it was a mystery how any particles could survive the heat and energy of a black hole’s outflow. But according to a new study produced by researchers from Northwestern University, these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves. This theory may help explain how stars form in extreme environments".
Would you kindly help our puzzled astronomers to understand how molecules/particles could be born within the winds and survive the heat and energy of the SMBH?
How can we explain what is the SMBH's heat and energy source of the SMBH?
-
As we shouldn't go there, would you kindly explain the meaning of "these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves"?
I will not, as it is not relevant to the redshift values of the CMBR (which is what this thread is about). I'm not allowing you to use this as a way to shoehorn in your already debunked ideas about black holes.
-
would you kindly explain the meaning of "these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves"?
I don't think there's any point.
You never seem to listen to explanations, do you?
-
As we shouldn't go there, would you kindly explain the meaning of "these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves"?
I will not, as it is not relevant to the redshift values of the CMBR (which is what this thread is about). I'm not allowing you to use this as a way to shoehorn in your already debunked ideas about black holes.
Dear Kryptid
This discovery is very relevant to our discussion.
The main issue of our discussion is about the CMBR redshift.
Our scientists claim that this CMBR redshift value is 1100.
However, I hope that we all agree that we don't get this redshift from the CMBR itself, but from the key understanding of the BBT that at some point of time the CMBR value of the entire early universe was based on the recombination process of the Hydrogen.
There is no error in the recombination process. It is very clear. However, the linkage between this recombination process to the temp of the early universe and at a specific age of the Universe is based on the BBT.
Therefore, if there is an error in the BBT, then there must be also an error in the CMBR redshift value.
In this discussion I had no intention to discuss about the BBT. I have just asked to agree that the CMBR redshift of 1100 is based on the BBT theory.
Therefore, we my request was to agree that the CMBR BBT redshift = 1100.
However, based on the following reply from BC, it seems to me that he think that there is no possibility that there is any error in the BBT (not even one to one million of a trillion):
Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/02/2023 04:11:16
. Even if the chance that the real CMBR reflects the radiation of the infinite universe is just one to one million of a trillion
It's not that big.
It is zero.
Therefore, I had to show that there is a possibility (even if it is a very minor possibility) that there might be an error in the BBT.
I have offered the observation about new born particles and molecules which contradicts the basic idea of the BBT.
If that is not enough, James Webb Space Telescope has just bagged the oldest known galaxies
By Tereza Pultarova published December 09, 2022
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-oldest-galaxies-confirmed
"The astronomers now know that light from the four galaxies took more than 13.4 billion years to reach Webb. More precisely, the telescope sees the galaxies as they looked only 350 million years after the Big Bang, when the universe was only 2% of its current age, although the galaxies must have started to form even earlier."
What is the chance that those galaxies could be form in just 350M years after the Big Bang?
Could it be that one day we will discover even older galaxies?
Could it be that our Universe is older than that specific age based on the BBT?
If our universe is older and bigger then the BBT expectation, could it be that it is infinite in its size or even in its age?
"With these measurements, we can know the intrinsic brightness of the galaxies and figure out how many stars they have," Robertson said. "Now we can start to really pick apart how galaxies are put together over time."
Based on the above message it is clear that our scientists don't know "how galaxies are put together over time"
Therefore, if our scientists have an error about "how galaxies are put together over time" then there might be a possibility that the recombination process of Hydrogen didn't work in the early universe (as based on the BBT).
So, although we all agree and understand the real meaning of recombination Hydrogen process, I think that there is a possibility that this process didn't take place in the early universe as it is described by the BBT.
I hope that we all agree that if one day we would discover that the Universe is infinite in its size, then we also should agree that the CMBR radiation represents the radiation of that Infinite universe.
In other words, there is a possibility that the CMBR is a radiation that comes from the infinite galaxies in the infinite universe.
Even if the chance for that is just one to one million of a trillion, we must consider that possibility.
Therefore, I hope that you agree that the current understanding that CMBR redshift is 1100 is ONLY based on the BBT.
Hence can we agree that CMBR BBT redshift = 1100?
-
However, we all agree that we don't get this redshift from the CMBR itself, but from the key understanding of the BBT that at some point of time the CMBR value of the entire early universe was based on the recombination process of the Hydrogen.
No
I have already explained that repeatedly.
If you don't understand something, ask.
all I have asked is to agree that the CMBR redshift of 1100 is based on the BBT theory.
It isn't.
It is based on the fact that the only thing that could hive rise to the structureless spectrum is hydrogen recombination, but that happens at a very high temperature and gives visible/ UV light so something- expansion or doppler or whatever- has shifted it down to the microwave region where we now see it.
That red shift figure of 1100 is based on two things.
The emission peak in hydrogen recombination and the emission peak in the CMBR.
Divide one by the other and you get 1100.
That's it.
It is not based on the BBT.
So you need to stop saying everyone agrees that it is.
It is, of course, consistent with the BBT.
But it is not a consequence or cause of it.
However, based on the following reply from BC, it seems to me that he think that there is no possibility that there is any error in the BBT (not even one to one million of a trillion):
I did not say that.
You quoted me out of context.
If you were honest you would report what I actually said.
It's not that big.
It is zero.
What could it be reflected in?
And you would see that what I said was just a statement of the obvious.
You can't reflect the universe because there is nothing to reflect it in.
There simply isn't a big enough mirror, is there.
So your nonsense about " the real CMBR reflects the radiation of the infinite universe the real CMBR reflects the radiation of the infinite universe " is impossible, isn't it?
It's conceivable that the BBT is wrong.
But it's impossible that your idea isright.
So, although we all agree and understand the real meaning of recombination Hydrogen process,
You have yet to show that you understand it.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:45:45
all I have asked is to agree that the CMBR redshift of 1100 is based on the BBT theory.
It isn't.
It is based on the fact that the only thing that could hive rise to the structureless spectrum is hydrogen recombination, but that happens at a very high temperature and gives visible/ UV light so something- expansion or doppler or whatever- has shifted it down to the microwave region where we now see it.
That red shift figure of 1100 is based on two things.
The emission peak in hydrogen recombination and the emission peak in the CMBR.
Divide one by the other and you get 1100.
That's it.
It is not based on the BBT.
So you need to stop saying everyone agrees that it is.
It is, of course, consistent with the BBT.
But it is not a consequence or cause of it.
Thanks
At last, now I start to understand your message.
So, there is no linkage between the BBT to the CMBR.
It is all about the recombination Hydrogen spectrum that we observe in the CMBR.
So, today we clearly see exactly the recombination Hydrogen spectrum in the CMBR radiation.
We get the CMBR spectrum at a maximal temp amplitude of 2.75 K while based on the recombination process the maximal temp amplitude should be 3000K.
Hence, we divide the 3000K temp by the 2.75K temp and get that 1100 value.
Is it correct?
However, redshift isn't a ratio between temperatures.
It is a ratio between spectrums / colors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
"In physics, a redshift is an increase in the wavelength, and corresponding decrease in the frequency and photon energy, of electromagnetic radiation (such as light). The opposite change, a decrease in wavelength and simultaneous increase in frequency and energy, is known as a negative redshift, or blueshift. The terms derive from the colours red and blue which form the extremes of the visible light spectrum."
There is no Bule and no Red shift in that 1100.
Do you agree that this value of 1100 is just a temp-shift.
So, how can you claim that this tempshift of 1100 represents a redshift while real redshift has a totally different calculation?
-
So, how can you claim that this temp ratio of 1100 represents a redshift while real redshift has a totally different calculation?
This question has been answered but you ignore the answer, so what is the point in answering it again?
You present nothing but bad faith arguments, you are quite simply acting like an anti-science troll.
-
At last, now I start to understand your message.
That inspired a tiny bit of hope in me.
So, there is no linkage between the BBT to the CMBR.
And that dashed it.
If you really understood, you would see how the BBT is consistent with the CMBR and not many other possibilities are.
For example, "continuous creation" is not consistent with the CMBR.
We get the CMBR spectrum at a maximal temp amplitude of 2.75 K while based on the recombination process the maximal temp amplitude should be 3000K.
Hence, we divide the 3000K temp by the 2.75K temp and get that 1100 value.
Is it correct?
It's more complicated than that but very broadly, yes.
However, redshift isn't a ratio between temperatures.
It is a ratio between spectrums / colors.
You seem to have missed the fact that they are interdependent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
The wavelength of the peak of the BBR tells you the effective temperature.
I keep trying to tell you that this would be easier if you started by learning the actual physics.
Why won't you do that?
Is it too difficult for you?
-
So, how can you claim that this temp ratio of 1100 represents a redshift while real redshift has a totally different calculation?
This question has been answered but you ignore the answer, so what is the point in answering it again?
You present nothing but bad faith arguments, you are quite simply acting like an anti-science troll.
No.
Unfortunately, so far I didn't get a direct answer to this question.
So, let's try to understand the meaning of redshift/Blueshift:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
"Redshift (and blueshift) may be characterized by the relative difference between the observed and emitted wavelengths (or frequency) of an object. In astronomy, it is customary to refer to this change using a dimensionless quantity called z. If λ represents wavelength and f represents frequency (note, λf = c where c is the speed of light), then z is defined by the equations:[18]
After z is measured, the distinction between redshift and blueshift is simply a matter of whether z is positive or negative. For example, Doppler effect blueshifts (z < 0) are associated with objects approaching (moving closer to) the observer with the light shifting to greater energies. Conversely, Doppler effect redshifts (z > 0) are associated with objects receding (moving away) from the observer with the light shifting to lower energies. Likewise, gravitational blueshifts are associated with light emitted from a source residing within a weaker gravitational field as observed from within a stronger gravitational field, while gravitational redshifting implies the opposite conditions."
Hence, the peak in the amplitude is used to select the correct wavelength & frequency that will be used in the redshift/blueshift formula, but the peak amplitude/temperature isn't part of the calculation.
That is the simple explanation of real redshift/blueshift.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:10:09
However, redshift isn't a ratio between temperatures.
It is a ratio between spectrums / colors.
You seem to have missed the fact that they are interdependent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
The wavelength of the peak of the BBR tells you the effective temperature.
Sorry, we can't just replace wavelength & frequency in the redshift formula by temperature.
Temperature is interdependent to wavelength & frequency as tomato is interdependent with egg.
You might think that they both are interdependent as they have a ball shape.
However, if you would use in your cake a tomato instead of egg, you won't get a real cake.
In the same token, if we use temperature in the redshift formula instead of wavelength & frequency we get some sort of shift, but that shift can't be considered as a real redshift or blueshift
It is just a temp-shift.
Sorry, if our scientists believe that a ratio between tempt is a redshift, then they have to prove it by real math.
In the article that you have offered they discuss about Wien's law:
"Black-body radiation as a function of wavelength for various temperatures. Each temperature curve peaks at a different wavelength and Wien's law describes the shift of that peak."
That explanation is very clear.
However, it doesn't explain why we can replace in the redshift formula the ratio between wavelength / Frequency by ratio between temperatures.
So please, can you prove by real law of physics why our scientists have decided that wavelength / Frequency are interdependent to temperature and can be used in the same redshift/blueshift formula.
-
Sorry, we can't just replace wavelength & frequency in the redshift formula by temperature.
You did.
Please be aware that the redshift formula is as follow:
Z= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest
We already know that the λrest is equal to the peak in the CMBR (2.75K).
So why we do not use the peak in the "Atomic hydrogen welding" to set the λobserved?
At the maximal level of 6000 °C (or 6273K) the redshift should be about:
Z = (6275 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 2,281
At the minimal level of only 3400 °C (or 3673K) the redshift should be about:
Z = (3673 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 1,334
Z= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest
Z = (6275 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 2,281
Why did you suddenly shift from using wavelengths to temperatures?
Don't you see the problem there?
And I pointed out your mistake.
Let me know when you have finished arguing with yourself.
-
"Black-body radiation as a function of wavelength for various temperatures. Each temperature curve peaks at a different wavelength and Wien's law describes the shift of that peak."
That explanation is very clear.
However, it doesn't explain why we can replace in the redshift formula the ratio between wavelength / Frequency by ratio between temperatures.
Go back and reread this thread the answer to your question is there, no need to repeat it.
Edit: Actually just reread the source you cited in the OP.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:12
Sorry, we can't just replace wavelength & frequency in the redshift formula by temperature.
You did.
How did we get the 1100?
That red shift figure of 1100 is based on two things.
The emission peak in hydrogen recombination and the emission peak in the CMBR.
Divide one by the other and you get 1100.
That's it.
It is not based on the BBT.
The emission peak in hydrogen recombination is 3000K
The emission peak in the CMBR is 2.75K
Hence:
CMBR Redshift = 3000K / 2.75K = 1,090 (or about 1100)
However, in this case we have used temperature in order to extract redshift.
This is a direct contradiction with the real Redshift formula which is:
https://lco.global/spacebook/light/redshift/
"Astronomers talk about redshift in terms of the redshift parameter z. This is calculated with an equation, where λobserved is the observed wavelength of a spectral line, and λrest is the wavelength that line would have if its source was not in motion:
Z= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest
Hence:
λobserved is the observed wavelength of a spectral line,
λrest is the wavelength that line would have if its source was not in motion.
There is no temperature in this λ.
In other words:
In real redshift we use λobserved & λrest. Those values are wavelength and not any sort of temperatures.
Unfortunately, somehow our scientists are using temperature in Kelvin and not wavelength in order to calculate the CMBR redshift.
Sorry, that is a severe mistake.
If you wish to protect this mistake - then please backup your answer by real calculation that is based on law of science and show the math for that.
If you can't do it - then you have to agree that this imagination CMBR redshift contradicts the basic idea of real redshift!
You are welcome to call the 1100 as temp-shift or Mambo-shift. However, this result is just a number that doesn't represent any sort of real redshift.
Dear BC, I really appreciate your support so far.
Please don't try to cover this fatal mistake by claiming that it is only due to my "poor understanding".
However, you are more than welcome to tell that you can't help in this issue anymore.
-
If you wish to protect this mistake - then please backup your answer by real calculation that is based on law of science and show the math for that.
I did
It's this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
The only maths you need is that the wavelength is proportional to 1/ the temperature.
Please don't try to cover this fatal mistake by claiming that it is only due to my "poor understanding".
If you understood it, you wouldn't need an explanation.
I'm not covering for a fatal mistake - because there is no mistake in the science (fatal or otherwise).
There is a mistake in your understanding.
However, you are more than welcome to tell that you can't help in this issue anymore.
It seems true that you are beyond any help- including mine.
-
Unfortunately, somehow our scientists are using temperature in Kelvin and not wavelength in order to calculate the CMBR redshift.
Sorry, that is a severe mistake.
I'm sorry but you look foolish every time you do this. When you don't understand some aspect of science, instead of asking questions and trying to understand you just jump up and down claiming "our scientist" are wrong. The concept of the CMB is not that difficult if you would just attempt to open your mind and actually try to understand the explanations.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:31:39
If you wish to protect this mistake - then please backup your answer by real calculation that is based on law of science and show the math for that.
I did
It's this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
The only maths you need is that the wavelength is proportional to 1/ the temperature.
Sorry, you might have a severe mistake.
In the this article it is stated:
"Wien's displacement law states that the black-body radiation curve for different temperatures will peak at different wavelengths that are inversely proportional to the temperature."
So, based on Wien law we can detect the peak for every temperature.
It is also stated:
"For example, using T = 6000 K and parameterization by wavelength, the wavelength for maximal spectral radiance is λ = 482.962 nm with corresponding frequency ν = 620.737 THz. "
So, we can all agree that:
At T = 6000K λrest = 482.962 nm
Based on the following image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law#/media/File:Wiens_law.svg
We can claim that:
At T = 3500K, λrest = 750 nm
The T temp of the Hydrogen recombination is 3000K.
Let's assume that its λrest is 780 nm
At T = 3000K, λrest = 780 nm (assumption)
Based on the following CMBR data:
https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html
The peak of the CMBR is at 2 mm (or 2000nm)
Hence,
CMBR λobserved = 2000nm
Z CMBR= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest = (2000 - 780) / 780 = 1.564
-
"Wien's displacement law states that the black-body radiation curve for different temperatures will peak at different wavelengths that are inversely proportional to the temperature."
That's exactly what Bored Chemist said.
-
We can claim that:
At T = 3500K, λrest = 750 nm
That claim would be wrong.
But, yes, you can post nonsense if you wish.
The trouble is that, around here, such false claimswill be exposed and you will look stupid.
-
We can claim that:
At T = 3500K, λrest = 750 nm
That claim would be wrong.
Why?
Do you confirm that:
"For example, using T = 6000 K and parameterization by wavelength, the wavelength for maximal spectral radiance is λ = 482.962 nm with corresponding frequency ν = 620.737 THz. "
So, we can all agree that:
At T = 6000K λrest = 482.962 nm
Yes or no please?
If no, please explain.
If yes, then please look again at the diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law#/media/File:Wiens_law.svg
Please advise:
At T = 3500K, λrest = ?
-
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
-
And the next question is, where did you get 3500K from?
-
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
Dear BC
Unfortunately, our scientists have totally failed to understand the real meaning of wiens-law.
Let's read it again:
"Wien's displacement law describes one of the relations between the emission spectrum of a black body and its temperature".
Hence, wiens-law specifically discuss about "spectrum of a black body".
It also says that:
"With this Wien's law calculator, you can easily estimate the temperature of an object, based on the peak wavelength or frequency of its thermal emission spectrum."
Hence, "based on the peak wavelength or frequency of its thermal emission spectrum" "you can easily estimate the temperature of an object"
That is the most important message of wiens-Law!!!
Now let's look at the following image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law#/media/File:Wiens_law.svg
We see that when the T=6000K the λ = 482.962
It is fully correlated with the following example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
"For example, using T = 6000 K and parameterization by wavelength, the wavelength for maximal spectral rawdiance is λ = 482.962 nm with corresponding frequency ν = 620.737 THz. "
In other words,
We can claim that:
1. When we observe that the peak of the black body spectrum is at λ = 482.962 then we "can easily estimate the temperature of an object" - and in this case it is T=6000K.
In the same token:
2. When we observe that the peak of the black body spectrum is at λ = 482.962 then we "can easily estimate the temperature of an object" - and in this case it is T=6000K.
3. When we observe that the peak of the black body spectrum is at λ = 510 then we "can easily estimate the temperature of an object" - and in this case it is T=5500K. (Estimated - based on the image)
4.When we observe that the peak of the black body spectrum is at λ = 575 then we "can easily estimate the temperature of an object" - and in this case it is T=5000K.
5.When we observe that the peak of the black body spectrum is at λ = 625 then we "can easily estimate the temperature of an object" - and in this case it is T=4500K.
6.When we observe that the peak of the black body spectrum is at λ = 700 then we "can easily estimate the temperature of an object" - and in this case it is T=40000K.
7.When we observe that the peak of the black body spectrum is at λ = 800 then we "can easily estimate the temperature of an object" - and in this case it is T=3500K.
We can clearly see that as we increase the λ value, the T is going down.
Surprisingly, the CMBR has a black body spectrum. Its λ = 2000.
Therefore, by the wiens-law we can easily calculate the T temp.
If I understand it correctly, our scientists did the calculation and they have found that:
8. When we observe that the peak of the black body spectrum is at λ = 2000 then we "can easily estimate the temperature of an object" - and in this case it is T=2.75K.
In other words, the λ = 2000 at the CMBR black body spectrum tells us that the temperature of objects that create that λ were only 2.75K.
Wain tells us very clearly that as the CMBR has a black body spectrum and its λ peak value is 2000 then the temperature source MUST be ONLY 2.75K.
It actually proves that the CMBR is there due to 2.75 K temperature source and not due to the recombination imagination hope for T = 3000K source.
This directly contradicts with the BBT.
Based on this law our scientists had to look for better theory for our universe.
However, in order to overcome this fatal problem (for the BBT idea) they have invented the wrong idea of using the temp instead of λ in the redshift formula.
Sorry, as long as our scientists refuse to accept the very clear and simple message from wiens-law, then they refuse to understand real physics.
wiens-law proves that you have a fatal mistake in the BBT theory!
Actually, it proves that the Universe must be infinite!
I already know that you don't like to know that there is any problem in the BBT.
So, we can end the discussion at this phase.
In any case, I really want to thank BC for this great Law.
-
Unfortunately, our scientists have totally failed to understand the real meaning of wiens-law.
OK you say
"based on the peak wavelength or frequency of its thermal emission spectrum" "you can easily estimate the temperature of an object"
I am a scientists and I said
The wavelength of the peak of the BBR tells you the effective temperature.
So it's clear that I, and other scientists, do understand what it means.
You, on the other hand, do not.
We can clearly see that as we increase the λ value, the T is going down.
Yes.
Thank you for noticing that I already made that clear.
The only maths you need is that the wavelength is proportional to 1/ the temperature.
It seems to be news to you, but not to anyone else.
When we observe that the peak of the black body spectrum is at λ = 2000 then we "can easily estimate the temperature of an object" - and in this case it is T=2.75K.
In other words, the λ = 2000 at the CMBR black body spectrum tells us that the temperature of objects that create that λ were only 2.75K.
You could have saved yourself the trouble of doing the maths and just believed eth wiki articles
"The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K.[5] The spectral radiance dEν/dν peaks at 160.23 GHz, in the microwave range of frequencies, corresponding to a photon energy of about 6.626×10−4 eV. Alternatively, if spectral radiance is defined as dEλ/dλ, then the peak wavelength is 1.063 mm (282 GHz, 1.168×10−3 eV photons). "
But, OK, if you have to waste the forum's bandwidth just to make things clear to yourself, I guess it can cope.
Wain tells us very clearly that as the CMBR has a black body spectrum and its λ peak value is 2000 then the temperature source MUST be ONLY 2.75K.
We know that. I pointed it out a while ago.
And we know what the temperature of the CMBR is.
It actually proves that the CMBR is there due to 2.75 K temperature source
This is where you are wrong.
You are assuming that nothing has changed since that radiation was emitted.
It's important to realise that a gas at 2.75K will not emit BBR.
It's "the wrong colour"; it is too "structured".
I have tried to explain this; but you will not listen or do not understand.
Once you have got that correct, you need to explain what (apart from red shifted very hot hydrogen atoms) could produce the right spectrum for the CMBR.
Remember, it has to look like BBR with no superimposed structure; no lines, no bands.
So, given that it can't be cold gas, what do you think is actually emitting BBR at about 2.75K?
.
I really want to thank BC for this great Law.
It was actually a bloke called Wein, not me.
There's a hint in the name "Wein's law".
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:34:51
Wain tells us very clearly that as the CMBR has a black body spectrum and its λ peak value is 2000 then the temperature source MUST be ONLY 2.75K.
We know that. I pointed it out a while ago.
We do not detect the CMBR at a temp of 2.75K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:Cmbr.svg
The maximal peak of the CMBR is less than 400 MJy/sr.
The vertical axis "MJy/sr" corresponds to 10^6 jansky per steradian, where a jansky is 10-26 Watts per square-meter per Hertz.
That is a quite low energy and it comes without any real temperature.
However, based on wiens-law we can calculate the source temperature that was needed to for the Black body spectrum when its λ peak value is 2000.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:34:51
It actually proves that the CMBR is there due to 2.75 K temperature source
This is where you are wrong.
You are assuming that nothing has changed since that radiation was emitted.
It's important to realise that a gas at 2.75K will not emit BBR.
It's "the wrong colour"; it is too "structured".
Sorry, you have a fatal mistake!
If the CMBR λ peak was 700 then we could claim that the source temperature for that peak is 3500K
Based on Wiens-law the source temperature that is needed for the λ peak value of 2000 is 2.75K.
7.When we observe that the peak of the black body spectrum is at λ = 800 then we "can easily estimate the temperature of an object" - and in this case it is T=3500K.
Wain-law tells us the temp source that is needed for the λ peak that we observe!!!
You reject wiens-Law key message due to the following:
It's important to realise that a gas at 2.75K will not emit BBR
So, you disqualify wiens-law because "gas at 2.75K will not emit BBR ".
Sorry, you and all our scientists MUST except the observation as is.
You must agree that based on wien-law the source temp for λ peak at 2000 is 2.75K.
We can't argue about it.
Wiens-law is very clear as it gives the source temp for each detected λ peak.
Then do whatever is need to find a theory that can explain how could it be that so low temp source could emit BBR.
So, given that it can't be cold gas, what do you think is actually emitting BBR at about 2.75K?
I have already explained that infinite Universe with infinite sources of 2.75K can easily emit BBR spectrum.
If you wish I can offer you this explanation.
Unfortunately, our scientists are not looking for real theory for our Universe.
They just want to keep the BBT alive.
They clearly know that based on wien-Law a 2.75K temp source for the CMBR is a fatal problem for the BBT
Therefore, our scientists have twisted the 2.75K from the source temp of λ peak at 2000 to observed temp.
That is a fatal mistake.
However, who am I to disagree.
In any case, I do not want to upset anyone that wish to keep the BBT.
At this phase I fully understand the real meaning of wiens-law and I have no further question about that subject.
Thanks again.
-
So, you disqualify wiens-law because "gas at 2.75K will not emit BBR ".
Stop lying.
I did not say that.
-
We do not detect the CMBR at a temp of 2.75K.
Nobody said we did.
-
That is a quite low energy
No, it's a low power.
Fortunately the power density is reasonably high and we are able to measure it.
It's high enough that even with relatively primitive kit we were able to discover it by accident.
There's plenty of CMBR to measure as we see fit.
-
However, based on wiens-law we can calculate the source temperature that was needed to for the Black body spectrum when its λ peak value is 2000.
The only element of that which is a potential matter of dispute is that you don't seem bright enough to use an apostrophe.
Do you recognise that not all spectra look like BBR?
-
Sorry, you have a fatal mistake!
I'm not dead.
You clearly are wrong.
-
If the CMBR λ peak was 700 t
It isn't.
-
If the CMBR λ peak was 700 then we could claim that the source temperature for that peak is 3500K
Only if you are stupid enough to ignore the fact that something may have happened to the spectrum between it leaving the source and it reaching us.
-
You reject wiens-Law key message due to the following:
No
That law applies to BBR
The emission from non black bodies does not follow those rules.
Did you not realise that?
-
Sorry, you and all our scientists MUST except the observation as is.
You must agree that based on wien-law the source temp for λ peak at 2000 is 2.75K.
We can't argue about it.
No.
I could post a blue square here.
And then I could fit it to the Wein law and it would tell me that your computer screen is hotter than the surface of the sun.
-
I have already explained that infinite Universe with infinite sources of 2.75K can easily emit BBR spectrum.
What transitions do you think are involved?
Do you understand that your claim is like saying that a green light is impossible?
-
Wiens-law is very clear as it gives the source temp for each detected λ peak.
Only for BBR. You do not seem to understand this.
-
I have already explained that infinite Universe with infinite sources of 2.75K can easily emit BBR spectrum.
Liar.
You have never explained that.
-
They just want to keep the BBT alive.
The properties of teh CMBR are consistent with the BBT but neither depends on the other.
-
They clearly know that based on wien-Law a 2.75K temp source for the CMBR is a fatal problem for the BBT
No
It's not a problem.
The problem is your lack of understanding that a spectrum may change between emission and measurement.
Imagine that I look at a piece of red hot coal
I can get a fair measurement of its temperature from Wein's law.
Imagine I only get to see it through a piece of blue glass.
Would Wein's law still give me an idea of its temperature?
-
That is a fatal mistake.
How many people did it kill?
-
At this phase I fully understand the real meaning of wiens-law
You have not even learned to spell it correctly.
-
Dear BC
Please don't take it too personally.
I really appreciate your knowledge and your excellent support.
Sorry, you and all our scientists MUST except the observation as is.
You must agree that based on wien-law the source temp for λ peak at 2000 is 2.75K.
We can't argue about it.
No.
I could post a blue square here.
And then I could fit it to the Wein law and it would tell me that your computer screen is hotter than the surface of the sun.
I just have one question:
Let's assume that Wien was living today and he has no idea about the CMBR or the BBT.
We will show him the following observed image of the CMBR without calling it CMBR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:Cmbr.svg
https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html
We will ask him the following:
Based on the above observed BBR spectrum, what is the expected source temperature for that spectrum?
What do you think should be his answer?
Could it be that his answer would be: 2.725K?
-
He would say that if it was a thermal spectrum of a stationary object, it was the spectrum of something at 2.725K.
But I think he would also realise it could also be the spectrum of a hotter or a colder thing that was moving away or towards him.
because he would, at least, have heard of Doppler's work.
But if you told him it was the emission spectrum of low pressure hydrogen gas at 2.725K he would laugh at you.
-
He would say that if it was a thermal spectrum of a stationary object, it was the spectrum of something at 2.725K.
Thanks
I have asked about the image of the spectrum of the CMBR.
At this phase I don't care how do we get this spectrum and if it is due to stationary object or not.
I hope that by now we all agree that based on wiens-Law the observed BBR spectrum of the CMBR means that its expected source temperature is 2.725K
Hence, based on the OBSERVED spectrum of the CMBR its expected source temperature should be 2.725K!!!
This is the meaning of real science!
The next questions would be:
How could it be that the CMBR has that kind of spectrum?
How could it be that none stationary object could have such spectrum?
And many other questions as:
Only if you are stupid enough to ignore the fact that something may have happened to the spectrum between it leaving the source and it reaching us.
But I think he would also realise it could also be the spectrum of a hotter or a colder thing that was moving away or towards him.
because he would, at least, have heard of Doppler's work.
But if you told him it was the emission spectrum of low pressure hydrogen gas at 2.725K he would laugh at you.
So, first we all have to agree that based on wiens-Law the observed BBR spectrum of the CMBR means that its expected source temperature is 2.725K and then we can decide if we wish to laugh or cray.
-
At this phase I don't care how do we get this spectrum and if it is due to stationary object or not.
You might not care but it makes a difference.
If you ignore things like doppler shift you are not even trying to do science.
You are preaching.
Hence, based on the OBSERVED spectrum of the CMBR its expected source temperature should be 2.725K
Unless the source is moving or something else is happening which you refuse to consider.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:56:33
Hence, based on the OBSERVED spectrum of the CMBR its expected source temperature should be 2.725K
Unless the source is moving or something else is happening which you refuse to consider.
I fully agree to consider everything.
However, I hope that we can finely agree on the following:
Based on the OBSERVED spectrum of the CMBR its expected source temperature should be 2.725K, Unless the source is moving or something else is happening .
Do you agree?
-
I fully agree to consider everything.
At this phase I don't care how do we get this spectrum and if it is due to stationary object or not.
Make up your mind.
However, I hope that we can finely agree on the following:
Based on the OBSERVED spectrum of the CMBR its expected source temperature should be 2.725K, Unless the source is moving or something else is happening .
Do you agree?
I have said that all along.
It's good that you agree, even if it took a while.
-
However, I hope that we can finely agree on the following:
Based on the OBSERVED spectrum of the CMBR its expected source temperature should be 2.725K, Unless the source is moving or something else is happening .
Do you agree?
I have said that all along.
It's good that you agree, even if it took a while.
Thanks
Once we agree on the above let's try to verify (step by step) about something that could happen:
1. Something may have happened to the spectrum between it leaving the source and it reaching us
Only if you are stupid enough to ignore the fact that something may have happened to the spectrum between it leaving the source and it reaching us.
Can you please be more specific about that change?
Do you have an idea what was the peak of the spectrum when it is leaving the source?
Do you mean that at the source the peak was about 750 in order to meet the source of the Hydrogen recombination temp (which is 3000K)?
Can you please explain how could it keep its BBR spectrum while it change its peak so dramatically?
-
Can you please be more specific about that change?
Do you have an idea what was the peak of the spectrum when it is leaving the source?
Do you mean that at the source the peak was about 750 in order to meet the source of the Hydrogen recombination temp (which is 3000K)?
Can you please explain how could it keep its BBR spectrum while it change its peak so dramatically?
I would recommend that you reread the source you cited in your OP. Your answers are right in your source.
-
Can you please explain how could it keep its BBR spectrum while it change its peak so dramatically?
It's really very easy.
Move away from the source quickly.
Doppler shift will give you the same "shaped" spectrum but shifted to longer wavelength so it looks like it has come from a cooler source.
As has been pointed out, you cited a source which told you this.
-
Can you please explain how could it keep its BBR spectrum while it change its peak so dramatically?
It's really very easy.
Move away from the source quickly.
Doppler shift will give you the same "shaped" spectrum but shifted to longer wavelength so it looks like it has come from a cooler source.
As has been pointed out, you cited a source which told you this.
Thanks
So let's agree on your above explanation.
Hence, when we observe the CMBR spectrum with λ = 2000 nm, we should know that this λ had been shifted from the value of 750 nm at its source to the current 2000 nm due to doppler shift effect.
That is very clear.
However, wiens-law tells us about the temp source assuming that it is not moving and nothing is happening:
Based on the OBSERVED spectrum of the CMBR its expected source temperature should be 2.725K, Unless the source is moving or something else is happening .
Hence, in this case, there is no meaning for the 2.725K as it doesn't represent the real temp source of CMBR spectrum (due to wiens-law).
In other words - we shouldn't use the 2.725K as it doesn't represent the real source temp of the CMBR.
I also don't understand why do we need any sort of temperature for the Redshift calculation.
The formula for redshift is very clear:
Z = (λobserved -λrest) / λrest
I hope that we agree that:
λobserved = 2000 nm (That is what we observe today in the CMBR)
λrest = 750 (That is what we think should be the value for the CMBR reference due to the Hydrogen recombination temperature)
I have already set the calculation. however, I have used the value of λrest at 780 instead of 750 as follow:
We can claim that:
At T = 3500K, λrest = 750 nm
The T temp of the Hydrogen recombination is 3000K.
Let's assume that its λrest is 780 nm
At T = 3000K, λrest = 780 nm (assumption)
Based on the following CMBR data:
https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html
The peak of the CMBR is at 2 mm (or 2000nm)
Hence,
CMBR λobserved = 2000nm
Z CMBR= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest = (2000 - 780) / 780 = 1.564
So, why our scientists insist to use the temperature source in the redshift formula, while we clearly have the value of λobserved & λrest for the CMBR?
What is wrong with this formula?
Z CMBR= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest = (2000 - 780) / 780 = 1.564
Is it too low value for you?
So, when math of real observation contradicts the theory, it's the time to twist the math?
-
Once again, you have missed something important.
There is only one plausible thing in the universe which emits a black body spectrum without some sort of band or line structure superimposed on it.
And that's a hot, fairly dense hydrogen plasma.
If you do not believe that, please put forward an alternative that would emit BBR.
So we absolutely unequivocally KNOW that it started out hot.
Again, if you think there's another explanation, please let us know.
But what we see today is something that looks like a BBR spectrum from something very cold.
We absolutely know that it's not being emitted by something cold.
Again, if you think there's another explanation, please let us know.
So we absolutely know that something happened to the radiation between when it was emitted by a hot plasma and when we see it today.
Again, if you think there's another explanation, please let us know.
And so we know that it's either Doppler shifted or that space has stretched.
Again, if you think there's another explanation, please let us know.
Once you accept that, we can get on with sorting out your maths problems for you.
-
Once again, you have missed something important.
There is only one plausible thing in the universe which emits a black body spectrum without some sort of band or line structure superimposed on it.
And that's a hot, fairly dense hydrogen plasma.
If you do not believe that, please put forward an alternative that would emit BBR.
So we absolutely unequivocally KNOW that it started out hot.
Again, if you think there's another explanation, please let us know
Yes, there is a simple explanation.
It is called - infinite Universe.
Please see the following explanation about the BBR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
"A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. The name "black body" is given because it absorbs all colors of light. A black body also emits black-body radiation. "
"An approximate realization of a black surface is a hole in the wall of a large insulated enclosure (an oven, for example). Any light entering the hole is reflected or absorbed at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge, making the hole a nearly perfect absorber. When the radiation confined in such an enclosure is in thermal equilibrium, the radiation emitted from the hole will be as great as from any body at that equilibrium temperature"
Let's assume that we can set a cold gas at a Temp of 2.725K in insulated enclosure as an oven.
The light that emitted from that cold Gas is reflected from the internal surfaces of the Oven. When the radiation confined in such an enclosure is in thermal equilibrium, the internal radiation will be as great as from any body at that equilibrium temperature".
In other wards - we can get a black body radiation from cold gas that is placed in an enclosure oven.
Let's set two ovens next to each other.
Each one of them has cold gas with blackbody radiation.
If we open the wall between them, then we will get one bigger oven with the same blackbody radiation.
Now let's set unlimited number of similar ovens next to each other.
If we take out the internal walls, they all would still have a black body radiation.
The only requested limit is that the outwards wall must always be there.
However, if we could set infinite numbers of ovens that goes up to the infinity at any direction, then they all would behave as the wall is located there at the infinity.
Hence, as long as we won't be close to the open edge of the infinity, we would get the black body radiation.
Therefore, if our universe is infinite and is full with cold gas, the radiation at any location in that infinite universe would be a black body radiation.
Hence, the CMBR black body radiation in our universe PROVES that it is infinite in its size!
The infinite cold gas in a temp of 2.725K in the infinite Universe is the source for the CMBR black body radiation at the peak of λ = 2000 nm.
At any location that we will be in that infinite universe we would get the same CMBR.
So simple and clear!
The only limit is that we shouldn't be close to the edge of that infinite universe.
Therefore, based on weins-law the peak radiation of λ = 2000 nm represents a cold gas of 2.725K and that is 100% correct.
What we see is what we have!
The CMBR is due to the infinite cold gas at 2.725K in the infinite universe and not due to any sort of imagination idea that is called recombination process!
-
The photosphere of a star is an excellent example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.png
"An idealized view of the cross-section of a star. The photosphere contains photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation."
If that photosphere goes to the infinity, then as long as we will be in that photosphere we will get the BBR.
-
Hence, the CMBR black body radiation in our universe PROVES that it is infinite in its size!
Not really. If there was a spherical wall of finite size around the Universe that was in thermal equilibrium with the CMBR, then the CMBR would still be uniform in all directions because the wall would emit radiation as fast as it absorbs it. It wouldn't matter if we were closer to one side of this sphere than another side due to shell theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
Shell theorem states that the gravitational field inside of a hollow sphere is uniform and thus no net gravitational force is exerted on a body inside of such a hollow sphere. This is because gravity follows the inverse square law. Radiation intensity also follows the inverse square law. From the article:
In addition to gravity, the shell theorem can also be used to describe the electric field generated by a static spherically symmetric charge density, or similarly for any other phenomenon that follows an inverse square law.
Since shell theorem applies to electromagnetic radiation emitted from inside of a hollow sphere just as much as gravity does, that means the received radiation intensity of the CMBR would be the same everywhere inside of the sphere.
-
The photosphere of a star is an excellent example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.png
"An idealized view of the cross-section of a star. The photosphere contains photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation."
If that photosphere goes to the infinity, then as long as we will be in that photosphere we will get the BBR.
So, you don't know what "nearly" means.
Perhaps you should check.
-
Yes, there is a simple explanation.
It is called - infinite Universe.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. "
H L MENCKEN
-
Let's assume that we can set a cold gas at a Temp of 2.725K in insulated enclosure as an oven.
The light that emitted from that cold Gas is reflected from the internal surfaces of the Oven. When the radiation confined in such an enclosure is in thermal equilibrium, the internal radiation will be as great as from any body at that equilibrium temperature".
In other wards - we can get a black body radiation from cold gas that is placed in an enclosure oven
No, you get BB radiation from the walls of the container.
But the universe doesn't have one.
The gas, as I have explained so many times that I have lost count, will emit it's characteristic spectrum.
Did you not realise you were talking nonsense?
-
If we take out the internal walls, they all would still have a black body radiation.
No.
Because it is the walls , not the gas, which emits BBR.
-
So simple and clear!
Yes, is simple and clear that you are wrong because the universe doesn't have a wall.
You even get close to accepting this
The only limit is that we shouldn't be close to the edge of that infinite universe.
But the wall of the universe is the only thing that you have suggested that could be emitting the BBR.
If we are not near it, we won't see it.
-
Dear Kryptid & BC
The subject of this tread is - CMBR redshift.
We can discuss about the infinite Universe.
However, I have a strong feeling that it's better for me not to do so.
Therefore, let's refocus on the main subject.
Please let me know if you confirm the following:
1. The formula for redshift is: Z = (λobserved -λrest) / λrest
2. CMBR λobserved = 2000 nm
3. CMBR λrest = 780
If so, why can't we agree that:
Z CMBR= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest = (2000 - 780) / 780 = 1.564
Why do you insist to replace the λ with T in the CMBR redshift formula (while that formula is based on λ and we have full data on λ)?
-
However, I have a strong feeling that it's better for me not to do so.
Because it is irrelevant?
-
3. CMBR λrest = 780
Why?
-
Why do you insist to replace the λ with T in the CMBR redshift formula
As I pointed out, you did this (badly).
Please be aware that the redshift formula is as follow:
Z= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest
We already know that the λrest is equal to the peak in the CMBR (2.75K).
So why we do not use the peak in the "Atomic hydrogen welding" to set the λobserved?
At the maximal level of 6000 °C (or 6273K) the redshift should be about:
Z = (6275 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 2,281
At the minimal level of only 3400 °C (or 3673K) the redshift should be about:
Z = (3673 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 1,334
-
The maths is here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)
feel free to tell us where it's wrong.
-
3. CMBR λrest = 780
Why?
Why not?
1. Do you confirm that based on your understanding, the CMBR is due to the hydrogen recombination? Yes or no?
2. Do you confirm that the hydrogen recombination temp is 3000K? Yes or no?
3. Do you confirm that based on wiens law BBR radiation at 3000K means λ of about 780 nm? Yes or no?
So, why can't we use the 3000K of the hydrogen recombination process to extract the CMBR λrest?
-
So, why can't we use the 3000K of the hydrogen recombination process to extract the CMBR λres?
As I pointed out.
It's more complicated than that but very broadly, yes.
That's why I gave a link to the wiki page which explains the calculation in detail.
Why not just accept that you can't find any actual errors in it?