[Dave Lev (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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Origin]

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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

[Kryptid]

"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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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 = ?

[Bored chemist]

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law

[Bored chemist]

And the next question is, where did you get 3500K from?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

So, you disqualify wiens-law because "gas at 2.75K will not emit BBR ".

Stop lying.
I did not say that.

[Bored chemist]

We do not detect the CMBR at a temp of 2.75K.

Nobody said we did.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, you have a fatal mistake!

I'm not dead.
You clearly are wrong.

[Bored chemist]

If the CMBR λ peak was 700 t

It isn't.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?