swansont Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 What conjecture? That's the question, isn't it? You really haven't laid anything out so that anybody else can do a calculation. But you claimed that the universe's age would look the same no matter when you measured it, which implies that the CMB has been the same all along. So now you need to show that this is true, in order to support your claim. We already know that's not right, though, because at recombination the temperature was about 3000 K, so quite obviously the theory says the temperature dropped. That's one of the strong lines of evidence supporting the BB.
Butch Posted November 17, 2016 Author Posted November 17, 2016 It won't be measured in my lifetime, but I think it would be a worthwhile experiment to monitor the baseline peak frequency for change over time. I am still left with the possibility that the Big Bang is a local event. Temperature as applies to radiation has a time component, thus we now measure the CMB in the microwave range instead of higher frequencies. Cooling is in the form of wavelength, we are not measuring kinetic energy. If you take a look at my simple little graph as a curvature of time rather than space(the relationship remains the same) you should be able to understand how our observations could be skewed. If time were compressed the apparent frequency would increase. I know you want a complex mathematical demonstration of this, however it just isn't that complex... f=oscillations/second If time is compressed in the history of the Big Bang as we perceive it, frequency would appear to be higher in the past. Even Einstein referred to time dilation, because that is what we perceive, although curved space is the same thing. Did the early state of the Big Bang curve space? I am curious however do you lean finite or infinite?
Strange Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 If time were compressed the apparent frequency would increase. I know you want a complex mathematical demonstration of this, however it just isn't that complex... f=oscillations/second But this is just completely ad-hoc. You need some theoretical basis to explain why time would be compressed. And then you need to show that the values we measure are consistent with that model. And just saying "time dilation" is not a theoretical model unless you can explain why the time dilation would occur and the amount it would dilated. Just saying "what if" isn't science. "If the CMB is created by invisible pink unicorns flapping their wings, then it would always be the same."
Klaynos Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Given current instruments you'd need to measure the CMB for a few tens of millions of years to measure the cooling assuming current physics.
Butch Posted November 17, 2016 Author Posted November 17, 2016 Given current instruments you'd need to measure the CMB for a few tens of millions of years to measure the cooling assuming current physics.It is a matter of precision,just a small change over time that was reliable would do. With current equipment... And the marvelous people interpreting those measurements, I am thinking decades. But this is just completely ad-hoc. You need some theoretical basis to explain why time would be compressed. And then you need to show that the values we measure are consistent with that model. And just saying "time dilation" is not a theoretical model unless you can explain why the time dilation would occur and the amount it would dilated. Just saying "what if" isn't science. "If the CMB is created by invisible pink unicorns flapping their wings, then it would always be the same." Does the mass of the early Big Bang curve space. (Note I did not refer to the early universe, the Big Bang could be a local event).
Klaynos Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 It is a matter of precision,just a small change over time that was reliable would do. With current equipment... And the marvelous people interpreting those measurements, I am thinking decades. You need to get above the noise floor which is around 20 million years.
Butch Posted November 17, 2016 Author Posted November 17, 2016 This conversation should be taking place under my topic in speculation, here I am just inquiring about measurement of the cmb, I am not proposing my hypothesis.
swansont Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 It is a matter of precision,just a small change over time that was reliable would do. With current equipment... And the marvelous people interpreting those measurements, I am thinking decades. You have presented absolutely nothing to justify this assessment.
Butch Posted November 17, 2016 Author Posted November 17, 2016 You need to get above the noise floor which is around 20 million years.There are very knowledgeable people that are doing some tremendous work dealing with much more than that single issue. They have constructed a pretty good baseline despite all the noise from a great many sources. You have presented absolutely nothing to justify this assessment. And it is not my intention to do so in this topic... Millions of yrs. V decades... Just opinion.
Klaynos Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 There are very knowledgeable people that are doing some tremendous work dealing with much more than that single issue. They have constructed a pretty good baseline despite all the noise from a great many sources. And it is not my intention to do so in this topic... Millions of yrs. V decades... Just opinion. Except mine isn't an opinion it's based on a quick back of the envelop guesstimate from the temp change with age of universe and the current error bars on the age of the universe from the CMB (both results were consistent at a few tens of millions of years for 2 reliable data points(. Science, not opinion. Your opinion is not as valid as the evidence. The science is supported by the evidence. Your opinion isn't as worthwhile the science.
swansont Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 This conversation should be taking place under my topic in speculation, here I am just inquiring about measurement of the cmb, I am not proposing my hypothesis. No, we're talking about a real measurement about a mainstream-physics phenomenon. The connection to your speculation is incidental. Taking millions of years to get below the noise floor is spot-on. The CMB temperature is only known to a few decimal places (2.725±0.002 K), so that's 0.1%. The temperature varies inversely with the scale factor http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/CMB.html And the scale factor changes exceedingly slowly on human time scales. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/147822/is-there-any-limit-on-movement-of-space-itself If it takes 12 billion years to drop the temperature in half (i.e. double the scale factor), then 12 million years will be required to see a 0.1% change in the value, which would not be discernible, since it's still within the uncertainty. Millions more are required to determine it better than that, which is what is needed here. (and gosh if this doesn't agree with the number Klaynos mentioned. Unsurprising to me, though) And it is not my intention to do so in this topic... Millions of yrs. V decades... Just opinion. I don't care about uninformed opinion. In a discussion like this it's noise, not signal.
Butch Posted November 17, 2016 Author Posted November 17, 2016 Never said my opinion was right, not as well informed as you, I bow to your evidence. That after all answers my inquiry. Thx! The CMB surface of last scattering is at a time when the universe is 380,000 years old. Prior to that period we hit an opaque dense region where the mean free path of photons become too short. Too much clutter as atoms haven't formed. This is referred to as the dark ages. Due to this we never see the BB itself. Though we will possibly be able to measure further with neutrinos ( cosmic neutrino background) The density at roughly this time had sufficient hydrogen to form stars in the later stages of last scattering. Provided the temperature has dropped sufficiently to support hydrogen atoms. Cosmic neutrino background, that is an awesome thought, is that your idea?
Strange Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Given current instruments you'd need to measure the CMB for a few tens of millions of years to measure the cooling assuming current physics. Yes, I came up with the same number.
Butch Posted November 17, 2016 Author Posted November 17, 2016 Yes, I came up with the same number. How far have we come in the area of detecting neutrinos?I know I am going to take a beating on this one... But I have an atomic model that does not require the existence of neutrons... If you would be interested, I will put together a graphic.
Strange Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 How far have we come in the area of detecting neutrinos? Getting off topic. You might want to start a new thread. But there is an article here on neutrino detectors: https://profmattstrassler.com/2011/09/25/how-to-detect-neutrinos/ We can detect them easily enough to measure their speed and other properties. They are becoming astronomical tool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_astronomy But I have an atomic model that does not require the existence of neutrons... Even more off topic. As we use neutrons in medicine and industry, it would be a bit odd if they didn't exist.
Mordred Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 No the cosmic neutrino background is also predicted by the BB model Cosmic neutrino background, that is an awesome thought, is that your idea?
Strange Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Cosmic neutrino background, that is an awesome thought, is that your idea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background
Butch Posted November 17, 2016 Author Posted November 17, 2016 Getting off topic. You might want to start a new thread. But there is an article here on neutrino detectors: https://profmattstrassler.com/2011/09/25/how-to-detect-neutrinos/ We can detect them easily enough to measure their speed and other properties. They are becoming astronomical tool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_astronomy Even more off topic. As we use neutrons in medicine and industry, it would be a bit odd if they didn't exist. Yes, odd but odd is exciting isn't it?I will start a new thread in speculations. That's the question, isn't it? You really haven't laid anything out so that anybody else can do a calculation. But you claimed that the universe's age would look the same no matter when you measured it, which implies that the CMB has been the same all along. So now you need to show that this is true, in order to support your claim. We already know that's not right, though, because at recombination the temperature was about 3000 K, so quite obviously the theory says the temperature dropped. That's one of the strong lines of evidence supporting the BB. Was reviewing the topic and thought I should comment on this, the cmb has not been the same all along, but the curvature of time/space would cause it to appear to remain the same when we try to measure it.
Strange Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Was reviewing the topic and thought I should comment on this, the cmb has not been the same all along, but the curvature of time/space would cause it to appear to remain the same when we try to measure it. This is just another baseless claim. Please show, in appropriate mathematical detail, how the curvature of spacetime would cause the CMB to remain the same. (Alternatively, show where the errors are in the current mathematics that calculates the temperature of the CMB.)
Butch Posted November 17, 2016 Author Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) This is just another baseless claim. Please show, in appropriate mathematical detail, how the curvature of spacetime would cause the CMB to remain the same. (Alternatively, show where the errors are in the current mathematics that calculates the temperature of the CMB.) Pretty simple The curvature of space/time is inversely proportional to the expansion of the Big Bang.In the "beginning" space time was curved into itself. Edited November 17, 2016 by Butch
Strange Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Pretty simple The curvature of space/time is inversely proportional to the expansion of the Big Bang. In the "beginning" space time was curved into itself. I don't see any calculation that the curvature of spacetime would cause the CMB to remain the same
Butch Posted November 17, 2016 Author Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) I don't see any calculation that the curvature of spacetime would cause the CMB to remain the same It would not remain the same only our measurement devices which are in curved space would deceive us. When we measure the cmb, we are measuring "everything" to do that properly we need a measuring stick that is outside of space/time. Unless of course we are intelligent enough to recognise the paradox and account for it.Alas, it will take another 10 million years to verify the paradox. Edited November 17, 2016 by Butch
Strange Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 I still see only baseless assertions. In case you don't see the problem with that, let me prove you wrong by using exactly the same level of evidence, mathematics and logical argument that you use: you are wrong. Do you see the problem? You can say one thing, I can say another and Fred can say a third. So we need a way to evaluate who is most likely to be correct. That would require you, me and Fred to actually calculate what the result would be with each of our models and then compare this to the data. That is how science works. Just saying "it would be the same" has zero credibility, no matter how often you repeat it, unless you can provide some support for the claim. Currently, the evidence appears to show you are wrong. According to you, when the universe had a uniform temperature of 4000 degrees, instruments would have measured it to have a temperature of near absolute zero. Does that really make any sense?
Butch Posted November 17, 2016 Author Posted November 17, 2016 I still see only baseless assertions. In case you don't see the problem with that, let me prove you wrong by using exactly the same level of evidence, mathematics and logical argument that you use: you are wrong. Do you see the problem? You can say one thing, I can say another and Fred can say a third. So we need a way to evaluate who is most likely to be correct. That would require you, me and Fred to actually calculate what the result would be with each of our models and then compare this to the data. That is how science works. Just saying "it would be the same" has zero credibility, no matter how often you repeat it, unless you can provide some support for the claim. Currently, the evidence appears to show you are wrong. According to you, when the universe had a uniform temperature of 4000 degrees, instruments would have measured it to have a temperature of near absolute zero. Does that really make any sense? Yes, however our instruments then would be in such tightly curved space time they would give us exactly the same measurement that we get at present.Do you now understand the paradox?
Strange Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Yes, however our instruments then would be in such tightly curved space time they would give us exactly the same measurement that we get at present. You still need to show that this would be the case.
.thumb.jpg.cc169fb67f9c969aeace623286b9b5e6.jpg)
Recommended Posts