Frequency Loss

[Ant Sinclair]

If a wave originating in deep space in the vacuum was of a frequency of approximately 169GHz, and it travelled unhindered by the galaxies etc, could the distance this wave travelled alone cause this waves' frequency to drop to 162GHz or would it continue propagating the Universe at 169GHz indefinately?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Ant Sinclair

[Mordred]

The signal would be affected by various forms of redshift.

 

Primarily the cosmological redshift.

 

[latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} or 1+Z=\frac{\lambda-\lambda_o}{\lambda_o}[/latex]

 

Other forms is the gravitational redshift.

 

[latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex]

 

and Doppler shift.

 

[latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex]

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion

[Ant Sinclair]

The signal would be affected by various forms of redshift.

 

Primarily the cosmological redshift.

 

[latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} or 1+Z=\frac{\lambda-\lambda_o}{\lambda_o}[/latex]

 

Other forms is the gravitational redshift.

 

[latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex]

 

and Doppler shift.

 

[latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex]

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion

Mordred with Cosmology being of special interest to You, have You seen a frequency of approximately 162GHz in the results from COBE/Planck Satellite ?

[Mordred]

It's the spectral radiance. The peak spectral radiance for temperature 2.7 k is roughly 160 ghz. Some papers fine tune that to 162 ghz. You can have higher frequencies, but their wattage output is lower.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_radiance

Edited August 14, 2015 by Mordred

[Ant Sinclair]

Thanks for replying Mordred, when I calculated the 169GHz/162GHz with the Cosmological Red Shift formula You gave earlier in this thread it came out at 596MLY, I then asked a gentleman named David Horgan to check My calc and His reply was "I was quite close depending on the value of h" and his calc made it 565MLY - it seems the origin of this CMBR is Laneakea - The Hawiaan "Immeasurable Heaven", there are several other Red Shifts I've looked at and they seem to show the same distance.

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

[Mordred]

Sounds about on par. One has to remember Hubbles constant at a point in time. There has been numerous fine tuning of Hubbles constant today. For example each data Set from WMAP and Planck give different values. The same is true for the peak spectral radiance. Redshift calculations are only to good approximation. There is numerous forms of interferance, including the Earths movement.

For this reason Cosmology never truly relies on just one methodology for distance measures.

One problem is the redshift formula I provided, can lead to greater error margins beyond Hubbles sphere.

So can luminosity relations.

 

A good papers covering this is

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9905116"Distance measures in cosmology" David W. Hogg

 

Google the term Cosmic distance ladder for a list of alternative distance measure cross checks.

 

Spectral radiance is another value that is often fine tuned.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Mordred

[Ant Sinclair]

Thanks again for replying Mordred, below is an excerpt from nature.com and the link to the same, could a 'singularity' at the far side of Laniakea be this source of CMBR?

 

This is a completely new definition of a supercluster. Scientists previously placed the Milky Way in the Virgo Supercluster, but under Tully and colleagues' definition, this region becomes just an appendage of the much larger Laniakea, which is 160 million parsecs (520 million light years) across and contains the mass of 100 million billion Suns.

 

 

http://www.nature.com/news/earth-s-new-address-solar-system-milky-way-laniakea-1.15819

[Mordred]

Did you notice this line?

 

"Although the map is comprehensive over the Universe around the Milky Way, its distance measurements become less accurate, and less numerous, the farther out you go, "

 

There is numerous debates on Laneikia. For one thing they use a different H than the Planck results.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.0880

 

secondly they redefine what counts as a superclusture.

 

Lets put it this way the subject is far from conclusive.

However Laniekia has little to do with the CMB.

Thanks again for replying Mordred, below is an excerpt from nature.com and the link to the same, could a 'singularity' at the far side of Laniakea be this source of CMBR?

 

 

So I have no idea what you refer to in this question.

You seem to be implying that the CMB has a certain direction. It doesn't it is in every direction and orientation. Super novas are from point of origin to us. A single supernova does not determine the spectral radiance of the CMB. At best it may cause a dipole anisotropy in the data. Much like our movement causes a dipole anisotropy in regards to the axis of evil in the Planck datasets.

The 160 Ghz signal is a peak value of the Spectral radiance using the average temperature maps of the entire CMB map.

[Ant Sinclair]

Once again thanks for replying Mordred, You're correct when You say the CMB is in every direction and every orientation that We Can Observe but, I strongly disagree with that "it doesn't have a certain direction" and I will so bold as to say It Does Have a Certain Direction.

Below are three links, the first a paper describing a "Tear-Drop" shape, the second a link to post No.50 on the Energy Constants, Cube & Sphere Formation thread and the third link to the Split from Energy Constants H-Bonds thread.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82426-energy-constants-cube-sphere-formation/page-3

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86147-split-from-energy-constants-were-massive-clouds-of-h-bonds-responsible-for-the-big-bang/?hl=%2Benergy+%2Bconstants

 

I have no further use of this thread other than to say it will be reappearing in the H-Bonds thread.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Thanks again for replying Mordred, below is an excerpt from nature.com and the link to the same, could a 'singularity' at the far side of Laniakea be this source of CMBR?

 

This is a completely new definition of a supercluster. Scientists previously placed the Milky Way in the Virgo Supercluster, but under Tully and colleagues' definition, this region becomes just an appendage of the much larger Laniakea, which is 160 million parsecs (520 million light years) across and contains the mass of 100 million billion Suns.

 

 

http://www.nature.com/news/earth-s-new-address-solar-system-milky-way-laniakea-1.15819

Rather an interesting 2 videos from the " Nature " link you supplied .

 

Are you proposing some form of link between our new family Supercluster home " Laniakea " , the nearby strange attractor pulling everything in the vicinity toward itself , and the Cosmic Background Radiation ?

 

Mike

Edited August 15, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ant Sinclair]

Rather an interesting 2 videos from the " Nature " link you supplied .

 

Are you proposing some form of link between our new family Supercluster home " Laniakea " , the nearby strange attractor pulling everything in the vicinity toward itself , and the Cosmic Background Radiation ?

 

Mike

The answer to Your post Mike really belongs on the H-Bonds thread and the next posts on that thread are about a week away so I ask You to please be patient

[Mordred]

Once again thanks for replying Mordred, You're correct when You say the CMB is in every direction and every orientation that We Can Observe but, I strongly disagree with that "it doesn't have a certain direction" and I will so bold as to say It Does Have a Certain Direction.

Below are three links, the first a paper describing a "Tear-Drop" shape, the second a link to post No.50 on the Energy Constants, Cube & Sphere Formation thread and the third link to the Split from Energy Constants H-Bonds thread.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82426-energy-constants-cube-sphere-formation/page-3

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86147-split-from-energy-constants-were-massive-clouds-of-h-bonds-responsible-for-the-big-bang/?hl=%2Benergy+%2Bconstants

 

I have no further use of this thread other than to say it will be reappearing in the H-Bonds thread.

The teardrop shape in the first thread is World lines and lightcones. It's showing the curvature relation of lightpaths to rate of expansion. Not a specific direction.

 

The CMB surrounds us we can still hear it's interferance in radios today as a source of static. ON EARTH.

[Ant Sinclair]

The teardrop shape in the first thread is World lines and lightcones. It's showing the curvature relation of lightpaths to rate of expansion. Not a specific direction.

 

The CMB surrounds us we can still hear it's interferance in radios today as a source of static. ON EARTH.

Mordred, David Horgan put Me "in-touch" with L.Edgar Otto, Jaya Ram Bisto and Joseph Kover, I'm at the stage of entering certain discussions with these gentleman and hopefully they will shed light on a couple of concepts regarding this thread and the H-Bonds thread, prior to Me posting again on the H-Bonds thread, again as I said to Mike, please be patient as a lot more will come to Light in those forth-coming posts where this thread will integrate with H-Bonds.