CMB

[Mordred]

There is outside our observable universe. Not necessarily outside the universe itself. I gave an example on this thread showing the related math of an adiabatic expansion with no heat transfer.

[David Levy]

There is outside our observable universe. Not necessarily outside the universe itself. I gave an example on this thread showing the related math of an adiabatic expansion with no heat transfer.

 

Thanks

 

I will read it.

 

However, would you kindly advice the following:

What was the size of the Universe when its temperature was 3000K (400,000 years after the B.B.)?

[Mordred]

Roughly 43 million light years in radius.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Mordred

[David Levy]

Roughly 43 million light years in radius.

 

So, when the Universe temp was 3000K, its diameter was about 90 million light years.

 

 

By definition, we are in the observable universe. Because that is the part of the universe that we can observe - i.e. a sphere of about 90 billion light years diameter around the Earth.

 

 

The diameter of our current observable universe is 90 billion light years.

 

Therefore, in about 13 Billion years the diameter of the Universe had been increased by about one million (1,000,000).

 

Never the less, the size (sphere volume) of the universe had been increased by 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. This actually represents the real expansion of the universe.

 

However, based on the following explanation about the CMB, the expansion should be only 1,100:

" Therefore, the drop in the CMB temperature by a factor of 1100 (= 3000 K/2.73 K) indicates an expansion of the universe by a factor of 1100 from the moment of decoupling until now."

 

Hence, how could it be that the calculated expansion of the universe is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, while the science claims that it is only 1,100?

Edited January 17, 2016 by David Levy

[Strange]

 

Hence, how could it be that the calculated expansion of the universe is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, while the science claims that it is only 1,100?

 

The scale factor is linear scaling, not volume. So the volume is irrelevant.

 

Also, you are out by a factor of 1,000. A billion is 1,000 times larger than a million.

[David Levy]

you are out by a factor of 1,000. A billion is 1,000 times larger than a million.

 

Yes, you are fully correct.

It should be 1,000 instead of one million

 

The scale factor is linear scaling, not volume. So the volume is irrelevant.

 

No, I disagree.

The expansion is based on the size of the Universe. It isn't linear

Please see the following message from Swansont:

Linear expansion does not give a proportional expansion in volume. If you double the linear distance, you increase the volume by 8x. And expansion isn't linear anyway

Hence, the real calculated expansion is 1,000,000,000 - One billion.

As I have already stated, it is high above the expected expansion factor of 1,100.

 

Do you agree?

[Strange]

No. The scale factor is 1,100. It scales the distance, not volume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_%28cosmology%29

And, as you get the wrong result, it is clear that your idea is wrong.

[MigL]

Even though we call it the CMB 'temperature', it isn't like a gas temperature which decreases as the cube of the volume increase.

It is actually the wavelength of the radiation which makes up the CMB that increases linearly with the same scaling factor as the expansion of the universe.

So the scaling factor 1100 is the relevant one for the CMB.

 

Edit

Sorry messed that up.

It should read " it isn't like a gas temperature that decreases as the volume, or cube of the distance, increase"

Edited January 18, 2016 by MigL

[swansont]

 

Hence, the real calculated expansion is 1,000,000,000 - One billion.

 

Where is this calculation?

[David Levy]

Even though we call it the CMB 'temperature', it isn't like a gas temperature which decreases as the cube of the volume increase.

It is actually the wavelength of the radiation which makes up the CMB that increases linearly with the same scaling factor as the expansion of the universe.

So the scaling factor 1100 is the relevant one for the CMB.

 

Thanks for the explanation.

However, I really can't understand why the science is using the wavelength of the radiation instead of "gas temperature" as some sort of a density in a cube.

The science claims that in large scale, the universe should be considered as homogeneous and isotropic.

Hence, it is almost as homogeneous gas in a huge ball shape – the Universe. So, why we do not imply the same formula for thermal expansion, as we should imply at homogeneous gas cube example?

 

Our Universe has three dimensions. Therefore, it is quite logical to consider the effect of the expansion in three dimensions.

In any case, how can we prove that a single wavelength dimension in a three dimension universe is the correct factor?

 

There is another issue with that wavelength radiation:

We all know that the light/radiation of far end galaxies which we see today had been emitted long, long time ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

"The surface of last scattering is the collection of points in space at the exact distance that photons from the time of photon decoupling just reach us today. These are the photons we detect today as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)."

So, by definition, what we get today as a photon/radiation from far end galaxies/mass, had been emitted at least few billions years ago. Technically it could even be emitted just after the B.B.

Therefore, the current received wavelength radiation can't represents the real effect of the current expansion, as the source of this radiation is currently located farther away.

 

Theoretically, if we could stop today the expansion process, we will continue to see its effect for the next few billions years.

So, what we see today represents the expansion as it was a few billions years ago or even as it was soon after the Big bang.

Therefore, the current scaling factor of 1100 is not relevant for the current CMB.

 

Actually, we need to wait few more billions years in order to get the real wavelength radiation as a results from the current 1100 expansions.

 

Do you agree?

Edited January 18, 2016 by David Levy

[Strange]

However, I really can't understand why the science is using the wavelength of the radiation instead of "gas temperature" as some sort of a density in a cube.

 

Because the simplest function is linear scaling. This can then (if necessary) be applied to area or volume. If the scaling were defined in terms of volume, then when you wanted to calculate the change in distance you would have equations with cube-roots. This seems more complicated to me.

 

 

 

In any case, how can we prove that a single wavelength dimension in a three dimension universe is the correct factor?

 

Because the scaling is isotropic, you simply cube it to get the volumetric scaling. If you need such a thing.

 

 

Therefore, the current scaling factor of 1100 is not relevant for the current CMB.

 

I don't follow your argument. 1,100 is how much the universe has scaled (expanded) since the CMB was emitted.

 

 

Actually, we need to wait few more billions years in order to get the real wavelength radiation as a results from the current 1100 expansions.

 

By then the universe will have expanded even more and so the CMB will be colder and the scaling factor greater.

 

 

Do you agree?

 

Perhaps if you changed your default setting from "I don't understand so the science must be wrong" to "I don't understand so I need to work harder" you might be able to learn something, instead of repeating the same errors after things have been explained multiple times. (For example, my link in post #57 was posted 4 days ago with a much more detailed explanation.)

 

Stop. Read. Think. Assume that if the explanation appears to be wrong or doesn't make sense then the problem lies with you not the science. Read it again. Think harder. If still stuck then come here and ask questions (i.e. don't make random guesses and false assertions followed by "do you agree").

[David Levy]

Because the simplest function is linear scaling. This can then (if necessary) be applied to area or volume. If the scaling were defined in terms of volume, then when you wanted to calculate the change in distance you would have equations with cube-roots. This seems more complicated to me.

Thanks

Sorry, but I still don't understand why a linear scaling should be applied to volume.

Would you kindly direct me to the article which discuss about the wavelength of the radiation?

The one which you have pointed doesn't give info about it.

There is no prove/link between the linear scale factor and the CMB

I don't follow your argument. 1,100 is how much the universe has scaled (expanded) since the CMB was emitted.

 

My point is as follow:

The science claims that due to the expansion of 1100, the radius of the current observable universe is about 45 Billion light years.

Let's freeze that current moment. Let's stop now the expansion (only theoretically -off course).

Now, how long it might take for the radiation from the far end location (45 billion light years away) to get to Earth?

Technically, it should take at least 45 billion years.

 

Therefore, this is the min time frame that it might take for the radiation from the far end observable universe to approach us as a CMB.

Hence, the radiation that we get today can't be the real reflection of the current 1100 expansions.

As it is stated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_%28cosmology%29

"if at the present time we receive light from a distant object with aredshift of z, then the scale factor at the time the object originally emitted that light is "

Hence, the current CMB is a reflection of different scale factors.

For some, it might be 10 or 50 and for others it might be 100 or 500. It's correlated with the redshift of the light/radiation.

Therefore, it is a severe error just to multiply the CMB by 1100 and assume that this was the real temp of the Universe 400,000 years after the B.B.

We actually must distinguish between the radiations from different scale factors.

Is it clear?

Edited January 18, 2016 by David Levy

[swansont]

Thanks for the explanation.

However, I really can't understand why the science is using the wavelength of the radiation instead of "gas temperature" as some sort of a density in a cube.

 

 

...

 

Our Universe has three dimensions. Therefore, it is quite logical to consider the effect of the expansion in three dimensions.

 

...

 

So, by definition, what we get today as a photon/radiation from far end galaxies/mass, had been emitted at least few billions years ago. Technically it could even be emitted just after the B.B.

Therefore, the current received wavelength radiation can't represents the real effect of the current expansion, as the source of this radiation is currently located farther away.

 

Do you agree?

 

No. Simply put, you don't understand basically any of this.

 

How do you measure the temperature of a photon gas? You can't just stick a thermometer in it. What you can do is measure wavelength.

 

You can consider expansion in three dimensions. But you don't have to.

 

Technically the radiation could not have been emitted right after the big bang. You quoted the part about surface of last scattering. Did you stop to think what that means, and what's going on? The universe was a plasma. Free charged particles everywhere. Photons of any wavelength could only travel a short distance before scattering. It wasn't until they could combine to form neutral, bound systems that photons could propagate. We don't have to wait for photons to get to us, since they're already here.

 

My point is as follow:

The science claims that due to the expansion of 1100, the radius of the current observable universe is about 45 Billion light years.

Let's freeze that current moment. Let's stop now the expansion (only theoretically -off course).

Now, how long it might take for the radiation from the far end location (45 billion light years away) to get to Earth?

Technically, it should take at least 45 billion years.

 

 

 

Why would the light wait to come toward us? Shouldn't it have gone about the universe the whole time, so that some of it is nearby, right now?

[Mordred]

David knowing how to calculate the proper distance of any object is far more useful than calculating the volume. In the case of expansion you only need to calculate the radius. From there it's simply one calculation to determine the volume.

 

Simplistic isn't the true reason however. In order to find the distance of a measured object, one has to factor in the redshift. Or luminosity to distance relationship.

 

Granted the method will vary depending on what distance your looking at. Google "cosmic distance ladder"

 

As your already working at measuring distance ie you wish to confirm how far an object has moved due to expansion... it doesn't make sense to worry about volume change until you need to do so.

 

When you think about it knowing the proper distance to an object ie Cosmological event horizon, distance galaxy etc is far more practical than knowing the enclosed volume.

 

This practicality is naturally already in place. When you wish to measure the observable universe you must first measure the distance to the observable universe cosmological event horizon. Before you can calculate the volume of the observable universe you must first know the radius. In that measurement you will need the redshift. From there you determine the scale factor.

 

then you use the proper distance formula on that wiki link Strange provided. From that data you calculate the volume if you so desire.

 

for wavelength change Google Weins displacement law.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law

 

http://astronomyonline.org/Science/WiensLaw.asp

Edited January 18, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

Sorry, but I still don't understand why a linear scaling should be applied to volume.

 

It isn't. It is applied to distance. That is why it is linear.

 

Would you kindly direct me to the article which discuss about the wavelength of the radiation?

The one which you have pointed doesn't give info about it.

 

It does. But see below.

 

There is no prove/link between the linear scale factor and the CMB

It is the existence of the CMB that was the conclusive evidence for the big bang model. So you are wrong.

My point is as follow:

The science claims that due to the expansion of 1100, the radius of the current observable universe is about 45 Billion light years.

Let's freeze that current moment. Let's stop now the expansion (only theoretically -off course).

Now, how long it might take for the radiation from the far end location (45 billion light years away) to get to Earth?

Technically, it should take at least 45 billion years.

 

The current CMB radiation did not come from 45 billion lightyears away. It came (as you have already been told) from about 45 million light years away.

 

As it is stated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_%28cosmology%29

"if at the present time we receive light from a distant object with aredshift of z, then the scale factor at the time the object originally emitted that light is "

 

 

That is the relation between scale factor and wavelength you asked for.

 

Hence, the current CMB is a reflection of different scale factors.

For some, it might be 10 or 50 and for others it might be 100 or 500.

 

 

For some what? It is caused by the relative scale factor between now and when it was emitted. Which is roughly 1,100.

 

 

Therefore, it is a severe error just to multiply the CMB by 1100 and assume that this was the real temp of the Universe 400,000 years after the B.B.

 

You have that the wrong way round. The temperature when it was emitted is known (from knowledge of plasmas and the interaction with photons). From that and the temperature now (the CMB) the amount of cooling can be calculated, which is consistent with all the other evidence in the model.

 

Is it clear?

 

Do you have to work hard at not understanding? Or does it come naturally?

Edited January 18, 2016 by Strange

[David Levy]

David knowing how to calculate the proper distance of any object is far more useful than calculating the volume. In the case of expansion you only need to calculate the radius. From there it's simply one calculation to determine the volume.

 

Hello Mordred

Thanks for your explanation and sympathy.

 

I do appreciate it from the bottom of my heart.

 

In order to find the distance of a measured object, one has to factor in the redshift. Or luminosity to distance relationship.

That is clear. However, this specific formula set a direct relationship between the redshift and scale factor. In this formula there is no relashenship between the the distance and redshift. We only discuss about that formula. No more, no less.

Unfortunately, there are some issues with regards to the scale factor which are still not fully clear for me.

Please focus only on the Scale factor - no volume, no proper distance formula.

So, would you kindly advice if the following statements about the scale factors are correct or incorrect?

 

 

1. As it is stated:

https://en.wikipedia...tor_(cosmology)

"if at the present time we receive light from a distant object with aredshift of z, then the scale factor at the time the object originally emitted that light is "

You Actually confirm that based on the redshift mesurments we can extract the scale factor.

In that measurement you will need the redshift. From there you determine the scale factor.

Strange also claims that:

 

That is the relation between scale factor and wavelength you asked for.

 

Pefect:

 

So, you both agree that the redshift gives a direct indication of the relation between scale factor and wavelength radiation. Hence, a wavelength radiation with a specific redshift should give us a clear indication about its specific scale factor.

Do you agree?

 

2. Actually, if we could isolate the redshift of a specific wavelength radiation, then we could potentially calculate its relative scale factor.

 

Do you agree?

 

3. Never the less, after all this explanation, I still do not understand how could it be that in one hand it is stated that the scale factor is a direct outcome of the redshift of a specific wavelength radiation, while in the other hand Strange claims that all the wavelength radiation with diffrent redshift verifications has a same scale factor of 1100.

 

 

For some what? It is caused by the relative scale factor between now and when it was emitted. Which is roughly 1,100.

 

Please elaborate

[swansont]

You are doing separate measurements when you find the redshift vs looking at the CMB. The latter is a spectrum, while the former is a specific identifiable wavelength.

 

The redshift you measure depends on the distance to the source.

[Strange]

3. Never the less, after all this explanation, I still do not understand how could it be that in one hand it is stated that the scale factor is a direct outcome of the redshift of a specific wavelength radiation

 

The other way round. The red shift is an outcome of the (difference in) scale factor.

 

while in the other hand Strange claims that all the wavelength radiation with diffrent redshift verifications has a same scale factor of 1100.

 

I don't know where I would have said that. I'm not even sure what you mean. Different redshifts correspond to different scale factors. (But all frequencies at a given distance are red-shifted by the same amount.)

 

2. Actually, if we could isolate the redshift of a specific wavelength radiation, then we could potentially calculate its relative scale factor.

 

Correct. And when looking at stars, this is how the red-shift is measured. By looking at known frequencies and seeing how much they are shifted.

 

Please elaborate

 

You said:

 

Hence, the current CMB is a reflection of different scale factors.

For some, it might be 10 or 50 and for others it might be 100 or 500.

 

I was asking what "some" refers to.

 

There is only one scale factor involved in our observation of the CMB. So what do your 10, 50, 100 and 500 refer to?

[David Levy]

Different redshifts correspond to different scale factors. (But all frequencies at a given distance are red-shifted by the same amount.)

Thanks Strange

 

So we all agree that the based on the redshift we can extract the relative scale factor.

However, I had the impression that 1100 is the maximal scale factor.

Hence, if I understand it correctly, any matter with this scale factor should be located today at the far end of the Universe (45 Million LY x 1100 = 49.5 Billion LY).

 

At that distance we technically can't see that matter, or get the wavelength radiation for that specific matter & scale factor.

Therefore, I have assumed that if we verify the redshift of any wavelength radiation and try to extract its relevant Scale factor by the following formula:

 

"if at the present time we receive light from a distant object with aredshift of z, then the scale factor at the time the object originally emitted that light is "

We should find that the scale factor should be lower than 1100 (as it can't be so far away from us).

Therefore, I have mentioned some lower level of scale factors as 1000, 500, 100 or even 10 (Just as an example):

So what do your 10, 50, 100 and 500 refer to?

 

Is it clear? Do you agree?

 

With regards to the CMB:

The CMB is based on all the wavelength radiation from all directions. Due to different redshift values of this radiation, they might have different scale factors.

 

You have just confirmed it:

 

 

2. Actually, if we could isolate the redshift of a specific wavelength radiation, then we could potentially calculate its relative scale factor.

Do you agree?

 

 

Correct. And when looking at stars, this is how the red-shift is measured. By looking at known frequencies and seeing how much they are shifted.

 

So, why do you calim again that there is only one scale factor for all the wavelength radiations which are intergrated in the CMB?

 

There is only one scale factor involved in our observation of the CMB.

 

Edited January 19, 2016 by David Levy

[Strange]

 

However, I had the impression that 1100 is the maximal scale factor.

 

For light, yes. (Because there is no light from earlier than that.) But if we could detect low-energy neutrinos, for example, then they would be shifted by a larger amount - because they were around earlier.

 

 

The CMB is based on all the wavelength radiation from all directions. Due to different redshift values of this radiation, they might have different scale factors.

 

All of the CMB comes from the same distance and therefore all of it is affected equally.

There is a single red-shift for all the frequencies in the CMB.

All frequencies are shifted equally.

All wavelengths are scaled by the same amount.

The red-shift affects all frequencies by the same amount.

 

So, why do you calim again that there is only one scale factor for all the wavelength radiations which are intergrated in the CMB?

 

Because there is. The radiation is scaled (red-shifted) by 1,100.

 

Why do you claim there isn't?

Edited January 19, 2016 by Strange

[Mordred]

You know you could look at the numbers with the lightcone calculator on my signature. It has redshift, scale factor and various key distances built into it. You can even graph the results. PS it will even show expansion roughly 88 billion years into the future assuming the physics of the universe doesn't change

 

However you might enjoy.

 

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

 

though a more complete article is.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies

[swansont]

 

With regards to the CMB:

The CMB is based on all the wavelength radiation from all directions. Due to different redshift values of this radiation, they might have different scale factors.

 

They have only one redshift. The smaller scale factors apply to objects with mass that emit specific wavelengths, were created later in the universe's timeline, are at different distances and are therefore seeing different magnitudes of expansion.

[MigL]

As swansont has already explained ( but you failed to understand ), a distance/recession red-shift is the relocation of known spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum.

So an absorption or emission line for a specific element that we find in the yellow section of the Sun's spectrum, would be relocated to the red end for a receding star, and the blue end for an approaching star. The same holds true for galaxies and clusters ( unless you think they are made up of something else ).

The CMB shift is the moving of the spectrum itself towards the longer wavelengths ( microwave ).

This lengthening of the wave's timebase is solely due to expansion, more specifically it is proportional to the expansion factor ( approx. 1100 ).

If we use the Sun's plasma as an example ( actually hotter than decoupling temperature ), it emits radiation centered about 600 nm.

If we apply a 'stretch' to that radiation of 1000 we get a cooling to 0.0006m or 0.06 cm. And if I recall correctly the upper end of microwaves are at 0.1 cm.

So 'back of an envelope' numbers do work out

[David Levy]

Thanks Strange

Yes, you are absolutely correct!

The radiation is scaled (red-shifted) by 1,100.

The redshift value of the CMB is 1089 (about 1100).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Redshift_formulae

"The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the Universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.8 billion years ago,^[60] and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.^[61]

This is the most important feature of the CMB.

So, how could it be that it isn't published in all the CMB articles?

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

In that article from Wiki - not even one word about the redshift.

In the last several years I have read few hundreds articles about the CMB - none of them have mentioned this vital info.

Why?

Is it a military secret?

 

I'm in a deep shock about it.

It's a big shame for the science community that they hide this supper important information from the public.

Edited January 20, 2016 by David Levy

[Strange]

This is not a secret.

 

Google reporrts half a million results: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cmb+redshift

Google Scholar has thousands of papers: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=cmb+redshift

Arxiv has so many it won't list them all: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+cmb+redshift/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

 

So, how could it be that it isn't published in all the CMB articles?

For example:

https://en.wikipedia...wave_background

In that article from Wiki - not even one word about the redshift.

 

Yes, there is. For example, it says:

"The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time"

"The intensity of the radiation also corresponds to black-body radiation at 2.726 K because red-shifted black-body radiation is just like black-body radiation at a lower temperature."

"As the universe expands, the CMB photons are redshifted"

"The temperature T_r of the CMB as a function of redshift, z, can be shown to be proportional to the temperature of the CMB as observed in the present day (2.725 K or 0.235 meV)"

"the cosmic microwave background will continue redshifting until it will no longer be detectable"

 

So there is no conspiracy to hide this information.