Background noise?

[Sedna123]

It has been proven by astrollogers that there is a type of background noise that echos throughout space. I think that this noise is ,possibly, the noises emitted from the big bang that are still re-occuring. I would really apprecitate it if you could give me more infomation on the topic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><u>Who says the impossible isn't really impossible?</u></p> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It has been proven by astrollogers that there is a type of background noise that echos throughout space. I think that this noise is ,possibly, the noises emitted from the big bang that are still re-occuring. I would really apprecitate it if you could give me more infomation on the topic. <br />Posted by Sedna123</DIV><br /><br />The term is Astronomers, not astrologers.&nbsp; I believe that you are talking about the background microwave radiation.&nbsp; The easiest way to understand what that is would be to go to google and type in <strong>Background microwave radiation.</strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It has been proven by astrollogers that there is a type of background noise that echos throughout space. I think that this noise is ,possibly, the noises emitted from the big bang that are still re-occuring. I would really apprecitate it if you could give me more infomation on the topic. <br />Posted by Sedna123</DIV><br /><br />Welcome to Space.com.</p><p>Can you specify what kind of background noise you are referring to?</p><p>Otherwise, since you started out with proof by astrologers, this thread will likely be moved to "The Unexplained" forum very quickly. (Edited to correct what I quoted from his post-MW)</p><p>Astrology is not science, so I will give you a short amount of time to explain what you are talking about.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[Sedna123]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Welcome to Space.com.Can you specify what kind of background noise you are referring to?Otherwise, since you started out with proof by astronomers, this thread will likely be moved to "The Unexplained" forum very quickly.Astrology is not science, so I will give you a short amount of time to explain what you are talking about. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />The type of background sound i am talking about is , as i was corrected, is Backgroung radiation sound. Many people&nbsp;think it sounds like a faint hum. Sorry for the misunderstanding. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><u>Who says the impossible isn't really impossible?</u></p> </div>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It has been proven by astrollogers that there is a type of background noise that echos throughout space. I think that this noise is ,possibly, the noises emitted from the big bang that are still re-occuring. I would really apprecitate it if you could give me more infomation on the topic. <br /> Posted by Sedna123</DIV></p><p>"Noise" is a misnomer, if you're talking about the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is what astronomers think is the remnant heat signature of the Big Bang. &nbsp;It's not a sound, it's faint heat.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Sedna123]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Noise" is a misnomer, if you're talking about the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is what astronomers think is the remnant heat signature of the Big Bang. &nbsp;It's not a sound, it's faint heat.&nbsp; <br />Posted by crazyeddie</DIV></p><p>Thanks for that. I was just reading ,on wikipedia ,about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). It first originated from the big bang when hydrogen plasma and radiation was given of from heat sources.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><u>Who says the impossible isn't really impossible?</u></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for that. I was just reading ,on wikipedia ,about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). It first originated from the big bang when hydrogen plasma and radiation was given of from heat sources. <br />Posted by Sedna123</DIV></p><p>You have the basic idea.&nbsp; Perhaps you referred to "noise" because you had seen that term used in conjunction with the CMBR.&nbsp; It can be used correctly in that context.</p><p>"Noise" need not refer to sound.&nbsp; Noise is a term used by primarily by electrical engineers, but also by others, to connote a random element in a signal.&nbsp; For instance the "snow" that you see on a television screen when tuned to a channel devoid of a broadcast signal is noise -- a more or less random signal that.&nbsp; Radio static is also noise, a random signal that interferes with the reception of information-carrying signals.&nbsp; The CMBR is such a signal, a microwave signal that is identical to what would be expected to be emitted from a black body at 2.73 K.</p><p>You can find accessible treatmens of the source and importance of the CMBR in pupular treatments of cosmology, particularly discussions of the Big Bang.&nbsp; </p><p>Books that are highly recommended&nbsp;include <em>A Brief History of Time </em>by Stephen Hawking, <em>The Inflationary Universe </em>by Alan Guth, <em>The Elegant Universe</em> by Brian Greene and <em>The Fabric of the Cosmos</em> also by Brian Greene.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It has been proven by astrollogers that there is a type of background noise that echos throughout space. I think that this noise is ,possibly, the noises emitted from the big bang that are still re-occuring. I would really apprecitate it if you could give me more infomation on the topic. <br /> Posted by Sedna123</DIV></p><p>"Astronomers" call that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. &nbsp; </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>I have read vastly into the theories of the Big bang. I'm not an expert by any means. However I would like for a second&nbsp;take what we know here on Earth about atomic explosions and apply it to the scale of the big bang. Did anyone ever notice when an atomic bomb goes off, it not only vaporizes everything in it's path; but he blast also also travels in two directions&hellip; out as well as inward again. If you put into persepective the size of the explosion the Big Bang would have had to be, can there be something other then simple vaporization at it's origin point? I mean, could this "boom" in the radio waves be caused from the results of an explosion of this magnitude? It would be kind of a concentration of radio frequency at the origion point would it not? After retreating, Atomic explosions here on Earth travel upward and in some cases completly out of the atmosphere such as Russia's bus size bomb.&nbsp;However if a tremedously larger version is set off in space; were does it go besides out... how does an explosion like that react in space? If you think of Atomic explosions, most would think the force would just go in one direction until it's driving energy disapates, however as I explained it doesn't. Mushroom clouds are a visible indication to us of the direction of the retreated force, deep in space could the force for whatever reason have retreated back to one singular location in space... the origion point. I wouldn't mind an experts insight on this.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have the basic idea.&nbsp; Perhaps you referred to "noise" because you had seen that term used in conjunction with the CMBR.&nbsp; It can be used correctly in that context."Noise" need not refer to sound.&nbsp; Noise is a term used by primarily by electrical engineers, but also by others, to connote a random element in a signal.&nbsp; For instance the "snow" that you see on a television screen when tuned to a channel devoid of a broadcast signal is noise -- a more or less random signal that.&nbsp; Radio static is also noise, a random signal that interferes with the reception of information-carrying signals.&nbsp; The CMBR is such a signal, a microwave signal that is identical to what would be expected to be emitted from a black body at 2.73 K.You can find accessible treatmens of the source and importance of the CMBR in pupular treatments of cosmology, particularly discussions of the Big Bang.&nbsp; Books that are highly recommended&nbsp;include A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene and The Fabric of the Cosmos also by Brian Greene.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have read vastly into the theories of the Big bang. I'm not an expert by any means. However I would like for a second&nbsp;take what we know here on Earth about atomic explosions and apply it to the scale of the big bang. Did anyone ever notice when an atomic bomb goes off, it not only vaporizes everything in it's path; but he blast also also travels in two directions&hellip; out as well as inward again. If you put into persepective the size of the explosion the Big Bang would have had to be, can there be something other then simple vaporization at it's origin point? I mean, could this "boom" in the radio waves be caused from the results of an explosion of this magnitude? It would be kind of a concentration of radio frequency at the origion point would it not? After retreating, Atomic explosions here on Earth travel upward and in some cases completly out of the atmosphere such as Russia's bus size bomb.&nbsp;However if a tremedously larger version is set off in space; were does it go besides out... how does an explosion like that react in space? If you think of Atomic explosions, most would think the force would just go in one direction until it's driving energy disapates, however as I explained it doesn't. Mushroom clouds are a visible indication to us of the direction of the retreated force, deep in space could the force for whatever reason have retreated back to one singular location in space... the origion point. I wouldn't mind an experts insight on this.&nbsp; <br />Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>Lots to address here. First, the Big Bang, as theorized, is not an explosion "in" space, rather is an expansion of space itself. So it is not comparable to an atomic blast.</p><p>As far as an atomic blast on the ground, the air rushing in after the initial blast is caused by the superheated air at the blast point rising rapidly,leaving low pressure at the ground. The surrounding air rushes in to fill that. That rising superheated air causes the mushroom cloud would only occur within the atmosphere.</p><p>In space, such an explosion (unless directed by the structure of the bomb itself, which I think would be very limited) will expand as a sphere in all directions until acted on by an outside force, such as the gravitation of a nearby objects, outflow from a nearby star, etc.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>Your absolutely right about the air pressure MeteorWayne; as well the "expansion" of space. I might have worded that wrong. As I said, I am no expert; but always had some theories I was somewhat reluctant to share. You know the kind that would put your name at the top of a witch hunt list, lol.</p><p>As you pointed out, the air rushes back inward after the inital blast caused by the superheated air at the blast point rising rapidly. If we apply this idea to the expansion of space, the blast or force at the starting point of the big bang may have also been so explosive causing a super heated void if you will in space/time&nbsp;at that point that would dwarf any nebulea, star, etc... that we see today. As the expansion took place, the inital force or blast may have retracted in much the same way; however the heavier elements, gases, etc.. would continue to expand as they may have been forced out beyond the retraction point; if you know what I mean. The retracted blast wouldn't need to be acted upon by an outside force to retract in this sense, but rather retracting to fill the intial void.</p><p>In some sense or another purhaps it was here between the retraction point and the continuous expansion point (an event horizon purhaps if you'd want to call it that) that Dark energy in a higher concentration at the time would have developed; and rapidly assisted the expansion of gases & elements. Anything before this point would have fallen back into the intial void.&nbsp;This would account for dark&nbsp;energy remnants within galaxies, etc... because it expanded along with the gases and elements that formed everything we see today. The retracted blast would then of course contain a lot of expected radio frequency "noise", along with an abundance of other radiation that we at this point would not be able to detect as it is beyond the distance light has traveled. Am I batting way out in left field on this one? "Gets ready for the lashing"</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your absolutely right about the air pressure MeteorWayne; as well the "expansion" of space. I might have worded that wrong. As I said, I am no expert; but always had some theories I was somewhat reluctant to share. You know the kind that would put your name at the top of a witch hunt list, lol.As you pointed out, the air rushes back inward after the inital blast caused by the superheated air at the blast point rising rapidly. If we apply this idea to the expansion of space, the blast or force at the starting point of the big bang may have also been so explosive causing a super heated void if you will in space/time&nbsp;at that point that would dwarf any nebulea, star, etc... that we see today. As the expansion took place, the inital force or blast may have retracted in much the same way; however the heavier elements, gases, etc.. would continue to expand as they may have been forced out beyond the retraction point; if you know what I mean. The retracted blast wouldn't need to be acted upon by an outside force to retract in this sense, but rather retracting to fill the intial void.In some sense or another purhaps it was here between the retraction point and the continuous expansion point (an event horizon purhaps if you'd want to call it that) that Dark energy in a higher concentration at the time would have developed; and rapidly assisted the expansion of gases & elements. Anything before this point would have fallen back into the intial void.&nbsp;This would account for dark&nbsp;energy remnants within galaxies, etc... because it expanded along with the gases and elements that formed everything we see today. The retracted blast would then of course contain a lot of expected radio frequency "noise", along with an abundance of other radiation that we at this point would not be able to detect as it is beyond the distance light has traveled. Am I batting way out in left field on this one? "Gets ready for the lashing" <br />Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV><br /><br />It's hard to explain. I think you need to learn a bit more about the Big Bang theory itself. There was no "void" in the usual sense. There wasn't an explosion, just space began expanding (pretty much out of knowhere, though it is unclear of the mechanism)</p><p>The possible explanationd for dark energy are too numerous and too speculative to go into. There are hypothesis, but nothing far along to be called a theory yet.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>That's the kind of theory I was getting at. No one really knows what happened at the initial start of the expansion of the universe. Eienstein even believed something doesn't form out of nothing. I read one article that suggested that the expansion of the universe took place at a many times the speed of light; yet with all other theories I read would make anything moving faster then the speed of light impossible. There are numerous sites and books I read that suggest the universe had to have formed relatively quickly for one reason or another. It just sounds like everything looks like an explosion to me. A massive reaction to god knows what. But are you suggesting the universe first expanded slowly and gradually sped up? I'm thinking along the lines of a more violent beginning. Here's why MeteorWayne. If the universes expansion was more "calm"... a gradual expansion, wouldn't the heavier elements form and remain closer to the origin of the expansion then spread throughout the universe? and the lighter elements at the outer edges? Because in a calm expansion the gas clouds forming during expansion I would have to say would have a greater density closer to the origin, and a lighter density in our universes outer regions. But what we see is at various depths in the universe the gas clouds tend to be of similiar densities, and all are dense enough to form stars and other stellar gases evenly throughout various galaxies & nebulea. These gas clouds, many stellar objects, etc... are all moving at great speeds. Even the density of the universe itself is uneven, as other articles I have read suggest. This would be quite expected in a universe with a violent beginning. </p><p>Of course the theories of dark matter & dark energy are very sketchy to say the least, I agree. So it is hard to include that as well. I was merely suggesting an explanation to how it would have been distributed "IF" it exists... and how it could have developed along with the rest of the universe.</p><p>I've also gone astray a bit, lol. But I believe I needed to explain so that anyone&nbsp;reading this would have a clear understanding to what I was trying to say.What are your thoughts?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>