Big Bang radiation not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

enigma10

Guest
guess one could say the big bangs going to be a big poof.<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /> Or they could call it one of many big bangs now. Multi-bangs?<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>
 
A

alkalin

Guest
No kidding. I have posted numerous times of the source of CMB, but nobody was interested.<br /><br />Alkalin<br />
 
D

docm

Guest
So much for COBE etc. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

doubletruncation

Guest
It is a little premature, I think, to conclude that the cosmological interpretation of the CMB is incorrect. There are possible explanations for the observed defficiency in the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect. The original authors of the paper that pointed out the defficiency have offered a possible explanation that does not affect cosmology: a large number of cosmic rays in the intercluster medium would emit synchrotron radiation that would counteract the expected shadowing. This would also offer a possible explanation for the excess of soft-xrays from the center of some of these clusters. See for example:<br />http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0607304 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

alkalin

Guest
If the basic premise was originally wrong that Doppler shift due to expansion is the cause of the general red shift seen in the distant universe, then we should see this result every time big bang predicts anything.<br /><br />Big Bang notions continue to fail to predict anything. But that is ignored by those promoting it. It’s like just do not rock the boat for awhile then any of this data can be swept under the rug quietly and cover this situation with new math that does not work any better than the older math did.<br /><br />Who was it that said science progresses by funerals?<br />
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
We know nothing about the universe. There are many unknown 'objects' and unknown natural processes currently exist in this universe. But claiming the only 'source' of CMB is the Big Bang, to me, is kind of over ambitious. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
N

nevyn

Guest
Are there any good reasons why the CMB could not come from the earth itself? Radiated as heat from a cooling body. It would be interesting to see the results of the WMAP experiment (or an updated version of) conducted in an orbit of mars which has cooled down a lot more than earth has. Maybe even do one on venus aswell to get the other end of the spectrum.
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
Given the isotropic nature of CMB, it is simply not possible it is radiating from a local source. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
S

search

Guest
Early to say. <br />It all started in 2005<br /><br />http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v628n2/19153/brief/19153.abstract.html<br /><br />Richard Lieu himself did not challenge the Big Bang theory. <br />He simply said we do not understand the data and suggested that it may be necessary to review the calculations of important parameters as the Hubble rate of expansion.<br /><br />Here is another view on its comments and notice the more prudent journalistic approach. They will wait until some data becames available in 2007:<br /><br />http://www.earthsky.com/shows/astrophysics.php?date=20051111<br /><br />Some websites are not presenting scientifical articles but a journalistic ones to which we must be very carefull to respond to. Journalists tend to like the spectecular emotive challenge instead of the patiente rational testing of science. Do not let yourselfs be mislead.<br /><br />Allways look to the authors and to the content and try to see if they are showing a strong tendency to a specific idea. Those are the worst.<br />
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
No, I'm saying existence of CMB neither proves nor disproves Big Bang. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
S

search

Guest
Not so fast<br /><br />Regardeless of the what was said above CMB contributes in a great degree to keeping the Big Bang theory as one of the strongest theories about the beginning of the universe. It matches too well. But do see the note of discord in the middle of the article below.<br /><br />Here is a very interesting site (a must read):<br />http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/Papers/HuWhi04.pdf
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
Thanks. Read the article 'mostly'. My main objection to Big bang is it doesn't explain where did the initial 'photons' , 'gas', 'heat' come from. <br /><br />Singularity is not an answer, it's a cover up. There are oo many variables and too many unknowns. It's too early to accept anything as the final truth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
H

harmonicaman

Guest
<i>"My main objection to Big bang is it doesn't explain where did the initial 'photons' , 'gas', 'heat' come from."</i><br /><br />Hmmm... An easy way to overcome the conceptual conundrum of where the singularity originally came from is to visualize the universe as having always existed. <br /><br />Since time didn't exist before the big bang event, it is impossible to have a valid reference point for before the singularity occurred -- the universe has been here forever! Therefore, the whole question of "Where did it come from" is a null concept!<br /><br /><i>"Singularity is not an answer..."</i><br /><br />The whole Theory of Relativity is built around the premise that the universe is space expanding within a singularity. That's why every single point in the universe sees itself as being the point located at the very center of the universe!<br /><br />And related to this singularity viewpoint; every point in the universe also observes itself to be the oldest and most distant from the point of origin. We're also located on the very "edge" of the universe; it's right in front of our nose at "c" (the speed of light); it is right there but we can never reach it... <br /><br />The rules of the singularity prevail even as space and time expands within our universe.
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
<i>built around the premise that the universe is space expanding within a singularity. That's why every single point in the universe sees itself as being the point located at the very center of the universe!<br /><br />And related to this singularity viewpoint; every point in the universe also observes itself to be the oldest and most distant from the point of origin. </i><br /><br />They sound like sentences taken from a surrealist Jean-paul Sartre's novel.<br /><br />Many scientists forget the most powerful instrument we use in scientific research is 'our eyes'. Which separates reality from imagination. Our visual system eliminates 'infinity' and 'singularity'. We cant travel to the far reaches of the universe, but we can imagine (as opposed to 'see') about it any way we like. That's why I dont want to commit to anything at this level of our knowledge.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
A

alkalin

Guest
I agree to some extent with those remarks.<br /><br />The creation of the universe is a philosophical issue, yet some science minded individuals attempt to bring in certain science ideas for support. There is no lab test we now do to somehow verify how the universe was created. So to me this means the science is flakey at best. We need emphasis on philosophy for the time being.<br /><br />There are certain matters of real science that should always be considered in regard to space, yet are not final in any way. Just because someone has expressed some math on these issues does not mean we comprehend any of the basic reasons why. Some examples:<br />The nature of ‘space’.<br />The nature of time.<br />The nature of matter.<br />The nature of the photon. <br />Black body radiation.<br />Density of matter in ‘empty space’.<br />Correlation of light.<br />Scatter of light.<br />Absorption of light.<br /><br />On black body radiation. Any particle of matter that has a certain temperature will retransmit energy it received such as a photon from a star, AT THE TEMPERATURE THE MATTER IS AT. Studies in physics labs well established this over the years and result in several laws such as Kirchhoff and Wien. Cosmologists try to deny this phenomenon in space in various ways but they are incorrect. In space, temperature is obviously close to 0 K. If there is not found a so-called shadow, then that further indicates to me that most of CMB is coming from black body radiation, which was adequately predicted to be coming from the stars everywhere before it was measured. A value of 2.7 is between one and five and fits nicely, don’t you think. It was the cosmologists on that one that missed the boat, where they are still swimming to stay afloat.<br />
 
N

nevyn

Guest
I don't see how being isotropic negates a local source.<br /><br />What we do know about CMB is that it was picked up by readio telescopes no matter which way they pointed. It was found to be isotropic when looked at on earth. When we launched satelites to measure it in space, we found slight variations in the measurements. Doesn't this remind you of what light does? We look at stars on earth and they sparkle because they are going through the atmosphere before we measure them. When we go into space and look at them, they do not sparkle anymore because we have removed the cause of the scattering.<br /><br />Seems to me that we are seeing the same process, but backwards, when measureing the CMB. The earth is an emitter after all.
 
S

search

Guest
"The very early universe, which is still poorly understood, was the split second in which the universe was so hot that particles had energies higher than those currently accessible in particle accelerators on Earth. Therefore, while the basic features of this epoch have been worked out in the big bang theory, the details are largely based on educated guesses."<br /><br />Before the Big Bang the "laws of physics" are no longer applicable and they are one of the three principles of the Big Bang Theory. <br /><br />There is no final thruth. Such a statement would be denying science.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Well, as you point out, the CMBR is Anisotropic, and the devil's in those fluctuations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
Yevaud...those little fluctuations are inhomogeneous behavior, not anisotropic. Isotropic is you expect to see the same thin in every direction. Homogenous is that the features become smooth and regular on a certain scale.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anyway, Isotropic radiation is not used as an arguement against a local source (it is used to support the idea of no specific universal center). The near perfect homogeneity of the the CMBR is what denies the ability of individual local sources to create the radiation we observe.<br /><br />If the CMBR was created by a plethora of individual objects, we'd see a complicated black body spectrum (basically all the objects in the region overlapping) and hot spots far in excess of what WMAP sees. Remember, the fluctuations on those images is on the order of 1/100,000 of a degree from the median value.<br /><br />What we see is a simple, practically ideal blackbody curve, and incredibly small fluctuations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
I see from the following posts what you were getting at. Although scale wasn't mentioned, which is why I'd said Anisotropy. The other participants appear to have been discussing minor fluctuations in the CMBR along whatever axis' one looked at. That makes it germaine to the discussion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
S

search

Guest
CMBR is isotropic to ~1/100,000. The big bang predictions are "a perfect black body spectrum" and "the anisotropies" in the CMB. The WMAP has precisely measured these anisotropies over the whole sky down to angular scales of 0.2 degrees. <br /><br />First Year Results<br />Some Theories Win, Some Lose.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />We use our new detailed picture to ask:"What happened earlier to make this picture happen?" We can now begin to probe the earliest moments of the universe: Inflation (the rapid expansion of the universe a fraction of a second after its birth.). We have ruled out a textbook example of a particular inflation model. But others will be supported with this new evidence.<br /><br />Starting from the time of our picture we can ask: "What must have happened later?"<br />We have compared and combined the new WMAP data with other diverse cosmic measurements (galaxy clustering, Lyman-alpha cloud clustering, supernovae, etc.), and we have found a new unified understanding of the universe:<br /><br />http://www.imagerecon.com/ayahil/06SP_AST101/Latest%20WMAP%20Results.ppt<br /><br />http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_limits.html<br />Universe is 13.7 billion years old, with a margin of error of close to 1%.<br />When the First stars ignited after the Big Bang.<br />Light in the WMAP picture is from 379,000 years after the Big Bang.<br />Content of the Universe:<br />4% Atoms, 23% Cold Dark Matter, 73% Dark Energy.<br />The data places new constraints on the Dark Energy. It seems more like a "cosmological constant" than a negative-pressure energy field called "quintessence". But quintessence is not ruled out.<br />Fast moving neutrinos do not play any major role in the evolution of structure in the universe. They would have prevented the early clumping of gas in the universe, delaying the emergence of the
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">Homogenous is that the features become smooth and regular on a certain scale.</font><br /><br />Kinda of like surface of an orange, or of the waves in a calm ocean. Yet larger things may show irregularities, such as the swells of the ocean, or the asymmetry of most oranges.
 
S

Saiph

Guest
Original, and quite a few subsequent BB predictions had a smooth blackbody curve. However, one has to consider the precision of those predictions. Only recently have models and techniques arose that can give precise enough predictions to even approach the 1/100,000th fluctuations. You can't hold it against a theory if the first general attempts, and even latter more refined attempts, aren't exactly on the dot.<br /><br />The fact that BB theory <i>can</i> address the 1/100,000 fluctuations at all, but still give us the smooth curve predicted if you don't go over it with such a fine toothed comb, is to be expected of any successful theory.<br /><br /><br />For instance, nobody is going around ranting that Newtons laws don't work at all, they cannot apply to anything, just because they produce the wrong answer at relativistic velocities.<br /><br />Asking for the first prediction to be spot on absolutely correct is asking for the impossible. I certainly don't reciprocate those standards when I chat with people about views I'm skeptical about. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY