New Cosmic Background Radiation Found

kg · Jan 12, 2009

<p>http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/37390429.html</p><p>I believe the cosmic microwave background radiation was predicted before it was detected.  Is this new radiation a surprise? </p>

DrRocket · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/37390429.htmlI believe the cosmic microwave background radiation was predicted before it was detected.  Is this new radiation a surprise?  <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>It does seem to be a surprise.  But it is probably best to wait a while before getting too excited.</p><p>Two things need to happen.  First the experimentalists need time to review the measurement technique and to independently replicate the measurements.  Second the theorists need time to look at the data and attempt to find an explanation within the limits imposed by current physics and cosmology.</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BoJangles · Jan 13, 2009

<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Before reading any further please see my disclaimer. </font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Note: This answer is not intended as troll, I’m not trying to push my lack of knowledge in this area onto anyone or promoting rouge theories.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">---</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">From my understanding CMB was predicted by more than 1 theory and more than 1 person (though really only 1 is accepted as being right, the big bang). </font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">The further light travels the more its shifted; it gets shifted so much it falls out of the visible light into the redder part of the spectrum. The most distance galaxies we see are basically just red blurs; this is because we don’t yet have the telescope ability to look reliably further into the red.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">With the addition of some of the new up and coming orbital telescopes, we should be able to peer back into even more shifted parts of the spectrum to see what’s going on. If you keep playing this game, we shift into ultraviolet, microwaves, and radio waves. I'm not sure where this stops, as I'm not sure what we call massively low frequency radio waves, or how long (in theory) they can get.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">To my <strong>undereducated speculative </strong>opinion, it maybe the radio background is just an extension of the CMB phenomena; though ill let someone with a lot more experience and knowledge learn us, and clarify this and the rest of the above.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">---</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">These are subsequent questions for the relevant gurus<span>  </span><span> </span>:-</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Doesn’t the CMB/Radio background + red shift do some great yards at nullifying a critical part of <span>Olbers' paradox, namely (that</span><span> the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the supposition of an <strong>infinite</strong> and eternal static universe) In particular, the infinite universe ? <span> </span></span></font></font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><span><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Sure we can’t see our universe filled with visible light; however we can definitely see a universe filled with lots of other types of light ( presumably much older ), is there anything that stops this radio background from being older than the CMB?.</font></font></span></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal">---</p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal">Gurus, be gentle with me, i'm only learning too 

</p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

BoJangles · Jan 13, 2009

Sorry ignore the first part, drRocket knows best <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

michaelmozina · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/37390429.htmlI believe the cosmic microwave background radiation was predicted before it was detected.  Is this new radiation a surprise?  <br /> Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Listening to the early universe just got harder. A team led by Alan Kogut of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., today announced the discovery of cosmic radio noise that booms <strong>six times louder than expected</strong>.</DIV></p><p>The type of radiation was not a surprise, but the amount of radiation was evidently 6 times greater than "predicted" by current theory. </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>

michaelmozina · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Before reading any further please see my disclaimer. Note: This answer is not intended as troll, I’m not trying to push my lack of knowledge in this area onto anyone or promoting rouge theories.---From my understanding CME was predicted by more than 1 theory and more than 1 person (though really only 1 is accepted as being right, the big bang). <br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p>You're absolutely right. </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cmbr#History</p><p>FYI, your "CME" comment through me for a loop.  I think you mean CMB.  A CME usually refers to a coronal mass ejection.

</p><p>Radio waves occur in a different part of the EM spectum from the CMB radiation which is found in the microwave range. </p><p> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum</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>

BoJangles · Jan 13, 2009

Oops <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

derekmcd · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The type of radiation was not a surprise, but the amount of radiation was evidently 6 times greater than "predicted" by current theory. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Could you point me to the current theory that makes this specific prediction you are referring to.  And why do you have predicted in quotes... what are you implying?  </p><p> I see this simply as a new and unexpected observation (which is not uncommon as our technology gets better) that requires resolution that will ultimately be incorported into existing theories and models.  This is, of course, dependent on confirmation of the data. </p> <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>

MeteorWayne · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Could you point me to the current theory that makes this specific prediction you are referring to.  And why do you have predicted in quotes... what are you implying?   I see this simply as a new and unexpected observation (which is not uncommon as our technology gets better) that requires resolution that will ultimately be incorported into existing theories and models.  This is, of course, dependent on confirmation of the data. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />That's not "exactly" what they said...it was that the galactic density would imply a signal 6 times smaller so whatever the source is, it is unknown.</p><p>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2009/arcade_balloon.html</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>

Mee_n_Mac · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's not "exactly" what they said...it was that the galactic density would imply a signal 6 times smaller so whatever the source is, it is unknown.http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2009/arcade_balloon.html <br />Posted by <strong>MeteorWayne</strong></DIV><br /><br />To add to what MW said, the following is from the original link given above ...</p><p>"<em>But to the surprise of everyone, ARCADE found an excess hiss of lower-frequency radio waves, peaking in the 3 and 8 GHz detectors. Even after subtracting for Milky Way and other known sources, the hiss remained. It appeared throughout the big region of sky (7% of the entire celestial sphere) surveyed during the 2.5-hour part of the flight that ARCADE took data. Overall, the radio noise is six times louder than the combined radio emission from all known radio sources."</em><br /><br />"<em>We really don't know what it is, but it's not the combined emission of radio galaxies in the universe, there simply aren't enough of them," says team member Michael Seiffert (NASA/ Jet Propulsion Laboratory). "You start out on a path to measure something — in this case, the heat from the very first stars — but run into something else entirely, something unexplained."<br /><br />Given that these results were just announced, theorists haven't had much time to digest the information. So for now, there are no convincing explanations for this excess radio hiss. But the team is confident that the detection is real, especially because the team has found confirmation of the signal in previous experiments.<br /><br />"If the result holds up, it is quite interesting," says cosmologist Gary Hinshaw (NASA/Goddard), who is not a member of the ARCADE team. "It either means that radio galaxies, or some class of radio galaxies, have different properties than were previously thought, or perhaps there is some other, more exotic mechanism for producing radio emission in the universe."</em></p><p>So I'm a bit confused.  Do we have excess noise in the 3 and 8 Ghz bands (yes) and is it this which is 6x the expected value (meaning the noise measured in the other bands was as expected) or is the sum of the bands measured 6x the expected value ?  Seems there a 2 "finds" here, more noise than expected and a spectral shift that wasn't expected.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

derekmcd · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Before reading any further please see my disclaimer. Note: This answer is not intended as troll, I’m not trying to push my lack of knowledge in this area onto anyone or promoting rouge theories.---From my understanding CMB was predicted by more than 1 theory and more than 1 person (though really only 1 is accepted as being right, the big bang).</DIV></p><p>I'm not sure how many different theories predicted a CMB.  However, the Big Bang theory, as it developed over time, predicted there should be some type of background radiation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The further light travels the more its shifted; it gets shifted so much it falls out of the visible light into the redder part of the spectrum. The most distance galaxies we see are basically just red blurs; this is because we don’t yet have the telescope ability to look reliably further into the red.</DIV></p><p>Not exactly.  Redshift can occur throughout the entire electromagnetic spectrum.  It's another one of those slightly misleading terms used in science.  Originally, and most obviously, redshift was detected using visible light observatories.  Within the visible spectrum (as you might view through a prism or rainbow), higher energy waves are seen in blue as they have shorter wavelength and higher frequency.  The lower part of the visible spectrum is seen in red as they have longer wavelengths and lower frequencies.  As technology developed such that we could view object in ultraviolet, infrared, xray, etc. the name just stuck.  X-rays that are blueshifted are actually moving away from the blue spectrum of visible light.  Technically, X-rays that are blushifted are moving away from both the red and blue part of the visible spectrum. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With the addition of some of the new up and coming orbital telescopes, we should be able to peer back into even more shifted parts of the spectrum to see what’s going on.</DIV></p><p>Many new observatories are actually geared towards very specific parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.  It really doesn't have anything to do with redshift other than determining what the wavelengths should be and the actual wavelength observed.  This is a technique that is useful is determining cosmological distance. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you keep playing this game, we shift into ultraviolet, microwaves, and radio waves. I'm not sure where this stops, as I'm not sure what we call massively low frequency radio waves, or how long (in theory) they can get.</DIV></p><p>We've had this debate before.  Theoretically, the longest wavelength could be the length of the Universe while the shortest wavelength could be infinitesimally short.  Now, what could produce these wavelengths is beyond me. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To my undereducated speculative opinion, it maybe the radio background is just an extension of the CMB phenomena; though ill let someone with a lot more experience and knowledge learn us, and clarify this and the rest of the above.</DIV></p><p>As has been noted, the CMB is very specific to microwave radiation created by a very specific process.  These radiowaves are unrelated.  However, one can not discount these radiowaves by also have been born from a similar process, but that would be pure speculation on my part.  I'll leave that to the experts. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>---These are subsequent questions for the relevant gurus   :-Doesn’t the CMB/Radio background + red shift do some great yards at nullifying a critical part of Olbers' paradox, namely (that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the supposition of an infinite and eternal static universe) In particular, the infinite universe ?  Sure we can’t see our universe filled with visible light; however we can definitely see a universe filled with lots of other types of light ( presumably much older ), is there anything that stops this radio background from being older than the CMB?.---Gurus, be gentle with me, i'm only learning too 

  <br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p>Well, the CMB supports an expanding universe.  In a static, infinite universe, all the available electromagnetic radiation (including light) would have had an infinite amount of time to reach the earth.  It's a pretty tough paradox to resolve for static universe models.</p><p>As for the radiowaves being older than the CMB?  That's would be a tough claim to support.  The only type of radiation that is predicted by the BBT that would be prior to the recombination era is the neutrino background radiation that may have occured some 2 seconds into the evolution of the universe.  However, detecting those little buggars would be quite the daunting task. </p> <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>

kg · Jan 13, 2009

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>....As has been noted, the CMB is very specific to microwave radiation created by a very specific process.  These radiowaves are unrelated.  However, one can not discount these radiowaves by also have been born from a similar process, but that would be pure speculation on my part.  I'll leave that to the experts..... Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />Is calling this a "New Cosmic Background Radiation" a bit premature?  If this signal really exists but turned out to be somehow coming from say the milky way or even our own solar system would you still call it background radiation?    

tanstaafl76 · Jan 13, 2009

<p>And if it's this "loud" then how in the heck haven't we detected it before?  Surely they can verify this with some other instrument?  Otherwise it seems like it would be difficult to rule out malfunction of the detector. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is calling this a "New Cosmic Background Radiation" a bit premature?  If this signal really exists but turned out to be somehow coming from say the milky way or even our own solar system would you still call it background radiation?     <br /> Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>Most definitely premature.  The papers are currently under peer review and will be thoroughly dissected considering the journal they submitted their finding to.  I read one of the papers a few days ago and one of their conclusion was that it could be from extragalactic non-thermal active galactic nucleii (AGN).  However, this seems like a contradiction to what the article states.  I trust the paper more than the article, but only time will tell.  The peer review process can take several months.</p><p>If it found to be a local phenomena, then it definitely would not be considered background radiation.  However, the paper was quite clear in removing any local consideration and they also had complete faith in their instruments functioning properly. </p> <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>

derekmcd · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's not "exactly" what they said...it was that the galactic density would imply a signal 6 times smaller so whatever the source is, it is unknown.http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2009/arcade_balloon.html <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>So basically, Michael's statement is without substance and with the use of quotes around "predicted" it seems an attempt at discrediting whatever theory he's referring to.  </p><p>I just wanted it to be clear to anyone reading this thread that these findings are not in conflict with any predictions made by any theory. </p> <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>

DrRocket · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Before reading any further please see my disclaimer. Note: This answer is not intended as troll, I’m not trying to push my lack of knowledge in this area onto anyone or promoting rouge theories.---From my understanding CMB was predicted by more than 1 theory and more than 1 person (though really only 1 is accepted as being right, the big bang). The further light travels the more its shifted; it gets shifted so much it falls out of the visible light into the redder part of the spectrum. The most distance galaxies we see are basically just red blurs; this is because we don’t yet have the telescope ability to look reliably further into the red.With the addition of some of the new up and coming orbital telescopes, we should be able to peer back into even more shifted parts of the spectrum to see what’s going on. If you keep playing this game, we shift into ultraviolet, microwaves, and radio waves. I'm not sure where this stops, as I'm not sure what we call massively low frequency radio waves, or how long (in theory) they can get.</DIV></p><p>A couple of points.  First it is not distance per se that causes redshift but rather it is recessional velocity and the expansion of spacetime during the time that light travels.  The fact that more distant galaxies exhibit higher redshift is because their recessional velocity is higher.  That is because they are farther away.</p><p>Think about marking three dots on a rubber band.  Now stretch the rubber band at, say, a constant rate.  The rubber band lengthens with constrant strain (deformation per unit length) and the two end dots separate from each other at greater speed than the middle one separates from either end.</p><p>The point is not to confuse redshift due to expansion of space with "tired light" theories.  The former is supported by physics.  The latter has been debunked many many times.</p><p> One other minor nitpick is that ultraviolet is actuall short wavelength and higher energy than the other wavelength categories -- ultraviolet is shorter wavelength than visible light while all of the others are longer.</p><p> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To my undereducated speculative opinion, it maybe the radio background is just an extension of the CMB phenomena; though ill let someone with a lot more experience and knowledge learn us, and clarify this and the rest of the above.---These are subsequent questions for the relevant gurus   :-Doesn’t the CMB/Radio background + red shift do some great yards at nullifying a critical part of Olbers' paradox, namely (that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the supposition of an infinite and eternal static universe)</DIV> </p><p>Yes the red shift results in less energy per unit area being received from distant stars and is a key element in the resolution of Olbers Paradox.   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In particular, the infinite universe ?  Sure we can’t see our universe filled with visible light; however we can definitely see a universe filled with lots of other types of light ( presumably much older ), is there anything that stops this radio background from being older than the CMB?.---Gurus, be gentle with me, i'm only learning too 

  <br />Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p>The CMB started out as visible light.  If there were no redshift the CMB would manifest itself as blinding white light, like looking at the sun, and that is Olbers Paradox in a nutshell. Basically we cannot receive any light older than the CMB which comes from the "surface of last scattering".  So, unless something is badly amiss with our cosmological models this new radiation is not older.  But it  could be as old. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A couple of points.  First it is not distance per se that causes redshift but rather it is recessional velocity and the expansion of spacetime during the time that light travels.  The fact that more distant galaxies exhibit higher redshift is because their recessional velocity is higher.  That is because they are farther away.</DIV></p><p>Thanks for addressing that.  I had intended to in my post above in connection with my description of x-ray blueshifting away from the blue end of the visible spectrum.  However, my original wording was rather convoluted and I had to spend a few extra minutes trying to rewrite to make sense.   It, simply, slipped my mind.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The CMB started out as visible light.  If there were no redshift the CMB would manifest itself as blinding white light, like looking at the sun, and that is Olbers Paradox in a nutshell. Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I don't think it would be a blinding white light at 3000K.  Even the black body radiation of the Sun at 6000K is only yellow.  Regardless... still a good analogy with Olber's paradox.  Never really looked at it from that perspective.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body </p> <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>

BoJangles · Jan 13, 2009

<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Hi derekmcd thanks for your clarification it’s always appreciated. Though sometimes my lack of, and misrepresentation of, appropriate and standardised terminologies gets me into trouble.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Just for the record, I am a Standard Model`ist, in most respects.</font></p><ul><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><em><font face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%">Redshift can occur throughout the entire electromagnetic spectrum</span></font></em></div></li></ul><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"> </p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Yup I'm all good with this. Certain process can cause EM at many parts in the EM spectrum and all these can be shifted either way depending on the circumstances.</font></p><ul><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><em><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri">Many new observatories are actually geared towards very specific parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.  It really doesn't have anything to do with redshift other than determining what the wavelengths should be and the actual wavelength observed</font></span></em></div></li></ul><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"> </p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Hrm this is interesting, as I thought the reason we can tell something is so far away is because of red-shift, i.e. using the Lyman Edge, and filters that are sensitive to higher wave lengths we can in theory look back further in time (due to red-shift ). In fact, with the Hubble addition of the Wide Field Camera 3 near infrared red channel in the future, theoretical galaxies with red-shifts of 5 – 20 could be viewed ( if they did indeed exist). </font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">i.e. Typical “B” filter dropouts happen at about a red-shift of 3.5 - 4.7, “V” Dropouts happen at 4.6 – 5.5 Red-shifts, “I” Dropouts happen at greater than red-shifts of 5.7, if we follow this, there is no reason why light couldn’t be red-shifted way out past the Z Dropouts and Hubble and co just can’t see them. On saying this, I note there are telescopes that can view high wave length parts of the EM spectrum, but they are limited fuzzy and low res (from my understanding).</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">So my point was more that, to look back further into the past, we have to take red-shifting into account and look with higher wave length filters, because of the B, V ,I and even Z band dropouts. More so, if we get better filters and telescopes in orbit, we can start looking back towards the start of the show.</font></p><ul><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><em><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri">Many new observatories are actually geared towards very specific parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.  It really doesn't have anything to do with redshift other than determining what the wavelengths should be and the actual wavelength observed</font></span></em></div></li></ul><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"> </p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Yup I'm good with this as well, though more specifically, to really see what’s out there, we need to look at higher wave lengths which is caused by redshift ( in my understanding ). <span> </span>IE hubble deep field can’t see past “z” dropouts, they just wouldn’t show up.</font></p><ul><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><em><font face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%">We've had this debate before.  Theoretically, the longest wavelength could be the length of the Universe while the shortest wavelength could be infinitesimally short.  Now, what could produce these wavelengths is beyond me.</span></font></em></div></li></ul><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"> </p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">My point here was that, due to red-shift, there seems no theoretical limit of how large these waves can get. So if something was shining brightly 140 billion light years away, these may <span> </span>well below microwaves and the CMB (I think)</font></p><ul><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri"><em>As has been noted, the CMB is very specific to microwave radiation created by a very specific process.  These radio waves are unrelated.  However, one cannot discount these radio waves by also have been born from a similar process, but that would be pure speculation on my part.  I'll leave that to the experts.</em></font></span></div></li></ul><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font> <p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">I'm good with that too, the big bang was hot, hot things glow, and 3000 degrees Kelvin glows with powerful deep orange light, we don’t see this in the sky however, its black, not orange. Though it just so happens if we were sensitive to microwaves, we would see a lit sky with about the same amount of photons come from the CMB as the moon.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">More importantly, since Redshift has acted on the thermal spectrum of the big bang, it has now been stretched roughly 1000 times in to millimetre wave lengths and hence we see the uniform temperature of around 3k. So why stop there, radio waves seem like they would have no trouble travelling through the cosmic primordial fog of sub atomic particles (well at least I presume).</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Now relating this back to the original post, my wildly speculative unsubstantiated additive, is that a uniform radio background ( if one does exist, at whatever wave length), may even be older than the CMB itself. It’s fun to push outside the square, no harm or thread disruption was intended.</font></p><ul><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><em><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif'">Well, the CMB supports an expanding universe.  In a static, infinite universe, all the available electromagnetic radiation (including light) would have had an infinite amount of time to reach the earth.  It's a pretty tough paradox to resolve for static universe models.</span></em></div></li></ul><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"> </p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Now this is indeed interesting and I maybe zeroing on my confusion; I once read “the universe CANNOT be <strong>infinite</strong>, because we don’t see light in every corner of the sky”. Though now I have enough knowledge to hurt myself, I know that there is light (EM) coming from every corner of the sky.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Infinite to me, maybe different to the standard terminology of static, my interpretation of infinite, is that the big bang could well and truly be real, and probably is, but it could be localised, there may be billion of more “universes” (used loosely) out there shinning at us. Now considering we haven’t even got a hold on dark energy yet, and have serious deep filtering issues(atm), there isn’t really anything to say it’s not the case (rough quote from Steven Beckworth, and don’t quote me on that )</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Why can’t we see the light from Olbers paradox? Red-shift. The light that is coming from this potentially infinite universe may just be shifted in to the microwave, radio spectrum or even massively huge wave lengths, no visible light to see. Which is not surprising considering that prediction was made before red shift.</font></p><ul><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><em><font face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%">As for the radiowaves being older than the CMB?  That's would be a tough claim to support.  The only type of radiation that is predicted by the BBT that would be prior to the recombination era is the neutrino background radiation that may have occurred some 2 seconds into the evolution of the universe</span></font></em></div></li></ul><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"> </p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Lastly, relating to an infinite universe (my definition), a radio wave background maybe be just residue from a larger infinite universe (if indeed such a thing exists).</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Now before anyone decides to fry me at the academic stake; it may seem like I'm trying to be factual, however everything I say is actually an open question in itself, I'm just trying to learn </font><span style="font-family:Wingdings"><span>J</span></span><font face="Calibri"> I hope I haven’t lead anyone astray, or unceremoniously drifted the topic into the “Unexplained Thread”.</font></font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal">Note this was writen before the 2 previous posts, so it may seem a little out of order

</p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

BoJangles · Jan 13, 2009

<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><span><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Damn i spent so long composing that post, i missed the important stuff</font></font></span></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><span><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Thanks again drRocket and derekcmd. i think i was getting tired light confused.</font></font></span></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">As if there was a localised big bang, and the rest of the hypothetical wider universe wasn’t expanding with the big bang, there wouldn’t be any more stretching of the wave lengths anyway from these distant light sources.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">On the other hand if there was more to the universe and it was expanding with the big bang, the horizon problem kicks in and we can see it anyhow. And I suppose this is all testable with the CMB, as if the big bang happened anytime later it wouldn’t measure what it did anyhow, unless we got the temperature wrong at the soup stage.</font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for addressing that.  I had intended to in my post above in connection with my description of x-ray blueshifting away from the blue end of the visible spectrum.  However, my original wording was rather convoluted and I had to spend a few extra minutes trying to rewrite to make sense.   It, simply, slipped my mind.I don't think it would be a blinding white light at 3000K.  Even the black body radiation of the Sun at 6000K is only yellow.  Regardless... still a good analogy with Olber's paradox.  Never really looked at it from that perspective.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>You are correct that 3000K would probably not be blinding white, but it is closer than you might think. 3000K is close to 5000F which is about the temperature of a solid rocket exhaust which does glow white. But 3000k would be a fairly light yellow   http://webphysics.davidson.edu/alumni/MiLee/java/bb_mjl.htm<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kg · Jan 14, 2009

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are correct that 3000K would probably not be blinding white, but it is closer than you might think. 3000K is close to 5000F which is about the temperature of a solid rocket exhaust which does glow white. But 3000k would be a fairly light yellow   http://webphysics.davidson.edu/alumni/MiLee/java/bb_mjl.htm <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I usually go by the rule of thumb "Hot steel looks an awful lot like cold steel" when picking horseshoes up off my anvil.

MeteorWayne · Jan 14, 2009

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I usually go by the rule of thumb "Hot steel looks an awful lot like cold steel" when picking horseshoes up off my anvil. <br />Posted by kg</DIV><br /><br />Good  advice. Failure to consider that can lead to a lack of thumbs

<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>

emperor_of_localgroup · Jan 15, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/37390429.htmlI believe the cosmic microwave background radiation was predicted before it was detected.  Is this new radiation a surprise?  <br />Posted by kg</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">Sorry, I'm deleting my comments. I sounded too negative.</font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

acsinnz · Jan 23, 2009

In my personal own view Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation has to be present to support magnoflux 3D space, for <p class="MsoNormal">if 99.99% of the stars/Sun energy is just blasted off into space which is 99.99% empty, then 99.99% of the energy will arrive at the edge of the universe with nowhere to go except outwards leading to a catastrophic dilution. As the edge of the universe is defined by a known amount of red-shift and the edge is not shining brilliantly, we can deduce that the random T^4 energy law only applies to a tiny number of Wolf Rayet type stars.<span>  </span>Stars in the main sequence are not emitted in all directions, as believed by Stefan but only through the<span>  </span>magnetic-flux tunnels in<span>  </span>space. Thus the Sun beams most of its output directly to the planets and the intervening space is mostly dark. Stars appear as lighthouses, beaming light directly to all the planets but mostly their own planets, moons, comets & asteroids. </p><p class="MsoNormal">This is my own view not yet accepted by others.  Just food for thought!! </p>

Mee_n_Mac · Jan 23, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In my personal own view Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation has to be present to support magnoflux 3D space, for if 99.99% of the stars/Sun energy is just blasted off into space which is 99.99% empty, then 99.99% of the energy will arrive at the edge of the universe with nowhere to go except outwards leading to a catastrophic dilution. As the edge of the universe is defined by a known amount of red-shift and the edge is not shining brilliantly, we can deduce that the random T^4 energy law only applies to a tiny number of Wolf Rayet type stars.  Stars in the main sequence are not emitted in all directions, as believed by Stefan but only through the  magnetic-flux tunnels in  space. Thus the Sun beams most of its output directly to the planets and the intervening space is mostly dark. Stars appear as lighthouses, beaming light directly to all the planets but mostly their own planets, moons, comets & asteroids. This is my own view not yet accepted by others.  Just food for thought!!  <br />Posted by <strong>acsinnz</strong></DIV><br /><br />So these beams rotate to keep aligned with the planets as they orbit ...   Hows that work ?  Also pretty amazing the Sun would send out a beam to keep aligned with the SOHO satellite.  Also pretty kewl how the Sun sends out beams to light up the various orbitting comets and asteroids so we can see them.  Remind me to send the Sun a thank you note for being so attentive to our observational needs.  </p><p>K, buh bye.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

New Cosmic Background Radiation Found

kg

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

kg

Guest

tanstaafl76

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kg

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

acsinnz

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page