'Wet' Early Universe: Water Vapor Detected At Record Distance

BoJangles · Dec 19, 2008

'Wet' Early Universe: Water Vapor Detected At Record DistanceA research group led by graduate student Violette Impellizzeri from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy has used the 100 m Effelsberg radio telescope to detect water at the greatest distance from Earth so far. The water vapour was discovered in the quasar MG J0414+0534 at redshift 2.64, which corresponds to a light travel time of 11.1 billion years, a time when the Universe was only a fifth of the age it is today.With the detection of water from MG J0414+0534 it is the first time such a dense gas component has been observed in the early Universe and shows that the conditions for the water molecule to form and survive already existed only 2.5 billion years after the Big Bang.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218122244.htm ---This raises several non related stupid questions.Q1 How strong was the CMB at that time in cosmic evolution? Could have it even been the case that the CMB was so strong that it would have prevented life? I.e I'm sure it was the case in the very early days, but what at 2.5 billion years.Q2 Does the CMB grow with inflation? Could it ever be the case that we out inflate the CMB? Q3 How do we actually know that the CMB isn’t a local affect?   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- 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... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

baulten · Dec 19, 2008

I can't answer one and two, but three is because it comes from all areas of the sky.  No matter where we look, we see the CMB.  Such an event is impossible to be "local".

BoJangles · Dec 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can't answer one and two, but three is because it comes from all areas of the sky.  No matter where we look, we see the CMB.  Such an event is impossible to be "local". Posted by baulten</DIV> Ahh ok, but I mean to say, how do we know it’s not just a halo around the milky way, is it red shifted or something? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- 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... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

derekmcd · Dec 19, 2008

Q1.  Multiply z+1 * 2.725 (current CMBR temp).  Using Ned Wright's calculator (I think Omegas m and vac have been revised to .26 and .74 based on recent data, but I just left what Ned has), redshift at 2.5gy is z=2.657.  Given this multiply,  (2.657+1) * 2.725.  The temperature of the CMBR when the observable universe was 2.5 gy old was 9.965 Kelvin.The temperature of the CMBR when it was first emitted at the surface of the last scattering is ~3000K.  The redshift at the surface of the last scattering is z+1100...  Do the math.  Redshift in front of your face is essentially z=0... you get the current temperature.  It's an inverse proportion.Q2.  I assume you mean expansion and not inflation.  The CMBR was emitted long after inflation took place.  Inflation took place during the electroweak epoch around 10^-36 seconds while the CMBR was emitted when the observable universe was ~380,000 years old.I think the answer to question one answers question 2.  The CMBR is not growing, per se.  Rather it is cooling down.  The photons are losing energy becoming more redshifted as they continue to fill the expanding space.  I suppose you could make a rough analogy to gas cooling off as it fills an expanding balloon.Q3.  Because it would completely obliterate the LambdaCDM model of the observable universe? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />First, it just makes sense that there should be a background radiation prediction by Big Bang models.  The observable universe was simply too dense to emit photon prior to the age of ~380,000 years.  However, when the lights turned on, those photons should be detectable... and they are.  There is also a predicted neutrino background radiation emitted some 2 seconds after the big bang but, to date, has remained undectable as neutrino are notoriously difficult to detect... especially at such low energies as would these neutrino be.Second, as was pointed out by baulten, it was detected coming from every direction.  I can't think of any known mechanism in astrophysics that something like this could occur as a local phenomena.Third, by looking at the anisotropies of the CMBR, astrophysicist can "see" distant large scale structures of the cosmos via the Wolfe-Sachs effect.  Basically, photons from the CMBR are gravitationally redshifted or blueshifted as they pass by varying graviational wells of said large scale structures.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

BoJangles · Dec 19, 2008

Ok... So that’s basically no, no, and no. JI think there is a reoccurring theme here.Oh and thanks for the math   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- 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... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

derekmcd · Dec 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok... So that’s basically no, no, and no. JI think there is a reoccurring theme here.Oh and thanks for the math   Posted by Manwh0re</DIV>No, no and no would have saved me a few minutes. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />Reoccuring theme?  If you are referring to your questions, I would disagree.  They were sincere questions of an inquisitive mind and quite legitimate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

BoJangles · Dec 19, 2008

Actually I do appreciate all the answers I get from everyone here, I think I’ve learnt heaps.  Additionally the math and associated help is great, it allows me to see and get a feel it for myself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- 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... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Q1.  Multiply z+1 * 2.725 (current CMBR temp).  Using Ned Wright's calculator (I think Omegas m and vac have been revised to .26 and .74 based on recent data, but I just left what Ned has), redshift at 2.5gy is z=2.657.  Given this multiply,  (2.657+1) * 2.725.  The temperature of the CMBR when the observable universe was 2.5 gy old was 9.965 Kelvin.The temperature of the CMBR when it was first emitted at the surface of the last scattering is ~3000K.  The redshift at the surface of the last scattering is z+1100...  Do the math.  Redshift in front of your face is essentially z=0... you get the current temperature.  It's an inverse proportion.Q2.  I assume you mean expansion and not inflation.  The CMBR was emitted long after inflation took place.  Inflation took place during the electroweak epoch around 10^-36 seconds while the CMBR was emitted when the observable universe was ~380,000 years old.I think the answer to question one answers question 2.  The CMBR is not growing, per se.  Rather it is cooling down.  The photons are losing energy becoming more redshifted as they continue to fill the expanding space.  I suppose you could make a rough analogy to gas cooling off as it fills an expanding balloon.Q3.  Because it would completely obliterate the LambdaCDM model of the observable universe? First, it just makes sense that there should be a background radiation prediction by Big Bang models.  The observable universe was simply too dense to emit photon prior to the age of ~380,000 years.  However, when the lights turned on, those photons should be detectable... and they are.  There is also a predicted neutrino background radiation emitted some 2 seconds after the big bang but, to date, has remained undectable as neutrino are notoriously difficult to detect... especially at such low energies as would these neutrino be.Second, as was pointed out by baulten, it was detected coming from every direction.  I can't think of any known mechanism in astrophysics that something like this could occur as a local phenomena.Third, by looking at the anisotropies of the CMBR, astrophysicist can "see" distant large scale structures of the cosmos via the Wolfe-Sachs effect.  Basically, photons from the CMBR are gravitationally redshifted or blueshifted as they pass by varying graviational wells of said large scale structures.   Posted by derekmcd</DIV> That's a great answer! Thanx. Take a cheese sammich out of petty cash

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Search

'Wet' Early Universe: Water Vapor Detected At Record Distance

BoJangles

Guest

baulten

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page