Please be kind, this is only a theory. This thoery does have alot of supporting information all but one which is the basis of my theory. So if anyone knows about thermodynamics well enough to help with the third law, please do!



Ok now on with the theory

Lets say about 15+ billion years ago there was nothing no energy no matter no nothing. well with no energy you obviously have nothing to cause heat. So without heat would space become very cold so cold that it becomes absolute zero. But if that is true then the third law of thermodynmics is wrong which says that absolute zero cannot be reached. one expert on thermodynamics stated this
ABSOLUTE ZERO?

Unfortunately we are unable to reach absolute zero itself. It is forbidden by the third law of thermodynamics. In practice, though, it is often the heat input from the outside force (or "heat leak") into an experiment which prevents further cooling. In the low temperature limit, all heat capacities C go to zero so that for a heat energy input Q the temperature rise dT = Q/C becomes increasingly large. Even absorbed cosmic rays can produce a significant heat leak.

well if a heat leak keeps us from reaching absolute zero,and space vacuums cause most heat leaks. Is it possible that a space vacuum could have been this outside force this person speaks of. Seeing as how a space vacuum exist where there is nothing this seems fairly reasonable to state. So with a heat leak you then have the creation of energy, thus the beggining of the universe.

the website i got that from is this http://www.ph.rhbnc.ac.uk/schools/ZeroT/Absolute.html the person who stated it is Michael Lea, a professor of physics at Royal Holloway, and the university of london also a member of the Low Temperature Physics Research Group.

Does this theory seem possible to began energy in our universe in short creating matter and ect.?

this is only a very small part of my theory but the only part of my theory that is some what hard to beleive. So any coments would be very nice. Also please tkae note of this since there are no molecules does that mean we could have just gone straight into absolute zero, if so this makes my theory incorrect. But since the Space Vacuum could have been that outside force. Which in most heat leaks it is. Also most of the outskirts of space is about 3 degrees above absolute zero, and the big bang theory says that space is constantly expanding. But with my theory could it be the heat leak expanding space if so proving my theory correct and the big bang wrong.

a side theory could energy be started from reaction from somthing that does not require and eregy input like a space vacuum if so what else would react with it. If there is somthing to react with it then you can prove quantum physics zero-point energy to be true. If that is true then the bing bang theory is wrong, but not completely. Some of the information in the big bang theory is correct like galaxys moving away from each other, and the black-body radiation. so in terms the equation would be n/a+n/a=energy very hard to grasp the concept of but very pluasible somting that normally happens withc out energy but makes a reaction that causes energy to be exerted

sounds complecated
So with a heat leak you then have the creation of energy, thus the beggining of the universe
If so wouldn't this leak be constant, and all over the place?

only an idea... we're in a science forum, use scientific terminology.

or hypothesis... whatever.. has to be testable.

sounds complecated

If so wouldn't this leak be constant, and all over the place?


well on the outskirts of space the temp is 3 degrees above absolute zero so it is psible thheat leak is what is making space growing. Also the heat leak would only be where there is a low enough temp to absolute zero. The only part of space said to be close enough to absolute zero is the outer parts of space.

only an idea... we're in a science forum, use scientific terminology.

or hypothesis... whatever.. has to be testable.

Well, yes it would be a hypothosis,until they learn how to look closer to the outskirts of space.
There is just one law saying that energy cannot be created or deystoyed. But at the same time things can exist when there is no energy to start it but an energy output. So ifthats true the first law is wrong i beleive because that is an creation of energy.
Space vacuum doesn't need anything to began, which is why its a space vacuum. Also wouldnt there still be tempperatrue if there was nothing. Just a very low one? One very close to absolute zero? Plus it is possible to see if a heat leak in the outskirts of space is causing the growth so, it is testable. Making it a theory.

But since the universe is expaning faster the the speed of light (C) how could we ever see further to the outskirts of space?
Also space is a vacuum hence it has no temp. The plank explorer is measuring 'regions' of space but the temp of space itself cannot be measured. the third law of therm. does not apply and hence your "theory" is flawed.
Also the big bang created energy so yes energy can be created. You need to remember that physical laws that gorern our universe may not have applied prior to the begining

then if space's temp cannot be measured then why has it been measure, in alot of areas. true we cannot see the end of space,yet. but the universe expanding at the speed of light is only a theory, it is only stated that ends of space are moving at the same speed away from each other, you cannot prove that this is happeneing since like yuo said you cannot see this. but i do not remember if it was black holes or somthing that was seen moving away from each other moving away but that is not enough to proof to say what your saying its true. Also the big bang theory did not create energy, or einstein would'nt have followed with this "energy has always existed" what you are saying has some basis but there only other theorys, you cannot use a theory to prove another theory wrong. Also if the big bang created energy what was the cause of that, a explosion? is that correct on how the big bang started im not to sure ive only read so much on it none where to clear on which started it, but if it was an explosion you would need energy to start this explosion, correct? Also if space has no temp. because it is a vacuum, giving it no temperature what proof is there on this? there is nothing to measure the temp because we do not know how to measure it, its hard to measure it when there is no atmosphere

Dude, before the big bang, ie 15 Billion years ago, the 'laws of thermodynamics' didn't apply, as they only apply to matter as it was created from the big bang.

Physics breaks down at the singularity.

'space' wasn't cold, at 0K, because space didn't exist before the big bang, and 0K is just the lowest temperature matter (which didn't exist yet) can reach, so pretty irrelevant to a void.

Good you are thinking about this though, and not just saying 'god did it'!

very interesting point, let me do some research on that. So i can find somthing else that could have been started when there is nothing, because there are a few other thins just that was the most likely thing.

Dude, before the big bang, ie 15 Billion years ago, the 'laws of thermodynamics' didn't apply, as they only apply to matter as it was created from the big bang.

Physics breaks down at the singularity.

'space' wasn't cold, at 0K, because space didn't exist before the big bang, and 0K is just the lowest temperature matter (which didn't exist yet) can reach, so pretty irrelevant to a void.

Good you are thinking about this though, and not just saying 'god did it'!


i was just about to reply untill i read this post, so now i dont have to.

time saver, thanks.

peace

To a 14 year old, it sounds like your saying that a space vacumm realesed heat which created matter, which started the universe, and more matter=more heat=more matter = ect ect....

But does heat create matter? (I seriously dont know)

And if at first there was nothing, how did the heat get there....

Is our universe just one billionth of the world, like a riot starting, its so tiny and insognifigant.

About the god did part. Thats even possible. My calculations is that if ever main religon in ever part of world (32) that it has a small but unlikely chance...

But as a strong religon\athiest-less person (i dont know what i belive) and i know scientoligy is less likely then Stephan Kings "it" coming true, likely we are the only intelegent life in the world, but life could and might exist somewhere else, and my very very very very tiny idea could add a big arguement to the intelgent life out there.

But the heat couldnt be possible becuase your theroy says there was nothing, so nothing mean NOTHING not even your heat leaks would be there...

Sorry if the post was noobish, this is only a 14 year old wiz kids views on your writing

Sincerly,
Skidochufada,
The curious 14 year old kid

Lets say about 15+ billion years ago there was nothing no energy no matter no nothing. well with no energy you obviously have nothing to cause heat. So without heat would space become very cold so cold that it becomes absolute zero.


wait im confused. if there is no matter how could absolute zero be reached?

The definition of absolute zero is:
The lowest possible temperature in the universe, at which all atomic activity ceases. Equal to -273 degrees Celsius (- 459 degrees Fahrenheit). Used as a benchmark for measuring temperature.

What am i missing?

But wait, space isn't empty. The article you posted said that it is possible for space to have a temperature because it contains black body radiation. So if you want to posit that something can come from nothing you'll have to redefine your notion of a vacuum or pick a different cause of your "heat leak."

I think it makes sense to say that new matter (or energy) can't be created, especially from nothing. Those are pretty fundamental laws of chemistry and physics.

then if space's temp cannot be measured then why has it been measure, in alot of areas. true we cannot see the end of space,yet. but the universe expanding at the speed of light is only a theory, it is only stated that ends of space are moving at the same speed away from each other, you cannot prove that this is happeneing since like yuo said you cannot see this. but i do not remember if it was black holes or somthing that was seen moving away from each other moving away but that is not enough to proof to say what your saying its true. Also the big bang theory did not create energy, or einstein would'nt have followed with this "energy has always existed" what you are saying has some basis but there only other theorys, you cannot use a theory to prove another theory wrong. Also if the big bang created energy what was the cause of that, a explosion? is that correct on how the big bang started im not to sure ive only read so much on it none where to clear on which started it, but if it was an explosion you would need energy to start this explosion, correct? Also if space has no temp. because it is a vacuum, giving it no temperature what proof is there on this? there is nothing to measure the temp because we do not know how to measure it, its hard to measure it when there is no atmosphere
sorry it took so long, I was not getting e-mail nites on this topic
There is a difference between measuring an area of space and measuring space it self.
No the unverse expanding at the speed of light(C) is not a theory it has been measured since the 1920s IIRC
The big bang did not create energy????? look a little deeper

to Skidochufada:

Keep thinking kid! I am nearing the other end of life's spectrum and sad, almost depressed, by what I see happening to (and in) the western world. Your post is the best thing I have read in days.

Heat is common way to say "low grade energy."

Low grade energy is energy that can only partially be converted into "high grade energy."

Temperature is a concept that only applies when certain conditions exist. It can exist in matter or without it. In matter, the "certain condition" has to due with the way the energy is shared between the particles. If they have hit each other randomly enough, they always arrive at the same distribution and then a temperature does exist. (You will learn the equations that describe this distribution soon enough.)

In vacuum, which always has very very briefly some matter coming into existence and quickly vanishing again, ("Vacuum Polarization" if you want to know more.) there is electromagnetic radiation. It too will have a distribution of frequencies and this is sort of the same as the sharing of energy among particles, but not the same equation as for the particles, when the temperature concept applies to the vacuum (See "Black Body radiation" to learn more. Also note the “photon energy” is directly proportional to the frequency.)

Just as particles can have a non-thermal energy distributions, so can the vacuum. Laser beam passing thru or spectral line radiation from a hot gas, but if there is only thermal radiation from matter with a temperature well defined ("in thermal equilibrium") then the “matter temperature” and the “vacuum temperature” near the matter will be the same.

Now that I have said a few words about "temperature" (which when it exists in matter, is the average Kinetic Energy of the particles.) I can tell what is the maximum possible conversion of “low grade energy” into “high grade energy” or efficiency, E, of any motor /engine operating between a high temperature, T, heat source and a lower temperature, t, heat sink.:

E = (T - t )/ T.

where we measure the temperatures on the Kelvin (also called) absolute temperature scale.

One form of “high grade energy” can, in principle, be 100% converted into another form of “high grade energy” but never in actual practice.

Ok that is it for today. Keep thinking and good luck. My grand children are counting on you. Work hard, but enjoy life as you go - you only have a "one-way ticket."

Ricky:

1) the idea, and infact all the math... as taugh... about absolue zero... has to do with atoms... I.e.. only atoms can have temp.... can hold heat as velocity and vibration... NOT SPACE... thus if we had only space.. then the concept of temp is not properly applicable...
the idea of absolute zero, has to due with the actual spin energy of electron orbitals... I.e.. atoms have volume....
but as we cool them.. they get smaller.... and at some point the electron would lose all energy and drop into the proton... and it would rest.. doing nothing... hence at abolute zero... but it still has volume... nucleon volume, and it is simply that it has entered a zero energy state..... which is not nothing...
and it cannot actually be reached... as the enviorment we are in, will always be emitting photon energy which is above zero... and so while we can get close... we cannot hold the state.. and in truth... IT SERVES NO PURPOSE TO DO SO.

2) SPACE IS NOT LIMITED TO ANY OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS..

3) I dont see any bizarre theory being discussed at that link... only establishment fundamentals of chemistry.

-MT

to Skidochufada:

Today's lesson is more important and shorter than yesterdays:

SUMMARY --- Believe less than half of what you will find posted as fact here.

Point 1 of MT's post below is about as close to 100% nonsense as you will find anywhere.

The radiation from empty space not only has a temperature (It is about 3.7K as I recall) but at many points on the frequency vs. intensity curve have been measured and they fit the black body curve essentially perfectly. This is the primary reason that the "Big Bang" theory is almost universally accepted by Ph.D. physicists, like me.

The idea that atoms have volumes is correct, but the concept that they shrink with cooling is silly. You can find tables of the size of the atoms and there is no need to tell at what temperature the data was measured as the size is constant for all atoms. One reasonable well versed in quantum mechanics can calculate the size of the hydrogen atom from very basics facts, not including the temperature, and get the value measured (actually the measurements are not perfect (in error slightly) compared to the exactly calculated results.

The remainder of MT's 1 makes so little sense that I can not followed the claims, but the part of it that states: "will always be emitting photon energy" seems to be violating conservation of energy.

a PHD?? ha..

and you are not even aware that the cosmic background radiation is the same signal expected from free floating hydrogen gas at 2 degrees -3.7 degree Kelvin in free space...

gesh...

and space does not have temp... it has waves of energy in it... passing threw it.

you do know how to use PV=NRT dont you?

do you understand it?

the problem i have found with most PHD's.. is they think they are so smart..
but unfortunately.. they are accustommed to having people teach them stuff..
rather than seeking it out for themselves.. and teaching themselves that which the schools and their biased views don't teach...

-MT

a PHD?? ha..

and you are not even aware that the cosmic background radiation is the same signal expected from free floating hydrogen gas at 2 degrees -3.7 degree Kelvin in free space...

gesh...

and space does not have temp... it has waves of energy in it... passing threw it.

you do know how to use PV=NRT dont you?

do you understand it?

the problem i have found with most PHD's.. is they think they are so smart..
but unfortunately.. they are accustommed to having people teach them stuff..
rather than seeking it out for themselves.. and teaching themselves that which the schools and their biased views don't teach...

-MT

also you do know that all atoms emit photons relative to their temp?? dont you?

its called infra-red... gesh... maybe you should of studied Chemistry.

... you do know how to use PV=NRT dont you?...Sure - I even know when that ideal gas law is reasonably accurate.

The question is do you know that there is a "T" in the black body radiation distribution formula that describes the black body radiation inside an empty (evacuated) chamber with all walls also at T?

I.e that there is a temperature associated with all black body radiation, including that filling a cavity.

If you dispute this still, please give the formula for the black body radiation distribution inside an evacuated hollow iron box with all walls at 1000 degrees K. (that does not include the temperature, 1000K.)

BTW it is "Ph. D." not "PHD" which sometimes means "Public Health Department" but how would you know?

ah.. but if the walls are at that temp... then it is not the space which has temp...

it is only when you put an atom into that empty space that the radiation field can cause the energy rise in an atom or molecule up to a point that corrisponds with its enviorment... space it self... need never have gotten involved..

-MT

ah.. but if the walls are at that temp... then it is not the space which has temp....You would be much better off to admit that your view is in error, instead of trying to defend a mistake*.

To show this, I now ask what "walls" of the universe are causing the temperature of the Cosmic Back Ground, GBG, black body radiation, which has been well measured and its agreement with BIG BANG theory is the main reason educated physicists believe in the BIG BANG?

Or perhaps you do not believe in the BB? Perhaps you deny that the temperature of this "walless" vacuum radiation has been measured?

Alternatively, if you continue to insist that this frequently measured black body temperature is really the "wall temperature" please tell me what the walls of the universe are made of and where they are located. :D

Your continued attempt to defend the indefensible is just making you look more ignorant.
_________________________________________
*Valich has ceased defending error, which we all make. The usefulness and quality of his post is now much better. Take a lesson from him, if not me.

the problem with the cosmic background radiation theory in the first place...

is that the signal... just so happens to be the signal given off by cold hydrogen gas..... in free space..

and it just so happens that our entire galaxy.. and that includes us...
is surrounded by a massive cloud of hydrogen gas.... which is all at 22 cm radiation levels...

and from our perspective... the signal.. would apear to be coming from all directions.... and yet maybe a local static background effect...
NOT A UNIVERSAL ONE.

surely, i am not the first to bring this to your attention.

-MT

the problem with the cosmic background radiation theory in the first place... is that the signal... just so happens to be the signal given off by cold hydrogen gas..... in free space.....Is there no limit to your ignorance?

Cold hydrogen gas in space radiates discrete spectral lines, not the continum of the CBR. True there is hydrogen line radialtion from space and it is easily recognized. Near one of the most prominate lines was suggested in the early days of search for ETs as the logical place to look for their radiations as all advanced societies would know of it. That idea fell by the wayside as more modern search technology allows many many frequencies to be examined simulataneously.

BTW - I am still waiting for more "information" from you about the universe's walls. I want to know mainly what they are made of if you can not tell me where they are.

Various people have various opinions about the validity of the big bang theory.

In terms of the theory, the initial stages of the bang produced extremely energetic photons. In terms of the theory, the spacetime of the universe has been expanding. This expansion has carried along not only massive particles but photons. The photons have therefore been stretched out into much longer wavelengths than they were originally. These resulting deformed photons are presently detected as very low energy radiation and called the CBR. They are not being presently emitted by cold gas. They were emitted by very hot gas long ago and far away.

According to the big bang theory.

...In terms of the theory, the initial stages of the bang produced extremely energetic photons. In terms of the theory, the spacetime of the universe has been expanding. This expansion has carried along not only massive particles but photons. The photons have therefore been stretched out into much longer wavelengths than they were originally. These resulting deformed photons are presently detected as very low energy radiation and called the CBR. They are not being presently emitted by cold gas. They were emitted by very hot gas long ago and far away. ..I think you are correct here, but not sure the photons were present before matter - Are you guessing? I do not know how to create them in the absence of all electric charges. How were they made if your are correct? Perhaps vacuum polarization is temperature independent and can make them?

I think it really does not mater as I think the photons would be constanly emitted and reabsorbed in the initial plasma only state of very hot matter but when universe cooled enough to let much of the matter be neutral matter, the photons "decoupled" from matter and had the black body distribution temperature of the matter at that time - I.e. no memory of their earlier higher temperatures. I am just guessing, based on what I know. I don't do searches for the facts any more.

I too should have mentioned in my reply to MT that cold gas does not even radiate much, as well as telling him it is line radiation, not the continuum observed in the CBR.

BillyT:

You are again proving yourself to be in dire need of Remedial Reading 101.

Where did I say that photons were present before matter?

Are you guessing at what I write?

I suggest that you actually read my post, after learning how.

It is very, very obvious that, as you admit, you do not research your "facts".

....Where did I say that photons were present before matter?
...Sorry that is what I assumed you meant by words “initial stages” in your post of:

"...the initial stages of the bang produced extremely energetic photons."

So much changed in the first minutes after the big bang, I thought that period, (the first minute or so) was the "initial stage."

As I recall, it was many many years before universe got cool for there to be any charged particles. If you are still calling the period after initial growth, after inflation, after expansive cooling, after matter formation, etc. all "initial stages" then:
(1) you should have made this clear.
(2) you should also explain what is the “later stage.” Universe to day, is still forming stars, and only bigger, but not fundamentally different as it was pre- vs. post- expansion or pre- vs. post- inflations etc.

I understood your “initial stages" as most would. I only wondered how photons came into existence without matter. I even suggest that possibly the very brief existence of charges produced by vacuum polarization might have been a cause.

No reason for you to be so sarcastic with me, You did not define what you mean by "initial stages” and I had to guess at your ill-defined, and very unusual meaning. I think most people with any knowledge of the rapid transformations that were taking place in the first second would not consider the period many years later, after formation of matter, to still be "initial stages."

The point of the thread was not your inability to understand simple scientific concepts even if they are not presented in a manner easily amenable to spoon feeding you.

Anyone with a functional knowledge of big bang theory would have no trouble understanding my post.

To quote Dr. Cutty on my favorite TV show, " Are you acting intentionally dense? "

Of course, the possibility is that you are NOT acting.

My, my, you are an arrogant little bastard aren't you. I have learnt considerably more from BillyT's posts over the last year than I have from any of yours. His are thoughtful, clear, even erudite. When he is in error he is quick to acknowledge it. He is good humoured at all times and tolerates boorish behaviour such as yours with far more equanimity and restraint than you deserve.

"Lets say about 15+ billion years ago there was nothing no energy no matter no nothing. well with no energy you obviously have nothing to cause heat. So without heat would space become very cold so cold that it becomes absolute zero. "

well, not so fast. you say "there was nothing" and then you mention "space" as if it was there before Big Bang. but "space" is something not " nothing"
people often mistaken that empty-vacuum space is nothing, that's a mistake.
15 billion years ago these was nothing, that mich is true, and "space" is included to taht statement.
bigband not only created matter-dark matter and energy-dark energy, but space as well.
so big bag happened when there was nothing, no "space" either
so your question about third law becomes irrelevant
just a thought my friend.

I like to think of the Big Bang in a manner suggested by Stephen Hawking. He said it was possible to think of the big bang as a black hole in reverse. The event horizon of a black hole would be similar to the surface of last scattering in Big Bang theory. I don't think anyone really knows exactly what was happening before last scattering, or beyond the event horizon of a black hole, other than both places are hot and dense. There are hypothesis for both events, however.

i wonder if there is a law against there being a lack of anything a law which makes it impossible to have nothing. basically just creating a form of any kind .....but this will only be argued. to tell you the trueth humans are not evolved enough to not be prejudice against one another... so if we can't even do that what makes us think we can under stand how the world was created with only enough intelligence to figure out how we are going to end a civilization, a planet, and soon enough galaxies. I feel instead of trying to figure out how we where created we focus on how to survive without mass destruction to our future selves.

Ok just a quick aside for everyone who reads this post.
There are 3 types of heat transfer that engineers use
1. Conduction
2. Convection
3. Radiation

Conduction and convection are basically the same type of physical phenomemon occuring on different levels. The difference between fluids and solids. However both are forms of energy transfer through atoms and particles.
Radiation, as was mentioned before, can occur in a vacuum and actually transfers better in a vacuum, because it is made up of electromagnetic waves which propogate themselves in a direction. If they hit a particle, then they can transfer an amount of energy equivalent to the amount needed for an electron to change orbitals, at the proper frequency of course.
However, as often calculated in engineering, when two walls are separated by a vacuum, the energy transfered between them must be radiation, as no particles are there to transfer it.
Now pretend we are one of the walls, with equipment used to measure temperature. If we aim our instrument at the other wall, we will be able to record it's temperature due to the difference between us and them. Scientists used a nitrogen heat sink as a calibrator when calculating the temperature of space. The question is, where is the other wall? The other wall is, in fact, the big bang. This is why finding this radiation is supposed to prove the big bang. Otherwise, there would be no other wall and we would not detect the type of radiation we detected.

As for Ricky's theory. There is law which proves that you can NEVER have "nothing". By nothing i mean that there is no mass, no energy, and furthermore no laws. This law is called Logic.
Think of it this way, if at one point in time there was absolutely nothing. Then why is there "something" now? Something cannot come from nothing, unless there is a law stating, that, if there is nothing, then something must come. But even that law is "something". Therefore it is impossible to have "nothing"

I believe in no such thing as nothing. Other words, I believe in something, that it's impossible to have nothing. I've thought of the same thing. I just call it the law of opposites, or the law of perfection. In perfection, there is no void, no waste. And if the universe is from a perfect God, there is no such thing as waste. One cannot exist without the other. For one to exist, you need a positor, an opposite action, an inducer, for the other to exist. Matter is useless without energy and energy is useless without matter. Their purpose is nulled if there is only one. It is a marriage of purpose. One needs the other to give it purpose. Everything in nature is perfect, it has perfect, there is no waste. It is sufficient. Just as the transfer of energy is perfect in the universe. It can neither be created or destroyed.

About the theory, heat/cold is mere fractions of a variable. When you get down to it, you can have a fraction of a degree to separate what is hot and cold. So right down to it, you have two variables, hot/cold, cold representing no/null/not/0/still, and hot representing yes/1/moving/positive. So that's the very core of what we have going on with the birth. What gave hot the push to give matter the energy to be warmer, for it to radiate energy, for it to posit waves? While the cold matter has none. It comes down to one single thing, the hand of God to give the universe heat/energy in that first initial reaction. I've been up all night, it may not be that readable but maybe you get my point.

Maybe what we need is a Decider! Nah, just kidding.

FYI

The cosmic microwave background (cmb), predicted in the 1940s and discovered in the 1960s, is usually conceptualized as an extremely red-shifted hot hydrogen gas thermal emissions. The red shift is caused by an extreme recessional velocity of the hydrogen gas relative to earth's reference frame. We note that red shifts continue to increase with increasing distances of galaxies, and the cmb red shift is on the order of 1,000, meaning it has a recessional velocity of about .9999990 c It turns out to be the exact equivalent of the thermal emissions of matter that are stationary relative to earth, but with their frequency shifted by 1000. Thus, the cmb is often referred to as the 2.7 degree K background radiation, since a stationary gas (relative to earth's reference frame) at that temperature would emit photons of the same frequency distribution as that observed. It is, however, more proper to refer to it as the extremely red-shifted photons of a hot recessional gas, more distant than the farthest galaxies observed.

This is still sometimes referred to as "leftover radiation", but it was never emitted by the matter of our observable galaxies, but rather by matter so distant that it has not yet, in earth's reference frame, been observed to have clustered into galaxies. We are, in essence, 'seeing' the earliest phase of galaxy development, and the later phases of matter closer to earth are observed as discrete galaxy clusters, even at serious red-shift distances.

FYI

Walter L. Wagner (Dr.)

.(1)... It turns out to be the exact equivalent of the thermal emissions of matter that are stationary relative to earth, but with their frequency shifted by 1000. ....
(2)...We are, in essence, 'seeing' the earliest phase of galaxy development, and the later phases of matter closer to earth are observed as discrete galaxy clusters, even at serious red-shift distances....On (1):
If you (or anyone reading) can do it, please show how adding a large fixed recessional velocity V to all the individual velocities of the atoms of a thermal radiator (one with a Maxwellian-Boltzman velocity distribution at temperature, T,) results in a velocity distribution that is still "thermal." I.e. still has a temperature, t, or still has the form of the Maxwellian-Boltzman velocity distribution, but with much lower temperature, t < < T.

I have forgotten how to derive Plank's Black body radiation law distribution for a thermal source, but if you can do that, I would be equally pleased by you showing that adding a constant to all velocities in a Maxwellian-Boltzman velocity distribution results in another Black body radiation law distribution but with a different temperature when this derivation is done.

I assume it must as the CBR is often called "black body radiation" and a temperature is assigned to it, as if it were from a thermal source, just as you stated, but because the Doppler shift is linear in velocity and these distributions are quadratic in velocity, intutitively it does seem hard to understand how this is possible.

On (2):
"earliest phase of galaxy development" seems a little wrong to me. I think that the CBR is from that stage of the Big Bang evolution when neutral matter was starting to become dominate. When matter first formed out of the high energy density it was 100% ionized and completely opaque. Only when more expansion and cooling had occurred did the neutral atoms form and the radiation could travel long distances thru the neutral atoms. I think people who are well versed in this say the CBR is from the "last scattering surface" or something like that the refers to the fact that earlier the radiation traveled only short distances and then scattered off the ionized matter (Compton scattering).

If my understanding is in error, please correct it, that is what I am trying to do for you, but I am not an expert in this area, so you may be correct that the CBR is radiation from the neutral gas instead of the black body radiation that was in thermal equlibrium with the opaque hot plasma as it began to become a neutral gas. If your view is correct, why would not "echos" of the hydrogen Balmer and Lyman series discrete radiation lines still be seen in the CBR?

get a degree, write a book asking a bunch of people in a forums isnt going to do much. Take action for what you believe.

Only matter can have a temperature, because the definition of temperature is based upon its effect on matter. Vacuums don't have temperatures. So to say that empty space has a temperature of absolute zero is incorrect. Empty space doesn't have a temperature at all.