CMBR - Alternative Thinkins

[wlminex]

I invite folks to comment on the following:

"Can you envision (either mathematically or intellectually) a condition in which Cosmic Microwave Backgorund Radiation (CMBR) is a 'continual' process that is emitted at a constant level (~ 2.7 deg K) due to an ongoing universal process (perhaps during continuing mass formation)?"

The Standard Model concludes that CMBR is a vestige of the Big Bang and that it exhibits a near-perfect 'black body' spectrum. Would not constant production of CMBR, at a constant rate and energy level, produce a similar spectrum?

Curious for comments.

[James R]

What mechanism do you propose for the constant production of mass from nothing?

How could such mass be detected and what form would it take?

Why 2.7 K and not some other number (bearing in mind that the big bang theory predicts this number)?

[wlminex]

What mechanism do you propose for the constant production of mass from nothing?

How could such mass be detected and what form would it take?

Why 2.7 K and not some other number (bearing in mind that the big bang theory predicts this number)?

James R:

1) That's why I started this thread . . . member discussions and 'brainstorming'!

2) Once 'mass' is MASS . . . it would be detectible as is any other existing MASS . . . i.e., gravity effects, primarily, and other observable or inferential effects.

3) I chose 2.7 K because (regardless of the 'predictor'being BB, or other) . . . THAT is the value that we have OBSERVED using our measuring instruments.

I'm simply 'speculating' (i.e., seeding the discussion, I guess . . . NOT trolling!) that there MAY be other process(es) involved that would produce the same observation, and the same (or similar) mathematical solution, in which the observation(s) might be interpreted differently. I'm simply seeking discussion and constructive input from the 'brains (and intellect) of others . . . including yourself, BTW . . . to consider alternative explanations.

[martillo]

I think that the called "background radiation" actually is a "background noise" in the Universe which comes from what could be called "lost photons". I mean in the entire Universe there are lot of sources of radiations interfering with each other and diffracting "around obstacles" in all directions and so many photons simply "loose their path" and they will be perceived as coming from other directions rather from the original source. Some also change "wavelength" due to Compton's effects. If we consider all these effects in the total Universe we can think in a "background noise radiation".

[James R]

So, to summarise: you have no reason at all to suspect that there may be a continuously-produce cosmic microwave background. And if there is one you have no idea of how or why it would be produced.

And you don't accept the current explanation for the CMBR because...?

[martillo]

And you don't accept the current explanation for the CMBR because...?
I don't believe in a "Big Bang".

[origin]

I think that the called "background radiation" actually is a "background noise" in the Universe which comes from what could be called "lost photons". I mean in the entire Universe there are lot of sources of radiations interfering with each other and diffracting "around obstacles" in all directions and so many photons simply "loose their path" and they will be perceived as coming from other directions rather from the original source. Some also change "wavelength" due to Compton's effects. If we consider all these effects in the total Universe we can think in a "background noise radiation".

That would be pretty incredible that all this 'noise' had the same energy level! How do you propose that could possibley be?

[martillo]

That would be pretty incredible that all this 'noise' had the same energy level! How do you propose that could possibley be?
I'm editing the reply because I think I misunderstood your point at first.
As said at wikipedia "CMBR" is stronger in the microwave region of the spectrum. It would be a matter of study and research if the phenomenon I mention can produce a compatible distribution of energy. I can't demonstrate that now, I agree, but I think is possible.
I would like to know when and where was demonstrated that a "Big Bang" would produce that distribution of energy. I think it haven't been done, so the question is why you request this to me now?

[origin]

I would like to know when and where was demonstrated that a "Big Bang" would produce that distribution of energy. I think it haven't been done, so the question is why you request this to me now?

The CMBR was predicted by the big bang theory. It was accidentally detected by 2 scientist utilizing an early microwave detector.

The big bang theory predicted that when the early universe became transparent that the energetic photons would have been redshifted over time to the current microwave energy. Further this CMBR should be very uniform in all directions.

Keep in mind that this was predicted based on the BB theory and then was discovered at a later time.

The fact that you do not seem to know this is rather astounding since it is one of the biggest pieces of corroborating evidence for the big bang. You apparently disagree with a theory that you aren't even knowledgeable about!

Here you go - educate your self a little bit. (http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/cmb_intro.html):rolleyes:

[Pincho Paxton]

I suggest the opposite to the Big Bang that the CMBR is the big collapse distance from implosion of Space-Time weight distribution. The collapse is expanded away by a secondary condition of collapse that implosions form holes that take up hollow space similar to bubbles. If hollow space is created by implosion, then the hollow space is taking up the space of matter. If matter is pushed apart by holes then the expansion of the universe is the effect that holes don't require energy (in fact require negative energy), so the energy distribution is pushed outwards.

[martillo]

The CMBR was predicted by the big bang theory. It was accidentally detected by 2 scientist utilizing an early microwave detector.

The big bang theory predicted that when the early universe became transparent that the energetic photons would have been redshifted over time to the current microwave energy. Further this CMBR should be very uniform in all directions.

Keep in mind that this was predicted based on the BB theory and then was discovered at a later time.

The fact that you do not seem to know this is rather astounding since it is one of the biggest pieces of corroborating evidence for the big bang. You apparently disagree with a theory that you aren't even knowledgeable about!

Here you go - educate your self a little bit.

And I don't really know a lot of other things but it doesn't matter.
I don't pretent to be so "educated" in those wrong theories. I can't waste my time and brain memory in wrong things.
I think the "Big Bang" theory is wrong and that the background radiation as a noise produced the way I mentioned is possible and that is the real phenomenon causing it.

[Grumpy]

martillo


I don't believe in a "Big Bang".

I don't "believe" in the BB either, it is simply the theory that explains what we see. Belief has no place in science. Einstein believed that the Universe was static, but he had to admit he was wrong when Hubble showed the Universe was expanding. Run that expansion backwards through time and the Big Bang is at the end of the line, no belief required.

Grumpy:cool:

[origin]

I don't pretent to be so "educated" in those wrong theories. I can't waste my time and brain memory in wrong things.

Wow, that is really disturbing.

You can't waste your time on wrong theories? How do you know they are wrong if you don't even bother to understand them?


I think the "Big Bang" theory is wrong and that the background radiation as a noise produced the way I mentioned is possible and that is the real phenomenon causing it.

So you are ignorant, refuse to learn anything new and are damn proud of it? Well, I hope that philosophy works out for you.:shrug:

[origin]

I suggest the opposite to the Big Bang that the CMBR is the big collapse distance from implosion of Space-Time weight distribution. The collapse is expanded away by a secondary condition of collapse that implosions form holes that take up hollow space similar to bubbles. If hollow space is created by implosion, then the hollow space is taking up the space of matter. If matter is pushed apart by holes then the expansion of the universe is the effect that holes don't require energy (in fact require negative energy), so the energy distribution is pushed outwards.

So you believe silly crap that you make up as you go along to explain things you don't understand - well bravo for you.:shrug:

[wlminex]

Wow, that is really disturbing.

You can't waste your time on wrong theories? How do you know they are wrong if you don't even bother to understand them?



So you are ignorant, refuse to learn anything new and are damn proud of it? Well, I hope that philosophy works out for you.:shrug:

Qrigin: Your posts are argumentative and denigrating, which is not the purpose of this thread . . . . please moderate yourself and refocus on the friendly discussion this thread is trying to embue. Your opinions of others' opinions are not the topic of this thread. . . . .Thanks . . . Civility, Please! (another thread)

[Pincho Paxton]

So you believe silly crap that you make up as you go along to explain things you don't understand - well bravo for you.:shrug:

No. I evolved my theory 1 step at a time taking many years. Your post however was an instant response.. ironic.

[James R]

I suggest the opposite to the Big Bang that the CMBR is the big collapse distance from implosion of Space-Time weight distribution.

This doesn't even make sense as a coherent sentence.

How can background radiation be a distance? It can't.
Is there such a thing as "space-time weight"? No, there isn't.
Can "space-time weight" implode? Who knows, since there's no such thing.


The collapse is expanded away by a secondary condition of collapse that implosions form holes that take up hollow space similar to bubbles.

More nonsense. What sort of "holes" are formed? How are they formed? Why?

What is "hollow space"? It doesn't exist.

How is "hollow space" similar to bubbles? Who knows? It's all just random nonsense.


If hollow space is created by implosion, then the hollow space is taking up the space of matter.

If pixies wear green vests then skyrocket moonshadow forklift.


If matter is pushed apart by holes then the expansion of the universe is the effect that holes don't require energy (in fact require negative energy), so the energy distribution is pushed outwards.

Why waste everybody's time with this rubbish?

[AlexG]

Qrigin: Your posts are argumentative and denigrating, which is not the purpose of this thread . . . . please moderate yourself and refocus on the friendly discussion this thread is trying to embue. Your opinions of others' opinions are not the topic of this thread. . . . .Thanks . . . Civility, Please! (another thread)

Did I miss your being made a moderator?

If you're not, then who gives a shit about your opinions?

[Pincho Paxton]

This doesn't even make sense as a coherent sentence.

How can background radiation be a distance? It can't.
Is there such a thing as "space-time weight"? No, there isn't.
Can "space-time weight" implode? Who knows, since there's no such thing.



More nonsense. What sort of "holes" are formed? How are they formed? Why?

What is "hollow space"? It doesn't exist.

How is "hollow space" similar to bubbles? Who knows? It's all just random nonsense.



If pixies wear green vests then skyrocket moonshadow forklift.



Why waste everybody's time with this rubbish?

Wake up, and learn about the universe, or stay asleep, and spout science. here is an example of an admin post on a science forum...


If pixies wear green vests then skyrocket moonshadow forklift.

Which only proves that the admin relate the truth to that scenario. That is how far science is from the truth.

[martillo]

So you are ignorant, refuse to learn anything new and are damn proud of it? Well, I hope that philosophy works out for you.
I don't refuse to learn anything new but you know, our time is limited, our memory is limited so no one can know everything and we must focus in the things that matters for us may be following our own intuition sometimes.

Your link was good to clarify about CMBR and your point and you know, it made me remember that I saw a program in tv about the detection of the CMBR by those scientists and how it matched with the "Big Bang" theory. I just forgot that for a while.
The problem is that I didn't like when you said: "educate your self a little bit" I think is someway too arrogant from yourself and you know every action has a reaction...

Now coming back to the point, it is clear that cualitatively the CMBR matches with the "Big Bang" theory which says that the Universe was getting colder and colder and with time some "low" background radiation is expected. That's fine, my point was more quantitative in that how it could be demonstrated that the "energy level" of the radiation (as you said and I mean temperature) would be predicted precisely by the theory. As I said I think this haven't been done.
This way the different "mechanism" I propose to be the origin of the CMBR can also agree cualitatively with the CMBR since we can think in some appropiated quantity of those "lost photons" giving the needed temperature in the background. We can also think in "lost photons" having sucessive Compton's interactions with many electrons (for example of interstellar gas) through a long time in their long travel and loosing energy. This can also explain cualitativelly that for example photons originally in the visible spectrum could end in the microwave spectrum (wikipedia says this is the main spectrum of the CMBR).
I can't demonstrate the cuantitative part of showing that the total effect of the proposed "mechanism" in the entire Universe would give the precise "energy level" of the experimentally verified CMBR (as I thought you asked to me) but I say that this also wasn't done with the current theory of the "Big Bang".
You said:

That would be pretty incredible that all this 'noise' had the same energy level! How do you propose that could possibley be?
So now I can answer that the mechanism I propose can explain cualitatively that energy level although I can't demonstate quantitatively the precise temperature of the CMBR at this time. As I said it would be a matter for further study and research.

[origin]

Now coming back to the point, it is clear that cualitatively the CMBR matches with the "Big Bang" theory which says that the Universe was getting colder and colder and with time some "low" background radiation is expected. That's fine, my point was more quantitative in that how it could be demonstrated that the "energy level" of the radiation (as you said and I mean temperature) would be predicted precisely by the theory. As I said I think this haven't been done.

You are incorrect in your thinking.

[origin]

Qrigin: Your posts are argumentative and denigrating, which is not the purpose of this thread . . . . please moderate yourself and refocus on the friendly discussion (another thread)

No. If someone is spouting moronic BS, I will point it out. If someone arrogantly spouts moronic BS I will be somewhat denigrating.

It is hard enough to suffer fools - it is intolerable to suffer arrogant fools!

[wlminex]

Origin: Get back ON TOPIC!! This is an OPEN DISCUSSION of alternative interpretations for CMBR . . . THANK YOU!! very much.

wlminex

[rpenner]

Get back ON TOPIC!! This is an OPEN DISCUSSION of alternative interpretations for CMBR . Dude -- you aren't paying us enough to come up with alternative theories for a large body of physical observations.

The Big Bang model rests on four qualitative pillars: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the Recession of Galaxies, the Primordial Elemental Abundances and the Blackness of the Night Sky. Attacking one pillar, even if modestly successful, does nothing to weaken the support of that pillar and the 3 others for standard Big Bang cosmology. You have to tackle the whole problem if you wish to compete with the successes of the standard cosmology.

In detail, the statistical distribution of galaxies and the quantitative agreement of these pillars selects a set of parameters for a GR-based model of the universe with great specificity. This is why, in the last 20 years we went from saying the universe was probably 10-20 billion years old to saying it was 13.7 billion years old.

So far you have not provided incentive or other reason to even consider historically discarded alternatives to the standard Big Bang cosmology, let alone provide reasons for us to come up with new alternatives. Treating the members of the forum like unruly subordinates is no way to motivate others -- especially when they are demonstratively neither your subordinates nor your inferiors.


THANK YOU!! very much. Dude! Edumacate yerself wit SCIENCE and say less until you know more.

[origin]

Origin: Get back ON TOPIC!! This is an OPEN DISCUSSION of alternative interpretations for CMBR . . . THANK YOU!! very much.
wlminex

Wilminex: You are getting this discussion OFF TOPIC!! By bringing up your requirements for etiquette it has derailed the discussion and we are talking about etiquette instead of the posts about the simple-minded, uneducated and unevidenced alternatives to a theory that works well. THANK YOU! and don't let it happen again.

[wlminex]

Wilminex: You are getting this discussion OFF TOPIC!! By bringing up your requirements for etiquette it has derailed the discussion and we are talking about etiquette instead of the posts about the simple-minded, uneducated and unevidenced alternatives to a theory that works well. THANK YOU! and don't let it happen again.

Origin: . . . see Post #1 . . . .

[wlminex]

Origin: Please read my PM to you regarding the last few posts to this thread . . . no point in cluttering the thread with "Off--Topic" discussions.

[origin]

Origin: Please read my PM to you regarding the last few posts to this thread . . . no point in cluttering the thread with "Off--Topic" discussions.

wlminex: I read your PM and answered it and you answered me... why are you cluttering up this thread with this off-topic information. It is obvious when a PM has been recieved there is no need to tell them.:shrug:

[martillo]

I have been thinking in other phenomenon that could be present in the CMBR as a "background noise". Is that the interstellar gas can absorb some of the radiation in its place and after re-emit it emiting other photons with other frequencies/energies and in other directions.
In other words the interstellar gas could be heated by the radiation received from the rest of the Universe in its place and so it emits some radiation that could be perceived as a background radiation.
This way the CMBR level (temperature) and spectrum could be caused mainly by the interstellar gas.
What do you think about this possibility?

[origin]

I have been thinking in other phenomenon that could be present in the CMBR as a "background noise". Is that the interstellar gas can absorb some of the radiation in its place and after re-emit it emiting other photons with other frequencies/energies and in other directions.
In other words the interstellar gas could be heated by the radiation received from the rest of the Universe in its place and so it emits some radiation that could be perceived as a background radiation.
This way the CMBR level (temperature) and spectrum could be caused mainly by the interstellar gas.
What do you think about this possibility?

Not much. There is much more gas towards the center of the galaxy so there should be a higher flux of radiation in that direction if you were right, there isn't so your hypothesis is wrong.

Why are you so dead set against the BB? If is always better to let the data lead you to a conclusion that to assume a conclusion and search for data to support the assumed conclusion.

[wellwisher]

The Standard Model concludes that CMBR is a vestige of the Big Bang and that it exhibits a near-perfect 'black body' spectrum. Would not constant production of CMBR, at a constant rate and energy level, produce a similar spectrum?

One way is that the galaxies give off the energy for the background heat. The universe is expanding relative to the galaxies so the galaxy is the basic unit of heat generation currency.

Another consideration is melting point of helium is 0.95K and the boiling point is 3.2K. The background temperature is in the middle of this.

If we melted ice, the temperature would remain at 0C until all the ice is melted. The background temperature may reflect a phase change temperature that is an average of condensing and freezing helium.

[martillo]

Not much. There is much more gas towards the center of the galaxy so there should be a higher flux of radiation in that direction if you were right, there isn't so your hypothesis is wrong.
That is right if we consider the neighborhood of the galaxy only.
If we consider the entire vast Universe and that with time far gas contribute the same than near gas to the incoming radiation we get in average the same resultant radiation in any direction of the space.
The hypothesis holds.

[origin]

One way is that the galaxies give off the energy for the background heat. The universe is expanding relative to the galaxies so the galaxy is the basic unit of heat generation currency.

Another consideration is melting point of helium is 0.95K and the boiling point is 3.2K. The background temperature is in the middle of this.

If we melted ice, the temperature would remain at 0C until all the ice is melted. The background temperature may reflect a phase change temperature that is an average of condensing and freezing helium.

Then galaxies should be rather strong point sources for this radiation and they are not, therefore your hypothesis is wrong.

[origin]

That is right if we consider the neighborhood of the galaxy only.

I am not considering only the local galaxy.


If we consider the entire vast Universe and that with time far gas contribute the same than near gas to the incoming radiation we get in average the same resultant radiation in any direction of the space.
The hypothesis holds.

Please explain how this could be possible - you mean the \frac{1}{r^2} relationship does not hold.

If what you say is true then shouldn't the entire sky be as bright as the Milky Way?

The hypothesis is no good.

[martillo]

Please explain how this could be possible - you mean the relationship does not hold.

If what you say is true then shouldn't the entire sky be as bright as the Milky Way?

The hypothesis is no good.
Well I'm thinking interstellar gas would behave differently than stars and galaxies since it is made of disperse atoms or molecules and it is someway "transparent" to the back radiation but I must think more about, I agree.

[OnlyMe]

That would be pretty incredible that all this 'noise' had the same energy level! How do you propose that could possibley be?

Just a little creative imagination...

Suppose that we are near or at the center of a light sphere horizon within the universe. In other words, if the universe is finite it is larger than the distance from where we are to our cosmological horizon. Probably a good bet anyway...

Now suppose that within that light horizon sphere the matter filling that sphere is relatively evenly distributed from our perspective. Again a good bet...

Could not the CMB be the last remnants of EM radiation redshifted to a microwave background. Being in the center of what we can detect it would be relatively equal in all directions. Which it seems to be...

Not saying this is the way it is, just that what we have have believed, does not necessarily always represent what is. Though we do tend to get attached to what we believe in.