CMB Photons

Why so eager to have this thread closed? Trying to manipulate the mods?

Are you suggesting that tashja should be satisfied with an 'explanation' from you which gives rise to further questions whose answers may make your 'explanation' questionable??


You now claim to have answered wiminex's question?

Can you kindly direct me to where you answered the question:

How are CMB photons detected, if not by electromagnetic interaction with the detector construct?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Anyone posting online has the answers at their fingertips:

http://bit.ly/R5bdJJ

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is perhaps expecting a great deal of some posters... While spelling is not important you have to know that the CMB is a from of radiation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It seems so.

 

That's the point. CMB photons IS radiation. Electromagnetic radiation. brucep 'explained' to tashja that CMB photons do NOT interact any longer with things 'electromagnetically'. He was therefore asked the logical scientific question: how are they detected if (as brucep claims) they allegedly do NOT interact electromagnetically with our detector constructs? Do you understand? Or are you two going to engage in inane tactics of misunderstanding and evasion of the point/logic of the question in the context of brucep's statement there?

 

My comments on this thread: It's yet another huge troll fest.

Wliminex's question was meaningless in my opinion. He said since the CMB interacts with a detector, what other things does it interact with and what effect does that have on it, at least, that's as near as possible to framing wliminex's question in as meaningful a way as I can. This is separate from the question about "if the CMB is no longer interacting, how can we detect it?" This is a meaningful, if rather stupid and naive question. Clearly what is meant by this is the universe in general goes from being opaque to photons to transparent to photons, specifically this means the mean free path of the average photon goes from being a small fraction of the size of the universe to a large fraction of it. This happened when the charged particles present in the early universe bound together to form neutral atoms. Of course we can still detect the CMB because the properties of the photons are the same before and after this phase transition. It is the properties of the universe that changed.

 

And right there, in your 'opinion' you display again biased readings and prejudicial interpretation of what has transpired.

That was NOT the context/meaning of what wiminex's question to brucep was all about. That was NOT an issue. You have mischaracterized what the issue WAS.

Is it really such an impossible ask for a mod to GET IT RIGHT before they get involved?

Did you even read and understand WHY the question was asked BASED on brucep's claim that the CMB Photons do not interact anymore electromagnetically?

The context for asking that question was the possibility/question that the CMB has other provenance than the bid bang scenario. It was to pooh-pooh this possibility/question that brucep resorted to HIS 'explanation' that the CMB were all of big bang provenance and there couldn't be any way that intervening space interactions could produce the CMB because according to brucep: "they do NOT interact electromagnetically any more"..

BUT how can such a possibility/question be pooh-poohed by (brucep) saying the CMB does NOT react electromagnetically since the big bang scenario?

It flies in the face of the FACT that our detectors DO detect CMB VIA electromagnetic interaction with our detector constructs.


Hence the follow-up LEGITIMATE and logical and scientific question by wiminex

Do you understand this inconsistency in brucep argument/pooh-poohing of other possibilities of CMB being a product of electromagnetic interactions SINCE the big bang and to this day?

You have again SERIOUSLY misrepresented/misconstrued what's what (heaven knows why, you are intelligent enough not to if you try not to).

Please go back and actually read/understand properly instead of again being lax in your 'opinionating' due diligence. Thanks.

 

RealityCheck,

Why can you not just read the Wiki on CMB yourself? Apparently you sit with your mouth agape waiting to be fed by anyone who might regurgitate for you what you should be seeking out on your own by now. Baby birdie needs to spread his own wings already.

You would find all the answers you so desperately troll for here.

"At this point, the photons no longer interacted with the now electrically neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space, resulting in the decoupling of matter and radiation." -wiki​

There is a difference between not interacting with electrically neutral atoms and still interacting with electrically charged electrons. We cannot directly detect the former except indirectly through the latter.

Now shut up already and learn to find these readily available facts for yourself.

 

That was the 'electrically neutral' environment then.

The universal space/content has evolved much since then.

Hence the question as to other possible interactions/provenance since then.

Nowhere is this later much-evolved environment aspect re CMB observations/provenance now addressed in the literature or the net.

Can you answer as to this later much-evolved environment aspect possibly affecting/effecting the CMB observed here and now?


PS: So brucep's 'explanation' to tashja was incomplete. Also it does not answer what happens now in the much evolved space/content environment since then. This was the point of asking the questions. There are no 'nonsense questions'; only 'nonsense answers', as the saying goes (paraphrased). If you and he et al had bothered to ask why the question was asked, instead of just assuming and ridiculing, perhaps we could have got to this point directly without the fuss on on the part of the 'explainer'? Yes?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

For Syne

Thanks. It was also discussed in the 'Last Scattering Surface' Adapted from P. Coles, 1999, The Routledge Critical Dictionary of the New Cosmology, Routledge Inc., New York. I wonder if I'd copied and paste the wiki statement if they would have objected. Thanks for posting that.

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_lss.html

 

Hi brucep.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you will just read my post above to Syne, you will understand that the question had implications for CMB background provenance/interactions since the 'last scattering' event. A lot has happened in the universe since then. That is what we have to consider/question about what we observe now since that event. That was the context/implications wanted to be discussed.

I trust there are no hard feelings/misunderstandings? Thanks.

 

Baby birdie with its mouth still gaping.

http://bit.ly/Oyh6mn

Nothing has significantly changed "since then".

 

Cranks do tend to be lazy to boot.

 

You're playing evasive games. I am perfectly cognizant of the various states of matter/particles.

Neither that reference nor you have answered the point about universal space/content evolution/processes which do not just produce 'neutral' atoms and features in space since then.

The first (last scattering) may have involved the original environment, but that environment has changed since then and produced various other environments/content that is NOT neutral.

Can you two ever be serious instead of evasive and irrelevant while missing the real point like that? It's not a good look for 'resident experts' when they don't address the point made.

 

Back from "holiday'. Next time, Prometheus, please make it a voluntary and paid holiday, rather than a 7-day ban. Thanks to fellow members, especially RealityCheck, for continuing the discussion in my stead, and to the other contributors for their clarifications in resolving the discussions.

 

While "on holiday", I found these links that participants on this thread might be interested in:

http://astrobites.com/2012/04/02/the-first-ever-detection-of-the-kinematic-sunyaev-zeldovich-effect/
http://www-conf.kek.jp/nasulec/slides/staggs_cmb_detectors_10feb09_sm.pdf
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/picture-of-cmb-from-resonance-but-not.html
http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/tfcr_final_report.pdf
http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/18/263-269.pdf Excerpt: "Nevertheless, the CTNB, unlike its electromagnetically interacting cousin CMBR, has not so far been directly or even indirectly detected".

 

Then maybe you could tell us the electrical charge of atoms in a photon detector.

...or admit to waving your arms wildly.

 

What kind of photon detector . . . PMT? TES? LDSi? EDS? . . . other? In "most" photon detectors the detecting substrates are neutral until excitation by an impinging energetic photon kicks electrons in the detector media to (temporarily) higher energy levels, or ejects outer electrons (again temporarily; e.g. photoelectric effect).

 

You've just claimed that "nothing has significantly changed since then" [ie, since the 'last scattering event']??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's apparently you that is "waving your arms wildly". People ask questions and you and brucep etc don't or can't answer properly, so you default to 'tactics'. Admit it, you don't know what you are talking about. You're just stalling.

It's not up to ME to justify brucep et al's so called 'explanation' "that CMB photons no longer interact electromagnetically", now is it?

And it's been pointed out to you what should be obvious, even to YOU, if YOU go read up in the cosmological/astronomical literature about states/processes EVOLUTIONS since the 'last scattering' producing a background of NON-neutral matter/particles environment.

It's also been pointed out that CMB photons must interact electromagnetically with our detector constructs.

So now it's up to YOU and brucep et al to PROVE YOUR CLAIM of CMB photon "electromagnetic NON-interactivity" within the context of the cosmic environment SINCE the 'last scattering' which has much evolved and produced NON-neutral environment.

If someone else was to act like you have been on this fair question (which merely requires fair answer instead of snide EVASIONS and insults and trolls), you and brucep etc would be all over them with insults and demands THEY 'spit it out', and then manipulate prom or some other 'obliging' mod to BAN them. Double standards still alive and well?

So either spit out your supporting argument why CMB should NOT interact electromagnetically with the cosmic environment SINCE 'last scattering', or admit you are worse than a crank; because you should know better your responsibility to answer questions fairly instead of making evasive posts with irrelevant references.

So you can just go ahead and properly support brucep's and your CMB electromagnetic non-interactivity contention with relevant facts to the point and in the context of evolved NON-NEUTRAL cosmic matter/processes environment since the 'last scattering', or be proven a troll and 'crank' of the worst order.

Thanks.

 

Prometheus, please read my above post and see where Syne et al have been on the wrong track and why they have been evading and misrepresenting what the questions are about. Then please ask them politely to support their claim about CMB Photon electromagnetic non-interactivity in the face of the evolved NON-neutral features/processes cosmic environment SINCE the 'last scattering' event of the big bang scenario. There are important URGENT reasons why we MUST REVIEW and challenge these facile explanations, like bruce's and Syne's out-of-date claim that "CMB photons don't react electromagnetically since the last scattering". So, just to show you have some semblance of impartiality left in your mindset, please ask the resident experts (yourself included if you wish to engage) to actually address both the point of the questions and the evolved NON-neutral cosmic context since the 'last scattering event' which always gets glibly trotted out without regard to the information about the NON-neutral evolved cosmic environment since then. Let's see if this thread is the turning point in the mod-troll farce where you keep blaming the questioner and let the trolls/evasions get away scot free and further protect them from any continued challenge by the simple expedient of CLOSING the thread without any right of reply before you do it.

You closed that Center of Universe thread prematurely, characterizing that last evasion/insulting post from origin as " a good note" to end the thread on. Do you even realize how biased and prejudiced that sounded in the context of origin STILL NOT answering for HIS claims and insulting instead? A mod rewarding troll evasions and insults in lieu of answering fairly, and then you practically gloat over it with prejudiced reading of origins evasions and insults as "a good note" to finish on. Not a good look, mate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you here again choose to assist in their further evasions and trolling insults in lieu of facing THEIR responsibility, then you will again prove I am right. Good luck in your next decision/action as mod.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!