CMBR : Early Photons or ?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by The God, Mar 12, 2017.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    How a theory depends upon one's understanding? Theory got to be deterministic, with precise observational explanations and few predictions which could falsify it. It does not depend on yours or mine understanding.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Whole universe was plasma, when??
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    The God: D-u-h-h-h- . . . .'precise observational explanations' . . . . .--> one's "understanding"
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    ?? You did not answer, how a theory depends on one's understanding?
     
  8. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Maybe prior to the BB event (if it happened), perhaps? . . . what say you, Boris?
     
  9. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    There is no concept of prior to BB event.
     
  10. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    The God: YOU said it, not me! . . . . . (post #21) . . . . . Theory = 'precise observational explanations and few predictions which could falsify it ' . . . . this references YOUR usage!
     
  11. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Uh-h-h-h-h. . . . I and Boris have provided you one . . . . . and there are others . . . . do some research! You may have to temporarily jump outside the SM box!
     
  12. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    before about 380 000 years after the "creation" event. We are talking about the visible Universe here. When the Universe was too hot for atoms to form.

    As to the creation event or what might have been before it I have nothing to say. So lets just stick with what we do know from about 10^-35 secs after the event.
     
  13. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Hi Boris,
    May I ask.. Is the first observational evidence in support of BBT the cosmic background radiation which came from an event 380,000 years after the start?

    When you talk about 10^-35 seconds onwards (to 380,000 years) are there observations or is this period determined by applying the theory.
    Thank you Alex
     
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    This is very interesting. CMBR has associated jargon...that is recombination era, last scattering surface and photon decoupling.... But the time frame is 380000 years after BB. I do not know if we have any observation for 0- 380000 years period. It's all speculative theory.
     
  15. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    It is theory back up by experiments done in colliders. You have probably heard them say that "...the new energies available at the LHC in Cern will allow them to "see" what the early Universe was like."

    The temperature at the time of recombination was around 3000k, so not hot and therefore the energies were not big. We can create them on Earth no problems.
     
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Thank you for your reply.
    So there is no astronomy observation earlier than CMBR?
    Alex
     
  17. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    I doubt if your call "speculative theory" will go down well.
    I am trying to explore my understanding.
    BBT predicts a start some 13 billion years ago (approx) and sets out a time scale of events from the start until now.
    BBT predicted that CMBR would be found and it was and such a finding gives BBT the prediction necessary to establish the theory yet the observation is really of an event as I understand that took place 380,000 years after the start (t=0?).
    I simply wish to establish that my understanding is correct.
    Would this not leave the door open for a different model, for example and as an example only, that places t=0 say 50 billion years (or more) in the past, or at a time such that we can avoid inflation.

    I presume from what I have read those who support BBT are satisfied CMBR can only come from the event they have at 380,000 years after the start. Could the observed radiation be attributed to anything else? I have read that some present the idea the CMBR could be simply "tired light" and such a suggestion seems to be rejected by supporters of BBT.

    Anyways it seems that astronomical observations in support of the BBT end at CMBR?
    Alex
     
  18. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    Don't believe so. I also can't think of any type of astronomy, except maybe neutrino or gravity wave, that could be utilised. But I am far from being any expert on these matters.
     
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Thank you for your reply.
    Alex
     
  20. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    CMBR photon : Do we have any observational evidence of CMBR photon participating in any other phenomenon? Its like have we conducted any experiment on them, apart from of course recording their spectrum.
     
  21. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    There is nothing intrinsically special about them. They are just microwave radiation. It is what we can discover about other aspects of the Universe were they are useful.
     
  22. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    They are omnipresent, they must be doing something. Do we have anything else other than spectrum.
     
  23. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    Of course. For instance thanks to more and more refined Planck satellite data, various rival inflation theories have been ruled out. Based not just on CMBR frequency spectrum, but the fluctuations in intensity over a large range of solid angles, and similarly for polarizations.
    Recall the now (in)famous BICEP2 debacle where B-mode polarizations were declared as 'confirming' primordial quadrupole mode GW's. Planck data sank that one.
    Peruse - https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/publications
     

Share This Page