Yes the key word is “contamination”. They speak of the CMB being contaminated with a degree of this “foreground” radiation, i.e. in front of the “real” CMB from the plasma era.
Как выглядит точка отсчёта в этой модели?
This is about the CMBR
Hmm I see what you mean. That would imply that the entire CMBR signal could be due to these early galaxies. Which would blow a huge hole in the theory, obviously.Perhaps, I'm getting confused regarding their conclusions and graph...
What results from these estimates, naturally but unexpectedly, is as follows. Under the most conservative assumptions -- i.e.,assuming that the average ETG separation (⟨0⟩) in local volumes applies to the whole Universe -- the formation of massive ETGs mayaccount for 1.4% of the observed (present-day) CMB photon energy density. If, instead, ⟨0⟩ corresponds to that inferred around ≈ 2[32], then the cumulative energy density of massive ETGs would be of the same order as that of the observed CMB
It's a cosmology paper so... please feel free to jump in and help me out.Perhaps, I'm getting confused regarding their conclusions and graph...
What results from these estimates, naturally but unexpectedly, is as follows. Under the most conservative assumptions -- i.e.,assuming that the average ETG separation (⟨0⟩) in local volumes applies to the whole Universe -- the formation of massive ETGs mayaccount for 1.4% of the observed (present-day) CMB photon energy density. If, instead, ⟨0⟩ corresponds to that inferred around ≈ 2[32], then the cumulative energy density of massive ETGs would be of the same order as that of the observed CMB
This is quite a technical paper. I think we would benefit from a real astronomer's opinion on what on what it signifies. Perhaps someone like Janus58 , if he is around somewhere.
"This is the cosmic microwave background. Since by looking at higher and higher redshift objects, we are looking further and further back in time, we can view the observation of CMB photons as imaging a uniform "surface of last scattering" at a redshift of 1100. "
It's a ridiculous number 1100.
That means that, at last scattering, the (observable) universe would already be 80 million light years across when it was only 370,000 years old.
OK thanks, that puts the z values of 15 or so they mention in the paper into context. That’s foreground all right!
Eh? 300m yrs isn’t much, compared to the age of the universe. It’s only the end of the Carboniferous on Earth. Surely we can see further back than that?