What is the cosmic microwave background radiation?

Mar 13, 2014 by Fraser Cain, Universe Today
WMAP data of the Cosmic Microwave Background. Credit: NASA

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is the afterglow of the Big Bang; one of the strongest lines of evidence we have that this event happened. UCLA's Dr. Ned Wright explains.

"Ok, I'm Ned Wright, and I'm a professor of physics and astronomy at UCLA, and I work on infrared astronomy and cosmology."

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

How useful is the cosmic microwave background radiation?

"Well, the most important information we get is from the cosmic come from, at the lowest level, is it's existence. When I started in astronomy, it wasn't 100 percent certain that the Big Bang model was correct. And so with the prediction of a cosmic microwave background from the Big Bang and the prediction of no cosmic microwave background from the competing theory, the steady state, that was a very important step in our knowledge."

"And then the second aspect of the cosmic microwave background that is very important, is that it's spectrum is extremely similar to a black body. And so, by being a black body means that relatively smoothly transitioned from being opaque to being transparent, and then we actually see effectively an isothermal cavity when we look out, so it looks very close to a black body."

"And the fact that we are moving through the universe can be measured very precisely by looking at what is called the dipole anisotropy of the microwave background. So one side of the sky is slightly hotter (about 3 millikelvin hotter) and one side of the sky – the opposite side of the sky – is slightly colder (about 3 millikelvin colder), so that means that we are moving at approximately a tenth of a percent of the speed of light. And in fact we now know very precisely what that value is – it's about 370 kilometers per second. So that's our motion, the solar system's motion, through the universe."

"An then the final piece of information we're getting from the microwave background now, in fact the Planck satellite just gave us more information along these lines is measurement of the statistical pattern of the very small what I call anisotropies or little bumps and valleys in the temperature. So in addition to the 3 millikelvin difference, we actually have plus or minus 100 microkelvin difference in the temperature from different spots. And so, when you look at these spots, and look at their detailed pattern, you can actually see a very prominent feature, which is there's about a one and a half degree preferred scale, and that's what's caused by the acoustic

waves that are set up by the density perturbations early in the history of the universe, and how far they could travel before the universe became transparent. And that's a very strong indicator about the universe."

What does it tell us about dark energy?

"The actually has this pattern on a half degree scale, and that gives you effectively a line of position, as you have with celestial navigation where you get a measurement of one star with a sextant, then you get a line on the map where you are. But you can look at the same pattern – the acoustic wave setup in the universe, and you see that in the galaxy's distribution a lot more locally. We're talking about galaxies, so it might be a billion light years away, but to cosmologists, that's local. And these galaxies also show the same wave-like pattern, and you can measure that angle at scale locally and compare it to what you see in history and that gives you the crossing line of position. And that really tells us where we are in the universe, and how much stuff there is and it tells us that we have this dark energy which nobody really understands what it is, but we know what it's doing. It's making the universe accelerate in it's expansion."

Explore further: Researchers shed new light on dark energy, cosmic speed-up

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

South Pole telescope detector aids study of the universe

Nov 13, 2013

Center for Nanoscale Materials (CNM) users from Argonne's High Energy Physics and Materials Science divisions helped design and operate part of the South Pole Telescope, a project that aims a large telescope ...

Backgrounds

Jun 28, 2011

You’ve probably heard of the cosmic microwave background, but it doesn’t stop there. The as-yet-undetectable cosmic neutrino background is out there waiting to give us a view into the first seconds ...

Researchers propose a new way to detect the elusive graviton

Mar 04, 2014

(Phys.org) —Among the four fundamental forces of nature, only gravity has not had a basic unit, or quanta, detected. Physicists expect that gravitational force is transmitted by an elementary particle called a graviton, ...

Recommended for you

Spectacular supernova's mysteries revealed

4 hours ago

(Phys.org) —New research by a team of UK and European-based astronomers is helping to solve the mystery of what caused a spectacular supernova in a galaxy 11 million light years away, seen earlier this ...

Supernova seen in two lights

5 hours ago

(Phys.org) —The destructive results of a mighty supernova explosion reveal themselves in a delicate blend of infrared and X-ray light, as seen in this image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope and Chandra ...

Toothpaste fluorine formed in stars

Aug 21, 2014

The fluorine that is found in products such as toothpaste was likely formed billions of years ago in now dead stars of the same type as our sun. This has been shown by astronomers at Lund University in Sweden, ...

Swirling electrons in the whirlpool galaxy

Aug 20, 2014

The whirlpool galaxy Messier 51 (M51) is seen from a distance of approximately 30 million light years. This galaxy appears almost face-on and displays a beautiful system of spiral arms.

User comments : 46

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2014
Hah. Hah. Hah. Ned is panicking. Spent his life defending a fantasy. Hah. Hah.
Bonia
Mar 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Drjsa_oba
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
I remember reading an article many years ago predicting a CMB of about 30 degrees K for Big Bang and about 3 degrees for Steady State. This was before it was measured accurately and the Big Bang proponents at the time were thought to being closer to the correct measure.

It was only later when the background was thought to be less than 10 degrees that the Big Bang estimate also changes to about 3.3 degrees which was about the same temperature as the Steady State estimate and at the time both theories came up with pretty much the same temperature.

NOW we have this guy and others saying that steady state had no background temperature this is rewriting history.
Bonia
Mar 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2014
I remember reading an article many years ago predicting a CMB of about 30 degrees K for Big Bang and about 3 degrees for Steady State. This was before it was measured accurately and the Big Bang proponents at the time were thought to being closer to the correct measure.

It was only later when the background was thought to be less than 10 degrees that the Big Bang estimate also changes to about 3.3 degrees which was about the same temperature as the Steady State estimate and at the time both theories came up with pretty much the same temperature.


That is false.

Gamow made the first prediction of a CMB in 1946-7. Gamow, Herman and Alpher predicted it would about 5 kelvins in 1948. And it was forgotten for 2 decades.

Dickie and Peebles predicted it at 3 to 5 in 1964 by redoing Gamow et al's calucalations, They were overjoyed when it measured in at 3 K later that same year.

That's just history, you should Google these things before you say,,,, "I remember reading".
yep
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2014
"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe them."
—George Orwell
Rimino
Mar 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Mar 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Mar 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Mar 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Mar 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Mar 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Mar 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gmr
5 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2014
Wow - somebody sure does like to talk to themselves.

On another note, I wasn't sure we could measure a "relative" speed of our solar system - I keep thinking there are no absolute measurements, so a kind-of "static" frame of reference to measure against seems unusual. Learn something new every day.
ralph638s
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2014
Perhaps about 2 years ago, I heard a radio interview with Roger Penrose, and he described seeing ripples in the CMB, which he interpreted as echoes of previous big bangs...
Bonia
Mar 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2014
What is the cosmic microwave background radiation?


An exercise in statistical manipulation to support a failing paradigm.

http://www.plasma...1992.pdf

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2014
All plasma beams emit microwaves. That should be something which people take into account when they suggest that the CMB proves the Big Bang. But, notice that few people ever mention it.

Re: "you can actually see a very prominent feature, which is there's about a one and a half degree preferred scale, and that's what's caused by the acoustic waves that are set up by the density perturbations early in the history of the universe"

This is a non-falsifiable claim, based upon a creation story. That's okay, as we are at the limits of science here. But, is it not stating the obvious that we should keep an eye out for alternative explanations?

We can see filaments of HI hydrogen inside of filaments of stars inside of filaments of galaxies. I see your creation story, but why do you prefer the creation story over observations of laboratory plasmas?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2014
An exercise in statistical manipulation to support a failing paradigm

@CD
conjecture based upon ignorance
provide empirical data that the CMB is a failing paradigm and be specific in your argument
is it not stating the obvious that we should keep an eye out for alternative explanations?

@Alfven
the question is: what are you pushing with this comment? Where are you going with this?
I see your creation story, but why do you prefer the creation story over observations of laboratory plasmas?

be specific about the argument and provide empirical data for support of your position, please, without reference to pseudoscience sites, thank you.

Are you STILL assuming that plasma physics is not taken into consideration of astrophysics?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
Are you STILL assuming that plasma physics is not taken into consideration of astrophysics?

Are you STILL assuming that astrophysicists are taking into consideration the correct properties when they describe the plasma physics they study? Obviously...

Are you still completely misinterpreting just about every argument? Obviously!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
Are you STILL assuming that astrophysicists are taking into consideration the correct properties when they describe the plasma physics they study?

@cd
yes. Especially given that they can provide empirical data supporting their claims, which EU CANNOT as the closest they can come to is conjecture about plasma based upon the interpretation of an electrical engineer not versed in other astrophysics which is very relevant. See links for details:
http://adsabs.har...56..152N
http://ve4xm.calt...ma_page/
http://w3fusion.p...edu/ifs/
http://mrx.pppl.gov/
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
http://farside.ph...king.pdf
Are you still completely misinterpreting just about every argument?

given your propensity for blatant fallacies...
Your posts tend towards unsupported or irrelevant conjecture while linking to pseudoscience data and making blanket accusations that are easily checked and refuted
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
You continued links to pseudoscience proves nothing.

@cd
LMFAO
Harvard? CalTech? Princeton? University of Texas? NSF Physics Frontier Center for Magnetic Self-organization in Laboratory and Astrophysical Plasmas? those are pseudoscience in your book?
you are hilarious...
nice try
by the way... you have linked Harvard and Princeton before... LOL
billpress11
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2014
Quote from article: "When I started in astronomy, it wasn't 100 percent certain that the Big Bang model was correct. And so with the prediction of a cosmic microwave background from the Big Bang and the prediction of no cosmic microwave background from the competing theory, the steady state, that was a very important step in our knowledge."

I don't know what the prediction was for the SS model, that was before my time. But I will say this the BB theory has had to add some magic (inflation) to come up with a flat universe that has a nearly uniform background temperature.

An infinite SS recycling universe needs NO adjustments to come up with the nearly uniform background temperature. It is just the logical temperature the red shifting of light would end up around before it is absorbed. As for the slightly different temperatures, well are the visible galaxies and galaxy clusters uniform? No, so why should the CMB be any different in a SS recycling universe than what is observed?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
An infinite SS recycling universe needs NO adjustments to come up with the nearly uniform background temperature. It is just the logical temperature the red shifting of light would end up around before it is absorbed. As for the slightly different temperatures, well are the visible galaxies and galaxy clusters uniform? No, so why should the CMB be any different in a SS recycling universe than what is observed?


The CMB anisotropies matches the observed structure (galaxies and clusters). Any SS model can't account for the observed evolution and structure.

But there are other problems with SS models,

The linear increase of redshift with distance. Expansion can not be explained with SS models. Redshift is not a controversial phenomenon, it's well understood and tested in a variety of desperate methods.

Elemental abundances can't be explained with a SS model. The abundances are precisely predicted in Lambda CDM models. Nucleosynthesis is best explained by Lambda CDM model.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2014
Additionally,,,,,,,,,,,,

Lambda CDM does not invoke "magical" physics, it mere makes the most reasonable model that explains the observations.

SS models require 1) Magical properties of light which aren't observed (i.e. "tired light"). 2) Magical properties of gravity (gravity which changes over distance.) 3) Magical properties of nuclear physics (nucleosynthesis). 4) Magical properties of photons (the creation of the CMB, what caused it?) 5) Magical properties of mechanics (what keeps the universe from collapsing).

There are "best ideas based on what we know of physics" to explain what we actually observe,,,,, and then there is "grasping at many DIFFERENT magical straws" to explain AWAY the observations. Steady State models and the Aether Wave Theory are of the latter variety.
billpress11
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
Q-star, a SS recycling (SSr) universe accounts for the slight differences better than a BB model in the CMB without ANY adjustments. The BB had to add a magical inflationary period to come up with the same. My previous post explains the observation naturally, no magic needed.

In the BB model the Z factor rises in a parabolic curve, it would not in the SSr model. In a SSr universe it would rise straight in line with distances. This also eliminates the need for the magic of the accelerating expansion of the universe to explain the dimness of distant supernovae.

In your third point you are ignoring that the SSr universe recycles itself. Neutron stars are one method, there is at least other method also.

The Waves of Particles Theory of Light explains the observed red-shift in a way that conserves energy and momentum. http://www.scribd...-Physics

No tired light model is needed, no magic needed, and no gravity needed.

Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
Q-star, a SS recycling (SSr) universe accounts for the slight differences better than a BB model in the CMB without ANY adjustments. The BB had to add a magical inflationary period to come up with the same. My previous post explains the observation naturally, no magic needed.


It doesn't explain the source of the CMB. Not without playing footloose with known physics.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2014
In the BB model the Z factor rises in a parabolic curve, it would not in the SSr model. In a SSr universe it would rise straight in line with distances. This also eliminates the need for the magic of the accelerating expansion of the universe to explain the dimness of distant supernovae.


By z factor, I assume you mean the redshift? I don't know what the "parabolic curve" might be referring to, was it gratuitous jargon? It's magic to think light acts in ways never experimentally observed. It's magic to think it works one way here and another way there.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2014
In your third point you are ignoring that the SSr universe recycles itself. Neutron stars are one method, there is at least other method also.


That is more magical physics. There are no known mechanisms that would permit that. That doesn't explain the elemental abundances, and it doesn't explain nucleosynthesis, it is a grasp for a magical straw. It's unphysical.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
The Waves of Particles Theory of Light explains the observed red-shift in a way that conserves energy and momentum. http://www.scribd...-Physics


That link is gobbledygook. It relies on more magic and the prayer for some new phantasmal physics that wouldn't work in the universe we inhabit. It is as physical as the Aether Wave Theory.

No tired light model is needed, no magic needed, and no gravity needed.


No knowledge of physics required either. Zephyr includes more real physics in his musings.


Bonia
Mar 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
This is just the problem, that these "elemental abundances" doesn't agree with observations. L-CDM model http://www.skyand...856.html in distant areas of universe at the same moment.


Missing lithium is not a major problem Zeph. It's a minor puzzle that many think is not so puzzling. The heavy metal abundances in the distance universe is not a problem with Lamba CDM. It is only question of the "exact time line" of large scale structure evolution. Pinning down the time for the first stars and galaxies to began forming.

That's the beauty of real science, the questions to still be resolved and pursuing the answers. Unlike the EU/PC, AWT, and this new other thing,

We don't see our models as having the answer to every single thing we see posteriori,,,, we improve and tweak our models when observations warrant it. The cranks never adjust their models, and "theories",,,, theirs are already complete and final.
Bonia
Mar 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2014
When some model works too well, it indeed brings a problem for the proponents of all alternative theories.


Well if it's all the same to ya Zeph, I'll take my science with some unresolved problems and questions. That's what makes it interesting. I trust the work of people who can acknowledge having some unanswered questions,,,,,, Over the "work" of people who claim "certain knowledge with no unanswered questions". That's why I don't take the internet forum purveyors of ToE's seriously at all.
Bonia
Mar 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
billpress11
1 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
Q-star, a SS recycling (SSr) universe accounts for the slight differences better than a BB model in the CMB without ANY adjustments. The BB had to add a magical inflationary period to come up with the same. My previous post explains the observation naturally, no magic needed.


It doesn't explain the source of the CMB. Not without playing footloose with known physics.

The source of the CMB is from distant light sources from every direction that has been red-shifted into microwave frequencies.
billpress11
1 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
In your third point you are ignoring that the SSr universe recycles itself. Neutron stars are one method, there is at least other method also.


That is more magical physics. There are no known mechanisms that would permit that. That doesn't explain the elemental abundances, and it doesn't explain nucleosynthesis, it is a grasp for a magical straw. It's unphysical.

The main source is from decaying neutron stars. What do you have when neutrons decay?
Bonia
Mar 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
billpress11
1 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2014
The Waves of Particles Theory of Light explains the observed red-shift in a way that conserves energy and momentum. http://www.scribd...-Physics


That link is gobbledygook. It relies on more magic and the prayer for some new phantasmal physics that wouldn't work in the universe we inhabit. It is as physical as the Aether Wave Theory.

No tired light model is needed, no magic needed, and no gravity needed.


No knowledge of physics required either. Zephyr includes more real physics in his musings.



I don't see where it violates any of the known laws of physics. Maybe you should spend a little time applying these known laws to your BB theory.

Q-star, you don't resort to magic just because an observation doesn't agree with your theories. Magic like the inflation of space between the galaxies, the inflationary period and now the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
The source of the CMB is from distant light sources from every direction that has been red-shifted into microwave frequencies.


Sorry, that is not compatible with the observations. It is not an internally consistent explanation. That requires some completely unknown "magical" physics that can not even be inferred, much less posited as a possible mechanism.
Bonia
Mar 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
The main source is from decaying neutron stars. What do you have when neutrons decay?


It doesn't explain the elemental abundances. The proportions of the light elements can only be explained with an early era of nucleosynthesis. Any other mechanism doesn't match the observations.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
I don't see where it violates any of the known laws of physics. Maybe you should spend a little time applying these known laws to your BB theory.


It requires changes to established theory, and it violates the observational evidence. There is no "my" BB theory. My opinion is that the Lambda CMD model best describes the observational reality.It it prefect? Of course not. Is it complete? Not even close. But it in it's current form is the one best supported by the evidence.

Q-star, you don't resort to magic just because an observation doesn't agree with your theories. Magic like the inflation of space between the galaxies, the inflationary period and now the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.


We don't resort to magic, we modify & tweak the theories using the best available data and observations. Science is a constant refinement of the models, theories and descriptions.

Expansion is empirically observed, it would be magic to say it's something else.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
It is not an internally consistent explanation.
It's easy to say, but WHY not? I don't care if you support my theory in quiet or some else - I just want to see the reasoning, not a religious stance.


Zeph, I'm an atheist.

It's internally inconsistent because he:

1) posits that the uniform CMB is actually star light, it's not point sources we observe, it is a uniform even (1 part in a 100,000) distribution at every place in the shy.

2) posits that it is redshifted star light, which would require it be one of three forms,,,,

Gravitational redshift.
Redshift due to radial motion.
OR
Cosmological redshift.

Those are the only three kinds of redshifts that have ever been observed. We know it's not the first two because it's uniform everywhere, interstellar, intergalactic, in the voids everywhere.

That leaves only cosmological redshift, which is the very thing he is trying to deny, expansion.

Not internally consistent,,, grand theories must be self-consistent.
billpress11
1 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2014
The main source is from decaying neutron stars. What do you have when neutrons decay?


It doesn't explain the elemental abundances. The proportions of the light elements can only be explained with an early era of nucleosynthesis. Any other mechanism doesn't match the observations.

And those Granny galaxies discovered in the early universe do? Sure it can match the elemental abundances. You BB believers (yes it shows many of the characteristic of a religion) are thinking in terms of just 13.7 billion years. Neutrons have a short 1/2 life and decay into hydrogen. What would give you the idea a neutron star wouldn't. I will admit trying to figure out the exact make up of the distribution of elements from that cycle is well beyond my capabilities.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
And those Granny galaxies discovered in the early universe do?


All those old galaxies do is cause a refinement on the time-line for first star and galaxy formation, which no one in the field has ever said was anything but "uncertain". It has nothing to do with the abundances.

You BB believers ,,,,, are thinking in terms of just 13.7 billion years.


The observational evidence in conjunction with known physics indicates that 13.7 Gy in the Lambda CDM is about correct.

Neutrons have a short 1/2 life and decay into hydrogen. What would give you the idea a neutron star wouldn't.


A thing called neutron degeneracy pressure.

I will admit trying to figure out the exact make up of the distribution of elements from that cycle is well beyond my capabilities.


I'll save ya some time & effort, it can't be explained by using neutron stars. Hoyle already tried that & admitted he failed. He then had to posit "new" creation but couldn't offer a mechanism.
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2014
Quote Q-star: "1) posits that the uniform CMB is actually star light, it's not point sources we observe, it is a uniform even (1 part in a 100,000) distribution at every place in the shy.

Here again you are thinking in the terms of 13.7 billion years. You are correct, that is where the CMB comes from. It is star light from 20, 30 and even 50 billion light years distance that has been red-shifted down into microwave frequencies and beyond until it is all absorbed. Looking that far back in time is like looking into a fog everything blends into the same except for galaxies that closer but barely visible, these would appear as a ripples in the fog. This is just what we see in the CMB.

I am not denying cosmological red-shift, what I am claiming is the observed red-shift is not caused by any expansion of the universe. I comes from another source explained in the waves of particle theory of light.
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2014
Quote Q-star: "The observational evidence in conjunction with known physics indicates that 13.7 Gy in the Lambda CDM is about correct."

The only problem here is the BB theory has had to add one magic ad-hoc patch after another
to make it fit with the observations.

Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
I comes from another source explained in the waves of particle theory of light.


That is a crank theory. It is unphysical gobbledygook. It would take less effort to learn the real science behind cosmology and astrophysics than to try to defend some internet crackpottery you happened upon. Trust me, real physics is easier than the crank stuff you run into on the internet.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
Quote Q-star: "The observational evidence in conjunction with known physics indicates that 13.7 Gy in the Lambda CDM is about correct."

The only problem here is the BB theory has had to add one magic ad-hoc patch after another
to make it fit with the observations.


Refining and expanding your models is the way science is done. It's not "magic ad-hoc" patching,,,,, it's expanding our models to fit new observations. You can't do science without doing that. Never trust anyone who says they have ALL the answers. Such as that new wave particle light thingy,,,, that's not science, it's gobbledygook. Trust me, there is plenty of jargon with little substance in that.
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2014
Q-star, it is magic when it does not follow well established laws of physics. And speaking of gobbledygook, that pretty much describes the BB theory today with one ad-hoc patch of magic added on after another

I don't know what Hoyle tried to do about the decaying of neutron stars so I will take your word on that issue. But I will say your beloved model cannot even explain why a neutron decays. Considering that, how can you claim degenerate pressure can prevent neutrons and neutron stars from decaying?
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
Q-star, it is magic when it does not follow well established laws of physics. And speaking of gobbledygook, that pretty much describes the BB theory today with one ad-hoc patch of magic added on after another

I don't know what Hoyle tried to do about the decaying of neutron stars so I will take your word on that issue. But I will say your beloved model cannot even explain why a neutron decays. Considering that, how can you claim degenerate pressure can prevent neutrons and neutron stars from decaying?


Ya are determined not to learn just what the underlying principles are in modern astrophysics and cosmology. Until ya learn 1st principles it will always seem like "magic". That new wave particle lights thing is unphysical. If ya must believe it, then I can't prevent ya.

The real physics are accessible to anyone. But ya have to want to learn them. Carry on with the crackpottery on that link ya posted if it pleases ya, but get used to being called a crank and a crackpot.
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2014
Well let's just clear this up right now. Before you claim it is the degenerate pressure in a nucleus that keeps a neutron from decaying let me point out that they do decay at times in the nuclei.
Furthermore if it was degenerate pressure in the nucleus that kept a neutron from decaying it would extremely unlikely they would have a half-life of around 15 minutes with out any pressure when they are released from a nuclei, they should decay immediately.
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
Well let's just clear this up right now. Before you claim it is the degenerate pressure in a nucleus that keeps a neutron from decaying let me point out that they do decay at times in the nuclei.
Furthermore if it was degenerate pressure in the nucleus that kept a neutron from decaying it would extremely unlikely they would have a half-life of around 15 minutes with out any pressure when they are released from a nuclei, they should decay immediately.


In addition to not understanding modern cosmology and astrophysics, ya seem to need to study up on your nuclear physics also. Beta decay is a very well understood process, ya might want to read up on it.
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2014
Quote Q-star: "The real physics are accessible to anyone. But ya have to want to learn them. Carry on with the crackpottery on that link ya posted if it pleases ya, but get used to being called a crank and a crackpot."

Oh that's okay, many crackpot turn out to right in the long run. For example the Australian Doctor that claimed most stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria. I sure even you can think of many examples. Just think even the first people to claim the earth was round were cranks.

We now think of those that scoffed as the crackpots. It could very well happen to the BB believes some time in the future also.
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2014
Well let's just clear this up right now. Before you claim it is the degenerate pressure in a nucleus that keeps a neutron from decaying let me point out that they do decay at times in the nuclei.
Furthermore if it was degenerate pressure in the nucleus that kept a neutron from decaying it would extremely unlikely they would have a half-life of around 15 minutes with out any pressure when they are released from a nuclei, they should decay immediately.


In addition to not understanding modern cosmology and astrophysics, ya seem to need to study up on your nuclear physics also. Beta decay is a very well understood process, ya might want to read up on it.

Sure they do, but only the process. They seem to have little idea as to what causes or starts any decay process. That is why they cannot make the claim degenerate pressure can prevent a neutron from decaying.
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
@Gmr:
On another note, I wasn't sure we could measure a "relative" speed of our solar system - I keep thinking there are no absolute measurements, so a kind-of "static" frame of reference to measure against seems unusual. Learn something new every day.

You are right, there are no 'absolute' frames of reference in Relativity(but there are in Newton):
http://en.wikiped...eference
http://www.studyp...on09.htm
The author is not claiming an absolute reference frame. If you reread the article, you will see: "...by looking at what is called the dipole anisotropy of the microwave background." That is still a relative reference frame. Here is how it works:
http://en.wikiped...isotropy
http://en.wikiped...isotropy
http://www.astro....-DT.html
http://www.nicadd...e_19.pdf
Hope that this has helped(at least some)
Cheers,DH66
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
is billipress trying to bring back oliver k manuels neutron repulsion "theory" or is it just me?

Well let's just clear this up right now. Before you claim it is the degenerate pressure in a nucleus that keeps a neutron from decaying let me point out that they do decay at times in the nuclei.
Furthermore if it was degenerate pressure in the nucleus that kept a neutron from decaying it would extremely unlikely they would have a half-life of around 15 minutes with out any pressure when they are released from a nuclei, they should decay immediately.

where has bound neutron decay been shown to occur in neutron stars or anywhere for that matter? oliver k manuel would love you.
Drjsa_oba
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2014
In 1955 a book was written by Hoyle Burbidge and Nalikar that estimated a background energy field of 4.2 X 10 ^-13 erg / cm ^3. Naturally as you can tell from the authors that they were talking about a steady state universe. As you know 4.2 X 10 ^-13 erg / cm ^3 is equivalent to black body radiation of about 2.7 degrees K.

This is 1955, admittedly I read some of this information in the mid 70's where the temperature was expressed in Black body temperature terms not in ergs of energy. However I maintain as correct what I stated above that the initial estimates for BB theory were a great deal higher (by a factor of 10).

Now I should mention that using a search engine to research historical facts does not always give you the correct results as a lot of stuff has been published on the internet that does not agree with reality. However if you read Hoyles work you will find the details mentioned as I stated.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2014
In 1955 a book was written by Hoyle Burbidge and Nalikar that estimated a background energy field of 4.2 X 10 ^-13 erg / cm ^3. Naturally as you can tell from the authors that they were talking about a steady state universe. As you know 4.2 X 10 ^-13 erg / cm ^3 is equivalent to black body radiation of about 2.7 degrees K.


Wrong. Hoyle never predicted that. That number is the energy density of the CMBR and was only determined AFTER the discovery of the CMB in 1964.

Further, Jayant Narlikar was undergraduate in India in 1955. He only collaborated with Hoyle, Bondi and the Burbidges from the early 70's on.

However I maintain as correct what I stated above that the initial estimates for BB theory were a great deal higher (by a factor of 10).


Ya are wrong on several counts.

In 1948 Herman & Alpher predicted 5 kelvin.

If ya are going to make up facts, maybe ya shouldn't try it on a forum where people actually know about these things.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2014
Guillame was the first with an accurate estimation of temp.

The Temperature of Space, C.H. Guillame 1896

http://www.plasma...1896.pdf

'History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson'

http://bourabai.k....7k.html