Cosmic Background Radiation is Misunderstood

Originally posted by consciousgod

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by consciousgod
Read about the controversy here.

I have read what Dr Halton Arp wrote, as he is a key person behind many claims in this area, but I think you are misrepresenting it to call it a controversy. Look at what Dr. Arp said on his own website:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
as Dr Arp points out:

Personally I can say that after more than 30 years of evidence disputed by widely publicized opinions that the bridge was false, I was saddened that not one prominent professional has now come forward to attest that it is, in fact, real.

That doesn't sound like much of a controversy to me. It sounds like Halton Arp versus the entire scientific community. I did my own analysis of the image in question at that link, and I have no problems agreeing with Arp if he's correct, but I must say, I think the other 99.9999% of scientists are probably right, and Arp is wrong.

Let's take the perspective of a professional astronomer.

He works his whole life reading literature and doing his own research. He peer reviews papers for journals. Astronomy is his life. He dreams of it while he is asleep.

Then one day this evidence shows up in his peer review mail that could mean his whole life's work has been a lie. Now if this evidence gets out, he will have to start over from the very beginning re-crunching those gazillion numbers. He knows it makes sense, but he also knows how it is going to be received by his close nit colleagues. Those that agree will be crucified by those who refuse to accept the evidence.

So he throws the mail in the trash and forgets about it, and when someone brings it up, he says its absurd and there is no evidence.

It is going to take awhile for this to take. Out with the old, in with the new.

That human nature for you. Take a note. Scientist or not, human nature.

reply to post by consciousgod


Consciousgod...have your forgotten your own thread or are you intentionally ignoring my and Arbitrageur's replies?

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by consciousgod

 

The CMB represents a time when the universe first became transparent. Prior to this time, light was unable to travel due to the universe being filled with hot, dense plasma. When this plasma had cooled sufficiently, it stopped absorbing light, and that light was able to propagate. That transition ("let there be light," so-to-speak) is represented by the CMB.

While the universe was still opaque, it was a perfect blackbody, and, therefore, released blackbody radiation. That's the light that existed...the universe's blackbody spectrum. That spectrum peaks at the frequency you state, but all other frequencies were also released. The CMB is not a single frequency - it's a perfect blackbody spectrum. Today, the peak frequency has been "stretched" to 160.2 GHz by the metric expansion of the universe (redshift), and the other frequencies have been "stretched" accordingly.

The light we see everyday hasn't been stretched by the same amount because it hasn't existed for 13.7 billion years. Light is emitted and absorbed on a regular basis.

The light from the quasars in question is only being emitted once, and absorbed or diffracted some but not much or the images from telescopes would be fuzzy if seen at all.


Here is another issue.
"The essence of their new approach is that the bare cosmological constant is promoted from a parameter to a field, making the entire Universe a quantum mechanical wave function. "

Here is the article.atramateria.com...

So the cosmological constant changes with reference frames?

What happens if the quantum mechanical wave function collapses?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Does this graph take into account the magnitude and direction of movement? If an object is moving toward us and is very far away, and the blue shift caused by motion matches the redshift caused by expanding space but in opposite directions on the light spectrum, then the wavelength change could be measured as zero, and this galaxy could be mistaken to be very close when it is actually very far away. How would earthlings even know?

reply to post by consciousgod

This explains how cosmic distances are measured:

Cosmic distance ladder



Note the Hubble constant isn't used to determine distances, but rather, distances are fed into the determination of the Hubble constant. I see some popular misunderstandings about this.

After the Big Bang and the universe was full of super hot plasma.....how did it cool?....to start forming atoms?

Where did the heat go? Why didn't it stay a plasma?


"""As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler""""......


The heat didn't disappear into nothing, it had to go somewheres. Where the heck is it?

The heat from waaay before atoms were created.....I understand the Big Bang theory and much of what you all are discussing. I just can't comprehend where all the heat went....which eventually allowed atoms to be created.

If there was NOTHING...no environment to suck the heat from the plasma after the Big Bang....the plasma should have stayed a plasma. Even if the "Big Bang" expanded the plasma. They say the heat was dissipated into space....impossible. There was nothing there to receive the heat. Before atoms existed in this universe after the Big Bang, heat could not have disappeared.

""Nothing"" can not receive and absorb heat. There has to be something outside of the Universe which absorbed the heat. Possibly another Universe got the heat and that's why at 160.2 Ghz microwave frequency range we can detect it. "Cosmic Radiation".

Cosmicgod's idea of opening a door to the other Universe where that heat went:
Google the "Planck spacecraft"

That spacecraft is getting the answers right now.

reply to post by CaptChaos

The BIg Bang is nonsense, all derived from ONE theory: that redshift equals distance. This has been proven to be wrong over and over again. Objects with higher redshift, indicating they are further away, are in FRONT of objects of lower redshift.

can you site evidence to these claims

how can you be so sure that the big bang is such nonsense because it seems to be taken pretty seriously by the scientific community

reply to post by Pervius


Heat is energy and the energy was converted to mass. E=mc^2

As one can see, it takes an enormous amount of energy (heat) to make a little mass.

Originally posted by consciousgod

The light from the quasars in question is only being emitted once, and absorbed or diffracted some but not much or the images from telescopes would be fuzzy if seen at all.

What's your point? I never mentioned light from quasars. Such light shows the expected redshift.

... So the cosmological constant changes with reference frames?

What happens if the quantum mechanical wave function collapses?

Wave functions collapse all the time. It's what they do when they're observed. Nothing happens because this "collapse" isn't nearly as spectacular as it sounds. Maybe it should be called the "wave function decision" instead.

Now...you failed to address any of my points on black bodies. Would you care to do that? Please?

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by consciousgod

The light from the quasars in question is only being emitted once, and absorbed or diffracted some but not much or the images from telescopes would be fuzzy if seen at all.

What's your point? I never mentioned light from quasars. Such light shows the expected redshift.

... So the cosmological constant changes with reference frames?

What happens if the quantum mechanical wave function collapses?

Wave functions collapse all the time. It's what they do when they're observed. Nothing happens because this "collapse" isn't nearly as spectacular as it sounds. Maybe it should be called the "wave function decision" instead.

Now...you failed to address any of my points on black bodies. Would you care to do that? Please?

There is nothing to discuss. I accept your explanation of black bodies.

So who makes the decision you mention above?

Originally posted by consciousgod

There is nothing to discuss. I accept your explanation of black bodies.

... Okay. Works for me,

So who makes the decision you mention above?

It occurs randomly if there are no determining factors. For example, the initial "decision" of spin state that occurs when one particle in an entanglement pair is observed is random, but the "decision" of spin state of the other particle is determined by the "choice" of the first.

Originally posted by CLPrime

So who makes the decision you mention above?

It occurs randomly if there are no determining factors. For example, the initial "decision" of spin state that occurs when one particle in an entanglement pair is observed is random, but the "decision" of spin state of the other particle is determined by the "choice" of the first.

how does a particle choose?

how does a particle know a choice is required?

are you implying a particle has senses that can observe being observed?

In relation to the red shift of quasars I think the explanation lies in the quasars mass. If quasars are extremly dense then just like a black hole it warps space affecting time. Now light coming from the quasar from its source is slower from an outside perspective(if u was inside to you time would be normal). So from an outside view light from the quasar is taking longer due to the warping of spacetime and as it reachers normal space and comes into our timeframe wouldnt the light show it was being redshifted from further away than it really is?

Originally posted by consciousgod

how does a particle choose?

The wave function collapses into a particular state randomly. Like being blindfolded and dropping a baby sheep from 10,000 feet over a field of large pancakes. The sheep will land on a random pancake. Just like the wave function will collapse to a random state.

how does a particle know a choice is required?

Schrodinger tried to figure that one out. That's why he poisoned a cat in a box.
The act of observing the particle causes its wave function to collapse. It doesn't know that a choice is required...it's just the act of observation that causes the choice to happen.

are you implying a particle has senses that can observe being observed?

Somehow, observation directly influences the particle. The details of this aren't currently known, so you're free to take it however you want.

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by consciousgod

how does a particle choose?

The wave function collapses into a particular state randomly. Like being blindfolded and dropping a baby sheep from 10,000 feet over a field of large pancakes. The sheep will land on a random pancake. Just like the wave function will collapse to a random state.

how does a particle know a choice is required?

Schrodinger tried to figure that one out. That's why he poisoned a cat in a box.
The act of observing the particle causes its wave function to collapse. It doesn't know that a choice is required...it's just the act of observation that causes the choice to happen.

are you implying a particle has senses that can observe being observed?

Somehow, observation directly influences the particle. The details of this aren't currently known, so you're free to take it however you want.

So the act of observing must cause some kind of action to take place that influences the particles state.

reply to post by consciousgod


That's the most likely possibility.