# Thread: [Interstellar Temperature Invalidates BBT]

1. Banned
Join Date
Mar 2012
Posts
211

## [Interstellar Temperature Invalidates BBT]

The temperature on Earth is 300K, so far from the Sun, between the stars, can not be 0 K.
Just this one fact is enough to disqualify the hypothesis of the Big Bang, expansion, etc.

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Galileo Galilei

Mod note: posts moved from another thread.

2. Originally Posted by Hetman
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Galileo Galilei
Ha ha. But that humble reasoning has to be correct. I'm afraid you're not.

3. Originally Posted by Hetman
The temperature on Earth is 300K, so far from the Sun, between the stars, can not be 0 K.
Just this one fact is enough to disqualify the hypothesis of the Big Bang, expansion, etc.
In order for these sentences to rise above being non sequiturs at best, you'll have to expand on your arguments.

4. who says that between the stars there is 0K?
what are you "measuring" here (between quotes as you are proclaiming)?
the background radiation? -> not equal to 0K
the ubiquitous plasma? -> moste definitely not equal to 0K
so what are you blabbering about?

5. Banned
Join Date
Mar 2012
Posts
211
The surface temperature of the bodies (say the planets) decreases gradually with distance from the sun, right?

So what should be the lowest surface temperature in this world, according to the hypotheses of BB.

BB model assumes 0 K, due to the radiation of stars (3K is an echo here of the former explosion, that is, the BB assumed that this is not the effect of radiation of the stars).

Thus, we need to calculate the lowest temperature only - but where?

Extremely far from the stars, ie between them (in our region about 2 ly from the Sun).

Result near 3K, indisputably would eliminate any hypothesis about the explosive nature of the CMB.

And we get just enough - from a dozen nearby stars.

This is the natural temperature of thermodynamic equilibrium: how much energy comes from a region of space, as much to it enter: input = output (on average).

That is why the 3K background temperature can be calculated both from the few local sources, as well as with those billions away.

6. Originally Posted by Hetman
The surface temperature of the bodies (say the planets) decreases gradually with distance from the sun, right?
It depends on the factors affecting the body's surface temperature. Distance from a star or stars is one of the factors.

So what should be the lowest surface temperature in this world, according to the hypotheses of BB.

BB model assumes 0 K, due to the radiation of stars (3K is an echo here of the former explosion, that is, the BB assumed that this is not the effect of radiation of the stars).
BB model assumes 0K for what? Also, BB is not an explosion. ~3K (more like 2.7K) is the lowest temperature any object can be in the universe unless it is actively cooled (for instance, with a laboratory heat pump).

Thus, we need to calculate the lowest temperature only - but where?
The lowest temperature of what, exactly?

Result near 3K, indisputably would eliminate any hypothesis about the explosive nature of the CMB.
The CMB isn't an explosion. The BB isn't an explosion. Clearly, you have a number of misconceptions about BBT.

That is why the 3K background temperature can be calculated both from the few local sources, as well as with those billions away.
Uhm, no. The 3K background is uniform, it is not from stars.

7. Why do you think the Big Bang Model predicts 0K temperatures? It isn't even possible to reach absolute zero because of quantum jitters. As far as I know the lowest natural temperature ever observed is 1K in the Boomerang Nebula. Here on Earth, if memory serves, we've been able to cool material to 10^-11 Kelvins, which is quite a bit less than that. The CMB temperature of 2.7K agrees with the Big Bang Model. So where does the "BB predicts 0K" come from?

8. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
3,589
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
Uhm, no. The 3K background is uniform, it is not from stars.
And, just in case Hetman will argue that starlight could give the necessary uniformity, the power spectrum completely debunks the idea that what we see could be starlight.

9. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
981
Originally Posted by caveman1917
And, just in case Hetman will argue that starlight could give the necessary uniformity, the power spectrum completely debunks the idea that what we see could be starlight.
Empty space is not totally empty. There are bits of dust and debris and clouds of gas that can absorb heat from starlight or other sources and then re-radiate that heat as they return to equilibrium. It is this secondary thermal radiation that astronomers were looking for and measuring prior to 1967 as the so called “temperature of space.” This is not direct starlight but energy absorbed by non-luminous matter far from any nearby galaxies and then re-radiated back into space. Since it is not direct starlight, it does not have the power spectrum of a typical star any more than thermal radiation from the 300 K Earth should have the light spectrum of the sun. Also, since nothing in space is so far removed from any galaxy that it does not receive energy from starlight, there should be nothing in space at absolute zero.
I am guessing that the point Hetman was trying to make is that nothing in deep space can can be at absolute zero because of starlight so all matter must have a non-zero radiant temperature from stellar radiation and any other source of radiation would be added to this non-zero value. So the 3.7 K CMBR can't be totally from the BB unless we make the implausible assumption that the thermal radiation from matter heated by stars and re-radiated is zero.

This is a good article on the subject.
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V02N3ASS.PDF

10. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,057
Note that in order to allow for the radiation to be non-CMBR you also have to accept that the universe does not expand and find another explanation for cosmological redshift. Plus that article is nothing more than a mismash of very old sources and some hand-waving. It provides no technical detail and dismisses the current models of the universe with no real evidence. I would not call it a good one myself. It was published in a counter-mainstream journal which (to my joy) even has an article on Neutron Repulsion by Dr Manuel in the latest edition. It was not peer reviewed in the sense that something like Nature is.

11. It is my understanding that the very close correlation of the CMB to a pure blackbody with such high isotropy pretty much demands the BB model, with inflation or some equivalent process. Starlight has not had and cannot have sufficient time to thermalize into such a uniform distribution.

12. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
981
Originally Posted by Shaula
Note that in order to allow for the radiation to be non-CMBR you also have to accept that the universe does not expand and find another explanation for cosmological redshift. Plus that article is nothing more than a mismash of very old sources and some hand-waving. It provides no technical detail and dismisses the current models of the universe with no real evidence. I would not call it a good one myself. It was published in a counter-mainstream journal which (to my joy) even has an article on Neutron Repulsion by Dr Manuel in the latest edition. It was not peer reviewed in the sense that something like Nature is.
The technical detail for the article is to be found in the original peer reviewed publications and the article itself is a historical review of astronomical observations made prior to 1965 when 3 K was considered to be a plausible equilibrium temperature for a non-inflationary universe. We know for certain that stars are a source of energy that must be making some positive contribution to the thermal equilibrium so we should expect matter in deep space to exist at temperatures above absolute zero. But if the 2.7 K equilibrium temperature is from the big bang then the energy from the stars must have been hand waved away to accommodate the theory so what happened to energy from the stars?

13. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
5,447
Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom
The technical detail for the article is to be found in the original peer reviewed publications and the article itself is a historical review of astronomical observations made prior to 1965 when 3 K was considered to be a plausible equilibrium temperature for a non-inflationary universe. We know for certain that stars are a source of energy that must be making some positive contribution to the thermal equilibrium so we should expect matter in deep space to exist at temperatures above absolute zero. But if the 2.7 K equilibrium temperature is from the big bang then the energy from the stars must have been hand waved away to accommodate the theory so what happened to energy from the stars?
The energy from the stars is not isotropic. It is lumpy and varying. The CMBR is neither. If I remember right, the temp from stellar radiation in the Milky Way is about 11K, but dont quote me on that. I do know it has been measured tho.

To say that the energy from stars has been hand waved away to accomodate the theory is simply to not know enough astronomy to know better.

14. Senior Member
Join Date
Jun 2002
Posts
12,345
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
The lowest temperature of what, exactly?
Hopefully, when Hetman returns, he can explain himself.

aside...I've always been amazed at how this question "throws" people.

15. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,057
But if the 2.7 K equilibrium temperature is from the big bang then the energy from the stars must have been hand waved away to accommodate the theory so what happened to energy from the stars?
Not really. It would only be hand waved away if the universe were not expanding. Otherwise it is pretty easily accounted for. Expansion means that the universe has not been able to come to thermal equilibrium in the time it has had. We see the re-emission of starlight all over the place, it does not have to be hand waved away.

16. As I think I understand it, the CMBR in the vicinity of its peak is a nearly perfect blackbody curve, with very little contamination from foreground stars. The researchers who have studied it for close to 50 years have meticulously separated it from the stars, and to allege that they are handwaving is in my opinion most unfair.

17. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom
Empty space is not totally empty. There are bits of dust and debris and clouds of gas that can absorb heat from starlight or other sources and then re-radiate that heat as they return to equilibrium. It is this secondary thermal radiation that astronomers were looking for and measuring prior to 1967 as the so called “temperature of space.” This is not direct starlight but energy absorbed by non-luminous matter far from any nearby galaxies and then re-radiated back into space. Since it is not direct starlight, it does not have the power spectrum of a typical star any more than thermal radiation from the 300 K Earth should have the light spectrum of the sun. Also, since nothing in space is so far removed from any galaxy that it does not receive energy from starlight, there should be nothing in space at absolute zero.
Bob, here is the 7 year WMAP data release. Please show how your re-radiated heat matches the data. And, by all means, please show the calculations and the assumptions you are using showing that this non-luminous matter can match the power spectrum on the WMAP data.

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom
But if the 2.7 K equilibrium temperature is from the big bang then the energy from the stars must have been hand waved away to accommodate the theory so what happened to energy from the stars?
Well, if you think so, please explain and show exactly where in the Five-year and three-year results. You already have the link to the 7 year. We'll be waiting.

18. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
981
Originally Posted by Shaula
Not really. It would only be hand waved away if the universe were not expanding. Otherwise it is pretty easily accounted for. Expansion means that the universe has not been able to come to thermal equilibrium in the time it has had. We see the re-emission of starlight all over the place, it does not have to be hand waved away.
Right, and that is ENTIRELY the point. The stars are a major source of thermal energy so we can not and must not dismiss them as a source of thermal energy. Eddington had a theoretical object he called a “thermometer in space.” If you place his thermometer in deep space far from any stars, it can't read absolute zero because everything in the universe is eventually the recipient of heat from the stars so what is the temperature of Eddington's thermometer?

19. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
5,447
Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom
Right, and that is ENTIRELY the point. The stars are a major source of thermal energy so we can not and must not dismiss them as a source of thermal energy. Eddington had a theoretical object he called a “thermometer in space.” If you place his thermometer in deep space far from any stars, it can't read absolute zero because everything in the universe is eventually the recipient of heat from the stars so what is the temperature of Eddington's thermometer?
In most of the universe, it is 2.7K. It is only when you get near a galaxy that it changes.

20. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
981
Originally Posted by Tensor
Are you implying that energy from the big bang is reaching us after never having been absorbed and re-radiated at some point in time? I would expect one re-radiated heat to look just like another.

This isn't my thread and I will be away from a computer for most of the next two weeks. But essentially the WMAP data shows a thermal emission from some source but we can't identify the primal origin of a heat source by observing a re-radiated thermal emission. Just as a kettle of water heated by gas radiates the same sort of heat as a kettle of water heated by electricity. In theory the source of the energy was the big bang but thermal energy does not maintain a holding pattern for billions of years in empty space just waiting to be detected by our instruments. Energy from all sources is eventually absorbed by matter and then re-radiated away as the matter returns to the equilibrium temperature of its local environment and the process is repeated over and over again. Stephen Hawking said something to the effect that the CMBR heats everything in the universe by microwave radiation to a temperature of 2.7 K just as a pizza is heated in a microwave oven. This is one possible source of thermal radiation coming from deep space but the stars are also an obvious source of energy and starlight absorbed and re-emitted by matter in deep space was long considered to be the source of the ~3 K “temperature of space” prior to the big bang interpretation. Starlight can also warm Hawking's pizza in deep space to some temperature above absolute zero so what happened to energy from the stars?

21. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
981
Originally Posted by korjik
In most of the universe, it is 2.7K. It is only when you get near a galaxy that it changes.
Right, but there is nowhere in the universe where matter can be so far from a galaxy that it can not receive some heat from the stars so how much of that 2.7 K is from from the stars?

22. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,057
Bob, you seem to be missing the point. Starlight will not look like the CMBR. It is coming from a range of sources, at a range of ranges and so on. It will not look like a perfect 2.7K curve. Not unless the universe is static, far older than we think and dark matter is actually a huge number of tiny black bodies that somehow do not distort our view of the universe but do thermalise radiation very effectively. It just doesn't work.

WMAP corrects for strong sources of light, galaxies and so on. There is not enough matter elsewhere to require correction for. And even if there were you would still need to explain by galaxies are redshifted but this magic thermalising material is not. Or assume it has such a high density that it blocks all distant radiation and pulls it back to 2.7K. Still while allowing a crystal clear view of the universe in every other waveband. The thermalising idea just does not work in any way shape or form that I have seen worked through.

24. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
5,447
Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom
Right, but there is nowhere in the universe where matter can be so far from a galaxy that it can not receive some heat from the stars so how much of that 2.7 K is from from the stars?
Ok, 2.700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000001K

The amount of total energy received from starlight is pretty tiny. 1/r[sup]2[/i] is pretty harsh that way.

Like Shaula said tho, once you look at the spectrum, the starlight is pretty obvious.

25. As this is Hetman's thread, and he is currently suspended, I am closing this thread.

Hetman, if you wish to continue this discussion upon your return, Report this post (the black triangle in the lower left corner with the !) and we can reopen this thread.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•