CMB in our Dynamic Universe

[Bob Angstrom]

Tim Thompson;1319527]OK Guys, here's the real deal.

No Way No How can CMB have anything to do with starlight in your wildest pseudoscientific purple-haze induced fantasies in this universe. Such a claim wildly violates the heck out of every law of physics you can appeal to. Stars are not thermal emitters, but the CMB is thermal. Stars are really hot, but the CMB is really cold. Sir Arthur Eddington knew this, and published the proof 80 years ago, so it's time to get with modern science and leave the century old thinking behind.

Please explain how stars are not thermal emitters.

[Fortis]

CMBs

Constantly Misunderstanding Background microwave radiation , caused by Universe expansion

( I wish I could a smile on the end but I havn't been able to to this for several yrs now )

chesse please !!

I would go for "cosmic microwave background (radiation)". Does it even sound right to turn this into a plural.

[Tim Thompson]

Please explain how stars are not thermal emitters.

First the definition. Thermal is not an approximation but rather a precisely defined spectral energy density (SED). The SED of the emitted radiation must correspond to a single temperature Planck Law SED. If it does then it is thermal. If it does not, then it is not thermal. Stars are not thermal emitters for three reasons, which I will try to give in the order of their importance as I understand it.

1) Planck Law thermal emission can come only from a source that is in thermodynamic equilibrium. The photosphere of a star is not in thermodynamic equilibrium so it cannot be a truly thermal emitter. This is the least important of the reasons. Stellar photospheres are commonly modeled under the assumption of local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), partly because it is a good approximation for most purposes, and partly because it is a lot easier than the alternative. The determination of solar photospheric abundances from observed spectra has long been done assuming LTE. But modern high resolution spectroscopy has reached the point where analysis of the spectra can no longer rely on that approximation.

2) The photosphere is not a single temperature surface, but rather an extended layer that is hot on the bottom and cool at the top. In the case of the sun, the bottom of the photosphere has a temperature of about 9400 Kelvins, cools to about 4400 Kelvins, and then warms again to about 6150 Kelvins at the top. So we see an effective temperature of about 5700 Kelvins, derived by finding the best fit Planck Law SED to the true SED, which is a superimposition of multiple Planck Law SEDs. This is more important than the difference between LTE and non-LTE because it is responsible for the major deformation of the continuum from a thermal SED. But you can still use an approximate thermal SED using the effective temperature and as long as you aren't picky about the results, you will be close enough.

3) Spectral absorption lines seriously distort the emission of a star from a thermal SED. This is the most important and effective reason for insisting that stars are not thermal emitters. It is less important for high temperature stars, say the O & B classes, which have fewer absorption lines, but it is critical for low temperature red giant and red dwarf stars (the latter being by far the most numerous), where molecular absorption lines are numerous.

Now consider the starlight in space, the combined light from all the stars shining together. Even if each star were a perfect thermal emitter, their combined light would not be thermal. The SED of the combined light would be a superposition of the SED from each star, each at a different temperature, all the way from about 2000 Kelvins for a wimpy red dwarf to 40,000 Kelvins for a high end blue giant (i.e., Theta ¹C Orionis). There is such a wide range of temperatures superimposed that it makes no sense to speak of an approximate effective temperature, a point already realized by Eddington 80 years ago. But in fact they are not thermal emitters, and most importantly, the far more numerous red stars are the ones most seriously non thermal.

[Bob Angstrom]

First the definition. Thermal is not an approximation but rather a precisely defined spectral energy density (SED). The SED of the emitted radiation must correspond to a single temperature Planck Law SED. If it does then it is thermal. If it does not, then it is not thermal.

I can work with your explanation of starlight as “not thermal” since stars are not in thermodynamic equilibrium and their light does not follow Planck's law of thermal emission but personally I wouldn't use the term.
You also mentioned Eddington's “diffuse matter in space”. Eddington estimated the temperature of intergalactic space to be 3.18 K and he speculated that bits of diffuse matter, such as dust particles, far from the neighborhood of any star should acquire an equilibrium temperature with their environment by absorbing the whole field of radiation from the stars and then emitting an equal amount of energy back into space. Would you consider this secondary radiation from “diffuse matter” to be thermal by your definition?

[Fortis]

I can work with your explanation of starlight as “not thermal” since stars are not in thermodynamic equilibrium and their light does not follow Planck's law of thermal emission but personally I wouldn't use the term.
You also mentioned Eddington's “diffuse matter in space”. Eddington estimated the temperature of intergalactic space to be 3.18 K and he speculated that bits of diffuse matter, such as dust particles, far from the neighborhood of any star should acquire an equilibrium temperature with their environment by absorbing the whole field of radiation from the stars and then emitting an equal amount of energy back into space. Would you consider this secondary radiation from “diffuse matter” to be thermal by your definition?

Which bit of intergalactic space are we seeing, i.e. at what red shift?

[Astronomer]

Would you consider this secondary radiation from “diffuse matter” to be thermal by your definition?

The absolute best you can do using the most liberal estimates of thermalization from integrated starlight gives a spectrum that is 10% deviation from a blackbody curve. In most of physics, this curve would be said to be thermal. In CMB physics, the radiation is observed to follow a blackbody curve to about 1:10^5. The error bars on that indicate that the proposal that the CMB is due to integrated starlight is ruled out by nearly 10^4 sigma. So in this sense the radiation from stars, galaxies, diffuse matter, etc. is not as thermalized as the CMB to a stringent degree.

[Astronomer]

Which bit of intergalactic space are we seeing, i.e. at what red shift?

z=0

[Bob Angstrom]

Which bit of intergalactic space are we seeing, i.e. at what red shift?

I need to correct my terminology. I meant to say that Eddington's work dealt with intragalactic space- not intergalactic space. That is the space within our Milky Way galaxy. The existence of galaxies beyond our own was unknown at the time of Eddington's studies so his calculations were limited to the space within our own galaxy. Later studies expanded the view to regions beyond our galaxy and later calculations for the equilibrium temperature of space calculated a lower temperature in the range of 2.7 K to 3 K. The distances involved the whole of intergalactic space remote from any local sources of radiation (stars and galaxies) and are not limited to any fixed distance.

[Bob Angstrom]

The absolute best you can do using the most liberal estimates of thermalization from integrated starlight gives a spectrum that is 10% deviation from a blackbody curve. In most of physics, this curve would be said to be thermal. In CMB physics, the radiation is observed to follow a blackbody curve to about 1:10^5. The error bars on that indicate that the proposal that the CMB is due to integrated starlight is ruled out by nearly 10^4 sigma. So in this sense the radiation from stars, galaxies, diffuse matter, etc. is not as thermalized as the CMB to a stringent degree.

By "integrated starlight" do you mean light arriving directly from stars of different types? If so, this is not the the radiation source I have in mind. The radiation I have in mind is the heat emitted by non-luminous matter at equilibrium with its surroundings. That is, dust particles, clouds of gas, meteors, (dark matter?) etc.

[Astronomer]

By "integrated starlight" do you mean light arriving directly from stars of different types? If so, this is not the the radiation source I have in mind. The radiation I have in mind is the heat emitted by non-luminous matter at equilibrium with its surroundings. That is, dust particles, clouds of gas, meteors, (dark matter?) etc.

The Integrated starlight model takes into account stars as well as the radiation associated with cooler dust, gas, meteors, and dark matter. It turns out that in our local universe the energy density of radiation is dominated by stars which is why the "integrated starlight" term take precedence. If you eliminate stars from consideration you do not get the correct Eddington equilibrium temperature.

[snp.gupta]

...... Stars are not thermal emitters for three reasons, which I will try to give in the order of their importance as I understand it....
........

If Satrs are not thermal emitters, then galaxies also not thermal emitters. See….
......
The diffuse foreground masks are updated for the five-year data anal ysis. The primary reason is to mask out free-free emission in the areas of the Gum Nebula and rho-Oph, while keeping a simple method that applies to the whole sky rather than being ad hoc for these regions. [ See B. Gold et al in WMAP 5 year foreground paper- section 2.1. masks.]

If all the Galaxies and stars produce Non-thermal emission, we should mask out all those areas of the sky wherever Galaxies and stars are present; and measure only Thermal emission regions. Some places ad hoc masks, some places 5%,, some places 95% masks creates confusion

[snp.gupta]

I need to correct my terminology. I meant to say that Eddington's work dealt with intragalactic space- not intergalactic space. That is the space within our Milky Way galaxy. The existence of galaxies beyond our own was unknown at the time of Eddington's studies so his calculations were limited to the space within our own galaxy. Later studies expanded the view to regions beyond our galaxy and later calculations for the equilibrium temperature of space calculated a lower temperature in the range of 2.7 K to 3 K. The distances involved the whole of intergalactic space remote from any local sources of radiation (stars and galaxies) and are not limited to any fixed distance.

Why we should confuse? Eddington’s work is referring to star-light in Milkyway, which is non-thermal in nature. What we are bothering is the thermal radiation from Bigbang.

[snp.gupta]

The Integrated starlight model takes into account stars as well as the radiation associated with cooler dust, gas, meteors, and dark matter. It turns out that in our local universe the energy density of radiation is dominated by stars which is why the "integrated starlight" term take precedence. If you eliminate stars from consideration you do not get the correct Eddington equilibrium temperature.

Then it is not CMB, Starlight is non-thermal. We want pure Bigbang radiation, which is thermal.

[Fortis]

I need to correct my terminology. I meant to say that Eddington's work dealt with intragalactic space- not intergalactic space. That is the space within our Milky Way galaxy. The existence of galaxies beyond our own was unknown at the time of Eddington's studies so his calculations were limited to the space within our own galaxy. Later studies expanded the view to regions beyond our galaxy and later calculations for the equilibrium temperature of space calculated a lower temperature in the range of 2.7 K to 3 K. The distances involved the whole of intergalactic space remote from any local sources of radiation (stars and galaxies) and are not limited to any fixed distance.

If this was the origin of the CMB then would you not expect the CMB spectrum to be a combination of 3 K Planck curves at a whole range of red shifts? If so, do you think that the resultant spectrum will follow that of a single, pure, Planck curve for a blackbody at a single, well defined, temperature?

[snp.gupta]

First the definition. Thermal is not an approximation but rather a precisely defined spectral energy density (SED). The SED of the emitted radiation must correspond to a single temperature Planck Law SED.....

CMB definition

CMB definition: Radiation
There are ambiguities and confusions in the definition of CMB and in its Foreground elimination methods. CMB is defined as Electromagnetic radiation. If this CMB is electromagnetic radiation moving in all directions, how can it act as frame of reference or background frame with respect to which say whole solar system or whole solar neighborhood moves? How can it have any temperature? Any material or fluid can have some temperature. If it is a radiation, what we mention temperature 2.732°K is of what? Radiation cannot have any temperature

CMB definition : Fluid
. Then in that case it must be the temperature of some fluid/matter particles in space, which may get heated up due to incoming radiation from distant stars, sun, moon etc. If such is the case, then, we have to measure its temperature by putting thermometer into that fluid. May be we put a thermometer outside the satellite, into the fluid say, near solar system outside the earth’s atmosphere. Take the measurement of it. It is something like we want to know our body temperature; we put the thermometer under the tongue in our mouth. Is this space outside earth’s atmosphere space doesn’t have CMB or what? Why should we look into distant stars for CMB?

CMB definition : From Bigbang
If CMB is defined as radiation from big bang era, then we have to find out its frequency spectrum with amplitudes and search for it. Lets call it thermal spectrum / thermal emission using SED of Planck’s law And you say, Sun, Planets, all stars from Milky-way disk, emit radiation in the same frequencies, with higher amplitudes, and take only small percentage of it for CMB, remaining is to be eliminated /deducted so that it supports Bigbang generated radiation, it sounds odd.

CMB definition
To summarize above three paragraphs, ‘CMB is radiation or some fluid temperature?’ is our question. If it is the later case, then it can be a reference frame; we can measure its temperature of the medium in that case. If it is from big bang era, then also we have to clarify that it is some form of EM radiation of some body, it is that temperature we are measuring. If the microwave background is fixed reference frame, it can’t have variable sources. If this radiation it is totally and continuously moving in all directions can have no temperature and can’t be a reference frame.

Bigbang CMB radiation temperature
According to Bigbang, this radiation started about 13.7 billion (= 13.7X10^9 ) years back, Total distance traveled by radiation is that many light years (= 300000x60x60x24x365.2424x1000meters) which is1.29699e25 meters. If the starting temperature is 3000°K, then the final temperature is 2.63e-08°K for a Bigbang area 1e6 Metre^2 at that time 390000 years (z = 1088) after Bigbang if there is no addition of any other temperature in between. And this final temperature is 8.33e-05°K for a Bigbang area 1e20 Metre^2. This is by using the formula for Vakradiation Derived from Planck’s law and Stephen Boltzmanns’ law {Tcmb^4 = Tbigbang^4 * Areaof bigbang / Radiation travel distance^2 in metre^2}. Hence we can see this temperature in not more than small fraction over 0°K. See some subsequent posts for a hosted paper contatining equations and figures; and for detailed derivation on Vakradiation using Planck’s law and Stefen Boltzmanns’ law.


What is CMB? ( This is a summary of earlier posts please, Just for continuing that thought process....)
It is some thing like fog. We look into fog and stare inside it. After some training of the eyes we see the faint contours of our neighboring house. That is somehow the relation of patterns in CMB It is simply because the radiation depends on the different sources like stars, Galaxies and astronomical bodies vary from place to place. The radiation differs depending on foreground. That’s why we see contours…The contours of Milkyway disk, Of earth, moon, Sun and planets, WMAP sources, Other portions of sky that were removed due to high brightness that were present in other directions than Milkyway disk, etc… Many can be seen 2003 WMAP observations, but removed in 2008 WMAP papers!

[Bob Angstrom]

Why we should confuse? Eddington’s work is referring to star-light in Milkyway, which is non-thermal in nature. What we are bothering is the thermal radiation from Bigbang.

I am always in favor of keeping things simple and eliminating as much confusion as possible. After reading your latest post, I see that the ideas you are trying to present have nothing in common with my discussion of Eddington which only adds to the confusion. I was perhaps misled by the poll in your opening page to think that you were discussing a different matter so I will drop the matter of Eddington which is clearly off topic.

[Tim Thompson]

Eddington estimated the temperature of intergalactic space to be 3.18 K and he speculated that bits of diffuse matter, such as dust particles, far from the neighborhood of any star should acquire an equilibrium temperature with their environment by absorbing the whole field of radiation from the stars and then emitting an equal amount of energy back into space. Would you consider this secondary radiation from “diffuse matter” to be thermal by your definition?

No, because the dust grains have emissivities that depend on their chemical constituents; carbon rich grains, silicon rich grains or PAH grains all emit with characteristic SEDs that are easily distinguishable from a Planck Law, and easily distinguishable from each other.

The absolute best you can do using the most liberal estimates of thermalization from integrated starlight gives a spectrum that is 10% deviation from a blackbody curve. In most of physics, this curve would be said to be thermal. In CMB physics, the radiation is observed to follow a blackbody curve to about 1:10⁵. The error bars on that indicate that the proposal that the CMB is due to integrated starlight is ruled out by nearly 10⁴ sigma. So in this sense the radiation from stars, galaxies, diffuse matter, etc. is not as thermalized as the CMB to a stringent degree.

That's why I am being picky about the word thermal. One cannot just superimpose a bunch of "almost" SEDs and suddenly get one that close to a real Planck Law SED.

Then it is not CMB, Starlight is non-thermal. We want pure Bigbang radiation, which is thermal.

As I recall, you said ...

Here basically we argue that radiation is received in all frequency ranges from astronomical bodies from Radio, Far infrared, Quasars, QSOs, to Stars, Galaxies, and X-ray sources, such that they cover the Blackbody spectrum theoretically from one end to another.

The way I read English, that is you saying that the CMB is made up from starlight, among other things. Now you say no? Make up your mind. Is the CMB made of starlight or not? If you say "no" now, then why did you say "yes" when you started this thread?

To summarize above three paragraphs, ‘CMB is radiation or some fluid temperature?’ is our question.

Wrong question. First, you need to decide which CMB you are talking about, the one that is observed, or the one that is predicted by theory. If you are talking about the CMB that is observed, then there is no such question; it simply is what it is observed to be. If you are talking about the CMB that is predicted from theory, then you must decide which theory. The nature of the predicted CMB depends very much on the cosmological model used to predict it. But then there still is no such question because in that case the CMB is whatever it is predicted to be.

So you should ask "What is my cosmological model"?
Then you should ask "What (if any) CMB does my cosmological model predict?"
Then you should ask "How do I observe the predicted CMB?"
Then you should ask "How can I use that observation to tell the difference between my cosmological model and some other cosmological model(s)?"

... This is by using the formula for Vakradiation Derived from Planck’s law and Stephen Boltzmanns’ law {Tcmb^4 = Tbigbang^4 * Areaof bigbang / Radiation travel distance^2 in metre^2}.

What is "Vakradiation"? In any case, your calculation is wrong. You can use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, but you have to compute the change in volume using the metric tensor from general relativity. See page 426 of the book Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology, Richard C. Tolman, first published by Oxford University Press in 1934, but still in print today.

But that's the hard way. More simply, the CMB will cool proportional to the redshift. The temperature at the era of decoupling was about 3000 Kelvins at a red shift of about 1000; 3000/1000 = 3, the approximate value of the CMB today (see Cosmology: The Science of the Universe by Edward Harrison, Cambridge University Press 2000 (2nd ed), page 416).

What is CMB? ... That is somehow the relation of patterns in CMB It is simply because the radiation depends on the different sources like stars, Galaxies and astronomical bodies vary from place to place. ...

The CMB is not the radiation made up from the star, galaxies & etc. The CMB is what's left over after you take away all of the radiation from the stars, galaxies & etc.

[snp.gupta]

No, because the dust grains have emissivities that depend on their chemical constituents; carbon rich grains, silicon rich grains or PAH grains all emit with characteristic SEDs that are easily distinguishable from a Planck Law, and easily distinguishable from each other.


That's why I am being picky about the word thermal. One cannot just superimpose a bunch of "almost" SEDs and suddenly get one that close to a real Planck Law SED.

Please see my quote #71 above...
I request you to go thr' my next post

As I recall, you said ...

The way I read English, that is you saying that the CMB is made up from starlight, among other things. Now you say no? Make up your mind. Is the CMB made of starlight or not? If you say "no" now, then why did you say "yes" when you started this thread?

Till now, in Literature of CMB, nobody made a distinction between Measured CMB (using from Penzias-Wilson to today’s WMAP radiometers) and Bigbang CMB, Is it not? This thread started only on 7th Sept, 2008. It is high time now to make this distinction, all this we will call now onwards Measured CMB. Which is what I said…

“Here basically we argue that radiation is received in all frequency ranges from astronomical bodies from Radio, Far infrared, Quasars, QSOs, to Stars, Galaxies, and X-ray sources, such that they cover the Blackbody spectrum theoretically from one end to another.”

Every radiometer measured this till today. May be it is interpreted as Bigbang CMB wrongly. Again please see my posting #71.

Wrong question. First, you need to decide which CMB you are talking about, the one that is observed, or the one that is predicted by theory. If you are talking about the CMB that is observed, then there is no such question; it simply is what it is observed to be.

It is Measured CMB...

If you are talking about the CMB that is predicted from theory, then you must decide which theory. The nature of the predicted CMB depends very much on the cosmological model used to predict it. But then there still is no such question because in that case the CMB is whatever it is predicted to be.

Here it is Bigbang predicted CMB !

So you should ask "What is my cosmological model"?
Then you should ask "What (if any) CMB does my cosmological model predict?"
Then you should ask "How do I observe the predicted CMB?"
Then you should ask "How can I use that observation to tell the difference between my cosmological model and some other cosmological model(s)?"

These questions does not arise..

What is "Vakradiation"? In any case, your calculation is wrong. You can use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, but you have to compute the change in volume using the metric tensor from general relativity. See page 426 of the book Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology, Richard C. Tolman, first published by Oxford University Press in 1934, but still in print today.

Bigbang is from GTR and what I followed was simple Euclidian Geometry. It is a straight line from Bigbang to now. If you follow General theory of relativity (GTR), it is like that. If you follow Newtonian physics, Planck’s law and Euclidian geometry you will get my result. I will withdraw this part in the revised posting

But that's the hard way. More simply, the CMB will cool proportional to the redshift. The temperature at the era of decoupling was about 3000 Kelvins at a red shift of about 1000; 3000/1000 = 3, the approximate value of the CMB today (see Cosmology: The Science of the Universe by Edward Harrison, Cambridge University Press 2000 (2nd ed), page 416).

If you follow General theory of relativity (GTR), it is like that. If you follow Newtonian physics, Planck’s law and Euclidian geometry you will get my result.

The CMB is not the radiation made up from the star, galaxies & etc. The CMB is what's left over after you take away all of the radiation from the stars, galaxies & etc.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks, that’s what I was saying…
But till now nobody did that…see my quote #71 above.

[snp.gupta]

Now consider the starlight in space, the combined light from all the stars shining together. Even if each star were a perfect thermal emitter, their combined light would not be thermal. The SED of the combined light would be a superposition of the SED from each star, each at a different temperature, all the way from about 2000 Kelvins for a wimpy red dwarf to 40,000 Kelvins for a high end blue giant (i.e., Theta ¹C Orionis). There is such a wide range of temperatures superimposed that it makes no sense to speak of an approximate effective temperature, a point already realized by Eddington 80 years ago. But in fact they are not thermal emitters, and most importantly, the far more numerous red stars are the ones most seriously non thermal.

Your other points are ok sir,

Here also you are correct, but I want to make little corrections add few points on this thought, to further the process of measurement of CMB.

Process of measurement of temperature
We can measure the temperature of surface of Sun, moon etc., by setting a radiation dish antenna to see towards that body and measure radiation of it. Likewise if we put the radiometer to look towards distant stars, depending on the main lobe half power beam width, it will average some astronomical bodies etc and tell you the average of its incoming radiation. In this process it will add radiation from the side lobes & back lobe with some low gains and sensitivity in those respective directions. We are not using any so called IDEAL dish antenna, which does not have any such side lobe or back lobe gains. We can’t have this side lobe and back lobe radiation completely shielded. See my paper on a down loadable link, which I will add a little later

Our radiometer sees only in the mainlobe width mainly. It will not add all the Stars from all the DIRECTIONS to the single point of observation. It will see through the telescope only for an optical analogy.

[Fortis]

snp.gupta, what do you think the origin of the cmb is?

[snp.gupta]

snp.gupta, what do you think the origin of the cmb is?

I am requesting you to please see my paper “Origin, Propagation And Uniformity Of CMB In Our Dynamic Universe” , that will be hosted and a down load link will be given through a Good friend after a day or two. I cannot write equations here or put figures here.

I am giving below the abstract part

This is a new theoretical approach to explain origin, propagation uniformity of CMB in this dynamic universe. It is well known that SUN, planets, asteroids, stars; Galaxies emit radiation in Microwave range. It was checked that the range covers all the frequencies in the Microwave range including the K, Ka, Q, V and W bands as measured in WMAP mission. Here we try to measure the radiation and in turn temperature received in a square degree solid angle at earth theoretically. We find this remarkably uniform. This may represent the averaging done by main lobe of the dish antenna of few degrees diameter. The side lobe pickup of bright sources in the sky depends on the three-dimensional gain pattern of the dish…..

Meanwhile you please feel free to ask me questions

[snp.gupta]

Yes dear friends,

Now the papers are on line at

http://members.wap.org/kevin.parker/...flux_color.doc

is a MS word doc version.

http://members.wap.org/kevin.parker/...ermal_flux.pdf

is pdf version of the same paper

This was possible with the nice help given by ToSeek. I thank him very much…

[snp.gupta]

An analogy is some kind of fog. We see - well- fog and stare inside it. After some training of the eyes we see the faint contours of our neighboring house.
That is somehow the relation of patterns in CMBR. Why would anybody think the fog is representing distant objects?

What is temperature Fluctuation by Angular Size ( Multipole moment ) graph?

What does it illustrate?

How to interpret/ understand these temperature fluctuates on different anglular sizes in the map?

[Tim Thompson]

What is temperature Fluctuation by Angular Size ( Multipole moment ) graph?

See this page: Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy

What does it illustrate?

Observationally, it illustrates that the CMB temperature is very nearly but not quite the same in all directions. Theoretically, it is interpreted as a map of density variation in the infant universe, in the context of Big Bang Cosmology.

How to interpret/ understand these temperature fluctuates on different anglular sizes in the map?

That depends on the cosmological model. Simply put, in the very early universe, matter and energy are strongly coupled. When the protons & electrons combine to form neutral hydrogen the coupling vanishes. The radiation then rides along with the expanding universe. The variations we see today are a fossil remnant of the density distribution that existed at the "era of recombination" when neutral hydrogen formed. They can be used to constrain various models of space-time in Big Bang Cosmology. For further reading, see for instance ... Aghanim, Majumdar & Silk, 2008; Smoot, 2008; Komatsu, et al., 2008; Saha, et al., 2008; Samtleben, Staggs & Winstein, 2007; Bartolo, Matarrese & Riotto, 2007; Bartolo, Matarrese & Riotto, 2006; Page, et al., 2003 & etc.

Also see my own webpage On the Cosmic Microwave Background which is itself a bit out of date, but you can use it as a path to other pages & introductory material.

[snp.gupta]

See this page: Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy

There differences between your URL and the official URL

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/

See the Graph Temperature Fluctuation by Angular Size.

1. Y axis scales are different, First peak is 6000 micro Kelvins in WMAP –NASA url, but 75 micro Kelvins in your url , what is the difference?


2. Between angular scale 0.5 to 0.2 degrees MAP peaks are higher than first peak, why?

That depends on the cosmological model. Simply put, in the very early universe, matter and energy are strongly coupled. When the protons & electrons combine to form neutral hydrogen the coupling vanishes. The radiation then rides along with the expanding universe. The variations we see today are a fossil remnant of the density distribution that existed at the "era of recombination" when neutral hydrogen formed. They can be used to constrain various models of space-time in Big Bang Cosmology. For further reading, see for instance ... Aghanim, Majumdar & Silk, 2008; Smoot, 2008; Komatsu, et al., 2008; Saha, et al., 2008; Samtleben, Staggs & Winstein, 2007; Bartolo, Matarrese & Riotto, 2007; Bartolo, Matarrese & Riotto, 2006; Page, et al., 2003 & etc.

Which Cosmological Model?

First of all, we should remove the thinking that they are model based. This name model is causing BIAS in our minds. They don’t dependent on any model. Simple physical properties of astronomical bodies and the errors caused by measuring instruments are causing this anisotropy in what we call measured CMB…

And…

We don’t need to use expensive computers and to understand and visualize these...

Please think indipendent of any model, you can get the answer your self...

[snp.gupta]

Please think indipendent of any model, you can get the answer your self...

I am sorry I kept you waiting for some time. You please go thro’ this post and please give your comments…


WMAP Multipole graph

Lets take ‘Feb 2008’ data release of WMAP output as reference. See Temperature fluctuations by angular size graph. [See http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/ for reference] Lets analyze the other possible physical reasons for these temperature fluctuations. Multipole analysis is the analysis of combined field of discrete sources. Lets see the various reasons for Temperature fluctuations due to Large angular variations (l = 2 to 10), Small angular variations (l = 100 to 500) and Very small angular variations (l = 500 to 1000)

a. Large angular variations (l = 2 to 10):
Radiometer dishes are placed back-to-back, approx 180° apart for K and Ka bands. Fluctuations in measured temperatures start at 90°, the center angle that is half of 180°and both the radiometers are similar. Later we can visualize for bands Q and V there are 4 dishes and fluctuations will start at 45° angular sizes. For W fluctuations will start at 22.5°. Here the temperature fluctuations come from density variations of discrete sources in the sky. Here we can visualize these discrete sources are not uniform in spatial densities. There is no any homogeneity or isotropy in the universe and no uniform density of matter is required. We can see no part of sky is repeated any whre else. There will not be any symmetry about any point, line or a plane. All bodies are moving dynamically under mutual gravitation. Accordingly, temperature fluctuations depend on distributions of various astronomical bodies in space starting from Earth, Moon, and Sun to distant Galaxies. These fluctuations vary dynamically.

b. Small angular variations (l = 100 to 500)
Lets consider main beam cut-off radii, qR of Radiometer centered on its peak gain direction. By band these radii are K = 2.8°, Ka = 2.5°, Q = 2.2°, V = 1.8°, &W = 1.5°. See C. Barnes, et al., [2003], “First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Galactic Signal Contamination from Sidelobe Pickup”. Half power radii will be about 70% approx. Once angular size ( angular movement ) is less than 3°, means WMAP is looking at some entirely different regions of sky than previous immediate area. Its main lobe will look into a totally different part of the sky once its angular deviation comes to 1.1°, where it is totally inner most circle of its view angle half power beam width. And here the difference between previous areas to this area will be highest as the discrete sources in those skies will be different.

These temperature fluctuations will decrease from its peak at approx 1.1° to 0.5° as with that movement part of the earlier sky in the previous measurement will be appearing partly with the present view. Percentage of the earlier sky will decrease as angle of movement of radiometer increase. It will go to a maximum at an angular movement of 1.1° approx.

c. Very small angular variations (l = 500 to 1000) [See Multi pole data set of WMAP
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/map...m_5yr_v3p1.txt ]
After l = 500, measurement errors will start to increase and dominate the signal values and will be more than signal value at l =1000.

[snp.gupta]

Nobody is asking any questions, I requet please feel free to ask any question…

[Neverfly]

Ok, I have one Question...

What is your claim at this point?

I have started at the beginning including the previous thread which has been closed.
Then read all the way up to this point.

TimThompson gave his usual excellent fare in the way of clairty and providing answers while dispelling misconceptions.

But.. I do not understand what snp.gupta is now offering as his claim and or hypothesis.

snp.gupta, do the results from WMAP suggest that the BBT is invalid?
Do you have an alternate hypothesis to the BBT?

[Tim Thompson]

1. Y axis scales are different, First peak is 6000 micro Kelvins in WMAP–NASA url, but 75 micro Kelvins in your url, what is the difference?

Look at the plots again. The first peak is not 6000 micro Kelvins in the WMAP plot, it is 6000 micro Kelvins squared. The plots are not normalized to the same units, so naturally the Y-axes are different.

2. Between angular scale 0.5 to 0.2 degrees MAP peaks are higher than first peak, why?

Do you mean they don't have the same relative heights? That's because the scales are different. Otherwise, I don't know what you are asking.

How to interpret/ understand these temperature fluctuates on different anglular sizes in the map?

That depends on the cosmological model. ...

Which Cosmological Model?

That's the whole point. You have to choose or invent one before you can make any attempt to interpret the CMB.

First of all, we should remove the thinking that they are model based.

Dead wrong. Once you do that you are doomed to eternal ignorance. You only know what you actually measure. In the case of the CMB we can measure the total energy, and we can measure its dependence on wavelength (or frequency), that's the spectral energy density or spectral energy distribution, synonymous terms both abbreviated simply as SED. In the standard model of Big Bang cosmology, the CMB is a fossil remnant of the "bang" and therefore can carry clues to the nature of the origin of the universe. In the "SNP.GUPTA" model the CMB is nothing more than an artifact of astronomers who forgot to correct for the gain of the side lobes of their antenna. How does one choose between them?

The Vakradiation Paper

First, a hint: It would be a lot easier if the pages were actually numbered, rather then requiring people to take time to count pages to find out where they are.

The Vakradiation paper posted earlier is fatally flawed on two major points:
(1): The paper relies on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law rather than a proper Planck Law SED.
(2): The paper assumes that professional astronomers are sufficiently ignorant of their craft as to interpret side lobe emission as CMB.

First, on point number 1, a matter of clarification is in order. The paper defines the term Vakradiation as follows:

Let's define the term "Vakradiation" as radiation received per unit area from a distant source in space per unit time over all frequencies.
Page 2

Astronomers define the bolometric luminosity of a source as the emission (usually normalized per unit time) integrated over all wavelengths. So the "Vakradiation" is really nothing more than a bolometric measurement.

There are several tables in the paper where the Vakradiation from various sources is calculated. In all cases what is calculated is the total power, in Watts/meter², using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. I simply point out that this is a useless & irrelevant exercise when it comes to the CMB, because we do not simply measure the total power, we measure the SED (example and see Fixsen, et al., 1996; Mather, et al., 2004; Wright, et al., 1994).

The Stefan-Boltzmann law (SBL) is an integration of the Planck Law (PL). This means the SBL only gives you the area under the curve, whereas the PL gives you the shape of the curve. Of course there are an infinite number of curves of various shapes, all of which will enclose the same area as does a PL curve at a given temperature. The shape of the curve for the CMB is crucial and ignoring it in your paper makes it impossible to relate what you have done to the actual measured CMB. This is a fatal flaw.

Now, on the point number 2. Your paper has a discussion of the power pattern for a radio antenna (optical astronomers call it the point spread function) and the relative gain of the side lobes. In the "Results and Conclusion" section near the end of your paper you say:

Theoretical VAKRADIATION from stars and Galaxies after dust attenuation, scattered light received from this direction due to interstellar and inter Galaxy dust, averaging done dish antenna due to main lobe, minor lobe radiation received from all the directions other than main lobe. All these factors contribute to CMB, actual values depend on place to place, direction to direction, and from time to time. TIME variations depend mainly on radiation scattering, and Major powerful / prominent sources of microwave radiation like Sun, Planets, Moon and asteroids etc. These radiations and their directions are well known, and they are avoided by computer calculations. We can now see clearly with all these physical contributing factors to CMB, no pure mathematical entity like Bigbang singularity is necessary to create CMB.

It seems clear to me that you are trying to explain the the CMB anisotropy maps, and why the CMB is not the same in all directions. But the CMB that is mapped in these images is known to have a Planck Law SED, whereas the radiation calculations you make are known not to have a Planck Law SED (i.e., scattered starlight). You have to show that the SED for the radiation you calculate is that of a Planck Law.

Furthermore, you do say that ... "These radiations and their directions are well known, and they are avoided by computer calculations." Given the discussion of side lobes in the power pattern, the implication is obvious that the CMB is really nothing more than uncompensated side lobes. Do you really think such an obvious mistake is going to be overlooked systematically by every professional astronomer in an entire generation of professional astronomers? That would be an incredibly embarrassing mistake for any professional astronomer to make. And they don't in fact make it. All emission detected in the side lobes of any telescope is always either removed or compensated before any analysis like this is ever done, by any astronomer at any wavelength. In the specific case of the CMB, see for instance Fixsen, et al., 1994, which describes the calibration of the FIRAS instrument on COBE which measured the Planck Law peak of the CMB SED. Also see Fixsen, et al., 1997 which compares the calibration of the COBE FIRAS & DIRBE instruments. WMAP calibration is discussed in Hinshaw, et al., 2008 and references therein, especially Jarosik, et al., 2003; Jaroski, et al., 2007; Hinshaw, et al, 2003.

My conclusions are ...
1. Your paper does not properly concern the CMB because it ignores the SED.
2. Your assumption that side lobes are ignored is factually incorrect.

[snp.gupta]

Ok, I have one Question...

What is your claim at this point?

Until now Bigbang Predicted CMB is not measured.

I have started at the beginning including the previous thread which has been closed.
Then read all the way up to this point.

Thank you sir,

TimThompson gave his usual excellent fare in the way of clairty and providing answers while dispelling misconceptions.

I am preparing a detailed reply for his post also...

But.. I do not understand what snp.gupta is now offering as his claim and or hypothesis.

I am talking about the measurements in the field of CMB till date and the misconceptions about the Bigbang Predicted CMB. There is no claim for any property or I am not testing any new hypothesis here. I am bringing out all the facts to you…

snp.gupta, do the results from WMAP suggest that the BBT is invalid?

Yes.

Do you have an alternate hypothesis to the BBT?

Dynamic universe model of Cosmology.