CMB in our Dynamic Universe

[snp.gupta]

I am not angry, and I am thinking coolly. My cool thought process concludes that you are doing nothing but a lot of hand-waving and smoke-blowing.

If you people are not angry on me, I am thankful to God!

I have been plotting blackbody curves for my own amusement since long before you opened this thread. I am confident I am using the correct equation because the results are in good agreement with every reputable source I have consulted.

Please correct me, I will rewrite my equations and re-plot. I gave my results on this thread.

Suppose we do one for 6000K, the Sun's temperature. We get a hump which peaks about 500nm. If we do one for dust at 18K we have a hump about 0.17mm. Combining them gives a two-humped curve with the humps at those same places. Such a combination will not produce a hump at 1mm, which is where we would expect to see one from a 2.7K blackbody.

freq Lambda cm 2.7k 3k 18k 6000k
6.21E+14 4.83E-05 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! 24144428
3E+14 0.0001 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! 8943622
3E+13 0.001 2.8E-228 3.2E-205 2.36E-32 3280.61
3E+12 0.01 7.89E-26 1.59E-23 3.09E-06 0.366144
1.86E+12 0.0160987 3.94E-18 1.06E-16 5.87E-06 0.054759
3E+11 0.1 4.41E-10 7.52E-10 7.27E-08 3.7E-05
2.8E+11 0.1073248 4.46E-10 7.34E-10 5.65E-08 2.79E-05
1.5E+11 0.2 2.09E-10 2.79E-10 5.66E-09 2.31E-06

Intensities at the temperatures 2.7k, 3k, 18k, 6000k are shown here. #NUM! Is an error, where my computer cannot calculate a value which is less than 1x 10^ (-220) or so very small numbers. Weins law max frequencies (humps) for temperatures 2,7k are at 0.1073248cm for 2.7k, 0.0160987cm for 18k and 4.83E-05cm for 6000k. All are in cm.

You can see very very clearly, all values at 2.7k and 3k are less than 10^5 to 10^200 times the vales at 6000k. Hence any linear additions of 6000k and 18k will include 2.7k or 3k. My equations and calculations may be wrong, please verify

If you are getting a good match for a 2.7K source in this type of hypothetical simulation, you must be using the wrong equation or miscrunching it somehow.

My equations and calculations may be wrong, please verify and tell me, I will correct them.

The computer is just doing what you told it to do. GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.

I got no comments here. My race does not belong to yours. I am a poor steel plant worker. You can give any comments as you wish……

[snp.gupta]

freq Lambda cm 2.7k 3k 18k 6000k
6.21E+14 4.83E-05 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! 24144428
3E+14 0.0001 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! 8943622
3E+13 0.001 2.8E-228 3.2E-205 2.36E-32 3280.61
3E+12 0.01 7.89E-26 1.59E-23 3.09E-06 0.366144
1.86E+12 0.0160987 3.94E-18 1.06E-16 5.87E-06 0.054759
3E+11 0.1 4.41E-10 7.52E-10 7.27E-08 3.7E-05
2.8E+11 0.1073248 4.46E-10 7.34E-10 5.65E-08 2.79E-05
1.5E+11 0.2 2.09E-10 2.79E-10 5.66E-09 2.31E-06

These values are seperated by spaces, I hope you can read this table

[snp.gupta]

If you are confident about this, then presumably you can solve the following equation,

B(2.7,lambda)=integral(a(T).B(T,lambda).dT)

Where B(T,lambda) is the Planck function at temperature T, an wavelength lambda, the integral is over T, and a(T) is a weighting function. According to you, you can solve this equation for a(T). In fact you believe that you can just set a(T) to the Dirac delta function, delta(T-6000K), and it all works. I'll be generous, can you show that the first equation is solvable with the only limitation being that you are not allowed to include contributions with temperatures in the vicinity of 2.7 K.

I await your response.

I don’t know how you got these equations. If they are correct we can break our heads on those.
See my posts # 151, #152 for further clarifications of my words…

[Fortis]

It includes all the points at lower amplitudes, You can plot the curves your self and see.

I've been looking at curves like this for well over a decade. I plotted the curves a few days ago. The curve for 2.7K peaks at roughly 1 mm, whereas the peak for 6000 K is roughly 400 nm, or thereabouts. Don't you see the same?

[snp.gupta]

I have been plotting blackbody curves for my own amusement since long before you opened this thread. I am confident I am using the correct equation because the results are in good agreement with every reputable source I have consulted.

Suppose we do one for 6000K, the Sun's temperature. We get a hump which peaks about 500nm. If we do one for dust at 18K we have a hump about 0.17mm. Combining them gives a two-humped curve with the humps at those same places. Such a combination will not produce a hump at 1mm, which is where we would expect to see one from a 2.7K blackbody.

If you are getting a good match for a 2.7K source in this type of hypothetical simulation, you must be using the wrong equation or miscrunching it somehow. The computer is just doing what you told it to do. GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.

freq Lambda cm 2.7k 3k 18k 6000k
6.21E+14 4.83E-05 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! 24144428
3E+14 0.0001 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! 8943622
3E+13 0.001 2.8E-228 3.2E-205 2.36E-32 3280.61
3E+12 0.01 7.89E-26 1.59E-23 3.09E-06 0.366144
1.86E+12 0.0160987 3.94E-18 1.06E-16 5.87E-06 0.054759
3E+11 0.1 4.41E-10 7.52E-10 7.27E-08 3.7E-05
2.8E+11 0.1073248 4.46E-10 7.34E-10 5.65E-08 2.79E-05
1.5E+11 0.2 2.09E-10 2.79E-10 5.66E-09 2.31E-06

Intensities at the temperatures 2.7k, 3k, 18k, 6000k are shown here. #NUM! Is an error, where my computer cannot calculate a value which is less than 1x 10^ (-220) or so very small numbers. Weins law max frequencies (humps) for temperatures 2,7k are at 0.1073248cm for 2.7k, 0.0160987cm for 18k and 4.83E-05cm for 6000k. All are in cm.

You can see very very clearly, all values at 2.7k and 3k are less than 10^5 to 10^200 times the vales at 6000k. Hence any linear additions of 6000k and 18k will include 2.7k or 3k. My equations and calculations may be wrong, please verify , I will correct them.

I've been looking at curves like this for well over a decade. I plotted the curves a few days ago. The curve for 2.7K peaks at roughly 1 mm, whereas the peak for 6000 K is roughly 400 nm, or thereabouts. Don't you see the same?

This question was already asked by Hornblower # 147, and answered by me in#151, I request you also to please check.

[Fortis]

This question was already asked by Hornblower # 147, and answered by me in#151, I request you also to please check.

But the shape is all wrong. Do you get a peak at roughly 1 mm? No? Remember that the observation directly measured a curve at mm wavelengths that fitted that of a 2.7 mm blackbody. This was a direct measurement using a dual port interferometer nulled by a reference blackbody at a temperature of 2.7 K. Please show me how this could have happened.

[Tim Thompson]

Lots of topics mixed together only promotes confusion & distraction. So here let us stick to one topic. Let's just talk temperature.

I want we should observe and measure radiation in the universe. See the radiation pattern how it comes. By putting the Planck’s law SED as the precondition, we will go nowhere. People did these searches resulted in vain, already. That’s why I did not bother about SED.

Right off the bat we have a problem. There is no way that Planck's Law is a "precondition". In fact, the whole point of CMB research is to avoid as many preconceptions as possible, and in particular to desperately avoid any hint of Planck's Law as a preconception or precondition of any kind. So if this is what you think, then you are already wrong.

Temperature is determined by measuring the intensity as a function of frequency (which is what you are getting from the Planck functions you compute). So I take the intensity measured by FIRAS as a function of frequency, plot it, and determine whether or not that plot is a good match to the shape of a Planck Law SED, from which I (they) derive a temperature. Please explain why that is the wrong thing to do. How else would you propose to measure the temperature of a radiation field?

Measurements you made in frequency domain. Suddenly you jumped to temperature. The procedures, conclusions are calculations are yours. They are not from measuring instrument.

But this is simply absurd. "Temperature" in this context means the radiative temperature that appears in Planck's Law. There is one, and only one way to measure that temperature. That way is to measure intensity as a function of frequency, which is exactly what Planck's Law is, a relationship between intensity and frequency. If the measured SED is in fact a Planck Law SED, then the temperature of the Planck Law SED is the measured temperature of the radiation.

Sir, Measurements you made in frequency domain. Suddenly you jumped to temperature. The procedures, conclusions are calculations are yours. They are not from measuring instrument.

You repeat the same simplistic thing, as if it is some mystery. Suddenly and without warning we switch from the frequency domain to temperature. Is it a trick? Are we trying to fool you, confuse you, distract you? But you never answer the question. You never point to any mistake made anywhere. Can you point to the mistake? Can you point to the error? Perhaps if I elaborate (once again), you will be able to specifically describe the mistake that everyone else in the world, except you, has managed to overlook.

Surely by now you know what Planck's Law is? Let me give you a hint. It is the intensity as a function of frequency (or wavelength) for a given fixed temperature. If we provide the temperature, we can then use Planck's Law straight away to compute the exact Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) corresponding to that temperature. So the SED is just a plot or graph, usually with intensity along the Y-axis and frequency along the X-axis, where the temperature is pre-determined.

Now, what do the CMB instruments measure? They measure intensity as a function of frequency (or wavelength). Oh my, that looks familiar. Where have we seen this before? Oh, yes, why Planck's Law is a plot of intensity as a function of frequency (or wavelength). So, our instruments are actually measuring exactly the same things that Planck's Law is calculating. What a coincidence.

So, is there some terrible mistake being made when we decide maybe we want to compare a measured intensity versus frequency relationship to a calculated intensity versus frequency relationship?

Well, that's what we do. That's the point of this paper, which I have referenced before: A preliminary measurement of the cosmic microwave background spectrum by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite; J.C. Mather, et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters, volume 354, pages L37-L40, May 10, 1990. They report what they actually did. It is of no consequence that the paper is not very long, that the data set is relatively small, or that the paper is now 18 years old. None of these things matter because the authors report & describe what they actually did, which oddly enough remains what they actually did, even 18 years later.

What they actually did was point their instrument at a region of the sky specifically chosen with the established precondition and preconception that there should be little or no foreground emission from our own Galaxy. They established this precondition because of a desire to find out if they could actually see what they believe to be the Cosmic Microwave Background, and we like to think that if you are looking for a "background", then the less "foreground" there is, so much the better. Having done that they simply measured the intensity they saw, as a function of frequency.

What did they do next? Well, they had already reasoned as follows, before they had even built the instruments. Theory predicts that if Big Bang Cosmology (BBC, not to be confused with the BBC of our British friends) is a valid theory, then the entire universe should be filled with a "sea" of electromagnetic photons which when measured will reveal a specific, single temperature, Planck Law SED, at a very low temperature. So they had already set the goal for themselves of trying to see this predicted SED.

With all that in mind it is no surprise that what they actually did next was to immediately, and without further ado, compare their measured SED with calculated Planck Law SED's. It's not too hard to have the computer take over and search for the Planck Law SED which best fits the measured SED. How one interprets the results depends on the nature of the difference between the two SEDs, calculated (or "theoretical") & measured. If the difference between them is large, then the predicted CMB has definitely not been observed (it may still be there, but we can't claim to have actually seen it). If the difference is small enough (and especially if it is actually zero) then we can reasonably claim to have seen a measured radiation field that is consistent with the theoretically predicted radiation field.

In fact the difference was found to be quite small, no more than 1% of the peak intensity at any frequency. At this point it is a useful exercise to have downloaded the PDF of the paper, which you can do by following links in the page I linked to, and carefully examined figure 2 & figure 3, where the data are plotted. That way you can see for yourself, with your very own eyeballs, how closely the data & the theory correspond. Suffice to say that the correspondence was (and therefore still is) very close.

Now we have to interpret the results. They way I see it, and feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong, all possibilities are covered by the following list of options:
1) The instruments malfunctioned and the reported data are therefore invalid.
2) We have detected the theoretically predicted CMB.
3) We have detected something else that is not the theoretically predicted CMB.

So let us consider these options. We can be quite sure that option 1 is not the case. Extensive pre-launch and post-launch calibrations of the COBE instruments, and of FIRAS in particular, show that all of the instruments performed at least as well as required by the minimum design specifications (i.e., Mather, Toral & Hemmati, 1986 (this one you cannot download freely); Fixsen, et al., 1994; Fixsen, et al., 1997; Mather, et al., 1999 and see also the FIRAS Explanatory Supplement online).

Option 3 is certainly not the case for anything that we actually know about. Stars & galaxies do not emit any Planck Law radiation at such long wavelengths that would be seen by the instruments because their thermal radiation field is below the sensitivity level of the detectors. In fact, at such long wavelengths, the non-thermal emission from stars and galaxies is several orders of magnitude stronger than than the thermal emission, because it is generated by coronal and magnetic field processes. But then, being non-thermal, if such radiation had been seen by the COBE instruments, the measured SED would be far more than 1% out of match with a single temperature Planck Law SED, so the observations appear to rule that out as well. Of course there is always the "something else we don't know about" explanation knocking about. I can't say anything about that except to acknowledge the possibility, since it is after all something that we don't know about.

So what about option 2? Is it reasonable? Is it foolish? Is it totally bonkers? Well, we do have a theoretical prediction, and we do have a measurement, and the two are in agreement with a difference considerably smaller than the experimental uncertainties. So we do have a mutually consistent match by any objective standard of science. This does not mean that BBC is "true", but it does mean that BBC is a "valid" theory, in that the conclusions of the theory are consistent with our observations. So option 2 (We have detected the theoretically predicted CMB) is certainly reasonable, even if in the end it turns out to be wrong due to the sudden impact of option 3 (We have detected something else that we don't know about yet).

Now with reasonableness established it is worth noting that the small difference reported in the 1990 paper has become increasingly smaller as more data and improved in-flight calibration have become available (i.e., Mather, et al., 1994; Fixsen, et al., 1996; Fixsen, et al., 1997; Fixsen & Mather, 2002; Fixsen, 2003 (this one combines COBE FIRAS & WMAP data)).

So as it stands we have good reason to believe that we have detected a genuinely cosmological radiation field that is consistent with a BBC theoretically predicted radiation field. And we have no good reason the believe to the contrary, at least not yet.

One last comment:

Measurements you made in frequency domain. Suddenly you jumped to temperature. The procedures, conclusions are calculations are yours. They are not from measuring instrument.

If your only response is going to be yet another repetition of this, then don't bother, I have done it for you here already. However, if you decide to actually explain what's wrong with what we have done so far, then I am, as they say, all ears. I don't mind being corrected by anybody, you included. But I do require that my corrector pay at least as much attention to detail as I do, otherwise I am known to become sarcastic & generally somewhat insouciant.

Cheers.

[Hornblower]

Here is the equation I used. I learned it while majoring in physics in college some 40 years ago, and rediscovered it in Wiki in the last year or so. I used to crunch it with my 30-year-old Texas Instruments calculator, which was a pain in the neck. The spreadsheet makes it much easier.

I = 2hc²/[λ⁵(e^hc/λkT - 1)]

where I is the intensity
h is Planck's constant
c is the speed of light
λ is the wavelength
e is the natural log base, 2.718....
k is Boltzmann's constant
T is the absolute (Kelvin) temperature

h and k can be found in Wiki.

To compare and superimpose curves for widely separated temperatures, I would do a semilog plot of I as a function of wavelength, with the wavelength logarithmic on the x axis and the intensity linear on the y axis.

[snp.gupta]

Here is the equation I used. I learned it while majoring in physics in college some 40 years ago, and rediscovered it in Wiki in the last year or so. I used to crunch it with my 30-year-old Texas Instruments calculator, which was a pain in the neck. The spreadsheet makes it much easier.

I = 2hc²/[λ⁵(e^hc/λkT - 1)]

where I is the intensity
h is Planck's constant
c is the speed of light
λ is the wavelength
e is the natural log base, 2.718....
k is Boltzmann's constant
T is the absolute (Kelvin) temperature

h and k can be found in Wiki.

To compare and superimpose curves for widely separated temperatures, I would do a semilog plot of I as a function of wavelength, with the wavelength logarithmic on the x axis and the intensity linear on the y axis.

Correct sir,

Was there any error in my calculations? I did not take the constants from Wikipedia. I took them from a textbook on radiation heat transfer by Domkundwar , an engineering text book, that was handy at that time.

I hope my conclusions are not with errors….

[snp.gupta]

But the shape is all wrong. Do you get a peak at roughly 1 mm? No? Remember that the observation directly measured a curve at mm wavelengths that fitted that of a 2.7 mm blackbody. This was a direct measurement using a dual port interferometer nulled by a reference blackbody at a temperature of 2.7 K. Please show me how this could have happened.

Sir,
If you look at Sun (6000degrees k), you will get all the energies in abundance for each frequency compared to 2.7 deg k.


There are two ways to overcome this problem to get the correct shape...
1. Avoid Sun and say 30 degrees around it
2. Take a spoonful from that ocean of Sun’s radiation and name it as Bigbang predicted CMB .

[snp.gupta]

Lots of topics mixed together only promotes confusion & distraction. So here let us stick to one topic. Let's just talk temperature.


Right off the bat we have a problem. There is no way that Planck's Law is a "precondition". In fact, the whole point of CMB research is to avoid as many preconceptions as possible, and in particular to desperately avoid any hint of Planck's Law as a preconception or precondition of any kind. So if this is what you think, then you are already wrong.

You repeat the same simplistic thing, as if it is some mystery. Suddenly and without warning we switch from the frequency domain to temperature. Is it a trick? Are we trying to fool you, confuse you, distract you? But you never answer the question. You never point to any mistake made anywhere. Can you point to the mistake? Can you point to the error? Perhaps if I elaborate (once again), you will be able to specifically describe the mistake that everyone else in the world, except you, has managed to overlook.

You are giving me a unique position in the world !!!! Thanks !!!! (smile)

You see…
People are afraid of POWER,
People are afraid of MONEY,
People are afraid of TERROR,
People are afraid of MATHEMATICS,

I am also afraid of first three, but not mathematics. You are working by using lengthy equations of Bigbang model. Many people in the world are afraid of these mathematical equations. That’s why they stare at you with wide-open eyes. (smile)
And I am not afraid of telling truth.

Mistake is in identification of Bigbang predicted CMB, You are measuring radiation from Stars, Galaxies and other astro-bodies. You are confusing your self and confusing everybody in the world. That you have already accepted in your earlier post # 132. What else you want from me?

Here you saw clearly, Bigbang methodology and its predictions failed in CMB. To prove it first identify Bigbang predicted CMB and then measure it.

Surely by now you know what Planck's Law is? Let me give you a hint. It is the intensity as a function of frequency (or wavelength) for a given fixed temperature. If we provide the temperature, we can then use Planck's Law straight away to compute the exact Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) corresponding to that temperature. So the SED is just a plot or graph, usually with intensity along the Y-axis and frequency along the X-axis, where the temperature is pre-determined.

Now, what do the CMB instruments measure? They measure intensity as a function of frequency (or wavelength). Oh my, that looks familiar. Where have we seen this before? Oh, yes, why Planck's Law is a plot of intensity as a function of frequency (or wavelength). So, our instruments are actually measuring exactly the same things that Planck's Law is calculating. What a coincidence.

Wrong!!! It is a bluff.
Which instruments and what is its design? Lets go into details…

So, is there some terrible mistake being made when we decide maybe we want to compare a measured intensity versus frequency relationship to a calculated intensity versus frequency relationship?

Yes

Well, that's what we do. That's the point of this paper, which I have referenced before: A preliminary measurement of the cosmic microwave background spectrum by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite; J.C. Mather, et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters, volume 354, pages L37-L40, May 10, 1990. They report what they actually did. It is of no consequence that the paper is not very long, that the data set is relatively small, or that the paper is now 18 years old. None of these things matter because the authors report & describe what they actually did, which oddly enough remains what they actually did, even 18 years later.

What they actually did was point their instrument at a region of the sky specifically chosen with the established precondition and preconception that there should be little or no foreground emission from our own Galaxy.

But still stars and Galaxies exist in that area… You did not eliminate them (smile)

They established this precondition because of a desire to find out if they could actually see what they believe to be the Cosmic Microwave Background, and we like to think that if you are looking for a "background", then the less "foreground" there is, so much the better.

But there is no background here. They measured foreground only. Stars etc are existing…

One last comment:

If your only response is going to be yet another repetition of this, then don't bother, I have done it for you here already. However, if you decide to actually explain what's wrong with what we have done so far, then I am, as they say, all ears. I don't mind being corrected by anybody, you included. But I do require that my corrector pay at least as much attention to detail as I do, otherwise I am known to become sarcastic & generally somewhat insouciant.

Cheers.

Yes, Now its high time to go back to square one. Lets see my posting #1, the thread starter.

What are WMAP sources? How you are going to explain them?

[Tim Thompson]

But there is no background here. They measured foreground only. Stars etc are existing …

Sorry, but you lose. It is impossible to see the stars & galaxies & etc., they are invisible to the measuring instruments. We know this because, as I have already explained, it is not possible for those sources to produce the observed SED. We also know that those foreground sources do not generate enough emission to reach the sensitivity threshold of the detectors. Tomorrow this thread will close automatically when it reaches its 30 day limit. This was a great opportunity for you to learn. It's a shame for you that you wasted it.

[snp.gupta]

Sorry, but you lose. It is impossible to see the stars & galaxies & etc., they are invisible to the measuring instruments. We know this because, as I have already explained, it is not possible for those sources to produce the observed SED. We also know that those foreground sources do not generate enough emission to reach the sensitivity threshold of the detectors. Tomorrow this thread will close automatically when it reaches its 30 day limit. This was a great opportunity for you to learn. It's a shame for you that you wasted it.

I already told you, please give me details of such instrument. How it differentiates between SED and NON-SED. We can open one more thread such claim is not possible. You are measuring Star and Galaxy Radiation with ordinary commercial Dish antenna, and telling me it is special instrument…

[snp.gupta]

Yes, Now its high time to go back to square one. Lets see my posting #1, the thread starter.

What are WMAP sources? How you are going to explain them?

I will try to give the explanation for this, I request you to go throgh this, This thread closes in ONE day.

[Ref...
SNP Gupta's ATM idea re the CMB

see post #14 dtd 24-Sept-2007, 05.40 am, by Nereid

Please explain section 7 ("Extragalactic Sources") of the 2003 Bennett paper, "First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Foreground Emission"; in particular, please explain the 208 extragalactic point sources Bennett reports were detected, including the ~5 which the WMAP team expected to be spurious.

You may download the paper, in PDF form (1.7 MB!) from the thread. -Nereid]

Explaining WMAP sources

After question in the BAA, to explain the sources of WMAP, I started to think how to solve it. I decided to check the existing catalogs, instead of checking for new sources.

There are thousands of catalogs. Some star catalogs are not open for public. We have to pay money. Some times it is hundreds and thousands of dollars. Getting money is a problem. After paying money, we may find it is not useful. First we have to pay money to look into catalog. So I started collecting of data about lot many catalogs and all are different, there is no uniformity. Some use Galactic coordinate system, some use J2000, 1950, 1965, 62, 58, etc. Some times, adjacent entries are having different coordinate systems. The paper 2003 WMAP extragalactic point sources Bennett used l &b coordinates. They have not mentioned what coordinate system they used. I took it as Galactic coordinate system, later it was confirmed in their recent 2008 paper on fore ground sources available at the same site. NASA’s HEASARC Browse resulted for some sources, more than three thousand entries, with more than hundred catalogs. The following are criteria for selection of catalogs. As WMAP covers all sky, all sky coverage is important for the catalog. That eliminated many catalogs. This problem became more complicated as all types of catalogs ranging right from Radio to Gamma-ray sources are to be considered. Every catalog writer used his own alignment system.

There are catalog-to-catalog source alignment differences, i.e., the same source was referenced, in different catalogs with different coordinates values. How to do it? Eric Flesch, Wellington, New Zeeland, et al, in their QORGCAT - All-Sky Optical Catalog of Radio/X-Ray Sources did a lot of work in this direction. They matched coordinates of various catalogs in different frequency ranges ranging from Radio to X-rays. They did a lot of VERY, VERY GOOD WORK. That saved me using different catalogs and have REPEATED sources for the same point.

Blackbody spectrum

Table 1 gives, all the selected catalogs and the number of WMAP sources it covers in the vicinity of 15-arc min search radius. It is gif file. I will try to get some help for these. These selected catalogs are covering all sky, and total length of Electro magnetic frequency spectrum as to cover for the Blackbody spectrum from one end to another. All the catalogs shown here give the coordinates of sources that send energy in their respective frequency bands. But this does not mean that will be a full blackbody spectrum for some temperature. Basically because, these sources are dynamic in nature, positions are dynamic, powers/ energy outputs are different for different sources. COBE group deducted dynamically foreground signals for compensating, after masking Sun, Moon, planets, and other powerful sources; to get blackbody spectrum. It is simply because our Dynamic universe is having different sources in different frequencies with different strengths. Theoretically sources are required from low frequency end to high frequency end of blackbody spectrum to have signal strength in that area of spectrum. Bigbang predicted CMB not required.

Now I started with getting data about Galaxies, Stars, Radio, Infrared, X-ray, Gamma-ray sources in the vicinity of WMAP sources,. 15 arc min solid angle was taken, centered on WMAP source coordinates. I took 11 arc min for vicinity and 4 arc min for measurement uncertainty, as discussed in the WMAP paper. This 15 arc min is much less than 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 WMAP sidelobes.pdf , I year results, in the same web site] You can get the Excel file containing All sky catalog of WMAP sources and their optical / x-ray correlations by requesting me. It’s a big file, lets call it as Table 2. Meanwhile I will try to get some help to post it in the forum.

Out of 208 WMAP sources, 7 sources does not have any Radio, Stars, Galaxies, Quasars, etc., with in 15 arc min search radius. This 7 sources are with in the limit of 5 +/- 4 possible spurious sources of WMAP as defined in the paper 2003 . Another 23 WMAP sources require 15 min arc search radius to have some or many astronomical bodies nearby. Remaining all the 178 WMAP sources, have some of these astronomical bodies nearby with in 5 (five only) arc min search radius. All these statistics are from qorg catalog “All-Sky Optical Catalog of Radio/X-Ray Sources.” See table 2 for a detailed listing.

QORGCAT - All-Sky Optical Catalog of Radio/X-Ray Sources

The Quasars.org (QORG) Catalog is an all-sky optical catalog of radio/X-ray sources. The QORG Catalog aligns and overlays the year 2001/2 releases of the ROSAT HRI, RASS, PSPC and WGA X-ray catalogs, the NVSS (2002), FIRST (2003) and SUMSS (2003) radio catalogs, the Veron QSO catalog (2003) and various galaxy/star reference catalogs onto the optical APM and USNO-A catalogs. This catalog displays calculated percentage probabilities for each optical, radio/X-ray associated object of its likelihood of being a quasar, galaxy, star, or erroneous radio/X-ray association. This table contains the main Master QORG catalog (master.dat) and contains all 501,756 radio/X-ray associated optical objects and known quasars which are optically detected in APM/USNO-A. Up to six radio/X-ray catalog identifications are presented for each optical object, plus any double radio lobes (21,498 of these). These are superimposed (and laterally fitted) onto a 670,925,779-object optical background which combines APM and USNO-A data.

Above sentences are from their catalog introduction. Further details can be taken from the QORG website or HEASARC browse. See QORGCAT in the references list

WMAP sources:

The sources in the WMAP catalog are main-lobe integrations of multi-frequency observations of astronomical bodies and have nothing to do with bright spots in the real sense. They are dependent on the set points provided by foreground radiation elimination software, which subtracts in the name of free-free, power-law synchronous, thermal, dust radiations. They are dependent on levels set up at that particular stage(year) by the software.

X- RAY SENSITIVITY ( THIS IS MY SUPPOSITION ONLY, THIS CAN BE WRONG ALSO, I DON’T HAVE MONEY, OR POWER TO TEST THIS HYPOTHISIS): -

WMAP frequency response of radiometers (dish antennae) in K, Ka, Q, V and W bands is in Microwave region in Earth’s atmosphere. Once WMAP satellite is in vacuum, outside Earth’s atmosphere; it will have some X-ray sensitivity. In Earth’s atmosphere, the X-rays have a range of few feet. But in vacuum, there is no obstruction. It is well known that 1N4001 /1N4008 series diodes are effectively used as X-ray detectors regularly. See Electronic circuits/ Microcircuits / Integrated circuits generally use them. It is not impossible to visualize that some sensor circuit malfunction under X-rays in vacuum outside Earth’s atmosphere in WMAP satellite.

[Fortis]

Sir,
If you look at Sun (6000degrees k), you will get all the energies in abundance for each frequency compared to 2.7 deg k.


There are two ways to overcome this problem to get the correct shape...
1. Avoid Sun and say 30 degrees around it
2. Take a spoonful from that ocean of Sun’s radiation and name it as Bigbang predicted CMB .

How does option one work? How is it that the sensor sees a radiation field that matches that of a 2.7 K blackbody filling the field of view of the sensor? Remember that you must explain how it matches the expected amplitude at every wavelength in the mm wavelength range.

You had an opportunity to learn, but over the last 30 days you have squandered it. It's a shame, but I don't think that 300 days would have made any difference.

[snp.gupta]

How does option one work? How is it that the sensor sees a radiation field that matches that of a 2.7 K blackbody filling the field of view of the sensor? Remember that you must explain how it matches the expected amplitude at every wavelength in the mm wavelength range.

You had an opportunity to learn, but over the last 30 days you have squandered it. It's a shame, but I don't think that 300 days would have made any difference.

It is not just an answer in one line or paragraph. I am requesting you to download the paper at # 82, and see what are the comments given by the others in this thread, then still you got questions please ask me

[Fortis]

It is not just an answer in one line or paragraph. I am requesting you to download the paper at # 82, and see what are the comments given by the others in this thread, then still you got questions please ask me

This does not answer my question. Do you even understand what a dual port interferometer does?

Please answer my previous question.

[snp.gupta]

This does not answer my question. Do you even understand what a dual port interferometer does?

Please answer my previous question.

I know well. It will not do the work in the way as you are thinking, You can open another thread on that, where we can discuss about it thoroughly. That is wrong concept you are propagating NOW after this thread opened. You have never said such thing till now in any paper. I don’t fear to face facts. I don’t bluff.

Your question can be answerd if you read #166

[Fortis]

I know well. It will not do the work in the way as you are thinking, You can open another thread on that, where we can discuss about it thoroughly. That is wrong concept you are propagating NOW after this thread opened. You have never said such thing till now in any paper. I don’t fear to face facts. I don’t bluff.

Your question can be answerd if you read #166

If you read the reponses that other posters have made you should see that no-one thinks that you have answered the question posed in my earlier post. The radiance was measured using a dual port interferometer nulled with a 2.7 K blackbody. The measurements were an extremely good match to a 2.7 K blackbody filling the entire sensor field of view. You have never explained how this could happen. You have suggested that it us all down to contamination by various emitters, but have failed to show how this leads to the blackbody spectrum observed. I have tried to show you how even if there is observable contamination at visible wavelengths, for plausible abundance ratios you see negligble contributions in the mm range.

Can you answer my question?

[snp.gupta]

If you read the reponses that other posters have made you should see that no-one thinks that you have answered the question posed in my earlier post. The radiance was measured using a dual port interferometer nulled with a 2.7 K blackbody. The measurements were an extremely good match to a 2.7 K blackbody filling the entire sensor field of view. You have never explained how this could happen. You have suggested that it us all down to contamination by various emitters, but have failed to show how this leads to the blackbody spectrum observed. I have tried to show you how even if there is observable contamination at visible wavelengths, for plausible abundance ratios you see negligble contributions in the mm range.

Can you answer my question?

I already answered this question, when Tim raised it. Any way I will answer it again.

First you have not eliminated Stars, galaxy and other astronomical bodies. This radiation is varying dynamically from PLACE TO PLACE IN THE SKY. Some places it is coming to Black body spectrum. That depends on the availability of various sources from the frequency ranging from Gamma rays, Hard X-rays to low end Radio sources. These source densities are not constant and not consistent even. That’s why in your measurement with COBE_FIRAS on 7degree square all sources added together in all frequency ranges, some sources are high and low at some frequency ranges compared in dual port interferometer with a Standard Blackbody.

You can see now, in every seven-degree square, all frequency range sources. You add them theoretically with a pen and paper, you should get the radiation at 3k. That’s what I did in my paper. But due to limitations of my computer, and me to handle huge amounts of data, I have shown it for some square degrees only.

You have only compared with dual port interferometer with a blackbody spectrum. You have not deducted the total radiation astronomical bodies. If you have deducted then you can claim that the remaining radiation is from Bigbang. basically what you are measuring is the star light as done by many earlier authors. After 1965, you put a color mask to it saying it is from Bigbang. There are many places SKY, where there was excess, which you have conveniently compensated.

Now what is the problem or gain for you, if you measure the star light that comes to Blackbody at some parts of sky, and it does not come to Black body at some other parts of sky? What your Bigbang theory predicts about the Planck’s law BB spectrum of STARLIGHT???

Now you can get back your data and see what compensation was done at which frequency range from the 18 year old data. You can check physically pixel by pixel with theoretically calculated data….

But still I ask you the question why you are bothering for Starlight???

[Fortis]

I already answered this question, when Tim raised it. Any way I will answer it again.

First you have not eliminated Stars, galaxy and other astronomical bodies. This radiation is varying dynamically from PLACE TO PLACE IN THE SKY. Some places it is coming to Black body spectrum. That depends on the availability of various sources from the frequency ranging from Gamma rays, Hard X-rays to low end Radio sources. These source densities are not constant and not consistent even. That’s why in your measurement with COBE_FIRAS on 7degree square all sources added together in all frequency ranges, some sources are high and low at some frequency ranges compared in dual port interferometer with a Standard Blackbody.

You can see now, in every seven-degree square, all frequency range sources. You add them theoretically with a pen and paper, you should get the radiation at 3k. That’s what I did in my paper. But due to limitations of my computer, and me to handle huge amounts of data, I have shown it for some square degrees only.

You have only compared with dual port interferometer with a blackbody spectrum. You have not deducted the total radiation astronomical bodies. If you have deducted then you can claim that the remaining radiation is from Bigbang. basically what you are measuring is the star light as done by many earlier authors. After 1965, you put a color mask to it saying it is from Bigbang. There are many places SKY, where there was excess, which you have conveniently compensated.

Now what is the problem or gain for you, if you measure the star light that comes to Blackbody at some parts of sky, and it does not come to Black body at some other parts of sky? What your Bigbang theory predicts about the Planck’s law BB spectrum of STARLIGHT???

Now you can get back your data and see what compensation was done at which frequency range from the 18 year old data. You can check physically pixel by pixel with theoretically calculated data….

But still I ask you the question why you are bothering for Starlight???

When you arrived at a 3 K equivalent, did it have a peak at roughly 1 mm?

[Fortis]

Really I should assume that you were able to reproduce the 3 K blackbody spectrum in the millimeter wavelength region otherwise you would not be making the claim that you do. After all, if you couldn't do that, then you mustn't have been paying attention to what we have been saying here. How good a match did you get, and over what range of wavelengths?

[Tim Thompson]

But still I ask you the question why you are bothering for Starlight???

Starlight is invisible to the instruments measuring the CMB.

[Tim Thompson]

You are measuring Star and Galaxy Radiation with ordinary commercial Dish antenna, and telling me it is special instrument…

Now you are just telling jokes. The FIRAS feed horns are not "dish antennae" at all, and the idea that they are "commercial" is silly. So you think that the CMB is invisible starlight measured with commercial dish antennae? Do we really need to open a new thread to discuss anything that silly?

[Tim Thompson]

I already told you, please give me details of such instrument. How it differentiates between SED and NON-SED.

With all that in mind it is no surprise that what they actually did next was to immediately, and without further ado, compare their measured SED with calculated Planck Law SED's. It's not too hard to have the computer take over and search for the Planck Law SED which best fits the measured SED. How one interprets the results depends on the nature of the difference between the two SEDs, calculated (or "theoretical") & measured. If the difference between them is large, then the predicted CMB has definitely not been observed (it may still be there, but we can't claim to have actually seen it). If the difference is small enough (and especially if it is actually zero) then we can reasonably claim to have seen a measured radiation field that is consistent with the theoretically predicted radiation field.

I have already provided a full & complete answer to your question. All of the papers that describe the instruments & data reduction have been linked in my posts more than once. The instruments measure the intensity as a function of frequency. The data reduction compares the measured data to a computed (Planck Law) intensity as a function of frequency. They distinguish between Planck Law and non Planck Law SED by comparing the two directly (difference and/or ratio the two curves). The result is the measured is no more than 1% different from Planck Law anywhere, and that is only the preliminary, least reliable observation. Later data shows a smaller difference.

It cannot be stars & galaxies because (1) they are invisible and (2) the observed SED has a peak that fits a Planck Law SED, whereas any thermal emission from stars & galaxies at these wavelengths will be a flat power law. You are without any question absolutely wrong.

[Fortis]

Starlight is invisible to the instruments measuring the CMB.

I don't think that he gets it. I tried to get him to do that sensitivity analysis, but he snapped back to his original position.

At least others who peruse this thread will be able to weigh up your arguments versus his.

[pzkpfw]

At least others who peruse this thread will be able to weigh up your arguments versus his.

Nah, I just use that poll that was put in the OP...

[snp.gupta]

Really I should assume that you were able to reproduce the 3 K blackbody spectrum in the millimeter wavelength region otherwise you would not be making the claim that you do. After all, if you couldn't do that, then you mustn't have been paying attention to what we have been saying here. How good a match did you get, and over what range of wavelengths?

Measurements were done in discrete frequencies only. Sources are scattered. Frequencies range from Radio to Gamma rays, in various catalogs. I did not do that type of exercise in full where the peak occurs. My computer power was not sufficient, I can do it with some help…

[snp.gupta]

Starlight is invisible to the instruments measuring the CMB.

___________Absolutely wrong_______

Why did WMAP / COBE avoided milky way, Other Bright stars including SUN????

[snp.gupta]

Now you are just telling jokes. The FIRAS feed horns are not "dish antennae" at all, and the idea that they are "commercial" is silly. So you think that the CMB is invisible starlight measured with commercial dish antennae? Do we really need to open a new thread to discuss anything that silly?

Nonsense. You don’t even know WMAP used commercial dish antennae. You mean WMAP did not measure CMB? Too silly? I think you are talking about Harry Potter and his magic wand. This is science, not magic. Read my post #170