At Rest with our Hubble view

[quantum_wave]

If the standard cosmological model is correct, the separation exactly corresponds to the change in CMB temperature over time.

Good point. Here is a good link to the current cosmological model: http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/

And yes, I can see how, if the generalized separation of the galaxies and the sameness of the CMBR coming from all directions at the speed of light would have to precisely correspond to each other, since they are both caused by the same big bang event. The link discusses the connection according to the model.

It is easy to distinguish between observations and theoretical physics, and the main observations mentioned are 1) the expansion and inflation as indicated by the raw redshift data of the light from distant galaxies, 2) the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation as measured in all directions by WMAP, and 3) what we can observe about fundamental particles that make up the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

We have General Relativity and the Cosmological Principle at the macro level or observable astronomy, and we have quantum theory and quantum mechanics at the observable fundamental particle level and the unobservable but clearly quantum nature of particles. The rest is the best theoretical physics available to man.

 

[quantum_wave]

This caught my eye in the following article about these new clocks:
"It would also [allow] physicists to test whether things like gravitational red shift and the fine structure constant change with position, important fundamental tests of physics."

That sounds like what I am talking about when I discuss staying at rest relative to the generalized redshift and the CMB rest frame.

http://m.technologyreview.com/view/...ecise-clock-and-a-twin-to-compare-it-against/

Ref:*
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5869
*: An Atomic Clock With 10-18 Instability

If we were to be able to establish "at rest" as I have discussed, these clocks might be a good tool to help keep that position.

 

[quantum_wave]

The article about the new kind of clock mentions the fine structure constant which is a part of quantum mechanics that we don't yet understand, but theoretically involves virtual photons emitted by electrons, and those virtual photons emit electron/positron pairs. The interaction of the positrons is to be attracted to the original electron, while the virtual electrons are repelled. That has something to do with the*"the electron magnetic moment anomaly" that is the observational evidence of the fine structure constant.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

My question is, how do they think this new clock can help sort that out?

 

[eram]

The article about the new kind of clock mentions the fine structure constant which is a part of quantum mechanics that we don't yet understand, but theoretically involves virtual photons emitted by electrons, and those virtual photons emit electron/positron pairs. The interaction of the positrons is to be attracted to the original electron, while the virtual electrons are repelled. That has something to do with the*"the electron magnetic moment anomaly" that is the observational evidence of the fine structure constant.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

My question is, how do they think this new clock can help sort that out?

Talking to yourself again?

I can't make out what you're trying to bring across.

 

[quantum_wave]

Talking to yourself again?

Yes, true :shrug:.

I can't make out what you're trying to bring across.

You can't? Darn.

 

[eram]

Yes, true :shrug:.

You can't? Darn.

At least you're cutting down on words, that's a a good improvement.

 

[quantum_wave]

Talking to yourself again?

I can't make out what you're trying to bring across.

At least you're cutting down on words, that's a a good improvement.

After some reflection, I don't think I consider your last two posts to be "cryptic comments" like I first thought. I can see that you might be saying that no one is interested in the new kind of clock, and that my purpose for bringing it up as if it related to how we could establish and maintain a fixed position relative to the observed redshift and CMB is not clear.

If I look at your posts from that perspective then my conclusion is that the members are not interested in the significance of how the redshift is information about a history of motion going away from all points in the observable universe, and the CMBR is information about a history of motion in the form of radiation coming toward all points in the observable universe.

My point in making that distinction, is that for the separation to be true, the outward motion clearly represents a finite length of time since some initial event (the big bang), but for the inward motion to be entirely connected to that same event is problematic. What is the explanation, within the standard cosmological model, for the source of the inward motion of the CMBR at all points in the observable universe?

 

[eram]

After some reflection, I don't think I consider your last two posts to be "cryptic comments" like I first thought. I can see that you might be saying that no one is interested in the new kind of clock, and that my purpose for bringing it up as if it related to how we could establish and maintain a fixed position relative to the observed redshift and CMB is not clear.

If I look at your posts from that perspective then my conclusion is that the members are not interested in the significance of how the redshift is information about a history of motion going away from all points in the observable universe, and the CMBR is information about a history of motion in the form of radiation coming toward all points in the observable universe.

My point in making that distinction, is that for the separation to be true, the outward motion clearly represents a finite length of time since some initial event (the big bang), but for the inward motion to be entirely connected to that same event is problematic. What is the explanation, within the standard cosmological model, for the source of the inward motion of the CMBR at all points in the observable universe?

Okay, I finally manage to figure out what you're saying. You writing style and run-on sentences make it very difficult to read.

By redshift, you mean Hubble redshift? How does "motion" "go away" from all points in the universe? And since when is CMBR coming towards all points in the universe?

In the standard cosmological model, the CMBR is simply the residual radiation from a "Big Bang Black Body".


An oven is somewhat like a blackbody. In the beginning of time, the universe was like this primeval oven. And radiation from this "universal oven" pervades the universe till today.

 

[quantum_wave]

How does "motion" "go away" from all points in the universe?

We attribute to the redshift data to light emitted from galaxies that are moving away from us. The phrase "going away from us" refers to the relative motion of the galaxies, i.e. in the standard cosmology, the redshift observation is generally accepted to mean those galaxies are separating from each other no matter where you are viewing them from within the observable universe.

And since when is CMBR coming towards all points in the universe?

The CMBR is electromagnetic radiation traveling at the speed of light to the observer, no matter where that observer is within our observable universe. It is pretty clearly not coming from the galaxies that we observe moving away from us because of the general isotropy of the measurements of the frequency in all directions. That may not be clear to you, so if you understand that and agree, then you can see what I mean by the CMBR "coming to us" from all directions.

In the standard cosmological model, the CMBR is simply the residual radiation from a "Big Bang Black Body".


An oven is somewhat like a blackbody. In the beginning of time, the universe was like this primeval oven. And radiation from this "universal oven" pervades the universe till today.

Before we address the oven, I think I would like to see if my explanation of redshift being from galaxies that are "going away from us" is understandable.

And I think I would like to see if my explanation of what I mean by the CMBR being radiation coming toward us from some great distance is right. And if it is right to say that the CMBR is coming toward us from all directions and from beyond the most distant galaxies, at the speed of light, is that a good represenatation of the standard Big Bang cosmology?

 

[eram]

We attribute to the redshift data to light emitted from galaxies that are moving away from us. The phrase "going away from us" refers to the relative motion of the galaxies, i.e. in the standard cosmology, the redshift observation is generally accepted to mean those galaxies are separating from each other no matter where you are viewing them from within the observable universe.

The CMBR is electromagnetic radiation traveling at the speed of light to the observer, no matter where that observer is within our observable universe. It is pretty clearly not coming from the galaxies that we observe moving away from us because of the general isotropy of the measurements of the frequency in all directions. That may not be clear to you, so if you understand that and agree, then you can see what I mean by the CMBR "coming to us" from all directions.

Before we address the oven, I think I would like to see if my explanation of redshift being from galaxies that are "going away from us" is understandable.

And I think I would like to see if my explanation of what I mean by the CMBR being radiation coming toward us from some great distance is right. And if it is right to say that the CMBR is coming toward us from all directions and from beyond the most distant galaxies, at the speed of light, is that a good represenatation of the standard Big Bang cosmology?

Ok, I get what you mean now. If you're referring to Hubble redshift then yes, it's understandable.

The CMBR is a remnant of the Big Bang, so you can think of the "background universe" as it's source.

 

[quantum_wave]

Ok, I get what you mean now. If you're referring to Hubble redshift then yes, it's understandable.

The CMBR is a remnant of the Big Bang, so you can think of the "background universe" as it's source.

True, we are saying that the CMBR is coming from the "background universe". Do you understand me when I say that the "background universe" is the source, but the observation we make to know that it is there is a measurement of the frequency of the background radiation coming to us from all directions at the speed of light? We measure that frequency to be quite isotropic in the microwave range at a temperature of ~2.7K, meaning that it is essentially the same frequency coming toward us from all directions? I want to know if you understand that it is coming at us at the speed of light from the background, or if you think I am somehow wrong about that? If we have a mutual understanding of that, that would bring us to the "oven" concept that you mention, right?

 

[eram]

Do you understand me when I say that the "background universe" is the source, but the observation we make to know that it is there is a measurement of the frequency of the background radiation coming to us from all directions at the speed of light?

Your sentence structure is really hard to decipher.

We measure that frequency to be quite isotropic in the microwave range at a temperature of ~2.7K, meaning that it is essentially the same frequency coming toward us from all directions? I want to know if you understand that it is coming at us at the speed of light from the background, or if you think I am somehow wrong about that? If we have a mutual understanding of that, that would bring us to the "oven" concept that you mention, right?

The frequency has a certain spectrum, that of a blackbody. Let's say we have mutual understanding. Now what?

 

[quantum_wave]

Your sentence structure is really hard to decipher.



The frequency has a certain spectrum, that of a blackbody. Let's say we have mutual understanding. Now what?

Since you bring up the black body spectrum, there are some details that should be mentioned about that specific spectrum. A black body spectrum has a peak temperature (~2.7K in this case) and a curve that depicts the frequencies on both sides of that peak. The height of the curve at each point along the curve represents the relative amount of photon energy at that point along the curve. The spectrum therefore has a range of frequencies under the curve, correct?

If you describe that specific black body spectrum you can do so by showing the curve, correct? Then by looking at the curve you can see the range of frequencies under the curve, and could even specify a specific range given a certain standard deviation, if I understand the black body curve correctly. Would you agree that the range of frequencies under the black body spectrum curve of the background radiation would correspond to microwave radiation between about 2.6K and 2.8K, with a peak at ~2.7K?

 

[eram]

Since you bring up the black body spectrum, there are some details that should be mentioned about that specific spectrum. A black body spectrum has a peak temperature (~2.7K in this case) and a curve that depicts the frequencies on both sides of that peak. The height of the curve at each point along the curve represents the relative amount of photon energy at that point along the curve. The spectrum therefore has a range of frequencies under the curve, correct?

If you describe that specific black body spectrum you can do so by showing the curve, correct? Then by looking at the curve you can see the range of frequencies under the curve, and could even specify a specific range given a certain standard deviation, if I understand the black body curve correctly. Would you agree that the range of frequencies under the black body spectrum curve of the background radiation would correspond to microwave radiation between about 2.6K and 2.8K, with a peak at ~2.7K?

Okay, go on.

 

[quantum_wave]

Okay, go on.

I know, the following has too many words and poor sentence structure, but maybe you can decipher what I am saying .

During the first few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, the universe was said to be opaque, meaning that there was no visibility and no way to know what it was like, except that it is sometimes referred to as a hot dense "soup" of atomic particles and photon energy contained within the opacity.

The oven analogy that you mentioned dates back to about 300,000 years after t=0, when opacity ended and the universe became transparent. Are you familiar with that feature of Big Bang Theory? It is called recombination, meaning that the temperature of the universe had fallen to about 3000 degrees which was cool enough for simple hydrogen atoms to form.

The CMBR originated everywhere in the universe as hydrogen atoms at a temperature of about 3000 degrees Kelvin formed across the entire expanding universe at about the same time. No matter where you were positioned in that expanding universe, radiation was being emitted by the newly formed hydrogen atoms. The CMBR was born, and by then the expanse of the universe was so great that the original photons released when the opacity ended have continued to come to use from the distant reaches of the huge expanse.

Here is a paragraph referring to the "opacity" and "recombination" from the link I posted back on 5/31/2013 in response to PhysBang:

http://science1.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/

Background Radiation
"According to the theories of physics, if we were to look at the Universe one second after the Big Bang, what we would see is a 10-billion degree sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos. Then, as time went on, we would see the Universe cool, the neutrons either decaying into protons and electrons or combining with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). As it continued to cool, it would eventually reach the temperature where electrons combined with nuclei to form neutral atoms. Before this "recombination" occurred, the Universe would have been opaque because the free electrons would have caused light (photons) to scatter the way sunlight scatters from the water droplets in clouds. But when the free electrons were absorbed to form neutral atoms, the Universe suddenly became transparent. Those same photons - the afterglow of the Big Bang known as cosmic background radiation - can be observed today."

Is that pretty close to the explanation of the "oven" analogy you mentioned?

 

[eram]

I know, the following has too many words and poor sentence structure, but maybe you can decipher what I am saying .

During the first few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, the universe was said to be opaque, meaning that there was no visibility and no way to know what it was like, except that it is sometimes referred to as a hot dense "soup" of atomic particles and photon energy contained within the opacity.

The oven analogy that you mentioned dates back to about 300,000 years after t=0, when opacity ended and the universe became transparent. Are you familiar with that feature of Big Bang Theory? It is called recombination, meaning that the temperature of the universe had fallen to about 3000 degrees which was cool enough for simple hydrogen atoms to form.

The CMBR originated everywhere in the universe as hydrogen atoms at a temperature of about 3000 degrees Kelvin formed across the entire expanding universe at about the same time. No matter where you were positioned in that expanding universe, radiation was being emitted by the newly formed hydrogen atoms. The CMBR was born, and by then the expanse of the universe was so great that the original photons released when the opacity ended have continued to come to use from the distant reaches of the huge expanse.

Here is a paragraph referring to the "opacity" and "recombination" from the link I posted back on 5/31/2013 in response to PhysBang:

http://science1.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/

Background Radiation
"According to the theories of physics, if we were to look at the Universe one second after the Big Bang, what we would see is a 10-billion degree sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos. Then, as time went on, we would see the Universe cool, the neutrons either decaying into protons and electrons or combining with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). As it continued to cool, it would eventually reach the temperature where electrons combined with nuclei to form neutral atoms. Before this "recombination" occurred, the Universe would have been opaque because the free electrons would have caused light (photons) to scatter the way sunlight scatters from the water droplets in clouds. But when the free electrons were absorbed to form neutral atoms, the Universe suddenly became transparent. Those same photons - the afterglow of the Big Bang known as cosmic background radiation - can be observed today."

Is that pretty close to the explanation of the "oven" analogy you mentioned?

Yes. So what are you trying to get at?

 

[quantum_wave]

I started the thread discussing the two major types of observational evidence that supports Big Bang Theory.

1) We have raw redshift data which is observational evidence indicating accelerating separation of the galaxies and galaxy groups from each other. If we backtrack the motion of those galaxies, the calculations bring us to the point back in time where galaxies seem to have formed. The backtracking can reasonably get us back to an expanse of hydrogen and light gasses that might have been ~40 billion light years across according to some estimates. The stars and galaxies would have formed from those atoms soon after the end of opacity.

2) We have measurements of the CMBR which shows that the frequency of the radiation coming toward us form all directions in our observable Big Bang universe is almost exactly the same. It is coming from the multi-billion LY expanse, and its microwave wavelength equates to a background temperature of ~2.7K. We can also backtrack the wavelength/frequency of that CMBR and determine the corresponding change in the background temperature. We can logically get back to the same point in time where recombination and transparency occurred allowing hydrogen atoms to exist and galaxies to form, i.e. a temperature of about 3000K.

My question is, given that the observational evidence reasonably implies a Big Bang event, why would the current cosmological model skip all of the other alternative possible preconditions to the Big Bang by carrying all of that backtracking on back to the extreme limit, i.e. a singularity that sets a beginning of the universe from an infinitely dense zero volume point?

Is everything in the standard cosmology, before the observable universe became transparent, based solely on theory and math?

 

[quantum_wave]

Is everything in the standard cosmology, before the observable universe became transparent, based solely on theory and math?

Let me try to answer my own question. There is a sequence of events that have occurred since the early 1900's that have shaped the generally accepted cosmological model called Big Bang Theory with Inflation.

In the early 1900's Einstein published Special Relativity and then General in 1915.

In 1919 Eddington took photographs during the eclipse that confirmed that the light from stars was bent by the presence of the Sun, causing stars that were actually behind the sun to be visible. Eddington's photographs confirmed that the path of the light from the stars behind the Sun was curved, making them visible, confirming Einsteins prediction and adding observational support for spacetime mathematics.

In the late 1920's Edwin Hubble proposed Hubble's Law based on the redshift data, confirming that the universe was expanding, and vindicating Einstein's inclusion of the cosmological constant in his equations. Various solutions to Einstein's Field Equations that feature expansion became the operative models.

In the 1960's radio telescopes picked up a slight signal coming from a region of space thought to be empty. Further investigation lead to the discovery of the cosmic microwave background.

In the 1980's and 1990's Alan Guth introduced and wrote about Inflationary Theory that brought the CMBR into sync with Big Bang Theory, and thus I reference the current cosmological model under the name "Big Bang Theory with Inflation".

Later, I think it was in the late 1990's, observations of the redshift in light from distant supernovae indicated that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. Cosmologists think that the "shape" of the universe in the context of GR is almost "flat" but slightly "open".

That is what I think the timeline is of the important discoveries that have shaped and have become part of the standard cosmological model.

Before I go off asking about what the standard cosmology could have looked like if the Hubble redshift and the CMBR had been discovered before Einstein published the Theory of General Relativity, would someone like to correct my timeline or add something to it that has contributed to our current model?

 

[AlexG]

In the 1960's radio telescopes picked up a slight signal coming from a region of space thought to be empty. Further investigation lead to the discovery of the cosmic microwave background.

Actually Penzias and Wilson picked up the signal coming from every direction. The CMBR had been predicted prior to the discovery in the early 1950s. This only was observational confirmation.

In the 1980's and 1990's Alan Guth introduced and wrote about Inflationary Theory that brought the CMBR into sync with Big Bang Theory, and thus I reference the current cosmological model under the name "Big Bang Theory with Inflation".

Guth developed the Inflationary Theory in December of 1979. Inflation deals with the time period of 10[sup]-43[/sup] seconds to 10[sup]-35[/sup] seconds, after that it's the standard BB. Inflation doesn't have to do with the CMBR, which was already a confirmed prediction of the standard BB.

 

[quantum_wave]

Actually Penzias and Wilson picked up the signal coming from every direction. The CMBR had been predicted prior to the discovery in the early 1950s. This only was observational confirmation.



Guth developed the Inflationary Theory in December of 1979. Inflation deals with the time period of 10[sup]-43[/sup] seconds to 10[sup]-35[/sup] seconds, after that it's the standard BB. Inflation doesn't have to do with the CMBR, which was already a confirmed prediction of the standard BB.

To be clear, the microsecond of superluminal inflation that occurred during the first second after the Big Bang was not a part of standard Big Bang theory before the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

As I understand it, as a result of the discovery of the homogeneity of the background temperature, the standard cosmological model was eventually amended to include inflation.

http://science1.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/

From the above link:
Inflation
"One problem that arose from the original COBE results, and that persists with the higher-resolution WMAP data, was that the Universe was too homogeneous. How could pieces of the Universe that had never been in contact with each other have come to equilibrium at the very same temperature? This and other cosmological problems could be solved, however, if there had been a very short period immediately after the Big Bang where the Universe experienced an incredible burst of expansion called "inflation." For this inflation to have taken place, the Universe at the time of the Big Bang must have been filled with an unstable form of energy whose nature is not yet known. Whatever its nature, the inflationary model predicts that this primordial energy would have been unevenly distributed in space due to a kind of quantum noise that arose when the Universe was extremely small. This pattern would have been transferred to the matter of the Universe and would show up in the photons that began streaming away freely at the moment of recombination. As a result, we would expect to see, and do see, this kind of pattern in the COBE and WMAP pictures of the Universe.
But all this leaves unanswered the question of what powered inflation. One difficulty in answering this question is that inflation was over well before recombination, and so the opacity of the Universe before recombination is, in effect, a curtain drawn over those interesting very early events. Fortunately, there is a way to observe the Universe that does not involve photons at all. Gravitational waves, the only known form of information that can reach us undistorted from the instant of the Big Bang, can carry information that we can get no other way. Two missions that are being considered by NASA, LISA and the Big Bang Observer, will look for the gravitational waves from the epoch of inflation."