CMBR - Alternative Thinkins

[wlminex]

I invite folks to comment on the following:

"Can you envision (either mathematically or intellectually) a condition in which Cosmic Microwave Backgorund Radiation (CMBR) is a 'continual' process that is emitted at a constant level (~ 2.7 deg K) due to an ongoing universal process (perhaps during continuing mass formation)?"

The Standard Model concludes that CMBR is a vestige of the Big Bang and that it exhibits a near-perfect 'black body' spectrum. Would not constant production of CMBR, at a constant rate and energy level, produce a similar spectrum?

Curious for comments.

 

[James R]

What mechanism do you propose for the constant production of mass from nothing?

How could such mass be detected and what form would it take?

Why 2.7 K and not some other number (bearing in mind that the big bang theory predicts this number)?

 

[wlminex]

What mechanism do you propose for the constant production of mass from nothing?

How could such mass be detected and what form would it take?

Why 2.7 K and not some other number (bearing in mind that the big bang theory predicts this number)?

James R:

1) That's why I started this thread . . . member discussions and 'brainstorming'!

2) Once 'mass' is MASS . . . it would be detectible as is any other existing MASS . . . i.e., gravity effects, primarily, and other observable or inferential effects.

3) I chose 2.7 K because (regardless of the 'predictor'being BB, or other) . . . THAT is the value that we have OBSERVED using our measuring instruments.

I'm simply 'speculating' (i.e., seeding the discussion, I guess . . . NOT trolling!) that there MAY be other process(es) involved that would produce the same observation, and the same (or similar) mathematical solution, in which the observation(s) might be interpreted differently. I'm simply seeking discussion and constructive input from the 'brains (and intellect) of others . . . including yourself, BTW . . . to consider alternative explanations.

 

[martillo]

I think that the called "background radiation" actually is a "background noise" in the Universe which comes from what could be called "lost photons". I mean in the entire Universe there are lot of sources of radiations interfering with each other and diffracting "around obstacles" in all directions and so many photons simply "loose their path" and they will be perceived as coming from other directions rather from the original source. Some also change "wavelength" due to Compton's effects. If we consider all these effects in the total Universe we can think in a "background noise radiation".

 

[James R]

So, to summarise: you have no reason at all to suspect that there may be a continuously-produce cosmic microwave background. And if there is one you have no idea of how or why it would be produced.

And you don't accept the current explanation for the CMBR because...?

 

[martillo]

And you don't accept the current explanation for the CMBR because...?

I don't believe in a "Big Bang".

 

[origin]

I think that the called "background radiation" actually is a "background noise" in the Universe which comes from what could be called "lost photons". I mean in the entire Universe there are lot of sources of radiations interfering with each other and diffracting "around obstacles" in all directions and so many photons simply "loose their path" and they will be perceived as coming from other directions rather from the original source. Some also change "wavelength" due to Compton's effects. If we consider all these effects in the total Universe we can think in a "background noise radiation".

That would be pretty incredible that all this 'noise' had the same energy level! How do you propose that could possibley be?

 

[martillo]

That would be pretty incredible that all this 'noise' had the same energy level! How do you propose that could possibley be?

I'm editing the reply because I think I misunderstood your point at first.
As said at wikipedia "CMBR" is stronger in the microwave region of the spectrum. It would be a matter of study and research if the phenomenon I mention can produce a compatible distribution of energy. I can't demonstrate that now, I agree, but I think is possible.
I would like to know when and where was demonstrated that a "Big Bang" would produce that distribution of energy. I think it haven't been done, so the question is why you request this to me now?

 

[origin]

I would like to know when and where was demonstrated that a "Big Bang" would produce that distribution of energy. I think it haven't been done, so the question is why you request this to me now?

The CMBR was predicted by the big bang theory. It was accidentally detected by 2 scientist utilizing an early microwave detector.

The big bang theory predicted that when the early universe became transparent that the energetic photons would have been redshifted over time to the current microwave energy. Further this CMBR should be very uniform in all directions.

Keep in mind that this was predicted based on the BB theory and then was discovered at a later time.

The fact that you do not seem to know this is rather astounding since it is one of the biggest pieces of corroborating evidence for the big bang. You apparently disagree with a theory that you aren't even knowledgeable about!

Here you go - educate your self a little bit.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I suggest the opposite to the Big Bang that the CMBR is the big collapse distance from implosion of Space-Time weight distribution. The collapse is expanded away by a secondary condition of collapse that implosions form holes that take up hollow space similar to bubbles. If hollow space is created by implosion, then the hollow space is taking up the space of matter. If matter is pushed apart by holes then the expansion of the universe is the effect that holes don't require energy (in fact require negative energy), so the energy distribution is pushed outwards.

 

[martillo]

The CMBR was predicted by the big bang theory. It was accidentally detected by 2 scientist utilizing an early microwave detector.

The big bang theory predicted that when the early universe became transparent that the energetic photons would have been redshifted over time to the current microwave energy. Further this CMBR should be very uniform in all directions.

Keep in mind that this was predicted based on the BB theory and then was discovered at a later time.

The fact that you do not seem to know this is rather astounding since it is one of the biggest pieces of corroborating evidence for the big bang. You apparently disagree with a theory that you aren't even knowledgeable about!

Here you go - educate your self a little bit.

And I don't really know a lot of other things but it doesn't matter.
I don't pretent to be so "educated" in those wrong theories. I can't waste my time and brain memory in wrong things.
I think the "Big Bang" theory is wrong and that the background radiation as a noise produced the way I mentioned is possible and that is the real phenomenon causing it.

 

[Grumpy]

martillo

I don't believe in a "Big Bang".

I don't "believe" in the BB either, it is simply the theory that explains what we see. Belief has no place in science. Einstein believed that the Universe was static, but he had to admit he was wrong when Hubble showed the Universe was expanding. Run that expansion backwards through time and the Big Bang is at the end of the line, no belief required.

Grumpy

 

[origin]

I don't pretent to be so "educated" in those wrong theories. I can't waste my time and brain memory in wrong things.

Wow, that is really disturbing.

You can't waste your time on wrong theories? How do you know they are wrong if you don't even bother to understand them?

I think the "Big Bang" theory is wrong and that the background radiation as a noise produced the way I mentioned is possible and that is the real phenomenon causing it.

So you are ignorant, refuse to learn anything new and are damn proud of it? Well, I hope that philosophy works out for you.:shrug:

 

[origin]

I suggest the opposite to the Big Bang that the CMBR is the big collapse distance from implosion of Space-Time weight distribution. The collapse is expanded away by a secondary condition of collapse that implosions form holes that take up hollow space similar to bubbles. If hollow space is created by implosion, then the hollow space is taking up the space of matter. If matter is pushed apart by holes then the expansion of the universe is the effect that holes don't require energy (in fact require negative energy), so the energy distribution is pushed outwards.

So you believe silly crap that you make up as you go along to explain things you don't understand - well bravo for you.:shrug:

 

[wlminex]

Wow, that is really disturbing.

You can't waste your time on wrong theories? How do you know they are wrong if you don't even bother to understand them?



So you are ignorant, refuse to learn anything new and are damn proud of it? Well, I hope that philosophy works out for you.:shrug:

Qrigin: Your posts are argumentative and denigrating, which is not the purpose of this thread . . . . please moderate yourself and refocus on the friendly discussion this thread is trying to embue. Your opinions of others' opinions are not the topic of this thread. . . . .Thanks . . . Civility, Please! (another thread)

 

[Pincho Paxton]

So you believe silly crap that you make up as you go along to explain things you don't understand - well bravo for you.:shrug:

No. I evolved my theory 1 step at a time taking many years. Your post however was an instant response.. ironic.

 

[James R]

I suggest the opposite to the Big Bang that the CMBR is the big collapse distance from implosion of Space-Time weight distribution.

This doesn't even make sense as a coherent sentence.

How can background radiation be a distance? It can't.
Is there such a thing as "space-time weight"? No, there isn't.
Can "space-time weight" implode? Who knows, since there's no such thing.

The collapse is expanded away by a secondary condition of collapse that implosions form holes that take up hollow space similar to bubbles.

More nonsense. What sort of "holes" are formed? How are they formed? Why?

What is "hollow space"? It doesn't exist.

How is "hollow space" similar to bubbles? Who knows? It's all just random nonsense.

If hollow space is created by implosion, then the hollow space is taking up the space of matter.

If pixies wear green vests then skyrocket moonshadow forklift.

If matter is pushed apart by holes then the expansion of the universe is the effect that holes don't require energy (in fact require negative energy), so the energy distribution is pushed outwards.

Why waste everybody's time with this rubbish?

 

[AlexG]

Qrigin: Your posts are argumentative and denigrating, which is not the purpose of this thread . . . . please moderate yourself and refocus on the friendly discussion this thread is trying to embue. Your opinions of others' opinions are not the topic of this thread. . . . .Thanks . . . Civility, Please! (another thread)

Did I miss your being made a moderator?

If you're not, then who gives a shit about your opinions?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

This doesn't even make sense as a coherent sentence.

How can background radiation be a distance? It can't.
Is there such a thing as "space-time weight"? No, there isn't.
Can "space-time weight" implode? Who knows, since there's no such thing.



More nonsense. What sort of "holes" are formed? How are they formed? Why?

What is "hollow space"? It doesn't exist.

How is "hollow space" similar to bubbles? Who knows? It's all just random nonsense.



If pixies wear green vests then skyrocket moonshadow forklift.



Why waste everybody's time with this rubbish?

Wake up, and learn about the universe, or stay asleep, and spout science. here is an example of an admin post on a science forum...

If pixies wear green vests then skyrocket moonshadow forklift.

Which only proves that the admin relate the truth to that scenario. That is how far science is from the truth.

 

[martillo]

So you are ignorant, refuse to learn anything new and are damn proud of it? Well, I hope that philosophy works out for you.

I don't refuse to learn anything new but you know, our time is limited, our memory is limited so no one can know everything and we must focus in the things that matters for us may be following our own intuition sometimes.

Your link was good to clarify about CMBR and your point and you know, it made me remember that I saw a program in tv about the detection of the CMBR by those scientists and how it matched with the "Big Bang" theory. I just forgot that for a while.
The problem is that I didn't like when you said: "educate your self a little bit" I think is someway too arrogant from yourself and you know every action has a reaction...

Now coming back to the point, it is clear that cualitatively the CMBR matches with the "Big Bang" theory which says that the Universe was getting colder and colder and with time some "low" background radiation is expected. That's fine, my point was more quantitative in that how it could be demonstrated that the "energy level" of the radiation (as you said and I mean temperature) would be predicted precisely by the theory. As I said I think this haven't been done.
This way the different "mechanism" I propose to be the origin of the CMBR can also agree cualitatively with the CMBR since we can think in some appropiated quantity of those "lost photons" giving the needed temperature in the background. We can also think in "lost photons" having sucessive Compton's interactions with many electrons (for example of interstellar gas) through a long time in their long travel and loosing energy. This can also explain cualitativelly that for example photons originally in the visible spectrum could end in the microwave spectrum (wikipedia says this is the main spectrum of the CMBR).
I can't demonstrate the cuantitative part of showing that the total effect of the proposed "mechanism" in the entire Universe would give the precise "energy level" of the experimentally verified CMBR (as I thought you asked to me) but I say that this also wasn't done with the current theory of the "Big Bang".
You said:

That would be pretty incredible that all this 'noise' had the same energy level! How do you propose that could possibley be?

So now I can answer that the mechanism I propose can explain cualitatively that energy level although I can't demonstate quantitatively the precise temperature of the CMBR at this time. As I said it would be a matter for further study and research.