|
Post by carnyx on Mar 24, 2011 22:04:25 GMT 1
@sta
Clearly you have not studied the phenomenon of fog. I suggest you do, to see how amazingly homogeneous, structureless, isothermal, and uniform it is. And, from every POV within it, in every direction, it looks just the the same, with zero parallaxity, zero texture, and so has indefinable distance or thickness.
Fantastic stuff ... and as it is viewed as an EM phenomenon ( i.e. we see it) which although absorbtive is a pretty-well perfect analogy for the 'background radiation' aka Noise of the universe.
I would be interested to hear where the similarities end, ..because I suspect they do not in all important ways, and so to me the idea of this background noise being generated now and everywhere, as opposed to being leftover EM waves from a long-gone event, and which relies on a magical 'inflation' fix, to overcome certain practical objections.
And as an aside, are those quantum fluctuations that might themseves be the source of the background radiation, nice and uniform, or are they CLUMPY, too?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 24, 2011 22:24:28 GMT 1
Except we know we are not in a fog -- we can see nearby stars and galaxies! If there was some 'fog' there, we should be able to detect it by its effect on the light passing through it. We can see some effect -- it's the interstellar and intergalactic medium.
Except that doesn't explain the uniformity of the background either, since if it was that LOCAL, it would be effected by the LOCAL distribution of sources of radiation. In short, it would be as clumpy as the matter we see in stars and galaxies. Except it isn't.
You've really missed the point -- how can we simultaneously see clumps in terms of stars and galaxies, yet also see this amazingly uniform background as well? Why does that background have such a precise blackbody spectrum, whichever direction we look, when no other sources of illumination we see do?
The only answer is that it cannot be due to the structure of the universe we see at present -- it must refer to some earlier state that was uniform.
when we take the hubble redshift into account as well (which you seem to be ignoring as well, else you'd have to come up with a process to explain that as well!), than that and the nature of gravity naturally leads us to an earlier hotter and denser states. Know we begin to come close to something that is more like the properties we need.
As regards fog, one simple question? What do you see in a real fog? you see lighter patches where there is a source of illumination, and the scattered light you do see is directly related to the illumination present. sit in a fog with a blue light, and you see blue fog. sit in a fog in the dark, and you see nothing. how do you propose to get a UNIFORM background illumination from the fog, yet still be able to see different and distinct local sources of illumination?
As analogies go, this one is bust right at the start! Even if trying to reason from analogies was going to be at all useful in this case, this one is too daft to ever bother with...............
might I suggest you're the one lost in the fog..............
And as regards quantum fluctuations -- they don't radiate, else we would have energy continually being produced from nothing. Even if it was possible, you'd still have to explain WHY at that one particular temperature.................
These sort of things have all been tried, and quite rightly rejected, because they can't explain what we actually SEE. And the closer we look, the closer what we see fits our basic ideas.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 24, 2011 22:35:59 GMT 1
@ata, I said that the analogy ... "although absorbtive" .. but you missed the significance of these words, which makes your post irrelevant.
Try again.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 25, 2011 2:28:55 GMT 1
you're the one that needs to try again, rather than coming out with confused (and useless analogies). Reading up on the actual CMB, what a balckbody spectrum means, and a few standard things from cosmology would help. I mention them, and try to give some idea WHY the standard cosmology explains them, but other stuff doesn't, yet you seem supremely disinterested by any of this, and think that some daft analogies (sorry, but YOU brought up the fog idea!) will get you somewhere....................
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 25, 2011 11:43:22 GMT 1
@sta,
There we have it. Where are you going? Why do all your contributions fizzle into vague insults?
The point is, that I am engaged on a venture of discovery, to produce a personal map of the Universe. I have learned much on this brief time on these boards, incidentally from some of your own posts ... but have you?
One thing that I have learned from you is that cosmology is predicated on the invariance of the frequency of vibrations such as EMR. And, to account for the actually observed decline of frequency with distance, the apparently mystical MacGuffin of inflation is invoked.
So it sees to me that to get to a fuller understanding of this counterintuitive explanation, it would be good to follow in the footsteps of physics that must have generated, and ruled out, obvious simper explanations involving the natural change in frequency with distance, or time. So how could the frequency of an EM wave be changed whilst it is in flight as it were? And why was this mechanism discarded in favour of 'inflation'? and coud a reconstruction of these earlier explanations provide a ladder to understand the concept of inflation, etc.
A cursory reading indicates that with waves, changes in density of the medium will change their speed, but not their frequency. But with strings, changes in the tension ( aka energy) in the medium does affect the frequency. So to account for redshift, could there be be or have been a gradual reduction in the 'tension' or energy of empty space, which would cause a drop in frequency? Then I foud that much of the analysis of EM waves rely on the assumption of simple harmonic motion i.e. sinusoids.
I also found that the vaccum of space is in fact a medium for EM waves, and has defined positive values of permittivity and permeability. If they are changed together, this is the equivalent of changiing density and would only change the speed of propagation. But a differential change between the two values induces polarisation of the EM wave, which introduces an elliptical distortion. I have made some cursory reading on the subject of ellipsed, to find that elliptical orbits are the norm, and that for vibrations in the Universe involving mass/energy exchange in elliptical orbits, they are ovoidal in rate! In other words, they do not trace simple sinusoids, and theri waveforms probably can't be synthesised from them รก la Fourier.
I had hoped that you could have engaged on this aspect based on your own understanding, for example by looking at the role of Q and its interesting shape which is reminiscent of the elliptical velocity waveform itself. As we know, Q acts as a measure of the dissipation of energy from an EM radiation, and so we could be looking for ideas involving loss of energy from elliptical waveforms that would cause frequency changes. (i.e phase changes) Now, what kind of process is required in order to change the phase of EM waves, which may not be simple sinusoids at all? And why are such explanations incomplete and require the invention of the concept of 'inflation'?
Could you spill a few more of of your pearls of wisdom to assist with this quest?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 26, 2011 15:29:50 GMT 1
Why do all your contributions rest on daft analogies, and mistaken assumptions that you fail to correct?
A personal map of the universe? What sort of nonsense is that! It certainly isn't SCIENCE, which is what these boards are supposed to be about.
Saying someone has misunderstood or got something wrong isn't an insult. Saying someone is daft if they keep repeating something that has already been explained as being wrong isn't an insult either, just a statement of fact.
And me saying that your quest to draw 'a personal map of the unievrse' seems like pointless nonsense is just a perfectly reasonable personal opinion. Even if i thought it wasn't daft, it isn't science, which leads to why are you wasting others time on here when you don't actually WANT the proper science, just some waffly ideas that you can use to colour your personal map pretty colours..................
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 26, 2011 22:46:58 GMT 1
@sta, Yet another example of a fizzling away into vague insults. A dogmatist to the last!
How on earth do you think progress is actually made?
A few questions for you;
Have you contributed to anything in your field? Any original work? .. any publications, any joint papers? any citations? patents? Obtained research funding? Led a team? Got a result?
Or do you just claim a feeling of personal satisfaction at having a certificate to prove completion of the course; i.e. learned and regurgitated facts adduced and ordered by others?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 28, 2011 13:19:54 GMT 1
None of which has ANY relevance when it comes to trying to correct people on message boards who can't even handle the most basic physics.
Goodness, even a physics undergraduate could do that!
That's the point that amateurs (and cranks of various types) always fail to get -- that supposed creativity and originality ISN'T enough, that you have to learn and understand the state of current physics, ande WHY it is that way, before you can make ANY sensible suggestions as to possible new directions. There just isn't any room for people who don't even know the basics..................
Plus the difference between those who can learn and regurgitate, and those who can do research, is a hurdle that some post-grads find hard. But we aren't even near that here, we're still at the level of people who know very little, and fail to understand just how little they do know, yet still imagine they have SOMETHING useful to say about standard cosmology. They don't and you don't.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 28, 2011 15:12:35 GMT 1
@sta, .. clearly you have no idea of the state of current physics. Or indeed of the potential for other explanation other than announcing the the current orthodoxy as revealed truth! This is a Very Unscientific way of behaving, but you plainly cannot see it!
You do realise, that you are behaving exactly as those Mediaeval Schoolmen did, and which caused Bacon to invent the Scientific Method itself! (... I mean, you DID know that, didn't you?)
For example, a perfectly simple way of talking about redshift is to talk about it using the Scientific Method itself to show what it would take for the simplest solution of a change in the frequency of light in order to reproduce the result; and what kind of mechanism would have to be invoked in order for EM waves to drop in frequency, and why this cannot be the answer.
But your barking in the manger doesn't cut it. And when the theories change, you will then be barking the new dogma in the manger. Wake up late one morning and you might find yourself barking the Wrong Dogma like the worst of heretics! Get with the Scietific Method, babe! Use it!
And that pervasive 'white noise' we hear everywhere might well have other simpler and more obvious explanations, such as Zitterbewegung for example. So can you tell us why these simple explanations have been ruled ou? A Proper Physicist would, and could; so why not you?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 28, 2011 16:12:03 GMT 1
Same empty nonsense! I was talking about standard, current theories, NOT cutting edge research. And you are still ignoring the fact that not just any idiot can have a go at suggesting where or what the new physics might be. Instead, you need solid grounding in current theory and the history of the subject before you can say anything meaningful about what might ne new directions to try.
So, what I've been saying all along is just that you obviously have NO IDEA why the current explanation for the CMB is the best one.
As I keep telling you, the point is the EXACT spectrum, the most perfect blackbody spectrum in all of nature (do you even KNOW what that is BTW?), plus the extreme uniformity across the sky. THAT is why (plus Hubble shift and expansion) that we think it refers to a hot, dense earlier state, and indeed, Gamow predicted such a background. Which IS a terrific example of the scientific process -- the CMB was predicted, it was then FOUND purely by accident, and when they failed to eliminate the noise in their antenna by cleaning out the pigeon guano or any other method, they finally realised it had a temp that had been PREDICTED beforehand. Hence theory and experiment, a perfect example of how science works.
It ISN'T 'white noise' (which has a FLAT power spectrum), which suggests yet again that you've never bothered to go and look-up what a blackbody spectrum IS, or WHY it matters so much that the CMB is one....................................
Why can't it be noise? Because the precise spectrum doesn't look like noise, and the precise temperature across the sky ONLY makes sense if it all came from an earlier hot & dense state. Noise processes simply couldn't fudge up the BEST blackbody spectrum that has EVER been investigated!
WHAT supposed zitterbewegung explanation? You really should do better than just pull random words out via google, and instead try and put them into coherent sentences...................Ah, I see from a quick look that several sites seem to draw the SAME false analogy between the zero point field and the CMB, and several plasma-universe fruitcakes do the same thing, confusing the all-pervasive ZPF with the CMB..............What happens when you try to wrote about any of this stuff without knowing any actual physics, or bothering to CHECK..........................
The interaction with the zero-point field is what explains the anonmalous magnetic moment of the electron -- THE most accurately tested prediction in the whole of physics! And the point, yet again, is that the ground state of the electron, jiggled though it may be, DOESN'T radiate..........................because there is no lower energy state for the electron to go to.
So, why do we think QED is right (see anaonmalous magnetic moment above,. which also says that current ideas about zero-point fields are okay as well). And why do we think CMbh is right. See points above about THE BEST blackbody spectrum we have ever observed, in nature or in the lab. And the fact that that didn't happen by accident.......................
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 28, 2011 22:11:20 GMT 1
@sta.. a host of verbiage, to prove as I said, that you have not studied fog.
What you refer to a Blackbody as it if were a Holy Ikon of Physics ... is but a lambertian reflector .. a diffuser, just as fog is, really.
And so, it is perfectly reasonable to propose that your ... 'hush' .... perfect black body .. could in fact be a diffuse emission from little speck of matter spread evenly across space.
( ... and which, if I understand it right, is at the heart of your own belief ... because in your cosmos there is no physical surface or wall that emits this radiation ... except little particles from long ago and far away .... plus a crazy notion of 'inflation' to make it look as if they were not actually from as long ago/far away as all that ...)
And clearly you have since boned up on Bacon .. I can recommend his method to anyone, even physicists ( Oh, and Ockham is pretty useful, too)
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 29, 2011 1:10:12 GMT 1
Wrong. You have looked up blackbody, but NOT blackbody spectrum!
The point is that a perfect blackbody EMITTER emits a spectrum where the exact shape of the spectrum depends ONLY on the temperature. And we are talking about the whole spectrum, NOT just the fact that stuff is scattered hence doesn't depend on direction. Hence if you take a Lambertian reflector, you only get back from it what you illuminated it with -- and if that isn't a blackbody spectrum, neither is the scattered spectrum.
The point about fog, as I said before, is that in space, it will be illuminated with light from stars at various temperatures. The spectra of these are approximate blackbody spectra, but at much HIGHER temperatures than the CMB.
As I expected, you don't even know the BASICS, and hence have NO IDEA at all what the notable facts about the CMB are -- which, as I've said before, is that fact that it is THE MOST PERFECT blackbody spectrum that we have measured in physics, and at a very low temperature, AND that temperature is uniform across the sky. Unless you can explain that, you explain nothing, as I already knew................
Try looking up blackbody emission spectrum..............
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 29, 2011 10:03:15 GMT 1
@sta,
I get the feeling that you aren't too good at comprehending the written word.
What I say is that your fanboy explanation of the CBR is based on the idea that the radiation was emitted by moving particles, that are now miles away and apparently still speeding away faster and faster. But to overcome certain problems to do with the speed of light, 'inflation' had to be invented. But, if the CBR was being emitted NOW from static particles distributed through space, in the same way that particles emit in fog ( i.e. Lambertian scatter) there is no need for the 'invention' of inflation.
Do you understand what is being said? Ever heard of William of Ockham?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 29, 2011 13:52:10 GMT 1
As usual, you manage to mangle even the SIMPLEST statements about the basics!
Moving particles -- well, yes everything was moving but EVERYTHING emitted the CMB at that time, EVERY particle of matter in the entire universe!
Plus your statement about inflation is also incorrect -- it isn't problems to do with the speed of light (which is usually raised as some sort of supposed objection to distant objects receeding at greater than lightspeed, whischn isn't actually a problem), but instead the fact that opposite sides of the universe can't communicate unless light has had time to pass between. Hence why are they at the SAME temperature as regards the CMB (something you haven't explained either, but then you have still failed to get the link between the EXACT temperature and the CMB spectrum, and still claim to believe it can be explained by fog............). but we also have the fact that the universe was incredibly smooth as well, and why current structures are the sizes they are. something that inflation also explains.
I note you are fond of referring to stuff in passing, but rarely say enough to make it clear what you mean, or provide any more detail when asked (like the zitterbewegung claim). What do you do, just a quick skim of various nutty websites, so that what you say is ALL that you understand, or isn't it that coherent?
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 29, 2011 16:23:50 GMT 1
@sta
But it requres no explanation .. particles on opposite sides of fog area at the same temperature, so why shouldn't particles emitting the same CBR be at the same temperature ... ?
Er, incredibly smooth.. and structures? Um, Fog is incradibly smooth too, and yes you can see looms in the gloom .. if you want to call them 'structure' you can then make up stories about them
Ah! I always make it very clear what I am saying. I also put in the odd allusion .. as an aside, a joke, to illuminate, and to give metaphors, which might sometimes result in striking agreeabe harmonies in some ears sometimes, and so render the reading pf my posts an agreeable if not enjoyable experience. I am very sparing with these asides, in order not to detract or to distract from what I am actually saying .. or worse still to give the occasion for distraction to others, and so stand accused of 'changing the subject' which as you may dimly discern in your fastness, is bad manners. My post asides ring, you see, to those who can appreciate them.
However, from your remarks you clearly don't dance, can't sing, can't play, and probably don't 'get' poetry, either. It is part of your 'lot' I'd guess. So it woud be best if you would ignore my asides and trudge on as it were, with the thread topic itself.
Which was, as I recall fron the OP, to the effect that;
In simple unadorned terms that you may 'get' .. it is that we need a better set of explanations from state-funded Cosmology than we are currently getting. It is a question of poor value-for-money .. or even simpler; poor quality.
As you yourself say 'Big Bang' is basically crap. So where is the better explanation for the taxpayer?
Or should we continue to write off Cosmology as another cargo-cult or junk-science along with Climatology. as peing neither use nor ornament, and not worth funding. Even Cosmetology and Astrology have better ornamental and entertainment value, and employment potential, too!
|
|