Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The temperature of the Universe
20 views
Skip to first unread message
brad
May 15, 2012, 10:15:19 AM5/15/12
to
[[Mod. note -- The author probably meant to ask why the cosmic microwave
background radiation (CMBR, also known as CMB) has the same temperature
everywhere in the universe today.
-- jt]]
Can anyone explain why the Universe is everywhere the same
temperature. It seems to me that the expansion must be limited to the
Voids, because the bound structures of the Filaments cannnot expand
unless Newton's G is allowed to vary. So if the CMB has been
redshifted since the BB by expansion, why hasn't expansion within the
Voids compared to the static space of the Filaments resulted in a
temperature variation greater than 6 parts in 100000 between the two
regimes?
Brad
background radiation (CMBR, also known as CMB) has the same temperature
everywhere in the universe today.
-- jt]]
Can anyone explain why the Universe is everywhere the same
temperature. It seems to me that the expansion must be limited to the
Voids, because the bound structures of the Filaments cannnot expand
unless Newton's G is allowed to vary. So if the CMB has been
redshifted since the BB by expansion, why hasn't expansion within the
Voids compared to the static space of the Filaments resulted in a
temperature variation greater than 6 parts in 100000 between the two
regimes?
Brad
brad
May 19, 2012, 8:39:06 AM5/19/12
to
On May 15, 10:15 am, brad <lbjohnson1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [[Mod. note -- The author probably meant to ask why the cosmic microwave
> background radiation (CMBR, also known as CMB) has the same temperature
> everywhere in the universe today.
> -- jt]]
That is correct!
> [[Mod. note -- The author probably meant to ask why the cosmic microwave
> background radiation (CMBR, also known as CMB) has the same temperature
> everywhere in the universe today.
> -- jt]]
The question has relevance to the nature of Space-Time. If the CMBR is
the same temperature in Voids as it
is inside Galaxies then it infers some type of convection or an
expansion caused by the introduction of "new"
space rather than the expansion of existing space. It also implies
that the Cosmological Constant cannot be a
type of vaccum energy.
This question is also related to my post in "The Dark Matter Crisis"
in this group. If the expansion is caused by
the introduction of new space, and the CMBR is indeed, the same
temperature everywhere; then, the model I
proposed for DM can be one where the Voids can be modeled as a "moving
media" type space interacting with
a closed space. Intuitively, and mathematically, the function (f
(xyzt)) that transforms one spatial geometry (expanding Voids)
to another (Filaments) can be easily seen as an acceleration (g). In
other words, a 4D version of a 2D compression of a
line segment (x) into the line segment (y) via some function (f).
Brad
Christian Froeschlin
May 19, 2012, 12:13:30 PM5/19/12
to
brad wrote:
> Can anyone explain why the Universe is everywhere the same
> temperature. It seems to me that the expansion must be limited to the
> Voids, because the bound structures of the Filaments cannnot expand
I'm no expert but it is my understanding that galaxy clusters
> Can anyone explain why the Universe is everywhere the same
> temperature. It seems to me that the expansion must be limited to the
> Voids, because the bound structures of the Filaments cannnot expand
are the largest structures that are gravitationally bound. So
superclusters and filaments actually would participate in the
expansion.
> So if the CMB has been redshifted since the BB by expansion, why
> hasn't expansion within the Voids compared to the static space of the
> Filaments resulted in a temperature variation greater than 6 parts in
> 100000 between the two regimes?
space occupied by galaxy clusters is small compared to all of space,
so the time the CMB spent travelling through gravitionally bound space
would not greatly affect its total redshift (also, as the distribution
of matter is homogenous on larger scales, it may average out).
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
May 20, 2012, 10:00:37 AM5/20/12
to
In article
<20ef8026-879b-4ac0...@s37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
fluctuations in the CMB is a HUGE area of research. Many of these are
due to clusters and voids (or, rather, their forerunners at the time of
last scattering, i.e. when the CMB we see was produced).
> It also implies
> that the Cosmological Constant cannot be a
> type of vaccum energy.
Please explain.
<20ef8026-879b-4ac0...@s37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
brad <lbjohn...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > [[Mod. note -- The author probably meant to ask why the cosmic microwave
> > background radiation (CMBR, also known as CMB) has the same temperature
> > everywhere in the universe today.
> > -- jt]]
>
> That is correct!
>
> The question has relevance to the nature of Space-Time. If the CMBR is
> the same temperature in Voids as it
> is inside Galaxies then it infers some type of convection or an
> expansion caused by the introduction of "new"
> space rather than the expansion of existing space.
It is not EXACTLY the same temperature everywhere. The study of small
> > [[Mod. note -- The author probably meant to ask why the cosmic microwave
> > background radiation (CMBR, also known as CMB) has the same temperature
> > everywhere in the universe today.
> > -- jt]]
>
> That is correct!
>
> The question has relevance to the nature of Space-Time. If the CMBR is
> the same temperature in Voids as it
> is inside Galaxies then it infers some type of convection or an
> expansion caused by the introduction of "new"
> space rather than the expansion of existing space.
fluctuations in the CMB is a HUGE area of research. Many of these are
due to clusters and voids (or, rather, their forerunners at the time of
last scattering, i.e. when the CMB we see was produced).
> It also implies
> that the Cosmological Constant cannot be a
> type of vaccum energy.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
May 20, 2012, 10:00:49 AM5/20/12
to
In article <jp8b48$i7i$1...@dont-email.me>, Christian Froeschlin
> > So if the CMB has been redshifted since the BB by expansion, why
> > hasn't expansion within the Voids compared to the static space of the
> > Filaments resulted in a temperature variation greater than 6 parts in
> > 100000 between the two regimes?
>
> Interesting question. I think this means the total volume of
> space occupied by galaxy clusters is small compared to all of space,
Right.
> so the time the CMB spent travelling through gravitionally bound space
> would not greatly affect its total redshift (also, as the distribution
> of matter is homogenous on larger scales, it may average out).
It does affect it slightly. This is known as the Sunyaev-Zeldovich
effect and is one of the contributors to CMB anisotropy.
<as...@chrfr.de> writes:
> > Can anyone explain why the Universe is everywhere the same
> > temperature. It seems to me that the expansion must be limited to the
> > Voids, because the bound structures of the Filaments cannnot expand
>
> I'm no expert but it is my understanding that galaxy clusters
> are the largest structures that are gravitationally bound. So
> superclusters and filaments actually would participate in the
> expansion.
Right.
> > Can anyone explain why the Universe is everywhere the same
> > temperature. It seems to me that the expansion must be limited to the
> > Voids, because the bound structures of the Filaments cannnot expand
>
> I'm no expert but it is my understanding that galaxy clusters
> are the largest structures that are gravitationally bound. So
> superclusters and filaments actually would participate in the
> expansion.
> > So if the CMB has been redshifted since the BB by expansion, why
> > hasn't expansion within the Voids compared to the static space of the
> > Filaments resulted in a temperature variation greater than 6 parts in
> > 100000 between the two regimes?
>
> Interesting question. I think this means the total volume of
> space occupied by galaxy clusters is small compared to all of space,
> so the time the CMB spent travelling through gravitionally bound space
> would not greatly affect its total redshift (also, as the distribution
> of matter is homogenous on larger scales, it may average out).
effect and is one of the contributors to CMB anisotropy.
brad
May 21, 2012, 3:29:10 PM5/21/12
to
On May 19, 12:13 pm, Christian Froeschlin <as...@chrfr.de> wrote:
> I'm no expert but it is my understanding that galaxy clusters
> are the largest structures that are gravitationally bound. So
> superclusters and filaments actually would participate in the
> expansion.
Yes, but only in the sense that they are on the edges of expanding
> I'm no expert but it is my understanding that galaxy clusters
> are the largest structures that are gravitationally bound. So
> superclusters and filaments actually would participate in the
> expansion.
Voids, not in
the sense that individual members of those bound structures would see
increased
interior volume. No?
> Interesting question. I think this means the total volume of
> space occupied by galaxy clusters is small compared to all of space,
> so the time the CMB spent travelling through gravitionally bound space
> would not greatly affect its total redshift (also, as the distribution
> of matter is homogenous on larger scales, it may average out).
explanation.
Brad
Christian Froeschlin
May 21, 2012, 3:29:59 PM5/21/12
to
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>> so the time the CMB spent travelling through gravitionally bound
>> space would not greatly affect its total redshift (also, as the
>> distribution of matter is homogenous on larger scales, it may
>> average out).
>
> It does affect it slightly. This is known as the Sunyaev-Zeldovich
> effect and is one of the contributors to CMB anisotropy.
The Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect appears to be due to interaction of
>> so the time the CMB spent travelling through gravitionally bound
>> space would not greatly affect its total redshift (also, as the
>> distribution of matter is homogenous on larger scales, it may
>> average out).
>
> It does affect it slightly. This is known as the Sunyaev-Zeldovich
> effect and is one of the contributors to CMB anisotropy.
CMB photons with high energy cluster electrons. Not sure if there
could also be an effect attributable to some form of reduced
cosmological redshift.
Does a gravitationally bound system actually keep the local
space-time itself from expanding, or is it just the matter that
is not "following the flow"?
brad
May 21, 2012, 3:29:36 PM5/21/12
to
On May 20, 10:00 am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
Christian Froeschlin explained
why, and you seconded it.
>
> > It also implies
> > that the Cosmological Constant cannot be a
> > type of vaccum energy.
>
> Please explain.
My picture was faulty. I imagined all of space as made of discrete
volumes that each carried their own
"piece" of the CMBR. The earliest galaxies appear within 1x10^9 yrs of
the BB
so the greater expansion occurs after the appearance of structure. If
Voids expanded but bound structures
didn't then the temperature of the CMBR
shouldn't be close between these two regimes. The fact that they are
seemed to indicate some
type of convection which could only originate within bound structures,
so, it seemed convection not vacuum energy was
the key. Again, the replies have shown me the error in my logic.
Brad
Brad
undress to reply) wrote:
> It is not EXACTLY the same temperature everywhere.
Yes, I know. But, it seemed that there wasn't enough difference.
> It is not EXACTLY the same temperature everywhere.
Christian Froeschlin explained
why, and you seconded it.
>
> > It also implies
> > that the Cosmological Constant cannot be a
> > type of vaccum energy.
>
> Please explain.
volumes that each carried their own
"piece" of the CMBR. The earliest galaxies appear within 1x10^9 yrs of
the BB
so the greater expansion occurs after the appearance of structure. If
Voids expanded but bound structures
didn't then the temperature of the CMBR
shouldn't be close between these two regimes. The fact that they are
seemed to indicate some
type of convection which could only originate within bound structures,
so, it seemed convection not vacuum energy was
the key. Again, the replies have shown me the error in my logic.
Brad
Brad
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
May 21, 2012, 4:52:57 PM5/21/12
to
In article <jpc12o$2tu$1...@dont-email.me>, Christian Froeschlin
I wrote; what I meant was the Sachs-Wolfe effect. (There are many other
such pairs of names, e.g. the Rees-Sciama effect and, moving beyond the
CMB to general cosmology, the Einstein-de Sitter universe, the
Friedmann-Lema?tre equation, not to mention Bose-Einstein statistics,
Fermi-Dirac statistics, the Einstein-de Haas effect, the Stern-Gerlach
experiment etc.)
<as...@chrfr.de> writes:
> >> so the time the CMB spent travelling through gravitionally bound
> >> space would not greatly affect its total redshift (also, as the
> >> distribution of matter is homogenous on larger scales, it may
> >> average out).
> >
> > It does affect it slightly. This is known as the Sunyaev-Zeldovich
> > effect and is one of the contributors to CMB anisotropy.
>
> The Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect appears to be due to interaction of
> CMB photons with high energy cluster electrons.
Right; typing too quickly I meant another pair of hyphenated names than
> >> so the time the CMB spent travelling through gravitionally bound
> >> space would not greatly affect its total redshift (also, as the
> >> distribution of matter is homogenous on larger scales, it may
> >> average out).
> >
> > It does affect it slightly. This is known as the Sunyaev-Zeldovich
> > effect and is one of the contributors to CMB anisotropy.
>
> The Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect appears to be due to interaction of
> CMB photons with high energy cluster electrons.
I wrote; what I meant was the Sachs-Wolfe effect. (There are many other
such pairs of names, e.g. the Rees-Sciama effect and, moving beyond the
CMB to general cosmology, the Einstein-de Sitter universe, the
Friedmann-Lema?tre equation, not to mention Bose-Einstein statistics,
Fermi-Dirac statistics, the Einstein-de Haas effect, the Stern-Gerlach
experiment etc.)
0 new messages