Cosmic Microwave Background
I checked few links about it as follows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html
I see mentioned CBM discovered at different wavelength at different time moment as for example 3.2cm or 1.9mm or other values.
Why these differences? Which one is accurate or more important?
I cannot find anywhere, calculated or estimated the wavelength of the CBM radiation at the Big-Bang moment or at least at the age of 1s when the temperature is estimated 10 billion Kelvin.
Any help with CBM wavelength at that early stage of 1s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html
I see mentioned CBM discovered at different wavelength at different time moment as for example 3.2cm or 1.9mm or other values.
Why these differences? Which one is accurate or more important?
I cannot find anywhere, calculated or estimated the wavelength of the CBM radiation at the Big-Bang moment or at least at the age of 1s when the temperature is estimated 10 billion Kelvin.
Any help with CBM wavelength at that early stage of 1s?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I see that CBM wavelength is used like a universe clock to find the age of universe. I would like to understand that a bit better.
For example what can we say about CBM wavelength when the universe was transparent, 380,000 years old and temperature was 3000 K?
For example what can we say about CBM wavelength when the universe was transparent, 380,000 years old and temperature was 3000 K?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I would have only one more point here, if it is not too long for you, before I close the question, which in fact was already answered.
I have heard a pseudo-scientific approach, which sounds interesting, but I do not give it too much credit. I need your opinion, maybe you are already familiarized with it.
If we consider CBM as the best known clock of the universe and we compare the wavelength of CBM right after Big-Bang with the wavelength of CBM detected now we get a ratio.
Now, if we think at generalized theory of gravitation with impact over the time dilation and we consider 2 reference systems: one being now during our time when we make the present observation on Earth with our slower clock and the second one, right after Big-Bang when the clock of universe was different, a lot faster, and we compare by calculation these 2 times with the help of CBM ratio, what would be then the age of the universe calculated by us now in our first reference system as 13.7 billion years in the compressed time of the second reference system right after Bit-Bang? Any hope for a calculation?
On short, how much is 13.7 billion years measured now in the time immediately after Big-Bang, let’s say at 1s, when we use Big-Bang clock/reference system?
I hope I did not make too much confusion and I was able to make myself understandable.
I have heard a pseudo-scientific approach, which sounds interesting, but I do not give it too much credit. I need your opinion, maybe you are already familiarized with it.
If we consider CBM as the best known clock of the universe and we compare the wavelength of CBM right after Big-Bang with the wavelength of CBM detected now we get a ratio.
Now, if we think at generalized theory of gravitation with impact over the time dilation and we consider 2 reference systems: one being now during our time when we make the present observation on Earth with our slower clock and the second one, right after Big-Bang when the clock of universe was different, a lot faster, and we compare by calculation these 2 times with the help of CBM ratio, what would be then the age of the universe calculated by us now in our first reference system as 13.7 billion years in the compressed time of the second reference system right after Bit-Bang? Any hope for a calculation?
On short, how much is 13.7 billion years measured now in the time immediately after Big-Bang, let’s say at 1s, when we use Big-Bang clock/reference system?
I hope I did not make too much confusion and I was able to make myself understandable.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
The background of the question has the roots in the movie Genesis Code. You can see it, if you have 7 minutes to watch the pseudo-scientific explanations between 1:19 – 1:26 here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYtm1o1DQ0o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Genesis_Code
I do not like when the people use pseudo-science to promote their own believes to confuse other people. But if there is any chance, based on calculations, to confirm the idea presented above, then it would be something interesting to consider.
For me it would be interesting to find out, based on real calculations and idea from that movie, what should be considered as reference system for an observer at that time, right after the moment from Big-Bang, in order to get 6 days, as Genesis claims, as equivalent for 13.7 billion years as we measured it now.
If the idea sounds interesting for you too, could you help in that direction?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYtm1o1DQ0o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Genesis_Code
I do not like when the people use pseudo-science to promote their own believes to confuse other people. But if there is any chance, based on calculations, to confirm the idea presented above, then it would be something interesting to consider.
For me it would be interesting to find out, based on real calculations and idea from that movie, what should be considered as reference system for an observer at that time, right after the moment from Big-Bang, in order to get 6 days, as Genesis claims, as equivalent for 13.7 billion years as we measured it now.
If the idea sounds interesting for you too, could you help in that direction?
I'm getting a copyright block on that youtube link, but I might be inclined to think that "days" here could be more easily understood metaphorically than literally, and that creative interpretations of relativistic frames of reference might be charitably characterized as a kind of metaphor.
ASKER
Actually that is the problem, it is not considered a metaphor.
Here is an excerpt which presents the logic behind. Hope you can see it now.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwXmKaSw75eKSkVsN3ZuQmtMc3M
Here is an excerpt which presents the logic behind. Hope you can see it now.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwXmKaSw75eKSkVsN3ZuQmtMc3M
And that link seems to be unavailable as well. You may want to attach a screen dump of the page, so we can see what it's about.
I fail to see why such a vital piece of information would be presented as a fictional story, instead of as a major new piece of scientific research. Note that, changing the duration of the days, and hence the speed of light, will cause untold weird changes in our observations of stars and even of local phenomena.
It will take a lot more than a movie to convince anyone but those who just want the bible vindicated at any cost.
I fail to see why such a vital piece of information would be presented as a fictional story, instead of as a major new piece of scientific research. Note that, changing the duration of the days, and hence the speed of light, will cause untold weird changes in our observations of stars and even of local phenomena.
It will take a lot more than a movie to convince anyone but those who just want the bible vindicated at any cost.
ASKER
How about now:
https://vimeo.com/137228281
https://vimeo.com/137228281
Apart from all the usual movie-style gobbledygook, they are saying that light is our way to measure time. That then gets us back to all the issues that pop up when people try to imagine that light has slowed over 6000 years, to squeeze the universe into the bible.
They start with simple facts like: millisecond pulsars cannot exist more than a few hundreds of lightyears away, as they would be have to be rotating so fast that they blow themselves apart. The "light echo" seen in the 1987a supernova also presents major problems to such theories. If you're interested I can point you to some websites that have more details.
For now, I'll just point out some major flaws in the movie's spiel:
* "At the big bang, the universe was the size of a mustard seed". We can actually calculate the behaviour of the universe when it was enormously smaller than that.
* "At the big bang the universe was 11 trillion degrees". Again, we can calculate back to much higher temperatures.
* And the worst I heard: "at present the frequency of the CBR is 3Hz". That is pathetic. The CBR is not at any particular frequency (it's black body radiation), but its peak frequency is at about 200 GHz. See http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/arcade/cmb_intensity.html . Note that scientists call it the CMB (for Cosmic Microwave Background), not CBR.
They start with simple facts like: millisecond pulsars cannot exist more than a few hundreds of lightyears away, as they would be have to be rotating so fast that they blow themselves apart. The "light echo" seen in the 1987a supernova also presents major problems to such theories. If you're interested I can point you to some websites that have more details.
For now, I'll just point out some major flaws in the movie's spiel:
* "At the big bang, the universe was the size of a mustard seed". We can actually calculate the behaviour of the universe when it was enormously smaller than that.
* "At the big bang the universe was 11 trillion degrees". Again, we can calculate back to much higher temperatures.
* And the worst I heard: "at present the frequency of the CBR is 3Hz". That is pathetic. The CBR is not at any particular frequency (it's black body radiation), but its peak frequency is at about 200 GHz. See http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/arcade/cmb_intensity.html . Note that scientists call it the CMB (for Cosmic Microwave Background), not CBR.
ASKER
"If you're interested I can point you to some websites that have more details."
Please do that, I am interested.
CBR comes from here, and CBM is one of the components.
It is clear a movie with pseudo-scientific approach.
The mustard seed is probably metaphoric, being only one stage in evolution of the universe.
In the movie was chosen 11 trillion degrees and one frequency out of multiple frequencies to probably simply match some ratio calculation in the favor of the story from movie.
Interesting would be if there is any particular frequency, at a particular initial time/temperature which may match the story from the movie with 6 days equivalent to 13.7 billion years.
Please do that, I am interested.
CBR comes from here, and CBM is one of the components.
It is clear a movie with pseudo-scientific approach.
The mustard seed is probably metaphoric, being only one stage in evolution of the universe.
In the movie was chosen 11 trillion degrees and one frequency out of multiple frequencies to probably simply match some ratio calculation in the favor of the story from movie.
Interesting would be if there is any particular frequency, at a particular initial time/temperature which may match the story from the movie with 6 days equivalent to 13.7 billion years.
The problem with the scenario of the movie is that the speed of light would have to change hugely in the last 6000 years. Unfortunately, we can see much further into the universe than 6000 lightyears (i.e. 6000 years ago). That would show up as major differences with what we are seeing.
Re SN 1987A, have a look at section A6 in this link. Note that it uses the same kind of curve for the lightspeed as used in the movie (the movie has it reversed left to right). It also explains about pulsars.
Re the CMB: As it is black body radiation, it consists of all frequencies, but the peak is at 160.2 GHz - nowhere near 3Hz, and definitely not "at" 3Hz. At a guess from the graph here, power at 3Hz would be billions of times below the peak.
Re SN 1987A, have a look at section A6 in this link. Note that it uses the same kind of curve for the lightspeed as used in the movie (the movie has it reversed left to right). It also explains about pulsars.
Re the CMB: As it is black body radiation, it consists of all frequencies, but the peak is at 160.2 GHz - nowhere near 3Hz, and definitely not "at" 3Hz. At a guess from the graph here, power at 3Hz would be billions of times below the peak.
ASKER
I thought the movie acknowledges that speed of light is constant and the gravity creates time distortions.
The peak of CBM is indeed at 160.2 GHz, but being black body radiation with all frequencies, then we can consider also at 3Hz, even if it is lower intensity.
I really do not care about the 6000 years story as it is not mentioned in the movie.
My question is: can be found a frequency or a set of frequencies of CBM for which the dilatation of time 6 days-13.7 billion years, can be verified for a particular case or set of situations? If yes, which will be those? If not, none of them, then why not?
The peak of CBM is indeed at 160.2 GHz, but being black body radiation with all frequencies, then we can consider also at 3Hz, even if it is lower intensity.
I really do not care about the 6000 years story as it is not mentioned in the movie.
My question is: can be found a frequency or a set of frequencies of CBM for which the dilatation of time 6 days-13.7 billion years, can be verified for a particular case or set of situations? If yes, which will be those? If not, none of them, then why not?
ASKER
I tried to trace from where came the idea in the movie and if there is anybody in scientific world who agrees, calculate, promote...
I came across Gerald Schroeder, a Jew with PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences in 1965 (MIT), also with a religious view and he wrote several books on this topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm#six
As Wikipedia states „His theories to reconcile faith and science have drawn some criticism from both religious and non-religious scientists, and his works remain controversial in scientific circles.“
I will try to get some of his books to see what calculations has behind, but until then would be interesting also your opinion.
I came across Gerald Schroeder, a Jew with PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences in 1965 (MIT), also with a religious view and he wrote several books on this topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm#six
As Wikipedia states „His theories to reconcile faith and science have drawn some criticism from both religious and non-religious scientists, and his works remain controversial in scientific circles.“
I will try to get some of his books to see what calculations has behind, but until then would be interesting also your opinion.
I cannot imagine how you could "verify" a set of frequencies that give the time dilation of 6 days to 13 billion years. The two "don't compute"
A much better way to explain the discrepancy between the bible and reality would be to say that god created the light from distant stars and galaxies already on its way to earth.
There is also no reason why he could not have created the universe last week, or a couple of microseconds ago. He "only" has to create us with all our memories in a universe with all its history.
Either way, it would make the entire universe a mockery, an elaborate fraud. It's not my idea of the actions by an all-powerful god - but of course, I'm only human.
We could not believe anything we see around us; all we could do is to believe every single word of the bible. And, of course, that would not really help either, as the bible has many internal contradictions, in both the old and new testaments. There are also many versions of the bible, again with differences.
Most people who believe that the bible is the full truth carefully ignore all these problems, and insist that their interpretation of their version is the only truth. I much prefer the way most mainstream Christians interpret the bible these days: the old testament is a mixture of historical and allegorical stories. Of course most still insist that the new testament is completely historical - even if it conflicts with established history.
There is also no reason why he could not have created the universe last week, or a couple of microseconds ago. He "only" has to create us with all our memories in a universe with all its history.
Either way, it would make the entire universe a mockery, an elaborate fraud. It's not my idea of the actions by an all-powerful god - but of course, I'm only human.
We could not believe anything we see around us; all we could do is to believe every single word of the bible. And, of course, that would not really help either, as the bible has many internal contradictions, in both the old and new testaments. There are also many versions of the bible, again with differences.
Most people who believe that the bible is the full truth carefully ignore all these problems, and insist that their interpretation of their version is the only truth. I much prefer the way most mainstream Christians interpret the bible these days: the old testament is a mixture of historical and allegorical stories. Of course most still insist that the new testament is completely historical - even if it conflicts with established history.
Also, even if we assume that time dilation or light speed variations could reconcile 6 days with 13 billion years, how do we reconcile this:
I fail to see how we can infer a big bang from all this, nor a creation of the universe in the order that science tells us it happened. If this bears no obvious relation to the real events, why would you like to invent a pseudo-scientific theory to make them compatible?
I had a look at the link you gave about Schroeder and, while his science appears to be no more than waffle, it is impossible to disprove his theory. If god wanted to work in different timeframes (extremely fast moving time during the creation of the universe, normal after the creation of Adam) then there is absolutely no way to prove him wrong. The universe behaves as we see it, but god moves in different ways, just take his word for it. The only question that remains is: why would he want create such a lie?
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.So heaven and earth were created before the stars?
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.So there was water on the earth from the very beginning?
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."Light" is obviously the sun; so where does the big bang come in?
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.Water, heavens (stars?) but no big bang?
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.The original earth was all water without land? Our ideas about how planets are born need some rehashing I suppose...
I fail to see how we can infer a big bang from all this, nor a creation of the universe in the order that science tells us it happened. If this bears no obvious relation to the real events, why would you like to invent a pseudo-scientific theory to make them compatible?
I had a look at the link you gave about Schroeder and, while his science appears to be no more than waffle, it is impossible to disprove his theory. If god wanted to work in different timeframes (extremely fast moving time during the creation of the universe, normal after the creation of Adam) then there is absolutely no way to prove him wrong. The universe behaves as we see it, but god moves in different ways, just take his word for it. The only question that remains is: why would he want create such a lie?
ASKER