The Cosmic Microwave Background

[Jet Black]

For those not believing in the big bang, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) throws up a perplexing problem that I have not seen explained at all. for those of you not in the know, I will explain it as simply as I can.

All bodies in thermal equilibrium (or fairly near to) emit what is called a black body spectrum, that is, they emit as much energy as they absorb. The Sun is an example of a black body spectrum, (ignoring atomic absorption and emission lines) with it's peak in the yellow of the spectrum, indeed all stars are, and this is one method of measuring their temperature, since the location of the peak is purely dependent on the temperature of the body. (The earth also emits a black body spectrum, but this is in the infra red)

Now the CMB is a radiation spectra from all around us, which is, roughly speaking, the same in all directions (there are some minor perturbations that are of great interest to science, but can be ignored here), not only that, but it is a black body spectra. As I have explained before, black body spectra are only emitted by objects in thermal equilibrium, which the universe clearly is not. This black body spectra can be traced back to a time not so long after the big bang, when the hydrogen that comprised pretty much everything was in thermal equilibrium (with some small local variations) with all the spare radiation floating round. when the universe got to a certain size and cooled down, the hydrogen then became transparent, releasing all the radiation... it is this radiation that we see today. This is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for the Big Bang, or at least that the universe at some time was very small and in thermal equilibrium.

now were the universe created 6000 or so years ago, I don't see how CMB fits in. are there any creationist attempts to explain this phenomenon, or do they regard this as merely a cunning trick to decieve the scientifically inclined.

 

[Melange_Thief]

You won't get an answer. Creationists can't read what they can't explain away, and that's why they say "Goddidit".

 

[Jet Black]

and what they can, they only get wrong.

 

[Jet Black]

have any creationists thought about this yet?

 

[worship4ever]

Dr. William R. Corliss, wrote a great book on the subject titled: Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos. He states and rightly so:
"Recent measurements of the density fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation show no fluctuations greater than 2.5 parts in 100,000. No galaxy could grow from a fluctuation that small—even in 15 billion years.

 

[worship4ever]

In addition to that, background radiation does exist, i'll agree buddy. It is a low-level microwave radiation, and is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang, wrong though. But scientists tell us it does not provide the needed evidence. It is the wrong temperature, there is not enough of it, it does not come from only one direction, and it is much too smooth.

Hannes Alfven and *Asoka Mendis, "Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Type in google about the book, it discusses this very subject.

1. It is omnidirectional
2. It's too weak
3. It lacks the proper spectrum. Background radiation lacks the proper spectrum. It does not have the ideal "black body" (total light absorption) capacity which would agree with the *Max Planck calculation
4. The spectrum should be far hotter than it is:Background radiation is too cool. The temperature of the theoretical Big Bang radiation should have been 5°K. But It is not; It Is only 2.7 ° K (2.73 degrees K, to be exact).
5. It Is too smooth
6. that it would come from only one direction—the direction from where the Big Bang explosion occurred, and that it would have a radiation temperature of 5°K. In 1965 those two Bell Lab workers found the radiation, but it did not fulfill the Big Bang specifications in either way
For much deeper explations of this go here, it goes into alot more detail: http://evolution-facts.org/1evlch01c.htm

 

[worship4ever]

I must admit, I'm doing alot of reading on this subject, thanks. If you need more evidence to disprove you, ill send the links.

 

[Arikay]

This (my post) doesnt have anything to do with this thread, just a quick comment on Morals.

I find it Morally interesting to call a site "evolution-facts.org" and then misrepresent evolution. Since as anyone who has studdied evolution knows, Vol 1 of their book has nothing to do with the TofE and neither does Vol 2.

What does the bible say about liars again?

Just something interesting,
carry on.

In addition to that, background radiation does exist, i'll agree buddy. It is a low-level microwave radiation, and is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang, wrong though. But scientists tell us it does not provide the needed evidence. It is the wrong temperature, there is not enough of it, it does not come from only one direction, and it is much too smooth.

Hannes Alfven and *Asoka Mendis, "Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Type in google about the book, it discusses this very subject.

1. It is omnidirectional
2. It's too weak
3. It lacks the proper spectrum. Background radiation lacks the proper spectrum. It does not have the ideal "black body" (total light absorption) capacity which would agree with the *Max Planck calculation
4. The spectrum should be far hotter than it is:Background radiation is too cool. The temperature of the theoretical Big Bang radiation should have been 5°K. But It is not; It Is only 2.7 ° K (2.73 degrees K, to be exact).
5. It Is too smooth
6. that it would come from only one direction—the direction from where the Big Bang explosion occurred, and that it would have a radiation temperature of 5°K. In 1965 those two Bell Lab workers found the radiation, but it did not fulfill the Big Bang specifications in either way
For much deeper explations of this go here, it goes into alot more detail: http://evolution-facts.org/1evlch01c.htm

 

[Jet Black]

In addition to that, background radiation does exist, i'll agree buddy. It is a low-level microwave radiation, and is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang, wrong though. But scientists tell us it does not provide the needed evidence. It is the wrong temperature, there is not enough of it, it does not come from only one direction, and it is much too smooth.

Hannes Alfven and *Asoka Mendis, "Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Type in google about the book, it discusses this very subject.

1. It is omnidirectional

It is supposed to be omnidirectional

2. It's too weak

no it isn't

3. It lacks the proper spectrum. Background radiation lacks the proper spectrum. It does not have the ideal "black body" (total light absorption) capacity which would agree with the *Max Planck calculation

Total light absorption? does he know what a black body spectrum is?
and it does have a black body spectrum.

4. The spectrum should be far hotter than it is:Background radiation is too cool. The temperature of the theoretical Big Bang radiation should have been 5°K. But It is not; It Is only 2.7 ° K (2.73 degrees K, to be exact).

I question as to how he finds this result, since earlier he has stated that it isn't a proper black body spectrum. If it isn't, then he can't calculate the temperature of it.

5. It Is too smooth

no it isn't

6. that it would come from only one direction—the direction from where the Big Bang explosion occurred, and that it would have a radiation temperature of 5°K. In 1965 those two Bell Lab workers found the radiation, but it did not fulfill the Big Bang specifications in either way
For much deeper explations of this go here, it goes into alot more detail: http://evolution-facts.org/1evlch01c.htm

well this is a restatement of the earlier point, and shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the big bang. if the big bang came from a point somewhere, we would find that all the stars one one side are moving towards us, and all the stars on the other side are moving away. unless of course we are right in the middle. however the big bang came from everywhere, and created time and space and hence all the galaxies are moving away from one another, when one discounts their own perculiar motion.

 

[worship4ever]

jet black, you said alot of "no it isnt" and as memory serves correctly on the last post all you put down is "its a lie." Care to expand on your areas please.

 

[worship4ever]

jet black you surprise me when you say that the universe didnt start at a single point, i half agree, i hate lies that have half truth, there the worst. The Big Bang happened both at a point, and everywhere in the universe simultaneously. Basically, it's like this. We know the universe is expanding, which implies that at some point in time it was collapsed back to a single point. Yet that single point contained all of the universe, including all of the space which makes up the universe. Thus, we picture the Big Bang as being at a point, but also occuring at every point in the universe at the same time. Of course this is assuming the big bang actually occured.

 

[worship4ever]

Nice graph on the very subject, written not by creationist, shocker i know.

http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q2409.html

 

[Jet Black]

Nice graph on the very subject, written not by creationist, shocker i know.

http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q2409.html

thanks for destroying your own argument and saving me the bother.

 

[worship4ever]

lol, no i didnt, i wasnt trying to prove the argument was falable, i already did that, read the question, that was my point, not if the argument was true or false

 

[Jet Black]

jet black you surprise me when you say that the universe didnt start at a single point, i half agree, i hate lies that have half truth, there the worst. The Big Bang happened both at a point, and everywhere in the universe simultaneously. Basically, it's like this. We know the universe is expanding, which implies that at some point in time it was collapsed back to a single point. Yet that single point contained all of the universe, including all of the space which makes up the universe. Thus, we picture the Big Bang as being at a point, but also occuring at every point in the universe at the same time. Of course this is assuming the big bang actually occured.

yes.

 

[Arikay]

But the article did say that the CMB was good evidence for the Big Bang. So it seemed to backfire, or else im not understanding your argument too well.

 

[Jet Black]

jet black, you said alot of "no it isnt" and as memory serves correctly on the last post all you put down is "its a lie." Care to expand on your areas please.

I could, but it would take too long to be honest. That site you gave though is full of errors.

 

[worship4ever]

i noticed you said "no it isnt" when i said it was too smooth. Answer me this:

-What is the source of the fluctuations which grew to form the large-scale structure we see around us in the universe today? (What is the right model for inflation?).
-What dominates the gravity, which amplifies the initial fluctuations? (What is the dark matter?)
-What dominates the expansion of the universe today? (What is the dark energy and what are its properties?)
-How did galaxies, clusters, quasars, ..., form?
-What are the relative roles of initial conditions vs evolution in the formation of structure? (Nature vs nurture?)

The real problem is the smoothness of the CMB. It is something that greatly contradicts original estimates. Irregularities in the CMB are supposed to reflect clumps in the early universe that would later condense into structures like galaxies. Original observations showed that it was completely smooth, but this later turned out not to be the case. When the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite was deployed in November of 1989, it carried instruments to analyze the CMB. It has since detected anisotropies of one part in 100,000. However, even these irregularities were too small. The original estimates of anisotropy (made throughout the 1970s) required fluctuations of about one part in 1000--a hundred times more irregular than what is actually observed--to form even small structures like galaxies (that's not including clusters and superclusters. These all indicate a universe way too diffuse to comply with the BBT.
And i'll "debunk" your little "its not to weak comment" just give me a few to write it out.

 

[Jet Black]

The real problem is the smoothness of the CMB. It is something that greatly contradicts original estimates. Irregularities in the CMB are supposed to reflect clumps in the early universe that would later condense into structures like galaxies. Original observations showed that it was completely smooth, but this later turned out not to be the case. When the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite was deployed in November of 1989, it carried instruments to analyze the CMB. It has since detected anisotropies of one part in 100,000. However, even these irregularities were too small. The original estimates of anisotropy (made throughout the 1970s) required fluctuations of about one part in 1000--a hundred times more irregular than what is actually observed--to form even small structures like galaxies (that's not including clusters and superclusters. These all indicate a universe way too diffuse to comply with the BBT.
And i'll "debunk" your little "its not to weak comment" just give me a few to write it out.

COBE?!? keep up to date dude!

the WMAP results from last week are in.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_limits.html#PageTop

 

[worship4ever]

This is in reguards to your "too weak comment"

http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/BBT.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.html

And this one has pretty pictures, lol
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html