CMB temperatu cooling down or... heating up???

Hello.

This is a strictly technical question related to famous
Cosmic Microwave Background problem. As we know
a couple of years ago Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe has measured detailed temperature of CMB with
accuracy of 5 places after the dot, so it's value is now
assumed to be 2,726xx degree Kelwin (correct me
please with the exact number). I am highly interested
and I hope members of s.a.r discussion group can
give me an detailed answer - if it is planned and if
- also when those plans can be realized: I mean he
detailed measurement of the CMB temperature up to
the 9-th or 10-th place after the dot? I'd like also to get
an answer if there are any visions of steady monitoring
of the CMB temperature actually on schedule of NASA
or any other space agencies?

In order to be less mysterious: I am an author of
developed for many years and still unpublished so
called: Burning Quarks Hypothesis, which is actually
a pretty complicated set of 2 main ideas related to the various
aspects of particle physics, topology and also astrophysics.
As recently as 3 years ago - to my great astonishment
- and it was really the greatest astonishment in my life
- I realized that my Burning Quarks Hypothesis can be...
verified experimentally. There is unfortunately not enough
space here for presentation of BQH, anyway I am going to
make it available pretty soon - within 3 or 4 next months.
I am also looking now for mathematical physicists,
interested in co-working on BQH, curious enough in getting an
aswer on why on the level of 9-th/10-th place after the dot
should we expect CMB heating up rather and NOT cooling
down! It is fascinating issue and I believe that many people
will be simply interested in either: support of denial of the
main ideas of the BQH. I want to discuss it on sci.physics.
research forum.

Please note, that Burning Quark Hypothesis is not
straightforward! It is a full blown scientifical hypothesis
anyway, because it can be verified experimentally!
CMB temperature growth is a side effect of some basic
highly energetic processes not available in our laboratories,
taking place on subnucleon levels within some remote
astrophysical objects. BQH is also firmly backed by the
Second Law of Thermodynamic as in my model CMB
temperature grows and entropy of the entire physical
process grows as well. The officially accepted model
responsible for CMB radiation and BQH model mutually
exclude each other.

Pawel Karwowski

skrev:
Hello.

This is a strictly technical question related to famous
Cosmic Microwave Background problem. As we know
a couple of years ago Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe has measured detailed temperature of CMB with
accuracy of 5 places after the dot, so it's value is now
assumed to be 2,726xx degree Kelwin (correct me
please with the exact number).

No, this is not what has been done. WMAP is measuring
temperature differences in the black body radiation from
different directions on the sky with an accuracy of better
than one part in 10e5, but the mean temperature is not known
with this precision. As a matter of fact, I do not think
it has really been measured since the COBE satellite in 1990.

Ulf Torkelsson

In article ,
writes:
detailed measurement of the CMB temperature up to
the 9-th or 10-th place after the dot?

As someone mentioned, this is far beyond any technology we can
conceive today.

...should we expect CMB heating up rather and NOT cooling

Observations of CN line ratios in distant galaxies indicate that the
microwave background was hotter in the past than it is now.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,
writes:
detailed measurement of the CMB temperature up to
the 9-th or 10-th place after the dot?

As someone mentioned, this is far beyond any technology we can
conceive today.

...should we expect CMB heating up rather and NOT cooling

Observations of CN line ratios in distant galaxies indicate that the
microwave background was hotter in the past than it is now.

And further confirmation of CMBR cooling vs universe age:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_...rse_9 99.html

In article ,
(Steve Willner) writes:
Observations of CN line ratios in distant galaxies indicate that the
microwave background was hotter in the past than it is now.

By coincidence, I just saw an ESO press release reporting a
measurement of the CMB temperature at redshift 2.4. At this
redshift, the lines measured are from CO, not CN, but the idea is the
same.

The press release is at
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p.../pr-13-08.html

and a preprint of the article is at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0804.0116

The refereed article is in A&A.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

wrote:
Hello.

This is a strictly technical question related to famous
Cosmic Microwave Background problem. As we know
a couple of years ago Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe has measured detailed temperature of CMB with
accuracy of 5 places after the dot, so it's value is now
assumed to be 2,726xx degree Kelwin (correct me
please with the exact number). I am highly interested
and I hope members of s.a.r discussion group can
give me an detailed answer - if it is planned and if
- also when those plans can be realized: I mean he
detailed measurement of the CMB temperature up to
the 9-th or 10-th place after the dot?

Does your model predict anything about the past CMB
temperature? This can be measured -- for a very recent
and apparently quite accurate result, see the preprint
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0116, or for a different method,
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208027.

Steve Carlip

wrote in
...


: Does your model predict anything about the past CMB
: temperature? This can be measured -- for a very recent
: and apparently quite accurate result, see the preprint
: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0116, or for a different method,
: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208027.
:
: Steve Carlip

I would consider the results presented in these papers as anything but
accurate. Most of the measurements presented in the first paper
(Srianand et al.) represent anyway only upper limits, and in addition
they use the COBE measurement of the present temperature to constrain
the data. Without the latter, one could fit the data virtually by any
z-dependence, e.g. with a constant temperature of about 8 K. See for
instance my adaption of the corresponding result from an earlier paper
by Srianand et al. at http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/imgs/srianand.gif
(where I have also added the actual error bars to the upper limits). The
new publication merely adds two more data points which hardly manage to
constrain the data any further (as they would both be consistent with a
constant temperature at 8K as well (as are the results of the other
reference)).
So although the data don't rule out an increase of the excitation
temperature with z, they can't confirm it either. This means the
observed excitation might probably not be due to the CMB radiation field
at all but due to other processes (e.g. collisional excitation by
electrons) which simply may have been mis-modelled here.

Thomas