Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

wrote in message
oups.com...
What do you mean?
What errors you discovered?

Well the one that is relevant to this thread is that
you thought integrating a black-body source (starlight,
although that isn't really a blackbody) over a range
of redshift could give another blackbody curve as the
result. It is obvious that adding multiple curves with
similar fractional width but offset from each other
will produce a sum that has greater width. Your own
graph showed that (is it still on the web?) yet you
still claim the integral can match the FIRAS data.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Stolmar_Errors.html

Note in particular: "When y_max is not infinitesimal,
one gets a Rayleigh-Jeans low frequency tail rising to
a peak corresponding approximately to a graybody with
temperature exp(-y_max)T* ..."

As I understand what you said of the program you
wrote to work out this curve, y_max is just the limit
you applied to stop the program running too long and
in reality the universe is infinite and homogenous.
y_max is therefore infinite and the f^-1 section
should continue down to zero frequency.

George

Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

g Not one CMBR device -- to my knowledge -- has ever attempted an
g isolation test. That is, a test to determine whether the signal
g was actually produced "within" the antenna -- or whether it had an
g external source. For example, I know for a fact that Penzias and
g Wilson did not do this test. They *did* cut out the antenna
g connection.
Right, so in the case of the P&W horn antenna, that means that the
signal must be generated "upstream" of the input of the antenna
backend.

g The antenna is a single unit. The "backend" is electronics.

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make. I'm using standard
RF terminology.

On a non-standard RF problem.

In any event, I'm trying to figure out if one would expect a signal
in such a case. Given the shape of the P&W horn, would one expect
a signal at the backend.

g The signal would have no dependence on shape ... unless the source
g is external to the antenna.

Effectively it is. Only the surface of the antenna can radiate.

The question is *whether* the source is external to the antenna.

To the extent that I understand your suggestion (and I am not an RF
engineer), it seems to me that the antenna would not radiate into
the backend but out its front.

g The antenna itself (as a unit) is not radiating the EM fields.

So if the antenna is not radiating in the RF, what's the point of
putting it in an isolation chamber?

To see if the antenna is actually receiving an external signal.

-------
Oh, and by the way, my apologies for significantly delayed response on a few
other threads. I've had too much going on to spend much time on the groups,
of late. And have been distracted by replies to the "Shadows" thread. So,
I've only had time to respond to some of the 'quick' posts that show up.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

g Not one CMBR device -- to my knowledge -- has ever attempted an
g isolation test. That is, a test to determine whether the signal
g was actually produced "within" the antenna -- or whether it had an
g external source. [...]
[i]
n the case of the P&W horn antenna, that means that the signal
must be generated "upstream" of the input of the antenna backend.

g The antenna is a single unit. The "backend" is electronics.

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make. I'm using
standard RF terminology.

g On a non-standard RF problem.

I'm still not sure of the point you are trying to make.

In any event, I'm trying to figure out if one would expect a
signal in such a case. Given the shape of the P&W horn, would
one expect a signal at the backend.

g The signal would have no dependence on shape ... unless the source
g is external to the antenna.

Effectively it is. Only the surface of the antenna can radiate.

g The question is *whether* the source is external to the antenna.

As far as I can understand what you are trying to say, there are two
possibilities, either the signal is generated external to the antenna
or it is generated by the antenna. (This begs the question of why the
backend electronics cannot generate the signal, but you've seen fit to
ignore that issue.) (I suppose it also begs the question of why the
strength of the signal differs depending upon pointing direction, but
you also ignore that one by declaring the data suspect.)

If the signal is generated by the antenna, the signal must come from
the surface of the antenna, because the skin depth of metal to radio
radiation is extremely small. Thus, the shape of the antenna and the
(poorly described) emission mechanism become important in determining
how much signal goes into the backend.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

On 24 Jan 2005 21:03:10 -0500, Joseph Lazio wrote:
[i]
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

g Not one CMBR device -- to my knowledge -- has ever attempted an
g isolation test. That is, a test to determine whether the signal
g was actually produced "within" the antenna -- or whether it had an
g external source. [...]

n the case of the P&W horn antenna, that means that the signal
must be generated "upstream" of the input of the antenna backend.

g The antenna is a single unit. The "backend" is electronics.

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make. I'm using
standard RF terminology.

g On a non-standard RF problem.

I'm still not sure of the point you are trying to make.

In any event, I'm trying to figure out if one would expect a
signal in such a case. Given the shape of the P&W horn, would
one expect a signal at the backend.

g The signal would have no dependence on shape ... unless the source
g is external to the antenna.

Effectively it is. Only the surface of the antenna can radiate.

g The question is *whether* the source is external to the antenna.

As far as I can understand what you are trying to say, there are two
possibilities, either the signal is generated external to the antenna
or it is generated by the antenna.

How about both? Look, here's the deal. There is a theory that says
charge is simply a manifestation of a harmonic quantum fluctuation in
the ZPE. It has the form,
------
1 / / £
q = --- / h / --
2pi \/ \/ 3µ

Where in SI £ is permitivitty, µ permeability, and h Planck's constant.

This same theory yields the physical dimensions of charge as mass per
sec (like the classic mass attached to a spring). Thus the charge to
mass ratio for a quantum particle will yield its base harmonic or
signature frequency [¿]. i.e.,

q
¿ = -
m

For the lowly electron this is ~175.7 GHz. Now go look up the thermal
black body temperature that radiates at this value. You'll find it to
be ~2.8° K.

(This begs the question of why the backend electronics cannot generate
the signal, ...

It can, but without a means of resonating.

but you've seen fit to ignore that issue.)

I don't think he ignore the issue, but thinks it moot.

(I suppose it also begs the question of why the strength of the signal
differs depending upon pointing direction,

Ah, in the fifth decimal place? Sure, there electyrons all over the
place (and if you want to count the virtual pairs, a great sea) so yes,
if the source of the hum is from quantum fluctations then the majority
that would be seen in the antenna would be radiated by its surfaces
resonating in the cavity. That is the question. It NOT a simple answer
however since one would have to reduce the background to well below 2.8°
to look.

but you also ignore that one by declaring the data suspect.)

If the signal is generated by the antenna, the signal must come from
the surface of the antenna, because the skin depth of metal to radio
radiation is extremely small. Thus, the shape of the antenna and the
(poorly described) emission mechanism become important in determining
how much signal goes into the backend.

Yes, but that IS the question. But to my knowledge no-one has set out
to look at the issue.

Paul Stowe

Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

g Not one CMBR device -- to my knowledge -- has ever attempted an
g isolation test. That is, a test to determine whether the signal
g was actually produced "within" the antenna -- or whether it had an
g external source. [...]

And still no one has done this relatively simple test. Or rather, no paper
reporting the results has been published.
[i]
n the case of the P&W horn antenna, that means that the signal
must be generated "upstream" of the input of the antenna backend.

g The antenna is a single unit. The "backend" is electronics.

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make. I'm using
standard RF terminology.

g On a non-standard RF problem.

I'm still not sure of the point you are trying to make.

I believe you are the one trying to make a point, here -- about the meaning
of the term "backend". And how it may relate to an internally versus
externally generated signal.

In any event, I'm trying to figure out if one would expect a
signal in such a case. Given the shape of the P&W horn, would
one expect a signal at the backend.

g The signal would have no dependence on shape ... unless the source
g is external to the antenna.

Effectively it is. Only the surface of the antenna can radiate.

g The question is *whether* the source is external to the antenna.

As far as I can understand what you are trying to say, there are two
possibilities, either the signal is generated external to the antenna
or it is generated by the antenna.

*Within* the electrons that make up the antenna.

(This begs the question of why the
backend electronics cannot generate the signal, but you've seen fit to
ignore that issue.)

LOL! I haven't ingored the issue at all. Any backend electronic signal is
removed during calibration. That's one of the tests the P&W *did* do. All
one has to do for this is disconnect the antenna from the system. If you
see a signal, it is declared *noise*, and subtracted from the final values
when the antenna is connected.

(I suppose it also begs the question of why the
strength of the signal differs depending upon pointing direction,

It doesn't. Except for a slight overall dipole. As the electrons shape
changes in response to motion through the aether.

but
you also ignore that one by declaring the data suspect.)

Nope. I never claimed the *data* was suspect. The data is fine. I only
declare the "analysis" using computer "enhancement" below the physical
resolution of the device is invalid.

If the signal is generated by the antenna, the signal must come from
the surface of the antenna, because the skin depth of metal to radio
radiation is extremely small.

That is true from an external source. But not from an internal source.

Thus, the shape of the antenna and the
(poorly described) emission mechanism become important in determining
how much signal goes into the backend.

A false statement. You are again assuming your conclusion.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

George Dishman wrote in message
...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

[Regarding Reber's assertion that the CMB arises within radio
telescopes.]

g One doesn't have to have a theory for the mechanism, in order to
g experimentally identify the difference between an internal signal
g and an external signal.

I just read the Penzias & Wilson (1965) paper and an associated
Penzias & Wilson (1965) paper. From that, my understanding is that
they did distinguish between an internal signal and an external
signal. Specifically, they were able to show that, whatever the
signal is, it must be entering through the antenna.

g A completely false assertion. Because your claim is based on the
g following distortion:

It is not generated within the electronics at the backend of the
antenna.

g ROTFLMAO! No one claimed that it was generated in the electronics
g that are attached to the antenna! ...

Actually you did, though indirectly.

What a pathetic lie.

You said at
one time that this radiation was produced by _all_
matter, and that is consistent with what you say
again below.

Another pathetic lie. It is produced by electrons. There is more to 'all
matter' than simply electrons.

g The point is that it is
g generated by the electrons contained *IN* the antenna.

In the second photograph you can see someone *IN* the
antenna.

http://www.bell-labs.com/user/apenzi...awfordhill.gif

LOL! Pathetic. The person is not 'in' the material of the antenna.

Since you draw no distinction between this and the
spaceborne measurements,

"This" is simply trash.

I have previously assumed
you meant the electrons in the metal of which the
antenna is made.

That is what I have repeatedly stated. Your current silly strawman is
wasted.

Incidentally, going back to your comments about
putting the system in a screened room, these give
an idea of the size of the antenna:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank...es/dp65co.html

http://store.aip.org//OA_MEDIA/esva/penzias_arno_c3.jpg

Dismantling that and taking it to a test house would
be entirely impractical even if such a facility
existed at the time.

The fact that one might consider it "difficult" is irrelevant to the issue.
How difficult do you think it is to build a light structure of metal,
sufficient to block microwaves?

My statement may be false, but I made it in good faith based on my
reading of their papers.

Your "faith" interfered with your eyes or your mentation. Why not try
science, instead of Faith?

Moreover, your response doesn't address my
objections. Why are the electrons within the antenna itself special?

They aren't special.

Why don't the electrons in the backend generate emission by the same
mechanism?

They probably do. But they don't give rise to a signal in the
mechanism. That's the function of an antenna.

That's not true. The purpose of the antenna is
twofold, firstly to match the impedance of free
space to that of the feed cables or waveguide

That's not a *purpose*. This is how to obtain the second.

and
secondly to gather incoming radiation from a larger
aperture.

The incoming radiation is converted to a measurable
signal on at the terminating impedance of the down-
feed which would be something like the base-emitter
resistance of the front-end transistors depending
on the technology used.

The point is that the electrons in the cable or
waveguide would produce signal just as much as
those in the material forming the antenna

No, they would not produce a "signal", unless that signal had something to
read it.

or even
more since they are coupled directly to the receiver.

And any such signal is calibrated out of the device -- when they pull the
plug on the antenna.

Look again at the image of the inside of the horn
and consider how much of the omni-directional
radiation from an electron in the metal would leave
through the aperture.

http://www.bell-labs.com/user/apenzi...awfordhill.gif

Did you have a point to make? How would we know?

Remember the design is to focus on a small part of
the sky so radiation that wasn't within a small angle
of the reflected ray at the same point will be rejected.

But the design is valid only for the theory under which it is performed.
And in this case, it is simply wrong.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Greg Hennessy wrote in message
...
In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:

As far as I can tell, your only objection is that you claim that
COBE's result is below what you believe to be below its physical
resolution.

That is *an* objection that I have for claims made based on "results"
that are below the physical resolution of COBE and FIRAS instruments.

Since the instrument that took the data I referred to was the DMR, nto
the FIRAS, why do you think using hte FIRAS sensitivity (not
resolution) is valid?

When are you going to learn to read, Greg? 1) I wasn't replying to you, but
to Joseph's question. 2) I wasn't referring to DMR. I simply listed two
cases where results below the physical resolution of the device were
claimed.

Of course, this might have been easier for you to understand, if you had
left in the context, and the proper attributions.

Bye again.

it is well known that one can make specific kinds of measurements
below the resolution limit of an instrument,

Joseph, *why* do you keep repeating this silly statement? Many people
make such claims, but it is not valid science or statistics. You can
easily
show me wrong, by directing me to a statistics treatise on how to
perform measurements below the resolution of the instrument used.

This is the problem with the incorrect terminology used by
greywolf. The issue is the sensitivity of the radiometer, not the
resolution. The resolution of the DMR is 7 degrees. The sensitivity is
dependant on the exposure time. And the one year and longer
measurements of the DMR have sensitivity limits in the microKelvin.

I'm not discussing the experimental variations (sigma, or sensitivity). So,
I am not using incorrect terminology. I am discussing the physical
resolution of the multichannel intensity detectors, used to measure the
radiation curve.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote in message
...
snip

You said at
one time that this radiation was produced by _all_
matter, and that is consistent with what you say
again below.

Another pathetic lie. It is produced by electrons. There is more to 'all
matter' than simply electrons.

But, unless we are discussing plasma or neutronium,
one generally assumes all matter contains electrons,
and since I later said:

snip
I have previously assumed
you meant the electrons in the metal of which the
antenna is made.

and you agree:

That is what I have repeatedly stated.

you should have realised that I was not suggesting
anything other than your own views. You seem
determined to make any sort of conversation as
unpleasant as possible.

Incidentally, going back to your comments about
putting the system in a screened room, these give
an idea of the size of the antenna:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank...es/dp65co.html

http://store.aip.org//OA_MEDIA/esva/penzias_arno_c3.jpg

Dismantling that and taking it to a test house would
be entirely impractical even if such a facility
existed at the time.

The fact that one might consider it "difficult" is irrelevant to the
issue.
How difficult do you think it is to build a light structure of metal,
sufficient to block microwaves?

P&W could have stretched "chicken wire" mesh over the
aperture of the horn and perhaps, if nobody had
suggested the CMBR, they might have got round to doing
that.

Putting it in a proper screened room would have been
prohibitive. The one I use is thick steel panels bolted
together every few inches with copper gasketing on all
joints and a concrete base to prevent gaps due to stress.
It's only about 12 feet square, 8 feet high and for
in-house (pre-test) use only as it doesn't meet test-house
standards, but moving it from one building to another a
few years ago cost over 200k.

You should also remember P&W weren't running a funded
experiment to find the CMBR, they were trying to get
rid of an annoying source of interference in another
project.

The situation for COBE and WMAP is quite different as
these were funded and had to be tested. I don't have
time to go through these myself but if you haven't
already read them, they might be useful. I've given
a lot of references but they all relate to calibration
and testing so may help resolve some of the discussions
in the group about that aspect:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bi...pJ...420..457F

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ...652/38652.html

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...53K&db_key=AST

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...8M&db_key=INST

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...0S&db_key=INST

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bi...pJ...391..466B

All are from

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/...bliography.cfm


My statement may be false, but I made it in good faith based on my
reading of their papers.

Your "faith" interfered with your eyes or your mentation. Why not try
science, instead of Faith?

Moreover, your response doesn't address my
objections. Why are the electrons within the antenna itself special?

They aren't special.

Why don't the electrons in the backend generate emission by the same
mechanism?

They probably do. But they don't give rise to a signal in the
mechanism. That's the function of an antenna.

That's not true. The purpose of the antenna is
twofold, firstly to match the impedance of free
space to that of the feed cables or waveguide

That's not a *purpose*. This is how to obtain the second.

and
secondly to gather incoming radiation from a larger
aperture.

The shape of the antenna should reflect all the
incident signal into the feed, but if the impedance
isn't matched a fraction of that power will be
reflected back into space. There's no point having
a large dish or horn unless all the power it collects
reaches the receiver.

The incoming radiation is converted to a measurable
signal on at the terminating impedance of the down-
feed which would be something like the base-emitter
resistance of the front-end transistors depending
on the technology used.

The point is that the electrons in the cable or
waveguide would produce signal just as much as
those in the material forming the antenna

No, they would not produce a "signal", unless that signal had something to
read it.

What do you mean? The thing that "reads" the signal
is the first amplifier stage and specifically the
input impedance of the receiver. It cannot
differentiate between an external (cosmic) signal
coming down the cable and something generated in
the antenna or even in the feeder itself, the first
stage amplifies the sum of them all.

or even
more since they are coupled directly to the receiver.

And any such signal is calibrated out of the device -- when they pull the
plug on the antenna.

In which case there would have been nothing
detected when the cable and antenna were
reconnected.

Look again at the image of the inside of the horn
and consider how much of the omni-directional
radiation from an electron in the metal would leave
through the aperture.

http://www.bell-labs.com/user/apenzi...awfordhill.gif

Did you have a point to make? ...

Two points. Imagine the insulation within the downfeed
cable is transparent. What you see looking into the end
is a metal central conductor and metal braid. Looking
from the feed point of the antenna, depending on the
geometry, you may see all metal or you may see some
air through the aperture. At most, the solid angle
covered by metal is the same as the cable or perhaps
it would be less.

The second point gets into an area where i'm not sure
of your view, it hasn't been covered that I've seen.
Imagine for a moment they covered the aperture with
the same metal sheet that covers the rest of the
inside of the horn. You now have the feed looking
into a cavity in which radiation from the electrons
is emitted from the metal surface. Now conventionally
that radiation would bounces around in the cavity with
some small absorption because the antenna works only
because it is a good reflector of the incoming signal.
However, you might suggest that, since the electrons
emit this radiation, they also absorb it. That would
appear as a significant loss against the calculated
gain so I don't think that would be your view but
correct me if I'm wrong. Assuming the radiation is
just bouncing around, opening the aperture would
allow it to be radiated into free space so depress
the levels inside the horn compared to a closed cavity.

The question then is where do you get your intensity
levels. It seems to me you at least have to find the
solid angle covered by the emitting material and
multiply by the electron brightness and then show
that matches the black body intensity.

... How would we know?

You would need to get the plans of the horn I guess
but showing your ideas can produce the observed
intensity is your task, not mine.

Remember the design is to focus on a small part of
the sky so radiation that wasn't within a small angle
of the reflected ray at the same point will be rejected.

But the design is valid only for the theory under which it is performed.
And in this case, it is simply wrong.

So are you saying the metal in the antenna doesn't
reflect the incoming signal into the feed? I suspect
I am not understanding your point here, which bit
of antenna design theory are you saying is wrong?

George

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On 24 Jan 2005 21:03:10 -0500, Joseph Lazio
wrote:

snip

As far as I can understand what you are trying to say, there are two
possibilities, either the signal is generated external to the antenna
or it is generated by the antenna.

How about both? Look, here's the deal. There is a theory that says
charge is simply a manifestation of a harmonic quantum fluctuation in
the ZPE. It has the form,
------
1 / / £
q = --- / h / --
2pi \/ \/ 3µ

Where in SI £ is permitivitty, µ permeability, and h Planck's constant.

This same theory yields the physical dimensions of charge as mass per
sec (like the classic mass attached to a spring). Thus the charge to
mass ratio for a quantum particle will yield its base harmonic or
signature frequency [¿]. i.e.,

q
¿ = -
m

For the lowly electron this is ~175.7 GHz. Now go look up the thermal
black body temperature that radiates at this value. You'll find it to
be ~2.8° K.

This goes back to an earlier question. A black body
at 2.8K does not radiate a characteristic line, the
signal is broadband so how does the proposed electron
source produce a broadband signal and can you show
that the mechanism would mimic the spectrum of a
black body?

(This begs the question of why the backend electronics cannot generate
the signal, ...

It can, but without a means of resonating.

But resonating would _narrow_ the band while a black
body is _broad_ band.

but you've seen fit to ignore that issue.)

I don't think he ignore the issue, but thinks it moot.

(I suppose it also begs the question of why the strength of the signal
differs depending upon pointing direction,

Ah, in the fifth decimal place? Sure, there electyrons all over the
place (and if you want to count the virtual pairs, a great sea) so yes,
if the source of the hum is from quantum fluctations then the majority
that would be seen in the antenna would be radiated by its surfaces
resonating in the cavity.

But the antennas are not cavities, they are open
horns.

.. That is the question. It NOT a simple answer
however since one would have to reduce the background to well below 2.8°
to look.

but you also ignore that one by declaring the data suspect.)

If the signal is generated by the antenna, the signal must come from
the surface of the antenna, because the skin depth of metal to radio
radiation is extremely small. Thus, the shape of the antenna and the
(poorly described) emission mechanism become important in determining
how much signal goes into the backend.

Yes, but that IS the question. But to my knowledge no-one has set out
to look at the issue.

The dipole is also problematic. Notwithstanding the
obvious flaw in his suggestion of Lorentz contraction
as the mechanism, the angle between the direction of
propagation from the electron to the feed point and
the direction of flow of the aether past the electron
also varies with the location of the electron in the
antenna. You effectively have to integrate over the
radiating surface and hence a variety of curves are
again mixed when finding the total feed illumination.

George

[George Dishman has already brought up a number of important issues,
I'll just clarify one point.]
"PS" == Paul Stowe writes:

PS On 24 Jan 2005 21:03:10 -0500, Joseph Lazio
PS wrote:

(I suppose it also begs the question of why the strength of the
signal differs depending upon pointing direction,

PS Ah, in the fifth decimal place?

I was referring to the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. Why does the signal
change depending upon whether or not the telescope is pointed at a
distant cluster of galaxies?

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html