Cosmic Background Radiation (from sci.astro.research)

The following post was submitted to sci.astro.research, in response to a
recent posting.

As usual, the sci.astro.research "moderators" will not allow any post on
their group that does not conform to the personal predjudices of the
moderators. Not only was this submission not posted, but (as they have
repeatedly in the past) they did not even have the courtesy to notify the
author when they 'can' a post. Really funny after their 'advertising'. May
the group continue to rot away from lack of interest....

Ed Majden wrote in message
...

As this is sci.astro.research, it seems a few minor corrections to your
posted history. Though most of your statements are commonly repeated,
they are historically inaccurate.

This message was posted to the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
members newsgroup but I would like to see a response from a wider
audiance so I'm posting it to sci.astro.research.

Some time back I was looking through the RASC history book, "Looking
Up", by Peter Broughton and noted the article on Canadian astronomer,
Andrew McKellar where it stated that he was probably the first
astronomer to estimate the 3 degree cosmic background radiation 25 years
before it was measured.

Your terminology is a bit confusing. Eddington and Gamow would have
produced 'estimates' or 'predictions' of temperature. Penzias and Wilson,
and McKellar would have been 'measuring' the temperature.

Since P&K was in 1964, this would be 1939 (1940 if we use your incorrect
1965 date). But McKellar still wasn't first.

The first prediction or estimate of the 3 degree background was done by
Eddington, in 1926. Eddington calculated that anything in open space has
a minimum temperature of 3 degrees K because of being bathed in starlight
(and galaxy light) from all directions on the distant sky. He apparently
also
coined the expression "the temperature of space". "Internal constitution
of the stars", 1926, Cambridge University Press, reprinted 1988. Chapter
13 is titled "The temperature of space".

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5...b.news.rcn.net

This was of course done by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from
Bell Telephone Labs in 1965 and measured at 2.7 deg K.

Actually, Penzias and Wilson measured 2.81 degrees K, not the
currently-measured 2.73 degrees K. And their measurement was in 1964.
The first big-bang 'retrodictions' near the 2.73 value (10 degrees K)
arrived in 1965.


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Nv....onemain .com

I did a search for
more information on the internet and another author claimed the
existence of such radiation was first predicted by George Gamow in
1948.

That is a common myth. Started by Gamow's "Lost Penny" speech at the
conference where the CMBR was first discussed.


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=LB....onemain .com

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Rn...2.onemai n.co
m

McKellar's
paper was published by the Department of Mines and Resources, Canada,
Publications of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory, Victoria, B.C.
Volume VII, No. 15, in March 1941. He was studying spectroscopic plates
taken with the 100 inch at Mount Wilson noting sharp CH and CN lines in
stellar spectra. He stated that the three-prism spectrograph at Victoria
barely revealed these lines. From this McKellar stated that the
temperature was 2.3 deg K. compared with earlier temperatures estimated
by Eddington, (3.2 deg k.), for matter in interstellar space.

As noted above, your terminology is a bit confusing.

Some have suggested that
this was over looked because it was published in an obscure Journal with
limited circulation! Obscure, perhaps in popular circulation, but not
overlooked. See the book, "Astronomical Spectroscopy" by A. D. Thackery
(1961) on p. 148.

When cornered on Gamow's 50 degree K predictions as late as 1961, the
standard line is that Gamow's students Alpher and Herman 'corrected'
Gamow's work in 1948. But Gamow never accepted the correction, prior to
P&W.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=oa....onemain .com

IIRC, in Alpher and Herman, they refer to actual measurements of the
temperature by McKellar. (Though I don't have a copy at my fingertips).

I have read McKellar's paper and am first to admit that much of this is
way over my head. Perhaps one of our professional spectroscopists can
simplify this so a lay person can understand this better. I do think that
McKellar's work should be given more historical credit than it is. Any
comments?

I suspect the reason that it is overlooked is that it spoils the origin
myth of the Big Bang. Dr. Gamow was never shy about tooting his own
horn and embellishing the story.


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=%2...ntp2.onem ain.
com

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

"greywolf42"
The following post was submitted to sci.astro.research, in response to a
recent posting.

As usual, the sci.astro.research "moderators" will not allow any post on
their group that does not conform to the personal predjudices of the
moderators. Not only was this submission not posted, but (as they have
repeatedly in the past) they did not even have the courtesy to notify the
author when they 'can' a post. Really funny after their 'advertising'.
May
the group continue to rot away from lack of interest....

It was posted along with a reply from Dr. William C. Keel. If it was
not posted, where did you find it?
Ed

"Ed Majden" wrote in message news:VBt_b.606244$ts4.199069@pd7tw3no...

"greywolf42"
The following post was submitted to sci.astro.research, in response to a
recent posting.

As usual, the sci.astro.research "moderators" will not allow any post on
their group that does not conform to the personal predjudices of the
moderators. Not only was this submission not posted, but (as they have
repeatedly in the past) they did not even have the courtesy to notify the
author when they 'can' a post. Really funny after their 'advertising'.
May
the group continue to rot away from lack of interest....

It was posted along with a reply from Dr. William C. Keel. If it was
not posted, where did you find it?

He meant that *his* reply was sadly rejected.
Perhaps the conclusin of his message somehow did "not conform
to the personal predjudices of the moderators":
| "I suspect the reason that it is overlooked is that it spoils
| the origin myth of the Big Bang. Dr. Gamow was never shy
| about tooting his own horn and embellishing the story."

I'm sure his valuable contributions will be sadly missed.

Dirk Vdm

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
The following post was submitted to sci.astro.research, in response to a
recent posting.

As usual, the sci.astro.research "moderators" will not allow any post on
their group that does not conform to the personal predjudices of the
moderators. Not only was this submission not posted, but (as they have
repeatedly in the past) they did not even have the courtesy to notify the
author when they 'can' a post. Really funny after their 'advertising'.
May
the group continue to rot away from lack of interest....

The moderators saw you coming. Any moderator who fails to spot your rubbish
in good time should be sacked for dereliction of duty.

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
The following post was submitted to sci.astro.research, in response to a
recent posting.

As usual, the sci.astro.research "moderators" will not allow any post on
their group that does not conform to the personal predjudices of the
moderators. Not only was this submission not posted, but (as they have
repeatedly in the past) they did not even have the courtesy to notify
the
author when they 'can' a post. Really funny after their 'advertising'.
May
the group continue to rot away from lack of interest....

The moderators saw you coming. Any moderator who fails to spot your
rubbish
in good time should be sacked for dereliction of duty.

Here, here!

Ed Majden wrote in message
news:VBt_b.606244$ts4.199069@pd7tw3no...

"greywolf42"
The following post was submitted to sci.astro.research, in response to a
recent posting.

As usual, the sci.astro.research "moderators" will not allow any post on
their group that does not conform to the personal predjudices of the
moderators. Not only was this submission not posted, but (as they have
repeatedly in the past) they did not even have the courtesy to notify
the
author when they 'can' a post. Really funny after their 'advertising'.
May
the group continue to rot away from lack of interest....

It was posted along with a reply from Dr. William C. Keel.

My submission doesn't show on my Outlook Express newsreader. It also
doesn't show on Google groups. I can see two replies to you (Ed Majden) by
Dr. Keel. But I see no replies to a post by me in either location, either.

If it was not posted, where did you find it?

In my 'sent' folder. After I'd submitted it to sci.astro.research.

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