CMBR? Not in the Big Bang Universe.

Posted your website to another group, and got this reply:

"The graph plot of intensity per frequency unit along a scale of
frequencies can be easily converted for direct comparison with
formula [2] by converting frequency to wavelength with (c / f) and
plotting the curve on the same graph scale as for formula [2]. "

no this conversion is simply wrong. equation 1 is delta P in
terms of delta nu, and equation 2 is delta P in terms of delta lambda.
to convert from wavelength to frequency you also need to convert
delta nu to delta lambda (delta nu = c/lambda^2 * delta lambda)
by converting the black body formula 1 to units of delta lambda
the curves (and the equations) will be identical.

it is unfortunate that no one caught this error earlier, since
it seems like the author of the web page goes through a lot of
struggle due to the mistake in the math.




Max Keon wrote in message ...
CMBR? Not in the Big Bang Universe.
-----

For some time I've been trying to understand why the spectral
energy density graph plot of the 2.73 K CMBR, per formula [1]
(2 * pi * f^3) / (c^2 * (exp(h * f / (k * T)) - 1)), is nothing
like a 2.73 K blackbody radiator plot according to formula [2]
(2 * pi * h * c^2) / (b^5 * ((exp((h * f) / (k * T))) - 1))
(b is wavelength)

The graph plot of intensity per frequency unit along a scale of
frequencies can be easily converted for direct comparison with
formula [2] by converting frequency to wavelength with (c / f) and
plotting the curve on the same graph scale as for formula [2].
Whatever shape the curves may follow, 5.35 cycles per cm is the peak
point along the emissive power curve for a 2.73 K radiator according
to formula [1], and that is found to be 1 / 5.35 = .187 cm
wavelength. But this is not so according to formula [2], which
gives the peak wavelength as .106 cm.

It matters not how the numbers are (commonly) juggled, when the
two curves are compared, the asymmetric relationship between the
curve peaks (and the curves as well) is always constant.

The following graphs referred to below were generated using
formulas [1] and [2]. I've made no attempt to sketch them in
ASCII for obvious reasons. The graphs are stored at
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/monpol.html
I've also included the text.

Graph 1 demonstrates that the peak of a 2.73 K curve per formula
[2] aligns with the peak of a 4.816 K curve according to formula
[1].

Graph 2 shows the alternative alignment, which is between
a 2.73 K radiator per [1] and 1.55 K radiator per [2].

Adding to [1], a 1.76 * T multiplier for temperature or changing
the base of the exponential function to 1.76, sets the peak of a
2.73 K curve per formula [1] to align with a 2.73 K curve peak per
formula [2], but that would certainly raise a few questions.

The perfect alignment of the 1.55 K curve per [2] and the 2.73 K
curve per [1] is achieved by taking the square root of the emissive
power for each wavelength along the 1.55 K curve, and adding an
appropriate multiplier for the comparison.
Graph 3

The square root inclusion implies that the longer wavelengths have
been stretched by a greater margin than the shorter wavelengths.
But that's not possible. Why would the expansion be locally
asymmetric? Over a wavelength?? A simple multiplier accounts for
the expansion of the entire blackbody curve.

There is no reason whatever why the expanding Big Bang Universe
would shift the peak of the emission curve, **or the curve shape**,
away from that of a natural blackbody radiator.

Dimension around a blackbody radiation detector in the 4000 K
Universe has doubled in all three dimensions when the temperature
of the Universe has fallen to 2000 K, so wavefront areas destined
to reach the detector from the 4000 K era will have reduced to 1/4
when they arrive. If wavelengths could have remained constant the
total radiation energy received would be reduced to 1/4.

The 1/4 energy reduction is further affected because the wavelengths
have of course doubled, thus only half the number of wavelengths are
passing into the detector per time, reducing the total radiation
energy received from **every individual** wavelength to 1/8. And
that's the final result from the expansion. No other energy losses
can possibly be accounted for.

Graph 4 shows the relationship between true 4000 K - 2000 K
blackbody curves and the expanded curve from the 4000 K era. The
radiation energy from each wavelength for the expanded curve is
four times greater than for the real 2000 K blackbody curve.

Multiplying the radiation energy for each wavelength of the proper
2000 K radiator curve by four, shows that the expanded curve aligns
with the shape of a true blackbody curve (raised above the baseline
for obvious reasons). http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/mon5.gif
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/mon6.gif

According to the two formulae, the asymmetry between the true
blackbody and the CMBR curve was present right from the initial
CMBR transmission.

Apart from the CMBR aligning with the wrong curve shape, there's
still the quandary of how to explain the enormous amount of missing
radiation energy that is not removed in the expansion. At the very
first doubling of dimension, that is already four times greater
than would be expected from a true 2000 K radiator
(4000^2 / 2000^2 = 4). By the time the expansion has diminished
the temperature of the Universe to 2.73 K, that additional energy
would rise to 4000^2 / 2.73^2 = 2.147E+6 times greater than for
the proper 2.73 blackbody radiator. Being the focal point of that
much microwave energy, I would expect that I would be well and
truly cooked by now.

The sphere radius around the detector from which the background
radiation was generated when the Universe first became transparent
was expanding away from the detector at the speed of light
(radiation was traveling from everywhere to everywhere at the
speed of light). Regardless of the expansion rate of the Universe,
throughout the expansion, the background source from the 4000 K
realm that arrives at the detector was generated in the 4000 K
environment. Every part of the CMBR was generated in that realm.
The matter content involved in generating the background was thus
increasing at a rate that would exactly counter the decreasing
wavefront areas, from increasingly distant sources, that are
falling on the detector.

The 2D wavefront expanding with dimension and a simple count of wave
numbers arriving at the detector accounts for the entire energy
losses. Nothing else.

The Big Bang Theory fails the CMBR test.
But not so The Zero Origin Concept, which can be found at
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/the1-1a.html It paints
a rather ugly Universe compared to the inconsequential Big Bang
Universe.

If mankind doesn't stick around, smart enough and long enough
to learn how to bend the rules of the Universe, you, me and the
gatepost are guaranteed an eternal hell that has no limit to how
deep it can go. I wouldn't hold my breath though, it doesn't look
like we'll even make it over the very first little hurdle. A trip
back to the dark ages will fairly well seal our fate.

Isn't it about time for a reality check folk?