# Black Body Cmb Radiation – Indication For Infinite Universe As Stated By Einstein

46 replies to this topic

### #35 exchemist

exchemist

Creating

• Members
• 2841 posts

Posted 01 June 2017 - 04:05 AM

As an aside, there seems to a misconception running through Davdan's thought, about how a "black body" spectrum arises.

It may be of wider interest to clarify the process. A black body spectrum is emitted by matter which is at thermal equilibrium. The model of a "cavity" is used so as to get the radiation enclosed within to hit the walls, (which are made of matter), and be absorbed and re-emitted, until the matter in the walls and the radiation reach a mutual equilibrium, at which the amount of radiation emitted by the walls and the amount absorbed by them is the same. The sole purpose of the "cavity" model is to provide one simple scenario in which this state of affairs can be reached. But there are others, notably the plasma in the photosphere of a star.

In a plasma, electrons are ionised from their parent atoms, which means they can absorb and re-emit photons of any wavelength, so you get a spectrum which is a continuum, rather than being restricted to the spectral "lines" you get when the electrons are in bound states in the atoms. This means that, if you have radiation being continually emitted and absorbed by a plasma, the spectrum of the radiation will be determined solely by the energy distribution of the ions and electrons comprising it. That energy distribution, which is determined by statistical thermodynamics, is characteristic of the temperature of the plasma.

This is what a black body spectrum is.

You do not need a cavity. You do not need reflection.

What you need is matter that is free to absorb and re-emit any wavelength, in equilibrium with the radiation thus emitted and absorbed.

### #36 sanctus

sanctus

Resident Diabolist

• 4233 posts

Posted 01 June 2017 - 07:28 AM

Also, who said the CMB is smooth? Ever heard of CMB anisotropies? :-) Yes it is a black body radiation, explained as exchemist did, emitted at the surface of last scattering when the universe became transparent.
But Davdan is right here:

2. What is the chance to get a clear surface without any gaps or holes in the Plasma/matter?
3. What is the chance to get a smooth and fixed density inside that ball at any given moment?

Just we are not saying that, we say CMB is smooth up to a scale 1/10000, that is where the fluctations/anisotropies come in.

• Dubbelosix likes this

### #37 davdan

davdan

• Members
• 53 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 06:05 AM

But Davdan is right here:

2. What is the chance to get a clear surface without any gaps or holes in the Plasma/matter?
3. What is the chance to get a smooth and fixed density inside that ball at any given moment?

Thanks Sanctus

However, before continuing our discussion about the black body signature, I would like to verify that I understand correctly the BBT.

0 sec - Big Bang: start the expansion.

Universe size after the inflation: Around 10 centimeters (about the size of a grapefruit).

Inflationary Epoch, from 10^–36 seconds to 10^–32 seconds:
Triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force, the universe undergoes an extremely rapid exponential expansion, known as cosmic inflation. The linear dimensions of the early universe increases during this period of a tiny fraction of a second by a factor of at least 10^
26 to around 10 centimeters (about the size of a grapefruit).

After One second – Only one particle out of 10^9 remain.

"Electron and positron pairs annihilate. Only one particle in 10^9 remain"

Now, let's try to understand the meaning of that scenario:

After one second we have got only the left over particles which had been used for all the mass in our universe - Visible and Invisible.

However, Just before that (at the end of the inflation), the Universe was in the size of grapefruit and it includes 10^9 more particles.

So, based on the BBT, during the inflation process, there were 10^9 universe mass in a size of a grapefruit

So, how many galaxies we can fit in a grapefruit size?

1. How many galaxies there are in our Visible Universe?

https://www.universe...n-the-universe/

In the past, astronomers divided that total mass by the number of galaxies they could see in the original Hubble data and determined there were about 200 billion galaxies.

But a new paper published in the Astrophysics Journal revised the estimate for the number of galaxies, by a factor of 10, from 200 billion to 2 trillion

Let's assume that there are only 200 Billion galaxies. (instead of 2 trillion)

2. How many galaxies there are in the invisible Universe?

According to the current BBT Consensus, the size of the invisible universe is 90 Bly.

Hence, its radius is bigger by 6.5 then the current Consensus from the visible universe.

3. Therefore, the whole Universe is bigger by 6.5 ^3 = 1785 from our visible universe size.

So, there are 200 Billion * 1785 = 357 trillion galaxies in our whole Universe.

4. Before the annihilation process - Let's go back to the inflation process, and before the Electron and positron pairs annihilate).

We should find that the total particles at this phase could fit to:

357 trillion galaxies * 10^9 = 357,000,000,000 trillion galaxies.

5. All of those potential galaxies fit in a size of a grapefruit.

Wow, wow.

Well, if based on our consensus it is achievable, then technically anything should be achievable.

Edited by davdan, 02 June 2017 - 06:08 AM.

• exchemist likes this

### #38 exchemist

exchemist

Creating

• Members
• 2841 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 07:31 AM

Thanks Sanctus

However, before continuing our discussion about the black body signature, I would like to verify that I understand correctly the BBT.

0 sec - Big Bang: start the expansion.

Universe size after the inflation: Around 10 centimeters (about the size of a grapefruit).

Inflationary Epoch, from 10^–36 seconds to 10^–32 seconds:
Triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force, the universe undergoes an extremely rapid exponential expansion, known as cosmic inflation. The linear dimensions of the early universe increases during this period of a tiny fraction of a second by a factor of at least 10^
26 to around 10 centimeters (about the size of a grapefruit).

After One second – Only one particle out of 10^9 remain.

"Electron and positron pairs annihilate. Only one particle in 10^9 remain"

Now, let's try to understand the meaning of that scenario:

After one second we have got only the left over particles which had been used for all the mass in our universe - Visible and Invisible.

However, Just before that (at the end of the inflation), the Universe was in the size of grapefruit and it includes 10^9 more particles.

So, based on the BBT, during the inflation process, there were 10^9 universe mass in a size of a grapefruit

So, how many galaxies we can fit in a grapefruit size?

1. How many galaxies there are in our Visible Universe?

https://www.universe...n-the-universe/

In the past, astronomers divided that total mass by the number of galaxies they could see in the original Hubble data and determined there were about 200 billion galaxies.

But a new paper published in the Astrophysics Journal revised the estimate for the number of galaxies, by a factor of 10, from 200 billion to 2 trillion

Let's assume that there are only 200 Billion galaxies. (instead of 2 trillion)

2. How many galaxies there are in the invisible Universe?

According to the current BBT Consensus, the size of the invisible universe is 90 Bly.

Hence, its radius is bigger by 6.5 then the current Consensus from the visible universe.

3. Therefore, the whole Universe is bigger by 6.5 ^3 = 1785 from our visible universe size.

So, there are 200 Billion * 1785 = 357 trillion galaxies in our whole Universe.

4. Before the annihilation process - Let's go back to the inflation process, and before the Electron and positron pairs annihilate).

We should find that the total particles at this phase could fit to:

357 trillion galaxies * 10^9 = 357,000,000,000 trillion galaxies.

5. All of those potential galaxies fit in a size of a grapefruit.

Wow, wow.

Well, if based on our consensus it is achievable, then technically anything should be achievable.

I'll defer to Sanctus's superior knowledge on the specifics, but this is now becoming quite an interesting thread.

### #39 davdan

davdan

• Members
• 53 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 11:04 AM

In the following article

http://www.kheper.ne...se/universe.htm

it is  stated:

500,000 years

3000o K

1,500,000 LY

It means that after 500,000 years the size of the universe is 1,500,000 Ly.

So, the plasma is moving at higher speed than light.

In this case, the photon moves slower than the plasma.

So, from the photon point of view it is moving in an open space. Hence, it can't re-emitted by the edge of the plasma in the early universe life.

Therefore - it is clear that there is no way to get a black body signature from the Universe when it was 380,000 year old!!!

The science must find better solution for the black body signature.

Edited by davdan, 06 June 2017 - 11:05 AM.

### #40 exchemist

exchemist

Creating

• Members
• 2841 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 11:09 AM

In the following article

http://www.kheper.ne...se/universe.htm

it is  stated:

500,000 years

3000o K

1,500,000 LY

It means that after 500,000 years the size of the universe is 1,500,000 Ly.

So, the plasma is moving at higher speed than light.

In this case, the photon moves slower than the plasma.

So, from the photon point of view it is moving in an open space. Hence, it can't re-emitted by the edge of the plasma in the early universe life.

Therefore - it is clear that there is no way to get a black body signature from the Universe when it was 380,000 year old!!!

The science must find better solution for the black body signature.

Alternatively, you could try to understand the science, instead of going out of your way to misinterpret it.

You persist in deliberately ignoring what I have been explaining to you for several posts now, which is that if the metric of space itself is expanding, then there is no restraint from relativity on the rate at which that can happen. That is (obviously) equally true for matter and radiation.

I quote Prof Matt Strassler on the subject:-

Since it is space that is expanding, and it is not the objects that are moving, Einstein’s relativity puts no constraints on how fast the distance between the objects can grow — i.e., no constraints on how rapidly space between the objects can appear. It is possible for the distance between two objects to grow much, much faster than the speed of light. This is no contradiction with relativity.

People often say, with loose and imprecise words, that “relativity says that nothing can go faster than the speed of light”. But “nothing” and “go” are ambiguous, and in science we learn that imprecise words cause trouble. Einstein’s words (if you read them) are often ambiguous and easily misunderstood, though he tried to be precise. But Einstein’s equations are not ambiguous. The precise statement of relativity is that if two objects pass each other at the same point, then an observer who is moving with one of the objects will measure the speed of the other object to be less than or equal to the speed of light; and vice versa. But this is not in contradiction to the statement I’m making here: that the distance between two objects at different points can grow faster than this. And that will always happen, in a uniformly expanding universe, for two objects that are far enough apart."

Edited by exchemist, 06 June 2017 - 11:23 AM.

• Turtle likes this

### #41 exchemist

exchemist

Creating

• Members
• 2841 posts

Posted 08 June 2017 - 02:12 AM

I have just read this over and there seems to be some mistake from a few posters here on some key elements and when I find time I will (try) and address them all.

Changed your mind? Or just too busy?

Could be good if you were to join a discussion occasionally instead of just blogging. You may have things to contribute.....

• Dubbelosix likes this

### #42 davdan

davdan

• Members
• 53 posts

Posted 09 June 2017 - 07:39 AM

Have to do some cuts through this because most of it is information gathering, which is good.

Thanks

I do appriciate all your efforts.

We must explain how could it be that our CURRENT universe has almost a perfect black body radiation.

Based on the BBT, it is not feasible to get a Black body radiation from the current shape of the universe – it is just impossible. Therefore our scientists are going to the early years of the Universe in order to get some support from the history to this unrealistic theory.

Yes but again, there are many issues surrounding even this question.

We don't have to go back.

He said that our universe is infinite in its age and in its size.

He did indeed like an idea of an eternal universe, it was actually a very common belief among astrophysicists during his time. Einstein didn't see the need for the CC in his model to explain any expansion dynamics - but he had to use it to explain the static framework for his eternal universe. When experiment demonstrated a relationship to the expansion of the universe, he called it his biggest blunder, but it was discovered later that the universe may be accelerating, physicists found another use for the CC.

We can easily prove that any infinite object must have a black body radiation.

This statement may not be correct within the weak equivalence principle. Take a black hole, to make its temperature go down to zero $T \rightarrow 0$ implies that you have to add an infinite amount of mass to it $m \rightarrow \infty$ and so, its general curvature will tend to zero as well $K \rightarrow 0$. These are limits, but if we take the mass to be infinite, then we are talking about an infinitely large black hole which would in theory have no temperature within relativity. I personally do not believe the universe is infinite, in fact, at any given period of a hypothetical measurement, you would find it having finite size.

So, the black body radiation of the CMB is a clear indication that the Universe is Infinite!!!

Not what I conclude. But anyway...

Why are you using a black hole as an example?

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Black_body

In this article, they don't use a black hole. They are using a hole in a cavity. The black body signature is a direct outcome of the radiation energy inside this cavity.

So, please try to read pg. 14 and let me know why do you think that my explanation is incorrect.

http://www.sciencefo...stein/?p=347798

Edited by davdan, 09 June 2017 - 08:36 AM.

### #43 davdan

davdan

• Members
• 53 posts

Posted 09 June 2017 - 01:33 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but this ''hole in the cavity'' isn't a black hole exactly is it? It's an experimental device yes?

Yes, the main idea is to keep the radiation in the cavity.

So, the hole is small enough to enable the radiation to get in, but prevent it from going out. The radiation should be reflected by the isolated interior wall and gets its unique black body signature.

### #44 davdan

davdan

• Members
• 53 posts

Posted 10 June 2017 - 06:22 AM

Another feature of similarity is the flatness problem - we have already identified that curvature will tend to zero for an infinitely large universe. We don't believe it is actually zero, but we think there is small curvature in the universe.

Well, I assume that based on the BBT the curvature will tend to zero for infinitely large Universe.

However, based on Einstein cosmology module there is no need for any sort of curvature to our infinite Universe - As I have already explained.

### #45 davdan

davdan

• Members
• 53 posts

Posted 10 June 2017 - 11:01 AM

Why do you assume that briefly, for me?

Let me tell you clearly.

There is no curvature and there is no need for it at infinite Universe as Einstein had stated.

However, if this false idea helps the BBT, than it is O.K.

In any case, do you have any idea from what kind of matter this curvature is made of?

Edited by davdan, 10 June 2017 - 11:03 AM.

### #46 davdan

davdan

• Members
• 53 posts

Posted 10 June 2017 - 11:11 AM

Just as the universe, doesn't actually contain an infinite amount of mass - at least, this is only true if we take the event horizon as all that is measurable. We do not really understand any dynamics outside of it.

This is incorrect.

The Universe does contain infinite amount of mass as its size is infinite (or at least close to infinite) and its age is also infinite.

The science has no clue about the age of the galaxies or the age of stars.

The SUN/Earth/Moon had been created at the same time from the same mass at the center of the galaxy.

Actually, if we could verify the drifting time from the center of the galaxy, we could set their real age.

I would estimate their age for at least 500 Billion years.

The age of the Milky Way is much more than that.

Edited by davdan, 10 June 2017 - 11:14 AM.

### #47 davdan

davdan

• Members
• 53 posts

Posted 10 June 2017 - 02:28 PM