Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why Planck's Formula For Black Body Radiation Is Used To Measure The Cbr?


  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#86 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 18 May 2019 - 12:07 PM

https://wmap.gsfc.na..._tests_cmb.html

 

That is the point, it is anisotropic so how can slight fluctuations in one direction be ascribed uniform properties at the edge of the visible universe, allowing a red shift to be applied. It could be a completely different temperature in the distance masked by a hotter temperature locally. 

 

Edit CMBR was one of the nails in the coffin of Steady state theory https://en.wikipedia...ady-state_model It was predicted to be originally 5K. 

 

If the CMBR is at a uniform temperature in all directions. Galaxies could be moving through space rather than space expanding.  

It is almost totally isotropic, to a first and even second order approximation.

 

Such anisotropies as exist are minuscule, of the order of 1 part in 100,000. The existence of very tiny anisotropies was predicted by the Big Bang model, since there should according to that model have been some tiny unevenness in the universe, arising from random quantum fluctuations magnified as the universe expanded. This, I gather,  is what most of the COBE work has focused on.  



#87 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1291 posts

Posted 18 May 2019 - 03:48 PM

The first and middle phrases are quite strong: wrong and flat out wrong, specially for a Forum Moderator.

 

And telling to me that I use "unfounded assertions" is quite insulting, specially when I provide links from academia or institutions

which are first rank sites.

 

Also, you accusse me of using "straw man" arguments but you use "ad hominem" arguments instead.

 

I know the subject of this thread, in which I'm the OP. I'm also very well formed in electromagnetism and thermodynamics,

either on the theoretical or practical side. So, I don't make unfounded assertions NEVER!

 

And the highlighting of text by different means is the way I do things. Here, there or everywhere.

 

I started by saying that I disagree with the use of the Stefan-Planck theories in cosmology, because I dissagree

that the Universe behaves as a black body. Plain and simple. Such theories were developed for perfect black

bodies and, particularly with Wien-Planck, for perfect black body cavities with molecular or hertzian oscillators

into the walls, absorpting and emitting radiation under thermal equilibrium. I stand with my original position.

 

Later, this thread drifted towards the shape and size of the universe, where is now located the CBR leftover of the BB

and how the COBE, WMAP and PLANCK missions produced data to be analyzed and, also, how this data was analyzed

afterwards here on Earth.

 

I'd like to know why do you assert that I'm blatantly wrong in what I posted here. Which are your arguments, either on the

physics side, the mathematical side or the logical side.

 

And, if you can answer me: Which is your background to discuss this subject? Did you study in deep the theory of thermal

radiation or the history that goes from Kirchoff (1859) to Planck (1900)? Because I did, and I wrote a long paper about it,

which I posted in my blog. Just the pure theory of black body radiation till 1900, Nothing more, but nothing less.

 

And this knowledge is not pre-conceived notions, as you called. It's pure and absolute science, very well stablished.

 

And, finally, regarding your understanding that "there is no proof in physics", it really blew my head off!

 

I can't believe that any person can think that way. Then, all the history of proofs behind BB theory at the PTR institute

is pure BS? I don't know who taught you that, but this is what I call something "flat out wrong".

 

And, please, don't lecture me how to behave. I'm too old and civilized to receive recomendations about my way of doing things.

 

 

Your posts are so Filled with unfounded assertions and misconceptions, it is difficult to know where to start.

 

Plus, you either ignore anything that you do not agree with, or become indignant, so a rational discussion with you is all but impossible.

 

You don’t seem to be able to grasp the observed fact that the universe is expanding.

 

If you want to understand how the observable universe can be some 90 billion lyrs across, when it is only 14 billion years old, and light can only travel at the velocity of c, you must take this expansion into consideration.

 

At the time of last scattering, when the CMB was emitted, the universe was only some 90 Million lyrs across. It is now over 1000 times larger primarily because of expansion, not only because of the finite speed of light!

 

Fact: There is no limit on how fast spacetime can expand, and the speed of light will always be measured locally at c.

 

A quick calculation will tell you that galaxies at the very outer reach of the observable universe are moving away from us at about 3.2c:  ( I lyr/year x 14 billion years x 3.2 = 45 billion lyrs radius, very approximately)

 

You continually seem confused about this and keep insisting that these distant galaxies cannot be in the observable universe. Well, they are because we can still see them as they were about 14 billion years ago, when they were much closer to us.

 

Of course, we cannot observe them as they are today, at the distance of 45 billion light years, but they are part of our observable universe just the same because we know they do or did exist in our universe.

 

These are the concepts that are supported by mainstream cosmology so you may want to consider trying to understand them instead of arguing against them based only on your unfounded assertions.

 

Yes, I realize you are old and set in your ways but age does not automatically confer wisdom. When you make assertions here that go against the mainstream, you can expect to be challenged, so probably best to get used to it and not take it personally.

 

That is just some good advice, not a lecture, but take it however you want.



#88 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1423 posts

Posted 19 May 2019 - 06:24 AM

Apparently it didn't "stick".

 

Why did you write: "The CBR is claimed as proof of the Big Bang"?

 

Perhaps my grammar is crap and I view evidence as proof, not a mathematical proof, but more like would be presented in a court of law, when some who do not normally wear suits get dressed up :) .

 

However I recognise I may have slipped up. Evidence is not conclusive.

 

 

It is almost totally isotropic, to a first and even second order approximation.

 

Such anisotropies as exist are minuscule, of the order of 1 part in 100,000. The existence of very tiny anisotropies was predicted by the Big Bang model, since there should according to that model have been some tiny unevenness in the universe, arising from random quantum fluctuations magnified as the universe expanded. This, I gather,  is what most of the COBE work has focused on.  

 

I don't think such anisotropies can be ignored that is why Lindes inflation theory is an improvement on the ludicrous singularity of the original big bang, and the uniformity of Guths inflation theory.  

 

The CBR is likely a result of particle creation, possibly of Big Bang Nucleo synthesis which originally predicted the CBR to be in the order of 5 Kelvins, which is a lot different to 2.75K, unless the theory has changed to match the measurements. 

 

Ascribing the CBR as excellent quality evidence of the big bang Nucleo synthesis happening in a fraction of a second 14 billion years ago might be a bit dodgy. I do not see why the Big Bang Nucleo synthesis could not be viewed as happening at a much slower rate, over a much longer period of time.

 

There is no satisfactory explanation for particle creation in the big bang. Hawking radiation only applies around black holes, Quantum Loop Gravity would appear to be a dead duck in an eternally expanding universe. Particles do appear out of vacuums very slowly.  You stated that inflation between a pair of virtual particles is hand waving, why? They are separated and become more real, the longer they are separated and like Hawking radiation from virtual particles would like decay to photons, or electromagnetic radiation, at very low energy levels. 


Edited by Flummoxed, 19 May 2019 - 06:24 AM.


#89 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 19 May 2019 - 07:22 AM

Perhaps my grammar is crap and I view evidence as proof, not a mathematical proof, but more like would be presented in a court of law, when some who do not normally wear suits get dressed up :) .

 

However I recognise I may have slipped up. Evidence is not conclusive.

 

 

 

I don't think such anisotropies can be ignored that is why Lindes inflation theory is an improvement on the ludicrous singularity of the original big bang, and the uniformity of Guths inflation theory.  

 

The CBR is likely a result of particle creation, possibly of Big Bang Nucleo synthesis which originally predicted the CBR to be in the order of 5 Kelvins, which is a lot different to 2.75K, unless the theory has changed to match the measurements. 

 

Ascribing the CBR as excellent quality evidence of the big bang Nucleo synthesis happening in a fraction of a second 14 billion years ago might be a bit dodgy. I do not see why the Big Bang Nucleo synthesis could not be viewed as happening at a much slower rate, over a much longer period of time.

 

There is no satisfactory explanation for particle creation in the big bang. Hawking radiation only applies around black holes, Quantum Loop Gravity would appear to be a dead duck in an eternally expanding universe. Particles do appear out of vacuums very slowly.  You stated that inflation between a pair of virtual particles is hand waving, why? They are separated and become more real, the longer they are separated and like Hawking radiation from virtual particles would like decay to photons, or electromagnetic radiation, at very low energy levels. 

I don't think it is right to say the CMBR is due to particle creation. As I understand it, it is due to the adiabatic cooling by expansion of the primordial plasma getting down to the temperature at which neutral atoms formed for the first time. 



#90 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts

Posted 19 May 2019 - 03:36 PM

This is why I don't post anymore on this forum due to the level of crankness on these forums at this moment I remember back a couple years ago when this forum was less crank but I just don't have the time to deal with people that have a crude scientific understanding of these subjects, Frankly I thought this day would never happen but I agree with Dubbel and Exchemist. You people need to gain scientific knowledge it is evident that you people have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and of course Planck's Black Body Radiation Equation works for the CBR being that it is electromagnetic Radiation which fits into the object type Planck was trying to classify. This is like 6 pages of crank almost as bad as Moronium's Anti-Relativity Arguments, it is like saying "oh ya it works for normal black body radiation, but no CBR being the only one excluded." Of course it works on every Black Body Radiation system or it would have been rejected long ago, why you may ask, because it is correct.

 

planck4.gif


Edited by VictorMedvil, 19 May 2019 - 03:51 PM.


#91 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts

Posted 19 May 2019 - 04:50 PM

(1) Planck wasn't trying to classify objects according to its electromagnetic radiation. He devoted six years, since 1894 to 1900, to derive a correct solution to the 1859 Kirchoff's theorem about black body radiation within a BB cavity. His final work was based on

modifications to the Wien's theory about the same problem, published by 1896.

 

Also, the equation that you wrote is not the original Planck's equation for Spectral Radiant Energy E = We(,T) inside a BB cavity,

as published. It's a posterior derivation (not Planck's one) about the Spectral Radiant Exitance Me(,T) = c/4 . We(,T) at the

aperture in the cavity of a BB.

 

I attach a file with the final Planck's theory translated to English, as published at Annalen der Physik in Jan 1901.

 

2) The "you people", "cranck" and "have absolutely no idea what you are talking about" are too strong for a keyboard science

guardian. I'd be more than delighted to know what merits and credentials you can display to support your pejorative comments.

 

I expect no less than 10-15 years of active work in cosmology, with several peer-approved breaktrhough papers in the field.

 

Otherwise,.........

 

3) And yet, you posted today. Isn't it a contradiction with your first statement?

 

attachicon.gifplanck1901.pdf

 

See this is my point, CRANK!  They can both be derived from the same equation and if I were older I would probably have that much experience in cosmology as I have been studying the subject since 15 and I do have peer reviewed papers just not in cosmology. I have wrote around 30 papers in physics and they were all Peer-Reviewed I just didn't pay the publishing fee as it would have been like 60 grand to publish them all, but the point of this is not me, it is people on this forum that post non scientific bullshit that try to back their arguments with fantasy physics or Wrong Physics. There is only one right way to do certain things and do it the right way or stop, It either describes "Real Universe" or is fake.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 19 May 2019 - 05:05 PM.

  • Bradpitt4 likes this

#92 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts

Posted 19 May 2019 - 11:10 PM

Calm down, Victor. I was just playing. I pushed it a little with the experience needed in cosmology and so, but I wasn't being serious.

I just wanted to return your fervorous comments in a funny way. No offense meant to you.

 

I just comment back your post because I didn't have any idea that you have to pay $2,000 per published paper.

I consider this insulting, and that a journal should find another way of financing its business. Seriously.

 

Gone are the days where knowledge was spread without imposing financial barriers to the authors.

 

I'm very sorry for that.

 

Trust me that is an accurate number on publishing costs as it was quoted to me which is why I post on these forums, I take it very seriously, most people aren't rich enough to actually publish their works formally, sadly, in this day and age because of stuff like that I didn't have 60 grand just sitting around for publishing costs, when I first tried to get published I had no idea it was so expensive but this was a quote from Physics Journal A Theoretical and Mathematical which was cost to 2 grand per article published for the mass media.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 19 May 2019 - 11:16 PM.


#93 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 06:18 AM

Update:

 

Differences between traditional Hubble's Radius (as measured by PLANCK's mission or computed by astrophysicists+WMAP) and

Observable Universe Radius (some mainstream cosmological theories) is that the last one employs a time-dependant Hubble's constant

which is based on inflation theories backed by GTR and the use of co-moving and proper distances (they are equal today). Due to this,

the space beyond classic H constant expands faster than the speed of light c0.

 

So, technically, while the Hubble's Sphere contains celestial objects at  its edge which light is reaching Earth right now, celestial objects beyond

this radius recedes at speed of light c > c0 and NEVER will reach us.

 

Many cosmologists persist claiming that correct cosmological distances must be expressed in terms of proper distances (based on GTR and

expansion theories), even when objects farther than 14 Bly are not able to be observed by telescopes, because they recede faster than light.

 

Here is my question for this, if these objects are beyond reach and never able to been reached by light then how can we still see them as light would never reach us either from the object, all that means is someone measured the distance wrong. Remember nothing can travel faster than light when you start having to rewrite physics to prove something that is when it becomes CRANK! So, in this case, it is the other cosmologists that are CRANK!


Edited by VictorMedvil, 20 May 2019 - 06:22 AM.


#94 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1423 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 03:43 AM

I've found a web page with the theories of the late Paul Marmet, a canadian physicist and professor.

 

https://en.wikipedia...iki/Paul_Marmet

 

In this site, it's posted a theory for the origin of the 3K radiation that contradict the big bang leftover, and uses instead the abundance of

Hydrogen to explain this phenomena (also, in another page of the same site, there is an alternate explanation that dismiss the need of dark matter).

 

http://www.newtonphy...smic/index.html

 

It sound convincing for me, and still apply Planck's radiation.

 

Any thoughts?

 

I am briefly back at home, and just read the link, I can not believe no one has responded. It is very interesting indeed. I am not a chemist, and can not refute or reliably agree with the link. But to my none chemical eye, it seems very plausible indeed. It also supports a half baked idea I have that there never was a hot big bang, and Hoyle was more right than wrong.

 

I wonder if H2 could be a source of some dark matter effects in apparently empty space? 

 

If theoretical Baryogenesis occurs in space at near absolute zero (from perhaps condensates), forming Hydrogen at a very slow rate. The link shows that Hydrogen atoms combining to form H2 could form the better part of the CBR. AND The big Bang never happened. :) 

 

I would also suspect a very low level of the CBR would be a side effect of slow or failed baryogenesis. ie when particles don't have enough energy to become stable, resulting in radiation in the form of photons, NOT polarized radio waves.

 

Thanks for the thought provoking link. 



#95 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 07:51 AM

I am briefly back at home, and just read the link, I can not believe no one has responded. It is very interesting indeed. I am not a chemist, and can not refute or reliably agree with the link. But to my none chemical eye, it seems very plausible indeed. It also supports a half baked idea I have that there never was a hot big bang, and Hoyle was more right than wrong.

 

I wonder if H2 could be a source of some dark matter effects in apparently empty space? 

 

If theoretical Baryogenesis occurs in space at near absolute zero (from perhaps condensates), forming Hydrogen at a very slow rate. The link shows that Hydrogen atoms combining to form H2 could form the better part of the CBR. AND The big Bang never happened. :)

 

I would also suspect a very low level of the CBR would be a side effect of slow or failed baryogenesis. ie when particles don't have enough energy to become stable, resulting in radiation in the form of photons, NOT polarized radio waves.

 

Thanks for the thought provoking link. 

Since you ask, I've had a look at the Marmet article. The short answer seems to be that he is talking out of his arse.  He claims molecular hydrogen has no "optically allowed" spectrum. But that's crap. Here's a paper giving exhaustive data on its spectrum: https://www.semantic...96315e04749ba7 

 

If you click the spectrum diagram on the left you will see this includes a region around 6000A, i.e. 600nm, bang in the middle of the orange part of the visible spectrum. He quotes a load of irrelevant stuff about H2 not having a dipole, as if that prevents electronic transitions! This is really lousy physics. He seems to be muddling up the need for a dipole to excite molecular vibrations and rotations with what is needed for electronic excitation, which follows a different set of selection rules altogether. 

 

Nor does he explain how molecular hydrogen, which he has been at pains to point out is so transparent, can in his view radiate like a black body. 

 

Furthermore he fails to offer a reason why everything that is not hot in the universe is at 3K. Why 3K and not 0K? The Big Bang hypothesis accounts for that.  

 

I'd never heard of this guy, but when he wrote this he seems to have been either off his head or just a very  bad physicist.


Edited by exchemist, 01 June 2019 - 09:17 AM.

  • Flummoxed likes this

#96 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1571 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 10:13 PM

Many cosmologists persist claiming that correct cosmological distances must be expressed in terms of proper distances (based on GTR and

expansion theories), even when objects farther than 14 Bly are not able to be observed by telescopes, because they recede faster than light.

 

Just out of interest, has anybody examined the HUDF red shift distances to see how large the HST depth of field (DOF) was in these types of observations?

 

I can remember sometime in the past seeing a simulated 'flyby' based on these red shift distances and wondered how large the DOF actually was if it takes 8 seconds to completely pass by a single galaxy (take your pick of diameter in light years, i.e. at a simulated velocity of multiples of c).



#97 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 03:18 AM

Well, even for the anti-relativist KGB at Wiki, which custodies jealously the "einstenian stablished religion science", it was hard to downgrade the late Marmet to a figure of a looney cranck. But you succeeded in just a couple of paragraphs.

 

The man had an active life as a scientist for 40 years, until he retired. It's obvious that, once being free from the "suppressive system" (he had to make a living), he enjoyed making public his dissidences. He probably learnt from others, who did similar things while being actives within stablishment, and payed it dearly.

 

By the way, as he touched a string (or a chord) within your duty to custody "accepted" chemist and physics body of knowledge, you might be kind enough to enlight us about your credentials to speak with such an absolute certainty. Probably your trajectory in research and development will make me be ashame to ask for it.

 

Note: 10,000 posts at another forum don't count as scientific publications.

 

 

 

From the same link at Wikipedia that I posted and you didn't care to read:

 

Paul Marmet; (20 May 1932 – 20 May 2005) was a Canadian physicist and professor, best known for developing, along with his mentor Larkin Kerwin, a high resolution electron selector for the study of electronic states of negative ions. This instrument, along with a mass spectrometer he developed, was widely used by scientists for electron scattering studies which led to the discovery of enhanced vibrational excitation in nitrogen, and for the study of free radicals.

 

Career

Beginning in 1967 Marmet served as director of the laboratory for Atomic and Molecular Physics at Laval University in Quebec City, Canada, serving in that role until 1982. From 1983 to 1990, Marmet was a senior researcher at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council of Canada in Ottawa. In 1990 Marmet was an Assistant Professor of Physics at the University of Ottawa.[1]

 

Bibliography

Paul Marmet published more than 100 original research papers, as well as a number of books, websites and animated demonstrations for the teaching of Physics.[1]

 

Opposition to Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and the Big Bang

In his later years Marmet was an outspoken critic of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the theory of relativity, and the Big Bang cosmological model. In 1993 he self-published a book entitled "Absurdities in Modern Physics".[2] He also maintained a web site devoted to his ideas.[3] His views have not found acceptance within the mainstream scientific community.

How about telling me what is wrong with the science in my objections to what he writes?

 

People do go crazy, you know. The guy was pretty old when he went all peculiar and resorted to self-publishing crank stuff. 


Edited by exchemist, 02 June 2019 - 03:20 AM.


#98 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1423 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 05:30 AM

Since you ask, I've had a look at the Marmet article. The short answer seems to be that he is talking out of his arse.  He claims molecular hydrogen has no "optically allowed" spectrum. But that's crap. Here's a paper giving exhaustive data on its spectrum: https://www.semantic...96315e04749ba7 

 

If you click the spectrum diagram on the left you will see this includes a region around 6000A, i.e. 600nm, bang in the middle of the orange part of the visible spectrum. He quotes a load of irrelevant stuff about H2 not having a dipole, as if that prevents electronic transitions! This is really lousy physics. He seems to be muddling up the need for a dipole to excite molecular vibrations and rotations with what is needed for electronic excitation, which follows a different set of selection rules altogether. 

 

Nor does he explain how molecular hydrogen, which he has been at pains to point out is so transparent, can in his view radiate like a black body. 

 

Furthermore he fails to offer a reason why everything that is not hot in the universe is at 3K. Why 3K and not 0K? The Big Bang hypothesis accounts for that.  

 

I'd never heard of this guy, but when he wrote this he seems to have been either off his head or just a very  bad physicist.

 

Chemistry is not something I remember much about. I assumed when two hydrogen atoms combine to form a hydrogen molecule via a covalent bond , they would give of radiation ie the reaction is exothermic and to separate them they would require energy, endothermic reaction. Since molecules like to be in their lowest energy state, H2 is stable and will require energy to separate the atoms.  

 

Simple link for them as might not know what I am waffling about.

https://opentextbc.c...hem_07_02_Morse

 

Here is another link that claims molecular H2 does not emit radio energy http://www.astronomy...ismnotes/s3.htm " Different types of atoms can combine in the coldest regions of space (around 10 K) to make molecules. The cold molecules are detected in the radio band. Most of the molecules are hydrogen molecules (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO). Actually, molecular hydrogen does not emit radio energy but it is found with carbon monoxide, so the radio emission of CO is used to trace the H2."

 

I am flummoxed, does molecular hydrogen in deep space emit a spectrum? :unsure: Why would it? 

 

Re the dipole, H1 has a permanent dipole, whereas H2 is a little unclear. It is even more unclear why H2 having or not having a dipole is even relevant.

 

H1 + H1 producing H2 is exothermic and will give of radiation, if that accounts for the CBR then maybe he is not a total crank. 

 

A curve fit from a Hypothetical Big Bang 40 billion years ago until now, resulting in a CBR of 2.75K might also be the work of cranks :innocent:


Edited by Flummoxed, 02 June 2019 - 05:33 AM.


#99 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 11:45 AM

Chemistry is not something I remember much about. I assumed when two hydrogen atoms combine to form a hydrogen molecule via a covalent bond , they would give of radiation ie the reaction is exothermic and to separate them they would require energy, endothermic reaction. Since molecules like to be in their lowest energy state, H2 is stable and will require energy to separate the atoms.  

 

Simple link for them as might not know what I am waffling about.

https://opentextbc.c...hem_07_02_Morse

 

Here is another link that claims molecular H2 does not emit radio energy http://www.astronomy...ismnotes/s3.htm " Different types of atoms can combine in the coldest regions of space (around 10 K) to make molecules. The cold molecules are detected in the radio band. Most of the molecules are hydrogen molecules (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO). Actually, molecular hydrogen does not emit radio energy but it is found with carbon monoxide, so the radio emission of CO is used to trace the H2."

 

I am flummoxed, does molecular hydrogen in deep space emit a spectrum? :unsure: Why would it? 

 

Re the dipole, H1 has a permanent dipole, whereas H2 is a little unclear. It is even more unclear why H2 having or not having a dipole is even relevant.

 

H1 + H1 producing H2 is exothermic and will give of radiation, if that accounts for the CBR then maybe he is not a total crank. 

 

A curve fit from a Hypothetical Big Bang 40 billion years ago until now, resulting in a CBR of 2.75K might also be the work of cranks :innocent:

Neither atomic nor molecular hydrogen has a permanent dipole. Such a dipole (or rather a dipole change during the motion)  is required in order to couple EM radiation to the vibrations and rotations of a molecule. Hence hydrogen, like N2 and O2, are transparent in the IR and microwave regions. 

 

But electronic transitions, which are what give rise to visible and UV (and some IR) absorption and emission, require instead a "transition dipole", formed in the process of an electron moving between orbitals (molecular orbitals in the case of a molecule, obviously). This is to do with symmetry and angular momentum requirements of the wavefunctions of the before and after states. (For example a photon is a boson with a spin of 1, so an electron can't jump between two states both with zero angular momentum. This gives rise to the "selection rules" for electronic transitions.)  So H2 can have an electronic (band) spectrum and indeed it seems it does, from the spectral data I linked to in my previous post.

 

Certainly if two H atoms bond to form H2, energy has to be given off, in order for the bond to form. If at least some of this bond energy is not carried away, the atoms will have enough energy to rebound from their encounter and split apart again. Normally collisional deactivation with a 3rd molecule, before the atoms have time to rebound, takes care of this. In space however might be relatively rare (I think there are only about a million atoms per cubic cm), so a lot of encounters of atomic hydrogen may not lead a molecule forming. I do not know if there is a radiative mechanism for the atoms to lose energy before they fly apart again. The absence of a dipole would suggest not, i.e. the molecule cannot radiate away vibrational energy in the bond that is trying to form.

 

But you raise an interesting issue: what is the usual mechanism by which molecular hydrogen forms, in deep space where molecular densities are so low?    


Edited by exchemist, 02 June 2019 - 11:46 AM.


#100 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1423 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 01:03 PM

 

 

But you raise an interesting issue: what is the usual mechanism by which molecular hydrogen forms, in deep space where molecular densities are so low?    

 

Gas Nebulae formed from an abundance of gas in space. Ionic bonds form easily between individual Hydrogen atoms in close proximity, this would happen in nebulae when gravitational pressure increased prior to forming stars. 

 

Baryogenesis resulting in individual Hydrogen atoms, will combine to form H2 molecules, in Nebulae if not in empty space.

 

I do not think I have seen references to H2 as a possible cause of Dark matter effects seen in "empty" space, lots of exotic things have been put forward. If H2 cant be detected directly, then the fringing of light attributed to dark matter might be H or H2. https://phys.org/new...nates-dark.html



#101 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 02:04 PM

Gas Nebulae formed from an abundance of gas in space. Ionic bonds form easily between individual Hydrogen atoms in close proximity, this would happen in nebulae when gravitational pressure increased prior to forming stars. 

 

Baryogenesis resulting in individual Hydrogen atoms, will combine to form H2 molecules, in Nebulae if not in empty space.

 

I do not think I have seen references to H2 as a possible cause of Dark matter effects seen in "empty" space, lots of exotic things have been put forward. If H2 cant be detected directly, then the fringing of light attributed to dark matter might be H or H2. https://phys.org/new...nates-dark.html

Sorry but no, ionic bonds do not form between hydrogen atoms, under any circumstances. 

 

My point in the previous post is that, from a chemical kinetics viewpoint, if two atoms approach one another and start to form a bond, something has to carry away some of the energy released when the bond forms. If this does not happen, then the 2 constituent atoms have enough energy to fly apart again.  

 

I am sure that over millions of years, enough 3-body collisions can take place to allow molecular hydrogen to be produced, very slowly. I am just intrigued at what the process is for each molecule. Because I do not think there is any way that two atoms will just combine. They have too much energy: something has to carry some of it away.  When two polyatomic molecules combine, e.g 2 methyl radical form ethane, there are more degrees of freedom within the molecule, to park some of the energy released when the new bond forms. But when 2 individual atoms bond, you need a 3rd body to do it.   


Edited by exchemist, 02 June 2019 - 02:05 PM.


#102 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 02:42 PM

 

The topic at this thread is the Cosmic Background Radiation, the validity of Planck's BBC EM radiation density and the reasonability that such an

earthly formula be applied at the edge of the universe (which I keep saying that is wrong, a falsification).

 

Now the thread is drifting toward the abundance of elementary particles (protons and electrons) and their density as well as the density of primary

atoms (H and He) and isotops in the whole universe. We are analyzing the chances that, since this elemental components compose most of the

mass of the universe in some kind of gaseous (difuse or nebular) existance, they may be the origin of wideband radiation that we perceive as CBR.

 

It has to be taken into account the average low density of matter (about 2 to 8 atoms per m3) and the existance of electric and magnetic forces

beyond any human comprehension between galaxies (or within them), wich may produce accelerations of protons and electrons almost equal to "c".

 

This particles (cosmic rays) keep bombarding elementary nucleii (like those of H and He), creating a cascade of high energy radiation (gamma),

electrons, muons, etc. Synchrotron and linear acceleration produced by plasma bridges and rotating plasma (what is NEGATED by current science)

keep producing wide band radiation and the whole soup of radiative forces, byproducts and radiating elements form a uniform scenario with zillions of

EM waves filling the whole space.

 

This is NOT something that happens at the edge of the known universe, but everywhere. Questions wich arise:

 

  • What is that which is measured as CBR here?
  • Where does it originates?
  • How is the depth of its origin measured, if there are not references for such kind of measurements, except the fallacious "petitio principii" excuse that
  • CBR is a leftover of the big bang?
  • If I forbid the use of the big bang theory under life-term imprisonment penalty, how come CBR could be explained?

 

1) I don't understand your question: can you rephrase?

2) supposedly from the surface of last scattering

3) I am not sure what is meant by the "depth" of its origin. What we are looking at, according to my understanding, is  in effect the surface of last scattering, redshifted by the subsequent expansion of the universe. According to the BB model, at least. 

4) According to the model, it is a leftover from the plasma that is thought to have filled the universe until 380,000yrs after the start.

5) That is up to others to suggest