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

106 replies to this topic

### #103 rhertz

rhertz

Questioning

• Members
• 180 posts

Posted 19 May 2019 - 07:46 PM

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.

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. ### #104 rhertz rhertz Questioning • Members • 180 posts Posted 19 May 2019 - 11:03 PM This post is using advanced data and concepts from PLANCK's mission, excerpted from the ESA site: A portrait of the cosmos as a young Universe: "The image of the Cosmic Microwave Background taken by ESA's Planck satellite is the most precise snapshot of the infant Universe ever made. Released in March 2013, this image contains a wealth of information about the properties and history of the Universe for cosmologists to decipher." .................................. "Fluctuations in the CMB correspond to the cosmic seeds that would evolve into all the structure observed in the Universe today – from stars and planets to galaxies and galaxy clusters. Planck's precise data enables cosmologists to investigate a huge variety of models for the origin and evolution of the cosmos. The new image of the CMB has confirmed that the standard model of cosmology is a very good description of the Universe. Dominated by the as yet unexplained dark matter and dark energy, the cosmos we live in appears to have begun almost 14 billion years ago with an early period of accelerated expansion, called inflation, during which the seeds of cosmic structure were embedded in the Universe. The data from Planck have allowed cosmologists to set very tight constraints on many parameters of the standard model, including the Hubble constant (H0), which describes the expansion rate of the Universe today, the densities of baryonic matter, dark matter and dark energy (Ωb, Ωm, ΩΛ), and the spectral index (ns), which describes the relative amount of primordial fluctuations – the seeds of nascent cosmic structures – on different scales." ......... End of excerpts.............................................. And from this site: http://sci.esa.int/p...ave-background/ Gravitational lensing of the Cosmic Microwave Background "Several observable effects arise from the interaction between CMB photons and the large-scale structure they crossed during their journey. One of the most intriguing is gravitational lensing, the deflection of light as it travels in the vicinity of massive objects such as galaxies and galaxy clusters. Gravitational lensing creates tiny, additional distortions to the mottled pattern of the CMB temperature fluctuations. On their way to the Solar System, where they are eventually detected by the sensors on board Planck, photons from the CMB may cross many different massive systems as well as empty spaces. The photons encounter structures in different evolutionary stages, since the massive structures grow denser and the cosmic voids become less dense as time goes by. All of the structures from the different cosmic epochs contribute to bending the path of CMB photons. The total effect of these multiple deflections is a modification to the pattern of CMB temperature fluctuations, thus changing the typical 'shapes' of hot and cold spots in the CMB. As a result of the detection of gravitational lensing experienced by CMB photons, cosmologists can use Planck to explore 13 billion years of the formation of structure in the Universe." Comments on Hubble's Constant and Expansion of the Universe 1) To understand this graph and any other graph that depicts the timeline of the evolutionary universe, one and only one question arises: How come the time axis is calibrated when optical or EM observations of the universe are done with different instruments (microwaves, IR, UV, X-Rays)? 1.1) There is no sense of depth while observing the Universe beyond a radius of 100 yl or less, even with the most powerful scope. Within this radius, parallax effects are used, separated six months (2 AU). Beyond that radius, parallax effect has no value, and the sense of depth is LOST. 1.2) Only after 1923 (Mont Wilson's observatory, Dr. Hubble and colleagues) Andromeda was identified as a galaxy, and many others were found in the next decade. The calculation of its distance was based on relative luminosity of known objects (like Cepheids) and the inverse square law of apparent luminosity (a relative value). And only around 1929, when Hubble finished his primary work, his empirical constant began to be used on the basis of red-shifting of the fundamental lines of absorption from known elements and 70 years of spectroscophy pioneered by Kirchoff and other, by mid XIX century. The whole history is covered here: https://en.wikipedia...ki/Hubble's_law Then, such a "constant" was applied to what was observed and photographed, and distances were assigned only on this elementary basis: a simple arithmetical relationship. D = c . ( L– L0)/(H0 .L0) = c . z /H0 (L is Lambda) 1.3) The above formula suffered many corrections for values of H0 and also z red-shift formerly measured, being that, originally, Hubble's estimation for H where around 500 Km.sec-1.MParsec-1. Currently, and following ESA information: http://sci.esa.int/p...ubble-constant/ there are two different values for H0: Derivation by astrophysics in the past 20 years gives H01 = 73.5 Km.sec-1.MParsec-1, with 2% uncertainty. Derivations by PLANCK's mission data processing gives: H02 = 67.4 Km.sec-1.MParsec-1, with 1% uncertainty. Using H01 and the speed of light c0, the age of the universe can be calculated as T01 = c0/H01+0.22 By, wich gives an estimated age (others) of 13.77 By and an estimated radius of the Hubble's Sphere of 13.55 Byl (CMB edge). Using H02 = H0 and the speed of light c0, the age of the universe can be calculated as T02 = c0/H02+0.22 By, wich gives an estimated age (PLANCK) of 14.78 By and an estimated Hubble's Sphere radius of of 14.51 Byl (CMB edge). ESA notes that, given that H0 was obtained by two completely different methods, is extraordinary that both values are so close. The differences (measurements within the local universe and from the infant universe) are something that has to be evaluated and conciliated. 2) Adopting the value H01 of 1.3), the visible universe radius is 13.55 Byl (astrophysical measurements plus WMAP data). IF H01 is time-invariant, then everything we observe at the universe is older than our Earth now. The Hubble's sphere contains celestial objects that evolved from the primordial explosion at t=0, and the further we observe with telescopes, the older is the light that reaches us. So, we always look into the past with astronomical observations. A very crude ratio of expansion can be derived by dividing Hubble's radius by age, which give almost 1 ly per year since CMB was formed. But this simplicity implies the time-invariance of H0 and several other cosmological aspects, the first one introduced by A. Friedmann in 1922 with his equations of an universe in expansion, derived from Einstein's Field Equation. This theory might have been the inspiration for Le Maitre original Big Bang theory in 1927. From this theory survives (as per Wikipedia) the Scale Factor R(t), which affects the Hubble "constant", making it R(t) dependant, as well as the z red-shift. Excerpt from Wikipedia (Hubble's law): Suppose R(t) is called the scale factor of the universe, and increases as the universe expands in a manner that depends upon the cosmological model selected. Its meaning is that all measured proper distances D(t) between co-moving points increase proportionally to R. (The co-moving points are not moving relative to each other except as a result of the expansion of space.) 3) Excerpt from Wikipedia (Comoving and proper distances): In standard cosmology, comoving distance and proper distance are two closely related distance measures used by cosmologists to define distances between objects. Proper distance roughly corresponds to where a distant object would be at a specific moment of cosmological time, which can change over time due to the expansion of the universe. Comoving distance factors out the expansion of the universe, giving a distance that does not change in time due to the expansion of space (though this may change due to other, local factors, such as the motion of a galaxy within a cluster). Comoving distance and proper distance are defined to be equal at the present time; therefore, the ratio of proper distance to comoving distance now is 1. At other times, the scale factor differs from 1. The Universe's expansion results in the proper distance changing, while the comoving distance is unchanged by this expansion because it is the proper distance divided by that scale factor. 4) Wikipedia: Missconceptions about the size of the universe. Size The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.26 gigaparsecs (46.5 billion light-years) in any direction. The figure quoted above is distance now (in cosmological time), not distance at the time the light was emitted. For example, the CMBR that we see right now was emitted at the time of photon decoupling, estimated to have occurred about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, which occurred around 13.8 billion years ago. This radiation was emitted by matter that has, in the intervening time, mostly condensed into galaxies, and those galaxies are now calculated to be about 46 billion light-years from us. 5) The root of the discussion in this thread: I quote a complain by a cosmologist about the use of light travel time in the media: http://www.astro.ucl...tt_is_Dumb.html Why the Light Travel Time Distance should not be used in Press Releases By Edward L. Wright (02 August 2013) Since public information offices in the US never want to mention the redshift of an object, distances are usually given as light travel time distances. This has one simple property: the distance in light years is never greater than the age of the Universe in years, avoiding at least one appearance of speeds greater than the speed of light. This doesn't really satisfy the simplicity requirement, because a numerate listener will ask: if a distant cluster of galaxies is 9.1 billion light years away in a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, how did the cluster get so far away in only 4.6 billion years? If must have been travelling faster than the speed of light! Apparently it takes several minutes for this question to arise, and by that time the presenters are out the door. So I get an E-mail. So here I will list the reasons why this press office policy is really dumb: • The redshift z is usually the only number in the whole story that is unambiguous and likely to be correct. • Distance is defined as the spatial separation at a common time. It makes no sense to talk about the difference in spatial positions of a distant galaxy seen 9.1 billion years ago and the Milky Way now when galaxies are moving. • If an SR-71 blackbird flies over at Mach 3 and you hear the sound 30 seconds later, then answer to the question "How far away is it?" is clearly not 30 "sound seconds" or 10 km. • The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance. Distances greater than speed of light times the age of the Universe are commonplace. ................................... The article contains a few more paragraphs and some graphs. So, the problem is simple: There is no consensus between something currently being NOW X billion light years in the past flowtime (age) and its location being NOW at Y billion light years far away from us. Or, simplifying, there is no consensus (worldwide) about HOW the visible universe from the PAST has expanded and objects are co-located NOW in the time-space at this day. The only problem about this claim is that the difference between Y billion light years (possible distance TODAY, Y billion years after, which is unobservable) and X billion light years back in time (X billion years) can't and won't be proved. NEVER. (Unless we may leave a message for someone Y billion years in the future to check it for us. But probably, the Solar System will be gone by then). Or, as I used to say: Billion years OLD or Billion years LIGHT AWAY? Edited by rhertz, 19 May 2019 - 11:12 PM. • Flummoxed likes this ### #105 VictorMedvil VictorMedvil The Human Shadow • Members • 1054 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.

### #106 rhertz

rhertz

Questioning

• Members
• 180 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 06:03 AM

I doubted about if I should respond to you, Moderator, or to leave this place for good.

After meditating about for a while, and searching the web, in the cosmological branch, about the division between

expansionists and inflationists, I decided to defend myself one more time.

if you read them again, MAYBE you can realize that you went too far in your comments, specially for a Forum Moderator.

Regarding your comment at paragraph 2), you'll have to concede to me that I used the concept of expansion not only on this thread,

where I posted a graph about evolution after the BB that I made myself.

At the paragraph 3a), you are giving a finite size to the universe, which is not correct. The universe is infinite and only the concepts

of visible and observable universe can contain a finite size. After this, you contradict yourself at the paragraph 3b).

At the paragraph 4a) you are using exactly the same calculation that I did several posts before, with the ratio RO/RH.

At paragraph 4d), you explicitly present the conflict between observable and visible universe (with radius RO and RH) and conceded

that light beyond RH radius hasn't reached Earth by now (and never will, I have to add).

At paragraph 5) you mix concepts about mainstream cosmology (there IS NOT such a thing) and personal attacks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This discussion diverged from the original topic of CMB and Planck to go into a terrain that is the quick-sand of cosmologists: size and

behavior of past, present and future universe. There are SEVERAL lines of thought among cosmologists, and they are FAR from consensus.

But, going to the diverted line of thoughts, which mix size of universe, its origin and the behavior of the CMB, I'll try to resume it to the least

number of words plus a graphic that I composed.

Assertion 1: There is impossible for humans to work with an infinite universe, so we settle with a local universe (with radii RO and RH).

started to be proposed in the last 30 years (concept still under development) and is based on the introduction of dark matter and energy

as the FUEL for an inflationist universe, where visible matter is not enough.

Assertion 2: For us, human beings, It's impossible to imagine a four dimentional universe (space+time). So, we have to settle with

2D graphs of the observable-visible universe as a sphere (assuming that curvature of space is NULL). In order to add the temporal

dimension, we have to introduce a timeline along with a 2D projection of our local universe, which need several graphs in cascade.

Then, we use the following 2D shapes of a 3D projection in a plane for our local universe: a circle, a square, a Mollweide projection (COBE)

or any other figure. We add the temporal dimension by using discrete planes which contains a 2D projection which is smaller as time goes

backwards OR we use a continuous volumetric shape (NASA and others) wich reduces it transversal area as time goes to t=0.

Assertion 3: It is impossible for us, humans, to understand WHERE the edge of the remnants of the Big Bang are now, in an infinite universe.

Then, due to THIS FACT, NASA and ESA maps of anisotropies within the perceived CMB radiation (and its temperature) are SETTLED to locate such CBR edge EXACTLY at the border of the VISIBLE UNIVERSE.

This assertion is fundamental to avoid madness, and is very simple: The Hubble's Sphere radius represent ALL what we can measure NOW, at the farthest distance since t=0. Everything beyond this radius RH recedes from us at a RADIAL SPEED c > c0.

Accordingly so, COBE-WMAP-PLANCK maps locate the edge of the CURRENTLY RECEIVED CMB radiation at its edge. It's the best they can

do to represent infinity at the edge where recession speed c = c0.

Assertion 4: Anything beyond the Hubble's radius RH is hypothetical, and is based on different mathematical theories  (expansion, inflation, GTR). Due to this, it's difficult for humans to understand what lies beyond the physical limit where c > c0, and is arbitrary any thought about

what lies beyond RO has no theoretical basis. Any calculation about RO is an educated guess according to one of several inflating theories.

This graph try to represent both concepts, which coexistd in cosmology. The sphere at the graph is based on the Hubble's radius.

The line that departs from the Visible radius line (R = c0 . Age) represents the co-moving distance in an inflating universe, and

correspond to the radius RO for our Observable universe, but light emitted between RH and RO hasn't have time to reach Earth.

It's estimated that RO is around 40 Bly today, by several inflating theories.

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.

### #107 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

• Members
• 1054 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.