Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#137 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 03 June 2019 - 06:48 PM

Regarding the topic of my OP: Why Planck's formula for black body radiation is used to measure the CBR, the answer lies in another thread that nobody took care about:

 

What Do You Think About That A 1879 Stefan's Law Be Used To Calculate Star Radius Or Temperature?  (Apr 30 2019 01:11 AM)

 

Both threads are related because 1879 Stefan's Law can be derived by integrating 1901 Planck's Law over the entire frequency spectrum and over the entire space (by using Planck's formula as expressing the spectral flux density at the aperture in a black body cavity, and extending the integration over the entire spherical space of 4Pi radians around the aperture).

 

Along with my rejection to the use of Planck's spectrum, I also wanted to make evident that, in spite of all the knowledge that modern physics has developed, science still relies on XIX century thermodynamics for derivations of values in astronomy. Quantum physics and relativity, the foundations of the deranged XX and XXI century physics, have proved that nothing of value can be provided by them, in the grand scheme of things (stars, galaxies, universe).

 

So, we should celebrate the insight and wisdom of the XIX century scientists, in particular: Fourier, Joule, Faraday, von Helmholtz, Classius, Kelvin (Thomsom), Kirchoff, Maxwell, Mach, Weber, Hertz, Heaviside, Wien, Stefan, Lummer, Rayleigh (Strutt) and dozen of others (well known or not), which allowed mankind to reach this point of development.

 

Electrical energy, nuclear physics and radioactivity aside (Tesla, Fermi, Curie and the like), I'm still waiting for practical applications of relativity and quantum physics.

 

Please, don't bother to mention GPS, laser, maser or microelectronics, which are developments originated by applied engineering and classic physics and chemistry, starting at the end of the XIX and early XX centuries (diodes, triodes, semiconductors, etc.).

 

In conclusion: Planck's formula was used because astronomers had nothing else to use from "modern science". The aftermath of this is a "petitio principii" fallacy. As Planck theory was used at the beggining, after decades of following this particular use of the theory, it HAD TO be verified. The conception of the big bang theory NEEDS with dispair the verification that the CBR is planckian one. Everything else is built around this.

 

If Planck's spectrum fails to be verified in the CBR, the big bang theory collapses.

 

Easy, isn't it?

 

P.S.: By the way, the CBR has a value which is so low that results can easily be falsified, as its power is BELOW the NOISE of the most advanced amplifiers and antennae. Both the CBR and equipment noise are gaussian random, and no correlation exists between them, so they CAN'T be separated.

 

For instance: A 30°K state of the art receiving system can not detect a 3°K CBR noise. The noise is expressed in terms of its temperature, as is commonly used in radio-astronomy or sensitive microwave applications. Multiplying the noise temperature by the Boltzmann's constant and an arbitrary constant gives the energy level per unit frequency at the entrance of this particular radio-astronomy receiver. If you multiply this value by the bandwidth of the receiver gives the total power at the input of the radio system. As it applies for both noise sources, It will be easy to understand that, in this case, the SNR=-10dB (the power of the state of the art equipment noise is at least 10 times higher that the power of the CBR noise, which makes it UNDETECTABLE due to uncorrelated stochastic behavior of both noise sources).

 

Whoever claiming that can detect CBR with a comercial device or just by arbitrarily pointing an antenna to the sky doesn't get this.

 

For those interested, there is a classic paper about noise in microwave systems (R. Dicke, 1946):

 

"The measurement of thermal radiation at microwave frequencies"


Edited by rhertz, 03 June 2019 - 07:06 PM.


#138 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 08:07 AM

After a long thread questioning why Planck's formula for Black Body Cavity Radiation was

being used to describe the Cosmic Background Radiation, this post is the final in this journey.

 

The next figure represents the instrumentation used at COBE's FIRAS to measure the CBR.

 

I've been researching about the kind of instrumentation used on-board at COBE satellite, and

all remits to the 1946 R. Dicke's paper where he proposed to mix and substract Planck's noise

from CBR, by using a switching amplifier plus a mixer plus a "Dicke bolometer". He patented it.

 

In few words, his instrumentation substracts Planck's noise (from references) from the received

CBR. He does so by amplifying the differences between Planck's noise and the CBR, and the

difference is amplified and "read" using a "Dicke's bolometer". This allowed to see anisotropies.

 

As Dicke's assumption (and also NASA's assumption) is that CBR has the form of Planck's

radiation, everything what was done was a "self-fulfilling" prophecy, so it's fallacious.

 

And, as I suspected, everything around COBE, WMAP and PLANCK's satellites and the results

for the detailed measurement ARE WRONG, FALSIFIED.

 

Every time this kind of measurements were performed, on Earth or in outer space, there was a

prior assumption that it SHOULD FOLLOW Planck's radiation.

 

After all, the genial Planck provided the only available formulae to predict radiation spectra of a

black body cavity as a function of frequency and absolute temperature. Science HAS NOT any

other alternative than using this theory, even when Planck would disapprove it, because it's a

violation of the Kirchoff's theorem, which driven the search for an answer for the second half

of the XIX century among thermo-electro-dynamicists.

 

Sad, but true: The basis for the Big Bang Theory ARE FALSIFIED. And everyone has to shut up.

 

Dicke%2BBolometer.jpg


Edited by rhertz, 05 June 2019 - 08:09 AM.


#139 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2576 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 09:38 AM

After a long thread questioning why Planck's formula for Black Body Cavity Radiation was

being used to describe the Cosmic Background Radiation, this post is the final in this journey.

 

The next figure represents the instrumentation used at COBE's FIRAS to measure the CBR.

 

I've been researching about the kind of instrumentation used on-board at COBE satellite, and

all remits to the 1946 R. Dicke's paper where he proposed to mix and substract Planck's noise

from CBR, by using a switching amplifier plus a mixer plus a "Dicke bolometer". He patented it.

 

In few words, his instrumentation substracts Planck's noise (from references) from the received

CBR. He does so by amplifying the differences between Planck's noise and the CBR, and the

difference is amplified and "read" using a "Dicke's bolometer". This allowed to see anisotropies.

 

As Dicke's assumption (and also NASA's assumption) is that CBR has the form of Planck's

radiation, everything what was done was a "self-fulfilling" prophecy, so it's fallacious.

 

And, as I suspected, everything around COBE, WMAP and PLANCK's satellites and the results

for the detailed measurement ARE WRONG, FALSIFIED.

 

Every time this kind of measurements were performed, on Earth or in outer space, there was a

prior assumption that it SHOULD FOLLOW Planck's radiation.

 

After all, the genial Planck provided the only available formulae to predict radiation spectra of a

black body cavity as a function of frequency and absolute temperature. Science HAS NOT any

other alternative than using this theory, even when Planck would disapprove it, because it's a

violation of the Kirchoff's theorem, which driven the search for an answer for the second half

of the XIX century among thermo-electro-dynamicists.

 

Sad, but true: The basis for the Big Bang Theory ARE FALSIFIED. And everyone has to shut up.

 

Dicke%2BBolometer.jpg

What is Planck's "noise", please? I am not familiar with this term.



#140 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 10:19 AM

What is Planck's "noise", please? I am not familiar with this term.

 

Well, this is a misnomer but has historical roots, originated at the times of Dicke (mid '40s) trying to analyze different

possibilities for the cosmic background noise. Planck's noise is actually Planck's radiation, no more and no less. It was

compared, by then, with other "noise" sources. I quote a paragraph here, from this document (you can download it):

 

THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION
B. Winstein
Center for Cosmological Physics
The University of Chicago

Supported by the NSF

 

2.1 The Early Years

As is well known, the radiation was discovered in 1965 by A.A. Penzias and
R.W. Wilson. It was a serendipitous discovery: the scientists were not explicitly
looking for extragalactic radiation, let alone radiation of such import, but rather
were led to the unavoidable conclusion that there was an isotropic source of “noise
in their detectors coming from the cosmos.

.........................................

Initially it was thought that the radiation might be reemission of star light by
interstellar dust; this was ruled out by studies of the spectrum. Another possibility
was that it was emission from radio galaxies but this hypothesis was discarded
because it was known that there were not enough of these galaxies to reproduce
the smoothness of the radiation.

........................................

 

The concept of noise is derived from electronics, where everything that's not the

signal wanted to be amplified is considered noise. In technology (and also in science)

the concept of SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) is widely used for more than a century.

 

But the concept of SNR is easily adopted in any other discipline, beyond physics and chemistry.

As the concept is universal, it can be found in microscopy, astronomy (optical or radio), etc.


Edited by rhertz, 05 June 2019 - 10:29 AM.


#141 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 11:35 AM

The cranks keep stroking each others ego... I wonder why....( no question mark intended this is a rhetorical question).



#142 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • 1138 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 11:56 AM

I agree with dubbel this entire thread is cranky, whenever you hear the term self-fulfilling prophecy outside time travel paradoxes you know it to be crank. cranks to the left of em, cranks to the right of em.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 05 June 2019 - 11:57 AM.

  • Dubbelosix likes this

#143 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:06 PM

Crank posts should be put in the strange claims forum. I mean, I put up with the fact someone removed my thread which was largely physics related into a psychology subforum. I think its time for the forum moderators, the true forum moderators to stand up to this nonsense... Or I am leaving.



#144 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:49 PM

I agree with dubbel this entire thread is cranky, whenever you hear the term self-fulfilling prophecy outside time travel paradoxes you know it to be crank. cranks to the left of em, cranks to the right of em.

 

 

Crank posts should be put in the strange claims forum. I mean, I put up with the fact someone removed my thread which was largely physics related into a psychology subforum. I think its time for the forum moderators, the true forum moderators to stand up to this nonsense... Or I am leaving.

 

Before talking so much about crancks or not crancks, you both should learn a bit about science and technology.

 

And regarding electromagnetism, as far as I could observe in the last couple of months, I'm the professional expert here in such a field,

with a career built around it for more than 43 years, when I started working at military research's facilities, even before becoming an engineer,

in the field of radar target tracking for ARAAM missiles. A proffesor of mine recommended me for such a job as junior researcher, even 2 years before I graduated in a six years career, and I was selected among 40 postulants. Since then, for the next decade and before switching to other field, I also conceived and designed for me (in my own time) several transceivers and antennae up to 2.5 Ghz.

 

When I post, I do about things at which I'm familiar with, and electromagnetism is one of them.

 

You have to learn to discern CRITICISM from CRANKISM. I always try to post serious references, like the ones connecting Dicke's theories with

relationships between CBR and BBT.

 

But, I'm afraid, such a thing is beyond your capabilities to understand the current state of affairs and the history behind it. It takes to have

learnt a vast amount of information and accumulate experience in order to navigate in such a complex and many times contradictory territory.

 

When any of you post something, due in the proper scientific way: cite valid references and EXPLAIN them (if you both can).

 

And for Dubbelosix, I can't say nothing against you and your comments. I am inhibited to do so, for moral reasons.


Edited by rhertz, 05 June 2019 - 12:51 PM.


#145 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 01:04 PM

Crank posts should be put in the strange claims forum. I mean, I put up with the fact someone removed my thread which was largely physics related into a psychology subforum. I think its time for the forum moderators, the true forum moderators to stand up to this nonsense... Or I am leaving.

 

Dubbelosix, I wanted you to know that I'm putting you in my Ignore List once I finish this post.

 

I don't want to trigger you or hurt in anyway your feelings, so I consider that this is the best thing to do.

 

First time ever that I use this feature.


  • exchemist likes this

#146 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 05:03 PM

Dubbelosix, I wanted you to know that I'm putting you in my Ignore List once I finish this post.

 

I don't want to trigger you or hurt in anyway your feelings, so I consider that this is the best thing to do.

 

First time ever that I use this feature.

 

The audacity to repeat such a claim in two different posts, shows me you are nothing but an attention seeker, but I hold by my word... either the thread is removed or closed in a few days time, or I leave.