Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[Pluto]

G'day Buffy

Understanding the parts of the universe will unlock the origins or the ongoings of the universe and may expalin the Bang or no Bang.

I see it a giant puzzel, each piece fitted to make an image, an understanding.

Leave out one issue and the image is left standing in a shadow.

OOPs my wife came to the computer,,,,,she asks who is buffy?
I think she thinks that Cyber thing.

Smile, she is angry.

[Little Bang]

The CMBR has a relatively long wave length. Didn't it have a much higher frequency at it's beginning?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

The CMBR has a relatively long wave length. Didn't it have a much higher frequency at it's beginning?

Yes, according to expansion theories.
As the universe expands (expanded), the wavelength of the CMBR becomes longer and the frequency becomes lower.

[Little Bang]

Then doesn't that mean the light from a galaxy 13 billion light years away will also be red shifted?

[Pluto]

G'day

Little bang said

Then doesn't that mean the light from a galaxy 13 billion light years away will also be red shifted?

I agree with you.

Lets assume that the origin of CMBR has evolved from similar mechanisms as the BBT model.

What than?

This is interesting

[0806.1742] Impact of Point Source Clustering on Cosmological Parameters with CMB Anisotropies
Impact of Point Source Clustering on Cosmological Parameters with CMB Anisotropies

Authors: Paolo Serra, Asantha Cooray, Alexandre Amblard, Luca Pagano, Alessandro Melchiorri
(Submitted on 10 Jun 2008)

Abstract: The faint radio point sources that are unresolved in cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy maps are likely to be a biased tracer of the large-scale structure dark matter distribution. While the shot-noise contribution to the angular power spectrum of unresolved radio point sources is included either when optimally constructing the CMB angular power spectrum, as with WMAP data, or when extracting cosmological parameters, we suggest that clustering part of the point source power spectrum should also be included. This is especially necessary at high frequencies above 150 GHz, where the clustering of far-IR sources is expected to dominate the shot-noise level of the angular power spectrum at tens of arcminute angular scales of both radio and sub-mm sources. We make an estimate of source clustering of unresolved radio sources in both WMAP and ACBAR, and marginalize over the amplitude of source clustering in each CMB data set when model fitting for cosmological parameters. For the combination of WMAP 5-year data and ACBAR, we find that the spectral index changes from the value of $0.963 \pm 0.014$ to $0.959 \pm 0.014$ (at 68% c.l.) when the clustering power spectrum of point sources is included in model fits. While we find that the differences are marginal with and without source clustering in current data, it may be necessary to account for source clustering with future datasets such as Planck, especially to properly model fit anisotropies at arcminute angular scales. If clustering is not accounted and point sources are modeled with a shot-noise only out to $l \sim 2000$, the spectral index will be biased by about 1.5$\sigma$.

[Little Bang]

If their light is red shifted because of the expansion why doesn't that suggest we may be wrong about their actual distance from us?

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

If their light is red shifted because of the expansion why doesn't that suggest we may be wrong about their actual distance from us?

For very distance objects, the only way we have of inferring distance is redshift. Relativistic effects (doppler+expansion) are built into the models we use to discern distance.
-Will

[Pluto]

G'day

Erasmus said

For very distance objects, the only way we have of inferring distance is redshift. Relativistic effects (doppler+expansion) are built into the models we use to discern distance.
-Will

The question that always pops up is this.

Do we have enough information on the intrinsic properties to create a model that is accurate to + or - 5 %?

If we assume that we do than all our data would depend on that assumption.

The reaon why I question this is because the redshift data places Earth at the centre. This tells me of a common error.

History repeats itself through history placing Earth at the centre of the Universe.

[Pluto]

G'day

OOPs forgot this link

New window on the high-energy universe
Science News / New Window On The High-energy Universe

VANCOUVER, Canada — Curtain up! Light the lights! In its first four months of monitoring the heavens from orbit, NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope has unveiled the activity of celestial objects that emit powerful gamma rays — photons that pack 20 million to more than 300 billion times the energy of visible light. The orbiting observatory features the first detectors in space capable of recording the most energetic of these photons.

The time delay between the onset of high- and low-energy emissions — which amounted to five seconds in a burst discovered on September 19 and dubbed GRB 080916C — suggests that the high-energy gamma rays from bursts might be produced at a different place or by different particles than the lower-energy radiation, says Bouvier.

This has been known for the last 20 years if not more.

This is the intrinsic property that may effect the data via redshift.

Hey! I could be wrong.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

Then doesn't that mean the light from a galaxy 13 billion light years away will also be red shifted?

Yes, the most distant observed objects have very high redshifts. The oldest undisputed observation of a galaxy is the 4/2006 one of IOK-1, redshift z=6.96, distance about 12.88 billion light years. At this redshift, typical (about , ) visible light is shifted () into the infrared (about , ).

This wikipedia article section, which appears to be at least within a few years of up-to-date, has a summary of similar high redshift objects.

Because they emit light in the usual way – by the emission from electrons of hot gas primarily from the photospheres of stars – galaxies and other astronomical objects don’t have the nearly pure black body spectrum of the CMBR, which is theorized to have been released at the “moment” of recombination that the electrons and protons of formerly ionized opaque plasma of the young universe became non-ionized transparent hot gas.