Does Dust Scattering Alter the Cosmic Background Radiation Spectrum at z < 100?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hellfire
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Scattering
AI Thread Summary
Dust scattering at redshifts z < 100 may have influenced the cosmic background radiation spectrum, as analyzed in Peebles' "Principles of Physical Cosmology." However, observations indicate that any changes in the spectrum due to dust scattering are negligible. The conclusions suggest that the impact of dust on the radiation spectrum is highly dependent on the cosmological model used for structure formation. The discussion highlights a need for further exploration and references on this topic. Overall, the relationship between dust scattering and cosmic background radiation remains a complex and nuanced issue in cosmology.
hellfire
Science Advisor
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
1
I was reading section 24 of Peebles "Principles of Physical Cosmology" where he analizes the impact of scattering by dust at redshifts z < 100 on the cosmic background radiation for an Einstein-deSitter universe. I was disappointed to find out that at the end of the subsection he concludes that this scattering may have changed the spectrum of the radiation, but that it obviously did not according to observations. I would have expected to have found a prediction that dust did actually not change the spectrum at high redshifts, or that such an effect did not leave an imprint in the spectrum greater than the scale of the current anisotropies. However, it seems to me that he is claiming that this depends strongly on the considered cosmological model for structure formation (see conclusions on page 597 after equation 24.95). Some discussion or some references on this would be welcome.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
Sorry for bringing up this old topic again. But I came again across Peebles section about the CBR and was wondering again about this topic. May be someone could give some hint now?
 
Abstract The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) has significantly advanced our ability to study black holes, achieving unprecedented spatial resolution and revealing horizon-scale structures. Notably, these observations feature a distinctive dark shadow—primarily arising from faint jet emissions—surrounded by a bright photon ring. Anticipated upgrades of the EHT promise substantial improvements in dynamic range, enabling deeper exploration of low-background regions, particularly the inner shadow...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Title: Can something exist without a cause? If the universe has a cause, what caused that cause? Post Content: Many theories suggest that everything must have a cause, but if that's true, then what caused the first cause? Does something need a cause to exist, or is it possible for existence to be uncaused? I’m exploring this from both a scientific and philosophical perspective and would love to hear insights from physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Are there any theories that explain this?
Back
Top