What is the Max Wavelength of CMB Radiation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the maximum wavelength of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, specifically the confusion surrounding a textbook statement that cites a maximum intensity wavelength of 1.1 cm for a temperature of 2.7K. A user calculated the maximum wavelength using the energy-temperature relationship and derived approximately 1 mm, leading to doubts about the textbook's accuracy. Another participant clarified that using Wien's displacement law, which includes a factor of 5, confirms the maximum wavelength as 1 mm. The conversation concludes with agreement on the correct application of Wien's law for determining the exact wavelength. The accurate maximum wavelength for CMB radiation at 2.7K is thus established as approximately 1 mm.
Magma828
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
I'm doing OCR A-Level Physics, and in my textbook it states "They (Penzias and Wilson) made a calculation to find the temperature of the source of the radio waves, which had a maximum intensity at wavelength 1.1 cm, and found it to be 2.7K".

This was all good and well, until I answered a question in the book which asked me to find the max wavelength of a body with temperature 2.7K using given data for other temperatures, and it came out as roughly 1mm not 1cm. The book has no answer to the question, so now I'm confused as to what the actual value is for the wavelength of the CMB radiation at it's maximum intensity.

I double checked my workings over and over, and I'm sure I've done it correctly. Either the data they gave in the question is wrong, or their original statement of the wavelength is wrong...
 
Space news on Phys.org
If we use the rough energy/temperature relationship:

E \approx k_B T

And we know the energy of a photon is related to wavelength as so:

E=\frac{h c} {\lambda}

Then combining these two formula we get:

\lambda \approx \frac{h c} {k_B T}

Plugging in for T=2.7K

That gives us \lambda \approx 5.27 \times 10^{-3} meters.

Which is is millimeters and not centimeters.

So it looks like your notes were incorrect and your working out was right :-)

Hope this helps.
 
Disagree with the above.

Wien's displacement law is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law)

\lambda_{\textnormal{max}} \approx \frac{hc}{5kT}

If you include this factor of 5, then you get 10^-3 m for \lambda[/itex, or 1mm.
 
I purposely indicated that mine was a rough calculation only.

I agree that for the exact wavelength then Wien's law is the correct one to use.
 
Ahh okay thanks a lot guys! :D
 
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##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top