Does CMBR Cooling Mirror Black Body Radiation Processes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nonspace
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cmbr Implicit
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the cooling processes of black body radiation and whether the wavelength distribution of radiation cooling from 3000K to 2.7K is identical to that of a 2.7K black body. Two cases are proposed: one involving thermal equilibrium and the other considering adiabatic expansion and redshift. The conversation raises questions about the validity of equating these two cases and whether laboratory experiments can simulate the expansion of space to test these theories. Additionally, the implications of cosmological redshift on radiation density and temperature are explored, emphasizing the need for experimental validation. The discussion concludes with a call for further investigation into these phenomena in a laboratory setting.
nonspace
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello,
I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.

[ Implicit assumption of CMBR? ]

It is not certain whether this kind of experiment has already been conducted. Still, it need be tested whether the wavelength distribution of 3000k radiation cooling down to 2.7K is completely identical to that of the radiation from a 2.7K black body.

Case-1
3000K black body -->cooling down black body -->2.7K black body --> 2.7K radiation
(thermal equilibrium state?) -------------------> (thermal equilibrium state?)

Case-2
3000K black body --> 3000K radiation --> cooling down radiation(2.7K)
(thermal equilibrium state?) ------------> (adiabatic expansion and redshifted?)

Can we completely trust that case-1 is equal to case-2?


For the experiment, 600K~1200K radiation needs cooling down to 300K or so, and the resulting values need be compared with those of radiation from the black body has a 300K.
 

Attachments

  • Black_body_svg-jp.jpg
    Black_body_svg-jp.jpg
    27 KB · Views: 593
  • 600px-Cmbr_svg -cobe-jp.jpg
    600px-Cmbr_svg -cobe-jp.jpg
    18.4 KB · Views: 567
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
I(\nu,T)=\frac{2h\nu^3}{c^2}\frac{1}{e^{h\nu/(kT)}-1}

A red-shift with factor z now changes ##\nu \to \frac{\nu}{z}## and ##I \to \frac{I}{z^3}## (as space is 3-dimensional) and we want to test if this can be explained with ##T \to \frac{T}{z}##

Well, simply look at the equation: If you divide ##\nu## and T by z, the expression in the exponential stays the same, and both the first fraction and I scale get divided by z^3.
 
mfb said:
I(\nu,T)=\frac{2h\nu^3}{c^2}\frac{1}{e^{h\nu/(kT)}-1}

A red-shift with factor z now changes ##\nu \to \frac{\nu}{z}## and ##I \to \frac{I}{z^3}## (as space is 3-dimensional) and we want to test if this can be explained with ##T \to \frac{T}{z}##

Well, simply look at the equation: If you divide ##\nu## and T by z, the expression in the exponential stays the same, and both the first fraction and I scale get divided by z^3.
Thank you very much!
In the density equation of radiation,
{R^{3(1 + {w_{rad}})}}{u_{rad}} = {R^4}{u_{rad}} = {u_{rad,0}} = a{T_0}^4
It is estimated that R^3 was formed due to the volume of the universe increase, and that the rest R^1 was generated because of photon's cosmological redshift(by expanding space). Thus, we can derive a formula, RT = T0.

For \frac{\nu }{T} \Rightarrow \frac{\nu }{T} valid on, RT = {T_0} should be valid.

If space does not expand, our conjecture(case-1 = case-2) is not valid?
Can we test it at the laboratory?(In above sentence, "Space" does not mean the universe.)
 
Last edited:
nonspace said:
If space does not expand, our conjecture(case-1 = case-2) is not valid?
Which case 1 and 2?

Can we test it at the laboratory?(In above sentence, "Space" does not mean the universe.)
How to simulate expansion of space in the lab? There are some tests where analogies to GR are made in other setups, but that does not give a real expansion of space.
 
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##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top