Evidence of Cosmic Backround Radiation cooling

AI Thread Summary
Experiments confirm that Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) is cooling over time, consistent with predictions from General Relativity. The ratios of helium to deuterium provide evidence of this cooling, reflecting the gravitational effects of radiation shortly after the Big Bang. Multiple studies support the idea that the universe was indeed cooler in the past, aligning with the expectations of an expanding universe. Notable findings are detailed in specific research articles, although one link was reported broken. Overall, the evidence reinforces the understanding of CBR's cooling trend in the context of cosmic evolution.
Bill Minerick
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
What experiments have been conducted to confirm that the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) is indeed cooling over time and at any specified rate? The time requirement for obtaining separate points for measuring change seems preclusive.
 
Space news on Phys.org
If it hadn't been cooling over time, then we would be detecting it now in the sky as visible light rather than microwaves.

Ratios of helium to deuterium are also sensitive to the gravitational effects of radiation in the early, radiation-dominated universe (minutes or hours after the big bang). These ratios are consistent with the rate of cooling predicted by GR:
Steigman, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 463.
 
Evidence the universe was cooler in the past, which is precisely what is expected in an expanding universe, has been confirmed several ways. One of the more compelling cases is reported in http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3164, and http://www.das.uchile.cl/das_ingles/...asurements.php .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chronos said:
Evidence the universe was cooler in the past, which is precisely what is expected in an expanding universe, has been confirmed several ways. One of the more compelling cases is reported in http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3164, and http://www.das.uchile.cl/das_ingles/...asurements.php .

Cool! The second link is broken, through.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chronos said:
Evidence the universe was cooler in the past, which is precisely what is expected in an expanding universe, has been confirmed several ways. One of the more compelling cases is reported in http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3164, and http://www.das.uchile.cl/das_ingles/...asurements.php .

Don't you mean 'hotter in the past'?
TCMB(z)=(2.725+/-0.002) \times (1+z)^{(1-beta)}K with beta=-0.007+/-0.027
I'm doing that all the time!

Garth
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep, another bout of dyslexia. trying to fix link to second article http://www.das.uchile.cl/das_ingles/new_temp_measurements.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
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