B History of CMB, prediction of 1 in 100,000?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter windy miller
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Microwave
AI Thread Summary
Variations in the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) are measured at 1 part in 100,000, first detected by COBE. Robert Dicke played a crucial role in predicting the existence of the CMB while developing radar technology in the mid-20th century, and his group confirmed the discovery after Penzias and Wilson's accidental detection. Dicke's collaboration with Jim Peebles led to a re-derivation of the CMB prediction, moving early universe theories from speculation to empirical science. Steven Weinberg's research on thermal variations in the CMB, based on Brans-Dicke theory, has been referenced but lacks a specific predictive claim. The discussion highlights the evolution of CMB understanding and the contributions of key physicists in the field.
windy miller
Messages
306
Reaction score
28
Variations in the tamperatureo of the CMB are 1 part in 100,00. My understanding is that this was first measured by COBE, But was this value predicted?
What were the ranges of estimates for its value before it was measured?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Robert Dicke predicted the CMB while developing radar receivers beginning in the 1940s into 1960s. Dicke strongly encouraged the working group at Bell Labs who first detected the CMB radiation on the Homdel horn antenna. Dicke's Princeton research group verified the discovery and documented the second CMB detection using a super-cooled receiver of his design.

In the early 1960s, work on Brans–Dicke theory led Dicke to think about the early Universe, and with Jim Peebles he re-derived the prediction of a cosmic microwave background (having allegedly forgotten the earlier prediction of George Gamow and co-workers). Dicke, with David Todd Wilkinson and Peter G. Roll, immediately began building a Dicke radiometer to search for the radiation.

They were preceded by the accidental detection made by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson (also using a Dicke radiometer), who were working at Bell Labs near Princeton.[11][12] Nevertheless, Dicke's group made the second clean detection, and their theoretical interpretation of Penzias and Wilson's results showed that theories of the early universe had moved from pure speculation into well-tested physics.[13][14]

I read a paper by Steven Weinberg (IMS) describing expected thermal variations in CMBr based on Brans-Dicke theory confirmed by COBE measurements. I would like to say Weinberg predicted 10-5 anisotropies but need to locate the relevant texts and publication dates. George Gamov likely maintains precedence, as the above excerpt describes.
 
Last edited:
Let me know if you find it thanks.
 
windy miller said:
Let me know if you find it thanks.
No, I did find revisions to his cosmology primer "First Three Minutes" that include CMBr (rev 3) and significance of anisotropies (rev 6 ), not a peer reviewed pub but in the OP period of interest.

Weinberg published numerous cosmology papers on the topic but not specifically "predictive".
From early this century:
astro-ph gr-qc hep-th
A No-Truncation Approach to Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies​
Authors: Steven Weinberg
Abstract: We offer a method of calculating the source term in the line-of-sight integral for cosmic microwave background anisotropies without using a truncated partial-wave expansion in the Boltzmann hierarchy.​
 
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