Is the CMBR Truly Uniform?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 81+
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cmbr
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) and the potential effects of scattering on its observed patterns. While some argue that CMB photons may be altered by collisions with gas and dust, leading to a less uniform appearance, others maintain that the detected CMB is largely pristine, reflecting conditions from the time of last scattering. The observed temperature variations in the CMB, approximately one part in 100,000, suggest that significant scattering has not occurred, as this would blur the fine details. There is speculation that future advancements in observational technology may reveal more subtle variations that current instruments cannot detect. Overall, the debate highlights the complexity of interpreting the CMBR and the ongoing quest for deeper understanding in cosmology.
81+
Messages
34
Reaction score
1
In a recent article in ScienceNews, Ron Cowen states:

(quote) Hidden in the peaks and valleys imprinted on the cosmic microwave background — the radiation leftover from the Big Bang — is a wealth of information not only about the early universe but the distribution of matter throughout the cosmos. (endquote)

The CMB photons (on their way to Earth) must collide with many, many particles of gas, dust, etc. which must change their direction of travel a little bit from each collision. I would think that by the time they reach us, they are quite a bit out-of-line with the spot on the CMB from which they started. In other words, they are being scattered like a piece of sand-blasted plate glass diffuses to a flashlight beam.

Is it possible that the CMBR is not nearly as uniform as it appears to us here on Earth?

Frank
 
Space news on Phys.org
81+ said:
In a recent article in ScienceNews, Ron Cowen states:

(quote) Hidden in the peaks and valleys imprinted on the cosmic microwave background — the radiation leftover from the Big Bang — is a wealth of information not only about the early universe but the distribution of matter throughout the cosmos. (endquote)

For definiteness, the peaks and valleys he's talking about represent variation by one part in 100,000. If I remember right the variation rms is about 18 microkelvin and the average is about 2.7 kelvin. That's less than one part in a hundred thousand.

AFAIK the CMB photons that we detect have not collided with dust to any significant extent, or been scattered by gas molecules. It is reasonable to suppose that there has been some attrition, but my understanding is that what we detect is pretty much pristine radiation from the time of last scattering.

The CMB photons (on their way to Earth) must collide with many, many particles of gas, dust, etc. which must change their direction of travel a little bit from each collision. I would think that by the time they reach us, they are quite a bit out-of-line with the spot on the CMB from which they started. In other words, they are being scattered like a piece of sand-blasted plate glass diffuses to a flashlight beam.

Is it possible that the CMBR is not nearly as uniform as it appears to us here on Earth?

That's a good physical analogy. Indeed if a large percentage of the CMB photons were getting randomly scattered en route to us that would wash out patterns of temperature variation and make the map much more uniform.

My understanding is that this is not happening to any significant extent, but I could be wrong and I'd be glad to be corrected if that is the case.

=========================

Frank, I'll hazard a guess as to how we can be sure.
We see a lot of fine speckling in the temperature map that just wouldn't be there if most of the photons were being knocked out of line.
Technically there is a level power distribution---as much amplitude in the small angle variation as there is in the large angle variation----as much variation in the little speckles as there is in the large splotches.

If your cloudy glass blurring business was happening, then the little speckles would take a hit, I should think.

The case is not air-tight, but that's an attempt at an argument. the other thing is, astronomers keep getting better instruments and there may come a time when the instrument resolution is high enough to pick up speckles a tenth the size of what we map now and they may see that they DO take a hit. There may be some blurring effect, like what you imagine, but we just haven't seen it because we haven't looked with a big enough magnifying glass.
 
marcus said:
For definiteness, the peaks and valleys he's talking about represent variation by one part in 100,000. If I remember right the variation rms is about 18 microkelvin and the average is about 2.7 kelvin. That's less than one part in a hundred thousand.

A variation of one part in 100,000 is what we see now with our present equipment. My point is that the variation in the CMB could be much more than this, maybe tens times as much, because of photon scattering on the way here.

marcus said:
AFAIK the CMB photons that we detect have not collided with dust to any significant extent, or been scattered by gas molecules. It is reasonable to suppose that there has been some attrition, but my understanding is that what we detect is pretty much pristine radiation from the time of last scattering.

How do we know that there have not been significant collisions of photons with particles? There must be a lot of stuff in space between here and there.

marcus said:
We see a lot of fine speckling in the temperature map that just wouldn't be there if most of the photons were being knocked out of line.

The fine speckling we see could be fine because of scattering. If there were no scattering, what we could see might just astound us because of significant variations from place to place.

Frank
 
Look up the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect or distortion.
 
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