Is the Cosmic Microwave Background a Picture of the Universe's Past?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter electerr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cmb Picture
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and whether it accurately represents the state of the universe at the time of recombination or if it is altered by subsequent effects such as redshift and density fluctuations. Participants explore the implications of these factors on the interpretation of CMB data from missions like COBE and WMAP.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the CMB observed today is not the same as it was at recombination due to redshifting and that the fluctuations appear more pronounced now than in the past.
  • Another participant argues that the CMB provides a density fluctuation map as it was at last scattering, comparing it to taking photos in different wavelengths.
  • A participant questions whether the smoother universe in the past would affect the appearance of the CMB, seeking confirmation on this point.
  • In response, it is noted that while normal and dark matter cluster, light travels freely after the universe became transparent, although this is described as an approximation.
  • Several effects are mentioned that could influence the CMB, including interactions with galaxy clusters, the presence of diffuse plasma, and gravitational effects from dark energy, all of which are said to be small but significant in understanding CMB data.
  • Another participant acknowledges that the universe was clumpier in the past, raising concerns about perception in interpreting the CMB.
  • One participant concludes that the CMB is indeed a picture of the past, with the primary difference being the wavelength, expressing gratitude for the clarification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of redshift and density fluctuations on the CMB's representation of the universe's past. While some agree on certain aspects, there is no consensus on the overall interpretation of the CMB data and its implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that various effects, such as the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect and gravitational lensing, may influence the CMB observations, but these effects are described as small and potentially undetectable at current data levels. The discussion highlights the complexity of interpreting CMB data and the need for careful consideration of these factors.

electerr
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Hi,
Am I right when I say that the cosmic microwave background is a picture of the radiation left from recombination but that the picture (from COBE or WMAP) that we see today is not exactly the same as it was then due to the redshifting of the radiation particles. The flucuations that we see today are also more apparent now than they have been in the past since the universe was smoother at earlier times. So the pictures we get today from COBE or WMAP are pictures of the CMB NOW not as it was 300,000yrs after the big bang. I think it is really confusing that it is sometimes said that the CMB is a representation of the universe as it was at the time of recombination. Am I on the right track or have I totally misunderstood? A big thanks for anyone who can set me straight!
 
Space news on Phys.org
I think that apart from the wavelength that differs due to redshift, the CMB that is observed today gives the density fluctuation map as it was at last scattering - about 1 part in 10^5. It's a bit like taking a photo of the same person in UV and in IR - it looks different, but the features are the same...
 
Thanks for your reply Jorrie!

Can anyone confirm this?

I thought that the universe was smoother in the past, wouldn't these changes in the density affect the way the CMB looks?

Thanks again!
 
electerr said:
Can anyone confirm this?
Yes.

electerr said:
I thought that the universe was smoother in the past, wouldn't these changes in the density affect the way the CMB looks?
Normal matter and dark matter cluster. Light does not. When the universe became transparent after the emission of the CMB, the light basically just traveled freely.

Now, it is worth mentioning that this is only an approximation (that of light traveling freely), but it is a very good one. After all, the rest of the universe besides the lights from the CMB do interact with it to a degree. Sometimes the light goes through a galaxy cluster, for instance, and interacts with the gas cloud there (the Sunyaev Zel'dovich effect). There's also a very thin, diffuse plasma that fills the entire universe since the epoch of reionization (when the first stars turned on, they re-ionized the interstellar gas). This slightly dims the CMB over the entire sky. There's also the effect of dark energy which causes gravitational potentials to change with time from the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe Effect (when a photon enters a gravitational well it blueshifts slightly, but by the time it starts to get out of the well the well has shallowed slightly and so it redshifts a bit less than the blueshift upon entering...this causes a slight brightening of the CMB at large distance scales). There's also the fact that massive structures around the universe lens the light from the CMB, which causes light that would have arrived at one angle to arrive from another.

All of these effects are known, of course, and are small enough to be nearly undetectable at the level of the current full-sky CMB data from WMAP. But they are significant systematics that we need to take into account to understand the next-generation CMB satellite, Planck.
 
As chalnoth noted, the universe [radiation wise] was clumpier in the past, as we perceive it. But, perception may be an issue.
 
Ok, so it is actually a picture of the past with the only difference being the wavelength. Great, now I know... Thanks for the help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
13K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K