Re: CMB Redshift Question (Visible Wavelengths)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) temperature and its relation to redshift (z). A participant questions the age of the universe at the emission of the CMB, suggesting it should be about 12.5 million years instead of the commonly accepted 380,000 years. They argue that if the redshift of 1100 is accurate, it implies a current age of about 420 million years, which contradicts established cosmological models. The conversation highlights the complexity of calculating redshift and its non-linear relationship with age and temperature. Ultimately, the participant believes their calculations are correct, pointing to inconsistencies in the understanding of redshift and CMB temperature.
JArnold
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
The earlier thread was closed for some reason.

It prompted this question: Given the formula for CMB temperature Tobs = Tem/(1+z) (analogous to the formula for z) it seems the age of the universe at the emission of the CMB would have been about 12.5 Myr (if 13.75 Gyr presently), not 380,000 years:

1101 = 13750/12.5

If 380,000 is correct, then for z to be 1100 the current age would have to be about 420 Myr:

1100 ~ 420/.38

I understand that calculating for z is complicated for large distances, but the same should hold for CMB. So why the inconsistency?
 
Space news on Phys.org
That thread wasn't helpful. I had specific questions, and I believe my calculations were correct. Here's another strange calculation: The spatial expansion between 13,750 Myr and .38 Myr would be 36,184 -- not 1100.
 
You'll find these numbers also in the other thread, and you'll find what they mean.
Your calculations are not correct, as redshift doesn't scale linearly with age.
 
That's fine. But if redshift doesn't scale linearly, neither does CMB "temperature", given by Tobs = Tem/(1+z) in the original thread.
 
Right. Inconsistency solved.
 
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