cosmic microwave background, Before Big Bang
cosmic microwave background, Before Big Bang
Plank, the cosmic microwave background
Plank, the cosmic microwave background and Électronisme
Comments on CNRS Press release (‘Plank shades new lights on the “Big Bang”’), published in many scientific and general information newspapers. In March 2013
The text of the CNRS is in blue, my comments are in black
‘After fifteen months of observation, the European Space Agency (ESA)'s spacecraft Planck, launched in 2009 to observe the cosmic microwave background (the relic radiation from the Big Bang), has delivered its first results. The wealth of information they provide about the history and composition of the universe includes in particular: the most accurate map of the fossil cosmic microwave background ever obtained;....’ What is a microwave or radiation background? In this case it would be a background of microwave or of electromagnetic radiation which is defined as follows by Wikipedia . " Electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) is a form of energy emitted and absorbed by charged particles which exhibits wave-like behaviour as it travels through space. EMR has both electric and magnetic field components, which stand in a fixed ratio of intensity to each other...’
How do we know it's fossil?
A fossil exists, here and now, materially and currently as a whole or a part of an ancient object that was stored under special conditions during extremely long periods.
If the radiation is fossil, It still exists, being observable as it it was at the time of its actual existence, an existence that it would not have anymore.
In this case it could be observed and its age would be given to us by the redshift which is a "measurable" reduction of the observed object. It is a difficult examination because of the use, their extreme limits, of current observation devices. This should also limit the examination to the millionth of a degree of this radiation.
It might not be fossil and Planck observatory would bring the current variations of energy in the whole space of the universe entirely in connection with the recent observations, in particular the WHIM , which would be a visible part of the beginning creating nebulae and other objects.
‘...[it provides] evidence of an effect predicted by inflationary models; a lower value for the expansion rate of the universe; and a new estimate of its composition. Much of this data was collected by Planck's main instrument, HFI, which was designed and assembled under the supervision of the Institut d’Astrophysique Spatiale (CNRS/Université Paris-Sud) with funding from CNES and CNRS.
Ever since it was discovered in 1965, the cosmic microwave background has been an invaluable source of knowledge for cosmologists, a kind of Rosetta Stone enabling them to unravel the history of the universe since the Big Bang....’
So there would be a pre - Big Bang?
‘...This sea of photons, which can be detected over the whole sky at radio wavelengths, is evidence of the state of the very early universe and shows the first traces of the large-scale structures that subsequently developed....’
How can there be "traces" of large structures that will only appear later? Traces are always the remains of something, so they can not exist before that something.
Unless records taken by the observatory were to refer, as noted in a comment above, to "spots " of energy corresponding to the creation of WHIM and other preparations of new space objects .
‘...Produced 380 000 years after the Big Bang, at the time when the first atoms formed, this relic radiation reaches us almost unchanged, providing scientists with an image of what the universe looked like at its birth around 13.8 billion years ago. Comparing these measurements with theoretical models provides a wealth of information, not only about the evolution of the universe since the appearance of the cosmic microwave background, but also about the earlier events that led up to it and are little known to astrophysicists....’
All this is incomprehensible. Why 380,000 years ?
Why 13.8 billion years ?
Hasn’t this figure been established according to the distance at which we can see the most distant galaxies with our current observation equipment? New radio telescopes, especially those of ALMA in Chile are expected to allow us to see much further away, in light years, which could lead astrophysicists to propose more ancient dates for the creation of remote galaxies. More or much more than 13.8 billion years ... Currently, in September 2013, we have already discovered some of these older galaxies and no one (to our knowledge) has decided where to classify these structures of space older than the Big Bang.
‘The image is a map of the temperature of the fossil cosmic microwave background of over the whole sky , produced by the Planck collaboration from data collected by the instruments HFI and LFI of the satellite . The colour scale has an approximation of a millionth of a degree : it is a deviation from the average temperature of 270 425 as measured by the COBE satellite in 1992.’
How do we know that the COBE satellite measured the fossil cosmic background radiation? Set without any particular purpose, this device could only register the current temperature of different areas of space, wherever the objective happened to fix on a particularity in its surroundings.
And how accurate! : an approximation of one millionth of a degree, for information that comes to us from 13,799,620,000 light-years ( approximately )
What does one see at this distance ? Changes in the number or quality of photons ? What is the origin of these photons and how are they varied and different from each other, to indicate these variations ?
‘This is one of the windows opened up by the Planck mission into the primordial universe. Launched in 2009, the ESA spacecraft has been mapping the cosmic microwave background over the whole sky for the past year and a half.
Planck has two instruments, one of which, the High Frequency Instrument (HFI), was designed and assembled under the supervision of the Institut d’Astrophysique Spatiale (CNRS/Université Paris-Sud) with funding from CNES and CNRS. The instruments made it possible to measure the variations in light intensity of the primordial universe with unprecedented sensitivity,...’
The light intensity " is a measure of brightness perceived by the human eye of a point source of light " ...
‘..., further refining earlier observations by the COBE and WMAP space missions, launched in 1990 and 1998 respectively. These variations in light intensity (which appear in the form of patches of varying brightness) are in fact the imprint of the seeds of the large-scale structures in today's universe. They correspond to the regions where matter subsequently clumped together and then collapsed in on itself, giving birth to stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters.’
(Text emboldened by me). We can not comment because these statements are incomprehensible (to me at least): the mass or matter existed then, having given birth to stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies, with its gravitational pull as it was able to "collapse on itself" ...
According to some theories, the origin of these 'lumps' or fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background is to be found in 'inflation', an event that occurred earlier in the universe's history. During this extremely violent episode, which is thought to have taken place 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang, the universe underwent a sudden expansion phase, increasing in size by a huge factor of at least 1026.’
So there was something and it grew sharply. The valuesof time and speed did not matter, it would be the real beginning of the universe, developing from something that would have existed before and would have turned into a fossil radiation fluctuation.
‘Planck has demonstrated the validity of one of the key predictions of inflationary theories, namely that the light intensity of 'large-scale fluctuations' should be slightly greater than that of 'small-scale fluctuations'’.
Again, we can not keep up. Planck's constant is based on the energy and frequency of photons, two elements both of which have neither a real basis nor a specific value ... But all this is quantum mechanics and it has never explained the formation of matter that could elucidate the formation of the universe .
‘However, at bigger scales, the observed intensity is 10% lower than that predicted by inflation, an enigma that no theory is yet able to explain. Planck's findings also confirm with a high degree of certainty the existence of other previously observed anomalies, such as an unexplained asymmetry in average temperatures observed on opposite hemispheres of the sky, and the existence of a cold spot.[...]
Other findings include:
1- Confirmation that the universe is flat.’
What is the flatness of the universe? What is anyhow its thickness, in which is located our observable part? We can not enter into discussions regarding the philosophical existence of the universe. How can we determine its flatness or other shape when we do not know if it has a specific shape, even if we accept that there would be nothing around it. But how could we possibly know any of this?
2- A lower value for the Hubble constant, and therefore for the expansion rate of the universe.
The Hubble constant does not exist. After his first observations he had established a constant of the movement of galaxies, but its value having had to been changed many times, has been abandoned.
3 - A new estimate of the composition of the universe, on the sole basis of the cosmic microwave background:
69.4% dark energy (compared to the earlier estimate of 72.8%), 25.8% dark matter (previously 23%), and 4.8% ordinary matter (previously 4.3%).
Don’t these physicists sound really clever?
4 - Invaluable new maps that refine the scenario of the history of the universe and improve understanding of the physics governing its evolution. These maps show how dark matter and ordinary matter are distributed across the sky. The diffuse infrared background radiation corresponds to the light emitted by the dust in all the galaxies over the past ten billion years, ...’
Why would dust, if it exists, emit light ? We can not talk of dust for space objects. All dusts, even the dust on my bookshelves, are all different from each other and they all consist of very specific elements .
‘...making it possible to identify the regions where objects made of ordinary matter are concentrated.
5 - An initial analysis of the cosmological signal polarisation (?), which shows that Planck results are remarkably consistent with data about the intensity of the cosmological microwave background at scales corresponding to future galaxy clusters. A more detailed analysis will be provided in 2014, together with other findings from the Planck mission.
The contribution of French research to the Planck mission...‘
Would this be by any chance the main item of information?
France is responsible for the Planck-HFI High Frequency Instrument, which has played a key role in the cosmological findings. It cost €140 million to build, involving 80 researchers from ten CNRS, CEA and university laboratories, as well as a large number of engineers and technicians. France contributed more than 50% towards its construction and the processing of its data. Half this funding was provided by CNES, the other half by CNRS and the universities. France also participates in the funding of the mission itself through its financial contribution to ESA's scientific program, representing 15% of the cost of the mission.
An essential French contribution to the Planck project was the supply of the cooling system keeping the HFI instrument at a temperature of 0.1 degrees above absolute zero. Patented by CNES, the system was invented by Alain Benoît (CNRS) from the Institut Néel (earning him the 2012 CNRS Medal of Innovation) and developed by Air Liquide. Thanks to this innovation, the HFI camera holds the record as the coldest-ever space instrument, with a cryostat that was cooled to -273,05°C for around a thousand days.
The scientific results are mostly processed by CNRS, and in particular Jean-Loup Puget (at IAS), HFI Principal Investigator, and François Bouchet (IAP), Co-Principal Investigator.
All this study seems uniquely a cosmology study.
Cosmology, which studies the universe as a physical system can only be considered scientific if it is based on hypothesis and theories that are themselves scientific. This is not currently the case for the theory of the Big Bang and the hypothesis that lead to the standard model of particle interactions.
Deviations towards philosophy or religion are common and can be very interesting, but have nothing to do with science.
This study is further evidence of this, because its claims are neither controllable nor debatable. One can simply believe it.
Or not believe it.
© PhD 24,09,2 013
vendredi 4 octobre 2013