The Universe Is Not Cooling Down!
The Big Bang failed again, now on CMB.
CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) radiation with wavelength peak at 1.9 mm comes from everywhere, and it was presented by the mainstream as another “confirmation” for the Big Bang theory (the second “confirmation” after the Hubble Redshift as the Big Bang’s first “confirmation”). If our eye could see that wavelength range, our Universe would look like that:
CMB radiation spectrum, showing the most of the light at 1.9mm wavelength,
matches so-called “black body” radiation (that is thermal radiation of a body, which is in thermal equilibrium with the environment) at the temperature of 2.7K, which is the current temperature of the Universe (the coincidence to explain!). All what we need to know about “black body” radiation is that its wavelength peak shifts to the right and down when the body temperature decreases (and to the left and up when the body temperature increases):
Here is how CMB was explained by the mainstream:
CMB radiation was a result of the Big Bang, the temperature then was more than 3,000K, and the radiation was 1,100 times more energetic, meaning the wavelength was 1,100 times shorter. But then the Universe expanded, at the rate of 1,100, and CMB light stretched out too, by 1,100 times, to the current 1.9 mm wavelength. And the 1.9 mm wavelength peak amazingly matches “black body” radiation at 2.7K temperature, which is the current temperature of the Universe.
In Time Matters eBook (also available on Google and Amazon) we debunked both the Universe expansion and the Big Bang. Now it is time to really explain CMB and its coincidence with black body radiation at the current temperature of the Universe.
Let’s look at our Universe black body, where we ignore direct radiation from stars in galaxies. Let’s slice our Universe into thick spheres, one-billion-light-years-thick, and see how much of the light emitted there we receive:
For example, light emitted 32 billion years ago at Point A, gets distributed all over the red sphere with radius 32 bly, and now it reaches us. Of this light we receive only a small portion that is inversely proportional to the whole area of that red sphere, which is 4πR² for R=32 bly. But there are plenty of such emitters in the pink thick sphere, besides the emitter A. The volume of that slice is directly proportional to 32 bly sphere area multiplied by its thickness, which is 1 bly. Portion of the light emitted at any pink point and received by us is inversely related to 4πR² (with R=32 bly), and is multiplied by the number/volume of the pink emitters, which is proportional to 4πR². That translates into something close to a constant, because of both division and multiplication by the same 4πR² value. Thus, intensity of light observed by us from the pink 32 bly slice, and from 31 bly slice, and from 30 bly slice, … and so on, down to 1 bly ball, is almost the same (almost constant, does not depend much on R value). Note for later discussion: We will see that “number / volume of the pink emitters” is right only about the “volume”, but not about the “number”.
Now, to get the total spectrum of light that we receive from the Universe, we need to add spectrums from all slices. But we don’t know the temperature of the Universe 32 billion years ago, 31 by ago, etc. Those 32-by-old vs. 1-by-old slices’ black body spectrum humps might be shifted left and right, up and down, because of various temperatures 32 by ago and now.
To simplify drawings, let’s replace these (black body spectrum) humps with simple rectangles. Such change won’t affect the discussion:
Two “bad things” can happen to the total spectrum.
- Let say, if the temperature in the Universe did not change much, then all spectrograms pile up into total infinity at the same place:
2. Or let say, the temperature in The Universe changes with time, but slowly or unevenly, thus, spectrograms pile up randomly, maybe in many places:
But there are two factors playing against such piling up, and none of these is the temperature. The temperature, in an unexpected way, will be an additional factor (3).
1) When we discussed 1bly-thick spheres bringing about the same amount of radiation to us, we assumed that the density of emitters (emitters are matter) remains the same across the Universe. It is true for any time “at the same time”. But back in time there was less and less matter:
If, let say trillion years ago there was almost no matter, then now we receive almost no light from the 1,000-bly slice, because there were almost no light emitters 1,000 by = trillion years ago. There is matter (and thus radiation) over there now, as dense as in our current neighborhood, but light from there will reach us only in future. So, it is only a finite number of spectrograms to sum up, like for the above example, 1,000 or less. And remote slices, with large radiuses, meaning long back in time, had less density of matter, thus less density of light emitters than now. It is because matter appears from time burning, and time back then was very slow = less burnt out, thus less matter was created by then (was present then). Thus, spectrograms from a long time ago should be multiplied by a smaller density value. (That explains my note above about “volume of the pink emitters” not the same as “number of the pink emitters” — density of the emitters goes down to 0 when going back in time).
2) Slower time in the past causes another effect on light received: light emitted in the past is redshifted when received now inside our faster time. That means the old light spectrum will shift to the right (wavelength increases) when received. Spectrum graph is multiplied in the horizontal direction by the time difference:
Because of these two effects of time dilation, the old light spectrum is flattened and moved to the right, the older light the more flattened it is down and farther it is to the right. And recent time contributes the most to the total spectrum.
That explains CMB spectrum as the Universe black body spectrum, and close to the current temperature of the Universe black body spectrum — by recent contributions’ dominance. Besides that, total spectrum matching the current Universe temperature black body radiation suggests that radiation from earlier times should not be of high temperature (like 3,000K or so), because high temperature spectrum peaks are really high, which would deviate the total graph from the current/recent terms’ domination. Idea of the originally hot Universe came from the Big Bangers, for the Big Bangers. But now we can see that the temperature in the Universe actually goes up, but slowly (so you can approximate it as constant for a long time period). Here is why:
— Universe does not expand (thus, no expansion cooling).
— There was no Big Bang, thus, no heat from it.
— Back in time, with no / or almost no matter, it was 0 K / or close to 0 K Universe, but now it is 2.7K Universe. Its temperature went up from 0 K to 2.7K.
— Universe heats up by burning in galaxies, even now, and even before, when there were slow time blobs instead of galaxies (check chapters 11 and 51 in Time Matters eBook, which is also available on Google and Amazon). Time acceleration is the main and simplest proof of the continuous time burning.
3) Low temperature of the Universe in the past is the last factor, which I mentioned above, in addition to the time dilation factors: low temperature in the Universe keeps long-time-ago contributions to the radiation spectrum under control. And the other two factors make long-time-ago contributions negligible.
