Systems for measuring CMB are relatively simple (you don't need a satellite), I was wondering if perhaps anyone has been monitoring it for any length of time?

The main questions about CMB are about its angular distribution which needs space instruments.

I have read some articles on fairly simple measurement devices, just thought perhaps someone might have a hobby.

I am interested in finding out if cooling over time can be detected.

I have read some articles on fairly simple measurement devices, just thought perhaps someone might have a hobby. I am interested in finding out if cooling over time can be detected.

How about you calculate the expected cooling rate to see if anyone could possibly make the measurement.

How about you calculate the expected cooling rate to see if anyone could possibly make the measurement.

I am 61 yrs. Old, if someone isn't already investigating it, it is probably not going to get done in my lifetime.

I think it would be a useful experiment though, perhaps something NASA could take up.

I am 61 yrs. Old, if someone isn't already investigating it, it is probably not going to get done in my lifetime.I think it would be a useful experiment though, perhaps something NASA could take up.

Nobody is going to bother if it's immeasurably small. Is it? This is an implication of your conjecture. Can you support it, or not?

What conjecture?

Have you ever tried measuring 2.7 Kelvin from the background temperature from our Sun? Even our own motion causes a significant redshift dipole anistropy at that finite a temperature.

Edited November 17, 20169 yr by Mordred

Efforts are being made as we speak, to produce more and more sensitive instrumentation to establish a better baseline for CMB. Small measurements matter.

Yes they do thats why the needed equipment is so costly and sophisticated.

Have you ever tried measuring 2.7 Kelvin from the background temperature from our Sun?

Tough job, but being pretty well done.

Tough job, but being pretty well done.

Incredibly tough

Ahh, OK my statement about relatively simple equipment. The sensitivity of the equipment is inversely proportional to the time needed to make the measurements I need, but the instruments 56 years ago were not very sensitive, but they have the advantage of 56 years. I am just wishing I could have the chance to see such measurements.

The measurement I need is change in frequency, if it is reliably .0001 arc seconds I am wrong, if it is 0 I am right.

Well on older radios a portion of the static is from the CMB. The problem is garnishing useful data. This is where the better equipment, filtering techniques even understanding every possible temperature influence our local space has. Movement, gamma rays etc becomes critical.

Pretty fine measurement, I doubt I will see it.

Lol, just remember when you are old and gray, if it is zero... I told you so!

Pretty fine measurement, I doubt I will see it.

See the Planck datasets. Its extremely accurate. You can download them from their website. We've been measuring the CMB into useful data via satellites for some time now

Edited November 17, 20169 yr by Mordred

Thx, I'll take a look.

grr they moved the site lol. Here

 

http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/publications

Edited November 17, 20169 yr by Mordred

Yep, I'm screwed...

http://www.setileague.org/askdr/peakchg.htm

grr they moved the site lol. Here

http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/publications

No problem, I found it alright, I also found a link where my question has been asked.

At least there is also the possibility of the local event, that evidence (if it exists) will probably be found with a big eye in the sky.

glad to see.

While I am on the subject, the Hubble telescope has seen very normal looking galaxies at greater distances than some of the distant strange bodies that were thought to be evidence of the Big Bang, how is that possible? Or am I mistaken about the deep field shots?

The CMB surface of last scattering is at a time when the universe is 380,000 years old. Prior to that period we hit an opaque dense region where the mean free path of photons become too short. Too much clutter as atoms haven't formed.

This is referred to as the dark ages. Due to this we never see the BB itself. Though we will possibly be able to measure further with neutrinos ( cosmic neutrino background)

 

The density at roughly this time had sufficient hydrogen to form stars in the later stages of last scattering. Provided the temperature has dropped sufficiently to support hydrogen atoms.

Edited November 17, 20169 yr by Mordred

Looking above the fold so to speak, OK.

Looking above the fold so to speak, OK.

close enough

While I am on the subject, the Hubble telescope has seen very normal looking galaxies at greater distances than some of the distant strange bodies that were thought to be evidence of the Big Bang, how is that possible? Or am I mistaken about the deep field shots?

 

 

It has also seen some unusual galaxies that could only have existed then.

Just one example (the first search result): http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-space-telescopes-see-magnified-image-of-the-faintest-galaxy-from-the-early-universe

 

These seem to confirm that early galaxies had larger short-lived stars (because of low "metallicity").