Relativity and Cosmology

   

About CMBR

Authors: Gerd Pommerenke

Because the CMBR follows the Planck's radiation law more or less exactly, it should, because of the indistinguishability of individual photons, apply to a whatever black emitter. Therefrom arises the guess, that the existence of an upper cut-off frequency of the vacuum could be the cause for the decrease in the upper frequency range. Since the lower-frequent share of the curve correlates with the frequency response of an oscillating circuit with the Q-factor ½, it is examined, whether it succeeds to approximate the Planck curve by multi-plication of the initial curve with the dynamic, time-dependent frequency response of the above mentioned model. Reason of the time-dependence is the expansion of the universe. This work is based on a model published in [7]. It is shown, that the Planck graph can be approximated by application of the cumulative frequency response given by the model, upon the spectrum of an oscillatory circuit with the Q-factor ½. Furthermore the progression of frequency, energy and entropy is analyzed. The results point out, that origin and progression of the CMBR have elapsed in a totally different manner than generally assumed. Because photons behaved like neutrinos immediately after BB they did not interact with other matter then. Thus, we can exactly calculate back to 8.08·10—106s instead of 379,000 years after BB. Section 6. has been reworked.

Comments: 48 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2023-12-21 20:50:18
[v2] 2024-03-31 16:46:04

Unique-IP document downloads: 363 times

Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus