Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 23:18:31 +0100
In article
<100620062314232723%phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phineas T
Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What I meant was the horizon problem. The size of the anisotropies
cannot be explained without inflation - they're from a nearly perfect
black body and the anisotropies are several factors of magnitude bigger
then the T=T_0(1+z) (which yields a redshift of around 660) time of the
creation of the CMB would suggest.
That should be z = 1000 - T ~ 4000K for recombination
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- References:
- Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Martha
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: PD
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: PD
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: PD
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Greg Hansen
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: glhansen@xxxxxxx
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Phineas T Puddleduck
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Phineas T Puddleduck
- Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Prev by Date: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Next by Date: Re: Why is the amplitude of light never discussed?
- Previous by thread: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Next by thread: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Index(es):