SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
The CMB peaks at 1.1 mm, not at 1.9 mm as you said. That is within the range of the CMT telescope.CMB is microwave and peaks at 1.9mm and by definition can not be detected by an instrument working in the SUB MILLIMETER range.
How stupid are you? I said that 1.9 is the peak radiating wavelength of CMB...Can you grasp that 1.1 is still greater than 1 millimeter? The James Clerk Maxwell telescope operates in the SUB MILLIMETER range....that means less than 1 millimeter....and in its case far far far less than 1 millimeter. It operates on two frequencies specifically 450 and 850 microns. far less than 1 millimeter. 450 microns is 0.450mm and 850 microns is 0.850mm. See the zero there before the decimal place....less than a mm therefore not capable of receiving a 1.1 mm wavelength.
So you are saying that the CMB never hit earth even though the paper is titled,
Using SCUBA to place upper limits on arcsecond-scale cosmic microwave background anisotropies at 850 μm
And you just keep on talking not even bothering to read your own references....or maybe you read them and just couldn't grasp what was being said. From the paper you referenced"
Apart from identifying well-detected sources, such data can also be mined for information about fainter sources and their correlations, as revealed through low-level fluctuations in SCUBA maps. As a first step in this direction, we analyse a small SCUBA data set as if it were obtained from a cosmic microwave background (CMB) differencing experiment.
I already pointed out that the SCUBA and SCUBA-2 bolometers, because of their extreme sensitivity to INFRARED radiation, is being used on the subtraction of the foreground and calibration of the Planck microwave background satellite...an instrument which actually does detect microwave radiation. A CMB differencing experiment is exactly that.....subtraction of the foreground. Geez guy. Give it up. The JCMT isn't in the business of microwave although they can assist groups who are.
These results could easily be reinterpreted in terms of any other fluctuating sky signal. This is currently the best limit for these scales at high frequency, and comparable to limits at similar angular scales in the radio. Even with such a modest data set, it is possible to put a constraint on the slope of the SCUBA counts at the faint end, since even randomly distributed sources would lead to fluctuations. Future analysis of sky correlations in more extensive data sets ought to yield detections, and hence additional information on source counts and clustering.
amazing that they could look at anisotropies of the CMB without seeing the CMB at all. You better tell the authors that they are full of crap.
The authors stated exactly what they did....and it was not detecting CMB....they looked for flections in the infrared range and used them like resonance signals in an attempt to define the limits of CMB...and they stated quite clearly that their results were not iron clad...that the could EASILY be interpreted in terms of any other fluctuating sky signal. What they never said...which you simply made up was that they detected CMB with the instrument....CMB is greater than 1mm...the JCMT is a sub mm instrument.
There are sixty five experiments in this reference that all think they saw the CMB:
List of cosmic microwave background experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Of course there are...I never said that there weren't. Did you happen to notice in that list that the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope was not listed? Of course you didn't. You are just pulling crap out of your ass and either not reading, or misinterpreting everything you reference. You will also note that there are a couple of experiments involving bolometers....if you bothered to look them up and could actually understand what they were saying, you would find that they detected evidence of a signal....not the signal itself as microwave and IR are two different things.
Can you tell me how many of them you think are full of crap too?
I don't think any of them are full of crap...you, on the other hand are so full of it that you literally spew. Unlike you, they are not claiming to have actually measured CMB, a microwave signal with a thermometer. You can measure the effects of a microwave signal with a thermometer, but not the signal itself.