1. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11860
    24 Nov '05 19:391 edit
    To Starman: Sorry pal, my ID thing will have to wait to while. In the mean time I have been busy working on the Big Bang Theory:

    THIS IS NOT A CUT AND PASTE JOB! (So you might want to take the effort to read it cos it took me hours to put it together)😉

    Here we go: Fasten your seatbelt.

    The "Big Bang Theory" states that in the beginning there was a "cosmic egg". Opinions differ among experts on just how big the egg was, most say smaller than the head of a pin, some say millions of kilometres in diameter, others make no statement at all of an actual size but just state that it was extremely dense. However, they all seem to agree that fifteen billion years it exploded and produced a gas called hydrogen. Some of the atoms of hydrogen collided and formed another gas, helium. The hydrogen and helium, together with little packets of energy called 'photons', came shooting out of the explosion with great speed. As the ball of hot gas expanded it cooled. As it cooled it clumped together into clouds, which contracted, heated up and formed stars. Nuclear reactions in the stars produced "heavy" elements like oxygen iron and gold. Stars exploded scattering these heavy elements throughout the universe. Clouds of gas, enriched by these heavy elements contracted and formed, among other things, the sun, the planets and the earth.

    The process continues with atoms, molecules and photons of energy combining by chance random processes to form plants, animals, ...man.

    Although this is known as the "Big Bang Theory", it does not actually merit the title "theory" on the scheme that science usually claims to follow. Rather, since there does not appear to be any way to test even one really significant point about this theory by experiment, it ranks as a ‘hypothesis’. This remarkable story seems to run counter to everyday experience. Experience tells us that any system left to itself runs down, becomes more random, less orderly, more chaotic. Yet here we see the order and complexity of the entire universe resulting from the total disorder of two gasses shooting out of an explosion. For science to have accepted an idea which runs completely counter to all experience we would presume that there is powerful evidence to support the idea, and a very good reason why it was put forward in the first place.

    Scientists discovered that each element has a characteristic pattern of lines in its spectrum. Calcium for example has three closely spaced red lines, one orange, one green and six blue lines in its visible spectrum. Astronomers examine the light coming from stars, and by finding the tell-tale patterns of lines, deduce which elements there may be in the outermost regions of the stars. About a hundred years ago it was discovered that the patterns of lines were not always in the expected positions. The pattern was occasionally moved, or “shifted” slightly towards the blue part of the spectrum, or, more often, towards the red end of the spectrum. The only explanation that anyone seems to have been able to think of at that time was that a star with a blue shift must be moving towards the earth, one with a red shift must be moving away. This is called the “Doppler Effect”.

    Besides stars, the astronomers discovered fuzzy patches of light, which they deduced to be huge groups of stars. They were given the name “galaxies”. Galaxies were usually found to have red shifts in their spectra. An astronomer called Edwin Hubble noticed a puzzling relationship. The fainter the galaxy (and therefore presumably further away), the bigger the red shift in its spectrum (and therefore, presumably, the faster it must be moving away from the earth). An intriguing part about the observation was that it appeared no matter where one looked. In every direction the distant galaxies seemed to be rushing away from the earth at a great speed. The entire universe seemed to be dilating from an expansion centre, which to all appearances seemed to be the earth.

    If the universe is expanding, then it must have been smaller in the past. If that is so, reasoned the scientists, there must have been a time when all the material of the universe was at one point. The Big Bang was born.

    The idea is however plagued with problems.

    The cosmic egg is believed to have been denser than a “black hole”, from which (those who believe in black holes tell us) nothing can escape, not even light. But everything in the universe escaped from this black hole.

    Material shooting out of an explosion spreads out and disperses. The cloud of gas would simply get thinner and cooler. As Fred Hoyle pointed out, the big bang leads to “a dull-as-ditch-water expansion, which degrades itself adiabatically (without the addition of heat) until it, is incapable of doing anything at all.” (Fred Hoyle, NEW SCIENTIST, Nov.19, 1981 p.523.) And yet the theory requires that this expanding gas clumps together into clouds, which contract to form galaxies, stars, planets and people. The originator of the theory, Lemaitre, speculated that the expansion must have stopped for long enough to allow the gas to clump together in clouds. The clouds must have then started rushing on their way again. Most scientists have not been impressed with that idea. Where did the energy come from to stop the initial expansion? And where did the energy come from to set it all in motion again after the clumping together in clouds? So most accept no pause in the headlong rush from the explosion centre. How then did the material clump together instead of spreading out? Since no credible explanations have been put forward it has become necessary to believe that there were very special conditions for the explosion itself. Such theories give rise to the “anthropic principle”, which states in effect, that the explosion must have been extremely carefully designed specifically to make the eventual existence of man possible.

    A cloud of gas at a high temperature tends to fly apart. The theory requires that gravitational attraction between the molecules of gas pulls them together and makes the cloud contract. Calculations show that unless the temperature is less than five degrees absolute (minus two hundred and sixty-eight degrees Celsius) the thermal energy of the gas molecules tending to make the cloud disperse is greater than the gravitational energy tending to make it contract. So in order to start contracting, a cloud would have to be colder than five degrees absolute. Today there are clouds of gas in the universe from which the astronomers believe that clouds are forming. The temperatures of these clouds have been measured. The temperatures are far too high, about a hundred degrees absolute, so they cannot be contracting (or forming stars) today. But the big bag tells us that in the past the temperature was higher. It would have been more impossible for them to have contracted in the past than today. To get over this impossibility “add hocs” have been brought in. A favourite is to assume that a could explodes near a cloud of gas and dust. Such an exploding star is called a ‘nova’ or if bright enough, a ‘supernova’. The explosion is supposed to make the cloud of gas and dust contract; but there seems to be no convincing reason why …such an explosion would logically make the nearby cloud disperse, not consolidate. There is a paradox in this theory. The star, which exploded, had to form long ago, when the expanding gas was hotter than today, It would therefore be more difficult for the star which became the nova to form that for the explosion-generated successor.

    The material shooting out of the Big Bang must have had enormous linear momentum, but the laws of mechanics show that it could not have had angular momentum, in other words this material would be flying straight out of the explosion centre. Yet the astronomers all agreed that the universe is full of bodies which are rotating and also moving in circles (or rather ellipses). They have a great deal of angular momentum. Where did the angular momentum come from? This difficulty could be overcome by having several “Little Big Bangs” interacting with each other. Commenting on the possibility of little big bangs Hoyle noted:-“…the mathematics of little big bangs are more difficult to cope with than the mathematics of a single simple big bang”. (Fred Hoyle, THE INTELLIGENT UNIVERSE, Michael Joseph, London,1983,p.179.) He suggests that the scientists would prefer to stick to theories who mathematics they can handle, even if those theories are logically not very convincing.

    The Big Bang is thought to have produced hydrogen and helium. The exact proportion can be juggled somewhat, a little under twenty percent helium is normally accepted. But once a figure has been chosen it must be taken as constant for the entire explosion. All the gas coming out of the Big Bang has the same proportion of helium. All the clouds have the same proportion, all the stars which form from these clouds have the same proportion. Now the theory goes on to say that nuclear reactions inside stars convert hydrogen to helium, so it would be quite possible to find stars with more helium than the assumed starting value, but there seems to be no way for the proportion to become less. Yet there is a class of “B-type” stars (bright, blue stars, which the astronomers believe to be “young&rdquo😉 which have only about one percent of the required helium. (D.W. Sciama, MODERN COSMOLOGY, pp.150-153.) This would appear to be another contradiction to the theory.

    Continued...
  2. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11860
    24 Nov '05 19:551 edit
    Many problems have suggested that the Big Bang cannot be the correct explanation for the origin of the universe. Pondering the impossibilities, an American Astronomer, Allan Guth, realised that he could get over some of them if the entire universe could have expanded faster than the speed of light for part (but only part) of the early stages of the Big Bang. Practically all the scientists of the world accept that the speed of light is the limiting speed, they believe that nothing can exceed the speed of light. But Guth pointed out that having everything in the universe travelling faster than the speed of light could get the Big Bang out of the realm of indisputable impossibility. This idea is called “inflation”. No phenomenon like it has ever been observed. No really plausible explanation has been put forward to explain how it could happen.

    Inflation provides an insight into the way scientists sometimes overcome theoretical difficulties. Faced with evidence incompatible with the theory it is realised that if something else were true the theory would be able to survive. The “something else” is called an ‘ad hoc’, it is brought in just to get over a particular difficulty for a theory. A scientist may then proceed to work out the consequences. Some ad hocs are soon seen to be useless, it becomes clear that they do not save the theory at all. But if the theory does seem to hang together it becomes rather tempting to assume that the ad hoc might be true.

    All proponents of the Big Bang now accept inflation.

    In the early stages of the Big Bang everything was supposed to be so hot that matter and energy could freely change places with each other. In scientific terms matter and energy were “coupled”. But as the fireball expanded it must have cooled very quickly and matter and energy would have “decoupled”. The high energy radiation (photons) would then be set free to hurtle off to infinity at the speed of light, never to be seen again by the matter left behind. But his would not allow the universe to evolve, so the theory keeps the matter and energy together by having the universe contained in a perfectly reflecting elastic balloon which expands as the light which tries to escape pushes it upwards. The theoreticians do not talk about the a reflective coating, they talk about space itself expanding (a strange idea which raises some awkward questions!) It is equivalent to a reflective coating. Expansion makes the temperature of photons fall. After sufficient time they should have become cool enough to be microwaves.

    In 1965 two scientists at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in America accidentally detected microwave radiation coming from all regions of the sky. They were almost instantly awarded a Nobel Prize for the first and only “proof” of the Big Bang. The theory had predicted microwave radiation – but the intensity of the radiation was about a hundred times less than predicted! Another embarrassing point about the background radiation is that it seems to act as a cosmic reference frame. A dipole movement measured with reference to it implies a velocity through space. Einstein’s version of Relativity, the main tool used in producing the Big Bang, denies the existence of such a privileged reference frame. There are several other explanations of the background radiation, but they are rarely mentioned. The one which may fit the observed spectrum best proposes that the speed of light has fallen from a very high value (Norman T. Setterfield B., Atomic Constants Light And Time, STANFORD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL. INVITED RESEARCH REPORT, August 1987. Also Troitski V.S., ASTRO PHYSICS AND SPACE SCIENCE, 139, 187, pp.388-411.). This appears to be the least acceptable of all the explanations. It would throw doubt on many of the cherished theories of science, not just the Big Bang.




    Another problem with the background radiation is its uniformity, “smoothness” as the astronomers call it. Although it is difficult to see how stars, galaxies etc. could form from an expanding cloud of gas, many have accepted that it could be possible if the initial distribution of mass in the explosion were not uniform but “lumpy”. Observations suggest that the distribution of matter in the universe is very uneven, very lumpy. Such lumpiness should lead to unevenness in the background radiation, but it was smooth, far too smooth, apparently perfectly smooth. The Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite (COBE for short), was built to examine this radiation in detail. COBE’s readings also showed the background radiation to be perfectly smooth. An ingenious pattern of corrections and adjustments were applied to COBE’s readings. These produced tiny variations – a small fraction of a percent. So little unevenness seems inadequate to explain the lumpiness of the universe. But some have resorted to artful speculation, and with sufficient subtlety in devising ad hoc theories it seems that on the lumpiness issue the Big Bang is still credible for those who wish to believe it. There are other plausible explanations for a slight graininess of the background radiation, but they are rarely mentioned. (N.C. Wickramasinge, NATURE, Vol 358, 13th August 1992, p547.)

    Yet another problem for the theory comes from the red shifts which started the whole speculation. Scientists have discovered evidence that the red shifts are probably not due to motion. Chief among these scientists is the famous astronomer Halton Arp, who for a long time was a lone voice crying out against orthodoxy. Other able scientists have joined him. (Guthrie B. &Napier W., MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY, Dec.1, 1991. ; Tifft W., ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, Dec.1, 1991.)

    Even if the red shifts are due to motion it has been shown that such shifts could also occur from motions other than expansion. Fred Hoyle proposed a completely different explanation. (Holye, F. THE INTELLIGENT UNIVERSE, pp181, 182.) Yet another explanation, the fall in the speed of light, seems quite promising, but as already mentioned, such an idea is usually very unpopular, and is usually ignored. The truth appears to be that no one really knows if the universe is expanding, contracting or maintaining the same size. But if it is expanding then one has to face the question raised by Edward Harrison of the University of Massachusetts, who showed that the expansion of space leads to the creation of energy. His question:- (quoted by Marcus Chown, Expanding space gets something for nothing, NEW SCIENTIST, 4 Feb, 1995) “The fact that energy can, even in principle, be harnessed from the expansion of the Universe throws into focus a problem that physicists have conveniently ignored for many years – where does the energy that drives the Universe’s expansion come from?”

    One is tempted to ask:- “but why is the Big Bang theory so widely accepted when there is so little evidence to support it, and so much evidence against it.” Even the scientists themselves seem to know that it cannot be true. John Maddox, editor of the prestigious journal NATURE, in an article “Down with the Big Bang” (NATURE, Vol.340, 10th August 1989), said “In all respects save that of convenience, this view on the origin of the universe is thoroughly unsatisfactory”. In a more recent editorial (NATURE, Vol.340, 14 Sept. 1995, p99.) he commented on results from the Hubble Space Telescope:-“…the result, the third of its kind in a year, makes nonsense of the standard Big Bang view of how the universe began. “Leif Robinson, after pointing out the three major problems said (THE ASTRONOMY ENCYCLOPEDIA, p9):-“That trilogy was not designed to throw cold water on the state of astronomical knowledge. Rather it tends to focus on a problem – how to assimilate the tidal wave of disparate information”. His use of the term “disparate information” is a polite way of saying “evidence which disproves the popular theories of astronomy”. And he acknowledges that there is not just a little evidence, but “ever growing tidal waves”. Then why does the scientific establishment continue to propagate the Big Bang? There seems to be only one answer to that question. There are no alternatives, which is philosophically acceptable to the scientists of the world. The philosophically acceptable alternatives which were proposed have been shown to be even worse from a scientific point if view than the Big Bang.

    A few scientists are honest enough to change their ideas on what is philosophically acceptable. Fred Hoyle, for example, much against his own inclination admitted “A component has evidently been missing from cosmological studies. The origin of the Universe, like the Rubric cube, requires an intelligence”. (THE INTELLIGNET UNIVERSE, p189.)

    Although he would hate to admit it, this great scientist –one of the few prepared to face the fact that he (and the other scientists) may be wrong about fundamental issues – is lending support to the old paradigm of Creation. His conclusion fits in with the proposition that the scientist used to believe before humanism took over, “In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth”.

    Continued...
  3. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11860
    24 Nov '05 19:57
    This simplest statement, however, is not satisfying to those who have become accustomed to requiring a naturalistic explanation for everything. This is the desire to know exactly how it was done. With science unable to send observers back in time to see what really did happen, the only possibility left for finding out about the origin of the universe would be to accept the authority of divine revelation – if it does indeed give the indication of how the universe was actually created. The scriptures are not very forthcoming yet there does seem to be a clue on the mechanism that may have been used. In Isaiah 42 verse 5 it says that God “created the heavens and stretched them out”. In Jeremiah 10 verse 12 it says he “stretched out the heavens by his discretion”. This idea of “stretching out” is repeated in several other verses (Isaiah 44 v 24; Zec. 12 v 1. Psalm 104 v 2; Isaiah 51 v 15 etc.) so it is interesting to speculate on what the universe would look like if such a process had actually been used.

    It is easy to see what happens in a “stretching out” process in any fluid – liquid or gas. One simply needs to fill a container with water, put one’s hands together in the water, and stretch then out, or pull them apart, If there is a light above the water, then on the bottom one can see the shadows of eddies, little whirlpools, swirling around in the water. This is a characteristic feature of any stretching out process, it produces eddies. As we look out into the universe there appear to be many objects swirling about like eddies. There are millions of “spiral galaxies” which look exactly like the eddies produced in our little experiment with a bowl of water. One of them is even called the “Whirlpool” Galaxy.

    The angular momentum, the apparent tendency for everything to swirl around (which has no feasible explanation on the Big Bang Theory), is a natural consequence of the process the Bible suggests. It certainly appears more likely that a stretching out process rather than an explosion process was involved. But like all theories of origins it is not actually provable by science, all the science could do is to see if the predictions of such a process would fit the observed facts. But even if all the observations fit the idea we would still accept it or reject it on faith.

    Any theory of origins can only be accepted by faith.
  4. Joined
    16 Dec '04
    Moves
    97738
    24 Nov '05 20:16
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    This simplest statement, however, is not satisfying to those who have become accustomed to requiring a naturalistic explanation for everything. This is the desire to know exactly how it was done. With science unable to send observers back in time to see what really did happen, the only possibility left for finding out about the origin of the universe would ...[text shortened]... d still accept it or reject it on faith.

    Any theory of origins can only be accepted by faith.
    Faith IN THE WORD OF GOD.
  5. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11860
    25 Nov '05 07:241 edit
    Starman, if you are not going to respond to this, should I bother to continue with my little project?

    Do you think that evolution is possible without the Big Bang?
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    25 Nov '05 07:43
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    Starman, if you are not going to respond to this, should I bother to continue with my little project?

    Do you think that evolution is possible without the Big Bang?
    LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Do you enjoy writing something (well you almost certainly cut and pasted it and lied about it, but nevermind) that shows that you are absolutely ignorant about every principle of cosmology and astronomy?? Please read an actual astronomy book or audit Astronomy 101 at your local college as you are abysmally misinformed. Better yet, why don't you bring your masterwork to any science teacher in a Junior High School and after they're through laughing, maybe they'd be kind enough to correct your many misimpressions and outright idiocies.
  7. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11860
    25 Nov '05 07:491 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Do you enjoy writing something (well you almost certainly cut and pasted it and lied about it, but nevermind) that shows that you are absolutely ignorant about every principle of cosmology and astronomy?? Please read an actual astronomy book or audit Astr ...[text shortened]... aughing, maybe they'd be kind enough to correct your many misimpressions and outright idiocies.
    It seems to me you have have adopted the HG method of rebuttal: ad hominem...

    Did you even spend a second to read the hours of research that I put down for you?
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Nov '05 07:56
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    Starman, if you are not going to respond to this, should I bother to continue with my little project?

    Do you think that evolution is possible without the Big Bang?
    I have not yet finished reading your posts but will definately finish and respond a little later today. However there is one immediate flaw I have picked up in your understanding of the big bang theory. You appear to have understood it to be an explosion. This is not so. It is instead an expansion of space. Many of your statements are based on your understanding of explosions which are quite different from an expanding universe.

    Originally posted by dj2becker
    This remarkable story seems to run counter to everyday experience. Experience tells us that any system left to itself runs down, becomes more random, less orderly, more chaotic.

    I disagree with that. My experience has not taught me that. If I look around me I see order and segregation of materials even in nature even in areas where there is no life I see materials separating out and forming concentrates not a random mix of elements. I do not see the whole world being one temperature but rather see storms being generated (not run down).
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    25 Nov '05 07:591 edit
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    It seems to me you have have adopted the HG method of rebuttal: ad hominem...

    Did you even spend a second to read the hours of research that I put down for you?
    Why bother? In your first paragraph alone, you state the Big Bang was an explosion (wrong), that hydrogen and helium existed almost at the beginning of the expansion of the universe (wrong), that some "experts" say "the cosmic egg" was "millions of kilometers" (wrong), that things "shot out" of the "explosion" (wrong), don't seem to know what a photon is, etc. etc. etc. If you make such foolish inaccuracies at the very beginning, it is certain that the entire thing is going to be utterly worthless. You've stated the same moronic idiocies many times and people have patiently explained to you the many errors you make, but it utterly fails to penetrate your thick skull. If this crap is the result of "hours of research", I suggest that you research actual science books next time rather than your fundie cult websites.

    Again, LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  10. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    25 Nov '05 08:03
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I have not yet finished reading your posts but will definately finish and respond a little later today. However there is one immediate flaw I have picked up in your understanding of the big bang theory. You appear to have understood it to be an explosion. This is not so. It is instead an expansion of space. Many of your statements are based on your unders ...[text shortened]... see the whole world being one temperature but rather see storms being generated (not run down).
    I disagree with that. My experience has not taught me that. If I look around me I see order and segregation of materials even in nature even in areas where there is no life I see materials separating out and forming concentrates not a random mix of elements. I do not see the whole world being one temperature but rather see storms being generated (not run down).

    All these observations of yours have a sorting intelligence of some form. Where/what is the intelligence behind the big bang?
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    25 Nov '05 08:09
    djbecker: Expansion makes the temperature of photons fall.

    THE TEMPERATURE OF PHOTONS!!! LMFAO!!!!
  12. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11860
    25 Nov '05 08:15
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    djbecker: Expansion makes the temperature of photons fall.

    THE TEMPERATURE OF PHOTONS!!! LMFAO!!!!
    Temperature: The measure of average Kinetic Energy.

    Do you have difficulty understanding this?
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    25 Nov '05 08:221 edit
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    Temperature: The measure of average Kinetic Energy.

    Do you have difficulty understanding this?
    Do you have difficulty understanding that a photon is an elementary particle ALWAYS travelling at the speed of light?? What's the temperature of an elementary particle, you half-wit?
  14. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11860
    25 Nov '05 08:37
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Do you have difficulty understanding that a photon is an elementary particle ALWAYS travelling at the speed of light?? What's the temperature of an elementary particle, you half-wit?
    I am afraid ignorance has had the better of you:

    I quote: "As the universe expands and cools, the average energy of a photon falls until eventually hydrogen atoms are able to form."

    http://universe-review.ca/R05-04-powerspectrum.htm
  15. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    25 Nov '05 08:46
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Do you have difficulty understanding that a photon is an elementary particle ALWAYS travelling at the speed of light?? What's the temperature of an elementary particle, you half-wit?
    I think dj might be right here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

    Check under the "creation"(no, not that one) section of the article.

    I quote:

    "The wavelength distribution of these photons thus are related to their absolute temperature (usually in Kelvin). The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution provides the probability of a photon being a certain wavelength when emitted by a collection of atoms at a given temperature. The spectrum of such photons are normally found in the range between microwave and infrared, but hot objects will emit visible light as well. As temperature is further increased, some photons will reach even higher frequencies, such as ultraviolet and X-rays."
Back to Top