The Newton-Stefan-Boltzmann-Planck Code. The Solar Microwave Background Formation on the Blackbody Sphere at the Distance R = 140 AU



Abstract Views
288

Downloads
77

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Mar 18, 2024
Published Apr 22, 2024
10.24018/ejphysics.2024.6.2.311

Abstract viewed = 288 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

In this model the Solar System presented to observers on the planet Earth the elegant gift: the Solar Microwave Background (SMB) formed on the Blackbody Sphere at the distance R = 140 AU. The thermalization of the Hydrogen wall at this distance was described using the Stefan-Boltzmann law where the temperature of the blackbody at the distance R = 1 AU is T = 393.6 K. Newton’s cooling law described the cooling of this blackbody surface temperature with the cooling constant κ = 1.139 × 10−4 s−1 calculated from data of the small planet Pluto (average distance R = 39.5 AU and the temperature T = 44 K). The SMB monopole temperature T = 2.7255 K was fitted for the distance R = 140 AU with the temperature of the surrounding TENV = 2.5887 K. The first important difference with the model of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the magnitude and direction of Newton’s dipole v = (200 + 141) kms−1 towards the galactic coordinates (l, b) = (84°, −48°) while the magnitude and the direction of the Doppler’s dipole of CMB is v = 368 kms−1 towards (l, b) = (264°, 48°). This new model enables to estimate the rotation velocity of the Sun in the Milky Way Galaxy, the motion of the Milky Way Galaxy through the Universe, and the Harress-Sagnac color excess: v = 200 + 141 + 27 = 368 kms−1. The total motion of the Milky Way Galaxy through the Universe can be estimated with the knowledge of the Cold Spot direction in the SMB and the motion towards the Galactic South Pole. In this model, the Milky Way Galaxy can avoid collision with the Andromeda Galaxy. The observed quadrupole, octopole, and hemisphere structure of the SMB can be explained as the local motion of the Sun and the Solar axis inclination towards the ecliptic–the Axis of evil should be renamed as the Solar axis bringing to us a good opportunity to discover differences between the SMB and the CMB. The first peak in the power spectrum of the SMB at the distance R = 140 AU is observed from the COBE, WMAP, and PLANCK satellites rotating around the Sun at the distance R = (2×1) AU under the angle θ = 0.818°. The power spectrum observed from the planets Mercury and Jupiter will have different positions of the first and higher peaks. The original Solar signature should be visible as the moving shadows of the Sunspots on the Blackbody Sphere. There were proposed several experiments on how to distinguish between the SMB and the CMB. 

Keywords: Cosmicmicrowave background (CMB) Newton’s cooling law Solar microwave background (SMB) Stefan-Boltzmann law

Introduction

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is microwave radiation that fills all space around the observer near the planet Earth. The precise measurements of the CMB are very critical to cosmology, therefore any proposed model of the Universe must explain this radiation, e.g., [1]–[13]. There were published many attempts to propose other origins of this cosmic microwave background, e.g., reviews [14]–[16]. There were published many models based on the thermalization of grains, e.g., [17]–[27]. However, these models cannot fully describe the observed properties of the microwave background and propose some new effects that could distinguish between the standard interpretation of the CMB and a newly proposed model.

The aim of this contribution is to interpret the observed properties of the microwave background based on the structures of the Solar System found by the twin spacecrafts Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, and on the old physics of Newton, Stefan, Boltzmann, and Planck. Is it possible to propose a reasonable alternative model for that intensively observed and analyzed microwave background and moreover to propose experiments for a deeper view into the origin of that microwave background?

The Hydrogen Wall, Termination Shock, and the Interstellar Temperature

The twin spacecraft Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 were launched by NASA in 1977. During their long mission they collected valuable data about the Termination shock at the distance between 90 AU–120 AU, and the Hydrogen wall at the distance between 120 AU–160 AU [28]. Katushkina et al. [29] postulated the existence of the Hydrogen wall at the distances 120 AU–160 AU based on their emission data. In our model, we propose the existence of the Blackbody Sphere at the distance R = 140 AU where the Solar heat causes the formation of the blackbody radiation with the temperature T = 2.7255 K.

The structure of the heliosphere is schematically shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Heliosphere structure based on the data of the twin spacecraft Voyager 1 and Voyager 2: Termination shock and the Hydrogen wall. Inspired by Katushkina et al. paper [29].

Before the discovery of the microwave background by Penzias and Wilson in 1964, there were several predictions of the interstellar temperature for the static Universe. Assis and Neves summarized those predictions of the interstellar temperatures for the static Universe [30]. The history of the 2.7 K predictions is given in Table I.

Year Name T [K] Reference
1896 Guillaume 5.6 [31]
1926 Eddington 3.18 [32]
1933 Regener 2.8 [33]
1937 Nernst 0.75 [34]
1941 McKellar (CN molecules) 2.3 [35]
1953 Finlay-Freundlich 1.9 ≤ T ≤ 6.0 [36]
PLANCK experimental determination of the cosmic microwave background T = (2.7255 ± 0.0006) K
CN molecule as the cosmic thermometer for low temperatures: histogram for 167 determinations gives
2008 Słyk et al. (CN molecules) 1.7 ≤ T ≤ 5.0 [37]
“There is no physical interpretation for the temperatures lower than T = 2.7255 K, there is no clear interpretation for the excess temperatures above T = 2.7255 K.”
This model: the Solar Hydrogen wall at the distance R = 140 AU has temperature T = 2.7255 K. The interstellar temperature is determined by Newton’s cooling law around that observed star, CN molecule temperature depends on the distance of CN molecules from that observed star.
Table I. History of the 2.7 K Predictions before the Year 1964 (Based on Assis and Neves [30])

In 1941 McKellar used the rotation mode of the cyanogen molecules CN to measure the interstellar temperature and found the value T = 2.3 K. Since that time many scholars used this molecule to measure the interstellar temperatures near various stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. Słyk et al. [37] surveyed those values and constructed the histogram of those temperatures (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Histogram of interstellar temperatures of the CN molecules (based on the Słyk et al. paper [37]).

In the Big Bang model, the interstellar temperature below T = 2.7255 K has no physical interpretation. Such low interstellar temperatures could be explained in the context of Newton’s cooling law: the value of the interstellar temperature depends on the distance from the central star.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the Newton’s Cooling Law

The irradiance of the Sun on the outer atmosphere when the Sun and Earth are spaced at 1 AU is called the solar constant GSC. The currently accepted value is GSC = 1361 W/m2. The Stefan-Boltzmann law then gives a temperature for the blackbody surface at the distance 1 AU:

where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. For the cooling of the blackbody surface in the Solar System we will use the very well-known Newton’s cooling law:

T 1 A U = ( 1361 σ ) 1 / 4 ≈ 393.6   K

where T(t) is the blackbody surface temperature at time t, TENV = 2.5887 K (the interstellar temperature to fit the value T = 2.7255 K at R = 140 AU), R is the distance from the Earth, c is the light speed. For the determination of the cooling constant κ we will use data for the small planet Pluto at the average distance R = 39.5 AU and its surface temperature T = 44 K. This will give the value κ = 1.139 × 10−4 s−1. This new appearance of the old Newton’s cooling law might contribute to numerous applications and deeper knowledge about this classical physical law, [38]–[67]. Surprisingly, the value of the cooling constant κ for the Solar System is in the range of values of cooling constants for liquid water [68]. It seems that behind Newton’s cooling law might be the blackbody surface of the surroundings. Fig. 3 depicts the temperature of the blackbody surface in the Solar System. One of the future experiments in the Solar System might be the measurement of the blackbody surface temperatures at various distances from the Sun.

ln ⁡ ( T ( t ) − T E N V T ( 1 A U ) − T E N V ) = − κ t = − κ R c

Fig. 3. The blackbody surface temperature in the Solar System is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Newton’s cooling law.

The Newton’s SMB Dipole and the Doppler’s CMB Dipole

The CMB dipole represents the largest anisotropy with the amplitude of CMB dipole (3.3621 ± 0.001 mK), e.g., [69]–[74]. This Doppler’s CMB dipole is interpreted as the Sun motion at 368 km/s relative to the reference frame of the CMB towards the galactic coordinates (l, b) = (264°, 48°). However, this Doppler’s dipole direction leads to the opposite direction of the rotation of the Sun in the Milky Way Galaxy and the opposite direction from the Andromeda Galaxy (the observed Doppler blueshift on the level of 110 km/s). Therefore, this kinematic interpretation of CMB anisotropy was recently questioned with high statistical confidence [75].

The observed microwave background dipole is interpreted newly using Newton’s cooling law: the longer the path of the Solar radiation heat towards the Blackbody Sphere, the cooler the Hydrogen wall and the cooler photons radiating from that cooler site (3):

where +x is a longer path in the direction of motion of the Sun, and −x is a shorter path of the Blackbody Sphere behind the moving Sun. Therefore, Newton’s SMB dipole leads in the opposite direction in comparison with Doppler’s CMB dipole (Fig. 4).

ln ⁡ ( T ( t ) − T E N V T ( 1 A U ) − T E N V ) = − κ t = − κ R ± x c

Fig. 4. Newton’s SMB dipole direction opposite to Doppler’s CMB dipole direction, sky map in galactic coordinates.

This model predicts several new facts because the Sun and the Milky Way Galaxy move differently in comparison with the traditional interpretation based on Doppler’s CMB model (Table II).

Doppler’s CMB dipole direction towards the warmer photons
v = 368 km/s towards (l, b) = (264°, 48°)
Newton’s SMB dipole direction towards the cooler photons (fitted for the Doppler dipole data)
v = (200 + 141) = 341 km/s towards (l, b) = (84°, −48°)
v1 = 200 km/s–-the true Sun rotation velocity in the Milky Way Galaxy
vrotation = v1 + v3 = 200 + 27 = 227 km/s the Sun rotation in the Milky Way Galaxy measured by the Doppler effect
v2 = 141 km/s–-the Milky Way Galaxy motion towards (l, b) = (84°, −48°)
v3 = 27 km/s–-the Harress-Sagnac color excess [76]
v4 = 16 km/s–-the Milky Way Galaxy motion towards the Cold spot (l, b) = (209°, −57°)
v5 = 8 km/s–the Milky Way Galaxy motion towards the South galactic pole (l, b) = (0°, −90°)
The Milky Way Galaxy will avoid the predicted collision [77] with the Andromeda Galaxy [(l, b) = (121°, −22°)]. The apparent velocity towards the Andromeda Galaxy is vapparent = 141 × cos (40°) = 108 km/s, the real velocity 141 km/s leads towards (l, b) = (84°, −48°). (Based on the haversine formula)
Table II. Doppler’s Dipole Magnitude and Direction, Newton’s Dipole Magnitude and Direction

This SMB model enables to describe the total motion of the Milky Way Galaxy through the Universe. The main velocity component directs towards the galactic coordinates (l, b) = (84°, −48°) towards the Constellation Pisces. The second velocity direction goes towards the Cold spot with galactic coordinates (l, b) = (209°, −57°)–the direction to the Constellation Eridanus. The unexplained existence of the Cold spot in the CMB map, e.g., [78]–[83], could be solved as the second direction of the motion of the Milky Way Galaxy. The smallest velocity vector directs to the South galactic pole towards the constellation Sculptor. This SMB model predicts that the collision between the Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way Galaxy will not occur (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5. The SMB model prediction of the total motion of the Milky Way Galaxy.

The Axis of Evil Renamed as the Solar Axis of a Good Opportunity

The unexpected features of the microwave sky at large angular scales revealed unique patterns somehow associated with the Ecliptic plane, e.g., [84]–[91]. This preferred axis was termed the Axis of evil and many papers studied those patterns in details, e.g., [92]–[98]. The detailed map of these unique patterns is shown in Fig. 6 from the valuable paper of Copi et al. [95].

Fig. 6. Quadrupole and octopole (l = 2 and 3) temperature anisotropy of the WMAP sky map in galactic coordinates, shown with the ecliptic plane and the cosmological dipole. The figure is reprinted from the valuable paper of Copi et al. [95].

The probability of these alignments in Fig. 6 is about one part in a thousand. We predict that a deeper study of the Sun local motions with an amplitude of about 10 km/s can be seen as the blue patterns (the Sun forward motion cools a little bit the Blackbody Sphere on a longer path), and red patterns (on the opposite side of the Sun motion the Blackbody Sphere is a little bit warmer–-a shorter path). Because the Sun rotation axis is inclined to the Ecliptic plane, the South hemisphere should be a little bit warmer in comparison with the North hemisphere. Therefore, we propose to rename the “Axis of evil” into the “Solar axis of a good opportunity” because we might distinguish between the SMB and CMB predictions.

The Power Spectrum of the Microwave Background–the First Peak

The power spectrum of the microwave background [99] can support or exclude the SMB model. In this experiment, we observe the Blackbody Sphere at the distance R = 140 AU from satellites on the orbit near the Earth at a distance of 1 AU from the Sun on a circle with a diameter equal to D = 2 AU. The same structure we observe under the angle θ ≈ 0.818° shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7. Observation of the Blackbody Sphere at the distance R = 140 AU from the diameter D = 2 AU under the angle θ ≈ 0.818°.

In order to test the reality of this SMB model, we should observe the first peak position in the power spectrum at different angles. Fig. 8 predicts the positions of the first peak in the power spectrum observed from the planets Jupiter and Mercury.

Fig. 8. Positions of the first peak in the power spectrum observed from planets Jupiter, Earth, and Mercury. (Figure of the power spectrum from Wikipedia).

We propose to perform this experiment in the Solar System near other planets in order to reveal if the SMB model describes the real Nature. This experiment could be very valuable for the estimation of the reality of the Newton-Stefan-Boltzmann-Planck Code. The joint project “ICURE” (India, China, United States of America, Russia, and European Union) could bring new data for the properties of microwave background observed until now in the vicinity of the Earth only. This experiment can reveal to us if our cosmological models are universal or “Geocentric”, “Heliocentric”, or “Galaxy centric”.

The Solar Signature on the Blackbody Sphere–Moving Sunspots

Sunspots are very well-documented phenomena of the Sun’s photosphere that appear as temporary spots that are darker than the surrounding areas. Sunspots are regions of reduced surface temperature caused by the concentrations of magnetic flux. Sunspots have diameters from 16 km to 160,000 km and rotate on the surface of the Sun. We predict that we should observe on the Blackbody Sphere at the distance R = 140 AU moving shadows of these Sunspots with the average angular size 1°–2°. This Solar signature on the Blackbody Sphere is reversible: when the Sunspot’s shadow moves away, the temperature of Blackbody Sphere returns to an average value. This could be an original feature that might support or exclude the reality of the Solar Microwave Background. Fig. 9 shows the Sun’s observation made by Soummyadeep Murkherjee who imaged the Sun for 365 days in the year 2021 [100].

Fig. 9. Observation of the Sunspots during 365 days in the year 2021 by Murherjee [100].

Conclusion

This contribution is based on the classical Newton’s cooling law, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the Planck blackbody radiation law. This Newton-Stefan-Boltzmann-Planck Code can newly interpret the microwave background observed in the Solar System as the Solar microwave background (SMB).

  1. We propose to measure the temperature of the blackbody surface throughout the Solar System, especially on the Termination shock and the Hydrogen wall.
  2. The Newton’s SMB dipole directs to the antipode of the Doppler’s CMB dipole. The magnitudes of velocities of the Milky Way Galaxy were presented.
  3. The collision between the Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way Galaxy can be avoided in this model.
  4. The “Axis of evil” was renamed as the “Solar axis of a good opportunity”: it could distinguish between the CMB and the SMB.
  5. The position of the first peak in the power spectrum should depend on the observer’s position in the Solar System.
  6. The original Solar signature in the form of moving shadows of the Sunspots on the Blackbody Sphere was predicted.

References

  1. Penzias AA, Wilson RW. A measurement of excess antenna temperature at 4080 Mc/s. Astrophys J. 1965;142(1):419–21.
     Google Scholar
  2. Smoot G, Davidson K. Wrinkles in Time. New York: W. Morrow; 1993. ISBN 0-688-12330-9.
     Google Scholar
  3. Fixsen DJ, Cheng ES, Cottingham DA, Eplee RE Jr, Isaacman RB, Mather JC, et al. Cosmic microwave background dipole spectrum measured by the COBE FIRAS instrument. Astrophys J. 1994;420(2):445–9.
     Google Scholar
  4. Mather JC, Boslough J. The Very First Light: The True Inside Story of the Scientific Journey Back to the Dawn of the Universe. New York: BasicBooks; 1996. ISBN 0-465-01575-1.
     Google Scholar
  5. Bennett CL, Hill RS, Hinshaw G, NoltaMR, Odegard N, Page L, et al. First-year wilkinson anisotropy probe (WMAP)observations: foreground emission. Astrophys J Suppl Ser. 2003;148(1):97.
     Google Scholar
  6. Benett CL, Hill RS, Hinshaw G, Larson D, Smith KM, Dunkley J, et al. Seven-year Wilkinson anisotropy probe (WMAP) observations: are there cosmic microwave background anomalies? Astrophys J Suppl Ser. 2011;192(2):17.
     Google Scholar
  7. Bennett CL, Larson D, Weiland JL, Jarosik N, Hinshaw G, Odegard N, et al. Nine-year wilkinsonmicrowave anisotropy probe (WMAP) observations: final maps and results. Astrophys J Suppl Ser. 2013;208(2):20.
     Google Scholar
  8. Planck Collaboration. Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters. Astron Astrophys. 2013;571:A16.
     Google Scholar
  9. Planck Collaboration. Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters. Astron Astrophys. 2016;594:A13.
     Google Scholar
  10. Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron Astrophys. 2020;641:A6.
     Google Scholar
  11. Durrer R. The cosmic microwave background: the history of its experimental investigation and its significance for cosmology. 2015. Arxiv:1506.01907v1.
     Google Scholar
  12. Staggs S, Dunkley J, Page L. Recent discoveries from the cosmicmicrowave background: a review of recent progress. Rep Prog Phys. 2018;81(4):044901.
     Google Scholar
  13. Durrer R. The Cosmic Microwave Background. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020. ISBN-10: 1107135222.
     Google Scholar
  14. López-Corredoira M. Tests and problems of the standard model in Cosmology. Found Phys. 2017;47(6):711–68.
     Google Scholar
  15. Bonnet-Bidaud JM. The diffuse light of theUniverse. On the microwave background before and after its discovery: Open questions. Found Phys. 2017;47(6):851–69.
     Google Scholar
  16. Ćirković MM & Perović S. Alternative explanations of the cosmic microwave background: a historical and an epistemological perspective. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part B: Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys. 2018;62:1–18.
     Google Scholar
  17. Layzer D, Hively R. Origin of the microwave background. Astrophys J. 1973;179:361–70.
     Google Scholar
  18. Rees MJ. Origin of pregalactic microwave background. Nat. 1978;275:35–7.
     Google Scholar
  19. Rana NC. Cosmic thermalization and the microwave background radiation. Mon Not Royal Astron Soc. 1981;197: 1125–37.
     Google Scholar
  20. Wright EL. Thermalization of starlight by elongated grains. Could the microwave background have been produced by stars? Astrophys J. 1982;255:401–7.
     Google Scholar
  21. Gen P. New insight intoOlbers’ and Seelingers’s paradoxes and the cosmic background radiation. Chin Astron Astrophys. 1988;12(3):191–6.
     Google Scholar
  22. Bond JR, Carr BJ, Hogan CJ. Cosmic backgrounds from primeval dust. Astrophys J. 1991;367:420–54.
     Google Scholar
  23. Narlikar JV, Vishwakarma RG, Hajian A, Souradeep T, Burbidge G, Hoyle F. Inhomogeneities in the microwave background radiation interpreted within the framework of the quasi-steady state cosmology. Astrophys J. 2003;585(1):1.
     Google Scholar
  24. Li A. Cosmic needles versus cosmic microwave background radiation. Astrophys J. 2003;584:593–8.
     Google Scholar
  25. Fahr HJ, Zönnchen JH. The ‘writing on the cosmic wall’: is there a straightforward explanation of the cosmic microwave background? Ann Phys. 2009;18:699–721.
     Google Scholar
  26. Vavryčuk V. Missing dust signature in the cosmic microwave background. Mon Not Royal Astron Soc. 2017;470:L44–8.
     Google Scholar
  27. Vavryčuk V. Universe opacity and CMB. Mon Not Royal Astron Soc. 2018;478:283–301.
     Google Scholar
  28. Heliosphere. Wikipedia. 2024. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere. Accessed on March 09, 2024.
     Google Scholar
  29. Katushkina OA, Quémerais E, Izmodenov VV, Lallement R, Sandell BR. Voyager 1/UVS Lyman α measurements at the distant heliosphere (90–130 AU): unknown source of additional emission. J Geophys Res: Space Phys. 2017;122(11):10–921.
     Google Scholar
  30. Assis AKT, Neves MCD. History of the 2.7 K temperature prior to Penzias and Wilson. Apeiron. 1995;2:79–84.
     Google Scholar
  31. Guillaume CE. La température de l’espace. [The temperature of the space]. La Nature. 1896;24:210–1. French.
     Google Scholar
  32. Eddington A. The Internal Constitution of the Stars. 1st edition. New York: Dover Publications; 1926, pp. 371. Reprinted in 1959.
     Google Scholar
  33. Regener E. Der Energiestrom der Ultrastrahlung. [The energy flux of cosmic rays]. Zeitschrift f˝ur Physik. 1933;80:666–9. German.
     Google Scholar
  34. Nernst W. Die Strahlungstemperatur des Universums. [The radiation temperature of the Universe]. Annalen der Physik. 1938;424(1–2):44–8. German.
     Google Scholar
  35. McKellar A. Molecular lines from the lowest states of diatomic molecules composed of atoms probably present in interstellar space. Pub Dom Astropys Obs Vic B.C. 1941;VII(15):251–72.
     Google Scholar
  36. Finlay-Freundlich E. Red shifts in the spectra of celestial bodies. Philos Mag. 1954;45:303–19.
     Google Scholar
  37. Słyk K, Bondar AV, Galazutdinov GA, Krełowski J. CN column densities and excitation temperature. Mon Not Royal Astron Soc. 2008;390:1733–50.
     Google Scholar
  38. Anonymous. Scala graduum caloris [A scale of degrees of heat]. Philos Trans Royal Soc Lond. 1701;22:824–9. Latin.
     Google Scholar
  39. Richmann GW. Inquisito in legem, secundum quam calor fluidi in vase contenti, certo temporis intervallo, in temperie aëris constanter eadem decresit vel crescit [Inquired into the law, according to which the heat of the fluid contained in a vessel, at a certain interval of time, in temperature the air constantly decreases or increases]. Novi Commentari Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanane. 1747;X:174–97. Latin.
     Google Scholar
  40. Erxleben ICP. Legem vulgarem, secundum quam calor corporum certo temporis intervallo crescere dicitur, ad examen revocat [The common law, according to which the heat of bodies is said to increase at a certain interval of time, for examination he recalls]. Novi Commentarii SocietatisRegiae ScientiarumGottingensis. 1777;VIII:74–95. Latin, Gottingae.
     Google Scholar
  41. Thomson B (Rumford). An enquiry concerning the nature of heat and the mode of its communication. Philos Trans Royal Soc. 1804;94:77–182.
     Google Scholar
  42. Biot M. Sur la loi de Newton relative à la communication de la chaleur [On Newton’s law relating to the communication of heat]. Bulletin de la Société Philomatique. 1816, 21–4. French.
     Google Scholar
  43. Dulong P, Petit A. Recherches sur laMesure des Températures et sur les Lois de la communication de la chaleur [Research on TemperatureMeasurement and the Laws of Heat Communication]. Annales de Chimie et de Physique. 1817;VII:113–54, 225–64, 337–67. French.
     Google Scholar
  44. Stefan J. Über die Beziehung zwischen der Wärmestrahlung und der Temperatur [About the relationship between thermal radiation and temperature]. Sitzungsberichte der mathematischen-naturwissenschaftlichen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1879;79:391–428. German.
     Google Scholar
  45. Ruffner JA. Reinterpretation of the genesis on Newton’s “Law of Cooling”. Arch Hist Exact Sci. 1963;2(2):138–52.
     Google Scholar
  46. Molnar GW. Newton’s thermometer: a model for testing Newton’s law of cooling. Physiol. 1969;12(1):9–19.
     Google Scholar
  47. Grigull U. Newton’s temperature scale and the law of cooling. Wärme-Stoffübertragung. 1984;18:195–9.
     Google Scholar
  48. O’Sullivan CT. Newton law of cooling–a critical assesment. Am J Phys. 1990;58(10):956–60.
     Google Scholar
  49. Cheng KC, Fujii T. Isaac Newton and heat transfer. Heat Transf Eng. 1998;19(4):9–21.
     Google Scholar
  50. Winterton RHS. Newton’s law of cooling. Contemp Phys. 1999;40(3):205–12.
     Google Scholar
  51. Winterton RHS. Early study of heat transfer: Newton and Fourier. Heat Transf Eng. 2001;22:3–11.
     Google Scholar
  52. Wisniak J. Heat radiation–from Newton to Stefan. Indian J Chem Tech. 2002;9:545–55.
     Google Scholar
  53. Simms DL. Newton’s contribution to the science of heat. Ann Sci. 2004;61(1):33–77.
     Google Scholar
  54. Cheng KC. Some observations on the origins of Newton’s law of cooling and its influences on thermofluid science. Appl Mech Rev. 2009;62(6):060803.
     Google Scholar
  55. Barragán D. Entropy production andNewton’s cooling law.Revista Ingenieria e Investigación. 2009;29(2):88–93, Spanish.
     Google Scholar
  56. Vollmer M. Newton’s law of cooling revisited. Eur J Phys. 2009;30(5):1063–84.
     Google Scholar
  57. Bensson U. The history of the cooling law: when search for simplicity can be an obstacle. Sci Educ. 2010;21(8):1–26.
     Google Scholar
  58. Pankovic V, Kapor DV. A modification of the Newton’s cooling law and Mpemba effect. Arxiv.1005.1013v1. Accessed on April 25, 2023.
     Google Scholar
  59. Davidzon MI. Newton’s law of cooling and its interpretation. Int J Heat Mass Transf . 2012;55:5397–402.
     Google Scholar
  60. Šesták J. Are nonisothermal kinetics fearing historical Newton’s cooling law, or are just afraid to inbuilt complications due to undesirable thermal inertia? J Therm Anal Calorim. 2018;134:1385–93.
     Google Scholar
  61. Šesták J. Do we really know what temperature is: from Newton’s cooling law to an improved understanding of thermal analysis. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2020;142(217–21):1–14.
     Google Scholar
  62. Maruyama S, Moriya S. Newton’s law of cooling: follow up and exploration. Int J Heat Mass Transf . 2021;164:120544.
     Google Scholar
  63. Sarafian H. Alternative cooling model vs Newton’s cooling. Am J Comput Math. 2021;11:64–9.
     Google Scholar
  64. Zhao B. Integrity of Newton’s cooling law based on thermal convection theory of heat transfer and entropy transfer. Sci Rep. 2022;12:16292.
     Google Scholar
  65. Perea Martins JEM. A data acquisition system for water heating and cooling experiments. Phys Educ. 2017;52:015019.
     Google Scholar
  66. Rodríguez-Acevedo F, Fiore-Álvarez S, Zúñiga CM, Miranda BC, Mata-Segreda JF. Newton’s cooling rate constant of liquids for the relative assessment for heat transport. Int JRenew Energy Biofuels. 2018:996542. doi: 10.5171/2018.996542.
     Google Scholar
  67. Perea Martins JEM. An experimental analysis of the cooling constant computation. Phys Educ. 2022;57:025001.
     Google Scholar
  68. Stávek J. A new interpretation of the Newton’s cooling law. Two features of thermons: their elastic volume and their angular momentum. Eur J Appl Phys. 2023;5(3):11–7.
     Google Scholar
  69. Smoot GF, Gorenstein MV, Muller RA. Detection of anisotropy in the cosmic blackbody radiation. Phys Rev Lett. 1977;39(14):898.
     Google Scholar
  70. Lineweaver CH. The CMB dipole: the most recent measurement and some history. 1996. Arxiv:astro-ph/9609034.
     Google Scholar
  71. Ade PA, Aghanin N, Arnaud M, Ashdown M, Aumont J, Baccigalupi C, et al. Planck 2015 results-xiii. Cosmological parameters. Astron Astrophys. 2016;594:A13.
     Google Scholar
  72. Wen Y, Scott D, Sullivan R, Zibin JP. Role of T0 in CMB anisotropy measurements. Phys Rev D. 2021;104(4):043516.
     Google Scholar
  73. Turner MS. The road to precision cosmology. Annu Rev Nucl Part Sci. 2022;72:1–35.
     Google Scholar
  74. Sullivan RM, Scott D. The CMB dipole: eppur si muove. The Sixteenth Marcel Grossmann Meet Recent Dev Theor Exp Gen Relativity, Astrophys Relativistic Field Theor: Proc MG16 Meet Gen Relativity. 2023;5–10:1532–41.
     Google Scholar
  75. Secrest NJ, Hausegger S, Rameez M, Mohayaee R, Sarkar S, Colin J. A test of the cosmological principle with quasars. Astrophys J Lett. 2021;908(2):L51.
     Google Scholar
  76. Stávek J. TheDescartes code (spin orbital rotation of photons)-IV. The Harress-Sagnac color excess in the rotation curves of galaxies. Eur J Appl Phys. 2024;6(2):36–43.
     Google Scholar
  77. Cox TJ, Loeb A. The collision between the Milky Way and Andromeda. Mon Not Royal Astron Soc. 2008;386(1):461–74.
     Google Scholar
  78. Cruz M, Martínez-González E, Vielva P, Cayon L. Detection of a non-Gaussian Spot in WMAP. Mon Not Royal Astron Soc. 2005;356(1):29–40.
     Google Scholar
  79. Cruz M, Martínez-González E, Vielva P, Diego JM, Hobson M. The CMB cold spot: texture, cluster or void? Mon Not Royal Astron Soc. 2008;390:913–9.
     Google Scholar
  80. Szapudi I, Kovács A, Granett BR, Frei Z, Silk J, Garcia-Belindo J, et al. The cold spot in the cosmic microwave background: the shadow of a supervoid. 2014. Arxiv:1406.3622.
     Google Scholar
  81. Kovács A, Jeffrey N, Gatti M, Chang C, Whiteway L, Hamaus N, et al. The DES view of the Eridanus supervoid and the CMB cold spot. Mon Not Royal Astron Soc. 2022;510:216–29.
     Google Scholar
  82. Owusu S, da Silveira Ferreira P, Notari A, Quartin M. The CMB cold spot under the lens: ruling out a supervoid interpretation. J Cosmol Astropart Phys. 2023;2023(06):040.
     Google Scholar
  83. Lambas DG, Hansen FK, Toscano F, Luparello HE, Boero EF. The CMB cold spot as predicted by foregrounds around nearby galaxies. Astron Astrophys. 2024;681:A2.
     Google Scholar
  84. Bernui A, Oliveira AF, Pereira TS. North-South non-Gaussian asymmetry in PLANCK CMB maps. J Cosmol Astropart Phys. 2014;10:041.
     Google Scholar
  85. Schwarz DJ, Copi CJ, Huterer D, Starkman GD. CMB anomalies after Planck. Class Quantum Gravity. 2016;33(18):184001.
     Google Scholar
  86. O’Dwyer M, Copi CJ, Nagy JM, Netterfield CB, Ruhl J, Starkmann GD. Hemispherical variance anomaly and reionization optical depth. Mon Not Royal Astron Soc. 2020;499:3563–70.
     Google Scholar
  87. Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation. Astron Astrophys. 2020;641:A10.
     Google Scholar
  88. Perivolaropoulos L, Skara F. Challenges for CDM: an update. 2022. Arxiv:2105.05208v3.
     Google Scholar
  89. Abdall E, Abellán GF, Abourahim A, Agnello A, Akarsu Ö, Akrami Y, et al. Cosmology intertwinned: a review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associted with the cosmological tensions and anomalies. J High Energy Astrophys. 2022;34:49–211.
     Google Scholar
  90. Colombo LPL, Eskilt JR, Paradiso S, Thommesen H, Andersen KJ, Aurlien R, et al. Beyond Planck XI. Bayesian CMB analysis with sample-based end-to-end error propagation. Astron Astrophys. 2023;675:A11.
     Google Scholar
  91. Gimeno-Amo C, Barreiro RB, Martínez-González E, Marcos-Caballero A. Hemispherical power asymmetry in intensity and polarization for Planck PR4 data. J Cosmology Astropart Phys. 2023;12:029.
     Google Scholar
  92. Land K, Magueijo J. Examination of evidence for a preferred exis in the cosmic radiation anisotropy. Phys Rev Lett. 2005;95(7):071301.
     Google Scholar
  93. Copi CJ, Huterer D, Schwarz DJ, Starkman GD. On the large-angle anomalies of the microwave sky. Mon Not Royal Astron Soc. 2006;367(1):79–102.
     Google Scholar
  94. Land K, Magueijo J. The axis of evil revisited. Mon Not Royal Astron Soc. 2007;378(1):153–8.
     Google Scholar
  95. Copi CJ, Huterer D, Schwarz DJ, Starkman GD. Large-angle anomalies in the CMB. Adv Astron. 2010;2010. Arxiv:1004.5602. Accessed on March 09, 2024.
     Google Scholar
  96. Hansen M, Kim J, Frejsel AM, Ramazanov S, Naselsky P, Zhao W, et al. Can residuals of the Solar system foreground explain low multiple anomalies of the CMB? J Cosmol Astropart Phys. 2012;10:059.
     Google Scholar
  97. Rassat A, Starck JL, Paykari P, Sureau F, Bobin J. Planck CMB anomalies: astrophysical and cosmological secondary effects and the curse of masking. J Cosmol Astropart Phys. 2014;2014(08):006.
     Google Scholar
  98. Saadeh D, Feeney SM, Pontzen HV, McEwen JD. How isotropic is the Universe? Phys Rev Lett. 2016;117(13):131302.
     Google Scholar
  99. Collaboration P. Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods. Astron Astrophys. 2020;641:A5.
     Google Scholar
  100. Murkherjee S. The Sunspots on the surface of the Sun in the year 2021. 2021. Available from: https://www.rmg.co.uk/whats-on/astronomy-photographer-year/galleries/our-sun-2022.
     Google Scholar


Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 > >>