Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.

v1

Different Explanations for the Cosmic

Microwave Background Radiation
Ting-Hang Pei
Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Academia Sinica, Taiwan
[email protected]; [email protected]
Abstract - In this research, the other reasonable explanations for the cosmic microwave
background radiation is revealed. Due to the microwave resolution, it very roughly
shows the image of galaxies in the universe. Moreover, the intensity measurement on
each pixel of the image is the sum of the incident microwaves from different directions,
so the microwave image cannot represent the microwave sources clearly far away from
the Earth. Hence, we propose a simulation after removing several strongest microwave
sources, the remaining microwave radiation sources can establish a very uniform
intensity distribution over a range of several ten light years. On the other hand, Sloan
Digital Sky Survey reveals 200 million galaxies in the universe and, in fact, only to
eliminate the contributions of all galaxies from the microwave image is impossible. The
way to further obtain the fine-scale structure by only removing the few strongest
microwave sources as the foreground effect will keep the other contributions from all
the rest galaxies and stars. Therefore, the Cosmic Microwave Background cannot be
uniquely explained the radiation which was left after the initial formation of the
universe. Moreover, it is the mainly residual radiation from the un-calculated galaxies
and inaccurate estimation of the microwave source strength.
Keywords: Cosmic Microwave Background, Cosmic Infrared Background, Cosmic Background
Detector, Planck Surveyor, Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey

CMB - Cosmic Microwave Background

COBE - Cosmic Background Detector
WMAP - Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Detector
ESA – European Space Agency
CIB - Cosmic Infrared Background
FIRB - Far-Infrared Background
BICEP – Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization
SDSS - Sloan Digital Sky Survey
BOSS - Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey

I. Introduction
The CMB [1-3] is regarded as the radiation left by the early development of the
universe. It is thought as the microwave electromagnetic radiation filling the entire
universe after the "big bang" in cosmology. CMB is nearly identical in all directions,
but subtle residual changes exhibit tiny anisotropy [2]. In the past fifty years, people
made a lot of measurements and detailed research on CMB in different bands, and found
that it meets well with the blackbody radiation spectrum in a fairly wide range of
wavelengths, corresponding to a temperature of 2.725K [3].
A well-known experiment was proceeded by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's COBE satellite, which detected large-scale microwave image with
1

© 2021 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

limited detection capabilities [4]. However, COBE did not have good resolution to
perform anisotropic experiments on small angular scales. Then the sky-viewing
experiments using balloons near the ground were investigated more delicately to an
angular scale of about 1 degree [4]. At the same period, WMAP measured the large-
scale anisotropy of the entire sky more accurately and gave detailed measurements of
the angular power spectra at a scale less than 1 degree [4,5]. In the following, the
European Space Agency’s Planck satellite proceeds a more detailed investigation until
now [4]. However, the original CMB data collected from satellites was thought to
contain foreground effects that completely cover the fine-scale structure of the cosmic
microwave background. Scientists considered that the Milky Way and extragalaxies
provide microwave sources which must be subtracted to reveal this fine-scale structure,
the so-called cosmic anisotropic microwave background. However, the detailed
analysis is complicated and difficult to calculate. In practice, it is very difficult to
account all the microwave sources in the universe.
Extracting cosmology science must carry out signal-foreground separation detailed
where the six main foreground models motivated by Planck data are summarized [6].
Two CIB spectra have been revealed [6,7]. Recently, various aspects of the CMB
spectral distortions have been reviewed [8], and different factors causing the distortions
are also briefly introduced, such as: Bose-Einstein (μ-type) distortions, weak
Comptonization (y-type) distortions, intermediate epoch distortions, and sources of
spectral distortions. These distortion factors gradually become widespread in
discussions. In addition, the latest evidence of intergalactic medium heating from active
galactic nuclei feedback has also been studied [8]. Not only the aforementioned
distortion sources, but the plasma affecting the CMB radiation in a variety of
quantifiable ways has also been discussed [9]. Furthermore, the Planck CMB
anisotropic power spectra show that the primordial black holes with mass mBH ≳ 5 M⊙
are disfavored for constraints [10]. However, this is susceptible to sizable uncertainties
in treating the black-hole accretion process [10]. Besides, the hot gas in unresolved
groups of galaxies is also predicted to lead the spectral distortions [11-13]. The
distortion of the CMB Spectrum from the intergalactic dust has also been reported to
an upper limit of 0.06% on the FIRB contributions [14]. When more and more possible
sources of distortions are discovered, the spectrum of CMB is more and more different
from the earlier results. This also shows that some things have not been discovered
which may have potential to affect the CMB spectrum. These messages also support
our discussion in this paper.
Another related example can illustrate the results of incorrect estimates of radiation
sources. In 2014, the BICEP2 team claimed to detect a large-scale B-mode polarization
signal from the Big Bang [15], but the estimation was wrong because the intensity of

2
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

the unknown foreground noise [16]. The weak gravity lensing signal would have a
stronger E-mode signal where the signal mixes with the B-mode signal [16]. Later, in
collaboration with the Planck team [17,18], it was concluded that most of the measured
B-modes came from the polarized dust of the Milky Way. The follow-up results of
Planck satellites and the joint analysis of BICEP2/Keck and Planck data show that this
interpretation is incorrect, and galactic dust accounts for most of the BICEP2 signal,
while the amount of gravitational waves from inflation can only be set an upper limit
[16]. It is even clearly stated that a signal in the cosmic microwave background can be
explained by interstellar dust when this signal is thought to be evidence of inflation in
the early universe [19].
However, as we know, the microwave source is a long-wavelength source in cm
range. Using it to do imaging reconstruction naturally exists the substantial resolution
problem [20,21]. Even the higher frequency in the Terahertz region, the imaging
resolution is still a problem [22-25]. How to improve the resolution has been proceeded
for many years. According to the cosmic map produced by SDSS including new data
from BOSS [26,27], at least 200 million galaxies [26-29] exist in the universe, and the
microwave contributions of the most galaxies show on each pixel of the cosmic
microwave image. In fact, the microwave imaging is not as clear as the X-Ray imaging.
The wavelength of the microwave is in the cm range, and the image edges are blurred
for the detected body [3,20-24]. Traditionally, the microwave detector is the horn
antenna and the receiving port is an opening with a finite area [30-34]. Due to the
resolution limitation of the microwave imaging, it causes our curiosity whether the
traditional CMB explanation is reasonable or not? Why is there a uniform microwave
distribution in the sky? In the 1987A supernova event [35], the generated light travels
in the universe at the speed of light and reach the Earth after 168,000 years. Similar to
this, it makes us doubt whether it is still possible to measure the microwave radiation
of 13.8 billion years ago since the Big Bang? Just as it takes eight minutes and eighteen
seconds for sunlight traveling to the Earth, electromagnetic waves or photons pass
through space between galaxies and galaxies at the speed of light. Once they are
generated, they start to move forward to the edge of the universe. if no absorption by
other substances, the microwaves generated 13.8 billion years ago have already traveled
a distance of 13.8 billion light-years. Therefore, how can the empty universe reserve
and keep the microwave radiations almost moving straightly at the speed of light since
13.8 billion years ago? Based on those reviews, we use several viewpoints to discuss
this topic in this research. A picture taken on 2009 Tokyo Christmas Festival [36] also
helps us to understand some concepts here.

3
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

II. The New Explanation of The Cosmic Microwave Imaging

As we know, as long as the temperature is higher than the absolute zero, there are
black-body radiation and the corresponding spectrum. The cosmic background
radiation is obtained by using the microwave measurement to draw an omnidirectional
image, and it shows the final result of the radiation homogenization at 2.7 K in all
directions after complicated elimination of the foreground contamination. However,
before obtaining the final results, we have to ask how much the information are clearly
from the microwave imaging and what does it mean from those images?
If we measure the blackbody radiation spectrum of the sun, then it corresponds to
about 6000 K of blackbody radiation. The use of satellites to measure the blackbody
radiation in outer space may directly detect the blackbody radiation spectrum of the
extremely thin cold gas in the universe, so the blackbody radiation measurement of the
COBE satellite is consistent with the theoretical prediction almost without errors.
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) was responsible for the
detection of the anisotropy in cosmic microwave radiation [5]. Two five-year images at
23 GHz and 94 GHz are shown in Fig. 1. It shows a lot of red regions at 23 GHz in Fig.
1(a) and few red regions at 94 GHz in Fig. 1(b). Comparing Fig. 1(b) with 1(a), it clearly
reveals more detail about the universe what we understand. This big difference is due
to the resolution that the detecting wavelength in Fig. 1(b) is shorter than Fig. 1(a). This
full-sky map of the CMB contains 3,145,728 pixels [5] and each pixel includes the
contribution of many illuminators. According to the largest 3D cosmic map [29], at least
200 million galaxies exist in the universe and each galaxy averagely contains about
100~200 billion stars. Some part of the 3D map is shown in Fig. 2(a) and each bright
point in the dense map represents one galaxy in Fig. 2(b). It means an average of 660
contributory galaxies in each pixel so, roughly speaking, total about 6.6x1014 to
1.32x1015 stars averagely containing in each pixel. In fact, each pixel includes a lot of
illuminators from different directions more than above values and their contributions
are summarized to show on the microwave images. Even using 94 GHz microwave to
reconstruct the full-sky imaging, the resolution is still far less than the truth. Actually,
the microwave images in Fig. 1 are very rough ones. Here we face one problem is the
convincing information extracting from these images. Especially, CMB claims our
universe is flat but it directly contradicts the truth as shown in Fig. 2.
According to above initial analysis, two more reasonable explanations are proposed
in this research. The first explanation extends the original model that the radiation
spectrum comes from the generations 13.8 billion years ago. If so, all the galaxies even
billions of light years far away from the Earth have similar effects and their
contributions have to be considered in the microwave images as mentioned previously.
Especially, each galaxy has powerful contributions in the microwave range, from K-

4
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

band to W-band. It has been proven in Fig. 1(b) that the strong microwave contributions
from our galaxy, and the 23 GHz image in Fig. 1(a) reveals the main microwave source
is still from our galaxy but much wider than it is in 94 GHz image. The measured
spectrum is the superposition of all illuminators, and each microwave image shows the
contributions from all galaxies, more than 200 billion galaxies revealing by SDSS.
However, due to the resolution, it is not possible to make very detailed images like X-
ray imaging. The wavelength of the microwave is in the cm range, and the image edges
are blurred for the detected body [3,20-24]. Therefore, it is impossible to accurately
distinguish the galaxy shape several billion light-years away as good as the Hubble
telescope. The full-sky microwave detection is equivalent to reconstruct images of
many μm-sized bodies using a source of wavelength in cm, and the value at each point
is a relatively large-scale average. However, CMB was obtained by using the optimal
fitting to eliminate the foreground radiation, where only a few important microwave
sources are considered. Here we immediately meet one question is how to correctly
describe the foreground radiation from 200 million galaxies? Actually, it is impossible
for us to give exact foreground radiation as a function of all galaxies. Microwaves
coming from the far-distance galaxies is like from a light point source. When the
foreground radiation is eliminated by using only few main microwave sources, the
contributions of other galaxies are still left no matter how weak it is. Finally, it gives
almost the same value at each imaging pixel by using the microwave detection. If CMB
really exists, then those contributions from all galaxies are also recorded in the CMB
image.

(a) (b)
Figure 1. The five-year temperature maps by WMAP at observing frequencies (a) 23 GHz and (b) 94
GHz [5].

(a) (b)
Figure 2. (a) The part of 3D universe map from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey III, and 10 percent of Sloan
Digital Sky Survey dataset show here [29]. (b) The dense map shows some parts of galaxies in our
universe. Each bright point represents one galaxy [29].
5
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

In the following, a simulation is used to verify our viewpoint. We consider a cubic

space of 5 million light years in each side and a square detecting plane of 500 thousand
light years in each side. This square plane is parallel to one surface of the cubic space,
and the distance between the square detecting plane and the nearest surface of the cubic
space is 5 thousand light years. Both the centers of the cubic and the square detecting
plane are on the same line parallel to the normal direction of the square detecting plane.
Now, supposing 104 galaxies randomly distribute in this cubic space and their radiated
microwave intensities are also random. A random distribution of galaxies is shown in
Fig. 3(a). If the space is reduced as shown in the picture, you can see that the distribution
density is very high. When enlarged into a cube space of 5 million light-years, it will
be very empty when viewed with the naked eye on the Earth. Each galaxy is treated as
a point source in simulations and the intensity measured in space point is inversely
proportional to the square distance from the point source to the space point. Then the
microwave intensity at certain frequency ν in the square detecting plane is the
contributions of all point sources, that is,

𝐴𝑖 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝑦𝑖 , 𝑧𝑖 )
I(𝑥, 𝑦) = ∑ , (1)
[(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥)2 + (𝑦𝑖 − 𝑦)2 + 𝑧𝑖2 ]
𝑖

where (xi, yi, zi) is the coordinates of the point source and (x, y, z=0) is the coordinate
of the point on the square detecting plane. The intensity of each point source is
described by Ai in arbitrary unit, so we can choose Ai is a random number between 0
and 1 in simulations for convenience. In particular, 10 other point light sources with
intensities between 1 and 106 are randomly selected as the extremely strong point light
sources like the cosmic microwave image in Figure 1, in which some light sources are
particularly strong. The coordinates of the 10 point light sources are also arbitrarily
selected in this limited space, and the microwave intensity is calculated together with
the contributions of the 104 point light source. In the square detecting plane, the
intensity distribution is not homogeneous and the maximum is about 3 times larger than
the minimum as shown in Fig. 3(b). When the observer places in the vicinity of the
maximum in Fig. 3(b), he will see the strong light intensity from all galaxies. On the
contrary, he will see low light intensity when he is in the vicinity of the minimum in
Fig. 3(b). If these strongest ten sources are removed from the intensity contribution, it
will not become zero because of the non-zero contribution from the rest 104 galaxies.
The rest intensity distribution shown in Figure 3(c), where the difference between the
maximum and minimum values distributed in a square area of 500,000 light years is
only 10%. It is a very good approximation to say the homogeneous microwave
background established by the rest galaxies. However, the maximum decreases sharply
from about 6,600 in Fig. 3(b) to only about 2.2 in Fig. 3(c). The drop was as much as

6
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

3,000 times. Just like in the process of extracting CMB, after removing the main
foreground pollutions, we get a fairly uniform microwave background value. It is just
that the source of this very approximately uniform microwave background here is
established by 104 galaxies, which is not established from an event after a big supernova
similar to the big bang in the beginning of the universe. The so-called CMB radiation
now is due to the rest galaxies causing this result. When our solar system is placed on
this square detecting plane, it only occupies very small area less than one-pixel size in
Figs. 3(a) and (b). Comparing Fig. 3(b) with Fig. 3(c), because these 10 extremely
strong light sources are added, the lowest value of the intensity distribution on the
detection plane can be increased by several thousand times. Therefore, the method of
removing the strongest light source will leave the uniform contribution of the remaining
small galaxies. The intensity distributions of the other three groups of different small
galaxies and 10 small galaxies of strong light sources are shown in Figs. 3(d), (f), and
(h). In Fig. 3(d) the ratio of the maximum to minimum is about 1.4, the ratio is about
1.7 in Fig. 3(f), and the ratio is about 3.0 in Fig. 3(h). After subtracting the 10 strongest
light sources, the difference between the maximum and minimum is about 8% in Fig.
3(e), the difference is about 6% in Fig. 3(g), and the difference is about 14% in Fig. 3(i).
This means that different 104 galaxies can produce different intensity fluctuations. But
in many simulations, the average intensity in any unit falls around 2.0 overall, which
can be seen from Figs. 3(c), (e), (g), and (i). That is to say, our simulations are
statistically meaningful, and all of them can get close to a uniform background value.
Moreover, our results are also scalable including the Ai, which means that the spatial
distance and the size of the detection plane are reduced by a certain value at the same
time. For example, when the reduction value is 5000, the two locally maximum peaks
in Fig. 3(g) may correspond to the observed part of the anisotropy in CMB. In other
words, the limited spatial distribution of our 104 galaxies can not only explain the
uniform CMB value in all directions, but also show the conclusion that anisotropy may
exist. Here, we give another source to explain the observed phenomenon of CMB.
Therefore, there are more than 20 billion galaxies in the universe, and their contribution
in the microwave frequency band can explain the observation results of CMB from the
Earth or orbiting satellites, and it can also explain the appearance of local
inhomogeneous.

7
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

(a)

(a) (c)

(d) (e)

(f) (g)

8
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

(h) (i)
Figure 3. (a) One demonstration of 104 galaxies distributing in a cubic space whose side is 5 million light
years. (b) The original intensity distribution including all galaxy contributions. The unit in the x- and y-
axes are both 5000 light years. (c) The rest intensity distribution after eliminating 10 strongest light
sources. The difference between the minimum and the maximum is about 10.0% in a square region of
which the side is 50 thousand light years. (d) The ratio of the maximum to minimum is about 1.4. (e) The
difference between the maximum and minimum ia about 8%. (f) The ratio of the maximum to minimum
is about 1.7. (g) The difference between the maximum and minimum is about 6%. (h) The ratio of the
maximum to minimum is about 3.0. (i) The difference between the maximum and minimum is about
14%.

As a real example, from the picture of the Tokyo Christmas Festival, the blue-white
background in the plane close to the ground as shown in Fig. 4. The position of each
lamp can be clearly distinguished from each other in the region near the camera, but it
is gradually blurred as the distance increases. It involves in the imaging resolution. Such
an image is similar to the imaging ability of the Hubble telescope to observe the depths
of the universe. If we consider the microwaves radiated from all those N lamps in the
picture, it is necessary to exactly know the distribution functions of all microwave
sources to establish the radiated microwave intensity distributions in space. When only
one light source is turned on and all the others are turned off, a weak microwave
intensity distribution is still residual in space. Therefore, as long as one microwave
source is un-calculated in the contribution of the radiated microwave intensity
distribution in space, it will leave a microwave background intensity distribution. In
other words, when we measure the radiated microwave intensity at each point in space,
there will be still residual microwave intensity distributed in space by removing the
microwave contributions of the N-1 lamps. In fact, this residual microwave distribution
comes from the un-calculated microwave sources, but it is treated as the so-called
microwave background radiation, just similar to the conclusion in Fig. 3(c). Another
example is that even if we calculate the contributions of all N lamps, the microwave
intensity distribution by subtracting all the N lamps from the measured data still leaves
1% radiated microwave intensity distribution when the radiation intensity of each lamp
is estimated only by 99% of individual intensity. The residual microwave radiation
intensity is distributed in space, and we treat it as the microwave background radiation,
which is also similar to the conclusion of Fig. 3(c).
9
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

On the other hand, when we use infrared technology for image reconstruction, it is
much hard to distinguish the details of the body, especially when the two bodies are
close to each other or overlap, it is usually not easy to distinguish the true appearance
of each one. As mentioned previously, the wavelength of the microwave is in the range
of cm, and the edge of the microwave image is very blurred usually, so it is impossible
to distinguish the galaxies billions of light years far away as clear as the Hubble
telescope does. The use of microwaves for omnidirectional detection of the outer space
is equivalent to reconstruct an image of μm-sized bodies by using a source with a
wavelength of cm, and the value in each imaging point is a very small part of a very
large range with tiny variation. Using the best data and the optimal fitting to obtain the
cosmic background radiation by eliminating the main foreground contamination cannot
avoid the aforementioned the microwave residue problem. Because any illuminant,
especially a cluster of galaxies, has great contribution in the microwave range, from K-
band to W-band. If the microwave image is really from light sources far away, the
measured spectrum should be the contributions of the multi-illuminants in this band.
After eliminating the main contributions of these foreground values from the
microwave image, the residue is all the un-calculated galaxies contributing at each
measurement point, and thus the almost homogeneous intensity in each direction is
obtained similar to the conclusion of Fig. 3(c). It has been considered as the cosmic
microwave background radiation after the Big Bang for a very long time. Our research
strongly suspects this argument because the total number of galaxies in the universe is
unknown and the spatial and time-dependent distribution function of the microwave
sources is not accurately established. As long as this distribution function of the
microwave sources cannot be accurately established, the error will exist and therefore
the residual microwaves will appear which cannot be uniquely determined to be the
residual radiation from the Big Bang. More possibly, it is the residual radiation from
the un-calculated galaxies and inaccurate estimation of the microwave source strength.

Fig. 4 The light-show in 2009 Tokyo Christmas Festival in which all the lights construct an approximately
uniform single-color background [36].
10
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

The images of the Planck satellites show significantly the resolution better than the
COBE satellites, but using microwave to measure the outer space from the place near
the Earth has very limited ability to resolve the star clusters or galaxies, so it is not
reasonable to conclude that the universe is flat. In the following, we can see what is the
problem usin4g the microwave detector. Traditionally, the microwave detector is the
horn antenna and the receiving port is an opening with a finite area [30-34] as shown
in Fig. 5. In fact, each measured point receives light from different directions, so each
pixel on the microwave image represents the summation of all intensities from different
directions, and it cannot directly match the intensity distribution of the light source. For
example, comparing Fig. 1(a) with Fig. 1(b), the intensity at 23 GHz is explicitly
broader than it at 94 GHz. When we use the Fig. 1(a) as the intensity distribution of the
light source, it probably gives similar microwave imaging at 94 GHz. However, it is
not true that the microwave image has a similarly wide distribution at 94 GHz in Fig.
1(b). Due to the resolution on the microwave imaging, there are some significant
problems that need to overcome [21-25] and using the microwave imaging to construct
the cosmic microwave background radiation having the substantial reliability.

Figure 5. The microwave signals are received by the microwave detector whose opening port is a finite
area [30-34], so each measured point receives microwave from different stars at different directions. Each
pixel on the microwave imaging represents a lot of contributions from different directions and it cannot
directly match the intensity distribution of the microwave sources in the universe.

To subtract the foreground effects, we have to know the galactic and extragalactic
spectra. The Cosmic Infrared Background (CIB) spectrum from the COBE/FIRAS
observations is represented by this model [7]

ℎ𝜈 3
𝜈 𝑘𝐹 ( )
3 𝑘𝑇𝐶𝐼𝐵
𝐼𝐶𝐼𝐵 (𝜈) = 1.734 × 10−4 𝑇𝐶𝐼𝐵 ( ) (MJy⁄Sr), (2)
𝜈0 ℎ𝜈
𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( )−1
𝑘𝑇𝐶𝐼𝐵

where TCIB=18.5±1.2 K, ν0=3x1012 Hz, and kF=0.64±0.12. The other expression, which
obtains parameters by using a modified blackbody to fit the Planck data, is [6]

ℎ𝜈 3
ℎ𝜈 0.86 ( )
𝑘𝑇𝐶𝐼𝐵
𝐼𝐶𝐼𝐵 (𝜈) = 0.346 ( ) (MJY⁄Sr), (3)
𝑘𝑇𝐶𝐼𝐵 ℎ𝜈
𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( )−1
𝑘𝑇𝐶𝐼𝐵

11
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

where TCIB=18.8 K is used here. When we check the above two expressions, something
different exists between these two expressions as shown in the following Fig. 6(a). We
plot five spectra according to Eqs. (2) and (3), where four spectra are using the
parameters (TCIB, kF)=(18.5±1.2 K, 0.64±0.12) in Eq. (2) and one spectrum is directly
using TCIB=18.8 K in Eq. (3). The frequency range is shown from 1 GHz to 104 GHz
and five spectra have explicitly different distributions. These two data collected in
different time and separated by about 20 years. It means that the CIB foreground
spectrum is inconsistent in different time. Even at the same time like it in Eq. (2), the
uncertainties in TCIB and kF mean that the spectrum cannot be uniquely and precisely
determined what we specially emphasize here. The inaccurate estimation exists so as to
lead the microwave background radiation appears. Let’s speak more clearly. When we
consider the difference between these two equations at the same TCIB, it is

∆𝐼𝐶𝐼𝐵 (𝜈) = 𝐼𝐶𝐼𝐵 (𝜈)| 𝑇𝐶𝐼𝐵 =18.8 K − 𝐼𝐶𝐼𝐵 (𝜈)|𝑇𝐶𝐼𝐵 =18.8 K , (4)
𝑘𝐹 =0.76

Although the TCIB in Eq. (3) is within the range in Eq. (2), it is very explicitly that the
two powers of the frequency ν in the bracket are different. One is 0.76 and the other is
0.86. The difference between the two spectra in Eq. (4) is plotted in Fig. 6(b). We can
suppose these two spectra that one is the real radiation spectrum and the other is
inaccurately estimated spectrum. This difference is analog to our statement that
inaccurate estimation of the microwave source strength causes the residual microwave
background radiation.

(a) (b)
Figure 6. (a) Four spectra using the parameters (TCIB, kF)=(18.5±1.2 K, 0.64±0.12) in Eq. (2) and one
spectrum using TCIB=18.8 K in Eq. (3) are plotted. (b) The difference between two spectra is plotted.
Both TCIB are the same at 18.8 K. The two powers of the frequency ν in the bracket are different where
one is 0.76 and the other is 0.86.

The CIB foreground spectrum extracted from the FIRAS sky spectra was an obvious
example where the FIRAS spectra are functions of frequency and the galactic
coordinate [7]. It can also be seen from our simulations that the 10,000 galaxies build
small anisotropic intensity distributions in the detection plane. It is always not flat so
12
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

the CIB and CMB spectra must be functions of the observation coordinates. Therefore,
we propose an spatial function for the CMB spectrum in the observation coordinates
(x,y) expanding in the Fourier series
𝐴𝐵00
𝑓(𝑥, 𝑦) =
4 ∞ ∞
𝑛𝜋𝑥 𝑚𝜋𝑦
+ ∑ ∑ [𝐴𝐵𝑛𝑚1 sin ( ) sin ( )
𝐿 𝐿
𝑛=1 𝑚=1
𝑛𝜋𝑥 𝑚𝜋𝑦 𝑛𝜋𝑥 𝑚𝜋𝑦
+ 𝐴𝐵𝑛𝑚2 sin ( ) cos ( ) + 𝐴𝐵𝑛𝑚3 cos ( ) sin ( )
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
𝑛𝜋𝑥 𝑚𝜋𝑦
+ 𝐴𝐵𝑛𝑚4 cos ( ) cos ( )] , (5)
𝐿 𝐿
where AB00, ABnm1, ABnm2, ABnm3, and ABnm4 are coefficients, n and m are both positive
integers, and L=25,000 light years. Then we use Fig. 3(g) as an example to find out the
approximate form when n and m are limited to 10. Substituting the intensity distribution
of Fig. 3(g) into the above Fourier expansion series, it gives the approximation by
considering the 15 largest coefficient terms. Therefore, the approximate function of the
intensity distribution at a certain frequency in the two-dimensional (x,y) plane can be
expressed as follows
𝜋𝑥 𝜋𝑦 𝜋𝑥 3𝜋𝑦
𝑓(𝑥, 𝑦) ≈ 2.057 − 0.003131 cos ( ) sin ( ) − 0.0010101 sin ( ) sin ( )
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
𝜋𝑥 2𝜋𝑥 3𝜋𝑥 2𝜋𝑦
+ [0.0022277 sin ( ) − 0.0016121 sin ( ) + 0.0011489 sin ( )] sin ( )
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
𝜋𝑥 𝜋𝑥
+ [0.0057951 sin ( ) − 0.0041816 cos ( )
𝐿 𝐿
2𝜋𝑥 3𝜋𝑥
− 0.004268 sin ( ) + 0.0029141 sin ( )
𝐿 𝐿
4𝜋𝑥 5𝜋𝑥
− 0.0021795 sin ( ) + 0.0017446 sin ( )
𝐿 𝐿
6𝜋𝑥 7𝜋𝑥
− 0.001457 sin ( ) + 0.0012525 sin ( )
𝐿 𝐿
8𝜋𝑥 𝜋𝑦
− 0.0010994 sin ( )] cos ( ). (6)
𝐿 𝐿
In this expression, the zero-order term is 2.057, which represents the average value of
the entire two-dimensional detection plane after removing 10 extremely strong light
sources, similar to the one possible distribution of the homogeneous CMB. The sum of
the higher-order terms after subtracting the zero-order term represents the local
fluctuations, which is similar to the anisotropy in the CMB. That is to say, the
foreground distribution at a certain frequency is not merely represented by a smooth
function such as Eq. (2) or (3). It can be improved by a spatial correction function to
better represent the residual effect of all the microwave radiation sources. The 3D image
and contour lines drawn by the function in Eq. (6) are shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen

13
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

that there are peaks and valleys, where the largest peak is about 0.0189 unit, and the
lowest valley is -0.0178 unit. The intensity distribution described in Eq. (6) has
fluctuations of about ±0.9% relative to the average value.

Figure 7. The rest intensity distribution in Fig. 3(g) redrawn by the high-order Fourier series terms. It is
analog to the anisotropy in the Cosmic Microwave Background distribution.

Similarly, using the Fourier expansion series of Eq. (5), we can get the approximate
representation of Fig. 3(i). Considering the 26 largest coefficient terms, the approximate
function of the intensity distribution at a certain frequency in the two-dimensional (x,y)
plane can be expressed as follows

𝑓(𝑥, 𝑦) ≈ 2.0827
𝜋𝑥 𝜋𝑥
+ [0.03262 sin () + 0.015222 cos ( )
𝐿 𝐿
2𝜋𝑥 2𝜋𝑥
− 0.012485 sin ( ) + 0.010060 cos ( )
𝐿 𝐿
4𝜋𝑥 𝜋𝑦
− 0.0057294 sin ( )] sin ( )
𝐿 𝐿
𝜋𝑥 𝜋𝑥 𝜋𝑦
+ [0.016575 sin ( ) − 0.013089 cos ( )] cos ( )
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
2𝜋𝑥 2𝜋𝑥 2𝜋𝑦
+ [0.0094993 sin ( ) − 0.0087329 cos ( )] sin ( )
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
2𝜋𝑥 2𝜋𝑦 3𝜋𝑦
+ [−0.0087329 sin ( ) + 0.0055612 cos ( )] sin ( )
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
2𝜋𝑦 3𝜋𝑦 4𝜋𝑦
+ [−0.014410 cos ( ) + 0.011505 cos ( ) − 0.0098784 cos ( )
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
5𝜋𝑦 6𝜋𝑦
+ 0.0083912 cos ( ) − 0.0071705 cos ( )
𝐿 𝐿
7𝜋𝑦 8𝜋𝑦 𝜋𝑥
+ 0.0062107 cos ( ) − 0.0054651 cos ( )] sin ( )
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿

14
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

2𝜋𝑦 3𝜋𝑦 4𝜋𝑦

+ [−0.017599 sin ( ) + 0.010237 sin ( ) − 0.0057739 sin ( )
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
5𝜋𝑥 6𝜋𝑥
+ 0.0017446 sin ( ) − 0.0014570 sin ( )
𝐿 𝐿
7𝜋𝑥
+ 0.0012525 sin ( )
𝐿
8𝜋𝑥 𝜋𝑥
− 0.0010994 sin ( )] cos ( ). (7)
𝐿 𝐿
In this expression, the value of the zero-order term is 2.0827, which is 1.25% slightly
higher than the average value in Fig. 7, which is also similar to the one possible
distribution of homogeneous CMB. The sum of higher-order terms after subtracting the
zero-order term also similar to the anisotropy in CMB. The 3D image and contour lines
drawn by the function in Eq. (7) are shown in Fig. 8. It can be seen that there are peaks
and valleys, the largest peak is about 0.0969 unit, and the lowest valley is -0.0817 units.
The fluctuations in this example are obviously larger than those in Fig. 7. The intensity
distribution described in Eq. (7) has fluctuations of +4.6% and -4.0% relative to the
average. Therefore, the average values obtained from different 104 galaxy distributions
are very similar, but they show fluctuations in their spatially microwave radiation
distributions.

Figure 8. The rest intensity distribution in Fig. 3(i) redrawn by the high-order Fourier series terms. It is
analog to the anisotropy in the Cosmic Microwave Background distribution.

The phenomenon described in Fig. 4 can also be mathematically expressed in Eq. (5)
similar to Eqs. (6) and (7). When we plot the intensity of all the light sources in Fig. 4
on a certain detection plane, it is possible to obtain similar graphs as shown in Figs.
3(c), (e), (g), and (i). All the light sources in Fig. 4 can be assumed to have the same
luminance, and there are no particularly strong light sources there. This description is
equivalent to the situation after the main strongest light sources are removed to obtain
the CMB what we discuss here. To do the Fourier series expansion on the intensity of
the detection plane, then we will get a mathematical expression like Eq. (6) or (7).

15
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

Regardless of the really subtle luminant differences in each light source, the overall
effect is equivalent to the zero-order term AB00 in Eq. (5). After deducting the
contributions of all these light sources with the same luminance, high-order terms will
be left to form a similar distribution as in Figs. 7 and 8. The existence of these higher-
order terms is due to the luminance of the light source slightly different from each other.
Therefore, when applying this concept to the observation of cosmic microwave
radiations, as long as the source cannot be accurately known, similar phenomena will
occur. Especially, after removing the main foreground pollutions, the result is a uniform
CMB with tiny anisotropy. As mentioned before, all our results from Eqs. (5) to (8) are
scalable where L=25,000 light years is a demonstration. In fact, L is a parameter
assigned by the discussing case. If we reduce L from 25,000 light years to10,000 km,
Figs. 7 and 8 can be a case to represent the tiny CMB anisotropy in our observation
coordinates. When we detect the microwave radiation from whole the sky on the Earth,
each detecting pixel represents the contributions of many galaxies and is the total
performance like it in Figs. 7 and 8. If we observe the microwave radiation at a fixed
place on the Earth, it is just the case to choose one observation place (x,y) in Figs. 7 and
8. Then, if there are 108 pixels in the distribution, we shall have 108 data at the same
place extracting from the 108 microwave fluctuation distributions like them in Figs. 7
and 8. Finally, we will get the omnidirectional CMB anisotropic distribution.
Except for the above discussions, the third possibility is that we directly detect the
blackbody radiation of the dilute ultracold gas in space surrounding the Earth.

III. Conclusions
Considering the basic microwave imaging characteristics, we explain the
representation of the cosmic microwave radiation image. Due to the limitation of
resolution, it cannot clearly exhibit the distribution of 200 million galaxies in the
universe, especially the lower frequency measurements are more blurred. Due to the
finite-area opening on the microwave measuring instrument, the cosmic microwave
measurement is the superposition of the incident microwaves from different directions,
and the image does not correspond to the actual cosmic microwave source. The analysis
of the cosmic microwave image is the problem of reliability. From a simulation
including 10,000-point sources with random distribution and random intensity in a
finite space, we know that a uniform radiation intensity distribution over a large range
by the remaining point sources after removing the several strongest point sources.
Therefore, Cosmic Microwave Background radiation cannot be uniquely interpreted as
a uniform microwave radiation full of the entire space which was left after the initial
formation of the universe. More possibly, it is the residual radiation from the un-
calculated galaxies and inaccurate estimation of the microwave source strength.

16
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

When we say that the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is extremely high
isotropy, it means that the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation does not come
from a local source. Regardless of gravity, light travels along the geodesic. Mostly, light
propagates along a straight line in an empty space. When we observe galaxies in the
sky, the farther the distance is, the closer the effect is to the point light source. The
results of astronomical observations can point out the radiation sources, just as we
observe some stars producing gamma-ray bursts. Therefore, this omnidirectional and
uniform Cosmic Microwave Background radiation raises questions about the Big Bang.
In the 1987A supernova event, it also tells us that it is almost impossible to measure the
microwave radiation of 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang. Electromagnetic waves
transmitted from the far distant galaxies travel at the speed of light, and as soon as they
are generated, they travel forward to the edge of the universe at the speed of light. The
microwaves 13.8 billion years ago have already traveled a distance of 13.8 billion light-
years, if they are not absorbed by other substances. Thus, how can the very empty
universe keep the microwave radiation that moved at the speed of light 13.8 billion
years ago?
As the results of the aforementioned B-mode polarization signal show, incorrect
estimation of the radiation source leads to incorrect interpretation. When we discover
more potential factors, the early observation conclusions 50 years ago may be
dramatically different. The possible explanation for such a precise blackbody radiation
spectrum with almost negligible error is to directly measure some things of such
temperature. In particular, the result of the isotropy of the whole space indicates that
the sources with this temperature is homogeneously distributed in the universe.
Therefore, another explanation is to directly measure the blackbody radiation of the
dilute uniform ultracold atomic and molecular gases surrounding the Earth in space!

Acknowledgement
This research is under no funding.

References:
1. A. A. Penzias and R. W. Wilson, “A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s,”
Astrophys. J. 142, 419 (1965).
2. D. J. Fixsen, E. S. Cheng, J. M. Gales, J. C. Mather, R. A. Shafer, and E. L. Wright, “The Cosmic
Microwave Background Spectrum From The Full COBE 1 FIRAS Data Set,” Astrophys. J. 473, 576
(1996).
3. D. J. Fixsen, “The Temperature of The Cosmic Microwave Background,” Astrophys. J. 707, 916
(2009).
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#:~:text=The%20cosmic%20micro
wave%20background%20(CMB,background%20radiation%20filling%20all%20space.
5. G. Hinshaw et al., “Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP1) Observations:
Data Processing, Sky Maps, And Basic Results,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 180, 225 (2009).
6. Maximilian H. Abitbol, Jens Chluba, J. Colin Hill, and Brandley R. Janson, “Prospects for
Measuring Cosmic Microwave Background Spectral in the Presence of Foregrounds,” MNRAS 471,
17
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

1126–1140 (2017).
7. D. J. Fixsen, E. Dwek, J. C. Mather, C. L. Bennett, and R. A. Shafer, “The Spectrum of the
extragalactic far infrared background from the COBE FIRAS observations,” Astrophys. J. 508, 123
(1998).
8. G. De Zotti, M. Negrello, G. Castex, A. Lapi, and M. Bonato, “Another Look at Distortions of
Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 03,
047 (2016).
9. Vadim R. Munirov and Nathaneil J. Fisch, “Radiation in Equilibrium with Plasma and Plasma Effect
on Cosmic Microwave Background,” Physical Review E 100, 023202 (2019).
10. Daneil Aloni, Kfir Blum, and Rapheal Flauger, “Cosmic Microwave Background Constraints on
Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 05, 017
(2017).
11. Suzanne Staggs, Joe Dunkley, and Lyman Page, “Recent Discoveries from the Cosmic Microwave
Background: A Review of Recent Progress,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 044901 (2018).
12. R. A. Sunyaev and R. Khatri, Unavoidable CMB spectral features and blackbody photosphere of our
universe Thirteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting: On Recent Developments in Theoretical and
Experimental General Relativity, Astrophysics and Relativistic Field Theories ed K Rosquist, R T
Jantzen and R Ruffini (Singapore: World Scientific) pp 373–97 (2015).
13. J. C. Hill, N. Battaglia, J. Chluba, S. Ferraro, E. Schaan, and D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115,
261301 (2015).
14. Nia Imara and Abraham Loeb, “The Distortion of the Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum
Due to Intergalactic Dust,” Astrophys. J. 825, 130 (2016).
15. Ade, P.A.R. et al (BICEP2 Collaboration), “Detection of B-Mode Polarization at Degree Angular
Scales by BICEP2,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 241101 (2014). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.241101.
16. A. Lewis and A. Challinor, “Weak gravitational lensing of the CMB,” Physics Reports 429, 1–65
(2006). doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2006.03.002.
17. Planck Collaboration, "Planck Intermediate Results XXX. The Angular Power Spectrum of
Polarized Dust Emission at Intermediate and High Galactic latitudes,” A&A 586, A133 (2016).
18. P. A. R. Ade et al., “Joint Analysis of BICEP2/Keck Array and Planck Data,” Physical Review
Letters 114, 101301 (2015).
19. Nils W. Halverson, “A Clearer View of a Duty Sky,” Physics 8, 21 (2015).
20. E. J. Bond, X. Li, S. C. Hagness, and B. D. Van Veen, “Microwave Imaging Vis Space-Time
Beamforming For Early Detecting Breast Cancer,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat. 51, 1690 (2003).
21. S. Kharkovsky and R. Zoughi, “Microwave And Millimeter wave Nondestructive Testing And
Evaluation – Overview And Recent Advances,” IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag. 10, 26 (2007).
22. Karsten J. Siebert, Holger Quast, Rainer Leonhardt, Torsten Lo¨ ffler, Mark Thomson, Tobias Bauer,
Hartmut G. Roskos, and Stephanie Czasch, “Continuous-Wave All-Optoelectronic Terahertz
Imaging,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 3003 (2002).
23. Nicholas Karpowicz, Hua Zhong, Jingzhou Xu, Kuang-I Lin, Jenn-Shyong Hwang, and X-C Zhang,
“Comparison Between Pulsed Teraherz Time-Domain Imaging And Continuous Wave Terahertz
Imaging,” Semicond. Sci. Technol. 20, S293 (2005).
24. Torsten Lo¨ffler, Karsten J. Siebert, Noboru Hasegawa, Tobias Hahn, and Hartmut G. Roskos, “All-
Optoelectronic Terahertz Imaging Systems And Examples of Their Application,” Proc. IEEE 95,
1576 (2007).
25. Torsten Löffler, Thilo May, Christian am Weg, Ali Alcin, Bernd Hils, and Hartmut G. Roskos,
“Continuous-Wave Terahertz Imaging With A Hydrid System,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 091111 (2007).
26. Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The Scope of the Ninth SDSS Data Release (DR9).
http://www.sdss3.org/dr9/scope.php. Accessed 2 April 2013.
27. Shadab Alam et al., “The Eleventhh And Twelfth Data Releases of Sloan Digital Sky Surveys: Final
Data From SDSS-III,” Astrophys. J. 219, 12 (2015).
28. R. P. Saglia et al. “The Photometric Classification Serve For Pan-STARRS1,” Astrophys. J. 746,
128 (2012).
29. https://inhabitat.com/largest-ever-new-map-of-universe-shows-1-2-million-galaxies/.
30. Stafford Withington and J. Anthony Murphy, “Analysis of Diagonal Horn Through Gauss-Hermite
Modes,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat. 40, 198 (1992).
31. Joakim F. Johansson and Nicholas D. Whyborn, “The Diagonal Horn As A Sub-Millimeter Wave
Antenna,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 40, 795 (1992).
32. V. N. Tiwari, T. Tiwari, S. P. Singh, and R. K. Jha, “Near Field Distribution of Solid Dielectric
Diagonal Horn Antenna,” Int. J. Electronics 82, 167 (1997).
33. V. N. Tiwari, T. Tiwari, S. p. Singh, and R. K. Jha, “Far Field Patterns of Solid Dielectric Diagonal
18
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 October 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0388.v1

Horn Antenna,” Int. J. Electronics 82, 175 (1997).

34. T. Tiwari and V. N. Tiwari, “Near Field Distributions And Radiation Patterns of Hollow Dielectric
Wall Pyramidal Horn Antennas,” Int. J. Electronics 84, 383 (1998).
35. K. Hirata et al., “Observation of A Neutrino Burst From The Supernova SN 1987A,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
58, 1490 (1987).
36. https://tokyo5.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/midtown-blue.jpg.

1. European Journal of Physics

Parts of the Conclusions
From the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, it is assumed to be generated in
300,000 years after the Big Bang. When the research results show that the microwave
is almost isotropic in the sky, it shows that the source of this measurement is not just
from a far and limited space.

19