J
jdubb_kyrapper
Guest
i know one thing to have a complete vacuum you must have a sealed container and for certain electromagnetic waves to be conducted you must present one to....anyone see where im going??????
jdubb_kyrapper":3q0zhcd7 said:i know one thing to have a complete vacuum you must have a sealed container and for certain electromagnetic waves to be conducted you must present one to....anyone see where im going??????
jdubb_kyrapper":391iwq2a said:you think maybe the universe is containerized the vacuum explaining the expansion we see
jdubb_kyrapper":14fl5wgk said:seeing how the affects of pressure and gravity are constant ,......couldnt that be an effect of a constant total vacuum.....(to seem expanding and lacking gravity)
The current size of the universe constrains the lowest frequency (and energy) possible for a photon to have. Obviously, as time passes, the lower limit diminishes.
vogon13":2xqn01q0 said:The current size of the universe constrains the lowest frequency (and energy) possible for a photon to have. Obviously, as time passes, the lower limit diminishes.
This, curiously, eliminates a paradox of sorts.
As you increase the temperature of an object, the 'peak' radiation emitted progressively exhibits a shorter and shorter wavelength, but the body nevertheless, produces more photons of lesser energies too, and more and more of them as it is heated.
So, every object above absolute zero should radiate an infinite (yes, infinite) number of photons. Granted, most (funny word to use in regards to something characterized as infinite) will have vanishingly small energies, but still, there are an infinite (!!!) number of them.
As it turns out, though, photons with wavelengths greater than the size of the universe are inhibited from being formed in the first place. Colloquially, the impedance of the rest of the universe is mismatched to accept them.
Funny thing is, how does a particle at some non-absolute zero temperature 'know' how big the universe is (instantaneously) so as to appropriately inhibit is emissions ??
Me thinks the photon needs to 'know', at the instant of it's (possible) formation, just how big the universe is, and if it didn't, the universe we are in would not function properly for matter and energy (and life!) to exist.
Another anthropic principle thingy rears it's ugly head . . . .
origin":1j8db0zg said:The current size of the universe constrains the lowest frequency (and energy) possible for a photon to have. Obviously, as time passes, the lower limit diminishes.
Could you supply a site that discusses the minimum energy possible for a photon. I have not heard of this and it seems interesting - quick google didn't help me...
ramparts":1ujjp2nn said:origin":1ujjp2nn said:The current size of the universe constrains the lowest frequency (and energy) possible for a photon to have. Obviously, as time passes, the lower limit diminishes.
Could you supply a site that discusses the minimum energy possible for a photon. I have not heard of this and it seems interesting - quick google didn't help me...
I'm guessing he's saying that the lower bound on a photon's wavelength is roughly the size of the observable universe, so on the order of 10^27 meters or so, corresponds to a frequency of about 10^-19 Hz and an energy of 10^-52 J or 10^-33 eV (Wolfram|Alpha ftw!). It's not a minimum energy possible in the quantum sense, but a cosmological limit on a photon's energy. I don't think it's particularly useful, though....
Is there a name for this paradox? That would help google search greatly, because I am also interested.vogon13":88dbia6c said:The current size of the universe constrains the lowest frequency (and energy) possible for a photon to have. Obviously, as time passes, the lower limit diminishes.
This, curiously, eliminates a paradox of sorts.