Infinite photons in infinite universe?

trumptor · Feb 7, 2007

I have a question that I remembered having in an astronomy class way back when after reading one of the posts here that maybe somebody can help answer. One of the arguements against an infinite static universe is that the photons from all the infinite stars would create a blindingly bright sky even at night. My question is why? Shouldn't there be tons of other matter out there that would absorb these photons especially in the course of trillions of lightyears(considering an infinite universe) of travel? Aren't there particles even in the "vacuum"? Then there should also be planets in the path, oort clouds, kuipers' belts, dust clouds, black holes, faint stars, etc? So why after some distance wouldn't it be unlikely for any light to reach us from a star being sufficiently far away? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ______________Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about. </div>

kyle_baron · Feb 7, 2007

Here ya go. This is what it's called, along with an explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obler%27s_Paradox <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

trumptor · Feb 7, 2007

Thanks for the post. I read what they had to say and still don't understand. First of all, the stars are not distributed evenly. Outside the Milky Way there's a lot of space before we get to any other stars. And say per volume, you carve out some amount of space containing a few galaxies. If you were to take all the energy and matter and distribute it evenly through this volume, it'd be pretty empty, cold and dark still, right? And this would be the case throughout the universe, wouldn't it? Then if we consider this typical throughout infinity, which I'm definitely not implying, how is it that there would be an infinite amount of energy everywhere? And I would say everywhere because it wouldn't be just us on our planet that would be getting hit by an infinite amount of energy, but every planet everywhere, right? So, I just don't get it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ______________Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about. </div>

trumptor · Feb 7, 2007

YES! I am a molecule! Do you all see this? I am the molecule!!! Any questions anyone? You can ask the mighty molecule. End of the universe? How it started? Where are the aliens? FTL travel? Nah, It'd be too easy if I told you all. Just kidding

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ______________Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about. </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Feb 7, 2007

There was a side discussion on this very topic just a while ago. Let me see if I can find it and post a link here. EDIT: OK, check out this thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

trumptor · Feb 7, 2007

Thanks for the link. I read the opinions there, thank you. My reason for asking this question to begin with is because intuitively I think I lean a little towards thinking that if there was a big bang, which there is a lot of evidence to support, then why couldn't there be a bunch of big bangs in an infinite universe. I sort of think of the big bang as something like a supernova except on an enormously larger scale. And just as a supernova isn't unique, I tend to think that the big bang isn't unique either. Would that be possible or not? Could another big bang elsewhere send something into the space where matter from our big bang resides? Or if as we say, space itself is expanding, can another big bang be expanding its space as well and eventually collide with the space of our big bang? And if there were different rules of physics or dimensions or particles created by this other big bang, would it create havoc in both universes if they were to collide? Sorry, alot of questions I had built up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ______________Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about. </div>

R1 · Feb 7, 2007

my opinion is yes, theres probably a lot of bangs , but I have a feeling they're happening in areas entirely of their own with their own space-time, in their own dimension specifically in what we call black holes from our dimension, I lean to think at the present time it's more likely in holes of reasonable age and probably great mass yet relatively low density. After reading up some more recently on the holes, I personally think our Milky Way's supermassive hole in the center, 'the' Milky way hole might be what I'm talking about. As for another bang in this dimension I don't know. Really I don't think so. In part because the bang itself sort of creates its own dimension, so the havoc would be no more than like the havoc of The Milky Way Hole. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

weeman · Feb 8, 2007

I sort of think of the big bang as something like a supernova except on an enormously larger scale. Keep in mind too, that supernovae and the big bang are two completely different animals. The big bang is quite a false term to begin with, what it needs to be widely known as is the "big inflation". A supernovae is the collapse of a masive star, and it sheds its outer layers. This commonly leaves behind a neutron star or a black hole. The big bang, or big inflation, wasn't any type of explosion, or anything of that sorts. It was the expansion of space itself, along with the beginning of time. Or if as we say, space itself is expanding, can another big bang be expanding its space as well and eventually collide with the space of our big bang? hmmm, I suppose these multiple big bangs would have to exist in some sort of infinite void. I don't believe there would be multiple big bangs at the same time, but rather this universe that we live in has existed in many big bang stages. This is one theory that states that the universe has already expanded and collapsed infinite amount of times, and it will continue to do so for infinite more times. It simply doesn't make sense that two universes would begin as big bangs, then one day collide into each other and create a universal armageddon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

ianke · Feb 8, 2007

Congradulations! Have a beer dude. Be careful though this stuff gets really addictive.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Feb 8, 2007

"Shouldn't there be tons of other matter out there that would absorb these photons especially in the course of trillions of lightyears(considering an infinite universe) of travel?" yes do not heed Olbler's Paradox do not heed everything posted on "wikipedia" Olber's Paradox conveniently leaves out infinite absorbtion as much as infinite radiation, as well as the other obfuscating matter that you suggest. were Olber true in principle, then we would already be seeing certain regions of the sky lit up like a chirstmas tree, but we do not. we can barely see our own galaxy, let alone it's brilliantly shining centre. as well, such a premise, ie, Olber's, is unverifiable and an erroneous thought experiment that leaves out other thoughts, that which i just suggested.

SpeedFreek · Feb 8, 2007

I love the way you connect unverifiable with erroneous! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Are you absolutely sure that Olber's Paradox contains errors? I thought you said it was unverifiable? If so, how can we verify it is erroneous? I agree with you that it seems unverifiable though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

summoner · Feb 8, 2007

The lifetime of a star is about 10^10 years. The years for the Universe to reach thermal equilibrium is about 10^24 years. Many stars have been born, lived, and died already. Basically at any one time there are not enough stars active to fill the space of the Universe with enough radiation to light the night sky According to this site. That is the most accepted answer right now. It also makes alot of sence which normally doesn't happen in cosmology. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

lukman · Feb 8, 2007

Hi, try this link bro: http://www.arachnoid.com/sky/gasphysics.html step by step explanation, easy to understand. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Feb 8, 2007

then pardon me. Olber's Paradox is garbage. how about that? very clear. no more nit-picking irrelevancies. his theory is absolute crap, a one-sided half-baked thought experiment that can be easily counter-thought by anyone scrutinizing it further. why it is perpetuated and held so sacrosanct is beyond my understanding, as i just refuted it in an earlier post. let's say it all together now: Olber's Paradox is rubbish. and Wikipedia is negligent and stupid for perpetuating it as a legitimate scientific principle.

bonzelite · Feb 8, 2007

INasmuch as "infinite absorption' and "infinite radiation" are not scientific terms... so what, steve. those terms are the essence of the premise and counter argument -- "farting" or "burping" is neither a scientific term either, but you understand that, right?

SpeedFreek · Feb 8, 2007

Sorry I should have been more specific. We know we don't see infinite light in the sky, but do we really know why? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

R1 · Feb 8, 2007

as a matter of fact we do see that the sky is full of light, I was just saying that in another post. It's just that the wavelength of the light has been somewhat stretched long enough that you could probably even measure its length with the tip of a pin. If human eyesight had a much broader effective bandwidth you would see it easier. and I think this fact really has nothing to do with whether the universe is 8,000 billion years old or infinte. my disagreement is with using the name CMBR, it should really be simply be called CDL ( Cosmic Distant Light). The word 'background' makes no sense any more than a scientific community would call light from the Milky Way the CBSFR (Cosmic Broad Spectrum Foregroung Light) we might even have no purpose for the 'C', I mean c stands for the speed of light, we don't say that c stands for the speed of cosmic light. I can understand it from the point of view of history, but It's time to keep science updated and current as much as possible. The same way the pluto object used to be called a planet back in history. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Feb 8, 2007

thank you, John1R, for daring to pointing out yet another overlooked and erroneous definition from our modern cosmology, ie, CMBR.

R1 · Feb 8, 2007

you're welcome, but as far as too much matter blocking the light I really don't think so, I mean the light really is there without blockage, but It's wavelngth appears to have increased in legth between the distant past and the present. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Feb 8, 2007

are you, then, implying a "tired light"?

R1 · Feb 9, 2007

no I tried that a long time ago, but it seems like they noticed that light can't get tired with age. the most apparent reason is from doppler motion But if the light was blocked then why do we see all that microwave light <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Feb 9, 2007

heh, you are raising an excellent point. the electromagnetic spectrum includes visible light. so if there is a CMBR, ie, everywhere --at every spot in the sky-- and is uniform and detectible, how is this concretizing evidence for a finite cosmos? if anything, it alludes to an infinite uniformity. visible light need not be the mother of all measures.

tdamskov · Feb 9, 2007

Bonzelite, I know you don't realize this, but your argument leads to one of the cornerstones of BB theory. Remember, CBR does not extend across the spectrum but is limited to a small range in microwave. The logical explanation is that far in the past all of the "sky" was radiating at visible frequencies - it was opaque with light! But at one point this uniform light saturation of the sky stopped as the rest of the spectrum isn't saturated by radiation. Why?

bonzelite · Feb 9, 2007

that's ironic, certainly! but that still does not in any way send BB theory to the front of the line. BB theory is replete with impossibilities and reaching fantasy leprechaun ideas that far outstrip what we are discussing here. for that matter, the moment of "Creation" just barely after the singularity "exploded" is certainly opaque with light. i've never seen a quiet and dark, non-luminous and cold explosion of matter anywhere, considering the BB was this super-hot event. yet the premise for creation is untenable and does not work upon closer scrutiny.

nova_explored · Feb 9, 2007

eh? CMBR is not photons at all. Photons, electrons, baryons were the makeup of a plasma which cooled, isotropically, and continues to cool, detected, it was proof of blackbody spectrum, and actually became the best precisely measured form, which was theorized as existing long before FIRAS found it. It is there, and it is in the background, as it is cooler than any other form of energy, thus, not interacting with our present day universe through radioactive transitency (spelling). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Infinite photons in infinite universe?

trumptor

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

trumptor

Guest

trumptor

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

trumptor

Guest

R1

Guest

weeman

Guest

ianke

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

summoner

Guest

lukman

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

R1

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

R1

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

R1

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

tdamskov

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page