Infinite photons in infinite universe?

[R1]

well I just realized that a long time ago I thought of tired light, but age alone was <br />about the only reason I was curious about. <br />what are some thoughts on gravitational interaction with long wavelength light? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

you mean like highly redshifted light? <br /><br />

 

[R1]

yes bonzelite.<br /><br />nova_explored , the CMBR is light, what do you mean its not photons at all?<br />it has to be electromagnetic photons/waves of the microwave wavelength, or are you referring to<br />how it was made?<br />a microwave I think can be made by molecular rotation or electron spin flip or something like that<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

yeah, i was referring to the processes in its makeup. But, yeah, CMBR is photons after the decoupling, free photons created from the plasma. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

it must be because the EM spectrum includes light wavelengths. and these wavelengths/frequencies can change.

 

[R1]

right so the CMBR is definitely light, and it's definitely distant,<br />my question here has to do that at those distances we should be observing the biggest redshift yet,<br />the greatest wavelength lengthening, so,<br /><br />was the light wave originially about almost a1 mm ?<br />(in which case it was probably microwave to begin with,)<br /><br />or could the lightwave length originally been around 10 micrometers long?<br />(in which case the light is originally in the infrared range)<br /><br />or could the length originally been shorter therefore it's actually really visible light?<br /><br />as far as the first question in the thread, I know, it was discussed a long time ago, the reason the distant galaxies don't<br />light up the sky is because they're dim being so far away, and the inverse square law makes everything<br />much dimmer the farther out in distance. I think the Hubble ultra deep field picture it took was actually<br />an exposure of 11 days total, taken over months and months and hundreds of orbits, catching only 1<br />photon of light per minute ! that's how dim things look from too much distance.<br /><br />but about the CMBR, which is still electromagnetic light, I'm trying to understand about the<br />wavelevgth stretching, since it's beyod the highest red shift expansion areas from our location. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

this is getting very interesting, indeed. you have a fresh view on things that is very thought provoking. here is some data so that other readers, including myself, can get some bearings:<br /><br /><i>"...many familiar types of radiation are just light waves with other wavelengths. Ultraviolet light and x-rays have wavelengths shorter than violet light, and infrared (heat) and radio waves have wavelengths longer than red light."</i><br /><br />Radio waves... /> 30 cm<br /><br />Microwaves... 1 mm - 30 cm<br /><br />Infrared... 700 nm - 1 mm<br /><br />Visible light... 350 nm - 700 nm<br /><br />Ultraviolet... 10 nm - 350 nm<br /><br />X-rays... 0.01 nm - 10 nm<br /><br />Gamma rays < 0.01 nm<br /><br />(1 nm = 10-9 m) <br /><br />from:<br />http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/advanced/color/whatis.asp

 

[nova_explored]

well, i know that since CMBR is measured at 2.75K (IIRC) than its wavelength in radiation corresponds, and is the smallest sort for any black bocy, making it almost perfect. To do the math, it takes a temp. of 700k to produce EMR in the visible spectrum and as it reduces it follows the inverse square law for frequency and strength, so its practically obsolete at 2.75k. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[R1]

thanks bonzelite, <br /><br /><br />nova_explored, what's practically obsolete?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[R1]

alright, I think I'm starting to understand it better, someone please correct me where I'm wrong<br /><br />the CMBR light is actually a spectrum light, so it's 'not' a single wavelength microwave radiation, <br /><br />what it is is it's a certain spectrum, like the sun, or a nebula, or something, and it's measured to<br />peak in the wavelength of 1.9 millimeters, and electromagnetic spectroscopy characterizes this 'signature' curve<br />of it's spectrum into the category of blackbody spectrums.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[R1]

so if thats correct then what blackbody could it be,<br />I mean so many things are blackbodies, even nearby stars and galxies aren't they?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alkalin]

Here’s a good site for blackbody explanation:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body<br /><br />Blackbody radiation has been studied in labs for many years and is becoming rather well understood, and was even used to predict the CMB before it could actually be measured based on reemitted energy from dust or gas in space at a temperature of between 1 and 5 degrees K, the original energy coming from the stars. Cosmologists recognize the measured value is very low and assume for the sake of keeping alive the notions of big bang they need every photon of this energy coming from the big bang and not stars.<br /><br />Also studied in labs is the Wolf effect that explains red shifting of light in space from a mechanism other than Doppler.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_effect<br /><br />Some mysteries such as dark energy and matter are easily explainable with a quasi-steady state universe based on the two effects mentioned above. <br />

 

[imverygood_0000]

would u mean that the universe is infinite

 

[ianke]

If you would clarify something for a lowly Chemist...<br /><br />Isn't the basic unit for all of the wavelengths still the photon? Wether it is a radio wave, or a gamma wave the units are still 1particle= 1 photon right?<br /><br />I'm not trying to get into the wave or particle argument, I'm just wandering about the way we seem to discuss the CMBR And other measurements differently from each other.<br /><br />So if we measure microwaves in temperature, is the rest of the spectrum measurable as such? Can we say that we have 2 degrees Kelvin of gamma rays for instance? <br /><br />In other words what unit should one use to quantify the total energy of all wavwlengths being observed for a point in space? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<i> Also studied in labs is the Wolf effect that explains red shifting of light in space from a mechanism other than Doppler. </i><br /><br />Well, when talking about the wolf effect it is more accurate to say it <i> might </i> explain certain unexpected redshift measurements for quasars or other unusual objects, but only under certain circumstances. It is another form of redshift, also known as, wait for it... wolf redshift! It may comprise part of the component of red of blueshift for a given source, but not all of it.<br /><br />Cosmological (Hubble) redshift, relativistic redshift, gravitational redshift and wolf redshift could all contribute to the total redshift of any object's spectrum.<br /><br />The author Emil Wolf only suggested the effect may explain the discordant redshift in <i> certain </i> quasars.<br /><br />The wolf effect does not deny the other redshift. It is just a part of it. Things are <i> still </i> moving away from us! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[R1]

Ianke, no, the CMBR it's not a single frequency wavelength that we observe, It's a certain wide spectrum,<br />it just happens to peak at the 1.9 mm wavelength . and 1.9 mm wavelengths are microwaves.<br /><br />It's like a certain rainbow signature of colors, except the whole entire rainbow signature is shifted way past the<br />red and way past the infrared and into the microwave area, and then the strongest peak would be at the wavelevgths that measure 1.9 mm<br /><br /><br />I need an explanation on the 2 degrees kelvin too though.<br /><br />Is that saying that a blackbody would have to be as cold as 2 degrees Kelvin or so to appear to <br />shine with such low frequency, long wavelength light? or that it is so dim and low intensity that <br />only a blackbody cooled down to 2 or so degrees could put out such little light?<br /><br />or something else altogether? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

Thanks John1R for the correction. I really need to read more on the subject I guess. The whole issue is new to me and I am interested in the subject. I have read some of the links on CMBR but my rudimentory understanding of electromagnetic radiation is only what I remember of classes taken 30 plus years ago. Needless to say, I am rusty on the subject. <br /><br />I'll get caught back up on the subject so that my future posts pretaining to this make more of a contribution to the thread. However, my query was more basic about the units of measure. <br /><br />I guess even after retirement, I should revamp my study skills a bit.<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

I think I figured out my mistake in logic. Please check me on this (anyone).<br /><br />The measure of the electromagnetic spectra can be used to determine the temperature of the object emitting the energy to start with. Just like the way a temperature for molten metal can be calculated by it's color, the CMBR is saying that the backround temperature of the universe is calculated to be about 2.7degK. Is this what they are saying they observe with CMBR?<br /><br />If so, then what is the electron volt (eV) energy total on a given area (say 1cubic meter) in space? Also, what ratio of the eV total is accountable to the CMBR as opposed to all of the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum? <br /><br />I hope that a correction in my terminology makes the question more understandable to all of you. It has been a long time since I have dealt with more than calories for a chemical equation. However, I've started to become interested in the cosmological questions in recent years, and I find that SDC is a great place to ask about the universe. My questions may be a bit of a sidetrack to the CMBR issue, but I think they could help me put the subject into perspective.<br /><br />Thanks in advance for all of your help.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Ianke <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

Radiation is practically obsolete at 2.5k.<br /><br />I've been reading up and while i vaguely remember the details and history behind CMBR, i know that the cross referencing required to get a complete picture can be exhausting. It requires pretty much every field of science to paint a whole and complete intact picture.<br /><br />But black body radiation at 2.5k means there is a whole lot of nothing happening, isotropically. If you read up on it you will come across 'the time of last scattering' where hydrogen first formed. this is important bc the energy phase was 3000k, 0.25ev, and it requires 13.6ev to strip hydrogen of its electron (ionization energy). Basically that means, hydrogen would now remain in tact for the rest of the life of the known universe. As the universe would expand its temp. would decrease, and thus never reach the 13.6ev required to hinder the universe incapable of being radiation transparent- no more black body.<br /><br />part of the problem with a steady state model that predicts a spider web like design for the universe (filaments) is that there would be regions where the temp. exceeds the energy needed for ionization. these areas would be highly active but also perfect black bodies. no emissivity. which means no absorbtion lines of any kind would come from these regions. and CMBR permeates totally and completely, isotropically.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

Hello nova _explored, <br />reguarding your statement: "Radiation is practically obsolete at 2.5k."<br /><br />Does this mean that perhaps the original band of emition for the CMBR was much higher energy wavelenghts, and red shifted over time to the present state?<br /><br />I think this is what JohnR1 was saying happened. If this is so, is it possible to postulate what the original spectre would have been?<br /><br />I just watched a repeat program on the Science Channel tonight called "Complete Cosmos" the episode was "Beyond the Solar System".<br /><br />They say the CMBR has red shifted all the way from the Ultra Violet to the microwave spectra we see today due to the universe cooling as it expands. Does this sound accurate to you? Or perhaps their explaination was a little symplistic.[question]<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

I am still interested in how much of the energy we see in the observable universe is due to the CMBR. I realize that each CMBR photon is of a very low eV, but the concentration of those photons (how many there is) can make an appreciable difference. Is the CMBR the dominant energy, or is it a lesser portion of the eV total?<br /><br />I am sure that someone has done the measurements but I haven't found the paper that has dealt with the question. They only say that it exists in all directions in the papers I have seen. <br /><br />Is there someone who could point me in the right direction to look for how much energy the CMBR represents in comparison to all of the rest of the observed energy in the known universe?<br /><br />Thanks in advance <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />Ianke <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[R1]

good questions.<br /><br />I'm waiting for more discussion too.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

The energy is obsolete. That was what my comment was referring to. A perfect black body is capable of absorbing every bit of incoming energy and giving none in exchange, which is storing it, and which is undetectable, IIRC this is where dark energy is coming into play, but with CMBR, the black body spectrum means as a product of the universe, we use the formula (and i need to get it) where the black body tells us age and temp. of a young primordial universe. The CMBR is no longer capable of absorbing energy, it is barely, barely, insignificantly, interacting with any other ongoing in the universe. and if .25ev represents 3000k, 2.5k is less a fraction 1000's less energetic.<br /><br />i'll get the black body formulas up here in a little for further discussion. <br /><br />Also, these photons cannot concentrate bc they do not have enough energy too. therefore they are the prime canidate to become the perfect black body as they will continue to redshift and loose energy to become as close to absolute K then any other form in the universe. IIRC, no other energy will get as close to absolute zero as CMBR. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

and, yeah that does sound accurate; when they say that CMBR has redshifted from ultra violet to microwave due to expansion and versely, cooling.<br /><br />i've always wondered - will it continue to redshift until it is practically infinite, or will it just dissipate at some point. Won't its wave function just continue to stretch it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

Another good question, nova_explored. Thank again for the input. I'll look forward to any formula or link there to.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Ianke <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>