Olber's Paradox and the Kuiper Belt

mikeemmert · Dec 31, 2005

Here's an interesting paper on using Olber's paradox to determine the total mass of objects in the Kuiper belt: http://tinyurl.com/an9px It's kind of technical. Basically, Olber's paradox states that if the universe is infinite, then there would be an infinite number of stars, therefore the entire surface of the sky would be solid starlight and the Earth's surface would quickly rise to the temperature of the average star (~4000 - 5000 degrees K.). This idea was around for centuries until Edwin Hubble determined that distant stars were receding from us, thus redshifting average starlight to the microwave background (1.9 mm wavelength, 2.725 degrees K). Scott Kenyon and Rogier Windhorst concieved of the idea of photographing a patch of the Kuiper belt and measuring the light and heat coming from the entire frame to determine the amount of radiation coming from the small objects in the Kuiper belt. Particles smaller than 1 micron have been blown away by the solar wind and the pressure of sunlight. The Poynting-Robertson effect has removed particle up to 100 microns in size by the opposite effect - the particle plows into solar radiation and spirals into the sun. So what they were trying to do was to measure the total radiation from all objects from 100 microns on up to the largest objects. Because of the square-cube law, the total surface area of xillions (x-illion = a large, poorly defined number) of small particles is much larger than the surface area of a single large object, even if their total mass is much smaller. If it so happened that a large object was in the frame, it would only take up a few pixels, whereas each pixel in the entire frame would have the sum of the light of xillions of particles. This and similar papers have been used for the estimate of the total mass of the Kuiper belt. However, I have

harmonicaman · Dec 31, 2005

I've read various estimates that attempt to figure the total mass for the Kuiper Belt/Oort Cloud. They've ranged anywhere between the mass of Earth (equal to about 0.624 kg or 0.0033% of the Solar Systems' total mass) to as much as the mass of Jupiter (equal to about 1.9027 kg or 1.3% of the Solar Systems' total mass) This is a huge disparity and it would be great if we could get a more precise measurement. If the mass is in the high range, it may help us account for some of the galactic "Dark Matter" - either way, it would be an important addition to our overall knowledge of the Solar System.

mikeemmert · Dec 31, 2005

I actually thought Kenyon and Windhorst's work is some of the better work I've seen. I hope that what I have pointed out will make future work work better than that.

alkalin · Dec 31, 2005

Olber’s paradox cannot exist if there is much matter in the universe, especially between galaxies. Even though cosmologists insist otherwise to defend BB, it has been measured indirectly and verified. Yet we cannot do a direct measurement. Any common sense would indicate this matter is an absorber, and degrades the intensity to very distant objects, eventually blotting them out. An absorber eventually retransmits in the Black Body range, so we should see a fairly uniform background. And we should not even have to contemplate dark matter. It was found recently that the outer arm of our galaxy is half the distance we thought it was due to being measured in a process that does not involve intensity, yet Cepheid variables told us otherwise. Why the large discrepancy? When we can get our act together and start predicting more accurately, then maybe we might be on a road of progress.

bonzelite · Dec 31, 2005

from what i gather, basically, Olber's paradox implies that if there is infinite radiation available in the universe via starlight, conservation of energy will then take care to basically ingnite and radiate every square millimeter of space. and stars that are trillions of light years away will shine through as brilliant as the sun itself. and i call absolute B.S. on that. it is, in my opinion, an outlandish defense of BB theory.

mikeemmert · Dec 31, 2005

Hi, bonzelite; I think this is a good place to narrow the discussion of Olber's paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olber%27s_paradox Which preceeds the big bang theory by over 180 years. In the Kuiper belt, if there were enough objects (at more or less the same distance), then they would form an unbroken surface and we would see a solid belt, like the rings of Saturn. Obviously that's not the case. So there must be a finite number of objects out there.

bonzelite · Jan 1, 2006

i know the concept of it well by now, yes. i get it. i was unaware that it pre-dates BB theory. but is used to bolster it today. the paradox is actually pretty cool and mind-boggling. call me dumb or whatever, but i don't see the logic in assuming that you would have 100% radiative luminosity at any given point in the universe were it infinite, even taking conservation of energy into account to transfer radiant heat to every particle in every region of obscuring gas and dust. this is probably not provable, as far as i know. but it would seem that the distances, assuming infinite, would allow for dissipation and absorbtion, obfuscation: you would not visibly see every conceivable point in space, near or far, with a star's surface luminosity. the idea for the finite universe assumes the infinite one is static and heterogeneous in distribution of matter. and this may not be true whatsoever. i cannot go out there and prove my idea, but it seems plausible. for another idea, let's ditch the whole infinity thing and realize the universe is actually finite, as there is undeniable compelling evidence for it. why, then, did it have to originate in the big bang? i will believe a finite universe before i will ever seriously consider the BB. such an idea is not accountable for the pre-BB state, as if to have religious faith in it.

mikeemmert · Jan 1, 2006

for another idea, let's ditch the whole infinity thing Most infinities turn out to be nonexistent. But it's good sometimes to examine them to see where they lead. You know, bonzelite, I owe you an apology. You discussed Olber's paradox and instead of answering you, I lazied out and fell back on the Argument from Authority. That's a logical fallacy and misleading argument; if an idea is good, it doesn't matter the identity of who's making the argument. Well...it does...that's why it's called Obler's paradox and not Kepler's paradox. Olber spoke German. The best explanation I've seen is Asimov's. Wish I was Asimov. Actually, I tried twice to answer your post, but in review, I realized that the math was too complicated for the lurkers. I rashly gave up, then suffered a guilty conscience. I hit the sack and drifted off into dreamworld...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Suddenly I got it! I was trying to use an expensive 2048 x 2048 CCD chip like the ones used on the MER board in M&L, but I'm a veteran and don't have any money. I tried the VA and they said I'd have to wait 256 years! so I grabbed a sign, "Vet -Will Work For Food" and sure enough, somebody dropped a cheap CCD chip for my telescope into my hat. It was 256 pixels x 256 pixels and each had 256 brightness levels. Kind of grainy and contrasty, but at least the math was simple. The cop who ran me off was a SwiftBoat vet. He followed me to my alleycamp and kidnapped my kittycat, and I wound up getting run so far out of town that not only was the sky dark, but also the stars were square! I set up for my observing run. The nearest star took up exactly one pixel and had a brightness level of 256. The next nearest stars each had an edge 1/2 pixel long, so they took up 1/4 of a pixel. That made their brightness level 64. They were twice as far away, so I was lo

mlorrey · Jan 2, 2006

Here is another proposal, bonzelite: redshift is not actually from universal expansion, but from gravity. We know that blackholes redshift light that passes close by, or which is emitted near the event horizon (like Hawking radiation). Given we know that this is supported by relativity, then the gravity of all the matter on one area of the universe should redshift the light it emits as it travels billions of light years through the universal gravity field, until it reaches another area of the universe. At the scale of which we are dealing with, every light emitting point in the universe is downhill from every receiving point. This gravity should thus redshift this light, and, over a long enough distance, redshift it down to the cosmic background level. Ergo, no universal expansion. This also explains the claims of 'cosmic acceleration' being made now. What is actually going on is that there are more and more black holes being created as time goes on, which deepens the cosmic gravity field, and thus increases redshift over time and distance.....

bonzelite · Jan 2, 2006

milkee, bravo! bravo! LOL! that's a very.... surreal account. you did well! no worries, bro <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> believe me, i'm not bought and sold any idea yet. i know enough to know i don't know jack!!

bonzelite · Jan 2, 2006

Here is another proposal, bonzelite: redshift is not actually from universal expansion, but from gravity. that is a cool idea, actually. the local gravity well of bodies may accelerate matter and embolden the redshifts. that could be another component of redshift. i never had that thought occur. the more i have read posts and googled my !!!! off, the more i like this gravity character --he's extremely odd and not what we think. ever since i ran across the idea of the "gravity dimension," i got hooked. this gravity thing is something else, i tell you. it lead me to think of another idea, but i will create another thread for that.

alkalin · Jan 9, 2006

Did you not have to wait longer to collect the same number of photons for the more distant stars? Spherical geometry works in this arena, I believe. Doubling the distance gives one fourth the number of photons at some point in time in any given telescope aperture from a source like a star. Or am I wrong? I challenge you to measure or estimate the heat the nearest star contributes to our earth and solar system. It would be vewy, vewy, vewy, vewy feeble. Multiple by a billion and it still would be vewy, vewy feeble compared to the sun.

mikeemmert · Jan 9, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Spherical geometry works in this arena, I believe. Doubling the distance gives one fourth the number of photons at some point in time in any given telescope aperture from a source like a star. Or am I wrong? <hr /></blockquote> Doubling the distance to a star does indeed give 1/4 of the number of photons in a given time. This is correct. The reason is that the source has one quarter of the surface area as the one twice as near. The amount of light coming from a given surface area in a given time is the same, so you divide the flux from the nearer star by four. If you were to put a mask over the image of the nearer star, so that you could only see one quarter of the surface of the nearer star, then it would have the same brightness as the farther star. The problem that leads to Olber's paradox is that there are four times as many stars twice as far away. So the amount of light coming from twice as far away is the same. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Did you not have to wait longer to collect the same number of photons for the more distant stars?<hr /></blockquote> Aha!, this is the resolution of Olber's paradox! You get the same number of photons in a given time if the stars were stationary. But they're not! Stars (or rather, superclusters of stars, see below) are moving away from the Earth. The faster they are moving away, the more their light is redshifted. Redshift means the frequency of the light gets lower, which means the photons arrive at your telescope at a lower rate. If a star is moving away from you at half the speed of light, then half as many photons from that star arrive at your telescope in the same amount of time. Their frequency is half as high, therefore their wavelength is twice as long; deep purple is shifted to cherry red under this specific condition. Thi

Search

Olber's Paradox and the Kuiper Belt

mikeemmert

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

alkalin

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

alkalin

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page