The lost energy of Cosmic Background Radiation

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of energy loss in the universe as it expands, specifically in relation to the effects of photons and their pressure. It is explained that photons do not directly lead to expansion pressure, but their pressure does have an impact on the expansion rate. This is due to the fact that pressure is a form of energy density, and gravity responds to it just as it responds to mass energy. Overall, the presence of photons and their pressure contribute to the acceleration of the universe's expansion, while normal matter slows it down.
  • #1
JuanCasado
45
1
Could anyone clarify where is gone the energy lost by CBR as the universe expands?
Thank you in advance and happy new year
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
General relativity has no global energy conservation, energy can get lost.

Those photons lead to a pressure, which influences expansion of the universe - you could view this as "the energy went into expansion of space".
 
  • #3
I've never seen it put quite like that MFB. Can you elaborate? Are you referring to dark energy or something else?
 
  • #4
Drakkith said:
I've never seen it put quite like that MFB. Can you elaborate? Are you referring to dark energy or something else?

My understanding is that the universe is expanding because of the pressure of all the energy in the early universe up to and including the surface of last scattering. Dark energy is not believed to cause the expansion, it is causing the ACCELERATION of the expansion.

That is, the current expansion has what you could think of as a base value which has nothing to do with dark energy and then acceleration due to dark energy.

It is the presence of dark energy that was such a surprise when first discovered because the belief was that only the base expansion existed and it would have been slowing down.
 
  • #5
Yes but how do photons lead to expansion pressure?
 
  • #6
Drakkith said:
Yes but how do photons lead to expansion pressure?

I don't think it IS now, just that it was prior to the surface of last scattering. The expansion since then has been sort of a ballistic remnant of the expansion at that time. I am NOT sure about that, though. I could be just making it up, but I think that's what I've read.
 
  • #7
phinds said:
I don't think it IS now, just that it was prior to the surface of last scattering. The expansion since then has been sort of a ballistic remnant of the expansion at that time. I am NOT sure about that, though. I could be just making it up, but I think that's what I've read.

Ok, but still, how does photon pressure lead to expansion if it's coming from everywhere?
 
  • #8
The FLRW metric depends - apart from initial conditions - on a cosmological constant, energy density and pressure (see section "solution") only. Both energy density and pressure slow expansion - but in the current universe, pressure is negligible.
Energy density and pressure are related via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics_of_the_universe - as radiation energy drops with the 4th power of space expansion, we "lose" energy if space expands.
 
  • #9
Drakkith said:
Yes but how do photons lead to expansion pressure?
The photons don't lead to expansion pressure. The pressure that a photon gas exerts, however, gravitates (there is as much attractive gravity caused by the energy density of photons as by their pressure). This is what makes it so that a universe dominated by photons slows its expansion much more rapidly than one dominated by normal matter, and also what makes photons lose energy as the universe expands.
 
  • #10
Chalnoth said:
The photons don't lead to expansion pressure. The pressure that a photon gas exerts, however, gravitates (there is as much attractive gravity caused by the energy density of photons as by their pressure). This is what makes it so that a universe dominated by photons slows its expansion much more rapidly than one dominated by normal matter, and also what makes photons lose energy as the universe expands.

So photons don't lead to an increase in expansion rate then? They slow it down?
 
  • #11
Drakkith said:
So photons don't lead to an increase in expansion rate then? They slow it down?
Yes. They are more efficient at slowing the expansion than normal matter. You can see this in the second Friedmann equation:

[tex]\dot{H} + H^2 = {\ddot{a} \over a}= -{4 \pi G \over 3}\left(\rho + 3p\right)[/tex]

For normal matter, the pressure [itex]p = 0[/itex], and the energy density [itex]\rho[/itex] is positive. So the right hand side is always negative: normal matter always acts to slow the expansion by a factor of [itex]-4\pi \rho G / 3[/itex].

By contrast, with photons, [itex]p = \rho/3[/itex], so that we pick up an extra factor reducing the expansion, leading to a photon gas reducing the expansion by [itex]-8\pi \rho G/3[/itex], or twice as rapid a deceleration compared with normal matter for the same energy density.
 
  • #12
What exactly is meant by "photon pressure"? Is this the same thing as normal Radiation pressure?
 
  • #13
As far as I can tell yes every search I do using Photon pressure returns radiation pressure
 
  • #14
Drakkith said:
What exactly is meant by "photon pressure"? Is this the same thing as normal Radiation pressure?
Yes.
 
  • #16
One way to understand why it has this effect is to consider a somewhat different scenario:

Imagine that we have an enclosed box, and within that box is a gas of photons (you can simply imagine the box as having some temperature, which causes it to be filled with radiation). That gas of photons exerts radiation pressure on each wall of the box equal to [itex]\rho/3[/itex].

Now, what happens if we cause this box to expand in size? Well, if the box expands by a factor of [itex]a[/itex], then the photon pressure on each side of the box exerts work on the box. Because the work is in the direction of the motion of the walls of the box, this amounts to a transfer of energy from the photon gas to the walls of the box. In fact, if you calculate the energy transfer, you exactly get the loss of energy of the photon gas that we see as a redshift.

As to why this pressure leads to a faster slowdown of the expansion, well, that's a bit harder to explain. But suffice it to say that pressure is sort of a kind of energy density, and gravity responds just as well to this sort of energy density as it responds to mass energy.
 
  • #17
Chalnoth said:
One way to understand why it has this effect is to consider a somewhat different scenario:

Imagine that we have an enclosed box, and within that box is a gas of photons (you can simply imagine the box as having some temperature, which causes it to be filled with radiation). That gas of photons exerts radiation pressure on each wall of the box equal to [itex]\rho/3[/itex].

Now, what happens if we cause this box to expand in size? Well, if the box expands by a factor of [itex]a[/itex], then the photon pressure on each side of the box exerts work on the box. Because the work is in the direction of the motion of the walls of the box, this amounts to a transfer of energy from the photon gas to the walls of the box. In fact, if you calculate the energy transfer, you exactly get the loss of energy of the photon gas that we see as a redshift.

As to why this pressure leads to a faster slowdown of the expansion, well, that's a bit harder to explain. But suffice it to say that pressure is sort of a kind of energy density, and gravity responds just as well to this sort of energy density as it responds to mass energy.

This is incorrect. You're comparing (1) a cosmological spacetime with (2) a system consisting of a box with photons inside. In case 1, energy isn't conserved (as explained in the FAQ linked to in #15). In case 2, energy is conserved.
 
  • #18
bcrowell said:
This is incorrect. You're comparing (1) a cosmological spacetime with (2) a system consisting of a box with photons inside. In case 1, energy isn't conserved (as explained in the FAQ linked to in #15). In case 2, energy is conserved.

It seems a not uncommon analogy:
http://books.google.com/books?id=kN...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (p343)
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay21/readings/peacock_cosmology_notes.pdf
http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/teaching/course-notes/documents/118/1703-AstrophysicalCosmology.pdf
 
  • #19
Chalnoth said:
One way to understand why it has this effect is to consider a somewhat different scenario:

Imagine that we have an enclosed box, and within that box is a gas of photons (you can simply imagine the box as having some temperature, which causes it to be filled with radiation). That gas of photons exerts radiation pressure on each wall of the box equal to [itex]\rho/3[/itex].

Now, what happens if we cause this box to expand in size? Well, if the box expands by a factor of [itex]a[/itex], then the photon pressure on each side of the box exerts work on the box. Because the work is in the direction of the motion of the walls of the box, this amounts to a transfer of energy from the photon gas to the walls of the box. In fact, if you calculate the energy transfer, you exactly get the loss of energy of the photon gas that we see as a redshift.

As to why this pressure leads to a faster slowdown of the expansion, well, that's a bit harder to explain. But suffice it to say that pressure is sort of a kind of energy density, and gravity responds just as well to this sort of energy density as it responds to mass energy.

Good analogy but for noobies like me. It would be a good thing if you mention such limitations, conditions and a brief elaboration of each component first to avoid misconceptions. :shy:
 
  • #20
bcrowell said:
This is incorrect. You're comparing (1) a cosmological spacetime with (2) a system consisting of a box with photons inside. In case 1, energy isn't conserved (as explained in the FAQ linked to in #15). In case 2, energy is conserved.
It is a different system, but I think it is rather interesting that the math works out identically.
 
  • #21
julcab12 said:
Good analogy but for noobies like me. It would be a good thing if you mention such limitations, conditions and a brief elaboration of each component first to avoid misconceptions. :shy:
It's not really an analogy. It's a slightly different system that behaves in the exact same way mathematically. This is at least suggestive that we can think of gravity as soaking up the lost energy in the expanding photon field.
 
  • #22
In the Harrison textbook I linked to #18 there is an extensive discussion of the analogy (p349-350). He says it's ok for things that don't depend on spatial curvature. He contrasts two physicists, one doing the full GR calculation and one doing the box calculation. He does say that the GR physicist will be surprised that after evaluating all the difficult integrals, that he gets the same answer as the simple minded box physicist. He also says that energy is not conserved in the box. He does say that the analogy fails in that in the box, energy is still conserved in box + surroundings, whereas in the universe, energy is simply not conserved.
 
  • #23
The analogy described seems reasonable and clarifying to me. However, the amount of ordinary matter within the observable universe results to be similar to the amount of energy lost by CBR since decoupling...
Just an accident by mere chance? or perhaps a kind of new coincidence problem in cosmology?
 
Last edited:
  • #24
JuanCasado said:
The analogy described seems reasonable and clarifying to me. However, the amount of ordinary matter within the observable universe results to be similar to the amount of energy lost by CBR since decoupling...
Just an accident by mere chance? or perhaps a kind of new coincidence problem in cosmology?
I don't think there can be anything particularly special here, at least not anything pointing to new physics.

The issue is that the radiation energy density at decoupling is fixed by the fact that a hydrogen-helium plasma turns to a gas at around 2970K. The baryon energy density, on the other hand, was set by the amount of imbalance between normal matter and anti-matter in the very early universe, which was decided by physics at extremely high temperatures when the radiation energy density was vastly, vastly higher than the matter energy density.

Now, since the baryon asymmetry was determined in the very early universe, as the temperature dropped and various forms of matter became non-relativistic, they dumped their energy into photons. But the various times that occurred also happened at much higher temperatures when the photon and baryon energy densities were extremely different.

So no, I don't think there's anything particularly special here.
 

1. What is Cosmic Background Radiation?

Cosmic Background Radiation (CMB) is the leftover energy from the Big Bang, which is the event that is believed to have created the universe. It is a type of electromagnetic radiation that permeates the entire universe and is one of the oldest and most abundant sources of energy in the universe.

2. How was the Cosmic Background Radiation discovered?

The Cosmic Background Radiation was first discovered in 1965 by two scientists, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who were studying microwave signals from space. They noticed a constant noise that seemed to be coming from all directions, and after ruling out all other sources, they concluded that it was the CMB.

3. What is the significance of the lost energy of Cosmic Background Radiation?

The lost energy of Cosmic Background Radiation is significant because it can provide important insights into the early stages of the universe. By studying the temperature and distribution of CMB, scientists can learn more about the composition and evolution of the universe and potentially uncover new information about the Big Bang.

4. How do scientists measure the lost energy of Cosmic Background Radiation?

Scientists use specialized instruments, such as radio telescopes and satellites, to measure the CMB. These instruments are able to detect and measure the faint signals of CMB radiation from all directions in space. By analyzing this data, scientists can determine the temperature and energy of the CMB.

5. What are some possible explanations for the lost energy of Cosmic Background Radiation?

There are several theories that attempt to explain the lost energy of Cosmic Background Radiation. Some scientists believe that the energy has been absorbed by dark matter particles, while others suggest that it has been dispersed throughout the universe and is no longer detectable. There are also theories that propose the energy has been converted into other forms, such as gravitational waves or neutrinos.

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
919
  • Cosmology
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
37
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top