How Is the Original Energy of CMBR Photons Affected by Universal Expansion?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of universal expansion on the energy of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) photons. Participants explore the implications of redshift on photon energy and the conservation of energy within the framework of general relativity (GR).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that CMBR photons have been red-shifted significantly due to universal expansion, resulting in lower energy now compared to their original emission during the Big Bang.
  • Another participant mentions that global energy conservation is not a requirement in GR, suggesting that the missing energy might be attributed to the gravitational field, though this idea is described as confusing.
  • A different viewpoint proposes that the missing energy could be associated with dark energy, although this is met with skepticism from others.
  • One participant presents a scenario involving a rapidly receding light source, suggesting that the redshift observed could be linked to conservation of momentum, implying that photons may have done work on the source.
  • Another participant challenges the simplicity of this explanation, arguing that the relationship between energy and motion is not straightforward and that the expansion of space itself does not necessitate energy conservation in the traditional sense.
  • A more detailed model is introduced, discussing the interaction between a photon and a moving mirror, illustrating how energy loss in the photon could correspond to an increase in kinetic energy of the mirror.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of redshift and energy conservation, with no consensus reached on the nature of the missing energy or the validity of the proposed models.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions hinge on the definitions of energy and momentum in the context of GR, and the assumptions made about the interactions between photons and moving objects may not be universally accepted.

jnorman
Messages
315
Reaction score
0
the photons emitted during the big bang, now detected as the CMBR, have been red-shifted by a very large degree due to the expansion of the universe since the BB, resulting in much lower photon energy now than when the photons were first emitted. (i hope i have that correct.)

since there is a law of conservation of energy, where did the original energy of the CMBR photons go?
 
Science news on Phys.org
The usual answer is global energy conservation is not required by GR, which is technically correct, but, rather unsatisfying. An adventurerous soul might suggest the missing energy goes into the gravitational field, which is plausible, but, rather confusing. GR is tricky because it really has no firm definition of energy - or even mass for that matter.
 
Or a really adventurous soul (namely me) might suggest that that energy is known as Dark Energy. :)
 
Whovian said:
Or a really adventurous soul (namely me) might suggest that that energy is known as Dark Energy. :)

Very unlikely.
 
Exactly why I used "really adventurous." I doubt it, too.
 
I'm not sure it's that complicated.
Consider a light source receding from you rapidly. You see it red-shifted.
You also see the light source accelerating away from you (conservation of momentum).
So the photons appear to you to have done work accelerating the source.
 
haruspex said:
I'm not sure it's that complicated.
Consider a light source receding from you rapidly. You see it red-shifted.
You also see the light source accelerating away from you (conservation of momentum).
So the photons appear to you to have done work accelerating the source.

But that relies on the two energies being EXACTLY the same. Say two objects are the same distance away from you. One's a couple billion times as bright as a GRB (just as a reference, i doubt such things exist), and the other hardly emits or reflects light at all. By your argument, the star should shoot away from you, and the other object should verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slowly.

Also note that the objects are not truly moving away from us in a way that requires conservation of energy to give some sort of energy supply to allow them to move away, it's simply the space between us and them is expanding.
 
  • #10
Whovian said:
But that relies on the two energies being EXACTLY the same. Say two objects are the same distance away from you. One's a couple billion times as bright as a GRB (just as a reference, i doubt such things exist), and the other hardly emits or reflects light at all. By your argument, the star should shoot away from you, and the other object should verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slowly.

Also note that the objects are not truly moving away from us in a way that requires conservation of energy to give some sort of energy supply to allow them to move away, it's simply the space between us and them is expanding.

You're reading far too much into what I wrote. I'm not claiming the photons' momenta are responsible for the whole or even much of the object's speed. Indeed, a star is likely sending similar flux in all directions.

Let's take a simple model. A mirror mass m is moving away at from you speed v and you bounce a photon off it. The photon had frequency f when it left you, momentum p.
Impulse on mirror = 2p (well, slightly less because the mirror sees it as redshifted, but it'll do for now). Δv = 2p/m.
Mirror's KE, as seen by you, is approx. mv^2/2. (These need not be relativistic speeds, so I'll leave the exact calculation to you ;-). Increase in KE = mvΔv = 2pv.
Returning photon's redshift z = 2v/c = Δf/f.
Change in photon energy = hΔf = 2vhf/c = 2pv.

So in this case the loss of energy in the photon matches the gain in KE of the mirror.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
922
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K