Olbers' paradox - Poisson model

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Olbers' paradox and its implications when modeled using a spatial Poisson process. Participants explore the mathematical framework of this model, particularly focusing on the behavior of light intensity as the distance to stars increases, while considering various assumptions and conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant introduces Olbers' paradox and proposes a spatial Poisson model to analyze why the night sky is dark, questioning whether the light intensity L goes to infinity as the distance R increases.
  • Another participant discusses the properties of the Poisson process with intensity proportional to s² and derives that the expected value of L increases without bound as R increases.
  • It is noted that the variance of L is bounded, and this leads to the conclusion that L is almost surely unbounded, meaning the probability of L being finite approaches zero as R increases.
  • A participant expresses surprise at the bounded variance and confirms that the argument holds in higher dimensions, providing a mathematical inequality to support this claim.
  • Concerns are raised about the integration limits for variance, emphasizing that the lower limit must be greater than zero to maintain boundedness, while also acknowledging the finite size of stars as a factor in the model.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the mathematical properties of the Poisson model and its implications for light intensity, but there are nuances regarding the integration limits and the assumptions about star sizes that remain contested.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the assumption that the observer is not located inside a star and the implications of dimensionality on the variance calculations. The discussion does not resolve these assumptions fully.

bpet
Messages
531
Reaction score
7
Olbers' paradox states that if the universe is infinite, static and homogeneous then why is the night sky dark. Of course it's been resolved but it brings up an interesting probability question:

If we model the universe with a spatial Poisson model (probability that a small element is occupied is proportional to the volume) and ignoring decay, variations in star brightness and relativistic effects etc we get

L \propto \int_r^R \tfrac{1}{s^2}dN(s)

as the amount of light reaching your eye originating from stars between r and R units of distance away, where N(s) is a Poisson process with rate at time s proportional to s^2. Does L go to infinity as R increases?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If N(s) is a Poisson process with intensity \rho s^2, the compensated process whose differential is d M(s)=d N(s)-(\rho s^2)d s is a martingale, \mathbb{E}\left[d M(s)\right]=0.

<br /> \begin{eqnarray*}<br /> 0 &amp; = &amp; \mathbb{E}\left[{\int_0^R \frac{d M(s)}{s^2}}\right] \\<br /> &amp; = &amp; \mathbb{E}\left[L\right] - \rho R \\<br /> \\<br /> \mathbb{E}\left[L\right] &amp; = &amp; \rho R<br /> \end{eqnarray*}<br />
The mean of L(R) increases without bound. To show that L itself almost surely goes to infinity, consider the variance. The spherical shell s \leq r &lt; s+ds contains on average \rho s^2 ds stars, with variance \rho s^2 ds. This shell contributes \frac{\rho s^2 ds}{s^4}=\frac{\rho ds}{s^2} to the variance of L. All the shells are independent, so their variances add.

<br /> Var(L) = \int_0^R \frac{\rho ds}{s^2}<br />

which is bounded. Since \mathbb{E}\left[L\right] increases without bound while its variance is bounded, L is almost surely unbounded. (I.e., the probability that L \leq b for any finite b goes to 0 as R goes to infinity.)
 
Last edited:
That's neat! I didn't think to check that the variance is finite or at least slowly growing. For the variance to be bounded the lower integration limit would have to be r>0, but that's fine if the observer is not inside a star.

It looks like the argument works in >3 dimensions as well. To work in 1 or 2 dimensions apply Chebyshev's inequality:

Pr[L<=C] <= Pr[|X-M|>=|M-C|] <= V/|M-C|^2

where M and V are the mean and variance and C < M is arbitrary. We have M=k.(R-r) for all dimensions d and V=k.(R^(2-d)-r^(2-d))/(2-d) for d<>2 or V=k.log(R/r) so the RHS is O(1/R) or less in all cases.
 
bpet said:
For the variance to be bounded the lower integration limit would have to be r>0, ...
Oops! You're right. What saves you, of course, is that stars have finite size, so it's not Poisson at low r.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
10K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K