Photon wavelength in expanding universe

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of photon wavelengths in an expanding universe, particularly focusing on how the wavelength of a monochromatic photon gas changes over time due to cosmic expansion. Participants explore the implications of this expansion on blackbody radiation and the temperature of photon distributions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the wavelength of photons in an expanding universe can be expressed as L = L0 (1 + H(t-t0)), while others suggest L = L0 (1 + (t-t0)/H), indicating uncertainty about the correct formulation.
  • There is a discussion about how the wavelength scaling affects the blackbody thermal distribution of photons, with some arguing that it would not remain a blackbody spectrum if all wavelengths are scaled by the same factor.
  • A participant presents a mathematical transformation of the blackbody radiation formula, questioning whether the new form retains the characteristics of a blackbody spectrum after wavelength scaling.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need to consider the spectral energy density and the contributions of photons from different ranges of wavelengths when analyzing the effects of expansion on blackbody radiation.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of Doppler shifts on the perceived blackbody spectrum from an observer's perspective, suggesting that the distribution may not appear as a blackbody spectrum due to the complexities of photon density and energy changes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the scaling of wavelengths in an expanding universe preserves the blackbody nature of the photon distribution. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on the implications of photon behavior in an expanding universe.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the expansion of the universe introduces complexities that require careful consideration of the scale factor and its effects on photon wavelengths and distributions. There is acknowledgment that the real universe's dynamics involve more factors than the simplified models discussed.

JustinLevy
Messages
882
Reaction score
1
Let us say we have a universe permeated with a monochromatic photon gas of wavelength L0 at time t0 and the universe is expanding (say for simplicity with a constant rate H, Hubble's Constant). If I sit there and measure the wavelength of the photons as a function of time, what does it look like?

From a dimensional analysis argument I'd expect something like
L = L0 (1 + H(t-t0))

Is this correct? And how would I calculate this directly?

Also, this suggests all frequencies are adjusted by just a multiplicative constant. If so, this seems to suggest a photon gas initially in a blackbody thermal distribution would not stay so (it's distribution would have a different form at a later time). But that can't be right, as (for instance) the CMB is a very nice blackbody distribution. So what am I doing wrong here?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
JustinLevy said:
Let us say we have a universe permeated with a monochromatic photon gas of wavelength L0 at time t0 and the universe is expanding (say for simplicity with a constant rate H, Hubble's Constant). If I sit there and measure the wavelength of the photons as a function of time, what does it look like?

From a dimensional analysis argument I'd expect something like
L = L0 (1 + (t-t0)/H)

Is this correct? And how would I calculate this directly?

Also, this suggests all frequencies are adjusted by just a multiplicative constant. If so, this seems to suggest a photon gas initially in a blackbody thermal distribution would not stay so (it's distribution would have a different form at a later time). But that can't be right, as (for instance) the CMB is a very nice blackbody distribution. So what am I doing wrong here?

Let a be the scale factor. In an expanding universe, a is a function of time, and the wavelength of photons is proportional to a.

Also, the distance between galaxies "at rest" in the cosmos (co-moving) remains proportional to a. The value H is equal to (da/dt)/a.

Here are several simple models for expansion.
  1. a = H0t (empty universe model)
  2. a = (3H0t/2)2/3 (flat matter filled universe)
  3. a = eH0t (inflationary universe)

The real universe is a bit more complicated, and you need to solve differential equations for a. The parameters for the current simplest consensus model are the amount of matter, and dark energy, and curvature; but in all cases the wavelength scales by a factor, and so a blackbody spectrum remains a blackbody.

Note that H varies with time. H0 is a fixed values, being the value of H in the present epoch, when a = 1. The time for the current epoch in these simple models is
  1. t0 = 1/H0
  2. t0 = 2/3H0
  3. t0 = 1/H0

A photon "now" with wavelength L0 will in general have wavelength at time t of a*L0

Solving for the three simple models
  1. L = H0L0t
  2. L = (3H0t/2)2/3L0
  3. L = L0eH0t

Cheers -- Sylas
 
Thank you so much for your response.

I am still having trouble with this though:
sylas said:
...in all cases the wavelength scales by a factor, and so a blackbody spectrum remains a blackbody.

[tex]I(\lambda,T)=\frac{2hc^2}{\lambda^5}\frac{1}{\exp(\frac{hc}{\lambda k T}) -1}[/tex]

Now if at a later time all wavelength's are scaled by the same factor, it doesn't seem to be the same form anymore.

Let's say [tex]\lambda \rightarrow \alpha \lambda[/tex]

[tex]I(\lambda,T)=\frac{2hc^2}{\lambda^5}\frac{1}{\alpha^5(\exp(\frac{hc}{\alpha \lambda k T}) -1)}[/tex]

Now for it to have the same form as before, we should be able to write:

[tex]\frac{1}{\alpha^5(\exp(\frac{hc}{\alpha \lambda k T}) -1)}=\frac{1}{\exp(\frac{hc}{\lambda k T'}) -1}[/tex]

and we should be able to solve for T' as a constant (independent of [tex]\lambda[/tex]) otherwise it will no longer look like a blackbody distribution.

Trying to solve for T' I get:
[tex]T' = \frac{hc}{\lambda k \ln [1+\alpha^5(\exp(\frac{hc}{\alpha \lambda k T}) -1)]}[/tex]

Which does not give a T' independent of [tex]\lambda[/tex]. So it appears to not stay a blackbody distribution.

I'm obviously still doing something wrong, so if you could point out what I'm missing it would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
JustinLevy said:
Thank you so much for your response.

I am still having trouble with this though:[tex]I(\lambda,T)=\frac{2hc^2}{\lambda^5}\frac{1}{\exp(\frac{hc}{\lambda k T}) -1}[/tex]

I is the spectral radiance; energy per unit time per unit area per unit sold angle per unit wavelength. Your transformation is a calculation for energy of a particular group of shifted photons; not the new radiance function. To get the new radiance function you need to think in terms of a particular range of photons and track their new contribution to the radiance.

A more useful term is the spectral energy density. The energy is coming to you from every corner of the sky ([itex]4\pi[/itex] steradians) and passing through a the speed of light. This means the spectral energy density expected if every part of the sky is a black body at temperature T is given by
[tex]\mu(\lambda,T)=\frac{8{\pi}hc}{\lambda^5}\frac{1}{\exp(\frac{hc}{\lambda k T}) -1}[/tex]

The units here are energy per unit volume per unit wavelength.

Now... consider a small spectral range, wavelength range n to m. The energy of all the photons per unit volume in that range of wavelength is [itex]\int_n^m I(\lambda, T) d\lambda[/itex]

What will their energy be after the scale factor changes by [itex]\alpha[/itex]?

The wavelength is shifted by [itex]\alpha[/itex], so the photons are now in the range [itex]n\alpha[/itex] to [itex]m\alpha[/itex]. The density of those photons drops by [itex]\alpha^3[/itex] since they are within a larger volume. Each photon is less energetic by a factor [itex]\alpha[/itex]. Hence those photons now have an energy density of [itex]\alpha^{-4}\int_n^m I(\lambda, T) d\lambda[/itex].

Substitute [itex]x = \lambda\alpha[/itex] as the integration variable

The integral becomes [itex]\int_{n\alpha}^{m\alpha} I(x/\alpha, T) \alpha^{-1} dx[/itex], which simplifies to [itex]\alpha^4\int_{n\alpha}^{m\alpha} I(x, T/\alpha) dx[/itex]

But recall that we were calculating this energy originally over the range n to m; and now we integrate those same photons over a shifted range, and so we do indeed have a perfect blackbody with temperature scaled down by [itex]\alpha[/itex].

Cheers -- Sylas
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your response. Yes, I can see now that I wasn't "deriving" the new spectral radiance correctly.

While I can see your arguments and they make sense, something still feels missing to me. I'm having trouble expressing it concretely, but I've finally figured out a way to word part of what seems weird to me in a mathematical way. Maybe helping me see this will allow me clear my understanding better.

Let us consider an observer moving at a constant speed with respect to the center of momentum frame of the photon gas. To this observer the photons reaching him from behind are redshifted (wavelength changed by a multiplicative factor as before). This should look like nothing more than a blackbody distribution from an object stationary in his frame (because that is what we see with the CMB). The doppler shift on the distribution should just make it look like the temperature of radiation coming from that direction dropped slightly. We can apply your arguments as before ...

sylas said:
The wavelength is shifted by [itex]\alpha[/itex], so the photons are now in the range [itex]n\alpha[/itex] to [itex]m\alpha[/itex]. The density of those photons drops by [itex]\alpha^3[/itex] since they are within a larger volume. Each photon is less energetic by a factor [itex]\alpha[/itex]. Hence those photons now have an energy density of [itex]\alpha^{-4}\int_n^m I(\lambda, T) d\lambda[/itex].
Except now we shouldn't be able to use the argument "The density of those photons drops by [itex]\alpha^3[/itex] since they are within a larger volume."

So it looks like a doppler shifted spectrum will no longer look like a blackbody spectrum ... but we know it must. So what is missing here?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K