Quantum Gravity: Photons, Electromagnetic Radiation & the Universe

backenvelope
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
We know that a photon has no mass, but has relativistic mass - which means in theory, a photon will have a gravitational field.

What is the total possible gravitational affect of all photons (and electromagnetic radiation) emitted from the stars in the universe?

Could this account for the gravity seen in the universe – which cannot be explained by ordinary matter?
And could this explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, instead of the dark matter and dark energy interaction that's otherwise predicted?
 
Space news on Phys.org
backenvelope said:
We know that a photon has no mass, but has relativistic mass

A better term would be "energy" (still better would be "stress-energy").

backenvelope said:
Wwhich means in theory, a photon will have a gravitational field.

Yes.

backenvelope said:
What is the total possible gravitational affect of all photons (and electromagnetic radiation) emitted from the stars in the universe?

Very small; several orders of magnitude smaller than the effect of the ordinary matter. (Actually, AFAIK the largest component of the stress-energy of photons and EM radiation comes from the CMBR; the amount of stress-energy in starlight is considerably smaller than that.)

backenvelope said:
Could this account for the gravity seen in the universe – which cannot be explained by ordinary matter?

No. It's way too small.

backenvelope said:
And could this explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, instead of the dark matter and dark energy interaction that's otherwise predicted?

No. Stress-energy due to radiation can't cause an accelerating expansion, any more than stress-energy from ordinary matter can. (Dark matter can't either; only dark energy can.)
 
PeterDonis said:
No. Stress-energy due to radiation can't cause an accelerating expansion, any more than stress-energy from ordinary matter can. (Dark matter can't either; only dark energy can.)
In fact, radiation causes the expansion to slow even more than normal matter does.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Featured
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Back
Top