Uncovering the Mystery of the Universe's Blinding White Light

  • Thread starter Thread starter gothamxi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
AI Thread Summary
Light travels at a fixed rate and is absorbed by matter, yet the universe does not appear blindingly bright due to various factors. The discussion highlights Olber's paradox, which suggests that the universe is not infinite in time or space, explaining why the night sky is not overwhelmingly illuminated despite the vast amount of light produced by stars. It raises questions about whether light is reflected at lower, invisible energies and how cosmic microwave background radiation fits into this understanding. The complexities of Olber's paradox are further compounded by considerations of cosmic inflation. Overall, the conversation delves into the intricate relationship between light, energy absorption, and the observable universe.
gothamxi
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Light travels at a fixed rate, and is absorbed as other energy forms by matter, but why is the universe still not blinding white. There is so much light energy being dispersed constantly, why can I open my eyes and not be blinded. Why is the night sky not brighter? I feel like the amount of light energy produced by our sun and the stars, and then reflected should exceed the rate at which it is absorbed. Is it just that it is constantly reflected at lower energies invisible to the human eye?
 
Space news on Phys.org
The cosmic microwave backgound is the result of what has been produced.
 
it's called Olber's paradox and is proof that the universe isn't infinite in time or extent
 
I was under the impression Obler's paradox only "shows" that the universe is not infinitely old, and says nothing of its spatial extent.

Source or explanation, mgb_phys?
 
Depending on your cosmology they are linked - I was trying to simplify.
When you include inflation Olber's paradox is a bit more complicated
 
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...
Back
Top