Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Warm hot intergalactic medium

  1. Jun 23, 2016 #1
    Dear PF Forum,
    Thanks for helping me so far.
    Lately, I've been reading Universe from nothing and quantum fluctuation.
    Those are very interesting topics. And I'd like to know more about them.
    And how the energy of the universe is zero.
    But before I would study them, there are things that intrigue me.
    I've been reading this.
    Actucally I know about it from this: How far can ge go - The limit of humanity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL4yYHdDSWs
    I thought in vacuum, the temperature is always zero. What causes this 2.7 Kelvin temperature?
    Of course the CMB.
    1. Can the nuclear reaction from the stars contribute to this temperature?
    2. A and B seem contradict each other. And I've got warnings by some staffs regarding posting from unreliable links. And I don't think those links are unreliable.:smile: I've read those links a couple of times, but I still can't find the answer.
    Why is that? Is the temperature in intergalactic space is hot, while the temperatur within a galaxy, in interstellar medium is cold?
    And about this paragraph, still in the wiki link.
    I think the SMBH is inside the galaxy. Isn't the gas shocks are created within the galaxy not in a location thousands of light years away?

    Thank you very much for your help
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 23, 2016 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Sure. The light from the stars would add a small amount to the temperature of any object in space. Or a lot, if you're very close to a star. That's why spacecraft that go near the Sun have to be designed to reflect most of the light and have special ways of getting rid of heat.

    B just states that the minimum temperature an object can get to is 2.7 kelvin. It doesn't state that an object will get down to that temperature. Also, I'm not sure it applies to gas, which can actually get lower than 2.7 kelvin. A good example is the boomerang nebula, which sits at around 1 kelvin:

    In 1995, using the 15-metre Swedish-ESO Submillimetre Telescope in Chile, astronomers revealed that it is the coldest place in the Universe found so far, besides laboratory-created temperatures. With a temperature of −272 °C, it is only 1 °C warmer than absolute zero (the lowest limit for all temperatures). Even the −270 °C background glow from the Big Bang is warmer than the nebula. Aside from the CMB cold spot, it is the only object found so far that has a temperature lower than the background radiation.

    I believe it is able to get that low because the gas is expanding, which reduces its temperature. A bulk, solid object will not get down below 2.7 kelvin unless perhaps it is located within this cold gas (not sure though).

    If I understand the article (and several links from the article) correctly, the shocks originate when particles accelerated by the SMBH out of the galaxy and into the intergalactic medium, creating the shocks and heating the medium.
  4. Jun 23, 2016 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The 2.7K temperature is the temperature of the photons that make up the CMB.

    The warm-hot intergalactic medium is made up of ionized atoms that are heated via a number of different processes. It stays at a higher temperature because it takes a long time for the gas to cool down, and the ionized atoms get a kick of energy from some source or another before they lose too much energy (e.g. a plasma shock front, or a quasar, or a supernova, or a gamma ray burst). The atoms are just so far away from one another that they don't really contribute to the CMB at all (which is far, far brighter).
  5. Jun 23, 2016 #4
    Thanks @Drakkith
    Thanks @Chalnoth
    What processes?
    These processes?
    But, aren't supernova inside a galaxy, and they warm some locations far away from them?

    Before they lose too much energy

    So, the atoms in intergalactic medium are slow to lose energy compared to the atoms inside a galaxy/interstellar medium?

    Thanks for the answers.

    Attached Files:

  6. Jun 24, 2016 #5
    So, the hot temperatur in intergalactic space comes from quasar, neutron star, gamma ray burst, not that the space warm itself?
  7. Jun 24, 2016 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Right. But they send out a lot of high-energy photons, which occasionally bounce into the warm-hot intergalactic medium. It's definitely rare for these to collide, but apparently the atoms cool only very slowly, so the small number of high-energy photons are enough to keep the medium hot and ionized.
  8. Jun 24, 2016 #7
    Thank you very much @Chalnoth
    It's clear then.
    I thought the intergalactic space gets hot by itself, just as Hubble Law. That intergalactic space expands by itself.
    So, it does not. All the energy comes from inside the galaxies.
  9. Jun 25, 2016 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    @Stephanus don't confuse metric expansion of the universe with expansion of hot intergalactic medium! All the properties of the matter in the universe apart from its density have no bearing on the expansion. You can't treat it as if it were an ideal gas.
    So space does expand by itself in the sense that it is not powered by anything either inside, nor outside galaxies.
  10. Jun 25, 2016 #9


    Staff: Mentor

    This way of stating it can be misleading (as a number of other recent threads have shown). A better way to say it would be that what we call the "expansion of the universe" does not depend on any of the internal dynamics of galaxies, or intergalactic gas clouds, or any such objects. Except for the acceleration due to dark energy, the expansion of the universe is entirely a matter of inertia--the universe at the end of inflation was in a very hot, dense, rapidly expanding state, and today's expansion is just the extrapolation of that forward by 13.8 billion years or so, taking into account the average density of matter and energy.
  11. Jun 25, 2016 #10
    Thanks @Bandersnatch for your correction.
    Yes, I do know that somehow space in intergalactic medium expands, and it is not powered, as you said, by anythying inside nor outside galaxies.
    What I don't didn't know was what powers the warm intergalactic medium space. But now I know. It's the supernova, quasar, gamma ray burst do that. It's not like space expansion which expands by itself and doesn't have anything to do by neither inside or outside.
    Thanks :smile:
    Actually I want to know why the universe comes from nothing.
    - Why the net energy in the universe is zero
    - What is the total energy in the universe.
    And if space in intergalactic medium can get warm by itsefl, wouldn't it be difficult to calculate the total energy of the universe?
    But those belong to a new thread I think.
    Now, I just want to try to calculate the total energy of the universe.
    Wiki says that the universe is
    4.66% matter (and energy I think)
    23% dark matter
    72% dark energy,
    But this also belong to a new thread.

  12. Jun 25, 2016 #11


    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, so please start one if you want to discuss further. But before doing that, you might want to search the forums for previous threads on "the total energy of the universe", and on "the universe came from nothing". You appear to have misconceptions about these concepts that you should correct before posting about them.
  13. Jun 25, 2016 #12
    Thanks @PeterDonis
    Of course I wouldn't ask these questions
    - Total energy of the universe
    - Universe from nothing

    in this thread.
    I have misconception about this. But one thing that I want to know is whether the warm hot intergalactic medium is a special space property such as the space expansion as mentioned in Hubble Law, or it's caused by galaxies around it.
    And I have had the answer in this thread. They are supernova, gamma ray burst, active galaxy nuclei.
    To know further about those topics I have to read several sources further.
    Thank you very much.
  14. Jun 25, 2016 #13


    Staff: Mentor

    My point is that you shouldn't ask them at all; you should first spend some time looking up references--previous PF threads, and good textbooks or papers on cosmology. Sean Carroll's lecture notes on GR contain good information along these lines. Looking up good references and understanding them should show you that neither of these questions are well posed; they don't have well-defined answers at all. So it's pointless to ask them.
  15. Jun 25, 2016 #14
    Ahh, that's your point!:smile:
    Not to ask them in this thread but not to ask them at all! Thanks.
    I'll do my reading.
    Sean Carroll? Thank you very much
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2016
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted