Were the "Dark Ages" really dark?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gerinski
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The term "Dark Ages" refers to the period after recombination when no stars existed, but the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) was still emitting light. Initially, the universe was bright yellow at around 3000 K, but as it expanded, the temperature dropped significantly, transitioning to infrared. This cooling process led to a point where the universe became effectively dark for human vision, as the CMB peak shifted into the infrared spectrum. The darkness associated with this era is primarily due to the lack of visible light sources, not the absence of radiation. Ultimately, the naming of this period may be misleading, as it was not entirely devoid of light.
Gerinski
Messages
322
Reaction score
15
The period from the end of recombination until the birth of the first stars is commonly referred to as "the Dark Ages" since no starlight existed yet.

But the cosmic bath of photons at that time which today we call the CMB was still hot, not yet having redshifted. It is usually said that temperature at the end of recombination (CMB) was around 3000 K, which would mean that the universe would have been glowing bright yellow, and as it expanded further the bright yellow would gradually become more orange, then redder and gradually fainter until it finally went into the infrared and therefore truly dark.

If so, the Dark Ages may be an inappropriate name, at least for the initial period?

By which age would the cosmic radiation have transitioned from red into the infrared so the skies would really look dark?

TX
 
Space news on Phys.org
During the Dark Ages the CMB would already have cooled off significantly (if you take the Dark Ages to span 150-800 million years after the BB, the temperature would be around 50 K at the onset). However, I do not believe this is the reason for referring to it as the Dark Ages. Rather, it is the fact that it appears dark to us which is the culprit in the naming - if you try to look at that epoch in an instrument, there is essentially nothing to be seen - the CMB is background and the rest is foreground. Essentially all you can try to search for is the 21 cm hydrogen line.
 
To help you answer your last question, the temperature of the CMB scales with redshift like so ##T = T_0 (1+z),\, T_0=2.725 {\rm K}##
 
Gerinski said:
The period from the end of recombination until the birth of the first stars is commonly referred to as "the Dark Ages" since no starlight existed yet.

But the cosmic bath of photons at that time which today we call the CMB was still hot, not yet having redshifted. It is usually said that temperature at the end of recombination (CMB) was around 3000 K, which would mean that the universe would have been glowing bright yellow

Yes, I think you are right, Universe was filled with yellow-reddish light at about 300 thousand years. But first stars formed much later - some 100 *million*, not thousand years after BB. A few million years after BB, gas temperature fell below 500K and CMB peak was firmly in infrared, so it become "pitch black" (for human vision).
 
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##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top