What is the energy in a cubic km of empty space?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the energy contained in a cubic kilometer of empty space at a temperature of 2.7 K, specifically regarding the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. While the energy density of the CMB can be estimated using the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and related formulas, it does not account for other forms of energy present in the universe. The conversation references an energy inventory by astronomer P. J. E. Peebles, which outlines the energy densities of various states of matter and radiation. Additionally, a mention is made of intrinsic quantum vacuum energy contributing to the total energy estimate. Overall, while the CMB provides a basis for understanding energy density, it is insufficient for calculating the universe's total energy due to the presence of other energy forms.
Dr. Strange
Messages
22
Reaction score
1
If I have a 1 km cube of empty space at a constant temperature of 2.7 K, how much energy do I have? That is, if I know the total volume of space in the universe and I know what the average temperature of that space is, can I computer to total energy of the universe?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Dr. Strange said:
if I know the total volume of space in the universe

You don't.
 
Dr. Strange said:
If I have a 1 km cube of empty space at a constant temperature of 2.7 K, how much energy do I have?...
What you are asking about is the energy density of the cosmic microwave background radiation. A box full of light at a certain temp represents how much energy per unit volume. It's a good question, although it does not give you a way to calculate the energy density of the universe because the universe contains other forms of energy besides the CMB radiation.
 
marcus said:
What you are asking about is the energy density of the cosmic microwave background radiation. A box full of light at a certain temp represents how much energy per unit volume. It's a good question, although it does not give you a way to calculate the energy density of the universe because the universe contains other forms of energy besides the CMB radiation.
Yes. I am basically asking how much energy a box full of CMB light would contain. In other words, if you knew what the total cubic volume of the universe was, could you use the temperature of space to calculate the total energy of the universe?
 
Dr. Strange said:
Yes. I am basically asking how much energy a box full of CMB light would contain. ...

There's the Stefan Boltzmann constant sigma and the related energy density constant a

σ
=5.67 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4
a = 4σ/c = 7.566 x 10-16 J m-3 K-4

I think to get the energy density of radiation at a given temp you just multiply a by T4

This would get you the energy density in a box of thermal radiation at a given temperature but I don't see how you conclude from that the energy density of the universe because the universe has other stuff in addition to the CMB---for example the energy equivalent of the matter it contains. Maybe you are proposing to view all that other stuff as negligible.

There is an energy INVENTORY that the astronomer Peebles published a few years back. You might be interested. I'll see if I can find a link.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406095
The Cosmic Energy Inventory
Masataka Fukugita, P. J. E. Peebles
(Submitted on 3 Jun 2004)
We present an inventory of the cosmic mean densities of energy associated with all the known states of matter and radiation at the present epoch. The observational and theoretical bases for the inventory have become rich enough to allow estimates with observational support for the densities of energy in some 40 forms. The result is a global portrait of the effects of the physical processes of cosmic evolution.
42 pages. Astrophys.J.616:643-668,2004
http://inspirehep.net/record/651635?ln=en

This would give an estimate of the energy density of the CMB among other things.
 
Last edited:
marcus said:
There's the Stefan Boltzmann constant sigma and the related energy density constant a

σ
=5.67 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4
a = 4σ/c = 7.566 x 10-16 J m-3 K-4

I think to get the energy density of radiation at a given temp you just multiply a by T4

This would get you the energy density in a box of thermal radiation at a given temperature but I don't see how you conclude from that the energy density of the universe because the universe has other stuff in addition to the CMB---for example the energy equivalent of the matter it contains. Maybe you are proposing to view all that other stuff as negligible.

There is an energy INVENTORY that the astronomer Peebles published a few years back. You might be interested. I'll see if I can find a link.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406095
The Cosmic Energy Inventory
Masataka Fukugita, P. J. E. Peebles
(Submitted on 3 Jun 2004)
We present an inventory of the cosmic mean densities of energy associated with all the known states of matter and radiation at the present epoch. The observational and theoretical bases for the inventory have become rich enough to allow estimates with observational support for the densities of energy in some 40 forms. The result is a global portrait of the effects of the physical processes of cosmic evolution.
42 pages. Astrophys.J.616:643-668,2004
http://inspirehep.net/record/651635?ln=en

This would give an estimate of the energy density of the CMB among other things.
Don't forget to add something like 0.6*10^15 eV per km^3 of intristic quantum vacuum energy.
That makes neat 0.0001 J.
Every little helps.
 
Last edited:
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...
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