Where do high energy background photons go?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the fate of high-energy background photons in the context of the expanding Universe, particularly focusing on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the implications of energy conservation in General Relativity (GR). Participants explore theoretical aspects, implications of redshift, and the nature of energy in an expanding universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that high-energy background photons have been redshifted, resulting in their observation as a lower energy spectrum consistent with a temperature of 2.7K.
  • Others argue that energy cannot be created or destroyed, raising questions about where the energy of these photons has gone.
  • One participant suggests that the energy may convert to gravitational energy, questioning how the curvature of spacetime changes with the Universe's expansion.
  • Another participant states that energy is not conserved in an expanding universe and that global energy conservation may not be definable in GR.
  • Some contributions challenge the idea that photons did not lose energy, emphasizing the frame-dependent nature of energy in cosmological contexts.
  • There are discussions about the implications of redshift and whether it can be viewed as an apparent loss of energy due to changing coordinate systems.
  • One participant expresses a belief in the logical consistency of the universe, suggesting that underlying theories may be simpler than they appear.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the fate of high-energy photons and the nature of energy conservation in an expanding universe. There is no consensus on these issues, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in defining energy conservation in GR and the dependence of energy definitions on the chosen coordinate system. The discussion also touches on the complexities of observational phenomena in curved spacetime.

fxdung
Messages
387
Reaction score
23
The temperature of expanding Universe is cooler and cooler.The most contribution of energy of background photons(CMB) are of photons having energy ~3kT.Then where have the high energy background photons gone?
 
Space news on Phys.org
They haven't gone anywhere - they were redshifted (i.e. lost energy) and now we observe them as the 2.7K blackbody spectrum.
 
I presume the next queistion is - given energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did it go?
 
I think that it changes to gravitation energy. Do the curved degree of space-time(or the metric) change while the Universe expanding?But I do not understand the problem because when the Universe expands the matter density decrease,then the space-time is flater and flater, then why we have the gravity energy increase to conserve total energy?
 
Last edited:
Energy is not conserved in an expanding universe. In fact, it is not necessarily true that it is possible to define global energy conservation in GR.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb
What is Dark Matter(and Dark Energy? Does it contribute to Einstein equation or not?Is there any expansion in GR when we consider Dark Matter(and Dark Energy)?
 
fxdung said:
What is Dark Matter(and Dark Energy? Does it contribute to Einstein equation or not?Is there any expansion in GR when we consider Dark Matter(and Dark Energy)?
Those are way too general questions if you want more than yes/no answers and also off-topic in this thread.

We do not know. Yes. Yes.
 
Chronos said:
I presume the next queistion is - given energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did it go?

It did not go anywhere. The photons did not lose energy. In some sense, for the observer who saw them emitted, they still have the same high energy they had when they were emitted - they are just very far away from that observer now.
They have much lower energy in _our_ coordinate system. IOW: the redshift is an *apparent* loss of energy, caused by photons being observed in constantly changing choice of coordinate system.
 
  • #10
nikkkom said:
In some sense, for the observer who saw them emitted, they still have the same high energy they had when they were emitted - they are just very far away from that observer now.
No, this is not true in any way. It is not even clear what would be meant by such a statement in a curved space-time.

nikkkom said:
The photons did not lose energy.
They did if you consider the comoving frame, which is the one most commonly used. It is a frame dependent issue though. The total energy of the universe is not well defined.

nikkkom said:
They have much lower energy in _our_ coordinate system. IOW: the redshift is an *apparent* loss of energy, caused by photons being observed in constantly changing choice of coordinate system.
You seem to be thinking of Doppler shift. Although it is the same basic idea, you cannot view what happens in a general space time as a Doppler shift due to relative motion of the observer and source other than locally. Also, observations have nothing to do with your choice of coordinate system. Observables are invariants.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Fervent Freyja
  • #11
We live in a universe that is often bizarre observationally, although it always seems to prove to be logically consistent. I am a big fan of the logically consistent part because it offers hope we may someday figure out exactly how it works. I deeply suspect it is very simple on a basic level. All those 'out there' theories are mostly mathematical artifacts, IMO.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Fervent Freyja

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K