Where Does the Energy of Redshifted Light Go?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JuanCasado
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Light
Click For Summary
Redshifted light loses energy as it travels through the expanding universe, raising questions about where that energy goes. Energy is not necessarily conserved in General Relativity, which allows for scenarios where energy loss occurs without violating conservation laws. The discussion highlights that while photons lose energy due to redshift, this can be understood through the conservation of the stress-energy tensor in a comoving volume. Additionally, the possibility of thermalization of light in different media is explored, with examples like the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect illustrating how low-frequency light can gain energy. Ultimately, the isotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and its anisotropies support the hot dense early universe model, ruling out alternative theories that do not align with observed data.
JuanCasado
Messages
45
Reaction score
1
Light traveling across the universe is red shifted, so that it loses energy. Is that energy destroyed? If not, where does it go? Could it be driving the expansion of the universe?
Could light be thermalised, i.e. could a low frequency light increase its energy by passing through a hot enough, although transparent, medium? Or vice versa...
 
Space news on Phys.org
There is no energy lost in a red shift, just as there is no energy lost if you are in a car accident where you hit another moving car from behind. Kinetic energy is simply frame of reference dependent.
 
There are multiple ways to answer this question. You can answer it by noting that energy need not be conserved in General Relativity: GR forces the conservation of the stress-energy tensor, which includes energy, momentum, pressure, and anisotropic stresses. Conservation of this tensor as a whole forces non-conservation of energy, under certain circumstances.

Another way of looking at it is to pay attention to the gravitational potential energy as well as the energy in matter fields, by looking at the Hamiltonian formalism. In that case, energy is always conserved by construction. For the case of photons, you'd see the energy loss in the photon field in a comoving volume as stemming from a gravitational potential energy that becomes less negative. For the case of a cosmological constant, you'd see the energy gain in the cosmological constant in a comoving volume as stemming from a gravitational potential energy that becomes more negative.

For a more detailed read:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
 
Chalnoth said:
GR forces the conservation of the stress-energy tensor, which includes energy, momentum, pressure, and anisotropic stresses. Conservation of this tensor as a whole forces non-conservation of energy, under certain circumstances.
Do you have an example where local conservation of stress-energy implies local non-conservation of energy and/or momentum?

Chalnoth said:
Another way [is..] looking at the Hamiltonian formalism. In that case, energy is always conserved by construction. For the case of photons, you'd see the energy loss in the photon field in a comoving volume as stemming from a gravitational potential energy that becomes less negative. For the case of a cosmological constant, you'd see the energy gain in the cosmological constant in a comoving volume as stemming from a gravitational potential energy that becomes more negative.
Could you clarify that a bit? I would have thought such a potential energy would depend on the configuration of (a spacelike slice of) the spacetime, independent of whether the universe is in (cosmological constant driven) accelerating expansion or coasting expansion or even contraction?
 
Simply looking at photon red shift there is energy loss obviously. But photon has traveled longer than expected compared to no space expansion case, which I can not relate to energy.
 
Last edited:
cesiumfrog said:
Do you have an example where local conservation of stress-energy implies local non-conservation of energy and/or momentum?
The example in JuanCasado's post works here. Just take a uniform gas of photons. The number density in a local co-moving region stays the same (since it's uniform, the number going into the local co-moving region equals the number exiting it), but if space is expanding, then the photons are getting stretched along with space, and so the energy density in a local co-moving region drops with time.

Quick note on what co-moving means: the size of the region you're looking at expands along with the universe.

How does this work in the context of the conservation of the stress-energy tensor? Well, with a uniform radiation fluid, there are no off-diagonal elements. There's just energy density in the time-time component, and pressure along the space-space components. Since the pressure of a photon gas is 1/3rd its energy density, and since it's uniform in all directions, the diagonal elements of the space-space part are all rho/3, where rho is the energy density of the photons. You can express the conservation of stress-energy in the following form:

\dot{\rho} = -3H\left(\rho + p\right)

Since p = \rho/3, and expanding the derivatives with respect to time:

\frac{d\rho}{dt} = -4H\rho

We can change all of our derivatives with respect to time to derivatives with respect to a by setting:

\frac{d}{dt} = \frac{da}{dt}\frac{d}{da} = a H \frac{d}{da}

So that we have:

aH\frac{d\rho}{da} = -4H\rho
\frac{d\rho}{da} = -\frac{4}{a}\rho
\frac{d\rho}{\rho} = -4 \frac{da}{a}
\ln\left(\rho\right) = -4 \ln\left(a\right) + C
\rho(a) = \rho(0) a^{-4}

Since the volume is increasing as a^3, but the energy density is falling as a^{-4}, this represents an energy loss per unit volume, taken directly from the conservation of stress-energy and making use of the fact that p = \rho/3 for photons.

Note that you can follow this process in the exact same way for any form of matter where p = w\rho with w = constant. For w = 0, energy is conserved in a comoving volume. For w < 0, energy grows with expansion. For w > 0, energy drops with expansion.
 
Last edited:
v2kkim said:
Simply looking at photon red shift there is energy loss obviously. But photon has traveled longer than expected with no space expansion, which I can not relate to energy.
Huh?
 
Chalnoth said:
Huh?

Actually my wording was not good so I modified a little. I meant photon travel more than 'c' due to space expansion.
 
v2kkim said:
Actually my wording was not good so I modified a little. I meant photon travel more than 'c' due to space expansion.
Oh, well, no. The only relative speed that has any meaning in general relativity is local relative speed. A photon always travels at speed c relative to any local observer, irrespective of the expansion.
 
  • #10
Chalnoth said:
The number density in a local co-moving region stays the same [..], but if space is expanding, then the photons are getting stretched along with space, and so the energy density in a local co-moving region drops with time. Quite note on what co-moving means[..]
Oops, it seems you need a quick note on what "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_reference_frame" " means in general relativity. How about we drop this point (hint: locally is where GR conserves the stress-energy tensor, and it actually does require that energy and momentum are locally conserved individually) and we move straight on to you clarifying your claim regarding the balancing of potential energy?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
cesiumfrog said:
Oops, it seems you need a quick note on what "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_reference_frame" " means in general relativity. How about we drop this point (hint: locally is where GR conserves the stress-energy tensor, and it actually does require that energy and momentum are locally conserved individually) and we move straight on to you clarifying your claim regarding the balancing of potential energy?
Well, if you're going to reduce all the way to flat Minkowski space-time, then you can't talk about the effects of the expansion. So I took one step up from pure locality: a local comoving volume. This is localized in space, but not in time, so that the space-time curvature has an impact.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Chalnoth said:
So I took one step up from pure locality: a local comoving volume. This is localized in space, but not in time, so that the space-time curvature has an impact.

You haven't proven that the stress-energy tensor is conserved (whatever you mean by that) for your comoving volume.

Was your statement about balancing potential energy also incorrect?
 
Last edited:
  • #13
cesiumfrog said:
You haven't proven that the stress-energy tensor is conserved (whatever you mean by that) for your comoving volume.
No. I made use of the equation that can be derived from conservation of the stress-energy tensor:
\dot\rho = -3H\left(\rho + p\right)

You can go ahead and go through the covariant derivative of the stress energy tensor of an isotropic, homogeneous fluid if you'd like (it's a bit much to put down in tex for a forum post). But the equation above is what you get.

cesiumfrog said:
Was your statement about balancing potential energy also incorrect?
No.
 
  • #14
As far as I have seen, the second part of my question has not been discused:
Could light be thermalised, i.e. could a low frequency light increase its energy by passing through a hot enough, although transparent, medium? Or vice versa...
 
  • #15
JuanCasado said:
As far as I have seen, the second part of my question has not been discused:
Could light be thermalised, i.e. could a low frequency light increase its energy by passing through a hot enough, although transparent, medium? Or vice versa...
Yes. This is the nature of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, which can be used to detect galaxy clusters (which contain a very hot gas that "warms up" the CMB photons).
 
  • #16
Chalnoth said:
Yes. This is the nature of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, which can be used to detect galaxy clusters (which contain a very hot gas that "warms up" the CMB photons).

Good. So, could CMB photons be (conversely) red shifted, i.e. "cooled down", due to interactions with very cold intergalactic media?
 
  • #17
JuanCasado said:
Good. So, could CMB photons be (conversely) red shifted, i.e. "cooled down", due to interactions with very cold intergalactic media?
Perhaps. But there isn't much of anything that cool out there.
 
  • #18
Chalnoth said:
Perhaps. But there isn't much of anything that cool out there.

Well, any intergalactic particle should be in thermal equilibrium at about 2.7K, right?
 
  • #19
JuanCasado said:
Well, any intergalactic particle should be in thermal equilibrium at about 2.7K, right?
Not necessarily. There's also starlight to consider, which tends to heat up the IGM above the CMB temperature.
 
  • #20
Chalnoth said:
Not necessarily. There's also starlight to consider, which tends to heat up the IGM above the CMB temperature.

Not much I'm affraid. Could we agree in the 3K level?
 
  • #21
JuanCasado said:
Not much I'm affraid. Could we agree in the 3K level?
It's significant enough to cause the IGM to be ionized. But regardless, even if the IGM were at the temperature of the CMB, it couldn't cool it down.
 
  • #22
At this point, what observational constraints can rule out the following idea?:
Since the universe is full of photons randomly flowing in all directions that, after long enough times, become in thermodinamic equlibrium with IGM, the CMB could be the result of photons thermalised to its lowest temperature.
 
  • #23
JuanCasado said:
At this point, what observational constraints can rule out the following idea?:
Since the universe is full of photons randomly flowing in all directions that, after long enough times, become in thermodinamic equlibrium with IGM, the CMB could be the result of photons thermalised to its lowest temperature.
But the problem is that the IGM isn't in thermodynamic equilibrium. It's ionized by starlight (and therefore also warmer than the CMB).
 
  • #24
No energy loss, redshifted photons are merely smeared out over a longer time interval [think time dilation].
 
  • #25
Chronos said:
No energy loss, redshifted photons are merely smeared out over a longer time interval [think time dilation].
Well, there are all sorts of different ways to look at it. And yes, energy loss is one of those ways.
 
  • #26
JuanCasado said:
At this point, what observational constraints can rule out the following idea?:
Since the universe is full of photons randomly flowing in all directions that, after long enough times, become in thermodinamic equlibrium with IGM, the CMB could be the result of photons thermalised to its lowest temperature.

The isotropy of the CMB would not be re-produced by this process (the temperature is the same in all sight lines to a very high degree of accuracy).

In addition the very small anisotropies that we do see, have a angular power spectrum very well predicted by the 'hot dense early universe' hypothesis (see http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/beginners/introduction.html://" for a thorough introduction with lots of animations). An alternative proposal such as your would need to also make the same very specific predictions that this model does to be a contender.

Since this spectrum is observed, then if your model doesn't predict it then it is ruled out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
JuanCasado said:
Good. So, could CMB photons be (conversely) red shifted, i.e. "cooled down", due to interactions with very cold intergalactic media?

No. My understanding is that such a process would not give such a perfect blackbody spectrum.

Cheers -- Sylas
 
  • #28
sylas said:
No. My understanding is that such a process would not give such a perfect blackbody spectrum.

Cheers -- Sylas

Why not?

Cheers
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Chalnoth said:
But the problem is that the IGM isn't in thermodynamic equilibrium.

Any literature reference on your sentence?
 
  • #30
Chalnoth said:
Well, there are all sorts of different ways to look at it. And yes, energy loss is one of those ways.

Agreed.
Thank you for your help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
869
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K