How Is the Original Energy of CMBR Photons Affected by Universal Expansion?

In summary: You're reading far too much into what I wrote. I'm not claiming the photons' momenta are responsible for the whole or even much of the object's speed. Indeed, a star is likely sending similar flux in all directions.Let's take a simple model. A mirror mass m is moving away from you speed v and you bounce a photon off it. The photon had frequency f when it left you, momentum p.Impulse on mirror = 2p (well, slightly less because the mirror sees it as redshifted, but it'll do for now). Δv = 2p/m.Mirror's KE, as seen by you, is approx. m
  • #1
jnorman
316
0
the photons emitted during the big bang, now detected as the CMBR, have been red-shifted by a very large degree due to the expansion of the universe since the BB, resulting in much lower photon energy now than when the photons were first emitted. (i hope i have that correct.)

since there is a law of conservation of energy, where did the original energy of the CMBR photons go?
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #3
The usual answer is global energy conservation is not required by GR, which is technically correct, but, rather unsatisfying. An adventurerous soul might suggest the missing energy goes into the gravitational field, which is plausible, but, rather confusing. GR is tricky because it really has no firm definition of energy - or even mass for that matter.
 
  • #4
Or a really adventurous soul (namely me) might suggest that that energy is known as Dark Energy. :)
 
  • #5
Whovian said:
Or a really adventurous soul (namely me) might suggest that that energy is known as Dark Energy. :)

Very unlikely.
 
  • #6
Exactly why I used "really adventurous." I doubt it, too.
 
  • #8
I'm not sure it's that complicated.
Consider a light source receding from you rapidly. You see it red-shifted.
You also see the light source accelerating away from you (conservation of momentum).
So the photons appear to you to have done work accelerating the source.
 
  • #9
haruspex said:
I'm not sure it's that complicated.
Consider a light source receding from you rapidly. You see it red-shifted.
You also see the light source accelerating away from you (conservation of momentum).
So the photons appear to you to have done work accelerating the source.

But that relies on the two energies being EXACTLY the same. Say two objects are the same distance away from you. One's a couple billion times as bright as a GRB (just as a reference, i doubt such things exist), and the other hardly emits or reflects light at all. By your argument, the star should shoot away from you, and the other object should verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slowly.

Also note that the objects are not truly moving away from us in a way that requires conservation of energy to give some sort of energy supply to allow them to move away, it's simply the space between us and them is expanding.
 
  • #10
Whovian said:
But that relies on the two energies being EXACTLY the same. Say two objects are the same distance away from you. One's a couple billion times as bright as a GRB (just as a reference, i doubt such things exist), and the other hardly emits or reflects light at all. By your argument, the star should shoot away from you, and the other object should verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slowly.

Also note that the objects are not truly moving away from us in a way that requires conservation of energy to give some sort of energy supply to allow them to move away, it's simply the space between us and them is expanding.

You're reading far too much into what I wrote. I'm not claiming the photons' momenta are responsible for the whole or even much of the object's speed. Indeed, a star is likely sending similar flux in all directions.

Let's take a simple model. A mirror mass m is moving away at from you speed v and you bounce a photon off it. The photon had frequency f when it left you, momentum p.
Impulse on mirror = 2p (well, slightly less because the mirror sees it as redshifted, but it'll do for now). Δv = 2p/m.
Mirror's KE, as seen by you, is approx. mv^2/2. (These need not be relativistic speeds, so I'll leave the exact calculation to you ;-). Increase in KE = mvΔv = 2pv.
Returning photon's redshift z = 2v/c = Δf/f.
Change in photon energy = hΔf = 2vhf/c = 2pv.

So in this case the loss of energy in the photon matches the gain in KE of the mirror.
 

Related to How Is the Original Energy of CMBR Photons Affected by Universal Expansion?

1. What is CMBR?

CMBR stands for Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is a type of electromagnetic radiation that is present throughout the universe. It is the leftover radiation from the Big Bang and is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the Big Bang theory.

2. How does CMBR relate to the loss of photon energy?

CMBR is the result of the cooling and expansion of the universe after the Big Bang. As the universe expanded, the photons in the radiation also stretched and lost energy, resulting in the lower energy levels that we observe today. This process is known as redshifting.

3. Why is the loss of photon energy important?

The loss of photon energy is important because it provides evidence for the expansion of the universe and supports the Big Bang theory. It also helps scientists understand the age and composition of the universe.

4. Can we measure the loss of photon energy in CMBR?

Yes, the loss of photon energy in CMBR can be measured through the use of telescopes and specialized instruments. By studying the frequency and wavelength of the radiation, scientists can calculate the amount of energy that has been lost over time.

5. How does the loss of photon energy in CMBR affect the universe today?

The loss of photon energy in CMBR has had a significant impact on the universe today. It has influenced the expansion of the universe, the formation and evolution of galaxies, and the distribution of matter and energy. It also provides important clues about the early stages of the universe and its current state.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
282
Replies
57
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
210
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
281
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
496
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
779
  • Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top