Mixing
Did the big bang create an infinite number of photons?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
We will always be able to see the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at about [the age of the universe] light years away.
Always.
Does that mean that infinite photons were created at that time? If not, how can we keep receiving new light from that event?
cosmology electromagnetic-radiation photons space-expansion cosmic-microwave-background
asked 18 hours ago
1sadtrombone
9117
New contributor
1sadtrombone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
We will always be able to see the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at about [the age of the universe] light years away.
Always.
Does that mean that infinite photons were created at that time? If not, how can we keep receiving new light from that event?
cosmology electromagnetic-radiation photons space-expansion cosmic-microwave-background
asked 18 hours ago
1sadtrombone
9117
New contributor
1sadtrombone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Answer number one: possibly Aleph-null, definitely not Aleph-one . Answer number two: yes, but the photino birds at most of them. //I'll let myself out now
– Carl Witthoft
6 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
We will always be able to see the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at about [the age of the universe] light years away.
Always.
Does that mean that infinite photons were created at that time? If not, how can we keep receiving new light from that event?
cosmology electromagnetic-radiation photons space-expansion cosmic-microwave-background
asked 18 hours ago
1sadtrombone
9117
New contributor
1sadtrombone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
We will always be able to see the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at about [the age of the universe] light years away.
Always.
Does that mean that infinite photons were created at that time? If not, how can we keep receiving new light from that event?
cosmology electromagnetic-radiation photons space-expansion cosmic-microwave-background
cosmology electromagnetic-radiation photons space-expansion cosmic-microwave-background
asked 18 hours ago
1sadtrombone
9117
New contributor
1sadtrombone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 18 hours ago
1sadtrombone
9117
New contributor
1sadtrombone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 16 mins ago
asked 18 hours ago
1sadtrombone
9117
New contributor
1sadtrombone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 18 hours ago
1sadtrombone
9117
asked 18 hours ago
1sadtrombone
9117
9117
New contributor
1sadtrombone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
1sadtrombone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1sadtrombone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Answer number one: possibly Aleph-null, definitely not Aleph-one . Answer number two: yes, but the photino birds at most of them. //I'll let myself out now
– Carl Witthoft
6 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Answer number one: possibly Aleph-null, definitely not Aleph-one . Answer number two: yes, but the photino birds at most of them. //I'll let myself out now
– Carl Witthoft
6 hours ago
Answer number one: possibly Aleph-null, definitely not Aleph-one . Answer number two: yes, but the photino birds at most of them. //I'll let myself out now
– Carl Witthoft
6 hours ago
Answer number one: possibly Aleph-null, definitely not Aleph-one . Answer number two: yes, but the photino birds at most of them. //I'll let myself out now
– Carl Witthoft
6 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
18
down vote
As Ben Crowell already answered, the number of photons could be finite or infinite depending on whether the universe is finite. But I want to comment on the underlying assumption:
We will always be able to see the Cosmic Microwave Background at about [age of universe] light years away. Always.
It is possible that the expansion of the universe eventually stops then reverses and the unverse then recollapses, leading to a Big Crunch. This could happen, for example, if the universe is spatially closed, but there are other possibilities which result in Big Crunch. If that happens, the average density of matter would be increasing then and all the photons of the Cosmic Microwave Background would be eventually absorbed by heated (and opaque) matter. Of course, many new photons would be created at the same time, but those would not be the relics of the Big Bang.
If instead the expansion would continue indefinitely, then not only the number of CMB photons in a given constant volume would decrease in time, their wavelengths would also stretch, and this would mean that eventually it would not be possible to detect them. Assuming that the expansion would continue with approximately the same Hubble parameter, about every $10^10$ years the wavelength of CMB photon would grow by a factor of $e$. This means, that in $10^30$ years the wavelength of a typical CMB photon would be in excess of 10 light-years and in $10^40$ years wavelenth of CMB photons would exceed the size of de Sitter horizon, which also means that the CMB radiation by that time would be drowned in Gibbons–Hawking radiation coming from de Sitter horizon, and thus by then it would be impossible to detect CMB even in principle.
answered 15 hours ago
A.V.S.
3,4041321
1
Is it a realistic third option that we're in a low-comological constant bubble of an eternal inflation-universe and the expansion within our bubble is so small that we'll eventually see the edge?
– JollyJoker
12 hours ago
1
Photon number (or particle number for any other massless particle) is ill-defined. Realistic distributions are Poisson-like, and are probabilistic, but with a non-zero probability for any possible number. So "finite" or "infinite" are both equally wrong, and the question is just meaningless.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
6 hours ago
@AccidentalFourierTransform: while I agree with the first part of your statement in principle, for the FLRW closed cosmology, the number of photons as measured by a system of comoving observers could only be finite since there are builtin cutoffs both IR and UV here, with finite total energy. Likewise, for open cosmology the number is infinity by virtue of infinite volume withe finite density.
– A.V.S.
6 hours ago
@JollyJoker: I would not call this a separate option, it is possible to have a bubble with a local crunch, or one expanding indefinitely, and most observers living inside one expanding bubble would never encounter another bubble. Bubble walls will have constant acceleration, so they tend to have ultrarelativistic velocities and either would move away from observer (so she could see for example reflection of a CMB photons from such a wall in the past) or they move toward observer at almost the speed of light (which would be bad for her well-being). For details see arXiv:hep-th/0606114
– A.V.S.
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
The cosmological evidence is currently consistent with either a closed or an open universe. A closed universe is spatially finite, has always been spatially finite, and always will be. An open universe is spatially infinite, has always been and always will be.
Current models are homogeneous. If the universe is homogeneous and infinite, then it contains infinitely many photons. If finite, finitely many.
The fact that you can observe photons forever does not automatically mean that there are infinitely many. Their flux is decreasing with time, and you could observe them at a decreasing rate.
answered 16 hours ago
Ben Crowell
46.7k3148281
1
Photon number (or particle number for any other massless particle) is ill-defined. Realistic distributions are Poisson-like, and are probabilistic, but with a non-zero probability for any possible number. So "finite" or "infinite" are both equally wrong, and the question is just meaningless.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
6 hours ago
Query: on what scale (spatial and/or temporal) do the current models consider the universe to be homogeneous?
– Carl Witthoft
6 hours ago
"The fact that you can observe photons forever does not automatically mean that there are infinitely many. Their flux is decreasing with time, and you could observe them at a decreasing rate." Given a finite number of photons, there must be a last one. That photon has some time of observation. By definition of it being the last photon, there are no photon observed after the time of observation of the last photon.
– Acccumulation
4 hours ago
"there must be a last one. That photon has some time of observation." That doesn't follow. The last photon is almost certainly not the last observed photon.
– Beanluc
4 hours ago
@AccidentalFourierTransform: You're right that it's probabilistic, but I don't think that makes the question of finiteness ill-defined. The number of quanta within a given finite volume will be probabilistic. (I'll take your word for it that it's Poisson for blackbody radiation.) But if the total volume is finite, then the sum of finitely many IID Poisson variables is finite, with probability 1. Similarly, the sum of infinitely many IID Poisson variables is infinite with probability 1.
– Ben Crowell
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Why this obsession with infinity in physics? Infinite densities, infinite number of photons, infinite speed of light, infinitely large universe ... they've all been provably wrong. A little reflection would show that it can't be right. But who cares about being right when hype works so much better?
answered 9 mins ago
Mozibur Ullah
4,48022245
Yes, infinities don't make sense in the real world. That only means that when we encounter them, something is really terribly wrong with the way we think the universe works. I asked this question not for hype, but to correct my understanding of physics.
– 1sadtrombone
3 mins ago
@1sadtrombone: Well, if you already knew that then why are you asking?
– Mozibur Ullah
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
18
down vote
As Ben Crowell already answered, the number of photons could be finite or infinite depending on whether the universe is finite. But I want to comment on the underlying assumption:
We will always be able to see the Cosmic Microwave Background at about [age of universe] light years away. Always.
It is possible that the expansion of the universe eventually stops then reverses and the unverse then recollapses, leading to a Big Crunch. This could happen, for example, if the universe is spatially closed, but there are other possibilities which result in Big Crunch. If that happens, the average density of matter would be increasing then and all the photons of the Cosmic Microwave Background would be eventually absorbed by heated (and opaque) matter. Of course, many new photons would be created at the same time, but those would not be the relics of the Big Bang.
If instead the expansion would continue indefinitely, then not only the number of CMB photons in a given constant volume would decrease in time, their wavelengths would also stretch, and this would mean that eventually it would not be possible to detect them. Assuming that the expansion would continue with approximately the same Hubble parameter, about every $10^10$ years the wavelength of CMB photon would grow by a factor of $e$. This means, that in $10^30$ years the wavelength of a typical CMB photon would be in excess of 10 light-years and in $10^40$ years wavelenth of CMB photons would exceed the size of de Sitter horizon, which also means that the CMB radiation by that time would be drowned in Gibbons–Hawking radiation coming from de Sitter horizon, and thus by then it would be impossible to detect CMB even in principle.
answered 15 hours ago
A.V.S.
3,4041321
1
Is it a realistic third option that we're in a low-comological constant bubble of an eternal inflation-universe and the expansion within our bubble is so small that we'll eventually see the edge?
– JollyJoker
12 hours ago
1
Photon number (or particle number for any other massless particle) is ill-defined. Realistic distributions are Poisson-like, and are probabilistic, but with a non-zero probability for any possible number. So "finite" or "infinite" are both equally wrong, and the question is just meaningless.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
6 hours ago
@AccidentalFourierTransform: while I agree with the first part of your statement in principle, for the FLRW closed cosmology, the number of photons as measured by a system of comoving observers could only be finite since there are builtin cutoffs both IR and UV here, with finite total energy. Likewise, for open cosmology the number is infinity by virtue of infinite volume withe finite density.
– A.V.S.
6 hours ago
@JollyJoker: I would not call this a separate option, it is possible to have a bubble with a local crunch, or one expanding indefinitely, and most observers living inside one expanding bubble would never encounter another bubble. Bubble walls will have constant acceleration, so they tend to have ultrarelativistic velocities and either would move away from observer (so she could see for example reflection of a CMB photons from such a wall in the past) or they move toward observer at almost the speed of light (which would be bad for her well-being). For details see arXiv:hep-th/0606114
– A.V.S.
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
18
down vote
As Ben Crowell already answered, the number of photons could be finite or infinite depending on whether the universe is finite. But I want to comment on the underlying assumption:
We will always be able to see the Cosmic Microwave Background at about [age of universe] light years away. Always.
It is possible that the expansion of the universe eventually stops then reverses and the unverse then recollapses, leading to a Big Crunch. This could happen, for example, if the universe is spatially closed, but there are other possibilities which result in Big Crunch. If that happens, the average density of matter would be increasing then and all the photons of the Cosmic Microwave Background would be eventually absorbed by heated (and opaque) matter. Of course, many new photons would be created at the same time, but those would not be the relics of the Big Bang.
If instead the expansion would continue indefinitely, then not only the number of CMB photons in a given constant volume would decrease in time, their wavelengths would also stretch, and this would mean that eventually it would not be possible to detect them. Assuming that the expansion would continue with approximately the same Hubble parameter, about every $10^10$ years the wavelength of CMB photon would grow by a factor of $e$. This means, that in $10^30$ years the wavelength of a typical CMB photon would be in excess of 10 light-years and in $10^40$ years wavelenth of CMB photons would exceed the size of de Sitter horizon, which also means that the CMB radiation by that time would be drowned in Gibbons–Hawking radiation coming from de Sitter horizon, and thus by then it would be impossible to detect CMB even in principle.
answered 15 hours ago
A.V.S.
3,4041321
1
Is it a realistic third option that we're in a low-comological constant bubble of an eternal inflation-universe and the expansion within our bubble is so small that we'll eventually see the edge?
– JollyJoker
12 hours ago
1
Photon number (or particle number for any other massless particle) is ill-defined. Realistic distributions are Poisson-like, and are probabilistic, but with a non-zero probability for any possible number. So "finite" or "infinite" are both equally wrong, and the question is just meaningless.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
6 hours ago
@AccidentalFourierTransform: while I agree with the first part of your statement in principle, for the FLRW closed cosmology, the number of photons as measured by a system of comoving observers could only be finite since there are builtin cutoffs both IR and UV here, with finite total energy. Likewise, for open cosmology the number is infinity by virtue of infinite volume withe finite density.
– A.V.S.
6 hours ago
@JollyJoker: I would not call this a separate option, it is possible to have a bubble with a local crunch, or one expanding indefinitely, and most observers living inside one expanding bubble would never encounter another bubble. Bubble walls will have constant acceleration, so they tend to have ultrarelativistic velocities and either would move away from observer (so she could see for example reflection of a CMB photons from such a wall in the past) or they move toward observer at almost the speed of light (which would be bad for her well-being). For details see arXiv:hep-th/0606114
– A.V.S.
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
18
down vote
up vote
18
down vote
As Ben Crowell already answered, the number of photons could be finite or infinite depending on whether the universe is finite. But I want to comment on the underlying assumption:
We will always be able to see the Cosmic Microwave Background at about [age of universe] light years away. Always.
It is possible that the expansion of the universe eventually stops then reverses and the unverse then recollapses, leading to a Big Crunch. This could happen, for example, if the universe is spatially closed, but there are other possibilities which result in Big Crunch. If that happens, the average density of matter would be increasing then and all the photons of the Cosmic Microwave Background would be eventually absorbed by heated (and opaque) matter. Of course, many new photons would be created at the same time, but those would not be the relics of the Big Bang.
If instead the expansion would continue indefinitely, then not only the number of CMB photons in a given constant volume would decrease in time, their wavelengths would also stretch, and this would mean that eventually it would not be possible to detect them. Assuming that the expansion would continue with approximately the same Hubble parameter, about every $10^10$ years the wavelength of CMB photon would grow by a factor of $e$. This means, that in $10^30$ years the wavelength of a typical CMB photon would be in excess of 10 light-years and in $10^40$ years wavelenth of CMB photons would exceed the size of de Sitter horizon, which also means that the CMB radiation by that time would be drowned in Gibbons–Hawking radiation coming from de Sitter horizon, and thus by then it would be impossible to detect CMB even in principle.
answered 15 hours ago
A.V.S.
3,4041321
As Ben Crowell already answered, the number of photons could be finite or infinite depending on whether the universe is finite. But I want to comment on the underlying assumption:
We will always be able to see the Cosmic Microwave Background at about [age of universe] light years away. Always.
It is possible that the expansion of the universe eventually stops then reverses and the unverse then recollapses, leading to a Big Crunch. This could happen, for example, if the universe is spatially closed, but there are other possibilities which result in Big Crunch. If that happens, the average density of matter would be increasing then and all the photons of the Cosmic Microwave Background would be eventually absorbed by heated (and opaque) matter. Of course, many new photons would be created at the same time, but those would not be the relics of the Big Bang.
If instead the expansion would continue indefinitely, then not only the number of CMB photons in a given constant volume would decrease in time, their wavelengths would also stretch, and this would mean that eventually it would not be possible to detect them. Assuming that the expansion would continue with approximately the same Hubble parameter, about every $10^10$ years the wavelength of CMB photon would grow by a factor of $e$. This means, that in $10^30$ years the wavelength of a typical CMB photon would be in excess of 10 light-years and in $10^40$ years wavelenth of CMB photons would exceed the size of de Sitter horizon, which also means that the CMB radiation by that time would be drowned in Gibbons–Hawking radiation coming from de Sitter horizon, and thus by then it would be impossible to detect CMB even in principle.
answered 15 hours ago
A.V.S.
3,4041321
answered 15 hours ago
A.V.S.
3,4041321
answered 15 hours ago
A.V.S.
3,4041321
answered 15 hours ago
A.V.S.
3,4041321
3,4041321
1
Is it a realistic third option that we're in a low-comological constant bubble of an eternal inflation-universe and the expansion within our bubble is so small that we'll eventually see the edge?
– JollyJoker
12 hours ago
1
Photon number (or particle number for any other massless particle) is ill-defined. Realistic distributions are Poisson-like, and are probabilistic, but with a non-zero probability for any possible number. So "finite" or "infinite" are both equally wrong, and the question is just meaningless.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
6 hours ago
@AccidentalFourierTransform: while I agree with the first part of your statement in principle, for the FLRW closed cosmology, the number of photons as measured by a system of comoving observers could only be finite since there are builtin cutoffs both IR and UV here, with finite total energy. Likewise, for open cosmology the number is infinity by virtue of infinite volume withe finite density.
– A.V.S.
6 hours ago
@JollyJoker: I would not call this a separate option, it is possible to have a bubble with a local crunch, or one expanding indefinitely, and most observers living inside one expanding bubble would never encounter another bubble. Bubble walls will have constant acceleration, so they tend to have ultrarelativistic velocities and either would move away from observer (so she could see for example reflection of a CMB photons from such a wall in the past) or they move toward observer at almost the speed of light (which would be bad for her well-being). For details see arXiv:hep-th/0606114
– A.V.S.
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
Is it a realistic third option that we're in a low-comological constant bubble of an eternal inflation-universe and the expansion within our bubble is so small that we'll eventually see the edge?
– JollyJoker
12 hours ago
1
Photon number (or particle number for any other massless particle) is ill-defined. Realistic distributions are Poisson-like, and are probabilistic, but with a non-zero probability for any possible number. So "finite" or "infinite" are both equally wrong, and the question is just meaningless.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
6 hours ago
@AccidentalFourierTransform: while I agree with the first part of your statement in principle, for the FLRW closed cosmology, the number of photons as measured by a system of comoving observers could only be finite since there are builtin cutoffs both IR and UV here, with finite total energy. Likewise, for open cosmology the number is infinity by virtue of infinite volume withe finite density.
– A.V.S.
6 hours ago
@JollyJoker: I would not call this a separate option, it is possible to have a bubble with a local crunch, or one expanding indefinitely, and most observers living inside one expanding bubble would never encounter another bubble. Bubble walls will have constant acceleration, so they tend to have ultrarelativistic velocities and either would move away from observer (so she could see for example reflection of a CMB photons from such a wall in the past) or they move toward observer at almost the speed of light (which would be bad for her well-being). For details see arXiv:hep-th/0606114
– A.V.S.
4 hours ago
1
1
Is it a realistic third option that we're in a low-comological constant bubble of an eternal inflation-universe and the expansion within our bubble is so small that we'll eventually see the edge?
– JollyJoker
12 hours ago
Is it a realistic third option that we're in a low-comological constant bubble of an eternal inflation-universe and the expansion within our bubble is so small that we'll eventually see the edge?
– JollyJoker
12 hours ago
1
1
Photon number (or particle number for any other massless particle) is ill-defined. Realistic distributions are Poisson-like, and are probabilistic, but with a non-zero probability for any possible number. So "finite" or "infinite" are both equally wrong, and the question is just meaningless.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
6 hours ago
Photon number (or particle number for any other massless particle) is ill-defined. Realistic distributions are Poisson-like, and are probabilistic, but with a non-zero probability for any possible number. So "finite" or "infinite" are both equally wrong, and the question is just meaningless.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
6 hours ago
@AccidentalFourierTransform: while I agree with the first part of your statement in principle, for the FLRW closed cosmology, the number of photons as measured by a system of comoving observers could only be finite since there are builtin cutoffs both IR and UV here, with finite total energy. Likewise, for open cosmology the number is infinity by virtue of infinite volume withe finite density.
– A.V.S.
6 hours ago
@AccidentalFourierTransform: while I agree with the first part of your statement in principle, for the FLRW closed cosmology, the number of photons as measured by a system of comoving observers could only be finite since there are builtin cutoffs both IR and UV here, with finite total energy. Likewise, for open cosmology the number is infinity by virtue of infinite volume withe finite density.
– A.V.S.
6 hours ago
@JollyJoker: I would not call this a separate option, it is possible to have a bubble with a local crunch, or one expanding indefinitely, and most observers living inside one expanding bubble would never encounter another bubble. Bubble walls will have constant acceleration, so they tend to have ultrarelativistic velocities and either would move away from observer (so she could see for example reflection of a CMB photons from such a wall in the past) or they move toward observer at almost the speed of light (which would be bad for her well-being). For details see arXiv:hep-th/0606114
– A.V.S.
4 hours ago
@JollyJoker: I would not call this a separate option, it is possible to have a bubble with a local crunch, or one expanding indefinitely, and most observers living inside one expanding bubble would never encounter another bubble. Bubble walls will have constant acceleration, so they tend to have ultrarelativistic velocities and either would move away from observer (so she could see for example reflection of a CMB photons from such a wall in the past) or they move toward observer at almost the speed of light (which would be bad for her well-being). For details see arXiv:hep-th/0606114
– A.V.S.
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
The cosmological evidence is currently consistent with either a closed or an open universe. A closed universe is spatially finite, has always been spatially finite, and always will be. An open universe is spatially infinite, has always been and always will be.
Current models are homogeneous. If the universe is homogeneous and infinite, then it contains infinitely many photons. If finite, finitely many.
The fact that you can observe photons forever does not automatically mean that there are infinitely many. Their flux is decreasing with time, and you could observe them at a decreasing rate.
answered 16 hours ago
Ben Crowell
46.7k3148281
1
Photon number (or particle number for any other massless particle) is ill-defined. Realistic distributions are Poisson-like, and are probabilistic, but with a non-zero probability for any possible number. So "finite" or "infinite" are both equally wrong, and the question is just meaningless.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
6 hours ago
Query: on what scale (spatial and/or temporal) do the current models consider the universe to be homogeneous?
– Carl Witthoft
6 hours ago
"The fact that you can observe photons forever does not automatically mean that there are infinitely many. Their flux is decreasing with time, and you could observe them at a decreasing rate." Given a finite number of photons, there must be a last one. That photon has some time of observation. By definition of it being the last photon, there are no photon observed after the time of observation of the last photon.
– Acccumulation
4 hours ago
"there must be a last one. That photon has some time of observation." That doesn't follow. The last photon is almost certainly not the last observed photon.
– Beanluc
4 hours ago
@AccidentalFourierTransform: You're right that it's probabilistic, but I don't think that makes the question of finiteness ill-defined. The number of quanta within a given finite volume will be probabilistic. (I'll take your word for it that it's Poisson for blackbody radiation.) But if the total volume is finite, then the sum of finitely many IID Poisson variables is finite, with probability 1. Similarly, the sum of infinitely many IID Poisson variables is infinite with probability 1.
– Ben Crowell
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
The cosmological evidence is currently consistent with either a closed or an open universe. A closed universe is spatially finite, has always been spatially finite, and always will be. An open universe is spatially infinite, has always been and always will be.
Current models are homogeneous. If the universe is homogeneous and infinite, then it contains infinitely many photons. If finite, finitely many.
The fact that you can observe photons forever does not automatically mean that there are infinitely many. Their flux is decreasing with time, and you could observe them at a decreasing rate.
answered 16 hours ago
Ben Crowell
46.7k3148281
1
Photon number (or particle number for any other massless particle) is ill-defined. Realistic distributions are Poisson-like, and are probabilistic, but with a non-zero probability for any possible number. So "finite" or "infinite" are both equally wrong, and the question is just meaningless.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
6 hours ago
Query: on what scale (spatial and/or temporal) do the current models consider the universe to be homogeneous?
– Carl Witthoft
6 hours ago
"The fact that you can observe photons forever does not automatically mean that there are infinitely many. Their flux is decreasing with time, and you could observe them at a decreasing rate." Given a finite number of photons, there must be a last one. That photon has some time of observation. By definition of it being the last photon, there are no photon observed after the time of observation of the last photon.
– Acccumulation
4 hours ago
"there must be a last one. That photon has some time of observation." That doesn't follow. The last photon is almost certainly not the last observed photon.
– Beanluc
4 hours ago
@AccidentalFourierTransform: You're right that it's probabilistic, but I don't think that makes the question of finiteness ill-defined. The number of quanta within a given finite volume will be probabilistic. (I'll take your word for it that it's Poisson for blackbody radiation.) But if the total volume is finite, then the sum of finitely many IID Poisson variables is finite, with probability 1. Similarly, the sum of infinitely many IID Poisson variables is infinite with probability 1.
– Ben Crowell
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
The cosmological evidence is currently consistent with either a closed or an open universe. A closed universe is spatially finite, has always been spatially finite, and always will be. An open universe is spatially infinite, has always been and always will be.
Current models are homogeneous. If the universe is homogeneous and infinite, then it contains infinitely many photons. If finite, finitely many.
The fact that you can observe photons forever does not automatically mean that there are infinitely many. Their flux is decreasing with time, and you could observe them at a decreasing rate.
answered 16 hours ago
Ben Crowell
46.7k3148281
The cosmological evidence is currently consistent with either a closed or an open universe. A closed universe is spatially finite, has always been spatially finite, and always will be. An open universe is spatially infinite, has always been and always will be.
Current models are homogeneous. If the universe is homogeneous and infinite, then it contains infinitely many photons. If finite, finitely many.
The fact that you can observe photons forever does not automatically mean that there are infinitely many. Their flux is decreasing with time, and you could observe them at a decreasing rate.
answered 16 hours ago
Ben Crowell
46.7k3148281
answered 16 hours ago
Ben Crowell
46.7k3148281
answered 16 hours ago
Ben Crowell
46.7k3148281
answered 16 hours ago
Ben Crowell
46.7k3148281
46.7k3148281
1
Photon number (or particle number for any other massless particle) is ill-defined. Realistic distributions are Poisson-like, and are probabilistic, but with a non-zero probability for any possible number. So "finite" or "infinite" are both equally wrong, and the question is just meaningless.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
6 hours ago
Query: on what scale (spatial and/or temporal) do the current models consider the universe to be homogeneous?
– Carl Witthoft
6 hours ago
"The fact that you can observe photons forever does not automatically mean that there are infinitely many. Their flux is decreasing with time, and you could observe them at a decreasing rate." Given a finite number of photons, there must be a last one. That photon has some time of observation. By definition of it being the last photon, there are no photon observed after the time of observation of the last photon.
– Acccumulation
4 hours ago
"there must be a last one. That photon has some time of observation." That doesn't follow. The last photon is almost certainly not the last observed photon.
– Beanluc
4 hours ago
@AccidentalFourierTransform: You're right that it's probabilistic, but I don't think that makes the question of finiteness ill-defined. The number of quanta within a given finite volume will be probabilistic. (I'll take your word for it that it's Poisson for blackbody radiation.) But if the total volume is finite, then the sum of finitely many IID Poisson variables is finite, with probability 1. Similarly, the sum of infinitely many IID Poisson variables is infinite with probability 1.
– Ben Crowell
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1
Photon number (or particle number for any other massless particle) is ill-defined. Realistic distributions are Poisson-like, and are probabilistic, but with a non-zero probability for any possible number. So "finite" or "infinite" are both equally wrong, and the question is just meaningless.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
6 hours ago
Query: on what scale (spatial and/or temporal) do the current models consider the universe to be homogeneous?
– Carl Witthoft
6 hours ago
"The fact that you can observe photons forever does not automatically mean that there are infinitely many. Their flux is decreasing with time, and you could observe them at a decreasing rate." Given a finite number of photons, there must be a last one. That photon has some time of observation. By definition of it being the last photon, there are no photon observed after the time of observation of the last photon.
– Acccumulation
4 hours ago
"there must be a last one. That photon has some time of observation." That doesn't follow. The last photon is almost certainly not the last observed photon.
– Beanluc
4 hours ago
@AccidentalFourierTransform: You're right that it's probabilistic, but I don't think that makes the question of finiteness ill-defined. The number of quanta within a given finite volume will be probabilistic. (I'll take your word for it that it's Poisson for blackbody radiation.) But if the total volume is finite, then the sum of finitely many IID Poisson variables is finite, with probability 1. Similarly, the sum of infinitely many IID Poisson variables is infinite with probability 1.
– Ben Crowell
1 hour ago
1
1
Photon number (or particle number for any other massless particle) is ill-defined. Realistic distributions are Poisson-like, and are probabilistic, but with a non-zero probability for any possible number. So "finite" or "infinite" are both equally wrong, and the question is just meaningless.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
6 hours ago
Photon number (or particle number for any other massless particle) is ill-defined. Realistic distributions are Poisson-like, and are probabilistic, but with a non-zero probability for any possible number. So "finite" or "infinite" are both equally wrong, and the question is just meaningless.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
6 hours ago
Query: on what scale (spatial and/or temporal) do the current models consider the universe to be homogeneous?
– Carl Witthoft
6 hours ago
Query: on what scale (spatial and/or temporal) do the current models consider the universe to be homogeneous?
– Carl Witthoft
6 hours ago
"The fact that you can observe photons forever does not automatically mean that there are infinitely many. Their flux is decreasing with time, and you could observe them at a decreasing rate." Given a finite number of photons, there must be a last one. That photon has some time of observation. By definition of it being the last photon, there are no photon observed after the time of observation of the last photon.
– Acccumulation
4 hours ago
"The fact that you can observe photons forever does not automatically mean that there are infinitely many. Their flux is decreasing with time, and you could observe them at a decreasing rate." Given a finite number of photons, there must be a last one. That photon has some time of observation. By definition of it being the last photon, there are no photon observed after the time of observation of the last photon.
– Acccumulation
4 hours ago
"there must be a last one. That photon has some time of observation." That doesn't follow. The last photon is almost certainly not the last observed photon.
– Beanluc
4 hours ago
"there must be a last one. That photon has some time of observation." That doesn't follow. The last photon is almost certainly not the last observed photon.
– Beanluc
4 hours ago
@AccidentalFourierTransform: You're right that it's probabilistic, but I don't think that makes the question of finiteness ill-defined. The number of quanta within a given finite volume will be probabilistic. (I'll take your word for it that it's Poisson for blackbody radiation.) But if the total volume is finite, then the sum of finitely many IID Poisson variables is finite, with probability 1. Similarly, the sum of infinitely many IID Poisson variables is infinite with probability 1.
– Ben Crowell
1 hour ago
@AccidentalFourierTransform: You're right that it's probabilistic, but I don't think that makes the question of finiteness ill-defined. The number of quanta within a given finite volume will be probabilistic. (I'll take your word for it that it's Poisson for blackbody radiation.) But if the total volume is finite, then the sum of finitely many IID Poisson variables is finite, with probability 1. Similarly, the sum of infinitely many IID Poisson variables is infinite with probability 1.
– Ben Crowell
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Why this obsession with infinity in physics? Infinite densities, infinite number of photons, infinite speed of light, infinitely large universe ... they've all been provably wrong. A little reflection would show that it can't be right. But who cares about being right when hype works so much better?
answered 9 mins ago
Mozibur Ullah
4,48022245
Yes, infinities don't make sense in the real world. That only means that when we encounter them, something is really terribly wrong with the way we think the universe works. I asked this question not for hype, but to correct my understanding of physics.
– 1sadtrombone
3 mins ago
@1sadtrombone: Well, if you already knew that then why are you asking?
– Mozibur Ullah
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Why this obsession with infinity in physics? Infinite densities, infinite number of photons, infinite speed of light, infinitely large universe ... they've all been provably wrong. A little reflection would show that it can't be right. But who cares about being right when hype works so much better?
answered 9 mins ago
Mozibur Ullah
4,48022245
Yes, infinities don't make sense in the real world. That only means that when we encounter them, something is really terribly wrong with the way we think the universe works. I asked this question not for hype, but to correct my understanding of physics.
– 1sadtrombone
3 mins ago
@1sadtrombone: Well, if you already knew that then why are you asking?
– Mozibur Ullah
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Why this obsession with infinity in physics? Infinite densities, infinite number of photons, infinite speed of light, infinitely large universe ... they've all been provably wrong. A little reflection would show that it can't be right. But who cares about being right when hype works so much better?
answered 9 mins ago
Mozibur Ullah
4,48022245
Why this obsession with infinity in physics? Infinite densities, infinite number of photons, infinite speed of light, infinitely large universe ... they've all been provably wrong. A little reflection would show that it can't be right. But who cares about being right when hype works so much better?
answered 9 mins ago
Mozibur Ullah
4,48022245
answered 9 mins ago
Mozibur Ullah
4,48022245
answered 9 mins ago
Mozibur Ullah
4,48022245
answered 9 mins ago
Mozibur Ullah
4,48022245
4,48022245
Yes, infinities don't make sense in the real world. That only means that when we encounter them, something is really terribly wrong with the way we think the universe works. I asked this question not for hype, but to correct my understanding of physics.
– 1sadtrombone
3 mins ago
@1sadtrombone: Well, if you already knew that then why are you asking?
– Mozibur Ullah
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
Yes, infinities don't make sense in the real world. That only means that when we encounter them, something is really terribly wrong with the way we think the universe works. I asked this question not for hype, but to correct my understanding of physics.
– 1sadtrombone
3 mins ago
@1sadtrombone: Well, if you already knew that then why are you asking?
– Mozibur Ullah
1 min ago
Yes, infinities don't make sense in the real world. That only means that when we encounter them, something is really terribly wrong with the way we think the universe works. I asked this question not for hype, but to correct my understanding of physics.
– 1sadtrombone
3 mins ago
Yes, infinities don't make sense in the real world. That only means that when we encounter them, something is really terribly wrong with the way we think the universe works. I asked this question not for hype, but to correct my understanding of physics.
– 1sadtrombone
3 mins ago
@1sadtrombone: Well, if you already knew that then why are you asking?
– Mozibur Ullah
1 min ago
@1sadtrombone: Well, if you already knew that then why are you asking?
– Mozibur Ullah
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
1sadtrombone is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
1sadtrombone is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
1sadtrombone is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
1sadtrombone is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f439604%2fdid-the-big-bang-create-an-infinite-number-of-photons%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Answer number one: possibly Aleph-null, definitely not Aleph-one . Answer number two: yes, but the photino birds at most of them. //I'll let myself out now
– Carl Witthoft
6 hours ago