Photon energy at t=0?

[AlexG]

Alex, just the amount of energy in transit in the form of photons whether that be those of the visual light spectum or not...
"an aether made up of photons" all in transit

That's what the CMB is, those photons which have been in continual transit since BB +300,000 years. All of those photons are in the microwave spectrum. And there isn't nearly enough energy to make up the difference.

What well accepted theory did you say that was?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I never said it would make up the difference.
the photon is subject of many theories as far as i can tell..

In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction and the basic unit of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances. Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and will exhibit wave–particle duality — they exhibit properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference with itself, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when quantitative momentum is measured.

The modern concept of the photon was developed gradually by Albert Einstein to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light. In particular, the photon model accounted for the frequency dependence of light's energy, and explained the ability of matter and radiation to be in thermal equilibrium. It also accounted for anomalous observations, including the properties of black body radiation, that other physicists, most notably Max Planck, had sought to explain using semiclassical models, in which light is still described by Maxwell's equations, but the material objects that emit and absorb light are quantized. Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, further experiments validated Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized; the quanta of light are photons.

In the modern Standard Model of particle physics, photons are described as a necessary consequence of physical laws having a certain symmetry at every point in spacetime. The intrinsic properties of photons, such as charge, mass and spin, are determined by the properties of this gauge symmetry. The neutrino theory of light, which attempts to describe the photon as a composite structure, has been unsuccessful so far.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sort of funny in a way,
Michelson & Morely may have proved the absense of a Lumineferous Aether using light but did not rule out an aether that could be light [ in transit ]

 

[AlexG]

Except that light only interacts with charged particles and gravity. Besides, the idea of the aether was to explain the propagation of light. If it's not doing that, what is it supposed to be doing?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Except that light only interacts with charged particles and gravity. Besides, the idea of the aether was to explain the propagation of light. If it's not doing that, what is it supposed to be doing?

hee hee..good question..."What is it doing?" if it is made up of photons...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Of course you realise that the term Aether has a number of applications...
originally I believe it was diectly a reference made to the space between celestial objects [ no direct reference to light] it was later they coined the term lumineferous Aether [with direct reference to light]
That it was a medium for light to propagate through.
however if photons have been in transit since day one what is it to say that it, the space, could be the universal photon field that makes up the space between mass?

therefore we could have a photon aether....

 

[AlexG]

however if photons have been in transit since day one what is it to say that it, the space, could be the universal photon field that makes up the space between mass?

Because there aren't that many photons zipping around.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Regarding JamesR's post earlier.
I can guarantee you that if you were in deep space between galaxies no matter where you chose to look for a photon you would find one and no doubt with it's appropriate energy charge.
So to limit the number of individual photons would be absurd would it not...
However as a percentage of mass emmitted over time the result would be more realistic. [ as Alphanumeric's approach would indicate to me as it avoids the issue of the wave/particle duality in the assessment]
so in answer to the question how many photons exist

Now, the Earth is 150 million km from the Sun, and all the photons emitted each second are spread over an area equal to the surface area of a sphere of radius 150 million km. So, calculate how many photons there are per unit area at the Earth. The approximate distance between photons is about the square root of that number.

....as many as you choose to look for...or "where ever the sun doeth shine" [ unless you reckon we have tiny little black spots all over the sunny side of the planet]

 

[Quantum Quack]

Because there aren't that many photons zipping around.

yet thats the funny thing ..if you read my previous post every where you choose to look in a photon field a photon will be found even in deep space between light sources...

 

[Quantum Quack]

if you can see the light, photons exist any where you choose to look for them even if the source is a billion ly away so to speak

 

[prometheus]

fair points thanks...
on the issue of dark energy..
quote from wiki:

note the emphasis in bold "hypothetical"

and

so both the use of dark energy and dark mass as some sort of truth is a bit on the nose don't you think?

No. Dark matter is required to make sense of the galactic rotation curves and dark energy is required to explain why the expansion of the universe is now accelerating. If you want to throw those away then what you're effectively claiming is that GR is wrong, at least at large scales. I will give you that the evidence for dark energy is not as good as for dark matter, but I think people who understand these things are generally expecting dark matter to be found, perhaps at the LHC even.

However according to well accepted theory energy in transit since the start of this universe may be more realistically accountable than some made up imaginary things such as dark energy and dark mass.

Just means you are missing only say for example 73% instead of 74% perhaps but it is something...that might mean that the dark energy/mass fudge may be lessened.. eh?
So you are going to possibly say how does this work if I just stated that stars account for only 0.4%..

well keep in mind that if we remove the hypothetical and stick to what we believe to be the case.
Stars and associated mass acount for 100% of the universe and not a mere 4% as the hypothetical need for dark energy /mass suggests.

so with the removal of Dark enery and mass the stars make up a significant portion of universal mass and not a mere 0.4% and more like 10%

You may be wanting to just pick and choose what to comment on from my post but I'm not going to let you;

"I imagine these studies would measure the emissions from stars as part of the interstellar gas rather than stars themselves."

That's a direct measurement, not some waffling.

 

[M00se1989]

yet thats the funny thing ..if you read my previous post every where you choose to look in a photon field a photon will be found even in deep space between light sources...

true light made the universe what makes us think it does not still occupy the space that holds itself together. and yet what still makes us assume that all mass is not an increased density of the ever-expanding factor.

 

[AlexG]

all mass is not an increased density of the ever-expanding factor

Can someone translate this into something that makes sense? Or is that asking for the impossible?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You may be wanting to just pick and choose what to comment on from my post but I'm not going to let you;

"I imagine these studies would measure the emissions from stars as part of the interstellar gas rather than stars themselves."

That's a direct measurement, not some waffling.

thanks for your post....and i understand you points.
The issue though for me is really about how "empty" space is considered to be full of energistic fundamental particles called photons.
That every cubic centermetre of vacuum must have an energistic value due to the presense of these virtual* particles.
When considering the entire universe in such a manner I find it rather amazing that there is so much energy deemed to be in transit at any given time and that transiting energy is apparently seen as irrelevant.

Secondly,
The conflict with JamesR's approach to the quantity of photons issue highlights what appears to be a contradiction present in our understanding of light and it's travelling over significant distances which goes onto further offer understanding as to why we need "things" like dark energy and dark matter to account for it. The depth of impact due to the particle /wave paradox is staggering when considering it in universal terms.

All this goes on to prove, to me at least, that our understanding of light is most likely fundamentally flawed in a way that is rather significant.

Using JamesRs supplied method for calculation at say 150 million lys instead of 150 million kms and comparing it to what we know would be logically true shows a major discrepancy in our approach. IMO

The secondary purpose for this thread is hopefully to shed some "light" on whether that opinion is correct or not, and so far it appears to be so.

 

[chaos1956]

They are not virtual particles though they are still "matter" having reaction with themselves aiding the ever-present accretion that made the universe. The only reason the universe has appeared to slow its expansion is because the outer edge looses its potential for expansion the further it gets away from its origin.

all mass is an increased density of the ever-expanding factor

Good catch alex you are moving up in the world aren't you. It is impossible for anything to increase in terms of expansion while it is contained within a dense solid volume. We know for a fact that this is not the case. There is no "case" or solid box that holds the gathering matter from the expansion. But there is mass to which it is drawn

 

[Quantum Quack]

They are not virtual particles though they are still "matter" having reaction with themselves aiding the ever-present accretion that made the universe. The only reason the universe has appeared to slow its expansion is because the outer edge looses its potential for expansion the further it gets away from its origin.

Ths makes a lot of sense to me if ones assumes the "massive" or "mass"
metric used is fixed and not expanding as well. [ and only if one is looking at the visual or perception of expansion]
If the metric used is expanding then there is no net change discernable .
If it is a mixture of both [ as displayed in Special theory of relativity length contraction scenarios: acka - contraction along line of vector only] which appears to be the case we have a problem. IMO

 

[chaos1956]

I concur. The tools that are used to calculate the expanding metric are also expanding at a slight rate no net change or exchange of mass is discernible. But it doesn't account for the matter fluctuations that are present within the theory. Not so much is the theory incorrect as it is incomplete without the base assumptions from the expanding universe being calculated in reference to the current mass.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I concur. The tools that are used to calculate the expanding metric are also expanding at a slight rate no net change or exchange of mass is discernible. But it doesn't account for the matter fluctuations that are present within the theory. Not so much is the theory incorrect as it is incomplete without the base assumptions from the expanding universe being calculated in reference to the current mass.

and I think this is where our Richard Feynman and others of similar intellectual calibre come in to the picture because he/they could see the illogicality of us humans being able to perceive cosmic expansion or inflation which according to logic would suggest a serious annomally is occurring.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Do You think that the inability of the erudite members of sciforums who have responded to this thread to deal with the issue raised is merely coinicidental?
or a deliberate attempt of issue avoidance/denial?