A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Redshift when CBR energy density = energy density of all other radiation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 11th 16, 10:35 AM posted to sci.astro.research
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default Redshift when CBR energy density = energy density of all other radiation

I'm working to assemble a table / graph for the Luminosity of the
universe as a function of age of the universe.

I think these are the only sources of consequence (did I miss anything
important that I should include?):

1) CBR
2) Starlight (galaxies)
3) SN's
4) Active Galaxy nuclei

Thanks,

rt

  #2  
Old December 12th 16, 11:48 PM posted to sci.astro.research
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Redshift when CBR energy density = energy density of all other radiation

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:35:21 AM UTC-5, wrote:
:
I'm working to assemble a table / graph for the Luminosity of the
universe as a function of age of the universe.

I think these are the only sources of consequence (did I miss anything
important that I should include?):

1) CBR
2) Starlight (galaxies)
3) SN's
4) Active Galaxy nuclei

Thanks,

rt


Maybe you've got this covered in starlight, but dust is a major
contributor in the IR; too, the IGM in rich clusters at least is a
major emitter in the x-ray region (this is certainly not covered
in your four categories). Also, as you are aiming for luminosity,
I assume you are (or intend to) integrate over all (electromagnetic)
wavelengths; are you?
  #3  
Old December 13th 16, 10:09 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default Redshift when CBR energy density = energy density of all other radiation

In article ,
writes:

Maybe you've got this covered in starlight, but dust is a major
contributor in the IR;


It gets heated by normal stars, supernovae, AGN, etc. One shouldn't
count it twice.

too, the IGM in rich clusters at least is a
major emitter in the x-ray region (this is certainly not covered
in your four categories).


Good point. AFAIK, it is not heated appreciably by any of the other
sources mentioned.
  #4  
Old December 13th 16, 11:01 PM posted to sci.astro.research
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Redshift when CBR energy density = energy density of all other radiation

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:35:21 AM UTC-5, wrote=
:
I'm working to assemble a table / graph for the Luminosity of the
universe as a function of age of the universe.

I think these are the only sources of consequence (did I miss anything
important that I should include?):

1) CBR
2) Starlight (galaxies)
3) SN's
4) Active Galaxy nuclei

Thanks,

rt

One more, in addition to the hot IGM (a source of x-rays): galaxy-galaxy
interactions, e.g. collisions, flybys, mergers. Especially interactions
of (cold) gas-rich galaxies. These can, and do, trigger star-formation
(sometimes spectacularly so), SNs, and can also fire up (often
restart) AGNs. However, collisions of gas clouds can heat the gas
(and its dust), so generating a lot of IR.

PH is right, of course, to point out that dust is generally/often
heated by starlight, SNe, etc ... but not always.

Oh, and star-formation produces lots of photons, not all of them
from stars ...
  #5  
Old December 17th 16, 04:10 PM posted to sci.astro.research
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default Redshift when CBR energy density = energy density of all other radiation

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 1:09:29 PM UTC-8, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
In article ,
writes:

Maybe you've got this covered in starlight, but dust is a major
contributor in the IR;


It gets heated by normal stars, supernovae, AGN, etc. One shouldn't
count it twice.


Yes, dust glows in IR, but, I'm seeking sources of energy production.
There are no energy producing processes going on in dust. They just
absorb and re emit starlight, wavelength shifted to IR.

Collisions, yes, but that's so rare I can't imagine it's significant.

SNIa and SNII are both significant, somewhat surprisingly given how rare
they are per galaxy. Especially SNII neutrino energy, that surprised
me.

AGN emission is one I'm working on at the moment. I haven't found an
estimate for numbers of galaxies that go through the agn phase.

rt

  #6  
Old December 17th 16, 04:57 PM posted to sci.astro.research
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Redshift when CBR energy density = energy density of all other radiation

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 10:10:42 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 1:09:29 PM UTC-8, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
In article ,
jeantate writes:

Maybe you've got this covered in starlight, but dust is a major
contributor in the IR;


It gets heated by normal stars, supernovae, AGN, etc. One shouldn't
count it twice.


Yes, dust glows in IR, but, I'm seeking sources of energy production.
There are no energy producing processes going on in dust. They just
absorb and re emit starlight, wavelength shifted to IR.


They absorb and re-emit light, whether from stars, SNe, AGN, ... They
are also heated by collisions with gas molecules, in dense GMCs; that
surely counts as 'energy production', right?

Collisions, yes, but that's so rare I can't imagine it's significant.


Maybe today, but back when galaxies were being formed they weren't rare
at all. How much of the FIR background we observe today is due to high-z
collisions?

SNIa and SNII are both significant, somewhat surprisingly given how rare
they are per galaxy. Especially SNII neutrino energy, that surprised
me.


Hmm ... then why haven't you included the CNB (cosmic neutrino
background)?

AGN emission is one I'm working on at the moment. I haven't found an
estimate for numbers of galaxies that go through the agn phase.


Every galaxy with a SMBH will have at least one "AGN phase", won't it?
And likely many more than one. And that's (almost?) all non-dwarf
galaxies, right?

Oh, and what's the energy source for the x-ray emitting IGM (due to its
high temperature) in (rich) clusters?

  #7  
Old December 18th 16, 08:52 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default Redshift when CBR energy density = energy density of all other radiation

In article ,
writes:

Maybe you've got this covered in starlight, but dust is a major
contributor in the IR;

It gets heated by normal stars, supernovae, AGN, etc. One shouldn't
count it twice.


Yes, dust glows in IR, but, I'm seeking sources of energy production.
There are no energy producing processes going on in dust. They just
absorb and re emit starlight, wavelength shifted to IR.


They absorb and re-emit light, whether from stars, SNe, AGN, ... They
are also heated by collisions with gas molecules, in dense GMCs; that
surely counts as 'energy production', right?

Collisions, yes, but that's so rare I can't imagine it's significant.


Maybe today, but back when galaxies were being formed they weren't rare
at all. How much of the FIR background we observe today is due to high-z
collisions?

SNIa and SNII are both significant, somewhat surprisingly given how rare
they are per galaxy. Especially SNII neutrino energy, that surprised
me.


Hmm ... then why haven't you included the CNB (cosmic neutrino
background)?


As mentioned in other posts, Ross wants the amount of electromagnetic
energy produced as a function of time. So, obviously, emission by
anything which has been heated by electromagnetic radiation shouldn't be
counted, since that would be counting the corresponding energy twice.
Also, neutrinos can be ignored since a negligible fraction of their
energy is converted to electromagnetic radiation.
  #8  
Old December 24th 16, 11:14 AM posted to sci.astro.research
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default Redshift when CBR energy density = energy density of all other radiation


Hmm ... then why haven't you included the CNB (cosmic neutrino
background)?


As mentioned in other posts, Ross wants the amount of electromagnetic
energy produced as a function of time. So, obviously, emission by
anything which has been heated by electromagnetic radiation shouldn't be=


counted, since that would be counting the corresponding energy twice.
Also, neutrinos can be ignored since a negligible fraction of their
energy is converted to electromagnetic radiation.


Yes, exactly on target. If dust is heated by EM from stars where fusion
was the originator of the energy conversion, then I would need to
subtract off the energy that was absorbed, and add back in the energy
radiated in IR. But those (in steady state) are the same values, though
red shifted wavelengths. So, no point bothering with absorption and re
emission.

[Moderator's note: Right. I read yesterday that about half of stellar
energy is absorbed and re-radiated in the infrared. -P.H.]

As for Cosmic neutrino background, if I understand right, those were
produced during the big bang, prior to launch of CMB. I'm counting
energy production AFTER the CMB was launched. So we go through dark
ages, no energy production, then star formation and the tale begins and
I begin tracking energy production.

Now **IF** there were significant energy transfer from cosmic neutrinos
into the gas and stars, now and or back in early universe, then I'd need
to count that energy. I've assumed that is negligible, as seems to be
confirmed in comment above.

However, I do have a red flag in my brain since so much energy in SNII
comes out in neutrinos. The energy in those supernovae is in part,
energy from neutrinos colliding with the matter of the star, so that
would count. Thugh I'm adding SNII energy which I believe already
includes that quantity.

That said, this thread has wandered off topic me thinks.

rt

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Energy Density CBR vs MW at 1pc vs MOND [email protected] Research 1 October 17th 16 07:43 AM
Energy Density Kurt Messick Astronomy Misc 2 November 2nd 09 06:55 PM
Vacuum Energy Density Crisis Knecht Research 0 January 24th 09 11:40 AM
why dark energy density is small Jack Sarfatti Astronomy Misc 5 September 14th 07 09:48 PM
Astronomical effects of negative vacuum energy density Ed Keane III Astronomy Misc 2 April 15th 04 07:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.