Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Cosmological dimming — where it appears

The fall of an object's observed surface brightness with redshift, as the inverse fourth power of one plus it. Two powers come from each photon's lost energy and reduced rate of arrival, and two from the solid angle the source subtends, so the effect is steep and carries no cosmology in it.

Named by 3 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Also named here as extragalactic background light — the same set of essays touches all of them, so they are one junction rather than several.

Every shell contributes the same. Concentric shells of equal thickness around an observer, with stars scattered uniformly in volume. The number of stars in a shell grows as its radius squared and the flux from each falls as the radius squared, so the two cancel exactly and every shell delivers the same total light — the drawn counts are 6, 15, 31, 55, 88, in proportion to r³ − r₀³, and the drawn sizes fall as 1/r. That cancellation is the paradox, and it is why no amount of dust helps: dust absorbs the light and then re-radiates it, and in a universe old enough for the sum to converge it would come to the same temperature as the stars. The sum diverges linearly with radius, so something has to stop it — and the only two candidates are that the shells eventually overlap, or that there are no shells beyond a certain distance because there has not been time for their light to arrive.

Why the sky is dark

In an infinite universe of stars every sight line ends on a stellar surface, so the whole sky should be as bright as the Sun's disc. It is not, and the usual answer — that the expansion redshifts the light away — accounts for a factor of six out of a hundred trillion.

cosmology · Olbers's paradox The darkness, itemised. The extragalactic background light as a spectrum: νIᵥ against wavelength, in nanowatts per square metre per steradian, with wavelength logarithmic. The total under the two humps is not read off a plot — it is the integral (c/4π)∫ε(z)(1+z)⁻¹|dt/dz|dz of the Madau–Dickinson star formation history, taking a continuously star-forming population to radiate 10¹⁰ solar luminosities per solar mass per year, and it comes to 37.5 nW m⁻² sr⁻¹. Half of it was emitted beyond z = 0.91, which is the figure's real content: the dark sky is dominated by light released when the universe was 45 per cent of its present age. The split between the two humps is an assumption rather than a result — 50 per cent of the starlight is taken to be absorbed by dust and re-radiated near 140 µm, and the shapes are lognormals of about the observed widths — but the AREA under each is the computed quantity. Measured, the two come to about 24 and 26: the calculation falls 25 per cent short, and whether the missing light is real or a residual foreground is unsettled.

The darkness has a number in it

The night sky is not black. It carries about sixty nanowatts per square metre per steradian, and that number is the sum of every photon every star has ever emitted, redshifted and added up over thirteen billion years.

cosmology · Olbers's paradox The sky's darkness, measured as an opacity. Optical depth to electron–positron pair production against gamma-ray energy, for sources at redshifts 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, 1, both axes logarithmic. A gamma ray of energy E is absorbed most readily by background photons near twice the square of the electron rest energy divided by E: at 1 TeV that is 2.37 µm and at 100 GeV it is 0.24 µm, so the energy axis is a wavelength axis for the background light, running backwards — and the background it is evaluated against is the same two-component spectrum the star formation history produced, not a flat number. Above the marked τ = 1 the universe is opaque. The depth is computed in the delta-function approximation, the cross-section replaced by 0.2 of the Thomson value over a bandwidth of order the energy, with the background's comoving density evolving as (1+z)^1.2. That is a factor-of-two calculation and the shape is what it gets right: the horizon closes from z = 0.59 at 100 GeV to z = 0.16 at 1 TeV. The measurement runs the other way. A blazar's spectrum is observed, the absorbed part is the difference between it and the spectrum the source is believed to have emitted, and that difference gives the background — in the near infrared, where no direct measurement can subtract the zodiacal light well enough to compete.

A background weighed by what it stops

The faintest light in the universe cannot be photographed from inside the Solar System, because the zodiacal foreground is a hundred times brighter. It can be weighed instead, by the bite it takes out of a blazar at a trillion electronvolts.

cosmology · Olbers's paradox

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Extragalactic background lightComoving distanceLuminosity densityMean free pathOlbers's paradoxOptical depthStar formation historySurface brightnessZodiacal lightBlazarFinite ageGamma-ray horizon

All concepts