Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Generator

The olbers-sky generator

Two reasons the sky is dark, and only one of them is the expansion
Two reasons the sky is dark, and only one of them is the expansion. The surface brightness of the sky accumulated out to a given distance, in units of the surface brightness of a star, both axes logarithmic. Every shell of thickness dr contributes the same amount, because the number of stars in it grows as r² and each one's flux falls as r⁻², so the straight rising line is the paradox: in an infinite static universe the sky reaches stellar surface brightness at the mean free path to a stellar surface, λ = 1/nσ, which for 10⁹ stars per cubic megaparsec of radius 0.6 R☉ is 1.74·10¹⁸ Mpc. The two suppressions are then computed separately, and they are wildly unequal. The finite age cuts the integral off at the particle horizon, 1.41·10⁴ Mpc, which is a factor of 1.23·10¹⁴ short of λ. The expansion then dims what is left by a further factor of 6.03, computed as the mean of (1+z)⁻² over the comoving distance to the horizon. The horizon does 14 orders of magnitude and the redshift does less than one. The common answer that the sky is dark because the universe is expanding is therefore very nearly the wrong answer: the sky is dark because the universe is young, and the expansion is a small correction on top.

The surface brightness of the sky accumulated out to a given distance, in units of the surface brightness of a star, both axes logarithmic. Every shell of thickness dr contributes the same amount, because the number of stars in it grows as r² and each one's flux falls as r⁻², so the straight rising line is the paradox: in an infinite static universe the sky reaches stellar surface brightness at the mean free path to a stellar surface, λ = 1/nσ, which for 10⁹ stars per cubic megaparsec of radius 0.6 R☉ is 1.74·10¹⁸ Mpc. The two suppressions are then computed separately, and they are wildly unequal. The finite age cuts the integral off at the particle horizon, 1.41·10⁴ Mpc, which is a factor of 1.23·10¹⁴ short of λ. The expansion then dims what is left by a further factor of 6.03, computed as the mean of (1+z)⁻² over the comoving distance to the horizon. The horizon does 14 orders of magnitude and the redshift does less than one. The common answer that the sky is dark because the universe is expanding is therefore very nearly the wrong answer: the sky is dark because the universe is young, and the expansion is a small correction on top.

4 essays call olbers-sky. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Every figure listed here is the same construction drawn at different numbers, so a correction to one is a correction to all of them.

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. Cosmology

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.

 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. Cosmology

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.

 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. Cosmology

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.

 Three messengers, and the three walls they end on. The redshift of the last opaque surface, for the three things that cross the universe, on one logarithmic axis spanning thirty-one decades. Olbers' argument compares how far a sight line runs before it ends on something against how far anything has had time to come — and for starlight the first is 1.7·10¹⁸ Mpc against a horizon of 1.4·10⁴ Mpc, which is why the optical sky is dark. That comparison is not what decides the other two. A relic neutrino's mean free path against ordinary matter works out at 7.7·10³⁷ Mpc — 4·10¹⁹ times starlight's, so on the mean-free-path argument alone the neutrino sky should be darker still. It is not, because the quantity that terminates a sight line is the WALL, and the walls are at z = 1,090, z ≈ 6×10⁹ and nowhere at all. Every neutrino sight line ends on a surface from one second after the beginning; every gravitational-wave sight line runs to the beginning, or to a binary. Both of those skies are saturated — which is what Olbers' argument predicted, and what the optical sky refuses to do. The three are also wildly unequal in brightness: the microwave sky is 996 nW m⁻² sr⁻¹, and the gravitational-wave background at Ω = 10⁻⁹ is 0.018 — a saturated sky five decades fainter than a dark one. Cosmology

Two skies where the paradox comes out right

Olbers argued that every sight line should end on a source and the sky should blaze. In neutrinos and in gravitational waves it does — the walls are at one second and at no time at all — and both of those skies have now been detected.

The whole library · All essays