Photon energy at t=0?

A naive question perhaps....
According to one source a photon with the wave length of .6 um has an energy of 2.0667 eV.
source: http://pvcdrom.pveducation.org/SUNLIGHT/PENERGY.HTM
suffice to say that it is well recognised, I believe, that a photon has an energy value of some value depending on wave length.

Say we have "x" number of wavelengths [photons] between the Sun and Earth at any given moment would this not amount to an awfully huge amount of energy at any moment [any t=0] ?

When thinking of this in universal terms I tend to think that there may be more energy in transit in the form of photons than in the entire universes mass. [ by many times ]

This can't be right .....can it?
Care to discuss?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why don't you actually do the mathematics to work out how many photons and how much energy they have?

The Sun burns 4 millions tons of mass every second, so if it takes 8 minutes for a photon to get from the Sun to Earth then there's 8*60*4,000,000 ~ 2 billion tons of mass in terms of photons between the Sun and us. That's 0.0000000000000001% the mass of the Sun, whose mass is about \(2 \times 10^{30}\)kilograms, compared to the \(2 \times 10^{12}\) kilograms. Even over its entire 10 billion year lifetime the Sun will only shed a small fraction of its total mass via photon emissions. Therefore the majority of energy is not in the form of photons previously thrown out by stars.

Once again QQ you have no idea how to go about checking if any of your 'conclusions' are even close to viable. Try opening a book some time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

maybe you could do the math that includes the entire three dimensional universe and satisfy your own scientific curiosity?
and enter a discussion regarding dark energy and the need for it?

The suns emmissions are not just between us and it, dare I say. As the emmissions are in all directions from the sun in 3 dimensional space and go way beyond our field of interest that still makes up an incredible amount of energy in transit at any time.
Add to that all the stars in the universe and all the space that photons are transiting and wallah!...you got a problem I reckon with your light effect model.
In say a 100 light year diameter photon field how much energy is in transit at any gven t=0? [ and that is only referring to one star ]
maybe you could get you head out of a book and take a look at the logic you use and apply some critical thought to the things you believe in?

 

and how much space would that be James?
a link perhaps that explains it would be nice...

Can't be much space given the relative continuity of the light effect.

 

Boy, I'm slow.


I just now realized where it is that you are going with all of this.


[sigh...]

 

Why would I bother discussing something with you which you don't understand and clearly don't want to understand?

The amount the Sun burns is independent of the direction of emission. The 2 billion tons I mentioned is the amount of mass the energy carried by thermal photons which are contained in the sphere of 1AU about the Sun, aka closer to the Sun than the Earth, not the direct line of sight from the Earth to the Sun.

A star, in its entire lifetime will burn less than 10% of its mass. Even allowing for the fact our Sun is a 2nd or 3rd generator star that means that the stars in the universe have not yet had time to convert the majority of their mass into thermal emissions, to say nothing of the material which hasn't formed into stars yet.

You just work out how much mass a star burns in 100 years. Given the Sun will live for a total of about 10 billion 100 years is a tiny tiny amount percentage wise. Including other stars in your calculation doesn't alter the percentages, as each star will only have thrown out a very small amount over the last 100 or 1 million years.

Wonderful ironic hypocrisy from you. If you hadn't slept through high school physics you'd have been able to work it out for yourself. Your question could be answered by a child and yet you try to insult me because I paid attention in school? Your attempt to insult me for reading books would be less laughable if you didn't demonstrate such a pathetic level of understanding. Clearly your understanding is hindered by your lack of effort in learning so insulting others for giving a damn about their education is pretty stupid of you.

 

thanks guys you have answered my questions...fantastic!

 

Actually this approach works for me..let's stick to percentages....
So as a rough ball park figure are you saying that approximately 10% of all the stars mass in the universe is more or less in transit? [ assuming that the obstacles planets, other stars etc, along the way a relatively minor impact on the outcome in general]
Don't you think approx. 10% of all mass in transit, as energy, is a large amount of energy in transit?
If you apply E=mc^2 what sort of energy are we talking about? No small amount I bet!

 

James
The problem I have with this is that if we describe a spherical photon wave with a diameter of 300,000 kms [approx] I have no idea how many photons exist in this spherical wave nor applying the same to every wave before it at t=0.

 

How do you figure this if the star burns less than ten percent in its lifetime?

 

the forums server definitely does not like me sheesh!

 

yeah ...badly worded...you are right...

the point though is that even if it is only 1% we are still talking a huge amount of energy in transit at t=0

 

An important thing to note here is you are talking about the visible mass of the universe which is very different to it's total mass. The distribution of mass in the universe is roughly 74% dark energy, 22% dark matter, 3.6% interstellar gas and 0.4% in stars. I know you've shown your mathematical ability to be somewhat lacking, but surely even you can see that 1% or even 10% of 0.4% is not at all a significant number. In fact, I imagine these studies would measure the emissions from stars as part of the interstellar gas rather than stars themselves, and the estimate of 0.04% for these emissions is 2 orders of magnitude smaller than even that tiny fraction of the mass of the universe. More reading is needed on this to fully understand it though and I suggest you start here.

 

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?

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%

 

What 'well accepted theory' would that be? And what energy are you speaking of, the CMB?

 

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. All packed with momentum and energy and heading in all directions