Slashdot Mirror


Astronomers Measure Total Starlight Emitted Over 13.7 Billion Years (theguardian.com)

Astronomers have measured all the light from all the stars that have ever existed. "In total, the astronomers estimate, stars have radiated 4x1084 photons (a photon being the smallest unit of light)," reports The Guardian. "Or put another way: 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 photons." From the report: The astronomers based their calculation on measurements of the extragalactic background light (EBL), a cosmic fog of radiation that has been accumulating since stars first illuminated the dark, vast expanse of space. More than 90% of starlight ends up surviving in this dim backdrop of radiation. The latest observations, collected over nine years by Nasa's Fermi space telescope, use the light from blazars -- super-massive black holes that emit powerful jets of gamma rays -- as beacons to illuminate the cosmic fog.

In total, the team captured signals from 739 blazars -- some relatively close and some extremely distant, whose light was emitted in the ancient universe and has taken billions of years to arrive at Earth. Gamma-ray photons travelling through a fog of starlight have a high chance of being absorbed. So by taking blazars at different distances from the Earth and working out how much of their radiation had been lost along the way, the total starlight at different time periods could be ascertained.
The researchers used a computer model to factor in the cosmic fog, which "is simultaneously being diluted as the universe expands and space itself is stretched out," the report mentions. "The measurements suggest that star formation peaked about 11 billion years ago and has been on the wane ever since. About seven new stars are created in our Milky Way galaxy every year."

57 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm by AlexanKulbashian · · Score: 2

    I counted 156 more than that Maybe time for a recount

    1. Re:Hmm by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Informative

      Add to it the typo in the article. 4x1084 - that's not many photons, should be 4x10^84.

      Maybe Slashdot trimmed off the "sup" html tag though.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Hmm by uncqual · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed, that left me scratching my head. Did the editors not get past seventh grade?

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    3. Re:Hmm by Z00L00K · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.

      And why isn't there a "+1" Troll alternative too? :)

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:Hmm by mermeid007 · · Score: 1

      Ya Think? Left us all scratching our head. I see telltale signs of a barely adequate eight-grade education here. Must have gone south after that.

    5. Re:Hmm by original+bit+basher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      4x10^84 works for me. But in all my years of programming, spreadsheets, and scientific calculator work, I've wondered why the simpler 4E84 exponential notation has not become more popular in text media.

      Any thoughts?

      Are there any /. readers out there that don't understand 4E84?

    6. Re:Hmm by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Because then it would be to easy to confuse with 0x4e84?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Hmm by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      ... should be 4x10^84.

      My grandfather says 4x10^83 should be enough for anyone.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    8. Re:Hmm by nyet · · Score: 1

      He's a moron. Then again, all of /.'s editors are worthless; I don't think I've ever seen them correct a single article.

    9. Re:Hmm by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      Are there any /. readers out there that don't understand 4E84?

      Sorry, we didn't learn that geeky hexadecimal stuff in physics class.That's NaN.

      4x10^84 takes up WAS more space and thus is WAY more precise!

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    10. Re:Hmm by Megane · · Score: 1

      If you had been here for even a few months, you would know that Slashdot editors don't.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    11. Re:Hmm by Megane · · Score: 1

      When I have mod points, I enjoy finding a "0, Troll" post that I think was unfairly modded down, because I can give it an Underrated mod and change it to "1, Troll". Often that's actually a fair description of the post, where they're sort of half-trolling, but they make a good point.

      Unfortunately, the (very) rare time I've found a "1, Troll" post to give a second Underrated mod, it doesn't go to "2, Troll", which is sad. I think it just makes the description disappear. Also, if there's any non-Underrated mod, that description wins out.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  2. Re:If this isn't bullshit nothing is by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Yep. Take the easy path.

    People have been doing it for millennia.

    --
    No sig today...
  3. "Measure" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

    The headlines says they measured it, but then the summary says they estimated it.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:"Measure" by quenda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Guardian author seems to think the universe is finite and of known size.
      The scientists' 4x10^84 presumably is an estimate for the observable universe.

    2. Re:"Measure" by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's because as soon as you try to measure photons, they turn into dead cats.

    3. Re:"Measure" by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

      Would be great if mathematicians could invent something to avoid writing 100's of zeroes, something like 10^?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    4. Re:"Measure" by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      They should measure the age of the universe in 10^-50 seconds, that'd make even more zeroes.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    5. Re:"Measure" by Mal-2 · · Score: 2

      The delayed-choice quantum eraser strongly implies that multiple states at the same time are the only reasonable explanation. It can't just be "shut up and calculate" forever.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    6. Re:"Measure" by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Only about half of them you, you insensitive clod! Why do you hate cats so much?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:"Measure" by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Deprecated by the volkswagen beetle-clowns in a telephone booth.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re: "Measure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Black cats = dark matter

    9. Re:"Measure" by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I noticed that too. OTOH I often make estimates when I measure things, and a pedant would submit that *all* measurements are estimates.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    10. Re:"Measure" by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      You should stand in science centers and museums where they write large numbers like this on displays to make it easier to visualize how large a number it is, and point out to passing people that there's a shorter way of writing it. Hell, you could dedicate your entire life to being a tedious bore on a mission to educate nobody!

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    11. Re:"Measure" by fafalone · · Score: 1

      10 up arrow what? Just call it by its name. Everyone knows their number names right?
      Four septenvigintillion.

  4. No, it's not all stars ... by MxMatrix · · Score: 1

    ... but in fact all the stars known to scientists and an estimate as well. There might be so much more light emitted by not yet discovered stars.

    --
    Bach says it all.
  5. Re: If this isn't bullshit nothing is by niftydude · · Score: 3, Informative

    So you think astronomers built an apparatus capable of measuring every photon emitted over the last 13.7 billion years? Title of this article is so incorrect editors should go back to primary school.

    --
    You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
  6. Re:It sounds like very exact science by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 1

    Dust particle? Insignificant? My home, this is!

  7. y tho? by redback · · Score: 1

    why?

    what is this information useful for?

    1. Re:y tho? by mermeid007 · · Score: 1

      What!? A short article with acronyms like ASL/TTFN/LOL doesn't count as publishing? How dare you?!

    2. Re:y tho? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Of what use is a newborn baby?

      Just look at this as one of the up sides of Big Data. Someone or something crunched a bunch of numbers together that nobody had crunched together before and came up with an interesting result that might spark further thoughts.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    3. Re:y tho? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It's a side product from a programme trying to understand the history of star formation in the universe, which (bizarre though it sounds) turns out to be one of the cheapest ways to probe the fine details of particle physics. Cheaper, for certain, than another CERN.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    4. Re:y tho? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Of what use is a newborn baby?

      There's good eating on one of those. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebook...

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  8. Re:If this isn't bullshit nothing is by mermeid007 · · Score: 1

    Something cannot come from nothing. It has to come from something else. Unless the something else is boring and you want to turn it into something more. Otherwise, be accurate!!!

  9. This is what Science should really be about by Tanon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just think, if they hadn't published this paper, we might not have known, to a high degree of accuracy, the exact number of photons emitted over the lifetime of the universe.

    I can't decide whether this trumps Ugg's famous theorem that striking pieces of flint together summons the fire element from the Fire God in the Sky.

    1. Re:This is what Science should really be about by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      a high degree of accuracy, the exact number

      Not sure if trolling...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  10. Re:If this isn't bullshit nothing is by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Something cannot come from nothing. It has to come from something else.

    That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

    First of all, something comes from nothing all the time. Quantum fluctuaton creates pairs of something from nothing. Most of these disappear extremely quickly, but due to location being a probability, not a fact, a few must by necessity survive. Our whole universe may be no more than the result of a single vacuum fluctuation, see inflationary theory.

    Secondly, "come from" implies time. The concept of time itself breaks down near singularities, making the rule of "something must come from nothing" meaningless in that context. "What was before big bang?" requires a definition of "before" that doesn't imply time ticking or having an arrow.

  11. Uncertainty by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    that's not many photons, should be 4x10^84

    ...and since there is probably a reasonably large uncertainty on the exponent (which should have been quoted!) it really should have been just 10^84.

  12. Re:If this isn't bullshit nothing is by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

    First of all, something comes from nothing all the time. Quantum fluctuaton creates pairs of something from nothing. Most of these disappear extremely quickly, but due to location being a probability, not a fact, a few must by necessity survive. Our whole universe may be no more than the result of a single vacuum fluctuation, see inflationary theory.

    Secondly, "come from" implies time. The concept of time itself breaks down near singularities, making the rule of "something must come from nothing" meaningless in that context. "What was before big bang?" requires a definition of "before" that doesn't imply time ticking or having an arrow.

    Why am I hearing this entire passage in Lawrence Krauss's voice, and imagining him waving his hands around for emphasis? I can see the Converse sneakers, the brown coat, the smarmy look...

    (Mind you, this is not an attempt at an ad hominem attack: he's frequently right, even if I find him annoying after a while.)

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  13. Re:If this isn't bullshit nothing is by meglon · · Score: 1

    Quantum fluctuaton creates pairs of something from nothing.

    Except that's not correct, unless you consider energy to be nothing.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  14. Re:What? by careysub · · Score: 2

    90% of photons from stars end up in a fog. Ok. And that fog absorbs gamma rays. What kind of fog is that? Photons don't absorb photons, do there must be other matter involved.

    From the actual article in Science: "Gamma rays with sufficient energy can annihilate when they collide with EBL photons and produce electron-positron pairs (i.e., the reaction e+e–), effectively being absorbed as a result of the interaction." So yes they do, under the right conditions.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  15. If you think about it by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    ...it's kind of bright.

  16. Re:If this isn't bullshit nothing is by Potor · · Score: 1

    It's amazing how (contemporary) physics re-traces the history of rational theology.

  17. Re:If this isn't bullshit nothing is by Potor · · Score: 1

    I too came here to say that this is just warmed-over Lawrence Krauss.

  18. 4x1084? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    That's not a very large number of photons. Is it just my browser that is eating the up-arrow between 10 and 84?

  19. Re: If this isn't bullshit nothing is by arth1 · · Score: 1

    Quantum fluctuatons is "something".

    Yes, but it's a something that comes from nothing (by definition).

  20. A quick analysis shows... by cellocgw · · Score: 3, Funny

    10^84 = 10^42 * 10^42
    Coincidence? I think not

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    1. Re:A quick analysis shows... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Mod this one Funny+Insightful. I've already commented upthread.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  21. Could somebody PLEASE check my Math & Physics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So 4x10^84 photons...

    Lets see here. Energy in Joules per photon = hf where h is a constant (6.626070150x10^-34 Js) and f is the frequency (1/s) of the photon according to Max Planck.

    Orange light, just to pick a random frequency, is around 600nm, or around 500 Thz, and should have an energy value in Joules = hf = 6.626070150x10^-34 * 500,000,000,000,000 = 3.313035075x10^-19 Joules.

    But that's per photon. So times 4x10^84 photons yields 1.32521403x10^+66 Joules.

    E=mc^2. E in Joules. Mass (m) in kilograms. The speed of light (c) being 299792458 m/s. (IIRC)

    So mass (m) = E / c^2 = 1.32521403x10^+66 Joules / 299792458^2 = 1.4744994647625417x10^+49 Kilograms.

    That's IF I have that figured right.

    Now...

    Mass our of Sun (one solar mass) is approximately 1.989x10^30 kilograms.

    Estimates for the Mass of our galaxy range from 5.8x10^11 to 4.5x10^12 Solar Masses.

    Which would put the MASS of all that starlight somewhere between 1,647,393 and 12,781,500 Milky Way GALAXIES!!! (Mind you, that assumes all starlight is orange, nothing higher or lower in energy, just for back of the envelope figuring.)

    If any physicists are still reading...

    Does all that mass exert any gravitational effects?

    Thx.

  22. Re:Could somebody PLEASE check my Math & Physi by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 1

    Can you check mine please? Say we have N photons and the mass of a photon is 0. Then N times 0 equals 0, making a total mass of 0? Is that right?

    If the photons were confined in some kind of box, then they'd add to the mass of the box though, so you could do it that way with an imaginary box in a thought experiment, and use this e=mc^2 formula you've picked up from somewhere.

  23. Starless by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I'll take the "offtopic" hit, but whenever I see a post about starlight, I believe this should be posted.

    https://youtu.be/FhKJgqxNDD8

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  24. I'd love to turn you on by seoras · · Score: 1

    That headline reminds me of this song.

    "I read the news today, oh boy
    Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
    And though the holes were rather small
    They had to count them all
    Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall
    I'd love to turn you"
    - Lennon/McCartney "A day in a life"

  25. Re:Could somebody PLEASE check my Math & Physi by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 1

    Newton's law of universal gravitation was superseded by general relativity about 100 years ago. One reason why is because it does not model the behaviour of light in a gravitational field correctly. Einstein's cross is an example of gravitational lensing, so these massless particles are following the curvature of spacetime around a massive object. We explain it with general relativity, not Newton's theory of gravity. The case of Mercury's orbit you mention is further evidence for general relativity over Newton's theory.

    Massless particles like photons don't really have a rest frame. You can let them bounce around inside a box however, and that box can have a rest frame. Generally we have E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. Inside the box the overall momentum can be zero and you get E=mc^2. When not confined, then we have m=0 and E=pc.

    The observable universe does not confine photons, so that would not count. Photons (and whole galaxies even), escape the observable universe.

  26. Re:4x1084 is a much larger number by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

    4^1084 is about 4.2*10^652

    So you meant to say that 4x1084 = 4^1084 ?

  27. Re:Could somebody PLEASE check my Math & Physi by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 1

    I appreciate my previous responses may have come across as pedantic but from my point of view I'm trying to sharpen your understanding as much as possible in a short amount of time. I'm doing it for free and I'm the only person trying to help.

    It sounds like the case you're most interested in is what happens when lots of photons with lots of energy happen to meet in one spot. Suppose we had a large empty region of space and we surrounded it with lasers. These lasers are all very far away and directed at one point in space. We fire the lasers such that the photons meet at the same time from many different directions. If we successfully get enough photons with enough energy in a small enough volume, then they curve spacetime to the extent that a black hole is formed. If we made one large enough that it did not quickly evaporate, and managed fire in as many photons as you're describing it would be bigger than any black hole so far discovered.

    That's the theory anyway. We can't really do this experiment of course or anything close to it. It is quite extreme and heavily contrived. For further reading look up "kugelblitz". If you want a possibly real scenario where photons dominated then look up "photon epoch". Is this the sort of thing you were looking for?

  28. Re:are photons not counted as elementary particles by Megane · · Score: 1

    Because this is over a period of ~15 billion years where photons are constantly created and destroyed, not an instant snapshot of the universe.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  29. What is the point of this? by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

    n/t