Scientists Discover Outer Space Isn’t Pitch-Black After All

Look up at the night sky and, if you’re away from city lights, you’ll see stars. The space between those bright points of light is, of course, filled with inky blackness.

more….

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Divine Angel said:

From the “well duh!” files:

“It gets extremely cold “snow” and snow is cold.”

some snow isn’t cold. it maybe yellow but it isn’t cold.

check out this blizzard

that’s about 2.72548±0.00057 K. That’s cold.

The article makes no mention of light in the observable universe versus the light from the unobservable universe.

So is this mysterious light which they say equals the light from observable galaxies, is light coming in from the unobservable universe ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

The article makes no mention of light in the observable universe versus the light from the unobservable universe.

So is this mysterious light which they say equals the light from observable galaxies, is light coming in from the unobservable universe ?

The unobservable universe is unobservable for a reason.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The article makes no mention of light in the observable universe versus the light from the unobservable universe.

So is this mysterious light which they say equals the light from observable galaxies, is light coming in from the unobservable universe ?

The unobservable universe is unobservable for a reason.

Maybe that’s no longer the case now.

What I’m suggesting is some of this light from the unobservable universe is now observable thanks to this research.

Nothing is ever black and white.

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The article makes no mention of light in the observable universe versus the light from the unobservable universe.

So is this mysterious light which they say equals the light from observable galaxies, is light coming in from the unobservable universe ?

The unobservable universe is unobservable for a reason.

Maybe that’s no longer the case now.

What I’m suggesting is some of this light from the unobservable universe is now observable thanks to this research.

Nothing is ever black and white.

I can do a simple diagram if people cannot grasp what I’m suggesting.

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The article makes no mention of light in the observable universe versus the light from the unobservable universe.

So is this mysterious light which they say equals the light from observable galaxies, is light coming in from the unobservable universe ?

The unobservable universe is unobservable for a reason.

Maybe that’s no longer the case now.

What I’m suggesting is some of this light from the unobservable universe is now observable thanks to this research.

Nothing is ever black and white.

No. The unobserved bit isn’t going to become observable. the opposite in fact will happen.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The unobservable universe is unobservable for a reason.

Maybe that’s no longer the case now.

What I’m suggesting is some of this light from the unobservable universe is now observable thanks to this research.

Nothing is ever black and white.

No. The unobserved bit isn’t going to become observable. the opposite in fact will happen.

The opposite of which bit, the unobserved or the observed?

confused from Essendon

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Maybe that’s no longer the case now.

What I’m suggesting is some of this light from the unobservable universe is now observable thanks to this research.

Nothing is ever black and white.

No. The unobserved bit isn’t going to become observable. the opposite in fact will happen.

The opposite of which bit, the unobserved or the observed?

confused from Essendon

I don’t think it that difficult to ascertain the meaning.

ChrispenEvan said:

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

No. The unobserved bit isn’t going to become observable. the opposite in fact will happen.

The opposite of which bit, the unobserved or the observed?

confused from Essendon

I don’t think it that difficult to ascertain the meaning.

I’m being obtuse drunk.

the radius of the observable universe is around 46 billion light years. the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. you see the problem. any light we see is in the observable universe even if it hasn’t quite reached us yet.

ChrispenEvan said:

the radius of the observable universe is around 46 billion light years. the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. you see the problem. any light we see is in the observable universe even if it hasn’t quite reached us yet.

No, that is not making sense to me yet

Yes universe is 13.7 billion years
Yes observable universe has a radius of 46 billion light years

Does anyone know the radius of the unobservable universe ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the radius of the observable universe is around 46 billion light years. the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. you see the problem. any light we see is in the observable universe even if it hasn’t quite reached us yet.

No, that is not making sense to me yet

Yes universe is 13.7 billion years
Yes observable universe has a radius of 46 billion light years

Does anyone know the radius of the unobservable universe ?

I also agree that we cannot see galaxies in the unobservable universe.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the radius of the observable universe is around 46 billion light years. the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. you see the problem. any light we see is in the observable universe even if it hasn’t quite reached us yet.

No, that is not making sense to me yet

Yes universe is 13.7 billion years
Yes observable universe has a radius of 46 billion light years

Does anyone know the radius of the unobservable universe ?

I also agree that we cannot see galaxies in the unobservable universe.

The age of the universe is different to its radius.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

No, that is not making sense to me yet

Yes universe is 13.7 billion years
Yes observable universe has a radius of 46 billion light years

Does anyone know the radius of the unobservable universe ?

I also agree that we cannot see galaxies in the unobservable universe.

The age of the universe is different to its radius.

We can see all the light in the observable universe yes ?

from article

Then they processed these images to remove all known sources of visible light. Once they’d subtracted out the light from stars, plus scattered light from the Milky Way and any stray light that might be a result of camera quirks, they were left with light coming in from beyond our own galaxy.

They then went a step further still, subtracting out light that they could attribute to all the galaxies thought to be out there. And it turns out, once that was done, there was still plenty of unexplained light.

In fact, the amount of light coming from mysterious sources was about equal to all the light coming in from the known galaxies, says Marc Postman, an astronomer with the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. So maybe there are unrecognized galaxies out there, he says, “or some other source of light that we don’t yet know what it is.”

The new findings are sure to get astronomers talking.

“They’re saying that there’s as much light outside of galaxies as there is inside of galaxies, which is a pretty tough pill to swallow, frankly,” notes Michael Zemcov, an astrophysicist at Rochester Institute of Technology, who was not part of the research team.

Tau.Neutrino said:

from article

Then they processed these images to remove all known sources of visible light. Once they’d subtracted out the light from stars, plus scattered light from the Milky Way and any stray light that might be a result of camera quirks, they were left with light coming in from beyond our own galaxy.

They then went a step further still, subtracting out light that they could attribute to all the galaxies thought to be out there. And it turns out, once that was done, there was still plenty of unexplained light.

In fact, the amount of light coming from mysterious sources was about equal to all the light coming in from the known galaxies, says Marc Postman, an astronomer with the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. So maybe there are unrecognized galaxies out there, he says, “or some other source of light that we don’t yet know what it is.”

The new findings are sure to get astronomers talking.

“They’re saying that there’s as much light outside of galaxies as there is inside of galaxies, which is a pretty tough pill to swallow, frankly,” notes Michael Zemcov, an astrophysicist at Rochester Institute of Technology, who was not part of the research team.

Or there are more galaxies in the observable universe which they have not found, accounting for this extra light.

I’m happy to go with that one.

> So is this mysterious light which they say equals the light from observable galaxies, is light coming in from the unobservable universe ?

Can’t be. Because light doesn’t move faster than the speed of light.

> Does anyone know the radius of the unobservable universe ?

Yes, I calculated it a year or so back. Based on the metastability of the universe. It’s big, very big.

> Or there are more galaxies in the observable universe which they have not found, accounting for this extra light.

Nah, that’s pretty well known now. My first thought is calculation error, the second thought is intergalactic dust. The third and fourth thoughts are the Oort cloud and the galactic halo.

There is another mystery out there that may be related. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_interstellar_bands. And it’s not fullerines by the way, no matter what wikipedia says, the frequency is off.

Tau.Neutrino said:

from article

Then they processed these images to remove all known sources of visible light. Once they’d subtracted out the light from stars, plus scattered light from the Milky Way and any stray light that might be a result of camera quirks, they were left with light coming in from beyond our own galaxy.

They then went a step further still, subtracting out light that they could attribute to all the galaxies thought to be out there. And it turns out, once that was done, there was still plenty of unexplained light.

In fact, the amount of light coming from mysterious sources was about equal to all the light coming in from the known galaxies, says Marc Postman, an astronomer with the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. So maybe there are unrecognized galaxies out there, he says, “or some other source of light that we don’t yet know what it is.”

The new findings are sure to get astronomers talking.

“They’re saying that there’s as much light outside of galaxies as there is inside of galaxies, which is a pretty tough pill to swallow, frankly,” notes Michael Zemcov, an astrophysicist at Rochester Institute of Technology, who was not part of the research team.

Sometime I may get around to checking the mathematics of this. I’ve had a look into zodiacal light (light from the solar system). I have a book here that has a section of the spectrum of various background light sources and divides all non-stellar light into categories.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Scientists Discover Outer Space Isn’t Pitch-Black After All

Look up at the night sky and, if you’re away from city lights, you’ll see stars. The space between those bright points of light is, of course, filled with inky blackness.

more….

Let’s see if I can dig up the original paper, and compare it with other sources of information. Good article, 32 pages long (which is just about the right length).

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.03052.pdf

New Horizons spacecraft. LORRI telescope.

“We used existing data from the New Horizons LORRI camera to measure the optical-band sky brightness within seven high galactic latitude fields. The average raw level measured while New Horizons was 42 to 45 AU from the Sun is 33.2±0.5 nW m−2 sr−1.This is about 10 times darker than the darkest sky accessible to the Hubble Space Telescope, highlighting the utility of New Horizons for detecting the cosmic optical background.”

About ten times darker than was possible with Hubble. Wow, that’s dark.

The following figure is predicted brightness from solar system dust. My comment here is that the dust associated with the Oort cloud (OCC) is extremely poorly known.

Have they included electronic noise in the CCD receiver and electrics? That ought to be taken into account. OK, they find that it takes 150 seconds for electronic noise to decay to a constant level. That’s not the same as zero level.

Here we go. Dark current based on manufacturers specifications. 0.1 registrations per pixel (DN) over the selected 30 second interval. How does that compare? From Figure 10, sky level is about 0.7 DN, notably above the dark current 0.1 DN.

Have a look at the following. They’ve considered everything, but I suspect that they’ve underestimated the error due to interplanetary dust. Is the difference of a factor of 10 between Hubble dark sky and New Horizons dark sky is largely due to interplanetary dust, and the density of interplanetary dust at New Horizons is of order 10% of that at Hubble (From Figure 1) … well, then the potential error due to interplanetary dust ought to be greater than 0.00%.

mollwollfumble said:

> So is this mysterious light which they say equals the light from observable galaxies, is light coming in from the unobservable universe ?

Can’t be. Because light doesn’t move faster than the speed of light.

> Does anyone know the radius of the unobservable universe ?

Yes, I calculated it a year or so back. Based on the metastability of the universe. It’s big, very big.

> Or there are more galaxies in the observable universe which they have not found, accounting for this extra light.

Nah, that’s pretty well known now. My first thought is calculation error, the second thought is intergalactic dust. The third and fourth thoughts are the Oort cloud and the galactic halo.

There is another mystery out there that may be related. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_interstellar_bands. And it’s not fullerines by the way, no matter what wikipedia says, the frequency is off.

Tau.Neutrino said:

from article

Then they processed these images to remove all known sources of visible light. Once they’d subtracted out the light from stars, plus scattered light from the Milky Way and any stray light that might be a result of camera quirks, they were left with light coming in from beyond our own galaxy.

They then went a step further still, subtracting out light that they could attribute to all the galaxies thought to be out there. And it turns out, once that was done, there was still plenty of unexplained light.

In fact, the amount of light coming from mysterious sources was about equal to all the light coming in from the known galaxies, says Marc Postman, an astronomer with the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. So maybe there are unrecognized galaxies out there, he says, “or some other source of light that we don’t yet know what it is.”

The new findings are sure to get astronomers talking.

“They’re saying that there’s as much light outside of galaxies as there is inside of galaxies, which is a pretty tough pill to swallow, frankly,” notes Michael Zemcov, an astrophysicist at Rochester Institute of Technology, who was not part of the research team.

Sometime I may get around to checking the mathematics of this. I’ve had a look into zodiacal light (light from the solar system). I have a book here that has a section of the spectrum of various background light sources and divides all non-stellar light into categories.

Dust, of course, there is certainly plenty of dust and rocks in space which would reflect light and absorb it.

Tau.Neutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

> So is this mysterious light which they say equals the light from observable galaxies, is light coming in from the unobservable universe ?

Can’t be. Because light doesn’t move faster than the speed of light.

> Does anyone know the radius of the unobservable universe ?

Yes, I calculated it a year or so back. Based on the metastability of the universe. It’s big, very big.

> Or there are more galaxies in the observable universe which they have not found, accounting for this extra light.

Nah, that’s pretty well known now. My first thought is calculation error, the second thought is intergalactic dust. The third and fourth thoughts are the Oort cloud and the galactic halo.

There is another mystery out there that may be related. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_interstellar_bands. And it’s not fullerines by the way, no matter what wikipedia says, the frequency is off.

Tau.Neutrino said:

from article

Then they processed these images to remove all known sources of visible light. Once they’d subtracted out the light from stars, plus scattered light from the Milky Way and any stray light that might be a result of camera quirks, they were left with light coming in from beyond our own galaxy.

They then went a step further still, subtracting out light that they could attribute to all the galaxies thought to be out there. And it turns out, once that was done, there was still plenty of unexplained light.

In fact, the amount of light coming from mysterious sources was about equal to all the light coming in from the known galaxies, says Marc Postman, an astronomer with the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. So maybe there are unrecognized galaxies out there, he says, “or some other source of light that we don’t yet know what it is.”

The new findings are sure to get astronomers talking.

“They’re saying that there’s as much light outside of galaxies as there is inside of galaxies, which is a pretty tough pill to swallow, frankly,” notes Michael Zemcov, an astrophysicist at Rochester Institute of Technology, who was not part of the research team.

Sometime I may get around to checking the mathematics of this. I’ve had a look into zodiacal light (light from the solar system). I have a book here that has a section of the spectrum of various background light sources and divides all non-stellar light into categories.

Dust, of course, there is certainly plenty of dust and rocks in space which would reflect light and absorb it.

Do magnetic fields radiate light ?

Plenty of them around the place stretching between objects.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Do magnetic fields radiate light ?

Plenty of them around the place stretching between objects.

That’s a good question. As electrons spiral around magnetic fields they generate electromagnetic radiation, but not necessarily in the right frequency band to produce optical light. Alternatively, electrons hitting atoms of gas can produce light, as we see in the aurorae, but there isn’t all that much hot gas out there. Or is there?