7 ms·
>The entire sky would be about as bright, and as hot, as the surface of the Sun. Not so according to “The Inverse Square Law”.[1] If one measures the light fl
by DINKDINK 11y ago
>The entire sky would be about as bright, and as hot, as the surface of the Sun.
Not so according to “The Inverse Square Law”.[1] If one measures the light flux through a hypothetical sphere drawn around a light source and then doubles that spheres size, the light density must decline or you've broken conservation of energy. [2]
[1] http://bccp.berkeley.edu/o/Academy/workshop08/08%20PDFs/Inv_Square_Law.pdf http://bccp.berkeley.edu/o/Academy/workshop08/08%20PDFs/Inv_...
[2] http://www.compuphase.com/electronics/candela_lumen.htm http://www.compuphase.com/electronics/candela_lumen.htm
- jackcarter 11y agoYes, but as you look deeper into the night sky, you see more and more stars (proportional to the square of the distance). These two factors cancel exactly.
- nostromo 11y agoIf you reduce the power of infinite stars, you still have infinite stars producing infinite light. x * infinity = infinity (so long as x > 0; even if x is infinitesimally small)
- jwally 11y agoBut you can't have infinite stars in your field of view since they'd get in each other's way; blocking radiation. Using the tree example from the article, you wouldn't see infinite trees, you'd only see the pieces that are directly in front of you.
- tamana 11y agoNo, infinity times infinitesimal is undefined, you have to define your infinities more carefully to get an answer.
- typon 11y agoRemember parallel plate capacitors from Electromagnetics class? They're infinite in size for a reason, to get around not having to worry about the inverse square law. An infinite amount of stars would produce an infinite amount of energy...