Sunday, June 28, 2015

cosmology - Does an object's redshift actually decrease with time?



I am trying to determine how an object's redshift (specifically, redshift due just to the expansion of the universe) changes in time. Starting with a definition of the Hubble parameter,


H˙aa


with a being the scale factor, we can write


˙a=Ha .


We can calculate ˙z in terms of ˙a. Since a=(1+z)1,


˙a=(1+z)2˙z .


Plugging a and ˙a into the first or second equation I wrote here we can find


˙z=H(1+z) .


This negative sign is a bit surprising to me. I would have expected that ˙z would have been positive, i.e., that an object's redshift increases with time. I would have expected this from the fact alone that the universe is expanding, but perhaps I am wrong in this thought. If so, please tell me how. However, the expansion of the universe is currently accelerating, and so I would expect from this as well that ˙z would be positive, since at later times things will appear to be moving away from us at a faster rate than they are now. Is there some sort of cosmological constant dependence I did not take into account in my derivation above?


My question in summary: why is there a negative sign in the equation for ˙z? Did I derive the expression incorrectly? Or am I wrong in thinking it should be positive?




Answer



The redshift of a source actually changes in a more complicated way: when the source entered our cosmological horizon (i.e. at the moment its light reached Earth for the first time), its redshift was , because it was located at the edge of our observable universe. Over time, this redshift then decreases to a minimum value, but eventually the expansion of the universe causes it to increase again. In the far future, all sources will be redshifted back to (in the Standard ΛCDM Model).


Let's derive the correct formula. For more details, I refer to this post: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/63780/24142


The Hubble parameter in the ΛCDM Model is H(a)=H0ΩR,0a4+ΩM,0a3+ΩK,0,a2+ΩΛ,0,

with ΩK,0=1ΩR,0ΩM,0ΩΛ,0.


The observed redshift zob=z(tob) of a source at a time tob is given by 1+zob=aobaem,

with aob=a(tob) the scale factor at the time of observation, and aem=a(tem) the scale factor at the time tem, when the source emitted the light that was observed at tob. From this, we can write aem as a function of zob and aob: aem=aob1+zob.
When the source moves with the Hubble flow, its co-moving distance remains constant: Dc(z(tob),tob)=caobaemdaa2H(a)=const.
Therefore, if we treat tob as a variable, the total derivative with respect to tob is zero: ˙Dc=dDcdtob=0,
which means that, with Leibniz' integral rule, ˙aoba2obH(aob)=˙aema2emH(aem).
or, with H(aob)=˙aob/aob, ˙aem=a2emaobH(aem).
We also have from eq. (1): ˙aem=˙aob1+zobaob˙zob(1+zob)2.
Inserting this into eq. (2), we find ˙zob=(1+zob)˙aobaoba2ema2ob(1+zob)2H(aem),
which simplifies to ˙zob=(1+zob)H(aob)H(aem).
In particular, if we take the present day as the time of observation, we have ˙z=(1+z)H0H(11+z).
Since H(a) decreases as a function of a, if follows that ˙zob<0 if zob is very large (and aob is sufficiently small), and ˙zob>0 if zob is small or aob is large.


This also means that there's a redshift at any time at which ˙zob=0. Using the same values of the cosmological parameters as in my reference post, I find that this 'transition redshift' is currently z=1.92. In other words, the redshift of a galaxy with present-day redshift z<1.92 is increasing, while the redshift of a galaxy with z>1.92 is currently decreasing.


Also take a look at the diagram in my reference post: the dashed lines represent contours of constant zob at a given time of observation; galaxies move vertically (dotted lines). You'll see the same thing: when a galaxy crosses the particle horizon, its redshift is , after which it decreases, but in the (far) future it will increase again.


See also Eq. (11) in the paper Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe by Davis & Lineweaver.


No comments:

Post a Comment

classical mechanics - Moment of a force about a given axis (Torque) - Scalar or vectorial?

I am studying Statics and saw that: The moment of a force about a given axis (or Torque) is defined by the equation: $M_X = (\vec r \times \...