Derivation of the formula for cosmological redshift

George Jones

Thanks.

I don't know what you mean by "Is the logic still sound?"

If we watch a given galaxy over a long period, then, at any given time, redshift will be given by

[tex]z = \frac{R \left( t_o \right)}{R \left( t_e \right)}-1,[/tex]
but [itex]z[/itex] will change over time because [itex]t_o[/itex] (for us) and [itex]t_e[/itex] (for the observed galaxy) both change over time. If we could directly observe this effect, it would be a fantastic way to test our models of the universe!

We are close to being able to do this, but, for economic and other reasons, such a project won't start for several decades. Once started, the project would take a couple of decades to start to get good results. From

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1532:
Also, redshifts of individual objects don't necessarily increase with time. Figure 1 from the above paper plots redshift versus time. The three red curves are for objects in our universe. As we watch (over many years) a distant, high redshift object, A, we will see the object's redshift decrease, reach a minimum, and then increase. If we watch a much closer, lower redshift object, B, we see the object's redshift only increase.

Roughly, when light left A, the universe was in a decelerating matter-dominated phase, and when light left B, the universe was in the accelerating dark energy-dominated phase.

andrewkirk

Looking again at George's derivation of the redshift formula, I see that it is just as valid for a local 'Doppler' effect as it is for distant galaxies where the redshift is typically described as being caused by the 'expansion of space'. All we have to do is define the comoving coordinate system as a time-dependent one in which the spatial coordinate distance between the observer and the emitter is constant. It even works for sound waves being emitted by ambulance sirens.

This rather nicely demonstrates that there is no intrinsic difference between redshifts from cosmological expansion and redshifts from local Doppler effects. They are just different ways of thinking about the same type of phenomenon.

I have now read the Bunn & Hogg paper to which Marcus referred in his post on page 1. That is a really excellent paper, and easy to understand. It generalises the redshift concept further and argues - convincingly to me - that cosmological redshifts, Doppler redshifts and gravitational redshifts are all the same phenomenon, viewed in different ways.

As Bunn & Hogg say, it is a pity that many physicists say there is some sort of fundamental difference between local Doppler redshifts and cosmological redshifts. This just sows unnecessary confusion because there isn't a fundamental difference, viewed from a GR perspective.

andrewkirk

I have a question about the Bunn & Hogg paper. I don't know if it'll get seen here in this old thread, but I'll try that first rather than just starting a new thread, since it's on the same topic.

In section III they suggest we parallel transport a distant galaxy's ancient four-velocity along the lightlike geodesic that reaches us now, and then measure the recessional velocity as
v_rel = sqrt(1-1/g(v_ob,v_em)²), where v_ob and v_em are the observer's current four-velocity and the emitter's parallel transported four-velocity respectively.

They then claim that this v_rel obeys the SR Doppler formula

sqrt((c+v_rel)/(c-v_rel)) = a(t₀)/a(t_em)
where a(t) is the cosmological scale factor at cosmic time t and t₀) and t_em are the cosmic time of observation and emission respectively.

They do not present the working as to how they arrive at this result, so my first question is whether anybody can point to a derivation of the result.

My second question is about the fact that the formula gives an imaginary redshift for an object receding faster than light. That seems to run into conflict with the statement in papers such as Davis & Lineweaver (2003) that we are able to see some galaxies outside the Hubble Sphere (both at the time they emitted the light we see now and ever since) that are receding from us faster than light, but with real redshifts in the range 1.46 - 6.6. How can this be reconciled? Is it because v_rel differs from the recessional velocities to which Davis & Lineweaver refer? If so, what is D&L's definition?

George Jones

This result is derived in section II of reference 28 for the Bunn and Hogg paper,

J.V. Narlikar, "Spectral shifts in general relativity," Am. J. Phys. 62, 903-907 (1994).

Have a look at this paper, and, in this thread, post any questions that you have about it.
Yes.
Their (standard) definition is given is given in appendix A of their paper. Again, if you have any questions, just post.

Lino

Thanks George, and apologies for the delayed appreciation. I'm still working my way through this, but it is making more sense.

Regards,

Noel.

Lino

George, If this is off topic and should be a new thread, please feel free to let me know and action accordingly. (From searches that I have tried and what I could tell from the linked paper) I am surprised that something like this has not been tried todate. Given redshift measurements that have been taken of objects over the last (almost) century, is it not possible and appropriate to take a new measurement today and compare those to historic measurements of the same objects to achieve the same effect? I appreciate that this would not have the level of accuracy described in the paper that you linked to, but it seems (to me) that it should give a reasonable result (with the same level of accuracy that current redshift/distance relationships are known to).

(Again, if this has diverted from this thread, do please let me know and I will act accordingly.)

Regards,

Noel.

andrewkirk

George I'm working through the Narlikar paper. It's hard work as he seems to skip about 3-4 steps that I feel the need to write out between each of his steps. But it's worthwhile, and very good practice for me .

There are two steps in Part II. Cosmological and Doppler Shifts, that I cannot validate.

1. Deriving equation [20]. Starting with [18b] [itex]U^i_O\bar{V}_{iS}=U^i_SV_{iS}[/itex] I am able to get to:
[itex]a(t_O)\bar{V}^{0}_{S}+a^2(t_O)\bar{V}^{1}_{S}=a(t_S)(V^{0}_{S}+V^{1}_{S }\frac{a(t_S)}{\sqrt{1-kr_S^2}})[/itex], where the vector components on the RHS are in the FLRW basis, but Narlikar says that the right-hand side should just be [itex]a(t_S)[/itex], ie this implies that the parenthesis is equal to 1, but I cannot prove that.

If the vector components were in the inertial basis momentarily comoving with S we'd be OK, because we'd have [itex]\vec{V}_S=[1,0,0,0] [/itex]in that basis. But they're not. They're in the FLRW basis.

I've attached a .doc file with my working for this.

2. In the paragraph arguing towards equation [21], Narlikar says "the radially outward direction from S is radially inwards at O". I don't follow this. There is no polar or spherical reference frame in use here that is centred at S, so presumably by radially outward from S he means radially outward in the FLRW frame, which is centred at O. But in that case radially outward at S is the same direction as radially outward at O, contrary to what Narlikar suggests.

Are you able to suggest anything about how I can fill in these steps?

Thanks very much.

Attached Files

equation 20.doc (10.0 KB, 3 views)

Chalnoth

Our ability to measure redshift is only just now becoming accurate enough to measure these differences.

George Jones

It is also true in FLRW coordinates that [itex]\vec{V}_S=\left[1,0,0,0\right] [/itex]. I haven't had a chance to look at 2. very much, but I think that it might just be case of poor wording.

Unfortunately, your document contained intermittent gibberish in my Word 2007 which made it unreadable.

andrewkirk

Thanks again George. I don't know why I didn't realise that before. I was wrongly assuming that S's velocity would have a spatial component in any coordinate system centred at O, but I forgot that, under the FLRW coordinates, it appears spatially stationary because it is comoving.
So item 1 now works fine!
I will turn my attention to item 2, which still puzzles me, with renewed confidence.

George Jones

I think I know what the words mean, but, to make sure, I decided to have a go at deriving (21) using math and ignoring the words. After some algebra, I was able to show [itex]\left( \gamma V \right)^2 = \left( a\left( t_O \right) \tilde{V}^1_S \right)^2[/itex]. A bit more algebra gives (21).

I'll try and post the algebra tomorrow.

andrewkirk

One of the things that makes proving [21] particularly problematic for me is that it seems to require using the metric in the tangent space at O, but the metric is given in FLRW coordinates, which don't generate a useable basis for that tangent space, because the θ and [itex]\phi[/itex] (ie circumferential) basis vectors are non-existent and the r (radial) basis vector has an undefined direction (every direction is radial away from O). Hence the metric as given by [7] in FLRW coordinates appears to be inapplicable because it relates to these undefined basis vectors.

There must be some way around this, perhaps by expressing the metric in terms of the local Lorentz frame, but I haven't found it yet.

Edit: Thinking a bit more about this, I see that Narlikar's claim that, in the FLRW basis, [itex]U^i(1)=A[a(a(t_O),-1,0,0][/itex] (line after [16]) is strictly meaningless, as it is written in terms of a basis that does not exist.

andrewkirk

Oh dear it's getting worse! I've now realised that equations [18], [19], [20] and [21] are all meaningless, because they use vector components [itex]\bar{V}^0_S[/itex] and [itex]\bar{V}^1_S[/itex] in a basis of [itex]T_OM[/itex] that does not exist: the basis derived from the hyperspherical comoving coordinates centred at O (given in equation [7]).

Just when I thought the whole thing almost made sense, it's starting to look like it's invalid.

andrewkirk

I think I have developed a solution to the problems with the Narlikar paper and will post it once I have written it up.

andrewkirk

Here's the solution as a pdf version of a word-processed file. I'll try to make a TeX version that is easier to read, and replace this one with that when I've done it. Any comments would be very welcome.

The file is essentially a proof that cosmological redshift due to expansion is equivalent to Doppler redshift.

Attached Files

Cosmological Doppler redshift.pdf (62.8 KB, 15 views)

andrewkirk

I have done a nice TeX version of the proof now, as well as fixing up the two hand-wavy bits to make them rigorous.
I posted it in the wrong thread though. The pdf is attached to the following post:http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...6&postcount=12