A thought experiment regarding the nature of space expansion

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion explores the thought experiment of spatial expansion using a hypothetical device that doubles the size of a cubic meter of space. Key points include the perception of rulers in expanded space, the behavior of light across this space, and the implications of relativity on measurements. Participants emphasize that while rulers appear larger to external observers, they remain unchanged in size, and light behaves consistently with the principles of relativity, suggesting that the expansion of space does not affect its speed. The conversation also touches on the conceptual differences between expanding, stretching, and growing space.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's theory of relativity
  • Familiarity with the concept of spacetime
  • Knowledge of the Doppler effect in light
  • Basic principles of cosmology and the expansion of the universe
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Einstein's theory of relativity and its implications on measurements in expanding space
  • Study the Doppler effect and its relation to cosmic redshift
  • Explore the mainstream scientific literature on spacetime, including Michael Greene's "The Fabric of Space"
  • Investigate the concept of energy conservation at cosmological scales
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and students of cosmology interested in the nature of space expansion and its implications for our understanding of the universe.

  • #31
Since we get this kind of discussion fairly often as newcomers join the forum maybe I'll try to boil it down to something easier to remember. As a rough rule of thumb to get the recession rate (in units of c) from redshifts like z = 3 and 4, divide by 2. Or if you like decimal numbers multiply z by 0.5.

This gives the approximate recession rate when light was emitted. For instance for z = 3 the recession was a bit over 1.5 c, so that's right.
For z = 4 the recession rate was a bit over 2.0 c, so right again.
For z =5 this rule gives 2.5c and the right answer is 2.4 c, so still close.

As a crude approx therefore, you get the recession (when light was emitted) by multiplying redshift by a factor of 0.5. This works roughly in the range z = 3 to 5.

For larger redshifts up to z = 10 the factor to use is more like 0.4, which is usually a bit on the conservative side.

For z = 6 this gives 2.4c (the right answer is 2.75)
For z = 7 this gives 2.8c (the right answer is 3.0)
For z = 8 it gives 3.2c (the right answer is 3.4)
For z = 9 it gives 3.6c (the right answer is 3.7)
For z = 10 it gives 4.0c (the right answer!)

And the earliest protogalaxies are around z = 10. In a sense we don't have to go any farther with our approximation. At z=10 they were just beginning to form. Beyond that we can SEE stuff (e.g. CMB at z = 1100) but we don't normally see galaxies because they mostly haven't formed yet. So that factor of 0.4 works over a useful range.

check this by googling "cosmocalc 2010"
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K