A thought experiment regarding the nature of space expansion

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a thought experiment exploring the nature of space expansion using a hypothetical device that distorts space. Key questions include the effects on a ruler placed in expanded space, the implications of light traveling through this space, and the relationship between observers inside and outside the expanded area. Participants emphasize that while rulers remain unchanged, the perception of size and light speed varies based on the observer's location, highlighting the complexities of relativity. The conversation also touches on the conceptual differences between terms like "growing," "expanding," and "stretching" in the context of space, as well as the challenges of understanding energy conservation at cosmological scales. Ultimately, the dialogue underscores the intricate nature of space expansion and the limitations of current physical theories in fully explaining these phenomena.
  • #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
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
4K