Calculating distance using redshift

  • Thread starter Thread starter Goldilocks32
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Redshift
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the formula for calculating distance in megaparsecs using redshift, speed of light, and Hubble's constant. The user is confused about the units of Hubble's constant and how they affect the calculation. They initially miscalculate the distance due to misunderstanding the notation of Hubble's constant, which is expressed in km s-1 Mpc-1. After further exploration, they find discrepancies in redshift values for different astronomical objects, leading to the conclusion that their initial example may have contained a typo. Ultimately, the user learns that careful attention to units is crucial for accurate calculations in astrophysics.
Goldilocks32
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi. I have pretty rudimentary math skills, and am hoping someone can explain this formula for me, found online a number of places including:

http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/overview/DistanceExtragalactic.html

for calculating distance (d) in megaparsecs using redshift (z), the speed of light (c), and Hubble's constant (H).

d = c z/H

It's the (units in) Hubble's constant that have me confused. In the example from the link, "we see that objects with a redshift of 0.1 are about 4.6 gigaparsecs [a]way", assuming an H of 65 km s-1 Mpc-1. So I assumed c here would be in km/s, but:

300000 * (0.1/65) = 461

Which is 0.46 gigaparsecs, not 4.6. What is it about the units/Hubble's constant here that I don't get?

Here's what I guessing: units ^ -1 mean 65 should be multiplied by 0.1, which is different than 65 ^ -1. This would make H 6.5, and the result would be correct. Is that right? If so, why is the notation km/s-1/Mpc-1? How would that be different from km/s/Mpc-1?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I think your calculation (as it was) is correct. Your guess about the units is definitely not right---the units are separate from the number attached to them.
Maybe their result is just a typo...
 
Yeah, you're right. The next thing I tried this on was the Large Magellanic Cloud, which produced even more bizarre results, but I found a calculator for this online:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html#c3

And eventually got some data to match up (it seems the LMC's redshift is an anomaly, so my first test case was a typo and my second anomalous -_-).
 
Last edited:
Haha, just some bad luck I guess!
Way to be thorough---good job
 
Is a homemade radio telescope realistic? There seems to be a confluence of multiple technologies that makes the situation better than when I was a wee lad: software-defined radio (SDR), the easy availability of satellite dishes, surveillance drives, and fast CPUs. Let's take a step back - it is trivial to see the sun in radio. An old analog TV, a set of "rabbit ears" antenna, and you're good to go. Point the antenna at the sun (i.e. the ears are perpendicular to it) and there is...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
How does light maintain enough energy in the visible part of the spectrum for the naked eye to see in the night sky. Also, how did it start of in the visible frequency part of the spectrum. Was it, for example, photons being ejected at that frequency after high energy particle interaction. Or does the light become visible (spectrum) after hitting our atmosphere or space dust or something? EDIT: Actually I just thought. Maybe the EM starts off as very high energy (outside the visible...

Similar threads

Back
Top