Converting Cosmic Super-Voids from Mpc/h to LY - What is the Conversion Factor?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barnak
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on converting cosmic void data from Mpc/h to light-years (LY) for visualization in Celestia. The user is attempting to adapt a list of voids from a specific paper but is encountering discrepancies in the size of the voids when represented in the software. They clarify that Hubble's constant (h) is a unitless quantity derived from the ratio of the Hubble constant to 100 km/sec/Mpc, but they struggle to reconcile this with the conversion to LY. The user expresses confusion over the relationship between Mpc/h, which they believe is a speed unit, and LY, a distance unit, questioning the validity of a direct conversion. The thread highlights the complexities of astronomical unit conversions and the challenges in accurately representing cosmic structures in 3D simulations.
Barnak
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
I need to convert some data about cosmic Voids, from Mpc/h to LY. What is the conversion factor ?

More specifically, I'm trying to adapt the voids list found in this paper (p. 313) : [B]http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.269..301E[/B][/URL]
to show the voids distribution in [B][I]Celestia[/I][/B], a free 3D astronomy software.

For example, the first item in the list of 27 voids looks like this :

[B]No.------alpha-------delta---------Dist.--------Diam.
--------------------------------------(Mpc / h)---(Mpc / h)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1______19,0______-57,1_____134_______88 [/B]


In the paper, they gives [B]h = Hubble's constant in units of 100 km/sec/MPc[/B], so with Hubble constant = 73,2 km/sec/Mpc, I get [B]h = 0.732[/B]. Right ? But then it doesn't make any sense in Celestia : the voids distribution doesn't match the galactic distribution at all ! The voids spheres are way too large, as you can see on the following picture.

Each yellow sphere represents a void, according to the paper (with radius = half the quoted diameter). It's evident that this distribution doesn't match the marked galactic distribution (small dots). The yellow spheres are way too large. I'm yet unable to figure out what I may be doing wrong.

So how am I supposed to translate the data to LY ?
 

Attachments

  • voids.jpg
    voids.jpg
    25.9 KB · Views: 517
Last edited by a moderator:
Space news on Phys.org
Mpc/h is a unit of speed and a light year is a unit of distance so i don't think there can be a ratio
 
scupydog said:
Mpc/h is a unit of speed and a light year is a unit of distance so i don't think there can be a ratio

Well, isn't h = H0/(100 km/sec/Mpc), so a unitless quantity ? If it's a velocity unit, it should be related to Hubble's law : v = H0 * d, then d = v/H0 or v/h ??
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Back
Top