Estimating diameter of red-shifted galaxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobo1455
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Diameter Galaxy
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around estimating the diameter of a red-shifted galaxy with a redshift of 6.56, focusing on the assumptions regarding the properties of early galaxies compared to present-day galaxies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of the small angle formula and the need for angular size and distance to estimate the galaxy's diameter. There are questions about the average density and the implications of the problem statement regarding early galaxies. Some participants explore the relationship between redshift, velocity, and distance, while others express confusion over the calculations and assumptions involved.

Discussion Status

The discussion has seen participants sharing their understanding of the problem and exploring various approaches. Some have provided guidance on calculating volume from mass and density, while others have expressed confusion about the equations and methods to use. There is acknowledgment of the complexity of the problem, but also indications of progress towards a solution.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the assumption that early galaxies have similar masses and star counts to those in the present universe, which may simplify the estimation process. There is also mention of the potential variability in galaxy sizes and the implications of using redshift for distance calculations.

bobo1455
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Q: Estimate the diameter in kpc of the red-shift=6.56 galaxy at the moment when it emitted light. We're assuming that early galaxies with similar red-shifts have the same number of stars to galaxies as in the present state of the universe.

I've taken a look at the small angle formula a = s / d where a = angular size, d = distance and s = galaxy true size (diameter). But for that I need the angular size and distance. I'm not sure if if there is a way to calculate that using the information given in the question. Other than the given information, I have the average density and scale-factor as well.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Average density of what?

You need something more than the redshift value, because there are galaxies of different size. The problem statement mentions "early galaxies with similar red-shifts", which suggests to compare this galaxy to some other galaxies at that redshift.
 
I have the average density of the z= 6.56 galaxy. The question says that all galaxies around the time of the red-shift = 6.56 have similar masses and number of stars to galaxies in the present universe. I'm assuming that is supposed to make the question easier and overall I'll need less variables to estimate the diameter, but I'm not sure what to do next.
 
Okay, so you know the density, and you can take the mass and number of stars from a current galaxy. That alone should be sufficient to get the volume, and if you assume that the shape is the same you can also get the diameter.
 
I've read a bit more about this and found this page: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html#c3

If you put in a wavelength it can give you the distance to the galaxy. I also found out that c * z = v is the velocity of the galaxy with a red-shift wavelength z. So I now I have the velocity of the galaxy as well. I calculated distance using v = H0 x d OR d = v / H0 and I also have its distance in Mpc. Not sure what to do at this point. I've looked at a lot of equations now and am confused.
 
bobo1455 said:
I also found out that c * z = v is the velocity of the galaxy with a red-shift wavelength z.
There is no unique meaningful definition of a velocity for galaxies far away from us.
bobo1455 said:
So I now I have the velocity of the galaxy as well. I calculated distance using v = H0 x d OR d = v / H0 and I also have its distance in Mpc.
That does not work, neither for the current nor for the past distance.

If I understand the problem correctly, you are overthinking this massively. You have the mass and the density, calculate the volume.
 
Ok I finally got the value I was looking for. I really was overthinking it for no reason. The final distance in Kpc worked out to be the correct one. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K