Further looks bigger beyond z = 1.6

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter marcus
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the observation that galaxies appear larger beyond a redshift of z = 1.6, exploring the implications of this phenomenon within the context of cosmology and galaxy evolution. Participants consider the observational challenges and the potential contributions of future galaxy surveys to confirm these predictions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the phenomenon of galaxies appearing larger at higher redshifts is part of the standard cosmological model, though it has not yet been observationally verified.
  • One participant highlights the difficulty in measuring angular sizes due to the lack of a reliable "ruler" for distant galaxies, complicating the disentanglement of galaxy evolution effects from those of general relativity.
  • Another participant references Hellaby's proposal for next-generation automated galaxy surveys, suggesting that these could provide critical data to test cosmological models.
  • Concerns are raised about the assumptions regarding true diameters and luminosities of galaxies, particularly at high redshifts, which introduce significant uncertainties into the analysis.
  • Participants express optimism about the data from upcoming surveys like LSST and Pan-STARRS, which may help constrain the ideas presented in Hellaby's work.
  • There is a shared anticipation for the statistical studies that may arise from these surveys, with an acknowledgment of the challenges involved in such analyses.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the potential significance of future galaxy surveys in confirming the predictions about angular sizes, but there remains uncertainty regarding the impact of galaxy evolution and the accuracy of measurements at high redshifts. Multiple competing views exist regarding the implications of these observations and the methodologies to be employed.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on assumptions about galaxy properties and the unresolved nature of how to accurately measure distances and sizes at high redshifts, which may affect the validity of the conclusions drawn from the data.

marcus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
24,752
Reaction score
795
This has not been observationally verified yet, as far as I know, but is expected to be so by the next generation of galaxy surveys (Hellaby 2005). It is part of the standard mainstream cosmology picture and it would be quite astonishing if it wasn't confirmed as soon as the angular sizes of these very distant things are reliably measured. Keep posted :smile:. It is a prediction of the standard model.

Astronomers measure angles in "arcseconds". One second of arc is 1/60 of an arcminute which is 1/60 of a degre. So an arcsecond is 1/3600 of a degree.

As an example of galaxy size---Milky diameter is 30 kiloparsec but a large elliptical galaxy might have diameter 100 kiloparsec.
think of a ruler 100 kiloparsec long the size of a large galaxy.

Here is the angular size of that ruler---the angle it makes in the sky---at various distances away from us, indexed by redshift

Code: 
redshift z       size in arcseconds
1.4                11.76
1.5                11.71
1.6                11.688
1.7                11.689
1.8                11.71
1.9                11.75

You can see that out past z = 1.6 the angular size of stuff is getting BIGGER the further away it is.

Do you have any questions about this? Maybe knowledgeable people (Wallace, hellfire, cristo?) will help explain why this happens, if there are questions. SpaceTiger already gave a clear explanation of the effect, in a thread last year.

===============
Suppose you understand how the effect works and why "further looks bigger" beyond z = 1.6, but you just want to add some data to the table. How do calculate the arcseconds?

You go to Wright's CosmoCalc
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
and plug in a redshift like 1.4 and it tells you 8.502 kpc per "
the (") sign stands for arcsecond, so that means 8.502 kiloparsecs per second of arc
so that means 0.08502 of a 100 kiloparsec ruler for every arcsecond
so the whole 100-kiloparsec ruler is 1/0.08502 arcseconds, which is 11.76 arcseconds. That's already in the table :smile:, but if you want you can calculate some others and add to the list.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
One difficulty with this is the lack of a ruler.

The high-z galaxies we see are not only a long way away, but are also much younger.

How to disentangle the effects of galaxy evolution from those of the GR universe (in terms of actual astronomical observations)? There are a couple of very clever ideas I've read, but I doubt they'd be sufficiently accurate to be used to test different cosmological models.
 
Nereid said:
...

How to disentangle the effects of galaxy evolution from those of the GR universe (in terms of actual astronomical observations)? ...

glad to see you took note and have some thoughts about this, Nereid!

did you read Hellaby's proposal?
he says "next generation of automated galaxy surveys"
any ideas how to explicate what he is proposing?
 
marcus said:
glad to see you took note and have some thoughts about this, Nereid!

did you read Hellaby's proposal?
he says "next generation of automated galaxy surveys"
any ideas how to explicate what he is proposing?
I've not; do you have an arXiv reference?
 
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603637
The Mass of the Cosmos
Authors: Charles Hellaby

"We point out that the mass of the cosmos on gigaparsec scales can be measured, owing to the unique geometric role of the maximum in the areal radius. ...We recommend the determination of the distance and redshift of this maximum be explicitly included in the scientific goals of the next generation of reshift surveys. The maximum in the redshift space density provides a secondary large scale characteristic of the cosmos."6 pages, 9 graphs in 3 figures.

Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 370 (2006) 239-244
 
Last edited:
Of course, knowledge (or assumptions) about true diameters and absolute luminosities of sources, and their z evolution, is essential, and at large z this is a significant uncertainty.
Oh what depths there are in such a simple sentence!

The good news is that the vast amount of data that LSST and Pan-Starrs will produce should certainly allow at least some constraints to be put on the ideas in the paper, in terms of feasibility ... of the top of my head, I don't recall what the relevant targets are, for each of these giant surveys, relevant to the kind of analyses Hellaby suggests (e.g. how complete is coverage expected to be, around z = 1.6? how accurately and reliably would galaxy diameters be able to be estimated, in this redshift range?)
 
Thanks for the good news!

I would not wish Hellaby to be a whit less forthcoming.:biggrin:

I hope and expect the appropriate statistical study will be undertaken, and will be an very challenging one to tackle. Astronomers are remarkably skillful at statistical inference these days. If it is undertaken, I look forward to it being an exciting study and one that catches the public attention.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Questions on Redshift, Hubble’s Law, spacetime expansion and the standard model
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Graduate Is Ned's Calculator Mislabeling Angular Size Distance?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Graduate What Are the Implications of the New Riess Hubble Rate?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 242)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K