Gravitational Redshift: Units, Velocity & Ratio Explained

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the expression of gravitational redshift in terms of velocity, specifically in meters per second (m/s) or kilometers per second (km/s). Participants confirm that the gravitational redshift value, such as 3x10^-4, can be converted to an equivalent velocity using the formula v = z*c, resulting in a velocity of 90 km/s. Historical measurements of gravitational redshift, including those of Sirius B and 40 Eridani B, are referenced, highlighting the evolution of understanding in this area. The preference for velocity units over the redshift ratio z is attributed to the conventions used by cosmologists in their research.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational redshift concepts
  • Familiarity with the formula v = z*c
  • Knowledge of astronomical measurements and their historical context
  • Basic principles of cosmology and redshift interpretation
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the historical measurements of gravitational redshift, focusing on Sirius B and 40 Eridani B
  • Explore the relationship between gravitational redshift and Doppler shift in cosmology
  • Study the implications of redshift in the context of the expanding universe
  • Investigate the use of velocity units in astrophysical papers and their significance
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and students of cosmology who are interested in the implications of gravitational redshift and its measurement techniques.

Zman
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
gravitational redshift units seem to be given as a velocity and not as a ratio
I noticed in physics papers that gravitational redshift is expressed in m/s or km/s.
I assume that this must be the equivalent velocity to produce that same redshift.

So for example, if the gravitational redshift was measured as 3x10 -4 then;

z= v/c

3x10^-4= v/c

v = 9x10^4 m/s

v=90km/s

Is this what they are doing? Why do they prefer velocity over the ratio z?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Zman said:
I noticed in physics papers

Can you give an example?
 
Hi,

This is from Wikipedia which refers to papers and gravitational redshift in km/s;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

Initial observations of gravitational redshift of white dwarf stars
A number of experimenters initially claimed to have identified the effect using astronomical measurements, and the effect was considered to have been finally identified in the spectral lines of the star Sirius B by W.S. Adams in 1925.[1] However, measurements by Adams have been criticized as being too low[1][2] and these observations are now considered to be measurements of spectra that are unusable because of scattered light from the primary, Sirius A.[2] The first accurate measurement of the gravitational redshift of a white dwarf was done by Popper in 1954, measuring a 21 km/s gravitational redshift of 40 Eridani B.[2]

The redshift of Sirius B was finally measured by Greenstein et al. in 1971, obtaining the value for the gravitational redshift of 89±19 km/s, with more accurate measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope, showing 80.4±4.8 km/s.
 
It looks like they are converting it to the equivalent Doppler shift.
 
Moderator's note: Thread moved to relativity forum.
 
Zman said:
I assume that this must be the equivalent velocity to produce that same redshift.

Yes, as @Vanadium 50 says, they are giving the recession velocity that would produce a Doppler redshift the same as the observed gravitational redshift.

I don't think there's any deep reason for this; it was simply that cosmologists, who were the target audience of the papers mentioned in the Wikipedia article, were used to giving redshifts in velocity units because that is how they are typically thought of in cosmology--not so much because of the ordinary Doppler shift in flat spacetime, but because cosmologists are used to thinking of redshifts due to the expansion of the universe and interpreting them as recession velocities.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
757
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K