How Does Redshift Change Over Observational Time?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the calculation of how redshift changes over observational time in a flat, single-component universe. The key equation presented shows the relationship between redshift (z), Hubble's constant (H_0), and the equation of state parameter (w). The user attempts to derive the rate of change of redshift with respect to time but encounters a result of zero, prompting questions about potential mistakes in their differentiation process. The conversation also touches on the complexities of derivatives in cosmology, particularly when considering whether certain variables are held constant. Clarification on these mathematical nuances is sought to resolve the confusion.
fliptomato
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Greetings--this is from Ryden's Introduction to Cosmology, question # 5.2. Let me restate the question:

A light source in a flat, single-component universe has a redshift z when observed at a time t_0. Show that the observed redshift changes at a rate

\frac{dz}{dt_0} = H_0(1+z) - H_0(1+z)^{\frac{3(1+w)}{2}}

Here w is the equation of state parameter for whatever the universe is made of (e.g. w = 0 for matter, 1/3 for radiation).

Here is my best attempt so far:
Simplify notation by introducing y=\frac{2}{3(1+w)}

Then (eq. 5.51 in Ryder):
1+z = \left(\frac{t_0}{t_e}\right)^y
Where t_e is the time at which the light was emitted.

Also (eq. 5.48 in Ryder):
t_0 = \frac{y}{H_0}

So differentiating the first equation w/rt t_0, we get:

\frac{dz}{dt_0} = yt_0^{y-1}t_e^{-y} - y t_e^{-y-1}t_0^y \frac{dt_e}{t0}

\frac{dz}{dt_0} = H_0(1+z) - y t_e^{-1} (1+z) \frac{dt_e}{t0}

But \frac{dt_e}{t0} = (1+z)^{-1/y} from our equation (5.51) above. Equation (5.52) in Ryder also tell us:

t_e = \frac{y}{H_0}(1+z)^{-1/y}

So plugging these two in:
\frac{dz}{dt_0} = H_0(1+z) - y\left(\frac{H_0}{y}(1+z)^{1/y}\right)(1+z)(1+z)^{-1/y}

Which becomes identically zero! Where am I making my mistake?

Thanks,
Flip
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is this one of those derivatives like you get in thermodynamics where the answer depends on whether you are holding t_e constant? And you end up using something like

\frac{dz}{dt_0}\frac{dt_0}{dt_e}\frac{dt_e}{dz} = -1 ?

These always confuse me.

Carl
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K