How redshift/brightness lead to acceleration/deceleration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter astrobird
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lead
AI Thread Summary
Observations of type Ia supernovae reveal that their brightness and redshift provide insights into the universe's expansion dynamics. At medium distances, these supernovae appear fainter than expected due to the accelerated expansion of the universe since their light was emitted. Conversely, at large distances, they appear brighter because the expansion was decelerating during that time. The relationship between redshift and brightness is explained through the integral involving Hubble's constant, where an accelerated expansion results in a nearly constant H(z), leading to greater observed luminosity. Understanding these concepts clarifies the implications of redshift as a measure of cosmic expansion over time.
astrobird
Messages
22
Reaction score
2
I have read several articles about this topic, on Wikipedia but for example also this article http://supernova.lbl.gov/PDFs/PhysicsTodayArticle.pdf and also several books that discuss the subject. In very brief my understanding is that:
- 1. When observing type 1a supernovae (standard candle) at medium-range distance, they appear fainter than you would expect based on their redshift value, because the expansion of the universe has been accelerating since the light we are observing left the supernovae.
- 2. When observing type 1a supernovae at very large distance, they appear brighter than you would expect based on their redshift value, because the expansion of the universe was decelerating still when the light we are observing left the supernovae.

My question now is how such conclusions can be made from the redshift and brightness observations. As is explained in the various texts the redshifts arises from the fact that the photons are stretched while on their way from the supernovae to earth. I understand how this works, but if the photons are stretched because of the expansion it also means that (because of the expansion) the distance between the photon and Earth becomes longer, is that right?
When then looking at point 1 above. The fact that the supernovae appear fainter than expected implies that they are more distant than expected (based on their redshift), however, if they are more distant than expected because the expansion accelerated, shouldn't this acceleration of expansion have affected the redshift in exactly the same way so that in the end distance from the object(s) to Earth as well as the redshift of the photons traveling from the object(s) to Earth would be equally affected?

I'm sure I'm missing something obvious as in most texts I read the point 1 and 2 above are presented as very logical conclusions based on the observations, I just don't see how, please enlighten me:)
 
Space news on Phys.org
It's probably better to think of the redshift as the amount that the universe has expanded since the photon was emitted. A redshift of z=1, for example, means that the wavelength of that photon has doubled. This also means that distances within the universe have, on average, doubled since that photon was emitted.

Imagine, now, that we're going to compare two hypothetical supernovae, each at z=1. For one supernova, let's imagine that the there was an accelerated expansion. For the other, there was deceleration. Which supernova will appear brighter? It turns out that the way this is calculated is by using the following integral:

D = c \int {dz \over H(z)}

Now, an accelerated expansion has an H(z) that is nearly constant, so that the distance from z=0 to [itez]z=1[/itex] is just D = c/H_0, where H_0 is the current Hubble expansion rate.

The decelerating expansion, on the other hand, has an H(z) that was much bigger in the past. Because as H(z) gets bigger, 1/H(z) gets smaller, the faster expansion in the past lowers the value of this integral, which lowers the distance.

So at the same redshift, the observed luminosity will be higher for a decelerated expansion.
 
Thanks, that helps a lot! It's indeed easier to understand when thinking of redshift as how much the universe expanded during the photon's travel.
I Googled a bit to fully understand the formulas you gave and read the bit under "evidence for acceleration" at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe which also helped.

One thing I don't get though is why an accelerating universe would have an H(z) that is nearly constant, wouldn't it change just like in a decelerating universe?
 
astrobird said:
Thanks, that helps a lot! It's indeed easier to understand when thinking of redshift as how much the universe expanded during the photon's travel.
I Googled a bit to fully understand the formulas you gave and read the bit under "evidence for acceleration" at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe which also helped.

One thing I don't get though is why an accelerating universe would have an H(z) that is nearly constant, wouldn't it change just like in a decelerating universe?
The simplest accelerating universe is a universe with no matter or radiation, just a cosmological constant. That universe has a constant H(z). The recession velocity between any two test particles in an expanding universe is v = Hd. So if H is a constant, as the distance between any two test particles increases, so does their recession velocity. Thus things accelerate away from one another.

In our current universe, H(z) is of course changing, but it is changing slowly enough that there is accelerated expansion at present (and for the last few billion years).
 
Thanks!
 
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...
Back
Top