B Is there a specific unit used to measure redshift?

AI Thread Summary
Redshift, commonly denoted as 'z', is a dimensionless quantity used in cosmology to measure the change in wavelength of light from distant objects. It is calculated by comparing the observed wavelength to the emitted wavelength, resulting in a ratio that does not require specific units. For example, if a source emits light at 500 nm and is observed at 1,000 nm, the redshift is calculated as z = 2. While the concept of a specific unit for redshift might seem beneficial, it is inherently unit-less due to its ratio nature. Understanding redshift is crucial for studying the universe's expansion and the distance of galaxies, especially with upcoming astronomical projects like the James Webb Telescope.
ASmartDude
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
i have been learning about using redshift to measure the distance of far-flung objects, but in all my research i never saw a specific unit used to quantify how redshifted an object is. to me it seems like an oversight, because such a unit would be very useful for the study of distant galaxies, and which the impending launch of the james webb telescope and the E-ELT project underway (i think), it seems to me such a unit would be needed for these tools to be properly used. so has anybody bothered to quantify redshift, or am i the first person to think of this?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Redshift in cosmology is usually labeled as 'z'. It is unit-less because you divide the units out when you compare the observed wavelength to the known source wavelength. So if we observe a wavelength of 1,000 nm from a source that we know must have emitted 500 nm light, then ##z=\frac{1000 nm}{500 nm}=2##.
 
Redshift is based on a ratio between wavelengths. As such it is dimensionless and does not need a unit.

Drakkith said:
Redshift in cosmology is usually labeled as 'z'. It is unit-less because you divide the units out when you compare the observed wavelength to the known source wavelength. So if we observe a wavelength of 1,000 nm from a source that we know must have emitted 500 nm light, then ##z=\frac{1000 nm}{500 nm}=2##.

The definition is ##1 + z = \lambda_o/\lambda_e##. For your example, the redshift would be ##z = 1## and ##z = 0## corresponds to no redshift at all.
 
Drakkith said:
Redshift in cosmology is usually labeled as 'z'. It is unit-less because you divide the units out when you compare the observed wavelength to the known source wavelength. So if we observe a wavelength of 1,000 nm from a source that we know must have emitted 500 nm light, then ##z=\frac{1000 nm}{500 nm}=2##.
that makes sense. i thought i was onto a big discovery, but i guess not. thanks for the help!
 
ASmartDude said:
that makes sense. i thought i was onto a big discovery, but i guess not. thanks for the help!
The distance, by the way, is calculated based upon a model of how the universe has expanded over time. There are some online calculators that will do this, such as this one:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

It's unfortunately complicated, because distances are pretty complicated in an expanding universe.
 
Orodruin said:
The definition is ##1 + z = \lambda_o/\lambda_e##. For your example, the redshift would be ##z = 1## and ##z = 0## corresponds to no redshift at all.

Ah, my mistake. Thanks, Oro.
 
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##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top