Proper distance integral limits seem wrong

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the proper distance integral limits in cosmology, specifically the relationship between time, redshift, and the integration limits in the formula for proper distance. The integral is expressed as the transformation from time to redshift, where confusion arises regarding the association of limits, particularly the negative sign that appears when converting between variables. The correct interpretation indicates that the emission time of a photon at t_0 corresponds to a redshift of zero, while at t_e, the redshift is z. Clarification from another participant helped resolve the misunderstanding about the limits and their physical significance. The conversation concludes with a sense of resolution regarding the proper understanding of these integral limits.
deneve
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
I've seen in some lecture notes that the proper distance dp(t) can be written as
##\int_{t_e}^{t_0} c dt/a = \int_0^z c dz /H(z)##

I can perform this integral ok using
##H =\dot a/a## and the fact that ##1 + z = 1/a(t_e)## but it requires associating the limits of the integration as te transforming to z and t0 to z= 0 - there is a minus sign which creeps in when you find dz/dt because da = - a2dz so the limits have to be switched. Thus they don't match as it appears when you read the integral.

I don't see how to interpret this because I feel it should be the other way round. That is t 0 should be associated with red shift z (that's what we measure today) and at time t = te the red shift should be 0 . Why am I wrong here?
 
Space news on Phys.org
If the photon is emitted at t_0, then its observed redshift will be zero. If it's emitted at t_e, then its observed redshift will be z.
 
Thank you Chalnoth that makes so much sense. I just couldn't get it right in my mind but this has settled the matter.

Kindest regards
 
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