A Relativistic Redshift and understanding it's approximation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the expression for relativistic redshift, specifically how to derive the relationship \(1+z=\frac{a_o}{a_e}\) from the given equation involving the metric, photon four-momentum, and four-velocity. Participants clarify that the expression is invariant and relates to the frequencies measured by the emitter and observer. It is noted that this derivation applies specifically to comoving observers in Robertson-Walker spacetime, while different metrics like LTB and Bianchi do not support this relationship. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding metric potentials in the context of cosmological models. Overall, the thread seeks to deepen the understanding of redshift in various spacetime frameworks.
Arman777
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
191
I was reading an article, and I saw this expression.

$$
1+z=\frac{(g_{\mu\nu}k^{\mu}u^{\nu})_e}{(g_{\mu\nu}k^{\mu}u^{\nu})_o}
$$

Where ##e## represents the emitter frame, ##o## the observer frame, ##g_{\mu\nu}## is the metric, ##k^{\mu}## is the photon four-momentum and ##u^{\nu}## is the four-velocity of the source or observer.

Has anyone seen this expression before? I want to understand how we can obtain $$1+z=\frac{a_o}{a_e}$$ from this expression and understand the metric potentials etc. Any reference would be appreciated. Thanks.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Arman777 said:
Where e represents the emitter frame, o the observer frame,
No, they represent the emitter and observer, respectively. The expressions themselves are invariant. However, they equal the frequencies measured by emitter/observer.

Arman777 said:
Has anyone seen this expression before?
g(k,u) is by definition the frequency of wave vector k as measured by an observer with 4-velocity u. The expression follows directly from that and the definition of the redshift parameter z.

Arman777 said:
I want to understand how we can obtain 1+z=aoae from this expression and understand the metric potentials etc. Any reference would be appreciated. Thanks.
This follows directly from making the computation for comoving observers in a Robertson-Walker spacetime.
 
  • Like
Likes Arman777 and PeroK
Orodruin said:
No, they represent the emitter and observer, respectively
hmm. That's what is says in the original article...not my fault. But you are also right.
Orodruin said:
This follows directly from making the computation for comoving observers in a Robertson-Walker spacetime.
In other types of metric (LTB, Bianchi) the ##1+z=a_o/a_e## will not hold then right ?
 
Arman777 said:
In other types of metric (LTB, Bianchi) the 1+z=ao/ae will not hold then right ?
The scale factors are particular for the RW spacetimes in standard coordinates.
 
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