Standard Candle Dimming Due to Extra Expansion

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BillSaltLake
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expansion Standard
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the expected dimming of standard candles, specifically type Ia supernovae, due to the influence of dark energy on redshift and luminosity distance. Participants explore the mathematical relationships involved in calculating luminosity and the effects of dark energy on these calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in deriving the expected dimming of standard candles due to dark energy, referencing a specific formula for luminosity that includes redshift.
  • Another participant suggests that the calculation of luminosity distance must be done numerically, providing an integral expression for flat space.
  • There is a question regarding whether the presence of dark energy affects the flatness of space when combined with energy and matter at critical density.
  • A participant confirms that dark energy does not affect flatness, indicating agreement on this point.
  • Concerns are raised about the correctness of including the factor (1+z) in the expression for luminosity distance, with a participant proposing an alternative expression for matter-only at critical density.
  • Clarification is provided that the factor (1+z) is necessary for the expression to represent luminosity distance rather than comoving distance.
  • One participant acknowledges understanding after discussing the relationship between luminosity distance and bolometric brightness, noting a previous misunderstanding in their calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the necessity of the factor (1+z) in the luminosity distance expression, but there are differing views on the implications of dark energy on redshift and the calculations of dimming. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact impact of dark energy on the derived expressions.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the treatment of dark energy and its effects on redshift and luminosity distance remain implicit. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical steps and dependencies on definitions of distance measures in cosmology.

BillSaltLake
Gold Member
Messages
183
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble deriving the amount of dimming expected of standard candles (eg. type 1a supernovae) as a result of dark energy.

Without the presence of dark energy, the standard GR solution (matter-only, at critical density) is that the absolute bolometric brightness of a standard candle varies with redshift z as 1/(1+z - [1+z]1/2)2. This expression is the product of two terms: 1/DL2 multiplied by 1/(1+z)2. Here DL is the "luminosity distance", which is the expected dimming of light due to geometry. As it turns out, DL is a function of z so that the product simplifies to 1/(1+z - [1+z]1/2)2.

Suppose that recent stretching of space due to dark energy is by a factor of b (b>1). Obviously this would change the redshift, replacing 1+z with b(1+z) for a given distant object. (This factor b is the extra stretch that occurred between the time when a given distant object emitted a photon and the present when the photon is received.) How would the factor b change the geometric distance term?

The observed luminosity at z=1 is only about half of the value 1/(1+z - [1+z]1/2)2. If one simply replaces 1+z with b(1+z), luminosity vs. redshift curve remains the same instead of reducing to about half at z=1.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
It can't be computed analytically, but must be estimated numerically by evaluating the integral:
D_L = c\left(1+z\right) \int_0^z \frac{dz'}{H(z')}
(note: this is for flat space)
 
Thank you. If energy+matter+dark energy adds up to the critical density, then the space is treated as flat. Is that correct? (That is, dark energy doesn't do anything weird to affect the flatness.)
 
Last edited:
BillSaltLake said:
Thank you. If energy+matter+dark energy adds up to the critical density, then the space is treated as flat. Is that correct? (That is, dark energy doesn't do anything weird to affect the flatness.)
Yes, this is correct.
 
Chalnoth, in your expression for DL, are you sure (1+z) should be there? I get the correct expression for matter-only at critical density: DL= 3c(tpresent)2/3(tpresent1/3 - tpast1/3) only if I replace (1+z) with 1.
 
BillSaltLake said:
Chalnoth, in your expression for DL, are you sure (1+z) should be there? I get the correct expression for matter-only at critical density: DL= 3c(tpresent)2/3(tpresent1/3 - tpast1/3) only if I replace (1+z) with 1.
Yes. Without that factor, you would be talking about D_M, which is the comoving distance (also the proper motion distance). You can read more on the various distance measures used in Cosmology here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9905116
 
OK. Makes sense now. DL-2 is proportional to the bolometric brightness of a compact source because it already includes the two factors of 1/(1+z) (photon stretch and # of photons per time). I was multiplying the 1/(1+z)2 separately into the brightness.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
12K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K