Viewing size of Galaxies 7 Billion light years away?

[Remo Aviron]

Would a galaxy 7 billion LY away appear to be twice the expected size (angular size) as a consequence of the expansion of the universe? (Assuming the universe is 14 Billion years old). My math says yes. But of course, I am just using trig and geometry. Just curious.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure how you are using that math, but the galaxy isn't expanding, just the distance between it and here. It would appear a size dictated by the actual size and distance to it.

 

[Remo Aviron]

Update and correction

Sorry, I messed up the math. It wouldn't be double. I know the Galaxies are not expanding. But the Universe is. Space is.

The question is how does the expansion of universe affect the preceived angular size of the galaxy? For example, if the galaxy were 100,000 ly across, you would expect it to occupy an angle of 0.0008 degrees. Does it occupy this angle, a smaller angle or a larger angle.

 

[pixel01]

The space between galaxies expands so does the space within a galaxy, so probably you will not see the difference in angular size of that distance galaxy.

 

[matt.o]

I think Remo Aviron is talking about the 'turn over' in the angular size vs redshift relation which occurs at about a redshift of ~1.65. If he/she is, then if we consider a standard ruler which has physical size 1kpc at a comoving distance of 1Mpc (0.003 billion LY), it will have an apparent angular size = 200 arcsecond. Moving this object to 7 billion LY (redshift =0.6), it will have apparent angular size = 0.15 arcsec, but moving it to reshift 6 (27.468 billion LY) it will actually have a larger apparent angular size when compared to the object at 7 billion LY, ie. apparent angular size = 0.17.

See http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/redshift.html" link for more information.

 

[Chronos]

Well done, matt, I had a less delicate reply in mind. Scientists excel at discerning facts, politicians excel at manipulating them.