further thougths on CMB vs. Helio redshifts

From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Tue Apr 15 2003 - 08:01:03 PDT

  • Next message: Robert A. Knop Jr.: "Which *heliocentric* redshifts to use?"

    From Kolb & Turner p. 41:

      d_L^2 = R^2(t_0) r_1^2 (1+z)^2

    where R(t_0) is the scale factor at the time of detection, r_1 is the
    coordinate distance to the object, and z is the redshift. In this case,
    r_1 can be figured out as r_1(z). Equivalently, work out the proper
    distance to the object at time of detection, and that is R(t_0)r_1(z) ;
    this gives us (most of) our standard luminosity distance integral
    (missing one factor of (1_z)).

    r_1(z) should clearly just use that z that comes from cosmological
    redshift, since this is giving you the radius of the sphere surrounding
    the emitting object, and as such you want the real distance.

    The other z, in the (1+z)^2 above, however, should use your observed
    (geocentric) redshift, as those terms are to take care of (1) the
    redshifting of the photons (and corresponding energy loss) and (2) time
    dilation. Energy loss and time dilation will happen if it's a doppler
    shift or a cosmological redshift, so the total redshift is appropriate
    here.

    Probably what this means is that to do it *right*, we need to use *both*
    heliocentric and CMB-based redshifts, putting the right one in the right
    place.

    Does anybody agree with this, or can anybody point out a flaw in my
    reasoning?

    -Rob

    -- 
    --Prof. Robert Knop
      Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University
      robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 08:01:25 PDT