A Convention of units for densities in cosmology

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the correct interpretation of the units for galaxy density in cosmology, specifically whether to use ##\text{d}N/\text{d}\Omega\text{d}z## or ##\text{d}N/\text{d}\Omega/\text{d}z##. The user presents two calculation cases for the expected number density of galaxies, leading to significantly different results based on the interpretation of the units. There is uncertainty about whether to multiply or divide by the redshift interval, ##\Delta z##, which affects the calculations. Clarification on the convention for these units is sought to resolve the confusion. Understanding the correct unit convention is crucial for accurate density calculations in cosmological surveys.
fab13
Messages
300
Reaction score
7
TL;DR Summary
I would like to know the Convention of units for densities in cosmology : I wonder if consistent units are used by multiplying or dividing with Delta_z
I have a table of densities of galaxies :

Expected number density of galaxies for photometric survey per unit area and redshift intervals, ##\mathrm{d} N / \mathrm{d} \Omega \mathrm{d} z\left[\mathrm{sr}^{-1}\right]## and the corresponding density of galaxies per ##\operatorname{arcmin}^2## for each redshift

zA4EX.png


I wonder if the second row values are correct : indeed, I hesitate between both calculus, for example for the bin :

- case 1

3 / 11818102.860 * 0.119 = 4219062.72 (rounded to 4219063) in units ##\text{d}N/\text{d}\Omega\text{d}z##

OR should I set rather :

- case 2

3 / 11818102.860 / 0.119 = 297935366.218 (rounded to 297935366) in units ##\text{d}N/\text{d}\Omega\text{d}z##

One of both is wrong since I don't know if the units are ##\text{d}N/\text{d}\Omega\text{d}z## or ##\text{d}N/\text{d}\Omega/\text{d}z##.

Could anyone help me what is the convention for the units of the writing ##\text{d}N/\text{d}\Omega\text{d}z## that causes some confusions ( we don't know if we have to multiply or divide by ##\Delta z## ?
 
Abstract The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) has significantly advanced our ability to study black holes, achieving unprecedented spatial resolution and revealing horizon-scale structures. Notably, these observations feature a distinctive dark shadow—primarily arising from faint jet emissions—surrounded by a bright photon ring. Anticipated upgrades of the EHT promise substantial improvements in dynamic range, enabling deeper exploration of low-background regions, particularly the inner shadow...
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##.
Title: Can something exist without a cause? If the universe has a cause, what caused that cause? Post Content: Many theories suggest that everything must have a cause, but if that's true, then what caused the first cause? Does something need a cause to exist, or is it possible for existence to be uncaused? I’m exploring this from both a scientific and philosophical perspective and would love to hear insights from physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Are there any theories that explain this?
Back
Top