Distance at redshift z=0.666

In summary, the article discusses the concept of distance in the context of redshift z=0.666, which corresponds to a specific point in the universe's expansion. It explains how redshift is a measure of how much the wavelength of light from distant objects has been stretched due to the expansion of the universe. At this redshift, the distance to celestial objects is calculated using cosmological models, taking into account factors such as the Hubble constant and the matter-energy content of the universe. The implications for understanding the structure and evolution of the cosmos are also highlighted.
  • #36
Halc said:
Exactly so. So my labeling it as coincidence was more "not enough time for the two values to differ much".
Yes, but 6.3 Gyr isn't something like a "short time", even on cosmological scales.

Halc said:
My chart is also misleading since it seems to be older than the discovery of dark energy. Look at the v=c/2 worldline in my post4. It curves left the whole way, but after about half the age of the universe, dark energy became dominant and that worldline should start curving right, putting the current proper distance to it far larger than what this old picture shows.
No, it isn't. The curve marked as v=c/2 isn't a world line, but a curve that denotes the behavior of the Hubble parameter H, which is monotonically decreasing. The world lines are shown on the left side of the graph, where in the world line marked as ##r_0=8## Gly a slight change in curvature can be noticed about 6 Gly ago.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
  • #37
Jaime Rudas said:
Yes, but 6.3 Gyr isn't something like a "short time", even on cosmological scales.


No, it isn't. The curve marked as v=c/2 isn't a world line, but a curve that denotes the behavior of the Hubble parameter H, which is monotonically decreasing.
I'm reading it all wrong then. OK, the worldlines of comoving objects are the blue dashed ones on the left.

That leaves the dash-dotted black one to the left labeled simply 'horizon'. It seems to be the particle horizon, the 'size of the visible universe' at any given time, meaning that line intersects the lower "today's horizon" worldline at t=today.

I was hoping they'd put the event horizon on that chart somewhere, but it's not there.
It should start out lower than the 'today's horizon' line, but curved more, crossing the particle horizon line 10 Gyr ago and ending up today about where that r=16Gyr worldline is.

Would also be nice if they labeled the scalefactor on the vertical axis rather than just putting years there twice.
 
  • Like
Likes Jaime Rudas
  • #38
Halc said:
I'm reading it all wrong then. OK, the worldlines of comoving objects are the blue dashed ones on the left.
Yes, that's why I find Tamara Davis's graph in her doctoral thesis much clearer:

1727649317122.png

Halc said:
That leaves the dash-dotted black one to the left labeled simply 'horizon'. It seems to be the particle horizon, the 'size of the visible universe' at any given time, meaning that line intersects the lower "today's horizon" worldline at t=today.
Yes, that's exactly what you can easily see in the Davis graph if you compare the particle horizon curve with an imagined dotted black line corresponding to z~1100.
Halc said:
I was hoping they'd put the event horizon on that chart somewhere, but it's not there.
It should start out lower than the 'today's horizon' line, but curved more, crossing the particle horizon line 10 Gyr ago and ending up today about where that r=16Gyr worldline is.

Would also be nice if they labeled the scalefactor on the vertical axis rather than just putting years there twice.
All that and much more you can see very clearly in the Davis graph.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top