Cosmological Redshift: Electron Energy Loss in Expanding Universe?

In summary, Brian's result is that if an electron were flying towards us from some distant galaxy (and we neglected all other effects), it would lose energy as it moved towards us.
  • #1
Matterwave
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,971
328
So I have been thinking. Light gets redshifted because of the cosmological expansion of the Universe. This would mean that other, material particles, should get "cosmologically redshifted" as well right? So, for example, if an electron were flying towards us from some distant galaxy (and we neglected all other effects), would this electron lose energy as it moved towards us simply due to the expansion of the universe? What is the rate at which it loses energy? It's been too long since I've taken a cosmology class for me to do this calculation myself with any confidence of correctness.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
yes other particles will lose energy. here is your relations

[tex]\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=\frac{hc}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{hc}[/tex]
 
  • #3
The redshift of matter particles is manifested in their coming to rest with respect to the comoving frame. From the geodesic equation of a matter particle, it is possible to show that the particle's proper velocity, [itex]{\bf u}[/itex], satisfies
[tex]|{\bf u}_0| = |{\bf u}_i|\frac{a(t_i)}{a(t_0)}[/tex]
where the subscript '0' refers to the present value, and a(t) is the scale factor. As the universe expands, [itex]{\bf u}[/itex] tends to zero. This is the same relation leading to the photon redshift -- just replace [itex]{\bf u}[/itex] with the momentum, [itex]{\bf p}[/itex].
 
  • #4
bapowell said:
The redshift of matter particles is manifested in their coming to rest with respect to the comoving frame. From the geodesic equation of a matter particle, it is possible to show that the particle's proper velocity, [itex]{\bf u}[/itex], satisfies
[tex]|{\bf u}_0| = |{\bf u}_i|\frac{a(t_i)}{a(t_0)}[/tex]
where the subscript '0' refers to the present value, and a(t) is the scale factor. As the universe expands, [itex]{\bf u}[/itex] tends to zero. This is the same relation leading to the photon redshift -- just replace [itex]{\bf u}[/itex] with the momentum, [itex]{\bf p}[/itex].

The four velocity is normalized to 1 (or -1) though right? So it can't actually turn to 0 can it? o.o
 
  • #6
bapowell said:
[itex]{\bf u}[/itex] is the three-velocity.

I think I have seen this terminology before, but it is much more standard (e.g., page 84 of Hartle's GR book) to write ##\bf{u} = \gamma \bf{v}##, where ##\bf{v}## is called the three-velocity.

In any case, it is a very nice result.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Matterwave said:
if an electron were flying towards us from some distant galaxy (and we neglected all other effects), would this electron lose energy as it moved towards us simply due to the expansion of the universe? What is the rate at which it loses energy?

Use Killing vectors to do the calculation! :wink:

Let ##U## be the 4-velocity of a cricket ball that is tossed form one galaxy to another galaxy. From symmetry, we can take the motion to be on a 2-dimensional ##r-\chi## hypersurface of constant ##\theta## and ##\phi## (##\chi## is a comoving distance coordinate).

On this hypersurface, the FLRW metric induces the metric

$$ds^2 = -dt^2 + a \left(t\right)^2 d\chi^2 .$$

Since ##\chi## does not appear explicitly, ##\partial / \partial \chi## is a Killing vector, and ##k = g \left( U , \partial / \partial \chi \right)## is a conserved quantity on the ball's worldline.

To make contact with physically measured quantities, choose orthonormal bases for the comoving (with the Hubble flow, not the ball) observers that the ball passes, ##e_0 = \partial / \partial t## and ##e_1 = \left( 1/a \left(t\right) \right)\partial / \partial \chi##. Then, the constant

$$k = g \left( U , \partial / \partial \chi \right) = g \left( U^0 e_0 + U^1 e_1 ,a \left(t\right) e_1 \right) = -U^1 a \left(t\right).$$

Because of the orthonormal bases, ##U^1## takes the special relativistic form ##U^1= \gamma v##, and Brian's nice result follows.
 
  • #8
thanks for that explanation, helps me with the metrics in an article I just picked up the other day lol
 
  • #9
Great, thanks guys. :D
 

What is cosmological redshift?

Cosmological redshift is the phenomenon in which light from distant galaxies appears to be shifted towards longer wavelengths, or 'redder', than it actually is. This is caused by the expansion of the universe, which stretches the wavelength of light as it travels through space.

How does cosmological redshift relate to the expansion of the universe?

As the universe expands, the space between galaxies also expands. This causes light from distant galaxies to travel through more and more space before reaching us, which stretches the wavelength of the light and causes it to appear redshifted.

What causes electron energy loss in an expanding universe?

Electron energy loss in an expanding universe is caused by the interaction between photons and electrons. As the wavelength of light is stretched by the expanding universe, the energy of each individual photon decreases, resulting in a loss of energy for the electrons that absorb them.

How does cosmological redshift impact our understanding of the universe?

Cosmological redshift is a key piece of evidence for the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang theory. It also allows us to measure the distances to distant galaxies, which helps us understand the overall structure and evolution of the universe.

Can cosmological redshift be observed in other types of electromagnetic radiation?

Yes, cosmological redshift can be observed in all types of electromagnetic radiation, including radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays. This allows scientists to study the effects of cosmological redshift across a wide range of wavelengths and better understand the universe.

Similar threads

Replies
33
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
195
Replies
24
Views
3K
Back
Top