Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Angular-diameter distance — where it appears

The distance that converts an object's physical size into the angle it subtends. It is not the distance a brightness gives: it rises with redshift, turns over near z = 1.6 and falls after, so a galaxy of fixed size looks larger the further away it is beyond that.

Named by 8 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Four distances to the same galaxy. Four quantities all called "the distance", against redshift, at a Hubble constant of 67.36 km/s/Mpc, a matter density parameter of 0.3153 and a dark-energy parameter of 0.6847. They agree below z ≈ 0.1 and then part company completely. Comoving distance is the separation now, and it is what a map of the universe is drawn in. Luminosity distance is what a brightness gives, and it is larger by (1+z) because the photons arrive both redshifted and spread out in time. Light-travel distance is the age difference times c, and it is bounded by the age of the universe. Angular-diameter distance is what an angle gives, and it is the odd one: it rises, turns over at z = 1.59 where it reaches 1.79 Gpc, and falls thereafter. Past that redshift a galaxy of fixed size looks bigger the further away it is, because the universe it is being seen across was smaller when the light left it. At z = 10 the four differ by a factor of 121 between the largest and the smallest, so a sentence quoting a cosmological distance without saying which one has not given a number.

Four distances to the same galaxy

Inside the Local Group the word "distance" has one meaning. Past a redshift of about a tenth it has four, they disagree by factors of a hundred by the time the light is old, and one of them stops increasing and starts coming back.

cosmology · Distance ladder A sphere reconstructed as a spheroid, and two distortions 0.15 apart. Left: the acoustic scale in the plane of separation across the line of sight against separation along it, one quadrant of it. In the cosmology that actually holds, the sound horizon is a sphere of 99.0 h⁻¹ Mpc and its locus here is a quarter circle. That is the whole content of the Alcock–Paczyński test: nothing about the early universe distinguishes the radial direction from the transverse one, so any departure from a circle is a statement about the observer's arithmetic rather than about the ruler. Converting angles into transverse separations needs the transverse comoving distance and converting redshift intervals into radial ones needs H(z), so assuming distances 1.1 times too large and rates 0.94 times too small returns an ellipse of axis ratio 0.855 — and the ellipticity measures that distance times the expansion rate over c, in which the sound horizon has cancelled. A ruler of unknown length still measures a shape. The third curve is the difficulty: peculiar velocities also distort the same correlation function along the same axis, squashing it by 1/(1+β) = 0.704 for β = 0.42, and a squashing is a squashing. Separating a geometric distortion from a dynamical one is the entire art of the measurement, and it is done by using the fact that they have different dependences on scale — the velocities act on the broad-band shape and the ruler is a feature. Right and below: the two numbers the same feature gives at each redshift. Across the line of sight, the transverse distance divided by the sound horizon; along it, c divided by the expansion rate times the sound horizon. Two functions of the expansion history, from one bump in one correlation function, and their agreement with a single model is one of the sharper consistency tests in the subject.

A ruler measured along and across

The sound horizon is a sphere, and a sphere in a redshift survey is measured twice over — across the line of sight it gives an angle, along it a redshift interval. Two different functions of the cosmology out of one feature, and their ratio is a measurement with no ruler in it at all.

cosmology · Baryon acoustic oscillations One cluster moved to z = 1.8: one signal unchanged, the other 57 times fainter. The same cluster of galaxies placed at a series of redshifts, with two ways of detecting it compared. The Sunyaev–Zel'dovich decrement is flat, because it is a fraction of the microwave background and the microwave background has the same surface brightness at every redshift a cluster can sit at — moving the cluster further away shrinks it on the sky but does not make its shadow shallower. The X-ray surface brightness of the identical object falls as (1+z)⁻⁴, the dimming every surface brightness suffers in an expanding universe, and by z = 1.8 it is 57 times below where it started. This is why the cluster surveys that reach the early universe are millimetre surveys: an X-ray telescope's cluster catalogue thins out with distance and a Sunyaev–Zel'dovich catalogue is limited only by how large the cluster looks and by how faint a fractional distortion the instrument can measure. What the effect cannot supply on its own is a distance — the signal that does not know how far away the cluster is also cannot say — so every one of these clusters still needs a redshift measured the ordinary way, from a spectrum of a galaxy inside it.

A shadow that does not get fainter with distance

Every other way of finding a cluster of galaxies gets harder the further away the cluster is. One does not. A cluster's hot gas scatters about one microwave background photon in a hundred to a higher frequency, and because the result is a fraction of a background rather than a flux from a source, the same cluster is exactly as detectable at ten billion light years as at one.

cosmology · Sunyaev zeldovich A path length recovered from two integrals of one cluster. The two line-of-sight integrands through an isothermal β = 0.67 cluster, each normalised to its own centre, against distance along the line of sight in core radii. The upper curve is electron density, which the Compton parameter integrates; the lower is density squared, which the X-ray surface brightness integrates. They are integrals of the same gas along the same line and they weight it differently — the half-width is 1.00 core radii for the linear one and 0.64 for the quadratic, and one core radius either side of the centre holds 51 per cent of the pressure signal against 82 per cent of the X-ray. That difference is the whole method. Two integrals with different powers of one unknown density, down one unknown path, are two equations in two unknowns: y₀ = 1.5·10⁻⁴ and a central X-ray surface brightness of 1.63·10⁻⁵ erg cm⁻² s⁻¹ sr⁻¹ give back a central density of 0.006 cm⁻³ and a physical core radius of 0.250 Mpc. Divide that length by the angular core radius the same cluster subtends, 54.2 arcseconds, and the answer is an angular-diameter distance of 952 Mpc — against the 952 Mpc the cluster was built at, which is the round trip this figure exists to close. Nothing in that chain is calibrated on a Cepheid, a supernova or a parallax. It is a length in centimetres measured against an angle.

A length in centimetres, measured against an angle

A cluster's hot gas offers two line integrals of the same electrons — one linear in density, one quadratic. Two equations in two unknowns give back the path length in centimetres, and a length divided by the angle it subtends is a distance that leans on no other distance measurement.

cosmology · Sunyaev zeldovich 1020 clusters or 372, and the survey cannot say which parameter moved. The number of clusters per unit redshift a survey finds above an integrated Compton signal of 8·10⁻⁵ arcmin² over 6 per cent of the sky, computed from the Sheth–Tormen halo count grown by the linear growth factor, the comoving volume in each redshift slice, and the calibrated relation between signal and mass. Each curve is one pair of assumptions: the amplitude of structure, σ₈, and the hydrostatic mass bias, 1 − b, which says how far the X-ray masses the relation was calibrated on fall below the true masses. With σ₈ = 0.811 and 1 − b = 0.8 the survey finds 1020; σ₈ = 0.811 with 1 − b = 0.6 gives 372; σ₈ = 0.75 with 1 − b = 0.8 gives 548. The counts fall at low redshift because there is little volume, and at high redshift because massive halos have not yet formed, and the peak sits near z = 0.24. Lowering 1 − b pushes the threshold onto more massive and rarer halos; lowering σ₈ makes every halo rarer. The two lower curves differ in total by 47 per cent and in normalised shape by at most 2 per cent of the peak. A survey that assumed 1 − b = 0.8 would read the 372 clusters of the curve with 1 − b = 0.6 as σ₈ = 0.716, with a redshift distribution that differs from it by at most 12 per cent of the peak — which is the only handle the survey has on the difference, and it is smaller than the counting noise in any redshift bin holding fewer than about 67 clusters. A total count cannot distinguish a universe with less structure from a survey that has misjudged its masses, and it is that degeneracy, not the counting, that has been argued about since the first large catalogue.

Too few clusters, or a scale that reads light

A catalogue selected on the microwave shadow is, past redshift one half, very nearly a catalogue of everything above a fixed mass — so its count by redshift is the growth of structure read almost directly. Almost, because the mass behind the threshold comes from a calibration, and a scale that reads twenty per cent light is indistinguishable from a universe with less in it.

cosmology · Sunyaev zeldovich The same disc measured smaller at every redshift. The isophotal radius, at a limit of 26.5 magnitudes per square arcsecond, of three exponential discs that do not change at all — central surface brightnesses 20.5, 21.65, 23, the same scale length throughout — against the redshift they are placed at. Surface brightness falls as (1+z)⁴, three magnitudes at z = 1 and six at z = 3, before anything about the galaxy evolves or any band shift is accounted for, so every isophote moves inward. The discs vanish from an isophotal catalogue entirely at z = 2.98, 2.05, 1.24. The dashed line is the half-light radius, 1.68 scale lengths, which is defined by the galaxy's own light and does not move. Galaxies at high redshift are genuinely smaller than their present-day counterparts; how much smaller depends on which of these two kinds of radius is quoted, and the isophotal kind would report a shrinkage for galaxies that have none.

A radius that is a measurement of the threshold

A galaxy has no edge. Its light fades exponentially for as far as anyone can measure, so every size ever quoted for one is the radius at which the fading crossed some line that somebody drew. Drawn at a fixed surface brightness, the line measures how bright the galaxy's centre is as much as how big the galaxy is — and at high redshift it measures the expansion of the universe as well.

galaxies · Surface brightness The ratio of two distances, for a universe with dark energy and one with dust. The distance-duality ratio η — the luminosity distance divided by (1 + z)² times the angular-diameter distance — against redshift. In a universe with a cosmological constant, or any universe in which light travels on the geometry and is conserved, it is exactly one (solid). In a universe of matter alone, decelerating, with grey intergalactic dust dimming its supernovae just enough to make their distances match the accelerating one's, it rises with redshift: 1.19 at redshift 0.5, 1.30 at 1, because the dust makes supernovae look farther than the geometry puts them while leaving the acoustic-scale distances untouched. The shaded band is η = 1 ± 0.03z, about what supernova and acoustic-scale distances together allow. The dusty universe's η rises at the start with a slope of about 0.45 per unit redshift, more than ten times the band's, and leaves it at once.

Two distances that must agree if light is conserved

A supernova's distance comes from how faint it is; an acoustic ruler's distance comes from how small it looks. In any universe whose light follows the geometry and is neither created nor destroyed, the two are tied by an exact factor of (1 + z)², whatever the universe contains. Dust that dimmed distant supernovae without reddening them could have faked the accelerating expansion — and would have broken that tie by a fifth by redshift a half. The tie holds to a few per cent.

starlight · Distance ladder Four ways for a galaxy to fade with redshift. The dimming of a galaxy's surface brightness, in magnitudes per square arcsecond, against redshift, for the same galaxy placed at greater and greater distance. In an expanding universe the bolometric surface brightness falls as (1+z)⁴: 3.01 magnitudes by z = 1 and 7.8 by z = 5. Measured per unit frequency, as magnitudes in a filter are, one power is absorbed by the stretching of the band and the dimming is (1+z)³. If photons lost energy on a static journey ("tired light"), only one power would remain — 0.75 magnitudes at z = 1. In a static space with no loss there is no dimming at all, because flux and solid angle both fall as the inverse square of distance. At z = 1 expansion and tired light differ by 2.3 magnitudes, a factor of 8 in brightness.

A dimming short by what young stars repay

In an expanding universe a galaxy's surface brightness should fall as the fourth power of one plus its redshift; if light merely tired on its way through static space, as the first power. Measured on elliptical galaxies at redshift 0.85, it falls as about the two-and-a-half power — neither. The verdict on expansion rests on what the galaxies did in the meantime, and the decisive fact is not the size of the shortfall but its sign: expansion needs the galaxies to have been brighter when their stars were younger, and tired light needs them to have been fainter.

cosmology · Expansion

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Distance dualityLuminosity distanceThe Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effectCluster mass functionCosmic microwave backgroundDegeneracyHydrostatic massIntegrated yIntracluster mediumK-correctionSurface brightnessSurface brightness dimming

All concepts