Cosmological Redshift Demystified

4–7 minutes

If you’ve been following my recent posts, cosmological redshift will likely be a familiar idea. I introduced it in my post on the Hubble Law. We revisited it again in our discussion of the size and brightness of galaxies.

When we explored active galaxies, we encountered it again in tracing the full story of galactic evolution.

But truly, this topic is most at home in discussions of cosmology, and sure enough, we’ve seen it again and again in this unit: in our intro to cosmology, or exploration of the Big Bang, and finally, our dive into the discovery of the CMB.

If you’re a little confused about what exactly cosmological redshift is, this post is for you…

  1. What is it?
  2. Is it a Doppler shift?
  3. How does it work?
  4. Why is it so important?

What is it?

In short, cosmological redshift is a stretching of the wavelength of light.

And by “light,” I mean any part of the electromagnetic spectrum:

The electromagnetic spectrum (or EM spectrum) is the spectrum of all electromagnetic radiation in the universe. And it is one of astronomers’ most powerful tools for understanding the universe.

Here’s what’s important to us: different “types” of light are distinguished by their wavelength. That is the distance between two similar points on the wave: for example, from peak to peak or from trough to trough.

The graphic below shows how the different colors of visible light differ by wavelength:

Note that blue/violet have the shortest wavelengths, and red has the longest wavelength.

Now, let’s say a particular photon (a particle of light) has a certain wavelength — say, 470 nm — when it is emitted from a source object.

If something stretches that photon’s wavelength, it will appear redder, because red has a longer wavelength.

This goes for types of radiation other than visible light, too. Gamma rays have the shortest wavelengths of any other electromagnetic radiation. If those photons are stretched, they could appear as x-rays, visible light, infrared, or even radio waves — depending on how much they are stretched.

Is it a Doppler shift?

The short answer is: no.

Here’s why:

Doppler shifts are a related phenomenon. The Doppler effect can also produce a type of redshift, but not a cosmological redshift.

The Doppler effect produces both redshifts and blueshifts, depending on the direction in which the source object is moving.

For example, if a star moves toward an observer, the wavelengths of its light will seem to shorten (toward bluer wavelengths). This is a blueshift.

Note something important: The star will not appear blue just because it is blueshifted. The blueshift will be apparent only in its spectrum (which is another discussion entirely; you can find a post all about it here).

How does cosmological redshift work, then?

How does it work?

One of the most important distinctions between Doppler shifts and cosmological redshift is that you will never see a cosmological blueshift.

That’s because Doppler shifts are due to the actual motion of source objects through space. Cosmological redshift, on the other hand, is due to space itself expanding.

Albert Einstein discovered in 1916 that the fabric of space itself is expanding, a bit like stretching rubber — something that we’ll explore very soon!

As space expands, a traveling photon will get stretched to longer and longer wavelengths.

You can think of this as kind of like straddling a ravine…

Imagine that these two cliff faces are drawing farther and farther apart. The ravine between them is getting wider and wider — that is, expanding.

Those two cliffs are two locations in space. And the poor guy hanging between them is a traveling photon of light.

Unlike an actual person, light has the luxury to simply stretch to a longer wavelength — so it can still reach from one cliff to the other and hang onto both cliff faces. But it will be redshifted. Because it has a longer wavelength, it appears redder.

Now, here’s the key:

In space, the “cliff faces” — that is, for instance, a pair of galaxies — are not moving. It is the “ravine” — the space between them — that is expanding and carrying them apart from one another.

That is the difference between cosmological redshift and Doppler shifts. Doppler shifts represent the actual movement of objects in space (and thus can be redshifts or blueshifts). But cosmological redshift results from the expansion of space itself.

There is only cosmological redshift, not cosmological blueshift, because space is only expanding. It is not currently contracting: that is, the space between objects is not shrinking, carrying galaxies closer together. So we do not observe shortening of wavelengths.

Why is it so important?

First: It helps us measure the distances to galaxies.

That’s because cosmological redshift is directly related to distance. This is called the Hubble Law.

Two galaxies that are far apart have more space expanding between them, so the wavelengths of the photons they emit will be stretched more.

On the other hand, two galaxies that are relatively close together have less space expanding between them, so the wavelengths of the photons they emit won’t be stretched quite as much.

So, to us Earthlings, very distant galaxies will appear redder, and nearer galaxies will not have been redshifted nearly so much — they will appear close to their true color.

And that, by the way, brings me to a minor difference between cosmological redshift and Doppler shifts: while Doppler shifts only reflect in spectra, cosmological redshift actually changes the observed color of a distant object.

This little red blob is a distant galaxy, one of the farthest we are currently able to detect. It’s not really red: the light we observe left that galaxy as higher-energy, shorter-wavelength photons. But by the time that light reached observers on Earth, it had been redshifted quite a bit.

The direct relationship between cosmological redshift and distance was the first evidence that galaxies are receding from each other, carried apart by the expanding space between them.

And this is the second reason why it’s so important.

That relationship — the Hubble Law — is strong evidence in favor of cosmologists’ current understanding of how the universe began and how it is evolving. It’s one of the bedrock pieces of evidence supporting current cosmological theories.

I hope I’ve managed to clarify cosmological redshift a bit! Next up, we’ll explore one of cosmology’s most mind-bending concepts: the shape of space itself.


Discover more from Cosmos at Your Doorstep

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

11 responses to “Cosmological Redshift Demystified”

  1. Ggreybeard Avatar

    “There is only cosmological redshift, not cosmological blueshift, because space is only expanding.”

    True for all practical purposes but cosmological blueshift would presumably be conceivable if the universe were to begin to shrink, as we once thought it might.

    🙃

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Emma Avatar

      Agreed—but I thought that might be a bit beyond the scope of the post. Trying to explain the mind-blowing realm of cosmology in bite-sized pieces. I’m glad you’ve mentioned it, so it’s at the very least in the comments!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. disperser Avatar

    By the way, I’m not sure if you’re familiar with YouTube’s Pitch Meeting. It plays for humor, but as a writer, in his videos, I find useful reminders of pitfalls to avoid.

    He has an episode on Avatar (and also many, many other movies).

    Like

  3. disperser Avatar

    Weird . . . I got two different email notifications for this post, one apologizing for redrafting a novel.

    Anyway, it all turned out rosy.

    Like

    1. Emma Avatar

      If you’re subscribed to both email notifications from WordPress and my MailChimp newsletter, you’ll get multiple emails. They’re two separate subscriber lists and I have zero control over the WordPress one. If you’d like less email, you can always unsubscribe from either one of them—WordPress has documentation on how to unsubscribe from their emails, and there’s an “unsubscribe” link at the bottom of every one of my newsletters.

      Hope you enjoyed the post despite the email bother! 🙂

      Like

      1. disperser Avatar

        Hmm … this is the first post where I got two notifications, and I’ve not recently added any subscription.

        How often do you send out newsletters? Is this the first in a while?

        As for unsubscibing, very familiar with it as I regularly curate my subscription.

        Anyway, I’ll see if it happens again, and then, if it does, I’ll spring into action: first, I’ll assemble a committee to study the issue. Then, a committee to formulate a plan of action. Then, assemble a team of … no, wait … I’ll probably just ignore it.

        By the way, what are you writing? Fiction or non-fiction?

        Like

        1. Emma Avatar

          It’s a fairly epic sci-fi, think Avatar (James Cameron). That kind of intensive world building. The first of a planned series of 4.

          I’ve been sending a weekly newsletter for each post published. Skipped last week only because there was no blog post. Otherwise, it’s been every week for a few months now.

          Like

          1. disperser Avatar

            I hope it’s better than Avatar as I found it profoundly lacking (my review).

            Just curious; are you a published writer or is this your first effort?

            As a fellow fiction writer (I’m unpublished), I wish you luck. Writing can be tremendously rewarding, but breaking into the publishing industry is a tough slog . . . unless you have some in with people in the industry.

            Anyway, looking forward to hearing your progress.

            Like

            1. Emma Avatar

              Well, I personally loved Avatar, thought it had wonderful depth, and really enjoyed the world building, so I think it’s safe to say we have quite different tastes.

              But if you’re enjoying my science posts, that’s all that matters 🙂

              Liked by 1 person

              1. disperser Avatar

                The world building was fine, I just found the plot simplistic and the characters lacking depth.

                Given your background, I’d expect the world building to be top-notch. With four planned books, I’d also expect both the plot and characters to be a bit more fleshed out than in the Avatar movie.

                Besides, written storytelling is much different than visual storytelling and usually richer.

                As I said, best of luck.

                Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Ggreybeard Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.



MailChimp Subscribe

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

WordPress Subscribe


Comment Policy

Be kind
Be respectful
Criticize constructively
Comment in good faith
Policy-violating comments will be removed.
More information available here.
Thank you for understanding!


Support Cosmos at Your Doorstep

If you like my blog, I’d really appreciate your support by liking, commenting, sharing, subscribing, or sending me a note via my contact page!

It doesn’t matter if you don’t have much to say — just letting me know that you found a post interesting or helpful is really encouraging. And I would love to know what you used my post for, be it personal research, a project, or something else.

Thank you!


1758475740

  days

  hours  minutes  seconds

until

Partial Solar Eclipse