<p>I suspect that converting red-shift to distance, for any <em>particular</em> object, is going to have a lot of error. Especially for z > 1. Even for 0.05 &lt; z &lt; 1, the errors are often over 10%.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-02T14:31:03.163Z
2018-06-02T14:31:03.163Z
scb
<p>There are two reasons that can make a red shift: (1) a moving object (Doppler effect) and (2) space expansion, they are equivalent.</p>
<p>If an object (at this moment) is at a distance of <span class="math-container">$d$</span> from us, it's getting farther from us with the speed of,</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$v \ =\ d*Hubble\ Constant$</span>,</p>
<p>and it's light will arrive to us after <span class="math-container">$t$</span> time. During <span class="math-container">$t$</span>, space will expand enough to convert the wavelength of <span class="math-container">$w_0$</span> to <span class="math-container">$w_1$</span>, so that,</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$\frac{(w_1-w_0)}{w_0}$</span> =  <span class="math-container">$\sqrt{\frac{(1+v/c)}{(1-v/c)}}-1$</span></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-18T13:03:15.133Z
This answers the question only partially. The OP was asking about a relation between redshift and age of the universe, can you address this point? Moreover, this relation is only valid approximately at low redshift (z<0.5), surely not for quasars at z=7, as mentioned by OP
Prallax
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-17T23:16:29.097Z
2022-07-18T12:49:03.097Z
2022-07-18T12:49:03.097Z
Sadegh Sh
<p>Use one of the &quot;cosmology calculators&quot;. <strong>The conversions depend on what you assume for the cosmological parameters.</strong></p>
<p>Here's one that will do what you want. <a href="http://www.astro.ucla.edu/%7Ewright/CosmoCalc.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html</a></p>
<p>e.g. For the default parameters (concordance FLRW, flat universe), <span class="math-container">$z=7$</span> corresponds to a look back time of 12.95 billion years, whilst <span class="math-container">$z=10$</span> corresponds to a look back time of 13.24 Gyr, with the current age of the universe being 13.72 Gyr. The &quot;luminosity distance&quot; is reported as 346 billion light years for the latter.</p>
<p>If you want the proper distance it is listed as the &quot;Comoving radial distance&quot; and is 31.48 billion light years for <span class="math-container">$z=10$</span>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-23T11:27:19.070Z
This question is getting hit high on DuckDuckGo, but the calculator you link requires authentication.
User65535
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-23T11:30:32.647Z
Ah, I see the FermiLab one has closed shop.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-23T11:34:18.913Z
And the other bit means a search for "z value red shift to years" gives this top.
User65535
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-23T11:39:00.873Z
Well, I've removed the link to the now-unavailable calculator and just stuck with Ned Wright's calculator, which does the job. @User65535
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-24T19:15:39.587Z
2024-06-23T11:37:27.290Z
2024-06-23T11:37:27.290Z
ProfRob
<p>I'm looking for some form of "rough and ready" formula to convert between redshift <em>z</em> value, years since BB, and distance, so that when I read an astronomy paper and it discusses an event that occurred at z=10+/-0.5, or a quasar at z=7, I can get a rough idea when the event occurred and how far away they are saying the quasar is, as context.</p>

<p>I'm aware that this is an inherently vague question, since the times and distances depend on the model and convention chosen, and also that I'm not specifying proper distances/comoving coordinates, etc.</p>

<p>My assumption is that most current models and their parameters,  that are mainstream accepted and used, will be based on very similar parameters of very similar models (if not the same model), such as latest Planck parameters, or similar. They might differ more due to assumptions about very early times, but redshift is inherently >~380 k years, and if they did vary a lot for times beyond that timeframe, we'd have real issues.   In other words, I suspect/hope that any differences in answers due to model variation, won't significantly change the answer to <em>this</em> question. So the only question will (hopefully) be, which convention or type of metric/distance will be appropriate.</p>

<p>If an assumption needs making (such as the meaning of 'distance' to be applied, or the zero point used for time: BB or end of inflation etc) please make an assumption  most likely to help me, and I'll edit the question to clarify if needed, once I see what is too vague in the question as initially worded.</p>

<p>Thank you !</p>

<cosmology><redshift>
Approximate conversion of redshift 'z' to a time and/or distance, when reading papers?
Stilez
# Approximate conversion of redshift 'z' to a time and/or distance, when reading papers?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-05-24)

I'm looking for some form of "rough and ready" formula to convert between redshift *z* value, years since BB, and distance, so that when I read an astronomy paper and it discusses an event that occurred at z=10+/-0.5, or a quasar at z=7, I can get a rough idea when the event occurred and how far away they are saying the quasar is, as context.

I'm aware that this is an inherently vague question, since the times and distances depend on the model and convention chosen, and also that I'm not specifying proper distances/comoving coordinates, etc.

My assumption is that most current models and their parameters, that are mainstream accepted and used, will be based on very similar parameters of very similar models (if not the same model), such as latest Planck parameters, or similar. They might differ more due to assumptions about very early times, but redshift is inherently >~380 k years, and if they did vary a lot for times beyond that timeframe, we'd have real issues. In other words, I suspect/hope that any differences in answers due to model variation, won't significantly change the answer to *this* question. So the only question will (hopefully) be, which convention or type of metric/distance will be appropriate.

If an assumption needs making (such as the meaning of 'distance' to be applied, or the zero point used for time: BB or end of inflation etc) please make an assumption most likely to help me, and I'll edit the question to clarify if needed, once I see what is too vague in the question as initially worded.

Thank you !

**Tags:** cosmology, redshift

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-05-24. Score: 7 | Accepted answer

Use one of the "cosmology calculators". **The conversions depend on what you assume for the cosmological parameters.**

Here's one that will do what you want. [http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html](http://www.astro.ucla.edu/%7Ewright/CosmoCalc.html)

e.g. For the default parameters (concordance FLRW, flat universe), $z=7$ corresponds to a look back time of 12.95 billion years, whilst $z=10$ corresponds to a look back time of 13.24 Gyr, with the current age of the universe being 13.72 Gyr. The "luminosity distance" is reported as 346 billion light years for the latter.

If you want the proper distance it is listed as the "Comoving radial distance" and is 31.48 billion light years for $z=10$.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: This question is getting hit high on DuckDuckGo, but the calculator you link requires authentication.  
> **username_4**: Ah, I see the FermiLab one has closed shop.  
> **username_5**: And the other bit means a search for "z value red shift to years" gives this top.  
> **username_4**: Well, I've removed the link to the now-unavailable calculator and just stuck with Ned Wright's calculator, which does the job. @User65535  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-06-02. Score: 0

I suspect that converting red-shift to distance, for any *particular* object, is going to have a lot of error. Especially for z > 1. Even for 0.05 < z < 1, the errors are often over 10%.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-07-17. Score: 0

There are two reasons that can make a red shift: (1) a moving object (Doppler effect) and (2) space expansion, they are equivalent.

If an object (at this moment) is at a distance of $d$ from us, it's getting farther from us with the speed of,

$v \ =\ d\*Hubble\ Constant$,

and it's light will arrive to us after $t$ time. During $t$, space will expand enough to convert the wavelength of $w\_0$ to $w\_1$, so that,

$\frac{(w\_1-w\_0)}{w\_0}$ = $\sqrt{\frac{(1+v/c)}{(1-v/c)}}-1$

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: This answers the question only partially. The OP was asking about a relation between redshift and age of the universe, can you address this point? Moreover, this relation is only valid approximately at low redshift (z<0.5), surely not for quasars at z=7, as mentioned by OP  

---

