Astronomy Meta
Astronomy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for astronomers and astrophysicists. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Why does the Hubble flow does not carry photons with it?
I have this naive question. We know that the expansion of the universe "takes" or "carries" the galaxies with it, separating them, but this doesn't apply to photons. My guess is that it has to do with the fact that photons are massless (i.e. they always move with c), but I am not sure and would like a more physical explanation or insight.
cosmology general-relativity expansion photons
xkudsrawxkudsraw
$\begingroup$ Why do you say "this doesn't apply to photons"? From astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/39379/16685 "The hitherto most distant observed galaxy, GN-z11, has a redshift of $z=11.09$. It was only $2.7\,\mathrm{Glyr}$ from us when it emitted the light we see today, but in the $13.4\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ it took the light to reach us (most of the age of the Universe), GN-z11 moved out to a current distance of $32.2\,\mathrm{Glyr}$!" $\endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
$\begingroup$ Thank you, good way to see it! $\endgroup$
– xkudsraw
Expansion isn't some mysterious force that "carries" galaxies. There's a very common misconception that it is, but it's not true. The expansion is just the recessional motion of galaxies and other matter.
Light does participate in the expansion. Even though it moves at a constant speed (and therefore can't move with the galaxies as you correctly observed), it still thins out with time. This is counterintuitive, but it happens even in a special relativistic cosmological model (the Milne model, which is a special case of FLRW cosmology). If you think of the big bang as an explosion of light bulbs, the bulbs that you see from a particular era in the universe's history have higher and higher relative speeds as time goes on (since the light from nearer, slower bulbs has already reached and passed you), and therefore are more redshifted, and therefore emit photons at a lower rate (since redshift affects the perceived rate of every process). So the relic photons from a particular era of the universe's history get more redshifted and less dense as time goes on.
benrgbenrg
$\begingroup$ You say "expansion is just the recessional motion of galaxies and other matter." This is fundamentally wrong on two levels. Firstly, you're conflating the observation (recession) with the underlying cause (metric expansion of space). Secondly, the expansion of space is NOT due to a Big Bang "explosion", it's a change in the scale of the metric of spacetime. $\endgroup$
– Chappo Hasn't Forgotten Monica
$\begingroup$ @ChappoHasn'tForgottenMonica As I said, it's a very common misconception. I know Davis & Lineweaver missed it; they aren't infallible. As usual in GR it's a result of treating coordinates as though they have physical meaning. It's the same thing that leads people to think that it takes forever to cross an event horizon, etc. The Milne model is a good source of counterexamples to misconceptions about cosmology, like Rindler coordinates are with event horizons. In the Milne model $a(t)\propto t$, but it's just Minkowski space. You can show cosmological and SR redshifts are equal, etc. $\endgroup$
– benrg
Thanks for contributing an answer to Astronomy Stack Exchange!
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged cosmology general-relativity expansion photons or ask your own question.
Graduation of the Astronomy Stack Exchange
If an object 1 billion light years away emits light, does it take more than 1 billion years to reach us because of the expansion of the universe?
How do we know the universe's expansion is speeding up?
What accounts into calculating the Hubble constant?
How does the concept of a universe with no center work?
How is the expansion rate of the universe obtained from Baryon Acoustic Oscillations?
Does the expansion of the universe increase with distance?
Does the gravity oppose to the Universe expansion?
Does a photon honor the causality principle?
How is it possible that a universe with mass does not have curvature?
If we watched extremely red-shifted galaxies near the edge of the observable universe for a very long time, how would they change? Would more appear?