Astron. Astrophys. 318, 680-686 (1997)
4. The general differential equation for the angular size distance
In a series of papers Zeldovich (1964), Dashevskii and Zeldovich
(1965) and Dashevskii and Slysh (1966) developed a general
differential equation for the distance between two light rays on the
boundary of a small light cone propagating far away from all clumps of
matter in an inhomogeneous universe:
![[EQUATION]](img103.gif)
where and are
functions of the time t (not the lookback time of
Eq. 22). The first term can be interpreted as Ricci focusing due
to the matter inside the light cone, and the second term is due to the
expansion of space during the light propagation. We now have to
transform this time dependent differential equation into a
redshift dependent differential equation. From Eq. (11) we
obtain
9
![[EQUATION]](img111.gif)
and thus
![[EQUATION]](img112.gif)
and
![[EQUATION]](img113.gif)
Furthermore, since (Eq. (10)), we
obtain, using Eq. (25),
![[EQUATION]](img115.gif)
From the definition of (Eq. (4)) and
matter conservation (Eq. (8)) we obtain
![[EQUATION]](img116.gif)
If we now insert Eqs. (26), (28), (29) and (30) into
Eq. (24), sort the terms appropriately and cancel
, which appears in all terms, we obtain
![[EQUATION]](img118.gif)
where a prime denotes a derivative with respect to redshift and
from Eq. (12) follows
![[EQUATION]](img119.gif)
From the definition of the angular size distance (Eq. (13)) it
is obvious that it follows the same differential equation as l:
![[EQUATION]](img120.gif)
with special boundary conditions at the redshift
where the two considered light rays intersect.
The first boundary condition is trivially
![[EQUATION]](img121.gif)
and the second boundary condition follows from the Euclidean
approximation for small distances, i.e.
![[EQUATION]](img122.gif)
hence
![[EQUATION]](img123.gif)
where the sign has been chosen such that D is always
locally. We denote these special solutions of
Eq. (33) with , and, following the
definition (Eq. (13)), the angular size distance of an object at
redshift is then given as
![[EQUATION]](img126.gif)
Fig. 1 shows the influence of z,
and on the angular size distance, calculated
using Eq. (33) with our numerical implementation.
![[FIGURE]](img135.gif) |
Fig. 1. The angular size distance from the observer ( ) and from (lower right) as a function of the redshift for different cosmological models. Thin curves are for , thick for . The upper curves near ( at lower right) are for , the lower for . for all curves. The angular size distance D is given in units of
|
For completeness we note that after the original derivation by
Kayser (1985) an equivalent equation was derived by Linder (1988)
which, however, is difficult to implement due to the cumbersome
notation.
Special mention must be made of the so-called bounce models, which
expand from a finite R after having contracted from
(See, e.g., Feige (1992).) A glance at
Eq. (10) shows that in these cosmological models there must be
four distances for an (ordered) pair of redshifts. If we denote
the distances by , ,
and , where 1(2) und
3(4) refer to ( ) during
the expanding (contracting) phase, then symmetry considerations
dictate that and as
long as the dependence of on z is
the same during both phases. In this case, there are two
independent distances per (ordered) pair of redshifts. If this is not
the case, the degeneracy is no longer present and there are
four independent distances per (ordered) pair of redshifts.
© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1997
Online publication: July 3, 1998
helpdesk.link@springer.de  |