How do we know if an object is redshifted?
$begingroup$
I have some questions about redshift. I think that the first two hang on the last two, but feel free to point out anything you think I should know.
How do we know if an object is actually redshifted, and that we aren't just seeing the regular spectrum of the star?
How can we tell the extent to which a star is redshifted?
Do astronomers have a full baseline spectrum that they compare the measured spectrum against? Or do they just use the hydrogen spectrum since all stars are mostly hydrogen?
the-sun distances redshift
asked 9 hours ago
GimcrackGimcrack
261
New contributor
Gimcrack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have some questions about redshift. I think that the first two hang on the last two, but feel free to point out anything you think I should know.
How do we know if an object is actually redshifted, and that we aren't just seeing the regular spectrum of the star?
How can we tell the extent to which a star is redshifted?
Do astronomers have a full baseline spectrum that they compare the measured spectrum against? Or do they just use the hydrogen spectrum since all stars are mostly hydrogen?
the-sun distances redshift
asked 9 hours ago
GimcrackGimcrack
261
New contributor
Gimcrack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have some questions about redshift. I think that the first two hang on the last two, but feel free to point out anything you think I should know.
How do we know if an object is actually redshifted, and that we aren't just seeing the regular spectrum of the star?
How can we tell the extent to which a star is redshifted?
Do astronomers have a full baseline spectrum that they compare the measured spectrum against? Or do they just use the hydrogen spectrum since all stars are mostly hydrogen?
the-sun distances redshift
asked 9 hours ago
GimcrackGimcrack
261
New contributor
Gimcrack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
I have some questions about redshift. I think that the first two hang on the last two, but feel free to point out anything you think I should know.
How do we know if an object is actually redshifted, and that we aren't just seeing the regular spectrum of the star?
How can we tell the extent to which a star is redshifted?
Do astronomers have a full baseline spectrum that they compare the measured spectrum against? Or do they just use the hydrogen spectrum since all stars are mostly hydrogen?
the-sun distances redshift
the-sun distances redshift
asked 9 hours ago
GimcrackGimcrack
261
New contributor
Gimcrack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 9 hours ago
GimcrackGimcrack
261
New contributor
Gimcrack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 9 hours ago
GimcrackGimcrack
261
New contributor
Gimcrack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 9 hours ago
GimcrackGimcrack
261
asked 9 hours ago
GimcrackGimcrack
261
261
New contributor
Gimcrack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Gimcrack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Gimcrack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are two methods, one more reliable than the other (though both are pretty good.)
Key point: The brighter a star is, the more detail we can see in its spectrum -- you can think of it as being able to magnify the spectrum more so as to be able to see finer details. This also allows us to see fainter lines (not all spectral lines are equally intense.)
We have very extensive reference spectra of all the elements under a wide variety of conditions, so when a star is bright enough we see many spectral lines and can match them up to reference spectra. No two elements have similar spectra, so if you can see many lines, you can't easily confuse one for another.
When you can account for nearly all of the lines in a star's spectrum by a plausible set of elements in plausible abundances and all with the same red shift, you have a very, very reliable match and accurately know the object's red shift.
But distant stars (and galaxies) are very faint and so the spectra we get are very low resolution and show only a few of the strongest spectral lines. They can frequently be matched because hydrogen is so common that the strongest lines seen will be hydrogen lines and even if you can only spot two or three of them, if they bear the same relative positions as bright hydrogen lines, you can safely identify them and read off the red shift. This is less reliable, but still reliable enough that it rarely is a problem.
In the very dimmest cases you may only see a single line. You have a very rough idea of the redshift from the object's brightness and all you can do is assume it's the strongest hydrogen line and see if it's in roughly the right position given the distance deduced from the object's brightness and type. This works too, but is still less reliable. (Much of Hubble's original work relied on just a single line for the more distance objects, but proved to be correct when observed later with dramatically better equipment.)
answered 9 hours ago
Mark OlsonMark Olson
5,269919
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "514"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Gimcrack is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f29503%2fhow-do-we-know-if-an-object-is-redshifted%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are two methods, one more reliable than the other (though both are pretty good.)
Key point: The brighter a star is, the more detail we can see in its spectrum -- you can think of it as being able to magnify the spectrum more so as to be able to see finer details. This also allows us to see fainter lines (not all spectral lines are equally intense.)
We have very extensive reference spectra of all the elements under a wide variety of conditions, so when a star is bright enough we see many spectral lines and can match them up to reference spectra. No two elements have similar spectra, so if you can see many lines, you can't easily confuse one for another.
When you can account for nearly all of the lines in a star's spectrum by a plausible set of elements in plausible abundances and all with the same red shift, you have a very, very reliable match and accurately know the object's red shift.
But distant stars (and galaxies) are very faint and so the spectra we get are very low resolution and show only a few of the strongest spectral lines. They can frequently be matched because hydrogen is so common that the strongest lines seen will be hydrogen lines and even if you can only spot two or three of them, if they bear the same relative positions as bright hydrogen lines, you can safely identify them and read off the red shift. This is less reliable, but still reliable enough that it rarely is a problem.
In the very dimmest cases you may only see a single line. You have a very rough idea of the redshift from the object's brightness and all you can do is assume it's the strongest hydrogen line and see if it's in roughly the right position given the distance deduced from the object's brightness and type. This works too, but is still less reliable. (Much of Hubble's original work relied on just a single line for the more distance objects, but proved to be correct when observed later with dramatically better equipment.)
answered 9 hours ago
Mark OlsonMark Olson
5,269919
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two methods, one more reliable than the other (though both are pretty good.)
Key point: The brighter a star is, the more detail we can see in its spectrum -- you can think of it as being able to magnify the spectrum more so as to be able to see finer details. This also allows us to see fainter lines (not all spectral lines are equally intense.)
We have very extensive reference spectra of all the elements under a wide variety of conditions, so when a star is bright enough we see many spectral lines and can match them up to reference spectra. No two elements have similar spectra, so if you can see many lines, you can't easily confuse one for another.
When you can account for nearly all of the lines in a star's spectrum by a plausible set of elements in plausible abundances and all with the same red shift, you have a very, very reliable match and accurately know the object's red shift.
But distant stars (and galaxies) are very faint and so the spectra we get are very low resolution and show only a few of the strongest spectral lines. They can frequently be matched because hydrogen is so common that the strongest lines seen will be hydrogen lines and even if you can only spot two or three of them, if they bear the same relative positions as bright hydrogen lines, you can safely identify them and read off the red shift. This is less reliable, but still reliable enough that it rarely is a problem.
In the very dimmest cases you may only see a single line. You have a very rough idea of the redshift from the object's brightness and all you can do is assume it's the strongest hydrogen line and see if it's in roughly the right position given the distance deduced from the object's brightness and type. This works too, but is still less reliable. (Much of Hubble's original work relied on just a single line for the more distance objects, but proved to be correct when observed later with dramatically better equipment.)
answered 9 hours ago
Mark OlsonMark Olson
5,269919
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two methods, one more reliable than the other (though both are pretty good.)
Key point: The brighter a star is, the more detail we can see in its spectrum -- you can think of it as being able to magnify the spectrum more so as to be able to see finer details. This also allows us to see fainter lines (not all spectral lines are equally intense.)
We have very extensive reference spectra of all the elements under a wide variety of conditions, so when a star is bright enough we see many spectral lines and can match them up to reference spectra. No two elements have similar spectra, so if you can see many lines, you can't easily confuse one for another.
When you can account for nearly all of the lines in a star's spectrum by a plausible set of elements in plausible abundances and all with the same red shift, you have a very, very reliable match and accurately know the object's red shift.
But distant stars (and galaxies) are very faint and so the spectra we get are very low resolution and show only a few of the strongest spectral lines. They can frequently be matched because hydrogen is so common that the strongest lines seen will be hydrogen lines and even if you can only spot two or three of them, if they bear the same relative positions as bright hydrogen lines, you can safely identify them and read off the red shift. This is less reliable, but still reliable enough that it rarely is a problem.
In the very dimmest cases you may only see a single line. You have a very rough idea of the redshift from the object's brightness and all you can do is assume it's the strongest hydrogen line and see if it's in roughly the right position given the distance deduced from the object's brightness and type. This works too, but is still less reliable. (Much of Hubble's original work relied on just a single line for the more distance objects, but proved to be correct when observed later with dramatically better equipment.)
answered 9 hours ago
Mark OlsonMark Olson
5,269919
$endgroup$
There are two methods, one more reliable than the other (though both are pretty good.)
Key point: The brighter a star is, the more detail we can see in its spectrum -- you can think of it as being able to magnify the spectrum more so as to be able to see finer details. This also allows us to see fainter lines (not all spectral lines are equally intense.)
We have very extensive reference spectra of all the elements under a wide variety of conditions, so when a star is bright enough we see many spectral lines and can match them up to reference spectra. No two elements have similar spectra, so if you can see many lines, you can't easily confuse one for another.
When you can account for nearly all of the lines in a star's spectrum by a plausible set of elements in plausible abundances and all with the same red shift, you have a very, very reliable match and accurately know the object's red shift.
But distant stars (and galaxies) are very faint and so the spectra we get are very low resolution and show only a few of the strongest spectral lines. They can frequently be matched because hydrogen is so common that the strongest lines seen will be hydrogen lines and even if you can only spot two or three of them, if they bear the same relative positions as bright hydrogen lines, you can safely identify them and read off the red shift. This is less reliable, but still reliable enough that it rarely is a problem.
In the very dimmest cases you may only see a single line. You have a very rough idea of the redshift from the object's brightness and all you can do is assume it's the strongest hydrogen line and see if it's in roughly the right position given the distance deduced from the object's brightness and type. This works too, but is still less reliable. (Much of Hubble's original work relied on just a single line for the more distance objects, but proved to be correct when observed later with dramatically better equipment.)
answered 9 hours ago
Mark OlsonMark Olson
5,269919
answered 9 hours ago
Mark OlsonMark Olson
5,269919
answered 9 hours ago
Mark OlsonMark Olson
5,269919
answered 9 hours ago
Mark OlsonMark Olson
5,269919
5,269919
add a comment |
add a comment |
Gimcrack is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Gimcrack is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Gimcrack is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Gimcrack is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Astronomy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f29503%2fhow-do-we-know-if-an-object-is-redshifted%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
