Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In some papers, authors put the following formula for the cosmological redshift $z$ :


where :

  • $S$ is the source and $O$ the observer

  • $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric

  • $k^{\mu}=\frac{dx^{\mu}}{d\lambda}$ is the coordinate derivative regarding the affine parameter $\lambda$

  • $u^{\nu}$ is the 4-velocity of the cosmic fluid

My first question is : according to the Einstein summation, is it a fraction of sums $\left(\frac{\sum_{\mu\nu}X}{\sum_{\mu\nu}Y}\right)$ or a sum of fractions $\left(\sum_{\mu\nu}\frac{X}{Y}\right)$ ?

My second question (and more important) is : where does this formula come from ? Where can I find a "demonstration"/"derivation"/"explanation" of this ?

share|cite|improve this question
Please tell us where you found this, so we have some context. The only reasonable thing I can imagine the "cosmic fluid" would refer to would be the rest frame of the CMB or the Hubble flow. Let's consider the simplest case, where both source and observer are at rest relative to the CMB. Then the velocity four-vectors $u$ are both of the form (1,0,0,0) in their respective frames S and O. The equation becomes $1+z=f_S/f_O$, which simply reads as a definition of $z$ in terms of the Doppler shift. – Ben Crowell Jun 17 '13 at 17:54
You can also consider the case where S and O are separated by a small distance, so cosmological expansion is negligible. Then the same Lorentz frame can cover both of them, and I assume (haven't worked it out) that you then recover the SR Doppler shift. – Ben Crowell Jun 17 '13 at 17:57
The $u^\lambda$ is presumably the 4-velocity of an observer. The inner product is simple the frequency (up to a constant) the observer with that 4-velocity measures. The identity is quite trivial to expect to see a proof in any textbook. – MBN Jun 18 '13 at 12:07
@MBN: It may be a trivial identity in SR, but he's saying it's valid for GR, in cosmological spacetimes. That seems extremely nontrivial to me. If it's cosmologically valid, can you point us to a textbook where it's discussed? – Ben Crowell Jun 18 '13 at 14:58
@BenCrowell: I thought it followed directly from the equivalence principle. It is a local statement, the frequency that an observer measures. I have seen it in Wald where he derives the red shift for Schwarzschield and FRWL spacetime. But he only states it. – MBN Jun 18 '13 at 15:34
up vote 1 down vote accepted

For the first question, it is the same quantity, the Minkowski dot product of the four vectors $k$ and $u$ that you may call $A_{O}$ and $A_{S}$, in general

$$g_{\mu\nu}k^{\mu}u^{\nu}=k_{\nu}u^{\nu}\equiv A$$

computed for the source and computed for the observer. So you have

$$1+z=\frac{A_{S}}{A_{O}} $$

share|cite|improve this answer
So this is a fraction of sums and not a sum a fractions ? – Vincent Jun 17 '13 at 15:22
Yes. The proof goes along the lines that the energy of the photon ($E=h\nu$) is precisely that dot product, but I can't give a detailed explanation – Jorge Jun 17 '13 at 15:26
This is fine as far as the purely notational issues, but it doesn't explain why the inner product $k_\nu u^\nu$ is of interest, or why the "cosmic fluid" is relevant. – Ben Crowell Jun 17 '13 at 17:46
@BenCrowell fair enough, I just answered half of the OP question, and I claim that I can't give a full explanation on why is that quanitity relevant. – Jorge Jun 17 '13 at 18:16

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.