The Cosmic Void: Could we be in the Middle of it?

Is our region of space unique? As in there isn't much here? Credit: ESO. Edit: Ian O'Neill

[/caption]
On large scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic. This means that no matter where you are located in the cosmos, give or take the occasional nebula or galactic cluster, the night sky will appear approximately the same. Naturally there is some ‘clumpiness’ in the distribution of the stars and galaxies, but generally the density of any given location will be the same as a location hundreds of light years away. This assumption is known as the Copernican Principle. By invoking the Copernican Principle, astronomers have predicted the existence of the elusive dark energy, accelerating the galaxies away from one another, thus expanding the Universe. But say if this basic assumption is incorrect? What if our region of the Universe is unique in that we are sitting in in a location where the average density is a lot lower than other regions of space? Suddenly our observations of light from Type 1a supernovae are not anomalous and can be explained by the local void. If this were to be the case, dark energy (or any other exotic substance for that matter) wouldn’t be required to explain the nature of our Universe after all…

Dark energy is a hypothetical energy predicted to permeate through the Cosmos, causing the observed expansion of the Universe. This strange energy is believed to account for 73% of the total mass-energy (i.e. E=mc2) of the Universe. But where is the evidence for dark energy? One of the main tools when measuring the accelerated expansion of the Universe is to analyse the red-shift of a distant object with a known brightness. In a Universe filled with stars, what object generates a “standard” brightness?

NASA, ESA, and A. Field (STScI)
The progenitor of a Type Ia Supernova. Credit: NASA, ESA, and A. Field (STScI)

Type 1a supernovae are known as ‘standard candles’ for this very reason. No matter where they explode in the observable universe, they will always blow with the same amount of energy. So, in the mid-1990’s astronomers observed distant Type 1a’s a little dimmer than expected. With the basic assumption (it may be an accepted view, but it is an assumption all the same) that the Universe obeys the Copernican Principle, this dimming suggested that there was some force in the Universe causing not only an expansion, but an accelerated expansion of the Universe. This mystery force was dubbed dark energy and it is now a commonly held view that the cosmos must be filled with it to explain these observations. (There are many other factors explaining the existence of dark energy, but this is a critical factor.)

According to a new publication headed by Timothy Clifton, from the University of Oxford, UK, the controversial suggestion that the widely accepted Copernican Principle is wrong is investigated. Perhaps we do exist in a unique region of space where the average density is much lower than the rest of the Universe. The observations of distant supernovae suddenly wouldn’t require dark energy to explain the nature of the expanding Universe. No exotic substances, no modifications to gravity and no extra dimensions required.

Clifton explains conditions that could explain supernova observations are that we live in an extremely rarefied region, right near the centre, and this void could be on a scale of the same order of magnitude as the observable Universe. If this were the case, the geometry of space-time would be different, influencing the passage of light in a different way than we’d expect. What’s more, he even goes as far as saying that any given observer has a high probability of finding themselves in such a location. However, in an inflationary Universe such as ours, the likelihood of the generation of such a void is low, but should be considered nonetheless. Finding ourselves in the middle of a unique region of space would out rightly violate the Copernican Principle and would have massive implications on all facets of cosmology. Quite literally, it would be a revolution.

The Copernican Principle is an assumption that forms the bedrock of cosmology. As pointed out by Amanda Gefter at New Scientist, this assumption should be open to scrutiny. After all, good science should not be akin to religion where an assumption (or belief) becomes unquestionable. Although Clifton’s study is speculative for now, it does pose some interesting questions about our understanding of the Universe and whether we are willing to test our fundamental ideas.

Sources: arXiv:0807.1443v1 [astro-ph], New Scientist Blog

Large Hadron Collider Could Generate Dark Matter

A simulation of a LHC collision (CERN)

One of the biggest questions that occupy particle physicists and cosmologists alike is: what is dark matter? We know that a tiny fraction of the mass of the universe is the visible stuff we can see, but 23% of the Universe is made from stuff that we cannot see. The remaining mass is held in something called dark energy. But going back to the dark matter question, cosmologists believe their observations indicate the presence of darkmatter, and particle physicists believe the bulk of this matter could be held in quantum particles. This trail leads to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) where the very small meets the very big, hopefully explaining what particles could be generated after harnessing the huge energies possible with the LHC…

The excitement is growing for the grand switch-on of the LHC later this summer. We’ve been following all the news releases, research possibilities and some of the more “out there” theories as to what the LHC is likely to discover, but my favourite bits of LHC news include the possibility of peering into other dimensions, creating wormholes, generating “unparticles” and micro-black holes. These articles are pretty extreme possibilities for the LHC, I suspect the daily running of the huge particle accelerator will be a little more mundane (although “mundane” in accelerator physics will still be pretty damn exciting!).

David Toback, professor at Texas A&M University in College Station, is very optimistic as to what discoveries the LHC will uncover. Toback and his team have written a model that uses data from the LHC to predict the quantity of dark matter left over after the Big Bang. After all, the collisions inside the LHC will momentarily recreate some of the conditions at the time of the birth of our Universe. If the Universe created dark matter over 14 billion years ago, then perhaps the LHC can do the same.

Should Toback’s team be correct in that the LHC can create dark matter, there will be valuable implications for both particle physics and cosmology. What’s more, quantum physicists will be a step closer to proving the validity of the supersymmetry model.

If our results are correct we now know much better where to look for this dark matter particle at the LHC. We’ve used precision data from astronomy to calculate what it would look like at the LHC, and how quickly we should be able to discover and measure it. If we get the same answer, that would give us enormous confidence that the supersymmetry model is correct. If nature shows this, it would be remarkable.” – David Toback

So the hunt is on for dark matter production in the LHC… but what will we be looking for? After all dark matter is predicted to be non-interacting and, well, dark. The supersymmetry model predicts a possible dark matter particle called the neutralino. It is supposed to be a heavy, stable particle and should there be a way of detecting it, there could be the opportunity for Toback’s group to probe the nature of the neutralino not only in the detection chamber of the LHC, but the nature of the neutralino in the Universe.

If this works out, we could do real, honest to goodness cosmology at the LHC. And we’d be able to use cosmology to make particle physics predictions.” – Toback

Source: Physorg.com

Thinking About Time Before the Big Bang

What happened before the Big Bang? The conventional answer to that question is usually, “There is no such thing as ‘before the Big Bang.'” That’s the event that started it all. But the right answer, says physicist Sean Carroll, is, “We just don’t know.” Carroll, as well as many other physicists and cosmologists have begun to consider the possibility of time before the Big Bang, as well as alternative theories of how our universe came to be. Carroll discussed this type of “speculative research” during a talk at the American Astronomical Society Meeting last week in St. Louis, Missouri.

“This is an interesting time to be a cosmologist,” Carroll said. “We are both blessed and cursed. It’s a golden age, but the problem is that the model we have of the universe makes no sense.”

First, there’s an inventory problem, where 95% of the universe is unaccounted for. Cosmologists seemingly have solved that problem by concocting dark matter and dark energy. But because we have “created” matter to fit the data doesn’t mean we understand the nature of the universe.

Another big surprise about our universe comes from actual data from the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) spacecraft which has been studying the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) the “echo” of the Big Bang.

“The WMAP snapshot of how the early universe looked shows it to be hot, dense and smooth [low entropy] over a wide region of space,” said Carroll. “We don’t understand why that is the case. That’s an even bigger surprise than the inventory problem. Our universe just doesn’t look natural.” Carroll said states of low-entropy are rare, plus of all the possible initial conditions that could have evolved into a universe like ours, the overwhelming majority have much higher entropy, not lower.

But the single most surprising phenomenon about the universe, said Carroll, is that things change. And it all happens in a consistent direction from past to future, throughout the universe.

“It’s called the arrow of time,” said Carroll. This arrow of time comes from the second law of thermodynamics, which invokes entropy. The law states that invariably, closed systems move from order to disorder over time. This law is fundamental to physics and astronomy.

One of the big questions about the initial conditions of the universe is why did entropy start out so low? “And low entropy near the Big Bang is responsible for everything about the arrow of time” said Carroll. “Life and death, memory, the flow of time.” Events happen in order and can’t be reversed.

“Every time you break an egg or spill a glass of water you’re doing observational cosmology,” Carroll said.

Therefore, in order to answer our questions about the universe and the arrow of time, we might need to consider what happened before the Big Bang.

Carroll insisted these are important issues to think about. “This is not just recreational theology,” he said. “We want a story of the universe that makes sense. When we have things that seem surprising, we look for an underlying mechanism that makes what was a puzzle understandable. The low entropy universe is clue to something and we should work to find it.”

Right now we don’t have a good model of the universe, and current theories don’t answer the questions. Classical general relativity predicts the universe began with a singularity, but it can’t prove anything until after the Big Bang.

Inflation theory, which proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments, is no help, Carroll said. “It just makes the entropy problem worse. Inflation requires a theory of initial conditions.”

There are other models out there, too, but Carroll proposed, and seemed to favor the idea of multi-universes that keep creating “baby” universes. “Our observable universe might not be the whole story,” he said. “If we are part of a bigger multiverse, there is no maximal-entropy equilibrium state and entropy is produced via creation of universes like our own.”

Carroll also discussed new research he and a team of physicists have done, looking at, again, results from WMAP. Carroll and his team say the data shows the universe is “lopsided.”

Measurements from WMAP show that the fluctuations in the microwave background are about 10% stronger on one side of the sky than on the other.

An explanation for this “heavy-on-one-side universe” would be if these fluctuations represented a structure left over from the universe that produced our universe.

Carroll said all of this would be helped by a better understanding of quantum gravity. “Quantum fluctuations can produce new universes. If thermal fluctuation in a quiet space can lead to baby universes, they would have their own entropy and could go on creating universes.”

Granted, — and Carroll stressed this point — any research on these topics is generally considered speculation at this time. “None of this is firmly established stuff,” he said. “I would bet even money that this is wrong. But hopefully I’ll be able to come back in 10 years and tell you that we’ve figured it all out.”

Admittedly, as writer, trying to encapsulate Carroll’s talk and ideas into a short article surely doesn’t do them justice. Check out Carroll’s take on these notions and more at his blog, Cosmic Variance. Also, read a great summary of Carroll’s talk, written by Chris Lintott for the BBC. I’ve been mulling over Carroll’s talk for more than a week now, and contemplating the beginnings of time — and even that there might be time before time — has made for an interesting and captivating week. Whether that time has brought me forward or backward in my understanding remains to be seen!

New “Map” Could Help Solve Ancient Mysteries of Our Galaxy

Milky Way. Image Credit: Atlas of the Universe

An international team of astronomers from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey unveiled a new detailed map of the chemical composition of more than 2.5 million stars in the Milky Way. This new map could help reveal the unknown ancient history of our galaxy. “With the new SDSS map, astronomers can begin to tackle many unsolved mysteries about the birth and growth of the Milky Way,” said Zeljko Ivezic, a University of Washington astronomer, and leader of the study.

Astronomers use the term “metals” to describe all elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, including the oxygen we breathe, the calcium in our bones, and the iron in our blood. Although hydrogen, helium and traces of lithium were created at the beginning of the Universe in the Big Bang, all other elements (such as iron and carbon) were forged in the cores of stars or during the explosive deaths of massive stars.

As a result, stars that formed early in the history of the Galaxy (some 13 billion years ago) were made of gas that had few metals created by the generations of stars that came before. These “metal-poor stars” provide astronomers with a chemical fingerprint of the origin and evolution of the elements. As subsequent generations of stars formed and died, they returned some of their metal-enriched material to the interstellar medium, the birthplace of later generations of stars, including our Sun.

Previous chemical composition maps were based on much smaller samples of stars and didn’t go as far as the distances surveyed by SDSS-II — a region extending from near the Sun to about 30,000 light years away. The construction and first implications of the map are described in a paper titled “The Milky Way Tomography with SDSS: II. Stellar Metallicity,” slated to appear in the August 1 issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

“By mapping how the metal content of stars varies throughout the Milky Way, astronomers can decipher star formation and evolution, just as archaeologists reveal ancient history by studying human artifacts,”explained University of Washington graduate student Branimir Sesar, a member of the research team.

Sources: ArXiv, Sloan Digital Sky Survey

XMM-Newton Discovers Part of Missing Matter in the Universe

We’re getting the numbers down pretty well now about how much we don’t know about the universe: Only about 5% of our universe consists of normal matter, made of atoms. The rest of our universe is composed of elusive matter that we don’t understand: dark matter (23%) and dark energy (72%). And of that 5% of normal matter, well, we don’t know what half of that is, either. All the stars, galaxies and gas observable in the universe account for less than a half of all the matter that should be around.

About 10 years ago, scientists predicted that the missing half of ‘ordinary’ or normal matter exists in the form of low-density gas, filling vast spaces between galaxies. The European Space Agency announced today that the orbiting X-ray observatory XMM-Newton has uncovered this low density, but high temperature gas.

The universe has been described as a cosmic web. The dense part of the web is made of clusters of galaxies, which are the largest objects in the universe. Astronomers suspected that low-density gas filled in the filaments of the web. But the low density of the gas has made it difficult to detect. With the XMM-Newton’s high sensitivity, astronomers have discovered the hottest parts of this gas.

Astronomers using XMM-Newton were observing a pair of galaxy clusters, Abell 222 and Abell 223, located 230 million light-years from Earth, when the images and spectra of the system revealed a bridge of hot gas connecting the clusters.

“The hot gas that we see in this bridge or filament is probably the hottest and densest part of the diffuse gas in the cosmic web, believed to constitute about half the baryonic matter in the universe,” says Norbert Werner from SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, leader of the team reporting the discovery.

The discovery of this hot gas will help better understand the evolution of the cosmic web.

“This is only the beginning,” said Werner. “To understand the distribution of the matter within the cosmic web, we have to see more systems like this one. And ultimately launch a dedicated space observatory to observe the cosmic web with a much higher sensitivity than possible with current missions. Our result allows to set up reliable requirements for those new missions.”

Original News Source: ESA Press Release

Podcast: The End of the Universe Part 2: The End of Everything

Hopefully you’ve all recovered from part 1 of this set, where we make you sad about the future of the humanity, the Earth, the Sun and the Solar System. But hang on, we’re really going to bring you down. Today we’ll look far far forward into the distant future of the Universe, at timescales that we can barely comprehend.

If you haven’t heard it, here’s a link to Part 1.

Click here to download the episode

The End of the Universe Part 2: The End of Everything – Show notes and transcript

Or subscribe to: astronomycast.com/podcast.xml with your podcatching software.

Why are Distant Galaxies Moving Away Faster?

Question: Why are more distant galaxies moving away faster?

Answer: As you know, the Universe is expanding after the Big Bang. That means that every part of the Universe was once crammed into a tiny spot smaller than a grain of sand. Then it began expanding, and here we are, 13.7 billion years later with a growing Universe.

The expansive force of dark energy is actually accelerating the expansion even faster. But we won’t bring that in to make things even more complex.

As we look out into the Universe, we see galaxies moving away from us faster and faster. The more distant a galaxy is, the more quickly it’s moving away.

To understand why this is happening, go and get a balloon (or blow one up in your mind). Once you’ve got it blown up a little, draw a bunch of dots on the surface of the balloon; some close and others much further away. Then blow up the balloon more and watch how the dots expand away from each other.

From the perspective of any one dot on the surface of the balloon, the nearby dots aren’t expanding away too quickly, maybe just a few centimeters. But the dots on the other side of the balloon are quite far away. It took the same amount of time for all the dots to change their positions, so the more distant dots appeared to be moving faster.

That’s how it works with the Universe. Because space itself is expanding, the more further a galaxy is, the faster it seems to be receding.

Thanks to Cassandra for the question.

How Can Galaxies Recede Faster than the Speed of Light?

Question: How Can Galaxies Move Away Faster Than Speed of Light?

Answer: Einstein’s Theory of Relativity says that the speed of light – 300,000 km/s – is the maximum speed that anything can travel in the Universe. It requires more and more energy to approach the speed of light. You could use up all the energy in the Universe and still not be traveling at light speed.

As you know, most of the galaxies in the Universe are expanding away from us because of the Big Bang, and the subsequent effects of dark energy, which is providing an additional accelerating force on the expansion of the Universe.

Galaxies, like our own Milky Way are carried along by the expansion of the Universe, and will move apart from every other galaxy, unless they’re close enough to hold together with gravity.

As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. And it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light. At that point, light leaving the distant galaxy would never reach us.

When that happens, the distant galaxy would just fade away as the last of the photons reached Earth, and then we would never know it was ever there.

This sounds like it breaks Einstein’s theories, but it doesn’t. The galaxies themselves aren’t actually moving very quickly through space, it’s the space itself which is expanding away, and the galaxy is being carried along with it. As long as the galaxy doesn’t try to move quickly through space, no physical laws are broken.

One sad side effect of this expansion is that most of the galaxies will have receded over this horizon in about 3 trillion years, and future cosmologists will never know there’s a great big Universe out there.

You can read more about this in an article I did called the End of Everything.

Galactic Ghosts Haunt Their Killers

Image of the stellar tidal stream surrounding the spiral galaxy NGC 5907 obtained with an amateur robotic telescope in the mountains of New Mexico. (R. Jay Gabany)

The title may sound dramatic, but it is very descriptive. New observations of two galaxies have shown huge streams of stars, not belonging inside those galaxies, reaching out into space. These streams are all that are left of galaxies that are now dead, eaten by their cannibal neighbour, now sitting in their place. The streams form an eerie halo around their killers, looking like ghosts of their former selves…

So what happened to these ill-fated galaxies? Galactic cannibalism is what happened. In both examples, large spiral galaxies have overrun smaller dwarf galaxies, devouring most of their stars. All that is left are the huge fossilized remains in the form of a tenuous distribution of dim, old, metal-poor stars. Judging by the lack of galactic structure in these “ghosts”, the cannibalizing spiral galaxies have been very efficient at eating their smaller dwarf cousins.

a gigantic, tenuous loop-like structure extending more than 80 000 light-years from the centre of the galaxy (towards the top left). (R. Jay Gabany)

The debris surrounding NGC 5907 (approximately 40 million light-years from Earth) extends 150,000 light-years across (pictured top). NGC 5907 destroyed one of its dwarf satellite galaxies at least 4,000 million years ago, consuming the stars, star clusters and dark matter, leaving only a small number of old stars behind to form a complicated criss-cross pattern of galactic fossils.

Our results provide a fresh insight into this spectacular phenomenon surrounding spiral galaxies and show that haloes contain fossil dwarf galaxies, thus providing us with a unique opportunity to study the final stages in the assembly of galaxies like ours.” – David Martínez, from the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC) leading the team that carried out these observations.

In the second spiral galaxy, NGC 4013 (50 million light-years from Earth in the constellation of Ursa Major), the ghost of another dead dwarf galaxy stretches 80,000 light-years across and is made up of old stars. Its 3D geometry is unknown, but it has similar characteristics to the Monoceros tidal stream which surrounds the Milky Way. The Monoceros tidal stream is a ring of stars, originating from a local dwarf galaxy that was eaten by our galaxy over 3,000 million years ago.

These images have a huge amount of science to offer researchers. Primarily, the detection of these galactic fossils confirms the predictions of the cold dark matter model of cosmology, which describes how the large spiral galaxies were formed from merging stellar systems.

“…fitting theoretical models to these star streams enables us to reconstruct their history and describe one of the most mysterious and controversial components of galaxies: dark matter.” – Jorge Peñarrubia, theoretical astrophysicist at the University of Victoria (Canada) who is working on this project.

Source: IAC

What was Before the Big Bang? An Identical, Reversed Universe

The Big Bounce Theory
Graphic of the Big Bounce concept (Relativity4Engineers.com)

So what did exist before the Big Bang? This question would normally belong in the realms of deep philosophical thinking; the laws of physics have no right to probe beyond the Big Bang barrier. There can be no understanding of what was there before. We have no experience, no observational capability and no way of travelling back through it (we can’t even calculate it), so how can physicists even begin to think they can answer this question? Well, a new study of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) is challenging this view, perhaps there is a way of looking into the pre-Big Bang “universe”. And the conclusion? The Big Bang was more of a “Big Bounce”, and the pre-bounce universe had the same physics as our universe… just backwards… Confused? I am

LQG is a tough theory to put into words, but it basically addresses the problems associated with the incompatibilities behind quantum theory and general relativity, two crucial theories that characterize our universe. If these two theories are not compatible with each other, the search for the “Theory Of Everything” will be hindered, disallowing gravity to merge with the “Grand Unified Theory” (a.k.a. the electronuclear force). LQG quantizes gravity, thereby providing a possible explanation for gravity and a possible key to unlocking the Theory Of Everything. However, from the outset, LQG has many critics as there is little direct or indirect evidence backing up the theory.

See the previous Universe Today article on Loop Quantum Gravity»

Regardless, much work is being done into this area of research. The primary consequence to come from LQG is that it predicts that the Big Bang which occurred 13.7 billion years ago was actually a “Big Bounce”; our universe is therefore the product of a contracting universe before the Big Bang. The previous universe (or our universe “twin”) contracted to a single point (which could be interpreted as a “Big Crunch”) and then rebounded in a Big Bounce to produce the Big Bang as we’ve learned to accept as the birth of the universe as we know it. But until now, although the pre-bounce universe has been predicted, its characteristics could not be known. No information about the pre-bounce universe could be observed in today’s universe, the Big Bounce causes a “cosmic amnesia”, destroying all information of the previous universe.

Now, physicists Alejandro Corichi from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Parampreet Singh from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario are working on a simplified Loop Quantum Gravity (sLQG) theory where they approximate the value of the “quantum constraint”, a key equation in the LQG theory. What happens next is a little surprising. From their calculations, it would appear that a universe, identical to our own, with identical mechanics, existed before the Big Bounce.

…the twin universe will have the same laws of physics and, in particular, the same notion of time as in ours. The laws of physics will not change because the evolution is always unitary, which is the nicest way a quantum system can evolve. In our analogy, it will look identical to its twin when seen from afar; one could not distinguish them.” – Parampreet Singh

We are not talking about an alternate dimension; we are talking about an identical universe with the same space-time and quantum characteristics as our own. If we look at our universe now (13.7 billion years post-bounce), it would be identical to the universe 13.7 billion years before the Big Bounce. The only difference being the direction of time would be opposite; the pre-bounce universe would be reversed.

In the universe before the bounce, all the general features will be the same. It will follow the same dynamical equations, the Einstein’s equations when the universe is large. Our model predicts that this happens when the universe becomes of the order 100 times larger than the Planck size. Further, the matter content will be the same, and it will have the same evolution. Since the pre-bounce universe is contracting, it will look as if we were looking at ours backward in time.” – Parampreet Singh

Analysing what happened before the Big Bang is only part of the story. By making this approximation of a key LQG equation, Singh and Corichi are working on models where galaxies and other physical structures leave an imprint in the pre-bounce universe to influence the post-bounce universe. Would these structures be distributed in similar ways? Will the structures in one universe be similar or identical to structures in the other universe? There may also be an opportunity to look into the future of this universe and predict whether the conditions are right for another Big Bounce (once can imagine repeated bounces, producing a cycle of universes).

For now, this research is highly theoretical and any observational evidence will remain sparse for the time being. Although this is the case, it does begin to probe the big question and may push physics a bit closer toward describing what existed before the Big Bang…

Source: Physorg.com