Document

Download Report

Transcript Document

Cosmic Acceleration

1) The evidence 2) What it could be 3) Why each options is interesting/confusing 4) Planning the next steps

1) The evidence - Supernovae - CMB - Clusters

The Hubble law

v r

H



   

100 lightyears

 

Cosmic acceleration

Using supernovae (exploding stars) as cosmic “mileposts”, acceleration of the Universe has been detected.

Supernova

Supernova video (links provided in online course notes)

Acceleration of the universe The Hubble law at great distances depends on the variations of the Hubble “constant” H with time.

Cosmic acceleration

Accelerating matter is required to fit current data Preferred by data c. 2003 “Ordinary” non accelerating matter  Supernova 

Cosmic acceleration

Accelerating matter is required to fit current data

Kowalski, et al., Ap.J.. (2008)

Preferred by data c.

2008

“Ordinary” non accelerating matter BAO  Supernova 

Cosmic acceleration

Accelerating matter is required to fit current data

Kowalski, et al., Ap.J.. (2008)

Preferred by data c.

2008

“Ordinary” non accelerating matter BAO  Supernova 

(Includes dark matter)

1) The evidence - Supernovae - CMB - Clusters

1) The evidence Supernovae - CMB Clusters

The Edge of the Observable Universe:

As we look back in space we look back in time. We see: Light traveling from far away =from distant past Long ago (about 14 Billion years) the Universe was so hot and dense it was opaque: The edge of the observable universe Here & Now

Properties of the Edge of the Observable Universe:

Similar to surface of Sun at time of emission (~ 6000

) Today: • Only 2.726K above absolute Zero • • “Microwave Radiation” (The “Cosmic Microwave Background”: CMB) 1,000,000 times weaker than ambient radiation in a pitch dark room.

Here & Now

Observing the Microwave Background, Past, present and future:

Time

The History of the Universe

New Image of the “Last Scattering Surface” from NASA’s WMAP satellite released Feb 11 2003 High Energy & Temp

WMAP map of the “edge of the observable universe” plotted as a sphere Note: we are really on the inside looking out

• Characteristic oscillations in the CMB power WMAP  Angular scale

I.1 Successes

Inflation “Active” models Adapted from Bennett et al Feb 11 ‘03

The predicted “cmb power” curves are different for different models of the universe. Only curves with specific parameter choices fit the data.

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/movies.html

Cosmic acceleration

Using supernovae (exploding stars) as cosmic “mileposts”, acceleration of the Universe has been detected.

“Gravitating” non accelerating matter  Supernova  Preferred by modern data

1) The evidence Supernovae - CMB Clusters

1) The evidence Supernovae - CMB - Clusters

Dark matter require to explain galaxy rotation curve data “Cluster data” measures something similar

Cosmic acceleration (newest data)

Using supernovae (exploding stars) as cosmic “mileposts”, acceleration of the Universe has been detected.

Preferred by modern data “Gravitating” non accelerating matter  Supernova 

Cosmic acceleration

Accelerating matter is required to fit current data Preferred by data c. 2003 “Ordinary” non accelerating matter  Supernova 

Cosmic acceleration

Accelerating matter is required to fit current data

Kowalski, et al., Ap.J.. (2008)

Preferred by data c.

2008

“Ordinary” non accelerating matter BAO  Supernova 

Cosmic acceleration

Accelerating matter is required to fit current data

Kowalski, et al., Ap.J.. (2008)

Preferred by data c.

2008

“Ordinary” non accelerating matter BAO  Supernova 

(Includes dark matter)

Dark Energy and Inflation Here for inflation Preferred by modern data “Gravitating” non accelerating matter  Supernova   Accelerating “Dark Energy” is what makes (required to give consistency with inflation)  U =1  (+)    Dark Energy *very* poorly understood (-/+)

Dark Energy and the fate of the Universe Preferred by modern data “Gravitating” non accelerating matter  Supernova  In the presence of dark energy, the simple connection between open/closed/flat and the future of the universe no longer holds

95% of the cosmic matter/energy is a mystery. It has never been observed even in our best laboratories Ordinary Matter (observed in labs) 5% Dark Energy (accelerating) 70% Dark Matter 25%

95% of the cosmic matter/energy is a mystery. It has never been observed even in our best laboratories Ordinary Matter (observed in labs) 5% Gravitating Dark Energy (accelerating) 70% Dark Matter 25%

Problems with cosmic acceleration -Shouldn’t the pull of gravity slow down the expansion?

-The challenge is much greater when one knows the “foundations” of particle physics. Extremely difficult to accommodate acceleration

Cosmic Acceleration

1) The evidence 2) What it could be 3) Why each options is interesting/confusing 4) Planning the next steps

What could cause the acceleration?

1) A “cosmological constant” (see “special topic” on p698) 2) A new batch of “potential dominated matter”. Can think of the current era as “starting a new period of inflation”.

3) We must develop a new theory of gravity which can account for the data without needing acceleration (in the above, we assume Einstein’s General Relativity is correct). 4) Some other misinterpretation of data? (Getting less and less likely as more data comes in)

What could cause the acceleration?

1) A “cosmological constant” (see “special topic” on p698) 2) A new batch of “potential dominated matter”. Can think of the current era as “starting a new period of inflation”.

What could cause the acceleration?

1) A “cosmological constant” (see “special topic” on p698) 2) A new batch of “potential dominated matter”. Can think of the current era as “starting a new period of inflation”.

What could cause the acceleration?

1) A “cosmological constant” (see “special topic” on p698) 2) A new batch of “potential dominated matter”. Can think of the current era as “starting a new period of inflation”.

Each of the above explanations has its problems:

Cosmic Acceleration

1) The evidence 2) What it could be 3) Why each options is interesting/confusing 4) Planning the next steps

Each of the above explanations has its problems: 1) A “cosmological constant”: Requires a value 10 -120 the “natural value”. Hard to know how that could come about.

-A “horizon” forms around us as the acceleration continues. -We will never see any object cross the horizon (just a bit larger than the currently observed universe) - Perhaps the universe is truly finite?

Each of the above explanations has its problems: 1) A “cosmological constant”: Requires a value 10 -120 the “natural value”. Hard to know how that could come about.

-A “horizon” forms around us as the acceleration continues. Much like a black hole horizon -We will never see any object cross the horizon (just a bit larger than the currently observed universe) - Perhaps the universe is truly finite?

Each of the above explanations has its problems: 1) A “cosmological constant”: Requires a value 10 -120 the “natural value”. Hard to know how that could come about.

Long list of amazing implications!

Each of the above explanations has its problems: 2) A new batch of “potential dominated matter”. Requires a new elementary particle with mass 10 -33 times the electron mass. Tough to fit that into current theories.

Each of the above explanations has its problems: 3) We must develop a new theory of gravity which can account for the data without needing acceleration (in the above, we assume Einstein’s General Relativity is correct). Pretty much every attempt to do this has produced a problematic theory (i.e. mathematically inconsistent).

Each of the above explanations has its problems: 4) Some other misinterpretation of data?

the most compelling suggestions have all been ruled out.

So far

American Association for the Advancement of Science

…at the moment, the nature of dark energy is arguably the murkiest question in physics--and the one that, when answered, may shed the most light.

“Right now, not only for cosmology but for elementary particle theory, this is the throat bone in our .” - Steven Weinberg ‘This is the biggest embarrassment in theoretical physics” - Michael Turner “Basically, people don’t have a clue as to how to solve this problem.” - Jeff Harvey “… would be No. 1 on my list of things to figure out.” - Edward Witten “… Maybe the most fundamentally mysterious thing in basic science.” - Frank Wilczek

From P 680 of text (same as 5e)

From P 677 of text (compare with 5e!)

What is the source of our textbook’s skepticism?

 That we don’t really know if we are interpreting the data correctly, so “dark energy” and “acceleration” may not really be the right description?

AA: Fair enough!

 Are the hoping that new data will make the phenomenon “go away”, removing the need for some new piece of our theory of the cosmos?

AA: If so, they are behind the times!

The report from the Dark Energy Task Force

University of Chicago 10 May 2006 Andreas Albrecht

Context

Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon which most directly demonstrates that our fundamental theories of particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.

Context

#1 on

Science

magazine’s list of “most compelling puzzles and questions facing scientists today” 10

Goals and Methodology

The goal of dark-energy science is to determine the very nature of the dark energy that causes the Universe to accelerate and seems to comprise most of the mass-energy of the Universe.

Toward this goal, our observational program must: a.

Determine as well as possible whether the accelerated expansion is consistent with being due to a cosmological constant.

If it is not due to a constant, probe the underlying dynamics by measuring as well as possible the time evolution of dark energy, for example by measuring

(

);

(

)



0 + our parameterization

w a

(

1 -

Search for a possible failure of GR through comparison of cosmic expansion with growth of structure.

Goals of dark-energy observational program through measurement of expansion history of Universe [

d L

(

) ,

d A

(

) ,

(

)], and through measurement of growth rate of structure. All described by

(

). If failure of GR, possible difference in

(

) inferred from different types of data.

The SNAP Satellite Here for inflation “Ordinary” non accelerating matter  Supernova  Preferred by modern data Proposed new experiment

Another instrument that can vastly improve our knowledge of dark energy • The LSST (Large-aperture Synoptic Survey Telescope) NB: the director of LSST is Prof Tony Tyson of UCD