b) Why the hell? i.e. why is Ω~1 (after all it could be anything?)
6) Things were so much simpler back then
It is believed that the first nine inhabitants who had descended from the
skies were sexless and sinless and lived on a kind of flavoured earth. Their
appetites grew and when they took to eating a sort of huskless rice which cooked
itself they became gross and heavy, developed sex and after it crime because
they had to work for a living
Kachin Myth
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
Early universe must have been very simple: there can have been no stars or galaxies.
However, it was very hot: hot things radiate....
Universe is "full" of light: fossil light from Big Bang, discovered accidentally by Penzias and Wilson (1964)
Found that "noise" came from universe independent of what angle horn was pointed in: corresponded to a black-body temp of 30K
Have to get above atmosphere and point away from Milky Way.
Have to get above atmosphere and point away from Milky Way
Subsequent values came from balloon flights:
Finally COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer: 2006 Nobel Prize for Mather and Smoot) launched 1990:
Note the perfect Black Body curve.
Where does it come from?
Gamow (1948) discussed Hot Big Bang for first time, suggested that E.M radiation from it should still be observable.
Peebles (1964) had calculated that it should be observable, but thought T ~ 10 0K,
(and everyone had general feeling that it would be unobservable).
This is often the way it is in physics: our mistake is not that we take our theories to seriously, but that we do not take them seriously enough. It is hard to believe that the numbers that we play with at our desks have something to do with the real world.
Steven Weinberg The First Three Minutes
This "light" is now at 2.736°K, and almost uniform in every direction. It was emitted just 500000 years after the Big Bang and has been travelling round the universe ever since. At time t₀, the universe is full of γ's at a temperature T₀.
As the universe expands, the density of γ's decreases.
ρ(t) = ρ₀ R₀³/R(t)³
and also the temperature T falls as each γ gets redshifted.
Hence the energy density
E(t) ∝ R(t)⁴
Photon freezeout:
CMBR must be linked to the matter in the universe
Initially matter and radiation are in thermal equilibrium(at the same mean energy) with a Black Body distribution of γ's.
Expansion ⇒ Cooling.
The universe was originally opaque (i.e. mean free path of γ's very small) and hence CMBR was in thermal equilibrium with matter. Then the universe became transparent and photons froze out.
photon "freezeout" occurred ≈ 400000 years after the Big Bang
Photons have been travelling ever since, so this is the oldest thing we can see ....
More exactly: can calculate
Photon density N ≈ 109 m-3
Mean γ-energy E ≈ 6 x 10-4 eV
The peak of BB curve is at 1.05 mm or microwave
Temp. of the microwave sky in a scale in which blue is 0 K and red is 4 K. Note completely uniform on this scale. The actual temperature of the cosmic microwave background is 2.725 Kelvin.
If we are moving through CMBR we would expect to see it "warmer" in front and "colder" behind.
Blue ↔2.721 Kelvin
Red ↔2.729 Kelvin
so CMBR is blue-shifted in the direction we are going in (note residual effect of galaxy): what do we expect for 600 km/s?
Credit: DMR, COBE, NASA, Four-Year Sky Map
shows we are moving towards Leo at≈ 606 km/s
Quantatively:
Have to get rid of effect of Milky Way
Can just see structure at:
ΔT/T ≈ 10-6:
Indicates that the universe was very uniform back then. hotter where it is denser, and this shows where the galaxies should be forming
Unfortunately, well-formed galaxies are there at z ~ 5 or t ~ 3x109
yrs.
How did the galaxies form so quickly between t = 106 yrs (when there
are no indications) and t = 2x109 yrs (when they are well formed
and look like today's galaxies)?
Seeds must have been there ⇒ temp fluctuations.
So need a new satellite: WMAP
COBE and WMAP comparison
So what is this Dark Matter?
a) What the hell? i.e. what is the dark matter?
b) Why the hell? i.e. why is Ω~1 (after all it could be anything?)
What the hell:
Brown dwarfs
Hydrogen gas
Jupiters
Hydrogen rain
Low surface brightness galaxies
Maxi Black holes
Mini Black holes
Neutrinos
He H +
Modified 1/r² law
Axions
Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPS)
Magnetic Monopoles
Majorons
Photinos
E8 shadow matter
Cosmic Strings
Which is it? We don't know! However, all of the above have problems.
The Generic Candidates for Dark Matter :
Baryonic (BDM): (we use this as shorthand for "ordinary matter") maybe in some odd form e.g. rocks
Hot (HDM) light particles e.g. ν's
Cold (CDM): heavy (usually) particles e.g. WIMPs
The Bullet Cluster
Combination of lensing (blue) and X-rays (red) in the bullet cluster:
Strong evidence for non-interacting dark matter:
X-ray emitting material is gas, so gets stopped in collision
dark matter gets carried along
What the hell:
Brown dwarfs Not enough
Hydrogen gas Would be seen unless it was very diffuse, in which case, not enough
Jupiters Not enough
Hydrogen rain Too hot
Low surface brightness galaxies Doesn't fix the problems in spirals
Maxi Black holes Only exist at the centre of galaxies: we need halos
Mini Black holes Not enough
Neutrinos Part of the solution, but too light
He H + Unstable
Modified 1/r² law Hard to reconcile with Bullet cluster
Axions Negative searches so far
E8 shadow matter and there is a tooth fairy...
Cosmic StringsForm in wrong place
Magnetic Monopoles Screw up magnetic fields in galaxy
Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPS)
e.g. Photinos Will see them in 2008 (maybe)
WIMPS
Seem like the best bet.... Generically behave like very heavy neutrinos.
A lot can be ruled out by "in vitro" experiments (e.g. OPAL: Richard Hemingway and others at Carleton) at CERN
ATLAS (2008: Manuella Vinctner and 1500 others) will be able to rule out a lot more option (any reasonable with m < ∼ 1TeV)
Generic WIMPS can be seen "in vivo" via a variety of low temp. expts.
e.g. Queens-U de Montreal Picasso expt. Nucleus will recoil and transfer energy to super-heated freon liquid and cause transition to gas.
In solid, nucleus will recoil and transfer energy to lattice, flipping superconductor or sending off ballistic phonons. DEAP (Kevin Graham): will use 1 tonne of liquid argon.
Where did the galaxies come from?
There is confirmation of the general CDM/WIMP picture from the microwave background measurements:
Before galaxies form, Universe is filled with fluid of radiation and matter.
Normally density fluctuations die away (e.g sound waves) but in massive fluid they get amplified by gravity
Hence Scenario
CDM decouples
CDM dominates and clumps
Atoms (baryons) decouple
Baryons clump onto CDM
Galaxies form
Can simulate structure formation with (massive) n-body codes (n = 107 gravitating objects): on the large (super-cluster) scale. Note that we get a sort of stringy structure, which looks like what we observe
Or on scales of galaxies.
{Performed at the National Center for Supercomputer Applications
by Andrey Kravtsov (The University of Chicago) and Anatoly Klypin (New Mexico State University).
Why the hell?
b) Why the hell? i.e. why is Ω~1 (after all it could be anything?)
Since we measure Ω now ≈ .1...this means that at the time of the BB, Ω ≈ 1 - 10-60
i.e. Ω = 1 is an unstable critical point.
If the universe started out at 10-44 s with (say) Ω = 3, it would last ≈ 10-35 s (!!!!)
Dark Energy
And just when you thought it was safe to go out at night....
Dark Matter is bad enough, but now dark energy ...
Luminosity distance "standard candle"
If Luminosity is known, then we can get the distance:
Type 1a Supernovae Mv = -20 allows us to measure out to 3000Mpc
Obviously the universe is slowing down (decelerating).
Hence importance of 1a supernovae: since we know luminosity, we can get Ωmatter directly.
Unfortunately it doesn't work .....
Only way we can get this to work is to add an accelerating component to the universe: something that adds energy as the universe expands
Cosmological constant Λ (Einstein's "greatest blunder"): in other words vacuum has an energy. All these are \color{red}{\Omega _{tot} = \Omega _{matter} - \Omega _\Lambda = 1}
universes, but their behaviour depends crucially on ΩΛ
Einstein originally introduced this to produce a static universe: one where contraction due to gravity is balanced by expansion due to vacuum
CFHT
Canada-France Hawaii Telescope (CFHT)
SuperNova Legacy Survey
(U of T and others) now provides best data from CFHT
What can dark energy be?
List of all well-motivated models for dark energy
-
-
-
-
-
The implication is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating:
our best bet universe
ΩM = 0.27 ± .02
ΩΛ = 0.73
Ωstars = .03
Ωγ = 10-5
However, there are major problems (what, more?).
Dark energy implies that the vacuum has an energy density: $$
\color{red}{
\rho _\Lambda \approx 100\rho _B \approx 10^{-13} JM^{ - 3} }
$$
We could understand ΩΛ ≡ 0. : but....
The only working theory for particles (the standard model) gives \color{red}{
\Omega _\Lambda = 10^{110} - V_0
}
where V₀ is a (unknown) correction. You will notice a discrepancy!
There have been 3 scientific revolutions, all devastating
for man's dignity.
Copernicus:We are not the centre of the universe
Darwin We are no different from the animals
Dark Matter/Energy:We are not even made of what most of the universe
is made of! (but that means we are special!)
Statutory Warnings
All of this depends on the assumption that type 1a SN are always the same at 4x109 Lo, even at z = .5. Effect disappears if some (unknown) effect reduces L by 30%
e.g. Hubble original estimate for H0 was wrong by factor 7 because 2 different kinds of Cepheids.
Dark energy essentially requires negative pressure.
ΩΛ and ΩMatter are almost equal at present. In the past they would have differed by 1040
Some models suggest the universe will accelerate out of control ⇒ Big Rip in ∼ 35 *109 years
We need dark matter: ΩDM ∼ .26
We know Ωbaryons ∼ .03
We have quite reasonable models for DM and will (likely) see it by 2010. If we don't we'll have eliminated a lot of models
We seem to require dark energy ΩΛ ∼ .74 seems likely to be correct
we have no theoretical estimate for ΩΛ
The good models we do have predict nothing like the values we see
We may not know anything more for 20 years.
Anthropic Priniciple
Warning: for the rest of this course, you are on the hairy edge of science!
6) Fortunately there is a special place for us
And God said " Let us make man in our own image, after Our likeness, and let them have dominion....over all the earth
Genesis I.26
Not only is this the best of all possible worlds, it is the only (observable, ) of all possible universes.
Relatively small number of parameters describe universe
Parameter
Value
Definition
Measured
Comments
G
6.673x10-11
Grav. const
Lab
c
2.998x108
Speed of Light
Lab
α
1/137
Strength fo EM coupling
Lab
mec2
511 keV
Electron mass
Lab
mPc2
937 MeV
Proton mass
Lab
mnc2
939 MeV
neutron mass
Lab
H0
70±7 km s-1Mpc-1
Hubbles constant
Hubble
TCMBR
2.726K
CMBR temp
COBE/WMAP
ΩB
.03±.01
Nucleon density
WMAP, nucleosynthesis
Baryon density
Ωγ & ν
3.4x10-5
CMBR + BBN
Uncertainty due to ρc, assumes mν = 0
Ωdm
.26±.02
CDM density
Spirals/Galaxy clusters
ΩΛ
0.74
Curvature energy
Sn 1a
Ω0
1.01±.02
Total energy
Anthropic Principle:
We've missed a few constants, but there are enough here so you can design a "Build Your own Universe" kit
Where do they come from?
Weak Anthropic Principle: We see the universe the way we do because locally it is suitable for our existence
Strong Anthropic Principle: The laws of the universe are such that it can become self-aware
Logical Anthropic Principle (Carter, 1974)
...all properties of the universe must be consistent with the presence of intelligent beings.
i.e., the universe posesses the prerequisite properties to make it observable - it supports observers! ⇒ Weak Anthropic Principle
Methodological Anthropic Principle ...the 'fine-tuning' is only apparent, not fundamental.
i.e., given that we happen to be observing an observable universe (only one of all possible universes), the apparent 'fine-tuning' is nothing more than a consequence of the LAP
Teleological Anthropic Principle (Barrow and Tipler)
...the universe is habitable SO THAT intelligent life can evolve. i.e., habitability is the goal of the universe. The universe exists to support intelligent life!
=> Strong Anthropic Principle
Extremely Strong Anthropic Principle:
The universe exists to produce ...PHYSICISTS!
e.g.How old is the universe?
Physicists are made of carbon,
Carbon is not made in the big bang.
The universe cannot become self-aware until the first stars have completed their life-cycle.
Age of Universe > 1 Billion years
e.g. Could the forces in nature be any different?
Nuclei exist because of subtle balances between
Repulsive Electric Force
Attractive Nuclear Force
For heavy nuclei, (1) overwhelms (2), so they are unstable.
If the electromagnetic force were 10% stronger
Then no nuclei except hydrogen would exist,
so no chemistry
so no biology
so ....NO PHYSICISTS!
if the electromagnetic force were 10% weaker
Then the di-proton is stable,
nuclei form too easily
Stars burn too fast
No time to evolve Intelligent Life
...NO PHYSICISTS!
e.g How Dense is the Universe?
Low Density (e.g., Ωi < 1-10-60)
Universe Expands too fast
no Galaxies
no stars
no planets ...NO PHYSICISTS!
High Density(e.g., Ωi < 1+10-60)
Universe forms clumps
But collapses back to Big Crunch much too early
No time to evolve life ...NO PHYSICISTS!
But the Goldilocks Universe:
Critical Density Ω = ρ/ρc = 1
Just lumpy enough to make galaxies
and hence stars
And ...PHYSICISTS!
However, note that we have NO other theory for ΩΛ
Anthropic arguments extend all the way from the physical constants and the masses and charges of the fundamental particles, to the gross properties of the universe...
Is this a reasonable scientific theory?
The anthropic principle gives little or no room for making predictions, upon which to conduct tests.
The teleological principle verges on theism.
But: can we construct a universe which "works" with different parameters?
Harnik et al (2006) construct "weakless" universe: one with no nuclear decays. Means neutron is stable, and ν's don't interact at all.
⇒ 10% of matter as D (c/f 0.0001%). Reduces temps needed for stars: Mstar ∼ 0.02 Mo last 109 yrs. Note chemistry does not depend on weak interactions. (although stereochemistry may!)
who says C-based life is the only possibility?
Hope now is find out what produces "complex" universes
7) So what happened before?
Then was not non-existent nor existent There was no realm of air, no sky beyond, What covered in and where? and what gave shelter?
Who verily knows and who can here declare it Whence it was born and whence came this creation
He, the first origin of creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it. He verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.
The Rig Veda X.129 (Hindu)
What happened before the Big Bang?
There is a special hell reserved for people who ask that question.George Gamow
Maybe the universe bounces
Cannot conserve energy (or more precisely, entropy increases every bounce).
2nd Law of Thermodynamics leads to: For a closed system (eg the universe?), entropy (degree of disorder) always increases towards a maximum, and energy always decreases towards a minimum.
Is the universe a closed system?
Continuous Inflation (Linde, 1990)
Any part of our universe could achieve the conditions required to trigger inflation. Hence it could give rise to a new "daughter universe". ...Our Big Bang is only for our region of the universe...
Implies you can create universe ex nihilo!
Why does the universe get created?
Universes tend to happen from time to time!
Note a hidden assumption in all of this:
Space, time and matter came into existence at t=0, but the rules were the same. Could the rules have been different?
Sakharov (1985) suggested that the rules of physics need not be the same in going from one universe to the next: (e.g.) the gravitational coupling could be set arbitrarily in the first 10-30 s. If so, we could have a universe which is almost inconceivably different
Note (not for the first time) a failure of language: if the universe is everything, we can't talk about many universes. Hence the multiverse
Which takes us to...
Superstrings and the like:
We have seen that gravity curves space: in a sense, this is going to a larger number of dimensions.
Kalusza-Klein showed that one could include electromagnetism along with gravity by adding a fifth dimension, but making it compact
To include all the other forces in nature (strong and weak) we need to go to a 10-dimensional space.
You hadn't noticed that the universe is 10-D tsk-tsk.......
6 of the dimensions are compact (R ≈ 10-33 m), and can be multiply-connected (i.e. can be toroidal or dough-nut shaped).
All particles (quarks, photons, electrons.....) are 2-D strings in this 10-D space.
For the first 10-38 s the universe contained....
Nothing! No forces, no particles! Nada!
If we have more dimensions which fold up on themselves, is there any particular reason that the "compactification" is unique
Then the extra dimensions curled up and became compact
=> Forces => Particles => Atoms =>
...PHYSICISTS!
Unfortunately string theory gives 10500 possible universes
And so finally
8) What a beautiful story!
In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and God realised that this was not a very good way to start, so God said, Let there be a reinitialisation, and because God was God, he was able to start over.
In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light, but God had forgotten to create electromagnetic interactions, so there was no light, so God said, Let there be a reinitialisation, and because God was God, he was able to start over.
In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; but this time God decided to leave himself plenty of room for manoeuvre, so he created the heaven and the earth to have ten dimensions.
But then God realised that this was a very complicated way to run a universe, so God said, Let there be a reinitialisation, and because God was God, he was able to sta.....
But God had forgotten shlosha hefsaydim v'ato bachutz, which being translated means Three strikes and you are out, so God was stuck with the Universe.
So the Spirit of God moved through the heaven and on the earth and commanded that the extra dimensions should curl up on themselves, and become compact. And God looked upon it, and saw that while it was not actually good, it was better than it might have been, because at least he had light.
The First book of Moses, called Genesis, (erratum)