Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
DESCRIBING INHOMOGENEOUS COSMOLOGIES: TOOLS TO USE IN THE INVESTIGATIONGeorge F R EllisUniversity of Cape Town SIGRAV and INFN School GGI, Firenze: 2009
Importance again . Perturbation methods: validity of weak field methods and Newtonian limit Validity of weak field methods: Ehlers estimates: very large density inhomogeneities but small metric differences? paradox of inhomogeneity: In this room δρ/ρ=101/10-30 = 10+30 Metric perturbations in solar system very small Metric variations not very small [Ehlers]
Importance again . Small scale non-linear inhomogeneities plus dynamical back reactions can in principle give observations that mimic FLRW universe with dark energy BUT Considerable controversy as to whether this is important or not Is it significant, or completely negligible?
Importance again . Genuinely GR effects can occur: Wiltshire: importance of voids
Void dominated universe: geometry and dynamics in and out of void are quite different (Einstein/Strauss, Lindquist/Wheeler) Time runs at different rate in and out of voids: and the difference is cumulative (Harwitt, Wiltshire) So a key issue: How large in space and time is the domain where quasi-Newtonian coordinates can be used in a realistic model of an expanding universe with voids? Wald: globally; Wiltshire: not so
Exact solutions and results: Inhomogeneous models that average out to give FRW observations in large 1: Lindquist and Wheeler 2: LTB: Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi 3: Swiss cheese: Kantowski, Dyer Nb not necessarily associated with averaging: just making exact models that give the same kind of observations
Exact equations and theorems .Exact equations: 1+3 Covariant equations Tetrad methods and coordinates to complete them Note problem: We want to deal with both timelike and null curves (dynamics and also observations) Coordinates and tetrad to suit the one will not be well fitting for the other
Exact equations and theorems .Warning example: Zero shear results not given by Newtonian limit
Approximate solutions: . Gauge dependence, gauge invariance, and Sachs Theorem 1+3 covariant gauge invariant equations and variables Averaging and gauge invariance 1+3 covariant and gauge invariant variables and equations But non-covariant fitting and then averaging to deal with multiple scales and associated back reaction
Averaging and covariance May need to use non covariant methods Indeed the are probably necessary almost always when we get down to real experimental detail Solar system tests, binary pulsar calculations But then what guiding principle to use? Calculate invariant or observational quantities use best-fitting procedure to choose background What is the correct background model? How to fit it? What coordinates to use?
Fitting a smoothed model Fit background globally; determine pointwise difference This fixes a best-fitting gauge
Overall: Averaging and Small Scale inhomogeneity These scale-related effects occur Dynamical effects may be small Observational effects may still be large and may affect estimates of acceleration and the cosmological constant
Large Scale Inhomogeneity and the Acceleration of the universe . The deduction of the existence of dark energy is based on the assumption that the universe has a Robertson-Walker geometry - spatially homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale. The observations can at least in principle be accounted for without the presence of any dark energy, if we consider the possibility of inhomogeneity This can happen in two ways: - local via backreaction (so far) - large scale (final section)
Large scale inhomogeneity:inhomogeneous geometry Perhaps there is a large scale inhomogeneity of the observable universe such as that described by the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi pressure-free spherically symmetric models. We are near the centre of a void (comment later) Marie-Noëlle Célérier Challenging dark energy with exact inhomogeneous models
LTB (Lemaitre-Tolman Bondi models Metric: In comoving coordinates, ds2 = -dt2 + B2(r,t) + A2(r,t)(dΘ2+sin2 ΘdΦ2) where B2(r,t) = A’(r,t)2 (1-k(r))-1 and the evolution equation is (Å/A)2 = F(r)/A3 + 8πGρΛ/3 - k(r)/A2 with F’ (A’A2)-1 = 8πGρM. Two arbitrary functions: k(r) (curvature) and F(r) (matter).
Alnes, Amarzguioui, and Gron astro-ph/0512006 Mustapha, Hellaby, & Ellis
Solving the Observer Metric Charles Hellaby, Alnadhief H. A. Alfedeel The analysis of modern cosmological data is becoming an increasingly important task as the amount of data multiplies. An important goal is to extract geometric information, i.e. the metric of the cosmos, from observational data. The observer metric is adapted to the reality of observations: information received along the past null cone, and matter flowing along timelike lines. It provides a potentially very good candidate for a developing general numerical data reduction program. As a basis for this, we elucidate the spherically symmetric solution, for which there is to date single presentation that is complete and correct. With future numerical implementation in mind, we give a clear presentation of the mathematical solution in terms of 4 arbitrary functions, the solution algorithm given observational data on the past null cone, and we argue that the evolution from one null cone to the next necessarily involves integrating down each null cone. arXiv:0811.1676v2 [gr-qc]
Other observations?? Can also fit cbr observations: Larger values of r S. Alexander, T. Biswas, A. Notari, D. Vaid “Local void vs dark energy: confrontation with WMAP and Type IA supernovae” (2007) [arXiv:0712.0370]. Nb: cbr dipole can then (partly) be because we are a bit off-centre Re-evaluate the great attractor analysis Quadrupole? Perhaps also (and alignment) Nucleosynthesis: OK Baryon acoustic oscillations? Maybe – more tricky
Typical observationally viable model: We live roughly centrally (within 10% of the central position) in a large void: a compensated underdense region stretching to z ≈ 0.08 with δ≈ -0.4 and size 160/h Mpc to 250/h Mpc, a jump in the Hubble constant of about 1.20, and no dark energy or quintessence field Solving inverse problem with inhomogenoeus universe Yoo, Kai, Nakao arXiv:0807.0932
Ishak et al 0708.2943 “We find that such a model can easily explain the observed luminosity distance-redshift relation of supernovae without the need for dark energy, when the inhomogeneity is in the form of an underdense bubble centered near the observer. With the additional assumption that the universe outside the bubble is approximately described by a homogeneous Einstein-de Sitter model, we find that the position of the first CMB peak can be made to match the WMAP observations.”
Large scale inhomogeneity:dynamic evolution Can we find dynamics (inflation, HBB) that matches the observations? Same basic dynamics (FRW evolution along individual world lines) but with distant dependent parameters If we are allowed usual tricks of fiddling potential and adding in multiple fields then of course we can! Paul Hunt Constraints on large scale voids from WMAP-5 and SDSS Problems if Gaussian – but it may not be Gaussian.
Large scale inhomogeneity:dynamic evolution Will inflation prevent it? Depends on the initial data, the amount of inflation, and the details of the unknown inflaton There is sufficient flexibility that it should certainly be possible In any case we can be conservative about inflation until it becomes a proper physical theory (i.e. the inflaton and its potential are uniquely identified) rather than a paradigm for speculative theory creation
Improbability “It is improbable we are near the centre” But there is always improbability in cosmology Can shift it: FRW geometry Inflationary potential Inflationary initial conditions Position in inhomogeneous universe Which universe in multiverse Competing with probability 10-120 for Λ in a FRW universe. Also: there is no proof universe is probable. May be improbable!! Indeed, it is!!
Improbability There is only one universe Concept of probability does not apply to a single object, even though we can make many measurements of that single object There is no physically realised ensemble to apply that probability to, unless a multiverse exists – which is not proven: it’s a philosophical assumption and in any case there is no well-justified measure for any such probability proposal
Do We Live in the Center of the World? Andrei Linde, Dmitri Linde, Arthur Mezhlumian We investigate the distribution of energy density in a stationary self-reproducing inflationary universe. We show that the main fraction of volume of the universe in a state with a given density $\rho$ at any given moment of time $t$ in synchronous coordinates is concentrated near the centers of deep exponentially wide spherically symmetric holes in the density distribution. A possible interpretation of this result is that a typical observer should see himself living in the center of the world. Validity of this interpretation depends on the choice of measure in quantum cosmology. Phys.Lett.B345:203-210,1995: arXiv:hep-th/9411111v1
Improbability In any case there is a basis for saying that inflation prefers a void dominated universe, where we are near the centre of the universe Linde, Linde and Mezhlumian Whatever theory may say, it must give way to such tests Can we observationally test the inhomogeneity possibility?
5 Direct Observational tests It follows that: direct observational tests of the Copernican (spatial homogeneity) assumption are of considerable importance; particularly those that are independent of field equations or matter content This is now the subject of investigation The following section is with the help of Chris Clarkson.
given that we can always find • can we distinguish between the two? Biswas, Monsouri and Notari, astro-ph/0606703 Spherical Symmetry
Observational Tests • only previously known direct tests use scattered CMB photons - looking inside past null cone • if CMB very anisotropic around distant observers, SZ scattered photons have distorted spectrum • but model dependent - good for void models but misses, e.g., conformally stationary spacetimes • ideally we need a model-independent ‘forensic’ test ... is FLRW the correct metric? [Goodman 1995; Caldwell & Stebbins 2007]
1: Consistency test of LTB • Must not have observational cusp at origin – implies singularity there Vanderveld, Flangan and Wasserman astro-ph/0602476 “Living in a void: Testing the Copernican Principle with distant supernovae”, T Clifton, P G Ferreira and K Land • Distance modulus Δdm(z) ≈ - (5/2)q0z in ΛCDM, but if this were true in void model without Λ this implies singularity - Observational test will be available from intermediate redshift supernovae in future
Distance Measurements • two effects on distance measurements: expansion curvature bends null geodesics • eg, positive curvature increases angular sizes • These are coupled in FLRW, decoupled in LTB
Measuring Curvature in FLRW • in FLRW we can combine Hubble rate and distance data to find curvature • independent of all other cosmological parameters, including dark energy model, and theory of gravity • can be used at single redshift • what else can we learn from this? [see Clarkson Cortes & Bassett JCAP08(2007)011; arXiv:astro-ph/0702670]
2: Generic Consistency Test of FLRW • since independent of z we can differentiate to get consistency relation • depends only on FLRW geometry: • independent of curvature, dark energy, theory of gravity • consistency test for homogeneity and isotropy • should expect in FLRW
Testing the Copernican Assumption • Copernican assumption hard to test ... but in non-FLRW • even at center of symmetry • two free functions in LTB (even for dust) - H(z) & D(z) • FLRW has just H(z) - or w(z) [ignoring inflaton] • can also be used to find correct ‘FLRW scale’ - cf averaging problem
Errors may be estimated from a series expansion • simplest to measure H(z) from BAO [already a 2-sigma discrepancy...?] • time drift of redshifts over many years gives [in FLRW] • or relative ages of passively evolving galaxies (eg, LRGs) gives • can’t use inverted distance data as it assumes FLRW deceleration parameter measured from distance measurements deceleration parameter measured from Hubble measurements [Percival et al] [Uzan Clarkson & Ellis] [Jimemez & Loeb]
It’s only as difficult as dark energy... • measuring w(z) from Hubble uses • requires H’(z) • and from distances requires second derivatives D’’(z) • simplest to begin with via [see Clarkson Cortes & Bassett JCAP08(2007)011; arXiv:astro-ph/0702670]
3: Indirect Observational tests If the standard inverse analysis of the supernova data to determine the required equation of state shows there is any redshift range where w := p/ρ < -1, this may well be a strong indication that one of these geometric explanations is preferable to the Copernican (Robertson-Walker) assumption, for otherwise the matter model indicated by these observations is non-physical (it has a negative k.e.) M.P. Lima, S. Vitenti, M.J. Reboucas “Energy conditions bounds and their confrontation with supernovae data” (2008) [arXiv:0802.0706].
The physically most conservative approach is to assume no unusual dark energy but rather that geometry might be responsible for the observed apparent acceleration This could happen due to small scale inhomogeneity that definitely exists, but may not be sufficiently significant Or due to large scale inhomogeneity that can probably do the job, but may not exist Observational tests of the latter possibility is as important as pursuing the dark energy (exotic physics) option in a homogeneous universe Theoretical prejudices as to the universe’s geometry, and our place in it, must bow to observational tests
5: Conclusion The issue of what is testable and what is not testable in cosmology is a key issue Some dark energy proposals, specifically multiverse advocates, propose weakening the link to observations because we believe we have a good theory We should stand firm and insist that genuine science is based on observational testing of plausible hypotheses There is nothing wrong with physically motivated philosophical explanation: but it must be labelled for what it is Overall: theory must be subject to observational test There is good progress in this respect as regards both dark matter and dark energy
References: G F R Ellis, H van Elst "Cosmological models" http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9812046 G F R Ellis and D R Matravers: "General Covariance in General Relativity." Gen Rel Grav 27, 777 (1995).