slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Evidence for accelerated expansion Interpretation – “phenomenology” Explanation – “theory” PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Evidence for accelerated expansion Interpretation – “phenomenology” Explanation – “theory”

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 31

Evidence for accelerated expansion Interpretation – “phenomenology” Explanation – “theory” - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 100 Views
  • Uploaded on

Ram Brustein. Irit maor (BGU  Cambridge) P. Steinhardt (Princeton) PRL 86 (2001), PRD 65 (2002), PRD 67 (2003). אוניברסיטת בן-גוריון. The Accelerating Universe: A Challenge to Fundamental Physics. Evidence for accelerated expansion Interpretation – “phenomenology”

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Evidence for accelerated expansion Interpretation – “phenomenology” Explanation – “theory”' - tavarius-josiah


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

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.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Ram Brustein

Irit maor

(BGU Cambridge)

P. Steinhardt (Princeton)

PRL 86 (2001),

PRD 65 (2002),

PRD 67 (2003)

אוניברסיטת בן-גוריון

The Accelerating Universe:

A Challenge to Fundamental Physics

  • Evidence for accelerated expansion
  • Interpretation – “phenomenology”
  • Explanation – “theory”
slide2

01/02/2003 La Recherche

Et pourtant il accélère !L'expansion de l'Univers, loin de ralentir comme on le pensait depuis soixante-dix ans, est en train de s'accélérer sous la pression d'une mystérieuse énergie noire. Les astrophysiciens tentent de comprendre la nature de ce constituant majeur de l'Univers.

La concordance de toutes ces expériences a fait sursauter plus d'un cosmologiste. À l'aube du XXIe siècle, il devient clair que 95 % de l'Univers nous est totalement étranger ! Les astrophysiciens s'aperçoivent que toutes leurs théories ne se fondent que sur l'observation des cinq petits pour cent visibles de l'énergie totale [fig. 4]. De quoi rendre sceptique le commun des mortels, mais pas les scientifiques, qui continuent à bâtir leur édifice théorique contre vents et marées. Leur plus grand défi est aujourd'hui de dévoiler la nature de cette énergie noire,

slide3

Geometry

GR: a(t), 1+ z =a(now)/a(t), Matter r(z), p(z), w(z) = p/r.

מפץ גדול חם : המודל הסטנדרטי

rC- critical density (Euclidean space)

WX - rX / rC

accelerated expansion
Accelerated expansion ?!

Radiation

r = 3p, w = 1/3

Matter

(normal and dark)

p=0, w = 0

Attractive gravity + “normal” matter  decelerated expansion

mapping the universe

Mapping the Universe

Luminosity – energy/time emitted by source

Flux – energy /time/area absorbed by detector

Due to expansion:

Energy/timeq(1+z)2

(1+z) – red shift of energy

(1+z) – increased time

Need

“standard candles”

slide6

Luminosity distance dL vs. redshift z:

Hubble Diagram

For light

Example:

SNIa

angular distance d a vs redshift z
Angular distance dA vs. redshift z

Proper diameter - d

Observed angular diameter – q

q= d/(a r)

Example:

Peaks in CMB spectrum

Need

“standard feature”

evidence for accelerated expansion direct and indirect
Evidence for Accelerated ExpansionDirect and Indirect
  • Cosmic Microwave Background : inhomogeneities in radiation
  • Large Scale Structure :

inhomogeneities in matter

object counts: galaxies, clusters, weak lensing, strong lensing, …

  • SuperNovae Ia– most direct
slide9
SNIa

התפוצצות גרעינית של ננסים לבנים

מתאם בין בהירות שיא, צורה וספקטרום של עקומת האור  ~% 10 פיזור בבהירות שיא

current snia data

D m

L

d

i

m

m

e

r

AC/DC

purematter

z

more distant

Current SNIa Data

Lpreferred

fiducial models:

Wm= 0.3

wQ= const.

Key issue:systematic errors

Previous version: Sci. Am. 1/2001

current data
Current Data

-.5

wQ

  • Wm vs. wQ

(assume flat U.)

-1.5

-2.5

-3.5

Wm

0.7

0.3

0.5

slide14

One more point on theHubble diagram

(z ~ 1,000)

~ Flat U.

Cosmic variance!

slide15

astro-ph/0302209

Combined results

  • Interim report I
  • flat universe
  • acceleration
  • consistent
  • reasonable?!

n small

slide16

The end of the universe is cancelledBy Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent(Filed: 09/02/2003)

Professor Hawking, we have a problem. Nasa, the American space agency, is expected to announce this week that it has proved the existence of "dark energy", a cosmic force that counteracts gravity and will keep the universe expanding forever.

The announcement will effectively demolish the theory that life will be wiped out in a "Big Crunch" when the universe collapses, and should end decades of academic dispute over the forces at work on the universe

interpretation theoretical expectations
Interpretation: theoretical expectations
  • Dark energy is not just L
  • Dynamical field (s):
    • Kinetic & potential energies
    • Interactions with other particles
    • Cosmic friction
    • Very small mass

 time-dependence

dark energy eos
Dark Energy EOS
  • Parametrization in terms of (time-dependent)

Energy density rQ(z)

Pressure pQ(z)

EOSwQ(z)=pQ(z)/rQ(z)

  • previously : wQ = -1 L

wQ = 0 cold matter

oscillations, “sudden start”, “decay to a constant”

luminosity distance d l vs redshift z
Luminosity distancedLvs. redshiftz

Maor et al.

g= Wm /(1- Wm)

Current SnIA data: some acceleration in

the last 8 billion years (0 < z < 1)

l avenir snap f

snap.lbl.gov

l'avenir: SNAP (F)

SNAP proposal:

1000’s de SNIa,

surtout 0 < z < 1.2,

quelques-uns1.2 < z < 1.7

Also:

ESSENCE

CFHLS (F)

GOODS,

SNFactory (F)

slide21

wQ = -1

wQ = -1/3

wQ = 0

fiducial models:

Wm= 0.3

wQ= const.

See: Sci. Am. 1/2001

slide22

Degeneracy!

Maor et al.

  • DL
  • D DL/DL
  • wQ (z)
  • For 9 differentEOS
cmb cannot help much
CMB cannot help much …

Maor & Brustein

  • Dark energy expected to “disappear” for z > 2
  • CMB photons propagate most of the way through matter dominated U.

 No gain compared to “low z” probes

  • Best accuracy for dL from CMB ~ 1%

 CMB comparable to other probes

interim report ii
Interim report II
  • recent acceleration

(0 < z < 1, today < t < 8 billion years)

  • evidence from many sources, consistent.
  • qualitative information only (on fundamental physics) from most accurate planned experiments
dark sector gravity and quantum mechanics
Dark sector &gravity and quantum mechanics

Does not make sense

as a normal source

slide27

:

"We live where we can live,"

NYT: 2 Sept. 2003

(R.B.) : Cloud No. IV: Black Hole Entropy

slide28

Gravity

Something has to give

  • Quantum mechanics
  • More space dimensions
  • Cherished principles: causality, …
  • Matter – additional fields, light, extremely weakly coupled – “quintessence”

and the ugliest(?) of them all:

theAnthropic principle

the boring option quintessence

The “boring” option: Quintessence

Maor & Brustein

Degeneracies

  • “Tracker” fields
  • Many other possibilities

m ~ H = 10 –33 eV

V ~ rcrit ~ (10-3eV)4

Steinhardt + …

Rhatra+Peebles

Wetterich …

the anthropic principle
The Anthropic Principle

R. Dicke (1961): “ carbon-based life can only arise when the Dirac large numbers hypothesis is true because this is when burning stars exist”

B. Carter (Early 1970’s): “what we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers” (Leslie ed. 1990). The word "anthropic" was intended as applying to intelligent beings.

A possible argument for preferring the God hypothesis: think in terms of many possible fundamental theories, God selecting a theory which permitted life's requirements to be fulfilled without contradictions.

conclusions
Conclusions
  • Excellent measurements are not good enough as clues for fundamental physics !
  • A large source of error: theory
  • Need:
    • either a new “local” test -what is it?
    • or radically new theoretical input -what is it ?
  • Theory situation in a nut-shell

“we don’t have a clue”

  • Personal hope: revolutionary resolution