Upload
destinee-chattin
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Evidence for accelerated expansion Interpretation – “phenomenology” Explanation – “theory”
The Accelerating Universe: A Challenge to Fundamental Physics
אוניברסיטת בן-גוריון
Ram BrusteinIrit maor(BGU Cambridge)P. Steinhardt (Princeton)
PRL 86 (2001), PRD 65 (2002),PRD 67 (2003)
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.
01/02/2003 La Recherche
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,
מפץ גדול חם : המודל הסטנדרטי
0)(3
)(4
83 2
pH
pGH
GH
N
N
Geometry
GR: a(t), 1+ z =a(now)/a(t),
Matter (z), p(z), w(z) = p/
aaH /
2222 )( drtadtds
C- critical density (Euclidean space)X - X / C
3/1
030
/ 2
w
pa
HHaa
0)(3
)(4
83 2
pH
pGH
GH
N
N
Accelerated expansion ?!Radiation = 3p, w = 1/3
Matter (normal and dark)
p=0, w = 0
Attractive gravity + “normal” matter decelerated expansion
Mapping the Universe
Luminosity – energy/time emitted by source Flux – energy /time/area absorbed by detector
Due to expansion:Energy/time(1+z)2 (1+z) – red shift of energy(1+z) – increased timeNeed “standard candles”
For light
2a
dadz
dt
da
aH
1
0222 dradt
Luminosity distance dL vs. redshift z: Hubble Diagram
Example:SNIa
Proper diameter - dObserved angular diameter – d/(a r)
rtad
d A )( 1
Example:Peaks in CMB spectrum
Angular distance dA vs. redshift z
Need “standard feature”
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
SNIaהתפוצצות גרעינית של ננסים לבנים
מתאם בין בהירות שיא, צורה וספקטרום של עקומת
פיזור ~% 10האור בבהירות שיא
di
mmer
more distantz
m
AC/DC
pure matter
L
L
d
dm
10ln
5
L
Lm
Key issue:systematic errors
Current SNIa Data
preferred
fiducial models:m= 0.3
wQ= const.
Previous version: Sci. Am. 1/2001
)1( mQ
QQQm
Qm
T
TT
w
wpp
pw
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
20
40
60
80
Current Data
m vs. wQ
(assume flat U.
wQ
-2.5
-1.5
0.50.3
-.5
-3.5
0.7 m
CMB data : WMAP
February 2003
Cosmic variance!
One more point on the Hubble diagram
)z ~ 1,000(8.01.2201
~ Flat U.
Cosmic variance!
4- 6%
20- 40%
60- 80%
Baryons
Dark matter
Dark energy
astro-ph/0302209
Combined results
Interim report I•flat universe• acceleration • consistent• reasonable ?!
small
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
• Dark energy is not just • Dynamical field (s):
Kinetic & potential energies Interactions with other particles Cosmic friction Very small mass
time-dependence
Dark Energy EOS• Parametrization in terms of (time-dependent)
Energy density Q(z)
Pressure pQ(z)
EOS wQ(z)=pQ(z)/Q(z)
• previously : wQ = -1
wQ = 0 cold matter
oscillations, “sudden start”, “decay to a constant”
Luminosity distance dL vs. redshift z
Maor et al.g= m /(1- m)
Current SnIA data: some acceleration inthe last 8 billion years (0 < z < 1)
l'avenir: SNAP (F)
SNAP proposal:1000’s de SNIa, surtout 0 < z < 1.2, quelques-uns1.2 < z < 1.7
snap.lbl.gov
Also:ESSENCECFHLS (F)GOODS,SNFactory (F)
fiducial models:m= 0.3wQ= const.
wQ = -1
wQ = -1/3
wQ = 0
See: Sci. Am. 1/2001
Degeneracy!
a) DLb) DL/DLc) wQ (z)
For 9 different EOS
Maor et al.
• 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
CMB cannot help much …Maor & Brustein
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 &
the standard model of particle physics
4- 6%
20- 40%
60- 80%
Baryons
Dark matter
Dark energy
Dark sector &
gravity and quantum mechanics
N
Vacuum
GG 800
21
Does not make sense as a normal source
4- 6%
20- 40%
60- 80%
Baryons
Dark matter
Dark energy
(R.B.) : Cloud No. IV: Black Hole Entropy
:
"We live where we can live," NYT: 2 Sept. 2003
• Quantum mechanics• More space dimensions• Cherished principles: causality, …
Something has to give
N
Vacuum
GG 800
21
• Gravity
• Matter – additional fields, light, extremely weakly coupled – “quintessence”
and the ugliest(?) of them all: the Anthropic principle
The “boring” option: Quintessence
•“Tracker” fields•Many other possibilities
Degeneracies
m ~ H = 10 –33 eVV ~ crit ~ (10
-3eV)
4
Steinhardt + …Rhatra+PeeblesWetterich …
Maor & Brustein
The Anthropic PrincipleR. 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
• 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