Advertisement
www.universetoday.com/2008/07...-energy/
July 30th, 2008del.icio.us Digg Reddit StumbleUpon
Astronomers Find New Evidence for Dark Energy
Written by Nancy Atkinson
Dark Energy's stretching effect. Credit: U of Hawaii
A team of astronomers has found what they say is the clearest detection to date of dark energy in the universe. Scientists at the University of Hawaii compared an existing database of galaxies with a map of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), and were able to detect dark energy's effect on vast cosmic structures such as superclusters of galaxies, where there is a high concentration of galaxies, and supervoids, areas in space with a small number of galaxies. “We were able to image dark energy in action, as it stretches huge supervoids and superclusters of galaxies,” said Dr. István Szapudi said, from U of Hawaii's Institute for Astronomy.
The discovery in 1998 that the universe was actually speeding up in its expansion was a surprise to astronomers. Dark energy refers to the fact that something must fill the vast reaches of mostly empty space in the Universe in order to be able to make space accelerate in its expansion. Dark energy works against the tendency of gravity to pull galaxies together and so causes the universe’s expansion to speed up.But the nature of dark energy and why it exists is one of the biggest puzzles of modern science.
The team from the University of Hawaii made the discovery by measuring the subtle imprints that superclusters and supervoids leave in microwaves that pass through them. Superclusters and supervoids are the largest structures in the universe.
“When a microwave enters a supercluster, it gains some gravitational energy, and therefore vibrates slightly faster,” explained Szapudi. “Later, as it leaves the supercluster, it should lose exactly the same amount of energy. But if dark energy causes the universe to stretch out at a faster rate, the supercluster flattens out in the half-billion years it takes the microwave to cross it. Thus, the wave gets to keep some of the energy it gained as it entered the supercluster.”
“Dark energy sort of gives micro waves a memory of where they’ve been recently,” postdoctoral scientist Mark Neyrinck said.
Comparing superclusters (red circles) and supervoids (blue circles) with the CMB. Credit: U of Hawaii
When the team compared galaxies against the CMB, they found that the microwaves were a bit stronger if they had passed through a supercluster, and a bit weaker if they had passed through a supervoid.
“With this method, for the first time we can actually see what supervoids and superclusters do to microwaves passing through them,” said graduate student Benjamin Granett.
The signal is difficult to detect, since ripples in the primordial CMB are larger than the imprints of individual superclusters and supervoids. To extract a signal, the team averaged together patches of the CMB map around the 50 largest supervoids and the 50 largest superclusters that they detected in extremely bright galaxies drawn from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, a project=2 0that mapped the distribution of galaxies over a quarter of the sky.
The astronomers say there is only a one in 200,000 chance that the evidence they detected would occur by chance.
Original News Source: U of Hawaii press release
July 30th, 2008del.icio.us Digg Reddit StumbleUpon
Astronomers Find New Evidence for Dark Energy
Written by Nancy Atkinson
Dark Energy's stretching effect. Credit: U of Hawaii
A team of astronomers has found what they say is the clearest detection to date of dark energy in the universe. Scientists at the University of Hawaii compared an existing database of galaxies with a map of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), and were able to detect dark energy's effect on vast cosmic structures such as superclusters of galaxies, where there is a high concentration of galaxies, and supervoids, areas in space with a small number of galaxies. “We were able to image dark energy in action, as it stretches huge supervoids and superclusters of galaxies,” said Dr. István Szapudi said, from U of Hawaii's Institute for Astronomy.
The discovery in 1998 that the universe was actually speeding up in its expansion was a surprise to astronomers. Dark energy refers to the fact that something must fill the vast reaches of mostly empty space in the Universe in order to be able to make space accelerate in its expansion. Dark energy works against the tendency of gravity to pull galaxies together and so causes the universe’s expansion to speed up.But the nature of dark energy and why it exists is one of the biggest puzzles of modern science.
The team from the University of Hawaii made the discovery by measuring the subtle imprints that superclusters and supervoids leave in microwaves that pass through them. Superclusters and supervoids are the largest structures in the universe.
“When a microwave enters a supercluster, it gains some gravitational energy, and therefore vibrates slightly faster,” explained Szapudi. “Later, as it leaves the supercluster, it should lose exactly the same amount of energy. But if dark energy causes the universe to stretch out at a faster rate, the supercluster flattens out in the half-billion years it takes the microwave to cross it. Thus, the wave gets to keep some of the energy it gained as it entered the supercluster.”
“Dark energy sort of gives micro waves a memory of where they’ve been recently,” postdoctoral scientist Mark Neyrinck said.
Comparing superclusters (red circles) and supervoids (blue circles) with the CMB. Credit: U of Hawaii
When the team compared galaxies against the CMB, they found that the microwaves were a bit stronger if they had passed through a supercluster, and a bit weaker if they had passed through a supervoid.
“With this method, for the first time we can actually see what supervoids and superclusters do to microwaves passing through them,” said graduate student Benjamin Granett.
The signal is difficult to detect, since ripples in the primordial CMB are larger than the imprints of individual superclusters and supervoids. To extract a signal, the team averaged together patches of the CMB map around the 50 largest supervoids and the 50 largest superclusters that they detected in extremely bright galaxies drawn from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, a project=2 0that mapped the distribution of galaxies over a quarter of the sky.
The astronomers say there is only a one in 200,000 chance that the evidence they detected would occur by chance.
Original News Source: U of Hawaii press release
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Unsu...
Re: New Evidence of Dark Energy
Thu, July 31, 2008 - 8:50 AMThanks for this. Remarkable what they are able to detect.
-
Re: New Evidence of Dark Energy
Thu, July 31, 2008 - 9:19 AMIf I'm not mistaken, any expansion will cause this effect though to different degrees. Only a static universe would leave the photons unchanged after passing through a supercluster. -
-
Re: New Evidence of Dark Energy
Thu, July 31, 2008 - 9:56 AMLarry's stupid question of the day. "Dark energy" is invoked to explain the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe. This strikes me as being a little too Hollywood. Wouldn't it be simpler and more honest to say that what we call dark energy is nothing but gravity, and that what we call the "gravitational constant" is not really constant on very large scales? What ever happened to Occam's Razor? -
-
Re: New Evidence of Dark Energy
Thu, July 31, 2008 - 12:49 PMDark energy could just be the manifestation of the cosmolgical constant (not the gravitational constant) or if could be something else. The idea that the constants aren't, isn't new. -
-
Re: New Evidence of Dark Energy
Thu, July 31, 2008 - 3:45 PMTroy wrote: "Dark energy could just be the manifestation of the cosmolgical constant (not the gravitational constant) or if could be something else. The idea that the constants aren't, isn't new."
I'm not sure that I understand where you're coming from on this, although I don't doubt that your expression reflects a consensus perspective. I looked up cosmological constant in Wikipedia, and decided that my background isn't up to the task of fully grocking the concept. All I know is that Einstein flirted wiith CC, that he changed his mind later in his career, and that others have been taking a second look recently.
Sidebar. A long time ago, I saw an argument for the proposition that magnetism was a pseudo-force. It used standard electrical theory and it formally applied Special Relativity. And surprisingly, the numbers came out right. However...
My understanding is that General Relativity is primarily about gravity (rather than E&M or nuclear forces), as is the gravitational 'constant'. Are we really saying different things here? Why can't the gravitational 'constant' slowly decrease and eventually go negative over sufficiently long distances? If it can't, is that because it would conflict with something that's well-entrenched? Or is it because of experimental evidence? -
-
Re: New Evidence of Dark Energy
Thu, July 31, 2008 - 8:35 PMFirst magnetism is very real. Before Maxwell electricity and magnetism were viewed as to independent forces. After Maxwell, it was understood that a changing electric field resulted in a magnetic field and a changing magnetic field produces an electric field. Due to the nature of a magnetic field, magnetic fields actually never do work (when one picks up a paper clip with a magnet, it is the electric field created by moving the magnet towards the paper clip that actually does the work of lifting the paper clip), which might be why some call it a psuedo-force.
General Relativity (GR) is about the shape of space, which can't be distinguished from gravity, and the energy in it. The EM field contains energy so the EM field is also governed by GR.
There is no known reason why the constants (whatever they maybe) can't slowly change over time (has to be on a very long time scale though). But by the same token, the is no known reason why they should. In fact, Occam's Razor would suggest they don't change - variable "constants" would need an explanation, so not needing an explanation is simpler. So far, most experimental evidence suggests that the constants are just that, with only a few claims otherwise (hydrogen line redshifts patterns from the very ancient universe, but there could be other explanations for the observations).
Physics is not finished, there is still alot that is unexplained.
Your question is a good one, one that scientists are considering. -
-
Re: New Evidence of Dark Energy
Fri, August 1, 2008 - 11:51 PMSorry, but I'm a firm believer in the maxim: Anything worth doing is worth beating to death. That said, my basic question was as much about packaging as about basic science.
At one time in the recent past, Grand Unification was a fashionable quest. The Electroweak Theory is supposed to be one partial success in that area. Apparently, hem lines have changed in recent years.
GR successfuly describes interactions between two objects within a certain distance range (appreciably larger than an ordinary atomic nucleus). Dark Energy (DE) does a very similar job, but for very large distances. To use a 1950s metaphor, you appear to be saying: if it looks like duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it's obviously NOT a duck.
Based on his present nonspecialist's knowledge, Psychic Larry is going to stick his neck out, and make a prediction. In the not-too-distant future, some enterprising astrophysicist is going to have an epiphany about the grand unification of GR and DE. He'll realize that the gravitational pseudo-constant is a function of distance; i.e. that it SLOWLY decreases in magnitude over very large distances, and eventually changes sign. This will explain the apparent acceleration of the universe's expansion, without all of the bells and whistles of DE. After he's burned at the stake, he'll garner a posthumous Nobel Prize.
Does this sound reasonable? Or am I missing the boat about something? -
-
Re: New Evidence of Dark Energy
Sat, August 2, 2008 - 12:14 AM"At one time in the recent past, Grand Unification was a fashionable quest."
Still is, the names have just changed.
"GR successfuly describes interactions between two objects within a certain distance range (appreciably larger than an ordinary atomic nucleus). Dark Energy (DE) does a very similar job, but for very large distances. To use a 1950s metaphor, you appear to be saying: if it looks like duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it's obviously NOT a duck. "
GR is a classical theory, quantum gravity will likely asompotically approach GR just as quantum mechanics approaches classical mechanics. DE is currently an unknown, looks like it exists but otherwise a mystery. On can not modify GR to account for DE the way you suggest, GR is an invarient theory, DE as you've suggested is location dependent. GR [ Rab -(0.5 R + F(R))gab = 8 Pi k Tab, where Rab, gab (the metric), Tab are tensors, R is the Ricci curvature and F(R) is some scalar function of R currently either 0 or lamba (the comsological constant)] could be modified so F(R) isn't a constant, which is kind of what you are geting at, but that leads to a lot of complications.
This critter DE doesn't look like a duck nor walk like a duck nor quacks like a duck, so it probably isn't a duck. In fact it isn't like anything else we know.
"He'll realize that the gravitational pseudo-constant is a function of distance..."
Again, it doesn't work as a function of distance (distance depends on one's inertial frame of reference).
Nobel Prizes aren't given posthumously.
"Does this sound reasonable? Or am I missing the boat about something? "
No and yes, but you are in good company.
-
-
-
-
-
-