The Fermi Haze: A Gamma-Ray Counterpart to the Microwave Haze
Authors: Gregory Dobler, Douglas P. Finkbeiner, Ilias Cholis, Tracy R. Slatyer, Neal Weiner

Abstract: The Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope reveals a diffuse inverse Compton signal in the inner Galaxy with the same spatial morphology as the microwave haze observed by WMAP, confirming the synchrotron origin of the microwaves. Using spatial templates, we regress out pi0 gammas, as well as ICS and bremsstrahlung components associated with known soft-synchrotron counterparts. We find a significant gamma-ray excess towards the Galactic center with a spectrum that is significantly harder than other sky components and is most consistent with ICS from a hard population of electrons. The morphology and spectrum are consistent with it being the ICS counterpart to the electrons which generate the microwave haze seen at WMAP frequencies. In addition to confirming that the microwave haze is indeed synchrotron, the distinct spatial morphology and very hard spectrum of the ICS are evidence that the electrons responsible for the microwave and gamma-ray haze originate from a harder source than supernova shocks. We describe the full sky Fermi maps used in this analysis and make them available for download.

In English: if the dark matter is a weakly-interacting massive particle (WIMP), individual WIMPs should occsasionally annihilate with other WIMPs, giving off a bunch of particles, including electron/positron pairs as well as high-energy photons (gamma rays). Indeed, searching for such gamma rays was one of the primary motivations behind the Fermi mission (formerly GLAST). And it makes sense to look where the dark matter is most dense, in the center of the galaxy. But it’s a very hard problem, for a simple reason — there’s lots of radiation coming from the center of the galaxy, most of which has nothing to do with dark matter. Subtracting off these “backgrounds” (which would be very interesting in their own right to galactic astronomers) is the name of the game in this business.

But Doug Finkbeiner at Harvard has for a while now been suggesting that there was already evidence for something interesting going on near the galactic center — not in the form of high-energy photons, but in the form of low-energy photons. The so-called WMAP haze is alleged to be radiation emitted when high-energy electrons are being accelerated by magnetic fields, leading to low-energy photons (synchrotron radiation). And Finkbeiner and collaborators claim that a careful analysis of data from WMAP (whose primary mission was to observe the cosmic microwave background) reveals exactly the kind of radiation you would expect from annihilations near the galactic center.

If that model is right, it gives us some guidance about what to look for in the gamma rays themselves, which Fermi is now observing. And according to this new paper, this is what we see.

That’s one of many images, and has been extensively processed; see paper for details. The new paper claims that there is an excess of gamma rays, and that it has just the right properties to be arising from the same population of electrons that gave rise to the WMAP haze. These much higher-energy photons arise from inverse Compton scattering — electrons bumping into photons and pushing them to higher energies — rather than synchrotron emission. So we’re not talking about gammas that are produced by dark-matter annihilations, but ones that might arise from electrons and positrons that are produced by such annihilations. The authors pointedly do not claim that what we see must arise from dark matter, or even delve very deeply into that possibility.

There have been speculations that the microwave haze could indicate new physics, such as the decay or annihilation of dark matter, or new astrophysics. We do not speculate in this paper on the origin of the haze electrons, other than to make the general observation that the roughly spherical morphology of the haze makes it difficult to explain with any population of disk objects, such as pulsars. The search for new physics – or an improved understanding of conventional astrophysics – will be the topic of future work.

That’s as it should be; whether or not the gamma-ray haze is real is a separate question from whether dark matter is the culprit. But on a blog we can speculate just a bit. Therefore I’m going to go out on a limb and say: maybe it is! Or maybe not. But a wide variety of promising experimental techniques are attacking the problem of detecting the dark matter, and we’ll be hearing a lot more in the days to come.

So here is a new such test, courtesy of Rachel Bean of Cornell. She combines a suite of cosmological data, especially measurements of weak gravitational lensing from the Hubble Space Telescope, to see whether GR correctly describes the behavior of large-scale structure in the universe. And the surprising thing is — it doesn’t. At the 98% confidence level, Rachel finds that general relativity is inconsistent with the data. I’m not sure why we haven’t been reading about this in the science media or even on other blogs — it’s certainly a newsworthy result. Admittedly, the smart money is still that there is some tricky thing that hasn’t yet been noticed and Einstein will eventually come through the victor, but this is serious work by a respected cosmologist. Either the result is wrong, and we should be working hard to find out why, or it’s right, and we’re on the cusp of a revolution.

Here is the abstract:

A weak lensing detection of a deviation from General Relativity on cosmic scales
Authors: Rachel Bean

Abstract: We consider evidence for deviations from General Relativity (GR) in the growth of large scale structure, using two parameters, γ and η, to quantify the modification. We consider the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW) in the WMAP Cosmic Microwave Background data, the cross-correlation between the ISW and galaxy distributions from 2MASS and SDSS surveys, and the weak lensing shear field from the Hubble Space Telescope’s COSMOS survey along with measurements of the cosmic expansion history. We find current data, driven by the COSMOS weak lensing measurements, disfavors GR on cosmic scales, preferring η < 1 at 1 < z < 2 at the 98% significance level.

Let’s see if we can’t unpack the basic idea. The real problem in testing GR in cosmology is that any particular kind of spacetime curvature can be a solution to Einstein’s theory — all you need are the right sources of matter and energy. So in order to do a real test, you need to have some confidence that you understand what is creating the gravitational field — in the Solar System it’s the Sun and planets, in the binary pulsar it’s two neutron stars, and in the early universe it’s radiation. For large-scale structure things are a bit less clear — there’s ordinary matter, and dark matter, and of course dark energy.

Nevertheless, even though there are some things we don’t know about dark matter and dark energy, there are some things we think we do know. One of those things is that they don’t create any “anisotropic stress” — basically, a force that pulls different sides of things in different directions. Given that extremely reasonable assumption, GR makes a powerful prediction: there is a certain amount of curvature associated with space, and a certain amount of curvature associated with time, and those two things should be equal. (The space-space and time-time potentials φ and ψ of Newtonian gauge, for you experts.) The curvature of space tells you how meter sticks are distorted relative to each other as they move from place to place, while the curvature of time tells you how clocks at different locations seem to run at different rates. The prediction that they are equal is testable: you can try to measure both forms of curvature and divide one by the other. The parameter η in the abstract is the ratio of the space curvature to the time curvature; if GR is right, the answer should be one.

There is a straightforward way, in principle, to measure these two types of curvature. A slowly-moving object (like a planet moving around the Sun) is influenced by the curvature of time, but not by the curvature of space. (That sounds backwards, but keep in mind that “slowly-moving” is equivalent to “moves more through time than through space,” so the curvature of time is more important.) But light, which moves as fast as you can, is pushed around equally by the two types of curvature. So all you have to do is, for example, compare the gravitational field felt by slowly-moving objects to that felt by a passing light ray. GR predicts that they should, in a well-defined sense, be the same.

We’ve done this in the Solar System, of course, and everything is fine. But it’s always possible that some deviation from Einstein shows up at much larger distance and weaker gravitational fields than we have access to in our local neighborhood. That’s basically what Rachel’s paper does, considering different measures of the statistical properties of large-scale structure and comparing them to the predictions of a phenomenological model of the gravitational field. A crucial role is played by gravitational lensing, since that’s where the deflection of light comes in.

And here is the answer: the likelihood, given the data, for different values of 1/η, the ratio of the time curvature to the space curvature. The GR prediction is at 1, but the data show a pronounced peak between 3 and 4, and strongly disfavor the GR prediction. If both the data and the analysis are okay, there would be less than a 2% chance of obtaining this result. Not as good as 0.01%, but still pretty good.

So what are we supposed to make of this? Don’t get me wrong: I’m not ready to bet against Einstein, at least not yet. Mostly my pro-Einstein prejudice comes from long experience trying to come up with alternative theories of gravity that are simultaneously logically sensible and observationally consistent; it’s just very hard to do. But more generally, good scientists naturally have a strong suspicion of any claimed observational result that purports to overthrow an extremely well-established theory. That’s just common sense, not hidebound establishmentarianism; most such anomalies eventually go away.

But that doesn’t mean that you ignore anomalies; you just treat them with caution. In this case, there could be an unrecognized systematic error in the data set, or a subtle error in the analysis. Given 1:1 odds, that’s certainly where the smart money would bet right now. It’s also possible that the fault lies with dark matter or dark energy, not with gravity — but it’s hard to see how that could work, to be honest. Happily, it’s an empirical question — more data and more analysis will either reinforce the result, or make it go away. After all, some anomalies turn out to be frighteningly real. This one is worth taking seriously, to say the least.

Over the past week, four papers have shown up on astro-ph using new WFC3 data of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (see the prescient comment by Brian Mingus in the original blog post):

Bouwens et al
Oesch et al
Bunker et al
McLure et al

All of these papers are based upon data released on September 9th, from a large “Treasury” program to extend the wavelength coverage of the Hubble Deep Field. The first two papers were produced by the team that actually proposed the observations, and the second two were from groups that were sitting around eagerly waiting for the first group’s data to be publicly released¹.

All of the papers deal with the statistics and properties of extremely high redshift (i.e. distant and young) galaxies. The dominant technique for finding high redshift galaxies has been looking for “drop out” galaxies. These are galaxies that have essentially zero flux in blue filters, due to absorption from intergalactic gaseous Hydrogen, and significant flux in all redder filters (at wavelengths that are largely unaffected by the same gas). Higher redshift galaxies “drop out” of progressively redder filters, because the rest frame (un-redshifted) wavelength at which the gas absorbs the galaxy’s light appears redshifted to longer and longer (redder) wavelengths for highly redshifted galaxies. This technique was pioneered by Guhathakurta, Tyson, & Majewski in 1990, and put on the map as a technique for galaxy selection by Chuck Steidel throughout the 90’s.

These early works looked for “U-band dropouts”, which turn out to be star forming galaxies at a redshift of 3 (about 2.5 billion years after the big bang). Subsequently, people had the bright idea to just keep pushing the drop out technique to redder wavelengths, to look for ever more distant galaxies. However, this comes at a cost, since more distant galaxies tend to be much fainter, so you need to work harder to have statistically significant detections in the red filters, and strong contraints on the absence of detections in bluer filters. The new WFC3 data pushes this technique out of the optical and into the infrared, selecting galaxies at redshifts from 6 to 9, when the universe was 0.5-1 billion years old. (Note: in the picture above, each successive column shows an image taken at redder and redder wavelengths. The likely distant galaxies are those that show up in the rightmost three columns but none of the leftmost columns)

The new papers all find that at these early times, the star formation rate of the universe is on the rise. This isn’t too surprising, given that you’re getting so close to the beginning of the universe — early on, structure hasn’t really had much time to form, so naturally you should find that fewer galaxies have yet had time to go about their business.

All in all, these are nice results doing just what the new data was designed to do.

¹ In Jackson Hole, I once saw a bald eagle sitting high in a tree above a stream. There was an osprey sitting lower down the same tree. The river guide said the eagle waits for the osprey to catch a fish, and then just steals the fish from the osprey.

² After posting this, I found a nice write-up by Ron Cowan here, as well as discussion of the result from the always lovely Peter Coles here. There’s also a cute discussion of the stress involved in such publications over at andxyl’s place.

In fact our original idea wasn’t merely the idea of dark photons, it was dark atoms — having dark matter bear a close family resemblance to ordinary matter, all the way to having most of its mass be in the form of composite objects consisting of one positively-charged dark particle (a “dark proton”) and one negatively-charged dark particle (a “dark electron”). We thought about it a very tiny bit, but didn’t pursue the idea and only mentioned it in passing at the very end of our paper. There is an informal rule in theoretical physics that you should only invoke the tooth fairy (propose an extremely speculative idea or hope for some possible but unprovable result) once per paper, so we stuck with only a single kind of charged dark particle.

But once someone invokes the tooth fairy in their paper, anyone who writes another paper gets to invoke the tooth fairy for themselves. (That’s just how the rule works.) And the good news is that it’s now been done:

Atomic Dark Matter
Authors: David E. Kaplan, Gordan Z. Krnjaic, Keith R. Rehermann, Christopher M. Wells

Abstract: We propose that dark matter is dominantly comprised of atomic bound states. We build a simple model and map the parameter space that results in the early universe formation of hydrogen-like dark atoms. We find that atomic dark matter has interesting implications for cosmology as well as direct detection: Protohalo formation can be suppressed below $M_{proto} \sim 10^3 – 10^6 M_{\odot}$ for weak scale dark matter due to Ion-Radiation interactions in the dark sector. Moreover, weak-scale dark atoms can accommodate hyperfine splittings of order $100 \kev$, consistent with the inelastic dark matter interpretation of the DAMA data while naturally evading direct detection bounds.

(Note that one of the authors has been a guest-blogger here at CV.) It looks like a great paper, and they seem to have done a careful job at chasing down some of the interesting implications of dark atoms. In fact the idea might be more robust than that of the one in our paper; the fact that dark atoms are neutral lets you slip loose of some of the more inconvenient observational bounds. And the last sentence of the abstract points to an intriguing consequence: by giving the dark matter particles some structure, you might be able to explain the intriguing DAMA results while remaining consistent with other (thus far negative) direct searches for dark matter. Stay tuned; that dark sector may turn out to be a pretty exciting place after all.

——————————————

I had the pleasure of meeting up with Sean and some other old friends at the World Science Festival in NYC last month, and over champagne at the opening night reception (science has its benefits) Sean graciously invited me to write a guest post on gravitational lensing. It’s a broad topic, mainly because lensing is proving to be such an incredibly useful tool for many areas of cosmology and astronomy, but I have to admit that the visual beauty of the images produced by lensing is part of the appeal for me.
I’m also enamored of the visceral connection between these images and lensing phenomena that all of us encounter in daily life – and the access into a complex theory that this connection affords. The giant arcs, Einstein Rings, and multiple copies of a single distant galaxy or quasar that have now been observed in hundreds of images are concrete visualizations of otherwise abstract concepts of general relativity – they effectively trace out the warps in spacetime created by massive objects, revealing the outline of the cosmos much as the technique of “rubbing” can reveal the writing on an ancient gravestone.

This image, from a recent paper by Adi Zitrin and Tom Broadhurst is both scientifically and visually irresistible:

First, the image itself is really cool. The bright white/yellow galaxies are members of a cluster known as MACS J1149.5+2223, while the blue amoeba-like objects that appear to be invading the cluster are actually five images of a single distant (z ~ 1) spiral galaxy.

This galaxy has been lensed by the warp in spacetime created by the cluster. Light from the galaxy, which lies almost directly behind the center of the cluster but much farther away from us, travels along several curved paths through the cluster lens, producing multiple magnified images of the galaxy. The inset box shows a computer generated model of the unlensed source galaxy, enlarged by a factor of four so that the details, including the spiral arm structure, are visible. Without the lensing power of the cluster, we would see this galaxy as a single small blue smudge.

In general, lensing will both magnify and distort (shear) images of a background source. This lens is fairly unique in that we see large but relatively intact images of the spiral galaxy, which implies that the mass distribution in the central region of the cluster must be nearly uniform. The images in the upper left (#1) and lower right (#2) are especially striking. #1 is magnified but very minimally distorted, while #2, the largest image with a magnification of over 80, seems to be curling its tentacles about one of the galaxies in the cluster.

A close look also reveals the negative parity (mirror symmetry) of the remaining three images – the spiral arms appear to circle in the opposite direction – as expected from lensing. The total magnification of the distant galaxy (the sum of all five images) is about 200, the largest known to date – supporting the authors’s claim that this is “the more powerful lens yet discovered.”

This is not just a pretty picture, however – the image packs a lot of scientific information. The authors extract the mass distribution in the cluster (which has implications for cosmological models), measure the mass-to-light ratio of the bright galaxy in the center of the cluster, and use the magnifying power of the lens to search for even more distant galaxies.

The basic idea is to construct a model of the lens, starting with the cluster galaxies and a dark matter halo; then refine the model to reproduce the multiple images that are seen. Using this refined model it’s possible to predict the location of additional images of a given source, and to identify regions of high magnification that can then be examined for multiple images of other sources. Any additional images that are found can be used to further refine the model and so on.

For example in this system, image #1 is “delensed” to obtain an image of the source galaxy; this model source image is then relensed and the resulting multiple images are compared (size, shape and location) with the observed images. The agreement between observed and modeled images is excellent. Using this lens model nine additional multiply-lensed galaxies (all fainter and at a higher redshift than the spiral galaxy) were found. In total there are 33 images of 10 background source galaxies.

So what does this tell us? The model of the lens outlines the (projected 2D) mass profile of the cluster – which doesn’t seem to agree with numerical simulations for clusters, assuming a standard ΛCDM cosmology. The mass concentration in the center of the cluster is higher than predicted, a result that has also been found for other massive clusters studied with gravitational lensing. This implies that we’re either missing some physics in our simulations, or we may need to modify our cosmological model.

And I suspect that we will hear from this lens again. The most distant galaxy discovered to date, at a redshift of z ~ 7.6, was found courtesy of the cluster lens A1689, and MACS J1149 offers another powerful magnifying glass through which to search for the earliest galaxies in the universe.

So now Pierre Colin and collaborators have hit upon a cute way to distinguish between electrons and positrons: treat the magnetosphere of the Earth like the interior of a giant particle detector. Ever since cloud chambers, physicists have put magnetic fields in their detectors to help distinguish between positively charged particles and negatively charged particles, which get pushed in opposite directions. Well, the Earth has a magnetic field, so maybe we can use that. The problem is that the positrons and electrons would still all hit a telescope such as MAGIC, so the fact that they were deflected by the magnetic field wouldn’t be very relevant.

But Colin et al. suggest a trick: using the Moon’s shadow. Let’s imagine that the excess positrons really are coming from dark matter annihilating in the galactic center. When the moon is near the position of the galactic center in the sky, it will block out some of those particles, casting a shadow on ground-based telescopes. That’s already interesting, but the fun part is that positrons and electrons will be deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field, so the positron shadow will be in a slightly different position than the electron shadow! Using that effect, it may be possible to distinguish between the signals.

I am completely unable to judge how feasible this actually is. But the idea is sufficiently imaginative, I’m sure rooting for it.

For the direct-detection strategy here on Earth, we build giant detectors and wait for ambient dark-matter particles to interact with something in the detector. If the dark matter is a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP), that’s not so hard; the difficult part is distinguishing a purported signal from various backgrounds. To know what the signal should be, of course, we need to know how many dark matter particles are zipping through the laboratory. It should be a good number: roughly speaking, there would be about one weak-scale-sized dark matter particle per coffee-cup-volume in the universe, and in our galaxy these particles will typically be trucking along at around 300 kilometers per second.

Still, you’d like an accurate estimate of how much dark matter there is supposed to be in your detector. That’s what Riccardo Catena and Piero Ullio claim to have provided:

A novel determination of the local dark matter density
Authors: Riccardo Catena, Piero Ullio

Abstract: We present a novel study on the problem of constructing mass models for the Milky Way, concentrating on features regarding the dark matter halo component. We have considered a variegated sample of dynamical observables for the Galaxy, including several results which have appeared recently, and studied a 7- or 8-dimensional parameter space – defining the Galaxy model – by implementing a Bayesian approach to the parameter estimation based on a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method. The main result of this analysis is a novel determination of the local dark matter halo density which, assuming spherical symmetry and either an Einasto or an NFW density profile is found to be around 0.39 GeV cm$^{-3}$ with a 1-$\sigma$ error bar of about 7%; more precisely we find a $\rho_{DM}(R_0) = 0.385 \pm 0.027 \rm GeV cm^{-3}$ for the Einasto profile and $\rho_{DM}(R_0) = 0.389 \pm 0.025 \rm GeV cm^{-3}$ for the NFW. This is in contrast to the standard assumption that $\rho_{DM}(R_0)$ is about 0.3 GeV cm$^{-3}$ with an uncertainty of a factor of 2 to 3. A very precise determination of the local halo density is very important for interpreting direct dark matter detection experiments. Indeed the results we produced, together with the recent accurate determination of the local circular velocity, should be very useful to considerably narrow astrophysical uncertainties on direct dark matter detection.

So they’re claiming the density is about .39 GeV per cubic centimeter (where one GeV is about the mass of the proton), whereas the standard figure is something closer to .30 GeV per cubic centimeter. More importantly, they claim to trust their estimate to a precision of about 7%, while the usual number is supposed to be uncertain by a factor of 2 or 3.

I’m not expert enough to judge whether they are right, but it would certainly be very impressive to pin down the density to such high precision. They do assume spherical symmetry, however, which I suspect is not a very good assumption. There are ongoing arguments about how lumpy the distribution of galactic dark matter really is, and I can easily imagine that lumpiness can distort the local density by much more than 7%. But work like this is going to be very important in interpreting the results, if (when?) we do directly detect the dark matter.

Of course there is no problem in having something go faster than sound, but sound waves themselves are stuck with that speed limit. That fairly elementary fact inspired Bill Unruh years back to propose a clever idea: a black hole that you could make in the laboratory, but using sound rather than light. He called them dumb holes, although I’m not sure people get the right idea when they hear that name.

I used to think that this was an amusing thought experiment, but was believed to be unrealistic to actually attempt. But now Lahav et al. have apparently done it! (Via Swans on Tea and arXiv blog.)

A sonic black hole in a density-inverted Bose-Einstein condensate
Authors: O. Lahav, A. Itah, A. Blumkin, C. Gordon, J. Steinhauer

Abstract: We have created the analogue of a black hole in a Bose-Einstein condensate. In this sonic black hole, sound waves, rather than light waves, cannot escape the event horizon. The black hole is realized via a counterintuitive density inversion, in which an attractive potential repels the atoms. This allows for measured flow speeds which cross and exceed the speed of sound by an order of magnitude. The Landau critical velocity is therefore surpassed. The point where the flow speed equals the speed of sound is the event horizon. The effective gravity is determined from the profiles of the velocity and speed of sound.

The idea is simply that you get a fluid flowing faster than its speed of sound in some region, so that the sound waves cannot escape the “horizon” bounding that region. (The flow speed has to change within the material; taking a balloon full of air and putting it on a supersonic jet doesn’t count.)

But the reason this could some day be very exciting is when quantum mechanics gets into the game. Just like black holes, dumb holes should have “Hawking radiation” — but instead of particles, the holes should emit quantized sound waves (conventionally known as “phonons”). That would be very interesting to observe, although the experimental state of the art isn’t there yet.

To be clear, we wouldn’t be learning much about quantum gravity if we observed Hawking phonons from dumb holes. The underlying physics is still that of atoms (and, in this case, a Bose-Einstein condensate), not that of general relativity. Indeed, one of Unruh’s original motivations was to show that the physics on small scales didn’t affect the prediction of Hawking radiation. So the prediction of Hawking phonons should be rock-solid, no matter how little we know about quantum gravity. Still, it would be very cool.

Atom interferometry tests of local Lorentz invariance in gravity and electrodynamics
Authors: Keng-Yeow Chung, Sheng-wey Chiow, Sven Herrmann, Steven Chu, Holger Mueller

Abstract: We present atom-interferometer tests of the local Lorentz invariance of post-Newtonian gravity. An experiment probing for anomalous vertical gravity on Earth, which has already been performed by us, uses the highest-resolution atomic gravimeter so far. The influence of Lorentz violation in electrodynamics is also taken into account, resulting in combined bounds on Lorentz violation in gravity and electrodynamics. Expressed within the standard model extension or Nordtvedt’s anisotropic universe model, we limit twelve linear combinations of seven coefficients for Lorentz violation at the part per billion level, from which we derive limits on six coefficients (and seven when taking into account additional data from lunar laser ranging). We also discuss the use of horizontal interferometers, including atom-chip or guided-atom devices, which potentially allow the use of longer coherence times in order to achieve higher sensitivity.

We kid the Energy Secretary, but this is a very cool experiment. (I presume this is the interferometer?) Basically, you throw an atom up in the air, and catch it as it comes down. But you actually split the wave function of the atom into two different beams, depending on when it absorbs and emits a pulse of laser light. The beams leave the same place and are collected at the same place, but travel on slightly different paths; you can use interferometry to see whether these different paths have evolved differently.

Which lets you test all kinds of things, from measuring the fine structure constant to looking for new forces to testing Lorentz invariance, as is happening here. But if it helps free us from dependence on foreign oil sources, I’d be surprised.

Matt Johnson, Lisa Randall and I just came out with a paper that takes a partial stab at this question: Dynamical Compactification from de Sitter Space. (And a similar-sounding paper came out the same day from Jose Blanco-Pillado, Delia Schwartz-Perlov, and Alex Vilenkin.) It’s an intriguing idea, if I do say so myself: starting with nothing more complicated than a higher-dimensional spacetime with a positive vacuum energy and an electromagnetic field (or a higher-dimensional generalization thereof), you will automatically get quantum fluctuations into lower-dimensional spacetimes! If we really believe in extra dimensions, we need to understand how regions with different effective dimensionalities are cosmologically related, and this is a step in that direction.

Normally I’d blog all about it, but on this occasion we’re outsourcing to a guest blogger. My collaborator Matt Johnson is a postdoc at Caltech, and before that was a grad student at UC Santa Cruz, where he worked with Anthony Aguirre — a previous guest-blogger of ours! We like to keep things in the family.

—————————————————

Extra dimensions. Sounds preposterous at first. Well, perhaps more accurately, it sounds preposterous to most people who don’t do high-energy theory. But, really I assure you, there are many well-motivated reasons why us wacky theorists like to ponder the existence of extra dimensions.

For one, as shown long ago by Kaluza and Klein, it is possible to get Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism in four dimensions by taking 5 dimensional General Relativity and wrapping one of the spatial dimensions up in a circle too small to see. The smaller the circle is, the harder it is to move in this “other direction,” and so there is no danger in getting lost on the way home. In this way, Maxwell’s equations have an elegant geometrical origin and gravity and electricity & magnatism are combined into one force (5 dimensional gravity).

Another strong motivation comes from string theory, which is only a consistent quantum theory of gravity if there are 10 or 11 dimensions in total. Again, since we don’t see them, it is necessary to hide the existence of the extra dimensions. Inspired by the fact that it was possible to hide one extra dimension by wrapping it up in a circle, generally the extra 6 or 7 dimensions are thought to be “compactified” into a very small compact geometry like a sphere or a torus.

At this point, the five-year-old in the audience is insistently asking, “If you have all these extra dimensions, and you are telling me that they are wrapped up into this tiny ball, how did they get wrapped up in the first place? Why are the four dimensions we see so large, and the others so small?”

After nearly a century of thinking about the existence of extra dimensions, there are surprisingly few plausible answers to this very simple question. One of the few answers was proposed by Brandenberger and Vafa. They studied the thermodynamics of strings in a torus-shaped hot early-universe, and found that miraculously it is favorable for only four of the dimensions to become large. Pretty nice, if the universe is a torus and all the dimensions started out small and compact. But, it would be nice to have some alternatives in case this turns out not to be viable.

Sean Carroll, Lisa Randall, and I recently wrote a paper that revisits the five-year-old’s question. We wanted to start with the very simplest model that has extra dimensions and solutions in which some of them can be compactified. A minimal set of ingredients needed to accomplish this includes 1) D-dimensional gravity, 2) a positive D-dimensional cosmological constant, and 3) a (D-4)-form gauge field (think E&M, but with more indices). This theory has long been known to have solutions where 4 of the dimensions are non-compact and (D-4) of them correspond to directions on a sphere, whose size is stabilized by the energetics of curvature and a background Electric or Magnetic field.

More interestingly, we showed that some of the spacetimes that are solutions to this theory contain a four-dimensional universe that lives behind the event horizon of an extended object, a “p-brane” or “black brane,” that is embedded in a background D-dimensional spacetime. Moreover, there are mechanisms that dynamically give rise to such objects, thanks to the magic of quantum mechanics, and this leads to an explanation for why some number of extra dimensions became compact!

Sounds complicated, but you can actually go a long way towards understanding what we did by considering plain-old four dimensional black holes. If you are falling into a black hole, eventually you cross the event horizon, a spherical surface that denotes the point-of-no-return: once you get in, you can’t get out. Sadly for you, everyone knows that lurking in the interior of the black hole is a singularity, and your fate will be spaghettification or worse.

What if there was no singularity? By this, I don’t necessarily mean some quantum gravity resolution, but rather, what if the geometry was such that the radius of spheres became frozen at some value close to the value on the event horizon. In this case, you don’t die, but you are still suck inside of the black hole due to the event horizon. You also notice that It is not very spacious in there, because the black hole is of finite size. Effectively, two of the original four dimensions have become compactified on a sphere. Therefore, falling into this made-up black hole, you would experience two of the four dimensions compactifying!

Upping the number of dimensions to D, it is possible to find black branes that do exactly this – when you cross an event horizon, you enter a region in which some number of the extra dimensions have become compact. The number of compact dimensions is determined by the symmetry of the event horizon. If the event horizon has (D-4)-dimensional spherical symmetry, then the region inside of the black brane is effectively four dimensional. Further, the 4 dimensional region has a natural “slicing” into space and time, that yields a cosmology. The big-bang in this 4-dimensional cosmology corresponds to the event horizon of the black brane.

These black branes can be embedded in a D-dimensional de Sitter space, which has some very interesting properties itself. Most relevant for us is that energy conservation does not work in de Sitter space, since it has a finite temperature. This means that every once in a while, a fluctuation will occur that produces one of the black brane solutions, and therefore a 4-dimensional universe. This is a mechanism of dynamical compactification.

The devil is now in the details. First off, the brane needs to be charged under the gauge field for there to be one of these interesting solutions. For each value that the charge can take, a slightly different lower-dimensional universe will be produced, and if there are different types of gauge fields, then universes with different numbers of dimensions will be produced as well. There is a “landscape” of many possible lower-dimensional vacua, just like in string theory. Dynamical compactification will be happening all over the place in the D-dimensional de Sitter space, realizing all of these possibilities in different spacetime regions, and yielding what is referred to as a “multiverse.”

The zeroth order question is if any of these universes look like ours. This involves having an early time epoch of inflation and late-time evolution towards a universe dominated by a small cosmological constant. We found that the answer can be yes on both counts for the models we studied.

A more ambitious goal is then to ask if there is any reason that picks out the universe we observe. This is of course a scary path to walk down, fraught with numerous incarnations of the Anthropic monster, but is a necessary demon to face in a theory where the fundamental parameters vary in different spatiotemporal regions of the multiverse. Although we did not explore this question in depth, there are some suggestive hints. First of all, it is easier to get into a vacuum with a small positive cosmological constant than it is to get out. It is also easier to produce universes with a smaller value for the late-time cosmological constant, although it is much more likely to get a negative vacuum energy solution, which undergoes a crunch. Depending on the total number of dimensions, we also found some cases where the rates to produce four dimensional universes was highest. These questions will be interesting to address in the future.

So, next time you go falling into an event horizon, you can hold out the hope that you will simply be banished to a lower-dimensional universe!