For the three of you reading this who haven’t yet heard about it, the OPERA experiment in Italy recently announced a genuinely surprising result. They create a beam of muon neutrinos at CERN in Geneva, point them under the Alps (through which they zip largely unimpeded, because that’s what neutrinos do), and then detect a few of them in the Gran Sasso underground laboratory 732 kilometers away. The whole thing is timed by stopwatch (or the modern high-tech version thereof, using GPS-synchronized clocks), and you solve for the velocity by dividing distance by time. And the answer they get is: just a teensy bit faster than the speed of light, by about a factor of 10^-5. Here’s the technical paper, which already lists 20 links to blogs and news reports.

The things you need to know about this result are:

• It’s enormously interesting if it’s right.
• It’s probably not right.

By the latter point I don’t mean to impugn the abilities or honesty of the experimenters, who are by all accounts top-notch people trying to do something very difficult. It’s just a very difficult experiment, and given that the result is so completely contrary to our expectations, it’s much easier at this point to believe there is a hidden glitch than to take it at face value. All that would instantly change, of course, if it were independently verified by another experiment; at that point the gleeful jumping up and down will justifiably commence.

This isn’t one of those annoying “three-sigma” results that sits at the tantalizing boundary of statistical significance. The OPERA folks are claiming a six-sigma deviation from the speed of light. But that doesn’t mean it’s overwhelmingly likely that the result is real; it just means it’s overwhelmingly unlikely that the result is simply a statistical fluctuation. There is another looming source of possible error: a “systematic effect,” i.e. some unknown miscalibration somewhere in the experiment or analysis pipeline. (If you are measuring something incorrectly, it doesn’t matter that you measure it very carefully.) In particular, the mismatch between the expected and observed timing amounts to tens of nanoseconds; but any individual “event” takes the form of a pulse that is spread out over thousands of nanoseconds. Extracting the signal is a matter of using statistics over many such events — a tricky business.

The experimenters and their colleagues at other experiments know this perfectly well, of course. As Adrian Cho reports in Science, OPERA’s spokesperson Antonio Ereditato is quick to deny that they have overturned Einstein. “I would never say that… We are forced to say something. We could not sweep it under the carpet because that would be dishonest.” Now there’s a careful and honest scientist for you, I wish we were all so precise and candid. Cho also quotes Chang Kee Jung, a physicist not on the experiment, as saying, “I wouldn’t bet my wife and kids [that the result will go away] because they’d get mad. But I’d bet my house.” A careful and honest husband and father.

Scientists do difficult experiments all the time, of course, and yet we believe their results. That’s simply because it’s proper to be extra skeptical when the results fly in the face of our expectations: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as someone once paraphrased Bayes’s Theorem. When the supernova results in 1998 suggested that the universe is accelerating, most cosmologists hopped on board fairly quickly, both because we had a simple theoretical model in hand (the cosmological constant) and because the result helped explain several other nagging observational problems (such as the age of the universe). Here that’s not quite true, although we should at least mention that Fermilab’s MINOS experiment also saw evidence for faster-than-light neutrinos, albeit at a woefully insignificant level. More relevant is the fact that we have completely independent indications that neutrinos do travel at the speed of light, from Supernova 1987A. If the OPERA results are naively taken at face value, the SN 87A should have arrived a couple of years before we saw the explosion using good old-fashioned photons. But perhaps we should resist being naive; the SN 87A events were electron neutrinos, not muon neutrinos, and they were at substantially lower energies. If neutrinos do violate the light barrier, it’s completely consistent to imagine that they do so in an energy-dependent way, so the comparison is subtle.

Which brings up a crucial point: if this result is true (which is always a possibility), it is much more surprising than the acceleration of the universe, but it’s not as if we don’t already have ways to explain it. The most straightforward idea is to violate Lorentz invariance, a strategy of which I’m quite personally fond (although I’ve never applied the idea to neutrino physics). Lorentz invariance says that everyone measures the speed of light to be the same; if you violate it, it’s easy enough to imagine that someone (like, say, a neutrino) measures something different. Once you buy into that idea, neutrinos are an interesting place to apply the idea, since our constraints on their properties are relatively weak. It’s an interesting enough topic that there are review articles, and even a Wikipedia page on the idea.

And there are more way-out possibilities. Graininess in spacetime from quantum gravity might affect the propagation of nearly-massless particles; extra dimensions might provide a shortcut through space. This experimental result will probably give a boost to theorists thinking about these kinds of things, as well it should — there’s nothing disreputable about trying to come up with models that fit new data. But it’s still a long shot at this time. I hate to keep saying it over and over in this era of tantalizing-but-not-yet-definitive experimental results, but: stay tuned.

A few of the countless good blog posts on this topic:

• Matt Strassler (two, three)
• Philip Gibbs
• Ben Still
• Aidan Randle-Conde liveblogs the OPERA seminar at CERN

The world isn’t always so simple, of course. It’s not too hard to think of models that violate the consistency relation. Now Senatore, Silverstein, and Zaldarriaga are pointing to a new mechanism: gravitational waves produced directly by particle or string sources during inflation. (Silverstein is of course well-known as a string theorist, but her recent work in early-universe cosmology has been as good as anybody’s in the field.) The usual mechanism is simply quantum fluctuations of fields in their vacuum state; these folks are imagining that particular objects — particles or strings — are produced during inflation, which then act as sources for gravitational waves. In a simple model you would expect that this effect might be important at a fixed scale corresponding to the energy of the sources, but they argue that it’s not hard to come up with models where gravitational waves are produced at all scales.

New Sources of Gravitational Waves during Inflation

Leonardo Senatore, Eva Silverstein, Matias Zaldarriaga

We point out that detectable inflationary tensor modes can be generated by particle or string sources produced during inflation, consistently with the requirements for inflation and constraints from scalar fluctuations. We show via examples that this effect can dominate over the contribution from quantum fluctuations of the metric, occurring even when the inflationary potential energy is too low to produce a comparable signal. Thus a detection of tensor modes from inflation does not automatically constitute a determination of the inflationary Hubble scale.

The bad news here is in the last line — in simple models (there’s that word again) the amplitude of gravitational waves is simply proportional to the expansion rate of the universe during inflation. Now that’s no longer so obvious. But research isn’t about finding good news or bad news, it’s about finding the right answer. Being unreasonably confident in the predictions we make from our models is just as dangerous as not having compelling models at all.

One of the benefits of being a Master of Time and Space is that I get to see the future. For example, cosmologically-inclined folks have been wondering for a few weeks about this press release from the TAUP conference in Munich, which includes the lines “Latest results from the CRESST Experiment provide an indication of dark matter. The press conference will be held on 6. September 2011 starting at 2:00 pm.” Suspense! But I know what they’re going to say.

As Neal Weiner points out, we don’t have to wait for the press conference; the friendly folks at the CRESST experiment have ambitiously decided to write a paper as well as giving a press conference, and that paper appeared on the arxiv this evening. (You remember Neal as a distinguished guest blogger; re-read that post to get your bearings in this complicated game.) Very short version: they claim to see some signal that is statistically significantly greater than background, consistent with a WIMP dark-matter particle with a mass of around 20-40 GeV. Slightly longer version:

Results from 730 kg days of the CRESST-II Dark Matter Search

G. Angloher, M. Bauer, I. Bavykina, A. Bento, C. Bucci, C. Ciemniak, G. Deuter, F. von Feilitzsch, D. Hauff, P. Huff, C. Isaila, J. Jochum, M. Kiefer, M. Kimmerle, J.-C. Lanfranchi, F. Petricca, S. Pfister, W. Potzel, F. Pröbst, F. Reindl, S. Roth, K. Rottler, C. Sailer, K. Schäffner, J. Schmaler, S. Scholl, W. Seidel, M. von Sivers, L. Stodolsky, C. Strandhagen, R. Strauß, A. Tanzke, I. Usherov, S. Wawoczny, M. Willers, A. Zöller

The CRESST-II cryogenic Dark Matter search, aiming at detection of WIMPs via elastic scattering off nuclei in CaWO$_4$ crystals, completed 730 kg days of data taking in 2011. We present the data collected with eight detector modules, each with a two-channel readout; one for a phonon signal and the other for coincidently produced scintillation light. The former provides a precise measure of the energy deposited by an interaction, and the ratio of scintillation light to deposited energy can be used to discriminate different types of interacting particles and thus to distinguish possible signal events from the dominant backgrounds. Sixty-seven events are found in the acceptance region where a WIMP signal in the form of low energy nuclear recoils would be expected. We estimate background contributions to this observation from four sources: 1) “leakage” from the e/\gamma-band 2) “leakage” from the \alpha-particle band 3) neutrons and 4) Pb-206 recoils from Po-210 decay. Using a maximum likelihood analysis, we find, at a high statistical significance, that these sources alone are not sufficient to explain the data. The addition of a signal due to scattering of relatively light WIMPs could account for this discrepancy, and we determine the associated WIMP parameters.

Or if you like pictures:

Taken at face value, what we have is yet another indication — joining results from DAMA and CoGeNT, although not completely consistent with them — of a dark matter signal that is (1) lower mass than most theorists would have expected, and (2) nominally ruled out by other experiments such as XENON and CDMS. So either the universe is really messing with us by making dark matter more complicated than we might have thought (but still accessible to our experiments), or searching for dark matter is really hard and the experiments are still fighting with unknown sources of error. Or both!

So this might be extremely exciting, but at the moment we’re still stuck saying: patience until it all gets figured out. We can take our time to get it right, the universe will still be there tomorrow.

The Sensitivity of Convection Zone Depth to Stellar Abundances: An Absolute Stellar Abundance Scale from Asteroseismology
Jennifer L. van Saders, Marc H. Pinsonneault

The base of the convection zone is a source of acoustic glitches in the asteroseismic frequency spectra of solar-like oscillators, allowing one to precisely measure the acoustic depth to the feature. We examine the sensitivity of the depth of the convection zone to mass, stellar abundances, and input physics, and in particular, the use of a measurement of the acoustic depth to the CZ as an atmosphere-independent, absolute measure of stellar metallicities. We find that for low mass stars on the main sequence with $0.4 M_{\odot} \le M \le 1.6 M_{\odot}$, the acoustic depth to the base of the convection zone, normalized by the acoustic depth to the center of the star, $\tau_{cz,n}$, is both a strong function of mass, and varies at the 0.5-1% per 0.1 dex level in [Z/X], and is therefore also a sensitive probe of the composition. We estimate the theoretical uncertainties in the stellar models, and show that combined with reasonable observational uncertainties, we can expect measure the the metallicity to within 0.15 – 0.3 dex for solar-like stars. We discuss the applications of this work to rotational mixing, particularly in the context of the observed mid F star Li dip, and to distguishing between different mixtures of heavy elements.

This example might not be immediately accessible to non-experts, but I think the idea is to pitch the video at the level of astronomy grad students. Certainly the participants deserve a lot of credit for trying out an innovative way to talk about their research.

The key to the ambition of making this a regular even is keeping it simple and easy. If it takes a couple of hours to put it together, no problem; if it takes a couple of days, enthusiasm will flag. I’m not sure what software was used to make the video and the simple graphics — iMovie, maybe? For the DNA computer video we showed some time back, it was quite an elaborate job, and you would worry that it would be onerous to do something like that for every paper one writes.

Stephen Hawking‘s favorite idea is that the universe came out of “nothing” — it arose (although that’s not really the right word) as a quantum fluctuation with literally no pre-existing state. No space, no time, no anything. But there’s another idea that’s at least as plausible: that the universe arose out of something, but that “something” was simply “chaos,” whatever that means in the context of quantum gravity. Space, time, and energy, yes; but no order, no particular arrangement.

It’s an old idea, going back at least to Lucretius, and contemplated by David Hume as well as by Ludwig Boltzmann. None of those guys, of course, knew very much of our modern understanding of cosmology, gravitation, and quantum mechanics. So what would the modern version look like?

That’s the question that Anthony Aguirre, Matt Johnson and I tackled in a paper that just appeared on arxiv. (Both of my collaborators have also been guest-bloggers here at CV.)

Out of equilibrium: understanding cosmological evolution to lower-entropy states
Anthony Aguirre, Sean M. Carroll, Matthew C. Johnson

Despite the importance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is not absolute. Statistical mechanics implies that, given sufficient time, systems near equilibrium will spontaneously fluctuate into lower-entropy states, locally reversing the thermodynamic arrow of time. We study the time development of such fluctuations, especially the very large fluctuations relevant to cosmology. Under fairly general assumptions, the most likely history of a fluctuation out of equilibrium is simply the CPT conjugate of the most likely way a system relaxes back to equilibrium. We use this idea to elucidate the spacetime structure of various fluctuations in (stable and metastable) de Sitter space and thermal anti-de Sitter space.

It was Boltzmann who long ago realized that the Second Law, which says that the entropy of a closed system never decreases, isn’t quite an absolute “law.” It’s just a statement of overwhelming probability: there are so many more ways to be high-entropy (chaotic, disorderly) than to be low-entropy (arranged, orderly) that almost anything a system might do will move it toward higher entropy. But not absolutely anything; we can imagine very, very unlikely events in which entropy actually goes down.

In fact we can do better than just imagine: this has been observed in the lab. The likelihood that entropy will increase rather than decrease goes up as you consider larger and larger systems. So if you want to do an experiment that is likely to observe such a thing, you want to work with just a handful of particles, which is what experimenters succeeded in doing in 2002. But Boltzmann teaches us than any system, no matter how large, will eventually fluctuate into a lower-entropy state if we wait long enough. So what if we wait forever?

It’s possible that we can’t wait forever, of course; maybe the universe spends only a finite time in a lively condition like we see around us, before settling down to a truly stable equilibrium that never fluctuates. But as far as we currently know, it’s equally reasonable to imagine that it does last forever, and that it is always fluctuating. This is a long story, but a universe dominated by a positive cosmological constant (dark energy that never fades away) behaves a lot like a box of gas at a fixed temperature. Our universe seems to be headed in that direction; if it stays there, we will have fluctuations for all eternity.

Which means that empty space will eventually fluctuate into — well, anything at all, really. Including an entire universe.

This basic story has been known for some time. What Anthony and Matt and I have tried to add is a relatively detailed story of how such a fluctuation actually proceeds — what happens along the way from complete chaos (empty space with vacuum energy) to something organized like a universe. Our answer is simple: the most likely way to go from high-entropy chaos to low-entropy order is exactly like the usual way that systems evolve from low entropy to high-, just played backward in time.

Here is an excerpt from the paper:

The key argument we wish to explore in this paper can be illustrated by a simple example. Consider an ice cube in a glass of water. For thought-experiment purposes, imagine that the glass of water is absolutely isolated from the rest of the universe, lasts for an infinitely long time, and we ignore gravity. Conventional thermodynamics predicts that the ice cube will melt, and in a matter of several minutes we will have a somewhat colder glass of water. But if we wait long enough … statistical mechanics predicts that the ice cube will eventually re-form. If we were to see such a miraculous occurrence, the central claim of this paper is that the time evolution of the process of re-formation of the ice cube will, with high probability, be roughly equivalent to the time-reversal of the process by which it originally melted. (For a related popular-level discussion see From Eternity to Here, ch. 10.) The ice cube will not suddenly reappear, but will gradually emerge over a matter of minutes via unmelting. We would observe, therefore, a series of consecutive statistically unlikely events, rather than one instantaneous very unlikely event. The argument for this conclusion is based on conventional statistical mechanics, with the novel ingredient that we impose a future boundary condition — an unmelted ice cube — instead of a more conventional past boundary condition.

Let’s imagine that you want to wait long enough to see something like the Big Bang fluctuate randomly out of empty space. How will it actually transpire? It will not be a sudden WHAM! in which nothingness turns into the Big Bang. Rather, it will be just like the observed history of our universe — just played backward. A collection of long-wavelength photons will gradually come together; radiation will focus on certain locations in space to create white holes; those white holes will spit out gas and dust that will form into stars and planets; radiation will focus on the stars, which will break down heavy elements into lighter ones; eventually all the matter will disperse as it contracts and smooths out to create a giant Big Crunch. Along the way people will un-die, grow younger, and be un-born; omelets will convert into eggs; artists will painstakingly remove paint from their canvases onto brushes.

Now you might think: that’s really unlikely. And so it is! But that’s because fluctuating into the Big Bang is tremendously unlikely. What we argue in the paper is simply that, once you insist that you are going to examine histories of the universe that start with high-entropy empty space and end with a low-entropy Bang, the most likely way to get there is via an incredible sequence of individually unlikely events. Of course, for every one time this actually happens, there will be countless times that it almost happens, but not quite. The point is that we have infinitely long to wait — eventually the thing we’re waiting for will come to pass.

And so what?, you may very rightly ask. Well for one thing, modern cosmologists often imagine enormously long-lived universes, and events like this will be part of them, so they should be understood. More concretely, we are of course all interested in understanding why our actual universe really does have a low-entropy boundary condition at one end of time (the end we conventionally refer to as “the beginning”). There’s nothing in the laws of physics that distinguishes between the crazy story of the fluctuation into the Big Crunch and the perfectly ordinary story of evolving away from the Big Bang; one is the time-reverse of the other, and the fundamental laws of physics don’t pick out a direction of time. So we might wonder whether processes like these help explain the universe in which we actually live.

So far — not really. If anything, our work drives home (yet again!) how really unusual it is to get a universe that passes through such a low-entropy state. So that puzzle is still there. But if we’re ever going to solve it, it will behoove us to understand how entropy works as well as we can. Hopefully this paper is a step in that direction.

The existence of this feature gives a strong motivation for testing gravity in the regime of very tiny accelerations. Note that this isn’t even a statement that makes sense in general relativity; particles move on geodesics, and the “acceleration due to gravity” is always exactly zero. So implicitly we’re imagining some global inertial frame with respect to which such acceleration can be measured. That’s a job for a future theory to make sense of; for the moment we’re forgetting that we know GR and thinking like Newton would have.

So now Hernandez, Jimenez, and Allen have tried to test gravity in this weak-acceleration regime — and they claim it fails!

The Breakdown of Classical Gravity?
X. Hernandez, M. A. Jimenez, C. Allen

Assuming Newton’s gravity and GR to be valid at all scales, leads to the dark matter hypothesis as a forced requirement demanded by the observed dynamics and measured baryonic content at galactic and extra galactic scales. Alternatively, one can propose a contrasting scenario where gravity exhibits a change of regime at acceleration scales less than $a_{0}$, and obtain just as good a fit to observations across astrophysical scales. A critical experiment in this debate is offered by wide orbit binary stars. Since for $1 M_{\odot}$ systems the acceleration drops below $a_{0}$ at scales of around 7000 AU, an statistical survey of relative velocities and binary separations reaching beyond $10^{4}$ AU should yield a conclusive answer to the above debate. By performing such a study we show Kepler’s third law to fail precisely beyond $a \approx a_{0}$ scales, precisely as predicted by modified gravity theories designed not to require any dark matter at galactic scales and beyond.

Color me dubious, but interested in seeing further studies. It’s very hard to collect this kind of data, and note that it’s just a statistical survey of velocities, not a precise measurement of individual systems. In principle a statistical survey is fine; in practice, it opens up the possibility of hidden subtle systematic effects.

Still, intriguing and worth checking out. Any time you have the chance to overthrow Sir Isaac Newton, you go for it.

For those who haven’t been following along at home, there appear to be subtle unexpected Sun-ward accelerations (i.e. higher than expected decelerations) seen in the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft while leaving the Solar System. Sean posted an earlier discussion of the anomaly and a possible reported solution that does not involve modifying gravity. However, this latest paper is by a different group, and posits that reflections within the spacecraft are enough to explain the discrepancies. There’s a nicer write-up than this one at the Technology Review Physics ArXiV blog.

FYI, it was posted a few days ago, and is not an April Fool’s posting.

Also FYI, my kids just got passports, and did you know that there’s an image of Pioneer 10 on the inside back cover? Beamjockey did some nice sleuthing a few years back and dug up the source image!

You might be thinking that black holes in five dimensions can’t be that interesting, since they are probably pretty similar to black holes in four dimensions, and after all we don’t live in five dimensions. But of course, there could be a fifth dimension of space that is compactified on a tiny circle. (Of course.) So then you have to consider two different regimes: the size of the circle is much larger than the size of the black hole — in which the fact that it’s compact doesn’t really matter, and you just have a regular black hole in five dimensions — or the size of the circle is smaller than the black hole — in which case, what?

The answer is that you get a black string — a cylindrical configuration that stretches across the extra dimension. This was figured out a long time ago by Ruth Gregory and Raymond LaFlamme. But they were also clever enough to ask — what if you had that kind of cylindrical black hole, but it stretched across a relatively large extra dimension? That sounds like a configuration you can make, but it might be unstable — wiggles in the string could grow, leading it to pinch off into a set of distinct black holes. One way of seeing that something like that is likely is to calculate the entropy of each configuration; for long enough black strings, the entropy is lower than a collection of black holes with the same mass, and entropy tends to grow. Indeed, Gregory and LaFlamme showed that long black strings are unstable. However, it wasn’t clear what exactly would ultimately happen to them.

The problem is this: there is a singularity at the center of the black string. If the string simply divides into multiple black holes, that singularity should (at least for a moment) become “naked” to the outside world, violating cosmic censorship. Cosmic censorship is a conjecture, not a theorem, so maybe it is violated, but that would certainly be interesting.

What Lehner and Pretorius have done is to numerically follow the decay of an unstable black string, much further than anyone had ever done before. They find that yes, it does decay into multiple black holes, and the strings connecting them seem to shrink to zero size in a finite time. The implication seems strongly to be that cosmic censorship is indeed violated, although the numerical simulations aren’t enough to establish that for sure.

The cool part is the way in which the strings decay into black holes. They form a self-similar pattern along the way — a fractal configuration of black holes of every size, from the largest on down. Here’s a result from their simulations.

Beautiful, isn’t it? As the string shrinks in radius, it keeps beading off smaller and smaller black holes. Eventually we would expect them all just to bump into each other and make one big black hole, but the intermediate configuration is complex and elegant. And cosmic censorship is apparently violated when the strings finally shrink to zero radius. So it goes.

Little chance we’ll be observing any of this in an experiment any time soon. But Nature has the capacity to surprise us even if we’re just solving equations that are many decades old.

Equivalence Principle and Gravitational Redshift

Michael A. Hohensee, Steven Chu, Achim Peters, Holger Mueller

We investigate leading order deviations from general relativity that violate the Einstein equivalence principle (EEP) in the gravitational standard model extension (SME). We show that redshift experiments based on matter waves and clock comparisons are equivalent to one another. Consideration of torsion balance tests, along with matter wave, microwave, optical, and M\”ossbauer clock tests yields comprehensive limits on spin-independent EEP-violating SME terms at the $10^{-6}$ level.

The Principle of Equivalence says that, if you’re in free fall, there’s no way of detecting the gravitational field around you in a local region of spacetime. (You’ve seen Inception, right?) Unlike electromagnetism, with gravity there’s no local “force” that can be detected by comparing what happens to particles of different charges. In other words, all particles feel the same “charge” as far as gravity is concerned; they all fall in the same way.

So to look for violations of the EP (which are certainly conceivable, even if it sometimes just sounds like technobabble), you do experiments that look for particles doing different things in different kinds of gravitational fields. For example, you can use the EP to predict the gravitational redshift, which can be thought of as “time running more slowly when you are deep in a gravitational potential.” (Not the most precise formulation, but it will do.) And therefore you can test the EP by measuring the different amount of time elapsed by sending clocks on different trajectories.

A relatively new technique for performing such tests is atom interferometry. Rather than literally sending clocks along two different trajectories — which has also been done, of course — you take advantage of the quantum-mechanical wave nature of matter, and simply send two “wave packets of atoms” along different trajectories. Waves oscillate, and the number of oscillations they experience serves as a clock. The benefit is that the waves interfere when they recombine, and we’re very good at measuring tiny deviations in the predicted amount of interference.

But apparently there’s been some controversy over whether the phase of the atom wave really counts as a “clock,” for purposes of this kind of experiment. This new paper by Hohensee and collaborators is saying “yes, it does.” A previous paper by Wolf et al. said “no, it doesn’t.”

At a glance, I tend to agree with Hohensee et al., but I haven’t gone through the arguments very carefully. I’ll just note that one of the authors of the Wolf et al. paper is Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, who shared the Nobel Prize in 1997 with Bill Phillips and … Steve Chu! Always good to see a Nobel-level tussle. I think I’ll let them figure it out.

Search for gravitational waves from binary black hole inspiral, merger and ringdown

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration (722 authors)
(Submitted on 18 Feb 2011)
We present the first modeled search for gravitational waves using the complete binary black hole gravitational waveform from inspiral through the merger and ringdown for binaries with negligible component spin. We searched approximately 2 years of LIGO data taken between November 2005 and September 2007 for systems with component masses of 1-99 solar masses and total masses of 25-100 solar masses. We did not detect any plausible gravitational-wave signals but we do place upper limits on the merger rate of binary black holes as a function of the component masses in this range. We constrain the rate of mergers for binary black hole systems with component masses between 19 and 28 solar masses and negligible spin to be no more than 2.0 per Mpc^3 per Myr at 90% confidence.

Note the caveats on the analysis: for one thing, it’s looking for the inspiral phase in particular (which should be the easiest to see). More importantly, they’re looking for a specific mass range — between 25 and 100 solar masses total in the binary system, which is rather large. (But nicely positioned for LIGO’s frequency sensitivity.) And of course they’re looking for black holes, not neutron stars (which would be less massive).

The truth is, they shouldn’t have seen anything, according to our best theoretical estimates. From the conclusions:

We did not detect any plausible gravitational-wave candidates. However we estimated our search sensitivity and were able to constrain the merger rate of the targeted sources in the nearby Universe. We established to 90% confidence that the merger rate of black holes with component masses between 19M_sun and 28M_sun is less than 2.0 Mpc^-3 Myr^-1. We note that this is still about an order of magnitude higher than optimistic estimates for such systems [28] (see also [13, 19])

So, keep looking. They’re getting closer; the next step is to upgrade to Advanced LIGO. Once that happens, a lack of detections will be more surprising than actually detecting something.

We’re very happy to have a guest post from one of the people who is doing exactly that hard work — Matt Johnson, who guest-blogged for us before. He and his collaborators just come out two papers that examine the cosmic microwave background, looking for evidence of “bubble collisions.”

First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation
Stephen M. Feeney (UCL), Matthew C. Johnson (Perimeter Institute), Daniel J. Mortlock (Imperial College London), Hiranya V. Peiris (UCL)
arXiv:11012.1995

First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation: Analysis Methods and WMAP 7-Year Results
Stephen M. Feeney (UCL), Matthew C. Johnson (Perimeter Institute), Daniel J. Mortlock (Imperial College London), Hiranya V. Peiris (UCL)
arXiv:1012.3667

The hope is that these other “universes” might not be completely separate from our own — maybe we collided in the past. They’ve done a very careful job going through the data, with intriguing but inconclusive results. (See also Backreaction.)

Looking for this kind of signature in the CMB is certainly reminiscent of the concentric circles predicted by Gurzadyan and Penrose. But despite the similarities, it’s different in crucial ways — different theory, different phenomenon leading to the signal, different analysis, different conclusions. The road to sorting out this multiverse stuff is long and treacherous, but our brave cosmological explorers will eventually guide us through.

Here’s Matt.

———————————————————————–

Observing other universes: is this science fiction?

Perhaps not. Stephen Feeney, Daniel Mortlock, Hiranya Peiris and I recently performed an observational search for the signatures of colliding bubble universes in the cosmic microwave background. Before getting to our results, let me explain some of the back-story.

The idea that there might be other universes is taken quite seriously in high energy physics and cosmology these days. This is mainly due to the fact that the laws of physics, and the various “fundamental” constants appearing in them, could have been otherwise. More technically worded, there is no unique vacuum in theories of high energy physics that involve spontaneous symmetry breaking, extra dimensions, or supersymmetry. Having a bunch of vacua around is interesting, but to what extent are they actually realized in nature? Surprisingly, when a spacetime region undergoing inflation is metastable, there are cases when all of the vacua in a theory can be realized in different places and at different times. This phenomenon is known as eternal inflation. In an inflating universe, if a region is in a metastable vacuum, bubbles containing different vacua will form. These bubbles then expand, and eat into the original vacuum. However, if the space between bubbles is expanding fast enough, they never merge completely. There is always more volume to convert into different vacua through bubble formation, and the original vacuum never disappears: inflation becomes eternal. In the theory of eternal inflation, our entire observable universe resides inside one of these bubbles. Other bubbles will contain other universes. In this precise sense, many theories of high energy physics seem to predict the existence of other universes.

In the past four years, a few groups have tried to understand if it is possible to confront this radical picture of a “multiverse” with observation. The idea is to look for signatures of a collision between another bubble universe and our own. Even though the outside eternally inflating spacetime prevents all bubbles from merging, there will be many collisions between bubbles. How many we are even in principle able to see depends in detail on the underlying theory, and given the proliferation of theories, there is no concrete prediction.

Currently, the best information about the primordial universe comes from the cosmic microwave background (CMB). A collision will produce inhomogeneities in the early stages of cosmology inside our bubble, which are then imprinted as temperature and polarization fluctuations of the CMB. One can look for these fingerprints of a bubble collision in data from the WMAP or Planck satellites.

Most of the previous work has been to establish a proof of concept that observable bubble collisions can exist, and that there are theories which predict that we expect to see them; many of the details remain to be worked out. There are however a number of generic signatures of bubble collisions that we used to guide our search. Since a collision affects only a portion of our bubble interior, and because the colliding bubbles are nearly spherical, the signal is confined to a disc on the CMB sky (imagine two merging soap bubbles; the intersection is a ring). The effect of the collision inside the disc is very broad because it has been stretched by inflation. In addition, there might be a jump in the temperature at the boundary of the disc (although the magnitude and sharpness of such a jump has yet to be worked out in detail).

In a pair of papers (summary: arXiv:1012.1995 , details: arXiv:1012.3667) with Stephen Feeney, Daniel Mortlock, and Hiranya Peiris, we performed a search for these types of generic signatures in CMB data from the WMAP satellite. Our philosophy was to define a phenomenological model that encompasses the generic signatures of bubble collisions, and use the data to constrain the free parameters in the model. See the picture shown below, which is a simulated CMB sky containing a bubble collision, for an example of what a very clear signal might look like.

Predicted signal on the cosmic microwave background from a simulated collision with a bubble from another “universe.”

Zoomed in on the simulated bubble from above.

Cutting to the chase, we were first able to use simulated CMB data containing bubble collisions to rule out a range of parameter space as inconsistent with WMAP data. As it turned out, the existence of a temperature discontinuity at the boundary of the disc greatly increases our ability to make a detection. We did not find any circular temperature discontinuities in the WMAP data.

While we didn’t make any clear detections of bubble collisions, we did find four features in the WMAP data that are better explained by the bubble collision hypothesis than by the standard hypothesis of fluctuations in a nearly Gaussian field. We assess which of the two models better explain the data by evaluating the Bayesian evidence for each. The evidence correctly accounts for the fact that a more complex model (the bubble collisions, in this case) will generally fit the data better simply because it has more free parameters. This is the self-consistent statistical equivalent of applying Ockham’s Razor. In addition, using information from multiple frequencies measured by the WMAP satellite and a simulation of the WMAP experiment, we didn’t find any evidence that these features can be attributed to astrophysical foregrounds or experimental systematics.

One of the features we identified is the famous Cold Spot, which has been claimed as evidence for a number of theories including textures, voids, primordial inhomogeneities, and various other candidates. A nice aspect of our approach is that it can be used to compare these hypotheses, without making arbitrary choices about which features in the CMB need explaining (focusing on the Cold Spot is an a posteriori choice). We haven’t done this yet, but plan to soon.

While identifying the four features consistent with being bubble collisions was an exciting result, these features are on the edge of our sensitivity thresholds, and so should be considered only as a hint that there might be bubble collisions to find in future data. The good news is that we can do much more with data from the Planck satellite, which has better resolution and lower noise than the WMAP experiment. There is also much better polarization information, which provides a complementary signal of bubble collisions (found by Czech et. al. – arXiv:1006.0832). We’ll be gearing up to analyze this data, and hopefully there will be more to the story then.

Roger Penrose and his collaborator Vahe Gurzadyan made a splash recently by claiming that there was evidence in the cosmic microwave background for a pre-Big-Bang era in the history of the universe. (Here’s the paper.) The evidence takes the form of correlated circles in the cosmic microwave background anisotropies, as pictured here. They claim that they have found such circles at a level of significance much higher than would be predicted in a conventional scenario, where perturbations were random and uncorrelated on various scales.

That would be pretty amazing, if true. But it looks like it isn’t. Here are two skeptical papers that just appeared on the arxiv. (Hat tip to David Spergel. Peter Coles was an early skeptic.)

A search for concentric circles in the 7-year WMAP temperature sky maps

Authors: I. K. Wehus, H. K. Eriksen

Abstract: In a recent analysis of the 7-year WMAP temperature sky maps, Gurzadyan and Penrose claim to find evidence for violent pre-Big Bang activity in the form of concentric low-variance circles at high statistical significance. In this paper, we perform an independent search for such concentric low-variance circles, employing both chi^2 statistics and matched filters, and compare the results obtained from the 7-year WMAP temperature sky maps with those obtained from LCDM simulations. Our main findings are the following: We do reproduce the claimed ring structures observed in the WMAP data as presented by Gurzadyan and Penrose, thereby verifying their computational procedures. However, the results from our simulations do not agree with those presented by Gurzadyan and Penrose. On the contrary we obtain a substantially larger variance in our simulations, to the extent that the observed WMAP sky maps are fully consistent with the LCDM model as measured by these statistics.

No evidence for anomalously low variance circles on the sky

Authors: Adam Moss, Douglas Scott, James P. Zibin

Abstract: In a recent paper, Gurzadyan & Penrose claim to have found directions on the sky centred on which are circles of anomalously low variance in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). These features are presented as evidence for a particular picture of the very early Universe. We attempted to repeat the analysis of these authors, and we can indeed confirm that such variations do exist in the temperature variance for annuli around points in the data. However, we find that this variation is entirely expected in a sky which contains the usual CMB anisotropies. In other words, properly simulated Gaussian CMB data contain just the sorts of variations claimed. Gurzadyan & Penrose have not found evidence for pre-Big Bang phenomena, but have simply re-discovered that the CMB contains structure.

The basic message is simple: sure, you can find some circles in the sky if you look there. But they are simply what you would expect from random alignments, not a new signal over and above the usual predictions. The authors here are respected CMB analyzers, and I strongly suspect that they are correct. Which reminds us of an important lesson: analyzing the CMB is hard! It’s a very messy universe out there, and if you don’t take every single source of error correctly into account, you can convince yourself of all sorts of things.

Just because this particular signal is there doesn’t mean the underlying model — Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) — isn’t right. I’m all in favor of pre-Big-Bang cosmologies myself, and Penrose more than anyone has been correct in insisting that the low entropy of our early universe is a crucial problem that is not well-addressed in modern cosmology. But I’ve been hesitant because, frankly, I don’t really get it.

As far as I know, there isn’t any exposition of the CCC in the form of a freely-available technical paper. There is a book, which hasn’t officially been released in the U.S. but you can get your hands on if you try hard enough, which I did.

Roger Penrose, Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe

Even with the book in my hands, however, I can’t quite discern the underlying physical mechanism that makes it all work.

The basic point is this. The very early universe is smooth. The universe right now is lumpy, with stars and galaxies and black holes all over the place. But the future universe will be smooth again — black holes will evaporate and the cosmological constant will disperse all the matter, leaving us nothing but empty space. (Just wait about 10¹⁰⁰ years.) So, Penrose says, we can map the late universe onto a future phase that looks just like our early universe, simply by a conformal transformation (a change of scale). Do this an infinite number of times, and you have a cyclic cosmology — the universe goes through a series of “aeons” that start with a smooth Big Bang, get lumpy as structure forms, smooth out again, and then gets matched onto another smooth Big-Bang-like phase, etc.

If you’re sketchy on that last bit, join the club. Sure, mathematically we can map the smooth late universe onto the smooth early universe. But what physical process would actually cause that to happen? Despite having the book in my hands, I’m still unclear on this. (I absolutely confess that the answer might be in there, but I simply haven’t read it carefully enough.) While the early and late universes are both smooth, they are very different in other obvious ways, such as the energy density. What causes the low-density late universe to come alive into something like the high-density early universe? Something like that happens in the Steinhardt-Turok cyclic universe, but in order to make it happen you need to specify some particular matter fields with very specific dynamics. This isn’t a trivial task; there are things you can try, but they generally are plagued by instabilities and singularities. I don’t see where Penrose has done that, so I’m not even sure what there is to be criticized.

Regardless, I am highly skeptical of cyclic cosmologies no matter what flavor they come in. The most obvious empirical fact about our observable universe is its temporal asymmetry — the early phase is very different from the late phase, even though no such difference is to be found in the fundamental laws of physics. (I wrote a book about this, if you’re interested — Roger Penrose blurbed it.) Our goal should be to explain that asymmetry. But cyclic cosmologies simply extend it over an infinite number of cycles, without any explanation. If you took a typical state of the universe today and played it backwards in time, you wouldn’t expect to get anything like these cyclic cosmologies; it would just collapse into a mess. What you would need to do is argue that this kind of behavior arises robustly from a wide variety of possible initial conditions. If you need some special conditions, fine — but you’re not doing any better than the ordinary Big Bang.

Unitary Evolution and Cosmological Fine-Tuning
Authors: Sean M. Carroll, Heywood Tam
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2010)

Abstract: Inflationary cosmology attempts to provide a natural explanation for the flatness and homogeneity of the observable universe. In the context of reversible (unitary) evolution, this goal is difficult to satisfy, as Liouville’s theorem implies that no dynamical process can evolve a large number of initial states into a small number of final states. We use the invariant measure on solutions to Einstein’s equation to quantify the problems of cosmological fine-tuning. The most natural interpretation of the measure is the flatness problem does not exist; almost all Robertson-Walker cosmologies are spatially flat. The homogeneity of the early universe, however, does represent a substantial fine-tuning; the horizon problem is real. When perturbations are taken into account, inflation only occurs in a negligibly small fraction of cosmological histories, less than 10^{-6.6×10^7}. We argue that while inflation does not affect the number of initial conditions that evolve into a late universe like our own, it nevertheless provides an appealing target for true theories of initial conditions, by allowing for small patches of space with sub-Planckian curvature to grow into reasonable universes.

In English: our universe looks very unusual. You might think we have nothing to compare it to, but that’s not quite right; given the particles that make up the universe (or the quantum degrees of freedom, to be technical about it), we can compare their actual configuration to all the possible configurations they could have been in. The answer is, our observed universe is highly non-generic, and in the past it was even more non-generic, or “finely tuned.” One way of describing this state of affairs is to say that the early universe had a very low entropy. We don’t know why; that’s an important puzzle, worth writing books about.

Part of the motivation of this paper was to put some quantitative meat on some ideas I discussed in my book. The basic argument is an old one, going back to Roger Penrose in the late 1970′s. The advent of inflation in the early 1980′s seemed to change things — it showed how to get a universe just like ours starting from a tiny region of space dominated by “false vacuum energy.” But a more careful analysis shows that inflation doesn’t really change the underlying problem — sure, you can get our universe if you start in the right state, but that state is even more finely-tuned than the conventional Big Bang beginning.

We revisit this question, bringing to bear some mathematical heavy machinery developed in the 1980′s by Gary Gibbons, Stephen Hawking, and John Stewart. Previous discussions have invoked general ideas of entropy or reversibility, but we were able to do a relatively down-to-earth calculation using conventional cosmological models. And we tried our best to explicitly list all of the caveats of the argument, which is important in a context like this where we don’t know all the rules.

We find that inflation is very unlikely, in the sense that a negligibly small fraction of possible universes experience a period of inflation. On the other hand, our universe is unlikely, by exactly the same criterion. So the observable universe didn’t “just happen”; it is either picked out by some general principle, perhaps something to do with the wave function of the universe, or it’s generated dynamically by some process within a larger multiverse. And inflation might end up playing a crucial role in the story. We don’t know yet, but it’s important to lay out the options to help us find our way.

Can you spot the astro-ph paper containing the following?

Calculation of the new figure of merit entails calculating elliptic integrals of the second kind, which makes the method more scientific;

If it helps, it’s the same paper which refers to:

Lorentz violating Chuck Norris in space, breathing aether and watching galaxies with his naked eyes.

The final line of the orthographic correlations paper was a nice slow burn of a joke as well.

So now we understand things a bit better, and a number of people have been working to dig into this apparent anomaly. Here is a new paper from this week, that presents their own way of using these kinds of data to test GR against large-scale structure.

Testing General Relativity with Current Cosmological Data
Authors: Scott F. Daniel, Eric V. Linder, Tristan L. Smith, Robert R. Caldwell, Asantha Cooray, Alexie Leauthaud, Lucas Lombriser

Abstract: Deviations from general relativity, such as could be responsible for the cosmic acceleration, would influence the growth of large scale structure and the deflection of light by that structure. We clarify the relations between several different model independent approaches to deviations from general relativity appearing in the literature, devising a translation table. We examine current constraints on such deviations, using weak gravitational lensing data of the CFHTLS and COSMOS surveys, cosmic microwave background radiation data of WMAP5, and supernova distance data of Union2. Markov Chain Monte Carlo likelihood analysis of the parameters over various redshift ranges yields consistency with general relativity at the 95% confidence level.

One issue, as we noted way back when, is that it’s very hard to “test GR” without committing yourself to a model of the mass and energy sources that are causing the curvature of spacetime. So the game is to make some plausible assumptions and see where you go from there. This group seems to have assembled a sensible framework for testing deviations from Einstein, and come back with the answer that everything is on the right track.

We keep getting new and better data, of course, so we’ll keep testing. I suspect Einstein will continue to be right, but probably a lot of people thought Newton would continue to be right a century ago.

But wait! Over at Science News, Ron Cowen points out that a team led by Rychard Bouwens and Garth Illingworth of UC Santa Cruz already has a paper on the arxiv that uses similar techniques to identify three galaxies with a redshift of 10, corresponding to only 450 million years after the Big Bang. And, as Cowen mentions in a blog post, the paper was available since last month.

Constraints on the First Galaxies: z~10 Galaxy Candidates from HST WFC3/IR
Authors: R.J. Bouwens, G.D. Illingworth, I. Labbe, P.A. Oesch, M. Carollo, M. Trenti, P.G. van Dokkum, M. Franx, M. Stiavelli, V. Gonzalez, D. Magee

Abstract: The first galaxies likely formed a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. Until recently, it has not been possible to detect galaxies earlier than ~750 million years after the Big Bang. The new HST WFC3/IR camera changed this when the deepest-ever, near-IR image of the universe was obtained with the HUDF09 program. Here we use this image to identify three redshift z~10 galaxy candidates in the heart of the reionization epoch when the universe was just 500 million years old. These would be the highest redshift galaxies yet detected, higher than the recent detection of a GRB at z~8.2. The HUDF09 data previously revealed galaxies at z~7 and z~8… [snipped]

So why are galaxies at redshift 8 considered news, if galaxies at redshift 10 have already been discovered? As Charlie Petit talks about at the Knight Science Journalism Tracker, the difference seems to be that the former were announced at a press briefing, while the latter just appeared on arxiv.

For better or for worse, conventional science journalism has been cut back to the point where most reporters have no choice but to wait for press releases to appear to write a story. They don’t have the resources to scan through arxiv postings every day — and even if they did, the precious newsworthy nuggets are rather sparsely scattered through the mass of Kuhnian normal science. And let’s not even think about the idea that journalists should spend time (and money) going to lots of conferences and talks and chatting with scientists about what’s hot in their fields these days — the resources just aren’t there.

There is some room for blogs to help out here. A blog by a respectable scientist can point to interesting stories that didn’t appear in any press releases, and journalists can follow up. (I know it’s happened here before.) But the thing about blogs is that they’re remarkably non-systematic; bloggers mention things because they personally find them interesting, not because they feel a duty to the wider public. The nature of journalism is changing rapidly, and it’s not clear how things will eventually shake out. I certainly hope that we continue to enjoy the work of people like Cowen, who make the extra effort to find good science stories and spread them widely.

Higgs in Space!
C.B. Jackson, Geraldine Servant, Gabe Shaughnessy, Tim M.P. Tait, Marco Taoso

Abstract: We consider the possibility that the Higgs can be produced in dark matter annihilations, appearing as a line in the spectrum of gamma rays at an energy determined by the masses of the WIMP and the Higgs itself. We argue that this phenomenon occurs generally in models in which the the dark sector has large couplings to the most massive states of the SM and provide a simple example inspired by the Randall-Sundrum vision of dark matter, whose 4d dual corresponds to electroweak symmetry-breaking by strong dynamics which respect global symmetries that guarantee a stable WIMP. The dark matter is a Dirac fermion that couples to a Z’ acting as a portal to the Standard Model through its strong coupling to top quarks. Annihilation into light standard model degrees of freedom is suppressed and generates a feeble continuum spectrum of gamma rays. Loops of top quarks mediate annihilation into gamma Z, gamma h, and gamma Z’, providing a forest of lines in the spectrum. Such models can be probed by the Fermi/GLAST satellite and ground-based Air Cherenkov telescopes.

And for those who don’t immediately get the joke, we dip once more into the limitless supply of Muppets videos on YouTube.

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.