Blogs / Cosmic Variance

An arxiv find, via David Hogg (via Facebook, via the internet).

The gravitational force law in the Solar System
Authors: Jo Bovy (NYU), Iain Murray (Toronto), David W. Hogg (NYU, MPIA)

Abstract: If the Solar System is long-lived and non-resonant (that is, if the planets are bound and have evolved independently through many orbital times), and if the system is observed at any non-special time, it is possible to infer the dynamical properties of the Solar System (such as the gravitational force or acceleration law) from a snapshot of the planet positions and velocities at a single moment in time. We consider purely radial acceleration laws of the form a_r= -A [r/r₀]^-α, where r is the distance from the Sun. Using only an instantaneous kinematic snapshot (valid at 2009 April 1.0) for the eight major planets and a Bayesian probabilistic inference technique, we infer 1.989<α<2.052 (95-percent confidence). Our results confirm those of Newton (1687) and contemporaries, who inferred α=2 (with no stated uncertainty) via the comparison of computed and observationally inferred orbit shapes (closed ellipses with the Sun at one focus; Kepler 1609). Generalizations of the methods used here will permit, among other things, inference of Milky-Way dynamics from Gaia-like observations.

So: instead of noting that an inverse-square behavior for the force of gravity fits the data, assume that gravity obeys an inverse power law and fit for the power. (It’s two, to within the errors.) Of course there have been many higher-precision tests of gravity in the Solar System than this one; the new thing here is that the data are simply the positions and velocities of all the planets at one particular moment in time, no direct dynamical measurements. A little bit of Bayesian voodoo magic, and there you go.

What I want to know is, what makes the authors so convinced that their instantaneous kinematic snapshot is valid tomorrow?

I have a new paper out with Sonny Mantry and Michael Ramsey-Musolf, following up on our earlier paper with Chris Stubbs. The original idea was to imagine a new long-range force that couples directly to dark matter, but not to ordinary visible matter. (A simple scalar force, which is universally attractive between any two objects, as opposed to all the messy complications of a dark electromagnetic force.) Due to the magic of quantum mechanics, such a force will couple indirectly to ordinary matter via virtual particles. So in the first paper we studied how you could use fifth-force searches in ordinary matter to look for such dark forces.

In this paper we are a little more systematic, and we follow Jo Bovy and Glennys Farrar in also considering consequences for direct dark matter detection experiments, as well as dark matter searches at colliders. Here is the (somewhat lengthy) abstract:

Implications of a Scalar Dark Force for Terrestrial Experiments
Authors: Sean M. Carroll, Sonny Mantry, Michael J. Ramsey-Musolf

Abstract: A long range Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) violating force between Dark Matter (DM) particles, mediated by an ultralight scalar, is tightly constrained by galactic dynamics and large scale structure formation. We examine the implications of such a “dark force” for several terrestrial experiments, including Eotvos tests of the WEP, direct-detection DM searches, and collider studies. The presence of a dark force implies a non-vanishing effect in Eotvos tests that could be probed by current and future experiments depending on the DM model. For scalar singlet DM scenarios, a dark force of astrophysically relevant magnitude is ruled out in large regions of parameter space by the DM relic density and WEP constraints. WEP tests also imply constraints on the Higgs-exchange contributions to the spin-independent (SI) DM-nucleus direct detection cross-section. For WIMP scenarios, these considerations constrain Higgs-exchange contributions to the SI cross-section to be subleading compared to gauge-boson mediated contributions. In multicomponent DM scenarios, a dark force would preclude large shifts in the rate for Higgs decay to two photons associated with DM-multiplet loops that might otherwise lead to measurable deviations at the LHC or a future linear collider. The combination of observations from galactic dynamics, large scale structure formation, Eotvos experiments, DM-direct-detection experiments, and colliders can further constrain the size of new long range forces in the dark sector.

The looming problem with this whole game is that a long-range scalar force is unnatural. A scalar field should, by all rights, have a large mass, and that kind of mass drastically limits the range of the corresponding force. (That’s why the weak interactions are negligible compared to electromagnetism for everyday purposes; the W and Z bosons have a large mass, while the photon is massless.) You can keep scalar fields light by imposing symmetries, but that also tends to squelch any interesting interactions. But okay, it’s also unnatural for the Higgs boson to have a mass less than the Planck scale, or for the cosmological constant to be much less than the Planck scale. Unnatural things happen in the real world, so it’s not crazy to try to understand how they would manifest themselves.

The question is, once you’ve allowed yourself some unnaturalness, where do you stop? In this paper we’ve tried hard to minimize the number of parameters we unnaturally tuned to small values. We’ve tuned things to keep the scalar field light while not messing up the mass of the ordinary Higgs field, but tried not to tune anything else. In that case there should be mixing of the new scalar with the Higgs, and that mixing plays an important role in the phenomenology. In particular, there are implications for ground-based experiments; thus the title! It’s a long paper, but if you read one paper on the implications of a scalar dark force for terrestrial experiments this week, it should definitely be this one.

David Harris at symmetry breaking points to a paper and accompanying commentary on the search for high-energy cosmic antiprotons by the PAMELA satellite experiment. (What one defines as “high-energy” depends on one’s upbringing; we’re talking about energies of up to 100 times the mass of the proton.) The impression is given that this is a brand-new result casting doubt on the earlier claims that PAMELA might have detected evidence for dark matter; that’s not really a correct impression, so it’s worth getting it all straight.

The PAMELA satellite, an Italian/Russian/German/Swedish collaboration, looks at high-energy cosmic rays from orbit, and pays particular attention to the presence of antimatter — basically, positrons (anti-electrons) and anti-protons. Part of the idea is that a high-energy matter particle can simply be a particle that had been lying around for a while and was accelerated to large velocities by magnetic fields or other astrophysical processes, whereas you need some pretty high energies to produce antiparticles in the first place. Say, for example, from the annihilation of dark matter particles with each other. There are certainly some high-energy collisions in the ordinary non-dark-matter world, so you expect to see a certain fraction of antimatter, but that fraction should noticeably diminish as you get to higher and higher energies.

So in October the experiment released two papers back to back:

A new measurement of the antiproton-to-proton flux ratio up to 100 GeV in the cosmic radiation
Authors: O. Adriani et al.
arXiv:0810.4994

Observation of an anomalous positron abundance in the cosmic radiation
Authors: O. Adriani et al.
arXiv:0810.4995

If you look closely, you’ll notice the second paper has 10 trackbacks to its abstract on arxiv, while the first doesn’t have any (until now!). The reason is clear: the second paper has the word “anomalous” in the title. The PAMELA measurements of positrons deviate significantly from the theoretical expectation, while the measurements of anti-protons reported in the first paper are exactly what you might have predicted. Who wants to write about observations that fit theories we already have?

You might remember the PAMELA positron result as the one that created a stir when they gave a talk before submitting their paper, and theorists in the audience snapped pictures of the data with their cell phone cameras and proceeded to write papers about it. Those wacky theorists.

Here is the relevant positron plot, from paper 2 above:

The vertical axis is the fraction of positrons in the total sample of electrons+positrons, plotted against energy. The red dots are the data, and the black curve is the theoretical prediction from ordinary astrophysical processes. Not the best fit, eh? At low energies that is not a surprise, as “weather” effects such as solar activity can get in the way of observing low-energy positrons. But at high energies the prediction should be more robust, and that’s where it’s the worst. Indeed, it’s pretty clear that the fraction of positrons is increasing with energy, which is pretty baffling, but could conceivably come from dark matter annihilations. See Resonaances for more discussion.

And here is the version for antiprotons, from paper 1 above:

Now that’s what we call a fit to the data; again, fraction of antiprotons plotted versus energy, and the data go up and down just as predicted.

What happened is that the PAMELA collaboration submitted their second paper (anomalous positrons) to Nature, and their first paper (well-behaved antiprotons) to Physical Review Letters. The latter paper has just now appeared in print, which is why Simon Swordy’s commentary in Physics appeared, etc. Although the idea behind Physics (expert-level commentary on recently published articles) is a good one, it’s sponsored by the American Physical Society, and therefore pretends that the only interesting articles are those that appear in journals published by the American Physical Society. Which Nature is most surely not.

So one might get the impression that the antiproton result is a blow against the idea that we are seeing dark-matter annihilations. Which it is; if you didn’t know any better, you would certainly expect to see an excess of antiprotons in dark-matter annihilations just as surely as you would expect to see an excess of positrons. But it’s not a new blow; the papers appeared on arxiv (which is what really matters) at the same time!

And it’s not a blow that can’t be recovered from. All you have to do is declare that your dark matter candidate is “hadrophobic,” and likes to annihilate into electrons and positrons rather than protons and antiprotons. Not an easy task, but that’s why theorists get paid the exorbitant salaries we do. (Without ready access to champagne and caviar, we can hardly be expected to justify unusual branching ratios in WIMP annihilations.) The favorite model out there right now belongs to Arkani-Hamed, Finkbeiner, Slatyer, and Weiner, featuring a new gauge force that is broken at relatively low energies. But there are various models on the market, and the number is only going to grow.

Most likely the PAMELA positron excess is coming from something that can be fit quite nicely into the Standard Model of particle physics, like pulsars. That’s my guess, anyway. Happily, there’s all sorts of data coming down the pike that will help us sort it out.

Here is probably the single most helpful thing I have ever done for the world. Last month Paul Ginsparg, who did a world-changing thing by inventing the arxiv system for sharing scientific preprints, was visiting Pasadena, and dropped by Caltech. We chatted a bit about blogs, the internet, the preprint server, ways one might incorporate links to blogs and talks and newspaper articles and all that (some of which already exists in the form of trackbacks). And he told me a fun math problem I will blog about at some point.

And then he asked, “Is there any other obvious way the arxiv could be improved?” To which I naturally responded, “You mean in addition to subdividing astro-ph into categories?”

The problem with science is that there’s just too damn much of it. Every weekday, when one peeks at the new listings on astro-ph, one is faced with 40 to 50 new abstracts to read. That’s a lot of science to wade through, and it’s especially bad for people who work on the boundaries and might also be interested in hep-th, gr-qc, hep-ph, and/or other categories. (I haven’t yet broken down and started reading quant-ph.) Especially since, just because you are interested in issues at the interfaces of conventionally-defined disciplinary boundaries, it doesn’t follow that you are interested in every single kind of research that is carried out in every one of those disciplines. An early-universe cosmologist, for example, might not be interested in star formation or the interstellar medium. Or they might be; but perhaps not.

Nevertheless, everything astronomy-related on the arxiv gets put into astro-ph, from models of inflation to light curves of W UMa contact binaries. And if one was interested only in some subset, one needed to sift through the 50 abstracts to search for the few that struck a chord.

Until now! Paul and Mark Wise and I chatted for ten minutes and came up with a perfectly sensible (I like to think) set of categories into which astro-oriented papers would mostly fall, and Paul went away promising to implement such a scheme. After chatting around with a few actual astrophysicists and fine-tuning the system, it’s now done! That wasn’t so hard, was it? (Part of the reason this hadn’t happened much earlier is that certain astrophysicists who will remain nameless took a “eat your vegetables” approach to the problem, insisting that it was good for anyone to look at every single astro-ph abstract if they were possibly interested in any of them.)

Here is what I was happy to find in my email just now:

By popular request, the Astrophysics (astro-ph) archive has been split into six subcategories:

CO Cosmology and Extra-Galactic Astrophysics
EP Earth and Planetary Astrophysics
GA Galactic Astrophysics
HE High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena
IM Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics
SR Solar and Stellar Astrophysics

For more information, see the subcategory descriptions at http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph (including links to the subdivided new and recent listings). This split should make announcements of new papers more manageable for those interested only in subsets of astro-ph. New astro-ph submissions must assigned one or more sub-categories. (Existing astro-ph articles will be machine-classified according to the new scheme when enough training data has been collected.)

To subscribe to the daily e-mail notifications for only a set of subcategories, you should first cancel your existing subscription, and then subscribe only to the subcategories of interest via physics. See http://arxiv.org/help/subscribe For example, you could send two emails

——–
To: astro-ph@arxiv.org
Subject: can

——–
To: physics@arxiv.org
Subject: subscribe [Your Name]

add CO
add GA

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! Undoubtedly some curmudgeons will gripe that their particular kind of research doesn’t fit snugly into any one of the categories. Fair enough; let the powers that be know, and they’ll do whatever is reasonable to make sure the system evolves appropriately. But for right now, my early evenings (abstracts appear at 5 p.m. Pacific time) just got a little brighter.

Gravity is a weak force, which makes it extremely difficult to do actual experiments (or perform astronomical observations) that would give us any detailed, up-close-and-personal data about the behavior of quantum gravity. We should be thankful, therefore, that we’ve been able to learn as much as we have about quantum gravity (and we do know some things) just by sitting in our chairs and doing thought experiments, constrained only by the basic principles of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Undoubtedly the most prolific thought-experiment laboratories have been black holes. In particular, Hawking’s discovery that black holes radiate and have entropy has driven an enormous amount of research, and some of it has actually been productive! One of the highlights was certainly the calculation in 1996 by Strominger and Vafa, who used some tricks from string theory to actually count the number of quantum states hidden in a black hole, in a way that would have made Boltzmann proud, and come up with an answer that matched Hawking’s formula precisely.

There are still puzzles, however, as you might guess. Foremost among them is “How does the information get out?” An increasing number of physicists believe that the evaporation of black holes conserves information, but they don’t know precisely how the details of the state which created the black hole get preserved and then encoded in the outgoing Hawking radiation.

A lesser-known puzzle, which many people don’t even consider a puzzle, hearkens back to a 1994 paper by Stephen Hawking, Gary Horowitz, and Simon Ross. They were trying to use the particular technique called Euclidean Quantum Gravity (in which you temporarily forget that time is any different than space) to calculate rates at which different things could happen, when the stumbled across a puzzle. They calculated the entropy of black holes with electric charge, and in particular of extremal black holes — configurations where all of the energy really comes from the electric field itself, none from any purported mass that might have fallen into the black hole. And for an extremal black hole, they found an unusual answer: zero! That was a surprise, because it is not what Hawking’s original formula (entropy is proportional to area of the event horizon) should give you for such a situation.

Most people (including, I think, the authors) believe that this result is not trustworthy, and reflects a breakdown of the particular method used, rather than a deep truth about extremal black holes. But in a field where actual data is sparse on the ground, it’s worth keeping puzzles in mind, hoping that some day they will teach you something.

Matt Johnson, Lisa Randall and I just submitted a paper in which we revisit this puzzle. We suggest that maybe it’s not just a simple breakdown of the methods of Euclidean quantum gravity, but perhaps something interesting is going on.

Extremal limits and black hole entropy
Authors: Sean M. Carroll, Matthew C. Johnson, Lisa Randall

Abstract: Taking the extremal limit of a non-extremal Reissner-Nordström black hole (by externally varying the mass or charge), the region between the inner and outer event horizons experiences an interesting fate — while this region is absent in the extremal case, it does not disappear in the extremal limit but rather approaches a patch of $AdS_2\times S^2$. In other words, the approach to extremality is not continuous, as the non-extremal Reissner-Nordström solution splits into two spacetimes at extremality: an extremal black hole and a disconnected $AdS$ space. We suggest that the unusual nature of this limit may help in understanding the entropy of extremal black holes.

Let’s unpack this a little bit. (more…)

Prior to Einstein, physicists believed that light waves, like water waves, were ripples in a medium: instead of the ocean, they posited the existence of the luminiferious aether, some form of substance which supported the propagation of electromagnetic waves. If that idea had been true, one would imagine there would be a unique frame of reference in which the aether was at rest, while it was moving in other frames; consequently, the speed of light would depend on one’s motion through the aether. This idea was basically scotched by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that the speed of light was unaffected by the motion of the Earth around the Sun. The idea was eventually superseded by special relativity, although (as with most interesting ideas) some adherents gave up only reluctantly. Indeed, if you had asked Hendrik Antoon Lorentz himself about the meaning of the famous Lorentz transformations he invented, he would not have said “they relate physical quantities measured in different inertial frames”; he would have said “they relate quantities as measured in some moving reference frame to their true values in the rest frame of the aether.”

We know a lot more about field theory as well as about relativity these days, so we don’t need to invoke a concept like the aether to explain the propagation of light, and the idea that there is no special preferred frame of rest has been experimentally tested to exquisite precision. But precision, even when exquisite, is never absolute, and important discoveries are often lurking in the margins. So it’s interesting to contemplate the possibility that there really is some kind of field in the universe that defines an absolute standard of rest, within the modern context of low-energy effective field theories. Instead of a light-carrying medium, we are interested in the possibility of a Lorentz-violating vector field — some four-dimensional vector that has a fixed non-zero length and points in some direction at every event in spacetime. But the name “aether” is too good to abandon, so we’ve re-purposed it for modern use.

A lot of work has gone into exploring the possible consequences and experimental constraints on the idea of an aether field pervading the universe (see reviews by Ted Jacobson or David Mattingly, or Alan Kostelecky’s web page). But the ideas are still relatively new, and there are still questions about whether such models are fundamentally well-defined. Tim Dulaney, Moira Gresham, Heywood Tam and I have been thinking about these issues for a while, and we’ve just come out with two papers presenting what we’ve worked out. Here is the first one:

Instabilities in the Aether
Authors: Sean M. Carroll, Timothy R. Dulaney, Moira I. Gresham, Heywood Tam

Abstract: We investigate the stability of theories in which Lorentz invariance is spontaneously broken by fixed-norm vector “aether” fields. Models with generic kinetic terms are plagued either by ghosts or by tachyons, and are therefore physically unacceptable. There are precisely three kinetic terms that are not manifestly unstable: a sigma model $(\partial_\mu A_\nu)^2$, the Maxwell Lagrangian $F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$, and a scalar Lagrangian $(\partial_\mu A^\mu)^2$. The timelike sigma-model case is well-defined and stable when the vector norm is fixed by a constraint; however, when it is determined by minimizing a potential there is necessarily a tachyonic ghost, and therefore an instability. In the Maxwell and scalar cases, the Hamiltonian is unbounded below, but at the level of perturbation theory there are fewer degrees of freedom and the models are stable. However, in these two theories there are obstacles to smooth evolution for certain choices of initial data.

As the title says, here we’re investigating whether aether theories are stable. That is, when you have the vector field in what you think should be the “vacuum” state, with all of the vectors aligned and nothing jiggling around, can a small perturbation lead to some sort of runaway growth, or would it just oscillate peacefully? If you do get runaway behavior, the theory is unstable, which is bad news for thinking of the theory as a sensible starting point for experimental tests. This is one of the first questions you should ask about any theory, and it’s been investigated quite a bit in the case of aether. But there is a subtlety: because you have violated Lorentz invariance, it’s not enough to check stability in the aether rest frame, you need to do it in every frame. (A perturbation caused by a source moving rapidly in a rocket ship is still a legitimate perturbation.) What we found was that almost all aether theories are unstable in some frame or another. There are just three exceptions, which we called the “sigma model” theory, the “Maxwell” theory, and the “scalar” theory.

You might ask, what is this talk about “theories”? Why is there more than one theory? For a vector field, it turns out that there are a number of different quantities you can define (three, to be precise) that might play the role of a “kinetic energy.” So we study a three-dimensional parameter space of theories, corresponding to any possible mixture of those three quantities. The three theories we pick out as stable are simply three specific mixtures of the different kinds of kinetic energy. The Maxwell theory is very similar to ordinary electromagnetism, while the scalar theory more closely resembles a scalar field than a vector field.

The other theory is actually our favorite, as both the Maxwell and scalar cases seem to have potential lurking pathologies that we can’t completely get rid of (although the situation is a bit murky). So we wrote a shorter paper examining the empirical behavior and constraints on that model:

Sigma-Model Aether
Authors: Sean M. Carroll, Timothy R. Dulaney, Moira I. Gresham, Heywood Tam

Abstract: Theories of low-energy Lorentz violation by a fixed-norm “aether” vector field with two-derivative kinetic terms have a globally bounded Hamiltonian and are perturbatively stable only if the vector is timelike and the kinetic term in the action takes the form of a sigma model. Here we investigate the phenomenological properties of this theory. We first consider the propagation of modes in the presence of gravity, and show that there is a unique choice of curvature coupling that leads to a theory without superluminal modes. Experimental constraints on this theory come from a number of sources, and we examine bounds in a two-dimensional parameter space. We then consider the cosmological evolution of the aether, arguing that the vector will naturally evolve to be orthogonal to constant-density hypersurfaces in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology. Finally, we examine cosmological evolution in the presence of an extra compact dimension of space, concluding that a vector can maintain a constant projection along the extra dimension in an expanding universe only when the expansion is exponential.

Even this theory, as interesting as it is, is plagued by a problem. In the spirit of low-energy phenomenology, we basically fix the length of the vector field by hand. But we recognize that in a more complete description, there is probably some potential energy that gets minimized when the vector takes on that value. But if you allow for any variation whatsoever in the length of the vector, you are immediately confronted with a dramatic instability once more.

So, to be honest, there are no aether theories that we can guarantee are perfectly well-behaved, even as low-energy effective theories. (All the problems we identify exist at arbitrarily low energies, and don’t rely on the short-distance behavior of the models.) The three theories to which we gave names are problematic but not manifestly unstable, so it will be worth further investigation to see if they can be patched up and made respectable.

In 1960, Freeman Dyson proposed an audacious form that future technology might take: the Dyson Sphere. It’s a simple idea, once you stop thinking in terms of “I wonder how that could be done?” and start thinking along the lines of “I wonder what is physically possible?” Dyson reasoned that an efficient civilization wouldn’t want all of the valuable energy from its home star to fly uselessly into outer space, so they would try to capture it. The solution is then obvious: a sphere of matter that encircles the entire star. It’s worth quoting a bit from Dyson’s original paper:

The material factors which ultimately limit the expansion of a technically advanced species are the supply of matter and the supply of energy. At present the material resources being exploited by the human species are roughly limited to the biosphere of the earth, a mass of the order of 5 x 10¹⁹ grams. Our present energy supply may be generously estimated at 10²⁰ ergs per second. The quantities of matter and energy which might conceivably become accessible to us within the solar system are 2 x 10³⁰ grams (the mass of Jupiter) and 4 x 10³³ ergs per second (the total energy output of the sun).

The reader may well ask in what sense can anyone speak of the mass of Jupiter or the total radiation from the sun as being accessible to exploitation. The following argument is intended to show that an exploitation of this magnitude is not absurd. First of all, the time required for an expansion of population and industry by a factor of 10¹² is quite short, say 3000 years if an average growth rate of 1 percent per year is maintained. Second, the energy required to disassemble and rearrange a planet the size of Jupiter is about 10⁴⁴ ergs, equal to the energy radiated by the sun in 800 years. Third, the mass of Jupiter, if distributed in a spherical shell revolving around the sun at twice the Earth’s distance from it, would have a thickness such that the mass is 200 grams per square centimeter of surface area (2 to 3 meters, depending on the density). A shell of this thickness could be made comfortably habitable, and could contain all the machinery required for exploiting the solar radiation falling onto it from the inside.

Old news, right. What I hadn’t realized is that there is something called the Fermilab Dyson Sphere search program, led by Richard Carrigan, which recently updated its results (summarized in the title of this post). A star like the Sun radiates something pretty close to a blackbody spectrum; but if you capture all of the energy in the Sun’s radiation, and then re-radiate it from a much larger sphere (e.g. one astronomical unit in radius), it comes out at a much lower temperature — a few hundred Kelvin. Dyson therefore proposed a search strategy, looking for blackbody objects radiating in the far infrared, around 10 microns in wavelength.

And the search is now going on! Indeed, Carrigan’s most recent results were just released on astro-ph a few weeks ago:

IRAS-based whole-sky upper limit on Dyson Spheres
Authors: Richard A. Carrigan Jr

Abstract: A Dyson Sphere is a hypothetical construct of a star purposely cloaked by a thick swarm of broken-up planetary material to better utilize all of the stellar energy. A clean Dyson Sphere identification would give a significant signature for intelligence at work. A search for Dyson Spheres has been carried out using the 250,000 source database of the IRAS infrared satellite which covered 96% of the sky. The search has used the Calgary data collection of the IRAS Low Resolution Spectrometer (LRS) to look for fits to blackbody spectra. Searches have been conducted for both pure (fully cloaked) and partial Dyson Spheres in the blackbody temperature region 100 < T < 600 deg K. Other stellar signatures that resemble a Dyson Sphere are reviewed. When these signatures are used to eliminate sources that mimic Dyson Spheres very few candidates remain and even these are ambiguous. Upper limits are presented for both pure and partial Dyson Spheres. The sensitivity of the LRS was enough to find solar-sized Dyson Spheres out to 300 pc, a reach that encompasses a million solar- type stars.

It’s too bad the search has thus far not turned up too many promising candidates. The Fermi Paradox continues to be paradoxical.

One famous account of the first contact between an extraterrestrial civilization and the human race was told in the classic 1951 Robert Wise film, The Day the Earth Stood Still. It’s now been remade by director Scott Derrickson, starring Keanu Reeves as the alien Klaatu, and will open next Friday. In the emerging spirit of science and entertainment exchanges, there will be a panel discussion at Caltech’s Beckman Auditorium this Friday (the 5th) with Derrickson and Reeves holding up the Hollywood side of things, and roboticist Joel Burdick and I holding up the science end. Don’t quote me on this, but I think it’s at 6:00, and the movie will be screened before the panel. Should be fun.

The title is a bit misleading; what is being referred to is not a realistic cosmological model at all. But it’s interesting to see that not every professional astronomer believes in the Big Bang model; there are still some out there who are sticking with the Steady State theory. Seriously.

A Realistic Cosmological Model Based on Observations and Some Theory Developed Over the Last 90 Years
Authors: Geoffrey Burbidge

Abstract: This meeting is entitled “A Century of Cosmology.” But most of the papers being given here are based on work done very recently and there is really no attempt being made to critically review what has taken place in the last 90 or 100 years. Instead, in general the participants accept without question that cosmology equates to “hot big bang cosmology” with all of its bells and whistles. All of the theory and the results obtained from observations are interpreted on the assumption that this extremely popular model is the correct one, and observers feel that they have to interpret its results in terms of what this theory allows. No one is attempting to seriously test the model with a view to accepting it or ruling it out. They are aware, as are the theorists, that there are enough free parameters available to fix up almost any model of the type.

The current scheme given in detail for example by Spergel et al (206, 2007) demonstrates this. How we got to this stage is never discussed, and little or no attention is paid to the observations obtained since the 1960s on activity in the centers of galaxies and what they imply. We shall show that they are an integral part of a realistic cosmological model. In this paper I shall take a different approach, showing first how cosmological ideas have developed over the last 90 years and where mistakes have been made. I shall conclude with a realistic model in which all of the observational material is included, and compare it with the popular model. Not surprisingly I shall show that there remain many unsolved problems, and previously unexpected observations, most of which are ignored or neglected by current observers and theorists, who believe that the hot big bang model must be correct.

For those with any lingering doubts, the Big Bang model — the idea that the universe has evolved from a hot, dense, smooth initial state — is correct, and the Steady State model should have been put to bed a long time ago. Evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming. It’s a model that keeps making predictions, which keep turning out to be correct, while the Steady State theory made many predictions that turned out to be wrong.

But it’s an interesting case study in how science works. Reading Burbidge’s paper, the parallels with anti-evolutionists are striking. In both cases, one is repeatedly told that the establishment’s supporter’s can’t prove that their theory is correct. Which is undeniably true, as science never proves anything; it just accumulates evidence, and in the case of the Big Bang and natural selection, the evidence puts the case beyond reasonable doubt. Which doesn’t imply that there are no interesting questions remaining to be addressed. For both the Big Bang and natural selection, many of the details concerning the way in which the broad framework is specifically implemented in the real world remain to be answered. And in both cases, the skeptics like to pretend that open questions about the details are the same as open questions about the framework. But they’re not.

Nevertheless, one of the virtues of the tenure system is that a Big Bang skeptic can keep their position as a professor of physics, writing heterodox articles and submitting them to the arxiv. And this really is a virtue, not a flaw. Geoffrey Burbidge has done lots of respectable work in observational astronomy. Long ago, he and his wife Margaret collaborated with Fred Hoyle and Willy Fowler on an important paper that helped established the theory of nucleosynthesis in stars. Part of the motivation for the paper was the realization that conditions in the Big Bang were not right for synthesizing elements much heavier than lithium — you could explain the universe’s helium abundance, but not the existence of carbon and iron and so forth. Hoyle, of course, was one of the originators of the Steady State theory, and that was certainly part of his motivation at the time. As it turns out, in the real world, some elements are synthesized in the early universe, and some in stars, and some in supernovae; the real world can be a messy place.

Would a young cosmologist who didn’t believe in the Big Bang be offered a faculty job, or receive tenure, today? Probably not. Faculty jobs are scarce commodities, and a university is going to want to hire people who will do interesting and productive work that is of some use to the wider community. Believers in the Steady State model aren’t going to produce such work, any more than creationists or astrologers or experts in the plum-pudding model of the atom. And eventually support for the model will fade away entirely, opening the door for the next generation of heterodoxies.

Cosmologists find themselves in this interesting situation where they have a set of hypotheses — dark matter, dark energy, inflation — that serve to make impressively precise predictions that have been tested against a wide variety of data, but presently lack a firm grounding in established physics. We don’t know what exactly the dark matter is, what the dark energy is, or how inflation happened, if indeed it happened at all. So it behooves us to push at the boundaries a bit — start with the simple models and tweak them in some way, and then check whether the new version still fits the data. How confident are we that the dark sector has the properties we think it does, or that inflation happened in a straightforward way?

This was the philosophy that led Lotty Ackerman, Mark Wise and I to ask what the universe would look like if rotational invariance were violated during inflation — if there were a preferred direction in space, which left some imprint on the cosmological perturbations that currently show up as large-scale structure and temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. I talked about how that paper came to be in a series of posts: one, two, three. And now there is even tantalizing evidence that our model fits the data! I don’t get too excited about it, but it’s something to keep an eye on as the data improve (e.g. when the Planck satellite gets results).

Ever since then, Mark and I have toyed with the idea that once you’ve broken rotational invariance, your next step is obvious: violate translational invariance! Instead of imagining a preferred direction in space, imagine there were a preferred place in the universe. Not because you have some good reason to think there is, but because you want to quantify the level of confidence we have in the assumption that there is not.

So we have now teamed up with Chien-Yao Tseng, another grad student here at Caltech, to do exactly that. The result is this paper:

Translational Invariance and the Anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background
Sean M. Carroll, Chien-Yao Tseng and Mark B. Wise

Primordial quantum fluctuations produced by inflation are conventionally assumed to be statistically homogeneous, a consequence of translational invariance. In this paper we quantify the potentially observable effects of a small violation of translational invariance during inflation, as characterized by the presence of a preferred point, line, or plane. We explore the imprint such a violation would leave on the cosmic microwave background anisotropy, and provide explicit formulas for the expected amplitudes $\langle a_{lm}a_{l’m'}^*\rangle$ of the spherical-harmonic coefficients.

It took a while to put into equations what exactly was meant by “violating translational invariance” in an operational way. But once you figure it out, it’s obvious, and there are three ways to do it: imagining that there is a preferred point, line, or plane in the universe. Then you hypothesize that the density fluctuations are very slightly modulated in a way that depends on your distance from that preferred place. Once you have that, it’s just a matter of cranking out some monstrous equations. Thank goodness there are only three macroscopic dimensions of space, is all I can say.

So now we have some predictions to compare with data, so that we can understand exactly how well the cosmic microwave background really assures us that there is no special place in the universe. But aside from the general motivation of being careful to test all of our cherished assumptions, there is another reason for work like this: there are a handful of ways in which cosmological perturbations don’t look completely the same in every direction. As we say in the paper:

There is another important motivation for studying deviations from pure statistical isotropy of cosmological perturbations: a number of analyses have found evidence that such deviations might exist in the real world. These include the “axis of evil” alignment of low multipoles, the existence of an anomalous cold spot in the CMB, an anomalous dipole power asymmetry, a claimed “dark flow” of galaxy clusters measured by the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, as well as a possible detection of a quadrupole power asymmetry of the type predicted by ACW in the WMAP five-year data. In none of these cases is it beyond a reasonable doubt that the effect is more than a statistical fluctuation, or an unknown systematic effect; nevertheless, the combination of all of them is suggestive. It is possible that statistical isotropy/homogeneity is violated at very high significance in some specific fashion that does not correspond precisely to any of the particular observational effects that have been searched for, but that would stand out dramatically in a better-targeted analysis.

In other words, we have a handful of anomalies, each of which might easily go away, but perhaps when they are taken together they imply that something is going on. Maybe there is some incredibly strong signal out there, and we just haven’t been looking for it in the right way. We won’t know until we understand better how such anomalies would show up in the observations — and then go collect better data.

It’s humbling to think that ordinary matter, including all of the elementary particles we’ve ever detected in laboratory experiments, only makes up about 5% of the energy density of the universe. The rest, of course, comes in the form of a dark sector: some form of energy density that can be reliably inferred through the gravitational fields it creates, but which we haven’t been able to make or touch directly ourselves.

It’s irresistible to imagine that the dark sector might be interesting. In other words, thinking like a physicist, it’s natural to wonder whether the dark sector might be complicated, with a rich phenomenology all its own. And in fact there is something interesting going on: over the last 15 years we’ve established that the dark sector comes in at least two different pieces! There is dark matter, 25% of the universe, which we know is like “matter” because it behaves that way — in particular, it clumps together under the force of gravity, and its energy density dilutes away as the universe expands. And then there is dark energy, 70% of the universe, which seems to be eerily uniform — smoothly distributed through space, and persistent (non-diluting) through time. So, there is at least that much structure in the dark sector.

But so far, there’s no evidence of anything interesting beyond that. Indeed, the individual components of dark matter and dark energy seem relatively vanilla and featureless; more precisely, taking them to be “minimal” provides an extremely good fit to the data. For dark matter, “minimal” means that the particles are cold (slowly moving) and basically non-interacting with each other. For dark energy, “minimal” means that it is perfectly constant throughout space and time — a pure vacuum energy, rather than something more lively.

Still — all we have are upper limits, not firm conclusions. It’s certainly possible that there is a bushel of interesting physics going on in the dark sector, but it’s just too subtle for us to have noticed yet. So it’s important for we theorists to propose specific, testable models of non-minimal dark sectors, so that observers have targets to shoot for when we try to constrain just how interesting the darkness really is.

Along those lines, Lotty Ackerman, Matt Buckley, Marc Kamionkowski and I have just submitted a paper that explores what I think is a particularly provocative possibility: that, just like ordinary matter couples to a long-range force known as “electromagnetism” mediated by particles called “photons,” dark matter couples to a new long-range force known (henceforth) as “dark electromagnetism,” mediated by particles known (from now on) as “dark photons.”

Dark Matter and Dark Radiation
Authors: Lotty Ackerman, Matthew R. Buckley, Sean M. Carroll, Marc Kamionkowski

We explore the feasibility and astrophysical consequences of a new long-range U(1) gauge field (”dark electromagnetism”) that couples only to dark matter, not to the Standard Model. The dark matter consists of an equal number of positive and negative charges under the new force, but annihilations are suppressed if the dark matter mass is sufficiently high and the dark fine-structure constant $\hat\alpha$ is sufficiently small. The correct relic abundance can be obtained if the dark matter also couples to the conventional weak interactions, and we verify that this is consistent with particle-physics constraints. The primary limit on $\hat\alpha$ comes from the demand that the dark matter be effectively collisionless in galactic dynamics, which implies $\hat\alpha$ < 10^-3 for TeV-scale dark matter. These values are easily compatible with constraints from structure formation and primordial nucleosynthesis. We raise the prospect of interesting new plasma effects in dark matter dynamics, which remain to be explored.

Just to translate that a bit, here is the idea. We’re imagining there is a completely new kind of photon, which couples to dark matter but not to ordinary matter. So there can be dark electric fields, dark magnetic fields, dark radiation, etc. The dark matter itself consists half of particles with dark charge +1, and half with antiparticles with dark charge -1. Now you might say to yourself, “Why don’t the particles and antiparticles all just annihilate into dark photons?” That kind of thinking is probably why ideas like this weren’t explored twenty years ago (as far as we know). But if you think about it, there is clearly a range of possibilities for which the dark matter doesn’t annihilate very efficiently; for example, if the mass of the individual dark matter particles was sufficiently large, their density would be very low, and they just wouldn’t ever bump into each other. Alternatively, if the strength of the new force was extremely weak, it just wouldn’t be that effective in bringing particles and antiparticles together.

None of that is surprising; the interesting bit is that when you run the numbers, they turn out to be pretty darn reasonable, as far as particle physics is concerned. For DM particles weighing several hundred times the mass of the proton, there should be about one DM particle per coffee-cup-sized volume of space. The strength of the dark electromagnetic force is characterized, naturally, by the dark fine-structure constant; remember that ordinary electromagnetism is characterized by the ordinary fine-structure constant α = 1/137. It turns out that the upper limit on the dark fine-structure constant required to stop the dark matter particles from annihilating away is — about the same! I was expecting it to be 10^-15 or something like that, and it was remarkable that such large values were allowed.

However, we know a little more about the dark matter than “it doesn’t annhilate.” We also know that it is close to collisionless — dark matter particles don’t bump into each other very often. If they did, all sorts of things would happen to the shape of galaxies and clusters that we don’t actually observe. So there is another limit on the strength of dark electromagnetism: interactions should be sufficiently weak that dark matter particles don’t “cool off” by interacting with each other in galaxies and clusters. That turns into a more stringent bound on the dark fine-structure constant: about an order of magnitude smaller, at $\hat\alpha$ < 10^-3. Still, not so bad.

More interestingly, we can’t say with perfect confidence that the dark matter really is effectively non-interacting. If a model like ours is right, and the strength of dark electromagnetism is near the upper bound of its allowed value, there might be very important consequences for the evolution of large-scale structure. At the moment, it’s a little bit hard to figure out what those consequences actually are, for mundane calculational reasons. What we are proposing is that the dark matter is really a plasma, and to understand how structure forms, one needs to consider dark magnetohydrodynamics. That’s a non-trivial task, but we’re hoping it will keep a generation of graduate students cheerfully occupied.

The idea of new forces acting on dark matter is by no means new; I’ve worked on it recently myself, and so have certain co-bloggers. (Strong, silent types who are too proud to blog about their own papers.) What’s exciting about dark photons is that they are much more natural from a particle-physics perspective. Typical models of quintessence and long-range fifth forces invoke scalar fields, which are easy and fun to work with, but which by all rights should have huge masses, and therefore not be very long-range at all. The dark photon comes from a gauge symmetry, just like the ordinary photon, and its masslessness is therefore completely natural.

Even the dark photon is not new. In a recent paper, Feng, Tu, and Yu proposed not just dark photons, but a barrelful of new dark fields and interactions:

Thermal Relics in Hidden Sectors
Authors: Jonathan L. Feng, Huitzu Tu, Hai-Bo Yu

Dark matter may be hidden, with no standard model gauge interactions. At the same time, in WIMPless models with hidden matter masses proportional to hidden gauge couplings squared, the hidden dark matter’s thermal relic density may naturally be in the right range, preserving the key quantitative virtue of WIMPs. We consider this possibility in detail. We first determine model-independent constraints on hidden sectors from Big Bang nucleosynthesis and the cosmic microwave background. Contrary to conventional wisdom, large hidden sectors are easily accommodated…

They show that these models manage to evade all sorts of limits you might be worried about, from getting the right relic abundance to fitting in with constraints from primordial nucleosynthesis and the cosmic microwave background.

Our model is actually simpler, because we have a different flavor of fish to fry: the possible impacts of this new long-range force in the dark sector on observable cosmological dynamics. We’re not sure yet what all of those impacts are, but they are fun to contemplate. And of course, another difference between dark electromagnetism and a boring scalar force is that electromagnetism has both positive and negative charges — thus, both attractive and repulsive forces. (Scalar forces tend to be simply attractive, and get all mixed up with gravity.) So we can imagine much more than a single species of dark matter; what if you had two different types of stable particles that carried dark charge? Then we’d be able to make dark atoms, and could start writing papers on dark chemistry.

You know that dark biology is not far behind. Someday perhaps we’ll be exchanging signals with the dark internet.