Blogs / Cosmic Variance

From the “physics answers the questions you really care about” file, some friends have treated the Olympic 100-meter dash as an astrophysics problem, and figured out how fast Usain Bolt could have run had he really tried:

Velocity dispersions in a cluster of stars: How fast could Usain Bolt have run?
Authors: H. K. Eriksen, J. R. Kristiansen, O. Langangen, I. K. Wehus

Abstract: Since that very memorable day at the Beijing 2008 Olympics, a big question on every sports commentator’s mind has been “What would the 100 meter dash world record have been, had Usain Bolt not celebrated at the end of his race?” Glen Mills, Bolt’s coach suggested at a recent press conference that the time could have been 9.52 seconds or better. We revisit this question by measuring Bolt’s position as a function of time using footage of the run, and then extrapolate into the last two seconds based on two different assumptions. First, we conservatively assume that Bolt could have maintained Richard Thompson’s, the runner-up, acceleration during the end of the race. Second, based on the race development prior to the celebration, we assume that he could also have kept an acceleration of 0.5 m/s^2 higher than Thompson. In these two cases, we find that the new world record would have been 9.61 +/- 0.04 and 9.55 +/- 0.04 seconds, respectively, where the uncertainties denote 95% statistical errors.

Complete with this interesting photo reconstruction:

And another paper! Will the science never end?

Superhorizon Perturbations and the Cosmic Microwave Background
Adrienne L. Erickcek, Sean M. Carroll, Marc Kamionkowski (Caltech)

Abstract: Superhorizon perturbations induce large-scale temperature anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) via the Grishchuk-Zel’dovich effect. We analyze the CMB temperature anisotropies generated by a single-mode adiabatic superhorizon perturbation. We show that an adiabatic superhorizon perturbation in a LCDM universe does not generate a CMB temperature dipole, and we derive constraints to the amplitude and wavelength of a superhorizon potential perturbation from measurements of the CMB quadrupole and octupole. We also consider constraints to a superhorizon fluctuation in the curvaton field, which was recently proposed as a source of the hemispherical power asymmetry in the CMB.

This is a followup to our paper on the lopsided universe, although the question we’re tackling is a little different. Remember that the point there was that we imagined some sort of ultra-long-wavelength perturbation, much larger than the size of the visible universe, and we asked how that would change the amplitude of small-scale perturbations in one direction of the sky as compared to the other.

In the new paper, we actually address a more basic question: what about the induced temperature anisotropy itself? So instead of looking at the power asymmetry (how does the amplitude of fluctuations in one direction compare to that in the opposite direction), we’re looking at the temperature asymmetry (how does the temperature in one direction compare to the temperature in the other). In fact, we’re looking at the “dipole” asymmetry — not small-scale fluctuations, but the large-scale hemispherical pattern.

Ordinarily, we simply ignore the dipole asymmetry, for a good reason: you get a dipole just from the ordinary Doppler effect, even if there are no intrinsic fluctuations in the CMB. If you have both, it’s hard to disentangle one from the other. But we were considering a supermode that was pretty substantial, and it became an issue — if the predicted dipole was much larger than what we actually observe, it would be hard to wriggle out of.

Except — it exactly cancels. That’s what the new paper shows. (And another paper the next day, by Zibin and Scott, comes to the same conclusion.) We were surprised by the result. There are clearly competing effects: we do have a peculiar velocity, so there is a Doppler effect, and there is an intrinsic anisotropy from the primordial density perturbation (the Sachs-Wolfe effect), and there is also something called the “integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect” from the evolution of the gravitational field between us and the CMB. And they all delicately cancel. We came up with a plausible hand-waving explanation after the fact, but it was the grungy calculations that were more convincing.

Nevertheless, the supermode idea is still constrained — the dipole cancels, but there are higher-order effects (quadrupole and octupole) that are observable. Karl Popper would be proud.

I promised (myself) that I would post something every time I submitted a paper, but have been falling behind. An exciting glimpse into How Science Is Done!

So here is arxiv:0807.4363:

Dark-Matter-Induced Weak Equivalence Principle Violation
Sean M. Carroll, Sonny Mantry, Michael J. Ramsey-Musolf, Christopher W. Stubbs

A long-range fifth force coupled to dark matter can induce a coupling to ordinary matter if the dark matter interacts with Standard Model fields. We consider constraints on such a scenario from both astrophysical observations and laboratory experiments. We also examine the case where the dark matter is a weakly interacting massive particle, and derive relations between the coupling to dark matter and the coupling to ordinary matter for different models. Currently, this scenario is most tightly constrained by galactic dynamics, but improvements in Eotvos experiments can probe unconstrained regions of parameter space.

The idea of a long-range “fifth force” is a popular one, although it’s hard to make compelling models that work. In this paper we focused in on one particular idea: imagine that there were a new long-range force that directly coupled only to dark matter. (An old idea: see Frieman and Gradwohl, 1993.) After all, there is a lot more dark matter than ordinary matter, and we don’t know much about the physics in the dark sector, so why not? But then we can also imagine that the dark matter itself interacts, via the weak interactions of the Standard Model, with ordinary matter — i.e., that the dark matter is a Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP). Then, through the magic of quantum field theory, the fifth force would automatically interact with ordinary matter, as well.

So we scoped out the possibilities and wrote a short paper; a longer one that goes into more details about the field theory is forthcoming. The punchline is this graph:

You can think of the horizontal axis as “strength with which the new force couples to ordinary matter,” and the vertical axis as “strength with which the new force couples to dark matter.” Then you have various experimental constraints, and a band representing a range of theoretical predictions. The excluded blue region to the right, labeled η_OM, comes from direct searches for fifth forces coupled to ordinary matter, by measuring tiny composition-dependent accelerations of test bodies in the lab. The excluded red region on top, labeled β and involving only dark matter, comes from purely astrophysics, namely the fact that dark matter and ordinary matter seem to move in concert in the Sagittarius tidal stream. The diagonal green region at top right which doesn’t actually independently exclude anything, labeled η_DM, comes from searching for anomalous accelerations in the direction of the galactic center, where the source would mostly be dark matter. If the experimental sensitivity improves by enough, that constraint will become independently useful. The yellow diagonal band is the prediction of our models, in which the fifth force only interacts with ordinary matter via its coupling to WIMP’s. The length comes from the fact that the direct coupling of the new force to WIMP’s is a completely free parameter, and the thickness comes from the fact that the WIMP’s can couple to ordinary matter in different ways, depending on things like hypercharge, squarks, etc.

It was a fun paper to write — a true collaboration, in that none of the authors would ever have written a paper like this all by themselves. Part of our goal was to use particle physicist’s techniques on a problem that gets more attention from astrophysicists and GR types.

[Update: this part of the post is edited from the original, as will become clear.] Amusing technical sidelight: the way that you actually get a coupling between the fifth force and Standard Model particles can depend on details, as we show in the paper. For example, if there are “sfermions” (scalar partners with the same quantum numbers as SM fermions) in the theory, you can induce a coupling at one loop. But if you stick just to the WIMP’s themselves, the coupling first appears at two loops:

You certainly need at least one WIMP loop (that’s χ), by hypothesis. You might think that you could just have a single SU(2)_L or U(1) hypercharge gauge boson connect that loop to the Standard Model fermion ψ, but that vanishes by gauge invariance; you need two gauge bosons, and thus two loops. But the the interaction you are looking for couples left- and right-handed fermions, so you need to insert a Higgs coupling. At low energies the Higgs gets a vacuum expectation value, and acts like a mass term, converting the left-handed fermion into a right-handed fermion, which is what you want.

In the original version of this post (and in the original version of our paper), I claimed that you would need a three loop diagram in the case where the dark matter had zero hypercharge (so you had to use SU(2)_L gauge bosons, which couple only to the left-handed fermions). It was just the diagram shown above, with an extra gauge boson connecting the final leg to the segment between the existing gauge bosons. Fortunately, Tim Tait and Jacques Distler convinced us otherwise, in the comments of this very blog. (Fortunately for the integrity of the scientific method, anyway; for us personally, we would rather have figured it out ourselves.) You can read my version of an explanation here. The internet works!

Fred Adams wonders whether we could still have stars if the constants of nature were very different. Answer: very possibly! It’s in arxiv:0807.3697:

Motivated by the possible existence of other universes, with possible variations in the laws of physics, this paper explores the parameter space of fundamental constants that allows for the existence of stars. To make this problem tractable, we develop a semi-analytical stellar structure model that allows for physical understanding of these stars with unconventional parameters, as well as a means to survey the relevant parameter space. In this work, the most important quantities that determine stellar properties — and are allowed to vary — are the gravitational constant $G$, the fine structure constant $\alpha$, and a composite parameter $C$ that determines nuclear reaction rates. Working within this model, we delineate the portion of parameter space that allows for the existence of stars. Our main finding is that a sizable fraction of the parameter space (roughly one fourth) provides the values necessary for stellar objects to operate through sustained nuclear fusion. As a result, the set of parameters necessary to support stars are not particularly rare. In addition, we briefly consider the possibility that unconventional stars (e.g., black holes, dark matter stars) play the role filled by stars in our universe and constrain the allowed parameter space.

I’ve never thought that our knowledge of what constituted “intelligent life” was anywhere near good enough to start making statements about the conditions under which it could form, apart from fairly weak stuff like “life probably can’t exist if the universe only lasts for a Planck time.” So when anthropic arguments start to hinge on thinking that fractional changes in the mass of this or that nucleus would result in a universe with no observers, it seems more prudent to admit that we just don’t know. But putting any anthropic considerations aside, it’s still interesting to ask what the universe would look like if the constants of nature were completely different. How robust are the starry skies?

One of the important features of the universe around us is that, on sufficiently large scales, it looks pretty much the same in every direction — “isotropy,” in cosmology lingo. There is no preferred direction to space, in which the universe would look different than in the perpendicular directions. The most compelling evidence for large-scale isotropy comes from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the leftover radiation from the Big Bang. It’s not perfectly isotropic, of course — there are tiny fluctuations in temperature, which are pretty important; they arise from fluctuations in the density, which grow under the influence of gravity into the galaxies and clusters we see today. Here they are, as measured by the WMAP satellite.

Nevertheless, there is a subtle way for the universe to break isotropy and have a preferred direction: if the tiny observed perturbations somehow have a different character in one direction than in others. The problem is, there are a lot of ways this could happen, and there is a huge amount of data involved with a map of the entire CMB sky. A tiny effect could be lurking there, and be hard to see; or we could see a hint of it, and it would be hard to be sure it wasn’t just a statistical fluke.

In fact, at least three such instances of apparent large-scale anisotropies have been claimed. One is the “axis of evil” — if you look at only the temperature fluctuations on the very largest scales, they seem to be concentrated in a certain plane on the sky. Another is the giant cold spot (or “non-Gaussianity,” if you want to sound like an expert) — the Southern hemisphere seems to have a suspiciously coherent blob of slightly lower than average CMB temperature. And then there is the lopsided universe — the total size of the fluctuations on one half of the sky seems to be slightly larger than on the other half.

All of these purported anomalies in the data, while interesting, are very far from being definitive. Although most people seem to agree that they are features of the data from WMAP, it’s hard to tell whether they are all just statistical flukes, or subtle imperfections in the satellite itself, or contamination by foregrounds (like our own galaxy), or real features of the universe.

Now we seem to have another such anomaly, in which the temperature fluctuations in the CMB aren’t distributed perfectly isotropically across the sky. It comes by way of a new paper by Nicolaas Groeneboom and Hans Kristian Eriksen:

Bayesian analysis of sparse anisotropic universe models and application to the 5-yr WMAP data

Sexy title, eh? Here is the upshot: Groeneboom and Eriksen looked for what experts would call a “quadrupole pattern of statistical anisotropy.” Similar to the lopsided universe effect, where the fluctuations seem to be larger on one side of the sky than the other, this is an “elongated universe” effect — fluctuations are larger along one axis (in both directions) as compared to the perpendicular plane. Here is a representation of the kind of effect we are talking about — not easy to make out, but the fluctuations are supposed to be a bit stronger near the red dots than in the strip in between them.

It’s not a very large signal — “3.8 sigma,” in the jargon of the trade, where 3 sigma basically means “begin to take seriously,” but you might want to get as high as 5 sigma before you say “there definitely seems to be something there.” However, the WMAP data come in different frequencies (V-band and W-band), and the effect seems to be there in both bands. Furthermore, you can look for the effect separately at large angular scales and at small angular scales, and you find it in both cases (with somewhat lower statistical significance, as you might expect). So it’s far from being a gold-plated discovery, but it doesn’t seem to be a complete fluke, either.

Remember, looking for any specific effect is quite a project — there is a lot of data, and the analysis involves manipulating huge matrices, and you have to worry about foregrounds and instrumental effects. So why were these nice folks looking for a power asymmetry along a preferred axis in the sky? Well, you might recall my paper with Lotty Ackerman and Mark Wise, described in the “Anatomy of a Paper” series of blog posts (I, II, III). We were interested in whether the (hypothetical) period of inflation in the early universe might have been anisotropic — expanding just a bit faster in one direction than in the others — and if so, how it would show up in the CMB. What we found was that the natural expectation was a power asymmetry along the preferred axis, and gave a bunch of formulas by which observers could actually look for the effect. That is what Nicolaas and Hans Kristian did, with every expectation that they would establish an upper limit on the size of our predicted effect, which we had labelled g_*. But instead, they found it! The data are saying that

So naturally, Lotty and Mark and I are brushing up on our Swedish in preparation for our upcoming invitations to Stockholm. Okay, not quite. In fact, it’s useful to be very clear about this, given the lessons that were (one hopes) learned in John’s series of posts about Higgs hunting. Namely: small, provocative “signals” such as this happen all the time. It would be completely irresponsible just to take every one of them at face value as telling you something profound about the universe. And the more surprising the result — and this one would be pretty darned surprising — the more skeptical and cautious we have every right to be.

So what are we supposed to think? Certainly not that these guys are just jokers that don’t know how to analyze CMB data; the truth couldn’t be more different. But analyzing data like this is really hard, and other groups will doubtless jump in and do their own analyses, as it should be. It’s certainly possible that there is a small systematic effect in WMAP — “correlated noise” — rather than in the universe. The authors have considered this, of course, and it doesn’t seem to fit the finding very comfortably, but it’s a possibility. The very good news is that the kind of correlated noise one would expect from WMAP (given the pattern it used to scan across the sky) is completely different from that the we would worry about from the upcoming Planck mission, scheduled to launch next year.

Or, of course, we could be learning something deep about the universe. Maybe even that inflation was anisotropic, as Lotty and Mark and I contemplated. Or, perhaps more plausibly, there is some single real effect in the universe that is conspiring to give us all of the tantalizing hints contained in the various anomalies listed above. We don’t know yet. That’s what makes it fun.

You can learn a lot by reading scientific papers. For example, I’ve known for a while now that the Hubble parameter tells you how fast the universe is expanding — it’s the (conveniently normalized) first derivative of the scale factor, for you calculus-philes out there. The deceleration parameter tells you how fast the universe is decelerating — it’s the second derivative, telling us how the expansion rate is changing with time. (Of course now we know that it’s really accelerating, but we didn’t know that back when the phrases were introduced.)

Less well known, but more amusing, is that the third derivative — how is the acceleration changing as a function of time? — is characterized by the “jerk.” Makes sense, when you think about it — when you jerk at something, you are not just pulling it (causing acceleration), but pulling at it faster and faster. It nevertheless leads to fun if predictable jokes, with this person or that being labeled a “cosmic jerk.”

Do we really need a name for the fourth derivative, telling us how the jerk is changing with time? Apparently we do, as it has been denoted the “snap.” I just learned this from this new paper:

Cosmic Jerk, Snap and Beyond
Authors: Maciej Dunajski, Gary Gibbons

Abstract: We clarify the procedure for expressing the Friedmann equation in terms of directly measurable cosmological scalars constructed out of higher derivatives of the scale factor. We carry out this procedure for pure dust, Chaplygin gas and generalised Chaplygin gas energy-momentum tensors. In each case it leads to a constraint on the scalars thus giving rise to a test of General Relativity. We also discuss a formulation of the Friedmann equation as unparametrised geodesic motion and its connection with the Lagrangian treatment of perfect fluids coupled to gravity.

The best part is this footnote:

The analogous expressions involving 5th and 6th derivatives are known as crackle and pop. This terminology goes back to a 1932 advertisement of Kellogg’s Rice Crispies which `merrily snap, crackle and pop in a bowl of milk.’

I suppose there is also some interesting science in there. But now I really want to write a paper that makes use of the 5th time derivative of the scale factor. The words are too delicious to resist.

Here’s a new paper of mine, with Adrienne Erickcek and Mark Kamionkowski:

A Hemispherical Power Asymmetry from Inflation

Abstract: Measurements of temperature fluctuations by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) indicate that the fluctuation amplitude in one half of the sky differs from the amplitude in the other half. We show that such an asymmetry cannot be generated during single-field slow-roll inflation without violating constraints to the homogeneity of the Universe. In contrast, a multi-field inflationary theory, the curvaton model, can produce this power asymmetry without violating the homogeneity constraint. The mechanism requires the introduction of a large-amplitude superhorizon perturbation to the curvaton field, possibly a pre-inflationary remnant or a superhorizon curvaton-web structure. The model makes several predictions, including non-Gaussianity and modifications to the inflationary consistency relation, that will be tested with forthcoming CMB experiments.

The goal here is to try to explain a curious feature in the cosmic microwave background that has been noted by Hans Kristian Eriksen and collaborators: it’s lopsided. We all (all my friends, anyway) have seen the pretty pictures from the WMAP satellite, showing the 1-part-in-100,000 fluctuations in the temperature of the CMB from place to place in the sky. These fluctuations are understandably a focus of a great deal of contemporary cosmological research, as (1) they arise from density perturbations that grow under the influence of gravity into galaxies and large-scale structure in the universe today, and (2) they appear to be primordial, and may have arisen from a period of inflation in the very early universe. Remarkably, from just a tiny set of parameters we can explain just about everything we observe in the universe on large scales.

The lopsidedness I’m referring to is different from the so-called axis of evil. The latter (in a cosmological context) refers to an apparent alignment of the temperature fluctuations on very large scales, which purportedly pick out a preferred plane in the sky (suspiciously close to the plane of the ecliptic). The lopsidedness is a different effect, in which the overall amplitude of fluctuations is a bit different (just 10% or so) in one direction on the sky than in the other. (A “hemispherical power asymmetry,” if you like.)

What we’re talking about is illustrated in these two simulations kindly provided by Hans Kristian Eriksen.

I know, they look almost the same. But if you peer closely, you will see that the bottom one is the lopsided one — the overall contrast (representing temperature fluctuations) is a bit higher on the left than on the right, while in the untilted image at the top they are (statistically) equal. (The lower image exaggerates the claimed effect in the real universe by a factor of two, just to make it easier to see by eye.)

What could cause such a thing? Our idea was that there was a “supermode” — a fluctuation that varied uniformly across the observable universe, for example if we were sampling a tiny piece of a sinusoidal fluctuation with a wavelength many times the size of our current Hubble radius.

The blue circle is our observable universe, the green curve is the supermode, and the small red squiggles are the local fluctuations that have evolved under the influence of this mode. The point is that the universe is overall just a little bit more dense on one side than the other, so it evolves just slightly differently, and the resulting CMB looks lopsided.

Interestingly, it doesn’t quite work; at least, not in a simple model of inflation driven by a single scalar field. In that case, you can get the power asymmetry, but there is also a substantial temperature anisotropy — the universe is hotter on one side than on the other. There are a few back-and-forth steps in the reasoning that I won’t rehearse here, but at the end of the day you get too much power on very large scales. It’s no fun being a theoretical cosmologist these days, all the data keeps ruling out your good ideas.

But we didn’t give up! It turns out that you can make things work if you have two scalar fields — one that does the inflating, cleverly called the “inflaton,” and the other which is responsible for the density perturbations, which should obviously be called the “perturbon” but for historical reasons is actually called the “curvaton.” By decoupling the source of most of the density in the universe from the source of its perturbations, we have enough wiggle room to make a model that fits the data. But there’s not that much wiggle room, to be honest; we have an allowed region in parameter space that is not too big. That’s good news, as it brings the hope that we can make relatively precise predictions that could be tested by some means other than the CMB.

One interesting feature of this model is that the purported supermode must have originated before the period of inflation that gave rise to the smaller-scale perturbations that we see directly in the CMB. Either it came from earlier inflation, or something entirely pre-inflationary.

So, to make a bit of a segue here, this Wednesday I gave a plenary talk at the summer meeting of the American Astronomical Society in St. Louis. I most discussed the origin of the universe and the arrow of time — I wanted to impress upon people that the origin of the entropy gradient in our everyday environment could be traced back to the Big Bang, and that conventional ideas about inflation did not provide straightforward answers to the problem, and that the Big Bang may not have been the beginning of the universe. I was more interested in stressing that this was a problem we should all be thinking about than pushing any of my favorite answers, but I did mention my paper with Jennie Chen as an example of the kind of thing we should all be looking for.

To an audience of astronomers, talk of baby universes tends to make people nervous, so I wanted to emphasize that (1) it was all very speculative, and (2) even though we don’t currently know how to connect ideas about the multiverse to observable phenomena, there’s no reason to think that it’s impossible in principle, and the whole enterprise really is respectable science. (If only they had all seen my bloggingheads dialogue with John Horgan, I wouldn’t have had to bother.) So I mentioned two different ideas that are currently on the market for ways in which influences of a larger multiverse might show up within our own. One is the idea of colliding bubbles, pursued by Aguirre, Johnson, and Shomer and by Chang, Kleban, and Levi. And the other, of course, was the lopsided-universe idea, since our paper had just appeared the day before. Neither of these possibilities, I was careful to say, applies directly to the arrow-of-time scenario I had just discussed; the point was just that all of these ideas are quite young and ill-formed, and we will have to do quite a bit more work before we can say for sure whether the multiverse is of any help in explaining the arrow of time, and whether we live in the kind of multiverse that might leave observable signatures in our local region. That’s research for you; we don’t know the answers ahead of time.

One of the people in the audience was Chris Lintott, who wrote up a description for the BBC. Admittedly, this is difficult stuff to get all straight the very first time, but I think his article gives the impression that there is a much more direct connection between my arrow-of-time work and our recent paper on the lopsided universe. In particular, there is no necessary connection between the existence of a supermode and the idea that our universe “bubbled off” from a pre-existing spacetime. (There might be a connection, but it is not a necessary one.) If you look through the paper, there’s nothing in there about entropy or the multiverse or any of that; we’re really motivated by trying to explain an interesting feature of the CMB data. Nevertheless, our proposed solution does hint at things that happened before the period of inflation that set up the conditions within our observable patch. These two pieces of research are not of a piece, but they both play a part in a larger story — attempting to understand the low entropy of the early universe suggests the need for something that came before, and it’s good to be reminded that we don’t yet know whether stuff that came before might have left some observable imprint on what we see around us today. Larger stories are what we’re all about.

I’m usually not one to go all blog-happy about the latest press-release, but a recent one happened to be about a paper I had just read, so, I’ll dive on in.

To give a little background, one game that astronomers like to play is “Find the oldest galaxy around at some time”. There are a number of reasons this game has so many eager practitioners. First, the oldest galaxies at any time are probably the locations of the some of the very first collapsed structures in the universe, which make them cool. Second, the most massive galaxies we see today seem to be those that that host the oldest stellar populations — turning this around, if you hunt for the oldest things at a given time, you’re hopefully finding the most massive things at that time. Finally, it’s very tough to figure out how the population of galaxies you see at one time is related to the one you see at the present day (i.e., just because a galaxy is blue and distorted 10 Gigayears (Gyr) ago, doesn’t mean it’s not red and symmetric today). However, if you stick to studying massive galaxies that already looked old 10 Gyr ago, it’s probably a reasonably good guess that they’re comparable to the predecessors of the most massive old galaxies today, giving you one of the few cases where you can match up the two populations with reasonable confidence.

Which brings us to the latest paper by Pieter van Dokkum and his collaborators, on the spectroscopic and HST/NICMOS follow-up of 9 massive red galaxies from the MUSYC NIR imaging survey. These galaxies are at redshifts of 2.5-ish, corresponding to about 2-3 Gyr after the Big Bang for WMAP cosmology. They are very red, and have spectra consistent with a dormant stellar population (i.e. one that stopped forming stars roughly a Gyr previously). An earlier paper by Kriek et al estimated masses for these galaxies (assuming reasonable models of the kinds of stars and dust that are in the galaxies), and found that not only are the galaxies dormant, they’re also extremely massive.

So, now you’ve got yourself a bunch of massive galaxies, that in spite of being no more than 2-3 Gyr old, already finished all their star formation a gigayear previously. Pretty nifty, and what you’d hope to find as the precursors of the old massive galaxies we see today. That’s all well and good, but the problem is that the galaxies are just too dang small. They’re tiny. The most massive galaxies today are typically much larger than the Milky Way, but the galaxies van Dokkum is reporting on are much much smaller. (On the plot at right, the solid scale bar shows a size of 10 kpc. On the plot below, the big solid dots are van Dokkum’s sample, and the little dots are the galaxies seen today in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.)

Ok fine, you might say. A lot can happen in the intervening 10 Gyr. However, not that much can happen, since these galaxies are already pushing the mass limit of the most massive galaxies we see today. You therefore can’t grow the galaxies by padding them out with new stars from accreted satellite galaxies, without taking them over the limit (i.e. looking at the plot on the upper left, accreting new galaxies would take the galaxies up, but would also move them to the right). Even if you could pull this off, the centers would still be too dense. You also can’t magically puff the galaxies up over time. You could imagine perhaps driving a bunch of mass out of the center of the galaxy, maybe through stellar winds, but it would take an absurd amount of mass loss, even if you believed you could get all that mass out of such a dense honking galaxy. You could also imagine trying to disrupt the galaxies somehow by puffing them up kinematically, maybe through violent mergers. However, the problem here is that the galaxies are waaaaaay too dense. If the galaxies really are as dense as the plot above suggests, then they’re going to be almost impossible to disrupt. It would be like trying to disrupt an iron ball by dropping it into a bowl of pudding.

My take on this is that some of the assumptions that went into making the plot above are wrong, because it’s very hard to imagine hiding the descendants of incredibly massive, incredibly dense galaxies somewhere in the local universe. The authors understand this, and argue that it might be a combination of issues related to measuring the radius (loss of diffuse light at large radii, radial gradients in the conversion of light to stellar mass), and possibly the initial mass function (the great “here be dragons” of all extragalactic astronomy).

I actually think the errant step might wind up being the assumed conversion of light to mass. The standard lore is that when you observe galaxies in the NIR, the light is dominated by old red giant branch stars, giving you a reasonably robust conversion from light into stellar mass. However, at a redshift of 2.5, there’s no way that any star in the galaxy is older than 3 Gyr. In this case, most of the red light from the galaxy will be coming from asymptotic giant branch stars, which are notoriously difficult to model. Thus, the calibration of light to mass can easily be off. AGB stars can also give you a nice red spectrum like those observed, and can be potentially centrally concentrated in response to a central burst of star formation. I think the authors have done the best that they could with their analysis, but I suspect we may have run into some of the real limits of our current modeling.

Former UW grad student Jason Steffen got a wee bit irked on a flight a few years ago. Which led to this:

arXiv:0802:0733

Using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo optimization algorithm and a computer simulation, I find the passenger ordering which minimizes the time required to board the passengers onto an airplane. The model that I employ assumes that the time that a passenger requires to load his or her luggage is the dominant contribution to the time needed to completely fill the aircraft. The optimal boarding strategy may reduce the time required to board and airplane by over a factor of four and possibly more depending upon the dimensions of the aircraft. I explore some features of the optimal boarding method and discuss practical modifications to the optimal. Finally, I mention some of the benefits that could come from implementing an improved passenger boarding scheme.

While you will not find the article in Phys Rev, it will hopefully be found in a future issue of the Journal of Air Transportation Management.

Even in an election year, physics marches on. Physics is forever.

In this case it’s a fun little paper by Heywood Tam (a grad student here at Caltech) and me, arXiv:0802.0521:

We propose a new way to hide large extra dimensions without invoking branes, based on Lorentz-violating tensor fields with expectation values along the extra directions. We investigate the case of a single vector “aether” field on a compact circle. In such a background, interactions of other fields with the aether can lead to modified dispersion relations, increasing the mass of the Kaluza-Klein excitations. The mass scale characterizing each Kaluza-Klein tower can be chosen independently for each species of scalar, fermion, or gauge boson. No small-scale deviations from the inverse square law for gravity are predicted, although light graviton modes may exist.

This harkens back to the idea of a vector field that violates Lorentz invariance (which Ted Jacobson and friends have dubbed “aether,” appropriately enough), and in particular a vector that picks out a preferred direction in space. I explored this possibility last year in a paper with Lotty Ackerman and Mark Wise, and Mark recently wrote a followup with Tim Dulaney and Moira Gresham. (Our paper was detailed in the “anatomy of a paper” series, 1 2 3.)

There is an obvious problem with the notion of a vector field that violates rotational invariance by picking out a preferred direction through all of space — we don’t see any evidence for it! Physics as we have thus far experienced it seems pretty darn rotationally invariant. In my paper with Lotty and Mark, we sidestepped this issue by imagining that the vector was important in the early universe, and subsequently decayed away.

But there’s another way to sidestep the issue, pretty obvious in retrospect: have the vector point in a direction we don’t see! Extra dimensions are of course a popular theoretical construct, and once you make that leap you can ask what would happen if an unseen extra dimension contained a constant vector field. That would leave good old four-dimensional Lorentz invariance completely unbothered, so it’s not immediately constrained by any well-known experimental bounds.

So, beyond being fun and not ruled out, is it good for anything? The answer is: quite possibly. Heywood and I calculated what the influence of such a vector would be on other fields that propagated in a single extra dimension. In good old-fashioned Kaluza-Klein theory, momentum in the extra dimension can only take on discrete values (it’s quantized, in other words), and each kind of field breaks into an infinite “tower” of particles of different masses. The separation between different mass levels is just the inverse of the size of the extra dimension in natural units. What’s that? You insist upon seeing the equation? Okay, if the original mass of the field is m and the size of the extra dimension is R, we have a series of masses indexed by n:

Here, is Planck’s constant, c is the speed of light, and n is just a whole number that can be anything from 0 to infinity. So the effect of the compact fifth dimension is to give us an infinite set of four-dimensional particles, indexed by n, each with a different mass. Not a very big mass, unless the extra dimension is pretty small; separating the levels by about 1 electron volt requires a dimension that is about 1 micrometer across. We would certainly have noticed all those new particles unless the extra dimensions were considerably smaller than a Fermi (10^-15 meters).

The interesting thing that Heywood and I discovered is that the effect of an aether field pointing in the extra dimension is to boost all of the mass levels in the Kaluza-Klein tower. There is a new set of coupling constants, α_i for every kind of particle i, that tells us how strongly that particle interacts with the aether. The mass formula is modified to read

So if α_i is huge, you could have a huge mass splitting even with an extra dimension that was pretty large. This gives a new way to hide extra dimensions — not just make them invisibly small (the old-school Kaluza-Klein method) or confine us to some thin brane (the new-school ’90s style), but to boost the effective masses associated with momentum in the new direction. And there is an obvious experimental test, if you were to find all of these new particles: unlike plain vanilla compactification, where the towers associated with each kind of field have the same mass splittings, here the splittings could be completely different for every kind of particle, just by choosing different α_i’s.

To be fair, this idea does not by itself suggest any reason why the extra dimensions should be large. To allow for a millimeter-sized dimension, the coupling α_i has to be at least 10¹⁵, which any particle physicist will tell you is an unnaturally big number. But the aether at least allows for the possibility, which I think is worth exploring. Who knows, some clever young graduate student out there might figure out how to use this idea to solve the hierarchy problem and the cosmological constant problem, then we would discover aetherized extra dimensions at the LHC, and everyone would become famous.