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.

And the answer is: about 10¹⁰², mostly in the form of supermassive black holes. That’s the entropy of the observable part of the universe, at any rate. Or so you will read in this paper by Paul Frampton, Stephen D.H. Hsu, Thomas W. Kephart, and David Reeb, arxiv:0801.1847:

Standard calculations suggest that the entropy of the universe is dominated by black holes, although they comprise only a tiny fraction of its total energy. We give a physical interpretation of this result. Statistical entropy is the logarithm of the number of microstates consistent with the observed macroscopic properties of a system, hence a measure of uncertainty about its precise state. The largest uncertainty in the present and future state of the universe is due to the (unknown) internal microstates of its black holes. We also discuss the qualitative gap between the entropies of black holes and ordinary matter.

It’s easy enough to plug in the Hawking formula for black-hole entropy and add up all the black holes; but there are interesting questions concerning the connection between the entropy of matter configurations and black-hole configurations. They are explored in an earlier paper by Hsu and Reeb, “Black hole entropy, curved space and monsters,” which Steve blogged about here.

A new paper by Steve Giddings, “Universal Quantum Mechanics,” arxiv:0711.0757. Here’s the abstract:

If gravity respects quantum mechanics, it is important to identify the essential postulates of a quantum framework capable of incorporating gravitational phenomena. Such a construct likely requires elimination or modification of some of the “standard” postulates of quantum mechanics, in particular those involving time and measurement. This paper proposes a framework that appears sufficiently general to incorporate some expected features of quantum gravity. These include the statement that space and time may only emerge approximately and relationally. One perspective on such a framework is as a sort of generalization of the S-matrix approach to dynamics. Within this framework, more dynamical structure is required to fully specify a theory; this structure is expected to lack some of the elements of local quantum field theory. Some aspects of this structure are discussed, both in the context of scattering of perturbations about a flat background, and in the context of cosmology.

Part of the problem in reconciling gravity with quantum mechanics is “technical” — GR is not renormalizable, by the lights of ordinary quantum field theory. But part is “conceptual” — ordinary QM takes a spacetime background as given, not as part of the wavefunction. The role of time, in particular, is a bit hazy, especially because the Wheeler-deWitt equation (the quantum-gravity version of the Schrodinger equation) doesn’t contain any explicit time parameter. Most likely, our notion of “time” makes sense only in a semi-classical context, not as part of the fundamental dynamics. Similarly, our notions of “locality” are going to have to be broadened if spacetime itself is part of the quantum picture. But the truth is that we don’t really know for sure. So it’s worth digging into the underlying principles of quantum mechanics to understand which of them rely crucially on our standard understanding of spacetime, and which are likely to survive in any sensible theory of quantum gravity. Giddings’s paper follows in the footsteps of previous work such as Jim Hartle’s Spacetime Quantum Mechanics and the Quantum Mechanics of Spacetime. (The Santa Barbara air must be conducive to thinking such deep thoughts.)

Here’s a paper that was mentioned in comments, about which I’m not qualified to say all that much: astro-ph/0702723, “Analysis of the apparent lack of power in the cosmic microwave background anisotropy at large angular scales,” by Amir Hajian.

We study the apparent lack of power on large angular scales in the WMAP data. We confirm that although there is no apparent lack of power at large angular scales for the full-sky maps, the lowest multipoles of the WMAP data happen to have the magnitudes and orientations, with respect to the Galactic plane, that are needed to make the large scale power in cut-sky maps surprisingly small. Our analysis shows that most of the large scale power of the observed CMB anisotropy maps comes from two regions around the Galactic plane (~9% of the sky). One of them is a cold spot within ~40 degrees of the Galactic center and the other one is a hot spot in the vicinity of the Gum Nebula. If the current full-sky map is correct, there is no clear deficit of power at large angular scales and the alignment of the l=2 and l=3 multipoles remains the primary intriguing feature in the full-sky maps. If the full-sky map is incorrect and a cut is required, then the apparent lack of power remains mysterious. Future missions such as Planck, with a wider frequency range and greater sensitivity, will permit a better modeling of the Galaxy and will shed further light on this issue.

There are two issues here, as I understand it. Here’s a map of the temperature fluctuations in the CMB, from WMAP:

When you decompose this into contributions at different angular scales (spherical harmonics), you get this power spectrum:

The point on the far left, the quadrupole at l=2, seems to be low compared to the predictions of the standard cosmological concordance model. That’s one thing. The other thing is that, when you dig into the individual contributions that are grouped together to make this plot, the other low-l contributions seem to pick out a preferred direction on the sky, sometimes called the axis of evil.

So that’s intriguing, but it’s not completely clear whether it’s really significant, or just an accident. For one thing, the preferred direction seems to match up pretty well with the ecliptic (the plane in which the planets orbit the Sun), possibly indicating some systematic error rather than a cosmological effect. We don’t get an unvarnished view of the primordial microwave background; it comes to us through the galaxy, and through the material in the Solar System itself.

This paper seems to be claiming that the large-angle anomalies are, in fact, just a matter of foreground contamination. At least I think that’s what it’s saying; there are a lot of negatives (“although there is no apparent lack of power…”). Of course, the abstract concludes in the way that all good data-analysis abstracts should: we need more data! Happily it’s coming, in the form of the Planck satellite. One or more of our expert readers may chime in.