Archive for the The Universe and Stuff Category

A Sussex Alumna

Posted in Biographical, Television, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on August 9, 2013 by telescoper

I had a very nice meeting this morning with Sir Harry Kroto, who is back in the UK for the summer. We chatted about a number of exciting things going on at Sussex University and beyond, in the middle of which I remembered a film featuring my former  PhD Student from Nottingham days, Emma King. The film was part of a series about young scientists made by the Vega Science Trust (which Harry set up) and it was originally broadcast on BBC 2 as part of The Learning Zone.

Emma is a graduate of the Department of Physics & Astronomy at Sussex University. As an undergraduate at the University of Sussex she made history when she became the first woman to win the top prize at the Science, Engineering and Technology Student of the Year award despite tests at school which showed that Emma was not only slightly dyslexic, but that also had very poor arithmetic skills and she says “a nearly non-existent visual memory.” None of that stopped her completing her PhD thesis (on magnetic fields in cosmology) in 2006.

p.s. After completing her PhD, Emma changed career and now runs this outdoor event venue.

Duet for Violin and Subatomic Particles

Posted in Music, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on August 8, 2013 by telescoper

I received an email this morning about this video and thought I’d post the clip here. This short documentary is about the performance of the composition Cloud Chamber (“Duet for violin and subatomic particles”) in San Francisco at the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park. The video was produced by Patrick Haynes, Adam Behrmann and Chris Whitmore, and features commentaries from , e.g., Hitoshi Murayama, Professor of Physics at Berkeley and Director of the Institute of Physics and Mathematics of the Universe at the University of Tokyo (the commentaries start at 16:10). It is introduced by Professor JoAnne L. Hewitt, Head of Theoretical Physics at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University. There’s a longer description on the Youtube page if you’re interested in learning more about this interesting project.

An Integral Appendix

Posted in Biographical, Cute Problems, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , on August 7, 2013 by telescoper

After the conference dinner at the Ripples in the Cosmos meeting in Durham I attended recently, a group of us adjourned to the Castle bar for a drink or several. I ended up chatting to one of the locals, Richard Bower, mainly on the subject of beards. I suppose you could call it a chinwag. Only later on did  we get onto the subject of a paper we had both worked on a while ago. It was with some alarm that I later realized that the paper concerned was actually published twenty years ago. Sigh. Where did all that time go?

Anyway, Richard and I both remembered having a great time working on that paper which turned out to be a nice one, although it didn’t exactly set the world on fire in terms of citations. This paper was written before the standard “concordance” (LCDM) cosmology was firmly established and theorists were groping around for ways of reconciling observations of the CMB from the COBE satellite with large-scale structure in the galaxy distribution as well as the properties of individual galaxies. The (then) standard model (CDM with no Lambda) struggled to satisfy the observational constraints, so in typical theorists fashion we tried to think of a way to rescue it. The idea we came up with was “cooperative galaxy formation”, as explained in the abstract:

We consider a model in which galaxy formation occurs at high peaks of the mass density field, as in the standard picture for biased galaxy formation, but is further enhanced by the presence of nearby galaxies. This modification is accomplished by assuming the threshold for galaxy formation to be modulated by large-scale density fluctuations rather than to be spatially invariant. We show that even a weak modulation can produce significant large-scale clustering. In a universe dominated by cold dark matter, a 2 percent – 3 percent modulation on a scale exceeding 10/h Mpc produces enough additional clustering to fit the angular correlation function of the APM galaxy survey. We discuss several astrophysical mechanisms for which there are observational indications that cooperative effects could occur on the scale required.

I have to say that Richard did most of the actual work on this paper, though all four authors did spend a lot of time discussing whether the idea was viable in principle and, if so, how we should implement it mathematically. In the end, my contribution was pretty much limited to the Appendix, which you can click to make it larger if you’re interested.

t2png

As is often the case in work of this kind, everything boiled down to evaluating numerically a rather nasty integral. Coincidentally, I’d come across a similar problem in a totally different context a few years previously when I was working on my thesis and therefore just happened to know the neat trick described in the paper.

Two things struck me looking back on this after being reminded of it over that beer. One is that a typical modern laptop is powerful enough to evaluate the original integral without undue difficulty, so if this paper had been written nowadays we wouldn’t have bothered trying anything clever; my Appendix would probably not have been written. The other thing is that I sometimes hear colleagues bemoaning physics students’ lack of mathematical “problem-solving” ability, claiming that if students haven’t seen the problem before they don’t know what to do. The problem with that complaint is that it ignores the fact that many problems are the same as things you’ve solved before, if only you look at them in the right way. Problem solving is never going to be entirely about “pattern-matching” – some imagination and/or initiative is going to required sometimes- but you’d be surprised how many apparently intractable problems can be teased into a form to which standard methods can be applied. Don’t take this advice too far, though. There’s an old saying that goes “To a man who’s only got a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. But the first rule for solving “unseen” problems has to be to check whether you might in fact already have seen them…

Just a minute! Is space really expanding?

Posted in Astrohype, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on August 2, 2013 by telescoper

Now then. I’m sure this little video will get a few cosmologists’ hackles rising:

The video was produced by minutephysics, so presumably the expansion of time accounts for the fact that lasts more than two minutes. More importantly, though, is the content. Here’s an old  discussion of mine on this question. Let me know what you think via the comments box!

Building Blocks and Blueprints in Cosmology

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on August 1, 2013 by telescoper

Still playing catch-up from my recent travels, so to provide a blog post for today I’ve decided shamelessly to rip off an interesting comment on a blog post by Sean Caroll which picked up on the theme I posted about a few days ago, namely my perception that the current generation of cosmologists seems rather reluctant to question the standard paradigm. Please bear with me if that all sounds a bit incestuous…

Anyway, Peter Edmonds commented in order to draw attention to a series of papers on related matters by Avi Loeb (of Harvard University) which can be found on the arXiv here, here, here and there.
I’d encourage you to read the four interesting papers I’ve linked to above as I think they are extremely thought-provoking. The last of these begins with this paragraph, so you can see why it’s relevant to the aforementioned topic.

Too few theoretical astrophysicists are engaged in tasks that go beyond the refinement of details in a commonly accepted paradigm. It is far more straightforward today to work on these details than to review whether the paradigm itself is valid. While there is much work to be done in the analysis and interpretation of experimental data, the unfortunate by-product of the current state of affairs is that popular, mainstream paradigms within which data is interpreted are rarely challenged. Most cosmologists, for example, lay one brick of phenomenology at a time in support of the standard (inflation+Λ+Cold-Dark-Matter) cosmological model, resembling engineers that follow the blueprint of a global construction project, without pausing to question whether the architecture of the project makes sense when discrepancies between expectations and data are revealed.

To put this another way, a great deal of modern astrophysics and cosmology is rather incremental. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, just that such research often involves large-scale observational projects that have to proceed slowly and painstakingly. Working at the coal face in large consortia like this makes it difficult to take the time to step back and consider the bigger picture. We ask a lot of early career researchers nowadays when we expect them to cope with detailed analytic work as well as assimilating and synthesizing a coherent view of the overall landscape. Producing a stream of research papers doesn’t in itself make an excellent research. Productivity needs to be balanced by a proper appreciation of which questions are the most important ones to ask, which often requires (and I apologize for using such an awful cliché) thinking outside the box.

Article of the Day!

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , on July 31, 2013 by telescoper

Back in the office today, the heatwave having given way to grey drizzle and cool breezes (at least for the time being). I’ve got stacks of paperwork to catch up on, but fortunately I’ve got time to post a quick congratulatory message to Ian Harrison, who is author of today’s NASA ADS Article of the Day! Ian is a PhD student in the School of Physics & Astronomy at Cardiff University and was supervised by me until I abandoned ship to come here to Sussex earlier this year; he’s got a postdoctoral research position lined up in the Midlands (Manchester) when he finishes his thesis. The other author, Shaun Hotchkiss, is coming to Sussex as a postdoctoral researcher in October.

Anyway, the paper is a nice one, called A consistent approach to falsifying ΛCDM with rare galaxy clusters. Here’s the abstract:

We consider methods with which to answer the question “is any observed galaxy cluster too unusual for ΛCDM?” After emphasising that many previous attempts to answer this question will overestimate the confidence level at which ΛCDM can be ruled out, we outline a consistent approach to these rare clusters, which allows the question to be answered. We define three statistical measures, each of which are sensitive to changes in cluster populations arising from different modifications to the cosmological model. We also use these properties to define the “equivalent mass at redshift zero” for a cluster — the mass of an equally unusual cluster today. This quantity is independent of the observational survey in which the cluster was found, which makes it an ideal proxy for ranking the relative unusualness of clusters detected by different surveys. These methods are then used on a comprehensive sample of observed galaxy clusters and we confirm that all are less than 2σ deviations from the ΛCDM expectation. Whereas we have only applied our method to galaxy clusters, it is applicable to any isolated, collapsed, halo. As motivation for future surveys, we also calculate where in the mass redshift plane the rarest halo is most likely to be found, giving information as to which objects might be the most fruitful in the search for new physics.

In case you’re wondering, the rather Popperian nature of the title is not the reason why I’m not among the authors. I’m just not the sort of supervisor who feels he should always be an author of papers done by his research students even when they had the idea and did all the work themselves. From what I’ve heard talking to others, we’re a dying breed!

No more ripples?

Posted in Biographical, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on July 27, 2013 by telescoper

Well, that’s the Ripples in the Cosmos meeting in Durham over and done with, and I’m back in Newcastle for a few days before moving on to Edinburgh next week. I’m not sure I’ll be able to blog much over the next few days because my internet connectivity will be a bit limited.

Anyway, the meeting was very exciting, as you can tell from the picture showing me (with the beard) and Brian Schmidt (with the Nobel Prize):

IMG_20130725_144131

Yesterday it was my job to round off the meeting with some concluding remarks leading into a panel discussion. I have to admit that although the programme for the conference was clearly designed in order to generate provoke discussion, I was a little disappointed that so few people said anything controversial. I’ve long held that there are too many cosmologists willing to believe too much, and this was further evidence that the scepticism that is a necessary part of a healthy science has been replaced by widespread conformity, especially among the young; when I was a lad the students and postdocs were a lot more vocal at meetings than they are now. Perhaps this is characteristic of a change in culture of cosmology? To get a job nowadays it’s virtually essential to climb onto one of the big bandwagon projects, and to keep your place you have to toe the party line, refrain from rocking the boat, not speak out of turn, and avoid making ripples (That’s enough metaphors. Ed).

Anyway, I think there are still a great many things in modern cosmology we don’t understand at all, and I think a few more of the older generation should show the way by questioning things in public. In fact only got asked to do the concluding remarks because Jim Peebles was unable to come to the meeting. Jim’s an immensely distinguished physicist who has probably done more than any other living person to develop the standard cosmology, but he’s also never been afraid to play devil’s advocate. We need more like him, willing to articulate the doubts that too many of us feel the need to suppress.

It’s amazing how much progress we have made in cosmology over the last few decades, but we shouldn’t use that as an excuse to get complacent. Cosmology is about the biggest questions in science. That alone makes it an exciting subject to work in. It’s an adventure. And the last thing you want on an adventure is for the journey to be too comfortable.

The Mysterious Mr Ripples

Posted in Biographical, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , on July 24, 2013 by telescoper

So here I am in the fine city of Durham, in the North Midlands, for a meeting entitled Ripples in the Cosmos. I travelled by plane from Gatwick to Newcastle on Sunday afternoon, and got there eventually – after a two-hour delay caused by the aircraft we were meant to fly on having a technical problem and needing to be replaced by another. Anyway, I spent Sunday with my folks. Thinking it was only going to be a half-hour drive to Durham, we left early on Monday morning so I’d be in time to chair the first session.

Unfortunately, major roadworks on A1 intervened and we got stuck in traffic near the Metro Centre in Gateshead. Fortunately, various people at the conference caught my Twitter updates and a deputy was arranged. I got there about 30 minutes late and I took over after the coffee break.

300px-Yard2
After the day’s conference I wandered up to Durham Caste (left), where I had a room booked for the week. However, when I got there they had no record of my reservation. The porter was very helpful and let me connect to my email to check, and I retrieved the confirmation of my booking. In exasperation, I looked through the papers he had relating to room bookings, and found one in the name of “Mr Ripples”. Not even “Professor Ripples”, mark you.

 

The mysterious Mr Ripples not having appeared to claim his room I surmised that the similarity of his name to the title of the conference might indicate that perhaps some administrative error might have been made. The porter agreed, changed the name from Mr Ripples to Professor Coles and gave me a key.

Anyway, Durham Castle is a rather splendid place to stay.  Breakfast is to be had in grand surroundings complete with walls decorated with suits of armour, swords and other historical weapons. This environment, together with the continuing warm weather, as well of course as the excellent conference talks, has made this very enjoyable week so far.  Apart from the nagging doubt that Mr Ripples could suddenly turn up and demand his room, the only problem is the ringing of bells all through the night.

The conference dinner is this evening, and it’s in the Great Hall of Durham Castle so I won’t have far to stagger home to bed…

Newsflash: Direct Detection of B-mode Polarization

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , on July 23, 2013 by telescoper

I’m not meant to be blogging these days but I thought I’d break radio silence to draw attention to a new paper on the arXiv by Hanson et al. from SPTpol, an experiment which aims to measure the polarization of the cosmic microwave background using the South Pole Telescope. One of the main aims of experiments such as this is to measure the so-called “B-mode” of polarization (the “curl” component of the polarization signal, which possesses a handedness) because this holds the key to direct detection of a number of interesting cosmological phenomena such as the existence of primordial gravitational waves.  However, primordial effects aren’t  the only way to generate B-mode polarization. Other “foreground” effects can do the job too, especially gravitational lensing can also generate a signal of this form. These “late-time” effects have to be understood before the primordial contribution can be isolated.

Before today there was no direct measurement of B-mode polarization at all, primordial nor not.

The abstract basically says it all:

Gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background generates a curl pattern in the observed polarization. This “B-mode” signal provides a measure of the projected mass distribution over the entire observable Universe and also acts as a contaminant for the measurement of primordial gravity-wave signals. In this letter we present the first detection of gravitational lensing B modes, using first-season data from the polarization-sensitive receiver on the South Pole Telescope (SPTpol). We construct a template for the lensing B-mode signal by combining E-mode polarization measured by SPTpol with estimates of the lensing potential from a Herschel-SPIRE map of the cosmic infrared background. We compare this template to the B modes measured directly by SPTpol, finding a non-zero correlation at 7.7 sigma significance. The correlation has an amplitude and scale-dependence consistent with theoretical expectations, is robust with respect to analysis choices, and constitutes the first measurement of a powerful cosmological observable.

This measurement is not unexpected. Indeed, the B-mode contribution from lensing by the known distribution of galaxies can be calculated fairly straightforwardly because the physics is well understood; failure to find the expected signal would therefore have been somewhat embarrassing.  It’s a different story for the primordial B-mode because that depends strongly on what is going on in the very early universe, and that is much less certain. Although the new result doesn’t itself tell us anything new about the very early Universe it is definitely an important step on the way, and it’s a fairly safe prediction that there will be a great deal of activity and interest in CMB polarization over the next few years, including next year’s planned release of polarization data from Planck.

I’ll also note the use of Herschel-SPIRE images in tracing the galaxy images, in deference to my former colleagues in Cardiff who played a key role in developing that instrument!

2013 Gruber Prize in Cosmology

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on July 11, 2013 by telescoper

The latest session at this Summer School began with a nice announcement, that one of the organizers (and lecturers) Viatcheslav Mukhanov has, together with Alexei Starobinsky, been awarded the prestigious Gruber Prize for cosmology.

The press release linked above states:

According to the Prize citation, their theoretical work “changed our views on the origin of our universe and on the mechanism of its formation of structure.” Thanks to their contributions, scientists have provided a compelling solution to two of the essential questions of cosmology:  Why is the structure of the universe so uniform on the largest scales?  Where did the departures from uniformity—such as galaxies, planets, and people—come from?

Mukhanov, full professor of physics at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, and Starobinsky, the main research scientist at the Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics in Moscow, will share the $500,000 award, which will be presented on September 3 as part of the COSMO2013 conference at the Stephen Hawking Centre for Theoretical Cosmology in Cambridge, UK.

The work for which they are being honored began in the late 1970s and early 1980s, during a period of fertile, even fervid, theoretical investigations into the earliest moments of the universe.  In 1965 astronomers had discovered the cosmic microwave background—relic radiation dating to an era 13.8 billion years ago, when the universe was approximately 380,000 years old, during which hydrogen atoms and photons (packets of light) decoupled, causing a kind of “flashbulb” image that pervades the universe to this day.  This discovery validated a key prediction of the Big Bang theory and inspired a generation of theorists.

Among them was Starobinsky, then a senior research scientist at the Landau Institute.  His approach was to use quantum mechanics and general relativity to try to address how an expanding universe might have originated.  While he did not resolve that issue, his calculations made in 1979 – 1980 did indicate that the universe could have gone through an extraordinarily rapid exponential expansion in the first moments of its existence.

The following year Mukhanov (Moscow Physical-Technical Institute) and G. V. Chibisov (Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow; he passed away several years ago), began working on the implications of quantum fluctuations within the Starobinsky model.  Quantum fluctuations—disturbances in the fabric of space predicted by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle—are always present in the universe.  But in an extremely small, extremely dense, and extremely energetic newborn universe they would have had an outsized presence.  What’s more, the kind of exponential expansion that Starobinsky was proposing would have stretched those fluctuations beyond the quantum scale.  In 1981 Mukhanov and Chibisov discovered that these fluctuations could play the role of the seeds that eventually bloomed into the present large-scale web-like structure of the universe:  galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and superclusters of galaxies.

When this mechanism was first proposed, it looked like a piece of science fiction. Indeed, usually quantum fluctuations appear only on tiny subatomic scales, so the idea that galaxies have been born from quantum fluctuations seemed totally outlandish. And yet the subsequent developments in theoretical and observational cosmology strongly favored this possibility.

Shortly after the Starobinsky work, the American physicist Alan Guth proposed a brilliant idea that an exponential expansion stage of the early universe, which he called “inflation,” could explain the incredible uniformity of our universe and resolve many other outstanding problems of the Big Bang cosmology. However, Guth immediately recognized that his proposal had a flaw: the world described by his scenario would become either empty or very non-uniform at the end of inflation. This problem was solved by Andrei Linde, who introduced several major modifications of inflationary theory, such as “new inflation” (later also developed by Albrecht and Steinhardt), “chaotic inflation”, and “eternal chaotic inflation.” A new cosmological paradigm was born. In 2004, Guth and Linde received the Gruber Prize for the development of inflationary theory.

The original goals of the Starobinsky model were quite different from the goals of inflationary theory. Instead of trying to explain the uniformity of the universe, he assumed that the universe was absolutely homogeneous from the very beginning. However, it was soon realized that the mathematical structure of his model was very similar to that of new inflation, and therefore it naturally merged into the rapidly growing field of inflationary cosmology.

In 1982, several scientists, including Starobinsky, outlined a theory of quantum fluctuations generated in new inflation. This theory was very similar to the theory developed by Mukhanov and Chibisov in the context of the Starobinsky model. Investigation of inflationary fluctuations culminated in 1985in work by Mukhanov, who developed a rigorous theory of these fluctuations applicable to a broad class of inflationary models, including new and chaotic inflation.

This theory predicted that inflationary perturbations have nearly equal amplitude on all length scales. An equally important conclusion was that this scale invariance is close, but not exact: the amplitude of the fluctuations should slightly grow with the distance. These fluctuations would have equal amplitudes for all forms of matter and energy (called adiabatic fluctuations). The theory also predicted a specific statistical form of the fluctuations, known as Gaussian statistics.

Since then, increasingly precise observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) have provided decisive matches for theoretical predictions of how those initial quantum fluctuations would look after the universe had been expanding for 380,000 years.  Those observations include all-sky maps produced by the Cosmic Microwave Background Explorer (COBE), the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), and the Planck satellite.  John Mather and the COBE team received the Gruber Cosmology Prize in 2006; Charles Bennett and the WMAP team received theirs in 2012.

Back in 1979, Starobinsky also found that exponential expansion of the universe should produce gravitational waves — a quantum by-product of general relativity, and a target for the new generation of instruments expected over the next decade.

This year’s Gruber Cosmology Prize citation credits Starobinsky and Mukhanov with a profound contribution to inflationary cosmology and the theory of the inflationary perturbations of the metric of space-time. This theory, explaining the quantum origin of the structure of our universe, is one of the most spectacular manifestations of the laws of quantum mechanics on cosmologically large scales.

Congratulations to them both! Sadly, Slava Mukhanov left Bad Honnef yesterday evening in order to return to Munich so he’s unable to use a small part of his share of the $500,000 prize to buy celebratory drinks for all the participants, but I’m sure we’ll have some sort of  celebration in his absence. But that will have to wait until this evening. We wouldn’t want to interrupt the lectures, would we?