The Current State of Observational Cosmology JPO: Cochin(05/01/04)
-
Upload
ashlie-stone -
Category
Documents
-
view
235 -
download
1
Transcript of The Current State of Observational Cosmology JPO: Cochin(05/01/04)
Rumours of Great Progress…
• We know the component pieces: Photons, Neutrinos, Baryons, Dark Matter & Dark Energy.
• We know the history: Inflation, Baryogenesis, Dark Matter Domination, Growth of Structure, Dark Energy Domination.
• We know the parameters: “Precision Cosmology”.
The Truth is More Complex…
• We Know Some of the Components, But There Are Huge Gaps in Our Knowledge!
• We Understand Some of the Phases, But Calculate Others Incorrectly, and for Others there Are Equally Valid, Non-Standard, Alternatives!
• We Know Some Parameters to Percents, Others to Factors of Two and Others Are Uncertain to Order of Magnitude!
Foundation and Pillars..
• Homogeneous, Isotropic, Big Bang.– large scale uniformity (1930s -> present)– Hubble law (1930s -> present)– light element nucleosynthesis (1960s -> present)– temporal evolution observed directly (1960s -> present)– black body radiation field (1980s, COBE -> present)
• Baryons, Photons, Neutrinos, DM & DE.– Lyman alpha clouds, CBR spectrum (1960s -> present)– dark matter in clusters and halos (1930s, 1970s -> present)– supernovae show acceleration (2000s -> present)
Pillars contd…
• Nearly Scale Invariant (n~1) Spectrum.– dimensional analysis (Harrison, Peebles & Zeldovich)
(1960s)
– inflationary (or ekpyorotic) theory(1980s -> present)
– Fourier analysis of large scale structure(2000s)
• Geometrical Flatness (total = 1).
– Simplicity and dimensional analysis (1960s)
– CBR spectrum, direct measurement of parts (2000s)
The Universe is an Initial Value Problem…..
• Globally, the universe evolves according to the Friedman equation:
338
2
22 Λ+±=⎟
⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛=
akG
aaH critmρπ&
Hubble constantdensity parameter
cosmologicalconstant
H2H2
Intellectual Paradigm: An Iterative Process
• Pure Theory (or assumption).
• Detailed and Massive Computation of Outcomes.
• Global Astronomical Surveys to Check Predictions.
Primary Illustrative Examples
1. CBR Fluctuations (z ~1000, COBE & WMAP).
2. Lyman Alpha Clouds ( 6 > z > 3).
3. Galaxy Formation History ( 3 > z > 0).
4. Galaxy Surveys (z ~ 0).
CBR:WMAP contributions1) |n-1|/n << 1 = 0.01+-0.04.
-> scale invariant spectrum
2) b / | m- b| << 1 = 17.1%+-0.25%.->dark matter dominance
3) tot = 1.02 +- 0.04.->flat universe
4) | hopt –hcbr | << 1 = 5%+-10%; confirmation
5) |cbr- 8clstr | / 8 << 1 = 0.29+-0.45; confirmation
)scat = 0.17+-0.04; a surprise
Spergel et al: 2003
But…
• Degeneracy in parameter estimation remains (so other measures are essential for accurate parameter estimation).
• Low multi-poles are too low (a real issue or statistical fluctuations?).
• E-E correlations not yet available (needed to confirm re-ionization result).
Computing the Universe
• Transformation to comoving coordinates x=r/a(t)
• comoving cube, periodic boundary conditions
• Lbox >>nl
Lbox
Physics Input
• Newton’s law of gravitation.
• Standard equations of hydrodynamics.
• Atomic physics (for heating and cooling).
• Radiative transfer.
• [ Maxwell’s equations in MHD form ].
• ------------------------------------------------
• Heuristic treatment of star-formation.
QSO Line Absorption from IGM
• TVDPM on Large Eulerian grids.
• Moderate over-density gas.
• Metals, ionization state computed.
• Line numbers and
profiles computed.
Hot gas filaments in the intergalactic mediumCen & Ostriker .
Testing Cosmological Models:Lyman Alpha Forest
5<z<2Lbox~10 Mpc
Intergalactic filaments at z=3Zhang, Meiksin, Anninos & Norman (1998)
Lyman Alpha Clouds
• Number of absorption lines vs redshift.
• Number of absorption lines vs column density.
• Velocity width distribution of lines.
• Spatial correlation of line strengths.
• --------------------------------------------
• All show good agreement:theory vs observation.
Lyman Alpha Clouds
• Number of absorption lines vs redshift.
• Number of absorption lines vs column density.
• Velocity width distribution of lines.
• Spatial correlation of line strengths.
• --------------------------------------------
• All show good agreement:theory vs observation.
Large Scale Structure Surveys (1990s)
• Gaussian random field ρ(x)
• Linear power spectrum P(k)
Las Campanas Redshift SurveyCOBE
In Detail: Best Current Cosmological Model (prior: ΛCDM)
• tot = 1 (assumption)• cdm = 0.260 ± 0.037• baryon = 0.0486 ± 0.00019• lambda = 0.691 ± 0.036• n = 0.966 ± 0.023• H0 = 68.3 ± km/s/Mpc• 8 = 0.894 ± 0.057• scat =0.103 ± 0.054
Tegmark et al: astro-ph
A Joker In The Deck ???
(is the CDM paradigm wrong at small scales ? )
•Too many small galaxies predicted?
•Central galaxy densities predicted too large?
•Too many satellite galaxies predicted?
•Too many galaxies in voids predicted?
•Too late ionization predicted?
Will the Problems Give Clues To The Nature Of The Dark Matter ?
• Standard: Weakly Interacting Cold Dark Matter.• Variant: Strongly Self-Interacting Dark Matter.• Variant: Warm Dark Matter.• Variant: Decaying Dark Matter.• Variant: Repulsive Dark Matter.• Variant: Massive Black Holes as dark matter• Etc, etc,…
Warm Dark Matter (Closeup)
Standard Cold Dark Matter, 1.0 Megaparsec Warm Dark Matter (1.5keV), 1.0 Megaparsec
Summary
• Overall, concordance LCDM model succeeds very well.• CBR provides most precise tests; but other methods
essential to remove degeneracy.• Significant uncertainty of some parameters remains.• Some discrepancies on large scales (lensing) and on small
scales (cusps, satellites) are perhaps significant.• Much straightforward “engineering” to be done.• And yet we do not know the nature of either the dark
matter or the dark energy!
Questions for the Particle Physicists
• If inflation is agreed on, please converge on a model and please predict: n-1.
• Please tell us if we should expect primordial black holes to exist and, if so, how will they grow with time.
• Please tell us if Λor Q is better motivated by fundamental physics.
• Any consensus views on Warm, Self-Interacting, Fuzzy, Repulsive etc dark matter?