* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Word
Survey
Document related concepts
Observational astronomy wikipedia , lookup
Outer space wikipedia , lookup
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe wikipedia , lookup
Timeline of astronomy wikipedia , lookup
Anthropic principle wikipedia , lookup
Dark energy wikipedia , lookup
Hubble Deep Field wikipedia , lookup
Big Bang nucleosynthesis wikipedia , lookup
Cosmic microwave background wikipedia , lookup
Hubble's law wikipedia , lookup
Shape of the universe wikipedia , lookup
Lambda-CDM model wikipedia , lookup
Ultimate fate of the universe wikipedia , lookup
Expansion of the universe wikipedia , lookup
Fine-tuned Universe wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
AST 121S The origin and evolution of the Universe Mathematical Handout 3: Basic observations about the Universe Modern scientific cosmology, i.e. the Big Bang models for the Universe, is based on just a few very simple observations about the Universe. The resulting theory is generally accepted as providing a good description of the origin and evolution of our Universe because it then explains, or even predicted, several other basic observational facts about the Universe. In this handout we will look at these basic observations, concentrating on the first two. 1. Isotropy and homogeneity The Universe is to a good approximation isotropic which means that it looks the same in all directions. This is certainly true of the microwave background which we have seen is uniform across the sky down to a level of roughly one part in 1000 The simple anisotropy that is seen at this level of 0.001 is most likely due to the fact that our vantage point on the Earth is moving at a speed of about 350 kms-1 relative to the rest of the Universe and if we account for this then the isotropy is maintained down to a level of about one part in 100,000. Clearly, the sky is not isotropic when we look in other wavebands (optical, X-ray etc.) but we can understand these anisotropies in terms of our location relative to relatively local structures such as the Sun or the Milky Way galaxy. When we look into the distant Universe, the appearance of isotropy returns even at these other wavelengths. For instance counting the number of faint (i.e. distant) galaxies in different parts of the sky shows that there are roughly equal numbers in different directions. Unless we are exactly at the center of the Universe, a notion with which we have been uncomfortable since the time of Copernicus, a Universe that appears isotropic must also be homogeneous. Homogeneity means that it is the same at all locations. The notion of homogeneity in the Universe is enshrined in the Cosmological Principle which states that "at any cosmological epoch, the Universe appears the same in its general properties to all observers regardless of their location". Clearly the Cosmological Principle can not be absolutely true (if the Universe was completely uniform you and I could not exist!!). However, it is, as far as we know, a very good approximation in terms of important things like the microwave background or the distribution of matter on very large scales. The assumption that the Universe is homogeneous makes the calculation of the gravitational field and the dynamics of the Universe straightforward. Note in passing that, although as we look out in distance we look back in time, we do not necessarily require that the Universe be unchanging with time in order for isotropy to be maintained, since all observers will look back equal amounts of time when they look to a given distance in each direction (think about this and you can convince yourself it is true!). 2. The recession of the galaxies Shortly after he established that the "nebulae" were separate galaxies external to our own Milky Way Galaxy, Hubble established (1929) that galaxies are receding from us with a speed proportional to their distances (it was in fact Slipher who measured the velocities - Hubble provided the distances). How did Hubble and Slipher measure these velocities? They used the Doppler effect, whereby the waves from a source (either of sound waves or of electromagnetic radiation) that is moving relative to an observer are shifted in frequency and/or wavelength. Remember that what we called line emission is emitted at just a few particular wavelengths/frequencies, so we can easily see if this radiation has been shifted in this way. For light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, we define the redshift, z, in terms of the wavelengths at which the light was emitted, em, and at which it was received, obs: (3.1) z obs em em A source moving away from the observer has obs > em and a positive redshift. Hubble actually observed a redshift-distance relationship: (3.2) cz Hd where z is the redshift of a particular galaxy, H is Hubble's constant and c is the speed of light. For small velocities the relationship between speed and redshift is simple: (3.3) z v c As an aside, for velocities close to the speed of light, we should use the correct formula from Special Relativity v c 1 z v 1 c 1 This reduces to equation (3.3) for speeds which are small compared to the speed of light, c. Interpreting Hubble's redshift-distance relation (3.2) in terms of Doppler effects (3.3), then gives a velocity distance relation: (3.4) v Hd A situation in which galaxies are moving away with a recessional velocity that is proportional to their distance is the signature of an expanding Universe. The balloon analogy It is extremely difficult to correctly visualize an expanding Universe. In particular, it is misleading to think of the Universe as expanding into a surrounding region of empty space. A very useful mental picture is to consider a two-dimensional Universe, which we can then represent as a twodimensional expandable surface like that of a balloon. Imagine the Universe as the two-dimensional surface of a balloon. The galaxies, including our Milky Way, are dots painted on the balloon. We should view ourselves as 2-dimensional astronomers living on one of these dots. I tend to think of these astronomers as little ants, but strictly speaking they should be two dimensional beings like shadows! Notice that if the dot-galaxies are painted on the balloon uniformly, then the "Universe" will appear isotropic to one of our ant-astronomers. In each direction within the 2-d surface of the balloon, he/she will see the same general appearance of the Universe (our 2-d ant-astronomers are not allowed to even think of the third dimension, let alone look in that direction!). Furthermore, that view of the Universe will again be generally the same for all the ant-astronomers, regardless of which dot-galaxy they live on. Our 2-d balloon Universe thus satisfies our Cosmological Principle. As the balloon is blown up, a given dot will observe all the other dots moving away from it with speeds proportional to their distances, reproducing Hubble's Law (equation 3.4). However, note that all astronomers (regardless of which dot-galaxy they live on) will see this effect, and no dot can legitimately say: "I am at the center of the expansion", even though all of them see all of the other galaxies moving directly away from them.. The balloon analogy leads naturally to the idea that the expansion of the Universe is an expansion of space itself and not (emphatically not!) an expansion of anything into anything else. No ant can find a boundary of the balloon-Universe and sit on the edge and see it expanding into anything else. Rather, by observing that all the dot-galaxies are moving away from each other, they simply infer that their Universe is expanding. Their 2-d surface is expanding in exactly the same way, mathematically, that our 3-d space is expanding. An important idea which we will need in the next handout is that the distance r between any two points in the Universe (be they real galaxies in our 3-d Universe or the distance, within the surface, between two dots on the 2-d surface of the balloon) may be written as the combination of a coordinate distance that does not change as the Universe expands and a cosmic scale factor R, which does increase as the Universe expands. The coordinate distance is usually called the comoving distance because this coordinate frame moves (expands) with the Universe as a whole. (3.5) r R(t ) 3. Other basic observations about the Universe It may surprise you to know that the Cosmological Principle and the observed recession of the galaxies as described by Hubble's Law are all that is required to produce the basic Big Bang model of the Universe. In fact, Einstein in 1917, just two years after formulating General Relativity, applied the Cosmological Principle to GR and came within an ace of predicting the expansion of the Universe some 12 years before it was discovered by Hubble. He actually found that static Universes were impossible (by static we mean not expanding or contracting). Such a notion was so outlandish in 1917 that he added the so-called cosmological constant, so as to permit static solutions. We now know that the Universe is expanding and that is extremely small and probably exactly zero. Einstein later called the introduction of his "greatest scientific mistake" (a lesson for us all!). The reason why we take the Big Bang so seriously is because, based on these very simple observational facts (isotropy and Hubble's Law), it accounts naturally for several rather interesting things about the Universe. In this last part of this handout I will describe these and give only an outline of how the Big Bang theory accounts for them, leaving any further discussion until later when we will have explored more of the details of the Big Bang theory. (a) The microwave background We saw earlier that the Universe is filled with a radiation field that has a precise Planck spectrum characteristic of a temperature of 2.74 K. This is surprising, because as far as we can tell there is nothing much in the Universe at this temperature. The Big Bang naturally produces this radiation field because, in the Big Bang scenario, the Universe was once in a compressed state at much higher temperature. At early epochs, all of the matter in the Universe would have been at very high temperatures and could then produce this radiation field. As the Universe expanded, the matter and radiation would have cooled (see later). By the present epoch, the radiation would have cooled down to 2.74 K. We might also expect that most of the matter would have cooled to comparable temperatures. However, most of the matter (at least visible matter) has been reheated by localized sources of energy, such as stars etc., to the typical temperatures that we see today. The uniform microwave radiation field that bathes the Universe is thus a remnant of the initial fireball of the Big Bang when everything was extremely hot. (b) The abundance of 4He. We can, using spectroscopy, estimate the chemical composition of objects in the Universe. For all objects larger than planets, we find a rather uniform abundance. The following fractional abundances are observed: 0. 71 H 0. 75 0. 25 4 He 0. 27 (3.6) 0. 00 everything else 0. 02 That most of the Universe should be made of Hydrogen is reasonable since it is the simplest element, consisting of a single proton and electron. As we'll see in the third part of the course, we can also understand the very small contamination from "everything else" as due to the fusion reactions in stars. It turns out that these fusion processes should have only produced about as much 4He as "everything else"(see the last part of the course). What is therefore hard to understand is both why the abundance of 4He is so much larger than all of the other elements combined and why it shows so little variation when the abundances of the other elements varies greatly (from nothing to 2%). Both these facts suggest a cosmological or primordial origin for the 4He that produced the same amount of 4He everywhere As we'll see later, the Big Bang beautifully explains this curious fact. When the Universe had a temperature of 1010 K, about a second after the Big Bang, nuclear reactions (via the Weak interaction) occurred which fixed the neutron/proton ratio in the Universe at such a level that roughly 25% of the Universe after this time was in the form of 4He. The amount of 4He produced in this way is sensitive to the details of how the Universe was expanding at this temperature, and, again as we'll see, the fact that the observed abundance of 4He is exactly as predicted by the standard Big Bang theory is the strongest evidence that the Big Bang really happened. (c) Olbers' Paradox and the age of things This interesting thought experiment has been known for several centuries. It was publicized by Olbers, though he was not the first to think about it. If the Universe is infinite in extent and if it has been around "forever" (plus a few other "ifs" which need not concern us here) then it is easy to show that the night sky should be "infinitely" bright! Consider a shell of the Universe surrounding us at a distance r with a thickness dr. The volume of this shell, dV is given by dV 4r 2 dr Let's now suppose that the average number density of stars in the Universe is n stars per unit volume, and that each star has an average luminosity L so that its brightness, f, is f L 4 r 2 The brightness of our shell as seen from Earth, df, is thus df n f dV n L dr Thus, the total brightness of the sky, F, is given by the integral of df over r from r = 0 to r = (3.7) F nL dr nLr 0 0 This is clearly not the case. In fact, this estimate neglected the finite size of stars - we cannot see to infinity because the intervening stars block our line of sight. But noticing that the surface brightness of a source of light is independent of distance (as you know from elementary photography) one can see that the brightness of the night sky in Olbers' infinite (in space and time) Universe would be the same as that of the Sun (a typical star) since every possible line of sight would eventually intersect the surface of a star. This second approach to the question gives a predicted sky brightness that, while at least not infinite, is still too large by a factor of about 1013! Big Bang cosmologies explain this paradox because the Universe as we know it came into being a finite time ago (between 10-20 billion years). There are no stars more distant than the distance that light can travel in 10-20 billion years. Thus, we would need to truncate our simple-minded integral above at r = 20 billion light years, or so, avoiding the problems associated with integrating out to infinity. (d) The ages of things in the Universe As we discussed earlier in the course, we know of nothing in the Universe that is demonstrably older than the ages of the oldest star-clusters which we estimate to be about 13-16 billion years. This is consistent with the idea that the Universe came into being in the Big Bang about 10-20 billion years ago (allowing for some uncertainties in the age estimates).