Study by the Universities of Bonn and Harvard questions a fundamental principle of cosmology
No matter where we look, the same rules apply everywhere in space: countless calculations of astrophysics are based on this basic principle. A recent study by the Universities of Bonn and Harvard, however, has thrown this principle into question. Should the measured values be confirmed, this would toss many assumptions about the properties of the universe overboard. The results are published in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics, but are already available online.
Since the big bang, the universe has swollen like a freshly formed raisin roll put in a warm place to rise. Until recently, it was thought that this increase in size was occurring evenly in all directions, as with a good yeast dough. Astrophysicists call this “isotropy”. Many calculations on the fundamental properties of the universe are based on this assumption. It is possible that they are all wrong – or at least, inaccurate – thanks to compelling observations and analyses of the scientists from the Universities of Bonn and Harvard.
For they have put the isotropy hypothesis to the test for the first time with a new method that allows more reliable statements than before. With an unexpected result: According to this method, some areas in space expand faster than they should, while others expand more slowly than expected. “In any case, this conclusion is suggested by our measurements,” states Konstantinos Migkas, from the Argelander Institute for Astronomy at the University of Bonn.
Migkas and his colleagues have developed a new, efficient isotropy test in their study. It is based on the observation of so-called galaxy clusters – in a sense, the raisins in the yeast bun. The clusters emit X-ray radiation that can be collected on Earth (in this case, this was done by the satellite-based telescopes Chandra and XMM-Newton). The temperature of the galaxy clusters can be calculated based on certain characteristics of the radiation. Also, their brightness can be measured. The hotter they are, the brighter they glow.
In an isotropic universe, a simple rule applies. The further away a celestial object is from us, the faster it moves away from us. From its speed, we can therefore deduce its distance from us, regardless of the direction in which the object lies. At least that’s what we thought until now. “In reality, however, our brightness measurements seem to disagree with the above distance calculation,” Migkas emphasizes.
This is because the amount of light that reaches the earth decreases with increasing distance. So, anyone who knows the original luminosity of a celestial body and its distance knows how bright it should shine in the telescope image. And it is precisely at this point that scientists have come across discrepancies that are difficult to reconcile with the isotropy hypothesis: that some galaxy clusters are much fainter than expected. Their distance from Earth is probably much greater than calculated from their speed. And for some others, however, the opposite is the case.
“There are only three possible explanations for this,” states Migkas, who is doing his doctorate in the research group of Prof. Dr. Thomas Reiprich at the Argelander Institute. “Firstly, it is possible that the X-ray radiation, whose intensity we have measured, is attenuated on its way from the galaxy clusters to Earth. This could be due to as yet undiscovered gas or dust clouds inside or outside the Milky Way. In preliminary tests, however, we find this discrepancy between measurement and theory not only in X-rays but also at other wavelengths. It is extremely unlikely that any kind of matter nebula absorbs completely different types of radiation in the same way. But we won’t know for sure for several months.”
A second possibility are so-called “bulk flows”. These are groups of neighboring galaxy clusters that move continuously in a certain direction – for example, due to some structures in space that generate strong gravitational forces. These would therefore attract the galaxy clusters to themselves and thus change their speed (and thus also their derived distance). “This effect would also mean that many calculations on the properties of the local universe would be imprecise and would have to be repeated,” explains Migkas.
The third possibility is the most serious: What if the universe is not isotropic at all? What if – metaphorically speaking – the yeast in the galactic raisin roll is so unevenly distributed that it quickly bulges in some places while it hardly grows at all in other regions? Such an anisotropy could, for example, result from the properties of the mysterious “dark energy”, which acts as an additional driving force for the expansion of the universe. However, a theory is still missing that would make the behavior of the Dark Energy consistent with the observations. “If we succeed in developing such a theory, it could greatly accelerate the search for the exact nature of this form of energy,” Migkas is certain.
The current study is based on data from more than 800 galaxy clusters, 300 of which were analysed by the authors. The remaining clusters come from previously published studies. The analysis of the X-ray data alone was so demanding that it took several months. The new satellite-based eROSITA X-ray telescope is expected to record several thousand more galaxy clusters in the coming years. At the latest then it will become clear whether the isotropy hypothesis really has to be abandoned.
###
A universe inferred from signals of unknown fidelity. All that we know for certain, is the near-frame observations made at the edge of our solar system.
What if much of what we witness, especially at what we think are great distances, is just some sort of illusion that we don’t know yet how it operates? Maybe some of the ancient religions and philosophies should be given more credit, such as the ancient Sanskrit Vedas who had one version of the concept Maya being part of a larger illusion, concealing truth. In later Vedic texts and modern literature dedicated to Indian traditions, Maya connotes a “magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem”. I am sure they must have been gazing out on the stars when they wrote up their versions of their reality and some things maybe sunk in unconsciously.
Once we know what the true parameters are, and what is actually happening might shed light on what is really going on with the universe and how it all works. The fact that we are still guessing which hypothesis may make more sense than others is a sure sign we really don’t yet fully understand, and why we must have somewhat of an open mind as to new ways of thinking about things. One simple discovery has the ability to completely upend everything we think we might know. We will all probably have to be dragged along, kicking and screaming, but that seems to be how science progresses.
A very simple analogy would be a terrestrial mirage, but to ancient man who didn’t understand light refraction, it would have seemed really miraculous or perhaps even evil omens. What they thought doesn’t really matter to what is actually going on. Same for the present, if we don’t fully yet understand the dynamics of how everything is happening. I am sure we don’t know everything yet, and if history is any guide, then it will take someone to postulate a new hypothesis, take flak for a quarter century as a quack, and then finally be vindicated in the end when everyone finally understands. This is how science has rolled since the ancient Egyptians/Greeks right up to Einstein and beyond, because of group think and the science (religion) is settled BS.
This is the dilemma of climate science presently, and presents a huge danger to mankind, since if we start making public policy based upon fanciful thinking about climate, then we may make huge blunders to the economy and welfare of humanity, just like we might be making a huge mistake relying on the health experts to having the economy shut down because of their only focus being health and not the big picture of life is for the living. Cutting off our nose to spite our face…
My old professor of astronomy, the late Dr. Jason Nassau at what was then Case Institute of Technology, would revel in these latest findings.
At the time that as an engineering student I took his one undergraduate course in astronomy in the late 1950’s, he was the first chair of the department of astronomy and later became Professor Emeritus. He was a pioneer in the study of galactic structure and knew both Fred Hoyle and George Gamow personally.
Besides fascinating information about the universe, the main “take-away” we all got from his class was: 1) man will always quest for knowledge about the world and the universe, and 2) each new discovery will open up a new area of knowledge that we hadn’t known existed before. We will never know it all!
In the current environment of computer models and “experts” this message is as important today as it was then. Honest scientists own up to the limits of their knowledge. Our trust in “experts” needs to be based on their honesty.
The Magisters Ludi shall continue spinning beads ad infinitum…
Lee Smolin’s TIME as fundamental and SPACE contingent and emergent solves difficulties for me. The past is infinite and the future is eternal. Then Poincaré recurrence theorem requires everything that can happen to have happened many times. Charles Sanders Peirce’s principles become obvious.
how could there be stars or planets IF every point in the universe is moving away from all other points?
Everything is still there…just increasingly further apart, like a dot pattern on a balloon being blown up.
If the universe is ‘expanding’….how could ‘accretion account for the formation of stars and planets?
A constant battle between energy and matter with gravity acting as referee.
Just when you think that you have all the answers, new questions will arise.
Well, that’s a bit radical. Changing a theory to fit the facts – it cannot be. Just change the facts to fit the theory there is a tried and test method for this it’s called homogenization.
“Standard Candles” – ugh.
It is nothing short of arrogance that makes scientists so sure of something they cannot directly study. Take the Type Ia Super Nova – an incredibly important “standard candle”. They built models to show how their guesses at Type Ia work – so its now settled science – move on nothing to see here.
Its just my hunch my you, I can’t directly study a population of Super Nova Type Ia either, but I am willing to bet they are a lot more diverse and variable then the “models” are programmed for. For one simple point, the amount of metals in the universe continually increase (in astronomy a ‘metal’ is anything bigger than Helium). So all stars in the early universe had less metals in them, and the ones that form later on have progressively more – at least on average. How does this affect the size, density, collapse, or brightness of the super nova? Well, the models don’t know so it isn’t important.
How does spin affect the super nova? What if it makes it brighter on the axis than around the equator? Oops.
So pretending that we know the expansion rate of the universe to any ‘great certainty’ is a joke. The question is not “Why is the universe expanding faster” but “Is the universe expanding faster”? If I were an astronomer, I would be looking into the assumptions used to construct the expansion rate and the ‘certainty’ of it.
I actually agree with the non-isotropic expansion hypothesis – it makes sense to me that the universe is not some perfect sphere of expanding space-time but instead a weird pattern – likely chaotic – of space time that was imparted with different rates of expansion.
You can keep your Dark Energy – I will believe it when someone finds it. Dark Matter? Well now, that’s another thing, we sort of need something to keep galaxies stuck together so there is actually evidence of that.
“There are only three possible explanations for this,” states Migkas.
–
The big bang and the age/edge of the universe always miss the fundamental point that there must be something before both events.
And that if an event occurred once it is quote possible that it will happen again.
–
Thus there are no possible, provable answers with our current state of knowledge.
–
A simple explanation of some of the peripheral phenoma is that other big bangs are occurring all the time and that what we are witnessing is the intrusion of other big bangs onto ours.
–
“However; an ageless Universe would have already consumed all the Hydrogen, all the stars would have died and we wouldn’t be here to notice. So, as an existence proof, that we occupy an ageless Universe can be precluded.”
–
Concepts are tricky things.
There is a difference between a finite universe, an infinite universe and an ageless universe.
The very fact that we have time means that the the infinite universe may exist in an everlasting universe but not that things are ageless in the universe that we permit ourselves to imagine.
–
Just think; If this were a paper that indicated that based on the initial evidence, the claim that human activity is causing climate change may be falsified soon, the authors would be viciously attacked from all angles and in all kinds of media.
Really, considering the great advances in technology since his time, and just how much the field of Astronomy has expanded in the interim, I think it is realty quite amazing that Edwin Hubble’s Cephid based conclusion has gone so long without being challenged in any meaningful way. Really a testament to the genius of the man.
I believe in infinity, and that there is something beyond/outside of the universe…
JPP
If the universe is infinite, it has no shape…
JPP
Gotta love observations.
“If the universe is infinite, it has no shape…”
—
It also would have no ‘outside’.
Why say “If” when you already said you “believe”?
If the universe is infinite, it has no shape…
Almost certainly not a cube
Uzurbrain asks a reasonable question “What are the odds we happen to be in the center of the whole damned universe?? VERY small??”
Yes, of course that’s right. But EVERY place in the universe is at the center of “the observable universe”. Since the whole thing is still such a baby (can’t wait to celebrate the 15 Billion year anniversary!) we can only see about the same amount of it every direction, an that’s the experience we (and any other observer anywhere) would have.
The “n” body problem, a generalization of the more famous three body problem (how three objects in space interacting through gravity will move around one another), has been solved. There is no unique solution, but the center of gravity remains unchanged.
If the n-body problem is valid on the universal scale (probably a “body” here is galaxy cluster scale), then there would be a fixed centre of mass to the universe. There would be the complication of the superimposed translation motion of the bodies from the the Big Bang, but it would seem to be logically out from the same centre. To NOT have uniform distribution of the masses that formed the galaxies and their clusters, would suggest some directional differential rates in the motion outward from the Big Bang (initiation of the event proceding from a point off-center??)
Mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. In the case of light consider a very active star forming burning region of the universe. Lots of photons being emitted. Each photon has a fixed amount of energy given by Plank’s equation.
We see see these photons arrive and they are red shifted to much longer wavelengths. We see each photon arrive with much less energy here than when it was emitted. Where did that missing energy go?
Do photons do work on space itself making space expand? I think this might be part of cosmological models but I never seen this question answered directly.