An Inhomogeneous World View

Modern – Benasque August 2010

Troels Haugbølle [email protected]

Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen

Collaborators: David Alonso Tamara Davis Juan Garcia-Bellido Benjamin Sinclair Julian Vicente We live in an Accelerating & Isotropic

Type Ia Supernovae

Perlmutter, Physics Today (2003) 0.0001 26 Supernova Cosmology Project 24 High-Z Supernova Search 0.001 22 fainter Calan/Tololo 25 empty 0.01 Supernova Survey 0 20 mass 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 1 density 18 24 0.1 with vacuum energy Relative brightness 16 1 23 without vacuum energy 14 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.1

22 Accelerating Universe magnitude

21 Decelerating Universe

20 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 Scale of the Universe (NASA Lambda archive) [relative to today's scale] The Standard ΛCDM model

The numbers t0 = 13.73 ± 0.13are Gyr impressive, Age of Universe -1 -1 H0 = 70.1 ± 1.3but km can s Mpc we trust Expansion rate the model ??? Ωb = 0.0462 ± 0.0015 Baryon density Ωc = 0.233 ± 0.013 Dark density ΩΛ = 0.721 ± 0.015 density

ns = 0.960 ± 0.014 Scalar spectral index 2 -9 ΔR = 2.46 ± 0.09 10 Fluctuation amplitude The Pillars of the ΛCDM model

• General Relativity

• The FRW model of a homogeneous universe

• Dark Matter & fields with strange equations of state The Pillars of the ΛCDM model

Modify • General Relativity

• The FRW model of a homogeneous universe

• Dark Matter & fields with strange equations of state The PillarsAlternative of the ScenarioΛCDM model

• General Relativity Modify the Geometry • The FRW model of a homogeneous universe

• Dark Matter & fields with strange equations of state Alternative scenario I Its Swiss Cheese

The filling factor of small voids is > 80%; light rays will go through small locally open

The universe is full of holes, like a Swiss Cheese Alternative scenario I Its Swiss ΛCheese ?

Since voids becomes bigger and bigger we get apparent acceleration

But randomising the positions of the voids removes the effect.

Swiss Cheese Stinks! Vanderveld et al 2008 Alternative scenario II We are living inside a giant

At the center the universe is locally open At infinity the universe is a flat Einstein de Sitter Universe several Giga How does a Central Void Help Explain Dark Energy?

● We observe in the redshift cone: Acceleration can be due to both spatial and temporal changes in the expansion rate. Maybe the Universe is tricking us? How does a Central Void Help Explain Dark Energy?

● We observe in the redshift cone: Acceleration can be due to both spatial and temporal changes in the expansion rate. Maybe the Universe is tricking us?

0.7 0.7

3/2 VOID 3/2 ΛCDM

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4 Hubble Parameter / (1+z) Hubble Parameter / (1+z) 0.3 0.3 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 Coordinate Distance [Gpc] Coordinate Distance [Gpc] How does a Central Void Help Explain Dark Energy?

● We observe in the redshift cone: Acceleration can be due to both spatial and temporal changes in the expansion rate. Maybe the Universe is tricking us?

0.6 ] 60 -1 0.4 Mpc

-1 55 0.2

-0.0 50

Acceleration -0.2 45 -0.4 LCDM Void model

-0.6 Hubble Parameter [km s 40 0 1 2 3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Redshift Distance [Mpc] Void Construction 101 The Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi Model

● Describes a space-time, which has spherical symmetry in the spatial dimensions, but with time and radial dependence

● Defining an effective matter density and the Hubble rate as Void Construction 101 The Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi Model

● Describes a space-time, which has spherical symmetry in the spatial dimensions, but with time and radial dependence

● A “local analogy” to the Friedman equation can be derived Void Construction 101 The Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi Model

● Describes a space-time, which has spherical symmetry in the spatial dimensions, but with time and radial dependence

● A “local analogy” to the Friedman equation can be derived

where H0(r), the expansion rate at t0, and ΩM(r), the total matter density inside r at t0, uniquely describes our model. Functional form fixed due to gauge choice A simple model for the void

Void Size

Up to 10 % difference! Constraining LTB Models with Geometric Cosmological Data Constraining Cosmological Data

● Type Ia Supernovae: 307 SNe compiled by many different sources, and published as the UNION data set.

● Simple to do since we just fit against dL(z)

st ● 1 acoustic peak in the CMB: dC(zrec), sound horizon

● Radial Baryon Acoustic Oscilations:

● Sound horizon, and the longitudinal Hubble rate HL Fitting the Type Ia Supernovae The best fit model has no problems with Type Ia Sne,

It basically reproduces the standard ΛCDM z-dL relation.

SDSS Sne sits just on top

More high-z Sne could be decisive Fitting the 1st Peak in the CMB

● The fit to the first peak is ok - we did not try to fit all data

● LTB perturbation theory is needed to explain low l (ISW) Fitting the 1st Peak in the CMB For a more sophisticated analysis of the CMB look forward to Wessel Valkenburgs talk Tuesday the 17th.

● The fit to the first peak is ok - we did not try to fit all data

● LTB perturbation theory is needed to explain low l (ISW) Radial Baryon Acoustic Scale

● Acoustic oscillations are frozen sound waves and the physical size is known from early universe physics

● Measuring the correlation function along the line of sight gives a clean measure of HL(z)

arXiv: 0807.3551 Gaztañaga et al Radial Baryon Acoustic Scale

0.08 120 300

] 110 -1 250 100 Mpc

0.07 -1 90 200 80 70 150 (z) [km s L

0.06 H 60 Sound Horizon [Mpc] (z)/c L 100

H 50 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 sound Redshift Redshift 0.05 z = (1+z) r ! 0.04

0.03 ΛCDM LTB

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Redshift Scanning the Model Space

"35!

"35"

"34! 7 6 "34" !

"3.!

"3."

"3"! !" #" $" %" &" -. -. '" ()*+, /01 2

● Yellow: Everything, Blue: SNe Ia. Green: CMB. Purple: BAO

● The Type Ia Supernovae constrain Ωmaer

● CMB constrains the Hubble param, because Ωout=1 & ωb=const Scanning the Model Space

5 )

4 & 2 / 1 . 0 - 7 , ( + " ! 6 * 3 %

. $

!" #" $" %" &" !"!# !"$! !"$# !"%! !"%# !"&! !"&# -. -. '" ()*+, /01 2 !'(

● Yellow: Everything, Blue: SNe Ia. Green: CMB. Purple: BAO

● The SNe and BAO pushes the void size to > 2 Gpc

● Some tension between BAO and SNe (high-z SNe are useful) Best Fit and Marginalised Errors Conclusions From First Part

● An LTB model of a can convincingly fit a large set of current cosmological observations and do it as well as the ΛCDM model.

● The void model only contains 4 parameters: It is a simple model.

● The best fit void size is ~2.7±1 Gpc, approximately the size of the cold spot in the CMB, if it was near the surface of last scattering.

● Combining many small voids in a “swiss-cheese universe” does not seem to work Constraining Void Models with “non-geometric” measurements Using the CMB dipole to constrain our position in the void

● An off-center observer will see an extra dipole in the CMB because of different integrated expansion rates – i.e. – in different directions.

● Same effect for Supernovae, can be combined -1 ● For a large void the constraint is pretty tight ~ 40 Mpc h (Blomqvist & Mörtsell 2010) Using the Kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect

SUNYAEV-ZELDOCH Effect: If the cluster is moving CMB photons gain energy by compared to the CMB inverse Compton scattering we have an extra with hot electrons in a cluster Doppler component of Using the Kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect

Small and difficult to measure! The Induced Dipole for an Off-centered Cluster

Ç√ Ç√ Ç√

Different expansion histories => different redshifts! Forecasted kSZ for void models

Void model prediction

FRW prediction Future Bounds from ACT or SPT

● While the ACT and the SPT telescopes will make thousands of thermal SZ cluster observations we need follow up in X-rays, radio and/or optical for kSZ

● In the very first kSZ data release the LTB model could be definitively ruled out

Void Void 10 Clusters 100 Clusters

FRW FRW Using Cosmic reionization as a mirror

Slide from Robert Caldwell’s presentation at Cosmo 2008 The next frontier: Structure Formation & Perturbations

(Dunsby et al 2010)

(Alonso, Garcia-Bellido, TH, Vicente – 1008.xxxx)

PRELIMINARY! The next frontier: Structure Formation & Perturbations

(Dunsby et al 2010)

(Alonso, Garcia-Bellido, TH, Vicente – 1008.xxxx)

PRELIMINARY! Summary

● Void models, observationally, seem a real alternative to the standard model. While they break with the Copernican principle, they do not need dark energy.

● A void model with a size of ~2.7 Gpc yields a very good fit to observations constraining the geometry of the universe.

● There are many new observations and ways to tests the model related to structure, and to distortions of the CMB:

● CMB and large scale structure (More theory+simulations)

● Remote measurements of the CMB: The Kinetic Sunyaev Zeldovich effect (Apex, ACT, SPT, Planck)

● Spectral distortions in the CMB (FIRAS is almost good enough) Outlook

● The void model may be ruled out in the near future, just like the Swiss Cheese model was

● But given the quality of the observations today, people will keep testing inhomogeneous models – it is the next

natural step after FRW

● The void model may be wrong, but it helps in getting a

better understanding of the perturbed ΛCDM model

● Example:

● How are Ωmatter and ΩΛ biased by a ? How do we cope with the bias ? Using LTB to model the impact of a small void on Supernova Cosmology Sinclair, Davis & TH 2010

The last hole in the cheese Vanderveld et al 2008 Impact of a small void on Supernova Cosmology Radius of low-z cut (Mpc) 0 100 200 300 ● The LTB model is extended with Λ -0.9 10 ● We can then embed a small void – we -1.0 0 use 70 Mpc h-1 – in a LCDM universe Flat -1.1 -10 ● We construct a sample of 301 supernovae with z<1.7 w Curved -1.2 -20 % error ● When fitting a LCDM model to the mock -1.3 -30 data, the impact can be appreciable for w upcoming surveys -1.4 Void scale Best fit wCDM -40 ● It is essential to discard low redshift 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 low-z cut supernovae with z<0.02 for a <1% error Radius of low-z cut (Mpc) Radius of low-z cut (Mpc) 0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300 0.75 Best fit "CDM 6 0.74 ! 0.3000 0.0 "

0.73 Void scale 0.2998 4 Large -0.1 " 0.72 M 0.2996 ! impact ! 2 % error % error 0.71 on Λ 0.2994 -0.2

out 0.70 0 0.2992 !M

Void scale Best fit "CDM -0.3 0.69 0.2990 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 low-z cut Sinclair,low-z cut Davis & TH 2010 Can we measure geometry ??

● The shear to expansion ratio gives a normalised measure of inhomogeneity, with a straight forward theoretical interpretation

● Notice that HL= HT + ∂lnAHT Radial inhomogeneity ⇔ ε ≠ 0

● The strength of ε is that it can be measured in the future by combining radial BAO measurements (giving HL) and measurements of the distance (giving dA) Can we measure geometry ?? A void model from Chaotic Inflation Eternal inflation

non-perturbative jump

diffusion + drift

(Linde, Linde, Mezhlumian, PLB 345, 203, 1995) The Infloid = LTB Model

EdS Could the Cold Spot in the cosmic microwave background be an infloid ?

Cruz et al (a-ph/0603859) Approximately 2 Gpc comoving size