DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the Dark Energy Task Force

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the Dark Energy Task Force REPORT OF THE DARK ENERGY TASK FORCE Andreas Albrecht, University of California, Davis Gary Bernstein, University of Pennsylvania Robert Cahn, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Wendy L. Freedman, Carnegie Observatories Jacqueline Hewitt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Wayne Hu, University of Chicago John Huth, Harvard University Marc Kamionkowski, California Institute of Technology Edward W. Kolb, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and The University of Chicago Lloyd Knox, University of California, Davis John C. Mather, Goddard Space Flight Center Suzanne Staggs, Princeton University Nicholas B. Suntzeff, Texas A&M University Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible. The Dark Energy Task Force (DETF) was established by the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (AAAC) and the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) as a joint sub-committee to advise the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation on future dark energy research. ii I. Executive Summary……………………………………………………………..1 II. Dark Energy in Context…………..……………………………………………..5 III. Goals and Methodology for Studying Dark Energy………………………….....7 IV. Findings of the Dark Energy Task Force……………………………………….11 V. Recommendations of the Dark Energy Task Force………………………….....21 VI. A Dark Energy Primer………………………………………………………….27 VII. DETF Fiducial Model and Figure of merit…………………………..................39 VIII. Staging Stage IV from the Ground and/or Space……...……..………………....45 IX. DETF Technique Performance Projections…………………………..................53 1. BAO………………………….....................................................................54 2. CL…………………………........................................................................60 3. SN…………………………........................................................................65 4. WL………………………….......................................................................70 5. Table of models...........................................................................................77 X. Dark Energy Projects (Present and Future) ………………...…………….….....79 XI. References…………………………………........................................................89 XII. Acknowledgments…………………………........................................................91 XIII. Technical Appendix...…………………………...................................................93 XIV. Logistical Appendix…..………………………..................................................123 iii iv I. Executive Summary Over the last several years scientists have accumulated conclusive evidence that the Universe is expanding ever more rapidly. Within the framework of the standard cosmological model, this implies that 70% of the universe is composed of a new, mysterious dark energy, which unlike any known form of matter or energy, counters the attractive force of gravity. Dark energy ranks as one of the most important discoveries in cosmology, with profound implications for astronomy, high-energy theory, general relativity, and string theory. One possible explanation for dark energy may be Einstein’s famous cosmological constant. Alternatively, dark energy may be an exotic form of matter called quintessence, or the acceleration of the Universe may even signify the breakdown of Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. With any of these options, there are significant implications for fundamental physics. The problem of understanding the dark energy is called out prominently in major policy documents such as the Quantum Universe Report and Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos, and it is no surprise that it is featured as number one in Science magazine’s list of the top ten science problems of our time. To date, there are no compelling theoretical explanations for the dark energy. In the absence of useful theoretical guidance, observational exploration must be the focus of our efforts to understand what the Universe is made of. Although there is currently conclusive observational evidence for the existence of dark energy, we know very little about its basic properties. It is not at present possible, even with the latest results from ground and space observations, to determine whether a cosmological constant, a dynamical fluid, or a modification of general relativity is the correct explanation. We cannot yet even say whether dark energy evolves with time. Fortunately, the extraordinary scientific challenge of the dark energy has generated outstanding ideas for an observational program that can greatly impact our understanding. A properly executed dark energy program should have as its goals to 1. Determine as well as possible whether the accelerating expansion is consistent with a cosmological constant. 2. Measure as well as possible any time evolution of the dark energy. 3. Search for a possible failure of general relativity through comparison of the effect of dark energy on cosmic expansion with the effect of dark energy on the growth of cosmological structures like galaxies or galaxy clusters. To recommend a program to reach these goals, the Dark Energy Task Force first requested input from the community. The community responded with fifty impressive white papers outlining current and future research programs on dark energy. Second, using these submissions and our own expertise, we performed extensive calculations so different approaches could be compared side-by-side in a standardized and quantitative manner. We then developed a quantitative “figure of merit” that is sensitive to the 1 properties of dark energy, including its evolution with time. Our extensive findings are based on these calculations. Using our figure of merit, we evaluated ongoing and future dark energy studies in four areas represented in the white papers. These are based on observations of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, Galaxy Clusters, Supernova, and Weak Lensing. One of our main findings is that no single technique can answer the outstanding questions about dark energy: combinations of at least two of these techniques must be used to fully realize the promise of future observations. Already there are proposals for major, long- term (Stage IV1) projects incorporating these techniques that have the promise of increasing our figure of merit by a factor of ten beyond the level it will reach with the conclusion of current experiments. What is urgently needed is a commitment to fund a program comprised of a selection of these projects. The selection should be made on the basis of critical evaluations of their costs, benefits, and risks. Success in reaching our ultimate goal will depend on the development of dark-energy science. This is in its infancy. Smaller, faster programs (Stage III1) are needed to provide the experience on which the long-term projects can build. These projects can reduce systematic uncertainties that could otherwise impede the larger projects, and at the same time make important advances in our knowledge of dark energy. We recommend that the agencies work together to support a balanced program that contains from the outset support for both the long-term projects and the smaller projects that will have more immediate returns. We call for a coordinated program to attack one of the most profound questions in the physical sciences. Our report provides a quantitative basis for prioritizing near-term and long-term projects. We are very fortunate that a wide range of new observations are possible that can drive significant progress in this field. Many researchers from both particle physics and astronomy are being drawn to these remarkable opportunities. It is a rare moment in the history of science when such clear steps can be taken to address such a profound problem. 1 In this Report we describe dark-energy research in Stages: Stage I represents dark-energy projects that have been completed; Stage II represents ongoing projects relevant to dark-energy; Stage III comprises near-term, medium-cost, currently proposed projects; Stage IV comprises a Large Survey Telescope (LST), and/or the Square Kilometer Array (SKA), and/or a Joint Dark Energy (Space) Mission (JDEM). 2 Our recommendations are based on the results of our modeling. They are discussed in detail in Section V. In summary, they are I. We strongly recommend that there be an aggressive program to explore dark energy as fully as possible, since it challenges our understanding of fundamental physical laws and the nature of the cosmos. II. We recommend that the dark energy program have multiple techniques at every stage, at least one of which is a probe sensitive to the growth of cosmological structure in the form of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. III. We recommend that the dark energy program include a combination of techniques from one or more Stage III projects designed to achieve, in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Olbers' Paradox
    Astro 101 Fall 2013 Lecture 12 Cosmology T. Howard Cosmology = study of the Universe as a whole • ? What is it like overall? • ? What is its history? How old is it? • ? What is its future? • ? How do we find these things out from what we can observe? • In 1996, researchers at the Space Telescope Science Institute used the Hubble to make a very long exposure of a patch of seemingly empty sky. Q: What did they find? A: Galaxies “as far as The eye can see …” (nearly everything in this photo is a galaxy!) 40 hour exposure What do we know already (about the Universe) ? • Galaxies in groups; clusters; superclusters • Nearby universe has “filament” and void type of structure • More distant objects are receding from us (light is redshifted) • Hubble’s Law: V = H0 x D (Hubble's Law) Structure in the Universe What is the largest kind of structure in the universe? The ~100-Mpc filaments, shells and voids? On larger scales, things look more uniform. 600 Mpc Olbers’ Paradox • Assume the universe is homogeneous, isotropic, infinte, and static • Then: Why don’t we see light everywhere? Why is the night sky (mostly) dark? Olbers’ Paradox (cont’d.) • We believe the universe is homogeneous and isotropic • So, either it isn’t infinite OR it isn’t static • “Big Bang” theory – universe started expanding a finite time ago Given what we know of structure in the universe, assume: The Cosmological Principle On the largest scales, the universe is roughly homogeneous (same at all places) and isotropic (same in all directions). Laws of physics are everywhere the same.
    [Show full text]
  • Friedmann Equation (1.39) for a Radiation Dominated Universe Will Thus Be (From Ada ∝ Dt)
    Lecture 2 The quest for the origin of the elements The quest for the origins of the elements, C. Bertulani, RISP, 2016 1 Reading2.1 - material Geometry of the Universe 2-dimensional analogy: Surface of a sphere. The surface is finite, but has no edge. For a creature living on the sphere, having no sense of the third dimension, there is no center (on the sphere). All points are equal. Any point on the surface can be defined as the center of a coordinate system. But, how can a 2-D creature investigate the geometry of the sphere? Answer: Measure curvature of its space. Flat surface (zero curvature, k = 0) Closed surface Open surface (posiDve curvature, k = 1) (negave curvature, k = -1) The quest for the origins of the elements, C. Bertulani, RISP, 2016 2 ReadingGeometry material of the Universe These are the three possible geometries of the Universe: closed, open and flat, corresponding to a density parameter Ωm = ρ/ρcrit which is greater than, less than or equal to 1. The relation to the curvature parameter is given by Eq. (1.58). The closed universe is of finite size. Traveling far enough in one direction will lead back to one's starting point. The open and flat universes are infinite and traveling in a constant direction will never lead to the same point. The quest for the origins of the elements, C. Bertulani, RISP, 2016 3 2.2 - Static Universe 2 2 The static Universe requires a = a0 = constant and thus d a/dt = da/dt = 0. From Eq.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Redshift Universe: Galaxies and the Intergalactic Medium
    The High Redshift Universe: Galaxies and the Intergalactic Medium Koki Kakiichi M¨unchen2016 The High Redshift Universe: Galaxies and the Intergalactic Medium Koki Kakiichi Dissertation an der Fakult¨atf¨urPhysik der Ludwig{Maximilians{Universit¨at M¨unchen vorgelegt von Koki Kakiichi aus Komono, Mie, Japan M¨unchen, den 15 Juni 2016 Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Simon White Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Jochen Weller Tag der m¨undlichen Pr¨ufung:Juli 2016 Contents Summary xiii 1 Extragalactic Astrophysics and Cosmology 1 1.1 Prologue . 1 1.2 Briefly Story about Reionization . 3 1.3 Foundation of Observational Cosmology . 3 1.4 Hierarchical Structure Formation . 5 1.5 Cosmological probes . 8 1.5.1 H0 measurement and the extragalactic distance scale . 8 1.5.2 Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) . 10 1.5.3 Large-Scale Structure: galaxy surveys and Lyα forests . 11 1.6 Astrophysics of Galaxies and the IGM . 13 1.6.1 Physical processes in galaxies . 14 1.6.2 Physical processes in the IGM . 17 1.6.3 Radiation Hydrodynamics of Galaxies and the IGM . 20 1.7 Bridging theory and observations . 23 1.8 Observations of the High-Redshift Universe . 23 1.8.1 General demographics of galaxies . 23 1.8.2 Lyman-break galaxies, Lyα emitters, Lyα emitting galaxies . 26 1.8.3 Luminosity functions of LBGs and LAEs . 26 1.8.4 Lyα emission and absorption in LBGs: the physical state of high-z star forming galaxies . 27 1.8.5 Clustering properties of LBGs and LAEs: host dark matter haloes and galaxy environment . 30 1.8.6 Circum-/intergalactic gas environment of LBGs and LAEs .
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a the Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology
    Appendix A The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology Lawrence M. Krauss and Robert J. Scherrer Abstract We demonstrate that as we extrapolate the current CDM universe forward in time, all evidence of the Hubble expansion will disappear, so that observers in our “island universe” will be fundamentally incapable of determining the true nature of the universe, including the existence of the highly dominant vacuum energy, the existence of the CMB, and the primordial origin of light elements. With these pillars of the modern Big Bang gone, this epoch will mark the end of cosmology and the return of a static universe. In this sense, the coordinate system appropriate for future observers will perhaps fittingly resemble the static coordinate system in which the de Sitter universe was first presented. Shortly after Einstein’s development of general relativity, the Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter proposed a static model of the universe containing no matter, which he thought might be a reasonable approximation to our low-density uni- verse. One can define a coordinate system in which the de Sitter metric takes a static form by defining de Sitter spacetime with a cosmological constant ƒ S W A B D 2 2 D 1 as a four-dimensional hyperboloid ƒ AB R ;R 3ƒ em- 2 D A B D bedded in a 5d Minkowski spacetime with ds AB d d ; and .AB / diag.1; 1; 1; 1; 1/;A;B D 0;:::;4: The static form of the de Sitter metric is then dr2 ds2 D .1 r2=R2/dt 2 s r2d2; s s s 2 2 s 1 rs =R L.M.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Galaxies
    The First Galaxies Abraham Loeb and Steven R. Furlanetto PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON AND OXFORD To our families Contents Preface vii Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Preliminary Remarks 1 1.2 Standard Cosmological Model 3 1.3 Milestones in Cosmic Evolution 12 1.4 Most Matter is Dark 16 Chapter 2. From Recombination to the First Galaxies 21 2.1 Growth of Linear Perturbations 21 2.2 Thermal History During the Dark Ages: Compton Cooling on the CMB 24 Chapter 3. Nonlinear Structure 27 3.1 Cosmological Jeans Mass 27 3.2 Halo Properties 33 3.3 Abundance of Dark Matter Halos 36 3.4 Nonlinear Clustering: the Halo Model 41 3.5 Numerical Simulations of Structure Formation 41 Chapter 4. The Intergalactic Medium 43 4.1 The Lyman-α Forest 43 4.2 Metal-Line Systems 43 4.3 Theoretical Models 43 Chapter 5. The First Stars 45 5.1 Chemistry and Cooling of Primordial Gas 45 5.2 Formation of the First Metal-Free Stars 49 5.3 Later Generations of Stars 59 5.4 Global Parameters of High-Redshift Galaxies 59 5.5 Gamma-Ray Bursts: The Brightest Explosions 62 Chapter 6. Supermassive Black holes 65 6.1 Basic Principles of Astrophysical Black Holes 65 6.2 Accretion of Gas onto Black Holes 68 6.3 The First Black Holes and Quasars 75 6.4 Black Hole Binaries 81 Chapter 7. The Reionization of Cosmic Hydrogen by the First Galaxies 85 iv CONTENTS 7.1 Ionization Scars by the First Stars 85 7.2 Propagation of Ionization Fronts 86 7.3 Swiss Cheese Topology 92 7.4 Reionization History 95 7.5 Global Ionization History 95 7.6 Statistical Description of Size Distribution and Topology of Ionized Regions 95 7.7 Radiative Transfer 95 7.8 Recombination of Ionized Regions 95 7.9 The Sources of Reionization 95 7.10 Helium Reionization 95 Chapter 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Authentification of Einstein's Static Universe of 1917
    Journal of Modern Physics, 2014, 5, 1995-1998 Published Online December 2014 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/jmp http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2014.518194 Authentification of Einstein’s Static Universe of 1917 Eli Peter Manor Israel Medical Association, Caesarea, Israel Email: [email protected] Received 2 October 2014; revised 1 November 2014; accepted 28 November 2014 Copyright © 2014 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Abstract Static cosmology has been abandoned almost a century ago because of phenomena which were unexplained at those times. However, that scenario can be revived with the modern findings of gravitational forces, coming from outside of the “luminous world”, tugging on our universe. These unexplained phenomena were: the redshift, the CMB, and Olbers’ paradox. All these can now be explained, as done in the present manuscript. 1) The observed redshift, which is commonly attri- buted to the Doppler effect, can also be explained as a gravitational redshift. Thus, the universe is not expanding, as has also been described in recent publications, thereby, making the “Big Bang” hypothesis unnecessary. 2) Gravitation is induced by matter, and at least some of the distant mat- ter is expected to be luminous. That electro-magnetic emission is extremely redshifted, and thus perceived by us as CMB. CMB is not necessarily a historic remnant related to the “Big Bang”, rather it is the redshifted light, coming from extremely distant luminous matter. 3) According to Olbers’ paradox, the night sky is expected to be bright.
    [Show full text]
  • Einstein's Conversion from His Static to an Expanding Universe
    Eur. Phys. J. H DOI: 10.1140/epjh/e2013-40037-6 THE EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL H Einstein’s conversion from his static to an expanding universe Harry Nussbaumera Institute of Astronomy, ETH Zurich, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland Received 19 September 2013 / Received in final form 13 November 2013 Published online 4 February 2014 c EDP Sciences, Springer-Verlag 2014 Abstract. In 1917 Einstein initiated modern cosmology by postulating, based on general relativity, a homogenous, static, spatially curved uni- verse. To counteract gravitational contraction he introduced the cos- mological constant. In 1922 Alexander Friedman showed that Albert Einstein’s fundamental equations also allow dynamical worlds, and in 1927 Georges Lemaˆıtre, backed by observational evidence, con- cluded that our universe was expanding. Einstein impetuously rejected Friedman’s as well as Lemaˆıtre’s findings. However, in 1931 he retracted his former static model in favour of a dynamic solution. This investiga- tion follows Einstein on his hesitating path from a static to the expand- ing universe. Contrary to an often advocated belief the primary motive for his switch was not observational evidence, but the realisation that his static model was unstable. 1 Introduction It has become a popular belief that Albert Einstein abandoned his static universe when, on a visit to Pasadena in January and February 1931, Edwin Hubble showed him the redshifted nebular spectra and convinced him that the universe was expand- ing, and the cosmological constant was superfluous. “Two months with Hubble were enough to pry him loose from his attachment to the cosmological constant” is just one example of such statements [Topper 2013].
    [Show full text]
  • Hubble's Cosmology
    2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conference, CCC-2 ASP Conference Series, Vol. 413, c 2009 Frank Potter, ed. Hubble’s Cosmology: From a Finite Expanding Universe to a Static Endless Universe A. K. T. Assis,1 M. C. D. Neves,1,2 and D. S. L. Soares3 1. Institute of Physics “Gleb Wataghin,” University of Campinas UNICAMP, 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil email: assis@ifi.unicamp.br 2. Departamento de F´ısica, Funda¸c˜ao Universidade Estadual de Maring´a — FUEM, 87020-900 Maring´a, PR, Brazil email: [email protected] 3. Departamento de F´ısica, ICEx, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, C. P. 702, 30123-970 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil email: dsoares@fisica.ufmg.br Abstract. We analyze the views of Edwin Hubble (1889–1953) as regards the large scale structure of the universe. In 1929 he initially accepted a finite ex- panding universe in order to explain the redshifts of distant galaxies. Later on he turned to an infinite stationary universe and a new principle of nature in order to explain the same phenomena. Initially, he was impressed by the agreement of his redshift-distance relation with one of the predictions of de Sitter’s cosmological model, namely, the so-called “de Sitter effect,” the phenomenon of the scattering of material particles, leading to an expanding universe. A number of observa- tional evidences, though, made him highly skeptical with such a scenario. They were better accounted for by an infinite static universe. The evidences he found were: (i) the huge values he was getting for the “recession” velocities of the neb- ulae (1,800 km s−1 in 1929 up to 42,000 km s−1 in 1942, leading to v/c = 1/7), with the redshifts interpreted as velocity-shifts.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1701.08720V1 [Astro-Ph.CO]
    Foundations of Physics manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Tests and problems of the standard model in Cosmology Mart´ın L´opez-Corredoira Received: xxxx / Accepted: xxxx Abstract The main foundations of the standard ΛCDM model of cosmology are that: 1) The redshifts of the galaxies are due to the expansion of the Uni- verse plus peculiar motions; 2) The cosmic microwave background radiation and its anisotropies derive from the high energy primordial Universe when matter and radiation became decoupled; 3) The abundance pattern of the light elements is explained in terms of primordial nucleosynthesis; and 4) The formation and evolution of galaxies can be explained only in terms of gravi- tation within a inflation+dark matter+dark energy scenario. Numerous tests have been carried out on these ideas and, although the standard model works pretty well in fitting many observations, there are also many data that present apparent caveats to be understood with it. In this paper, I offer a review of these tests and problems, as well as some examples of alternative models. Keywords Cosmology · Observational cosmology · Origin, formation, and abundances of the elements · dark matter · dark energy · superclusters and large-scale structure of the Universe PACS 98.80.-k · 98.80.E · 98.80.Ft · 95.35.+d · 95.36.+x · 98.65.Dx Mathematics Subject Classification (2010) 85A40 · 85-03 1 Introduction There is a dearth of discussion about possible wrong statements in the foun- dations of standard cosmology (the “Big Bang” hypothesis in the present-day Instituto de Astrof´ısica de Canarias, E-38205 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain Departamento de Astrof´ısica, Universidad de La Laguna, E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain arXiv:1701.08720v1 [astro-ph.CO] 30 Jan 2017 Tel.: +34-922-605264 Fax: +34-922-605210 E-mail: [email protected] 2 Mart´ın L´opez-Corredoira version of ΛCDM, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Hubble's Law and the Expanding Universe
    COMMENTARY COMMENTARY Hubble’s Law and the expanding universe Neta A. Bahcall1 the expansion rate is constant in all direc- Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 tions at any given time, this rate changes with time throughout the life of the uni- verse. When expressed as a function of cos- In one of the most famous classic papers presented the observational evidence for one H t in the annals of science, Edwin Hubble’s of science’s greatest discoveries—the expand- mic time, ( ), it is known as the Hubble 1929 PNAS article on the observed relation inguniverse.Hubbleshowedthatgalaxiesare Parameter. The expansion rate at the pres- between distance and recession velocity of receding away from us with a velocity that is ent time, Ho, is about 70 km/s/Mpc (where 1 Mpc = 106 parsec = 3.26 × 106 light-y). galaxies—the Hubble Law—unveiled the proportional to their distance from us: more The inverse of the Hubble Constant is the expanding universe and forever changed our distant galaxies recede faster than nearby gal- Hubble Time, tH = d/v = 1/H ; it reflects understanding of the cosmos. It inaugurated axies. Hubble’s classic graph of the observed o the time since a linear cosmic expansion has the field of observational cosmology that has velocity vs. distance for nearby galaxies is begun (extrapolating a linear Hubble Law uncovered an amazingly vast universe that presented in Fig. 1; this graph has become back to time t = 0); it is thus related to has been expanding and evolving for 14 bil- a scientific landmark that is regularly repro- the age of the Universe from the Big-Bang lion years and contains dark matter, dark duced in astronomy textbooks.
    [Show full text]
  • Static Universe Evelyn Martinez College of Dupage
    ESSAI Volume 16 Article 25 Spring 2018 Static Universe Evelyn Martinez College of DuPage Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.cod.edu/essai Recommended Citation Martinez, Evelyn (2018) "Static Universe," ESSAI: Vol. 16 , Article 25. Available at: https://dc.cod.edu/essai/vol16/iss1/25 This Selection is brought to you for free and open access by the College Publications at DigitalCommons@COD. It has been accepted for inclusion in ESSAI by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@COD. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Martinez: Static Universe Static Universe by Evelyn Martinez (Chemistry 1551) f you’re ever having a bad day in which you believe your existence is meaningless, just remember that in the grand scheme of things, it is. There’s over 400 billion stars in the Milky IWay alone, making the amount of stars in the entire universe completely overwhelming. Couple this with the fact that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate, and you really are nothing. However, human existence was not always so “minimal” given that about a century ago the common belief was that the universe was a finite being, excluded from any proliferation. In the early 20th century the common worldview held that the universe is static. It was the astronomical understanding of the day that the Milky Way was the extent of the universe for at the time the stars in the Milky Way were not moving in any systematic way. Albert Einstein expressed this general opinion in 1917 after Willem de Sitter produced equations that could describe a universe that was expanding, which meant a universe with a beginning.
    [Show full text]
  • Discovery of Hubble's Law: an Example of Type III Error
    1 Discovery of Hubble’s Law: an Example of Type III Error Ari Belenkiy Department of Statistics, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada Abstract Recently much attention has been paid to the discovery of Hubble’s law – the linear relation between the rate of recession of the distant galaxies and distance to them. Though we now mention several names associated with this law instead of one, the motivation of each remains somewhat obscure. As it is turns out, two major contributors arrived at their discoveries from erroneous reasoning , thus making a case for a Type III error. It appears that Lemaitre (1927) theoretically derived Hubble’s Law due to his choice of the wrong scenario of the Universe’s evolution. Hubble (1929) tested the linearity law not based on Lemaitre’s non-static model, but rather a cumbersome extension of de Sitter’s static theory proposed by Weyl (1923) and Silberstein (1924). Introduction Though a conference was called at Flagstaff in 2012 to celebrate the centennial of V. Slipher’s discovery of spectral shifts, little attention was given to the fact that in 1912 Slipher discovered only the blue-shift of the nearby Andromeda nebulae, which could hardly surprise (at least in hindsight) anyone familiar with gravitation theory. His truly surprising discovery of the spectral red-shifts, that later became a beacon for the discovery of the expansion of the Universe, occurred later, in 1913-1914. Thus, the proper date to celebrate is August 1, 1914, when the AAS met Slipher’s report with a standing ovation. Slipher While Slipher interpreted the Andromeda nebulae’s blue-shift as a Doppler Effect caused by the nebulae’s drift with respect to the Milky Way, as “we have no other interpretation for it,”1 later, on discovering the red-shifts, he again suggested that the 2 red-shifts might be due to the Milky Way’s motion relative to the system of spiral nebulae.
    [Show full text]