Dark energy: onus of proof reversed

[Note from Shaun: The following is a guest post by Boud Roukema. Boud is a professor at the Toruń Centre for Astronomy at Nicolaus Copernicus University. Boud is one of the coauthors of the papers on the pro-backreaction side of the debate I referred to in this post. Boud also blogs at Topological Acceleration, where the following post first appeared on 22 January this year.]

The simplest explanation for "dark energy" is that it measures recent evolution of average negative curvature. We think that it mainly represents the recent formation of cosmic voids on scales of tens of megaparsecs; these voids dominate scalar averaged quantities. In other words, the onus of proof has been reversed, in a quantified way: dark energy as something beyond classical general relativity should be disfavoured by Occam's Razor unless a relativistic inhomogeneous cosmological model is used. This seems so far to have largely gone under the radar...

Observationally, there's no disputing the existence of dark energy in the restricted sense of providing a good observational fit to several of the main cosmological observational datasets, modulo a rather unrealistic assumption of the model used in the fitting procedure. The assumption is that the class of possible spacetimes, i.e., solutions of the Einstein equation of general relativity, is the FLRW (Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker) family. The FLRW models require that after choosing a way to split up space and time (a foliation), the spatial slice (i.e., a 3-dimensional space) is homogeneous—the density is the same everywhere, so galaxies and voids cannot exist. In fact, cosmologists usually make a hack, modelling galaxies and voids by patching Newtonian gravity into an Einstein "background"—since using the Einstein equation is more tricky. This hack bypasses the basic problem without solving it.

Since in reality, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, the cosmic web and voids and supervoids exist beyond any reasonable doubt, the FLRW family should be expected to go wrong at recent epochs and at small (less than a few gigaparsecs) scales. And the small-scale, recent epoch is the only epoch at which a non-zero cosmological constant (or dark energy parameter Ω_Λ) can (at present) be observationally distinguished from a zero cosmological constant. So it happens that just where and when we can expect things to go wrong with FLRW, Ω_Λ suddenly appears, provided that we assume FLRW in our interpretation of the data despite expecting FLRW to be wrong! What is it that goes wrong? The picture above shows voids on the scales of a few tens of megaparsecs from the2dFGRS. From a relativistic space point of view, expansion rates are different in different regions. This also happens in the hack of adding Newtonian galaxy and void formation to Einsteinian expansion, but in that case the expansion is forced to be rigid, by assumption, preventing the Einstein equation from being applied correctly. Even when we interpret the observations from a rigid comoving space point of view, the numbers show that the ratio of the "peculiar velocities" of galaxies coming out of voids to the sizes of the voids is big: several hundred km/s divided by something like 10 Mpc, giving a few times 10 km/s/Mpc. This void peculiar expansion rate is not much smaller than the Hubble constant, which is about 70 km/s/Mpc. At an order of magnitude level, the expansion rate is definitely inhomogeneous. This is why interpreting the observations in terms of homogeneous expansion gives a big error.

In other words, unless we use a relativistic cosmological model that takes inhomogeneous curvature and virialisation into account, we cannot claim that the "detected" Ω_Λ is anything other than a structure formation parameter of a fit through cosmological data using an oversimplified fitting function. The second picture at the right shows that going from right (early times) to left (today), the amount of inhomogeneity (the virialisation fraction) grows from almost nothing to a big fraction of the total mass density today. Alternatively, if we ignore the growth in inhomogeneity, then we get Ω_Λ, interpreted from the data assuming homogeneity, growing from almost nothing to a big fraction (70%) of the total density today. If we ignore inhomogeneity, then miraculously dark energy appears instead!

Several relativistic structure formation cosmological models are available, though still in their infancy. However, what has been a little distracting from working on these is that some observational cosmologists thought that there existed a mathematical theorem—the Green and Wald formalism—showing that dark energy could not be a "fitting function" description of curvature and kinematical backreaction, the general-relativistic effects of treating both structure formation and expansion of the Universe together. This is why my colleagues and I had to publish a clarification showing the main flaws in this reasoning. In particular, the Green and Wald formalism is not applicable to the main relativistic structure formation cosmological models that have been proposed in the research literature over the past five years or so. Green and Wald's formalism remains an interesting contribution to the field of relativistic cosmology, but it does not "save" dark energy from being anything more exotic than spatially averaged, evolving negative curvature. After a few tweets [1] [2], a blog entry, and a reblog we can get back to work. :)

Cosmological Backreaction

In the last few weeks a disagreement has surfaced at the arXiv. The disagreement concerns whether backreaction is important in cosmology.

To summarise my take on the whole thing, it seems to me that the two sides of this disagreement are, to a large extent, talking past each other. I don't doubt that there is genuine disagreement where definitions overlap, but, at least to my present understanding, much of the disagreement actually just lies in what should be considered "backreaction". There seems to be a secondary, though related, disagreement concerning whether one should start with observations and use them to methodically construct a model of the universe, or instead start with a model of the universe and then see whether it fits the data. The side that favours first constructing the model would say that a model without any backreaction is entirely self-consistent and fits the data well enough not to be concerned. To the other side this still doesn't prove that backreaction must be negligible.

But OK, what is cosmological backreaction?

Backreaction itself is quite a common term in physical sciences.

In a surprising proportion of calculations about nature we would normally analyse some sort of interesting object, existing within some external system, but in a scenario where the behaviour of the object has no measurable influence on the overall system. Then, calculating predictions essentially amounts to two independent steps: firstly, calculating what the background system is doing, and then calculating how the interesting object will react to that.

However, this type of scenario isn't always accurate. When it isn't, the background system could be described as "backreacting" to the object's behaviour.

Mysterious news stories about supervoids

Early last week a news story broke about a supervoid. The supervoid was claimed to be a number of things, from an explanation for "the cold spot", to the biggest "structure" yet found in the universe, to just "mysterious".

Whether it is a structure or not entirely depends on how you define structure, so I won't discuss whether it is or isn't a structure. However, if you do allow it to be a structure, it isn't the biggest structure yet found. It's hard to do a like for like comparison with other "superstructures". However, there are regions of the universe where the density of observable matter is smaller, for a wider range, so by any definition I can think of, this structure has been beaten.

The cold spot is a region in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that has a temperature profile that is somewhat unexpected (due to a combination of a cold central spot and a hot ring around it). Whether this void could be the explanation of the cold spot has been explained in this paper and this blog post by Sesh. It can't, not without a significant deviation from General Relativity (and a sufficiently big deviation that it would be very strange that these deviations haven't been seen elsewhere). It's worth stressing right now that it isn't the coldness of the cold spot that is itself anomalous. This is a subtle point so just about anyone who says "the cold spot is too cold" can be forgiven for the mistake, but in reality the cold spot isn't too cold. In fact it has more or less exactly the coldness expected of the coldest spot in the CMB. What isn't expected is that there will be a hot ring around such a cold spot. Actually, it's worth stressing further that it isn't even the hot ring that is, by itself, anomalous. Such a hot ring is also quite likely in the CMB. The anomalousness of the cold spot is caused by the fact that both of these features are present, right next to each other. I explained this curiosity in this blog entry, but it is worth repeating.

I want to address now quickly the claim that this supervoid is mysterious. The quantitative source for the claim that the void is mysterious comes from the claim in the paper about the void that it is "at least a \(3.3 \sigma\) fluctuation" and that "\(p=0.007\) ... characterizing the cosmic rarity of the supervoid". However (and this is the crucial point) what these numbers quantify is the probability that something as extreme as this void could exist at a random point of the universe (or, more precisely, a random point within the part of the universe seen by a particular observational survey). What these numbers do not quantify is the probability that the whole survey could have seen something this extreme. These are two separate statistical things and the relevant one for claiming mysteriousness is the second one. I'll try to estimate this probability.

I don't have any reason to doubt the numbers they quote for the probability that this void could exist at a random line of sight in the survey. If I use the quoted radius, density contrast and redshift of the void I also calculate it to be a \(\sim 3\sigma\) fluctuation in the matter field. This can be done first by calculating the root-mean-square of the density (contrast) field of the universe when it is smoothed over a particular radius. This quantity, "\(\sigma_R\)", is commonly used in large scale structure. Then, the ratio of the density (contrast) of the obtained void and the \(\sigma_R\) value for the radius of the void gives you \(\sim 3.5\) so I trust that the more sophisticated analyses in the paper are correct, or at least aren't obtaining wildly wrong answers. If one assumes (probably validly) that the large scale density field of the universe has a Gaussian distribution this can be translated into a probability that the observed fluctuation could occur at any random position in the universe.

So, the crucial question that now needs to be asked before calling this supervoid mysterious is whether the survey used to find it saw enough of the universe to witness this rare an event. The size of the void in the sky is approximately \(10\) degrees (as quoted in their abstract). This means it has an area of approximately \(100\) square degrees on the sky. The void was found using data from the WISE and 2MASS all-sky surveys. However the whole sky isn't usable for robust analysis due to foregrounds, the galaxy, etc. Thankfully for our goal, the authors of the supervoid paper also wrote a paper about the catalogue of galaxies they used to find the supervoid and in the abstract of that paper they estimate that their catalogue covers 21,200 square degrees of the sky.

What does this mean when we pull it all together? Well, the catalogue used to find the 100 square degree thing, covered 21,200 square degrees of the sky. Therefore, there were \(\sim 21200/100 \simeq 200\) independent \(100\) square degree patches of the sky seen by the survey. Using their own probability for this void existing at any particular line of sight of \(p=0.007\) this gives a very approximate estimate of the expected number of under-dense regions of the universe at least as extreme as the "mysterious" supervoid. The answer is \(N \sim 200*0.007 = 1.4\).

So, not only is the supervoid not actually mysterious, it is in fact more or less exactly in line with naive expectations!

Twitter: @just_shaun

Combined constraints from BICEP2, Keck, Planck and WMAP on primordial gravitational waves

This week, the joint analysis of BICEP2 (+ BICEP2's successor Keck) and Planck has finally arrived. The result is more or less what was expected, which is that what BICEP2 saw last year in the B-mode polarisation signal of the CMB was not actually primordial gravitational waves (as had originally been hoped and claimed), but was unfortunately actually due to dust in the Milky Way. Such is life. Though we did of course have the best part of a year to come to grips with this reality.

Combined constraint on \(r\) from polarisation and temperature measurements (in blue). Freshly digitised in the spirit of modern cosmology. Gives \(r\lesssim 0.09\) at \(95\%\) confidence.

As a result of subtracting the dust component in BICEP2/Keck's signal (obtained by comparing the measurements from BICEP2/Keck and Planck), the final constraint on the "tensor to scalar ratio" (or \(r\)) from the BICEP2/Keck measurement is that \(r<0.12\) at \(95\%\) confidence. This \(r\) parameter essentially measures the amplitude of a primordial gravitational wave signal, so the net result is that the subtraction of dust takes BICEP2's high significance measurement of non-zero \(r\) and converts it into simply an upper bound.

I've seen some comments on blogs, in media, on Twitter, etc that there is still evidence of some sort of excess signal in BICEP2/Keck over and above the dust, but I can't see any evidence of that in any of their published results. The final likelihood for \(r\) (shown above in black) shows a plot consistent with \(r=0\) at less than \(1-\sigma\) (i.e. \(r=0\) is less than one standard deviation away from the maximum likelihood value). In fact, it would seem that the measurement of the dust that has been obtained by comparing BICEP2/Keck's measurements with Planck's measurements has been so good that the B-mode constraint on \(r\) from BICEP2/Keck is now competitive with (or even slightly better than) the constraint arising from temperature measurements of the CMB. This was always going to happen at some point in the future and it seems that this future has now arrived.

Comparing Planck's noise and dust to BICEP2

In case anyone reading this doesn't recall, back in March an experiment known as BICEP2 made a detection of something known as B-mode polarisation in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This was big news, mostly because this B-mode polarisation signal would be a characteristic signal of primordial gravitational waves. The detection of the effects of primordial gravitational waves would itself be a wonderful discovery, but this potential discovery went even further in the wonderfulness because the likely origin of primordial gravitational waves would be a process known as inflation which is postulated to have occurred in the very, very early universe.

The B-mode polarisation in the CMB as seen by BICEP2. Seen here for the first time in blog format without the arrows. Is it dust, or is it ripples in space-time? Don't let Occam's razor decide!

I said at the time, and would stand by this now, that if BICEP2 has detected the effects of primordial gravitational waves, then this would be the greatest discovery of the 21st century.

However, about a month after BICEP2's big announcement a large crack developed in the hope that they had detected the effects of primordial gravitational waves and obtained strong evidence for inflation. The problem is that light scattering of dust in the Milky Way Galaxy can also produce this B-mode polarisation signal. Of course BICEP2 knew this and had estimated the amplitude of such a signal and found it to be much too small to explain their signal. The crack was that it seemed they had potentially under-estimated this signal. Or, more precisely, it was unclear how big the signal actually is. It might be as big as the BICEP2 signal, or it might be smaller.

Either way, the situation a few months ago was that the argument BICEP2 made for why this dust signal should be small was no longer convincing and more evidence was needed to determine whether the signal was due to dust, or primordial stuff.

The Cold Spot is not particularly cold

(and it probably isn't explained by a supervoid; although it is still anomalous)

In the cosmic microwave background (CMB) there is a thing that cosmologists call "The Cold Spot". However, I'm going to try to argue that its name is perhaps a little, well, wrong. This is because it isn't actually very cold. Although, it is definitely notably spotty.

That's the cold spot. It even has its own Wikipedia page (which really does need updated).

Why care about a cold spot?

This spot has become a thing to cosmologists because it appears to be somewhat anomalous. What this means is that a spot just like this has a very low probability of occurring in a universe where the standard cosmological model is correct. Just how anomalous it is and how interesting we should find it is a subject for debate and not something I'll go into much today. There are a number of anomalies in the CMB, but there is also a lot of statistical information in the CMB, so freak events are expected to occur if you look at the data in enough different ways. This means that the anomalies could be honest-to-God signs of wonderful new physical effects, or they could just be statistical flukes. Determining which is true is very difficult because of how hard it is to quantify how many ways in which the entire cosmology community have examined their data.

However, if the anomalies are signs of new physics, then we should expect two things to happen. Firstly, some candidate for the new physics should come up, which can create the observed effect and produce all of the much greater number of other measurements that fit the standard cosmological model well. If this happens, then we would look for additional ways in which the universe described by this new model differs from the standard one, and look for those effects. Secondly, as we take more data, we would expect the unlikeliness of the anomaly to increase. that is, it should become more and more anomalous.

In this entry, I'm not going to be making any judgement on whether the cold spot is a statistical fluke or evidence of new physics. What I want to do is explain why, although it still is anomalous, and is definitely a spot, the cold spot isn't very cold. Then, briefly, I'll explain why, if it is evidence of new physics, that new physics isn't a supervoid.

So, what is the cold spot, and why is it anomalous?

Preliminary: Cosmological impacts of BICEP2 + Planck

If anybody is interested, I'm currently drip-tweeting some of the constraints one can obtain from considering Planck and BICEP2 data together. BICEP2 did do a bit of this in their paper, but they only considered specific scenarios. They were also often a bit coy about the implications of the combined analysis. I'll try not to be ;-).

The results should only be seen as indicative, these aren't published, and never will be in this form (maybe they could be cited if used in a paper though!). They were provided to me by Sussex Uni's resident obtaining-cosmology-from-the-CMB expert Antony Lewis, after a hurried Tuesday adding the BICEP2 data to the Planck cosmology pipeline (i.e. CosmoMC) and may contain mistakes.

Antony has himself also made some of these results public at the Cosmo Coffee website.

Questions here, or on Twitter are most welcome. If you want to see specific cosmologies, I'll do my best to show them (if I have them), or ask Antony very nicely to provide them (no guarantees, of course).

You can find my Twitter account here: @just_shaun. Feel free to share!

"A major discovery", BICEP2 and B-modes

[Added note (on Monday): Well, wow, the rumours were, if anything, understated. I'm happy to go on record that, unless a mistake has been made, this is the greatest scientific discovery of the 21st century, and may remain so even once the century is over. I (and others) will write many more detailed summaries of what was observed over time, but BICEP2 have announced a discovery of primordial B-modes, which is extremely strong evidence of cosmological inflation (if it turns out to be scale invariant, inflation is as true as most accepted science). Matt Strassler has a good hastily written summary here. As does Liam McAllister at Lubos Motl's blog, here. Of course, this is just one experiment and maybe they've made a mistake, but the results look very robust at the moment.

Congratulations on being alive today readers! We just learned about how particles work at energies \(10^{13}\) times greater than even the LHC can probe, and about what was happening at a time much, much less than a nanosecond after the beginning of the Big Bang.]

............................................

[Added note (on Sunday): It seems highly probable that these rumours are essentially true. Although the precise details of the results aren't yet public, the BICEP2 PI, John Kovac, has sent a widely distributed email with the following information: Data and scientific papers with results from the BICEP2 experiment will go public and be viewable here at 2:45pm GMT on Monday. At the same time a technical webcast will begin at this address.

It's going to be an exciting day!]

.......................................................

The cosmology rumour mill exploded today. Harvard Astrophysics have issued a press release stating that, on Monday, they will announce a "major discovery".

This is the only hard-evidence of anything interesting on the way and it could be an announcement of anything that fits under the label of "astrophysics". This is important to keep in mind. However, for one reason or another (that is hard to nail down), cosmologists are suggesting that it is going to be about cosmology. The speculation is that it will be about the BICEP2 experiment, which has been measuring the polarisation in the CMB. The speculation is that BICEP2 have seen primordial "B-mode" polarisation.

If this speculation is true, this would be a result immense in its significance.

Primordial B-modes would be a smoking gun signal of primordial gravitational waves. This, alone, makes such a discovery important. Gravitational waves have not yet been observed, but are a prediction from general relativity. Therefore, such a discovery would be on the same level of significance as the discovery of the Higgs particle. We were almost certain it would be there, but it is good to finally see it.

However, the potential significance of such a result goes further because these primordial gravitational waves would need a source. The theory of cosmological inflation would/could be such a source. Inflation is a compelling theory, not without some problems, for how the universe evolved in its very earliest stages. If it occurred when the universe had a large enough temperature, it would generate primordial gravitational waves large enough to tickle the CMB enough to make these B-modes visible in the polarisation. As of yet, inflation has passed quite a few observational tests, but nothing has been seen that could be described as smoking gun evidence. A spectrum of primordial gravitational waves would very nearly be such a smoking gun. If the spectrum was scale invariant (i.e. if the gravitational waves have the same amplitude on all distance scales) that would be a smoking gun for inflation and accolades, Nobel Prizes, etc, etc, would flow accordingly.

All of this is just speculation, but some of it does seem to be coming from reputable sources. And some of my colleagues have been talking about tip-offs from people who wish to remain anonymous, so I figured I'd collect all the speculation I know of here in a post (let me know if I've missed anything):

• Richard Easther, on the rumour and its implications
• Bruce Bassett, on the probability that the rumours are true
• The Guardian (the first major news source to pick up on this) with comments from various prominent cosmologists
• Jester/Resonaances on the context (i.e. earlier constraints on primordial B modes)
• Lubos Motl, amongst other things, explains what B mode polarisation actually is
• Philip Gibbs, at viXra log
• Peter Coles, amongst other things, on why gravitational waves mean there should be B-modes in the CMB polarisation
• Sesh Nadathur on why, amongst other things, the rumoured measurement would appear to be in tension with results from Planck and WMAP

• Sean Carroll has written a very thorough overview of the implications for cosmology (if the rumours are true).

The PI of BICEP2, John Kovac, gave a talk at the annual COSMO conference last year that had some pretty ambitious claims for how sensitive BICEP2 and similar experiments were going to be, so... well... we'll know on Monday. It should also be noted that, although the existence of these gravitational waves is a prediction of inflation, their amplitude is a free parameter and an amplitude this big is potentially a little surprising (for me, lower temperature inflation models just seem more compelling, others might disagree).

Twitter: @just_shaun

[Edit: The video of John Kovac's talk can be found here]

Cosmological perturbations post-Planck (conference)

Helsinki, as it looked when the Planck data was released, less than three months ago. (Image credit: Samuel Flender's facbook photos)

Hello people reading this (present and distant future). Next week, we're hosting a conference here in Helsinki. On balance, I enjoyed covering the last conference I attended (it was demanding, but rewarding). So, I'll cover this one too. This means, each day I'll try to write a summary of what I found interesting during the day's talks.

The last conference was very observationally based. It was hosted by ESA and was the first scientific conference after ESA released data (measured by the Planck satellite) on the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. The conference next week will be quite different. Next week, we'll mostly be theorists. Of course, there really isn't a cold, hard, dividing line between a "theorist" and an "observer", but nonetheless, this conference will be much more focussed on what the measurements from Planck (and other past and future experiments) mean for the universe and its laws. Whereas that last conference also focussed on what it is Planck actually measured (and how they measured it).

This is quite exciting. Planck's release was something of a bombshell, even if this was just because it seemed to strongly confirm the simplest cosmological model that was designed to fit all the previous data. People weren't (aren't?) so content with that model, and were hoping/expecting for something new that might show us where to look to replace it. However, even if theorists aren't, it seems that Planck is content with the model.

The theoretical cosmology community has now had three months, a quarter of a year, to digest these results. So this conference will be interesting, even just at the very least to see how the community is dealing with the shell-shock from March. However, it will be more interesting to see what models look good, which don't, and where people have adjusted their attentions from and to in this three month period. Should we still be interested in exotic particles potentially being present in the early universe? What about "monopoles" and "domain walls"? What inflationary models are still appealing and which are on their way out? Why is everyone suddenly talking about primordial magnetic fields? If the universe is a little asymmetric, what caused the asymmetry?

That's the sort of thing to be looking out for next week!

Take a look at the programme for the conference. Whether you are a member of the general public or another cosmologist, if there is anything you see that you are interested in let me know and I'll make sure to pay particular attention to that talk and summarise it here afterwards. Absent from reader's suggestions I will write about the things I generally find interesting, anything that might have some sort of human interest value and things that get a lot of discussion (either during the talk, or afterwards). The more you interact (whether you are an expert or a member of the public), the closer to what you find interesting my blogging will be.

The universe as seen by Planck - Days Three and Four II

[Continued from yesterday...]

In the first piece of this post I covered the implications of Planck for the paradigm of inflation. This piece covers the rest.

The anomalies

This is what the CMB would look like in an unphysical Bianchi universe. A worry for our physicality is that this unphysical Bianchi universe seems to fit the data better than a physical \(\Lambda\)CDM universe.

It would be impossible to provide an overview of this conference without mentioning the features and anomalies that Planck has chosen to draw significant attention to. I have a bunch of notes that I've written down that I might one day turn into a new blog post, but I'm not going to delve into them now.

These features and anomalies are clearly going to become a contentious issue in cosmology for the next few years. In fact, the words believer, atheist and agnostic were even being used by speakers during talks regarding whether the anomalies are real or statistical effects. Each time someone declared themselves an anomaly atheist or anomaly agnostic, someone in the audience inevitably spoke up and passionately defended the significance of the questioned anomaly.

The list of potential anomalies is long. There is the cold spot, the anomalously low quadrupole, the hemispherical asymmetry, the statistical difference between the odd and even multipoles at large scales, there is the dipole modulation, there is the general lack of power at large scales, there is the feature in the temperature power spectrum at small scales, the fact that the universe seems to be in an unphysical Bianchi model and there is the "axis of evil" (to name a few).

Pick your side. Atheist, believer or agnostic. The great anomaly wars of cosmology are about to begin (another inevitable consequence of an observational, rather than experimental science, I suppose - i.e. there is only a finite quantity of information available to us, so for some observables we can't just do the experiment again to check who is right).

What should we make of Planck vs SPT and Planck vs the local universe?

The universe as seen by Planck - Days Three and Four I

Sorry for the delay on this. I was pretty tired on Friday, travelling home on Saturday and doing physics on Sunday. I figured it would be better to write something with a little more care today.

Those who were following last week will know that on March 21 ESA finally released some cosmological results from the measurements they were taking with the Planck satellite. And, last week, they had their first scientific conference. I decided to blog about this. I had the initial ambition of one post for each day, but the conference dinner on Thursday beat me and all I got out was a brief teaser post. This post now will be comprised of a summary of what I found interesting on both Thursday and Friday, along with a summary of the whole conference at the end.

I hope you enjoy it (and thanks for the feedback during the week).

Highlights

• What has Planck told us about inflation?
• What should we make of Planck vs SPT and Planck vs the local universe?
• What is next for CMB science?

• Some final thoughts

What has Planck told us about inflation?

Slava Mukhanov. Cosmology can do what it wants, but Mukhanov's  predictions for inflation will remain unchanged. Somehow cosmology always seems to come back to him in the end. Will that last missing piece show up? Will primordial gravitational waves one day be detected? It's starting to look like a "no", but Mukhanov's heard that talk before. Time will tell...

The first talk on Thursday was about inflation, by another one of the scientists who helped found it. This was by Slava Mukhanov, another old-school Russian physicist. Mukhanov was one of the first to realise that inflation wouldn't just cause the universe to expand dramatically and to make it more homogeneous, it would also seed new fluctuations with a very small amplitude. These new, small, fluctuations arise from the stretching (and eventual amplification) of quantum fluctuations in the field driving inflation. This type of realisation was what took inflation from an interesting concept to a testable paradigm.

The universe as seen by Planck - Day Three (two rumours)

The conference dinner here is about to start (has already started), so I don't have time for a proper post. However, there were some very interesting rumours/revelations today so I'll write them down super-quickly. In increasing order of potential interest (note this post might be a bit technical, I'll explain all of this before the end of the weekend):

The feature at l=1700

A senior Planck figure gave a talk today on the features in the Planck angular power spectrum. Much of his talk was devoted to the apparent feature at \(l\simeq 1700\). In the 15 months worth of data that Planck has used to generate the cosmological results shown in their released papers, the statistical significance of this feature (when any feature is looked for) was \(\sim 3\sigma\). This was with a look elsewhere effect that took into account the possibility of the feature occurring at another \(l\) value.

What he let slip was that, when they analyse this same feature with the full temperature data set, the significance of the feature drops to \(\sim 2\sigma\).

Of course, not too much should be read into this because the additional data isn't quite as well understood as that first 15 months; however, its the same telescope looking at the same sky and foregrounds, so there shouldn't be too many complications. Note that this feature is out of the resolution range of Planck's polarisation capabilities, so the new temperature data is the only additional data we will get in the next data release.

Planck's data analysed on the SPT sky

One of the curiosities of the Planck release was that it seems to give cosmological results that are slightly discrepant with what the South Pole Telescope was giving. If Planck disagrees with BAO or supernovae, or galaxy clusters this is all interesting, but potentially the result of Planck and/or one of those other analyses getting it wrong. However, SPT is another CMB experiment, the fact that Planck and SPT are a bit discrepant is very confusing.

Perhaps SPT made a mistake and the CMB they measured is not the correct CMB?

The obvious way to test this is to analyse the Planck data on the same part of the sky that SPT measured. I overheard a conversation between lead figures in Planck, WMAP and SPT and it seems this is exactly what SPT have done (in unpublished work).

The result is striking.

They found a cosmology that agrees with SPT.

If true, this means that it isn't just Planck and SPT that are slightly discrepant, but different regions of Planck's sky.

What this means cosmologically is unsure. I'll speculate a bit tomorrow.

Power asymmetry

There was quite a bit of excitement over a plot that showed power asymmetry in different directions of the sky. I was going to write about it, but upon reflection, the excitement seems confusing. I'll try to explain the excitement and background before the end of the week.

[The final summary is now available here]

The universe as seen by Planck - Day Two

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the best probe we've yet found to study the early universe. The CMB's temperature is very nearly uniform. However this temperature does have very small anisotropies that can be used to study sound waves that existed in the primordial universe. The Planck satellite (an ESA funded experiment) has mapped these temperature anisotropies over the entire sky with the best resolution to date. Last month, Planck released its data and it immediately became the new benchmark for the testing of cosmological models and the measurement of cosmological parameters.

This week ESA is hosting the first conference since Planck released its data. The conference is at ESTEC in the Dutch town of Noordwijk. I am attending this conference and will be doing my best to write updates about what was discussed during the week.You can read my introductory post where I give my motivation for doing this, here.

The CMB is not just useful for studying the primordial universe. As soon as the CMB forms, everywhere in the universe, it travels freely, in every direction, at the speed of light. This means that, in every direction, the CMB we measure here on Earth today has travelled to us from a point billions of light years away. In principle, this makes the CMB not just a really good probe of the state of the universe where and when it was emitted, but also of everything it passed on its way to us.

This secondary use for the CMB turns out to be very useful and many of the highlights from Planck relate to the way in which the CMB interacts on its way to us. The existence of matter in the universe affects the CMB gravitationally. This causes the CMB to bend towards regions of over-density and away from regions of under-density. It also causes the CMB's temperature to shift as it falls into and out of over and under-dense regions. This first effect is known as lensing and one of Planck's most impressive results is a map of the locations of matter in the universe through this lensing effect. The second effect is known as the Sachs-Wolfe effect, something I've written about in some detail.

There is a third way that the CMB is significantly affected by the intervening universe. Within clusters of galaxies there is a lot of hot gas. If the CMB passes through a cluster it can scatter off electrons in this hot gas. The effect of this scattering on the CMB is known as the Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) effect. Therefore, we should be able to use the CMB to detect the lines of sight along which the most massive clusters lie.

We can. And Planck has.

The universe as seen by Planck - Day one

 I am currently attending the ESA run conference "The Universe as seen by Planck". I will be trying to write a summary each day of what I found interesting. To read about my motivation for this, please read yesterday's post. Below is the summary of the first day's talks. I apologise if the posts this week are overly technical. I don't have much time for writing these and this is the best I can do given the constraints. As always, if you don't understand, just ask questions in the comments.

Overall summary

Today was mostly about introducing the Planck experiment and its data. This is the first conference ESA has held since the data was released and in fact the first conference about Planck open to non-Planck scientists like myself at all. Therefore today was actually the first chance for the Planck collaboration to be honest about what their telescope has and has not been able to do. As a result, many of the talks that can lead to the most speculation will not come until tomorrow and Thursday. Still, there were some interesting things to come out of today. For example:

• The reasons why no polarisation data from the CMB were used in likelihood analyses this time
• (Not mentioned in a talk, but overheard from reliable sources) The reason no constraints on "\(g_\mathrm{NL}\)" were released this time
• The existence of two "features" in the temperature power spectrum and many "features" in the temperature bispectrum
• A few other curiosities

Here are, in no particular order, the things I found interesting today...

The missing data feature

People who watched the data release conference in March might have been a bit startled by the set of CMB maps that looked like the one below. I was. The particularly startling thing about these maps is the band slightly greyer in colour that persists right in the middle of the image and in the bottom left. The rest of the map looks quite similar to a typical map of the microwave radiation measured on the sky.

The universe as seen by Planck (conference)

The 47th ESLAB symposium. All the cool kids will either be there, or watching it live on the webcast. Are you one of the cool kids?

This week I will be at a scientific conference, organised by ESA. In ESA's words, this conference is "An international conference dedicated to an in-depth look at the initial scientific results from the Planck mission". The conference is taking place in the small Dutch down of Noordwijk. At this conference there will be many people from within the Planck collaboration, who I'm sure will be delighted to finally be able to talk about their work and many people like myself who have spent the last few years eagerly anticipating the Planck collaboration's results.

The conference will have a live webcast here, you should watch some of it.

I will also be blogging during the conference. My goal is to try to write a new post here each day summarising the most interesting talks and discussions from the conference that day.

Why am I doing this?

An absolutely wonderful image showing how the various all sky images of the CMB anisotropies have improved each decade.

This won't be an easy task. The conference goes quite late each day and many topics will be covered, but I want to do this anyway. To understand why, first go watch my new favourite video on the internet. Brady Haran makes science videos and if you've never seen them, you should go check them out. I felt like Brady was taking the words out of my mind when I saw that video. One day the utopia that Brady and I envisage will exist and a Planck conference like this will be besieged by legions of fans. One auditorium will be fill of fans of non-Gaussianity and fans of Gaussianity, on opposite side, cheering their preference on. Another auditorium will be filled with fans of dark radiation, cheering their team on. Yet another will be filled with fans of the cosmological constant shouting their favourite chants at their mortal enemies, the quintessence crowd. But that day is not today.

Planck: All we need is six numbers to describe the universe

As I'm sure most of the readers of this blog are aware, the Planck data is now out. It turns out I was correct with two out of three of my rumours. I said that the "ISW mystery" was still present, it was. I said that Planck would present ~3\(\sigma\) evidence for non-zero neutrino masses, they did (though, as I suggested in my rumour, only after including information from galaxy clusters Planck has detected). Finally, I said that there would be 2-3\(\sigma\) evidence for some type of "non-Gaussianity", there wasn't. I will duly update my should-I-trust-that-rumour? algorithm in the following way: explicit remarks from Planck members, good rumour; wishful thinking from other theorists, bad rumour.

So what were those results? What big news is there?

The answer is that there isn't anything strikingly new or surprising. I've been trained by years as a theoretical physicist to to dread that sentence and, indeed, many of my colleagues have gone into various states of despair. But, for some reason, I spent the second half of last week in a state of excited wonder. Surprisingly, I loved what I saw on Thursday. It was both stunning and beautiful. This post will be me trying to explain why. (For more details of the actual results see Sesh's post and Peter Woit's list of other blog posts).

The model of cosmology that has been gaining traction over the last decade and a bit is called \(\Lambda\)CDM. This stands for \(\Lambda\) Cold Dark Matter, where the \(\Lambda\) represents the poorly named "dark energy". This model has a few theoretical issues, but it is incredibly simple. What Planck specifically found is that this model fits the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) very well and better than any alternative that they tested.

Why I found what Planck saw to be incredible

As I wrote above, Planck's results last Thursday had me in a state of impressed awe. On the day, I couldn't quite put my finger on why, until I read another cosmologist's tweets marvelling at how everything we were seeing could be described by just six parameters. Then it hit me. For once, cosmology had gotten it right. What Planck measured depends on a significant variety of physical phenomena. If the early universe had more matter, or more radiation than we expected, Planck would have seen it. If the primordial density perturbations had been shaped in a significantly different way to that in which we expected, Planck would have seen it.

Cosmology gets a lot of flak from some directions for the so-called "epicycles" of dark matter and dark energy. I can kind of understand this when people see images like this and are told that we "don't understand" 95% of the energy density of the universe. But what is often missed is that we include the effects of dark matter and dark energy in this \(\Lambda\)CDM model with one, single, parameter each. And once those parameters are fixed, the predictions of all of cosmology are too.

With this firmly in mind, take a look at Planck's most important, headline image below. This (sort of) shows the amplitude of the temperature fluctuations in the CMB as a function of their angular scale. Remember, it takes just six numbers to define what that entire curve should look like. Just six.

Following Planck's results today

For the people (new and old) who follow this blog and are interested in the Planck satellite's results, which are being announced today, here is a run-down of important things to know:

• Richard Easther will be live-blogging the data release at this location. If you can't watch the release yourself you should follow Richard's post.
• The first ESA event is a general-audience press conference, very soon, at 10:00 CET, which you can watch here.
• The second ESA event is a press conference aimed at scientists and science journalists, which will stream at the same location, i.e. here. You should watch that even if you aren't a scientist because it will be when all the interesting bits are revealed. If you're confused, you can follow Richard's live-blogging and/or ask questions of scientists on Twitter with the hashtag #askplanck.

• The release of the scientific papers is scheduled for 12:00 CET at the ESA website (I'm not sure of the precise url, maybe here?).

Although I won't be live-blogging the results, I will write a post later today summarising what we've learned and discussing the fall-out arising from all the new information.

Enjoy the day!

Edit: The papers will appear here at 12:00 CET: http://www.sciops.esa.int/index.php?project=planck&page=Planck_Legacy_Archive

Twitter: @just_shaun

Planck rumours will soon become Planck results

On Thursday, the Planck satellite will be revealing its first cosmological results. In terms of fundamental physics, this will be the biggest event since the Higgs discovery last year. In the cosmology community it is the biggest event for the best part of a decade (possibly in both directions of time). If you don't follow cosmology too closely, you might wonder why this particular experiment might generate so much excitement. After all, aren't there all sorts of experiments, all of the time?

If so, I hope you've come to the right place.

The sky as seen by Planck in 2010. Only, they hadn't removed the foregrounds yet. There's a whole Milky Way galaxy in the way. Why must they make us wait so long?

If you're unaware, Planck is a satellite put in space by the European Space Agency to measure the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The CMB is an incredibly useful source of cosmological information. The impending release of Planck's results on Thursday is big news because Planck has measured the CMB with better resolution than any other experiment that can see the whole sky. Planck might have discovered evidence of interesting new physics, such as extra neutrinos or additional types of dark matter. It might even reveal some effects relating to how physics works at energies we could never probe on Earth. But even if it hasn't discovered anything dramatically new, the precision with which Planck has measured the parameters of the standard cosmological model will immediately make it the new benchmark.

There have been surprisingly few rumours leaked to the rest of the cosmology community about what to expect on Thursday. This has resulted in the most pervasive rumour being that they have simply not found anything worth leaking. Whatever the reality, on Thursday rumours will become results.

What has Planck actually done that is so interesting?

The “ISW mystery” deepens considerably (II)

[... continued from yesterday]

[Note added April 29: Through correspondence with some of the authors from what I label as the "French group" below I have learned that the density threshold was actually applied in their work as well. This makes things rather confusing as it means that their methods and the methods of "the DHB" are much more similar. However, they have also updated their paper to reflect new knowledge about the void catalogues and see a slightly more significant signal, similar to what Planck find (see note below). Everything is rather confusing right now. Again, once the dust has settled, I will write a post clearing everything up.]

[Note added March 21: Wow, sometimes science moves quickly. Today Planck released its data. They appear to confirm the anomalous spots in the original "Granett" (Hawaiian) result. They also appear to confirm the new anomalous result that was present in the paper that is now retracted (see the note below from March 19), albeit with a slightly reduced significance. It is unclear exactly what is going on, but it is clear that it is something interesting. I will keep you informed as things progress.]

[Noted added March 19: The paper described in the second half of this post (I called its authors the DHB) has been withdrawn from the journal it was submitted to (see the new abstract at this link: http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6136). It is unclear whether the problems that the authors found in their analysis will affect their conclusions. However, I suggest you are cautious regarding how you interpret the conclusions I have drawn below based on this paper. I will keep you informed as/when things progress.]

A really neat figure from arXiv:1301.5849 showing the locations and sizes of the various catalogues of voids being examined. A larger redshift means the void is further away from us and one Megaparsec (Mpc) corresponds to three million light years. The purple "Granett et al." box is the original catalogue used by the Hawaiian group back in 2008. 

Isn't this just "a posteriori" statistics?

There is another possible explanation for the mystery. The probability of ZOBOV picking out these lines of sight at random is exceedingly small (less than 0.003), but it isn't zero. Might this have just been a crazy fluke?

Suppose 100 different groups of physicists look for unexpected, but interesting, signals in cosmological data. Then, even if each group is very careful you still expect one of them to find something that would seem to them to be unlikely. Unfortunately, they would be the only ones to publish their results. So we wouldn't see one “detection” paper and ninety-nine papers consistent with no detection. We would just see the one “detection” paper.

The best way to determine whether this is what happened is to look for the signal in other surveys.  If the original measurement was a fluke, it won't show up anywhere else. But, if it does show up again, then the chances that it was a fluke will significantly diminish.

The Friday before last a paper appeared that did exactly this. A French group took two catalogues of voids (so no over-densities), which have been produced by applying ZOBOV to a new catalogue of galaxies (these ones are closer to us). The French group then did more or less the same thing as the Hawaiians did. They examined images of the CMB along the lines of sight of these voids, averaged the temperature in all the images and checked whether the resulting signal could have happened at random.

They found no significant result.

This was quite sobering to read on the day. The paper did verify the significance of the original measurement, but not finding it in the new catalogues was highly suggestive that the story I painted above of a sort of community wide “look elsewhere effect” was true.

Hold on though!

Things at this date in time did look bad for the anomaly, but there was one important piece missing from the French group's analysis. The Hawaiians only used the most extreme over and under-dense regions in their analysis. ZOBOV found many more than 50 regions for them and if they had used all of them, they also wouldn't have obtained a statistically significant signal. This was always a crucial part of their analysis because we already knew from other observations that the observed ISW effect from most of the universe is as small as the predicted signal.

What would the French group have seen if they had only examined the most extreme voids?

A new observation

Apparently it is a rule of thumb for observers, that the more interesting your observation is, the more boring you are meant to make your title. These guys probably deserve a promotion. The paper is here.

Three days later (last Monday) a mixture of physicists from Durham, Hawaii and Baltimore (the DHB) released a paper. It answered the question posed above. For anybody interested in finding new physics, the answer is very exciting.

The “ISW mystery” deepens considerably

Other than my initials, what secrets does the CMB hide that are waiting to be seen only when the CMB is examined in just the right way?

This time last year I wrote a few posts describing what I called the “ISW mystery” (Part I, II, III and IV). A year has passed, it is time for an update on the mystery.

The very short summary is that things are starting to get more than a little bit exciting. All of the plausible ways in which the calculation of the expected ISW signal could have been wrong have been checked and eliminated as possibilities; if the measured signal is real, it is too large for the standard cosmological model. Much, much more excitingly, the observation that generated the mystery has now been repeated in another region of the universe and a very similar and equally anomalous signal was found; the apparent anomaly was not a statistical fluke.

The preprint of the paper describing this new observation was released just a week ago.

What is the “ISW mystery”?

The image that began the mystery. Why is that spot so hot, and how did it get that cold ring around it?

A quick recap will probably be useful. The integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect describes the heating and cooling of light as it passes through gravitational peaks and valleys late in the evolution of the universe. In the standard cosmological model, these peaks and valleys decay with time, so a light ray gains (or loses) more energy entering an over-dense (or under-dense) region of the universe than it loses (or gains) leaving it. The effect is very, very small. Almost every source of light in the universe is not known well enough to be used to detect it. Only the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is uniform enough that these tiny fluctuations could ever be detected.

However, even then, the primary fluctuations in the the temperature of the CMB are bigger than the secondary ones created by the ISW effect. We can measure these fluctuations but we could never know how much is due to the ISW effect and how much is primordial. The only thing we can do is look at the structures in the universe nearby and see if on average the CMB is slightly hotter (colder) along lines of sight where the nearby universe is over-dense (under-dense). The bigger, primordial fluctuations in the CMB should have nothing to do with local structures (the CMB has come from much further away). Therefore, if this signal were to be found in the CMB, the most plausible explanation would be an ISW effect.

A group in Hawaii decided to look for this signal in a slightly unusual way. Firstly, they made a catalogue of significant over and under-dense regions in a particular survey of galaxies. Then, they only examined patches of the CMB that existed along the line of sight of each of these regions. They then found that the patches aligned with over-densities were hotter on average than a randomly selected patch and those aligned with under-densities were colder (with more than “\(4\sigma\)” significance). This is what one would expect from an ISW effect. The “ISW mystery” is that these patches were too hot and too cold. The ISW effect simply shouldn't be that big.

The importance of checking the anomaly from every angle