http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/09/new-evidence-against-standard-model-of.html Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction Pages * Home * Talk To A Scientist * Comment Rules * About Saturday, September 04, 2021 New Evidence against the Standard Model of Cosmology [This is a transcript of the video embedded below. Some of the explanations may not make sense without the animations in the video.] Physicists believe they understand quite well how the universe works on large scales. There's dark matter and there's dark energy, and there's the expansion of the universe that allows matter to cool and clump and form galaxies. The key assumption to this model for the universe is the cosmological principle, according to which the universe is approximately the same everywhere. But increasingly more observations show that the universe just isn't the same everywhere. What are those observations? Why are they a problem? And what does it mean? That's what we'll talk about today. Let's begin with the cosmological principle, the idea that the universe looks the same everywhere. Well. Of course the universe does not look the same everywhere. There's more matter under your feet than above your head and more matter in the Milky way than in intergalactic space, and so on. Physicists have noticed that too, so the cosmological principle more precisely says that matter in the universe is equally distributed when you average over sufficiently large distances. To see what this means, forget about matter for a moment and suppose you have a row of detectors and they measure, say, temperature. Each detector gives you a somewhat different temperature but you can average over those detectors by taking a few of them at a time, let's say 5, calculate the average value from the reading of those five detectors, and replace the values of the individual detectors with their average value. You can then ask how far away this averaged distribution is from one that's the same everywhere. In this example it's pretty close. But suppose you have a different distribution, for example this one. If you average over sets of 5 detectors again, the result still does not look the same everywhere. Now, if you average over all detectors, then of course the average is the same everywhere. So if you want to know how close a distribution is to being uniform, you average it over increasingly large distances and ask from what distance on it's very similar to just being the same everywhere. In cosmology we don't want to average over temperatures, but we want to average over the density of matter. On short scales, which for cosmologists is something like the size of the milky way, matter clearly is not uniformly distributed. If we average over the whole universe, then the average is uniform, but that's uninteresting. What we want to know is, if we average over increasingly large distances, at what distance does the distribution of matter become uniform to good accuracy? Yes, good question. One can calculate this distance using the concordance model, which is the currently accepted standard model of cosmology. It's also often called LCDM, where L is the cosmological constant and CDM stands for cold dark matter. The distance at which the cosmological principle should be a good approximation to the real distribution of matter was calculated from the concordance model in a 2010 paper by Hunt and Sarkar. They found that the deviations from a uniform distribution fall below one part in a hundred from an averaging distance of about 200-300 Mpc on. 300 Megaparsec are about 1 billion light years. And just to give you a sense of scale, our distance to the next closest galaxy, Andromeda, is about two and a half million light years. A billion light years is huge. But from that distance on at the latest, the cosmological principle should be fulfilled to good accuracy - if the concordance model is correct. One problem with the cosmological principle is that astrophysicists have on occasion assumed it is valid already on shorter distances, down to about 100 Megaparsec. This is an unjustified assumption, but it has for example entered the analysis of supernovae data from which the existence of dark energy was inferred. And yes, that's what the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for in 2011. Two years ago, I told you about a paper by Subir Sarkar and his colleagues, that showed if one analyses the supernovae data correctly, without assuming that the cosmological principle holds on too short distances, then the evidence for dark energy disappears. That paper has been almost entirely ignored by other scientists. Check out my earlier video for more about that. Today I want to tell you about another problem with the cosmological principle. As I said, one can calculate the scale from which on it should be valid from the standard model of cosmology. Beyond that scale, the universe should look pretty much the same everywhere. This means in particular there shouldn't be any clumps of matter on scales larger than about a billion light years. But. Astrophysicists keep on finding those. Already in nineteen-ninety-one they found the Clowes-Campusano-Quasar group, which is a collection of thirty-four Quasars, about nine point five Billion light years away from us and it extends over two Billion Light-years, clearly too large to be compatible with the prediction from the concordance model. Since 2003 astrophysicists know the ,,great wall" a collection of galaxies about a billion light years away from us that extends over 1.5 billion light years. That too, is larger than it should be. Then there's the "Huge quasar group" which is... huge. It spans a whopping four Billion light-years. And just in July Alexia Lopez discovered the "Giant Arc" a collection of galaxies, galaxy clusters, gas and dust that spans 3 billion light years. Theoretically, these structures shouldn't exist. It can happen that such clumps appear coincidentally in the concordance model. That's because this model uses an initial distribution of matter in the early universe with random fluctuations. So it could happen you end up with a big clump somewhere just by chance. But you can calculate the probability for that to happen. The Giant Arc alone has a probability of less than one in a hundred-thousand to have come about by chance. And that doesn't factor in all the other big structures. What does it mean? It means the evidence is mounting that the cosmological principle is a bad assumption to develop a model for the entire universe and it probably has to go. It increasingly looks like we live in a region in the universe that happens to have a significantly lower density than the average in the visible universe. This area of underdensity which we live in has been called the "local hole", and it has a diameter of at least 600 million light years. This is the finding of a recent paper by a group of astrophysicists from Durham in the UK. They also point out that if we live in a local hole then this means that the local value of the Hubble rate must be corrected down. This would be good news because currently measurements for the local value of the Hubble rate are in conflict with the value from the early universe. And that discrepancy has been one of the biggest headaches in cosmology in the past years. Giving up the cosmological principle could solve that problem. However, the finding in that paper from the Durham group is only a mild tension with the concordance model, at about three sigma, which is not highly statistically significant. But Sarkar and his group had another paper recently in which they do a consistency check on the concordance model and find a conflict at four point nine sigma, that is a less than one in a million chance for it to be coincidence. This works as follows. If we measure the temperature of the cosmic microwave background, it appears hotter into the direction which we move against it. This gives rise to the so-called CMB dipole. You can measure this dipole. You can also measure the dipole by inferring our motion from the observations of quasars. If the concordance model was right, the direction and magnitude of the dipoles should be the same. But they are not. You see this in this figure from Sarkar's paper. The star is the location of the cmb dipole, the triangle that of the quasar dipole. In this figure you see how far away from the cmb expectation the quasar result is. These recent developments make me think that in the next ten years or so, we will see a major paradigm shift in cosmology, where the current standard model will be replaced with another one. Just what the new model will be, and if it will still have dark energy, I don't know. But I'll keep you up to date. So don't forget to subscribe, see you next week. Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder at 8:00 AM # Labels: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Physics, Video Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest No comments: Post a Comment PLEASE READ THE COMMENT RULES BEFORE COMMENTING. If the number of comments exceeds 200 you must click LOAD MORE at the bottom of the page to see all comments. This is also true for replies to threads. I know this sucks. Please complain to Google about this, not to me. Comment moderation on this blog is turned on. Submitted comments will only appear after manual approval, which can take up to 24 hours. Comments posted as "Unknown" go straight to junk. You may have to click on the orange-white blogger icon next to your name to change to a different account. Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment. Older Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Support me on Patreon [Patreon-2] Buy my book (paid link) Recent Comments Follow me on Twitter Tweets by @skdh More about me * Sabine on Twitter * Sabine on YouTube * Sabine on Facebook * Sabine's Homepage * Sabine on Google Scholar * Sabine's ArXiv Papers Search this blog [ ] [Go!] Follow me on facebook Labels Physics (631) Science and Society (223) Papers (218) Video (187) Quantum Gravity (165) Random Thoughts (163) Astrophysics (153) Books (116) Academia (110) Particle Physics (108) Cosmology (97) Travel (77) Philosophy (75) Distraction (70) Science (69) Blog (66) Photo (56) Sociology of Science (55) Rant (49) History of Science (45) Physicists (44) Quantum foundations (38) Dear Dr B (27) Politics (24) Psychology (10) Sociology (4) Blog Archive * V 2021 (44) + V Sep 2021 (1) o New Evidence against the Standard Model of Cosmology + > Aug 2021 (4) + > Jul 2021 (5) + > Jun 2021 (4) + > May 2021 (7) + > Apr 2021 (6) + > Mar 2021 (6) + > Feb 2021 (6) + > Jan 2021 (5) * > 2020 (84) + > Dec 2020 (6) + > Nov 2020 (6) + > Oct 2020 (10) + > Sep 2020 (5) + > Aug 2020 (7) + > Jul 2020 (5) + > Jun 2020 (6) + > May 2020 (8) + > Apr 2020 (10) + > Mar 2020 (7) + > Feb 2020 (9) + > Jan 2020 (5) * > 2019 (119) + > Dec 2019 (8) + > Nov 2019 (7) + > Oct 2019 (6) + > Sep 2019 (8) + > Aug 2019 (9) + > Jul 2019 (10) + > Jun 2019 (14) + > May 2019 (13) + > Apr 2019 (9) + > Mar 2019 (10) + > Feb 2019 (13) + > Jan 2019 (12) * > 2018 (93) + > Dec 2018 (8) + > Nov 2018 (12) + > Oct 2018 (9) + > Sep 2018 (7) + > Aug 2018 (7) + > Jul 2018 (6) + > Jun 2018 (10) + > May 2018 (7) + > Apr 2018 (8) + > Mar 2018 (8) + > Feb 2018 (4) + > Jan 2018 (7) * > 2017 (73) + > Dec 2017 (4) + > Nov 2017 (7) + > Oct 2017 (8) + > Sep 2017 (5) + > Aug 2017 (5) + > Jul 2017 (4) + > Jun 2017 (6) + > May 2017 (8) + > Apr 2017 (7) + > Mar 2017 (6) + > Feb 2017 (6) + > Jan 2017 (7) * > 2016 (76) + > Dec 2016 (7) + > Nov 2016 (6) + > Oct 2016 (5) + > Sep 2016 (5) + > Aug 2016 (7) + > Jul 2016 (4) + > Jun 2016 (5) + > May 2016 (7) + > Apr 2016 (6) + > Mar 2016 (7) + > Feb 2016 (8) + > Jan 2016 (9) * > 2015 (90) + > Dec 2015 (11) + > Nov 2015 (9) + > Oct 2015 (8) + > Sep 2015 (8) + > Aug 2015 (10) + > Jul 2015 (5) + > Jun 2015 (7) + > May 2015 (5) + > Apr 2015 (8) + > Mar 2015 (6) + > Feb 2015 (5) + > Jan 2015 (8) * > 2014 (80) + > Dec 2014 (7) + > Nov 2014 (7) + > Oct 2014 (7) + > Sep 2014 (5) + > Aug 2014 (8) + > Jul 2014 (5) + > Jun 2014 (7) + > May 2014 (7) + > Apr 2014 (7) + > Mar 2014 (3) + > Feb 2014 (7) + > Jan 2014 (10) * > 2013 (96) + > Dec 2013 (8) + > Nov 2013 (6) + > Oct 2013 (10) + > Sep 2013 (9) + > Aug 2013 (9) + > Jul 2013 (9) + > Jun 2013 (7) + > May 2013 (9) + > Apr 2013 (8) + > Mar 2013 (6) + > Feb 2013 (7) + > Jan 2013 (8) * > 2012 (126) + > Dec 2012 (8) + > Nov 2012 (8) + > Oct 2012 (8) + > Sep 2012 (9) + > Aug 2012 (11) + > Jul 2012 (11) + > Jun 2012 (10) + > May 2012 (13) + > Apr 2012 (15) + > Mar 2012 (11) + > Feb 2012 (12) + > Jan 2012 (10) * > 2011 (123) + > Dec 2011 (30) + > Nov 2011 (11) + > Oct 2011 (8) + > Sep 2011 (9) + > Aug 2011 (9) + > Jul 2011 (10) + > Jun 2011 (9) + > May 2011 (7) + > Apr 2011 (6) + > Mar 2011 (7) + > Feb 2011 (8) + > Jan 2011 (9) * > 2010 (139) + > Dec 2010 (8) + > Nov 2010 (9) + > Oct 2010 (9) + > Sep 2010 (8) + > Aug 2010 (9) + > Jul 2010 (12) + > Jun 2010 (13) + > May 2010 (13) + > Apr 2010 (15) + > Mar 2010 (15) + > Feb 2010 (14) + > Jan 2010 (14) * > 2009 (167) + > Dec 2009 (16) + > Nov 2009 (11) + > Oct 2009 (10) + > Sep 2009 (12) + > Aug 2009 (11) + > Jul 2009 (15) + > Jun 2009 (16) + > May 2009 (13) + > Apr 2009 (15) + > Mar 2009 (15) + > Feb 2009 (16) + > Jan 2009 (17) * > 2008 (267) + > Dec 2008 (37) + > Nov 2008 (19) + > Oct 2008 (24) + > Sep 2008 (20) + > Aug 2008 (21) + > Jul 2008 (24) + > Jun 2008 (23) + > May 2008 (21) + > Apr 2008 (20) + > Mar 2008 (18) + > Feb 2008 (18) + > Jan 2008 (22) * > 2007 (311) + > Dec 2007 (36) + > Nov 2007 (23) + > Oct 2007 (24) + > Sep 2007 (19) + > Aug 2007 (24) + > Jul 2007 (24) + > Jun 2007 (19) + > May 2007 (24) + > Apr 2007 (24) + > Mar 2007 (30) + > Feb 2007 (31) + > Jan 2007 (33) * > 2006 (152) + > Dec 2006 (27) + > Nov 2006 (19) + > Oct 2006 (14) + > Sep 2006 (13) + > Aug 2006 (13) + > Jul 2006 (17) + > Jun 2006 (17) + > May 2006 (10) + > Apr 2006 (11) + > Mar 2006 (10) + > Feb 2006 (1) Visitor Count free web page hit counter Feeds Blogger Atom Feed Blogger Comment Feed Feedburner Comment Feed Blogger RSS Feed [INS::INS] Powered by Blogger.