Cosmologists Search for Gravity Waves to Prove Inflation Theory

by Nancy Atkinson on February 16, 2009

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

The South Pole Telescope under the aurora australis (southern lights).  Photo by Keith Vanderlinde

The South Pole Telescope under the aurora australis (southern lights). Photo by Keith Vanderlinde

During the next decade, cosmologists will attempt to observe the first moments of the Universe, hoping to prove a popular theory. They’ll be searching for extremely weak gravity waves to measure primordial light, looking for convincing evidence for the Cosmic Inflation Theory, which proposes that a random, microscopic density fluctuation in the fabric of space and time gave birth to the Universe in a hot big bang approximately 13.7 billion years ago. A new instrument called a polarimeter is being attached to the South Pole Telescope (SPT), which operates at submillimeter wavelengths, between microwaves and the infrared on the electromagnetic spectrum. Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that Cosmic Inflation should produce the weak gravity waves.

Inflation Theory proposes a period of extremely rapid and exponential expansion of the Universe during its first few moments prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the Universe today.

In 1979, physicist Alan Guth proposed the Cosmic Inflation Theory, which also predicts the existence of an infinite number of universes. Unfortunately, cosmologists have no way of testing that particular prediction.

The South Pole Telescope takes advantage of the clear, dry skies at the National  Science Foundation’s South Pole Station to study the cosmic background  radiation, the afterglow of the big bang. The SPT measures eight meters (26.4  feet) in diameter.  Photo by Jeff McMahon

The South Pole Telescope takes advantage of the clear, dry skies at the National Science Foundation’s South Pole Station to study the cosmic background radiation, the afterglow of the big bang. The SPT measures eight meters (26.4 feet) in diameter. Photo by Jeff McMahon


“Since these are separate universes, by definition that means we can never have any contact with them. Nothing that happens there has any impact on us,” said Scott Dodelson, a scientist at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and a Professor in Astronomy & Astrophysics at the University of Chicago.

But there is a way to probe the validity of cosmic inflation. The phenomenon would have produced two classes of perturbations. The first, fluctuations in the density of subatomic particles happen continuously throughout the universe, and scientists have already observed them.

“Usually they’re just taking place on the atomic scale. We never even notice them,” Dodelson said. But inflation would instantaneously stretch these perturbations into cosmic proportions. “That picture actually works. We can calculate what those perturbations should look like, and it turns out they are exactly right to produce the galaxies we see in the universe.”

The second class of perturbations would be gravity waves—Einsteinian distortions in space and time. Gravity waves also would get promoted to cosmic proportions, perhaps even strong enough for cosmologists to detect them with sensitive telescopes tuned to the proper frequency of electromagnetic radiation.

If the new polarimeter is sensitive enough, scientists should be able to detect the waves.

“If you detect gravity waves, it tells you a whole lot about inflation for our universe,” said John Carlstrom from the University of Chicago, who developed the new instrument. Carlstrom said detecting the waves would rule out various competing ideas for the origin of the universe. “There are fewer than there used to be, but they don’t predict that you have such an extreme, hot big bang, this quantum fluctuation, to start with,” he said. Nor would they produce gravity waves at detectable levels.

A simulation at this link portrays the distortions in space and time at the subatomic scale, the result of quantum fluctuations occurring continuously throughout the universe. Near the end of the simulation, cosmic inflation begins to stretch space-time to the cosmic proportions of the universe.

Cosmologists also use the SPT in their quest to solve the mystery of dark energy. A repulsive force, dark energy pushes the universe apart and overwhelms gravity, the attractive force exerted by all matter.
Dark energy is invisible, but astronomers are able to see its influence on clusters of galaxies that formed within the last few billion years.

NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe collected data that produced this  chart of sound waves from the universe. Called a power spectrum, the chart  plots the cosmic microwave background radiation as ripples of different sizes  across the sky. The data are consistent with predictions of cosmic inflation  theory.  Courtesy of the WMAP Science Team

NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe collected data that produced this chart of sound waves from the universe. Called a power spectrum, the chart plots the cosmic microwave background radiation as ripples of different sizes across the sky. The data are consistent with predictions of cosmic inflation theory. Courtesy of the WMAP Science Team


The SPT detects the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, the afterglow of the big bang. Cosmologists have mined a fortune of data from the CMB, which represent the forceful drums and horns of the cosmic symphony. But now the scientific community has its ears cocked for the tones of a subtler instrument—gravitational waves—that underlay the CMB.

“We have these key components to our picture of the universe, but we really don’t know what physics produces any of them,” said Dodelson of inflation, dark energy and the equally mysterious dark matter. “The goal of the next decade is to identify the physics.”

Source: University of Chicago

About

Nancy Atkinson is Universe Today's Senior Editor. She also is the host of the NASA Lunar Science Institute podcast and works with the Astronomy Cast and 365 Days of Astronomy podcasts. Nancy is also a NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador.

  • ND

    Anaconda,

    “Let’s see where the evidence leads.” Yes, that’s how science, including Astronomy works. But you didn’t really give satisfactory evidence towards PC being the predominant shaping force in the cosmos. And those you accuse of smothering asked questions and asked for convincing evidence and even explained to you in words and using math why they were asking the questions they were asking.

    You are clinging to an idea, regardless of how much of it has merit, that you don’t fully understand. You don’t have the scientific background to truly understand the science of plasma physics, gravity, relativity, and any number of the sciences that were touched on in the discussions. And yet you defend and cling to PC tooth and nail. I believe that this makes you, frankly, fanatical. Yes, fanatical because you’re claiming that EM predomiantes everything from star formation, star life and death to galaxy formations without really understanding the science nor have the evidence to show it.

    Your answer that you are a messenger does not add up because you have been abusive to others in the discussions and basically tried to beat people over the head with PC. It’s right there for the world to see on the BA blog entries. And yes I have not been totally nice with you either. I’ve called you a crank and arrogant person. I’ve found it hard to keep a cool head with your style of discussion. Even Tom Marking, who you seem to have the most respect out of the bunch called you a snake man.

    Arp, Perrat, I accept their passion since they’re in the sciences themselves. If you were passionate about how ID is being forced into biology classes even though you are not a scientist, that I would also understand because it undermines the integrity of the science taught in our schools. But cosmology? So much passion for far away black holes and galaxy formation?
    Ultimately it has not been about how this universe, the soup of natural forces, operates. It has been about how you presented your case.

  • Mr. 1=0

    Anaconda said;
    “But when you look at the debate, who is fanatical about smothering the comments of the other guy and wanting to trump the conversation?
    Let’s see where the evidence leads.”

    Even more delusions piled on other delusions. Why is it when someone asks you a question, you don’t actually answer it? All you just do is delve off into a different irrelevant direction, and show you are simply unable to give (mathematically or verbally) some real documented or observational evidence to support your point of view. Instead you offer nothing more than opinion.
    Yet the worse is that you cannot even provide the basic definitions, but you have the audacity to say everyone else smothering your comments!
    It is as I said earlier, you don’t logically debate. Even when direct evidence is staring at you directly in the face, all you do is divert from the issue, and instead accuse someone else of not understanding what you are saying. I.e. “…your problem is with a branch of science you don’t understand.”
    It is YOU here who is making the contentions, of those who are responding to it!
    Your problem, and what has really you rattled, is there are too many people do understand and comprehend your wrong beliefs, and simply (with evidence) reject your stance as just being plainly wrong.
    Worst, you feel such disdain to people who are taking away your precious virgin audience away from you, and that is why you think those that dare disagree are, as you said; “…fanatical about smothering the comments of the other guy and wanting to trump the conversation”
    However, what is their real motive, eh?
    Jealousy, perhaps?
    Are they doing it to cover up some perceived truth? (as you contend)
    Are they doing it to deliberately hurt you?

    Evidence leads to the conclusion you have a serious problems.

    - You do not know how to explain things rationally
    - You never debate rationally
    - You do not listen to others rationally (if at all.)
    - You fail to see someone else’s point of view
    - You are prepared to falsify information and mislead people to maintain your point-of-view
    - You do not have the knowledge or the intelligence about cosmology or astrophysics
    - You cannot converse in the language of cosmology or astrophysics. I.e. Mathematics
    - You dismiss out of hand evidence and phenomena that contradicts you own views
    - You think science is based solely on belief and belief systems instead of the basis of science. I.e. logical reductionism.

    ND is quite correct when he says;
    “Ultimately it has not been about how this universe, the soup of natural forces, operates. It has been about how you presented your case.”

    Note: The saddest part, is that you will only drawn the debate somewhere else. However, from the similar debates (here and elsewhere) I think your number is up.
    Really, no one buys this meaningless diatribe anymore.

  • Mr. 1=0

    Anaconda said to ND;
    “Unless, of course, what you are saying is that because I don’t like the way you express your opinion, that effects how I view the science. I’m I reading you right?”

    Same stupid trick; “Accuse the accuser”

    You are just a pretender, as science is NOT based on opinion!! Clearly, you don’t know anything about science, because you don’t play by its rules. WAKE UP!!

  • Salacious B. Crumb

    “The science, itself, stands on it’s own merits.”

    Yeah, but clearly not the same when compared to your own dodgy merits

  • Salacious B. Crumb

    In this attempted hijacking of this Universe Today news article by Anaconda, I found some additional interesting evidence against this view of plasma cosmology (now forever known as plasma whatever). This is to do with a statement made here by Anaconda, in which he says;
    “I think it’s safe to say that Wikipedia is no friend of Plasma Cosmology. Why do I think it has that view? Because folks like you want it that way.”
    Again, this is a prime example of deception.
    The reason why Anaconda does not agree with Wikipedia, is that probably he and certainly several of his proponents of this wacky, non-standard and unfounded view of the universe have been banned from editing the Plasma Cosmology Wikipedia page. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plasma_cosmology )
    This talk page on the article is unbelievably long
    I.e. One of the biggest proponents is “Iantresman”, who has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia and can no longer edit this page. This was allegedly reinforced for sock puppetry; “using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny, misleading others by making disruptive edits.” Another user “Elerner” was also banned from editing this same plasma cosmology on 3rd December 2006. According to the Talk page, this was for tactics used in pseudoscience.

    It is interesting to see that the same kinds of tactics and avoiding reasonable arguments that have been used also here by Anaconda. This issue is probable the final coup de grâce of this discussion thread.

    To be fair, I have no problems with Anaconda expressing his personal views, but I do have serious issues with using methods that are seemingly quite fraudulent and misleading. Evidence, like this one of similar tactics with wikipedia, proves beyond doubt that proponents of “plasma cosmology” (and it variants used regarding the subject in the comments here.)

    The sad thing in the whole issue in the debate here is the amount of effort that has had to be done to defend the current models of investigations into astrophysics and cosmology. The tactic used by Anaconda has been to bog down the debate by bamboozling us with side and irreverent issues.

    The fact of the matter +99.9% of astrophysics and cosmologists REJECT the so-called “plasma cosmology.” They do so for good reason. That is the science has enough evidence to support the current astrophysical and cosmological models. End of story.

    In the end, the truism is in the old adage / saying;
    “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” Anaconda take note.

  • Salacious B. Crumb

    If you think the ideas Anaconda is truly dangerous, one has only to look at the influence such people exert in the Encyclopaedia of at the educational site Kids.Net.AU at; http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/pl/Plasma_cosmology
    Here you find a site with its supposed “kids safe portal for children, parents, schools and teachers” article “Plasma cosmology”, which reads as an “Alternative cosmology to the Big Bang theory.” Worst still, it links to the Plasma Universe site given by Anaconda. Among the definitions of this same site are “Plasma physics.”. (It defined, mind you, as; “Plasma cosmology – scalable magnetohydrodynamic phenomenon”
    The information pervades several pages in the site under “cosmology”, “Non-standard cosmology”, etc. as well.
    - Under “plasma”, the “Plasma Universe” site is actually linked!
    - Also under the title appears at the article on the Big Bang “However, there remain small numbers of who still support non-standard cosmologies in which the big bang is considered incorrect.”
    - Even the section of on the definition of the ‘Universe’, has the unbelievable statement;
    “During the second half of the 20th century, the development of observational cosmology[?], also called physical cosmology[?], led to a split in the meaning of the word Universe between observational cosmologists[?] and theoretical cosmologists[?], where the former (usually) abandon the hope of observing the whole spacetime continuum, while the latter retain this hope, trying to find the most reasonable speculations for modelling the whole of spacetime, despite the extreme difficulty in imagining any empirical constraints on these speculations and the risk of sliding into metaphysics.”

    This clearly shows the real dangerous problem with the Internet of nothing less than science subversion.

    Note: I have never seen Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kamp” methods used in astronomy subjects to now. here I though only intelligent design was so dangerous.

  • IVAN3MAN

    @ Salacious B. Crumb,

    Speaking of Wikipedia, it has an excellent article on the characteristics and psychology of “cranks”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29

    For example:

    * Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
    * Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
    * Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
    * Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.

    Also, Denialism Blog has an article called “Unified Theory of the Crank”:
    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/04/unified_theory_of_the_crank.php

  • ND

    Congrats Salacious, you just rand into Godwin’s Law. You’re the only one who’s done that in a discussion of PC. I wouldn’t put PC in the same danger category as ID. PC isn’t being forced down people’s throat through law.

Previous post:

Next post: