Search This Blog

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Dark matter



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Dark matter is invisible. Based on the effect of gravitational lensing, a ring of dark matter has been detected in this image of a galaxy cluster (CL0024+17) and is represented in blue.[1]

Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the Universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the Universe. It has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics.

Dark matter neither emits nor absorbs light or any other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the Universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total mass–energy content of the Universe.[4][5]

Astrophysicists hypothesized dark matter because of discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects and the mass calculated from the observable matter (stars, gas, and dust) that they can be seen to contain. Dark matter was postulated by Jan Oort in 1932, albeit based upon flawed or inadequate evidence, to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and by Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. Adequate evidence from galaxy rotation curves was discovered by Horace W. Babcock in 1939, but was not attributed to dark matter. The first to postulate dark matter based upon robust evidence was Vera Rubin in the 1960s–1970s, using galaxy rotation curves.[6][7] Subsequently many other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the Universe, including gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies and, more recently, the pattern of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is composed primarily of a not yet characterized type of subatomic particle.[8][9] The search for this particle, by a variety of means, is one of the major efforts in particle physics today.[10]

Although the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community, some alternative theories of gravity have been proposed, such as MOND and TeVeS, which try to account for the anomalous observations without requiring additional matter.

Overview


Estimated distribution of matter and energy in the universe, today (top) and when the CMB was released (bottom)

Dark matter's existence is inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation, and was originally hypothesized to account for discrepancies between calculations of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and calculations based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium.[11]

The most widely accepted explanation for these phenomena is that dark matter exists and that it is most probably[8] composed of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) that interact only through gravity and the weak force. Alternative explanations have been proposed, and there is not yet sufficient experimental evidence to determine whether any of them are correct. Many experiments to detect proposed dark matter particles through non-gravitational means are under way.[10]

One other theory suggests the existence of a “Hidden Valley”, a parallel world made of dark matter having very little in common with matter we know,[12] and that could only interact with our visible universe through gravity.[13][14]

According to observations of structures larger than star systems, as well as Big Bang cosmology interpreted under the Friedmann equations and the Friedmann–LemaĆ®tre–Robertson–Walker metric, dark matter accounts for 26.8% of the mass-energy content of the observable universe. In comparison, ordinary (baryonic) matter accounts for only 4.9% of the mass-energy content of the observable universe, with the remainder being attributable to dark energy.[3] From these figures, matter accounts for 31.7% of the mass-energy content of the Universe, and 84.5% of the matter is dark matter.

Dark matter plays a central role in state-of-the-art modeling of cosmic structure formation and Galaxy formation and evolution and has measurable effects on the anisotropies observed in the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the Universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which is easily visible with electromagnetic radiation.[13]

Important as dark matter is thought to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive. Though the theory of dark matter remains the most widely accepted theory to explain the anomalies in observed galactic rotation, some alternative theoretical approaches have been developed which broadly fall into the categories of modified gravitational laws and quantum gravitational laws.[15]

Baryonic and nonbaryonic dark matter

Fermi-LAT observations of dwarf galaxies provide new insights on dark matter.

There are three separate lines of evidence that the majority of dark matter is not made of baryons (ordinary matter including protons and neutrons):
  • The theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which very accurately predicts the observed abundance of the chemical elements,[16] predicts that baryonic matter accounts for around 4–5 percent of the critical density of the Universe. In contrast, evidence from large-scale structure and other observations indicates that the total matter density is about 30% of the critical density.
  • Large astronomical searches for gravitational microlensing, including the MACHO, EROS and OGLE projects, have shown that only a small fraction of the dark matter in the Milky Way can be hiding in dark compact objects; the excluded range covers objects above half the Earth's mass up to 30 solar masses, excluding nearly all the plausible candidates.
  • Detailed analysis of the small irregularities (anisotropies) in the cosmic microwave background observed by WMAP and Planck shows that around five-sixths of the total matter is in a form which does not interact significantly with ordinary matter or photons except through gravitational effects.
A small proportion of dark matter may be baryonic dark matter: astronomical bodies, such as massive compact halo objects, which are composed of ordinary matter but emit little or no electromagnetic radiation. Study of nucleosynthesis in the Big Bang produces an upper bound on the amount of baryonic matter in the Universe,[17] which indicates that the vast majority of dark matter in the Universe cannot be baryons, and thus does not form atoms. It also cannot interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces; in particular, dark matter particles do not carry any electric charge.
Candidates for nonbaryonic dark matter are hypothetical particles such as axions, or supersymmetric particles; neutrinos can only form a small fraction of the dark matter, due to limits from large-scale structure and high-redshift galaxies. Unlike baryonic dark matter, nonbaryonic dark matter does not contribute to the formation of the elements in the early universe ("Big Bang nucleosynthesis")[8] and so its presence is revealed only via its gravitational attraction. In addition, if the particles of which it is composed are supersymmetric, they can undergo annihilation interactions with themselves, possibly resulting in observable by-products such as gamma rays and neutrinos ("indirect detection").[18]

Nonbaryonic dark matter is classified in terms of the mass of the particle(s) that is assumed to make it up, and/or the typical velocity dispersion of those particles (since more massive particles move more slowly). There are three prominent hypotheses on nonbaryonic dark matter, called cold dark matter (CDM), warm dark matter (WDM), and hot dark matter (HDM); some combination of these is also possible. The most widely discussed models for nonbaryonic dark matter are based on the cold dark matter hypothesis, and the corresponding particle is most commonly assumed to be a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP). Hot dark matter may include (massive) neutrinos, but observations imply that only a small fraction of dark matter can be hot. Cold dark matter leads to a "bottom-up" formation of structure in the Universe while hot dark matter would result in a "top-down" formation scenario; since the late 1990s, the latter has been ruled out by observations of high-redshift galaxies such as the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field.[10]

Observational evidence

This artist’s impression shows the expected distribution of dark matter in the Milky Way galaxy as a blue halo of material surrounding the galaxy.[19]

The first person to interpret evidence and infer the presence of dark matter was Dutch astronomer Jan Oort, a pioneer in radio astronomy, in 1932.[20] Oort was studying stellar motions in the local galactic neighbourhood and found that the mass in the galactic plane must be more than the material that could be seen, but this measurement was later determined to be essentially erroneous.[21] In 1933, the Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, who studied clusters of galaxies while working at the California Institute of Technology, made a similar inference.[22][23] Zwicky applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge and compared that estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster. He found that there was about 400 times more estimated mass than was visually observable. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together. Zwicky's estimates are off by more than an order of magnitude. Had he erred in the opposite direction by as much, he would have had to try explain the opposite – why there was too much visible matter relative to the gravitational observations – and his observations would have indicated dark energy rather than dark matter.[24]

Much of the evidence for dark matter comes from the study of the motions of galaxies.[25] Many of these appear to be fairly uniform, so by the virial theorem, the total kinetic energy should be half the total gravitational binding energy of the galaxies. Observationally, however, the total kinetic energy is found to be much greater: in particular, assuming the gravitational mass is due to only the visible matter of the galaxy, stars far from the center of galaxies have much higher velocities than predicted by the virial theorem. Galactic rotation curves, which illustrate the velocity of rotation versus the distance from the galactic center, show the well known phenomenology that cannot be explained by only the visible matter. Assuming that the visible material makes up only a small part of the cluster is the most straightforward way of accounting for this. Galaxies show signs of being composed largely of a roughly spherically symmetric, centrally concentrated halo of dark matter with the visible matter concentrated in a disc at the center. Low surface brightness dwarf galaxies are important sources of information for studying dark matter, as they have an uncommonly low ratio of visible matter to dark matter, and have few bright stars at the center which would otherwise impair observations of the rotation curve of outlying stars.

Gravitational lensing observations of galaxy clusters allow direct estimates of the gravitational mass based on its effect on light from background galaxies, since large collections of matter (dark or otherwise) will gravitationally deflect light. In clusters such as Abell 1689, lensing observations confirm the presence of considerably more mass than is indicated by the clusters' light alone. In the Bullet Cluster, lensing observations show that much of the lensing mass is separated from the X-ray-emitting baryonic mass. In July 2012, lensing observations were used to identify a "filament" of dark matter between two clusters of galaxies, as cosmological simulations have predicted.[26]

Galaxy rotation curves

Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (A) and observed (B). Dark matter can explain the 'flat' appearance of the velocity curve out to a large radius

The first robust indications that the mass to light ratio was anything other than unity came from measurements of galaxy rotation curves. In 1939, Horace W. Babcock reported in his PhD thesis measurements of the rotation curve for the Andromeda nebula which suggested that the mass-to-luminosity ratio increases radially.[27] He, however, attributed it to either absorption of light within the galaxy or modified dynamics in the outer portions of the spiral and not to any form of missing matter.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Vera Rubin at the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington was the first to both make robust measurements indicating the existence of dark matter and attribute them to dark matter. Rubin worked with a new sensitive spectrograph that could measure the velocity curve of edge-on spiral galaxies to a greater degree of accuracy than had ever before been achieved.[7] Together with fellow staff-member Kent Ford, Rubin announced at a 1975 meeting of the American Astronomical Society the discovery that most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed, which implied that the mass densities of the galaxies were uniform well beyond the regions containing most of the stars (the galactic bulge), a result independently found in 1978.[28] An influential paper presented Rubin's results in 1980.[29] Rubin's observations and calculations showed that most galaxies must contain about six times as much “dark” mass as can be accounted for by the visible stars. Eventually other astronomers began to corroborate her work and it soon became well-established that most galaxies were dominated by "dark matter":
  • Low Surface Brightness (LSB) galaxies.[30] LSBs are probably everywhere dark matter-dominated, with the observed stellar populations making only a small contribution to rotation curves. Such a property is extremely important because it allows one to avoid the difficulties associated with the deprojection and disentanglement of the dark and visible contributions to the rotation curves.[10]
  • Spiral Galaxies.[31] Rotation curves of both low and high surface luminosity galaxies appear to suggest a universal rotation curve, which can be expressed as the sum of an exponential thin stellar disk, and a spherical dark matter halo with a flat core of radius r0 and density Ļ0 = 4.5 × 10−2(r0/kpc)−2/3 Mpc−3.
  • Elliptical galaxies. Some elliptical galaxies show evidence for dark matter via strong gravitational lensing,[32] X-ray evidence reveals the presence of extended atmospheres of hot gas that fill the dark haloes of isolated ellipticals and whose hydrostatic support provides evidence for dark matter. Other ellipticals have low velocities in their outskirts (tracked for example by planetary nebulae) and were interpreted as not having dark matter haloes.[10] However, simulations of disk-galaxy mergers indicate that stars were torn by tidal forces from their original galaxies during the first close passage and put on outgoing trajectories, explaining the low velocities even with a DM halo.[33] More research is needed to clarify this situation.
Simulated dark matter haloes have significantly steeper density profiles (having central cusps) than are inferred from observations, which is a problem for cosmological models with dark matter at the smallest scale of galaxies as of 2008.[10] This may only be a problem of resolution: star-forming regions which might alter the dark matter distribution via outflows of gas have been too small to resolve and model simultaneously with larger dark matter clumps. A recent simulation[34] of a dwarf galaxy resolving these star-forming regions reported that strong outflows from supernovae remove low-angular-momentum gas, which inhibits the formation of a galactic bulge and decreases the dark matter density to less than half of what it would have been in the central kiloparsec. These simulation predictions—bulgeless and with shallow central dark matter profiles—correspond closely to observations of actual dwarf galaxies. There are no such discrepancies at the larger scales of clusters of galaxies and above, or in the outer regions of haloes of galaxies.

Exceptions to this general picture of dark matter haloes for galaxies appear to be galaxies with mass-to-light ratios close to that of stars.[citation needed] Subsequent to this, numerous observations have been made that do indicate the presence of dark matter in various parts of the cosmos, such as observations of the cosmic microwave background, of supernovas used as distance measures, of gravitational lensing at various scales, and many types of sky survey. Starting with Rubin's findings for spiral galaxies, the robust observational evidence for dark matter has been collecting over the decades to the point that by the 1980s most astrophysicists accepted its existence.[35] As a unifying concept, dark matter is one of the dominant features considered in the analysis of structures on the order of galactic scale and larger.

Velocity dispersions of galaxies

In astronomy, the velocity dispersion Ļƒ, is the range of velocities about the mean velocity for a group of objects, such as a cluster of stars about a galaxy.

Rubin's pioneering work has stood the test of time. Measurements of velocity curves in spiral galaxies were soon followed up with velocity dispersions of elliptical galaxies.[36] While sometimes appearing with lower mass-to-light ratios, measurements of ellipticals still indicate a relatively high dark matter content. Likewise, measurements of the diffuse interstellar gas found at the edge of galaxies indicate not only dark matter distributions that extend beyond the visible limit of the galaxies, but also that the galaxies are virialized (i.e. gravitationally bound with velocities which appear to disproportionately correspond to predicted orbital velocities of general relativity) up to ten times their visible radii.[37] This has the effect of pushing up the dark matter as a fraction of the total amount of gravitating matter from 50% measured by Rubin to the now accepted value of nearly 95%.

There are places where dark matter seems to be a small component or totally absent. Globular clusters show little evidence that they contain dark matter,[38] though their orbital interactions with galaxies do show evidence for galactic dark matter.[citation needed] For some time, measurements of the velocity profile of stars seemed to indicate concentration of dark matter in the disk of the Milky Way. It now appears, however, that the high concentration of baryonic matter in the disk of the galaxy (especially in the interstellar medium) can account for this motion. Galaxy mass profiles are thought to look very different from the light profiles. The typical model for dark matter galaxies is a smooth, spherical distribution in virialized halos. Such would have to be the case to avoid small-scale (stellar) dynamical effects. Recent research reported in January 2006 from the University of Massachusetts Amherst would explain the previously mysterious warp in the disk of the Milky Way by the interaction of the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds and the predicted 20 fold increase in mass of the Milky Way taking into account dark matter.[39]

In 2005, astronomers from Cardiff University claimed to have discovered a galaxy made almost entirely of dark matter, 50 million light years away in the Virgo Cluster, which was named VIRGOHI21.[40] Unusually, VIRGOHI21 does not appear to contain any visible stars: it was seen with radio frequency observations of hydrogen. Based on rotation profiles, the scientists estimate that this object contains approximately 1000 times more dark matter than hydrogen and has a total mass of about 1/10 that of the Milky Way. For comparison, the Milky Way is estimated to have roughly 10 times as much dark matter as ordinary matter. Models of the Big Bang and structure formation have suggested that such dark galaxies should be very common in the Universe[citation needed], but none had previously been detected. If the existence of this dark galaxy is confirmed, it provides strong evidence for the theory of galaxy formation and poses problems for alternative explanations of dark matter.

There are some galaxies whose velocity profile indicates an absence of dark matter, such as NGC 3379.[41]

Galaxy clusters and gravitational lensing


Strong gravitational lensing as observed by the Hubble Space Telescope in Abell 1689 indicates the presence of dark matter—enlarge the image to see the lensing arcs.

Galaxy clusters are especially important for dark matter studies since their masses can be estimated in three independent ways:
  • From the scatter in radial velocities of the galaxies within them (as in Zwicky's early observations, but with accurate measurements and much larger samples).
  • From X-rays emitted by very hot gas within the clusters. The temperature and density of the gas can be estimated from the energy and flux of the X-rays, hence the gas pressure; assuming pressure and gravity balance, this enables the mass profile of the cluster to be derived. Many of the experiments of the Chandra X-ray Observatory use this technique to independently determine the mass of clusters. These observations generally indicate a ratio of baryonic to total mass approximately 12–15 percent, in reasonable agreement with the Planck spacecraft cosmic average of 15.5–16 percent.[42]
  • From their gravitational lensing effects on background objects, usually more distant galaxies. This is observed as "strong lensing" (multiple images) near the cluster core, and weak lensing (shape distortions) in the outer parts. Several large Hubble projects have used this method to measure cluster masses.
Generally these three methods are in reasonable agreement, that clusters contain much more matter than the visible galaxies and gas.

A gravitational lens is formed when the light from a more distant source (such as a quasar) is "bent" around a massive object (such as a cluster of galaxies) between the source object and the observer. The process is known as gravitational lensing.

The galaxy cluster Abell 2029 is composed of thousands of galaxies enveloped in a cloud of hot gas, and an amount of dark matter equivalent to more than 1014 M. At the center of this cluster is an enormous, elliptically shaped galaxy that is thought to have been formed from the mergers of many smaller galaxies.[43] The measured orbital velocities of galaxies within galactic clusters have been found to be consistent with dark matter observations.

Another important tool for future dark matter observations is gravitational lensing. Lensing relies on the effects of general relativity to predict masses without relying on dynamics, and so is a completely independent means of measuring the dark matter. Strong lensing, the observed distortion of background galaxies into arcs when the light passes through a gravitational lens, has been observed around a few distant clusters including Abell 1689 (pictured).[44] By measuring the distortion geometry, the mass of the cluster causing the phenomena can be obtained. In the dozens of cases where this has been done, the mass-to-light ratios obtained correspond to the dynamical dark matter measurements of clusters.[45]

Weak gravitational lensing looks at minute distortions of galaxies observed in vast galaxy surveys due to foreground objects through statistical analyses. By examining the apparent shear deformation of the adjacent background galaxies, astrophysicists can characterize the mean distribution of dark matter by statistical means and have found mass-to-light ratios that correspond to dark matter densities predicted by other large-scale structure measurements.[46] The correspondence of the two gravitational lens techniques to other dark matter measurements has convinced almost all astrophysicists that dark matter actually exists as a major component of the Universe's composition.

The Bullet Cluster: HST image with overlays. The total projected mass distribution reconstructed from strong and weak gravitational lensing is shown in blue, while the X-ray emitting hot gas observed with Chandra is shown in red.

The most direct observational evidence to date for dark matter is in a system known as the Bullet Cluster. In most regions of the Universe, dark matter and visible material are found together,[47] as expected because of their mutual gravitational attraction. In the Bullet Cluster, a collision between two galaxy clusters appears to have caused a separation of dark matter and baryonic matter. X-ray observations show that much of the baryonic matter (in the form of 107–108 Kelvin[48] gas or plasma) in the system is concentrated in the center of the system. Electromagnetic interactions between passing gas particles caused them to slow down and settle near the point of impact. However, weak gravitational lensing observations of the same system show that much of the mass resides outside of the central region of baryonic gas. Because dark matter does not interact by electromagnetic forces, it would not have been slowed in the same way as the X-ray visible gas, so the dark matter components of the two clusters passed through each other without slowing down substantially. This accounts for the separation. Unlike the galactic rotation curves, this evidence for dark matter is independent of the details of Newtonian gravity, so it is claimed to be direct evidence of the existence of dark matter.[48]

Another galaxy cluster, known as the Train Wreck Cluster/Abell 520, initially appeared to have an unusually massive and dark core containing few of the cluster's galaxies, which presented problems for standard dark matter models.[49] However, more precise observations since this time have shown that the earlier observations were misleading, and that the distribution of dark matter and its ratio to normal matter are very similar to those in galaxies in general, making novel explanations unnecessary.[48]

The observed behavior of dark matter in clusters constrains whether and how much dark matter scatters off other dark matter particles, quantified as its self-interaction cross section. More simply, the question is whether the dark matter has pressure, and thus can be described as a perfect fluid.[50] The distribution of mass (and thus dark matter) in galaxy clusters has been used to argue both for[51] and against[52] the existence of significant self-interaction in dark matter. Specifically, the distribution of dark matter in merging clusters such as the Bullet Cluster shows that dark matter scatters off other dark matter particles only very weakly if at all.[53]

Cosmic microwave background

The cosmic microwave background by WMAP

Angular fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) spectrum provide evidence for dark matter. Since the 1964 discovery and confirmation of the CMB radiation,[54] many measurements of the CMB have supported and constrained this theory. The NASA Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) found that the CMB spectrum is a blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.726 K. In 1992, COBE detected fluctuations (anisotropies) in the CMB spectrum, at a level of about one part in 105.[55] During the following decade, CMB anisotropies were further investigated by a large number of ground-based and balloon experiments. The primary goal of these experiments was to measure the angular scale of the first acoustic peak of the power spectrum of the anisotropies, for which COBE did not have sufficient resolution. In 2000–2001, several experiments, most notably BOOMERanG[56] found the Universe to be almost spatially flat by measuring the typical angular size (the size on the sky) of the anisotropies. During the 1990s, the first peak was measured with increasing sensitivity and by 2000 the BOOMERanG experiment reported that the highest power fluctuations occur at scales of approximately one degree. These measurements were able to rule out cosmic strings as the leading theory of cosmic structure formation, and suggested cosmic inflation was the right theory.

A number of ground-based interferometers provided measurements of the fluctuations with higher accuracy over the next three years, including the Very Small Array, the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer (DASI) and the Cosmic Background Imager (CBI). DASI made the first detection of the polarization of the CMB,[57][58] and the CBI provided the first E-mode polarization spectrum with compelling evidence that it is out of phase with the T-mode spectrum.[59] COBE's successor, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has provided the most detailed measurements of (large-scale) anisotropies in the CMB as of 2009 with ESA's Planck spacecraft returning more detailed results in 2012-2014.[60] WMAP's measurements played the key role in establishing the current Standard Model of Cosmology, namely the Lambda-CDM model, a flat universe dominated by dark energy, supplemented by dark matter and atoms with density fluctuations seeded by a Gaussian, adiabatic, nearly scale invariant process. The basic properties of this universe are determined by five numbers: the density of matter, the density of atoms, the age of the Universe (or equivalently, the Hubble constant today), the amplitude of the initial fluctuations, and their scale dependence.

A successful Big Bang cosmology theory must fit with all available astronomical observations, including the CMB. In cosmology, the CMB is explained as relic radiation from shortly after the big bang. The anisotropies in the CMB are explained as acoustic oscillations in the photon-baryon plasma (prior to the emission of the CMB after the photons decouple from the baryons at 379,000 years after the Big Bang) whose restoring force is gravity.[61] Ordinary (baryonic) matter interacts strongly with radiation whereas, by definition, dark matter does not. Both affect the oscillations by their gravity, so the two forms of matter will have different effects. The typical angular scales of the oscillations in the CMB, measured as the power spectrum of the CMB anisotropies, thus reveal the different effects of baryonic matter and dark matter. The CMB power spectrum shows a large first peak and smaller successive peaks, with three peaks resolved as of 2009.[60] The first peak tells mostly about the density of baryonic matter and the third peak mostly about the density of dark matter, measuring the density of matter and the density of atoms in the Universe.

Sky surveys and baryon acoustic oscillations

The acoustic oscillations in the early universe (see the previous section) leave their imprint in the visible matter by Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) clustering, in a way that can be measured with sky surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey.[62] These measurements are consistent with those of the CMB derived from the WMAP spacecraft and further constrain the Lambda CDM model and dark matter. Note that the CMB data and the BAO data measure the acoustic oscillations at very different distance scales.[61]

Type Ia supernovae distance measurements

Type Ia supernovae can be used as "standard candles" to measure extragalactic distances, and extensive data sets of these supernovae can be used to constrain cosmological models.[63] They constrain the dark energy density Ī©Ī› = ~0.713 for a flat, Lambda CDM Universe and the parameter w for a quintessence model. Once again, the values obtained are roughly consistent with those derived from the WMAP observations and further constrain the Lambda CDM model and (indirectly) dark matter.[61]

Lyman-alpha forest

In astronomical spectroscopy, the Lyman-alpha forest is the sum of absorption lines arising from the Lyman-alpha transition of the neutral hydrogen in the spectra of distant galaxies and quasars
Observations of the Lyman-alpha forest can also be used to constrain cosmological models.[64] These constraints are again in agreement with those obtained from WMAP data.

Structure formation


3D map of the large-scale distribution of dark matter, reconstructed from measurements of weak gravitational lensing with the Hubble Space Telescope. [65]

Dark matter is crucial to the Big Bang model of cosmology as a component which corresponds directly to measurements of the parameters associated with Friedmann cosmology solutions to general relativity. In particular, measurements of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies correspond to a cosmology where much of the matter interacts with photons more weakly than the known forces that couple light interactions to baryonic matter. Likewise, a significant amount of non-baryonic, cold matter is necessary to explain the large-scale structure of the universe.

Observations suggest that structure formation in the Universe proceeds hierarchically, with the smallest structures collapsing first and followed by galaxies and then clusters of galaxies. As the structures collapse in the evolving universe, they begin to "light up" as the baryonic matter heats up through gravitational contraction and the object approaches hydrostatic pressure balance. Ordinary baryonic matter had too high a temperature, and too much pressure left over from the Big Bang to collapse and form smaller structures, such as stars, via the Jeans instability. Dark matter acts as a compactor of structure. This model not only corresponds with statistical surveying of the visible structure in the Universe but also corresponds precisely to the dark matter predictions of the cosmic microwave background.

This bottom up model of structure formation requires something like cold dark matter to succeed. Large computer simulations of billions of dark matter particles have been used[66] to confirm that the cold dark matter model of structure formation is consistent with the structures observed in the Universe through galaxy surveys, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, as well as observations of the Lyman-alpha forest. These studies have been crucial in constructing the Lambda-CDM model which measures the cosmological parameters, including the fraction of the Universe made up of baryons and dark matter.

There are, however, several points of tension between observation and simulations of structure formation driven by dark matter. There is evidence that there are 10 to 100 times fewer small galaxies than permitted by what the dark matter theory of galaxy formation predicts.[67][68] This is known as the dwarf galaxy problem. In addition, the simulations predict dark matter distributions with a very dense cusp near the centers of galaxies, but the observed halos are smoother than predicted.

History of the search for its composition

List of unsolved problems in physics
What is dark matter? How is it generated? Is it related to supersymmetry?
Although dark matter had historically been inferred by many astronomical observations, its composition long remained speculative. Early theories of dark matter concentrated on hidden heavy normal objects (such as black holes, neutron stars, faint old white dwarfs, and brown dwarfs) as the possible candidates for dark matter, collectively known as massive compact halo objects or MACHOs. Astronomical surveys for gravitational microlensing, including the MACHO, EROS and OGLE projects, along with Hubble telescope searches for ultra-faint stars, have not found enough of these hidden MACHOs.[69][70][71] Some hard-to-detect baryonic matter, such as MACHOs and some forms of gas, were additionally speculated to make a contribution to the overall dark matter content, but evidence indicated such would constitute only a small portion.[72][73][74]

Furthermore, data from a number of lines of other evidence, including galaxy rotation curves, gravitational lensing, structure formation, and the fraction of baryons in clusters and the cluster abundance combined with independent evidence for the baryon density, indicated that 85–90% of the mass in the Universe does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This "nonbaryonic dark matter" is evident through its gravitational effect. Consequently, the most commonly held view was that dark matter is primarily non-baryonic, made of one or more elementary particles other than the usual electrons, protons, neutrons, and known neutrinos. The most commonly proposed particles then became WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, including neutralinos), axions, or sterile neutrinos, though many other possible candidates have been proposed.

The dark matter component has much more mass than the "visible" component of the universe.[75] Only about 4.6% of the mass-energy of the Universe is ordinary matter. About 23% is thought to be composed of dark matter. The remaining 72% is thought to consist of dark energy, an even stranger component, distributed almost uniformly in space and with energy density non-evolving or slowly evolving with time.[76] Determining the nature of this dark matter is one of the most important problems in modern cosmology and particle physics. It has been noted that the names "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of human ignorance, much like the marking of early maps with "terra incognita".[76]

Dark matter candidates can be approximately divided into three classes, called cold, warm and hot dark matter.[77]

These categories do not correspond to an actual temperature, but instead refer to how fast the particles were moving, thus how far they moved due to random motions in the early universe, before they slowed down due to the expansion of the Universe – this is an important distance called the "free streaming length". Primordial density fluctuations smaller than this free-streaming length get washed out as particles move from overdense to underdense regions, while fluctuations larger than the free-streaming length are unaffected; therefore this free-streaming length sets a minimum scale for structure formation.
  • Cold dark matter – objects with a free-streaming length much smaller than a protogalaxy.[78]
  • Warm dark matter – particles with a free-streaming length similar to a protogalaxy.
  • Hot dark matter – particles with a free-streaming length much larger than a protogalaxy.[79]
Though a fourth category had been considered early on, called mixed dark matter, it was quickly eliminated (from the 1990s) since the discovery of dark energy.

As an example, Davis et al. wrote in 1985:
Candidate particles can be grouped into three categories on the basis of their effect on the fluctuation spectrum (Bond et al. 1983). If the dark matter is composed of abundant light particles which remain relativistic until shortly before recombination, then it may be termed "hot". The best candidate for hot dark matter is a neutrino ... A second possibility is for the dark matter particles to interact more weakly than neutrinos, to be less abundant, and to have a mass of order 1 keV. Such particles are termed "warm dark matter", because they have lower thermal velocities than massive neutrinos ... there are at present few candidate particles which fit this description. Gravitinos and photinos have been suggested (Pagels and Primack 1982; Bond, Szalay and Turner 1982) ... Any particles which became nonrelativistic very early, and so were able to diffuse a negligible distance, are termed "cold" dark matter (CDM). There are many candidates for CDM including supersymmetric particles.[80]
The full calculations are quite technical, but an approximate dividing line is that "warm" dark matter particles became non-relativistic when the Universe was approximately 1 year old and 1 millionth of its present size; standard hot big bang theory implies the Universe was then in the radiation-dominated era (photons and neutrinos), with a photon temperature 2.7 million K. Standard physical cosmology gives the particle horizon size as 2ct in the radiation-dominated era, thus 2 light-years, and a region of this size would expand to 2 million light years today (if there were no structure formation). The actual free-streaming length is roughly 5 times larger than the above length, since the free-streaming length continues to grow slowly as particle velocities decrease inversely with the scale factor after they become non-relativistic; therefore, in this example the free-streaming length would correspond to 10 million light-years or 3 Mpc today, which is around the size containing on average the mass of a large galaxy.

The above temperature 2.7 million K which gives a typical photon energy of 250 electron-volts, so this sets a typical mass scale for "warm" dark matter: particles much more massive than this, such as GeV – TeV mass WIMPs, would become non-relativistic much earlier than 1 year after the Big Bang, thus have a free-streaming length which is much smaller than a proto-galaxy and effectively negligible (thus cold dark matter). Conversely, much lighter particles (e.g. neutrinos of mass ~ few eV) have a free-streaming length much larger than a proto-galaxy (thus hot dark matter).

Cold dark matter

Today, cold dark matter is the simplest explanation for most cosmological observations. "Cold" dark matter is dark matter composed of constituents with a free-streaming length much smaller than the ancestor of a galaxy-scale perturbation. This is currently the area of greatest interest for dark matter research, as hot dark matter does not seem to be viable for galaxy and galaxy cluster formation, and most particle candidates become non-relativistic at very early times, hence are classified as cold.
The composition of the constituents of cold dark matter is currently unknown. Possibilities range from large objects like MACHOs (such as black holes[81]) or RAMBOs, to new particles like WIMPs and axions. Possibilities involving normal baryonic matter include brown dwarfs, other stellar remnants such as white dwarfs, or perhaps small, dense chunks of heavy elements.

Studies of big bang nucleosynthesis and gravitational lensing have convinced most scientists[10][82][83][84][85][86] that MACHOs of any type cannot be more than a small fraction of the total dark matter.[8][82] Black holes of nearly any mass are ruled out as a primary dark matter constituent by a variety of searches and constraints.[82][84] According to A. Peter: "...the only really plausible dark-matter candidates are new particles."[83]

The DAMA/NaI experiment and its successor DAMA/LIBRA have claimed to directly detect dark matter particles passing through the Earth, but many scientists remain skeptical, as negative results from similar experiments seem incompatible with the DAMA results.

Many supersymmetric models naturally give rise to stable dark matter candidates in the form of the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP). Separately, heavy sterile neutrinos exist in non-supersymmetric extensions to the standard model that explain the small neutrino mass through the seesaw mechanism.

Warm dark matter

Warm dark matter refers to particles with a free-streaming length comparable to the size of a region which subsequently evolved into a dwarf galaxy. This leads to predictions which are very similar to cold dark matter on large scales, including the CMB, galaxy clustering and large galaxy rotation curves, but with less small-scale density perturbations. This reduces the predicted abundance of dwarf galaxies and may lead to lower density of dark matter in the central parts of large galaxies; some researchers consider this may be a better fit to observations. A challenge for this model is that there are no very well-motivated particle physics candidates with the required mass ~ 300 eV to 3000 eV.
There have been no particles discovered so far that can be categorized as warm dark matter. There is a postulated candidate for the warm dark matter category, which is the sterile neutrino: a heavier, slower form of neutrino which does not even interact through the Weak force unlike regular neutrinos. Interestingly, some modified gravity theories, such as Scalar-tensor-vector gravity, also require that a warm dark matter exist to make their equations work out.

Hot dark matter

Hot dark matter consists of particles that have a free-streaming length much larger than that of a proto-galaxy.
An example of hot dark matter is already known: the neutrino. Neutrinos were discovered quite separately from the search for dark matter, and long before it seriously began: they were first postulated in 1930, and first detected in 1956. Neutrinos have a very small mass: at least 100,000 times less massive than an electron. Other than gravity, neutrinos only interact with normal matter via the weak force making them very difficult to detect (the weak force only works over a small distance, thus a neutrino will only trigger a weak force event if it hits a nucleus directly head-on). This would make them 'weakly interacting light particles' (WILPs), as opposed to cold dark matter's theoretical candidates, the weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs).

There are three different known flavors of neutrinos (i.e. the electron, muon, and tau neutrinos), and their masses are slightly different. The resolution to the solar neutrino problem demonstrated that these three types of neutrinos actually change and oscillate from one flavor to the others and back as they are in-flight. It's hard to determine an exact upper bound on the collective average mass of the three neutrinos (let alone a mass for any of the three individually). For example, if the average neutrino mass were chosen to be over 50 eV/c2 (which is still less than 1/10,000th of the mass of an electron), just by the sheer number of them in the Universe, the Universe would collapse due to their mass. So other observations have served to estimate an upper-bound for the neutrino mass. Using cosmic microwave background data and other methods, the current conclusion is that their average mass probably does not exceed 0.3 eV/c2 Thus, the normal forms of neutrinos cannot be responsible for the measured dark matter component from cosmology.[87]

Hot dark matter was popular for a time in the early 1980s, but it suffers from a severe problem: because all galaxy-size density fluctuations get washed out by free-streaming, the first objects that can form are huge supercluster-size pancakes, which then were theorised somehow to fragment into galaxies. Deep-field observations clearly show that galaxies formed at early times, with clusters and superclusters forming later as galaxies clump together, so any model dominated by hot dark matter is seriously in conflict with observations.

Mixed dark matter

Mixed dark matter is a now obsolete model, with a specifically chosen mass ratio of 80% cold dark matter and 20% hot dark matter (neutrinos) content. Though it is presumable that hot dark matter coexists with cold dark matter in any case, there was a very specific reason for choosing this particular ratio of hot to cold dark matter in this model. During the early 1990s it became steadily clear that a Universe with critical density of cold dark matter did not fit the COBE and large-scale galaxy clustering observations; either the 80/20 mixed dark matter model, or LambdaCDM, were able to reconcile these. With the discovery of the accelerating universe from supernovae, and more accurate measurements of CMB anisotropy and galaxy clustering, the mixed dark matter model was essentially ruled out while the concordance LambdaCDM model remained a good fit.

Detection

If the dark matter within our galaxy is made up of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), then millions, possibly billions, of WIMPs must pass through every square centimeter of the Earth each second.[88][89] There are many experiments currently running, or planned, aiming to test this hypothesis by searching for WIMPs. Although WIMPs are the historically more popular dark matter candidate for searches,[10] there are experiments searching for other particle candidates; the Axion Dark Matter eXperiment (ADMX) is currently searching for the dark matter axion, a well-motivated and constrained dark matter source. It is also possible that dark matter consists of very heavy hidden sector particles which only interact with ordinary matter via gravity.

These experiments can be divided into two classes: direct detection experiments, which search for the scattering of dark matter particles off atomic nuclei within a detector; and indirect detection, which look for the products of WIMP annihilations.[18]

An alternative approach to the detection of WIMPs in nature is to produce them in the laboratory. Experiments with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may be able to detect WIMPs produced in collisions of the LHC proton beams. Because a WIMP has negligible interactions with matter, it may be detected indirectly as (large amounts of) missing energy and momentum which escape the LHC detectors, provided all the other (non-negligible) collision products are detected.[90] These experiments could show that WIMPs can be created, but it would still require a direct detection experiment to show that they exist in sufficient numbers in the galaxy to account for dark matter.

Direct detection experiments

Direct detection experiments usually operate in deep underground laboratories to reduce the background from cosmic rays. These include: the Soudan mine; the SNOLAB underground laboratory at Sudbury, Ontario (Canada); the Gran Sasso National Laboratory (Italy); the Canfranc Underground Laboratory (Spain); the Boulby Underground Laboratory (UK); the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory, South Dakota (US); and the Particle and Astrophysical Xenon Detector (China).

The majority of present experiments use one of two detector technologies: cryogenic detectors, operating at temperatures below 100mK, detect the heat produced when a particle hits an atom in a crystal absorber such as germanium. Noble liquid detectors detect the flash of scintillation light produced by a particle collision in liquid xenon or argon. Cryogenic detector experiments include: CDMS, CRESST, EDELWEISS, EURECA. Noble liquid experiments include ZEPLIN, XENON, DEAP, ArDM, WARP, DarkSide, PandaX, and LUX, the Large Underground Xenon Detector. Both of these detector techniques are capable of distinguishing background particles which scatter off electrons, from dark matter particles which scatter off nuclei. Other experiments include SIMPLE and PICASSO.

The DAMA/NaI, DAMA/LIBRA experiments have detected an annual modulation in the event rate,[91] which they claim is due to dark matter particles. (As the Earth orbits the Sun, the velocity of the detector relative to the dark matter halo will vary by a small amount depending on the time of year). This claim is so far unconfirmed and difficult to reconcile with the negative results of other experiments assuming that the WIMP scenario is correct.[92]

Directional detection of dark matter is a search strategy based on the motion of the Solar System around the galactic center.[93][94][95][96]

By using a low pressure TPC, it is possible to access information on recoiling tracks (3D reconstruction if possible) and to constrain the WIMP-nucleus kinematics. WIMPs coming from the direction in which the Sun is travelling (roughly in the direction of the Cygnus constellation) may then be separated from background noise, which should be isotropic. Directional dark matter experiments include DMTPC, DRIFT, Newage and MIMAC.

On 17 December 2009 CDMS researchers reported two possible WIMP candidate events. They estimate that the probability that these events are due to a known background (neutrons or misidentified beta or gamma events) is 23%, and conclude "this analysis cannot be interpreted as significant evidence for WIMP interactions, but we cannot reject either event as signal."[97]

More recently, on 4 September 2011, researchers using the CRESST detectors presented evidence[98] of 67 collisions occurring in detector crystals from sub-atomic particles, calculating there is a less than 1 in 10,000 chance that all were caused by known sources of interference or contamination. It is quite possible then that many of these collisions were caused by WIMPs, and/or other unknown particles.

Indirect detection experiments

Indirect detection experiments search for the products of WIMP annihilation or decay. If WIMPs are Majorana particles (WIMPs are their own antiparticle) then two WIMPs could annihilate to produce gamma rays or Standard Model particle-antiparticle pairs. Additionally, if the WIMP is unstable, WIMPs could decay into standard model particles. These processes could be detected indirectly through an excess of gamma rays, antiprotons or positrons emanating from regions of high dark matter density. The detection of such a signal is not conclusive evidence for dark matter, as the production of gamma rays from other sources is not fully understood.[10][18]

The EGRET gamma ray telescope observed more gamma rays than expected from the Milky Way, but scientists concluded that this was most likely due to a mis-estimation of the telescope's sensitivity.[99]

The Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, launched 11 June 2008, is searching for gamma rays from dark matter annihilation and decay.[100] In April 2012, an analysis[101] of previously available data from its Large Area Telescope instrument produced strong statistical evidence of a 130 GeV line in the gamma radiation coming from the center of the Milky Way. At the time, WIMP annihilation was the most probable explanation for that line.[102]

At higher energies, ground-based gamma-ray telescopes have set limits on the annihilation of dark matter in dwarf spheroidal galaxies[103] and in clusters of galaxies.[104]

The PAMELA experiment (launched 2006) has detected a larger number of positrons than expected. These extra positrons could be produced by dark matter annihilation, but may also come from pulsars. No excess of anti-protons has been observed.[105] The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station is designed to directly measure the fraction of cosmic rays which are positrons. The first results, published in April 2013, indicate an excess of high-energy cosmic rays which could potentially be due to annihilation of dark matter.[106][107][108][109][110][111]

A few of the WIMPs passing through the Sun or Earth may scatter off atoms and lose energy. This way a large population of WIMPs may accumulate at the center of these bodies, increasing the chance that two will collide and annihilate. This could produce a distinctive signal in the form of high-energy neutrinos originating from the center of the Sun or Earth.[112] It is generally considered that the detection of such a signal would be the strongest indirect proof of WIMP dark matter.[10] High-energy neutrino telescopes such as AMANDA, IceCube and ANTARES are searching for this signal.

WIMP annihilation from the Milky Way Galaxy as a whole may also be detected in the form of various annihilation products.[113] The Galactic center is a particularly good place to look because the density of dark matter may be very high there.[114]

In 2014, two independent and separate groups, one led by Harvard astrophysicist Esra Bulbul and the other by Leiden astrophysicist Alexey Boyarsky, reported an unidentified X-ray emission line around 3.5 keV in the spectra of clusters of galaxies; it is possible this could be an indirect signal from dark matter and that it could be a new particle, a sterile neutrino which has mass.[115]

Alternative theories

Mass in extra dimensions

In some multidimensional theories, the force of gravity is the unique force able to have an effect across all the various extra dimensions,[14] which would explain the relative weakness of the force of gravity compared to the other known forces of nature that would not be able to cross into extra dimensions: electromagnetism, strong interaction, and weak interaction.

In that case, dark matter would be a perfect candidate for matter that would exist in other dimensions and that could only interact with the matter on our dimensions through gravity. That dark matter located on different dimensions could potentially aggregate in the same way as the matter in our visible universe does, forming exotic galaxies.[13]

Topological defects

Dark matter could consist of primordial defects (defects originating with the birth of the Universe) in the topology of quantum fields, which would contain energy and therefore gravitate. This possibility may be investigated by the use of an orbital network of atomic clocks, which would register the passage of topological defects by monitoring the synchronization of the clocks. The Global Positioning System may be able to operate as such a network.[116]

Modified gravity

Numerous alternative theories have been proposed to explain these observations without the need for a large amount of undetected matter. Most of these theories modify the laws of gravity established by Newton and Einstein in some way.

The earliest modified gravity model to emerge was Mordehai Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) in 1983, which adjusts Newton's laws to create a stronger gravitational field when gravitational acceleration levels become tiny (such as near the rim of a galaxy). It had some success explaining galactic-scale features, such as rotational velocity curves of elliptical galaxies, and dwarf elliptical galaxies, but did not successfully explain galaxy cluster gravitational lensing. However, MOND was not relativistic, since it was just a straight adjustment of the older Newtonian account of gravitation, not of the newer account in Einstein's general relativity. Soon after 1983, attempts were made to bring MOND into conformity with general relativity; this is an ongoing process, and many competing hypotheses have emerged based around the original MOND model—including TeVeS, MOG or STV gravity, and phenomenological covariant approach,[117] among others.

In 2007, John W. Moffat proposed a modified gravity hypothesis based on the nonsymmetric gravitational theory (NGT) that claims to account for the behavior of colliding galaxies.[118] This model requires the presence of non-relativistic neutrinos, or other candidates for (cold) dark matter, to work.

Another proposal uses a gravitational backreaction in an emerging theoretical field that seeks to explain gravity between objects as an action, a reaction, and then a back-reaction. Simply, an object A affects an object B, and the object B then re-affects object A, and so on: creating a sort of feedback loop that strengthens gravity.[119]

Recently, another group has proposed a modification of large-scale gravity in a hypothesis named "dark fluid". In this formulation, the attractive gravitational effects attributed to dark matter are instead a side-effect of dark energy. Dark fluid combines dark matter and dark energy in a single energy field that produces different effects at different scales. This treatment is a simplified approach to a previous fluid-like model called the generalized Chaplygin gas model where the whole of spacetime is a compressible gas.[120] Dark fluid can be compared to an atmospheric system. Atmospheric pressure causes air to expand, but part of the air can collapse to form clouds. In the same way, the dark fluid might generally expand, but it also could collect around galaxies to help hold them together.[120]

Another set of proposals is based on the possibility of a double metric tensor for space-time.[121] It has been argued that time-reversed solutions in general relativity require such double metric for consistency, and that both dark matter and dark energy can be understood in terms of time-reversed solutions of general relativity.[122]

Popular culture

Mention of dark matter is made in some video games and other works of fiction. In such cases, it is usually attributed extraordinary physical or magical properties. Such descriptions are often inconsistent with the properties of dark matter proposed in physics and cosmology.

Introduction to general relativity



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


High-precision test of general relativity by the Cassini space probe (artist's impression): radio signals sent between the Earth and the probe (green wave) are delayed by the warping of spacetime (blue lines) due to the Sun's mass.

General relativity is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Einstein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational effect between masses results from their warping of spacetime.

By the beginning of the 20th century, Newton's law of universal gravitation had been accepted for more than two hundred years as a valid description of the gravitational force between masses. In Newton's model, gravity is the result of an attractive force between massive objects. Although even Newton was troubled by the unknown nature of that force,[1] the basic framework was extremely successful at describing motion.

Experiments and observations show that Einstein's description of gravitation accounts for several effects that are unexplained by Newton's law, such as minute anomalies in the orbits of Mercury and other planets. General relativity also predicts novel effects of gravity, such as gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and an effect of gravity on time known as gravitational time dilation. Many of these predictions have been confirmed by experiment, while others are the subject of ongoing research. For example, although there is indirect evidence for gravitational waves, direct evidence of their existence is still being sought by several teams of scientists in experiments such as the LIGO and GEO600 projects.

General relativity has developed into an essential tool in modern astrophysics. It provides the foundation for the current understanding of black holes, regions of space where the gravitational effect is so strong that even light cannot escape. Their strong gravity is thought to be responsible for the intense radiation emitted by certain types of astronomical objects (such as active galactic nuclei or microquasars). General relativity is also part of the framework of the standard Big Bang model of cosmology.

Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest such theory that is consistent with the experimental data. Nevertheless, a number of open questions remain, the most fundamental of which is how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity.

From special to general relativity


Albert Einstein, pictured here in 1921, developed the theories of special and general relativity.

In September 1905, Albert Einstein published his theory of special relativity, which reconciles Newton's laws of motion with electrodynamics (the interaction between objects with electric charge). Special relativity introduced a new framework for all of physics by proposing new concepts of space and time. Some then-accepted physical theories were inconsistent with that framework; a key example was Newton's theory of gravity, which describes the mutual attraction experienced by bodies due to their mass.

Several physicists, including Einstein, searched for a theory that would reconcile Newton's law of gravity and special relativity. Only Einstein's theory proved to be consistent with experiments and observations. To understand the theory's basic ideas, it is instructive to follow Einstein's thinking between 1907 and 1915, from his simple thought experiment involving an observer in free fall to his fully geometric theory of gravity.[2]

Equivalence principle

A person in a free-falling elevator experiences weightlessness and objects either float motionless or drift at constant speed. Since everything in the elevator is falling together, no gravitational effect can be observed. In this way, the experiences of an observer in free fall are indistinguishable from those of an observer in deep space, far from any significant source of gravity. Such observers are the privileged ("inertial") observers Einstein described in his theory of special relativity: observers for whom light travels along straight lines at constant speed.[3]
Einstein hypothesized that the similar experiences of weightless observers and inertial observers in special relativity represented a fundamental property of gravity, and he made this the cornerstone of his theory of general relativity, formalized in his equivalence principle. Roughly speaking, the principle states that a person in a free-falling elevator cannot tell that they are in free fall. Every experiment in such a free-falling environment has the same results as it would for an observer at rest or moving uniformly in deep space, far from all sources of gravity.[4]

Gravity and acceleration


Ball falling to the floor in an accelerating rocket (left) and on Earth (right).

Most effects of gravity vanish in free fall, but effects that seem the same as those of gravity can be produced by an accelerated frame of reference. An observer in a closed room cannot tell which of the following is true:
  • Objects are falling to the floor because the room is resting on the surface of the Earth and the objects are being pulled down by gravity.
  • Objects are falling to the floor because the room is aboard a rocket in space, which is accelerating at 9.81 m/s2 and is far from any source of gravity. The objects are being pulled towards the floor by the same "inertial force" that presses the driver of an accelerating car into the back of his seat.
Conversely, any effect observed in an accelerated reference frame should also be observed in a gravitational field of corresponding strength. This principle allowed Einstein to predict several novel effects of gravity in 1907, as explained in the next section.

An observer in an accelerated reference frame must introduce what physicists call fictitious forces to account for the acceleration experienced by himself and objects around him. One example, the force pressing the driver of an accelerating car into his or her seat, has already been mentioned; another is the force you can feel pulling your arms up and out if you attempt to spin around like a top. Einstein's master insight was that the constant, familiar pull of the Earth's gravitational field is fundamentally the same as these fictitious forces.[5] The apparent magnitude of the fictitious forces always appears to be proportional to the mass of any object on which they act - for instance, the driver's seat exerts just enough force to accelerate the driver at the same rate as the car. By analogy, Einstein proposed that an object in a gravitational field should feel a gravitational force proportional to its mass, as embodied in Newton's law of gravitation.[6]

Physical consequences

In 1907, Einstein was still eight years away from completing the general theory of relativity. Nonetheless, he was able to make a number of novel, testable predictions that were based on his starting point for developing his new theory: the equivalence principle.[7]

The gravitational redshift of a light wave as it moves upwards against a gravitational field (caused by the yellow star below).

The first new effect is the gravitational frequency shift of light. Consider two observers aboard an accelerating rocket-ship. Aboard such a ship, there is a natural concept of "up" and "down": the direction in which the ship accelerates is "up", and unattached objects accelerate in the opposite direction, falling "downward". Assume that one of the observers is "higher up" than the other. When the lower observer sends a light signal to the higher observer, the acceleration causes the light to be red-shifted, as may be calculated from special relativity; the second observer will measure a lower frequency for the light than the first. Conversely, light sent from the higher observer to the lower is blue-shifted, that is, shifted towards higher frequencies.[8] Einstein argued that such frequency shifts must also be observed in a gravitational field. This is illustrated in the figure at left, which shows a light wave that is gradually red-shifted as it works its way upwards against the gravitational acceleration. This effect has been confirmed experimentally, as described below.

This gravitational frequency shift corresponds to a gravitational time dilation: Since the "higher" observer measures the same light wave to have a lower frequency than the "lower" observer, time must be passing faster for the higher observer. Thus, time runs more slowly for observers who are lower in a gravitational field.

It is important to stress that, for each observer, there are no observable changes of the flow of time for events or processes that are at rest in his or her reference frame. Five-minute-eggs as timed by each observer's clock have the same consistency; as one year passes on each clock, each observer ages by that amount; each clock, in short, is in perfect agreement with all processes happening in its immediate vicinity. It is only when the clocks are compared between separate observers that one can notice that time runs more slowly for the lower observer than for the higher.[9] This effect is minute, but it too has been confirmed experimentally in multiple experiments, as described below.

In a similar way, Einstein predicted the gravitational deflection of light: in a gravitational field, light is deflected downward. Quantitatively, his results were off by a factor of two; the correct derivation requires a more complete formulation of the theory of general relativity, not just the equivalence principle.[10]

Tidal effects


Two bodies falling towards the center of the Earth accelerate towards each other as they fall.

The equivalence between gravitational and inertial effects does not constitute a complete theory of gravity. When it comes to explaining gravity near our own location on the Earth's surface, noting that our reference frame is not in free fall, so that fictitious forces are to be expected, provides a suitable explanation. But a freely falling reference frame on one side of the Earth cannot explain why the people on the opposite side of the Earth experience a gravitational pull in the opposite direction.

A more basic manifestation of the same effect involves two bodies that are falling side by side towards the Earth. In a reference frame that is in free fall alongside these bodies, they appear to hover weightlessly – but not exactly so. These bodies are not falling in precisely the same direction, but towards a single point in space: namely, the Earth's center of gravity. Consequently, there is a component of each body's motion towards the other (see the figure). In a small environment such as a freely falling lift, this relative acceleration is minuscule, while for skydivers on opposite sides of the Earth, the effect is large. Such differences in force are also responsible for the tides in the Earth's oceans, so the term "tidal effect" is used for this phenomenon.

The equivalence between inertia and gravity cannot explain tidal effects – it cannot explain variations in the gravitational field.[11] For that, a theory is needed which describes the way that matter (such as the large mass of the Earth) affects the inertial environment around it.

From acceleration to geometry

In exploring the equivalence of gravity and acceleration as well as the role of tidal forces, Einstein discovered several analogies with the geometry of surfaces. An example is the transition from an inertial reference frame (in which free particles coast along straight paths at constant speeds) to a rotating reference frame (in which extra terms corresponding to fictitious forces have to be introduced in order to explain particle motion): this is analogous to the transition from a Cartesian coordinate system (in which the coordinate lines are straight lines) to a curved coordinate system (where coordinate lines need not be straight).

A deeper analogy relates tidal forces with a property of surfaces called curvature. For gravitational fields, the absence or presence of tidal forces determines whether or not the influence of gravity can be eliminated by choosing a freely falling reference frame. Similarly, the absence or presence of curvature determines whether or not a surface is equivalent to a plane. In the summer of 1912, inspired by these analogies, Einstein searched for a geometric formulation of gravity.[12]

The elementary objects of geometry – points, lines, triangles – are traditionally defined in three-dimensional space or on two-dimensional surfaces. In 1907, Hermann Minkowski, Einstein's former mathematics professor at the Swiss Federal Polytechnic, introduced a geometric formulation of Einstein's special theory of relativity where the geometry included not only space but also time. The basic entity of this new geometry is four-dimensional spacetime. The orbits of moving bodies are curves in spacetime; the orbits of bodies moving at constant speed without changing direction correspond to straight lines.[13]

For surfaces, the generalization from the geometry of a plane – a flat surface – to that of a general curved surface had been described in the early 19th century by Carl Friedrich Gauss. This description had in turn been generalized to higher-dimensional spaces in a mathematical formalism introduced by Bernhard Riemann in the 1850s. With the help of Riemannian geometry, Einstein formulated a geometric description of gravity in which Minkowski's spacetime is replaced by distorted, curved spacetime, just as curved surfaces are a generalization of ordinary plane surfaces.[14]

After he had realized the validity of this geometric analogy, it took Einstein a further three years to find the missing cornerstone of his theory: the equations describing how matter influences spacetime's curvature. Having formulated what are now known as Einstein's equations (or, more precisely, his field equations of gravity), he presented his new theory of gravity at several sessions of the Prussian Academy of Sciences in late 1915, culminating in his final presentation on November 25, 1915.[15]

Geometry and gravitation

Paraphrasing John Wheeler, Einstein's geometric theory of gravity can be summarized thus: spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.[16] What this means is addressed in the following three sections, which explore the motion of so-called test particles, examine which properties of matter serve as a source for gravity, and, finally, introduce Einstein's equations, which relate these matter properties to the curvature of spacetime.

Probing the gravitational field


Converging geodesics: two lines of longitude (green) that start out in parallel at the equator (red) but converge to meet at the pole.

In order to map a body's gravitational influence, it is useful to think about what physicists call probe or test particles: particles that are influenced by gravity, but are so small and light that we can neglect their own gravitational effect. In the absence of gravity and other external forces, a test particle moves along a straight line at a constant speed. In the language of spacetime, this is equivalent to saying that such test particles move along straight world lines in spacetime. In the presence of gravity, spacetime is non-Euclidean, or curved, and in curved spacetime straight world lines may not exist. Instead, test particles move along lines called geodesics, which are "as straight as possible", that is, they follow the shortest path between starting and ending points, taking the curvature into consideration.

A simple analogy is the following: In geodesy, the science of measuring Earth's size and shape, a geodesic (from Greek "geo", Earth, and "daiein", to divide) is the shortest route between two points on the Earth's surface. Approximately, such a route is a segment of a great circle, such as a line of longitude or the equator. These paths are certainly not straight, simply because they must follow the curvature of the Earth's surface. But they are as straight as is possible subject to this constraint.

The properties of geodesics differ from those of straight lines. For example, on a plane, parallel lines never meet, but this is not so for geodesics on the surface of the Earth: for example, lines of longitude are parallel at the equator, but intersect at the poles. Analogously, the world lines of test particles in free fall are spacetime geodesics, the straightest possible lines in spacetime. But still there are crucial differences between them and the truly straight lines that can be traced out in the gravity-free spacetime of special relativity. In special relativity, parallel geodesics remain parallel. In a gravitational field with tidal effects, this will not, in general, be the case. If, for example, two bodies are initially at rest relative to each other, but are then dropped in the Earth's gravitational field, they will move towards each other as they fall towards the Earth's center.[17]

Compared with planets and other astronomical bodies, the objects of everyday life (people, cars, houses, even mountains) have little mass. Where such objects are concerned, the laws governing the behavior of test particles are sufficient to describe what happens. Notably, in order to deflect a test particle from its geodesic path, an external force must be applied. A person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic, that is, to fall freely towards the center of the Earth. But the chair applies an external upwards force preventing the person from falling. In this way, general relativity explains the daily experience of gravity on the surface of the Earth not as the downwards pull of a gravitational force, but as the upwards push of external forces. These forces deflect all bodies resting on the Earth's surface from the geodesics they would otherwise follow.[18] For matter objects whose own gravitational influence cannot be neglected, the laws of motion are somewhat more complicated than for test particles, although it remains true that spacetime tells matter how to move.[19]

Sources of gravity

In Newton's description of gravity, the gravitational force is caused by matter. More precisely, it is caused by a specific property of material objects: their mass. In Einstein's theory and related theories of gravitation, curvature at every point in spacetime is also caused by whatever matter is present. Here, too, mass is a key property in determining the gravitational influence of matter. But in a relativistic theory of gravity, mass cannot be the only source of gravity. Relativity links mass with energy, and energy with momentum.

The equivalence between mass and energy, as expressed by the formula E = mc2, is the most famous consequence of special relativity. In relativity, mass and energy are two different ways of describing one physical quantity. If a physical system has energy, it also has the corresponding mass, and vice versa. In particular, all properties of a body that are associated with energy, such as its temperature or the binding energy of systems such as nuclei or molecules, contribute to that body's mass, and hence act as sources of gravity.[20]

In special relativity, energy is closely connected to momentum. Just as space and time are, in that theory, different aspects of a more comprehensive entity called spacetime, energy and momentum are merely different aspects of a unified, four-dimensional quantity that physicists call four-momentum. In consequence, if energy is a source of gravity, momentum must be a source as well. The same is true for quantities that are directly related to energy and momentum, namely internal pressure and tension. Taken together, in general relativity it is mass, energy, momentum, pressure and tension that serve as sources of gravity: they are how matter tells spacetime how to curve. In the theory's mathematical formulation, all these quantities are but aspects of a more general physical quantity called the energy–momentum tensor.[21]

Einstein's equations

Einstein's equations are the centerpiece of general relativity. They provide a precise formulation of the relationship between spacetime geometry and the properties of matter, using the language of mathematics. More concretely, they are formulated using the concepts of Riemannian geometry, in which the geometric properties of a space (or a spacetime) are described by a quantity called a metric. The metric encodes the information needed to compute the fundamental geometric notions of distance and angle in a curved space (or spacetime).

Distances, at different latitudes, corresponding to 30 degrees difference in longitude.

A spherical surface like that of the Earth provides a simple example. The location of any point on the surface can be described by two coordinates: the geographic latitude and longitude. Unlike the Cartesian coordinates of the plane, coordinate differences are not the same as distances on the surface, as shown in the diagram on the right: for someone at the equator, moving 30 degrees of longitude westward (magenta line) corresponds to a distance of roughly 3,300 kilometers (2,100 mi). On the other hand, someone at a latitude of 55 degrees, moving 30 degrees of longitude westward (blue line) covers a distance of merely 1,900 kilometers (1,200 mi). Coordinates therefore do not provide enough information to describe the geometry of a spherical surface, or indeed the geometry of any more complicated space or spacetime. That information is precisely what is encoded in the metric, which is a function defined at each point of the surface (or space, or spacetime) and relates coordinate differences to differences in distance. All other quantities that are of interest in geometry, such as the length of any given curve, or the angle at which two curves meet, can be computed from this metric function.[22]

The metric function and its rate of change from point to point can be used to define a geometrical quantity called the Riemann curvature tensor, which describes exactly how the space or spacetime is curved at each point. In general relativity, the metric and the Riemann curvature tensor are quantities defined at each point in spacetime. As has already been mentioned, the matter content of the spacetime defines another quantity, the energy–momentum tensor T, and the principle that "spacetime tells matter how to move, and matter tells spacetime how to curve" means that these quantities must be related to each other. Einstein formulated this relation by using the Riemann curvature tensor and the metric to define another geometrical quantity G, now called the Einstein tensor, which describes some aspects of the way spacetime is curved. Einstein's equation then states that
G=8Ļ€Gc4T,
i.e. up to a constant multiple, the quantity G (which measures curvature) is equated with the quantity T (which measures matter content). The constants involved in this equation reflect the different theories that went into its making: Ļ€ is one of the basic constants of geometry, G is the gravitational constant that is already present in Newtonian gravity, and c is the speed of light, the key constant in special relativity.

This equation is often referred to in the plural as Einstein's equations, since the quantities G and T are each determined by several functions of the coordinates of spacetime, and the equations equate each of these component functions.[23] A solution of these equations describes a particular geometry of spacetime; for example, the Schwarzschild solution describes the geometry around a spherical, non-rotating mass such as a star or a black hole, whereas the Kerr solution describes a rotating black hole. Still other solutions can describe a gravitational wave or, in the case of the Friedmann–LemaĆ®tre–Robertson–Walker solution, an expanding universe. The simplest solution is the uncurved Minkowski spacetime, the spacetime described by special relativity.[24]

Experiments

No scientific theory is apodictically true; each is a model that must be checked by experiment. Newton's law of gravity was accepted because it accounted for the motion of planets and moons in the solar system with considerable accuracy. As the precision of experimental measurements gradually improved, some discrepancies with Newton's predictions were observed, and these were accounted for in the general theory of relativity. Similarly, the predictions of general relativity must also be checked with experiment, and Einstein himself devised three tests now known as the classical tests of the theory:

Newtonian (red) vs. Einsteinian orbit (blue) of a single planet orbiting a spherical star. (Click on the image for animation.)
  • Newtonian gravity predicts that the orbit which a single planet traces around a perfectly spherical star should be an ellipse. Einstein's theory predicts a more complicated curve: the planet behaves as if it were travelling around an ellipse, but at the same time, the ellipse as a whole is rotating slowly around the star. In the diagram on the right, the ellipse predicted by Newtonian gravity is shown in red, and part of the orbit predicted by Einstein in blue. For a planet orbiting the Sun, this deviation from Newton's orbits is known as the anomalous perihelion shift. The first measurement of this effect, for the planet Mercury, dates back to 1859. The most accurate results for Mercury and for other planets to date are based on measurements which were undertaken between 1966 and 1990, using radio telescopes.[25] General relativity predicts the correct anomalous perihelion shift for all planets where this can be measured accurately (Mercury, Venus and the Earth).
  • According to general relativity, light does not travel along straight lines when it propagates in a gravitational field. Instead, it is deflected in the presence of massive bodies. In particular, starlight is deflected as it passes near the Sun, leading to apparent shifts of up 1.75 arc seconds in the stars' positions in the sky (an arc second is equal to 1/3600 of a degree). In the framework of Newtonian gravity, a heuristic argument can be made that leads to light deflection by half that amount. The different predictions can be tested by observing stars that are close to the Sun during a solar eclipse. In this way, a British expedition to West Africa in 1919, directed by Arthur Eddington, confirmed that Einstein's prediction was correct, and the Newtonian predictions wrong, via observation of the May 1919 eclipse. Eddington's results were not very accurate; subsequent observations of the deflection of the light of distant quasars by the Sun, which utilize highly accurate techniques of radio astronomy, have confirmed Eddington's results with significantly better precision (the first such measurements date from 1967, the most recent comprehensive analysis from 2004).[26]
  • Gravitational redshift was first measured in a laboratory setting in 1959 by Pound and Rebka. It is also seen in astrophysical measurements, notably for light escaping the white dwarf Sirius B. The related gravitational time dilation effect has been measured by transporting atomic clocks to altitudes of between tens and tens of thousands of kilometers (first by Hafele and Keating in 1971; most accurately to date by Gravity Probe A launched in 1976).[27]
Of these tests, only the perihelion advance of Mercury was known prior to Einstein's final publication of general relativity in 1916. The subsequent experimental confirmation of his other predictions, especially the first measurements of the deflection of light by the sun in 1919, catapulted Einstein to international stardom.[28] These three experiments justified adopting general relativity over Newton's theory and, incidentally, over a number of alternatives to general relativity that had been proposed.

Gravity Probe B with solar panels folded.

Further tests of general relativity include precision measurements of the Shapiro effect or gravitational time delay for light, most recently in 2002 by the Cassini space probe. One set of tests focuses on effects predicted by general relativity for the behavior of gyroscopes travelling through space. One of these effects, geodetic precession, has been tested with the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment (high-precision measurements of the orbit of the Moon). Another, which is related to rotating masses, is called frame-dragging. The geodetic and frame-dragging effects were both tested by the Gravity Probe B satellite experiment launched in 2004, with results confirming relativity to within 0.5% and 15%, respectively, as of December 2008.[29]

By cosmic standards, gravity throughout the solar system is weak. Since the differences between the predictions of Einstein's and Newton's theories are most pronounced when gravity is strong, physicists have long been interested in testing various relativistic effects in a setting with comparatively strong gravitational fields. This has become possible thanks to precision observations of binary pulsars. In such a star system, two highly compact neutron stars orbit each other. At least one of them is a pulsar – an astronomical object that emits a tight beam of radiowaves. These beams strike the Earth at very regular intervals, similarly to the way that the rotating beam of a lighthouse means that an observer sees the lighthouse blink, and can be observed as a highly regular series of pulses. General relativity predicts specific deviations from the regularity of these radio pulses. For instance, at times when the radio waves pass close to the other neutron star, they should be deflected by the star's gravitational field. The observed pulse patterns are impressively close to those predicted by general relativity.[30]

One particular set of observations is related to eminently useful practical applications, namely to satellite navigation systems such as the Global Positioning System that are used both for precise positioning and timekeeping. Such systems rely on two sets of atomic clocks: clocks aboard satellites orbiting the Earth, and reference clocks stationed on the Earth's surface. General relativity predicts that these two sets of clocks should tick at slightly different rates, due to their different motions (an effect already predicted by special relativity) and their different positions within the Earth's gravitational field. In order to ensure the system's accuracy, the satellite clocks are either slowed down by a relativistic factor, or that same factor is made part of the evaluation algorithm. In turn, tests of the system's accuracy (especially the very thorough measurements that are part of the definition of universal coordinated time) are testament to the validity of the relativistic predictions.[31]

A number of other tests have probed the validity of various versions of the equivalence principle; strictly speaking, all measurements of gravitational time dilation are tests of the weak version of that principle, not of general relativity itself. So far, general relativity has passed all observational tests.[32]

Astrophysical applications

Models based on general relativity play an important role in astrophysics; the success of these models is further testament to the theory's validity.

Gravitational lensing


Einstein cross: four images of the same astronomical object, produced by a gravitational lens.

Since light is deflected in a gravitational field, it is possible for the light of a distant object to reach an observer along two or more paths. For instance, light of a very distant object such as a quasar can pass along one side of a massive galaxy and be deflected slightly so as to reach an observer on Earth, while light passing along the opposite side of that same galaxy is deflected as well, reaching the same observer from a slightly different direction. As a result, that particular observer will see one astronomical object in two different places in the night sky. This kind of focussing is well-known when it comes to optical lenses, and hence the corresponding gravitational effect is called gravitational lensing.[33]

Observational astronomy uses lensing effects as an important tool to infer properties of the lensing object. Even in cases where that object is not directly visible, the shape of a lensed image provides information about the mass distribution responsible for the light deflection. In particular, gravitational lensing provides one way to measure the distribution of dark matter, which does not give off light and can be observed only by its gravitational effects. One particularly interesting application are large-scale observations, where the lensing masses are spread out over a significant fraction of the observable universe, and can be used to obtain information about the large-scale properties and evolution of our cosmos.[34]

Gravitational waves

Gravitational waves, a direct consequence of Einstein's theory, are distortions of geometry that propagate at the speed of light, and can be thought of as ripples in spacetime. They should not be confused with the gravity waves of fluid dynamics, which are a different concept.

Indirectly, the effect of gravitational waves has been detected in observations of specific binary stars. Such pairs of stars orbit each other and, as they do so, gradually lose energy by emitting gravitational waves. For ordinary stars like the Sun, this energy loss would be too small to be detectable, but this energy loss was observed in 1974 in a binary pulsar called PSR1913+16. In such a system, one of the orbiting stars is a pulsar. This has two consequences: a pulsar is an extremely dense object known as a neutron star, for which gravitational wave emission is much stronger than for ordinary stars. Also, a pulsar emits a narrow beam of electromagnetic radiation from its magnetic poles. As the pulsar rotates, its beam sweeps over the Earth, where it is seen as a regular series of radio pulses, just as a ship at sea observes regular flashes of light from the rotating light in a lighthouse. This regular pattern of radio pulses functions as a highly accurate "clock". It can be used to time the double star's orbital period, and it reacts sensitively to distortions of spacetime in its immediate neighborhood.

The discoverers of PSR1913+16, Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993. Since then, several other binary pulsars have been found. The most useful are those in which both stars are pulsars, since they provide the most accurate tests of general relativity.[35]

Currently, one major goal of research in relativity is the direct detection of gravitational waves. To this end, a number of land-based gravitational wave detectors are in operation, and a mission to launch a space-based detector, LISA, is currently under development, with a precursor mission (LISA Pathfinder) due for launch in 2015. If gravitational waves are detected, they could be used to obtain information about compact objects such as neutron stars and black holes, and also to probe the state of the early universe fractions of a second after the Big Bang.[36]

Black holes


Black hole-powered jet emanating from the central region of the galaxy M87.

When mass is concentrated into a sufficiently compact region of space, general relativity predicts the formation of a black hole – a region of space with a gravitational effect so strong that not even light can escape. Certain types of black holes are thought to be the final state in the evolution of massive stars. On the other hand, supermassive black holes with the mass of millions or billions of Suns are assumed to reside in the cores of most galaxies, and they play a key role in current models of how galaxies have formed over the past billions of years.[37]

Matter falling onto a compact object is one of the most efficient mechanisms for releasing energy in the form of radiation, and matter falling onto black holes is thought to be responsible for some of the brightest astronomical phenomena imaginable. Notable examples of great interest to astronomers are quasars and other types of active galactic nuclei. Under the right conditions, falling matter accumulating around a black hole can lead to the formation of jets, in which focused beams of matter are flung away into space at speeds near that of light.[38]

There are several properties that make black holes most promising sources of gravitational waves. One reason is that black holes are the most compact objects that can orbit each other as part of a binary system; as a result, the gravitational waves emitted by such a system are especially strong. Another reason follows from what are called black-hole uniqueness theorems: over time, black holes retain only a minimal set of distinguishing features (these theorems have become known as "no-hair" theorems, since different hairstyles are a crucial part of what gives different people their different appearances). For instance, in the long term, the collapse of a hypothetical matter cube will not result in a cube-shaped black hole. Instead, the resulting black hole will be indistinguishable from a black hole formed by the collapse of a spherical mass, but with one important difference: in its transition to a spherical shape, the black hole formed by the collapse of a cube will emit gravitational waves.[39]

Cosmology


An image, created using data from the WMAP satellite telescope, of the radiation emitted no more than a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang.

One of the most important aspects of general relativity is that it can be applied to the universe as a whole. A key point is that, on large scales, our universe appears to be constructed along very simple lines: all current observations suggest that, on average, the structure of the cosmos should be approximately the same, regardless of an observer's location or direction of observation: the universe is approximately homogeneous and isotropic. Such comparatively simple universes can be described by simple solutions of Einstein's equations. The current cosmological models of the universe are obtained by combining these simple solutions to general relativity with theories describing the properties of the universe's matter content, namely thermodynamics, nuclear- and particle physics. According to these models, our present universe emerged from an extremely dense high-temperature state – the Big Bang – roughly 14 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since.[40]

Einstein's equations can be generalized by adding a term called the cosmological constant. When this term is present, empty space itself acts as a source of attractive (or, less commonly, repulsive) gravity. Einstein originally introduced this term in his pioneering 1917 paper on cosmology, with a very specific motivation: contemporary cosmological thought held the universe to be static, and the additional term was required for constructing static model universes within the framework of general relativity. When it became apparent that the universe is not static, but expanding, Einstein was quick to discard this additional term. Since the end of the 1990s, however, astronomical evidence indicating an accelerating expansion consistent with a cosmological constant – or, equivalently, with a particular and ubiquitous kind of dark energy – has steadily been accumulating.[41]

Modern research

General relativity is very successful in providing a framework for accurate models which describe an impressive array of physical phenomena. On the other hand, there are many interesting open questions, and in particular, the theory as a whole is almost certainly incomplete.[42]

In contrast to all other modern theories of fundamental interactions, general relativity is a classical theory: it does not include the effects of quantum physics. The quest for a quantum version of general relativity addresses one of the most fundamental open questions in physics. While there are promising candidates for such a theory of quantum gravity, notably string theory and loop quantum gravity, there is at present no consistent and complete theory. It has long been hoped that a theory of quantum gravity would also eliminate another problematic feature of general relativity: the presence of spacetime singularities. These singularities are boundaries ("sharp edges") of spacetime at which geometry becomes ill-defined, with the consequence that general relativity itself loses its predictive power. Furthermore, there are so-called singularity theorems which predict that such singularities must exist within the universe if the laws of general relativity were to hold without any quantum modifications. The best-known examples are the singularities associated with the model universes that describe black holes and the beginning of the universe.[43]

Other attempts to modify general relativity have been made in the context of cosmology. In the modern cosmological models, most energy in the universe is in forms that have never been detected directly, namely dark energy and dark matter. There have been several controversial proposals to obviate the need for these enigmatic forms of matter and energy, by modifying the laws governing gravity and the dynamics of cosmic expansion, for example modified Newtonian dynamics.[44]

Beyond the challenges of quantum effects and cosmology, research on general relativity is rich with possibilities for further exploration: mathematical relativists explore the nature of singularities and the fundamental properties of Einstein's equations,[45] ever more comprehensive computer simulations of specific spacetimes (such as those describing merging black holes) are run,[46] and the race for the first direct detection of gravitational waves continues apace.[47] More than ninety years after the theory was first published, research is more active than ever.[48]

Infant exposure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_exposure   ...