rELATIVITY

Contents

1 Cosmic microwave background 1

1.1 Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.1 Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Relationship to the Big Bang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3.1 Primary anisotropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.2 Late time anisotropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 Polarization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4.1 E-modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4.2 B-modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5 Microwave background observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.6 Data reduction and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.6.1 CMBR dipole anisotropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.6.2 Low multipoles and other anomalies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.7 Future evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.8 In popular culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.9 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.11 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2 Universe 17
2.1 Denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2 Etymology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.1 Synonyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3 Chronology and the Big Bang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.1 Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4.2 Size and regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4.3 Age and expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4.4 Spacetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5 Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5.1 Dark energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.5.2 Dark matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

i
ii CONTENTS

2.5.3 Ordinary Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.5.4 Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.6 Cosmological models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.6.1 Model of the Universe based on general relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.6.2 Multiverse hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.6.3 Fine-tuned Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.7 Historical development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.7.1 Mythologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.7.2 Philosophical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.7.3 Astronomical concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3 Cosmology 35
3.1 Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.1.1 Physical cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1.2 Religious, mythological, and metaphysical cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2 Historical cosmologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4 Planck (spacecraft) 39
4.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2 Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2.1 Low Frequency Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2.2 High Frequency Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.3 Service Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.3.1 Power Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.3.2 Attitude and Orbit Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4 Launch and orbit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.5 Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.6.1 2013 data release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.6.2 2015 data release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.9 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.10 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5 Dark energy 45
5.1 Nature of dark energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
CONTENTS iii

5.1.1 Eect of dark energy: a small constant negative pressure of vacuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

5.2 Evidence of existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.2.1 Supernova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.2.2 Cosmic microwave background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.2.3 Large-scale structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.2.4 Late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe eect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.2.5 Observational Hubble constant data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.3 Theories of explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.3.1 Cosmological constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.3.2 Quintessence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.4 Alternative ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.4.1 Variable Dark Energy models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.5 Implications for the fate of the universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.6 History of discovery and previous speculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6 Lambda-CDM model 56
6.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.2 Cosmic expansion history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.3 Historical development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.4 Successes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.5 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.6 Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.7 Extended models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.10 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.11 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

7 Cosmic Background Explorer 62

7.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7.2 Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7.3 Scientic ndings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
7.3.1 Black-body curve of CMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
7.3.2 Intrinsic anisotropy of CMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
7.3.3 Detecting early galaxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
7.3.4 DIRBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.3.5 Cosmological implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.5 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
iv CONTENTS

7.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
7.7 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
7.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

8 Dark matter 68
8.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
8.2 Baryonic and nonbaryonic dark matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
8.3 Observational evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
8.3.1 Galaxy rotation curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
8.3.2 Velocity dispersions of galaxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
8.3.3 Galaxy clusters and gravitational lensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
8.3.4 Cosmic microwave background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
8.3.5 Sky surveys and baryon acoustic oscillations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
8.3.6 Type Ia supernovae distance measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
8.3.7 Lyman-alpha forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
8.3.8 Structure formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
8.4 History of the search for its composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
8.4.1 Cold dark matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
8.4.2 Warm dark matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
8.4.3 Hot dark matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
8.4.4 Mixed dark matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
8.5 Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
8.5.1 Direct detection experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
8.5.2 Indirect detection experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
8.6 Alternative theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8.6.1 Mass in extra dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8.6.2 Topological defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8.6.3 Modied gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8.6.4 Fractality of spacetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
8.7 Popular culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
8.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
8.9 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
8.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
8.11 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

9 Big Bang 88
9.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
9.2 Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
9.2.1 Singularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
9.2.2 Ination and baryogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
9.2.3 Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
9.2.4 Structure formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
CONTENTS v

9.2.5 Cosmic acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

9.3 Underlying assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
9.3.1 Expansion of space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
9.3.2 Horizons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
9.4 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
9.4.1 Etymology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
9.4.2 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
9.5 Observational evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
9.5.1 Hubbles law and the expansion of space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
9.5.2 Cosmic microwave background radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
9.5.3 Abundance of primordial elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
9.5.4 Galactic evolution and distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
9.5.5 Primordial gas clouds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
9.5.6 Other lines of evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
9.6 Problems and related issues in physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
9.6.1 Baryon asymmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
9.6.2 Dark energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
9.6.3 Dark matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
9.6.4 Horizon problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
9.6.5 Magnetic monopoles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
9.6.6 Flatness problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
9.7 Ultimate fate of the universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
9.8 Speculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
9.9 Religious and philosophical interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
9.10 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
9.11 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
9.12 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
9.12.1 Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
9.13 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
9.14 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

10 Physical cosmology 106

10.1 Subject history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
10.2 Energy of the cosmos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
10.3 History of the universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
10.3.1 Equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
10.3.2 Particle physics in cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
10.3.3 Timeline of the Big Bang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
10.4 Areas of study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
10.4.1 Very early universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
10.4.2 Big Bang Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
10.4.3 Cosmic microwave background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
vi CONTENTS

10.4.4 Formation and evolution of large-scale structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

10.4.5 Dark matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
10.4.6 Dark energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
10.4.7 Other areas of inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
10.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
10.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
10.7 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
10.7.1 Popular . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
10.7.2 Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
10.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
10.8.1 From groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
10.8.2 From individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

11 Hubbles law 114

11.1 Observed values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
11.2 Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
11.2.1 FLRW equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
11.2.2 Lemaitres Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
11.2.3 Shape of the universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
11.2.4 Cepheid variable stars outside of the Milky Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
11.2.5 Combining redshifts with distance measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
11.2.6 Cosmological constant abandoned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
11.3 Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
11.3.1 Redshift velocity and recessional velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
11.3.2 Observability of parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
11.3.3 Expansion velocity vs relative velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
11.3.4 Idealized Hubbles Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
11.3.5 Ultimate fate and age of the universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
11.3.6 Olbers paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
11.3.7 Dimensionless Hubble parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
11.4 Determining the Hubble constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
11.4.1 Earlier measurement and discussion approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
11.4.2 Acceleration of the expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
11.5 Derivation of the Hubble parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
11.5.1 Matter-dominated universe (with a cosmological constant) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
11.5.2 Matter- and dark energy-dominated universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
11.6 Units derived from the Hubble constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
11.6.1 Hubble time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
11.6.2 Hubble length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
11.6.3 Hubble volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
11.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
11.8 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
CONTENTS vii

11.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

11.10Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
11.11External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

12 General relativity 124

12.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
12.2 From classical mechanics to general relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
12.2.1 Geometry of Newtonian gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
12.2.2 Relativistic generalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
12.2.3 Einsteins equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
12.3 Denition and basic applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
12.3.1 Denition and basic properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
12.3.2 Model-building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
12.4 Consequences of Einsteins theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
12.4.1 Gravitational time dilation and frequency shift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
12.4.2 Light deection and gravitational time delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
12.4.3 Gravitational waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
12.4.4 Orbital eects and the relativity of direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
12.5 Astrophysical applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
12.5.1 Gravitational lensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
12.5.2 Gravitational wave astronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
12.5.3 Black holes and other compact objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
12.5.4 Cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
12.5.5 Time travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
12.6 Advanced concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
12.6.1 Causal structure and global geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
12.6.2 Horizons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
12.6.3 Singularities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
12.6.4 Evolution equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
12.6.5 Global and quasi-local quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
12.7 Relationship with quantum theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
12.7.1 Quantum eld theory in curved spacetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
12.7.2 Quantum gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
12.8 Current status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
12.9 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
12.10Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
12.11References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
12.12Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
12.13External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

13 Cosmological constant 155

13.1 Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
viii CONTENTS

13.1.1 (Omega Lambda) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

13.1.2 Equation of state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
13.2 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
13.3 Positive value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
13.4 Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
13.4.1 Quantum eld theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
13.4.2 Anthropic principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
13.4.3 Cyclic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
13.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
13.6 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
13.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
13.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

14 Shape of the universe 159

14.1 Shape of Observable Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
14.2 Curvature of Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
14.3 Global Universe Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
14.3.1 Innite or nite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
14.3.2 Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
14.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
14.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
14.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

15 Observable universe 166

15.1 The Universe versus the observable universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
15.2 Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
15.2.1 Misconceptions on its size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
15.3 Large-scale structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
15.3.1 Walls, laments, nodes, and voids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
15.3.2 End of Greatness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
15.3.3 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
15.3.4 Cosmography of our cosmic neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
15.4 Mass of ordinary matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
15.4.1 Estimates based on critical density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
15.4.2 Extrapolation from number of stars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
15.4.3 Estimates based on steady-state universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
15.4.4 Comparison of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
15.5 Matter content number of atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
15.6 Most distant objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
15.7 Horizons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
15.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
15.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
CONTENTS ix

15.10Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

15.11External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

16 Ination (cosmology) 178

16.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
16.1.1 Space expands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
16.1.2 Few inhomogeneities remain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
16.1.3 Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
16.1.4 Reheating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
16.2 Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
16.2.1 Horizon problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
16.2.2 Flatness problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
16.2.3 Magnetic-monopole problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
16.3 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
16.3.1 Precursors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
16.3.2 Early inationary models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
16.3.3 Slow-roll ination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
16.3.4 Eects of asymmetries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
16.4 Observational status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
16.5 Theoretical status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
16.5.1 Fine-tuning problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
16.5.2 Eternal ination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
16.5.3 Initial conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
16.5.4 Hybrid ination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
16.5.5 Ination and string cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
16.5.6 Ination and loop quantum gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
16.6 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
16.6.1 Big bounce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
16.6.2 String theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
16.6.3 Ekpyrotic and cyclic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
16.6.4 Varying C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
16.7 Criticisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
16.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
16.9 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
16.10References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
16.11External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

17 Metric expansion of space 193

17.1 Basic concepts and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
17.1.1 Overview of metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
17.1.2 Comoving coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
17.2 Understanding the expansion of the universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
x CONTENTS

17.2.1 Measurement of expansion and change of rate of expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

17.2.2 Measuring distances in expanding space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
17.2.3 Topology of expanding space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
17.2.4 Eects of expansion on small scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
17.2.5 Scale factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
17.2.6 Other conceptual models of expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
17.3 Theoretical basis and rst evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
17.3.1 Hubbles law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
17.3.2 Cosmological constant and the Friedmann equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
17.3.3 Hubbles concerns over the rate of expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
17.3.4 Ination as an explanation for the expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
17.3.5 Measuring distance in a metric space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
17.4 Observational evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
17.5 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
17.6 Printed references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
17.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

18 Matter 203
18.1 Denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
18.1.1 Common denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
18.1.2 Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
18.1.3 Atoms denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
18.1.4 Protons, neutrons and electrons denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
18.1.5 Quarks and leptons denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
18.1.6 Smaller building blocks issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
18.2 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
18.2.1 Quarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
18.2.2 Leptons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
18.3 Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
18.4 Antimatter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
18.5 Other types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
18.5.1 Dark matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
18.5.2 Dark energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
18.5.3 Exotic matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
18.6 Historical development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
18.6.1 Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
18.6.2 Early modernity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
18.6.3 Late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
18.6.4 Later developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
18.6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
18.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
18.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
CONTENTS xi

18.9 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

18.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

19 FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker metric 215

19.1 General metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
19.1.1 Reduced-circumference polar coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
19.1.2 Hyperspherical coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
19.1.3 Cartesian coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
19.2 Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
19.2.1 Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
19.2.2 Cosmological constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
19.2.3 Newtonian interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
19.3 Name and history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
19.4 Einsteins radius of the universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
19.5 Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
19.6 References and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
19.7 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

20 Photon 220
20.1 Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
20.2 Physical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
20.2.1 Experimental checks on photon mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
20.3 Historical development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
20.4 Einsteins light quantum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
20.5 Early objections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
20.6 Waveparticle duality and uncertainty principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
20.7 BoseEinstein model of a photon gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
20.8 Stimulated and spontaneous emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
20.9 Second quantization and high energy photon interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
20.10The hadronic properties of the photon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
20.11The photon as a gauge boson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
20.12Contributions to the mass of a system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
20.13Photons in matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
20.14Technological applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
20.15Recent research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
20.16See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
20.17Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
20.18References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
20.19Additional references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
20.20External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

21 Curved space 236

xii CONTENTS

21.1 Simple two-dimensional example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

21.2 Embedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
21.3 Without embedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
21.4 Open, at, closed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
21.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

22 False vacuum 238

22.1 Stability and instability of the vacuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
22.1.1 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
22.2 Vacuum metastability event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
22.3 Bubble nucleation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
22.3.1 Expansion of bubble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
22.4 Gravitational eects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
22.4.1 Development of theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
22.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
22.6 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
22.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
22.8 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
22.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

23 Dark uid 243

23.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
23.2 Simplifying assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
23.3 Modied Newtonian dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
23.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
23.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

24 Future of an expanding universe 245

24.1 Cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
24.2 Future history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
24.3 Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
24.3.1 Stelliferous Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
24.3.2 Degenerate Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
24.3.3 Black Hole Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
24.3.4 Dark Era and Photon Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
24.3.5 Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
24.4 Future without proton decay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
24.4.1 Matter decays into iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
24.4.2 Collapse of iron star to black hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
24.5 Graphical timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
24.6 Route diagram styled timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
24.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
CONTENTS xiii

24.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

25 Flatness problem 252

25.1 Energy density and the Friedmann equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
25.2 Current value of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
25.2.1 Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
25.2.2 Implication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
25.3 Solutions to the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
25.3.1 Anthropic principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
25.3.2 Ination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
25.3.3 Post ination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
25.3.4 EinsteinCartan theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
25.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
25.5 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
25.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

26 Heat death of the universe 257

26.1 Origins of the idea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
26.1.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
26.2 Current status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
26.3 Time frame for heat death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
26.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
26.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

27 Horizon problem 261

27.1 Basic concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
27.2 Ination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
27.3 Variable speed of light theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
27.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
27.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

28 Cosmological horizon 264

28.1 Particle horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
28.2 Hubble horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
28.3 Event horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
28.4 Future horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
28.5 Practical horizons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
28.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
28.7 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
28.7.1 Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
28.7.2 Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
28.7.3 Content license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Chapter 1

Cosmic microwave background

CMB redirects here. For other uses, see CMB (disam- atoms rst formed as the recombination epoch, and the
biguation). event shortly afterwards when photons started to travel
freely through space rather than constantly being scat-
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is tered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to
as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the
the thermal radiation left over from the time of
recombination in Big Bang cosmology. In older lit- time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever
since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the
erature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic
microwave background radiation (CMBR) or relic expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase
over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to en-
radiation. The CMB is a cosmic background radiation
that is fundamental to observational cosmology because ergy according to Plancks relation). This is the source of
it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last
of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right
the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is distance from us so that we are now receiving photons
completely dark. However, a suciently sensitive radio originally emitted from those points at the time of pho-
telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly ton decoupling.
the same in all directions, that is not associated with Precise measurements of the CMB are critical to cos-
any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest mology, since any proposed model of the universe must
in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The explain this radiation. The CMB has a thermal black
accidental discovery of CMB in 1964 by American body spectrum at a temperature of 2.725480.00057
radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[1][2] K.[5] The spectral radiance dE/d peaks at 160.2 GHz,
was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and in the microwave range of frequencies. (Alternatively
earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel Prize. if spectral radiance is dened as dE/d then the peak
wavelength is 1.871 mm.) The glow is very nearly uni-
form in all directions, but the tiny residual variations show
The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our
a very specic pattern, the same as that expected of a
Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Uni-
fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to
verse was just 380,000 years old. It shows tiny
the current size of the universe. In particular, the spec-
temperature uctuations that correspond to re-
tral radiance at dierent angles of observation in the sky
gions of slightly dierent densities, representing
contains small anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary
the seeds of all future structure: the stars and
with the size of the region examined. They have been
galaxies of today.[3]
measured in detail, and match what would be expected
if small thermal variations, generated by quantum uc-
The CMB is well explained as radiation left over from tuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to
an early stage in the development of the universe, and its the size of the observable universe we see today. This is a
discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang very active eld of study, with scientists seeking both bet-
model of the universe. When the universe was young, ter data (for example, the Planck spacecraft) and better
before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, interpretations of the initial conditions of expansion. Al-
much hotter, and lled with a uniform glow from a white- though many dierent processes might produce the gen-
hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, eral form of a black body spectrum, no model other than
both the plasma and the radiation lling it grew cooler. the Big Bang has yet explained the uctuations. As a re-
When the universe cooled enough, protons and electrons sult, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of
combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms. These atoms the universe to be the best explanation for the CMB.
could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the
The high degree of uniformity throughout the observable
universe became transparent instead of being an opaque
[4] universe and its faint but measured anisotropy lend strong
fog. Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral

1
2 CHAPTER 1. COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND
support for the Big Bang model in general and the
CDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model in partic-
ular. Moreover, the uctuations are coherent on angular
scales that are larger than the apparent cosmological hori-
zon at recombination. Either such coherence is acausally
ne-tuned, or cosmic ination occurred.[6][7]
1.1 Features
Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum from COBE
400
350
300
Intensity [MJy/sr]
250
200
150
100
50
0 mic microwave background. The CMB spectrum has be-
2 4 6 8 10 12
Frequency [1/cm]
Graph of cosmic microwave background spectrum measured by
the FIRAS instrument on the COBE, the most precisely measured
black body spectrum in nature.[8] The error bars are too small to
be seen even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible to distin-
guish the observed data from the theoretical curve.
The cosmic microwave background radiation is an emis-
sion of uniform, black body thermal energy coming from
all parts of the sky. The radiation is isotropic to roughly
one part in 100,000: the root mean square variations are
only 18 K,[9] after subtracting out a dipole anisotropy
from the Doppler shift of the background radiation. The
latter is caused by the peculiar velocity of the Earth rel-
ative to the comoving cosmic rest frame as the planet
moves at some 371 km/s towards the constellation Leo.
The CMB dipole as well as aberration at higher multipoles
have been measured, consistent with galactic motion.[10]
In the Big Bang model for the formation of the universe,
Inationary Cosmology predicts that after about 1037
seconds[11] the nascent universe underwent exponential
growth that smoothed out nearly all inhomogeneities.
The remaining inhomogeneities were caused by quan-
tum uctuations in the inaton eld that caused the in-
ation event.[12] After 106 seconds, the early universe
was made up of a hot, interacting plasma of photons,
electrons, and baryons. As the universe expanded,
adiabatic cooling caused the energy density of the plasma
to decrease until it became favorable for electrons to
combine with protons, forming hydrogen atoms. This
recombination event happened when the temperature was
around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately
379,000 years old.[13] At this point, the photons no longer
interacted with the now electrically neutral atoms and
began to travel freely through space, resulting in the
decoupling of matter and radiation.[14]
The color temperature of the ensemble of decoupled pho-
tons has continued to diminish ever since; now down to
2.72600.0013 K,[5] it will continue to drop as the uni-
verse expands. The intensity of the radiation also corre-
sponds to black-body radiation at 2.726 K because red-
shifted black-body radiation is just like black-body ra-
diation at a lower temperature. According to the Big
Bang model, the radiation from the sky we measure to-
day comes from a spherical surface called the surface
COBE Data
of last scattering. This represents the set of locations in
Black Body Spectrum space at which the decoupling event is estimated to have
occurred[15] and at a point in time such that the photons
from that distance have just reached observers. Most of
the radiation energy in the universe is in the cosmic mi-
crowave background,[16] making up a fraction of roughly
6105 of the total density of the universe.[17]
Two of the greatest successes of the Big Bang theory are
its prediction of the almost perfect black body spectrum
and its detailed prediction of the anisotropies in the cos-
14 16 18 20 22
come the most precisely measured black body spectrum
in nature.[8]
Density of energy for CMB is 0.25 eV/cm3[18]
(4.0051014 J/m3 ) or (400500 photons/cm3[19] ).
1.2 History
See also: Discovery of cosmic microwave background
radiation
The cosmic microwave background was rst predicted
in 1948 by Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman.[20][21][22]
Alpher and Herman were able to estimate the temper-
ature of the cosmic microwave background to be 5 K,
though two years later they re-estimated it at 28 K. This
high estimate was due to a mis-estimate of the Hubble
constant by Alfred Behr, which could not be replicated
and was later abandoned for the earlier estimate. Al-
though there were several previous estimates of the tem-
perature of space, these suered from two aws. First,
they were measurements of the eective temperature of
space and did not suggest that space was lled with a ther-
mal Planck spectrum. Next, they depend on our being at a
special spot at the edge of the Milky Way galaxy and they
did not suggest the radiation is isotropic. The estimates
would yield very dierent predictions if Earth happened
to be located elsewhere in the universe.[23]
The 1948 results of Alpher and Herman were discussed
in many physics settings through about 1955, when both
left the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins
University. The mainstream astronomical community,
however, was not intrigued at the time by cosmology.
1.2. HISTORY
Alpher and Hermans prediction was rediscovered by
Yakov Zel'dovich in the early 1960s, and independently
predicted by Robert Dicke at the same time. The rst
published recognition of the CMB radiation as a de-
tectable phenomenon appeared in a brief paper by Soviet
astrophysicists A. G. Doroshkevich and Igor Novikov, in
the spring of 1964.[24] In 1964, David Todd Wilkinson
and Peter Roll, Dickes colleagues at Princeton Univer-
sity, began constructing a Dicke radiometer to measure
the cosmic microwave background.[25] In 1964, Arno
Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson at the Crawford
Hill location of Bell Telephone Laboratories in nearby
Holmdel Township, New Jersey had built a Dicke ra-
diometer that they intended to use for radio astronomy
and satellite communication experiments. On 20 May
1964 they made their rst measurement clearly show-
ing the presence of the microwave background,[26] with
their instrument having an excess 4.2K antenna temper-
ature which they could not account for. After receiv-
ing a telephone call from Crawford Hill, Dicke famously
quipped: Boys, we've been scooped.[1][27][28] A meet-
ing between the Princeton and Crawford Hill groups de-
termined that the antenna temperature was indeed due to
the microwave background. Penzias and Wilson received
the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery.[29]
The interpretation of the cosmic microwave background
was a controversial issue in the 1960s with some pro-
ponents of the steady state theory arguing that the mi-
crowave background was the result of scattered starlight
from distant galaxies.[30] Using this model, and based on
the study of narrow absorption line features in the spec-
tra of stars, the astronomer Andrew McKellar wrote in
1941: It can be calculated that the 'rotational tempera-
ture' of interstellar space is 2 K.[31] However, during the
1970s the consensus was established that the cosmic mi-
crowave background is a remnant of the big bang. This
was largely because new measurements at a range of fre-
quencies showed that the spectrum was a thermal, black
body spectrum, a result that the steady state model was
unable to reproduce.[32]
The Holmdel Horn Antenna on which Penzias and Wilson dis-
covered the cosmic microwave background.
3
Harrison, Peebles, Yu and Zel'dovich realized that the
early universe would have to have inhomogeneities at the
level of 104 or 105 .[33][34][35] Rashid Sunyaev later cal-
culated the observable imprint that these inhomogeneities
would have on the cosmic microwave background.[36] In-
creasingly stringent limits on the anisotropy of the cosmic
microwave background were set by ground based exper-
iments during the 1980s. RELIKT-1, a Soviet cosmic
microwave background anisotropy experiment on board
the Prognoz 9 satellite (launched 1 July 1983) gave upper
limits on the large-scale anisotropy. The NASA COBE
mission clearly conrmed the primary anisotropy with the
Dierential Microwave Radiometer instrument, publish-
ing their ndings in 1992.[37][38] The team received the
Nobel Prize in physics for 2006 for this discovery.
Inspired by the COBE results, a series of ground and
balloon-based experiments measured cosmic microwave
background anisotropies on smaller angular scales over
the next decade. The primary goal of these experiments
was to measure the scale of the rst acoustic peak, which
COBE did not have sucient resolution to resolve. This
peak corresponds to large scale density variations in the
early universe that are created by gravitational instabili-
ties, resulting in acoustical oscillations in the plasma.[39]
The rst peak in the anisotropy was tentatively detected
by the Toco experiment and the result was conrmed by
the BOOMERanG and MAXIMA experiments.[40][41][42]
These measurements demonstrated that the geometry of
the universe is approximately at, rather than curved.[43]
They ruled out cosmic strings as a major component of
cosmic structure formation and suggested cosmic ina-
tion was the right theory of structure formation.[44]
The second peak was tentatively detected by several ex-
periments before being denitively detected by WMAP,
which has also tentatively detected the third peak.[45]
As of 2010, several experiments to improve measure-
ments of the polarization and the microwave background
on small angular scales are ongoing. These include
DASI, WMAP, BOOMERanG, QUaD, Planck space-
craft, Atacama Cosmology Telescope, South Pole Tele-
scope and the QUIET telescope.
1.2.1 Timeline
Thermal (non-microwave background) temperature
predictions
1896 Charles douard Guillaume estimates the
radiation of the stars to be 5.6K.[46]
1926 Sir Arthur Eddington estimates the non-
thermal radiation of starlight in the galaxy "... by
the formula E = T 4 the eective temperature cor-
responding to this density is 3.18 absolute ... black
body[47]
1930s Cosmologist Erich Regener calculates that
4 CHAPTER 1. COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND
the non-thermal spectrum of cosmic rays in the
galaxy has an eective temperature of 2.8 K
1931 Term microwave rst used in print: When
trials with wavelengths as low as 18 cm. were
made known, there was undisguised surprise+that
the problem of the micro-wave had been solved so
soon. Telegraph & Telephone Journal XVII. 179/1
1934 Richard Tolman shows that black-body ra-
diation in an expanding universe cools but remains
thermal
1938 Nobel Prize winner (1920) Walther Nernst
reestimates the cosmic ray temperature as 0.75K
1941 Andrew McKellar was attempting to mea-
sure the average temperature of the interstellar
medium, and used the excitation of CN doublet lines
to measure that the eective temperature of space
(the average bolometric temperature) is about 2.3
K[31][48]
1946 Robert Dicke predicts "... radiation from
cosmic matter at <20 K, but did not refer to back-
ground radiation [49]
1946 George Gamow calculates a temperature of
50 K (assuming a 3-billion year old universe),[50]
commenting it "... is in reasonable agreement with
the actual temperature of interstellar space, but
does not mention background radiation.[51]
1953 Erwin Finlay-Freundlich in support of his
tired light theory, derives a blackbody temperature
for intergalactic space of 2.3K [52] with comment
from Max Born suggesting radio astronomy as the
arbitrator between expanding and innite cosmolo-
gies.
Microwave background radiation predictions
1946 George Gamow calculates a temperature of
50 K (assuming a 3-billion year old universe),[50]
commenting it "... is in reasonable agreement with
the actual temperature of interstellar space, but
does not mention background radiation.
1948 Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman estimate
the temperature in the universe at 5 K. Although
they do not specically mention microwave back-
ground radiation, it may be inferred.[53]
1949 Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman re-re-
estimate the temperature at 28 K.
1953 George Gamow estimates 7 K.[49]
1956 George Gamow estimates 6 K.[49]
1955 mile Le Roux of the Nanay Radio Ob-
servatory, in a sky survey at = 33 cm, reported
a near-isotropic background radiation of 3 kelvins,
plus or minus 2.[49]
1957 Tigran Shmaonov reports that the absolute
eective temperature of the radioemission back-
ground ... is 43 K.[54] It is noted that the mea-
surements showed that radiation intensity was inde-
pendent of either time or direction of observation ...
it is now clear that Shmaonov did observe the cos-
mic microwave background at a wavelength of 3.2
cm[55][56]
1960s Robert Dicke re-estimates a microwave
background radiation temperature of 40 K[49][57]
1964 A. G. Doroshkevich and Igor Dmitrievich
Novikov publish a brief paper suggesting microwave
searches for the black-body radiation predicted by
Gamow, Alpher, and Herman, where they name the
CMB radiation phenomenon as detectable.[58]
196465 Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wil-
son measure the temperature to be approximately 3
K. Robert Dicke, James Peebles, P. G. Roll, and D.
T. Wilkinson interpret this radiation as a signature
of the big bang.
1966 Rainer K. Sachs and Arthur M. Wolfe theo-
retically predict microwave background uctuation
amplitudes created by gravitational potential varia-
tions between observers and the last scattering sur-
face (see Sachs-Wolfe eect)
1968 Martin Rees and Dennis Sciama theo-
retically predict microwave background uctuation
amplitudes created by photons traversing time-
dependent potential wells
1969 R. A. Sunyaev and Yakov Zel'dovich study
the inverse Compton scattering of microwave back-
ground photons by hot electrons (see Sunyaev-
Zel'dovich eect)
1983 Researchers from the Cambridge Radio As-
tronomy Group and the Owens Valley Radio Ob-
servatory rst detect the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich eect
from clusters of galaxies
1983 RELIKT-1 Soviet CMB anisotropy experi-
ment was launched.
1990 FIRAS on the Cosmic Background Explorer
(COBE) satellite measures the black body form of
the CMB spectrum with exquisite precision, and
shows that the microwave background has a nearly
perfect black-body spectrum and thereby strongly
constrains the density of the intergalactic medium.
January 1992 Scientists that analysed data from
the RELIKT-1 report the discovery of anisotropy in
1.3. RELATIONSHIP TO THE BIG BANG 5

the cosmic microwave background at the Moscow 2014 On March 17, 2014, astrophysicists of
astrophysical seminar.[59] the BICEP2 collaboration announced the detection
of inationary gravitational waves in the B-mode
1992 Scientists that analysed data from COBE power spectrum, which if conrmed, would provide
DMR report the discovery of anisotropy in the cos- clear experimental evidence for the theory of ina-
mic microwave background.[60] tion.[64][65][66][67][68][69] However, on 19 June 2014,
1995 The Cosmic Anisotropy Telescope performs lowered condence in conrming the cosmic ina-
the rst high resolution observations of the cosmic tion ndings was reported.[68][70][71]
microwave background. 2015 On January 30, 2015, the same team of as-
1999 First measurements of acoustic oscillations tronomers from BICEP2 withdrew the claim made
in the CMB anisotropy angular power spectrum on the previous year. Based on the combined data
from the TOCO, BOOMERANG, and Maxima Ex- of BICEP2 and Planck, the European Space Agency
periments. The BOOMERanG experiment makes announced that the signal can be entirely attributed
higher quality maps at intermediate resolution, and to dust in the Milky Way.[72]
conrms that the universe is at.
2002 Polarization discovered by DASI.[61] 1.3 Relationship to the Big Bang
2003 E-mode polarization spectrum obtained by
the CBI.[62] The CBI and the Very Small Array The cosmic microwave background radiation and the
produces yet higher quality maps at high resolution cosmological redshift-distance relation are together re-
(covering small areas of the sky). garded as the best available evidence for the Big Bang
theory. Measurements of the CMB have made the
2003 The WMAP spacecraft produces an even inationary Big Bang theory the Standard Model of
higher quality map at low and intermediate resolu- Cosmology.[73] The discovery of the CMB in the mid-
tion of the whole sky (WMAP provides no high- 1960s curtailed interest in alternatives such as the steady
resolution data, but improves on the intermediate state theory.[74]
resolution maps from BOOMERanG).
The CMB essentially conrms the Big Bang theory. In
2004 E-mode polarization spectrum obtained by the late 1940s Alpher and Herman reasoned that if there
the CBI.[63] was a big bang, the expansion of the universe would have
stretched and cooled the high-energy radiation of the very
2004 The Arcminute Cosmology Bolometer Array
early universe into the microwave region and down to a
Receiver produces a higher quality map of the high
temperature of about 5 K. They were slightly o with
resolution structure not mapped by WMAP.
their estimate, but they had exactly the right idea. They
2005 The Arcminute Microkelvin Imager and the predicted the CMB. It took another 15 years for Pen-
Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Array begin the rst surveys zias and Wilson to stumble into discovering that the mi-
[75]
for very high redshift clusters of galaxies using the crowave background was actually there.
Sunyaev-Zel'dovich eect. The CMB gives a snapshot of the universe when, ac-
cording to standard cosmology, the temperature dropped
2005 Ralph A. Alpher is awarded the National
enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen
Medal of Science for his groundbreaking work in
atoms, thus making the universe transparent to radia-
nucleosynthesis and prediction that the universe ex-
tion. When it originated some 380,000 years after the
pansion leaves behind background radiation, thus
Big Bangthis time is generally known as the time
providing a model for the Big Bang theory.
of last scattering or the period of recombination or
2006 The long-awaited three-year WMAP results decouplingthe temperature of the universe was about
are released, conrming previous analysis, correct- 3000 K. This corresponds to an energy of about 0.25 eV,
ing several points, and including polarization data. which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of
hydrogen.[76]
2006 Two of COBEs principal investigators,
George Smoot and John Mather, received the Nobel Since decoupling, the temperature of the background [77]
ra-
Prize in Physics in 2006 for their work on precision diation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1,100 due to
measurement of the CMBR. the expansion of the universe. As the universe expands,
the CMB photons are redshifted, making the radiations
2006-2011 Improved measurements from temperature inversely proportional to a parameter called
WMAP, new supernova surveys ESSENCE and the universes scale length. The temperature T of the
SNLS, and baryon acoustic oscillations from SDSS CMB as a function of redshift, z, can be shown to be pro-
and WiggleZ, continue to be consistent with the portional to the temperature of the CMB as observed in
standard Lambda-CDM model. the present day (2.725 K or 0.235 meV):[78]
6 CHAPTER 1. COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND

T = 2.725(1 + z) can be used to get information about the dark matter

density.[80]
For details about the reasoning that the radiation is evi- The locations of the peaks also give important informa-
dence for the Big Bang, see Cosmic background radiation tion about the nature of the primordial density pertur-
of the Big Bang. bations. There are two fundamental types of density
perturbationscalled adiabatic and isocurvature. A gen-
eral density perturbation is a mixture of both, and dier-
1.3.1 Primary anisotropy ent theories that purport to explain the primordial density
perturbation spectrum predict dierent mixtures.

Adiabatic density perturbations

the fractional additional density of each type of

particle (baryons, photons ...) is the same. That
is, if at one place there is 1% more energy in
baryons than average, then at that place there is
also 1% more energy in photons (and 1% more
energy in neutrinos) than average. Cosmic in-
ation predicts that the primordial perturba-
tions are adiabatic.

Isocurvature density perturbations

in each place the sum (over dierent types of

The power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radi-
ation temperature anisotropy in terms of the angular scale (or particle) of the fractional additional densities
multipole moment). The data shown comes from the WMAP is zero. That is, a perturbation where at some
(2006), Acbar (2004) Boomerang (2005), CBI (2004), and VSA spot there is 1% more energy in baryons than
(2004) instruments. Also shown is a theoretical model (solid average, 1% more energy in photons than aver-
line). age, and 2% less energy in neutrinos than aver-
age, would be a pure isocurvature perturbation.
The anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background is Cosmic strings would produce mostly isocurva-
divided into two types: primary anisotropy, due to eects ture primordial perturbations.
which occur at the last scattering surface and before; and
secondary anisotropy, due to eects such as interactions The CMB spectrum can distinguish between these two
of the background radiation with hot gas or gravitational because these two types of perturbations produce dif-
potentials, which occur between the last scattering surface ferent peak locations. Isocurvature density perturbations
and the observer. produce a series of peaks whose angular scales (l-values
The structure of the cosmic microwave background of the peaks) are roughly in the ratio 1:3:5:..., while adi-
anisotropies is principally determined by two eects: abatic density perturbations produce peaks whose loca-
acoustic oscillations and diusion damping (also called tions are in the ratio 1:2:3:...[81] Observations are consis-
collisionless damping or Silk damping). The acoustic os- tent with the primordial density perturbations being en-
cillations arise because of a conict in the photonbaryon tirely adiabatic, providing key support for ination, and
plasma in the early universe. The pressure of the photons ruling out many models of structure formation involving,
tends to erase anisotropies, whereas the gravitational at- for example, cosmic strings.
traction of the baryonsmoving at speeds much slower Collisionless damping is caused by two eects, when
than lightmakes them tend to collapse to form dense the treatment of the primordial plasma as uid begins to
haloes. These two eects compete to create acoustic os- break down:
cillations which give the microwave background its char-
acteristic peak structure. The peaks correspond, roughly,
to resonances in which the photons decouple when a par- the increasing mean free path of the photons as the
ticular mode is at its peak amplitude. primordial plasma becomes increasingly rareed in
an expanding universe
The peaks contain interesting physical signatures. The
angular scale of the rst peak determines the curvature of the nite depth of the last scattering surface (LSS),
the universe (but not the topology of the universe). The which causes the mean free path to increase rapidly
next peakratio of the odd peaks to the even peaks during decoupling, even while some Compton scat-
determines the reduced baryon density.[79] The third peak tering is still occurring.
1.4. POLARIZATION 7

These eects contribute about equally to the suppression electrons (Thomson scattering) induces polarization
of anisotropies at small scales, and give rise to the char- anisotropies on large angular scales. This broad an-
acteristic exponential damping tail seen in the very small gle polarization is correlated with the broad angle
angular scale anisotropies. temperature perturbation.
The depth of the LSS refers to the fact that the decou-
pling of the photons and baryons does not happen instan- Both of these eects have been observed by the WMAP
taneously, but instead requires an appreciable fraction ofspacecraft, providing evidence that the universe was ion-
the age of the universe up to that era. One method of ized at very early times, at a redshift more than 17. The
quantifying how long this process took uses the photon detailed provenance of this early ionizing radiation is
visibility function (PVF). This function is dened so that,
still a matter of scientic debate. It may have included
denoting the PVF by P(t), the probability that a CMB starlight from the very rst population of stars (population
photon last scattered between time t and t+dt is given by III stars), supernovae when these rst stars reached the
P(t)dt. end of their lives, or the ionizing radiation produced by
The maximum of the PVF (the time when it is most likely the accretion disks of massive black holes.
that a given CMB photon last scattered) is known quite The time following the emission of the cosmic mi-
precisely. The rst-year WMAP results put the time at crowave backgroundand before the observation of the
which P(t) is maximum as 372,000 years.[82] This is often rst starsis semi-humorously referred to by cosmolo-
taken as the time at which the CMB formed. However, gists as the dark age, and is a period which is under in-
to gure out how long it took the photons and baryons to tense study by astronomers (See 21 centimeter radiation).
decouple, we need a measure of the width of the PVF.
The WMAP team nds that the PVF is greater than half Two other eects which occurred between reionization
of its maximum value (the full width at half maximum, and our observations of the cosmic microwave back-
or FWHM) over an interval of 115,000 years. By this ground, and which appear to cause anisotropies, are the
measure, decoupling took place over roughly 115,000 SunyaevZel'dovich eect, where a cloud of high-energy
years, and when it was complete, the universe was roughly electrons scatters the radiation, transferring some of its
487,000 years old. energy to the CMB photons, and the SachsWolfe eect,
which causes photons from the Cosmic Microwave Back-
ground to be gravitationally redshifted or blueshifted due
1.3.2 Late time anisotropy to changing gravitational elds.

Since the CMB came into existence, it has apparently

been modied by several subsequent physical processes,
which are collectively referred to as late-time anisotropy,
or secondary anisotropy. When the CMB photons be-
came free to travel unimpeded, ordinary matter in the
universe was mostly in the form of neutral hydrogen
and helium atoms. However, observations of galaxies
today seem to indicate that most of the volume of the
intergalactic medium (IGM) consists of ionized mate-
rial (since there are few absorption lines due to hydro-
gen atoms). This implies a period of reionization during
which some of the material of the universe was broken
into hydrogen ions.
The CMB photons are scattered by free charges such as
electrons that are not bound in atoms. In an ionized uni-
verse, such charged particles have been liberated from
neutral atoms by ionizing (ultraviolet) radiation. Today
these free charges are at suciently low density in most
of the volume of the universe that they do not measurably
aect the CMB. However, if the IGM was ionized at very
early times when the universe was still denser, then there
are two main eects on the CMB:
1.4 Polarization
The cosmic microwave background is polarized at the
level of a few microkelvin. There are two types of po-
larization, called E-modes and B-modes. This is in anal-
ogy to electrostatics, in which the electric eld (E-eld)
has a vanishing curl and the magnetic eld (B-eld) has a
vanishing divergence. The E-modes arise naturally from
Thomson scattering in a heterogeneous plasma. The B-
modes are not sourced by standard scalar type pertur-
bations. Instead they can be created by two mecha-
nisms: the rst one is by gravitational lensing of E-modes,
which has been measured by the South Pole Telescope in
2013;[83] the second one is from gravitational waves aris-
ing from cosmic ination. Detecting the B-modes is ex-
tremely dicult, particularly as the degree of foreground
contamination is unknown, and the weak gravitational
lensing signal mixes the relatively strong E-mode signal
with the B-mode signal.[84]

1. Small scale anisotropies are erased. (Just as when

1.4.1 E-modes
looking at an object through fog, details of the object
appear fuzzy.)
E-modes were rst seen in 2002 by the Degree Angular
2. The physics of how photons are scattered by free Scale Interferometer (DASI).
8 CHAPTER 1. COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND

1.4.2 B-modes ing the South Pole Telescope with help from the Herschel
Space Observatory.[95] This discovery may help test theo-
Cosmologists predict two types of B-modes, the rst ries on the origin of the universe. Scientists are using data
generated during cosmic ination shortly after the big from the Planck mission by the European Space Agency,
bang,[85][86][87] and the second generated by gravitational to gain a better understanding of these waves.[96][97][98]
lensing at later times.[88] In October 2014, a measurement of the B-mode polar-
ization at 150 GHz was published by the POLARBEAR
Primordial gravitational waves experiment.[99] Compared to BICEP2, POLARBEAR
focuses on a smaller patch of the sky and is less suscep-
Primordial gravitational waves are gravitational waves tible to dust eects. The team reported that POLAR-
that could be observed in the polarisation of the cos- BEARs measured B-mode polarization was of cosmo-
mic microwave background and having their origin in the logical origin (and not just due to dust) at a 97.2% con-
early universe. Models of cosmic ination predict that dence level.[100]
such gravitational waves should appear; thus, their detec-
tion supports the theory of ination, and their strength can
conrm and exclude dierent models of ination. It is the 1.5 Microwave background obser-
result of three things: inationary expansion of space it-
self, reheating after ination, and turbulent uid mixing vations
of matter and radiation. [89]
On 17 March 2014 it was announced that the BICEP2
instrument had detected the rst type of B-modes, con-
sistent with ination and gravitational waves in the early
universe at the level of r = 0.20+0.07
0.05, which is the amount of power present in
gravitational waves compared to the amount of power
present in other scalar density perturbations in the very
early universe. Had this been conrmed it would have
provided strong evidence of cosmic ination and the Big
Bang,[64][65] [66][67] [90][91][92] but on 19 June 2014, con-
siderably lowered condence in conrming the ndings All-sky map of the CMB, created from 9 years of WMAP data.
was reported[68][70][71] and on 19 September 2014 new
results of the Planck experiment reported that the results Main article: List of cosmic microwave background
of BICEP2 can be fully attributed to cosmic dust.[93][94] experiments

Gravitational lensing Subsequent to the discovery of the CMB, hundreds of

cosmic microwave background experiments have been
conducted to measure and characterize the signatures of
the radiation. The most famous experiment is probably
the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satel-
lite that orbited in 19891996 and which detected and
quantied the large scale anisotropies at the limit of its de-
tection capabilities. Inspired by the initial COBE results
of an extremely isotropic and homogeneous background,
a series of ground- and balloon-based experiments quan-
tied CMB anisotropies on smaller angular scales over
the next decade. The primary goal of these experiments
was to measure the angular scale of the rst acoustic
peak, for which COBE did not have sucient resolu-
tion. These measurements were able to rule out cosmic
strings as the leading theory of cosmic structure forma-
tion, and suggested cosmic ination was the right theory.
This artists impression shows how light from the early universe During the 1990s, the rst peak was measured with in-
is deected by the gravitational lensing eect of massive cos- creasing sensitivity and by 2000 the BOOMERanG ex-
mic structures forming B-modes as it travels across the universe. periment reported that the highest power uctuations oc-
(Credit: ESA) cur at scales of approximately one degree. Together with
other cosmological data, these results implied that the ge-
The second type of B-modes was discovered in 2013 us- ometry of the universe is at. A number of ground-based
1.6. DATA REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS 9

interferometers provided measurements of the uctua- According to the map, subtle uctuations in temperature
tions with higher accuracy over the next three years, in- were imprinted on the deep sky when the cosmos was
cluding the Very Small Array, Degree Angular Scale In- about 370,000 years old. The imprint reects ripples that
terferometer (DASI), and the Cosmic Background Im- arose as early, as the existence of the universe, as the
ager (CBI). DASI made the rst detection of the polar- rst nonillionth of a second. Apparently, these ripples
ization of the CMB and the CBI provided the rst E-mode gave rise to the present vast cosmic web of galaxy clus-
polarization spectrum with compelling evidence that it is ters and dark matter. Based on the 2013 data, the uni-
out of phase with the T-mode spectrum. verse contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter
and 68.3% dark energy. On 5 February 2015, new data
In June 2001, NASA launched a second CMB space
mission, WMAP, to make much more precise measure- was released by the Planck mission, according to which
the age of the universe is 13.799 0.021 billion years old
ments of the large scale anisotropies over the full sky.
WMAP used symmetric, rapid-multi-modulated scan- and the Hubble constant was measured to be 67.74 0.46
(km/s)/Mpc.[103]
ning, rapid switching radiometers to minimize non-sky
signal noise.[77] The rst results from this mission, dis- Additional ground-based instruments such as the South
closed in 2003, were detailed measurements of the an- Pole Telescope in Antarctica and the proposed Clover
gular power spectrum at a scale of less than one de- Project, Atacama Cosmology Telescope and the QUIET
gree, tightly constraining various cosmological parame- telescope in Chile will provide additional data not avail-
ters. The results are broadly consistent with those ex- able from satellite observations, possibly including the B-
pected from cosmic ination as well as various other com- mode polarization.
peting theories, and are available in detail at NASAs data
bank for Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) (see
links below). Although WMAP provided very accurate
measurements of the large scale angular uctuations in
the CMB (structures about as broad in the sky as the 1.6 Data reduction and analysis
moon), it did not have the angular resolution to measure
the smaller scale uctuations which had been observed by Raw CMBR data from the space vehicle (i.e. WMAP)
former ground-based interferometers. contain foreground eects that completely obscure the
A third space mission, the ESA (European Space ne-scale structure of the cosmic microwave background.
Agency) Planck Surveyor, was launched in May 2009 The ne-scale structure is superimposed on the raw
and is currently performing an even more detailed in- CMBR data but is too small to be seen at the scale of the
vestigation. Planck employs both HEMT radiometers raw data. The most prominent of the foreground eects
and bolometer technology and will measure the CMB at is the dipole anisotropy caused by the Suns motion rela-
a smaller scale than WMAP. Its detectors were trialled tive to the CMBR background. The dipole anisotropy and
in the Antarctic Viper telescope as ACBAR (Arcminute others due to Earths annual motion relative to the Sun
Cosmology Bolometer Array Receiver) experiment and numerous microwave sources in the galactic plane
which has produced the most precise measurements at and elsewhere must be subtracted out to reveal the ex-
small angular scales to dateand in the Archeops bal- tremely tiny variations characterizing the ne-scale struc-
loon telescope. ture of the CMBR background.
The detailed analysis of CMBR data to produce maps, an
angular power spectrum, and ultimately cosmological pa-
rameters is a complicated, computationally dicult prob-
lem. Although computing a power spectrum from a map
is in principle a simple Fourier transform, decomposing
the map of the sky into spherical harmonics, in prac-
tice it is hard to take the eects of noise and foreground
sources into account. In particular, these foregrounds are
dominated by galactic emissions such as Bremsstrahlung,
synchrotron, and dust that emit in the microwave band;
in practice, the galaxy has to be removed, resulting in a
CMB map that is not a full-sky map. In addition, point
Comparison of CMB results from COBE, WMAP and Planck
March 21, 2013.
sources like galaxies and clusters represent another source
of foreground which must be removed so as not to distort
On 21 March 2013, the European-led research team be- the short scale structure of the CMB power spectrum.
hind the Planck cosmology probe released the missions Constraints on many cosmological parameters can be ob-
all-sky map (565x318 jpeg, 3600x1800 jpeg) of the cos- tained from their eects on the power spectrum, and
mic microwave background.[101][102] The map suggests results are often calculated using Markov Chain Monte
the universe is slightly older than researchers thought. Carlo sampling techniques.
10
1.6.1 CMBR dipole anisotropy
From the CMB data it is seen that our local group
of galaxies (the galactic cluster that includes the Solar
Systems Milky Way Galaxy) appears to be moving at
62722 km/s relative to the reference frame of the CMB
(also called the CMB rest frame, or the frame of ref-
erence in which there is no motion through the CMB)
in the direction of galactic longitude l = 2763, b =
303.[104][105] This motion results in an anisotropy of
the data (CMB appearing slightly warmer in the direction
of movement than in the opposite direction).[106] From a
theoretical point of view, the existence of a CMB rest
frame breaks Lorentz invariance even in empty space far
away from any galaxy.[107] The standard interpretation of
this temperature variation is a simple velocity red shift
and blue shift due to motion relative to the CMB, but
alternative cosmological models can explain some frac-
tion of the observed dipole temperature distribution in
the CMB.[108]
1.6.2 Low multipoles and other anomalies
With the increasingly precise data provided by
WMAP, there have been a number of claims that
the CMB exhibits anomalies, such as very large scale
anisotropies, anomalous alignments, and non-Gaussian
distributions.[109][110][111][112] The most longstanding of
these is the low-l multipole controversy. Even in the
COBE map, it was observed that the quadrupole (l =
2, spherical harmonic) has a low amplitude compared
to the predictions of the Big Bang. In particular, the
quadrupole and octupole (l = 3) modes appear to have
an unexplained alignment with each other and with
both the ecliptic plane and equinoxes,[113][114][115] an
alignment sometimes referred to as the axis of evil.[110]
A number of groups have suggested that this could be
the signature of new physics at the greatest observable
scales; other groups suspect systematic errors in the
data.[116][117][118] Ultimately, due to the foregrounds
and the cosmic variance problem, the greatest modes
will never be as well measured as the small angular
scale modes. The analyses were performed on two
maps that have had the foregrounds removed as far as
possible: the internal linear combination map of the
WMAP collaboration and a similar map prepared by
Max Tegmark and others.[45][77][119] Later analyses have
pointed out that these are the modes most susceptible
to foreground contamination from synchrotron, dust,
and Bremsstrahlung emission, and from experimental
uncertainty in the monopole and dipole. A full Bayesian
analysis of the WMAP power spectrum demonstrates
that the quadrupole prediction of Lambda-CDM cos-
mology is consistent with the data at the 10% level
and that the observed octupole is not remarkable.[120]
Carefully accounting for the procedure used to remove
the foregrounds from the full sky map further reduces the
CHAPTER 1. COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND
signicance of the alignment by ~5%.[121][122][123][124]
Recent observations with the Planck telescope, which is
very much more sensitive than WMAP and has a larger
angular resolution, conrm the observation of the axis of
evil. Since two dierent instruments recorded the same
anomaly, instrumental error (but not foreground contami-
nation) appears to be ruled out.[125] Coincidence is a pos-
sible explanation, chief scientist from WMAP, Charles
L. Bennett suggested coincidence and human psychology
were involved, I do think there is a bit of a psychological
eect; people want to nd unusual things. [126]
1.7 Future evolution
Assuming the universe keeps expanding and it does not
suer a Big Crunch, a Big Rip, or another similar fate,
the cosmic microwave background will continue red-
shifting until it will no longer be detectable,[127] and
will be overtaken rst by the one produced by starlight,
and later by the background radiation elds of processes
that are assumed will take place in the far future of the
universe.[128], VD.
1.8 In popular culture
In the Stargate Universe TV series, an Ancient
spaceship, Destiny, was built to study patterns in the
CMBR which indicate that the universe as we know
it might have been created by some form of sentient
intelligence.[129]
In Wheelers, a novel by Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen,
CMBR is explained as the encrypted transmissions
of an ancient civilization. This allows the Jovian
blimps to have a society older than the currently-
observed age of the universe.
In The Three-Body Problem, a novel by Liu Cixin,
CMBR becomes observable to the naked eye due to
interference from an alien civilization.
1.9 See also
Physical cosmology
Observational cosmology
Gravitational wave background
Cosmic gravitational wave background
Observation history of galaxies
Lambda-CDM model
Heat death of the universe
Computational packages for Cosmologists
1.10. REFERENCES
1.10 References
[1] Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W. (1965). A Mea-
surement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080
Mc/s. The Astrophysical Journal 142 (1): 419421.
Bibcode:1965ApJ...142..419P. doi:10.1086/148307.
[2] Smoot Group (28 March 1996). The Cosmic Microwave
Background Radiation. Lawrence Berkeley Lab. Re-
trieved 2008-12-11.
[3] Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe. Max Planck
Gesellschaft. 21 March 2013. Retrieved 2013-06-03.
[4] Kaku, M. (2014). First Second of the Big Bang. How
the Universe Works. Discovery Science.
[5] Fixsen, D. J. (2009). The Temperature of the
Cosmic Microwave Background. The Astrophys-
ical Journal 707 (2): 916920. arXiv:0911.1955.
Bibcode:2009ApJ...707..916F. doi:10.1088/0004-
637X/707/2/916.
[6] Dodelson, S. (2003). Coherent Phase Argument for
Ination. AIP Conference Proceedings 689: 184196.
arXiv:hep-ph/0309057. Bibcode:2003AIPC..689..184D.
doi:10.1063/1.1627736.
[7] Baumann, D. (2011). The Physics of Ination (PDF).
University of Cambridge. Retrieved 2015-05-09.
[8] White, M. (1999). Anisotropies in the CMB. Pro-
ceedings of the Los Angeles Meeting, DPF 99. UCLA.
arXiv:astro-ph/9903232. Bibcode:1999dpf..conf.....W.
[9] Wright, E.L. (2004). Theoretical Overview of Cosmic
Microwave Background Anisotropy. In W. L. Freedman.
Measuring and Modeling the Universe. Carnegie Observa-
tories Astrophysics Series. Cambridge University Press.
p. 291. arXiv:astro-ph/0305591. ISBN 0-521-75576-X.
[10] The Planck Collaboration, Planck 2013 results.
XXVII. Doppler boosting of the CMB: Eppur si muove,
arXiv:1303.5087, Bibcode:2014A&A...571A..27P,
doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321556
[11] Guth, A. H. (1998). The Inationary Universe: The Quest
for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Basic Books. p. 186.
ISBN 978-0201328400. OCLC 35701222.
[12] Cirigliano, D.; de Vega, H.J.; Sanchez, N. G. (2005).
Clarifying ination models: The precise inationary po-
tential from eective eld theory and the WMAP data.
Physical Review D 71 (10): 77115. arXiv:astro-
ph/0412634. Bibcode:2005PhRvD..71j3518C.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.103518.
[13] Abbott, B. (2007). Microwave (WMAP) All-Sky Sur-
vey. Hayden Planetarium. Retrieved 2008-01-13.
[14] Gawiser, E.; Silk, J. (2000). The cosmic mi-
crowave background radiation. Physics Reports.
333334: 245267. arXiv:astro-ph/0002044.
Bibcode:2000PhR...333..245G. doi:10.1016/S0370-
1573(00)00025-9.
11
[15] Smoot, G. F. (2006). Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation Anisotropies: Their Discovery and Utilization.
Nobel Lecture. Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2008-12-22.
[16] Hobson, M.P.; Efstathiou, G.; Lasenby, A.N. (2006).
General Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists.
Cambridge University Press. p. 388. ISBN 0-521-82951-
8.
[17] Unsld, A.; Bodo, B. (2002). The New Cosmos, An
Introduction to Astronomy and Astrophysics (5th ed.).
SpringerVerlag. p. 485. ISBN 3-540-67877-8.
[18] Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observa-
tional Data, M. S. Longair, page 144
[19] Cosmology II: The thermal history of the Universe, Ruth
Durrer
[20] Gamow, G. (1948). The Origin of Elements and
the Separation of Galaxies. Physical Review
74 (4): 505506. Bibcode:1948PhRv...74..505G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.74.505.2.
[21] Gamow, G. (1948). The evolution of the
universe. Nature 162 (4122): 680682.
Bibcode:1948Natur.162..680G. doi:10.1038/162680a0.
PMID 18893719.
[22] Alpher, R. A.; Herman, R. C. (1948). On the Rel-
ative Abundance of the Elements. Physical Review
74 (12): 17371742. Bibcode:1948PhRv...74.1737A.
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.74.1737.
[23] Assis, A. K. T.; Neves, M. C. D. (1995). History of
the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson
(PDF) (3): 7987. but see also Wright, E. L. (2006).
Eddingtons Temperature of Space. UCLA. Retrieved
2008-12-11.
[24] Penzias, A. A. (2006). The origin of elements (PDF).
Nobel lecture. Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2006-10-04.
[25] Dicke, R. H. (1946). The Measurement of
Thermal Radiation at Microwave Frequencies.
Review of Scientic Instruments 17 (7): 268275.
Bibcode:1946RScI...17..268D. doi:10.1063/1.1770483.
PMID 20991753. This basic design for a radiometer
has been used in most subsequent cosmic microwave
background experiments.
[26] The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (Nobel
Lecture) by Robert Wilson 8 Dec 1978, p. 474
[27] Dicke, R. H.; et al. (1965). Cosmic Black-
Body Radiation. Astrophysical Journal 142: 414419.
Bibcode:1965ApJ...142..414D. doi:10.1086/148306.
[28] The history is given in Peebles, P. J. E (1993). Principles
of Physical Cosmology. Princeton University Press. pp.
139148. ISBN 0-691-01933-9.
[29] The Nobel Prize in Physics 1978. Nobel Foundation.
1978. Retrieved 2009-01-08.
[30] Narlikar, J. V.; Wickramasinghe, N. C. (1967). Mi-
crowave Background in a Steady State Universe. Nature
216 (5110): 4344. Bibcode:1967Natur.216...43N.
doi:10.1038/216043a0.
12
[31] McKellar, A.; Kan-Mitchell, June; Conti, Peter S. (1941).
Molecular Lines from the Lowest States of Diatomic
Molecules Composed of Atoms Probably Present in Inter-
stellar Space. Publications of the Dominion Astrophysical
Observatory (Victoria, BC) 7 (6): 251272.
[32] Peebles, P. J. E.; et al. (1991). The case for
the relativistic hot big bang cosmology. Nature
352 (6338): 769776. Bibcode:1991Natur.352..769P.
doi:10.1038/352769a0.
[33] Harrison, E. R. (1970). Fluctuations at the thresh-
old of classical cosmology. Physical Review D 1
(10): 27262730. Bibcode:1970PhRvD...1.2726H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.1.2726.
[34] Peebles, P. J. E.; Yu, J. T. (1970). Primeval Adiabatic
Perturbation in an Expanding Universe. Astrophysical
Journal 162: 815836. Bibcode:1970ApJ...162..815P.
doi:10.1086/150713.
[35] Zeldovich, Y. B. (1972). A hypothesis, unifying the
structure and the entropy of the Universe. Monthly No-
tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 160 (78): 1P4P.
doi:10.1016/S0026-0576(07)80178-4.
[36] Doroshkevich, A. G.; Zel'Dovich, Y. B.; Syunyaev, R.
A. (1978) [1216 September 1977]. Fluctuations of
the microwave background radiation in the adiabatic and
entropic theories of galaxy formation. In Longair, M.
S.; Einasto, J. The large scale structure of the universe;
Proceedings of the Symposium. Tallinn, Estonian SSR:
Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Co. pp. 393404.
Bibcode:1978IAUS...79..393S. While this is the rst pa-
per to discuss the detailed observational imprint of density
inhomogeneities as anisotropies in the cosmic microwave
background, some of the groundwork was laid in Peebles
and Yu, above.
[37] Smooth, G. F.; et al. (1992). Structure in
the COBE dierential microwave radiometer rst-year
maps. Astrophysical Journal Letters 396 (1): L1L5.
Bibcode:1992ApJ...396L...1S. doi:10.1086/186504.
[38] Bennett, C.L.; et al. (1996). Four-Year COBE DMR
Cosmic Microwave Background Observations: Maps and
Basic Results. Astrophysical Journal Letters 464: L1L4.
arXiv:astro-ph/9601067. Bibcode:1996ApJ...464L...1B.
doi:10.1086/310075.
[39] Grupen, C.; et al. (2005). Astroparticle Physics. Springer.
pp. 240241. ISBN 3-540-25312-2.
[40] Miller, A. D.; et al. (1999). A Measurement of the
Angular Power Spectrum of the Microwave Background
Made from the High Chilean Andes. Astrophysical
Journal 521 (2): L79L82. arXiv:astro-ph/9905100.
Bibcode:1999ApJ...521L..79T. doi:10.1086/312197.
[41] Melchiorri, A.; et al. (2000). A Measurement of
from the North American Test Flight of Boomerang.
Astrophysical Journal 536 (2): L63L66. arXiv:astro-
ph/9911445. Bibcode:2000ApJ...536L..63M.
doi:10.1086/312744.
CHAPTER 1. COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND
[42] Hanany, S.; et al. (2000). MAXIMA-1: A
Measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background
Anisotropy on Angular Scales of 10'5". Astrophysical
Journal 545 (1): L5L9. arXiv:astro-ph/0005123.
Bibcode:2000ApJ...545L...5H. doi:10.1086/317322.
[43] de Bernardis, P.; et al. (2000). A at Uni-
verse from high-resolution maps of the cos-
mic microwave background radiation. Nature
404 (6781): 955959. arXiv:astro-ph/0004404.
Bibcode:2000Natur.404..955D. doi:10.1038/35010035.
PMID 10801117.
[44] Pogosian, L.; et al. (2003). Observational constraints
on cosmic string production during brane ination.
Physical Review D 68 (2): 023506. arXiv:hep-
th/0304188. Bibcode:2003PhRvD..68b3506P.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.023506.
[45] Hinshaw, G.; (WMAP collaboration); Bennett, C. L.;
Bean, R.; Dor, O.; Greason, M. R.; Halpern, M.; Hill, R.
S.; Jarosik, N.; Kogut, A.; Komatsu, E.; Limon, M.; Ode-
gard, N.; Meyer, S. S.; Page, L.; Peiris, H. V.; Spergel, D.
N.; Tucker, G. S.; Verde, L.; Weiland, J. L.; Wollack,
E.; Wright, E. L.; et al. (2007). Three-year Wilkin-
son Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations:
temperature analysis. Astrophysical Journal (Supple-
ment Series) 170 (2): 288334. arXiv:astro-ph/0603451.
Bibcode:2007ApJS..170..288H. doi:10.1086/513698.
[46] Guillaume, C.-., 1896, La Nature 24, series 2, p. 234,
cited in History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Pen-
zias and Wilson (PDF)
[47] Eddington, A., The Internal Constitution of the Stars,
cited in History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Pen-
zias and Wilson (PDF)
[48] Weinberg, S. (1972). Oxford Astronomy Encyclopedia.
John Wiley & Sons. p. 514. ISBN 0-471-92567-5.
[49] Kragh, H. (1999). Cosmology and Controversy: The
Historical Development of Two Theories of the Uni-
verse. ISBN 0-691-00546-X. In 1946, Robert Dicke
and coworkers at MIT tested equipment that could test
a cosmic microwave background of intensity correspond-
ing to about 20K in the microwave region. However,
they did not refer to such a background, but only to 'ra-
diation from cosmic matter'. Also, this work was unre-
lated to cosmology and is only mentioned because it sug-
gests that by 1950, detection of the background radiation
might have been technically possible, and also because
of Dickes later role in the discovery. See also Dicke,
R. H.; et al. (1946). Atmospheric Absorption Mea-
surements with a Microwave Radiometer. Physical Re-
view 70 (56): 340348. Bibcode:1946PhRv...70..340D.
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.70.340.
[50] George Gamow, The Creation Of The Universe p.50
(Dover reprint of revised 1961 edition) ISBN 0-486-
43868-6
[51] Gamow, G. (2004) [1961]. Cosmology and Controversy:
The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Uni-
verse. Courier Dover Publications. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-
486-43868-9.
1.10. REFERENCES
[52] Erwin Finlay-Freundlich, "Ueber die Rotverschiebung der
Spektrallinien" (1953) Contributions from the Observa-
tory, University of St. Andrews ; no. 4, p. 96102. Finlay-
Freundlich also gave two extreme values of 1.9K and 6.0K
in Finlay-Freundlich, E.: 1954, Red shifts in the spectra
of celestial bodies, Phil. Mag., Vol. 45, pp. 303319.
[53] Helge Kragh, Cosmology and Controversy: The Histori-
cal Development of Two Theories of the Universe (1999)
ISBN 0-691-00546-X. Alpher and Herman rst calcu-
lated the present temperature of the decoupled primor-
dial radiation in 1948, when they reported a value of 5 K.
Although it was not mentioned either then or in later pub-
lications that the radiation is in the microwave region, this
follows immediately from the temperature ... Alpher and
Herman made it clear that what they had called the tem-
perature in the univerese the previous year referred to a
blackbody distributed background radiation quite dier-
ent from sunliight.
[54] Shmaonov, T. A. (1957). Commentary. Pribory
i Tekhnika Experimenta (in Russian) 1: 83.
doi:10.1016/S0890-5096(06)60772-3.
[55] It is noted that the measurements showed that radiation
intensity was independent of either time or direction of
observation ... it is now clear that Shmaonov did ob-
serve the cosmic microwave background at a wavelength
of 3.2cm
[56] Naselsky, P. D.; Novikov, D.I.; Novikov, I. D. (2006).
The Physics of the Cosmic Microwave Background. ISBN
0-521-85550-0.
[57] Helge Kragh, Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical
Development of Two Theories of the Universe
[58] Doroshkevich, A. G.; Novikov, I.D. (1964). Mean Den-
sity of Radiation in the Metagalaxy and Certain Prob-
lems in Relativistic Cosmology. Soviet Physics Doklady
9 (23): 42924298. Bibcode:1999EnST...33.4292W.
doi:10.1021/es990537g.
[59] Nobel Prize In Physics: Russias Missed Opportunities, RIA
Novosti, Nov 21, 2006
[60] Sanders, R.; Kahn, J. (13 October 2006). UC Berkeley,
LBNL cosmologist George F. Smoot awarded 2006 Nobel
Prize in Physics. UC Berkeley News. Retrieved 2008-
12-11.
[61] Kovac, J.M.; et al. (2002). Detection of polar-
ization in the cosmic microwave background using
DASI. Nature 420 (6917): 772787. arXiv:astro-
ph/0209478. Bibcode:2002Natur.420..772K.
doi:10.1038/nature01269. PMID 12490941.
[62] Readhead, A. C. S.; et al. (2004). Polarization
Observations with the Cosmic Background Im-
ager. Science 306 (5697): 836844. arXiv:astro-
ph/0409569. Bibcode:2004Sci...306..836R.
doi:10.1126/science.1105598. PMID 15472038.
[63] A. Readhead et al., Polarization observations with the
Cosmic Background Imager, Science 306, 836-844
(2004).
13
[64] Sta (March 17, 2014). BICEP2 2014 Results Release.
National Science Foundation. Retrieved March 18, 2014.
[65] Clavin, Whitney (March 17, 2014). NASA Technology
Views Birth of the Universe. NASA. Retrieved March 17,
2014.
[66] Overbye, Dennis (March 17, 2014). Space Ripples Re-
veal Big Bangs Smoking Gun. The New York Times. Re-
trieved March 17, 2014.
[67] Overbye, Dennis (March 24, 2014). Ripples From the
Big Bang. New York Times. Retrieved March 24, 2014.
[68] Ade, P.A.R. (BICEP2 Collaboration) (19 June 2014).
Detection of B-Mode Polarization at Degree Angular
Scales by BICEP2 (PDF). Physical Review Letters 112
(24): 241101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.241101.
PMID 24996078. Retrieved 20 June 2014.
[69] http://www.math.columbia.edu/~{}woit/wordpress/?p=
6865
[70] Overbye, Dennis (June 19, 2014). Astronomers Hedge
on Big Bang Detection Claim. New York Times. Re-
trieved June 20, 2014.
[71] Amos, Jonathan (June 19, 2014). Cosmic ination: Con-
dence lowered for Big Bang signal. BBC News. Re-
trieved June 20, 2014.
[72] Cowen, Ron (2015-01-30). Gravitational
waves discovery now ocially dead. nature.
doi:10.1038/nature.2015.16830.
[73] Scott, D. (2005). The Standard Cosmological Model.
arXiv:astro-ph/0510731 [astro-ph].
[74] Durham, Frank; Purrington, Robert D. (1983). Frame of
the universe: a history of physical cosmology. Columbia
University Press. pp. 193209. ISBN 0-231-05393-2.
[75] Assis, A. K. T.; Paulo, So; Neves, M. C. D. (July 1995).
History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and
Wilson (PDF). Apeiron 2 (3): 7987.
[76] Brandenberger, Robert H. (1995). Formation of Struc-
ture in the Universe": 8159. arXiv:astro-ph/9508159.
Bibcode:1995astro.ph..8159B.
[77] Bennett, C. L.; (WMAP collaboration); Hinshaw, G.;
Jarosik, N.; Kogut, A.; Limon, M.; Meyer, S. S.; Page,
L.; Spergel, D. N.; Tucker, G. S.; Wollack, E.; Wright,
E. L.; Barnes, C.; Greason, M. R.; Hill, R. S.; Ko-
matsu, E.; Nolta, M. R.; Odegard, N.; Peiris, H. V.;
Verde, L.; Weiland, J. L.; et al. (2003). First-
year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
observations: preliminary maps and basic results.
Astrophysical Journal (Supplement Series) 148: 127.
arXiv:astro-ph/0302207. Bibcode:2003ApJS..148....1B.
doi:10.1086/377253. This paper warns, the statistics of
this internal linear combination map are complex and in-
appropriate for most CMB analyses.
[78] Noterdaeme, P.; Petitjean, P.; Srianand, R.; Ledoux,
C.; Lpez, S. (February 2011). The evolution of
the cosmic microwave background temperature. Mea-
surements of TCMB at high redshift from carbon
14 CHAPTER 1. COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND

monoxide excitation. Astronomy and Astrophysics 526: [92] Space Ripples Reveal Big Bangs Smoking Gun. March
L7. arXiv:1012.3164. Bibcode:2011A&A...526L...7N. 17, 2014.
doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016140.
[93] Planck Collaboration Team (19 September 2014).
[79] Wayne Hu. Baryons and Inertia. Planck intermediate results. XXX. The angular power
spectrum of polarized dust emission at intermediate and
[80] Wayne Hu. Radiation Driving Force. high Galactic latitudes. arXiv:1409.5738.
[81] Hu, W.; White, M. (1996). Acoustic Signatures in [94] Overbye, Dennis (22 September 2014). Study Conrms
the Cosmic Microwave Background. Astrophysical Criticism of Big Bang Finding. New York Times. Re-
Journal 471: 3051. arXiv:astro-ph/9602019. trieved 22 September 2014.
Bibcode:1996ApJ...471...30H. doi:10.1086/177951.
[95] Polarization detected in Big Bangs echo. Nature News
[82] WMAP Collaboration; Verde, L.; Peiris, H. V.; Komatsu, & Comment.
E.; Nolta, M. R.; Bennett, C. L.; Halpern, M.; Hinshaw,
G.; et al. (2003). First-Year Wilkinson Microwave [96] ESA Planck (Oct 22, 2013). Planck Space Mission. Re-
Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determina- trieved Oct 23, 2013.
tion of Cosmological Parameters. Astrophysical Journal [97] NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (October 22, 2013).
Supplement Series 148 (1): 175194. arXiv:astro- Long-sought pattern of ancient light detected. Sci-
ph/0302209. Bibcode:2003ApJS..148..175S. enceDaily. Retrieved October 23, 2013.
doi:10.1086/377226.
[98] Hanson, D.; et al. (Sep 30, 2013). Detec-
[83] Hanson, D.; et al. (2013). Detection of B- tion of B-Mode Polarization in the Cosmic Mi-
mode polarization in the Cosmic Microwave crowave Background with Data from the South
Background with data from the South Pole Pole Telescope. Physical Review Letters. 14 111.
Telescope. Physical Review Letters 111 (14). arXiv:1307.5830. Bibcode:2013PhRvL.111n1301H.
arXiv:1307.5830. Bibcode:2013PhRvL.111n1301H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.141301.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.141301.
[99] The Polarbear Collaboration (October 2014). A Mea-
[84] Lewis, A.; Challinor, A. (2006). Weak gravitational surement of the Cosmic Microwave Background B-Mode
lensing of the CMB. Physics Reports 429: 165. Polarization Power Spectrum at Sub-Degree Scales with
arXiv:astro-ph/0601594. Bibcode:2006PhR...429....1L. POLARBEAR (PDF). The Astrophysical Journal 794:
doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2006.03.002. 171. arXiv:1403.2369. Bibcode:2014ApJ...794..171T.
doi:10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/171. Retrieved Novem-
[85] Seljak, U. (June 1997). Measuring Polarization
ber 16, 2014.
in the Cosmic Microwave Background. Astrophys-
ical Journal 482: 616. arXiv:astro-ph/9608131. [100] POLARBEAR project oers clues about origin of uni-
Bibcode:1997ApJ...482....6S. doi:10.1086/304123. verses cosmic growth spurt. Christian Science Monitor.
October 21, 2014.
[86] Seljak, U.; Zaldarriaga M. (March 17, 1997).
Signature of Gravity Waves in the Polariza- [101] Clavin, Whitney; Harrington, J.D. (21 March 2013).
tion of the Microwave Background. Phys. Planck Mission Brings Universe Into Sharp Focus.
Rev.Lett. 78 (11): 20542057. arXiv:astro- NASA. Retrieved 21 March 2013.
ph/9609169. Bibcode:1997PhRvL..78.2054S.
[102] Sta (21 March 2013). Mapping the Early Universe.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2054.
New York Times. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
[87] Kamionkowski, M.; Kosowsky A. & Steb-
[103] Planck Collaboration (2015). Planck 2015 re-
bins A. (March 17, 1997). A Probe of Pri-
sults. XIII. Cosmological parameters (See Ta-
mordial Gravity Waves and Vorticity. Phys.
ble 4 on page 31 of pfd).. arXiv:1502.01589.
Rev.Lett. 78 (11): 20582061. arXiv:astro-
Bibcode:2015arXiv150201589P.
ph/9609132. Bibcode:1997PhRvL..78.2058K.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2058. [104] Kogut, A.; Lineweaver, C.; Smoot, G. F.; Bennett, C. L.;
Banday, A.; Boggess, N. W.; Cheng, E. S.; De Amici,
[88] Zaldarriaga, M.; Seljak U. (July 15, 1998). Gravita-
G.; Fixsen, D. J.; Hinshaw, G.; Jackson, P. D.; Janssen,
tional lensing eect on cosmic microwave background
M.; Keegstra, P.; Loewenstein, K.; Lubin, P.; Mather,
polarization. Physical Review D. 2 58. arXiv:astro-
J. C.; Tenorio, L.; Weiss, R.; Wilkinson, D. T.; Wright,
ph/9803150. Bibcode:1998PhRvD..58b3003Z.
E. L. (1993). Dipole Anisotropy in the COBE Dif-
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.023003.
ferential Microwave Radiometers First-Year Sky Maps.
[89] Scientists Report Evidence for Gravitational Waves in Astrophysical Journal 419: 16. arXiv:astro-ph/9312056.
Early Universe. Retrieved 2007-06-20. Bibcode:1993ApJ...419....1K. doi:10.1086/173453.

[90] Gravitational waves: have US scientists heard echoes of [105] Aghanim, N.; Armitage-Caplan, C.; et al. (2013).
the big bang?". The Guardian. 2014-03-14. Retrieved Planck 2013 results. XXVII. Doppler boost-
2014-03-14. ing of the CMB: Eppur si muove. Astronomy
& Astrophysics 571 (27): A27. arXiv:1303.5087.
[91] 'BICEP2 I: Detection Of B-mode Polarization at Degree Bibcode:2014A&A...571A..27P. doi:10.1051/0004-
Angular Scales on arXiv 6361/201321556.
 1.11. EXTERNAL LINKS 15

[106] http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090906.html [119] Tegmark, M.; de Oliveira-Costa, A.; Hamil-

ton, A. (2003). A high resolution foreground
[107] http://iopscience.iop.org/1126-6708/2005/07/029/ cleaned CMB map from WMAP. Physical
Review D 68 (12): 123523. arXiv:astro-
[108] Inoue, K. T.; Silk, J. (2007). Local Voids as the Origin of ph/0302496. Bibcode:2003PhRvD..68l3523T.
Large-Angle Cosmic Microwave Background Anomalies: doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.123523. This paper states,
The Eect of a Cosmological Constant. Astrophysical Not surprisingly, the two most contaminated multipoles
Journal 664 (2): 650659. arXiv:astro-ph/0612347. are [the quadrupole and octupole], which most closely
Bibcode:2007ApJ...664..650I. doi:10.1086/517603. trace the galactic plane morphology.

[109] Rossmanith, G.; Rth, C.; Banday, A. J.; Morll, [120] O'Dwyer, I.; Eriksen, H. K.; Wandelt, B. D.; Jew-
G. (2009). Non-Gaussian Signatures in the ve- ell, J. B.; Larson, D. L.; Grski, K. M.; Banday, A.
year WMAP data as identied with isotropic scaling J.; Levin, S.; Lilje, P. B. (2004). Bayesian Power
indices. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- Spectrum Analysis of the First-Year Wilkinson Mi-
cal Society 399 (4): 19211933. arXiv:0905.2854. crowave Anisotropy Probe Data. Astrophysical Jour-
Bibcode:2009MNRAS.399.1921R. doi:10.1111/j.1365- nal Letters 617 (2): L99L102. arXiv:astro-ph/0407027.
2966.2009.15421.x. Bibcode:2004ApJ...617L..99O. doi:10.1086/427386.
[121] Slosar, A.; Seljak, U. (2004). Assessing the ef-
[110] Schild, R. E.; Gibson, C. H. (2008). Goodness in the fects of foregrounds and sky removal in WMAP.
Axis of Evil. arXiv:0802.3229 [astro-ph]. Physical Review D 70 (8): 083002. arXiv:astro-
ph/0404567. Bibcode:2004PhRvD..70h3002S.
[111] Bernui, A.; Mota, B.; Rebouas, M. J.; Tavakol, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.083002.
R. (2005). Mapping the large-scale anisotropy
in the WMAP data. Astronomy and Astrophysics [122] Bielewicz, P.; Eriksen, H. K.; Banday, A. J.; Grski, K.
464 (2): 479485. arXiv:astro-ph/0511666. M.; Lilje, P. B. (2005). Multipole vector anomalies in the
Bibcode:2007A&A...464..479B. doi:10.1051/0004- rst-year WMAP data: a cut-sky analysis. Astrophysical
6361:20065585. Journal 635 (2): 75060. arXiv:astro-ph/0507186.
Bibcode:2005ApJ...635..750B. doi:10.1086/497263.
[112] Jae, T.R.; Banday, A. J.; Eriksen, H. K.; Grski,
[123] Copi, C.J.; Huterer, Dragan; Schwarz, D. J.; Starkman,
K. M.; Hansen, F. K. (2005). Evidence of vortic-
G. D. (2006). On the large-angle anomalies of the
ity and shear at large angular scales in the WMAP
microwave sky. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro-
data: a violation of cosmological isotropy?". The Astro-
nomical Society 367: 79102. arXiv:astro-ph/0508047.
physical Journal 629: L1L4. arXiv:astro-ph/0503213.
Bibcode:2006MNRAS.367...79C. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
Bibcode:2005ApJ...629L...1J. doi:10.1086/444454.
2966.2005.09980.x.
[113] de Oliveira-Costa, A.; Tegmark, Max; Zaldarriaga, [124] de Oliveira-Costa, A.; Tegmark, M. (2006). CMB
Matias; Hamilton, Andrew (2004). The signicance multipole measurements in the presence of foregrounds.
of the largest scale CMB uctuations in WMAP. Physical Review D 74 (2): 023005. arXiv:astro-
Physical Review D 69 (6): 063516. arXiv:astro- ph/0603369. Bibcode:2006PhRvD..74b3005D.
ph/0307282. Bibcode:2004PhRvD..69f3516D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.023005.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.063516.
[125] Planck shows almost perfect cosmos plus axis of evil
[114] Schwarz, D. J.; Starkman, Glenn D.; et al. (2004). Is the [126] Found: Hawkings initials written into the universe
low-l microwave background cosmic?". Physical
Review Letters 93 (22): 221301. arXiv:astro- [127] Krauss, Lawrence M.; Scherrer, Robert J. (2007). The
ph/0403353. Bibcode:2004PhRvL..93v1301S. return of a static universe and the end of cosmology.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.221301. General Relativity and Gravitation 39 (10): 15451550.
arXiv:0704.0221. Bibcode:2007GReGr..39.1545K.
[115] Bielewicz, P.; Gorski, K. M.; Banday, A. J. (2004). Low- doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0472-9.
order multipole maps of CMB anisotropy derived from
[128] Adams, Fred C.; Laughlin, Gregory (1997). A
WMAP. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
dying universe: The long-term fate and evo-
Society 355 (4): 12831302. arXiv:astro-ph/0405007.
lution of astrophysical objects. Reviews of
Bibcode:2004MNRAS.355.1283B. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
Modern Physics 69 (2): 337372. arXiv:astro-
2966.2004.08405.x.
ph/9701131. Bibcode:1997RvMP...69..337A.
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.69.337.
[116] Liu, Hao; Li, Ti-Pei (2009). Improved CMB Map from
WMAP Data. arXiv:0907.2731v3 [astro-ph]. [129] Cosmic Rebirth Encoded in Background Radiation?

[117] Sawangwit, Utane; Shanks, Tom (2010). Lambda-CDM

and the WMAP Power Spectrum Beam Prole Sensitiv-
ity. arXiv:1006.1270v1 [astro-ph].
1.11 External links
[118] Liu, Hao; et al. (2010). Diagnosing Timing Error in Student Friendly Intro to the CMB A pedagogic,
WMAP Data. arXiv:1009.2701v1 [astro-ph]. step-by-step introduction to the cosmic microwave
16 CHAPTER 1. COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND

background power spectrum analysis suitable for

those with an undergraduate physics background.
More in depth than typical online sites. Less dense
than cosmology texts.
CMBR Theme on arxiv.org

Audio: Fraser Cain and Dr. Pamela Gay Astron-

omy Cast. The Big Bang and Cosmic Microwave
Background October 2006
Visualization of the CMB data from the Planck mis-
sion
Copeland, Ed. CMBR: Cosmic Microwave Back-
ground Radiation. Sixty Symbols. Brady Haran for
the University of Nottingham.
Chapter 2

Universe

For other uses, see Universe (disambiguation). time were created in the Big Bang, and these were im-
bued with a xed amount of energy and matter; as space
The Universe is all of time and space and its expands, the density of that matter and energy decreases.
After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled su-
contents.[8][9][10][11] The Universe includes planets, stars,
galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the small- ciently to allow the formation rst of subatomic parti-
cles and later of simple atoms. Giant clouds of these
est subatomic particles, and all matter and energy. The
observable universe is about 28 billion parsecs (91 billion primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to
form stars. Assuming that the prevailing model is correct,
light-years) in diameter at the present time.[2] The size of
the whole Universe is not known and may be innite.[12] the age of the Universe is measured to be 13.7990.021
billion years.[1]
Observations and the development of physical theories
have led to inferences about the composition and evolu- There are many competing hypotheses about the ultimate
tion of the Universe. fate of the Universe. Physicists and philosophers remain
Throughout recorded history, cosmologies and unsure about what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang.
cosmogonies, including scientic models, have been Many refuse to speculate, doubting that any informa-
proposed to explain observations of the Universe. tion from any such prior state could ever be accessible.
The earliest quantitative geocentric models were de- There are various multiverse hypotheses, in which some
veloped by ancient Greek philosophers and Indian physicists have suggested that the Universe[17][18] might be one
philosophers. [13][14]
Over the centuries, more precise among many universes that likewise exist.
astronomical observations led to Nicolaus Copernicus's
heliocentric model of the Solar System and Johannes
Kepler's improvement on that model with elliptical
orbits, which was eventually explained by Isaac Newton's
theory of gravity. Further observational improvements
2.1 Denition
led to the realization that the Solar System is located in
a galaxy composed of billions of stars, the Milky Way. The Universe is customarily dened as everything that ex-
It was subsequently discovered that our galaxy is just ists, everything that has existed, and everything that will
one of many. On the largest scales, it is assumed that exist.[19][20][21] According to our current understanding,
the distribution of galaxies is uniform and the same in the Universe consists of three constituents: spacetime,
all directions, meaning that the Universe has neither an forms of energy (including electromagnetic radiation and
edge nor a center. Observations of the distribution of matter), and the physical laws that relate them. The Uni-
these galaxies and their spectral lines have led to many verse also encompasses all of life, all of history, and some
of the theories of modern physical cosmology. The philosophers and scientists even suggest that it encom-
discovery in the early 20th century that galaxies are passes ideas such as mathematics and logic.[22][23][24]
systematically redshifted suggested that the Universe is
expanding, and the discovery of the cosmic microwave
background radiation suggested that the Universe had
a beginning.[15] Finally, observations in the late 1990s
indicated the rate of the expansion of the Universe is 2.2 Etymology
increasing[16] indicating that the majority of energy is
most likely in an unknown form called dark energy. The
majority of mass in the universe also appears to exist inThe word universe derives from the Old French word
an unknown form, called dark matter. univers, which in turn derives from the Latin word uni-
versum.[25] The Latin word was used by Cicero and later
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model Latin authors in many of the same senses as the modern
describing the development of the Universe. Space and English word is used.[26]

17
18 CHAPTER 2. UNIVERSE

2.2.1 Synonyms sociated stably into ever larger combinations. Thus, in

the early part of the matter-dominated era, stable protons
A term for universe among the ancient Greek philoso- and neutrons formed, which then formed atomic nu-
phers from Pythagoras onwards was t pn (the clei through nuclear reactions. This process, known as
all), dened as all matter and all space, and t Big Bang nucleosynthesis, led to the present abundances
hlon (all things), which did not necessarily include the of lighter nuclei, particularly hydrogen, deuterium, and
void.[27][28] Another synonym was ho ksmos helium. Big Bang nucleosynthesis ended about 20 min-
(meaning the world, the cosmos).[29] Synonyms are also utes after the Big Bang, when the Universe had cooled
found in Latin authors (totum, mundus, natura)[30] and enough so that nuclear fusion could no longer occur. At
survive in modern languages, e.g., the German words Das this stage, matter in the Universe was mainly a hot, dense
All, Weltall, and Natur for Universe. The same synonyms plasma of negatively charged electrons, neutral neutrinos
are found in English, such as everything (as in the theory and positive nuclei. This era, called the photon epoch,
of everything), the cosmos (as in cosmology), the world lasted about 380 thousand years.
(as in the many-worlds interpretation), and nature (as in Eventually, at a time known as recombination, electrons
natural laws or natural philosophy).[31] and nuclei formed stable atoms, which are transparent to
most wavelengths of radiation. With photons decoupled
from matter, the Universe entered the matter-dominated
2.3 Chronology and the Big Bang era. Light from this era could now travel freely, and it
can still be seen in the Universe as the cosmic microwave
background (CMB). After around 100 million years, the
Main articles: Big Bang and Chronology of the Universe rst stars formed; these were likely very massive, lumi-
nous, and responsible for the reionization of the Universe.
The prevailing model for the evolution of the Universe is Having no elements heavier than lithium, these stars also
the Big Bang theory.[32][33] The Big Bang model states produced the [35]
rst heavy elements through stellar nucle-
that the earliest state of the Universe was extremely osynthesis. The Universe also contains a mysterious
hot and dense and that it subsequently expanded. The energy called dark energy; the energy density of dark en-
model is based on general relativity and on simplifying ergy does not change over time. After about 9.8 billion
assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy of space. years, the Universe had expanded suciently so that the
A version of the model with a cosmological constant density of matter was less than the density of dark en-
(Lambda) and cold dark matter, known as the Lambda- ergy, marking the beginning of the present dark-energy-
[36]
CDM model, is the simplest model that provides a rea- dominated era. In this era, the expansion of the Uni-
sonably good account of various observations about the verse is accelerating due to dark energy.
Universe. The Big Bang model accounts for observations
such as the correlation of distance and redshift of galax-
ies, the ratio of the number of hydrogen to helium atoms, 2.4 Properties
and the microwave radiation background.
The initial hot, dense state is called the Planck epoch, a Main articles: Observable universe, Age of the Universe
brief period extending from time zero to one Planck time and Metric expansion of space
unit of approximately 1043 seconds. During the Planck
epoch, all types of matter and all types of energy were
The spacetime of the Universe is usually interpreted from
concentrated into a dense state, where gravitation is be-
lieved to have been as strong as the other fundamental a Euclidean perspective, with space as consisting of three
dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the
forces, and all the forces may have been unied. Since
the Planck epoch, the Universe has been expanding to "fourth dimension".[37] By combining space and time into
its present form, possibly with a very brief period of a single manifold called Minkowski space, physicists have
cosmic ination which caused the Universe to reach a simplied a large number of physical theories, as well as
much larger size in less than 1032 seconds.[34] described in a more uniform way the workings of the Uni-
verse at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.
After the Planck epoch and ination came the quark,
hadron, and lepton epochs. Together, these epochs en- Spacetime events are not absolutely dened spatially and
compassed less than 10 seconds of time following the Big temporally but rather are known relative to the motion
Bang. The observed abundance of the elements can be of an observer. Minkowski space approximates the Uni-
explained by combining the overall expansion of space verse without gravity; the pseudo-Riemannian manifolds
with nuclear and atomic physics. As the Universe ex- of general relativity describe spacetime with matter and
pands, the energy density of electromagnetic radiation de- gravity. String theory postulates the existence of addi-
creases more quickly than does that of matter because the tional dimensions.
energy of a photon decreases with its wavelength. As the Of the four fundamental interactions, gravitation is domi-
Universe expanded and cooled, elementary particles as- nant at cosmological length scales, including galaxies and
2.4. PROPERTIES 19

larger-scale structures. Gravitys eects are cumulative;
by contrast, the eects of positive and negative charges
tend to cancel one another, making electromagnetism rel-
atively insignicant on cosmological length scales. The
remaining two interactions, the weak and strong nuclear
forces, decline very rapidly with distance; their eects are
conned mainly to sub-atomic length scales.
The Universe appears to have much more matter than
antimatter, an asymmetry possibly related to the obser-
vations of CP violation.[38] The Universe also appears
to have neither net momentum nor angular momentum.
The absence of net charge and momentum would follow
from accepted physical laws (Gausss law and the non-
divergence of the stress-energy-momentum pseudoten-
sor, respectively) if the Universe were nite.[39]
of the Universe theory is the density parameter, Omega
(), dened as the average matter density of the universe
divided by a critical value of that density. This selects one
of three possible geometries depending on whether is
equal to, less than, or greater than 1. These are called,
respectively, the at, open and closed universes.[42]
Observations, including the Cosmic Background Ex-
plorer (COBE), Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
(WMAP), and Planck maps of the CMB, suggest that
the Universe is innite in extent with a nite age, as de-
scribed by the FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker
(FLRW) models.[43][44][45][46] These FLRW models thus
support inationary models and the standard model
of cosmology, describing a at, homogeneous uni-
verse presently dominated by dark matter and dark en-
ergy.[47][48]

2.4.1 Shape
2.4.2 Size and regions
See also: Observable universe and Observational cos-
mology

The size of the Universe is somewhat dicult to dene.

According to a restrictive denition, the Universe is ev-
erything within our connected spacetime that could have
a chance to interact with us and vice versa.[49] According
to the general theory of relativity, some regions of space
may never interact with ours even in the lifetime of the
Universe due to the nite speed of light and the ongoing
expansion of space. For example, radio messages sent
from Earth may never reach some regions of space, even
if the Universe were to exist forever: space may expand
faster than light can traverse it.[50]
Distant regions of space are assumed to exist and to be
part of reality as much as we are, even though we can
The three possible options of the shape of the Universe.
never interact with them. The spatial region that we can
aect and be aected by is the observable universe. The
Main article: Shape of the Universe
observable universe depends on the location of the ob-
server. By traveling, an observer can come into contact
General relativity describes how spacetime is curved and with a greater region of spacetime than an observer who
bent by mass and energy. The topology or geometry remains still. Nevertheless, even the most rapid traveler
of the Universe includes both local geometry in the will not be able to interact with all of space. Typically,
observable universe and global geometry. Cosmolo- the observable universe is taken to mean the portion of
gists often work with a given space-like slice of space- the Universe that is observable from our vantage point in
time called the comoving coordinates. The section of the Milky Way.
spacetime which can be observed is the backward light The proper distancethe distance as would be measured
cone, which delimits the cosmological horizon. The cos- at a specic time, including the presentbetween Earth
mological horizon (also called the particle horizon or and the edge of the observable universe is 46 billion light-
the light horizon) is the maximum distance from which years (14 billion parsecs), making the diameter of the
particles can have traveled to the observer in the age of
observable universe about 91 billion light-years (28109
the Universe. This horizon represents the boundary be- pc). The distance the light from the edge of the observ-
tween the observable and the unobservable regions of able universe has travelled is very close to the age of the
the Universe.[40][41] The existence, properties, and signif-
Universe times the speed of light, 13.8 billion light-years
icance of a cosmological horizon depend on the particular
(4.2109 pc), but this does not represent the distance at
cosmological model. any given time because the edge of the Universe and the
An important parameter determining the future evolution Earth have moved since further apart.[51] For comparison,
20 CHAPTER 2. UNIVERSE

the diameter of a typical galaxy is 30,000 light-years, and right mass density of about 5 protons per cubic meter
the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is which has allowed it to expand for the last 13.8 bil-
3 million light-years.[52] As an example, the Milky Way lion years, giving time to form the universe as observed
is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter,[53] and the today.[60]
nearest sister galaxy to the Milky Way, the Andromeda There are dynamical forces acting on the particles in the
Galaxy, is located roughly 2.5 million light years away.[54] Universe which aect the expansion rate. Before 1998,
Because we cannot observe space beyond the edge of the it was expected that the rate of increase of the Hubble
observable universe, it is unknown whether the size of the Constant would be decreasing as time went on due to the
Universe is nite or innite.[12][55][56]
inuence of gravitational interactions in the Universe, and
thus there is an additional observable quantity in the Uni-
verse called the deceleration parameter which cosmolo-
2.4.3 Age and expansion gists expected to be directly related to the matter den-
sity of the Universe. In 1998, the deceleration parameter
Main articles: Age of the universe and Metric expansion was measured by two dierent groups to be consistent
of space with 1 but not zero, which implied that the present-day
rate of increase of the Hubble Constant is increasing over
[61][16]
Astronomers calculate the age of the Universe by assum- time.
ing that the Lambda-CDM model accurately describes
the evolution of the Universe from a very uniform, hot,
dense primordial state to its present state and measuring 2.4.4 Spacetime
the cosmological parameters which constitute the model.
This model is well understood theoretically and supported Main articles: Spacetime and World line
by recent high-precision astronomical observations such See also: Lorentz transformation
as WMAP and Planck. Commonly, the set of observa-
tions tted includes the cosmic microwave background Spacetimes are the arenas in which all physical events
anisotropy, the brightness/redshift relation for Type Ia take placean event is a point in spacetime specied
supernovae, and large-scale galaxy clustering including by its time and place. The basic elements of spacetime
the baryon acoustic oscillation feature. Other observa- are events. In any given spacetime, an event is a unique
tions, such as the Hubble constant, the abundance of position at a unique time. Because events are space-
galaxy clusters, weak gravitational lensing and globular time points, an example of an event in classical relativis-
cluster ages, are generally consistent with these, provid- tic physics is (x, y, z, t) , the location of an elementary
ing a check of the model, but are less accurately measured (point-like) particle at a particular time. A spacetime
at present. With the prior that the Lambda-CDM model is the union of all events in the same way that a line is
is correct, the measurements of the parameters using a va- the union of all of its points, formally organized into a
riety of techniques by numerous experiments yield a best manifold.
value of the age of the Universe as of 2015 of 13.799
0.021 billion years.[1] The Universe appears to be a smooth spacetime contin-
uum consisting of three spatial dimensions and one tem-
Over time, the Universe and its contents have evolved; for poral (time) dimension. On the average, space is ob-
example, the relative population of quasars and galaxies served to be very nearly at (close to zero curvature),
has changed[57] and space itself has expanded. Due to meaning that Euclidean geometry is empirically true
this expansion, scientists on Earth can observe the light with high accuracy throughout most of the Universe.[62]
from a galaxy 30 billion light years away even though that Spacetime also appears to have a simply connected
light has traveled for only 13 billion years; the very space topology, in analogy with a sphere, at least on the length-
between them has expanded. This expansion is consis- scale of the observable Universe. However, present
tent with the observation that the light from distant galax- observations cannot exclude the possibilities that the
ies has been redshifted; the photons emitted have been Universe has more dimensions and that its spacetime
stretched to longer wavelengths and lower frequency dur- may have a multiply connected global topology, in anal-
ing their journey. Analyses of Type Ia supernovae indi- ogy with the cylindrical or toroidal topologies of two-
cate that the spatial expansion is accelerating.[58][59] dimensional spaces.[44][63]
The more matter there is in the Universe, the stronger
the mutual gravitational pull of the matter. If the Uni-
verse were too dense then it would re-collapse into a
gravitational singularity. However, if the Universe con- 2.5 Contents
tained too little matter then the expansion would accel-
erate too rapidly for planets and planetary systems to See also: Galaxy formation and evolution, Galaxy
form. Since the Big Bang, the universe has expanded cluster, Illustris project and Nebula
monotonically. Surprisingly, our universe has just the
2.5. CONTENTS 21

The formation of clusters and large-scale laments in the Cold

Dark Matter model with dark energy. The frames show the evo-
lution of structures in a 43 million parsecs (or 140 million light
years) box from redshift of 30 to the present epoch (upper left
z=30 to lower right z=0). A map of the Superclusters and voids nearest to Earth

Universe also has vast regions of relative emptiness; the

The Universe is composed almost completely of dark largest known void measures 1.8 billion ly (550 Mpc)
energy, dark matter, and ordinary matter. Other con- across.[78]
tents are electromagnetic radiation (estimated to be from
0.005% to close to 0.01%) and antimatter.[64][65][66]
The total amount of electromagnetic radiation generated
within the universe has decreased by 1/2 in the past 2 bil-
lion years.[67][68]
Ordinary matter, which includes atoms, stars, galaxies,
and life, accounts for only 4.9% of the contents of the
Universe.[6] The present overall density of this type of
matter is very low, roughly 4.5 1031 grams per cu-
bic centimetre, corresponding to a density of the order of
only one proton for every four cubic meters of volume.[4]
The nature of both dark energy and dark matter is un-
known. Dark matter, a mysterious form of matter that
has not yet been identied, accounts for 26.8% of the
contents. Dark energy, which is the energy of empty
space and that is causing the expansion of the Universe
to accelerate, accounts for the remaining 68.3% of the
contents.[69][70][6]
Matter, dark matter, and dark energy are distributed ho-
mogeneously throughout the Universe over length scales
longer than 300 million light-years or so.[71] However,
over shorter length-scales, matter tends to clump hier-
archically; many atoms are condensed into stars, most
stars into galaxies, most galaxies into clusters, super-
clusters and, nally, large-scale galactic laments. The
observable Universe contains approximately 300 sextil-
lion (31023 ) stars[72] and more than 100 billion (1011 ) Comparison of the contents of the Universe today to 380,000
galaxies.[73] Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as years after the Big Bang as measured with 5 year WMAP data
few as ten million[74] (107 ) stars up to giants with one (from 2008).[79] (Due to rounding errors, the sum of these num-
trillion[75] (1012 ) stars. Between the structures are voids, bers is not 100%). This reects the 2008 limits of WMAPs ability
which are typically 10150 Mpc (33 million490 million to dene Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
ly) in diameter. The Milky Way is in the Local Group of
galaxies, which in turn is in the Laniakea Supercluster.[76] The observable Universe is isotropic on scales signi-
This supercluster spans over 500 million light years, while cantly larger than superclusters, meaning that the statis-
the Local Group spans over 10 million light years.[77] The tical properties of the Universe are the same in all di-
22 CHAPTER 2. UNIVERSE

rections as observed from Earth. The Universe is bathed 2.5.3 Ordinary Matter
in highly isotropic microwave radiation that corresponds
to a thermal equilibrium blackbody spectrum of roughly Main article: Matter
2.72548 kelvin.[5] The hypothesis that the large-scale
Universe is homogeneous and isotropic is known as the The remaining 4.9% of the massenergy of the Universe
cosmological principle.[80] A Universe that is both ho- is ordinary matter, that is, atoms, ions, electrons and the
mogeneous and isotropic looks the same from all vantage objects they form. This matter includes stars, which pro-
points[81] and has no center.[82] duce nearly all of the light we see from galaxies, as well as
interstellar gas in the interstellar and intergalactic media,
planets, and all the objects from everyday life that we can
bump into, touch or squeeze.[87] Ordinary matter com-
2.5.1 Dark energy monly exists in four states (or phases): solid, liquid, gas,
and plasma. However, advances in experimental tech-
niques have revealed other previously theoretical phases,
Main article: Dark energy such as BoseEinstein condensates and fermionic con-
densates.
An explanation for why the expansion of the Universe Ordinary matter is composed of two types of elementary
is accelerating remains elusive. It is often attributed to particles: quarks and leptons.[88] For example, the pro-
dark energy, an unknown form of energy that is hypoth- ton is formed of two up quarks and one down quark; the
esized to permeate space.[83] On a massenergy equiv- neutron is formed of two down quarks and one up quark;
alence basis, the density of dark energy (6.91 1027 and the electron is a kind of lepton. An atom consists of
kg/m3 ) is much less than the density of ordinary matter an atomic nucleus, made up of protons and neutrons, and
or dark matter within galaxies. However, in the present electrons that orbit the nucleus. Because most of the mass
dark-energy era, it dominates the massenergy of the uni- of an atom is concentrated in its nucleus, which is made
verse because it is uniform across space.[84] up of baryons, astronomers often use the term baryonic
Two proposed forms for dark energy are the cosmological matter to describe ordinary matter, although a small frac-
constant, a constant energy density lling space tion of this baryonic matter is electrons.
homogeneously,[85] and scalar elds such as quintessence Soon after the Big Bang, primordial protons and neu-
or moduli, dynamic quantities whose energy density can trons formed from the quarkgluon plasma of the early
vary in time and space. Contributions from scalar elds Universe as it cooled below two trillion degrees. A few
that are constant in space are usually also included in the minutes later, in a process known as Big Bang nucle-
cosmological constant. The cosmological constant can osynthesis, nuclei formed from the primordial protons
be formulated to be equivalent to vacuum energy. Scalar and neutrons. This nucleosynthesis formed lighter ele-
elds having only a slight amont of spatial inhomogeneity ments, those with small atomic numbers up to lithium
would be dicult to distinguish from a cosmological and beryllium, but the abundance of heavier elements
constant. dropped o sharply with increasing atomic number.
Some boron may have been formed at this time, but the
next heavier element, carbon, was not be formed in sig-
nicant amounts. Big Bang nucleosynthesis shut down
after about 20 minutes due to the rapid drop in tempera-
2.5.2 Dark matter ture and density of the expanding Universe. Subsequent
formation of heavier elements resulted from stellar nucle-
Main article: Dark matter osynthesis and supernova nucleosynthesis.[89]

Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that can-

not be seen with telescopes, but which accounts for most
of the matter in the Universe. The existence and prop-
erties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational
eects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale
structure of the Universe. Other than neutrinos, a form
of hot dark matter, dark matter has not been detected di-
rectly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern
astrophysics. Dark matter neither emits nor absorbs light
or any other electromagnetic radiation at any signicant
level. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 26.8% of
the total massenergy and 84.5% of the total matter in
the Universe.[69][86]
2.5.4 Particles
Main article: Particle physics
Ordinary matter and the forces that act on matter can
be described in terms of elementary particles.[90] These
particles are sometimes described as being fundamental,
since they have an unknown substructure, and it is un-
known whether or not they are composed of smaller and
even more fundamental particles.[91][92] Of central im-
portance is the Standard Model, a theory that is concerned
with electromagnetic interactions and the weak and strong
2.5. CONTENTS
Standard model of elementary particles: the 12 fundamental
fermions and 4 fundamental bosons. Brown loops indicate
which bosons (red) couple to which fermions (purple and green).
Columns are three generations of matter (fermions) and one of
forces (bosons). In the rst three columns, two rows contain
quarks and two leptons. The top two rows columns contain up
(u) and down (d) quarks, charm (c) and strange (s) quarks, top
(t) and bottom (b) quarks, and photon () and gluon (g), respec-
tively. The bottom two rows columns contain electron neutrino
(e) and electron (e), muon neutrino () and muon (), tau neu-
trino () and tau (), and the Z0 and W carriers of the weak
force. Mass, charge, and spin are listed for each particle.
nuclear interactions.[93] The Standard Model is supported
by the experimental conrmation of the existence of par-
ticles that compose matter: quarks and leptons, and their
corresponding "antimatter" duals, as well as the force par-
ticles that mediate interactions: the photon, the W and Z
bosons, and the gluon.[91] The Standard Model predicted
the existence of the recently discovered Higgs boson, a
particle that is a manifestation of a eld within the Uni-
verse that can endow particles with mass.[94][95] Because
of its success in explaining a wide variety of experimen-
tal results, the Standard Model is sometimes regarded as
a theory of almost everything.[93] The Standard Model
does not, however, accommodate gravity. A true force-
particle theory of everything has not been attained.[96]
Hadrons
Main article: Hadron
A hadron is a composite particle made of quarks held
together by the strong force. Hadrons are categorized
into two families: baryons (such as protons and neutrons)
made of three quarks, and mesons (such as pions) made
of one quark and one antiquark. Of the hadrons, pro-
tons are stable, and neutrons bound within atomic nu-
clei are stable. Other hadrons are unstable under or-
dinary conditions and are thus insignicant constituents Photons
of the modern Universe. From approximately 106 sec-
onds after the Big Bang, during a period is known as Main article: Photon epoch
the hadron epoch, the temperature of the universe had See also: Photino
23
fallen suciently to allow quarks to bind together into
hadrons, and the mass of the Universe was dominated
by hadrons. Initially the temperature was high enough to
allow the formation of hadron/anti-hadron pairs, which
kept matter and antimatter in thermal equilibrium. How-
ever, as the temperature of the Universe continued to
fall, hadron/anti-hadron pairs were no longer produced.
Most of the hadrons and anti-hadrons were then elimi-
nated in particle-antiparticle annihilation reactions, leav-
ing a small residual of hadrons by the time the Universe
was about one second old.[97]:244266
Leptons
Main article: Lepton
A lepton is an elementary, half-integer spin particle that
does not undergo strong interactions but is subject to the
Pauli exclusion principle; no two leptons of the same
species can be in exactly the same state at the same
time.[98] Two main classes of leptons exist: charged lep-
tons (also known as the electron-like leptons), and neutral
leptons (better known as neutrinos). Electrons are stable
and the most common charged lepton in the Universe,
whereas muons and taus are unstable particle that quickly
decay after being produced in high energy collisions, such
as those involving cosmic rays or carried out in particle
accelerators.[99][100] Charged leptons can combine with
other particles to form various composite particles such as
atoms and positronium. The electron governs nearly all of
chemistry, as it is found in atoms and is directly tied to all
chemical properties. Neutrinos rarely interact with any-
thing, and are consequently rarely observed. Neutrinos
stream throughout the Universe but rarely interact with
normal matter.[101]
The lepton epoch was the period in the evolution of
the early Universe in which the leptons dominated the
mass of the Universe. It started roughly 1 second af-
ter the Big Bang, after the majority of hadrons and
anti-hadrons annihilated each other at the end of the
hadron epoch. During the lepton epoch the temper-
ature of the Universe was still high enough to create
lepton/anti-lepton pairs, so leptons and anti-leptons were
in thermal equilibrium. Approximately 10 seconds af-
ter the Big Bang, the temperature of the Universe had
fallen to the point where lepton/anti-lepton pairs were no
longer created.[102] Most leptons and anti-leptons were
then eliminated in annihilation reactions, leaving a small
residue of leptons. The mass of the Universe was then
dominated by photons as it entered the following photon
epoch.
24 CHAPTER 2. UNIVERSE

With the assumption of the cosmological principle that

A photon is the quantum of light and all other forms the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic everywhere,
of electromagnetic radiation. It is the force carrier for a specic solution of the eld equations that describes
the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual the Universe is the metric tensor called the Friedmann
photons. The eects of this force are easily observ- LematreRobertsonWalker metric,
able at the microscopic and at the macroscopic level be-
cause the photon has zero rest mass; this allows long dis- ( )
dr2
tance interactions. Like all elementary particles, pho- ds2 = c2 dt2 +R(t)2 + r 2
d 2
+ r 2
sin 2
d 2

tons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics 1 kr2

and exhibit waveparticle duality, exhibiting properties where (r, , ) correspond to a spherical coordinate sys-
of waves and of particles. tem. This metric has only two undetermined parame-
The photon epoch started after most leptons and anti- ters. An overall dimensionless length scale factor R de-
leptons were annihilated at the end of the lepton epoch, scribes the size scale of the Universe as a function of time;
[104]
about 10 seconds after the Big Bang. Atomic nuclei were an increase in R is the expansion of the Universe.
created in the process of nucleosynthesis which occurred A curvature index k describes the geometry. The in-
during the rst few minutes of the photon epoch. For the dex k is dened so that it can be only 0, corresponding
remainder of the photon epoch the Universe contained a to at Euclidean geometry, 1, corresponding to a space
hot dense plasma of nuclei, electrons and photons. About of positive curvature, or 1, a space of positive or nega-
[105]
380,000 years after the Big Bang, the temperature of the tive curvature. The value of R as a function of time
[103]
Universe fell to the point where nuclei could combine t depends upon k and the cosmological constant .
with electrons to create neutral atoms. As a result, pho- The cosmological constant represents the energy density
tons no longer interacted frequently with matter and the of the vacuum of space and could be related to dark
[70]
Universe became transparent. The highly redshifted pho- energy. The equation describing how R varies with
tons from this period form the cosmic microwave back- time is known as the Friedmann equation after its inven-
[106]
ground. Tiny variations in temperature and density de- tor, Alexander Friedmann.
tectable in the CMB were the early seeds from which The solutions for R(t) depend on k and , but some qual-
all subsequent structure formation took place.[97]:244266 itative features of such solutions are general. First and
most importantly, the length scale R of the Universe can
remain constant only if the Universe is perfectly isotropic
2.6 Cosmological models with positive curvature (k=1) and has one precise value of
density everywhere, as rst noted by Albert Einstein.[103]
However, this equilibrium is unstable: because the Uni-
2.6.1 Model of the Universe based on gen- verse is known to be inhomogeneous on smaller scales,
eral relativity R must change over time. When R changes, all the spa-
tial distances in the Universe change in tandem; there is
Main article: Solutions of the Einstein eld equations an overall expansion or contraction of space itself. This
See also: Big Bang and Ultimate fate of the Universe accounts for the observation that galaxies appear to be
ying apart; the space between them is stretching. The
General relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation stretching of space also accounts for the apparent para-
published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and the current de- dox that two galaxies can be 40 billion light years apart,
scription of gravitation in modern physics. It is the basis although they started from the same point 13.8 billion
of current cosmological models of the Universe. General years ago[107] and never moved faster than the speed of
relativity generalizes special relativity and Newtons law light.
of universal gravitation, providing a unied description Second, all solutions suggest that there was a gravitational
of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or singularity in the past, when R went to zero and matter and
spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is di- energy were innitely dense. It may seem that this conclu-
rectly related to the energy and momentum of whatever sion is uncertain because it is based on the questionable
matter and radiation are present. The relation is specied assumptions of perfect homogeneity and isotropy (the
by the Einstein eld equations, a system of partial dier- cosmological principle) and that only the gravitational in-
ential equations. In general relativity, the distribution of teraction is signicant. However, the PenroseHawking
matter and energy determines the geometry of spacetime, singularity theorems show that a singularity should ex-
which in turn describes the acceleration of matter. There- ist for very general conditions. Hence, according to Ein-
fore, solutions of the Einstein eld equations describe the steins eld equations, R grew rapidly from an unimagin-
evolution of the Universe. Combined with measurements ably hot, dense state that existed immediately following
of the amount, type, and distribution of matter in the Uni- this singularity (when R had a small, nite value); this
verse, the equations of general relativity describe the evo- is the essence of the Big Bang model of the Universe.
lution of the Universe over time.[103] Understanding the singularity of the Big Bang likely re-
2.6. COSMOLOGICAL MODELS 25

quires a quantum theory of gravity, which has not yet

been formulated.[108]
Third, the curvature index k determines the sign of the
mean spatial curvature of spacetime[105] averaged over
suciently large length scales (greater than about a bil-
lion light years). If k=1, the curvature is positive and the
Universe has a nite volume.[109] Such universes are of-
ten visualized as a three-dimensional sphere embedded in
a four-dimensional space. Conversely, if k is zero or neg-
ative, the Universe has innite volume.[109] It may seem
counter-intuitive that an innite and yet innitely dense
Universe could be created in a single instant at the Big
Bang when R=0, but exactly that is predicted mathemat-
ically when k does not equal 1. By analogy, an innite
plane has zero curvature but innite area, whereas an in- Depiction of a multiverse of seven bubble universes, which
nite cylinder is nite in one direction and a torus is nite are separate spacetime continua, each having dierent physical
in both. A toroidal Universe could behave like a normal laws, physical constants, and perhaps even dierent numbers of
Universe with periodic boundary conditions. dimensions or topologies.
The ultimate fate of the Universe is still unknown, be-
cause it depends critically on the curvature index k and
the cosmological constant . If the Universe were suf- ing realized in separate worlds. Eectively, the multi-
ciently dense, k would equal +1, meaning that its av- verse evolves as a universal wavefunction. If the Big Bang
erage curvature throughout is positive and the Universe that created our multiverse created an ensemble of mul-
will eventually recollapse in a Big Crunch,[110] possibly tiverses, the wave function of the ensemble would be en-
starting a new Universe in a Big Bounce. Conversely, if tangled in this sense.[114]
the Universe were insuciently dense, k would equal 0 The least controversial category of multiverse in
or 1 and the Universe would expand forever, cooling Tegmarks scheme is Level I, which describes distant
o and eventually reaching the Big Freeze and the heat spacetime events in our own universe, but suggests that
death of the Universe.[103] Modern data suggests that the statistical analysis exploiting the anthropic principle pro-
rate of expansion of the Universe is not decreasing, as vides an opportunity to test multiverse theories in some
originally expected, but increasing; if this continues in- cases. If space is innite, or suciently large and uni-
denitely, the Universe may eventually reach a Big Rip. form, identical instances of the history of Earths entire
Observationally, the Universe appears to be at (k = 0), Hubble volume occur every so often, simply by chance.
with an overall density that is very close to the critical Tegmark calculated our nearest so-called doppelgnger,
value between recollapse and eternal expansion.[111] is 1010
115
meters away from us (a double exponential
function larger than a googolplex).[115][116] In principle,
it would be impossible to scientically verify an identi-
2.6.2 Multiverse hypothesis cal Hubble volume. However, it does follow as a fairly
straightforward consequence from otherwise unrelated
Main articles: Multiverse, Many-worlds interpretation, scientic observations and theories.
Bubble universe theory and Parallel universe (ction)
See also: Eternal ination It is possible to conceive of disconnected spacetimes,
each existing but unable to interact with one
another.[115][117] An easily visualized metaphor is a
Some speculative theories have proposed that our Uni- group of separate soap bubbles, in which observers living
verse is but one of a set of disconnected universes, collec- on one soap bubble cannot interact with those on other
tively denoted as the multiverse, challenging or enhancing soap bubbles, even in principle.[118] According to one
more limited denitions of the Universe.[17][112] Scien- common terminology, each soap bubble of spacetime
tic multiverse models are distinct from concepts such as is denoted as a universe, whereas our particular spacetime
alternate planes of consciousness and simulated reality. is denoted as the Universe,[17] just as we call our moon the
Max Tegmark developed a four-part classication Moon. The entire collection of these separate spacetimes
scheme for the dierent types of multiverses that sci- is denoted as the multiverse.[17] With this terminology,
entists have suggested in various problem domains. An dierent Universes are not causally connected to each
example of such a model is the chaotic ination model other.[17] In principle, the other unconnected Universes
of the early universe.[113] Another is the many-worlds in- may have dierent dimensionalities and topologies of
terpretation of quantum mechanics. Parallel worlds are spacetime, dierent forms of matter and energy, and
generated in a manner similar to quantum superposition dierent physical laws and physical constants, although
and decoherence, with all states of the wave function be- such possibilities are purely speculative.[17] Others
26 CHAPTER 2. UNIVERSE

consider each of several bubbles created as part of ting the wheels in motion (for example via mechanisms
chaotic ination to be separate Universes, though in this such as the big bang and evolution).[123]
model these universes all share a causal origin.[17] Ethnologists and anthropologists who study myths have
developed various classication schemes for the various
themes that appear in creation stories.[124][125] For exam-
2.6.3 Fine-tuned Universe
ple, in one type of story, the world is born from a world
egg; such stories include the Finnish epic poem Kalevala,
Main article: Fine-tuned Universe
the Chinese story of Pangu or the Indian Brahmanda Pu-
rana. In related stories, the Universe is created by a single
The ne-tuned Universe is the proposition that the con- entity emanating or producing something by him- or her-
ditions that allow life in the Universe can only oc- self, as in the Tibetan Buddhism concept of Adi-Buddha,
cur when certain universal fundamental physical con- the ancient Greek story of Gaia (Mother Earth), the Aztec
stants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any goddess Coatlicue myth, the ancient Egyptian god Atum
of several fundamental constants were only slightly dif- story, and the Judeo-Christian Genesis creation narrative
ferent, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive in which the Abrahamic God created the Universe. In
to the establishment and development of matter, as- another type of story, the Universe is created from the
tronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it union of male and female deities, as in the Maori story
is understood.[119] The proposition is discussed among of Rangi and Papa. In other stories, the Universe is cre-
philosophers, scientists, theologians, and proponents and ated by crafting it from pre-existing materials, such as the
detractors of creationism. corpse of a dead god as from Tiamat in the Babylonian
epic Enuma Elish or from the giant Ymir in Norse mythol-
ogy or from chaotic materials, as in Izanagi and Izanami
2.7 Historical development in Japanese mythology. In other stories, the Universe em-
anates from fundamental principles, such as Brahman and
Prakrti, the creation myth of the Serers,[126] or the yin and
See also: Cosmology, Timeline of cosmology, Nicolaus
yang of the Tao.
Copernicus Copernican system and Philosophi
Naturalis Principia Mathematica Beginnings of the
Scientic Revolution 2.7.2 Philosophical models

Historically, there have been many ideas of the cosmos
(cosmologies) and its origin (cosmogonies). Theories of
an impersonal Universe governed by physical laws were
rst proposed by the Greeks and Indians.[14] Ancient Chi-
nese philosophy encompassed the notion of the Universe
including both all of space and all of time.[120][121] Over
the centuries, improvements in astronomical observations
and theories of motion and gravitation led to ever more
accurate descriptions of the Universe. The modern era
of cosmology began with Albert Einstein's 1915 general
theory of relativity, which made it possible to quantita-
tively predict the origin, evolution, and conclusion of the
Universe as a whole. Most modern, accepted theories
of cosmology are based on general relativity and, more
specically, the predicted Big Bang.[122]
2.7.1 Mythologies
Main articles: Creation myth, Creator deity and Religious
cosmology
Many cultures have stories describing the origin of the
world and universe. Cultures generally regard these sto-
ries as having some truth. There are however many dif-
fering beliefs in how these stories apply amongst those
believing in a supernatural origin, ranging from a god di-
rectly creating the Universe as it is now to a god just set-
Further information: Cosmology
See also: Pre-Socratic philosophy, Physics (Aristotle),
Hindu cosmology, Islamic cosmology and Philosophy of
space and time
The pre-Socratic Greek philosophers and Indian philoso-
phers developed some of the earliest philosophical con-
cepts of the Universe.[14][127] The earliest Greek philoso-
phers noted that appearances can be deceiving, and
sought to understand the underlying reality behind the ap-
pearances. In particular, they noted the ability of matter
to change forms (e.g., ice to water to steam) and several
philosophers proposed that all the physical materials in
the world are dierent forms of a single primordial mate-
rial, or arche. The rst to do so was Thales, who proposed
this material to be water. Thales student, Anaximander,
proposed that everything came from the limitless apeiron.
Anaximenes proposed the primordial material to be air
on account of its perceived attractive and repulsive qual-
ities that cause the arche to condense or dissociate into
dierent forms. Anaxagoras proposed the principle of
Nous (Mind), while Heraclitus proposed re (and spoke
of logos). Empedocles proposed the elements to be earth,
water, air and re. His four-element model became very
popular. Like Pythagoras, Plato believed that all things
were composed of number, with Empedocles elements
taking the form of the Platonic solids. Democritus, and
later philosophersmost notably Leucippusproposed
2.7. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
that the Universe is composed of indivisible atoms mov-
ing through void (vacuum), although Aristotle did not be-
lieve that to be feasible because air, like water, oers
resistance to motion. Air will immediately rush in to ll
a void, and moreover, without resistance, it would do so
indenitely fast.[14]
Although Heraclitus argued for eternal change, his con-
temporary Parmenides made the radical suggestion that
all change is an illusion, that the true underlying reality is
eternally unchanging and of a single nature. Parmenides
denoted this reality as (The One). Parmenides idea
seemed implausible to many Greeks, but his student Zeno
of Elea challenged them with several famous paradoxes.
Aristotle responded to these paradoxes by developing the
notion of a potential countable innity, as well as the in-
nitely divisible continuum. Unlike the eternal and un-
changing cycles of time, he believed that the world is
bounded by the celestial spheres and that cumulative stel-
lar magnitude is only nitely multiplicative.
The Indian philosopher Kanada, founder of the
Vaisheshika school, developed a notion of atomism and
proposed that light and heat were varieties of the same
substance.[128] In the 5th century AD, the Buddhist
atomist philosopher Dignga proposed atoms to be
point-sized, durationless, and made of energy. They
denied the existence of substantial matter and proposed
that movement consisted of momentary ashes of a
stream of energy.[129]
The notion of temporal nitism was inspired by the doc-
trine of creation shared by the three Abrahamic religions:
Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Christian philoso-
pher, John Philoponus, presented the philosophical ar-
guments against the ancient Greek notion of an innite
past and future. Philoponus arguments against an innite
past were used by the early Muslim philosopher, Al-Kindi
(Alkindus); the Jewish philosopher, Saadia Gaon (Saa-
dia ben Joseph); and the Muslim theologian, Al-Ghazali The Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos was the
(Algazel).[130]
2.7.3 Astronomical concepts
Main articles: History of astronomy and Timeline of as-
tronomy
Astronomical models of the Universe were proposed
soon after astronomy began with the Babylonian as-
tronomers, who viewed the Universe as a at disk oating
in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek
maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Mile-
tus.
Later Greek philosophers, observing the motions of the
heavenly bodies, were concerned with developing mod-
els of the Universe-based more profoundly on empirical
evidence. The rst coherent model was proposed by
Eudoxus of Cnidos. According to Aristotles physical in-
terpretation of the model, celestial spheres eternally rotate
with uniform motion around a stationary Earth. Normal
27
Aristarchuss 3rd century BCE calculations on the relative sizes
of from left the Sun, Earth and Moon, from a 10th-century AD
Greek copy
matter is entirely contained within the terrestrial sphere.
De Mundo (composed before 250 BC or between 350
and 200 BC), stated, Five elements, situated in spheres in
ve regions, the less being in each case surrounded by the
greater namely, earth surrounded by water, water by
air, air by re, and re by ether make up the whole
Universe.[131]
This model was also rened by Callippus and after con-
centric spheres were abandoned, it was brought into
nearly perfect agreement with astronomical observations
by Ptolemy. The success of such a model is largely due
to the mathematical fact that any function (such as the
position of a planet) can be decomposed into a set of cir-
cular functions (the Fourier modes). Other Greek scien-
tists, such as the Pythagorean philosopher Philolaus, pos-
tulated (according to Stobaeus account) that at the cen-
ter of the Universe was a central re around which the
Earth, Sun, Moon and Planets revolved in uniform circu-
lar motion.[132]
rst known individual to propose a heliocentric model of
the Universe. Though the original text has been lost, a
reference in Archimedes' book The Sand Reckoner de-
scribes Aristarchuss heliocentric model. Archimedes
wrote: (translated into English):
You, King Gelon, are aware the Universe
is the name given by most astronomers to the
sphere the center of which is the center of the
Earth, while its radius is equal to the straight
line between the center of the Sun and the
center of the Earth. This is the common ac-
count as you have heard from astronomers. But
Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting
of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a
consequence of the assumptions made, that the
Universe is many times greater than the Uni-
verse just mentioned. His hypotheses are that
the xed stars and the Sun remain unmoved,
that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the
28 CHAPTER 2. UNIVERSE

circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the the rst to state that the tides are due to the attraction
middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of xed of the Moon, and that the height of the tides depends
stars, situated about the same center as the Sun, on the Moons position relative to the Sun.[137] Alter-
is so great that the circle in which he supposes natively, he may have proved heliocentricity by deter-
the Earth to revolve bears such a proportion to mining the constants of a geometric model for it, and
the distance of the xed stars as the center of by developing methods to compute planetary positions
the sphere bears to its surface using this model, like what Nicolaus Copernicus later
did in the 16th century.[138] During the Middle Ages,
Aristarchus thus believed the stars to be very far away, heliocentric models were also proposed by the Indian as-
[139]
and saw this as the reason why stellar parallax had not tronomer Aryabhata, and by the Persian astronomers
[140]
been observed, that is, the stars had not been observed to Albumasar and Al-Sijzi.[141]
move relative each other as the Earth moved around the
Sun. The stars are in fact much farther away than the dis-
tance that was generally assumed in ancient times, which
is why stellar parallax is only detectable with precision
instruments. The geocentric model, consistent with plan-
etary parallax, was assumed to be an explanation for the
unobservability of the parallel phenomenon, stellar paral-
lax. The rejection of the heliocentric view was apparently
quite strong, as the following passage from Plutarch sug-
gests (On the Apparent Face in the Orb of the Moon):

"Cleanthes [a contemporary of Aristarchus

and head of the Stoics ] thought it was the duty
of the Greeks to indict Aristarchus of Samos
on the charge of impiety for putting in motion
the Hearth of the Universe [i.e. the Earth], .
. . supposing the heaven to remain at rest and
the Earth to revolve in an oblique circle, while
it rotates, at the same time, about its own axis

Model of the Copernican Universe by Thomas Digges in 1576,

with the amendment that the stars are no longer conned to a
sphere, but spread uniformly throughout the space surrounding
the planets.

The Aristotelian model was accepted in the Western

world for roughly two millennia, until Copernicus revived
Aristarchuss perspective that the astronomical data could
be explained more plausibly if the earth rotated on its axis
and if the sun were placed at the center of the Universe.

In the center rests the Sun. For who would

Flammarion engraving, Paris 1888
The only other astronomer from antiquity known by
name who supported Aristarchuss heliocentric model
was Seleucus of Seleucia, a Hellenistic astronomer who
lived a century after Aristarchus.[133][134][135] According
to Plutarch, Seleucus was the rst to prove the heliocen-
tric system through reasoning, but it is not known what
arguments he used. Seleucus arguments for a heliocen-
tric cosmology were probably related to the phenomenon
of tides.[136] According to Strabo (1.1.9), Seleucus was
place this lamp of a very beautiful temple in
another or better place than this wherefrom it
can illuminate everything at the same time?
Nicolaus Copernicus, in Chapter 10, Book
1 of De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestrum
(1543)
As noted by Copernicus himself, the notion that the Earth
rotates is very old, dating at least to Philolaus (c. 450
BC), Heraclides Ponticus (c. 350 BC) and Ecphantus the
Pythagorean. Roughly a century before Copernicus, the
Christian scholar Nicholas of Cusa also proposed that the
Earth rotates on its axis in his book, On Learned Igno-
rance (1440).[142] Aryabhata (476550 AD/CE)[143] and
2.9. REFERENCES
Al-Sijzi[144] also proposed that the Earth rotates on its
axis. Empirical evidence for the Earths rotation on its
axis, using the phenomenon of comets, was given by Tusi
(12011274) and Ali Qushji (14031474).[145]
This cosmology was accepted by Isaac Newton,
Christiaan Huygens and later scientists.[146] Edmund
Halley (1720)[147] and Jean-Philippe de Chseaux
(1744)[148] noted independently that the assumption of
an innite space lled uniformly with stars would lead to
the prediction that the nighttime sky would be as bright
as the Sun itself; this became known as Olbers paradox
in the 19th century.[149] Newton believed that an innite
space uniformly lled with matter would cause innite
forces and instabilities causing the matter to be crushed
inwards under its own gravity.[146] This instability was
claried in 1902 by the Jeans instability criterion.[150]
One solution to these paradoxes is the Charlier Universe,
in which the matter is arranged hierarchically (systems
of orbiting bodies that are themselves orbiting in a
larger system, ad innitum) in a fractal way such that
the Universe has a negligibly small overall density;
such a cosmological model had also been proposed
earlier in 1761 by Johann Heinrich Lambert.[52][151] A
signicant astronomical advance of the 18th century was
the realization by Thomas Wright, Immanuel Kant and
others of nebulae.[147]
The modern era of physical cosmology began in 1917,
when Albert Einstein rst applied his general theory of
relativity to model the structure and dynamics of the
Universe.[152]
2.8 See also
Cosmic Calendar (scaled down timeline)
Cosmic latte
Esoteric cosmology
False vacuum
Illustris project
Galaxy And Mass Assembly survey
History of the Center of the Universe
Nucleocosmochronology
Non-standard cosmology
Rare Earth hypothesis
Religious cosmology
Vacuum genesis
World view
Zero-energy Universe
29
2.9 References
[1] Planck Collaboration (2015). Planck 2015 results. XIII.
Cosmological parameters (See Table 4 on page 31 of
pfd).. arXiv:1502.01589.
[2] Itzhak Bars; John Terning (2009). Extra Dimensions in
Space and Time. Springer. pp. 27. ISBN 978-0-387-
77637-8. Retrieved 2011-05-01.
[3] Paul Davies (2006). The Goldilocks Enigma. First
Mariner Books. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-618-59226-5. Re-
trieved 2013-07-01.
[4] NASA/WMAP Science Team (24 January 2014).
Universe 101: What is the Universe Made Of?". NASA.
Retrieved 2015-02-17.
[5] Fixsen, D. J. (2009). The Temperature of the
Cosmic Microwave Background. The Astrophys-
ical Journal 707 (2): 916920. arXiv:0911.1955.
Bibcode:2009ApJ...707..916F. doi:10.1088/0004-
637X/707/2/916.
[6] First Planck results: the Universe is still weird and in-
teresting. Matthew Francis. Ars technica. 2013-03-21.
Retrieved 2015-08-21.
[7] NASA/WMAP Science Team (24 January 2014).
Universe 101: Will the Universe expand forever?".
NASA. Retrieved 16 April 2015.
[8] Universe. Websters New World College Dictionary, Wiley
Publishing, Inc. 2010.
[9] Universe. Dictionary.com. Retrieved 2012-09-21.
[10] Universe. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved
2012-09-21.
[11] Zeilik, Michael; Gregory, Stephen A. (1998). Introduc-
tory Astronomy & Astrophysics (4th ed.). Saunders Col-
lege Publishing. ISBN 0030062284. The totality of all
space and time; all that is, has been, and will be.
[12] Brian Greene (2011). The Hidden Reality. Alfred A.
Knopf.
[13] Dold-Samplonius, Yvonne (2002). From China to Paris:
2000 Years Transmission of Mathematical Ideas. Franz
Steiner Verlag.
[14] Thomas F. Glick; Steven Livesey; Faith Wallis. Me-
dieval Science Technology and Medicine: An Encyclope-
dia. Routledge.
[15] Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. Ban-
tam Books. p. 125. ISBN 0-553-05340-X.
[16] The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011. Retrieved 16 April
2015.
[17] Ellis, George F.R.; U. Kirchner; W.R. Stoeger
(2004). Multiverses and physical cosmology.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci-
ety 347 (3): 921936. arXiv:astro-ph/0305292.
Bibcode:2004MNRAS.347..921E. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2966.2004.07261.x.
30
[18] Palmer, Jason. (2011-08-03) BBC News 'Multiverse'
theory suggested by microwave background. Retrieved
2011-11-28.
[19] Paul Copan; William Lane Craig (2004). Creation Out of
Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientic Explo-
ration. Baker Academic. p. 220. ISBN 9780801027338.
[20] Alexander Bolonkin (November 2011). Universe, Human
Immortality and Future Human Evaluation. Elsevier. pp.
3. ISBN 978-0-12-415801-6.
[21] Duco A. Schreuder (3 December 2014). Vision and Vi-
sual Perception. Archway Publishing. pp. 135. ISBN
978-1-4808-1294-9.
[22] Tegmark, Max. The Mathematical Universe. Foun-
dations of Physics 38 (2): 101150. arXiv:0704.0646.
Bibcode:2008FoPh...38..101T. doi:10.1007/s10701-
007-9186-9. a short version of which is available at
Shut up and calculate. (in reference to David Mermins
famous quote shut up and calculate
[23] Jim Holt (2012). Why Does the World Exist?. Liveright
Publishing. p. 308.
[24] Timothy Ferris (1997). The Whole Shebang: A State-of-
the-Universe(s) Report. Simon & Schuster. p. 400.
[25] The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary,
volume II, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971, p.
3518.
[26] Lewis, C. T. and Short, S (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Ox-
ford University Press, ISBN 0-19-864201-6, pp. 1933,
19771978.
[27] Liddell; Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon.
[28] Liddell; Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon.
[29] Liddell; Scott. A GreekEnglish Lexicon.
[30] Lewis, C. T.; Short, S (1879). A Latin Dictionary. Ox-
ford University Press. pp. 18811882, 1175, 11891190.
ISBN 0-19-864201-6.
[31] The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary II.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1971. pp. 909, 569,
38213822, 1900. ISBN 978-0198611172.
[32] Joseph Silk (2009). Horizons of Cosmology. Templeton
Pressr. p. 208.
[33] Simon Singh (2005). Big Bang: The Origin of the Uni-
verse. Harper Perennial. p. 560.
[34] C. Sivaram (1986). Evolution of the Universe
through the Planck epoch. Astrophysics & Space
Science 125: 189. Bibcode:1986Ap&SS.125..189S.
doi:10.1007/BF00643984.
[35] Richard B. Larson and Volker Bromm (March 2002).
The First Stars in the Universe. Scientic American.
[36] Ryden, Barbara, Introduction to Cosmology, 2006, eqn.
6.33
CHAPTER 2. UNIVERSE
[37] Brill, Dieter; Jacobsen, Ted (2006). Spacetime
and Euclidean geometry. General Relativity
and Gravitation 38: 643. arXiv:gr-qc/0407022.
Bibcode:2006GReGr..38..643B. doi:10.1007/s10714-
006-0254-9.
[38] Antimatter. Particle Physics and Astronomy Research
Council. October 28, 2003. Retrieved 2006-08-10.
[39] Landau & Lifshitz (1975, p. 361): It is interesting to note
that in a closed space the total electric charge must be zero.
Namely, every closed surface in a nite space encloses on
each side of itself a nite region of space. Therefore the
ux of the electric eld through this surface is equal, on th
eone hand, to the total charge located in the interior of the
surface, and on the other hand to the total charge outside
of it, with opposite sign. Consequently, the sum of the
charges on the two sides of the surface is zero.
[40] Edward Robert Harrison (2000). Cosmology: the science
of the universe. Cambridge University Press. pp. 447.
ISBN 978-0-521-66148-5. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
[41] Andrew R. Liddle; David Hilary Lyth (13 April 2000).
Cosmological ination and large-scale structure. Cam-
bridge University Press. pp. 24. ISBN 978-0-521-
57598-0. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
[42] What is the Ultimate Fate of the Universe?". National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA. Retrieved
23 August 2015.
[43] Will the Universe expand forever?, WMAP website at
NASA.
[44] Luminet, Jean-Pierre; Weeks, Jerey R.; Riazuelo,
Alain; Lehoucq, Roland; Uzan, Jean-Philippe
(2003-10-09). Dodecahedral space topology
as an explanation for weak wide-angle tempera-
ture correlations in the cosmic microwave back-
ground. Nature 425 (6958): 5935. arXiv:astro-
ph/0310253. Bibcode:2003Natur.425..593L.
doi:10.1038/nature01944. PMID 14534579.
[45] Roukema, Boudewijn; Zbigniew Buliski; Agnieszka
Szaniewska; Nicolas E. Gaudin (2008). A test of the
Poincare dodecahedral space topology hypothesis with the
WMAP CMB data. Astronomy and Astrophysics 482 (3):
747. arXiv:0801.0006. Bibcode:2008A&A...482..747L.
doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078777.
[46] Aurich, Ralf; Lustig, S.; Steiner, F.; Then, H. (2004).
Hyperbolic Universes with a Horned Topology and
the CMB Anisotropy. Classical and Quantum Grav-
ity 21 (21): 49014926. arXiv:astro-ph/0403597.
Bibcode:2004CQGra..21.4901A. doi:10.1088/0264-
9381/21/21/010.
[47] Planck collaboration (2014). Planck 2013 results. XVI.
Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics.
arXiv:1303.5076. Bibcode:2014A&A...571A..16P.
doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321591.
[48] Planck reveals 'almost perfect' universe. Michael Banks.
Physics World. 2013-03-21. Retrieved 2013-03-21.
[49] McCall, Storrs. A Model of the Universe: Space-time,
Probability, and Decision. Oxford University. p. 23.
2.9. REFERENCES
[50] Michio Kaku (11 March 2008). Physics of the Impossible:
A Scientic Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force
Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel. Knopf Doubleday
Publishing Group. pp. 202. ISBN 978-0-385-52544-2.
[51] Christopher Crockett (February 20, 2013). What is a
light-year?". EarthSky.
[52] Rindler, p. 196.
[53] Christian, Eric; Samar, Sa-Harb. How large is the
Milky Way?". Retrieved 2007-11-28.
[54] I. Ribas; C. Jordi; F. Vilardell; E.L. Fitzpatrick; R.W.
Hilditch; F. Edward Guinan (2005). First Determina-
tion of the Distance and Fundamental Properties of an
Eclipsing Binary in the Andromeda Galaxy. Astrophysi-
cal Journal 635 (1): L37L40. arXiv:astro-ph/0511045.
Bibcode:2005ApJ...635L..37R. doi:10.1086/499161.
McConnachie, A. W.; Irwin, M. J.; Ferguson, A. M.
N.; Ibata, R. A.; Lewis, G. F.; Tanvir, N. (2005).
Distances and metallicities for 17 Local Group galax-
ies. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So-
ciety 356 (4): 979997. arXiv:astro-ph/0410489.
Bibcode:2005MNRAS.356..979M. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2966.2004.08514.x.
[55] How can space travel faster than the speed of light?".
Vannesa Janek. Universe Today. 20 February 2015. Re-
trieved 6 June 2015.
[56] Is faster-than-light travel or communication possible?
Section: Expansion of the Universe. Philip Gibbs. 1997.
Retrieved 6 June 2015.
[57] Phil Berardelli (March 25, 2010). Galaxy Collisions
Give Birth to Quasars. Science News.
[58] Riess, Adam G.; Filippenko; Challis; Clocchiatti; Dier-
cks; Garnavich; Gilliland; Hogan; Jha; Kirshner; Lei-
bundgut; Phillips; Reiss; Schmidt; Schommer; Smith;
Spyromilio; Stubbs; Suntze; Tonry (1998). Ob-
servational evidence from supernovae for an accelerat-
ing universe and a cosmological constant. Astronom-
ical J. 116 (3): 100938. arXiv:astro-ph/9805201.
Bibcode:1998AJ....116.1009R. doi:10.1086/300499.
[59] Perlmutter, S.; Aldering; Goldhaber; Knop; Nugent; Cas-
tro; Deustua; Fabbro; Goobar; Groom; Hook; Kim; Kim;
Lee; Nunes; Pain; Pennypacker; Quimby; Lidman; El-
lis; Irwin; McMahon; RuizLapuente; Walton; Schaefer;
Boyle; Filippenko; Matheson; Fruchter; et al. (1999).
Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high red-
shift supernovae. Astrophysical Journal 517 (2): 56586.
arXiv:astro-ph/9812133. Bibcode:1999ApJ...517..565P.
doi:10.1086/307221.
[60] Sean Carroll and Michio Kaku (2014). How the Universe
Works 3. End of the Universe. Discovery Channel.
[61] Overbye, Dennis (October 11, 2003). A 'Cosmic Jerk'
That Reversed the Universe. New York Times.
[62] WMAP Mission: Results Age of the Universe.
Map.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2011-11-28.
31
[63] Luminet, Jean-Pierre; Boudewijn F. Roukema (1999).
Topology of the Universe: Theory and Observations.
Proceedings of Cosmology School held at Cargese, Corsica,
August 1998. arXiv:astro-ph/9901364.
[64] Fritzsche, Hellmut. electromagnetic radiation | physics.
Encyclopedia Britannica. p. 1. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
[65] Physics 7:Relativity, SpaceTime and Cosmology
(PDF). Physics 7:Relativity, SpaceTime and Cosmol-
ogy. University of California Riverside. Retrieved
2015-07-26.
[66] Physics - for the 21st Century. www.learner.org.
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Annenberg
Learner. Retrieved 2015-07-27.
[67] Redd,SPACE.com, Nola Taylor. Its Ocial: The Uni-
verse Is Dying Slowly. Retrieved 2015-08-11.
[68] RIP Universe - Your Time Is Coming Slowly | Video.
Will Parr, et al. Space.com. Retrieved 2015-08-20.
[69] Sean Carroll, Ph.D., Cal Tech, 2007, The Teaching Com-
pany, Dark Matter, Dark Energy: The Dark Side of the
Universe, Guidebook Part 2 page 46, Accessed Oct. 7,
2013, "...dark matter: An invisible, essentially collision-
less component of matter that makes up about 25 percent
of the energy density of the universe... its a dierent kind
of particle... something not yet observed in the labora-
tory...
[70] Peebles, P. J. E. & Ratra, Bharat (2003). The
cosmological constant and dark energy. Reviews
of Modern Physics 75 (2): 559606. arXiv:astro-
ph/0207347. Bibcode:2003RvMP...75..559P.
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559.
[71] Mandolesi, N.; Calzolari, P.; Cortiglioni, S.; Delpino,
F.; Sironi, G.; Inzani, P.; Deamici, G.; Solheim, J. -E.;
Berger, L.; Partridge, R. B.; Martenis, P. L.; Sangree, C.
H.; Harvey, R. C. (1986). Large-scale homogeneity of
the Universe measured by the microwave background.
Nature 319 (6056): 751. doi:10.1038/319751a0.
[72] The Structure of the Universe.
[73] Mackie, Glen (February 1, 2002). To see the Universe
in a Grain of Taranaki Sand. Swinburne University. Re-
trieved 2006-12-20.
[74] Unveiling the Secret of a Virgo Dwarf Galaxy. ESO.
2000-05-03. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
[75] Hubbles Largest Galaxy Portrait Oers a New High-
Denition View. NASA. 2006-02-28. Retrieved 2007-
01-03.
[76] Earths new address: 'Solar System, Milky Way, Lani-
akea'". Elizabeth Gibney. Nature. 3 September 2014.
Retrieved 21 August 2015.
[77] Local Group. Fraser Cain. Universe Today. 4 May
2009. Retrieved 21 August 2015.
[78] Astronomers discover largest known structure in the uni-
verse is ... a big hole. The Guardian. 20 April 2015.
32 CHAPTER 2. UNIVERSE

[79] Content of the Universe - WMAP 9yr Pie Chart.
wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
[80] Rindler, p. 202.
[81] Andrew Liddle (2003). An Introduction to Modern Cos-
mology (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-
84835-7.. p. 2.
[82] Livio, Mario (2001). The Accelerating Universe: Innite
Expansion, the Cosmological Constant, and the Beauty of
the Cosmos. John Wiley and Sons. p. 53. Retrieved 31
March 2012.
[83] Peebles, P. J. E. and Ratra, Bharat (2003). The
cosmological constant and dark energy. Reviews
of Modern Physics 75 (2): 559606. arXiv:astro-
ph/0207347. Bibcode:2003RvMP...75..559P. [100] Harari H. (1977). Three generations of quarks and lep-
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559.
[84] Dark Energy. Hyperphysics. Retrieved January 4, 2014.
[85] Carroll, Sean (2001). The cosmological constant. Liv-
ing Reviews in Relativity 4. Retrieved 2006-09-28.
[86] Planck captures portrait of the young Universe, revealing
earliest light. University of Cambridge. 21 March 2013. [102] The Timescale of Creation
Retrieved 21 March 2013.
[87] P. Davies (1992). The New Physics: A Synthesis.
Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 0-521-43831-4.
[96] Steven Weinberg. Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scien-
tists Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature. Knopf Dou-
bleday Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-307-78786-6.
[97] Allday, Jonathan (2002). Quarks, Leptons and the Big
Bang (Second ed.). IOP Publishing. ISBN 0-7503-0806-
0.
[98] Lepton (physics)". Encyclopdia Britannica. Retrieved
2010-09-29.
[99] Harari, H. (1977). Beyond charm. In Balian, R.;
Llewellyn-Smith, C.H. Weak and Electromagnetic Inter-
actions at High Energy, Les Houches, France, Jul 5- Aug
14, 1976. Les Houches Summer School Proceedings 29.
North-Holland. p. 613.
tons (PDF). In E. van Goeler, Weinstein R. (eds.). Pro-
ceedings of the XII Rencontre de Moriond. p. 170. SLAC-
PUB-1974.
[101] Experiment conrms famous physics model (Press re-
lease). MIT News Oce. 18 April 2007.
[103] Zeilik, Michael; Gregory, Stephen A. (1998). 25-2. In-
troductory Astronomy & Astrophysics (4th ed.). Saunders
College Publishing. ISBN 0030062284.

[88] G. 't Hooft (1997). In search of the ultimate building [104] Raine & Thomas (2001, p. 12)
blocks. Cambridge University Press. p. 6. ISBN 0-521-
57883-3. [105] Raine & Thomas (2001, p. 66)

[89] Clayton, Donald D. (1983). Principles of Stellar Evolution [106] Friedmann A. (1922). "ber die Krmmung
and Nucleosynthesis. The University of Chicago Press. des Raumes (PDF). Zeitschrift fr Physik 10
pp. 362435. ISBN 0-226-10953-4. (1): 377386. Bibcode:1922ZPhy...10..377F.
doi:10.1007/BF01332580.
[90] Veltman, Martinus (2003). Facts and Mysteries in Ele-
mentary Particle Physics. World Scientic. ISBN 981- [107] Cosmic Detectives. The European Space Agency
238-149-X. (ESA). 2013-04-02. Retrieved 2013-04-15.

[91] Sylvie Braibant; Giorgio Giacomelli; Maurizio Spurio [108] Raine & Thomas (2001, p. 122123)
(2012). Particles and Fundamental Interactions: An Intro-
duction to Particle Physics (2nd ed.). Springer. pp. 13. [109] Raine & Thomas (2001, p. 70)
ISBN 978-94-007-2463-1.
[110] Raine & Thomas (2001, p. 84)
[92] Close, Frank (2012). Particle Physics: A Very Short
Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978- [111] Raine & Thomas (2001, p. 88, 110113)
0192804341.
[112] Munitz MK (1959). One Universe or Many?".
[93] R. Oerter (2006). The Theory of Almost Everything: The Journal of the History of Ideas 12 (2): 231255.
Standard Model, the Unsung Triumph of Modern Physics doi:10.2307/2707516. JSTOR 2707516.
(Kindle ed.). Penguin Group. p. 2. ISBN 0-13-236678-
[113] Linde A. (1986). Eternal chaotic ination. Mod. Phys.
9.
Lett. A1 (2): 8185. Bibcode:1986MPLA....1...81L.
[94] Onyisi, P. (23 October 2012). Higgs boson FAQ. doi:10.1142/S0217732386000129.
University of Texas ATLAS group. Retrieved 2013-01- Linde A. (1986). Eternally existing self-reproducing
08. chaotic inationary Universe (PDF). Phys. Lett.
B175 (4): 395400. Bibcode:1986PhLB..175..395L.
[95] Strassler, M. (12 October 2012). The Higgs FAQ 2.0. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90611-8. Retrieved 2011-
ProfMattStrassler.com. Retrieved 2013-01-08. [Q] Why 03-17.
do particle physicists care so much about the Higgs parti-
cle? [114] Everett, Hugh (1957). Relative State Formula-
[A] Well, actually, they dont. What they really care about tion of Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern
is the Higgs eld, because it is so important. [emphasis in Physics 29: 454462. Bibcode:1957RvMP...29..454E.
original] doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454.
 2.9. REFERENCES
[115] Tegmark M. (2003). Parallel universes. Not just a sta-
ple of science ction, other universes are a direct impli-
cation of cosmological observations. Scientic American
288 (5): 4051. doi:10.1038/scienticamerican0503-40.
PMID 12701329.
[116] Tegmark, Max (2003). J. D. Barrow; P.C.W.
Davies; C.L. Harper, eds. Parallel Universes.
Scientic American: Science and Ultimate Reality:
from Quantum to Cosmos, honoring John Wheelers
90th birthday (Cambridge University Press): 2131.
arXiv:astro-ph/0302131. Bibcode:2003astro.ph..2131T.
doi:10.1038/scienticamerican0503-40.
[117] Ellis G. F (2011). Does the Multiverse Re-
ally Exist?". Scientic American 305 (2): 3843.
doi:10.1038/scienticamerican0811-38.
[118] Clara Moskowitz (August 12, 2011). Weird! Our Uni-
verse May Be a 'Multiverse,' Scientists Say. livescience.
[119] Mark Isaak (ed.) (2005). CI301: The Anthropic Prin-
ciple. Index to Creationist Claims. TalkOrigins Archive.
Retrieved 2007-10-31.
[120] Gernet, J. (19931994). Space and time: Science and re-
ligion in the encounter between China and Europe. Chi-
nese Science 11. pp. 93102.
[121] Ng, Tai (2007). III.3. Chinese Culture, Western Culture:
Why Must We Learn from Each Other?. iUniverse, Inc.
[122] Blandford R. D. A century of general relativ-
ity: Astrophysics and cosmology. Science 347
(6226): 103108. Bibcode:2015Sci...347.1103B.
doi:10.1126/science.aaa4033.
[123] Leeming, David A. (2010). Creation Myths of the World.
ABC-CLIO. p. xvii. ISBN 978-1-59884-174-9. In com-
mon usage the word 'myth' refers to narratives or beliefs
that are untrue or merely fanciful; the stories that make
up national or ethnic mythologies describe characters and
events that common sense and experience tell us are im-
possible. Nevertheless, all cultures celebrate such myths
and attribute to them various degrees of literal or symbolic
truth.
[124] Eliade, Mircea (1964). Myth and Reality (Religious Tra-
ditions of the World). Allen & Unwin. ISBN 978-0-04-
291001-7.
[125] Leonard, Scott A.; McClure, Michael (2004). Myth and
Knowing: An Introduction to World Mythology (1st ed.). [130] Donald Wayne Viney (1985). The Cosmological Ar-
McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-7674-1957-4.
[126] (Henry Gravrand, La civilisation Sereer -Pangool)
[in] Universitt Frankfurt am Main, Frobenius-Institut, [131] Aristotle; Forster, E. S. (Edward Seymour), 1879-1950;
Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Kulturmorphologie, Frobenius
Gesellschaft, Paideuma: Mitteilungen zur Kulturkunde,
Volumes 4344, F. Steiner (1997), pp. 1445, ISBN
3515028420 [132] Boyer, C. (1968) A History of Mathematics. Wiley, p. 54.
[127] B. Young, Louise. The Unnished Universe. Oxford Uni- [133] Neugebauer, Otto E. (1945). The History of Ancient As-
versity Press. p. 21.
[128] Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage:
33
Two systems of Hindu thought pro-
pound physical theories suggestively similar
to those of Greece. Kanada, founder of the
Vaisheshika philosophy, held that the world
is composed of atoms as many in kind as the
various elements. The Jains more nearly ap-
proximated to Democritus by teaching that
all atoms were of the same kind, producing
dierent eects by diverse modes of com-
binations. Kanada believed light and heat to
be varieties of the same substance; Udayana
taught that all heat comes from the Sun; and
Vachaspati, like Newton, interpreted light as
composed of minute particles emitted by sub-
stances and striking the eye.
[129] Stcherbatsky, F. Th. (1930, 1962), Buddhist Logic, Vol-
ume 1, p. 19, Dover, New York:
The Buddhists denied the existence of
substantial matter altogether. Movement
consists for them of moments, it is a staccato
movement, momentary ashes of a stream
of energy... Everything is evanescent,...
says the Buddhist, because there is no stu...
Both systems [Snkhya, and later Indian Bud-
dhism] share in common a tendency to push
the analysis of existence up to its minutest,
last elements which are imagined as abso-
lute qualities, or things possessing only one
unique quality. They are called qualities
(guna-dharma) in both systems in the sense
of absolute qualities, a kind of atomic, or
intra-atomic, energies of which the empirical
things are composed. Both systems, there-
fore, agree in denying the objective reality
of the categories of Substance and Quality,...
and of the relation of Inference uniting them.
There is in Snkhya philosophy no separate
existence of qualities. What we call quality
is but a particular manifestation of a subtle
entity. To every new unit of quality corre-
sponds a subtle quantum of matter which is
called guna, quality, but represents a sub-
tle substantive entity. The same applies to
early Buddhism where all qualities are sub-
stantive... or, more precisely, dynamic en-
tities, although they are also called dharmas
('qualities).
gument. Charles Hartshorne and the Existence of God.
SUNY Press. pp. 6568. ISBN 0-87395-907-8.
Dobson, J. F. (John Frederic), 1875-1947 (1914). De
Mundo. p. 2.
tronomy Problems and Methods. Journal of Near East-
ern Studies 4 (1): 138. doi:10.1086/370729. JSTOR
595168. the Chaldaean Seleucus from Seleucia
 34 CHAPTER 2. UNIVERSE

[134] Sarton, George (1955). Chaldaean Astronomy of Sources

the Last Three Centuries B. C. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 75 (3): 166173 (169).
doi:10.2307/595168. JSTOR 595168. the heliocentrical
astronomy invented by Aristarchos of Samos and still de-
fended a century later by Seleucos the Babylonian
[135] William P. D. Wightman (1951, 1953), The Growth of
Scientic Ideas, Yale University Press p. 38, where Wight-
man calls him Seleukos the Chaldean.
[136] Lucio Russo, Flussi e riussi, Feltrinelli, Milano, 2003,
ISBN 88-07-10349-4.
[137] Bartel (1987, p. 527)
Bartel, Leendert van der Waerden (1987).
The Heliocentric System in Greek, Per-
sian and Hindu Astronomy. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences 500 (1):
525545. Bibcode:1987NYASA.500..525V.
doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1987.tb37224.x.
Landau L, Lifshitz EM (1975). The Classical The-
ory of Fields (Course of Theoretical Physics) 2 (re-
vised 4th English ed.). New York: Pergamon Press.
pp. 358397. ISBN 978-0-08-018176-9.

[138] Bartel (1987, pp. 5279)
[139] Bartel (1987, pp. 52934)
[140] Bartel (1987, pp. 5347)
[141] Nasr, Seyyed H. (1993) [1964]. An Introduction to Islamic
Cosmological Doctrines (2nd ed.). 1st edition by Harvard
University Press, 2nd edition by State University of New
York Press. pp. 1356. ISBN 0-7914-1515-5.
[142] Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, p. 754.
Liddell, H. G. & Scott, R. (1968). A Greek-English
Lexicon. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-
864214-8.
Misner, C.W., Thorne, Kip, Wheeler, J.A. (1973).
Gravitation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. pp.
703816. ISBN 978-0-7167-0344-0.
Raine, D. J.; Thomas, E. G. (2001). An Introduc-
tion to the Science of Cosmology. Institute of Physics
Publishing.

[143] Abhishek Parakh (2006). A Note on Aryabhatas Prin-
ciple of Relativity. arXiv:physics/0610095.
[144] l, Ema kabara. Science in the Quran 1. Malik Library.
p. 218.
Rindler, W. (1977). Essential Relativity: Special,
General, and Cosmological. New York: Springer
Verlag. pp. 193244. ISBN 0-387-10090-3.

[145] Ragep, F. Jamil (2001), Tusi and Copernicus:

The Earths Motion in Context, Science in Context
(Cambridge University Press) 14 (12): 145163,
doi:10.1017/s0269889701000060

[146] Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, p. 755756.

[147] Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, p. 756.

[148] de Cheseaux JPL (1744). Trait de la Comte. Lausanne.

pp. 223.. Reprinted as Appendix II in Dickson FP
(1969). The Bowl of Night: The Physical Universe and
Scientic Thought. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. ISBN
978-0-262-54003-2.

[149] Olbers HWM (1826). Unknown title. Bodes Jahrbuch

111.. Reprinted as Appendix I in Dickson FP (1969).
The Bowl of Night: The Physical Universe and Scientic
Thought. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. ISBN 978-0-
262-54003-2.

[150] Jeans, J. H. (1902). The Stability of a Spherical Nebula

(PDF). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A
199 (312320): 153. Bibcode:1902RSPTA.199....1J.
doi:10.1098/rsta.1902.0012. JSTOR 90845. Retrieved
2011-03-17.

[151] Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, p. 757.

[152] Einstein, A (1917). Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur

allgemeinen Relativittstheorie. Preussische Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Sitzungsberichte. 1917. (part 1):
142152.
Chapter 3

Cosmology

For other uses, see Cosmology (disambiguation).
Cosmology (from the Greek , kosmos world physical cosmology is dominated by the Big Bang the-
the latter deals with individual celestial objects. Modern
ory, which attempts to bring together observational as-
tronomy and particle physics;[2] more specically, a stan-
dard parametrisation of the Big Bang with dark matter
and dark energy, known as the Lambda-CDM model.
The term cosmology was rst used in 1730 by German
philosopher Christian Wol in Cosmologia Generalis.
Theoretical astrophysicist David N. Spergel has described
cosmology as a historical science because when we
look out in space, we look back in time due to the -
nite nature of the speed of light.[3]

The Hubble eXtreme Deep Field (XDF) was completed in 3.1 Disciplines
September 2012 and shows the farthest galaxies ever pho-
tographed. Except for the few stars in the foreground (which are
bright and easily recognizable because only they have diraction Physics and astrophysics have played a central role in
spikes), every speck of light in the photo is an individual galaxy,
shaping the understanding of the universe through sci-
some of them as old as 13.2 billion years; the observable universe
is estimated to contain more than 200 billion galaxies.
entic observation and experiment. Physical cosmol-
ogy was shaped through both mathematics and obser-
and -, -logia study of), is the study of the ori- vation in an analysis of the whole universe. The uni-
verse is generally understood to have begun with the Big
gin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. Physical
cosmology is the scholarly and scientic study of the ori- Bang, followed almost instantaneously by cosmic ina-
tion; an expansion of space from which the universe is
gin, evolution, large-scale structures and dynamics, and
ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the scientic laws thought to have emerged 13.799 0.021 billion years
that govern these realities.[1] Religious or mythological ago.[4] Cosmogony studies the origin of the Universe, and
cosmology is a body of beliefs based on mythological, cosmography maps the features of the Universe.
religious, and esoteric literature and traditions of creation In Diderot's Encyclopdie, cosmology is broken down
and eschatology. into uranology (the science of the heavens), aerology (the
Physical cosmology is studied by scientists, such as science of the air), geology (the science of[5]the conti-
astronomers and physicists, as well as philosophers, nents), and hydrology (the science of waters).
such as metaphysicians, philosophers of physics, and Metaphysical cosmology has also been described as the
philosophers of space and time. Because of this shared placing of man in the universe in relationship to all other
scope with philosophy, theories in physical cosmology entities. This is exemplied by Marcus Aurelius's obser-
may include both scientic and non-scientic proposi- vation that a mans place in that relationship: He who
tions, and may depend upon assumptions that can not does not know what the world is does not know where he
be tested. Cosmology diers from astronomy in that the is, and he who does not know for what purpose the world
former is concerned with the Universe as a whole while exists, does not know who he is, nor what the world is.[6]

35
36 CHAPTER 3. COSMOLOGY

3.1.1 Physical cosmology de Sitter, Karl Schwarzschild, and Arthur Eddington to

explore its astronomical ramications, which enhanced
Main article: Physical cosmology the ability of astronomers to study very distant objects.
Physicists began changing the assumption that the Uni-
verse was static and unchanging.
Physical cosmology is the branch of physics and astro-
physics that deals with the study of the physical origins In parallel to this dynamic approach to cosmology, one
long-standing debate about the structure of the cosmos
and evolution of the Universe. It also includes the study of
was coming to a climax. Mount Wilson astronomer
the nature of the Universe on a large scale. In its earliest
form, it was what is now known as "celestial mechanics", Harlow Shapley championed the model of a cosmos made
the study of the heavens. Greek philosophers Aristarchus up of the Milky Way star system only; while Heber D.
of Samos, Aristotle, and Ptolemy proposed dierent cos- Curtis argued for the idea that spiral nebulae were star
mological theories. The geocentric Ptolemaic system systems in their own right as island universes. This dif-
was the prevailing theory until the 16th century when ference of ideas came to a climax with the organization
Nicolaus Copernicus, and subsequently Johannes Kepler of the Great Debate on 26 April 1920 at the meeting of
and Galileo Galilei, proposed a heliocentric system. This the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in Washington,
is one of the most famous examples of epistemological D.C. The debate was resolved when Edwin Hubble de-
rupture in physical cosmology. tected novae in the Andromeda galaxy in 1923 and 1924.
Their distance established spiral nebulae well beyond the
When Isaac Newton published the Principia Mathematica
edge of the Milky Way.
in 1687, he nally gured out how the heavens moved.
Newton provided a physical mechanism for Keplers laws Subsequent modelling of the universe explored the possi-
and his law of universal gravitation allowed the anoma- bility that the cosmological constant, introduced by Ein-
lies in previous systems, caused by gravitational interac- stein in his 1917 paper, may result in an expanding uni-
tion between the planets, to be resolved. A fundamental verse, depending on its value. Thus the Big Bang model
dierence between Newtons cosmology and those pre- was proposed by the Belgian priest Georges Lematre
ceding it was the Copernican principlethat the bodies in 1927 which was subsequently corroborated by Edwin
on earth obey the same physical laws as all the celestial Hubble's discovery of the red shift in 1929 and later by
bodies. This was a crucial philosophical advance in phys- the discovery of the cosmic microwave background ra-
ical cosmology. diation by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson in
1964. These ndings were a rst step to rule out some of
many alternative cosmologies.
Since around 1990, several dramatic advances in obser-
vational cosmology have transformed cosmology from
a largely speculative science into a predictive science
with precise agreement between theory and observation.
These advances include observations of the microwave
background from the COBE, WMAP and Planck satel-
lites, large new galaxy redshift surveys including 2dfGRS
and SDSS, and observations of distant supernovae and
gravitational lensing. These observations matched the
predictions of the cosmic ination theory, a modied
Big Bang theory, and the specic version known as the
Lambda-CDM model. This has led many to refer to mod-
ern times as the golden age of cosmology.[10]
On 17 March 2014, astronomers at the Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced the de-
tection of gravitational waves, providing strong evidence
Evidence of gravitational waves in the infant universe may have for ination and the Big Bang.[7][8][9] However, on 19
been uncovered by the microscopic examination of the focal June 2014, lowered condence in conrming the cosmic
plane of the BICEP2 radio telescope.[7][8][9] ination ndings was reported.[11][12][13]
On 1 December 2014, at the Planck 2014 meeting in
Modern scientic cosmology is usually considered to
Ferrara, Italy, astronomers reported that the universe is
have begun in 1917 with Albert Einstein's publication
13.8 billion years old and is composed of 4.9% atomic
of his nal modication of general relativity in the pa-
matter, 26.6% dark matter and 68.5% dark energy.[14]
per Cosmological Considerations of the General Theory
of Relativity (although this paper was not widely avail-
able outside of Germany until the end of World War I).
General relativity prompted cosmogonists such as Willem
3.4. REFERENCES
3.1.2 Religious, mythological, and meta-
physical cosmology
See also: Religious cosmology
Cosmology deals with the world as the totality of space,
time and all phenomena. Historically, it has had quite a
broad scope, and in many cases was founded in religion.
The ancient Greeks did not draw a distinction between
this use and their model for the cosmos. However, in
modern use metaphysical cosmology addresses questions
about the Universe which are beyond the scope of sci-
ence. It is distinguished from religious cosmology in that
it approaches these questions using philosophical meth-
ods like dialectics. Modern metaphysical cosmology tries
to address questions such as:
What is the origin of the Universe? What is its rst
cause? Is its existence necessary? (see monism,
pantheism, emanationism and creationism)
What are the ultimate material components of
the Universe? (see mechanism, dynamism,
hylomorphism, atomism)
What is the ultimate reason for the existence of the
Universe? Does the cosmos have a purpose? (see
teleology)
Does the existence of consciousness have a purpose?
How do we know what we know about the totality
of the cosmos? Does cosmological reasoning reveal
metaphysical truths? (see epistemology)
3.2 Historical cosmologies
Further information: Timeline of cosmology and
Nicolaus Copernicus Copernican system
Table notes: the term static simply means not expand-
ing and not contracting. Symbol G represents Newtons
gravitational constant; (Lambda) is the cosmological [12] Amos, Jonathan (19 June 2014). Cosmic ination: Con-
constant.
3.3 See also
Lambda-CDM model
Absolute time and space
Galaxy formation and evolution
Illustris project
List of astrophysicists
Non-standard cosmology
37
Jainism and non-creationism
Taiji (philosophy)
Universal rotation curve
Warm ination
3.4 References
[1] Introduction: Cosmology space. New Scientist. 4
September 2006
[2] Cosmology Oxford Dictionaries
[3] David N. Spergel (Fall 2014). Cosmology Today.
Daedalus (American Academy of Arts and Sciences) 143
(4): 125133. doi:10.1162/DAED_a_00312.
[4] Planck Collaboration (2015). Planck 2015 re-
sults. XIII. Cosmological parameters (See Ta-
ble 4 on page 31 of pfd).. arXiv:1502.01589.
Bibcode:2015arXiv150201589P.
[5] Detailed Explanation of the System of Human Knowl-
edge. The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert Col-
laborative Translation Project. 1 April 2015. Retrieved 1
April 2015.
[6] The thoughts of Marcus Aurelius Antonius viii. 52.
[7] BICEP2 2014 Results Release. National Science Foun-
dation. 17 March 2014. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
[8] Whitney Clavin (17 March 2014). NASA Technology
Views Birth of the Universe. NASA. Retrieved 17 March
2014.
[9] Dennis Overbye (17 March 2014). Detection of Waves
in Space Buttresses Landmark Theory of Big Bang. New
York Times. Retrieved 17 March 2014.
[10] Alan Guth is reported to have made this very claim in an
Edge Foundation interview EDGE
[11] Dennis Overbye (19 June 2014). Astronomers Hedge on
Big Bang Detection Claim. New York Times. Retrieved
20 June 2014.
dence lowered for Big Bang signal. BBC News. Re-
trieved 20 June 2014.
[13] Ade, P. A. R.; Aikin, R. W.; Barkats, D.; Benton, S.
J.; Bischo, C. A.; Bock, J. J.; Brevik, J. A.; Buder, I.;
Bullock, E.; Dowell, C. D.; Duband, L.; Filippini, J. P.;
Fliescher, S.; Golwala, S. R.; Halpern, M.; Hasseleld,
M.; Hildebrandt, S. R.; Hilton, G. C.; Hristov, V. V.;
Irwin, K. D.; Karkare, K. S.; Kaufman, J. P.; Keating, B.
G.; Kernasovskiy, S. A.; Kovac, J. M.; Kuo, C. L.; Leitch,
E. M.; Lueker, M.; Mason, P.; et al. (2014). Detection
of B-Mode Polarization at Degree Angular Scales by
BICEP2. Physical Review Letters 112 (24): 241101.
arXiv:1403.3985. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112x1101A.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.241101. PMID
24996078.
38 CHAPTER 3. COSMOLOGY

[14] Dennis Overbye (1 December 2014). New Images Re-

ne View of Infant Universe. New York Times. Retrieved
2 December 2014.

[15] Carl B. Boyer (1968), A History of Mathematics. Wiley.

ISBN 0471543977. p. 54.

[16] Aristotle; Forster, E. S. (Edward Seymour), 1879-1950;

Dobson, J. F. (John Frederic), 1875-1947 (1914). De
Mundo. p. 2.

3.5 External links

Cosmic Journey: A History of Scientic Cosmology
from the American Institute of Physics
Introduction to Cosmology David Lyths lectures
from the ICTP Summer School in High Energy
Physics and Cosmology

The Sophia Centre The Sophia Centre for the Study

of Cosmology in Culture, University of Wales Trin-
ity Saint David
the Genesis cosmic chemistry module
Chapter 4

Planck (spacecraft)

Planck was a space observatory operated by the creation of a catalogue of galaxy clusters through the
European Space Agency (ESA) from 2009 to 2013, SunyaevZel'dovich eect,
which mapped the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave
background (CMB) at microwave and infra-red frequen- observations of the gravitational lensing of the
cies, with high sensitivity and small angular resolution. CMB, as well as the integrated SachsWolfe eect,
The mission substantially improved upon observations observations of bright extragalactic radio (active
made by the NASA Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy galactic nuclei) and infrared (dusty galaxy) sources,
Probe (WMAP). Planck provided a major source of in-
formation relevant to several cosmological and astrophys- observations of the Milky Way, including the
ical issues, such as testing theories of the early universe interstellar medium, distributed synchrotron emis-
and the origin of cosmic structure; as of 2013 it has pro- sion and measurements of the Galactic magnetic
vided the most accurate measurements of several key cos- eld, and
mological parameters, including the average density of
ordinary matter and dark matter in the Universe. studies of the Solar System, including planets,
asteroids, comets and the zodiacal light.
The project was started around 1996 and was initially
called COBRAS/SAMBA: the Cosmic Background Ra-
Planck has a higher resolution and sensitivity than
diation Anisotropy Satellite/Satellite for Measurement of
WMAP, allowing it to probe the power spectrum of the
Background Anisotropies. It was later renamed in hon-
CMB to much smaller scales (3). It also observes in 9
our of the German physicist Max Planck (18581947),
frequency bands rather than WMAPs 5, with the goal of
who derived the formula for black-body radiation.
improving the astrophysical foreground models.
Built at the Cannes Mandelieu Space Center by Thales
It is expected that most Planck measurements will be lim-
Alenia Space, and created as a medium-sized mis-
ited by how well foregrounds can be subtracted, rather
sion for ESAs Horizon 2000 long-term scientic pro-
than by the detector performance or length of the mis-
gramme, Planck was launched in May 2009,[2] reaching
sion, a particularly important factor for the polarization
the Earth/Sun L2 point by July, and by February 2010
measurements. The dominant foreground radiation de-
had successfully started a second all-sky survey. On 21
pends on frequency, but could include synchrotron radia-
March 2013, the missions rst all-sky map of the cosmic
tion from the Milky Way at low frequencies, and dust at
microwave background was released, with an expanded
high frequencies.
release including polarization data in February 2015; -
nal data analysis will continue into 2016.
At the end of its mission Planck was put into a heliocentric 4.2 Instruments
orbit and passivated to prevent it from endangering any
future missions. The nal deactivation command was sent
to Planck in October 2013. The spacecraft carries two instruments: the Low Fre-
quency Instrument (LFI) and the High Frequency Instru-
ment (HFI).[3] Both instruments can detect both the to-
tal intensity and polarization of photons, and together
4.1 Objectives cover a frequency range of nearly 830 GHz (from 30 to
857 GHz). The cosmic microwave background spectrum
The mission had a wide variety of scientic aims, peaks at a frequency of 160.2 GHz.
including:[3] Planck 's passive and active cooling systems allow its
instruments to maintain a temperature of 273.05 C
high resolution detections of both the total intensity (459.49 F), or 0.1 degrees Celsius above absolute zero.
and polarization of primordial CMB anisotropies, From August 2009, Planck was the coldest known object

39
40
The Planck 4K reference load qualication model.
Planck LFI 44GHz horn and front-end chassis.
LFI focal plane model.
in space, until its active coolant supply was exhausted in A common service module (SVM) was designed and built
January 2012.[4]
NASA played a role in the development of the mission Herschel Space Observatory and
and contributes to the analysis of scientic data. Its Jet bined into one single program.
Propulsion Laboratory built components of the science
instruments, including bolometers for the high-frequency
instrument, a 20 kelvin cryocooler for both the low- and
high-frequency instruments, and amplier technology for
the low-frequency instrument.[5]
CHAPTER 4. PLANCK (SPACECRAFT)
4.2.1 Low Frequency Instrument
The LFI has three frequency bands, covering the range of
3070 GHz, covering the microwave to infra-red regions
of the electromagnetic spectrum. The detectors use high-
electron-mobility transistors.[3]
4.2.2 High Frequency Instrument
The High Frequency Instrument qualication model.
The HFI is sensitive between 100 and 857 GHz, using 48
bolometric detectors, manufactured by JPL/Caltech,[6]
optically coupled to the telescope through cold optics,
manufactured by Cardi Universitys School of Physics
and Astronomy,[7] consisting of a triple horn congura-
tion and optical lters, a similar concept to that used in
the Archeops balloon-borne experiment. These detection
assemblies are divided into 6 frequency bands (centred at
100, 143, 217, 353, 545 and 857 GHz), each with a band-
width of 33%. Of these six bands, only the lower four
have the capability to measure the polarisation of incom-
ing radiation; the two higher bands do not.[3]
On 13 January 2012, it was reported that the on-board
supply of helium-3 used in Planck 's dilution refrigera-
tor had been exhausted, and that the HFI would become
unusable within a few days.[8] By this date, Planck had
completed ve full scans of the CMB, exceeding its tar-
get of two. The LFI (cooled by helium-4) was expected
to remain operational for another six to nine months.[8]
4.3 Service Module
by Thales Alenia Space in its Turin plant, for both the
[3]
Planck missions, com-
The overall cost is estimated to be 700 million for the
Planck[9] and 1,100 million for the Herschel mission.[10]
Both gures include their missions spacecraft and pay-
load, (shared) launch and mission expenses, and science
operations.
4.4. LAUNCH AND ORBIT 41

minutes. As Planck is also a survey platform, there is the

additional requirement for pointing reproducibility error
less than 2.5 arc-minutes over 20 days.
The main line-of-sight sensor in both Herschel and Planck
is the star tracker.

4.4 Launch and orbit

The satellite was successfully launched, along with the
Herschel Space Observatory, at 13:12:02 UTC on 14
May 2009 aboard an Ariane 5 ECA heavy launch vehicle
from the Guiana Space Centre. The launch placed the
Some of the Herschel-Planck team, from left to right: Jean- craft into a very elliptical orbit (perigee: 270 km [170
Jacques Juillet, director of scientic programmes, Thales Alenia mi], apogee: more than 1,120,000 km [700,000 mi]),
Space; Marc Sauvage, project scientist for Herschel PACS experi- bringing it near the L2 Lagrangian point of the Earth-
ment, CEA; Franois Bouchet, Planck operations manager, IAP; Sun system, 1,500,000 kilometres (930,000 mi) from the
and Jean-Michel Reix, Herschel & Planck operations manager, Earth.
Thales Alenia Space. During presentations of the rst results for
the missions, Cannes, October 2009 The manoeuvre to inject Planck into its nal orbit around
L2 was successfully completed on 3 July 2009, when it en-
tered a Lissajous orbit with a 400,000 km (250,000 mi)
Structurally, the Herschel and Planck SVMs are very sim- radius around the L2 Lagrangian point.[11] The temper-
ilar. Both SVMs are octagonal in shape and each panel ature of the High Frequency Instrument reached just a
is dedicated to accommodate a designated set of warm tenth of a degree above absolute zero (0.1 K) on 3 July
units, while taking into account the dissipation require- 2009, placing both the Low Frequency and High Fre-
ments of the dierent warm units, of the instruments, quency Instruments within their cryogenic operational pa-
as well as the spacecraft. On both spacecraft, a com- rameters, making Planck fully operational.[12]
mon design was used for the avionics, attitude control and
measurement (ACMS), command and data management
(CDMS), power, and tracking, telemetry and command
(TT&C) subsystems. All units on the SVM are redun-
4.5 Decommissioning
dant.
In January 2012 the HFI exhausted its supply of liquid
helium, causing the detector temperature to rise and ren-
4.3.1 Power Subsystem dering the HFI unusable. The LFI continued to be used
until science operations ended on 3 October 2013. The
On each spacecraft, the power subsystem consists of a spacecraft performed a manoeuvre on 9 October to move
solar array, employing triple-junction solar cells, a battery it away from Earth and its L2 point, placing it into a
and the power control unit (PCU). The PCU is designed heliocentric orbit, while payload deactivation occurred
to interface with the 30 sections of each solar array, to on 19 October. Planck was commanded on 21 October
provide a regulated 28 volt bus, to distribute this power to exhaust its remaining fuel supply; passivation activities
via protected outputs, and to handle the battery charging were conducted later, including battery disconnection and
and discharging. the disabling of protection mechanisms.[13] The nal de-
For Planck, the circular solar array is xed on the bot- activation command, which switched o the spacecrafts
tom of the satellite, always facing the Sun as the satellite transmitter, was sent to Planck on 23 October 2013 at
rotates on its vertical axis. 12:10:27 UTC.[14]

4.3.2 Attitude and Orbit Control 4.6 Results

This function is performed by the attitude control com- Planck started its First All-Sky Survey on 13 Au-
puter (ACC), which is the platform for the attitude con- gust 2009.[15] In September 2009, the European Space
trol and measurement subsystem (ACMS). It was de- Agency announced the preliminary results from the
signed to full the pointing and slewing requirements of Planck First Light Survey, which was performed to
the Herschel and Planck payloads. demonstrate the stability of the instruments and the abil-
The Planck satellite rotates at one revolution per minute, ity to calibrate them over long periods. The results indi-
with an aim of an absolute pointing error less than 37 arc- cated that the data quality is excellent.[16]
42 CHAPTER 4. PLANCK (SPACECRAFT)

4.6.2 2015 data release

Results from an analysis of Planck 's full mission were
made public on 1 December 2014 at a conference in
Ferrara, Italy.[32] A full set of papers detailing the mis-
sion results were released in February 2015.[33] Some of
the results include:

More agreement with previous WMAP results on

parameters such as the density and distribution of
matter in the Universe, as well as more exact results
Comparison of CMB results from COBE, WMAP and Planck
with less margin of error.
Conrmation of a Universe with a 26% content of
On 15 January 2010 the mission was extended by 12 dark matter. These results also raise related ques-
months, with observation continuing until at least the end tions about the positron excess over electrons de-
of 2011. After the successful conclusion of the First Sur- tected by the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, an ex-
vey, the spacecraft started its Second All Sky Survey on periment on the International Space Station. Previ-
14 February 2010, with more than 95% of the sky ob- ous research suggested that positrons could be cre-
served already and 100% sky coverage being expected ated by the collision of dark matter particles, which
by mid-June 2010.[11] could only occur if the probability of dark matter
Some planned pointing list data from 2009 have been re- collisions is signicantly higher now than in the early
leased publicly, along with a video visualization of the Universe. Planck data suggests that the probability
surveyed sky.[15] of such collisions must remain constant over time to
account for the structure of the Universe, negating
On 17 March 2010, the rst Planck photos were pub- the previous theory.
lished, showing dust concentration within 500 light years
from the Sun.[17][18] Validation of the simplest models of ination, thus
giving the Lambda-CDM model stronger support.
On 5 July 2010, the Planck mission delivered its rst all-
sky image.[19] That there are likely only three types of neutrinos,
The rst public scientic result of Planck is the Early- with a proposed sterile neutrino avour unlikely to
Release Compact-Source Catalogue, released during the exist.
January 2011 Planck conference in Paris.[20][21]
Project scientists worked too with BICEP2 scientists to
On 5 May 2014 a map of the galaxys magnetic eld cre-
release joint research in 2015 answering whether a sig-
ated using Planck was published.[22]
nal detected by BICEP2 was evidence of primordial
gravitational waves, or was simple background noise from
dust in the Milky Way galaxy.[32] Their results suggest the
4.6.1 2013 data release latter.[34]

On 21 March 2013, the European-led research team be-

hind the Planck cosmology probe released the missions
all-sky map of the cosmic microwave background.[23][24]
This map suggests the universe is slightly older than
thought: according to the map, subtle uctuations in
4.7 See also
temperature were imprinted on the deep sky when the
universe was about 370,000 years old. The imprint Lambda-CDM model
reects ripples that arose as early in the existence of List of cosmological computation software
the universe as the rst nonillionth (1030 ) of a sec-
ond. It is currently theorised that these ripples gave rise Observational cosmology
to the present vast cosmic web of galactic clusters and
Physical cosmology
dark matter. According to the team, the universe is
13.7980.037 billion years old, and contains 4.820.05%
ordinary matter, 25.80.4% dark matter and 691% dark
energy.[25][26][27] The Hubble constant was also measured 4.8 References
to be 67.800.77 (km/s)/Mpc.[23][25][28][29][30]
[1] The Planck space observatory is integrated on Ariane 5
for Arianespaces upcoming launch. Arianespace. 24
April 2009. Retrieved 31 December 2013.
4.9. FURTHER READING
[2] First Second of the Big Bang. How The Universe Works
3. 2014. Discovery Science.
[3] Planck: The Scientic Programme (PDF). European
Space Agency. 2005. ESA-SCI(2005)1. Retrieved 6
March 2009.
[4] Coldest Known Object in Space Is Very Unnatural.
Space.com. 7 July 2009. Retrieved 3 July 2013.
[5] Planck: Mission Overview. NASA. Retrieved 26
September 2009.
[6] The Planck High Frequency Instrument (HFI)". Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. 21 March 2013. Retrieved 22
March 2013.
[7] High Frequency Instrument (HFI)". Cardi University.
Retrieved 22 March 2013.
[8] Amos, Jonathan (13 January 2012). Super-cool Planck
mission begins to warm. BBC News. Retrieved 13 Jan-
uary 2012.
[9] Planck: Fact Sheet (PDF). European Space Agency. 20
January 2012. Archived from the original on 16 October
2012.
[10] Herschel: Fact Sheet (PDF). European Space Agency.
28 April 2010. Archived from the original on 13 October
2012.
[11] Planck: Mission Status Summary. European Space
Agency. 19 March 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2013.
[12] Planck instruments reach their coldest temperature. Eu-
ropean Space Agency. 3 July 2009. Retrieved 5 July
2009.
[13] Planck on course for safe retirement. European Space
Agency. 21 October 2013. Retrieved 23 October 2013.
[14] Last command sent to ESAs Planck space telescope.
European Space Agency. 23 October 2013. Retrieved 23
October 2013.
[15] Simultaneous observations with Planck. European
Space Agency. 31 August 2009. Retrieved 17 August
2012.
[16] Planck rst light yields promising results. European
Space Agency. 17 September 2009.
[17] Planck sees tapestry of cold dust. European Space
Agency. 17 March 2010.
[18] New Planck images trace cold dust and reveal large-scale
structure in the Milky Way. European Space Agency. 17
March 2010. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
[19] Planck unveils the Universe now and then. European
Space Agency. 5 July 2010. Retrieved 22 March 2013.
[20] 2011 Planck Conference. Retrieved 22 March 2013.
[21] Planck Legacy Archive. European Space Agency.
[22] Crockett, Christopher (9 May 2014). Milky Ways mag-
netic eld mapped. Science News. Retrieved 10 May
2014.
43
[23] Planck Mission Brings Universe Into Sharp Focus. Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. 21 March 2013. Retrieved 21
March 2013.
[24] Mapping the Early Universe. The New York Times. 21
March 2013. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
[25] See Table 9 in Planck Collaboration (2013). Planck
2013 results. I. Overview of products and scientic re-
sults. arXiv:1303.5062 [astro-ph.CO].
[26] Planck 2013 Results Papers. European Space Agency.
[27] Planck Collaboration (2013). Planck 2013 results. XVI.
Cosmological parameters. arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-
ph.CO].
[28] Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe. European
Space Agency. 21 March 2013. Retrieved 21 March
2013.
[29] Overbye, Dennis (21 March 2013). Universe as an In-
fant: Fatter Than Expected and Kind of Lumpy. The
New York Times. Retrieved 21 March 2013.
[30] Boyle, Alan (21 March 2013). Planck probes cosmic
'baby picture' revises universes vital statistics. NBC
News. Retrieved 21 March 2013.
[31] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5076v1.pdf
[32] Cowen, Ron; Castelvecchi, Davide (2 December 2014).
European probe shoots down dark-matter claims.
Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.16462. Retrieved 6 De-
cember 2014.
[33] Planck Publications: Planck 2015 Results. European
Space Agency. February 2015. Retrieved 9 February
2015.
[34] BICEP2/Keck and Planck Collaborations (February
2015). A Joint Analysis of BICEP2/Keck Array and
Planck Data. arXiv:1502.00612 [astro-ph.CO].
[35] Planck Collaboration (2015). Planck 2015 results. XIII.
Cosmological parameters. arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-
ph.CO].
4.9 Further reading
Dambeck, Thorsten (May 2009). Planck Readies
to Dissect the Big Bang. Sky & Telescope 117 (5):
2428. OCLC 318973848.
4.10 External links
ESA
Planck mission website
Planck science website
Planck operations website
Planck science results website
44 CHAPTER 4. PLANCK (SPACECRAFT)

NASA

Planck mission website

NASA/IPAC Planck archive
Chapter 5

Dark energy

Not to be confused with Dark ow, Dark uid, or Dark Adding the cosmological constant to cosmologys stan-
matter. dard FLRW metric leads to the Lambda-CDM model,
which has been referred to as the "standard model of cos-
In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an mology" because of its precise agreement with observa-
tions. Dark energy has been used as a crucial ingredient
unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to per-
meate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion in a recent attempt to formulate a cyclic model for the
[1] universe.[10]
of the universe. Dark energy is the most accepted hy-
pothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s in-
dicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating
rate. Assuming that the standard model of cosmology 5.1 Nature of dark energy
is correct, the best current measurements indicate that
dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the Many things about the nature of dark energy remain mat-
present-day observable universe. The massenergy of ters of speculation.[11] The evidence for dark energy is
dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter contribute indirect but comes from three independent sources:
26.8% and 4.9%, respectively, and other components
such as neutrinos and photons contribute a very small Distance measurements and their relation to red-
amount.[2][3][4][5] Again on a massenergy equivalence shift, which suggest the universe has expanded more
basis, the density of dark energy (6.91 1027 kg/m3 ) in the last half of its life.[12]
is very low, much less than the density of ordinary mat-
The theoretical need for a type of additional energy
ter or dark matter within galaxies. However, it comes to
that is not matter or dark matter to form the obser-
dominate the massenergy of the universe because it is
vationally at universe (absence of any detectable
uniform across space.[6][7]
global curvature).
Two proposed forms for dark energy are the cosmological
constant,[8] a constant energy density lling space It can be inferred from measures of large scale wave-
[9]
homogeneously, and scalar elds such as quintessence patterns of mass density in the universe.
or moduli, dynamic quantities whose energy density can
Dark energy is thought to be very homogeneous, not very
vary in time and space. Contributions from scalar elds
dense and is not known to interact through any of the
that are constant in space are usually also included in the
fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is quite
cosmological constant. The cosmological constant can be
rareed roughly 1027 kg/m3 it is unlikely to be
formulated to be equivalent to vacuum energy. Scalar
detectable in laboratory experiments. Dark energy can
elds that do change in space can be dicult to distin-
have such a profound eect on the universe, making up
guish from a cosmological constant because the change
68% of universal density, only because it uniformly lls
may be extremely slow.
otherwise empty space. The two leading models are a
High-precision measurements of the expansion of the cosmological constant and quintessence. Both models in-
universe are required to understand how the expansion clude the common characteristic that dark energy must
rate changes over time and space. In general relativity, have negative pressure.
the evolution of the expansion rate is parameterized by
the cosmological equation of state (the relationship be-
tween temperature, pressure, and combined matter, en- 5.1.1 Eect of dark energy: a small con-
ergy, and vacuum energy density for any region of space). stant negative pressure of vacuum
Measuring the equation of state for dark energy is one of
the biggest eorts in observational cosmology today. Independently of its actual nature, dark energy would
need to have a strong negative pressure (acting repul-
sively) in order to explain the observed acceleration of

45
46
Diagram representing the accelerated expansion of the universe
due to dark energy.
the expansion of the universe. According to general rel-
ativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its
gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass
density does. This happens because the physical quantity
that causes matter to generate gravitational eects is the
stressenergy tensor, which contains both the energy (or
matter) density of a substance and its pressure and vis-
cosity. In the FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker
metric, it can be shown that a strong constant negative
pressure in all the universe causes an acceleration in uni-
verse expansion if the universe is already expanding, or
a deceleration in universe contraction if the universe is
already contracting. This accelerating expansion eect
is sometimes labeled gravitational repulsion, which is a
colorful but possibly confusing expression. In fact a neg-
ative pressure does not inuence the gravitational inter-
action between masseswhich remains attractivebut
rather alters the overall evolution of the universe at the
cosmological scale, typically resulting in the accelerating
expansion of the universe despite the attraction among
the masses present in the universe. The acceleration is
simply a function of dark energy density. Dark energy is
persistent: its density remains constant (experimentally,
within a factor of 1:10), i.e. it does not get diluted when
space expands.
5.2 Evidence of existence
5.2.1 Supernova
In 1998, published observations of Type Ia super-
novae (one-A) by the High-Z Supernova Search
Team[13] followed in 1999 by the Supernova Cosmology
Project[14] suggested that the expansion of the universe
is accelerating.[15] The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was Recent observations of supernovae are consistent with a
awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt and Adam universe made up 71.3% of dark energy and 27.4% of a
G. Riess for their leadership in the discovery.[16][17] combination of dark matter and baryonic matter.[20]
CHAPTER 5. DARK ENERGY
A Type Ia supernova (bright spot on the bottom-left) near a
galaxy
Since then, these observations have been corroborated
by several independent sources. Measurements of the
cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, and
the large-scale structure of the cosmos as well as im-
proved measurements of supernovae have been consistent
with the Lambda-CDM model.[18] Some people argue
that the only indication for the existence of dark energy
is observations of distance measurements and associated
redshifts. Cosmic microwave background anisotropies
and baryon acoustic oscillations are only observations that
distances to a given redshift are larger than expected from
a dusty FriedmannLematre universe and the local
measured Hubble constant.[19]
Supernovae are useful for cosmology because they are
excellent standard candles across cosmological distances.
They allow the expansion history of the universe to be
measured by looking at the relationship between the dis-
tance to an object and its redshift, which gives how fast
it is receding from us. The relationship is roughly linear,
according to Hubbles law. It is relatively easy to mea-
sure redshift, but nding the distance to an object is more
dicult. Usually, astronomers use standard candles: ob-
jects for which the intrinsic brightness, the absolute mag-
nitude, is known. This allows the objects distance to be
measured from its actual observed brightness, or apparent
magnitude. Type Ia supernovae are the best-known stan-
dard candles across cosmological distances because of
their extreme and consistent luminosity.
5.3. THEORIES OF EXPLANATION 47

voids regularly of ~150 Mpc diameter, surrounded by the

galaxies, the voids were used as standard rulers to deter-
mine distances to galaxies as far as 2,000 Mpc (redshift
0.6), which allowed astronomers to determine more ac-
curately the speeds of the galaxies from their redshift and
distance. The data conrmed cosmic acceleration up to
26.8% Dark
Matter half of the age of the universe (7 billion years) and con-
strain its inhomogeneity to 1 part in 10.[24] This provides
a conrmation to cosmic acceleration independent of su-
68.3% Dark pernovae.
Energy 4.9% Ordinary
Matter

5.2.4 Late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe ef-

fect
Accelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational poten-
tial wells and hills to atten as photons pass through them,
producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned
with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called
Estimated distribution of matter and energy in the universe[21]
late-time Integrated SachsWolfe eect (ISW) is a direct
signal of dark energy in a at universe.[25] It was reported
5.2.2 Cosmic microwave background at high signicance in 2008 by Ho et al.[26] and Giannan-
tonio et al.[27]
The existence of dark energy, in whatever form, is needed
to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the to-
tal amount of matter in the universe. Measurements of 5.2.5 Observational Hubble constant data
cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies indi-
cate that the universe is close to at. For the shape of A new approach to test evidence of dark energy through
the universe to be at, the mass/energy density of the observational Hubble constant (H(z)) data (OHD) has
universe must be equal to the critical density. The to- gained signicant attention in recent years.[28][29][30][31]
tal amount of matter in the universe (including baryons The Hubble constant is measured as a function of cos-
and dark matter), as measured from the CMB spectrum, mological redshift. OHD directly tracks the expan-
accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This sion history of the universe by taking passively evolv-
implies the existence of an additional form of energy to ing early-type galaxies as cosmic chronometers.[32]
account for the remaining 70%.[18] The Wilkinson Mi- From this point, this approach provides standard clocks
crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft seven- in the universe. The core of this idea is the mea-
year analysis estimated a universe made up of 72.8% dark surement of the dierential age evolution as a func-
energy, 22.7% dark matter and 4.5% ordinary matter.[4] tion of redshift of these cosmic chronometers. Thus,
Work done in 2013 based on the Planck spacecraft ob- it provides a direct estimate of the Hubble parameter
servations of the CMB gave a more accurate estimate of H(z)=1/(1+z)dz/dt1/(1+z)z/t. The merit of this
68.3% of dark energy, 26.8% of dark matter and 4.9% approach is clear: the reliance on a dierential quantity,
of ordinary matter.[22] z/t, can minimize many common issues and system-
atic eects; and as a direct measurement of the Hub-
ble parameter instead of its integral, like supernovae and
5.2.3 Large-scale structure baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), it brings more infor-
mation and is appealing in computation. For these rea-
The theory of large-scale structure, which governs the sons, it has been widely used to examine the accelerated
formation of structures in the universe (stars, quasars, cosmic expansion and study properties of dark energy.
galaxies and galaxy groups and clusters), also suggests
that the density of matter in the universe is only 30% of
the critical density. 5.3 Theories of explanation
A 2011 survey, the WiggleZ galaxy survey of more than
200,000 galaxies, provided further evidence towards the 5.3.1 Cosmological constant
existence of dark energy, although the exact physics be-
hind it remains unknown.[23][24] The WiggleZ survey Main article: Cosmological constant
from the Australian Astronomical Observatory scanned For more details on this topic, see Equation of state (cos-
the galaxies to determine their redshift. Then, by ex- mology).
ploiting the fact that baryon acoustic oscillations have left The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is
48
Lambda, the letter that represents the cosmological constant
simply the cost of having space": that is, a volume of
space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the
cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence
Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter , the sym-
bol used to represent this quantity mathematically. Since
energy and mass are related by E = mc2 , Einsteins theory
of general relativity predicts that this energy will have a
gravitational eect. It is sometimes called a vacuum en-
ergy because it is the energy density of empty vacuum.
In fact, most theories of particle physics predict vacuum
uctuations that would give the vacuum this sort of en-
ergy. This is related to the Casimir eect, in which
there is a small suction into regions where virtual particles
are geometrically inhibited from forming (e.g. between
plates with tiny separation). The cosmological constant
is estimated by cosmologists to be on the order of 1029
g/cm3 , or about 10120 in reduced Planck units. Particle
physics predicts a natural value of 1 in reduced Planck
units, leading to a large discrepancy.
The cosmological constant has negative pressure equal
to its energy density and so causes the expansion of the
universe to accelerate. The reason why a cosmological
constant has negative pressure can be seen from classical
thermodynamics; Energy must be lost from inside a con-
tainer to do work on the container. A change in volume
dV requires work done equal to a change of energy P
dV, where P is the pressure. But the amount of energy
in a container full of vacuum actually increases when the
volume increases (dV is positive), because the energy is
equal to V, where (rho) is the energy density of the
cosmological constant. Therefore, P is negative and, in
fact, P = .
A major outstanding problem is that most quantum eld
theories predict a huge cosmological constant from the
energy of the quantum vacuum, more than 100 orders of
magnitude too large.[9] This would need to be cancelled
CHAPTER 5. DARK ENERGY
almost, but not exactly, by an equally large term of the
opposite sign. Some supersymmetric theories require a
cosmological constant that is exactly zero,[33] which does
not help because supersymmetry must be broken. The
present scientic consensus amounts to extrapolating the
empirical evidence where it is relevant to predictions, and
ne-tuning theories until a more elegant solution is found.
Technically, this amounts to checking theories against
macroscopic observations. Unfortunately, as the known
error-margin in the constant predicts the fate of the uni-
verse more than its present state, many such deeper
questions remain unknown.
In spite of its problems, the cosmological constant is in
many respects the most economical solution to the prob-
lem of cosmic acceleration. One number successfully
explains a multitude of observations. Thus, the current
standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model,
includes the cosmological constant as an essential feature.
5.3.2 Quintessence
Main article: Quintessence (physics)
In quintessence models of dark energy, the observed ac-
celeration of the scale factor is caused by the potential
energy of a dynamical eld, referred to as quintessence
eld. Quintessence diers from the cosmological con-
stant in that it can vary in space and time. In order for it
not to clump and form structure like matter, the eld must
be very light so that it has a large Compton wavelength.
No evidence of quintessence is yet available, but it has
not been ruled out either. It generally predicts a slightly
slower acceleration of the expansion of the universe than
the cosmological constant. Some scientists think that
the best evidence for quintessence would come from vi-
olations of Einsteins equivalence principle and variation
of the fundamental constants in space or time.[34] Scalar
elds are predicted by the Standard Model of particle
physics and string theory, but an analogous problem to
the cosmological constant problem (or the problem of
constructing models of cosmological ination) occurs:
renormalization theory predicts that scalar elds should
acquire large masses.
The coincidence problem asks why the acceleration of the
Universe began when it did. If acceleration began earlier
in the universe, structures such as galaxies would never
have had time to form and life, at least as we know it,
would never have had a chance to exist. Proponents of
the anthropic principle view this as support for their ar-
guments. However, many models of quintessence have a
so-called tracker behavior, which solves this problem. In
these models, the quintessence eld has a density which
closely tracks (but is less than) the radiation density until
matter-radiation equality, which triggers quintessence to
start behaving as dark energy, eventually dominating the
universe. This naturally sets the low energy scale of the
5.4. ALTERNATIVE IDEAS 49

dark energy.).[35][36] at modifying general relativity have turned out to be ei-

In 2004, when scientists t the evolution of dark energy ther equivalent to theories of quintessence, or incon-
with the cosmological data, they found that the equation sistent with observations. Other ideas for dark energy
of state had possibly crossed the cosmological constant have come from string theory, brane cosmology and the
boundary (w=1) from above to below. A No-Go theo- holographic principle, but have not yet proved as com-
rem has been proved that gives this scenario at least two pelling as quintessence and the cosmological constant.
degrees of freedom as required for dark energy models. On string theory, an article in the journal Nature
This scenario is so-called Quintom scenario. described:[47]
Some special cases of quintessence are phantom en-
ergy, in which the energy density of quintessence actu-
ally increases with time, and k-essence (short for kinetic String theories, popular with many particle
quintessence) which has a non-standard form of kinetic physicists, make it possible, even desirable, to
energy. They can have unusual properties: phantom en- think that the observable universe is just one of
ergy, for example, can cause a Big Rip. 10500 universes in a grander multiverse, says
Leonard Susskind, a cosmologist at Stanford
University in California. The vacuum energy
5.4 Alternative ideas will have dierent values in dierent universes,
and in many or most it might indeed be vast. But
it must be small in ours because it is only in such
Some alternatives to dark energy aim to explain the ob-
a universe that observers such as ourselves can
servational data by a more rened use of established
evolve.
theories, focusing, for example, on the gravitational ef-
fects of density inhomogeneities, or on consequences of
electroweak symmetry breaking in the early universe.
If we are located in an emptier-than-average region of Paul Steinhardt in the same article criticizes string the-
space, the observed cosmic expansion rate could be mis- orys explanation of dark energy stating "...Anthrop-
taken for a variation in time, or acceleration.[37][38][39][40] ics and randomness don't explain anything... I am
A dierent approach uses a cosmological extension of the disappointed with what most theorists are willing to
equivalence principle to show how space might appear to accept.[47]
be expanding more rapidly in the voids surrounding our Another set of proposals is based on the possibility of
local cluster. While weak, such eects considered cumu- a double metric tensor for space-time.[48][49] It has been
latively over billions of years could become signicant, argued that time reversed solutions in general relativity
creating the illusion of cosmic acceleration, and making require such double metric for consistency, and that both
it appear as if we live in a Hubble bubble.[41][42][43] dark matter and dark energy can be understood in terms
[50]
Another class of theories attempts to come up with an all- of time reversed solutions of general relativity.
encompassing theory of both dark matter and dark energy It has been shown that if inertia is assumed to be due to
as a single phenomenon that modies the laws of gravity the eect of horizons on Unruh radiation then this pre-
at various scales. An example of this type of theory is the dicts galaxy rotation and a cosmic acceleration similar to
theory of dark uid. Another class of theories that unies that observed.[51]
dark matter and dark energy are suggested to be covari-
ant theories of modied gravities. These theories alter
the dynamics of the space-time such that the modied
dynamic stems what have been assigned to the presence
of dark energy and dark matter.[44]
5.4.1 Variable Dark Energy models
A 2011 paper in the journal Physical Review D by Chris- In general, the dark energy can be variable. Modern ob-
tos Tsagas, a cosmologist at Aristotle University of Thes-servational data have determined the density of dark en-
saloniki in Greece, argued that it is likely that the accel-
ergy in the present. Using baryon acoustic oscillations,
erated expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by we can investigate the eect of dark energy in the his-
the relative motion of us to the rest of the universe. Thetory of the Universe and we can constrain parameters
paper cites data showing that the 2.5 billion ly wide re- of the equation of state of dark energy. One of the
gion of space we are inside of is moving very quickly rel-proposed solutions to get closer to answering the ques-
ative to everything around it. If the theory is conrmed, tion of dark energy, is to assume that it is variable. To
then dark energy would not exist (but the "dark ow" stillthat end, several models have been proposed. One of
might).[45][46] their most popular models is ChevallierPolarskiLinder
Some theorists think that dark energy and cosmic accel- model (CPL).[53][54] Some other common models are,
eration are a failure of general relativity on very large (Barboza & Alcaniz. 2008),[55] (Jassal et al. 2005),[56]
scales, larger than superclusters. However most attempts (Wetterich. 2004).[57]
50
The equation of state of Dark Energy for 4 common models by
Redshift.[52]
A: CPL Model,
B: Jassal Model,
C: Barboza & Alcaniz Model,
D: Wetterich Model
5.5 Implications for the fate of the
universe
Cosmologists estimate that the acceleration began
roughly 5 billion years ago. Before that, it is thought that
the expansion was decelerating, due to the attractive in-
uence of dark matter and baryons. The density of dark
matter in an expanding universe decreases more quickly
than dark energy, and eventually the dark energy domi-
nates. Specically, when the volume of the universe dou-
bles, the density of dark matter is halved, but the density
of dark energy is nearly unchanged (it is exactly constant
in the case of a cosmological constant).
If the acceleration continues indenitely, the ultimate re-
sult will be that galaxies outside the local supercluster
will have a line-of-sight velocity that continually increases
with time, eventually far exceeding the speed of light.[58]
This is not a violation of special relativity because the no-
tion of velocity used here is dierent from that of veloc-
ity in a local inertial frame of reference, which is still con-
strained to be less than the speed of light for any massive
object (see Uses of the proper distance for a discussion of
the subtleties of dening any notion of relative velocity in
cosmology). Because the Hubble parameter is decreasing
with time, there can actually be cases where a galaxy that
is receding from us faster than light does manage to emit
a signal which reaches us eventually.[59][60] However, be-
cause of the accelerating expansion, it is projected that
most galaxies will eventually cross a type of cosmologi-
cal event horizon where any light they emit past that point
will never be able to reach us at any time in the innite
future[61] because the light never reaches a point where
CHAPTER 5. DARK ENERGY
its peculiar velocity toward us exceeds the expansion
velocity away from us (these two notions of velocity are
also discussed in Uses of the proper distance). Assum-
ing the dark energy is constant (a cosmological constant),
the current distance to this cosmological event horizon is
about 16 billion light years, meaning that a signal from
an event happening at present would eventually be able to
reach us in the future if the event were less than 16 billion
light years away, but the signal would never reach us if the
event were more than 16 billion light years away.[60]
As galaxies approach the point of crossing this cosmo-
logical event horizon, the light from them will become
more and more redshifted, to the point where the wave-
length becomes too large to detect in practice and the
galaxies appear to vanish completely[62][63] (see Future of
an expanding universe). The Earth, the Milky Way, and
the Virgo Supercluster, however, would remain virtually
undisturbed while the rest of the universe recedes and dis-
appears from view. In this scenario, the local supercluster
would ultimately suer heat death, just as was thought for
the at, matter-dominated universe before measurements
of cosmic acceleration.
There are some very speculative ideas about the future of
the universe. One suggests that phantom energy causes
divergent expansion, which would imply that the eec-
tive force of dark energy continues growing until it domi-
nates all other forces in the universe. Under this scenario,
dark energy would ultimately tear apart all gravitationally
bound structures, including galaxies and solar systems,
and eventually overcome the electrical and nuclear forces
to tear apart atoms themselves, ending the universe in a
"Big Rip". On the other hand, dark energy might dissi-
pate with time or even become attractive. Such uncer-
tainties leave open the possibility that gravity might yet
rule the day and lead to a universe that contracts in on
itself in a "Big Crunch".[64] Some scenarios, such as the
cyclic model, suggest this could be the case. It is also pos-
sible the universe may never have an end and continue in
its present state forever (see The Second Law as a law of
disorder). While these ideas are not supported by obser-
vations, they are not ruled out.
5.6 History of discovery and previ-
ous speculation
The cosmological constant was rst proposed by Einstein
as a mechanism to obtain a solution of the gravitational
eld equation that would lead to a static universe, eec-
tively using dark energy to balance gravity.[65] Not only
was the mechanism an inelegant example of ne-tuning
but it was also later realized that Einsteins static universe
would actually be unstable because local inhomogeneities
would ultimately lead to either the runaway expansion or
contraction of the universe. The equilibrium is unsta-
ble: If the universe expands slightly, then the expansion
5.7. SEE ALSO
releases vacuum energy, which causes yet more expan-
sion. Likewise, a universe which contracts slightly will
continue contracting. These sorts of disturbances are in-
evitable, due to the uneven distribution of matter through-
out the universe. More importantly, observations made
by Edwin Hubble in 1929 showed that the universe ap-
pears to be expanding and not static at all. Einstein re-
portedly referred to his failure to predict the idea of a
dynamic universe, in contrast to a static universe, as his
greatest blunder.[66]
Alan Guth and Alexei Starobinsky proposed in 1980 that precision of 10%.[68] Recent results from the Hubble
a negative pressure eld, similar in concept to dark en- Space Telescope Higher-Z Team indicate that dark en-
ergy, could drive cosmic ination in the very early uni- ergy has been present for at least 9 billion years and dur-
verse. Ination postulates that some repulsive force, qual- ing the period preceding cosmic acceleration.
itatively similar to dark energy, resulted in an enormous
and exponential expansion of the universe slightly after
the Big Bang. Such expansion is an essential feature of
most current models of the Big Bang. However, ination 5.7 See also
must have occurred at a much higher energy density than
the dark energy we observe today and is thought to have
completely ended when the universe was just a fraction
of a second old. It is unclear what relation, if any, exists
between dark energy and ination. Even after ination-
ary models became accepted, the cosmological constant
was thought to be irrelevant to the current universe.
Nearly all ination models predict that the total (mat-
ter+energy) density of the universe should be very close
to the critical density. During the 1980s, most cosmo-
logical research focused on models with critical density
in matter only, usually 95% cold dark matter and 5%
ordinary matter (baryons). These models were found
to be successful at forming realistic galaxies and clus-
ters, but some problems appeared in the late 1980s: no-
tably, the model required a value for the Hubble con-
stant lower than preferred by observations, and the model
under-predicted observations of large-scale galaxy clus-
tering. These diculties became stronger after the dis-
covery of anisotropy in the cosmic microwave back-
ground by the COBE spacecraft in 1992, and several
modied CDM models came under active study through
the mid-1990s: these included the Lambda-CDM model
and a mixed cold/hot dark matter model. The rst di-
rect evidence for dark energy came from supernova ob-
servations in 1998 of accelerated expansion in Riess et
al.[13] and in Perlmutter et al.,[14] and the Lambda-CDM
model then became the leading model. Soon after, dark
energy was supported by independent observations: in
2000, the BOOMERanG and Maxima cosmic microwave
background experiments observed the rst acoustic peak
in the CMB, showing that the total (matter+energy) den-
sity is close to 100% of critical density. Then in 2001, the
2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey gave strong evidence that the
matter density is around 30% of critical. The large dif-
ference between these two supports a smooth component
of dark energy making up the dierence. Much more
precise measurements from WMAP in 20032010 have
continued to support the standard model and give more
51
accurate measurements of the key parameters.
The term dark energy, echoing Fritz Zwicky's dark
matter from the 1930s, was coined by Michael Turner
in 1998.[67]
As of 2013, the Lambda-CDM model is consistent with
a series of increasingly rigorous cosmological observa-
tions, including the Planck spacecraft and the Supernova
Legacy Survey. First results from the SNLS reveal that
the average behavior (i.e., equation of state) of dark en-
ergy behaves like Einsteins cosmological constant to a
Conformal gravity
De Sitter relativity
Illustris project
The Dark Energy Survey
Quintessence: The Search for Missing Mass in the
Universe
Vacuum state
5.8 References
[1] Peebles, P. J. E. and Ratra, Bharat (2003). The
cosmological constant and dark energy. Reviews
of Modern Physics 75 (2): 559606. arXiv:astro-
ph/0207347. Bibcode:2003RvMP...75..559P.
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559.
[2] Ade, P. A. R.; Aghanim, N.; Armitage-Caplan, C.; et
al. (Planck Collaboration), C.; Arnaud, M.; Ashdown,
M.; Atrio-Barandela, F.; Aumont, J.; Aussel, H.; Bac-
cigalupi, C.; Banday, A. J.; Barreiro, R. B.; Barrena,
R.; Bartelmann, M.; Bartlett, J. G.; Bartolo, N.; Basak,
S.; Battaner, E.; Battye, R.; Benabed, K.; Benot, A.;
Benoit-Lvy, A.; Bernard, J.-P.; Bersanelli, M.; Bert-
incourt, B.; Bethermin, M.; Bielewicz, P.; Bikmaev,
I.; Blanchard, A.; et al. (22 March 2013). Planck
2013 results. I. Overview of products and scientic
results Table 9. Astronomy and Astrophysics 571:
A1. arXiv:1303.5062. Bibcode:2014A&A...571A...1P.
doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321529.
[3] Ade, P. A. R.; Aghanim, N.; Armitage-Caplan, C.; et
al. (Planck Collaboration), C.; Arnaud, M.; Ashdown,
M.; Atrio-Barandela, F.; Aumont, J.; Aussel, H.; Bac-
cigalupi, C.; Banday, A. J.; Barreiro, R. B.; Barrena,
R.; Bartelmann, M.; Bartlett, J. G.; Bartolo, N.; Basak,
S.; Battaner, E.; Battye, R.; Benabed, K.; Benot, A.;
52
Benoit-Lvy, A.; Bernard, J.-P.; Bersanelli, M.; Bert-
incourt, B.; Bethermin, M.; Bielewicz, P.; Bikmaev,
I.; Blanchard, A.; et al. (31 March 2013). Planck
2013 Results Papers. Astronomy and Astrophysics 571:
A1. arXiv:1303.5062. Bibcode:2014A&A...571A...1P.
doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321529.
[4] First Planck results: the Universe is still weird and inter-
esting.
[5] Sean Carroll, Ph.D., Caltech, 2007, The Teaching Com-
pany, Dark Matter, Dark Energy: The Dark Side of the
Universe, Guidebook Part 2 page 46. Retrieved Oct. 7,
2013, "...dark energy: A smooth, persistent component
of invisible energy, thought to make up about 70 percent
of the current energy density of the universe. Dark en-
ergy is known to be smooth because it doesn't accumulate
preferentially in galaxies and clusters...
[6] Dark Energy. Hyperphysics. Retrieved January 4, 2014.
[7] Ferris, Timothy. Dark Matter(Dark Energy)". Retrieved
2015-06-10.
[8] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/
493de45a-8bef-11e0-854c-00144feab49a.html#
axzz3m9WSVVkC
[9] Carroll, Sean (2001). The cosmological constant. Liv-
ing Reviews in Relativity 4. Retrieved 2006-09-28.
[10] Baum, L. and Frampton, P.H. (2007).
Turnaround in Cyclic Cosmology. Physical
Review Letters 98 (7): 071301. arXiv:hep-
th/0610213. Bibcode:2007PhRvL..98g1301B.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.071301. PMID 17359014.
[11] Overbye, Dennis. Astronomers Report Evidence of
'Dark Energy' Splitting the Universe. The New York
Times. Retrieved August 5, 2015.
[12] Durrer, R. (2011). What do we really know
about Dark Energy?". Philosophical Transac-
tions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Phys-
ical and Engineering Sciences 369 (1957): 5102.
arXiv:1103.5331. Bibcode:2011RSPTA.369.5102D.
doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0285.
[13] Riess, Adam G.; Filippenko; Challis; Clocchiatti; Dier-
cks; Garnavich; Gilliland; Hogan; Jha; Kirshner; Lei-
bundgut; Phillips; Reiss; Schmidt; Schommer; Smith;
Spyromilio; Stubbs; Suntze; Tonry (1998). Ob-
servational evidence from supernovae for an accelerat-
ing universe and a cosmological constant. Astronom-
ical J. 116 (3): 100938. arXiv:astro-ph/9805201.
Bibcode:1998AJ....116.1009R. doi:10.1086/300499.
[14] Perlmutter, S.; Aldering; Goldhaber; Knop; Nugent; Cas-
tro; Deustua; Fabbro; Goobar; Groom; Hook; Kim; Kim;
Lee; Nunes; Pain; Pennypacker; Quimby; Lidman; El-
lis; Irwin; McMahon; RuizLapuente; Walton; Schaefer;
Boyle; Filippenko; Matheson; Fruchter; et al. (1999).
Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high red-
shift supernovae. Astrophysical Journal 517 (2): 56586.
arXiv:astro-ph/9812133. Bibcode:1999ApJ...517..565P.
doi:10.1086/307221.
CHAPTER 5. DARK ENERGY
[15] The rst paper, using observed data, which claimed
a positive Lambda term was Pal, G.; et al.
(1992). Ination and compactication from
galaxy redshifts?". Astrophysics and Space Science
191: 10724. Bibcode:1992Ap&SS.191..107P.
doi:10.1007/BF00644200.
[16] The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011. Nobel Foundation.
Retrieved 2011-10-04.
[17] The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011. Perlmutter got half the
prize, and the other half was shared between Schmidt and
Riess.
[18] Spergel, D. N. (WMAP collaboration); et al. (March
2006). Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
(WMAP) three year results: implications for cosmology.
[19] Durrer, R. (2011). What do we really know
about dark energy?". Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society A 369 (1957): 51025114.
arXiv:1103.5331. Bibcode:2011RSPTA.369.5102D.
doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0285.
[20] Kowalski, Marek; Rubin, David; Aldering, G.; Agostinho,
R. J.; Amadon, A.; Amanullah, R.; Balland, C.; Bar-
bary, K.; Blanc, G.; Challis, P. J.; Conley, A.; Con-
nolly, N. V.; Covarrubias, R.; Dawson, K. S.; Deustua,
S. E.; Ellis, R.; Fabbro, S.; Fadeyev, V.; Fan, X.; Far-
ris, B.; Folatelli, G.; Frye, B. L.; Garavini, G.; Gates,
E. L.; Germany, L.; Goldhaber, G.; Goldman, B.; Goo-
bar, A.; Groom, D. E.; et al. (October 27, 2008). Im-
proved Cosmological Constraints from New, Old and
Combined Supernova Datasets. The Astrophysical Jour-
nal (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 686 (2): 749
778. arXiv:0804.4142. Bibcode:2008ApJ...686..749K.
doi:10.1086/589937.. They nd a best t value
of the dark energy density, of 0.713+0.027
0.029(stat)+0.0360.039(sys), of the total matter den-
sity, M, of 0.274+0.0160.016(stat)+0.0130.012(sys)
with an equation of state parameter w of 0.969+0.059
0.063(stat)+0.0630.066(sys).
[21] Planck reveals an almost perfect universe. Planck. ESA.
2013-03-21. Retrieved 2013-03-21.
[22] Big Bangs afterglow shows universe is 80 million years
older than scientists rst thought. The Washington Post.
Retrieved 22 March 2013.
[23] New method 'conrms dark energy'". BBC News. 2011-
05-19.
[24] Dark energy is real, Swinburne University of Technology,
19 May 2011
[25] Crittenden; Neil Turok (1995). Looking for
$\Lambda$ with the Rees-Sciama Eect. Physi-
cal Review Letters 76 (4): 575578. arXiv:astro-
ph/9510072. Bibcode:1996PhRvL..76..575C.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.575. PMID 10061494.
[26] Shirley Ho; Hirata; Nikhil Padmanabhan; Uros Seljak;
Neta Bahcall (2008). Correlation of CMB with large-
scale structure: I. ISW Tomography and Cosmological
Implications. Physical Review D 78 (4): 043519.
arXiv:0801.0642. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..78d3519H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.043519.
5.8. REFERENCES 53

[27] Tommaso Giannantonio; Ryan Scranton; Crittenden; Due to a Relativistic Cosmological Model More Complex
Nichol; Boughn; Myers; Richards (2008). Combined than FLRW?". Physical Review D 78 (12): 123531.
analysis of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe eect and cosmo- arXiv:0708.2943. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..78l3531I.
logical implications. Physical Review D 77 (12): 123520. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.123531.
arXiv:0801.4380. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..77l3520G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.123520. [39] Mattsson, Teppo (2007). Dark energy as a mirage.
Gen. Rel. Grav. 42 (3): 567599. arXiv:0711.4264.
[28] Zelong Yi; Tongjie Zhang (2007). Constraints Bibcode:2010GReGr..42..567M. doi:10.1007/s10714-
on holographic dark energy models using the 009-0873-z.
dierential ages of passively evolving galaxies.
Modern Physics Letters A 22 (1): 41. arXiv:astro- [40] Clifton, Timothy; Ferreira, Pedro (April 2009). Does
ph/0605596. Bibcode:2007MPLA...22...41Y. Dark Energy Really Exist?". Scientic American 300 (4):
doi:10.1142/S0217732307020889. 4855. doi:10.1038/scienticamerican0409-48. PMID
19363920. Retrieved April 30, 2009.
[29] Haoyi Wan; Zelong Yi; Tongjie Zhang; Jie Zhou
(2007). Constraints on the DGP Universe Using Obser- [41] Wiltshire, D. (2008). Cosmological
vational Hubble parameter. Physics Letters B 651 (5): equivalence principle and the weak-eld
352. arXiv:0706.2723. Bibcode:2007PhLB..651..352W. limit. Physical Review D 78 (8): 084032.
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.06.053. arXiv:0809.1183. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..78h4032W.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.084032.
[30] Cong Ma; Tongjie Zhang (2010). Power of Ob-
servational Hubble Parameter Data: a Figure of [42] Gray, Stuart. Dark questions remain over dark energy.
Merit Exploration. Astrophysical Journal 730 (2): ABC Science Australia. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
74. arXiv:1007.3787. Bibcode:2011ApJ...730...74M. [43] Merali, Zeeya (March 2012). Is Einsteins Greatest
doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/74. Work All WrongBecause He Didn't Go Far Enough?".
[31] Tongjie Zhang; Cong Ma; Tian Lan (2010). Constraints Discover magazine. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
on the Dark Side of the Universe and Observational Hub- [44] Exirifard, Q. (2010). Phenomenological co-
ble Parameter Data. Advances in Astronomy 2010 (1): variant approach to gravity. General Relativity
1. arXiv:1010.1307. Bibcode:2010AdAst2010E..81Z. and Gravitation 43: 93106. arXiv:0808.1962.
doi:10.1155/2010/184284. Bibcode:2011GReGr..43...93E. doi:10.1007/s10714-
[32] Joan Simon; Licia Verde; Raul Jimenez (2005). Con- 010-1073-6.
straints on the redshift dependence of the dark energy po- [45] Wolchover, Natalie (27 September 2011) 'Accelerating
tential. Physical Review D 71 (12): 123001. arXiv:astro- universe' could be just an illusion, MSNBC
ph/0412269. Bibcode:2005PhRvD..71l3001S.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.123001. [46] Tsagas, Christos G. (2011). Peculiar mo-
tions, accelerated expansion, and the cosmolog-
[33] Wess, Julius; Bagger, Jonathan. Supersymmetry and Su- ical axis. Physical Review D 84 (6): 063503.
pergravity. ISBN 978-0691025308. arXiv:1107.4045. Bibcode:2011PhRvD..84f3503T.
[34] Carroll, Sean M. (1998). Quintessence and the Rest doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.063503.
of the World: Suppressing Long-Range Interactions. [47] Hogan, Jenny (2007). Unseen Universe: Welcome
Physical Review Letters 81 (15): 30673070. arXiv:astro- to the dark side. Nature 448 (7151): 240245.
ph/9806099. Bibcode:1998PhRvL..81.3067C. Bibcode:2007Natur.448..240H. doi:10.1038/448240a.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.3067. ISSN 0031-9007. PMID 17637630.
[35] Ratra, Bharat; Peebles, P.J.E. Cosmological conse- [48] Hossenfelder, S. (2008). A Bi-Metric Theory with Ex-
quences of a rolling homogeneous scalar eld. Phys. change Symmetry. Physical Review D 78 (4): 044015.
Rev. D37: 3406. Bibcode:1988PhRvD..37.3406R. arXiv:0807.2838. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..78d4015H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3406. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.044015.
[36] Steinhardt, Paul J.; Wang, Li-Min; Zlatev, [49] Henry-Couannier, F. (2005). Discrete Symmetries and
Ivaylo. Cosmological tracking solutions. General Relativity, the Dark Side of Gravity. Inter-
Phys. Rev. D59: 123504. arXiv:astro- national Journal of Modern Physics A 20 (11): 2341.
ph/9812313. Bibcode:1999PhRvD..59l3504S. arXiv:gr-qc/0410055. Bibcode:2005IJMPA..20.2341H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.123504. doi:10.1142/S0217751X05024602.
[37] Wiltshire, David L. (2007). Exact Solu- [50] Ripalda, Jose M. (1999). Time reversal and negative en-
tion to the Averaging Problem in Cosmol- ergies in general relativity. arXiv:gr-qc/9906012.
ogy. Physical Review Letters 99 (25): 251101.
arXiv:0709.0732. Bibcode:2007PhRvL..99y1101W. [51] McCulloch, M.E. (2010). Minimum accelerations from
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.251101. PMID 18233512. quantised inertia. EPL 90 (2): 29001. arXiv:1004.3303.
Bibcode:2010EL.....9029001M. doi:10.1209/0295-
[38] Ishak, Mustapha; Richardson, James; Garred, David; 5075/90/29001.
Whittington, Delilah; Nwankwo, Anthony; Sussman,
Roberto (2007). Dark Energy or Apparent Acceleration [52] by Ehsan Sadri M.A Ap
54
[53] Chevallier, M; Polarski, D (2001). Accelerating
Universes with Scaling Dark Matter. Interna-
tional Journal of Modern Physics D 10: 213224.
arXiv:gr-qc/0009008. Bibcode:2001IJMPD..10..213C.
doi:10.1142/S0218271801000822.
[54] Linder, Eric V. (3 March 2003). Explor-
ing the Expansion History of the Universe.
Physical Review Letters 90 (9). arXiv:astro-
ph/0208512v1. Bibcode:2003PhRvL..90i1301L.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301.
[55] Alcaniz, E.M.; Alcaniz, J.S. (2008). A parametric
model for dark energy. Physics Letters B 666: 415
419. arXiv:0805.1713. Bibcode:2008PhLB..666..415B.
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.08.012.
[56] Jassal, H.K; Bagla, J.S (2010). Understanding
the origin of CMB constraints on Dark Energy.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So-
ciety 405: 26392650. arXiv:astro-ph/0601389.
Bibcode:2010MNRAS.405.2639J. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2966.2010.16647.x.
[57] Wetterich, C. (2004). Phenomenological parameteriza-
tion of quintessence. arXiv:astro-ph/0403289v1.
[58] Krauss, Lawrence M. and Scherrer, Robert J. (March
2008). The End of Cosmology?". Scientic American
82. Retrieved 2011-01-06.
[59] Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?
(see the last two paragraphs)
[60] Lineweaver, Charles; Tamara M. Davis (2005).
Misconceptions about the Big Bang (PDF). Scientic
American. Retrieved 2008-11-06.
[61] Loeb, Abraham (2002). The Long-Term
Future of Extragalactic Astronomy. Physi-
cal Review D 65 (4): 047301. arXiv:astro-
ph/0107568. Bibcode:2002PhRvD..65d7301L.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.047301.
[62] Krauss, Lawrence M.; Robert J. Scherrer (2007). The
Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology.
General Relativity and Gravitation 39 (10): 15451550.
arXiv:0704.0221. Bibcode:2007GReGr..39.1545K.
doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0472-9.
[63] Using Tiny Particles To Answer Giant Questions. Science
Friday, 3 Apr 2009. According to the transcript, Brian
Greene makes the comment And actually, in the far fu-
ture, everything we now see, except for our local galaxy
and a region of galaxies will have disappeared. The entire
universe will disappear before our very eyes, and its one
of my arguments for actually funding cosmology. We've
got to do it while we have a chance.
[64] How the Universe Works 3. End of the Universe. Discov-
ery Channel. 2014.
[65] Harvey, Alex (2012). How Einstein Discovered Dark
Energy. arXiv:1211.6338.
CHAPTER 5. DARK ENERGY
[66] Gamow, George (1970) My World Line: An Informal Au-
tobiography. p. 44: Much later, when I was discussing
cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that
the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest
blunder he ever made in his life. Here the cosmologi-
cal term refers to the cosmological constant in the equa-
tions of general relativity, whose value Einstein initially
picked to ensure that his model of the universe would nei-
ther expand nor contract; if he hadn't done this he might
have theoretically predicted the universal expansion that
was rst observed by Edwin Hubble.
[67] The rst appearance of the term dark energy is
in the article with another cosmologist and Turners
student at the time, Dragan Huterer, Prospects for
Probing the Dark Energy via Supernova Distance
Measurements, which was posted to the ArXiv.org
e-print archive in August 1998 and published in
Huterer, D.; Turner, M. (1999). Prospects for
probing the dark energy via supernova distance
measurements. Physical Review D 60 (8). arXiv:astro-
ph/9808133. Bibcode:1999PhRvD..60h1301H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.081301., although the manner
in which the term is treated there suggests it was already
in general use. Cosmologist Saul Perlmutter has credited
Turner with coining the term in an article they wrote
together with Martin White, where it is introduced in
quotation marks as if it were a neologism. Perlmutter, S.;
Turner, M.; White, M. (1999). Constraining Dark En-
ergy with Type Ia Supernovae and Large-Scale Structure.
Physical Review Letters 83 (4): 670. arXiv:astro-
ph/9901052. Bibcode:1999PhRvL..83..670P.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.670.
[68] Astier, Pierre (Supernova Legacy Survey); Guy; Reg-
nault; Pain; Aubourg; Balam; Basa; Carlberg; Fabbro;
Fouchez; Hook; Howell; Lafoux; Neill; Palanque-
Delabrouille; Perrett; Pritchet; Rich; Sullivan; Taillet;
Aldering; Antilogus; Arsenijevic; Balland; Baumont;
Bronder; Courtois; Ellis; Filiol; et al. (2006). The
Supernova legacy survey: Measurement of M,
and W from the rst year data set. Astronomy and
Astrophysics 447: 3148. arXiv:astro-ph/0510447.
Bibcode:2006A&A...447...31A. doi:10.1051/0004-
6361:20054185.
5.9 External links
Dark Energy on In Our Time at the BBC. (listen
now)
Dark energy Eric Linder Scholarpedia 3(2):4900.
doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.4900
Dark energy: how the paradigm shifted
Physicsworld.com
Dennis Overbye (November 2006). 9 Billion-Year-
Old 'Dark Energy' Reported. The New York Times.
5.9. EXTERNAL LINKS 55

Mysterious forces long presence BBC News on-

line (2006) More evidence for dark energy being the
cosmological constant

Astronomy Picture of the Day one of the images

of the Cosmic Microwave Background which con-
rmed the presence of dark energy and dark matter
SuperNova Legacy Survey home page The Canada-
France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey Supernova
Program aims primarily at measuring the equation
of state of Dark Energy. It is designed to precisely
measure several hundred high-redshift supernovae.

Report of the Dark Energy Task Force

HubbleSite.org Dark Energy Website Multime-

dia presentation explores the science of dark energy
and Hubbles role in its discovery.
Surveying the dark side

Dark energy and 3-manifold topology Acta Phys-

ica Polonica 38 (2007), p. 36333639

The Dark Energy Survey

The Joint Dark Energy Mission

Harvard: Dark Energy Found Stiing Growth in

Universe, primary source

April 2010 Smithsonian Magazine Article

HETDEX Dark energy experiment

Dark Energy FAQ

The Hunt for Dark Energy George FR Ellis, Peter
Cameron and David Tong discuss the presence of
dark energy in the Universe

Euclid ESA Satellite, a mission to map the geometry

of the dark universe
Chapter 6

Lambda-CDM model

Standard cosmological model redirects here. For other

uses, see Standard model (disambiguation).

The CDM (Lambda cold dark matter) or Lambda-

CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bang
cosmological model in which the universe contains a
cosmological constant, denoted by Lambda (Greek ),
associated with dark energy, and cold dark matter (abbre-
viated CDM). It is frequently referred to as the standard
model of Big Bang cosmology, because it is the simplest
model that provides a reasonably good account of the fol- Lambda-CDM, accelerated expansion of the universe. The time-
lowing properties of the cosmos: line in this schematic diagram extends from the big bang/ination
era 13.7 Gyr ago to the present cosmological time.

the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave

background 6.1 Overview
Most modern cosmological models are based on the
the large-scale structure in the distribution of galax-
cosmological principle, which states that our observa-
ies
tional location in the universe is not unusual or spe-
cial; on a large-enough scale, the universe looks the
the abundances of hydrogen (including deuterium), same in all directions (isotropy) and from every location
helium, and lithium (homogeneity).[2]
The model includes an expansion of metric space that
is well documented both as the red shift of prominent
the accelerating expansion of the universe observed
spectral absorption or emission lines in the light from
in the light from distant galaxies and supernovae
distant galaxies and as the time dilation in the light de-
cay of supernova luminosity curves. Both eects are at-
tributed to a Doppler shift in electromagnetic radiation as
The model assumes that general relativity is the correct
it travels across expanding space. Although this expan-
theory of gravity on cosmological scales. It emerged in sion increases the distance between objects that are not
the late 1990s as a concordance cosmology, after a pe- under shared gravitational inuence, it does not increase
riod of time when disparate observed properties of the the size of the objects (e.g. galaxies) in space. It also
universe appeared mutually inconsistent, and there was allows for distant galaxies to recede from each other at
no consensus on the makeup of the energy density of the speeds greater than the speed of light; local expansion is
universe. less than the speed of light, but expansion summed across
The CDM model can be extended by adding great distances can collectively exceed the speed of light.
cosmological ination, quintessence and other ele- The letter (lambda) represents the cosmological con-
ments that are current areas of speculation and research stant, which is currently associated with a vacuum energy
in cosmology. or dark energy in empty space that is used to explain the
Some alternative models challenge the assumptions of the contemporary accelerating expansion of space against the
CDM model. Examples of these are modied New- attractive eects of gravity. A cosmological constant has
tonian dynamics, modied gravity and theories of large- negative pressure, p = c2 , which contributes to the
scale variations in the matter density of the universe.[1] stress-energy tensor that, according to the general theory

56
6.2. COSMIC EXPANSION HISTORY 57

of relativity, causes accelerating expansion. The fraction 6.2 Cosmic expansion history
of the total energy density of our (at or almost at) uni-
verse that is dark energy, , is currently [2015] esti- The expansion of the universe is parametrized by a scale
mated to be 69.2 1.2% based on Planck satellite data.[3] factor a(t) which is dened relative to the present day, so
Cold dark matter is a form of matter introduced in order a0 = 1 ; the usual convention in cosmology is that sub-
to account for gravitational eects observed in very large- script 0 denotes present-day values. In general relativity,
[4]
scale structures (the at rotation curves of galaxies; the a is related to the observed redshift: by
gravitational lensing of light by galaxy clusters; and en-
hanced clustering of galaxies) that cannot be accounted
for by the quantity of observed matter. Dark matter is de- a(tem ) (1 + z(tem ))1
scribed as being cold (i.e. its velocity is far less than the
speed of light at the epoch of radiation-matter equality); where tem is the age of the universe at the time the pho-
non-baryonic (i.e. consisting of matter other than pro- tons were emitted. The time-dependent Hubble parame-
tons and neutrons); dissipationless (i.e. cannot cool by ter, H(a) is dened as:
radiating photons); and collisionless (i.e. the dark mat-
ter particles interact with each other and other particles
only through gravity and possibly the weak force). The a
H(a)
dark matter component is currently [2013] estimated to a
constitute about 26.8% of the mass-energy density of the
universe. where a is the time-derivative of the scale factor. The
rst of two Friedmann equations gives the expansion rate
The remaining 4.9% [2013] comprises all ordinary mat- in terms of the matter+radiation density , the curvature,
ter observed as atoms, chemical elements, gas and k , and the cosmological constant, :[4]
plasma, the stu of which visible planets, stars and galax-
ies are made.
( )2
Also, the energy density includes a very small fraction a 8G kc2 c2
H2 = = 2 +
(~ 0.01%) in cosmic microwave background radiation, a 3 a 3
and not more than 0.5% in relic neutrinos. Although very
small today, these were much more important in the dis- where G is the usual gravitational constant. From the
tant past, dominating the matter at redshift > 3200. Friedmann equations it follows that there is a critical
mass-energy density crit giving zero curvature; histor-
The model includes a single originating event, the Big
ically, if dark energy were zero, this would also be the
Bang or initial singularity, which was not an explosion
dividing line between eventual recollapse of the universe
but the abrupt appearance of expanding space-time con-
to a Big Crunch, or unlimited expansion. In the Lambda-
taining radiation at temperatures of around 1015 K. This
CDM model the universe is predicted to expand forever
was immediately (within 1029 seconds) followed by an
regardless of whether the total density is slightly above or
exponential expansion of space by a scale multiplier of
below the critical density, though this may not apply if
1027 or more, known as cosmic ination. The early uni-
dark energy is actually time-dependent.
verse remained hot (above 10,000 K) for several hun-
dred thousand years, a state that is detectable as a resid- The critical density is given by
ual cosmic microwave background, or CMB, a very low
energy radiation emanating from all parts of the sky.
The Big Bang scenario, with cosmic ination and stan- 3H 2
crit = = 1.88 1026 h2 m kg 3
dard particle physics, is the only current cosmological 8G
model consistent with the observed continuing expansion
where the reduced Hubble constant, h, is dened as h
of space, the observed distribution of lighter elements
H0 /(100km/s/Mpc ) ; it is standard to dene the present-
in the universe (hydrogen, helium, and lithium), and the
day density parameter x for various species as the di-
spatial texture of minute irregularities (anisotropies) in
mensionless ratio
the CMB radiation. Cosmic ination also addresses the
"horizon problem" in the CMB; indeed, it seems likely
that the universe is larger than the observable particle
x 8Gx (t = t0 )
horizon. x =
crit 3H02
The model uses the FLRW metric, the Friedmann equa-
tions and the cosmological equations of state to describe where the subscript x is one of c for cold dark matter,
the observable universe from right after the inationary b for baryons, rad for radiation (photons plus relativistic
epoch to present and future. neutrinos), and DE or for dark energy.
Since the densities of various species scale as dierent
powers of a , e.g. a3 for matter etc., the Friedmann
58 CHAPTER 6. LAMBDA-CDM MODEL

equation can be conveniently rewritten in terms of the it was realized that this could be resolved if cold dark
various density parameters as matter dominated over the baryons, and the theory of
cosmic ination motivated models with critical density.
[ During the 1980s, most research focused on cold dark
a
H(a) = H0 (c + b )a + rad a + k a matter
3 4 2 + DEwith critical] density in matter, around 95% CDM
a3(1+w)
a and 5% baryons: these showed success at forming galax-
where w is the equation of state of dark energy, and ies and clusters of galaxies, but problems remained; no-
assuming negligible neutrino mass (signicant neutrino tably, the model required a Hubble constant lower than
mass requires a more complex equation). The various preferred by observations, and observations around 1988-
parameters add up to 1 by construction. In the gen- 1990 showed more large-scale galaxy clustering than pre-
eral case this is integrated by computer to give the ex- dicted. These diculties sharpened with the discov-
pansion history a(t) and also observable distance-redshift ery of CMB anisotropy by COBE in 1992, and sev-
relations for any chosen values of the cosmological pa- eral modied CDM models, including CDM and mixed
rameters, which can then be compared with observations cold+hot dark matter, came under active consideration
such as supernovae and baryon acoustic oscillations. through the mid-1990s. The CDM model then be-
came the leading model following the observations of
In the minimal 6-parameter LambdaCDM model, it is as- accelerating expansion in 1998, and was quickly sup-
sumed that curvature k is zero and w = 1 , so this ported by other observations: in 2000, the BOOMERanG
simplies to microwave background experiment measured the total
(matter+energy) density to be close to 100% of critical,
whereas in 2001 the 2dFGRS galaxy redshift survey mea-
H(a) = H0 [m a3 + rad a4 + ] sured the matter density to be near 25%; the large dier-
ence between these values supports a positive or dark
Observations show that the radiation density is very small energy. Much more precise measurements of the mi-
today, rad 104 ; if this term is neglected the above crowave background from WMAP in 2003 2010 and
has an analytic solution[5] Planck in 2013 - 2015 have continued to support the
model and pin down the parameters, now mostly con-
strained below 1 percent uncertainty.
a(t) = (m / )1/3 sinh2/3 (t/t )
There is currently active research into many aspects of the

where t 2/(3H0 ) ; this is fairly accurate for a > CDM model, both to rene the parameters and possi-
0.01 or t > 10 Myr. Solving for a(t) = 1 gives the present bly detect deviations. In addition, CDM has no explicit
age of the universe t0 in terms of the other parameters. physical theory for the origin or physical nature of dark
matter or dark energy; the nearly scale-invariant spectrum
It follows that the transition from decelerating to accel- of the CMB perturbations, and their image across the ce-
erating expansion (the second derivative a crossing zero) lestial sphere, are believed to result from very small ther-
occurred when mal and acoustic irregularities at the point of recombi-
nation. A large majority of astronomers and astrophysi-
cists support the CDM model or close relatives of it,
a = (m /2 )1/3 but Milgrom, McGaugh, and Kroupa are leading critics,
attacking the dark matter portions of the theory from the
which evaluates to a ~ 0.6 or z ~ 0.66 for the Planck best- perspective of galaxy formation models and supporting
t parameters. the alternative MOND theory, which requires a modi-
cation of the Einstein eld equations and the Friedmann
equations as seen in proposals such as MOG theory or
6.3 Historical development TeVeS theory. Other proposals by theoretical astrophysi-
cists of cosmological alternatives to Einsteins general rel-
The discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background ativity that attempt to account for dark energy or dark
(CMB) in 1965 conrmed a key prediction of the Big matter include f(R) gravity, scalartensor theories such
Bang cosmology. From that point on, it was generally as galileon theories, brane cosmologies, the DGP model,
accepted that the universe started in a hot, dense state and massive gravity and its extensions such as bimetric
and has been expanding over time. The rate of expan- gravity.
sion depends on the types of matter and energy present
in the universe, and in particular, whether the total den-
sity is above or below the so-called critical density. Dur-
ing the 1970s, most attention focused on pure-baryonic 6.4 Successes
models, but there were serious challenges explaining the
formation of galaxies, given the small anisotropies in the In addition to explaining pre-2000 observations, the
CMB (upper limits at that time). In the early 1980s, model has made a number of successful predictions: no-
6.7. EXTENDED MODELS 59

tably the existence of the baryon acoustic oscillation fea- Hubble constant and the dark energy density, can be read-
ture, discovered in 2005 in the predicted location; and ily calculated.
the statistics of weak gravitational lensing, rst observed Commonly, the set of observations tted includes the
in 2000 by several teams. The polarization of the CMB, cosmic microwave background anisotropy, the bright-
discovered in 2002 by DASI [6] is now a dramatic suc- ness/redshift relation for supernovae, and large-scale
cess: in the 2015 Planck data release,[7] there are seven galaxy clustering including the baryon acoustic oscillation
observed peaks in the temperature (TT) power spectrum, feature. Other observations, such as the Hubble constant,
six peaks in the temperature-polarization (TE) cross spec- the abundance of galaxy clusters, weak gravitational lens-
trum, and ve peaks in the polarization (EE) spectrum,
ing and globular cluster ages, are generally consistent with
and all agree with the predictions of LambdaCDM. these, providing a check of the model, but are less accu-
rately measured at present.
Parameter values listed below are from the Planck Col-
6.5 Challenges laboration Cosmological parameters 68% condence
limits for the base CDM model from Planck CMB
See also: Hierarchy problem, Physics beyond the power spectra, in combination with lensing reconstruc-
Standard Model and Elementary particle Beyond the tion and external data (BAO+JLA+H0 ).[9] See also
Standard Model Planck (spacecraft).

Extensive searches for dark matter particles have so far

shown no well-agreed detection; the dark energy may be
almost impossible to detect in a laboratory, and its value
is unnaturally small compared to naive theoretical predic-
tions.
Comparison of the model with observations is very suc-
cessful on large scales (larger than galaxies, up to the ob-
servable horizon), but may have some problems on sub-
galaxy scales, possibly predicting too many dwarf galax-
ies and too much dark matter in the innermost regions of
galaxies. These small scales are harder to resolve in com-
puter simulations, so it is not yet clear whether the prob-
lem is the simulations, non-standard properties of dark
matter, or a more radical error in the model.
[1] The physical baryon density h2 is the baryon den-
sity multiplied by the square of the reduced Hubble
constant h,[10] where h is related to the Hubble constant
H0 by the equation H0 =100 h (km/s)/Mpc.[11] Likewise
for the dierence between physical dark matter density
and dark matter density. The baryon density gives the
fraction of the critical density made up of baryons. The
critical density is the total density of matter/energy needed
for the universe to be spatially at, with measurements in-
dicating that the actual total density is very close if
not equal to this value, see below.
[2] This is the minimal value allowed by solar and terrestrial
neutrino oscillation experiments

[3] This assumes 3 standard neutrinos, but the parameter is

slightly larger than 3 due to weak neutrino heating at the
6.6 Parameters era of electron/positron annihilation.

The simple CDM model is based on six parameters:

physical baryon density; physical dark matter density; the
age of the universe; scalar spectral index; curvature uc-
tuation amplitude; and reionization optical depth.[8] In ac-
cordance with Occams razor, six is the smallest number
of parameters needed to give an acceptable t to current
observations; other possible parameters are xed at nat-
ural values, e.g. total density = 1.00, dark energy equa-
tion of state = 1. (See below for extended models that
allow these to vary.)
The values of these six parameters are mostly not pre-
dicted by current theory (though, ideally, they may be
related by a future "Theory of Everything"), except that
most versions of cosmic ination predict the scalar spec-
tral index should be slightly smaller than 1, consistent with
the estimated value 0.96. The parameter values, and un-
certainties, are estimated using large computer searches
to locate the region of parameter space providing an
acceptable match to cosmological observations. From
these six parameters, the other model values, such as the
6.7 Extended models
Extended models allow one or more of the xed param-
eters above to vary, in addition to the basic six; so these
models join smoothly to the basic six-parameter model
in the limit that the additional parameter(s) approach the
default values. For example, possible extensions of the
simplest CDM model allow for spatial curvature (
may be dierent from 1); or quintessence rather than
a cosmological constant where the equation of state of
dark energy is allowed to dier from 1. Cosmic in-
ation predicts tensor uctuations (gravitational waves).
Their amplitude is parameterized by the tensor-to-scalar
ratio (denoted r), which is determined by the unknown
energy scale of ination. Other modications allow hot
dark matter in the form of neutrinos more massive than
the minimal value, or a running spectral index; the lat-
ter is generally not favoured by simple cosmic ination
models.
60
Allowing additional variable parameter(s) will generally
increase the uncertainties in the standard six parame-
ters quoted above, and may also shift the central values
slightly. The Table below shows results for each of the
possible 6+1 scenarios with one additional variable pa-
rameter; this indicates that, as of 2015, there is no con-
vincing evidence that any additional parameter is dier-
ent from its default value.
Some researchers have suggested that there is a running
spectral index, but no statistically signicant study has
revealed one. Theoretical expectations suggest that the
tensor-to-scalar ratio r should be between 0 and 0.3, and
the latest results are now within those limits.
6.8 See also
Bolshoi Cosmological Simulation
List of cosmological computation software
Dark matter
Galaxy formation and evolution
Illustris project
WIMPs
The CDM model is also known as the stan-
dard model of cosmology, but is not related to the
Standard Model of particle physics.
6.9 References
[1] P. Kroupa, B. Famaey, K.S. de Boer, J. Dabringhausen,
M. Pawlowski, C.M. Boily, H. Jerjen, D. Forbes, G.
Hensler, M. Metz, Local-Group tests of dark-matter con-
cordance cosmology. Towards a new paradigm for struc-
ture formation A&A 523, 32 (2010).
[2] Andrew Liddle. An Introduction to Modern Cosmology
(2nd ed.). London: Wiley, 2003.
[3] Camille M. Carlisle, Planck Upholds Standard Cosmology,
Sky & Telescope, February 10, 2015
[4] Dodelson, Scott (2008). Modern cosmology (4. [print.].
ed.). San Diego, CA [etc.]: Academic Press. ISBN 978-
0122191411.
[5] Frieman, Joshua A.; Turner, Michael S.; Huterer,
Dragan (September 2008). Dark Energy and
the Accelerating Universe. Annual Review of
Astronomy and Astrophysics 46 (1): 385432.
arXiv:0803.0982. Bibcode:2008ARA&A..46..385F.
doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145243.
CHAPTER 6. LAMBDA-CDM MODEL
[6] Kovac, J. M.; Leitch, E. M.; Pryke, C.; Carl-
strom, J. E.; Halverson, N. W.; Holzapfel, W.
L. (19 December 2002). Detection of polariza-
tion in the cosmic microwave background using
DASI. Nature 420 (6917): 772787. arXiv:astro-
ph/0209478. Bibcode:2002Natur.420..772K.
doi:10.1038/nature01269. PMID 12490941.
[7] Collaboration, Planck; Ade, P. A. R.; Aghanim, N.; Ar-
naud, M.; Ashdown, M.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.;
Banday, A. J.; Barreiro, R. B.; Bartlett, J. G.; Bar-
tolo, N.; Battaner, E.; Battye, R.; Benabed, K.; Benoit,
A.; Benoit-Levy, A.; Bernard, J. -P.; Bersanelli, M.;
Bielewicz, P.; Bonaldi, A.; Bonavera, L.; Bond, J. R.;
Borrill, J.; Bouchet, F. R.; Boulanger, F.; Bucher, M.;
Burigana, C.; Butler, R. C.; Calabrese, E.; et al. (2015).
Planck 2015 Results. XIII. Cosmological Parameters.
arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO].
[8] Spergel, D. N. (2015). The dark side of the cos-
mology: dark matter and dark energy. Science 347
(6226): 11001102. Bibcode:2015Sci...347.1100S.
doi:10.1126/science.aaa0980. PMID 25745164.
[9] Table 4 on p. 31 of Planck Collaboration. Planck 2015
results. XIII. Cosmological parameters (PDF). Retrieved
2015-02-18.
[10] Appendix A of the LSST Science Book Version 2.0
[11] p. 7 of Findings of the Joint Dark Energy Mission Figure
of Merit Science Working Group
[12] Table 8 on p. 39 of Jarosik, N. et al. (WMAP Collabo-
ration). Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) Observations: Sky Maps, Systematic
Errors, and Basic Results (PDF). nasa.gov. Retrieved
2010-12-04. (from NASAs WMAP Documents page)
6.10 Further reading
Rebolo, R.; et al. (2004). Cosmological param-
eter estimation using Very Small Array data out
to = 1500. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro-
nomical Society 353 (3): 747759. arXiv:astro-
ph/0402466. Bibcode:2004MNRAS.353..747R.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08102.x.
Ostriker, J. P.; Steinhardt, P. J. (1995). Cosmic
Concordance. arXiv:astro-ph/9505066.
Ostriker, Jeremiah P.; Mitton, Simon (2013). Heart
of Darkness: Unraveling the mysteries of the invisible
universe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
ISBN 978-0-691-13430-7.
6.11 External links
Bolshoi Simulation
Cosmology tutorial/NedWright
6.11. EXTERNAL LINKS 61

Millennium Simulation

WMAP estimated cosmological parameters/Latest

Summary
Chapter 7

Cosmic Background Explorer

The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), also re-

ferred to as Explorer 66, was a satellite dedicated to
cosmology. Its goals were to investigate the cosmic mi-
crowave background radiation (CMB) of the universe and
provide measurements that would help shape our under-
standing of the cosmos.
This work provided evidence that supported the Big
Bang theory of the universe: that the CMB was a near-
perfect black-body spectrum and that it had very faint
anisotropies. Two of COBEs principal investigators,
George Smoot and John Mather, received the Nobel Prize
in Physics in 2006 for their work on the project. Accord-
ing to the Nobel Prize committee, the COBE-project can
also be regarded as the starting point for cosmology as a
precision science.[5]

7.1 History
Launch of the COBE spacecraft November 18, 1989.
In 1974, NASA issued an Announcement of Opportu-
nity for astronomical missions that would use a small- or
medium-sized Explorer spacecraft. Out of the 121 pro- COBEs engineers from going to other space agencies to
posals received, three dealt with studying the cosmolog- launch COBE, but eventually, a redesigned COBE was
ical background radiation. Though these proposals lost placed into sun-synchronous orbit on November 18, 1989
out to the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS), their aboard a Delta rocket. A team of American scientists an-
strength made NASA further explore the idea. In 1976, nounced, on April 23, 1992 that they had found the pri-
NASA formed a committee of members from each of mordial seeds (CMBE anisotropy) in data from COBE.
1974s three proposal teams to put together their ideas for The announcement was reported worldwide as a funda-
such a satellite. A year later, this committee suggested a mental scientic discovery and ran on the front page of
polar-orbiting satellite called COBE to be launched by ei- the New York Times.
ther a Delta rocket or the Space Shuttle. It would contain
The Nobel Prize in Physics for 2006 was jointly awarded
the following instruments:[6]
to John C. Mather, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,
NASA accepted the proposal provided that the costs be and George F. Smoot, University of California, Berkeley,
kept under $30 million, excluding launcher and data anal- for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy
ysis. Due to cost overruns in the Explorer program due of the cosmic mave background radiation.
to IRAS, work on constructing the satellite at Goddard
Space Flight Center (GSFC) did not begin until 1981. To
save costs, the infrared detectors and liquid helium dewar
on COBE would be similar to those used on IRAS. 7.2 Spacecraft
COBE was originally planned to be launched on a Space
Shuttle mission STS-82-B in 1988 from Vandenberg Air COBE was an Explorer class satellite, with technology
Force Base, but the Challenger explosion delayed this borrowed heavily from IRAS, but with some unique char-
plan when the Shuttles were grounded. NASA kept acteristics.

62
7.3. SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS 63

The need to control and measure all the sources of sys-
tematic errors required a rigorous and integrated design.
COBE would have to operate for a minimum of 6 months,
and constrain the amount of radio interference from the
ground, COBE and other satellites as well as radiative
interference from the Earth, Sun and Moon.[7] The in-
struments required temperature stability and to maintain
gain, and a high level of cleanliness to reduce entry of
stray light and thermal emission from particulates.
The need to control systematic error in the measurement
of the CMB anisotropy and measuring the zodiacal cloud
at dierent elongation angles for subsequent modeling re-
quired that the satellite rotate at a 0.8 rpm spin rate.[7] The
spin axis is also tilted back from the orbital velocity vec-
tor as a precaution against possible deposits of residual
atmospheric gas on the optics as well against the infrared
glow that would result from fast neutral particles hitting
its surfaces at extremely high speed.
The orbit combined with the spin axis made it possible to
keep the Earth and the Sun continually below the plane
of the shield, allowing a full sky scan every six months.
The last two important parts pertaining to the COBE mis-
sion were the dewar and Sun-Earth shield. The dewar was
a 650-liter superuid helium cryostat designed to keep the
FIRAS and DIRBE instruments cooled during the dura-
tion of the mission. It was based on the same design as
one used on IRAS and was able to vent helium along the
spin axis near the communication arrays. The conical
Sun-Earth shield protected the instruments from direct
solar and Earth based radiation as well as radio interfer-
ence from Earth and the COBEs transmitting antenna.
Its multilayer insulating blankets provided thermal isola-
tion for the dewar.[7]
7.3 Scientic ndings

The famous map of the CMB anisotropy formed from data taken
by the COBE spacecraft.

The science mission was conducted by the three instru-

ments detailed previously: DIRBE, FIRAS and the DMR.
The instruments overlapped in wavelength coverage, pro-
In order to meet the twin demands of slow rotation and viding consistency check on measurements in the regions
three-axis attitude control, a sophisticated pair of yaw an- of spectral overlap and assistance in discriminating sig-
gular momentum wheels were employed with their axis nals from our galaxy, Solar System and CMB.[7]
oriented along the spin axis .[7] These wheels were used
COBEs instruments would fulll each of their objectives
to carry an angular momentum opposite that of the entire
as well as making observations that would have implica-
spacecraft in order to create a zero net angular momen-
tions outside COBEs initial scope.
tum system.
The orbit would prove to be determined based on the
specics of the spacecrafts mission. The overriding con- 7.3.1 Black-body curve of CMB
siderations were the need for full sky coverage, the need
to eliminate stray radiation from the instruments and the During the long gestation period of COBE, there were
need to maintain thermal stability of the dewar and the two signicant astronomical developments. First, in
instruments.[7] A circular Sun-synchronous orbit satised 1981, two teams of astronomers, one led by David
all these requirements. A 900 km altitude orbit with a 99 Wilkinson of Princeton and the other by Francesco Mel-
inclination was chosen as it t within the capabilities of ei- chiorri of the University of Florence, simultaneously
ther a Shuttle (with an auxiliary propulsion on COBE) or announced that they detected a quadrupole distribution
a Delta rocket. This altitude was a good compromise be- of CMB using balloon-borne instruments. This nding
tween Earths radiation and the charged particle in Earths would have been the detection of the black-body distri-
radiation belts at higher altitudes. An ascending node at 6 bution of CMB that FIRAS on COBE was to measure. In
p.m. was chosen to allow COBE to follow the boundary particular, the Florence group claimed a detection of in-
between sunlight and darkness on Earth throughout the termediate angular scale anisotropies at the level 100 mi-
year. crokelvins [8] in agreement with later measurements made
64 CHAPTER 7. COSMIC BACKGROUND EXPLORER

Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum from COBE 7.3.2 Intrinsic anisotropy of CMB
400
COBE Data
Black Body Spectrum
350

300
Intensity [MJy/sr]

250

200

150

100

50

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Frequency [1/cm]

Data from COBE showed a perfect t between the black body

curve predicted by big bang theory and that observed in the mi-
crowave background.

by the BOOMERanG experiment.

Data obtained at each of the three DMR frequencies31.5, 53,

and 90 GHzfollowing dipole subtraction.

The DMR was able to spend four years mapping the de-
tectable anisotropy of cosmic background radiation as it
was the only instrument not dependent on the dewars
Comparison of CMB results from COBE, WMAP and Planck -
supply of helium to keep it cooled. This operation was
March 21, 2013. able to create full sky maps of the CMB by subtracting
out galactic emissions and dipole at various frequencies.
However, a number of other experiments attempted to The cosmic microwave background uctuations are ex-
duplicate their results and were unable to do so.[6] tremely faint, only one part in 100,000 compared to the
2.73 kelvin average temperature of the radiation eld.
Second, in 1987 a Japanese-American team led by The cosmic microwave background radiation is a rem-
Andrew Lange and Paul Richards of UC Berkeley and nant of the Big Bang and the uctuations are the imprint
Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University made an an- of density contrast in the early universe. The density rip-
nouncement that CMB was not that of a true black ples are believed to have produced structure formation as
body.[9] In a sounding rocket experiment, they detected observed in the universe today: clusters of galaxies and
an excess brightness at 0.5 and 0.7 mm wavelengths. vast regions devoid of galaxies (NASA).
With these developments serving as a backdrop to
COBEs mission, scientists eagerly awaited results from
FIRAS. The results of FIRAS were startling in that they 7.3.3 Detecting early galaxies
showed a perfect t of the CMB and the theoretical curve
for a black body at a temperature of 2.7 K, thus proving DIRBE also detected 10 new far-IR emitting galaxies in
the Berkeley-Nagoya results erroneous. the region not surveyed by IRAS as well as nine other
candidates in the weak far-IR that may be spiral galaxies.
FIRAS measurements were made by measuring the spec-
tral dierence between a 7 patch of the sky against an Galaxies that were detected at the 140 and 240 m were
internal black body. The interferometer in FIRAS cov- also able to provide information on very cold dust (VCD).
ered between 2 and 95 cm1 in two bands separated at At these wavelengths, the mass and temperature of VCD
20 cm1 . There are two scan lengths (short and long) and can be derived.
two scan speeds (fast and slow) for a total of four dier- When these data were joined with 60 and 100 m data
ent scan modes. The data were collected over a ten-month taken from IRAS, it was found that the far-infrared lumi-
period.[10] nosity arises from cold (1722 K) dust associated with
7.4. SEE ALSO 65

diuse HI cirrus clouds, 15-30% from cold (19 K) dust
associated with molecular gas, and less than 10% from
warm (29 K) dust in the extended low-density HII re-
gions.[11]
unanswered by COBEs results. A direct measurement of
the extragalactic background light (EBL) can also provide
important constraints on the integrated cosmological his-
tory of star formation, metal and dust production, and the
conversion of starlight into infrared emissions by dust.[14]

7.3.4 DIRBE By looking at the results from DIRBE and FIRAS in the
140 to 5000 m we can detect that the integrated EBL
Main article: Diuse Infrared Background Experiment intensity is 16 nW/(m2 sr). This is consistent with the
On top of the ndings DIRBE had on galaxies, it also energy released during nucleosynthesis and constitutes
about 2050% of the total energy released in the forma-
tion of helium and metals throughout the history of the
universe. Attributed only to nuclear sources, this intensity
implies that more than 515% of the baryonic mass den-
sity implied by big bang nucleosynthesis analysis has been
processed in stars to helium and heavier elements.[14]
There were also signicant implications into star forma-
tion. COBE observations provide important constraints
on the cosmic star formation rate, and help us calcu-
late the EBL spectrum for various star formation histo-
ries. Observation made by COBE require that star for-
mation rate at redshifts of z 1.5 to be larger than that
inferred from UV-optical observations by a factor of 2.
This excess stellar energy must be mainly generated by
massive stars in yet-undetected dust enshrouded galax-
ies or extremely dusty star forming regions in observed
galaxies.[14] The exact star formation history cannot un-
ambiguously be resolved by COBE and further observa-
tions must be made in the future.
Model of the Galactic disk as seen edge-on from our position On June 30, 2001, NASA launched a follow-up mis-
sion to COBE led by DMR Deputy Principal Investi-
made two other signicant contributions to science.[11] gator Charles L. Bennett. The Wilkinson Microwave
The DIRBE instrument was able to conduct studies on Anisotropy Probe has claried and expanded upon
interplanetary dust (IPD) and determine if its origin was COBEs accomplishments. Following WMAP, the Eu-
from asteroid or cometary particles. The DIRBE data ropean Space Agencys probe, Planck has continued to
collected at 12, 25, 50 and 100 m were able to conclude increase the resolution at which the background has been
that grains of asteroidal origin populate the IPD bands mapped.[15][16]
and the smooth IPD cloud.[12]
The second contribution DIRBE made was a model of the
Galactic disk as seen edge-on from our position. Accord- 7.4 See also
ing to the model, if our Sun is 8.6 kpc from the Galactic
center, then the Sun is 15.6 pc above the midplane of the 9997 COBE, a minor planet named after the exper-
disk, which has a radial and vertical scale lengths of 2.64 iment.
and 0.333 kpc, respectively, and is warped in a way con-
sistent with the HI layer. There is also no indication of a
thick disk.[13] 7.5 Notes
To create this model, the IPD had to be subtracted out of
the DIRBE data. It was found that this cloud, which as [1] COBE Mission Design, Spacecraft and Orbit. Goddard
seen from Earth is Zodiacal light, was not centered on the Space Flight Center. 18 April 2008. Retrieved 21 July
Sun, as previously thought, but on a place in space a few 2015.
million kilometers away. This is due to the gravitation [2] Crouse, Megan (16 July 2015). Spacecraft of the Week:
inuence of Saturn and Jupiter.[6] Cosmic Background Explorer. Product Design & Devel-
opment. Retrieved 21 July 2015.

7.3.5 Cosmological implications [3] Missions - COBE - NASA Science. NASA. 28 May
2015. Retrieved 21 July 2015.
In addition to the science results detailed in the last [4] HST Satellite details 1989-089A NORAD 20322.
section, there are numerous cosmological questions left N2YO. 21 July 2015. Retrieved 21 July 2015.
66
[5] The Nobel Prize in Physics 2006. The Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences. 2006-10-03. Retrieved 2011-08-
23.
[6] Leverington, David (2000). New Cosmic Horizons: Space
Astronomy from the V2 to the Hubble Space Telescope.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-
65833-0.
[7] Boggess, N.W., J.C. Mather, R. Weiss, C.L. Bennett, E.S.
Cheng, E. Dwek, S. Gulkis, M.G. Hauser, M.A. Janssen,
T. Kelsall, S.S. Meyer, S.H. Moseley, T.L. Murdock, R.A.
Shafer, R.F. Silverberg, G.F. Smoot, D.T. Wilkinson, and
E.L. Wright (1992). The COBE Mission: Its Design and
Performance Two Years after the launch. Astrophysi-
cal Journal 397 (2): 420. Bibcode:1992ApJ...397..420B.
doi:10.1086/171797.
[8] Melchiorri, Francesco; Melchiorri, Bianca O.; Pietranera,
Luca; Melchiorri, B. O. (November 1981). Fluctuations
in the microwave background at intermediate angular
scales (PDF). The Astrophysical Journal 250: L1.
Bibcode:1981ApJ...250L...1M. doi:10.1086/183662.
Retrieved 2011-08-23.
[9] Hayakawa, S., Matsumoto, T., Matsuo, H., Murakami,
H., Sato, S., Lange A. E. & Richards, P. (1987).
Cosmological implication of a new measurement of
the submillimeter background radiation. Astronomi-
cal Society of Japan, Publications 39 (6): 941948.
Bibcode:1987PASJ...39..941H. ISSN 0004-6264. Re-
trieved 17 May 2012.
[10] Fixsen, D. J.; Cheng, E. S.; Cottingham, D. A.; Eplee,
R. E., Jr.; Isaacman, R. B.; Mather, J. C.; Meyer,
S. S.; Noerdlinger, P. D.; Shafer, R. A.; Weiss, R.;
Wright, E. L.; Bennett, C. L.; Boggess, N. W.; Kel-
sall, T.; Moseley, S. H.; Silverberg, R. F.; Smoot, G.
F.; Wilkinson, D. T. (1994). Cosmic microwave back-
ground dipole spectrum measured by the COBE FIRAS
instrument. Astrophysical Journal 420 (2): 445449.
Bibcode:1994ApJ...420..445F. doi:10.1086/173575.
[11] T. J. Sodroski; et al. (1994). Large-Scale Character-
istics of Interstellar Dust from COBE DIRBE Observa-
tions. The Astrophysical Journal 428 (2): 638646.
Bibcode:1994ApJ...428..638S. doi:10.1086/174274.
[12] Spiesman, W.J., M.G. Hauser, T. Kelsall, C.M. Lisse,
S.H. Moseley, Jr., W.T. Reach, R.F. Silverberg, S.W.
Stemwedel, and J.L. Weiland (1995). Near and
far infrared observations of interplanetary dust bands
from the COBE Diuse Infrared Background Ex-
periment. Astrophysical Journal 442 (2): 662.
Bibcode:1995ApJ...442..662S. doi:10.1086/175470.
[13] Freudenreich, H.T. (1996). The shape and color of
the galactic disk. Astrophysical Journal 468: 663678.
Bibcode:1996ApJ...468..663F. doi:10.1086/177724. See
also Freudenreich, H.T. (1997). The shape and
color of the galactic disk: Erratum. Astrophysical
Journal 485 (2): 920. Bibcode:1997ApJ...485..920F.
doi:10.1086/304478.
[14] Dwek, E., R. G. Arendt, M. G. Hauser, D. Fixsen, T. Kel-
sall, D. Leisawitz, Y. C. Pei, E. L. Wright, J. C. Mather,
CHAPTER 7. COSMIC BACKGROUND EXPLORER
S. H. Moseley, N. Odegard, R. Shafer, R. F. Silverberg,
and J. L. Weiland (1998). The COBE Diuse Infrared
Background Experiment search for the cosmic infrared
background: IV. Cosmological Implications. Astrophys-
ical Journal 508 (1): 106122. arXiv:astro-ph/9806129.
Bibcode:1998ApJ...508..106D. doi:10.1086/306382.
[15] Thomas, Christopher. Plancks Probe Map - A picture of
the Universe. Spider Magazine. Retrieved 28 May 2013.
[16] Plancks HFI Completes Its Survey of the Early Uni-
verse. ESA. Retrieved 28 May 2013.
7.6 References
Arny, Thomas T. (2002). Explorations: An Intro-
duction to Astronomy (3rd ed.). Dubuque, Iowa:
McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-241593-3.
Liddle, A. R.; Lyth, D. H. (1993). The Cold
Dark Matter Density Perturbation. Physics
ReportReview Section of Physics Letters
231 (12): 1105. arXiv:astro-ph/9303019.
Bibcode:1993PhR...231....1L. doi:10.1016/0370-
1573(93)90114-S.
Odenwald, S., J. Newmark, and G. Smoot (1998).
A study of external galaxies detected by the COBE
Diuse Infrared Background Experiment. Astro-
physical Journal 500 (2): 554568. arXiv:astro-
ph/9610238. Bibcode:1998ApJ...500..554O.
doi:10.1086/305737.
7.7 Further reading
Mather, John C.; Boslough, John (1996). The Very
First Light: The True Inside Story of the Scientic
Journey Back to the Dawn of the Universe. New
York: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-01575-1.
Smoot, George; Davidson, Keay (1993). Wrinkles in
Time. New York: W. Morrow. ISBN 0-688-12330-
9.
WMAP
7.8 External links
NASAs website on COBE
NASA informational video prior to COBE launch
COBE Mission Prole by NASAs Solar System Ex-
ploration
APOD picture of the COBE dipole, showing the
600 km/s motion of the Earth relative to the cosmic
background radiation
7.8. EXTERNAL LINKS 67

Cosmic Background Explorer article from

Scholarpedia
Chapter 8

Dark matter

Not to be confused with antimatter, dark energy, dark Astrophysicists hypothesized the existence of dark mat-
uid, or dark ow. For other uses, see Dark Matter (dis- ter to account for discrepancies between the mass of large
ambiguation) astronomical objects determined from their gravitational
Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot eects, and their mass as calculated from the observable
matter (stars, gas, and dust) that they can be seen to con-
tain. Their gravitational eects suggest that their masses
are much greater than the observable matter survey sug-
gests.
Dark matter was postulated by Jan Oort in 1932, al-
beit based upon insucient evidence, to account for the
orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way. In 1933,
Fritz Zwicky was the rst to use the virial theorem to in-
fer the existence of unseen matter, which he referred to
as dunkle Materie 'dark matter'.[7] More robust evidence
from galaxy rotation curves was discovered by Horace
W. Babcock in 1939, but was not attributed to dark mat-
ter. The rst hypothesis to postulate dark matter based
upon robust evidence was formulated by Vera Rubin and
Kent Ford in the 1960s1970s, using galaxy rotation
curves.[8][9] Subsequently, many other observations have
indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe, in-
cluding gravitational lensing of background objects by
galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, the temper-
ature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of
Dark matter is invisible. Based on the eect of gravitational lens-
galaxies and, more recently, the pattern of anisotropies
ing, a ring of dark matter has been inferred in this image of a
galaxy cluster (CL0024+17) and has been represented in blue.[1] in the cosmic microwave background. According to con-
sensus among cosmologists, dark matter is composed pri-
marily of a not yet characterized type of subatomic par-
be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the mat- ticle.[10][11] The search for this particle, by a variety of
ter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark means, is one of the major eorts in particle physics
matter are inferred from its gravitational eects on visi- today.[12]
ble matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure
of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected di- Although the existence of dark matter is generally ac-
rectly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern cepted by the mainstream scientic community, some al-
astrophysics. ternative theories of gravity have been proposed, such as
MOND and TeVeS, which try to account for the anoma-
Dark matter neither emits nor absorbs light or any other lous observations without requiring additional matter.
electromagnetic radiation at any signicant level. Ac- However, these theories cannot account for the proper-
cording to the Planck mission team, and based on the ties of galaxy clusters.[13]
standard model of cosmology, the total massenergy of
the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary (baryonic)
matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3]
Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5%[note 1] 8.1 Overview
of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus
dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total massenergy Dark matters existence is inferred from gravitational ef-
content of the universe.[4][5][6] fects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of back-

68
8.2. BARYONIC AND NONBARYONIC DARK MATTER
Estimated distribution of matter and energy in the universe, today
(top) and when the CMB was released (bottom)
ground radiation, and was originally hypothesized to ac-
count 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 lumi-
nous matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and
dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium.[14]
The most widely accepted explanation for these phe-
nomena is that dark matter exists and that it is most
probably[10] composed of weakly interacting massive par-
ticles (WIMPs) that interact only through gravity and
the weak force. Alternative explanations have been pro-
posed, and there is not yet sucient experimental ev-
idence to determine whether any of them are correct.
Many experiments to detect proposed dark matter par-
ticles through non-gravitational means are under way.[12]
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,[15] and that
could only interact with our visible universe through
gravity.[16][17]
According to observations of structures larger than star
systems, as well as Big Bang cosmology interpreted under
the Friedmann equations and the FriedmannLematre
RobertsonWalker metric, dark matter accounts for
26.8% of the mass-energy content of the observable uni-
verse. In comparison, ordinary (baryonic) matter ac-
counts for only 4.9% of the mass-energy content of
69
the observable universe, with the remainder being at-
tributable to dark energy.[18] From these gures, matter
accounts for 31.7% of the mass-energy content of the uni-
verse, and 84.5% of the matter is dark matter.
Dark matter plays a central role in state-of-the-art mod-
eling of cosmic structure formation and galaxy forma-
tion and evolution and has measurable eects on the
anisotropies observed in the cosmic microwave back-
ground (CMB). 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.[16]
Though the theory of dark matter remains the most
widely accepted theory to explain the anomalies in ob-
served galactic rotation, some alternative theoretical ap-
proaches have been developed which broadly fall into the
categories of modied gravitational laws and quantum
gravitational laws.[19]
8.2 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 suggest the
majority of dark matter is not made of baryons (ordinary
matter including protons and neutrons):
The theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which pre-
dicts the observed abundance of the chemical ele-
ments,[20] predicts that baryonic matter accounts for
around 45 percent of the critical density of the uni-
verse. In contrast, evidence from large-scale struc-
ture and other observations indicates that the total
matter density is about 30% of the critical density.
Large astronomical searches for gravitational mi-
crolensing, including the MACHO, EROS and
OGLE projects, have shown that only a small frac-
tion of the dark matter in the Milky Way can be
hiding in dark compact objects; the excluded range
covers objects above half the Earths mass up to 30
solar masses, excluding nearly all the plausible can-
didates.
70 CHAPTER 8. DARK MATTER

Detailed analysis of the small irregularities

(anisotropies) in the cosmic microwave background
observed by WMAP and Planck shows that around
ve-sixths of the total matter is in a form which
does not interact signicantly with ordinary matter
or photons except through gravitational eects.

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. The study of
This artists impression shows the expected distribution of dark
nucleosynthesis in the Big Bang gives an upper bound
matter in the Milky Way galaxy as a blue halo of material sur-
on the amount of baryonic matter in the universe,[21]
rounding the galaxy.[23]
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 stellar motions in the local galactic neighbourhood and
electromagnetic forces; in particular, dark matter parti- found that the mass in the galactic plane must be greater
cles do not carry any electric charge. than what was observed, but this measurement was later
[25]
Candidates for nonbaryonic dark matter are hypotheti- determined to be essentially erroneous.
cal particles such as axions, or supersymmetric particles; In 1933, the Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, who stud-
neutrinos can only form a small fraction of the dark mat- ied clusters of galaxies while working at the California
ter, due to limits from large-scale structure and high- Institute of Technology, made a similar inference.[26][27]
redshift galaxies.[22] Unlike baryonic dark matter, non- Zwicky applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of
baryonic dark matter does not contribute to the forma- galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky
tion of the elements in the early universe ("Big Bang nu- estimated the clusters total mass based on the motions of
cleosynthesis")[10] and so its presence is revealed only via galaxies near its edge and compared that estimate to one
its gravitational attraction. In addition, if the particles of based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of
which it is composed are supersymmetric, they can un- the cluster. He estimated that there was about 400 times
dergo annihilation interactions with themselves, possibly more mass than was visually observable. The gravity ef-
resulting in observable by-products such as gamma rays fect of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too
and neutrinos (indirect detection).[22] small for such fast orbits, unless there was mass hidden
Nonbaryonic dark matter is classied in terms of the mass from visual observation. This is known as the missing
of the particle(s) that is assumed to make it up, and/or mass problem. Based on these conclusions, Zwicky in-
the typical velocity dispersion of those particles (since ferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter
more massive particles move more slowly). There are which would provide enough mass and gravitation attrac-
three prominent hypotheses on nonbaryonic dark mat- tion to hold the cluster together. This was the[28] rst formal
ter, called cold dark matter (CDM), warm dark matter inference about the existence of dark matter.
(WDM), and hot dark matter (HDM); some combination Zwickys estimates were not accurate and were o by
of these is also possible. The most widely discussed mod- more than an order of magnitude.[29] Notwithstanding, al-
els for nonbaryonic dark matter are based on the cold dark though the same calculation today shows a smaller factor,
matter hypothesis, and the corresponding particle is most based on greater values for the mass of luminous material,
commonly assumed to be a weakly interacting massive it is still clear that the great majority of matter in Zwickys
particle (WIMP). Hot dark matter may include (massive) calculations was correctly inferred to be dark.[28]
neutrinos, but observations imply that only a small frac-
Much of the evidence for dark matter comes from the
tion of dark matter can be hot. Cold dark matter leads
study of the motions of galaxies.[31] Many of these ap-
to a bottom-up formation of structure in the universe
pear to be fairly uniform, so by the virial theorem, the
while hot dark matter would result in a top-down for-
total kinetic energy should be half the total gravitational
mation scenario; since the late 1990s, the latter has been
binding energy of the galaxies. Observationally, however,
ruled out by observations of high-redshift galaxies such
the total kinetic energy is found to be much greater. In
as the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field.[12]
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 are predicted
8.3 Observational evidence by the virial theorem. Galactic rotation curves, which il-
lustrate the velocity of rotation versus the distance from
The rst person to interpret evidence and infer the pres- the galactic center, show the well known phenomenology
ence of dark matter was Dutch astronomer Jan Oort, a pi- that cannot be explained by the presence of the visible
oneer in radio astronomy, in 1932.[24] Oort was studying matter only. Assuming that the visible material makes
8.3. OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE
Observations have provided hints that the dark matter around
one of the central four merging galaxies is not moving with the
galaxy itself.[30]
up only a small part of the clusters mass is the most
straightforward way of accounting for this discrepancy.
The distribution of dark matter in galaxies required to ex-
plain the motion of the observed baryonic matter suggests
the presence of a roughly spherically symmetric, centrally
concentrated halo of dark matter with the visible matter
concentrated in a disc at the center. Low surface bright-
ness 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 al-
low direct estimates of the gravitational mass based on
its eect on light coming from background galaxies, since
large collections of matter (dark or otherwise) will grav-
itationally deect light. In clusters such as Abell 1689,
lensing observations conrm the presence of consider-
ably 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 obser-
vations were used to identify a lament of dark matter
between two clusters of galaxies, as cosmological simu-
lations have predicted.[32]
8.3.1 Galaxy rotation curves
Main article: Galaxy rotation curve
The rst 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.[33] He, how-
ever, attributed it to either absorption of light within the
galaxy or modied dynamics in the outer portions of the
spiral and not to any form of missing matter.
71
Velocity
A
Distance
Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (A) and ob-
served (B). Dark matter can explain the 'at' appearance of the
velocity curve out to a large radius
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Vera Rubin was the
rst to both make robust measurements indicating the ex-
istence of dark matter and attribute them to dark mat-
ter. Rubin worked with a new sensitive spectrograph that
could measure the velocity curve of edge-on spiral galax-
ies to a greater degree of accuracy than previously.[9] To-
gether with fellow sta-member Kent Ford, Rubin an-
nounced at a 1975 meeting of the American Astronom-
ical Society the discovery that most stars in spiral galax-
ies orbit at roughly the same speed, which implied that
the mass densities of the galaxies were uniform well be-
yond the regions containing most of the stars (the galactic
bulge), a result independently found in 1978.[34] An inu-
ential paper presented Rubins results in 1980.[35] Rubins
observations and calculations showed that most galaxies
must contain about six times as much dark mass as
could be accounted for by the visible stars. Eventually
other astronomers began to corroborate her work. It soon
became well-established that most galaxies were domi-
nated by dark matter":
Low-surface-brightness (LSB) galaxies.[36] LSB
galaxies are probably totally dominated by dark mat-
ter, with the observed stellar populations making
only a small contribution to their total mass. Such
a property is extremely important as it allows one
to avoid the diculties associated with the depro-
jection and disentanglement of the dark and visible
matter contributions to the rotation curves.[12]
Spiral galaxies.[37] Rotation curves of both low and
high surface luminosity galaxies suggest a universal
rotation curve, which can be expressed as the sum
of an exponential distribution of visible matter that
is maximum at the center and tapering to zero at
great distances, and a spherical dark matter halo
with a at core of radius r0 and density 0 = 4.5
102 (r0 /kpc)2/3 Mpc3 .
Elliptical galaxies. Some elliptical galaxies show
evidence for dark matter via strong gravitational
lensing,[38] X-ray evidence reveals the presence of
extended atmospheres of hot gas that ll the dark
72 CHAPTER 8. DARK MATTER

haloes of isolated elliptical galaxies and whose dicate a relatively high dark matter content. Likewise,
hydrostatic support provides evidence for the ex- measurements of the diuse interstellar gas found at the
istence of dark matter. Other ellipticals have edge of galaxies indicate not only dark matter distribu-
low velocities in their outskirts (tracked for exam- tions that extend beyond the visible limit of the galaxies,
ple by the motion of planetary nebulae embedded but also that the galaxies are virialized (i.e., gravitation-
within) and were interpreted as not having dark mat- ally bound and orbiting each other with velocities which
ter haloes.[12] However, simulations of disk-galaxy appear to disproportionately correspond to predicted or-
mergers suggest that stars may have been torn by bital velocities of general relativity) up to ten times their
tidal forces from their original galaxies during the visible radii.[43] This has the eect of pushing up the dark
rst close passage and put on outgoing trajectories, matter as a fraction of the total matter from 50% as mea-
explaining the low velocities of the remaining stars sured by Rubin to the now accepted value of nearly 95%.
even with the presence of a dark matter halo.[39] There are places where dark matter seems to be a small
More research is needed to clarify this situation.
component or totally absent. Globular clusters show little
evidence that they contain dark matter,[44] though their
Simulated dark matter haloes have signicantly steeper orbital interactions with galaxies do show evidence for
density proles (having central cusps) than are inferred galactic dark matter. For some time, measurements of
from observations, which is a problem for cosmolog- the velocity prole of stars seemed to indicate concentra-
ical models with dark matter at the smallest scale of tion of dark matter in the disk of the Milky Way. It now
galaxies (as of 2008).[12] This may only be a problem appears, however, that the high concentration of bary-
of resolution: star-forming regions which might alter onic matter in the disk of the galaxy (especially in the
the dark matter distribution via outows of gas have interstellar medium) can account for this motion. Galaxy
been too small to resolve and model simultaneously with mass proles are thought to look very dierent from the
larger dark matter clumps. A recent simulation[40] of a light proles. The typical model for dark matter galax-
dwarf galaxy, that included these star-forming regions, ies is a smooth, spherical distribution in virialized halos.
reported that strong outows from supernovae remove Such would have to be the case to avoid small-scale (stel-
low-angular-momentum gas, which inhibits the forma- lar) dynamical eects. Recent research reported in Jan-
tion of a galactic bulge and decreases the dark matter den- uary 2006 from the University of Massachusetts Amherst
sity to less than half of what it would have been in the cen-
would explain the previously mysterious warp in the disk
tral kiloparsec. These simulation predictionsbulgeless of the Milky Way by the interaction of the Large and
and with shallow central dark matter density proles Small Magellanic Clouds and the predicted 20 fold in-
correspond closely to observations of actual dwarf galax- crease in mass of the Milky Way taking into account dark
ies. There are no such discrepancies at the larger scales matter.[45]
of clusters of galaxies and greater, or in the outer regions
In 2005, astronomers from Cardi University claimed to
of haloes of galaxies.
have discovered a galaxy made almost entirely of dark
The exceptions to this general picture of dark matter matter, 50 million light years away in the Virgo Clus-
haloes for galaxies appear to be galaxies with mass-to- ter, which was named VIRGOHI21.[46] Unusually, VIR-
light ratios that are close to that of the stars they con- GOHI21 does not appear to contain any visible stars:
tain. Otherwise, numerous observations have been made it was seen with radio frequency observations of hydro-
that do indicate the presence of dark matter in various gen. Based on rotation proles, the scientists estimate
parts of the cosmos, such as observations of the cosmic that this object contains approximately 1000 times more
microwave background, of supernovas used as distance dark matter than hydrogen and has a total mass of about
measures, of gravitational lensing at various scales, and 1/10 that of the Milky Way. For comparison, the Milky
many types of sky survey. Starting with Rubins ndings Way is estimated to have roughly 10 times as much dark
for spiral galaxies, such robust observational evidence for matter as ordinary matter. Models of the Big Bang and
dark matter has collected over the decades to the point structure formation have suggested that such dark galax-
that by the 1980s most astrophysicists have accepted its ies should be very common in the universe, but none had
existence.[41] As a unifying concept, dark matter is one of previously been detected.
the dominant features considered in the analysis of struc-
There are some galaxies, such as NGC 3379, whose ve-
tures on the order of galactic scale and larger.
locity prole indicates an absence of dark matter.[47]

8.3.2 Velocity dispersions of galaxies

8.3.3 Galaxy clusters and gravitational
Rubins pioneering work has stood the test of time. Mea- lensing
surements of velocity curves in spiral galaxies were soon
followed up with velocity dispersions of elliptical galax- Galaxy clusters are especially important for dark matter
ies.[42] While some elliptical galaxies display lower mass- studies since their masses can be estimated in three inde-
to-light ratios, measurements of ellipticals generally in- pendent ways:
8.3. OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE 73

The galaxy cluster Abell 2029 is composed of thousands

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.
From the scatter in radial velocities of the galax-
ies within the clusters (as in Zwickys early obser-
vations, but with more accurate measurements and
much larger samples).
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 merg-
ers of many smaller galaxies.[49] 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 observa-
tions is gravitational lensing. Lensing relies on the bend-
ing of light, as described by general relativity, to pre-
dict masses without relying on observations of the dis-
tant galaxies dynamics, and so is a completely indepen-
dent means of measuring the dark matter. Strong lensing,
the observed distortion of background galaxies into arcs
when their light passes through such a gravitational lens,
has been observed around a few distant clusters includ-
ing Abell 1689 (pictured).[50] By measuring the distortion
geometry, the mass of the intervening cluster causing the
phenomena can be obtained. In the dozens of cases where
this has been done, the mass-to-light ratios obtained cor-
respond to the dynamical dark matter measurements of
clusters.[51]

From X-rays emitted by very hot gas within the clus-

ters. The temperature and density of the gas can be
estimated from the energy and ux of the X-rays,
and hence the gas pressure derived; assuming pres-
sure and gravity balance, this enables the mass pro-
le of the cluster to be derived. Many of the ex-
periments of the Chandra X-ray Observatory use
this technique to independently determine the mass
of clusters. These observations generally indicate
that baryonic mass is approximately 1215 percent, The Bullet Cluster: HST image with overlays. The total projected
in reasonable agreement with the Planck spacecraft mass distribution reconstructed from strong and weak gravita-
cosmic average of 15.516 percent.[48] tional lensing is shown in blue, while the X-ray emitting hot gas
observed with Chandra is shown in red.
From their gravitational lensing eects on back-
ground objects (usually more distant galaxies). This
Weak gravitational lensing investigates minute distortions
is observed as strong lensing (multiple images)
of galaxies, using statistical analyses of vast galaxy sur-
near the cluster core, and weak lensing (shape dis-
veys, caused by foreground objects. By examining the
tortions) in the outer parts. Several large Hubble
apparent shear deformation of the adjacent background
projects have used this method to measure cluster
galaxies, astrophysicists can characterize the mean distri-
masses.
bution of dark matter and have found mass-to-light ra-
tios that correspond to dark matter densities predicted
Generally these three methods are in reasonable agree- by other large-scale structure measurements.[52] The cor-
ment, that clusters contain much more matter than sug- respondence of the two gravitational lens techniques to
gested by the visible components of galaxies and gas. other dark matter measurements has convinced almost all
A gravitational lens is formed when the light from a more astrophysicists that dark matter actually exists as a major
distant source (such as a quasar) is bent around a mas- component of the universes composition.
sive object (such as a cluster of galaxies) lying inline be- The most direct observational evidence to date for dark
tween the source object and the observer. The process is matter comes from a system known as the Bullet Clus-
known as gravitational lensing. ter. In most regions of the universe, dark matter and
74 CHAPTER 8. DARK MATTER

visible matter are found together,[53] as expected due to 8.3.4 Cosmic microwave background
their mutual gravitational attraction. In the Bullet Clus-
ter however, a collision between two galaxy clusters ap- Main article: Cosmic microwave background
pears to have caused a separation of dark matter and bary- See also: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
onic matter. X-ray observations show that much of the Angular uctuations in the cosmic microwave back-
baryonic matter (in the form of 107 108 Kelvin[54] gas
or plasma) in the system is concentrated in the center of
the system. Electromagnetic interactions between pass-
ing gas particles caused them to slow and settle near the
point of impact of those galaxies. However, weak grav-
itational lensing observations of the same system show
that much of the mass resides outside of the central re-
gion of baryonic gas. Because dark matter does not in-
teract by electromagnetic forces, it would not have been
slowed as the X-ray visible gas, so the dark matter compo-
nents of the two clusters passed through each other with-
out slowing substantially, throwing the dark matter fur- The cosmic microwave background by WMAP
ther out than that of the baryonic gas. This accounts for
the separation. Unlike the galactic rotation curves, this ground (CMB) spectrum provide evidence for dark mat-
evidence for dark matter is independent of the details of ter. Since the 1964 discovery and conrmation of the
Newtonian gravity, so it is claimed to be direct evidence CMB radiation,[63] many measurements of the CMB have
of the existence of dark matter.[54] supported and constrained this theory. The NASA Cos-
Another galaxy cluster, known as the Train Wreck Clus- mic Background Explorer (COBE) found that the CMB
ter/Abell 520, initially appeared to have an unusually spectrum to be a blackbody spectrum with a temper-
massive and dark matter core containing few of the clus- ature of 2.726 K. In 1992, COBE detected uctua-
ters galaxies, which presented problems for standard tions (anisotropies) in the CMB spectrum, at a level of
dark matter models.[55] However, more precise observa- about one part in 105 .[64] In the following decade, CMB
tions since that time have shown that the earlier observa- anisotropies were further investigated by a large num-
tions were misleading, and that the distribution of dark ber of ground-based and balloon experiments. The pri-
matter and its ratio to normal matter are very similar to mary goal of those was to measure the angular scale
those in galaxies in general, making novel explanations of the rst acoustic peak of the power spectrum of the
unnecessary.[56] anisotropies, for which COBE did not have sucient
resolution. In 20002001, several experiments, most
The observed behavior of dark matter in clusters con- notably BOOMERanG[65] found the universe to be al-
strains whether and how much dark matter scatters most spatially at by measuring the typical angular size
o other dark matter particles, quantied as its self- of the anisotropies. During the 1990s, the rst peak
interaction cross section. More simply, the question is was measured with increasing sensitivity and by 2000
whether the dark matter has pressure, and thus can be the BOOMERanG experiment reported that the highest
described as a perfect uid that has no damping.[57] The power uctuations occur at scales of approximately one
distribution of mass (and thus dark matter) in galaxy clus- degree. These measurements were able to rule out cosmic
ters has been used to argue both for[58] and against[59] the strings as the leading theory of cosmic structure forma-
existence of signicant self-interaction in dark matter. tion, and suggested cosmic ination was the correct the-
Specically, the distribution of dark matter in merging ory.
clusters such as the Bullet Cluster shows that dark matter
scatters o other dark matter particles only very weakly A number of ground-based interferometers provided
if at all.[60] measurements of the uctuations with higher accuracy
over the next three years, including the Very Small Ar-
A currently ongoing survey using the Subaru telescope is ray, the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer (DASI) and
using weak lensing to analyze background light, bent by the Cosmic Background Imager (CBI). DASI made the
dark matter, to determine how dark matter is distributed rst detection of the polarization of the CMB,[66][67] and
in the foreground. The analysis of dark matter and its the CBI provided the rst E-mode polarization spectrum
eects could determine how dark matter assembled over with compelling evidence that it is out of phase with the
time, which can be related to the history of the expansion T-mode spectrum.[68] COBEs successor, the Wilkinson
of the universe, and could reveal some physical proper- Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has provided the
ties of dark energy, its strength and how it has changed most detailed measurements of (large-scale) anisotropies
over time. The survey is observing galaxies more than in the CMB as of 2009 with ESAs Planck spacecraft re-
a billion light-years away, across an area greater than a turning more detailed results in 2012-2014.[69] WMAPs
thousand square degrees (about one fortieth of the entire measurements played the key role in establishing the cur-
sky).[61][62] rent Standard Model of Cosmology, namely the Lambda-
8.3. OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE 75

CDM model, a at universe dominated by dark energy, ical models.[72] They constrain the dark energy density
supplemented by dark matter and atoms with density uc- = ~0.713 for a at, Lambda CDM universe and the
tuations seeded by a Gaussian, adiabatic, nearly scale in- parameter w for a quintessence model. Once again, the
variant process. The basic properties of this universe are values obtained are roughly consistent with those derived
determined by ve numbers: the density of matter, the from the WMAP observations and further constrain the
density of atoms, the age of the universe (or equivalently, Lambda CDM model and (indirectly) dark matter.[70]
the Hubble constant today), the amplitude of the initial
uctuations, and their scale dependence.
8.3.7 Lyman-alpha forest
A successful Big Bang cosmology theory must t with all
available astronomical observations, including the CMB. Main article: Lyman-alpha forest
In cosmology, the CMB is explained as relic radiation
from shortly after the big bang. The anisotropies in the
CMB are explained as being the result of acoustic oscilla- In astronomical spectroscopy, the Lyman-alpha forest is
tions in the photon-baryon plasma (prior to the emission the sum of the absorption lines arising from the Lyman-
of the CMB after the photons decouple from the baryons alpha transition of the neutral hydrogen in the spectra of
379,000 years after the Big Bang) whose restoring force is distant galaxies and quasars. Observations of the Lyman-
gravity.[70] Ordinary (baryonic) matter interacts strongly alpha forest can also be used to constrain cosmological
by way of radiation whereas dark matter particles, such models.[73] These constraints are again in agreement with
as WIMPs for example, do not; both aect the oscilla- those obtained from WMAP data.
tions by way of their gravity, so the two forms of matter
will have dierent eects. The typical angular scales of
the oscillations in the CMB, measured as the power spec- 8.3.8 Structure formation
trum of the CMB anisotropies, thus reveal the dierent
eects of baryonic matter and dark matter. The CMB Main article: Structure formation
power spectrum shows a large rst peak and smaller suc- Dark matter is crucial to the Big Bang model of cosmol-
cessive peaks, with three peaks resolved as of 2009.[69]
The rst 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.

8.3.5 Sky surveys and baryon acoustic os-

cillations

Main article: Baryon acoustic oscillations

The acoustic oscillations in the early universe (see the

previous section) have left their imprint on visible matter
by way of Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) clustering, 3D map of the large-scale distribution of dark matter, recon-
in a way that can be measured with sky surveys such as structed from measurements of weak gravitational lensing with
the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift the Hubble Space Telescope.[74]
Survey.[71] These measurements are consistent with those
of the CMB derived from the WMAP spacecraft and fur-
ogy as a component which corresponds directly to mea-
ther constrain the Lambda CDM model and dark matter.
surements of the parameters associated with Friedmann
Note that the CMB data and the BAO data measure the
cosmology solutions to general relativity. In particu-
acoustic oscillations at very dierent distance scales.[70]
lar, measurements of the cosmic microwave background
anisotropies correspond to a cosmology where much of
the matter interacts with photons more weakly than the
8.3.6 Type Ia supernovae distance mea- known forces that couple light interactions to baryonic
surements matter. Likewise, a signicant amount of non-baryonic,
cold matter is necessary to explain the large-scale struc-
Main article: Type Ia supernova ture of the universe.
Observations suggest that structure formation in the uni-
Type Ia supernovae can be used as "standard candles" to verse proceeds hierarchically, with the smallest structures
measure extragalactic distances, and extensive data sets collapsing rst and followed by galaxies and then clus-
of these supernovae can be used to constrain cosmolog- ters of galaxies. As the structures collapse in the evolving
76 CHAPTER 8. DARK MATTER

universe, they begin to light up as the baryonic matter dark matter content, but evidence indicated such would
heats up through gravitational contraction and approaches constitute only a small portion.[82][83][84]
hydrostatic pressure balance. Originally, baryonic matter Furthermore, data from a number of lines of other ev-
had too high a temperature, and pressure left over from idence, including galaxy rotation curves, gravitational
the Big Bang to allow collapse and form smaller struc- lensing, structure formation, and the fraction of baryons
tures, such as stars, via the Jeans instability. Dark mat- in clusters and the cluster abundance combined with in-
ter acts as a compactor allowing the creation of structure dependent evidence for the baryon density, indicated that
where there would not have been any. This model not 8590% of the mass in the universe does not interact
only corresponds with statistical surveying of the visible
with the electromagnetic force. This nonbaryonic dark
structure in the universe but also corresponds precisely matter is evident through its gravitational eect. Con-
to the dark matter predictions of the cosmic microwave
sequently, the most commonly held view was that dark
background. matter is primarily non-baryonic, made of one or more el-
This bottom up model of structure formation requires ementary particles other than the usual electrons, protons,
something like cold dark matter to succeed. Large com- neutrons, and known neutrinos. The most commonly pro-
puter simulations of billions of dark matter particles have posed particles then became WIMPs (Weakly Interacting
been used[75] to conrm that the cold dark matter model Massive Particles, including neutralinos), axions, or ster-
of structure formation is consistent with the structures ile neutrinos, though many other possible candidates have
observed in the universe through galaxy surveys, such as been proposed.
the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF Galaxy Redshift Dark matter candidates can be divided into three classes,
Survey, as well as observations of the Lyman-alpha for- called cold, warm and hot dark matter.[85] These cate-
est. These studies have been crucial in constructing the gories do not correspond to an actual temperature, but
Lambda-CDM model which measures the cosmological instead refer to how fast the particles were moving, thus
parameters, including the fraction of the universe made how far they moved due to random motions in the early
up of baryons and dark matter. The recent discovery of universe, before they slowed due to the expansion of
the structure of Laniakea, a 500 million light year struc-the universe this is an important distance called the
ture is currently the limit to structural formation in thefree streaming length. Primordial density uctuations
universe. However, Laniakea is not gravitationally bound smaller than this free-streaming length get washed out
and is projected to be torn apart by dark energy.[76] as particles move from overdense to underdense regions,
There are, however, several points of tension between ob- while uctuations larger than the free-streaming length
servation and simulations of structure formation driven are unaected; therefore this free-streaming length sets a
by dark matter. There is evidence that there exist 10 to minimum scale for structure formation.
100 times fewer small galaxies than permitted by what the
dark matter theory of galaxy formation predicts.[77][78] Cold dark matter objects with a free-streaming
This is known as the dwarf galaxy problem. In addition, length much smaller than a protogalaxy.[86]
the simulations predict dark matter distributions with a
very dense cusp near the centers of galaxies, but the ob- Warm dark matter particles with a free-streaming
served halos are smoother than predicted. length similar to a protogalaxy.

Hot dark matter particles with a free-streaming

length much larger than a protogalaxy.[87]
8.4 History of the search for its
composition 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.
Although dark matter had historically been inferred from
many astronomical observations, its composition long As an example, Davis et al. wrote in 1985:
remained speculative. Early theories of dark matter
concentrated on hidden heavy normal objects (such as Candidate particles can be grouped into
black holes, neutron stars, faint old white dwarfs, and three categories on the basis of their eect on
brown dwarfs) as the possible candidates for dark mat- the uctuation spectrum (Bond et al. 1983). If
ter, collectively known as massive compact halo ob- the dark matter is composed of abundant light
jects or MACHOs. Astronomical surveys for gravita- particles which remain relativistic until shortly
tional microlensing, including the MACHO, EROS and before recombination, then it may be termed
OGLE projects, along with Hubble telescope searches for hot. The best candidate for hot dark mat-
ultra-faint stars, have not found enough of these hidden ter is a neutrino ... A second possibility is
MACHOs.[79][80][81] Some hard-to-detect baryonic mat- for the dark matter particles to interact more
ter, such as MACHOs and some forms of gas, were addi- weakly than neutrinos, to be less abundant, and
tionally speculated to make a contribution to the overall to have a mass of order 1 keV. Such particles
8.4. HISTORY OF THE SEARCH FOR ITS COMPOSITION 77

are termed warm dark matter, because they The composition of the constituents of cold dark matter is
have lower thermal velocities than massive neu- currently unknown. Possibilities range from large objects
trinos ... there are at present few candidate like MACHOs (such as black holes[89] ) or RAMBOs, to
particles which t this description. Gravitinos new particles like WIMPs and axions. Possibilities in-
and photinos have been suggested (Pagels and volving normal baryonic matter include brown dwarfs,
Primack 1982; Bond, Szalay and Turner 1982) other stellar remnants such as white dwarfs, or perhaps
... Any particles which became nonrelativistic small, dense chunks of heavy elements.
very early, and so were able to diuse a neg- Studies of big bang nucleosynthesis and gravitational
ligible distance, are termed cold dark matter
lensing have convinced most scientists[12][90][91][92][93][94]
(CDM). There are many candidates for CDM that MACHOs of any type cannot be more than a small
including supersymmetric particles.[88]
fraction of the total dark matter.[10][90] Black holes of
nearly any mass are ruled out as a primary dark matter
The full calculations are quite technical, but an approx- constituent by a variety of searches and constraints.[90][92]
imate dividing line is that warm dark matter particles According to A. Peter: "... the only really plausible dark-
became non-relativistic when the universe was approxi- matter candidates are new particles.[91]
mately 1 year old and 1 millionth of its present size; stan- The DAMA/NaI experiment and its successor
dard hot big bang theory implies the universe was then DAMA/LIBRA have claimed to directly detect dark
in the radiation-dominated era (photons and neutrinos), matter particles passing through the Earth, but many
with a photon temperature 2.7 million K. Standard phys- scientists remain skeptical, as negative results from
ical cosmology gives the particle horizon size as 2ct in the similar experiments seem incompatible with the DAMA
radiation-dominated era, thus 2 light-years, and a region results.
of this size would expand to 2 million light years today
(if there were no structure formation). The actual free- Many supersymmetric models naturally give rise to sta-
streaming length is roughly 5 times larger than the above ble dark matter candidates in the form of the Lightest
length, since the free-streaming length continues to grow Supersymmetric Particle (LSP). Separately, heavy ster-
slowly as particle velocities decrease inversely with the ile neutrinos exist in non-supersymmetric extensions to
scale factor after they become non-relativistic; therefore, the standard model that explain the small neutrino mass
in this example the free-streaming length would corre- through the seesaw mechanism.
spond 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 of 2.7 million K gives a typical
8.4.2 Warm dark matter
photon energy of 250 electron-volts, thereby setting a typ-
ical mass scale for warm dark matter: particles much Main article: Warm dark matter
more massive than this, such as GeV TeV mass WIMPs,
would become non-relativistic much earlier than 1 year Warm dark matter refers to particles with a free-
after the Big Bang and thus have a free-streaming length streaming length comparable to the size of a region which
much smaller than a proto-galaxy, making them cold dark subsequently evolved into a dwarf galaxy. This leads to
matter. Conversely, much lighter particles, such as neu- predictions which are very similar to cold dark matter on
trinos with masses of only a few eV, have a free-streaming large scales, including the CMB, galaxy clustering and
length much larger than a proto-galaxy, thus making them large galaxy rotation curves, but with less small-scale den-
hot dark matter. sity 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 re-
8.4.1 Cold dark matter searchers consider this may be a better t to observations.
A challenge for this model is that there are no very well-
Main article: Cold dark matter motivated particle physics candidates with the required
mass ~ 300 eV to 3000 eV.
Today, cold dark matter is the simplest explanation for There have been no particles discovered so far that can be
most cosmological observations. Cold dark matter categorized as warm dark matter. There is a postulated
is dark matter composed of constituents with a free- candidate for the warm dark matter category, which is the
streaming length much smaller than the ancestor of a sterile neutrino: a heavier, slower form of neutrino which
galaxy-scale perturbation. This is currently the area of does not even interact through the Weak force unlike reg-
greatest interest for dark matter research, as hot dark mat- ular neutrinos. Interestingly, some modied gravity theo-
ter does not seem to be viable for galaxy and galaxy clus- ries, such as Scalar-tensor-vector gravity, also require that
ter formation, and most particle candidates become non- a warm dark matter exist to make their equations work
relativistic at very early times, hence are classied as cold. out.
78 CHAPTER 8. DARK MATTER

8.4.3 Hot dark matter ically chosen mass ratio of 80% cold dark matter and 20%
hot dark matter (neutrinos) content. Though it is presum-
Main article: Hot dark matter able that hot dark matter coexists with cold dark matter
in any case, there was a very specic reason for choos-
ing this particular ratio of hot to cold dark matter in this
Hot dark matter consists of particles that have a free-
model. During the early 1990s it became steadily clear
streaming length much larger than that of a proto-galaxy.
that a universe with critical density of cold dark matter
An example of hot dark matter is already known: the did not t the COBE and large-scale galaxy clustering
neutrino. Neutrinos were discovered quite separately observations; either the 80/20 mixed dark matter model,
from the search for dark matter, and long before it seri- or LambdaCDM, were able to reconcile these. With the
ously began: they were rst postulated in 1930, and rst discovery of the accelerating universe from supernovae,
detected in 1956. Neutrinos have a very small mass: at and more accurate measurements of CMB anisotropy and
least 100,000 times less massive than an electron. Other galaxy clustering, the mixed dark matter model was es-
than gravity, neutrinos only interact with normal matter sentially ruled out while the concordance LambdaCDM
via the weak force making them very dicult to detect model remained a good t.
(the weak force only works over a small distance, thus a
neutrino will only trigger a weak force event if it hits a nu-
cleus directly head-on). This would make them 'weakly
interacting light particles (WILPs), as opposed to cold
8.5 Detection
dark matters theoretical candidates, the weakly interact-
ing massive particles (WIMPs). If the dark matter within the Milky Way is made
up of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs),
There are three dierent known avors of neutrinos (i.e., then millions, possibly billions, of WIMPs must pass
the electron, muon, and tau neutrinos), and their masses through every square centimeter of the Earth each
are slightly dierent. The resolution to the solar neutrino second.[96][97] There are many experiments currently run-
problem demonstrated that these three types of neutrinos ning, or planned, aiming to test this hypothesis by search-
actually change and oscillate from one avor to the oth- ing for WIMPs. Although WIMPs are the historically
ers and back as they are in-ight. It is hard to determine more popular dark matter candidate for searches,[12]
an exact upper bound on the collective average mass of there are experiments searching for other particle can-
the three neutrinos (let alone a mass for any of the three didates; the Axion Dark Matter eXperiment (ADMX)
individually). For example, if the average neutrino mass is currently searching for the dark matter axion, a well-
were chosen to be over 50 eV/c2 (which is still less than motivated and constrained dark matter source. It is also
1/10,000th of the mass of an electron), just by the sheer possible that dark matter consists of very heavy hidden
number of them in the universe, the universe would col- sector particles which only interact with ordinary matter
lapse due to their mass. So other observations have served via gravity.
to estimate an upper-bound for the neutrino mass. Using
cosmic microwave background data and other methods, These experiments can be divided into two classes: direct
the current conclusion is that their average mass probably detection experiments, which search for the scattering of
does not exceed 0.3 eV/c2 Thus, the normal forms of neu- dark matter particles o atomic nuclei within a detec-
trinos cannot be responsible for the measured dark matter tor; and indirect detection, which look for the products
component from cosmology.[95] of WIMP annihilations.[22]
Hot dark matter was popular for a time in the early 1980s, An alternative approach to the detection of WIMPs in
but it suers from a severe problem: because all galaxy- nature is to produce them in the laboratory. Experiments
size density uctuations get washed out by free-streaming, with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may be able to
the rst objects that can form are huge supercluster-size detect WIMPs produced in collisions of the LHC proton
pancakes, which then were theorised somehow to frag- beams. Because a WIMP has negligible interactions with
ment into galaxies. Deep-eld observations clearly show matter, it may be detected indirectly as (large amounts of)
that galaxies formed at early times, with clusters and su- missing energy and momentum which escape the LHC
perclusters forming later as galaxies clump together, so detectors, provided all the other (non-negligible) collision
[98]
any model dominated by hot dark matter is seriously in products are detected. These experiments could show
conict with observations. that WIMPs can be created, but it would still require a
direct detection experiment to show that they exist in suf-
cient numbers to account for dark matter.
8.4.4 Mixed dark matter
8.5.1 Direct detection experiments
Main article: Mixed dark matter
Direct detection experiments usually operate in deep un-
Mixed dark matter is a now obsolete model, with a specif- derground laboratories to reduce the background from
8.5. DETECTION 79

cosmic rays. These include: the Stawell mine (Aus- contamination. It is quite possible then that many of these
tralia); the Soudan mine; the SNOLAB underground lab- collisions were caused by WIMPs, and/or other unknown
oratory at Sudbury, Ontario (Canada); the Gran Sasso particles.
National Laboratory (Italy); the Canfranc Underground
Laboratory (Spain); the Boulby Underground Labora-
tory (United Kingdom); the Deep Underground Sci- 8.5.2 Indirect detection experiments
ence and Engineering Laboratory, South Dakota (United
States); and the Particle and Astrophysical Xenon Detec-
tor (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 ash
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 experiment. Both of these Collage of six cluster collisions with dark matter maps. The clus-
detector techniques are capable of distinguishing back- ters were observed in a study of how dark matter in clusters of
[107]
ground particles which scatter o electrons, from dark galaxies behaves when the clusters collide.
matter particles which scatter o nuclei. Other experi-
ments include SIMPLE and PICASSO.
The DAMA/NaI, DAMA/LIBRA experiments have de-
tected an annual modulation in the event rate,[99] 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 depend-
ing on the time of year). This claim is so far uncon-
rmed and dicult to reconcile with the negative results
of other experiments assuming that the WIMP scenario
is correct.[100]
Directional detection of dark matter is a search strat-
Video about the potential gamma-ray detection of dark matter
egy based on the motion of the Solar System around the
[101][102][103][104] annihilation around supermassive black holes. (Duration 3:13,
Galactic Center. also see le description.)
By using a low pressure TPC, it is possible to access infor-
mation on recoiling tracks (3D reconstruction if possible) Indirect detection experiments search for the products of
and to constrain the WIMP-nucleus kinematics. WIMPs WIMP annihilation or decay. If WIMPs are Majorana
coming from the direction in which the Sun is travelling particles (WIMPs are their own antiparticle) then two
(roughly in the direction of the Cygnus constellation) may WIMPs could annihilate to produce gamma rays or Stan-
then be separated from background noise, which should dard Model particle-antiparticle pairs. Additionally, if
be isotropic. Directional dark matter experiments include the WIMP is unstable, WIMPs could decay into standard
DMTPC, DRIFT, Newage and MIMAC. model particles. These processes could be detected in-
On 17 December 2009, CDMS researchers reported two directly through an excess of gamma rays, antiprotons
possible WIMP candidate events. They estimate that the or positrons emanating from regions of high dark matter
probability that these events are due to a known back- density. The detection of such a signal is not conclusive
ground (neutrons or misidentied beta or gamma events) evidence for dark matter, as the production of[12][22] gamma
is 23%, and conclude this analysis cannot be interpreted rays from other sources is not fully understood.
as signicant evidence for WIMP interactions, but we The EGRET gamma ray telescope observed more gamma
cannot reject either event as signal.[105] rays than expected from the Milky Way, but scien-
More recently, on 4 September 2011, researchers using tists concluded that this was most likely due to a mis-
[108]
the CRESST detectors presented evidence [106]
of 67 col- estimation of the telescopes sensitivity.
lisions occurring in detector crystals from subatomic par- The Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, launched 11
ticles, calculating there is a less than 1 in 10,000 chance June 2008, is searching for gamma rays from dark matter
that all were caused by known sources of interference or annihilation and decay.[109] In April 2012, an analysis[110]
80 CHAPTER 8. DARK MATTER

of previously available data from its Large Area Tele- 8.6.2 Topological defects
scope instrument produced strong statistical evidence of
a 130 GeV line in the gamma radiation coming from the Dark matter could consist of primordial defects (defects
center of the Milky Way. At the time, WIMP annihila- originating with the birth of the universe) in the topology
tion was the most probable explanation for that line.[111] of quantum elds, which would contain energy and there-
fore gravitate. This possibility may be investigated by the
At higher energies, ground-based gamma-ray telescopes
use of an orbital network of atomic clocks, which would
have set limits on the annihilation of dark matter in dwarf
[112] [113] register the passage of topological defects by monitoring
spheroidal galaxies and in clusters of galaxies.
the synchronization of the clocks. The Global Positioning
The PAMELA experiment (launched 2006) has detected System may be able to operate as such a network.[124]
a larger number of positrons than expected. These ex-
tra positrons could be produced by dark matter anni-
hilation, but may also come from pulsars. No excess 8.6.3 Modied gravity
of anti-protons has been observed.[114] The Alpha Mag-
netic Spectrometer on the International Space Station Numerous alternative theories have been proposed to
is designed to directly measure the fraction of cosmic explain these observations without the need for a large
rays which are positrons. The rst results, published in amount of undetected matter. Most of these theories
April 2013, indicate an excess of high-energy cosmic rays modify the laws of gravity established by Newton and
which could potentially be due to annihilation of dark Einstein.
matter.[115][116][117][118][119][120]
The earliest modied gravity model to emerge was
A few of the WIMPs passing through the Sun or Earth Mordehai Milgrom's Modied Newtonian Dynamics
may scatter o atoms and lose energy. This way a large (MOND) in 1983, which adjusts Newtons laws to create
population of WIMPs may accumulate at the center of a stronger gravitational eld when gravitational accelera-
these bodies, increasing the chance that two will collide tion levels become tiny (such as near the rim of a galaxy).
and annihilate. This could produce a distinctive signal It had some success explaining galactic-scale features,
in the form of high-energy neutrinos originating from such as rotational velocity curves of elliptical galaxies,
the center of the Sun or Earth.[121] It is generally con- and dwarf elliptical galaxies, but did not successfully
sidered that the detection of such a signal would be the explain galaxy cluster gravitational lensing. However,
strongest indirect proof of WIMP dark matter.[12] High- MOND was not relativistic, since it was just a straight
energy neutrino telescopes such as AMANDA, IceCube adjustment of the older Newtonian account of gravita-
and ANTARES are searching for this signal. tion, not of the newer account in Einsteins general rel-
WIMP annihilation from the Milky Way Galaxy as a ativity. Soon after 1983, attempts were made to bring
whole may also be detected in the form of various annihi- MOND into conformity with general relativity; this is
lation products.[122] The Galactic Center is a particularly an ongoing process, and many competing hypotheses
good place to look because the density of dark matter may have emerged based around the original MOND model
be very high there.[123] including TeVeS, MOG or STV gravity, and phenomeno-
logical covariant approach,[125] among others.
In 2007, John W. Moat proposed a modied gravity hy-
pothesis based on the nonsymmetric gravitational theory
(NGT) that claims to account for the behavior of collid-
8.6 Alternative theories ing galaxies.[126] This model requires the presence of non-
relativistic neutrinos, or other candidates for (cold) dark
8.6.1 Mass in extra dimensions matter, to work.
Another proposal uses a gravitational backreaction in an
In some multidimensional theories, the force of gravity is emerging theoretical eld that seeks to explain gravity be-
the unique force able to have an eect across all the vari- tween objects as an action, a reaction, and then a back-
ous extra dimensions,[17] which would explain the relative reaction. Simply, an object A aects an object B, and the
weakness of the force of gravity compared to the other object B then re-aects object A, and so on: creating a
known forces of nature that would not be able to cross sort of feedback loop that strengthens gravity.[127]
into extra dimensions: electromagnetism, strong interac- In 2008, another group has proposed a modication of
tion, and weak interaction. large-scale gravity in a hypothesis named "dark uid".
In that case, dark matter would be a perfect candidate for In this formulation, the attractive gravitational eects at-
matter that would exist in other dimensions and that could tributed to dark matter are instead a side-eect of dark
only interact with the matter on our dimensions through energy. Dark uid combines dark matter and dark en-
gravity. That dark matter located on dierent dimensions ergy in a single energy eld that produces dierent ef-
could potentially aggregate in the same way as the matter fects at dierent scales. This treatment is a simplied
in our visible universe does, forming exotic galaxies.[16] approach to a previous uid-like model called the gener-
8.9. NOTES
alized Chaplygin gas model where the whole of spacetime
is a compressible gas.[128] Dark uid 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 uid might generally expand,
but it also could collect around galaxies to help hold them
together.[128]
Another set of proposals is based on the possibility of a
double metric tensor for space-time.[129] It has been ar-
gued that time-reversed solutions in general relativity re-
quire 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.[130]
8.6.4 Fractality of spacetime
Applying relativity to fractal non-dierentiable space-
time, Laurent Nottale suggests that potential energy may
arise due to the fractality of spacetime, which would ac-
count for the missing mass-energy observed at cosmolog-
ical scales.[131][132]
8.7 Popular culture
Main article: Dark matter in ction
Mention of dark matter is made in some video games
and other works of ction. In such cases, it is usually
attributed extraordinary physical or magical properties.
Such descriptions are often inconsistent with the proper-
ties of dark matter proposed in physics and cosmology.
8.8 See also
Chameleon particle
Conformal gravity
General Antiparticle Spectrometer
Illustris project
Light dark matter
Mirror matter
Multidark (research program)
Scalar eld dark matter
Self-interacting dark matter
SIMP
Unparticle physics
81
8.9 Notes
[1] Since dark energy, by convention, does not count as mat-
ter, this is 26.8/(4.9 + 26.8)=0.845
8.10 References
[1] Hubble Finds Dark Matter Ring in Galaxy Cluster.
[2] Ade, P. A. R.; Aghanim, N.; Armitage-Caplan, C.;
(Planck Collaboration); et al. (22 March 2013). Planck
2013 results. I. Overview of products and scientic results
Table 9. Astronomy and Astrophysics 1303: 5062.
arXiv:1303.5062. Bibcode:2014A&A...571A...1P.
doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321529.
[3] Francis, Matthew (22 March 2013). First Planck results:
the Universe is still weird and interesting. Arstechnica.
[4] Planck captures portrait of the young Universe, revealing
earliest light. University of Cambridge. 21 March 2013.
Retrieved 21 March 2013.
[5] Sean Carroll, Ph.D., Cal Tech, 2007, The Teaching Com-
pany, Dark Matter, Dark Energy: The Dark Side of the
Universe, Guidebook Part 2 page 46, Accessed Oct. 7,
2013, "...dark matter: An invisible, essentially collision-
less component of matter that makes up about 25 percent
of the energy density of the universe... its a dierent kind
of particle... something not yet observed in the labora-
tory...
[6] Ferris, Timothy. Dark Matter. Retrieved 2015-06-10.
[7] Zwicky, F. (1933), Die Rotverschiebung von extra-
galaktischen Nebeln, Helvetica Physica Acta 6: 110
127, Bibcode:1933AcHPh...6..110Z See also Zwicky,
F. (1937), On the Masses of Nebulae and of Clus-
ters of Nebulae, Astrophysical Journal 86: 217,
Bibcode:1937ApJ....86..217Z, doi:10.1086/143864
[8] First observational evidence of dark matter. Darkmatter-
physics.com. Retrieved 6 August 2013.
[9] Rubin, Vera C.; Ford, W. Kent, Jr. (February 1970).
Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a Spectro-
scopic Survey of Emission Regions. The Astrophysical
Journal 159: 379403. Bibcode:1970ApJ...159..379R.
doi:10.1086/150317.
[10] Copi, C. J.; Schramm, D. N.; Turner, M. S. (1995).
Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis and the Baryon Density
of the Universe. Science 267 (5195): 192199.
arXiv:astro-ph/9407006. Bibcode:1995Sci...267..192C.
doi:10.1126/science.7809624. PMID 7809624.
[11] Bergstrom, L. (2000). Non-baryonic dark mat-
ter: Observational evidence and detection methods.
Reports on Progress in Physics 63 (5): 793841.
arXiv:hep-ph/0002126. Bibcode:2000RPPh...63..793B.
doi:10.1088/0034-4885/63/5/2r3.
82
[12] Bertone, G.; Hooper, D.; Silk, J. (2005). Par-
ticle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and con-
straints. Physics Reports 405 (56): 279390.
arXiv:hep-ph/0404175. Bibcode:2005PhR...405..279B.
doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031.
[13] Angus, G. (2013). Cosmological simulations
in MOND: the cluster scale halo mass function
with light sterile neutrinos. Monthly Notices of
the Royal Astronomical Society 436: 202211.
arXiv:1309.6094. Bibcode:2013MNRAS.436..202A.
doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1564.
[14] Trimble, V. (1987). Existence and nature of dark matter
in the universe. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro-
physics 25: 425472. Bibcode:1987ARA&A..25..425T.
doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.002233.
[15] Dark matter. CERN. Retrieved on 17 November 2014.
[16] Siegfried, T. (5 July 1999). Hidden Space Dimensions
May Permit Parallel Universes, Explain Cosmic Myster-
ies. The Dallas Morning News.
[17] Extra dimensions, gravitons, and tiny black holes. CERN.
Retrieved on 17 November 2014.
[18] Jarosik, N.; et al. (2011). Seven-Year Wil-
son Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observa-
tions: Sky Maps, Systematic Errors, and Basic Re-
sults. Astrophysical Journal Supplement 192 (2):
14. arXiv:1001.4744. Bibcode:2011ApJS..192...14J.
doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/14.
[19] Kroupa, P.; et al. (2010). Local-Group tests of
dark-matter Concordance Cosmology: Towards a
new paradigm for structure formation. Astronomy
and Astrophysics 523: 3254. arXiv:1006.1647.
Bibcode:2010A&A...523A..32K. doi:10.1051/0004-
6361/201014892.
[20] Achim Weiss, "Big Bang Nucleosynthesis: Cooking up
the rst light elements" in: Einstein Online Vol. 2 (2006),
1017
[21] Raine, D.; Thomas, T. (2001). An Introduction to the Sci-
ence of Cosmology. IOP Publishing. p. 30. ISBN 0-7503-
0405-7.
[22] Bertone, G.; Merritt, D. (2005). Dark Mat-
ter Dynamics and Indirect Detection. Modern
Physics Letters A 20 (14): 10211036. arXiv:astro-
ph/0504422. Bibcode:2005MPLA...20.1021B.
doi:10.1142/S0217732305017391.
[23] Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories?" (Press release).
European Southern Observatory. 18 April 2012.
[24] The Hidden Lives of Galaxies: Hidden Mass. Imagine
the Universe!. NASA/GSFC.
[25] Kuijken K. and Gilmore G. (1989). The Mass Distri-
bution in the Galactic Disc - Part III - the Local Volume
Mass Density. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi-
cal Society 239: 651. Bibcode:1989MNRAS.239..651K.
doi:10.1093/mnras/239.2.651.
CHAPTER 8. DARK MATTER
[26] Zwicky, F. (1933). Die Rotverschiebung von extragalak-
tischen Nebeln. Helvetica Physica Acta 6: 110127.
Bibcode:1933AcHPh...6..110Z.
[27] Zwicky, F. (1937). On the Masses of Nebulae and of
Clusters of Nebulae. The Astrophysical Journal 86: 217.
Bibcode:1937ApJ....86..217Z. doi:10.1086/143864.
[28] Some details of Zwickys calculation and of more modern
values are given in Richmond, M., Using the virial theo-
rem: the mass of a cluster of galaxies, retrieved 2007-07-
10
[29] Freese, Katerine (2014). The Cosmic Cocktail: Three
Parts Dark Matter. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Uni-
versity Press. ISBN 978-0691153353.
[30] First Signs of Self-interacting Dark Matter?". ESO Press
Release. European Southern Observatory. Retrieved 15
April 2015.
[31] Freeman, K.; McNamara, G. (2006). In Search of Dark
Matter. Birkhuser. p. 37. ISBN 0-387-27616-5.
[32] Jrg, D.; et al. (2012). A lament of dark matter
between two clusters of galaxies. Nature 487 (7406):
202. arXiv:1207.0809. Bibcode:2012Natur.487..202D.
doi:10.1038/nature11224.
[33] Babcock, H, 1939, "The rotation of the Andromeda Neb-
ula", Lick Observatory bulletin ; no. 498
[34] Bosma, A. (1978). The distribution and kinematics of
neutral hydrogen in spiral galaxies of various morpholog-
ical types (Ph.D. Thesis). Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
[35] Rubin, V.; Thonnard, W. K. Jr.; Ford, N. (1980).
Rotational Properties of 21 Sc Galaxies with a Large
Range of Luminosities and Radii from NGC 4605 (R
= 4kpc) to UGC 2885 (R = 122kpc)". The Astrophys-
ical Journal 238: 471. Bibcode:1980ApJ...238..471R.
doi:10.1086/158003.
[36] de Blok, W. J. G.; McGaugh, S. S.; Bosma, A.; Ru-
bin, V. C. (2001). Mass Density Proles of Low
Surface Brightness Galaxies. The Astrophysical Jour-
nal Letters 552 (1): L23L26. arXiv:astro-ph/0103102.
Bibcode:2001ApJ...552L..23D. doi:10.1086/320262.
[37] Salucci, P.; Borriello, A. (2003). The Intriguing Dis-
tribution of Dark Matter in Galaxies. Lecture Notes
in Physics. Lecture Notes in Physics 616: 6677.
arXiv:astro-ph/0203457. Bibcode:2003LNP...616...66S.
doi:10.1007/3-540-36539-7_5. ISBN 978-3-540-00711-
1.
[38] Koopmans, L. V. E.; Treu, T. (2003). The Struc-
ture and Dynamics of Luminous and Dark Matter
in the Early-Type Lens Galaxy of 0047281 at z =
0.485. The Astrophysical Journal 583 (2): 606615.
arXiv:astro-ph/0205281. Bibcode:2003ApJ...583..606K.
doi:10.1086/345423.
[39] Dekel, A.; et al. (2005). Lost and
found dark matter in elliptical galaxies.
Nature 437 (7059): 707710. arXiv:astro-
ph/0501622. Bibcode:2005Natur.437..707D.
doi:10.1038/nature03970. PMID 16193046.
8.10. REFERENCES
[40] Governato, F.; et al. (2010). Bulgeless dwarf
galaxies and dark matter cores from supernova-
driven outows. Nature 463 (7278): 203206.
arXiv:0911.2237. Bibcode:2010Natur.463..203G.
doi:10.1038/nature08640.
[41] Ostriker, J. P.; Steinhardt, P. (2003). New Light
on Dark Matter. Science 300 (5627): 19091913.
arXiv:astro-ph/0306402. Bibcode:2003Sci...300.1909O.
doi:10.1126/science.1085976. PMID 12817140.
[42] Faber, S. M.; Jackson, R. E. (1976). Veloc-
ity dispersions and mass-to-light ratios for elliptical
galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal 204: 668683.
Bibcode:1976ApJ...204..668F. doi:10.1086/154215.
[43] Collins, G. W. (1978). The Virial Theorem in Stellar
Astrophysics. Pachart Press.
[44] Rejkuba, M.; Dubath, P.; Minniti, D.; Mey-
lan, G. (2008). Masses and M/L Ratios of
Bright Globular Clusters in NGC 5128. Pro-
ceedings of the International Astronomical Union
246: 418422. Bibcode:2008IAUS..246..418R.
doi:10.1017/S1743921308016074.
[45] Weinberg, M. D.; Blitz, L. (2006). A Magellanic Ori-
gin for the Warp of the Galaxy. The Astrophysical Jour-
nal Letters 641 (1): L33L36. arXiv:astro-ph/0601694.
Bibcode:2006ApJ...641L..33W. doi:10.1086/503607.
[46] Minchin, R.; et al. (2005). A Dark Hydrogen
Cloud in the Virgo Cluster. The Astrophysical Jour-
nal Letters 622: L21L24. arXiv:astro-ph/0502312.
Bibcode:2005ApJ...622L..21M. doi:10.1086/429538.
[47] Ciardullo, R.; Jacoby, G. H.; Dejonghe, H. B. (1993).
The radial velocities of planetary nebulae in NGC
3379. The Astrophysical Journal 414: 454462.
Bibcode:1993ApJ...414..454C. doi:10.1086/173092.
[48] Vikhlinin, A.; et al. (2006). Chandra Sample of
Nearby Relaxed Galaxy Clusters: Mass, Gas Fraction,
and MassTemperature Relation. The Astrophysical
Journal 640 (2): 691709. arXiv:astro-ph/0507092.
Bibcode:2006ApJ...640..691V. doi:10.1086/500288.
[49] Abell 2029: Hot News for Cold Dark Matter. Chandra
X-ray Observatory. 11 June 2003.
[50] Taylor, A. N.; et al. (1998). Gravitational Lens Mag-
nication and the Mass of Abell 1689. The Astro-
physical Journal 501 (2): 539. arXiv:astro-ph/9801158.
Bibcode:1998ApJ...501..539T. doi:10.1086/305827.
[51] Wu, X.; Chiueh, T.; Fang, L.; Xue, Y. (1998). A com-
parison of dierent cluster mass estimates: consistency or
discrepancy?". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi-
cal Society 301 (3): 861871. arXiv:astro-ph/9808179.
Bibcode:1998MNRAS.301..861W. doi:10.1046/j.1365-
8711.1998.02055.x.
[52] Refregier, A. (2003). Weak gravitational lensing by
large-scale structure. Annual Review of Astronomy
and Astrophysics 41 (1): 645668. arXiv:astro-
ph/0307212. Bibcode:2003ARA&A..41..645R.
doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.111302.102207.
83
[53] Massey, R.; et al. (2007). Dark mat-
ter maps reveal cosmic scaolding. Nature
445 (7125): 286290. arXiv:astro-
ph/0701594. Bibcode:2007Natur.445..286M.
doi:10.1038/nature05497. PMID 17206154.
[54] Clowe, D.; et al. (2006). A direct empirical proof
of the existence of dark matter. The Astrophysical
Journal 648 (2): 109113. arXiv:astro-ph/0608407.
Bibcode:2006ApJ...648L.109C. doi:10.1086/508162.
[55] Dark Matter Mystery Deepens in Cosmic Train
Wreck"". Chandra X-Ray Observatory. 16 August 2007.
[56] Douglas Clowe1, Maxim Markevitch, Marua Brada,
Anthony H. Gonzalez, Sun Mi Chung, Richard Massey,
and Dennis Zaritsky. On dark peaks and missing
mass: a weak-lensing mass reconstruction of the merg-
ing cluster system a520. The Astrophysical Jour-
nal. arXiv:1209.2143. Bibcode:2012ApJ...758..128C.
doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/128.
[57] Tiberiu, H.; Lobo, F. S. N. (2011). Two-uid dark
matter models. Physical Review D 83 (12): 124051.
arXiv:1106.2642. Bibcode:2011PhRvD..83l4051H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.124051.
[58] Spergel, D. N.; Steinhardt, P. J. (2000). Observational
evidence for self-interacting cold dark matter. Physical
Review Letters 84 (17): 37603763. arXiv:astro-
ph/9909386. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84.3760S.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.3760.
[59] Allen, S. W.; Evrard, A. E.; Mantz, A. B. (2011).
Cosmological Parameters from Observations of
Galaxy Clusters. Annual Review of Astronomy
& Astrophysics 49: 409470. arXiv:1103.4829.
Bibcode:2011ARA&A..49..409A. doi:10.1146/annurev-
astro-081710-102514.
[60] Markevitch, M.; et al. (2004). Direct Constraints on
the Dark Matter Self-Interaction Cross Section from the
Merging Galaxy Cluster 1E 0657-56. The Astrophysi-
cal Journal 606 (2): 819824. arXiv:astro-ph/0309303.
Bibcode:2004ApJ...606..819M. doi:10.1086/383178.
[61] Press Release - Dark Matter Map Begins to Reveal the
Universes Early History - Subaru Telescope. www.
subarutelescope.org. Retrieved 2015-07-03.
[62] Miyazaki, Satoshi; Oguri, Masamune; Hamana, Takashi;
Tanaka, Masayuki; Miller, Lance; Utsumi, Yousuke;
Komiyama, Yutaka; Furusawa, Hisanori; Sakurai,
Junya (2015-07-01). Properties of Weak Lens-
ing Clusters Detected on Hyper Suprime-Cams 2.3
deg2 eld. The Astrophysical Journal 807 (1):
22. arXiv:1504.06974. Bibcode:2015ApJ...807...22M.
doi:10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/22. ISSN 0004-637X.
[63] Penzias, A.A.; Wilson, R. W. (1965). A Mea-
surement of Excess Antenna Temperature at
4080 Mc/s. The Astrophysical Journal 142: 419.
Bibcode:1965ApJ...142..419P. doi:10.1086/148307.
[64] Boggess, N. W.; et al. (1992). The COBE Mis-
sion: Its Design and Performance Two Years after
the launch. The Astrophysical Journal 397: 420.
Bibcode:1992ApJ...397..420B. doi:10.1086/171797.
84
[65] Melchiorri, A.; et al. (2000). A Measurement
of from the North American Test Flight of
Boomerang. The Astrophysical Journal Let-
ters 536 (2): L63L66. arXiv:astro-ph/9911445.
Bibcode:2000ApJ...536L..63M. doi:10.1086/312744.
[66] Leitch, E. M.; et al. (2002). Measurement of
polarization with the Degree Angular Scale Interferom-
eter. Nature 420 (6917): 763771. arXiv:astro-
ph/0209476. Bibcode:2002Natur.420..763L.
doi:10.1038/nature01271. PMID 12490940.
[67] Leitch, E. M.; et al. (2005). Degree Angu-
lar Scale Interferometer 3 Year Cosmic Microwave
Background Polarization Results. The Astrophysical
Journal 624 (1): 1020. arXiv:astro-ph/0409357.
Bibcode:2005ApJ...624...10L. doi:10.1086/428825.
[68] Readhead, A. C. S.; et al. (2004). Polarization
Observations with the Cosmic Background Im-
ager. Science 306 (5697): 836844. arXiv:astro-
ph/0409569. Bibcode:2004Sci...306..836R.
doi:10.1126/science.1105598. PMID 15472038.
[69] Hinshaw, G.; et al. (2009). Five-Year Wilkinson
Microwave Anisotropy Probe Observations: Data
Processing, Sky Maps, and Basic Results. The As-
trophysical Journal Supplement 180 (2): 225245.
arXiv:0803.0732. Bibcode:2009ApJS..180..225H.
doi:10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/225.
[70] Komatsu, E.; et al. (2009). Five-Year Wilkinson
Microwave Anisotropy Probe Observations: Cosmo-
logical Interpretation. The Astrophysical Journal
Supplement 180 (2): 330376. arXiv:0803.0547.
Bibcode:2009ApJS..180..330K. doi:10.1088/0067-
0049/180/2/330.
[71] Percival, W. J.; et al. (2007). Measuring the Baryon
Acoustic Oscillation scale using the Sloan Digital Sky Sur-
vey and 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey. Monthly Notices
of the Royal Astronomical Society 381 (3): 10531066.
arXiv:0705.3323. Bibcode:2007MNRAS.381.1053P.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12268.x.
[72] Kowalski, M.; et al. (2008). Improved Cosmological
Constraints from New, Old, and Combined Supernova
Data Sets. The Astrophysical Journal 686 (2): 749
778. arXiv:0804.4142. Bibcode:2008ApJ...686..749K.
doi:10.1086/589937.
[73] Viel, M.; Bolton, J. S.; Haehnelt, M. G. (2009). Cosmo-
logical and astrophysical constraints from the Lyman
forest ux probability distribution function. Monthly No-
tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 399 (1): L39L43.
arXiv:0907.2927. Bibcode:2009MNRAS.399L..39V.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00720.x.
[74] Hubble Maps the Cosmic Web of Clumpy Dark Matter
in 3-D (Press release). NASA. 7 January 2007.
[75] Springel, V.; et al. (2005). Simulations of the
formation, evolution and clustering of galax-
ies and quasars. Nature 435 (7042): 629636.
arXiv:astro-ph/0504097. Bibcode:2005Natur.435..629S.
doi:10.1038/nature03597. PMID 15931216.
CHAPTER 8. DARK MATTER
[76] Elizabeth Gibney (3 September 2014). Earths new ad-
dress: 'Solar System, Milky Way, Laniakea'". Nature.
doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15819.
[77] Mateo, M. L. (1998). Dwarf Galaxies of the
Local Group. Annual Review of Astronomy
and Astrophysics 36 (1): 435506. arXiv:astro-
ph/9810070. Bibcode:1998ARA&A..36..435M.
doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.435.
[78] Moore, B.; et al. (1999). Dark Matter Substruc-
ture within Galactic Halos. The Astrophysical Jour-
nal Letters 524 (1): L19L22. arXiv:astro-ph/9907411.
Bibcode:1999ApJ...524L..19M. doi:10.1086/312287.
[79] Tisserand, P.; Le Guillou, L.; Afonso, C.; Albert, J.
N.; Andersen, J.; Ansari, R.; Aubourg, .; Bareyre, P.;
Beaulieu, J. P.; Charlot, X.; Coutures, C.; Ferlet, R.;
Fouqu, P.; Glicenstein, J. F.; Goldman, B.; Gould,
A.; Gra, D.; Gros, M.; Haissinski, J.; Hamadache,
C.; De Kat, J.; Lasserre, T.; Lesquoy, .; Loup, C.;
Magneville, C.; Marquette, J. B.; Maurice, .; Maury,
A.; Milsztajn, A.; Moniez, M. (2007). Limits on the
Macho content of the Galactic Halo from the EROS-2
Survey of the Magellanic Clouds. Astronomy and
Astrophysics 469 (2): 387. arXiv:astro-ph/0607207.
Bibcode:2007A&A...469..387T. doi:10.1051/0004-
6361:20066017.
[80] Gra, D. S.; Freese, K. (1996). Analysis of a Hub-
ble Space Telescope Search for Red Dwarfs: Lim-
its on Baryonic Matter in the Galactic Halo. The
Astrophysical Journal 456. arXiv:astro-ph/9507097.
Bibcode:1996ApJ...456L..49G. doi:10.1086/309850.
[81] Najita, J. R.; Tiede, G. P.; Carr, J. S. (2000). From
Stars to Superplanets: The LowMass Initial Mass Func-
tion in the Young Cluster IC 348. The Astrophys-
ical Journal 541 (2): 977. arXiv:astro-ph/0005290.
Bibcode:2000ApJ...541..977N. doi:10.1086/309477.
[82] Wyrzykowski, Lukasz et al. (2011) The OGLE view of
microlensing towards the Magellanic Clouds IV. OGLE-
III SMC data and nal conclusions on MACHOs, MN-
RAS, 416, 2949
[83] Freese, Katherine; Fields, Brian; Gra, David (2000).
Death of Stellar Baryonic Dark Matter Candidates.
arXiv:astro-ph/0007444 [astro-ph].
[84] Freese, Katherine; Fields, Brian; Gra, David (2000).
Death of Stellar Baryonic Dark Matter. The First
Stars. ESO Astrophysics Symposia. p. 18.
arXiv:astro-ph/0002058. Bibcode:2000st.conf...18F.
doi:10.1007/10719504_3. ISBN 3-540-67222-2.
[85] Silk, Joseph (1980). The Big Bang (1989 ed.). San Fran-
cisco: Freeman. chapter ix, page 182. ISBN 0-7167-
1085-4.
[86] Vittorio, N.; J. Silk (1984). Fine-scale anisotropy
of the cosmic microwave background in a universe
dominated by cold dark matter. Astrophysical Jour-
nal, Part 2 Letters to the Editor 285: L39L43.
Bibcode:1984ApJ...285L..39V. doi:10.1086/184361.
8.10. REFERENCES 85

[87] Umemura, Masayuki; Satoru Ikeuchi (1985). For- [99] Drukier, A.; Freese, K. and Spergel, D. (1986). Detect-
mation of Subgalactic Objects within Two-Component ing Cold Dark Matter Candidates. Physical Review D
Dark Matter. Astrophysical Journal 299: 583592. 33 (12): 34953508. Bibcode:1986PhRvD..33.3495D.
Bibcode:1985ApJ...299..583U. doi:10.1086/163726. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.33.3495.

[88] Davis, M.; Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. [100] Bernabei, R.; Belli, P.; Cappella, F.; Cerulli, R.; Dai,
(May 15, 1985). The evolution of large-scale structure in
a universe dominated by cold dark matter. Astrophysical
Journal 292: 371394. Bibcode:1985ApJ...292..371D.
doi:10.1086/163168.
[89] Hawkins, M. R. S. (2011). The case for primordial black
holes as dark matter. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- [101] Stonebraker, Alan (2014-01-03). Synopsis: Dark-
nomical Society 415 (3): 27442757. arXiv:1106.3875.
Bibcode:2011MNRAS.415.2744H. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2966.2011.18890.x.
[90] Carr, B. J.; et al. (May 2010). New cosmo- [102] Lee, Samuel K.; Mariangela Lisanti, Annika H. G. Peter,
logical constraints on primordial black holes
(PDF). Physical Review D 81 (10): 104019.
arXiv:0912.5297. Bibcode:2010PhRvD..81j4019C.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.104019.
[91] Peter, A. H. G. (2012). Dark Matter: A Brief Review.
arXiv:1201.3942 [astro-ph.CO].
[92] Garrett, Katherine; Dda, Gintaras (2011). Dark
Matter: A Primer. Advances in Astronomy 2011:
1. arXiv:1006.2483. Bibcode:2011AdAst2011E...8G.
doi:10.1155/2011/968283. MACHOs can only account
for a very small percentage of the nonluminous mass in
our galaxy, revealing that most dark matter cannot be
strongly concentrated or exist in the form of baryonic as-
trophysical objects. Although microlensing surveys rule [105] The CDMS II Collaboration; Ahmed, Z.; Akerib, D. S.;
out baryonic objects like brown dwarfs, black holes, and
neutron stars in our galactic halo, can other forms of bary-
onic matter make up the bulk of dark matter? The answer,
surprisingly, is no...
[93] Bertone, G. (2010). The moment of truth for
WIMP dark matter. Nature 468 (7322): 389
393. arXiv:1011.3532. Bibcode:2010Natur.468..389B.
doi:10.1038/nature09509. PMID 21085174.
[94] Olive, Keith A. (2003). TASI Lectures on Dark Matter.
p. 21
[95] Neutrinos as Dark Matter. Astro.ucla.edu. 21 Septem-
ber 1998. Retrieved 6 January 2011.
[96] Gaitskell, Richard J. (2004). Direct Detection of Dark
Matter. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Sys- [107] Dark matter even darker than once thought. Retrieved
tems 54: 315359. Bibcode:2004ARNPS..54..315G.
doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.54.070103.181244.
[97] NEUTRALINO DARK MATTER. Retrieved 26 De-
cember 2011. Griest, Kim. WIMPs and MACHOs
(PDF). Retrieved 26 December 2011.
C. J.; dAngelo, A.; He, H. L.; Incicchitti, A.; Kuang,
H. H.; Ma, J. M.; Montecchia, F.; Nozzoli, F.; Pros-
peri, D.; Sheng, X. D.; Ye, Z. P. (2008). First re-
sults from DAMA/LIBRA and the combined results with
DAMA/NaI. Eur. Phys. J. C 56 (3): 333355.
arXiv:0804.2741. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0662-y.
Matter Wind Sways through the Seasons. Physics - Syn-
opses (American Physical Society). Retrieved 6 January
2014.
and Benjamin R. Safdi (2014-01-03). Eect of Gravi-
tational Focusing on Annual Modulation in Dark-Matter
Direct-Detection Experiments. Phys. Rev. Lett. (Amer-
ican Physical Society) 112 (1): 011301 (2014) [5 pages].
arXiv:1308.1953. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112a1301L.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.011301.
[103] The Dark Matter Group. An Introduction to Dark Mat-
ter. Dark Matter Research (Sheeld, UK: University of
Sheeld). Retrieved 7 January 2014.
[104] Blowing in the Wind. Kavli News (Sheeld, UK: Kavli
Foundation). Retrieved 7 January 2014. Scientists at
Kavli MIT are working on...a tool to track the movement
of dark matter.
Arrenberg, S.; Bailey, C. N.; Balakishiyeva, D.; Baudis,
L.; Bauer, D. A.; Brink, P. L.; Bruch, T.; Bunker,
R.; Cabrera, B.; Caldwell, D. O.; Cooley, J.; Cush-
man, P.; Daal, M.; Dejongh, F.; Dragowsky, M. R.;
Duong, L.; Fallows, S.; Figueroa-Feliciano, E.; Filip-
pini, J.; Fritts, M.; Golwala, S. R.; Grant, D. R.; Hall,
J.; Hennings-Yeomans, R.; Hertel, S. A.; Holmgren,
D.; Hsu, L. (2010). Dark Matter Search Results from
the CDMS II Experiment. Science 327 (5973): 1619
1621. arXiv:0912.3592. Bibcode:2010Sci...327.1619C.
doi:10.1126/science.1186112. PMID 20150446.
[106] Angloher, G.; Bauer; Bavykina; Bento; Bucci; Ciemniak;
Deuter; von Feilitzsch; Hau; et al. (2011). Results
from 730kg days of the CRESST-II Dark Matter Search.
arXiv:1109.0702v1 [astro-ph.CO].
16 June 2015.
[108] Stecker, F.W.; Hunter, S; Knien, D (2008). The
likely cause of the EGRET GeV anomaly and its
implications. Astroparticle Physics 29 (1): 25
29. arXiv:0705.4311. Bibcode:2008APh....29...25S.
doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007.11.002.

[98] Kane, G. and Watson, S. (2008). Dark Matter [109] Atwood, W.B.; Abdo, A. A.; Ackermann, M.; Althouse,
and LHC:. what is the Connection?". Mod- W.; Anderson, B.; Axelsson, M.; Baldini, L.; Ballet, J.;
ern Physics Letters A 23 (26): 21032123. et al. (2009). The large area telescope on the Fermi
arXiv:0807.2244. Bibcode:2008MPLA...23.2103K. Gamma-ray Space Telescope Mission. Astrophysi-
doi:10.1142/S0217732308028314. cal Journal 697 (2): 10711102. arXiv:0902.1089.
 86 CHAPTER 8. DARK MATTER

Bibcode:2009ApJ...697.1071A. doi:10.1088/0004- [117] Heilprin, John; Borenstein, Seth (3 April 2013).

637X/697/2/1071. Scientists nd hint of dark matter from cosmos. As-
sociated Press. Retrieved 3 April 2013.
[110] Weniger, Christoph (2012). A Tentative Gamma-Ray
Line from Dark Matter Annihilation at the Fermi [118] Amos, Jonathan (3 April 2013). Alpha Magnetic Spec-
Large Area Telescope. Journal of Cosmology and trometer zeroes in on dark matter. BBC. Retrieved 3
Astroparticle Physics 2012 (8): 7. arXiv:1204.2797v2. April 2013.
Bibcode:2012JCAP...08..007W. doi:10.1088/1475-
7516/2012/08/007. [119] Perrotto, Trent J.; Byerly, Josh (2 April 2013). NASA
TV Brieng Discusses Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer Re-
[111] Cartlidge, Edwin (24 April 2012). Gamma rays hint at sults. NASA. Retrieved 3 April 2013.
dark matter. Institute Of Physics. Retrieved 23 April
2013. [120] Overbye, Dennis (3 April 2013). New Clues to the Mys-
tery of Dark Matter. New York Times. Retrieved 3 April
[112] Albert, J.; Aliu, E.; Anderhub, H.; Antoranz, P.;
2013.
Backes, M.; Baixeras, C.; Barrio, J. A.; Bartko, H.;
Bastieri, D.; Becker, J. K.; Bednarek, W.; Berger, [121] Freese, K. (1986). Can Scalar Neutrinos or Massive
K.; Bigongiari, C.; Biland, A.; Bock, R. K.; Bor- Dirac Neutrinos be the Missing Mass?". Physics Letters
das, P.; BoschRamon, V.; Bretz, T.; Britvitch, I.; B 167 (3): 295300. Bibcode:1986PhLB..167..295F.
Camara, M.; Carmona, E.; Chilingarian, A.; Com- doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90349-7.
michau, S.; Contreras, J. L.; Cortina, J.; Costado, M.
T.; Curtef, V.; Danielyan, V.; Dazzi, F.; De Angelis, [122] Ellis, J.; Flores, R. A.; Freese, K.; Ritz, S.; Seckel, D.;
A. (2008). Upper Limit for Ray Emission above Silk, J. (1988). Cosmic ray constraints on the annihi-
140 GeV from the Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy Draco. lations of relic particles in the galactic halo. Physics
The Astrophysical Journal 679: 428. arXiv:0711.2574. Letters B 214 (3): 403. Bibcode:1988PhLB..214..403E.
Bibcode:2008ApJ...679..428A. doi:10.1086/529135. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)91385-8.
[113] Aleksi, J.; Antonelli, L. A.; Antoranz, P.; Backes, M.; [123] Merritt, David (1 January 2010). Dark Matter at the
Baixeras, C.; Balestra, S.; Barrio, J. A.; Bastieri, D.; Centers of Galaxies. In Bertone, Gianfranco. Particle
Gonzlez, J. B.; Bednarek, W.; Berdyugin, A.; Berger, Dark Matter : Observations, Models and Searches. Cam-
K.; Bernardini, E.; Biland, A.; Bock, R. K.; Bonnoli, bridge University Press. pp. 83104. arXiv:1001.3706.
G.; Bordas, P.; Tridon, D. B.; Bosch-Ramon, V.; Bose, ISBN 978-0-521-76368-4.
D.; Braun, I.; Bretz, T.; Britzger, D.; Camara, M.;
Carmona, E.; Carosi, A.; Colin, P.; Commichau, S.; [124] Rzetelny, Xaq (19 November 2014). Looking for a dif-
Contreras, J. L.; Cortina, J. (2010). Magic Gamma- ferent sort of dark matter with GPS satellites. Ars Tech-
Ray Telescope Observation of the Perseus Cluster of nica. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
Galaxies: Implications for Cosmic Rays, Dark Mat-
ter, and Ngc 1275. The Astrophysical Journal 710: [125] Exirifard, Q. (2010). Phenomenological covari-
634. arXiv:0909.3267. Bibcode:2010ApJ...710..634A. ant approach to gravity. General Relativity and
doi:10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/634. Gravitation 43 (1): 93106. arXiv:0808.1962.
Bibcode:2011GReGr..43...93E. doi:10.1007/s10714-
[114] Adriani, O.; Barbarino, G. C.; Bazilevskaya, G. A.; Bel- 010-1073-6.
lotti, R.; Boezio, M.; Bogomolov, E. A.; Bonechi, L.;
Bongi, M.; Bonvicini, V.; Bottai, S.; Bruno, A.; Cafagna, [126] Brownstein, J.R.; Moat, J. W. (2007). The Bullet
F.; Campana, D.; Carlson, P.; Casolino, M.; Castellini, Cluster 1E0657-558 evidence shows modied gravity
G.; De Pascale, M. P.; De Rosa, G.; De Simone, N.; Di in the absence of dark matter. Monthly Notices of the
Felice, V.; Galper, A. M.; Grishantseva, L.; Hofverberg, Royal Astronomical Society 382 (1): 2947. arXiv:astro-
P.; Koldashov, S. V.; Krutkov, S. Y.; Kvashnin, A. N.; ph/0702146. Bibcode:2007MNRAS.382...29B.
Leonov, A.; Malvezzi, V.; Marcelli, L.; Menn, W. (2009). doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12275.x.
An anomalous positron abundance in cosmic rays with
energies 1.5100 GeV. Nature 458 (7238): 607 [127] Anastopoulos, C. (2009). Gravita-
609. arXiv:0810.4995. Bibcode:2009Natur.458..607A. tional backreaction in cosmological space-
doi:10.1038/nature07942. PMID 19340076. times. Physical Review D 79 (8): 084029.
arXiv:0902.0159. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..79h4029A.
[115] Aguilar, M. (AMS Collaboration); et al. (3 April doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084029.
2013). First Result from the Alpha Magnetic
Spectrometer on the International Space Station: [128] New Cosmic Theory Unites Dark Forces. SPACE.com.
Precision Measurement of the Positron Fraction in 11 February 2008. Retrieved 6 January 2011.
Primary Cosmic Rays of 0.5350 GeV. Physical
Review Letters. Bibcode:2013PhRvL.110n1102A. [129] Hossenfelder, S. (2008). A Bi-Metric Theory with Ex-
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141102. Retrieved 3 change Symmetry. Physical Review D 78 (4): 044015.
April 2013. arXiv:gr-qc/0603005. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..78d4015H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.044015.
[116] First Result from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer Ex-
periment. AMS Collaboration. 3 April 2013. Retrieved [130] Ripalda, Jose M. (1999). Time reversal and negative en-
3 April 2013. ergies in general relativity. arXiv:gr-qc/9906012 [gr-qc].
 8.11. EXTERNAL LINKS 87

[131] Nottale, Laurent (May 29, 2009). Scale relativity and

fractal space-time: theory and applications (PDF).

[132] Nottale, Laurent (2011). Scale Relativity and Fractal

Space-Time: A New Approach to Unifying Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics. World Scientic. p. 516. ISBN
9781908977878.

8.11 External links

Dark matter at DMOZ

Dark matter (Astronomy) at Encyclopdia Britan-

nica

What is dark matter? at cosmosmagazine.com

The Dark Matter Crisis 18 August 2010 by Pavel

Kroupa, posted in General

The European astroparticle physics network

Helmholtz Alliance for Astroparticle Physics

NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Press

release). NASA. 21 August 2006.

Tuttle, Kelen (22 August 2006). Dark Matter Ob-

served. SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Cen-
ter) Today.
Astronomers claim rst 'dark galaxy' nd. New
Scientist. 23 February 2005.
Sample, Ian (17 December 2009). Dark Matter
Detected. London: Guardian. Retrieved 1 May
2010.

Video lecture on dark matter by Scott Tremaine,

IAS professor

Science Daily story Astronomers Doubts About

the Dark Side ...

Gray, Meghan; Merrield, Mike; Copeland, Ed

(2010). Dark Matter. Sixty Symbols. Brady Haran
for the University of Nottingham.
Chapter 9

Big Bang

Big Bang theory redirects here. For the American
TV sitcom, see The Big Bang Theory. For other uses,
see Big Bang (disambiguation) and Big Bang Theory
(disambiguation).
nating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cos-
mic expansion. While the scientic community was once
divided between supporters of two dierent expanding
universe theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State the-
ory, accumulated empirical evidence provides strong sup-
port for the former.[8] In 1929, from analysis of galac-
tic redshifts, Edwin Hubble concluded that galaxies are
drifting apart, important observational evidence consis-
tent with the hypothesis of an expanding universe. In
1965, the cosmic microwave background radiation was
discovered, which was crucial evidence in favor of the
Big Bang model, since that theory predicted the existence
of background radiation throughout the universe before
it was discovered. More recently, measurements of the
redshifts of supernovae indicate that the expansion of the
universe is accelerating, an observation attributed to dark
energy's existence.[9] The known physical laws of nature
can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe
in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme density
and temperature.[10][11][12]

According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an 9.1 Overview
extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand.

History of the Universe

{
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological Gravitational Waves

model for the universe from the earliest known periods Ination
Generates
Two Types of

through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3] The

Waves Waves Imprint Characteristic
Density Waves Polarization Signals

model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded

from a very high density and high temperature state,[4][5] Free Electrons
Scatter Light
Earliest Time
Visible with Light

and oers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range

Fluctuations
Quantum
Radius of the Visible Universe

Cosmic Microwave Background

of phenomena, including the abundance of light ele-

Neutral Hydrogen Forms
Nuclear Fusion Begins

Nuclear Fusion Ends

Modern Universe
Protons Formed

ments, the cosmic microwave background, large scale

Ination

Big
Bang

structure and Hubbles Law.[6] If the known laws of

physics are extrapolated beyond where they are valid,
there is a singularity. Modern measurements place this 0 1032 s 1 s 0.01 s 3 min 380,000 yrs 13.8 Billion yrs

moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is Age of the Universe

thus considered the age of the universe.[7] After the initial

expansion, the universe cooled suciently to allow the
History of the Universe - gravitational waves are hypothesized
formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms.
to arise from cosmic ination, an expansion just after the Big
Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced Bang.[13][14][15][16]
through gravity to form stars and galaxies.
Since Georges Lematre rst noted, in 1927, that an ex- Hubble observed that the distances to faraway galaxies
panding universe might be traced back in time to an origi- were strongly correlated with their redshifts. This was in-

88
9.2. TIMELINE
terpreted to mean that all distant galaxies and clusters are
receding away from our vantage point with an apparent
velocity proportional to their distance: that is, the farther
they are, the faster they move away from us, regardless of
direction.[17] Assuming the Copernican principle (that the
Earth is not the center of the universe), the only remain-
ing interpretation is that all observable regions of the uni-
verse are receding from all others. Since we know that the
distance between galaxies increases today, it must mean
that in the past galaxies were closer together. The contin-
uous expansion of the universe implies that the universe
was denser and hotter in the past.
Large particle accelerators can replicate the conditions
that prevailed after the early moments of the universe,
resulting in conrmation and renement of the details of
the Big Bang model. However, these accelerators can
only probe so far into high energy regimes. Consequently,
the state of the universe in the earliest instants of the Big
Bang expansion is still poorly understood and an area of
open investigation and indeed, speculation.
The rst subatomic particles included protons, neutrons,
and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei formed
within the rst three minutes after the Big Bang, thou-
sands of years passed before the rst electrically neutral
atoms formed. The majority of atoms produced by the
Big Bang were hydrogen, along with helium and traces of
lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later
coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and
the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars
or during supernovae.
The Big Bang theory oers a comprehensive explana-
tion for a broad range of observed phenomena, including
the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave
background, large scale structure, and Hubbles Law.[6]
The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert
Einstein's theory of general relativity and on simplifying
assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy of space.
The governing equations were formulated by Alexander
Friedmann, and similar solutions were worked on by
Willem de Sitter. Since then, astrophysicists have incor-
porated observational and theoretical additions into the
Big Bang model, and its parametrization as the Lambda-
CDM model serves as the framework for current inves-
tigations of theoretical cosmology. The Lambda-CDM
model is the standard model of Big Bang cosmology, the
simplest model that provides a reasonably good account
of various observations about the universe.
9.2 Timeline
Main article: Timeline of the Big Bang
89
9.2.1 Singularity
See also: Gravitational singularity and Planck epoch
Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe back-
wards in time using general relativity yields an innite
density and temperature at a nite time in the past.[18]
This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativ-
ity and thus, all the laws of physics. How closely this
can be extrapolated toward the singularity is debated
certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch.
This singularity is sometimes called the Big Bang,[19]
but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase
itself,[20][notes 1] which can be considered the birth of
our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion
using Type Ia supernovae and measurements of temper-
ature uctuations in the cosmic microwave background,
the universe has an estimated age of 13.799 0.021 bil-
lion years.[21] The agreement of these three independent
measurements strongly supports the CDM model that
describes in detail the contents of the universe.
9.2.2 Ination and baryogenesis
Main articles: Cosmic ination and baryogenesis
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much
speculation. In the most common models the universe
was lled homogeneously and isotropically with a very
high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures
and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approxi-
mately 1037 seconds into the expansion, a phase transi-
tion caused a cosmic ination, during which the universe
grew exponentially.[22] After ination stopped, the uni-
verse consisted of a quarkgluon plasma, as well as all
other elementary particles.[23] Temperatures were so high
that the random motions of particles were at relativistic
speeds, and particleantiparticle pairs of all kinds were
being continuously created and destroyed in collisions.[4]
At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis
violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a
very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks
and antileptonsof the order of one part in 30 mil-
lion. This resulted in the predominance of matter over
antimatter in the present universe.[24]
9.2.3 Cooling
Main articles: Big Bang nucleosynthesis and cosmic mi-
crowave background radiation
The universe continued to decrease in density and fall
in temperature, hence the typical energy of each parti-
cle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions
put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters
of elementary particles into their present form.[25] After
about 1011 seconds, the picture becomes less specula-
90 CHAPTER 9. BIG BANG

Panoramic view of the entire near-infrared sky reveals the dis-

tribution of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. Galaxies are color-
coded by redshift.

tive, since particle energies drop to values that can be

attained in particle physics experiments. At about 106
seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons
such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks
over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over
antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high
enough to create new protonantiproton pairs (similarly
for neutronsantineutrons), so a mass annihilation imme-
diately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original
protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A
similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons
and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining
protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving
relativistically and the energy density of the universe was
dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from
neutrinos).
A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature
was about a billion (one thousand million; 109 ; SI pre-
x giga-) kelvin and the density was about that of air,
neutrons combined with protons to form the universes
deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang
nucleosynthesis.[26] Most protons remained uncombined
as hydrogen nuclei. As the universe cooled, the rest mass
energy density of matter came to gravitationally dominate
that of the photon radiation. After about 379,000 years
the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly
hydrogen); hence the radiation decoupled from matter
and continued through space largely unimpeded. This
relic radiation is known as the cosmic microwave back-
ground radiation.[27] The chemistry of life may have be-
gun shortly after the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, dur-
ing a habitable epoch when the universe was only 1017
million years old.[28][29][30]
9.2.4 Structure formation
Main article: Structure formation
Over a long period of time, the slightly denser regions
of the nearly uniformly distributed matter gravitationally
attracted nearby matter and thus grew even denser, form-
ing gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and the other astronomical
structures observable today.[4] The details of this process
depend on the amount and type of matter in the universe.
Abell 2744 galaxy cluster - Hubble Frontier Fields view.[31]
The four possible types of matter are known as cold dark
matter, warm dark matter, hot dark matter, and baryonic
matter. The best measurements available (from WMAP)
show that the data is well-t by a Lambda-CDM model
in which dark matter is assumed to be cold (warm dark
matter is ruled out by early reionization[32] ), and is esti-
mated to make up about 23% of the matter/energy of the
universe, while baryonic matter makes up about 4.6%.[33]
In an extended model which includes hot dark matter in
the form of neutrinos, then if the physical baryon den-
sity h2 is estimated at about 0.023 (this is dierent
from the 'baryon density' expressed as a fraction of the
total matter/energy density, which as noted above is about
0.046), and the corresponding cold dark matter density
h2 is about 0.11, the corresponding neutrino density
h2 is estimated to be less than 0.0062.[33]
9.2.5 Cosmic acceleration
Main article: Accelerating universe
Independent lines of evidence from Type Ia supernovae
and the CMB imply that the universe today is dominated
by a mysterious form of energy known as dark energy,
which apparently permeates all of space. The observa-
tions suggest 73% of the total energy density of todays
universe is in this form. When the universe was very
young, it was likely infused with dark energy, but with
less space and everything closer together, gravity pre-
dominated, and it was slowly braking the expansion. But
eventually, after numerous billion years of expansion, the
growing abundance of dark energy caused the expansion
of the universe to slowly begin to accelerate. Dark en-
ergy in its simplest formulation takes the form of the
cosmological constant term in Einsteins eld equations of
9.3. UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS 91

9.3.1 Expansion of space

Main articles: FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker

metric and Metric expansion of space

General relativity describes spacetime by a metric, which

determines the distances that separate nearby points. The
points, which can be galaxies, stars, or other objects,
themselves are specied using a coordinate chart or grid
that is laid down over all spacetime. The cosmological
Lambda-CDM, accelerated expansion of the universe. The time- principle implies that the metric should be homogeneous
line in this schematic diagram extends from the big bang/ination and isotropic on large scales, which uniquely singles
era 13.7 Gyr ago to the present cosmological time. out the FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker metric
(FLRW metric). This metric contains a scale factor,
which describes how the size of the universe changes with
time. This enables a convenient choice of a coordinate
general relativity, but its composition and mechanism are system to be made, called comoving coordinates. In this
unknown and, more generally, the details of its equation coordinate system the grid expands along with the uni-
of state and relationship with the Standard Model of par- verse, and objects that are moving only due to the expan-
ticle physics continue to be investigated both observation- sion of the universe remain at xed points on the grid.
ally and theoretically.[9] While their coordinate distance (comoving distance) re-
All of this cosmic evolution after the inationary epoch mains constant, the physical distance between two such
can be rigorously described and modelled by the CDM comoving points expands proportionally with the scale
model of cosmology, which uses the independent frame- factor of the universe.[36]
works of quantum mechanics and Einsteins General Rel- The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving out-
ativity. There is no well-supported model describing the ward to ll an empty universe. Instead, space itself ex-
action prior to 1015 seconds or so. Apparently a new uni- pands with time everywhere and increases the physical
ed theory of quantum gravitation is needed to break this distance between two comoving points. In other words,
barrier. Understanding this earliest of eras in the history the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an ex-
of the universe is currently one of the greatest unsolved pansion of space.[4] Because the FLRW metric assumes
problems in physics. a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to
our universe only on large scaleslocal concentrations of
matter such as our galaxy are gravitationally bound and
as such do not experience the large-scale expansion of
space.[37]
9.3 Underlying assumptions
9.3.2 Horizons
The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions:
the universality of physical laws and the cosmological Main article: Cosmological horizon
principle. The cosmological principle states that on large
scales the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
An important feature of the Big Bang spacetime is the
These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but today presence of horizons. Since the universe has a nite age,
there are eorts to test each of them. For example, the and light travels at a nite speed, there may be events in
rst assumption has been tested by observations showing the past whose light has not had time to reach us. This
that largest possible deviation of the ne structure con- places a limit or a past horizon on the most distant ob-
stant over much of the age of the universe is of order jects that can be observed. Conversely, because space
105 .[34] Also, general relativity has passed stringent tests is expanding, and more distant objects are receding ever
on the scale of the Solar System and binary stars.[notes 2] more quickly, light emitted by us today may never catch
If the large-scale universe appears isotropic as viewed up to very distant objects. This denes a future horizon,
from Earth, the cosmological principle can be derived which limits the events in the future that we will be able to
from the simpler Copernican principle, which states that inuence. The presence of either type of horizon depends
there is no preferred (or special) observer or vantage on the details of the FLRW model that describes our uni-
point. To this end, the cosmological principle has been verse. Our understanding of the universe back to very
conrmed to a level of 105 via observations of the CMB. early times suggests that there is a past horizon, though in
The universe has been measured to be homogeneous on practice our view is also limited by the opacity of the uni-
the largest scales at the 10% level.[35] verse at early times. So our view cannot extend further
92 CHAPTER 9. BIG BANG

backward in time, though the horizon recedes in space.

If the expansion of the universe continues to accelerate,
there is a future horizon as well.[38]

9.4 History

Main article: History of the Big Bang theory

See also: Timeline of cosmology XDF image shows fully mature galaxies in the foreground
plane - nearly mature galaxies from 5 to 9 billion years
ago - protogalaxies, blazing with young stars, beyond 9
billion years.

9.4.1 Etymology
The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the
English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining structure of the universe and from theoretical considera-
the term Big Bang during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast. tions. In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the rst Doppler
It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alter- shift of a "spiral nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete
native "steady state" cosmological model, intended this to term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that al-
be pejorative, but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it most all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did
was just a striking image meant to highlight the dierence not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and
between the two models.[39][40][41]:129 indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether
or not these nebulae were island universes outside our
Milky Way.[43][44] Ten years later, Alexander Friedmann,
a Russian cosmologist and mathematician, derived the
9.4.2 Development Friedmann equations from Albert Einsteins equations of
general relativity, showing that the universe might be ex-
Hubble eXtreme Deep Field (XDF) panding in contrast to the static universe model advocated
by Einstein at that time.[45] In 1924 Edwin Hubbles mea-
surement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebu-
lae showed that these systems were indeed other galax-
ies. Independently deriving Friedmanns equations in
1927, Georges Lematre, a Belgian physicist and Roman
Catholic priest, proposed that the inferred recession of
the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.[46]
In 1931 Lematre went further and suggested that the evi-
dent expansion of the universe, if projected back in time,
meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe
was, until at some nite time in the past all the mass of the
universe was concentrated into a single point, a primeval
atom where and when the fabric of time and space came
XDF size compared to the size of the moon - several into existence.[47]
thousand galaxies, each consisting of billions of stars,
are in this small view. Starting in 1924, Hubble painstakingly developed a se-
ries of distance indicators, the forerunner of the cosmic
distance ladder, using the 100-inch (2.5 m) Hooker tele-
scope at Mount Wilson Observatory. This allowed him
to estimate distances to galaxies whose redshifts had al-
ready been measured, mostly by Slipher. In 1929 Hubble
discovered a correlation between distance and recession
velocitynow known as Hubbles law.[17][48] Lematre
had already shown that this was expected, given the
cosmological principle.[9]
In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmolo-
gist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several
XDF (2012) view - each light speck is a galaxy - some of complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big
these are as old as 13.2 billion years[42] - the universe is Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this ob-
estimated to contain 200 billion galaxies.
9.5. OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE 93

jection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state problems in the Big Bang theory with the introduction
theory.[49] This perception was enhanced by the fact that of an epoch of rapid expansion in the early universe he
the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges called "ination".[64] Meanwhile, during these decades,
Lematre, was a Roman Catholic priest.[50] Arthur Ed- two questions in observational cosmology that generated
dington agreed with Aristotle that the universe did not much discussion and disagreement were over the precise
have a beginning in time, viz., that matter is eternal. A be- values of the Hubble Constant[65] and the matter-density
ginning in time was repugnant to him.[51][52] Lematre, of the universe (before the discovery of dark energy,
however, thought that thought to be the key predictor for the eventual fate of
the universe).[66] In the mid-1990s observations of cer-
If the world has begun with a single tain globular clusters appeared to indicate that they were
quantum, the notions of space and time would about 15 billion years old, which conicted with most
altogether fail to have any meaning at the then-current estimates of the age of the universe (and in-
beginning; they would only begin to have a deed with the age measured today). This issue was later
sensible meaning when the original quantum resolved when new computer simulations, which included
had been divided into a sucient number the eects of mass loss due to stellar winds, indicated a
of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the much younger age for globular clusters.[67] While there
beginning of the world happened a little before still remain some questions as to how accurately the ages
the beginning of space and time.[53] of the clusters are measured, globular clusters are of in-
terest to cosmology as some of the oldest objects in the
universe.
During the 1930s other ideas were proposed as non-
standard cosmologies to explain Hubbles observations, Signicant progress in Big Bang cosmology have been
including the Milne model,[54] the oscillatory universe made since the late 1990s as a result of advances in
(originally suggested by Friedmann, but advocated by Al- telescope technology as well as the analysis of data from
bert Einstein and Richard Tolman)[55] and Fritz Zwicky's satellites such as COBE,[68] the Hubble Space Telescope
tired light hypothesis.[56] and WMAP.[69] Cosmologists now have fairly precise and
accurate measurements of many of the parameters of the
After World War II, two distinct possibilities emerged. Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discov-
One was Fred Hoyles steady state model, whereby new ery that the expansion of the universe appears to be ac-
matter would be created as the universe seemed to ex- celerating.
pand. In this model the universe is roughly the same at
any point in time.[57] The other was Lematres Big Bang
theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow, who
introduced big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN)[58] and whose
9.5 Observational evidence
associates, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, predicted
the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).[59]
Ironically, it was Hoyle who coined the phrase that came
to be applied to Lematres theory, referring to it as this
big bang idea during a BBC Radio broadcast in March
1949.[41]:129[notes 3] For a while, support was split between
these two theories. Eventually, the observational evi-
dence, most notably from radio source counts, began to
favor Big Bang over Steady State. The discovery and con-
rmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation
in 1965[61] secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the
origin and evolution of the universe. Much of the current
work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies
form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding the
physics of the universe at earlier and earlier times, and Artists depiction of the WMAP satellite gathering data to help
scientists understand the Big Bang
reconciling observations with the basic theory.
In 1968 and 1970, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and "[The] big bang picture is too rmly grounded in data
George F. R. Ellis published papers where they showed from every area to be proved invalid in its general fea-
that mathematical singularities were an inevitable ini- tures.
tial condition of general relativistic models of the Big
Bang.[62][63] Then, from the 1970s to the 1990s, cos- Lawrence Krauss[70]
mologists worked on characterizing the features of the
Big Bang universe and resolving outstanding problems. The earliest and most direct observational evidence of the
In 1981, Alan Guth made a breakthrough in theoret- validity of the theory are the expansion of the universe ac-
ical work on resolving certain outstanding theoretical cording to Hubbles law (as indicated by the redshifts of
94 CHAPTER 9. BIG BANG

galaxies), discovery and measurement of the cosmic mi- Hubbles law has two possible explanations. Either we are
crowave background and the relative abundances of light at the center of an explosion of galaxieswhich is unten-
elements produced by Big Bang nucleosynthesis. More able given the Copernican principleor the universe is
recent evidence includes observations of galaxy forma- uniformly expanding everywhere. This universal expan-
tion and evolution, and the distribution of large-scale cos- sion was predicted from general relativity by Alexander
mic structures,[71] These are sometimes called the four Friedmann in 1922[45] and Georges Lematre in 1927,[46]
pillars of the Big Bang theory.[72] well before Hubble made his 1929 analysis and obser-
Precise modern models of the Big Bang appeal to various vations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang
theory as developed by Friedmann, Lematre, Robertson,
exotic physical phenomena that have not been observed
in terrestrial laboratory experiments or incorporated into and Walker.
the Standard Model of particle physics. Of these features, The theory requires the relation v = HD to hold at
dark matter is currently subjected to the most active lab- all times, where D is the comoving distance, v is the
oratory investigations.[73] Remaining issues include the recessional velocity, and v, H, and D vary as the universe
cuspy halo problem and the dwarf galaxy problem of cold expands (hence we write H 0 to denote the present-day
dark matter. Dark energy is also an area of intense in- Hubble constant). For distances much smaller than the
terest for scientists, but it is not clear whether direct de- size of the observable universe, the Hubble redshift can
tection of dark energy will be possible.[74] Ination and be thought of as the Doppler shift corresponding to the
baryogenesis remain more speculative features of current recession velocity v. However, the redshift is not a true
Big Bang models. Viable, quantitative explanations for Doppler shift, but rather the result of the expansion of the
such phenomena are still being sought. These are cur- universe between the time the light was emitted and the
rently unsolved problems in physics. time that it was detected.[75]
That space is undergoing metric expansion is shown by
direct observational evidence of the Cosmological prin-
9.5.1 Hubbles law and the expansion of ciple and the Copernican principle, which together with
space Hubbles law have no other explanation. Astronomical
redshifts are extremely isotropic and homogeneous,[17]
Main articles: Hubbles law and Metric expansion of supporting the Cosmological principle that the universe
space looks the same in all directions, along with much other
See also: Distance measures (cosmology) and Scale evidence. If the redshifts were the result of an explosion
factor (universe) from a center distant from us, they would not be so similar
in dierent directions.
Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that Measurements of the eects of the cosmic microwave
these objects are redshiftedthe light emitted from them background radiation on the dynamics of distant astro-
has been shifted to longer wavelengths. This can be seen physical systems in 2000 proved the Copernican princi-
by taking a frequency spectrum of an object and matching ple, that, on a cosmological scale, the Earth is not in a cen-
the spectroscopic pattern of emission lines or absorption tral position.[76] Radiation from the Big Bang was demon-
lines corresponding to atoms of the chemical elements strably warmer at earlier times throughout the universe.
interacting with the light. These redshifts are uniformly Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background
isotropic, distributed evenly among the observed objects over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is
in all directions. If the redshift is interpreted as a Doppler experiencing a metric expansion, and excludes the possi-
shift, the recessional velocity of the object can be calcu- bility that we are near the unique center of an explosion.
lated. For some galaxies, it is possible to estimate dis-
tances via the cosmic distance ladder. When the reces-
sional velocities are plotted against these distances, a lin- 9.5.2 Cosmic microwave background radi-
ear relationship known as Hubbles law is observed:[17]
ation
v = H 0 D, Main article: Cosmic microwave background radiation
In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson serendipi-
where tously discovered the cosmic background radiation, an
omnidirectional signal in the microwave band.[61] Their
discovery provided substantial conrmation of the big-
v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy or other
bang predictions by Alpher, Herman and Gamow around
distant object,
1950. Through the 1970s the radiation was found to be
D is the comoving distance to the object, and approximately consistent with a black body spectrum in
all directions; this spectrum has been redshifted by the
H 0 is Hubbles constant, measured to be 70.4+1.3 expansion of the universe, and today corresponds to ap-
1.4 km/s/Mpc by the WMAP probe.[33] proximately 2.725 K. This tipped the balance of evidence
9.5. OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE
9 year WMAP image of the cosmic microwave background radi- were at the time the most accurate values for some of
ation (2012).[77][78] The radiation is isotropic to roughly one part the cosmological parameters. The results disproved sev-
in 100,000.[79]
in favor of the Big Bang model, and Penzias and Wilson loon based cosmic microwave background experiments
were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1978.
Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum from COBE
400
350
300
Intensity [MJy/sr]
250
200
150
100
50
0 structure of CMB uctuations. The ratios predicted (by
2 4 6 8 10 12
Frequency [1/cm]
The cosmic microwave background spectrum measured by the FI-
RAS instrument on the COBE satellite is the most-precisely mea-
sured black body spectrum in nature.[80] The data points and
error bars on this graph are obscured by the theoretical curve.
The surface of last scattering corresponding to emis-
sion of the CMB occurs shortly after recombination, the
epoch when neutral hydrogen becomes stable. Prior to
this, the universe comprised a hot dense photon-baryon
plasma sea where photons were quickly scattered from
free charged particles. Peaking at around 37214 kyr,[32]
the mean free path for a photon becomes long enough to
reach the present day and the universe becomes transpar-
ent.
In 1989 NASA launched the Cosmic Background Ex-
plorer satellite (COBE) which made two major ad-
vances: in 1990, high-precision spectrum measurements
showed the CMB frequency spectrum is an almost per-
fect blackbody with no deviations at a level of 1 part
in 104 , and measured a residual temperature of 2.726
K (more recent measurements have revised this gure
down slightly to 2.7255 K); then in 1992 further COBE
measurements discovered tiny uctuations (anisotropies)
in the CMB temperature across the sky, at a level of
about one part in 105 .[68] John C. Mather and George
Smoot were awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics
95
for their leadership in these results. During the follow-
ing decade, CMB anisotropies were further investigated
by a large number of ground-based and balloon experi-
ments. In 20002001 several experiments, most notably
BOOMERanG, found the shape of the universe to be spa-
tially almost at by measuring the typical angular size (the
size on the sky) of the anisotropies.[81][82][83]
In early 2003 the rst results of the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) were released, yielding what
eral specic cosmic ination models, but are consistent
with the ination theory in general.[69] The Planck space
probe was launched in May 2009. Other ground and bal-
are ongoing.
COBE Data
9.5.3 Abundance of primordial elements
Black Body Spectrum
Main article: Big Bang nucleosynthesis
Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate
the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium, and
lithium-7 in the universe as ratios to the amount of ordi-
nary hydrogen.[26] The relative abundances depend on a
single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons. This
value can be calculated independently from the detailed
14 16 18 20 22
mass, not by number) are about 0.25 for 4He/H, about
103 for 2H/H, about 104 for 3He/H and about 109 for
7Li/H.[26]
The measured abundances all agree at least roughly with
those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-
photon ratio. The agreement is excellent for deuterium,
close but formally discrepant for 4He, and o by a factor
of two for 7Li; in the latter two cases there are substantial
systematic uncertainties. Nonetheless, the general consis-
tency with abundances predicted by Big Bang nucleosyn-
thesis is strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory
is the only known explanation for the relative abundances
of light elements, and it is virtually impossible to tune
the Big Bang to produce much more or less than 2030%
helium.[84] Indeed, there is no obvious reason outside of
the Big Bang that, for example, the young universe (i.e.,
before star formation, as determined by studying mat-
ter supposedly free of stellar nucleosynthesis products)
should have more helium than deuterium or more deu-
terium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too.[85]:182185
9.5.4 Galactic evolution and distribution
Main articles: Galaxy formation and evolution and
Structure formation
Detailed observations of the morphology and distribution
96 CHAPTER 9. BIG BANG

of galaxies and quasars are in agreement with the current
state of the Big Bang theory. A combination of observa-
tions and theory suggest that the rst quasars and galaxies
formed about a billion years after the Big Bang, and since
then larger structures have been forming, such as galaxy
clusters and superclusters. Populations of stars have been
aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are ob-
served as they were in the early universe) appear very
dierent from nearby galaxies (observed in a more re-
cent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively re-
cently appear markedly dierent from galaxies formed at
similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These
observations are strong arguments against the steady-
state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and
quasar distributions and larger structures agree well with
Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in
the universe and are helping to complete details of the
theory.[86][87]
9.5.5 Primordial gas clouds
other estimates using the ages of the oldest stars, both as
measured by applying the theory of stellar evolution to
globular clusters and through radiometric dating of indi-
vidual Population II stars.[90]
The prediction that the CMB temperature was higher
in the past has been experimentally supported by ob-
servations of very low temperature absorption lines in
gas clouds at high redshift.[91] This prediction also im-
plies that the amplitude of the SunyaevZel'dovich ef-
fect in clusters of galaxies does not depend directly on
redshift. Observations have found this to be roughly
true, but this eect depends on cluster properties that do
change with cosmic time, making precise measurements
dicult.[92][93]
On 17 March 2014, astronomers at the Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced the ap-
parent detection of primordial gravitational waves, which,
if conrmed, may provide strong evidence for ination
and the Big Bang.[13][14][15][16] However, on 19 June
2014, lowered condence in conrming the ndings was
reported;[94][95][96] and on 19 September 2014, even more
lowered condence.[97][98]

9.6 Problems and related issues in

physics
See also: List of unsolved problems in physics

As with any theory, a number of mysteries and problems

have arisen as a result of the development of the Big Bang
theory. Some of these mysteries and problems have been
resolved while others are still outstanding. Proposed so-
lutions to some of the problems in the Big Bang model
have revealed new mysteries of their own. For example,
the horizon problem, the magnetic monopole problem,
and the atness problem are most commonly resolved
with inationary theory, but the details of the ination-
Focal plane of BICEP2 telescope under a microscope - ary universe are still left unresolved and alternatives to
may have detected gravitational waves from the infant ination are even still entertained in the literature.[99][100]
universe.[13][14][15][16] What follows are a list of the mysterious aspects of the
Big Bang theory still under intense investigation by cos-
In 2011 astronomers found what they believe to be pris-
mologists and astrophysicists.
tine clouds of primordial gas, by analyzing absorption
lines in the spectra of distant quasars. Before this discov-
ery, all other astronomical objects have been observed 9.6.1 Baryon asymmetry
to contain heavy elements that are formed in stars. These
two clouds of gas contain no elements heavier than hydro- Main article: Baryon asymmetry
gen and deuterium.[88][89] Since the clouds of gas have no
heavy elements, they likely formed in the rst few min-
utes after the Big Bang, during Big Bang nucleosynthesis. It is not yet understood why the universe has more mat-
ter than antimatter.[101] It is generally assumed that when
the universe was young and very hot, it was in statisti-
9.5.6 Other lines of evidence cal equilibrium and contained equal numbers of baryons
and antibaryons. However, observations suggest that the
The age of the universe as estimated from the Hubble universe, including its most distant parts, is made almost
expansion and the CMB is now in good agreement with entirely of matter. A process called baryogenesis was
9.6. PROBLEMS AND RELATED ISSUES IN PHYSICS 97

hypothesized to account for the asymmetry. For baryo- 9.6.3 Dark matter
genesis to occur, the Sakharov conditions must be sat-
ised. These require that baryon number is not con- Main article: Dark matter
served, that C-symmetry and CP-symmetry are violated During the 1970s and 80s, various observations showed
and that the universe depart from thermodynamic equi-
librium.[102] All these conditions occur in the Standard
Model, but the eect is not strong enough to explain the
present baryon asymmetry.

9.6.2 Dark energy

Main article: Dark energy

Measurements of the redshiftmagnitude relation for
type Ia supernovae indicate that the expansion of the uni-
verse has been accelerating since the universe was about
half its present age. To explain this acceleration, gen-
eral relativity requires that much of the energy in the uni-
verse consists of a component with large negative pres-
sure, dubbed dark energy.[9] Dark energy, though spec-
ulative, solves numerous problems. Measurements of the
cosmic microwave background indicate that the universe
is very nearly spatially at, and therefore according to
general relativity the universe must have almost exactly
the critical density of mass/energy. But the mass density
of the universe can be measured from its gravitational
clustering, and is found to have only about 30% of the
critical density.[9] Since theory suggests that dark energy
does not cluster in the usual way it is the best explana-
tion for the missing energy density. Dark energy also
helps to explain two geometrical measures of the over-
all curvature of the universe, one using the frequency of
gravitational lenses, and the other using the characteristic
pattern of the large-scale structure as a cosmic ruler.
Negative pressure is believed to be a property of vacuum underway.[106]
energy, but the exact nature and existence of dark en-
ergy remains one of the great mysteries of the Big Bang.
Results from the WMAP team in 2008 are in accor-
dance with a universe that consists of 73% dark energy,
23% dark matter, 4.6% regular matter and less than 1%
neutrinos.[33] According to theory, the energy density in
matter decreases with the expansion of the universe, but
the dark energy density remains constant (or nearly so) as
the universe expands. Therefore, matter made up a larger
fraction of the total energy of the universe in the past than
it does today, but its fractional contribution will fall in the
far future as dark energy becomes even more dominant.
The dark energy component of the universe has been ex-
plained by theorists using a variety of competing theo-
ries including Einsteins cosmological constant but also
extending to more exotic forms of quintessence or other
modied gravity schemes.[103] A cosmological constant
problem sometimes called the most embarrassing prob-
lem in physics results from the apparent discrepancy be-
tween the measured energy density of dark energy and
the one naively predicted from Planck units.[104]
Chart shows the proportion of dierent components of the uni-
verse about 95% is dark matter and dark energy.
that there is not sucient visible matter in the universe to
account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces
within and between galaxies. This led to the idea that
up to 90% of the matter in the universe is dark matter
that does not emit light or interact with normal baryonic
matter. In addition, the assumption that the universe is
mostly normal matter led to predictions that were strongly
inconsistent with observations. In particular, the universe
today is far more lumpy and contains far less deuterium
than can be accounted for without dark matter. While
dark matter has always been controversial, it is inferred by
various observations: the anisotropies in the CMB, galaxy
cluster velocity dispersions, large-scale structure distribu-
tions, gravitational lensing studies, and X-ray measure-
ments of galaxy clusters.[105]
Indirect evidence for dark matter comes from its grav-
itational inuence on other matter, as no dark mat-
ter particles have been observed in laboratories. Many
particle physics candidates for dark matter have been pro-
posed, and several projects to detect them directly are
Additionally, there are outstanding problems associated
with the currently favored cold dark matter model which
include the dwarf galaxy problem[107] and the cuspy halo
problem.[108] Alternative theories have been proposed
that do not require a large amount of undetected mat-
ter but instead modify the laws of gravity established by
Newton and Einstein, but no alternative theory as been as
successful as the cold dark matter proposal in explaining
all extant observations.[109]
9.6.4 Horizon problem
The horizon problem results from the premise that infor-
mation cannot travel faster than light. In a universe of
nite age this sets a limitthe particle horizonon the
separation of any two regions of space that are in causal
contact.[110] The observed isotropy of the CMB is prob-
lematic in this regard: if the universe had been dominated
by radiation or matter at all times up to the epoch of last
scattering, the particle horizon at that time would corre-
98 CHAPTER 9. BIG BANG

spond to about 2 degrees on the sky. There would then

be no mechanism to cause wider regions to have the same
temperature.[85]:191202
A resolution to this apparent inconsistency is oered by
inationary theory in which a homogeneous and isotropic
scalar energy eld dominates the universe at some very
early period (before baryogenesis). During ination, the
universe undergoes exponential expansion, and the par-
ticle horizon expands much more rapidly than previously
assumed, so that regions presently on opposite sides of the
observable universe are well inside each others particle
horizon. The observed isotropy of the CMB then follows
from the fact that this larger region was in causal contact
before the beginning of ination.[22]:180186
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle predicts that during
the inationary phase there would be quantum ther-
mal uctuations, which would be magnied to cosmic The overall geometry of the universe is determined by whether the
scale. These uctuations serve as the seeds of all cur- Omega cosmological parameter is less than, equal to or greater
rent structure in the universe.[85]:207 Ination predicts that than 1. Shown from top to bottom are a closed universe with
positive curvature, a hyperbolic universe with negative curvature
the primordial uctuations are nearly scale invariant and
and a at universe with zero curvature.
Gaussian, which has been accurately conrmed by mea-
surements of the CMB.[111]:sec 6
If ination occurred, exponential expansion would push in which case space is said to be at. The problem is
large regions of space well beyond our observable that any small departure from the critical density grows
horizon.[22]:180186 with time, and yet the universe today remains very close
to at.[notes 4] Given that a natural timescale for departure
A related issue to the classic horizon problem arises due
from atness might be the Planck time, 1043 seconds,[4]
to the fact that in most standard cosmological ination
the fact that the universe has reached neither a heat death
models, ination ceases well before electroweak symme-
nor a Big Crunch after billions of years requires an ex-
try breaking occurs, so ination should not be able to
planation. For instance, even at the relatively late age of
prevent large-scale discontinuities in the electroweak vac-
a few minutes (the time of nucleosynthesis), the universe
uum since distant parts of the observable universe were
density must have been within one part in 1014 of its crit-
causally separate when the electroweak epoch ended.[112]
ical value, or it would not exist as it does today.[113]

9.6.5 Magnetic monopoles

The magnetic monopole objection was raised in the late
1970s. Grand unied theories predicted topological
defects in space that would manifest as magnetic
monopoles. These objects would be produced eciently
in the hot early universe, resulting in a density much
higher than is consistent with observations, given that no
monopoles have been found. This problem is also re-
solved by cosmic ination, which removes all point de-
fects from the observable universe, in the same way that
it drives the geometry to atness.[110]
9.6.6 Flatness problem
The atness problem (also known as the oldness
problem) is an observational problem associated with
a FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker metric.[110]
The universe may have positive, negative, or zero spatial
curvature depending on its total energy density. Curva-
ture is negative if its density is less than the critical den-
sity, positive if greater, and zero at the critical density,
9.7 Ultimate fate of the universe
Main article: Ultimate fate of the universe
Before observations of dark energy, cosmologists consid-
ered two scenarios for the future of the universe. If the
mass density of the universe were greater than the critical
density, then the universe would reach a maximum size
and then begin to collapse. It would become denser and
hotter again, ending with a state similar to that in which
it starteda Big Crunch.[38] Alternatively, if the density
in the universe were equal to or below the critical den-
sity, the expansion would slow down but never stop. Star
formation would cease with the consumption of interstel-
lar gas in each galaxy; stars would burn out leaving white
dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. Very gradually,
collisions between these would result in mass accumulat-
ing into larger and larger black holes. The average tem-
perature of the universe would asymptotically approach
absolute zeroa Big Freeze.[114] Moreover, if the pro-
ton were unstable, then baryonic matter would disappear,
9.9. RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL INTERPRETATIONS 99

leaving only radiation and black holes. Eventually, black though speculation abounds in the eld of cosmogony.
holes would evaporate by emitting Hawking radiation. Some proposals, each of which entails untested hypothe-
The entropy of the universe would increase to the point ses, are:
where no organized form of energy could be extracted
from it, a scenario known as heat death.[115]:sec VI.D
Models including the HartleHawking no-boundary
Modern observations of accelerating expansion imply condition, in which the whole of space-time is nite;
that more and more of the currently visible universe will the Big Bang does represent the limit of time but
pass beyond our event horizon and out of contact with without any singularity.[118]
us. The eventual result is not known. The CDM model
of the universe contains dark energy in the form of a Big Bang lattice model, states that the universe at the
cosmological constant. This theory suggests that only moment of the Big Bang consists of an innite lattice
gravitationally bound systems, such as galaxies, will re- of fermions, which is smeared over the fundamental
main together, and they too will be subject to heat death domain so it has rotational, translational and gauge
as the universe expands and cools. Other explanations of symmetry. The symmetry is the largest symme-
dark energy, called phantom energy theories, suggest that try possible and hence the lowest entropy of any
ultimately galaxy clusters, stars, planets, atoms, nuclei, state.[119]
and matter itself will be torn apart by the ever-increasing
expansion in a so-called Big Rip.[116] Brane cosmology models, in which ination is due
to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-
Big Bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the
9.8 Speculations Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes
and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic
model in which collisions occur periodically. In the
Main article: Cosmogony latter model the Big Bang was preceded by a Big
While the Big Bang model is well established in cos- Crunch and the universe cycles from one process to
the other.[120][121][122][123]

Eternal ination, in which universal ination ends

locally here and there in a random fashion, each end-
point leading to a bubble universe, expanding from
its own big bang.[124][125]

Proposals in the last two categories, see the Big Bang as

an event in either a much larger and older universe or in
a multiverse.

Timeline of the metric expansion of space, where space (includ-

ing hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe) is rep-
resented at each time by the circular sections. On the left the
dramatic expansion occurs in the inationary epoch, and at the
center the expansion accelerates (artists concept; not to scale).
mology, it is likely to be rened. The Big Bang the-
ory, built upon the equations of classical general relativ-
ity, indicates a singularity at the origin of cosmic time;
this innite energy density is regarded as impossible in
physics. Still, it is known that the equations are not ap-
plicable before the time when the universe cooled down
to the Planck temperature, and this conclusion depends
on various assumptions, of which some could never be
experimentally veried. (Also see Planck epoch.)
One proposed renement to avoid this would-be singu-
larity is to develop a correct treatment of quantum grav-
ity.[117]
It is not known what could have preceded the hot dense
state of the early universe or how and why it originated,
9.9 Religious and philosophical in-
terpretations
Main article: Religious interpretations of the Big Bang
theory
As a description of the origin of the universe, the
Big Bang has signicant bearing on religion and
philosophy.[126][127] As a result, it has become one of
the liveliest areas in the discourse between science
and religion.[128] Some believe the Big Bang implies a
creator,[129][130] and some see its mention in their holy
books,[131] while others argue that Big Bang cosmology
makes the notion of a creator superuous.[127][132]
9.10 See also
Big Crunch
100
Cosmic Calendar
Shape of the universe
9.11 Notes
[1] There is no consensus about how long the Big Bang phase
lasted. For some writers this denotes only the initial sin-
gularity, for others the whole history of the universe. Usu-
ally, at least the rst few minutes (during which helium is
synthesized) are said to occur during the Big Bang.
[2] Detailed information of and references for tests of general
relativity are given in the article tests of general relativity.
[3] It is commonly reported that Hoyle intended this to be pe-
jorative. However, Hoyle later denied that, saying that it
was just a striking image meant to emphasize the dier-
ence between the two theories for radio listeners.[60]
[4] Strictly, dark energy in the form of a cosmological con-
stant drives the universe towards a at state; however, our
universe remained close to at for several billion years,
before the dark energy density became signicant.
9.12 References
[1] Joseph Silk (2009). Horizons of Cosmology. Templeton
Press. p. 208.
[2] Simon Singh (2005). Big Bang: The Origin of the Uni-
verse. Harper Perennial. p. 560.
[3] Wollack, E. J. (10 December 2010). Cosmology: The
Study of the Universe. Universe 101: Big Bang Theory.
NASA. Archived from the original on 14 May 2011. Re-
trieved 27 April 2011. The second section discusses the
classic tests of the Big Bang theory that make it so com-
pelling as the likely valid description of our universe.
[4] First Second of the Big Bang. How The Universe Works
3. 2014. Discovery Science.
[5] Big-bang model. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved
11 February 2015.
[6] Wright, E. L. (9 May 2009). What is the evidence for
the Big Bang?". Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmol-
ogy. UCLA, Division of Astronomy and Astrophysics.
Retrieved 16 October 2009.
[7] Planck reveals an almost perfect universe. Planck. ESA.
2013-03-21. Retrieved 2013-03-21.
[8] Kragh, H. (1996). Cosmology and Controversy. Princeton
University Press. p. 318. ISBN 0-691-02623-8.
[9] Peebles, P. J. E.; Ratra, Bharat (2003). The cos-
mological constant and dark energy. Reviews of
Modern Physics 75 (2): 559606. arXiv:astro-
ph/0207347. Bibcode:2003RvMP...75..559P.
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559.
CHAPTER 9. BIG BANG
[10] Gibson, C. H. (2001). The First Turbulent Mixing and
Combustion (PDF). IUTAM Turbulent Mixing and Com-
bustion.
[11] Gibson, C. H. (2001). Turbulence And Mixing In The
Early Universe. arXiv:astro-ph/0110012 [astro-ph].
[12] Gibson, C. H. (2005). The First Turbulent Combustion.
arXiv:astro-ph/0501416 [astro-ph].
[13] Sta (17 March 2014). BICEP2 2014 Results Release.
National Science Foundation. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
[14] Clavin, Whitney (17 March 2014). NASA Technology
Views Birth of the Universe. NASA. Retrieved 17 March
2014.
[15] Overbye, Dennis (17 March 2014). Detection of Waves
in Space Buttresses Landmark Theory of Big Bang. The
New York Times. Retrieved 17 March 2014.
[16] Overbye, Dennis (24 March 2014). Ripples From the
Big Bang. New York Times. Retrieved 24 March 2014.
[17] Hubble, E. (1929). A Relation Between Dis-
tance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Neb-
ulae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences 15 (3): 16873. Bibcode:1929PNAS...15..168H.
doi:10.1073/pnas.15.3.168. PMC 522427. PMID
16577160.
[18] Hawking, S. W.; Ellis, G. F. R. (1973). The Large-Scale
Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 0-521-20016-4.
[19] Roos, M. (2008). Expansion of the Universe Standard
Big Bang Model. In Engvold, O.; Stabell, R.; Czerny, B.;
Lattanzio, J. Astronomy and Astrophysics. Encyclopedia
of Life Support Systems. UNESCO. arXiv:0802.2005.
This singularity is termed the Big Bang.
[20] Drees, W. B. (1990). Beyond the big bang: quantum cos-
mologies and God. Open Court Publishing. pp. 223224.
ISBN 978-0-8126-9118-4.
[21] Planck Collaboration (2015). Planck 2015 results. XIII.
Cosmological parameters (See Table 4 on page 31 of
pdf).. arXiv:1502.01589.
[22] Guth, A. H. (1998). The Inationary Universe: Quest for
a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Vintage Books. ISBN
978-0-09-995950-2.
[23] Schewe, P. (2005). An Ocean of Quarks. Physics News
Update (American Institute of Physics) 728 (1).
[24] Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 6
[25] Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 7
[26] Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 4
[27] Peacock (1999), chapter 9
[28] Loeb, Abraham (October 2014). The Habit-
able Epoch of the Early Universe. International
Journal of Astrobiology 13 (04): 337339.
arXiv:1312.0613. Bibcode:2014IJAsB..13..337L.
doi:10.1017/S1473550414000196. Retrieved 15
December 2014.
9.12. REFERENCES
[29] Loeb, Abraham (2 December 2013). The Hab-
itable Epoch of the Early Universe (PDF). Arxiv.
arXiv:1312.0613v3. Retrieved 15 December 2014.
[30] Dreifus, Claudia (2 December 2014). Much-Discussed
Views That Go Way Back - Avi Loeb Ponders the Early
Universe, Nature and Life. New York Times. Retrieved
3 December 2014.
[31] Clavin, Whitney; Jenkins, Ann; Villard, Ray (7 January
2014). NASAs Hubble and Spitzer Team up to Probe
Faraway Galaxies. NASA. Retrieved 8 January 2014.
[32] Spergel, D. N.; et al. (2003). First year Wilkinson
Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: de-
termination of cosmological parameters. Astrophysical
Journal Supplement 148 (1): 175194. arXiv:astro-
ph/0302209. Bibcode:2003ApJS..148..175S.
doi:10.1086/377226.
[33] Jarosik, N.; et al. (WMAP Collaboration) (2011).
Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
(WMAP) Observations: Sky Maps, Systematic Errors,
and Basic Results (PDF). NASA/GSFC: 39, Table 8. Re-
trieved 4 December 2010.
[34] Ivanchik, A. V.; Potekhin, A. Y.; Varshalovich,
D. A. (1999). The Fine-Structure Constant: A
New Observational Limit on Its Cosmological Varia-
tion and Some Theoretical Consequences. Astronomy
and Astrophysics 343: 459. arXiv:astro-ph/9810166.
Bibcode:1999A&A...343..439I.
[35] Goodman, J. (1995). Geocentrism Reexamined.
Physical Review D 52 (4): 18211827. arXiv:astro-
ph/9506068. Bibcode:1995PhRvD..52.1821G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.1821.
[36] d'Inverno, R. (1992). Chapter 23. Introducing Einsteins
Relativity. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-859686-
3.
[37] Tamara M. Davis and Charles H. Lineweaver, Expand-
ing Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological
horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe.
astro-ph/0310808
[38] Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 3
[39] "'Big bang' astronomer dies. BBC News. 22 August
2001. Archived from the original on 8 December 2008.
Retrieved 7 December 2008.
[40] Croswell, K. (1995). Chapter 9. The Alchemy of the
Heavens. Anchor Books.
[41] Mitton. Fred Hoyle: A Life in Science. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press. ISBN 978-1-139-49595-0."To create a picture
in the mind of the listener, Hoyle had likened the explosive
theory of the universes origin to a 'big bang'"
[42] Moskowitz, C. (25 September 2012). Hubble Telescope
Reveals Farthest View Into Universe Ever. Space.com.
Retrieved 26 September 2012.
[43] Slipher, V. M. (1913). The Radial Velocity of the An-
dromeda Nebula. Lowell Observatory Bulletin 1: 5657.
Bibcode:1913LowOB...2...56S.
101
[44] Slipher, V. M. (1915). Spectrographic Observa-
tions of Nebulae. Popular Astronomy 23: 2124.
Bibcode:1915PA.....23Q..21S.
[45] Friedman, A. A. (1922). "ber die Krmmung
des Raumes. Zeitschrift fr Physik (in German)
10 (1): 377386. Bibcode:1922ZPhy...10..377F.
doi:10.1007/BF01332580.
(English translation in: Friedman, A. (1999).
On the Curvature of Space. General
Relativity and Gravitation 31 (12): 1991
2000. Bibcode:1999GReGr..31.1991F.
doi:10.1023/A:1026751225741.)
[46] Lematre, G. (1927). Un univers homogne de masse
constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la
vitesse radiale des nbuleuses extragalactiques. Annals
of the Scientic Society of Brussels (in French) 47A: 41.
(Translated in: Lematre, G. (1931). A Ho-
mogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and
Growing Radius Accounting for the Radial
Velocity of Extragalactic Nebulae. Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91:
483490. Bibcode:1931MNRAS..91..483L.
doi:10.1093/mnras/91.5.483.)
[47] Lematre, G. (1931). The Evolution of the Uni-
verse: Discussion. Nature 128 (3234): 699701.
Bibcode:1931Natur.128..704L. doi:10.1038/128704a0.
[48] Christianson, E. (1995). Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the
Nebulae. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 0-374-14660-
8.
[49] Kragh, H. (1996). Cosmology and Controversy. Princeton
University Press. ISBN 0-691-02623-8.
[50] People and Discoveries: Big Bang Theory. A Science
Odyssey. PBS. Retrieved 9 March 2012.
[51] Eddington, A. (1931). The End of the World:
from the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics. Nature
127 (3203): 447453. Bibcode:1931Natur.127..447E.
doi:10.1038/127447a0.
[52] Appolloni, S. (2011). ""Repugnant, Not Repugnant at
All": How the Respective Epistemic Attitudes of Georges
Lemaitre and Sir Arthur Eddington Inuenced How Each
Approached the Idea of a Beginning of the Universe.
IBSU Scientic Journal 5 (1): 1944.
[53] Lematre, G. (1931). The Beginning of the World
from the Point of View of Quantum Theory. Nature
127 (3210): 706. Bibcode:1931Natur.127..706L.
doi:10.1038/127706b0.
[54] Milne, E. A. (1935). Relativity, Gravitation and World
Structure. Oxford University Press. LCCN 35019093.
[55] Tolman, R. C. (1934). Relativity, Thermodynamics, and
Cosmology. Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-486-65383-8.
LCCN 34032023.
102
[56] Zwicky, F. (1929). On the Red Shift of Spec-
tral Lines through Interstellar Space. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 15 (10):
773779. Bibcode:1929PNAS...15..773Z.
doi:10.1073/pnas.15.10.773. PMC 522555. PMID
16577237.
[57] Hoyle, F. (1948). A New Model for the Expanding Uni-
verse. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So-
ciety 108: 372382. Bibcode:1948MNRAS.108..372H.
doi:10.1093/mnras/108.5.372.
[58] Alpher, R. A.; Bethe, H.; Gamow, G. (1948).
The Origin of Chemical Elements. Physical Re-
view 73 (7): 803804. Bibcode:1948PhRv...73..803A.
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.73.803.
[59] Alpher, R. A.; Herman, R. (1948). Evolution
of the Universe. Nature 162 (4124): 774775.
Bibcode:1948Natur.162..774A. doi:10.1038/162774b0.
[60] Croswell, K. (1995). The Alchemy of the Heavens.
Anchor Books. chapter 9. ISBN 978-0-385-47213-5.
[61] Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W. (1965). A Mea-
surement of Excess Antenna Temperature at
4080 Mc/s. Astrophysical Journal 142: 419.
Bibcode:1965ApJ...142..419P. doi:10.1086/148307.
[62] Hawking, S.; Ellis, G. F. (1968). The Cosmic
Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singulari-
ties in our Universe. Astrophysical Journal 152: 25.
Bibcode:1968ApJ...152...25H. doi:10.1086/149520.
[63] Hawking, S.; Penrose, R. (27 January 1970). The
Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology.
Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Phys-
ical & Engineering Sciences (The Royal Society) 314
(1519): 529548. Bibcode:1970RSPSA.314..529H.
doi:10.1098/rspa.1970.0021. Retrieved 27 March 2015.
[64] Guth, Alan (15 January 1981). Inationary
universe: A possible solution to the hori-
zon and atness problems. Phys. Rev. D
23 (2): 347. Bibcode:1981PhRvD..23..347G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347.
[65] Huchra, John (2008). The Hubble Constant. Center for
Astrophysics, Harvard University.
[66] Livio, Mario (2001). The Accelerating Universe: In-
nite Expansion, the Cosmological Constant, and the Beauty
of the Cosmos. John Wiley & Sons. p. 160. ISBN
047143714X.
[67] Navabi, A. A.; Riazi, N. (2003). Is the Age Prob-
lem Resolved?". Journal of Astrophysics and Astron-
omy 24 (12): 310. Bibcode:2003JApA...24....3N.
doi:10.1007/BF03012187.
[68] Boggess, N. W.; et al. (1992). The COBE Mis-
sion: Its Design and Performance Two Years af-
ter the launch. Astrophysical Journal 397: 420.
Bibcode:1992ApJ...397..420B. doi:10.1086/171797.
CHAPTER 9. BIG BANG
[69] Spergel, D. N.; et al. (2006). Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Im-
plications for Cosmology. Astrophysical Journal Sup-
plement 170 (2): 377408. arXiv:astro-ph/0603449.
Bibcode:2007ApJS..170..377S. doi:10.1086/513700.
[70] Krauss, L. (2012). A Universe From Nothing: Why there
is Something Rather than Nothing. Free Press. p. 118.
ISBN 978-1-4516-2445-8.
[71] Gladders, M. D.; et al. (2007). Cosmologi-
cal Constraints from the Red-Sequence Cluster Sur-
vey. The Astrophysical Journal 655 (1): 128134.
arXiv:astro-ph/0603588. Bibcode:2007ApJ...655..128G.
doi:10.1086/509909.
[72] The Four Pillars of the Standard Cosmology
[73] Sadoulet, B. (2010). Direct Searches for Dark Matter.
Astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Sur-
vey. National Academies Press. Retrieved 12 March
2012.
[74] Cahn, R. (2010). For a Comprehensive Space-Based
Dark Energy Mission. Astro2010: The Astronomy and
Astrophysics Decadal Survey. National Academies Press.
Retrieved 12 March 2012.
[75] Peacock (1999), chapter 3
[76] Srianand, R.; Petitjean, P.; Ledoux, C. (2000).
The microwave background temperature at the red-
shift of 2.33771. Nature 408 (6815): 931935.
arXiv:astro-ph/0012222. Bibcode:2000Natur.408..931S.
doi:10.1038/35050020. Lay summary European South-
ern Observatory (December 2000).
[77] Bennett, C. L.; et al. (2013). Nine-Year Wilkinson Mi-
crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final
Maps and Results. arXiv:1212.5225.
[78] Gannon, M. (21 December 2012). New 'Baby Picture' of
Universe Unveiled. Space.com. Retrieved 21 December
2012.
[79] Wright, E. L. (2004). Theoretical Overview of Cosmic
Microwave Background Anisotropy. In W. L. Freedman.
Measuring and Modeling the Universe. Carnegie Observa-
tories Astrophysics Series. Cambridge University Press.
p. 291. arXiv:astro-ph/0305591. ISBN 0-521-75576-X.
[80] White, M. (1999). Anisotropies in the CMB. Proceedings
of the Los Angeles Meeting, DPF 99 (UCLA). arXiv:astro-
ph/9903232. Bibcode:1999dpf..conf.....W.
[81] A. Melchiorri et. al. (1999). A measurement of Omega
from the North American test ight of BOOMERANG.
Astrophys Journal (Institute of Physics) (536). Retrieved
2015-05-15.
[82] P. de Bernardis; et al. (2000). A Flat Uni-
verse from High-Resolution Maps of the Cosmic Mi-
crowave Background Radiation. Nature (Nature Pub-
lishing Group) 404: 955959. arXiv:astro-ph/0004404.
doi:10.1038/35010035.
9.12. REFERENCES 103

[83] A. D. Miller; et al. (1999). A Measurement of [97] Planck Collaboration Team (19 September 2014).
the Angular Power Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Planck intermediate results. XXX. The angular power
Background from l = 100 to 400. The Astrophysi- spectrum of polarized dust emission at intermediate
cal Journal Letters 524 (1). arXiv:astro-ph/9906421. and high Galactic latitudes. ArXiv. arXiv:1409.5738.
Bibcode:1999ApJ...524L...1M. doi:10.1086/312293. Bibcode:2014arXiv1409.5738P. Retrieved 22 September
2014.
[84] Steigman, G. (2005). Primordial Nucleosynthesis:
Successes And Challenges. International Jour- [98] Overbye, Dennis (22 September 2014). Study Conrms
nal of Modern Physics E 15: 136. arXiv:astro- Criticism of Big Bang Finding. New York Times. Re-
ph/0511534. Bibcode:2006IJMPE..15....1S. trieved 22 September 2014.
doi:10.1142/S0218301306004028.
[99] Penrose, R. (1979). Hawking, S. W. (ed); Israel, W. (ed),
[85] Barbara Sue Ryden (2003). Introduction to cosmology. ed. Singularities and Time-Asymmetry. General Relativ-
Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0-8053-8912-8. ity: An Einstein Centenary Survey (Cambridge University
Press). pp. 581638.
[86] Bertschinger, E. (2001). Cosmological Perturba-
tion Theory and Structure Formation. arXiv:astro- [100] Penrose, R. (1989). Fergus, E. J. (ed), ed. Dif-
ph/0101009 [astro-ph]. culties with Inationary Cosmology. Proceedings of
[87] Bertschinger, E. (1998). Simulations of Struc- the 14th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics
ture Formation in the Universe. Annual Re- (New York Academy of Sciences). pp. 249264.
view of Astronomy and Astrophysics 36 (1): doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1989.tb50513.x.
599654. Bibcode:1998ARA&A..36..599B. [101] Kolb and Turner, chapter 6
doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.599.
[102] Sakharov, A. D. (1967). Violation of CP Invariance,
[88] Fumagalli, M.; O'Meara, J. M.; Prochaska, J. X.
C Asymmetry and Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe.
(2011). Detection of Pristine Gas Two Billion Years
Zhurnal Eksperimental'noi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki, Pisma
After the Big Bang. Science 334 (6060): 1245
(in Russian) 5: 32.
9. arXiv:1111.2334. Bibcode:2011Sci...334.1245F.
doi:10.1126/science.1213581. PMID 22075722. (Translated in Journal of Experimental and
Theoretical Physics Letters 5, 24 (1967).)
[89] Astronomers Find Clouds of Primordial Gas from the
Early Universe, Just Moments After Big Bang. Science [103] Mortonson, Michael J.; Weinberg, David H.; White, Mar-
Daily. 10 November 2011. Retrieved 13 November 2011. tin (Dec 2013). Dark Energy: A Short Review (PDF).
[90] Perley, D. (21 February 2005). Determination of the Particle Data Group 2014 Review of Particle Physics.
Universes Age, t". University of California Berkeley,
[104] Rugh, S.E.; Zinkernagel, H. (December 2002). The
Astronomy Department. Retrieved 27 January 2012.
quantum vacuum and the cosmological constant prob-
[91] Srianand, R.; Noterdaeme, P.; Ledoux, C.; Petit- lem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part
jean, P. (2008). First detection of CO in a high- B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33
redshift damped Lyman- system. Astronomy and As- (4): 663705. doi:10.1016/S1355-2198(02)00033-3.
trophysics 482 (3): L39. Bibcode:2008A&A...482L..39S.
[105] Keel, B. (October 2009). Dark Matter. Retrieved 24
doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809727.
July 2013.
[92] Avgoustidis, A.; Luzzi, G.; Martins, C. J. A. P.; Mon-
teiro, A. M. R. V. L. (2011). Constraints on the CMB [106] Yao, W. M.; et al. (2006). Review of Particle
temperature-redshift dependence from SZ and distance Physics: Dark Matter (PDF). Journal of Physics
measurements. arXiv:1112.1862v1 [astro-ph.CO]. G 33 (1): 11232. arXiv:astro-ph/0601168.
Bibcode:2006JPhG...33....1Y. doi:10.1088/0954-
[93] Belusevic, R. (2008). Relativity, Astrophysics and Cosmol- 3899/33/1/001.
ogy. Wiley-VCH. p. 16. ISBN 3-527-40764-2.
[107] Bullock, James. Notes on the Missing Satellites Prob-
[94] Overbye, Dennis (19 June 2014). Astronomers Hedge on lem (PDF). XX Canary Islands Winter School of Astro-
Big Bang Detection Claim. New York Times. Retrieved physics on Local Group Cosmology,.
20 June 2014.
[108] Diemand, Jrg; Zemp, Marcel; Moore, Ben; Stadel,
[95] Amos, Jonathan (19 June 2014). Cosmic ination: Con- Joachim; Carollo, C. Marcella (December 2005). Cusps
dence lowered for Big Bang signal. BBC News. Re- in cold dark matter haloes. Monthly Notices of the Royal
trieved 20 June 2014. Astronomical Society 364 (2): 665673. arXiv:astro-
ph/0504215. Bibcode:2005MNRAS.364..665D.
[96] Ade, P.A.R. (BICEP2 Collaboration); et al.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09601.x.
(19 June 2014). Detection of B-Mode Po-
larization at Degree Angular Scales by BI- [109] Dodelson, Scott (Dec 2011). The Real Problem with
CEP2. Physical Review Letters 112: 241101. MOND (PDF). Honorable Mention, Gravity Research
arXiv:1403.3985. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112x1101A. Foundation 2011 Awards.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.241101. PMID
24996078. [110] Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 8
 104 CHAPTER 9. BIG BANG

[111] D. N. Spergel; et al. (2007). Three-Year Wilkinson [126] Harris, J. F. (2002). Analytic philosophy of religion.
Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Springer. p. 128. ISBN 978-1-4020-0530-5.
Implications for Cosmology (PDF). The Astrophysical
Journal Supplement Series 170: 377408. arXiv:astro- [127] Frame, T. (2009). Losing my religion. UNSW Press. pp.
ph/0603449. Bibcode:2007ApJS..170..377S. 137141. ISBN 978-1-921410-19-2.
doi:10.1086/513700.
[128] Harrison, P. (2010). The Cambridge Companion to Sci-
[112] R. Penrose (2007). The Road to Reality. Vintage books. ence and Religion. Cambridge University Press. p. 9.
ISBN 0-679-77631-1. ISBN 978-0-521-71251-4.
[113] Dicke, R. H.; Peebles, P. J. E. Hawking, S. W. (ed); Is- [129] Harris 2002, p. 129
rael, W. (ed), ed. The big bang cosmologyenigmas and
nostrums. General Relativity: an Einstein centenary survey [130] Craig, William Lane (1999). The ultimate question of
(Cambridge University Press). pp. 504517. origins: God and the beginning of the Universe.. As-
trophysics and Space Science. 269-270 (1-4): 723740.
[114] Griswold, Britt (2012). What is the Ultimate Fate of the doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4114-7_85.
Universe?". Universe 101 Big Bang Theory. NASA.
[115] Fred C. Adams and Gregory Laughlin (1997). [131] Asad, Muhammad (1984). The Message of the Qu'rn.
A dying Universe: the long-term fate and evo- Gibraltar, Spain: Dar al-Andalus Limited. ISBN
lution of astrophysical objects. Reviews of 1904510000.
Modern Physics 69 (2): 337372. arXiv:astro-
[132] Sagan, C. (1988). introduction to A Brief History of Time
ph/9701131. Bibcode:1997RvMP...69..337A.
by Stephen Hawking. Bantam Books. pp. X. ISBN 0-
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.69.337..
553-34614-8. ... a universe with no edge in space, no
[116] Caldwell, R. R; Kamionkowski, M.; Weinberg, N. N. beginning or end in time, and nothing for a Creator to do.
(2003). Phantom Energy and Cosmic Doomsday.
Physical Review Letters 91 (7): 071301. arXiv:astro-
ph/0302506. Bibcode:2003PhRvL..91g1301C. 9.12.1 Books
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.071301. PMID 12935004.
Farrell, John (2005). The Day Without Yesterday:
[117] Hawking, S. W.; Ellis, G. F. R. (1973). The Large Scale
Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge
Lemaitre, Einstein, and the Birth of Modern Cosmol-
University Press. ISBN 0-521-09906-4. ogy. New York, NY: Thunders Mouth Press. ISBN
1-56025-660-5.
[118] Hartle, J. H.; Hawking, S. (1983). Wave Func-
tion of the Universe. Physical Review D 28 (12): Kolb, E.; Turner, M. (1988). The Early Universe.
29602975. Bibcode:1983PhRvD..28.2960H. AddisonWesley. ISBN 0-201-11604-9.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960.
Masters, Ken (Ed.) (2015). Origins: Before the Big
[119] Bird, P. (2011). Determining the Big Bang State Vector
Bang. Lulu.com. ISBN 978-1-312-75326-6.
(PDF).
[120] Langlois, D. (2002). Brane Cosmology: Ostriker, Jeremiah P.; Mitton, Simon (2013). Heart
An Introduction. Progress of Theoretical of Darkness: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Invis-
Physics Supplement 148: 181212. arXiv:hep- ible Universe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
th/0209261. Bibcode:2002PThPS.148..181L. Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13430-7.
doi:10.1143/PTPS.148.181.
Peacock, J. (1999). Cosmological Physics.
[121] Linde, A. (2002). Inationary Theory versus Ekpy-
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-42270-1.
rotic/Cyclic Scenario. arXiv:hep-th/0205259 [hep-th].
[122] Than, K. (2006). Recycled Universe: Theory Could Woolfson, M. (2013). Time, Space, Stars and Man:
Solve Cosmic Mystery. Space.com. Retrieved 3 July The Story of Big Bang (2nd edition). World Scien-
2007. tic Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84816-933-3.
[123] Kennedy, B. K. (2007). What Happened Before the Big
Bang?". Archived from the original on 4 July 2007. Re-
trieved 3 July 2007. 9.13 Further reading
[124] Linde, A. (1986). Eternal Chaotic In-
ation. Modern Physics Letters A 1 (2): For an annotated list of textbooks and mono-
8185. Bibcode:1986MPLA....1...81L. graphs, see physical cosmology.
doi:10.1142/S0217732386000129.
[125] Linde, A. (1986). Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Alpher, R. A.; Herman, R. (1988). Reections on
Chaotic Inationary Universe. Physics Letters B Early Work on 'Big Bang' Cosmology. Physics To-
175 (4): 395400. Bibcode:1986PhLB..175..395L. day 8 (8): 2434. Bibcode:1988PhT....41h..24A.
doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90611-8. doi:10.1063/1.881126.
9.14. EXTERNAL LINKS 105

Cosmic Journey: A History of Scientic Cosmol-

ogy. American Institute of Physics.
Barrow, J. D. (1994). The Origin of the Universe.
Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-81497-4.
Davies, P. C. W. (1992). The Mind of God: The Sci-
entic Basis for a Rational World. Simon & Schus-
ter. ISBN 0-671-71069-9.

Feuerbacher, B.; Scranton, R. (2006). Evidence for

the Big Bang. TalkOrigins.

Mather, J. C.; Boslough, J. (1996). The Very First

Light: The True Inside Story of the Scientic Journey
Back to the Dawn of the Universe. Basic Books. p.
300. ISBN 0-465-01575-1.
Riordan, Michael; Zajc, William (May 2006). The
First Few Microseconds (PDF). Scientic Ameri-
can.

Singh, S. (2004). Big Bang: The Origins of the Uni-

verse. Fourth Estate. ISBN 0-00-716220-0.

Misconceptions about the Big Bang (PDF).

Scientic American. March 2005.

Weinberg, S. (1993). The First Three Minutes: A

Modern View of the Origin of the Universe. Basic
Books. ISBN 0-465-02437-8.

9.14 External links

big-bang model at Encyclopdia Britannica

The Story of the Big Bang - STFC funded project

explaining the history of the universe in easy-to-
understand language
Big Bang Cosmology WMAP

The Big Bang - NASA Science

Big bang model with animated graphics

Cosmology at DMOZ

Evidence for the Big Bang

Universe

A Cosmic History of the Universe

Chapter 10
Physical cosmology
This article is about the branch of physics and astronomy. plasma physics.
For other uses, see Cosmology.
Cosmic Evolution redirects here. For the book by Eric
Chaisson, see Cosmic Evolution (book).
Physical cosmology is the study of the largest-scale
structures and dynamics of the Universe and is con-
cerned with fundamental questions about its origin, struc-
ture, evolution, and ultimate fate.[1] For most of hu-
man history, it was a branch of metaphysics and religion.
Cosmology as a science originated with the Copernican
principle, which implies that celestial bodies obey identi-
cal physical laws to those on Earth, and Newtonian me-
chanics, which rst allowed us to understand those phys-
ical laws.
Physical cosmology, as it is now understood, began with
the development in 1915 of Albert Einstein's general the-
ory of relativity, followed by major observational discov-
eries in the 1920s: rst, Edwin Hubble discovered that
the universe contains a huge number of external galaxies
beyond our own Milky Way; then, work by Vesto Slipher
and others showed that the universe is expanding. These
advances made it possible to speculate about the origin
of the universe, and allowed the establishment of the Big
Bang Theory, by Georges Lemaitre, as the leading cos-
mological model. A few researchers still advocate a hand-
ful of alternative cosmologies;[2] however, most cosmol-
ogists agree that the Big Bang theory explains the obser-
vations better.
Dramatic advances in observational cosmology since the
1990s, including the cosmic microwave background, dis-
tant supernovae and galaxy redshift surveys, have led to
the development of a standard model of cosmology. This
model requires the universe to contain large amounts of
dark matter and dark energy whose nature is currently
not well understood, but the model gives detailed predic-
tions that are in excellent agreement with many diverse
observations.[3]
Cosmology draws heavily on the work of many disparate
areas of research in theoretical and applied physics.
Areas relevant to cosmology include particle physics
experiments and theory, theoretical and observational
astrophysics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the physical
10.1 Subject history
See also: Timeline of cosmology and List of cosmologists
Modern cosmology developed along tandem tracks of
theory and observation. In 1916, Albert Einstein pub-
lished his theory of general relativity, which provided
a unied description of gravity as a geometric property
of space and time.[4] At the time, Einstein believed in
a static universe, but found that his original formula-
tion of the theory did not permit it.[5] This is because
masses distributed throughout the universe gravitation-
ally attract, and move toward each other over time.[6]
However, he realized that his equations permitted the
introduction of a constant term which could counteract
the attractive force of gravity on the cosmic scale. Ein-
stein published his rst paper on relativistic cosmology
in 1917, in which he added this cosmological constant
to his eld equations in order to force them to model a
static universe.[7] However, this so-called Einstein model
is unstable to small perturbationsit will eventually start
to expand or contract.[5] The Einstein model describes
a static universe; space is nite and unbounded (analo-
gous to the surface of a sphere, which has a nite area
but no edges). It was later realized that Einsteins model
was just one of a larger set of possibilities, all of which
were consistent with general relativity and the cosmo-
logical principle. The cosmological solutions of gen-
eral relativity were found by Alexander Friedmann in the
early 1920s.[8] His equations describe the Friedmann
LematreRobertsonWalker universe, which may ex-
pand or contract, and whose geometry may be open, at,
or closed.
In the 1910s, Vesto Slipher (and later Carl Wilhelm
Wirtz) interpreted the red shift of spiral nebulae as a
Doppler shift that indicated they were receding from
[12][13]
Earth. However, it is dicult to determine the dis-
tance to astronomical objects. One way is to compare
size of an object to its angular size, but
a physical size must be assumed to do this. Another
106
10.2. ENERGY OF THE COSMOS 107

History of the Universe mic microwave background by the Cosmic Background

{
Gravitational Waves Explorer in the early 1990s, few cosmologists have seri-
Ination
Generates
Two Types of
ously proposed other theories of the origin and evolution
Waves Waves Imprint Characteristic
Density Waves Polarization Signals of the cosmos. One consequence of this is that in standard
general relativity, the universe began with a singularity, as
Free Electrons
Scatter Light
Earliest Time
Visible with Light
demonstrated by Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking in
Fluctuations

the 1960s.
Quantum
Radius of the Visible Universe

Cosmic Microwave Background

Neutral Hydrogen Forms

Nuclear Fusion Begins

Nuclear Fusion Ends

An alternative view to extend the Big Bang model,

Modern Universe
Protons Formed
Ination

Big
Bang
suggesting the universe had no beginning or singular-
ity and the age of the universe is innite, has been
presented.[18][19][20]
0 1032 s 1 s 0.01 s 3 min 380,000 yrs 13.8 Billion yrs
Age of the Universe

10.2 Energy of the cosmos

History of the Universe gravitational waves are hypothesized
to arise from cosmic ination, a faster-than-light expansion just
Light chemical elements, primarily hydrogen and
after the Big Bang (17 March 2014).[9][10][11]
helium, were created in the Big Bang process (see
Nucleosynthesis). The small atomic nuclei combined
into larger atomic nuclei to form heavier elements
method is to measure the brightness of an object and such as iron and nickel, which are more stable (see
assume an intrinsic luminosity, from which the distance Nuclear fusion). This caused a later energy release. Such
may be determined using the inverse square law. Due reactions of nuclear particles inside stars continue to
to the diculty of using these methods, they did not re- contribute to sudden energy releases, such as in nova
alize that the nebulae were actually galaxies outside our stars. Gravitational collapse of matter into black holes
own Milky Way, nor did they speculate about the cos- is also thought to power the most energetic processes,
mological implications. In 1927, the Belgian Roman generally seen at the centers of galaxies (see Quasar and
Catholic priest Georges Lematre independently derived Active galaxy).
the FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker equations
and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral Cosmologists cannot explain all cosmic phenomena ex-
nebulae, that the universe began with the explosion of actly, such as those related to the accelerating expansion
a primeval atom"[14] which was later called the Big of the universe, using conventional forms of energy. In-
Bang. In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational stead, cosmologists propose a new form of energy called
basis for Lematres theory. Hubble showed that the spiral dark energy that permeates all space.[21] One hypothesis
nebulae were galaxies by determining their distances us- is that dark energy is the energy of virtual particles, which
ing measurements of the brightness of Cepheid variable are believed to exist in a vacuum due to the uncertainty
stars. He discovered a relationship between the redshift principle.
of a galaxy and its distance. He interpreted this as evi- There is no clear way to dene the total energy in the
dence that the galaxies are receding from Earth in every universe using the most widely accepted theory of grav-
direction at speeds proportional to their distance.[15] This
ity, general relativity. Therefore, it remains controversial
fact is now known as Hubbles law, though the numerical whether the total energy is conserved in an expanding uni-
factor Hubble found relating recessional velocity and dis- verse. For instance, each photon that travels through in-
tance was o by a factor of ten, due to not knowing about tergalactic space loses energy due to the redshift eect.
the types of Cepheid variables. This energy is not obviously transferred to any other sys-
Given the cosmological principle, Hubbles law suggested tem, so seems to be permanently lost. On the other hand,
that the universe was expanding. Two primary expla- some cosmologists insist that energy is conserved in some [22]
nations were proposed for the expansion. One was sense; this follows the law of conservation of energy.
Lematres Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by Thermodynamics of the universe is a eld of study that
George Gamow. The other explanation was Fred Hoyle's explores which form of energy dominates the cosmos
steady state model in which new matter is created as the relativistic particles which are referred to as radiation, or
galaxies move away from each other. In this model, the non-relativistic particles referred to as matter. Relativis-
universe is roughly the same at any point in time.[16][17] tic particles are particles whose rest mass is zero or neg-
For a number of years, support for these theories was ligible compared to their kinetic energy, and so move at
evenly divided. However, the observational evidence be- the speed of light or very close to it; non-relativistic par-
gan to support the idea that the universe evolved from a ticles have much higher rest mass than their energy and
hot dense state. The discovery of the cosmic microwave so move much slower than the speed of light.
background in 1965 lent strong support to the Big Bang As the universe expands, both matter and radiation in it
model,[17] and since the precise measurements of the cos- become diluted. However, the energy densities of radia-
108
tion and matter dilute at dierent rates. As a particular
volume expands, mass energy density is changed only by
the increase in volume, but the energy density of radi-
ation is changed both by the increase in volume and by
the increase in the wavelength of the photons that make
it up. Thus the energy of radiation becomes a smaller
part of the universes total energy than that of matter as
it expands. The very early universe is said to have been
'radiation dominated' and radiation controlled the decel-
eration of expansion. Later, as the average energy per
photon becomes roughly 10 eV and lower, matter dictates
the rate of deceleration and the universe is said to be 'mat-
ter dominated'. The intermediate case is not treated well
analytically. As the expansion of the universe continues,
matter dilutes even further and the cosmological constant
becomes dominant, leading to an acceleration in the uni-
verses expansion.
10.3 History of the universe
See also: Timeline of the Big Bang
The history of the universe is a central issue in cosmol-
ogy. The history of the universe is divided into dierent
periods called epochs, according to the dominant forces
and processes in each period. The standard cosmological
model is known as the Lambda-CDM model.
10.3.1 Equations of motion
Main article: FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker
metric
The equations of motion governing the universe as a
whole are derived from general relativity with a small,
positive cosmological constant.[23] The solution is an ex-
panding universe; due to this expansion, the radiation and
matter in the universe cool down and become diluted. At
rst, the expansion is slowed down by gravitation attract-
ing the radiation and matter in the universe. However,
as these become diluted, the cosmological constant be-
comes more dominant and the expansion of the universe
starts to accelerate rather than decelerate. In our universe
this happened billions of years ago.
10.3.2 Particle physics in cosmology
Main article: Particle physics in cosmology
Particle physics is important to the behavior of the early
universe, because the early universe was so hot that the
average energy density was very high. Because of this,
scattering processes and decay of unstable particles are
important in cosmology.
CHAPTER 10. PHYSICAL COSMOLOGY
As a rule of thumb, a scattering or a decay process is cos-
mologically important in a certain cosmological epoch if
the time scale describing that process is smaller than, or
comparable to, the time scale of the expansion of the uni-
verse. The time scale that describes the expansion of the
universe is 1/H with H being the Hubble constant, which
itself actually varies with time. The expansion timescale
1/H is roughly equal to the age of the universe at that
time.
10.3.3 Timeline of the Big Bang
Main article: Timeline of the Big Bang
Observations suggest that the universe began around 13.8
billion years ago.[24] Since then, the evolution of the uni-
verse has passed through three phases. The very early
universe, which is still poorly understood, was the split
second in which the universe was so hot that particles had
energies higher than those currently accessible in particle
accelerators on Earth. Therefore, while the basic features
of this epoch have been worked out in the Big Bang the-
ory, the details are largely based on educated guesses.
Following this, in the early universe, the evolution of
the universe proceeded according to known high energy
physics. This is when the rst protons, electrons and neu-
trons formed, then nuclei and nally atoms. With the for-
mation of neutral hydrogen, the cosmic microwave back-
ground was emitted. Finally, the epoch of structure for-
mation began, when matter started to aggregate into the
rst stars and quasars, and ultimately galaxies, clusters of
galaxies and superclusters formed. The future of the uni-
verse is not yet rmly known, but according to the CDM
model it will continue expanding forever.
10.4 Areas of study
Below, some of the most active areas of inquiry in cos-
mology are described, in roughly chronological order.
This does not include all of the Big Bang cosmology,
which is presented in Timeline of the Big Bang.
10.4.1 Very early universe
The early, hot universe appears to be well explained by
the Big Bang from roughly 1033 seconds onwards, but
there are several problems. One is that there is no com-
pelling reason, using current particle physics, for the uni-
verse to be at, homogeneous, and isotropic (see the
cosmological principle). Moreover, grand unied the-
ories of particle physics suggest that there should be
magnetic monopoles in the universe, which have not been
found. These problems are resolved by a brief period
of cosmic ination, which drives the universe to atness,
10.4. AREAS OF STUDY 109

smooths out anisotropies and inhomogeneities to the ob- Standard model of Big Bang cosmology
served level, and exponentially dilutes the monopoles.
The physical model behind cosmic ination is extremely The CDM (Lambda cold dark matter) or Lambda-
simple, but it has not yet been conrmed by particle CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bang
physics, and there are dicult problems reconciling ina- cosmological model in which the universe contains a
tion and quantum eld theory. Some cosmologists think cosmological constant, denoted by Lambda (Greek ),
that string theory and brane cosmology will provide an associated with dark energy, and cold dark matter (abbre-
alternative to ination. viated CDM). It is frequently referred to as the standard
model of Big Bang cosmology.
Another major problem in cosmology is what caused the
universe to contain far more matter than antimatter. Cos-
mologists can observationally deduce that the universe is
10.4.3 Cosmic microwave background
not split into regions of matter and antimatter. If it were,
there would be X-rays and gamma rays produced as a
Main article: Cosmic microwave background
result of annihilation, but this is not observed. There-
The cosmic microwave background is radiation left over
fore, some process in the early universe must have cre-
ated a small excess of matter over antimatter, and this
(currently not understood) process is called baryogenesis.
Three required conditions for baryogenesis were derived
by Andrei Sakharov in 1967, and requires a violation of
the particle physics symmetry, called CP-symmetry, be-
tween matter and antimatter. However, particle accelera-
tors measure too small a violation of CP-symmetry to ac-
count for the baryon asymmetry. Cosmologists and par-
ticle physicists look for additional violations of the CP-
symmetry in the early universe that might account for the
baryon asymmetry.
Both the problems of baryogenesis and cosmic ina-
tion are very closely related to particle physics, and
their resolution might come from high energy theory and
experiment, rather than through observations of the uni-
verse.

10.4.2 Big Bang Theory
Main article: Big bang nucleosynthesis
Big Bang nucleosynthesis is the theory of the forma-
tion of the elements in the early universe. It nished
when the universe was about three minutes old and its
temperature dropped below that at which nuclear fusion
could occur. Big Bang nucleosynthesis had a brief pe-
riod during which it could operate, so only the very light-
est elements were produced. Starting from hydrogen ions
(protons), it principally produced deuterium, helium-4,
and lithium. Other elements were produced in only trace
abundances. The basic theory of nucleosynthesis was de-
veloped in 1948 by George Gamow, Ralph Asher Alpher,
and Robert Herman. It was used for many years as a
probe of physics at the time of the Big Bang, as the
theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis connects the abun-
dances of primordial light elements with the features of
the early universe. Specically, it can be used to test
the equivalence principle, to probe dark matter, and test
neutrino physics. Some cosmologists have proposed that
Big Bang nucleosynthesis suggests there is a fourth ster-
ile species of neutrino.
Evidence of gravitational waves in the infant universe may have
been uncovered by the microscopic examination of the focal
plane of the BICEP2 radio telescope.[9][10][11][25]
from decoupling after the epoch of recombination when
neutral atoms rst formed. At this point, radiation pro-
duced in the Big Bang stopped Thomson scattering from
charged ions. The radiation, rst observed in 1965 by
Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson, has a per-
fect thermal black-body spectrum. It has a tempera-
ture of 2.7 kelvins today and is isotropic to one part in
105 . Cosmological perturbation theory, which describes
the evolution of slight inhomogeneities in the early uni-
verse, has allowed cosmologists to precisely calculate
the angular power spectrum of the radiation, and it has
been measured by the recent satellite experiments (COBE
and WMAP) and many ground and balloon-based ex-
periments (such as Degree Angular Scale Interferome-
ter, Cosmic Background Imager, and Boomerang). One
of the goals of these eorts is to measure the basic pa-
rameters of the Lambda-CDM model with increasing ac-
curacy, as well as to test the predictions of the Big Bang
model and look for new physics. The recent measure-
ments made by WMAP, for example, have placed limits
on the neutrino masses.
110 CHAPTER 10. PHYSICAL COSMOLOGY

Newer experiments, such as QUIET and the Atacama The 21 centimeter absorption line of neutral atomic
Cosmology Telescope, are trying to measure the hydrogen also provides a sensitive test of cosmology
polarization of the cosmic microwave background. These
measurements are expected to provide further conrma- Weak lensing, the distortion of a distant image by
tion of the theory as well as information about cosmic gravitational lensing due to dark matter.
ination, and the so-called secondary anisotropies, such
as the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich eect and Sachs-Wolfe eect, These will help cosmologists settle the question of when
which are caused by interaction between galaxies and and how structure formed in the universe.
clusters with the cosmic microwave background.
On 17 March 2014, astronomers at the Harvard 10.4.5 Dark matter
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced the ap-
parent detection of gravitational waves, which, if con- Main article: Dark matter
rmed, may provide strong evidence for ination and the
Big Bang.[9][10][11][25] However, on 19 June 2014, low-
Evidence from Big Bang nucleosynthesis, the cosmic mi-
ered condence in conrming the cosmic ination nd-
crowave background and structure formation suggests
ings was reported.[26][27][28]
that about 23% of the mass of the universe consists of
non-baryonic dark matter, whereas only 4% consists of
visible, baryonic matter. The gravitational eects of dark
10.4.4 Formation and evolution of large- matter are well understood, as it behaves like a cold, non-
scale structure radiative uid that forms haloes around galaxies. Dark
matter has never been detected in the laboratory, and the
Main articles: Large-scale structure of the cosmos, particle physics nature of dark matter remains completely
Structure formation and Galaxy formation and evolution unknown. Without observational constraints, there are a
number of candidates, such as a stable supersymmetric
Understanding the formation and evolution of the largest particle, a weakly interacting massive particle, an axion,
and earliest structures (i.e., quasars, galaxies, clusters andand a massive compact halo object. Alternatives to the
superclusters) is one of the largest eorts in cosmology. dark matter hypothesis include a modication of gravity
Cosmologists study a model of hierarchical structure at small accelerations (MOND) or an eect from brane
formation in which structures form from the bottom up, cosmology.
with smaller objects forming rst, while the largest ob-
jects, such as superclusters, are still assembling. One way
to study structure in the universe is to survey the visible
10.4.6 Dark energy
galaxies, in order to construct a three-dimensional pic-
Main article: Dark energy
ture of the galaxies in the universe and measure the mat-
ter power spectrum. This is the approach of the Sloan
Digital Sky Survey and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey. If the universe is at, there must be an additional compo-
nent making up 73% (in addition to the 23% dark mat-
Another tool for understanding structure formation is
ter and 4% baryons) of the energy density of the uni-
simulations, which cosmologists use to study the gravita-
verse. This is called dark energy. In order not to interfere
tional aggregation of matter in the universe, as it clusters
with Big Bang nucleosynthesis and the cosmic microwave
into laments, superclusters and voids. Most simulations
background, it must not cluster in haloes like baryons and
contain only non-baryonic cold dark matter, which should
dark matter. There is strong observational evidence for
suce to understand the universe on the largest scales,
dark energy, as the total energy density of the universe is
as there is much more dark matter in the universe than
known through constraints on the atness of the universe,
visible, baryonic matter. More advanced simulations are
but the amount of clustering matter is tightly measured,
starting to include baryons and study the formation of in-
and is much less than this. The case for dark energy was
dividual galaxies. Cosmologists study these simulations
strengthened in 1999, when measurements demonstrated
to see if they agree with the galaxy surveys, and to under-
that the expansion of the universe has begun to gradually
stand any discrepancy.
accelerate.
Other, complementary observations to measure the dis-
Apart from its density and its clustering properties, noth-
tribution of matter in the distant universe and to probe
ing is known about dark energy. Quantum eld theory
reionization include:
predicts a cosmological constant (CC) much like dark en-
ergy, but 120 orders of magnitude larger than that ob-
The Lyman-alpha forest, which allows cosmologists served. Steven Weinberg and a number of string theorists
to measure the distribution of neutral atomic hydro- (see string landscape) have invoked the 'weak anthropic
gen gas in the early universe, by measuring the ab- principle': i.e. the reason that physicists observe a uni-
sorption of light from distant quasars by the gas. verse with such a small cosmological constant is that no
10.5. SEE ALSO
physicists (or any life) could exist in a universe with a
larger cosmological constant. Many cosmologists nd
this an unsatisfying explanation: perhaps because while
the weak anthropic principle is self-evident (given that
living observers exist, there must be at least one universe
with a cosmological constant which allows for life to ex-
ist) it does not attempt to explain the context of that uni-
verse. For example, the weak anthropic principle alone
does not distinguish between:
Only one universe will ever exist and there is some
underlying principle that constrains the CC to the
value we observe.
Only one universe will ever exist and although there
is no underlying principle xing the CC, we got
lucky.
Lots of universes exist (simultaneously or serially)
with a range of CC values, and of course ours is one
of the life-supporting ones.
Other possible explanations for dark energy include
quintessence or a modication of gravity on the largest
scales. The eect on cosmology of the dark energy
that these models describe is given by the dark energys
equation of state, which varies depending upon the the-
ory. The nature of dark energy is one of the most chal-
lenging problems in cosmology.
A better understanding of dark energy is likely to solve
the problem of the ultimate fate of the universe. In the
current cosmological epoch, the accelerated expansion
due to dark energy is preventing structures larger than
superclusters from forming. It is not known whether the
acceleration will continue indenitely, perhaps even in-
creasing until a big rip, or whether it will eventually re-
verse.
10.4.7 Other areas of inquiry
Cosmologists also study:
Whether primordial black holes were formed in our
universe, and what happened to them.
The GZK cuto for high-energy cosmic rays, and
whether it signals a failure of special relativity at high
energies
The equivalence principle, whether or not Einsteins
general theory of relativity is the correct theory of
[10] Clavin, Whitney (17 March 2014). NASA Technology
gravitation, and if the fundamental laws of physics
are the same everywhere in the universe.
The increasing complexity of universal structures,
an example being the progressively greater energy
rate density. [29]
111
10.5 See also
Hubbles law
Illustris project
List of cosmologists
Photon
Physical ontology
String cosmology
Universal Rotation Curve
10.6 References
[1] For an overview, see George FR Ellis (2006). Issues in
the Philosophy of Cosmology. In Jeremy Buttereld &
John Earman. Philosophy of Physics (Handbook of the
Philosophy of Science) 3 volume set. North Holland. pp.
1183. arXiv:astro-ph/0602280. ISBN 0-444-51560-7.
[2] An Open Letter to the Scientic Community as published
in New Scientist, May 22, 2004
[3] Beringer, J.; et al. (Particle Data Group) (2012).
2013 Review of Particle Physics (PDF). Phys. Rev.
D 86: 010001. Bibcode:2012PhRvD..86a0001B.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.010001.
[4] Nobel Prize Biography. Nobel Prize Biography. Nobel
Prize. Retrieved 25 February 2011.
[5] Liddle, A. An Introduction to Modern Cosmology. Wiley.
p. 51. ISBN 0-470-84835-9.
[6] Vilenkin, Alex (2007). Many worlds in one : the search
for other universes. New York: Hill and Wang, A division
of Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-8090-
6722-0.
[7] Jones, Mark; Lambourne, Robert (2004). An introduction
to galaxies and cosmology. Milton Keynes Cambridge,
UK New York: Open University Cambridge University
Press. p. 228. ISBN 0-521-54623-0.
[8] Jones, Mark; Lambourne, Robert (2004). An introduction
to galaxies and cosmology. Milton Keynes Cambridge,
UK New York: Open University Cambridge University
Press. p. 232. ISBN 0-521-54623-0.
[9] Sta (17 March 2014). BICEP2 2014 Results Release.
National Science Foundation. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
Views Birth of the Universe. NASA. Retrieved 17 March
2014.
[11] Overbye, Dennis (17 March 2014). Detection of Waves
in Space Buttresses Landmark Theory of Big Bang. New
York Times. Retrieved 17 March 2014.
112
[12] Slipher, V. M. (1922), Fox, Philip; Stebbins, Joel, eds.,
Further Notes on Spectrographic Observations of Nebu-
lae and Clusters, Publications of the American Astronom-
ical Society 4: 284286, Bibcode:1922PAAS....4..284S
[13] Seitter, Waltraut C.; Duerbeck, Hilmar W. (1999), Egret,
Daniel; Heck, Andre, eds., Carl Wilhelm Wirtz Pio-
neer in Cosmic Dimensions, Harmonizing Cosmic Dis-
tance Scales in a Post-Hipparcos Era, ASP Conference Se-
ries 167, pp. 237242, Bibcode:1999ASPC..167..237S,
ISBN 1-886733-88-0
[14] Lematre, G. (1927), Un Univers homogne de masse
constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la
vitesse radiale des nbuleuses extra-galactiques, Annales
de la Socit Scientique de Bruxelles (in French) A47: 49
59, Bibcode:1927ASSB...47...49L
[15] Hubble, Edwin (March 1929), A Relation be-
tween Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-
Galactic Nebulae, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of Amer-
ica 15 (3): 168173, Bibcode:1929PNAS...15..168H,
doi:10.1073/pnas.15.3.168
[16] Hoyle, F. (1948), A New Model for the Expand-
ing Universe, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi-
cal Society 108: 372, Bibcode:1948MNRAS.108..372H,
doi:10.1093/mnras/108.5.372
[17] Big Bang or Steady State?", Ideas of Cosmology (Amer-
ican Institute of Physics), retrieved 2015-07-29
[18] Ghose, Tia (26 February 2015). Big Bang, Deated?
Universe May Have Had No Beginning. Live Science.
Retrieved 28 February 2015.
[19] Ali, Ahmed Faraq (4 February 2015). Cosmology
from quantum potential. Physics Letters B 741: 276
279. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.057. Retrieved 28
February 2015.
[20] Das, Saurya; Bhaduri, Rajat K. (18 November 2014).
Dark matter and dark energy from Bose-Einstein con-
densate (PDF). arXiv. Retrieved 28 February 2015.
[21] Science 20 June 2003:Vol. 300. no. 5627, pp. 1914 -
1918 Throwing Light on Dark Energy, Robert P. Kirsh-
ner. Retrieved December 2006
[22] e.g. Liddle, A. An Introduction to Modern Cosmology.
Wiley. ISBN 0-470-84835-9. This argues cogently En-
ergy is always, always, always conserved.
[23] P. Ojeda; H. Rosu (June 2006). Supersymme-
try of FRW barotropic cosmologies. Internat. J.
Theoret. Phys. (Springer) 45 (6): 11911196.
arXiv:gr-qc/0510004. Bibcode:2006IJTP...45.1152R.
doi:10.1007/s10773-006-9123-2.
[24] Cosmic Detectives. The European Space Agency
(ESA). 2013-04-02. Retrieved 2013-04-25.
[25] Overbye, Dennis (24 March 2014). Ripples From the
Big Bang. New York Times. Retrieved 24 March 2014.
CHAPTER 10. PHYSICAL COSMOLOGY
[26] Overbye, Dennis (19 June 2014). Astronomers Hedge on
Big Bang Detection Claim. New York Times. Retrieved
20 June 2014.
[27] Amos, Jonathan (19 June 2014). Cosmic ination: Con-
dence lowered for Big Bang signal. BBC News. Re-
trieved 20 June 2014.
[28] Ade, P.A.R.; et al. (BICEP2 Collaboration)
(19 June 2014). Detection of B-Mode Polar-
ization at Degree Angular Scales by BICEP2
(PDF). Physical Review Letters 112: 241101.
arXiv:1403.3985. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112x1101A.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.241101. PMID
24996078. Retrieved 20 June 2014.
[29] Chaisson, Eric (1987-01-01). The life ERA: cosmic se-
lection and conscious evolution. Faculty Publications.
10.7 Further reading
10.7.1 Popular
Brian Greene (2005). The Fabric of the Cosmos.
Penguin Books Ltd. ISBN 0-14-101111-4.
Alan Guth (1997). The Inationary Universe: The
Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Random
House. ISBN 0-224-04448-6.
Hawking, Stephen W. (1988). A Brief History of
Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. Bantam
Books, Inc. ISBN 0-553-38016-8.
Hawking, Stephen W. (2001). The Universe in a
Nutshell. Bantam Books, Inc. ISBN 0-553-80202-
X.
Ostriker, Jeremiah P.; Mitton, Simon (2013). Heart
of Darkness: Unraveling the mysteries of the invisible
Universe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
ISBN 978-0-691-13430-7.
Simon Singh (2005). Big Bang: The Origin of the
Universe. Fourth Estate. ISBN 0-00-716221-9.
Steven Weinberg (1993) [First published 1978].
The First Three Minutes. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-
02437-8.
10.7.2 Textbooks
Cheng, Ta-Pei (2005). Relativity, Gravitation and
Cosmology: a Basic Introduction. Oxford and
New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-
852957-0. Introductory cosmology and general rel-
ativity without the full tensor apparatus, deferred
until the last part of the book.
10.8. EXTERNAL LINKS 113

Dodelson, Scott (2003). Modern Cosmology. Aca- Benjamin Gal-Or, Cosmology, Physics and Philos-
demic Press. ISBN 0-12-219141-2. An introduc- ophy, Springer Verlag, 1981, 1983, 1987, ISBN 0-
tory text, released slightly before the WMAP results. 387-90581-2, ISBN 0-387-96526-2.
Grn, yvind; Hervik, Sigbjrn (2007). Einsteins
General Theory of Relativity with Modern Applica-
tions in Cosmology. New York: Springer. ISBN 10.8 External links
978-0-387-69199-2.
10.8.1 From groups
Harrison, Edward (2000). Cosmology: the science of
the universe. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0- Cambridge Cosmology- from Cambridge University
521-66148-X. For undergraduates; mathematically (public home page)
gentle with a strong historical focus.
Cosmology 101 - from the NASA WMAP group
Kutner, Marc (2003). Astronomy: A Physical Per-
spective. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521- Center for Cosmological Physics. University of
52927-1. An introductory astronomy text. Chicago, Chicago.
Kolb, Edward; Michael Turner (1988). The Early Origins, Nova Online - Provided by PBS.
Universe. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-11604-9.
The classic reference for researchers.
10.8.2 From individuals
Liddle, Andrew (2003). An Introduction to Mod-
ern Cosmology. John Wiley. ISBN 0-470-84835-9. Gale, George, "Cosmology: Methodological De-
Cosmology without general relativity. bates in the 1930s and 1940s", The Stanford Ency-
Liddle, Andrew; David Lyth (2000). Cosmologi- clopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
cal Ination and Large-Scale Structure. Cambridge. Madore, Barry F., "Level 5 : A Knowledgebase for
ISBN 0-521-57598-2. An introduction to cosmol- Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology". Caltech
ogy with a thorough discussion of ination. and Carnegie. Pasadena, California, USA.
Mukhanov, Viatcheslav (2005). Physical Founda- Tyler, Pat, and Phil Newman "Beyond Einstein".
tions of Cosmology. Cambridge University Press. Laboratory for High Energy Astrophysics (LHEA)
ISBN 0-521-56398-4. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
Padmanabhan, T. (1993). Structure formation in Wright, Ned. "Cosmology tutorial and FAQ". Divi-
the universe. Cambridge University Press. ISBN sion of Astronomy & Astrophysics, UCLA.
0-521-42486-0. Discusses the formation of large-
scale structures in detail. George Musser (February 2004). Four Keys to
Cosmology. Scientic American (Scientic Amer-
Peacock, John (1998). Cosmological Physics. Cam-
ican). Retrieved 22 March 2015.
bridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-42270-1. An
introduction including more on general relativity Cli Burgess; Fernando Quevedo (November
and quantum eld theory than most. 2007). The Great Cosmic Roller-Coaster Ride.
Scientic American (print). pp. 5259. (subtitle)
Peebles, P. J. E. (1993). Principles of Physical Cos-
Could cosmic ination be a sign that our universe is
mology. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-
embedded in a far vaster realm?
01933-9. Strong historical focus.
Peebles, P. J. E. (1980). The Large-Scale Struc-
ture of the Universe. Princeton University Press.
ISBN 0-691-08240-5. The classic work on large-
scale structure and correlation functions.
Rees, Martin (2002). New Perspectives in Astrophys-
ical Cosmology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN
0-521-64544-1.
Weinberg, Steven (1971). Gravitation and Cosmol-
ogy. John Wiley. ISBN 0-471-92567-5. A standard
reference for the mathematical formalism.
Weinberg, Steven (2008). Cosmology. Oxford Uni-
versity Press. ISBN 0-19-852682-2.
Chapter 11

Hubbles law

Hubbles law is the name for the observation in physical 11.1 Observed values
cosmology that:

11.2 Discovery
1. Objects observed in deep space (extragalactic space,
10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more) are found to have a A decade before Hubble made his observations, a num-
Doppler shift interpretable as relative velocity away ber of physicists and mathematicians had established a
from Earth; consistent theory of the relationship between space and
time by using Einsteins eld equations of general relativ-
ity. Applying the most general principles to the nature
2. This Doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various of the universe yielded a dynamic solution that conicted
galaxies receding from the Earth, is approximately with the then-prevailing notion of a static universe.
proportional to their distance from the Earth for
galaxies up to a few hundred megaparsecs away.[1][2]
11.2.1 FLRW equations
Hubbles law is considered the rst observational basis In 1922, Alexander Friedmann derived his Friedmann
for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one equations from Einsteins eld equations, showing that
of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Universe might expand at a rate calculable by
the Big Bang model.[3] The motion of astronomical ob- the equations.[27] The parameter used by Friedmann is
jects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble known today as the scale factor which can be considered
ow.[4] as a scale invariant form of the proportionality constant
Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law of Hubbles law. Georges Lematre independently found
was rst derived from the general relativity equations by a similar solution in 1927. The Friedmann equations are
Georges Lematre in a 1927 article where he proposed derived by inserting the metric for a homogeneous and
the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated isotropic universe into Einsteins eld equations for a uid
value of the rate of expansion, now called the Hubble with a given density and pressure. This idea of an expand-
constant.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Two years later Edwin Hubble ing spacetime would eventually lead to the Big Bang and
conrmed the existence of that law and determined a Steady State theories of cosmology.
more accurate value for the constant that now bears his
name.[11] Hubble inferred the recession velocity of the
11.2.2 Lemaitres Equation
objects from their redshifts, many of which were ear-
lier measured and related to velocity by Vesto Slipher in In 1927, two years before Hubble published his own arti-
1917.[12] cle, the Belgian priest and astronomer Georges Lematre
The law is often expressed by the equation v = H 0 D, with was the rst to publish research deriving what is now
H 0 the constant of proportionality (Hubble constant) be- known as Hubbles Law. Unfortunately, for reasons un-
tween the proper distance D to a galaxy (which can known, all discussions of radial velocities and distances
change over time, unlike the comoving distance) and its (and the very rst empirical determination of H) were
velocity v (i.e. the derivative of proper distance with re- omitted.[28] It is speculated that these omissions were de-
spect to cosmological time coordinate; see Uses of the liberate. According to the Canadian astronomer Sidney
proper distance for some discussion of the subtleties of van den Bergh, The 1927 discovery of the expansion
this denition of 'velocity'). The SI unit of H 0 is s1 but of the Universe by Lemaitre was published in French in
it is most frequently quoted in (km/s)/Mpc, thus giving a low-impact journal. In the 1931 high-impact English
the speed in km/s of a galaxy 1 megaparsec (3.091019 translation of this article a critical equation was changed
km) away. The reciprocal of H 0 is the Hubble time. by omitting reference to what is now known as the Hubble

114
11.2. DISCOVERY
constant. That the section of the text of this paper dealing
with the expansion of the Universe was also deleted from
that English translation suggests a deliberate omission by
the unknown translator.[29]
11.2.3 Shape of the universe
Before the advent of modern cosmology, there was con-
siderable talk about the size and shape of the universe. In
1920, the famous Shapley-Curtis debate took place be-
tween Harlow Shapley and Heber D. Curtis over this is-
sue. Shapley argued for a small universe the size of the
Milky Way galaxy and Curtis argued that the Universe
was much larger. The issue was resolved in the coming
decade with Hubbles improved observations.
11.2.4 Cepheid variable stars outside of law, it was acceptable to explain redshift phenomenon as
the Milky Way a Doppler shift in the context of special relativity, and use
Edwin Hubble did most of his professional astronomical
observing work at Mount Wilson Observatory, home to
the worlds most powerful telescope at the time. His ob-
servations of Cepheid variable stars in spiral nebulae en-
abled him to calculate the distances to these objects. Sur-
prisingly, these objects were discovered to be at distances
which placed them well outside the Milky Way. They
continued to be called nebulae and it was only gradu-
ally that the term galaxies took over.
11.2.5 Combining redshifts with distance
measurements Hubbles law can be easily depicted in a Hubble Dia-
Fit of redshift velocities to Hubbles law.[30] Various estimates for
the Hubble constant exist. The HST Key H0 Group tted type Ia
supernovae for redshifts between 0.01 and 0.1 to nd that H0
= 71 2 (statistical) 6 (systematic) km s1 Mpc1 ,[24] while
Sandage et al. nd H0 = 62.3 1.3 (statistical) 5 (systematic)
km s1 Mpc1 .[31]
The parameters that appear in Hubbles law: velocities
and distances, are not directly measured. In reality we
determine, say, a supernova brightness, which provides
115
information about its distance, and the redshift z = /
of its spectrum of radiation. Hubble correlated brightness
and parameter z.
Combining his measurements of galaxy distances with
Vesto Slipher and Milton Humason's measurements of
the redshifts associated with the galaxies, Hubble dis-
covered a rough proportionality between redshift of an
object and its distance. Though there was considerable
scatter (now known to be caused by peculiar velocities
the 'Hubble ow' is used to refer to the region of space
far enough out that the recession velocity is larger than
local peculiar velocities), Hubble was able to plot a trend
line from the 46 galaxies he studied and obtain a value for
the Hubble constant of 500 km/s/Mpc (much higher than
the currently accepted value due to errors in his distance
calibrations). (See cosmic distance ladder for details.)
At the time of discovery and development of Hubbles
the Doppler formula to associate redshift z with velocity.
Today, the velocity-distance relationship of Hubbles law
is viewed as a theoretical result with velocity to be con-
nected with observed redshift not by the Doppler eect,
but by a cosmological model relating recessional velocity
to the expansion of the Universe. Even for small z the ve-
locity entering the Hubble law is no longer interpreted as
a Doppler eect, although at small z the velocity-redshift
relation for both interpretations is the same.
Hubble Diagram
gram in which the velocity (assumed approximately pro-
portional to the redshift) of an object is plotted with re-
spect to its distance from the observer.[32] A straight line
of positive slope on this diagram is the visual depiction
of Hubbles law.
11.2.6 Cosmological constant abandoned
Main article: Cosmological constant
After Hubbles discovery was published, Albert Ein-
stein abandoned his work on the cosmological constant,
which he had designed to modify his equations of gen-
eral relativity, to allow them to produce a static solu-
tion which, in their simplest form, model either an ex-
panding or contracting universe.[33] After Hubbles dis-
covery that the Universe was, in fact, expanding, Einstein
called his faulty assumption that the Universe is static his
biggest mistake.[33] On its own, general relativity could
predict the expansion of the Universe, which (through
observations such as the bending of light by large masses,
or the precession of the orbit of Mercury) could be exper-
imentally observed and compared to his theoretical calcu-
lations using particular solutions of the equations he had
116 CHAPTER 11. HUBBLES LAW

originally formulated. cosmological time. (Recession velocity is just v =

In 1931, Einstein made a trip to Mount Wilson to thank
Hubble for providing the observational basis for modern
cosmology.[34]
The cosmological constant has regained attention in re- lation between recessional velocity and redshift depends
cent decades as a hypothesis for dark energy.[35]
11.3 Interpretation
dD/dt).
Hubbles law is considered a fundamental relation be-
tween recessional velocity and distance. However, the re-
on the cosmological model adopted, and is not established
except for small redshifts.
For distances D larger than the radius of the Hubble
sphere rHS , objects recede at a rate faster than the speed
of light (See Uses of the proper distance for a discussion
of the signicance of this):

A variety of possible recessional velocity vs. redshift functions
including the simple linear relation v = cz; a variety of possible
shapes from theories related to general relativity; and a curve
that does not permit speeds faster than light in accordance with
special relativity. All curves are linear at low redshifts. See Davis
and Lineweaver.[36]
c
rHS = .
H0
Since the Hubble constant is a constant only in space,
not in time, the radius of the Hubble sphere may increase
or decrease over various time intervals. The subscript
'0' indicates the value of the Hubble constant today.[30]
Current evidence suggests that the expansion of the Uni-
verse is accelerating (see Accelerating universe), meaning
that, for any given galaxy, the recession velocity dD/dt is
increasing over time as the galaxy moves to greater and
greater distances; however, the Hubble parameter is ac-
tually thought to be decreasing with time, meaning that if
we were to look at some xed distance D and watch a se-
ries of dierent galaxies pass that distance, later galaxies
would pass that distance at a smaller velocity than earlier
ones.[37]

The discovery of the linear relationship between redshift 11.3.1 Redshift velocity and recessional ve-
and distance, coupled with a supposed linear relation be- locity
tween recessional velocity and redshift, yields a straight-
forward mathematical expression for Hubbles Law as fol- Redshift can be measured by determining the wavelength
lows: of a known transition, such as hydrogen -lines for distant
quasars, and nding the fractional shift compared to a sta-
tionary reference. Thus redshift is a quantity unambigu-
v = H0 D ous for experimental observation. The relation of redshift
to recessional velocity is another matter. For an extensive
where discussion, see Harrison.[38]

v is the recessional velocity, typically expressed in Redshift velocity

km/s.
The redshift z is often described as a redshift velocity,
H 0 is Hubbles constant and corresponds to the value
which is the recessional velocity that would produce the
of H (often termed the Hubble parameter which
same redshift if it were caused by a linear Doppler eect
is a value that is time dependent and which can be
(which, however, is not the case, as the shift is caused
expressed in terms of the scale factor) in the Fried-
in part by a cosmological expansion of space, and be-
mann equations taken at the time of observation de-
cause the velocities involved are too large to use a non-
noted by the subscript 0. This value is the same
relativistic formula for Doppler shift). This redshift ve-
throughout the Universe for a given comoving time.
locity can easily exceed the speed of light.[39] In other
D is the proper distance (which can change over words, to determine the redshift velocity v , the relation:
time, unlike the comoving distance, which is con-
stant) from the galaxy to the observer, measured in
mega parsecs (Mpc), in the 3-space dened by given vrs cz ,
11.3. INTERPRETATION 117

is used.[40][41] That is, there is no fundamental dierence
between redshift velocity and redshift: they are rigidly
proportional, and not related by any theoretical reason-
ing. The motivation behind the redshift velocity ter-
minology is that the redshift velocity agrees with the ve-
locity from a low-velocity simplication of the so-called
Fizeau-Doppler formula[42]
From this perspective, Hubbles law is a fundamental re-
lation between (i) the recessional velocity contributed by
the expansion of space and (ii) the distance to an object;
the connection between redshift and distance is a crutch
used to connect Hubbles law with observations. This law
can be related to redshift z approximately by making a
Taylor series expansion:

R(t0 ) R(t0 )
o 1 + v/c v z= 1 1 (t0 te )H(t0 ) ,
z= 1= 1 . R(te ) R(t0 ) (1 + (te t0 )H(t0 ))
e 1 v/c c
If the distance is not too large, all other complications of
Here, , are the observed and emitted wavelengths the model become small corrections and the time interval
respectively. The redshift velocity v is not so simply is simply the distance divided by the speed of light:
related to real velocity at larger velocities, however, and
z (t0 te )H(t0 ) Dc H(t0 ) , or cz
this terminology leads to confusion if interpreted as a real
DH(t0 ) = vr .
velocity. Next, the connection between redshift or red-
shift velocity and recessional velocity is discussed. This According to this approach, the relation cz = v is an ap-
discussion is based on Sartori.[43] proximation valid at low redshifts, to be replaced by a
relation at large redshifts that is model-dependent. See
Recessional velocity velocity-redshift gure.

Suppose R(t) is called the scale factor of the Universe,

and increases as the Universe expands in a manner that
11.3.2 Observability of parameters
depends upon the cosmological model selected. Its mean-
Strictly speaking, neither v nor D in the formula are di-
ing is that all measured proper distances D(t) between
rectly observable, because they are properties now of a
co-moving points increase proportionally to R. (The co-
galaxy, whereas our observations refer to the galaxy in
moving points are not moving relative to each other ex-
the past, at the time that the light we currently see left it.
cept as a result of the expansion of space.) In other words:
For relatively nearby galaxies (redshift z much less than
D(t) R(t) unity), v and D will not have changed much, and v can
D(t0 ) = R(t0 ), [44]
be estimated using the formula v = zc where c is the
speed of light. This gives the empirical relation found by
where t0 is some reference time. If light is emitted from a Hubble.
galaxy at time te and received by us at t0 , it is red shifted
due to the expansion of space, and this redshift z is simply: For distant galaxies, v (or D) cannot be calculated from
z without specifying a detailed model for how H changes
with time. The redshift is not even directly related to the
R(t0 ) recession velocity at the time the light set out, but it does
z= 1. have a simple interpretation: (1+z) is the factor by which
R(te )
the Universe has expanded while the photon was travel-
Suppose a galaxy is at distance D, and this distance ling towards the observer.
changes with time at a rate dtD . We call this rate of re-
cession the recession velocity vr:
11.3.3 Expansion velocity vs relative veloc-
ity
dt R
vr = d t D = D. In using Hubbles law to determine distances, only the ve-
R
locity due to the expansion of the Universe can be used.
We now dene the Hubble constant as Since gravitationally interacting galaxies move relative to
each other independent of the expansion of the Universe,
these relative velocities, called peculiar velocities, need
dt R to be accounted for in the application of Hubbles law.
H ,
R
The Finger of God eect is one result of this phe-
and discover the Hubble law: nomenon. In systems that are gravitationally bound, such
as galaxies or our planetary system, the expansion of
space is a much weaker eect than the attractive force
vr = HD . of gravity.
118 CHAPTER 11. HUBBLES LAW

11.3.4 Idealized Hubbles Law the so-called deceleration parameter q , which is dened
by
The mathematical derivation of an idealized Hub-
bles Law for a uniformly expanding universe is a ( )
fairly elementary theorem of geometry in 3-dimensional H
Cartesian/Newtonian coordinate space, which, consid- q = 1 + H 2 .
ered as a metric space, is entirely homogeneous and
isotropic (properties do not vary with location or direc- In a universe with a deceleration parameter equal to zero,
tion). Simply stated the theorem is this: it follows that H = 1/t, where t is the time since the Big
Bang. A non-zero, time-dependent value of q simply re-
Any two points which are moving away from the quires integration of the Friedmann equations backwards
origin, each along straight lines and with speed from the present time to the time when the comoving
proportional to distance from the origin, will be horizon size was zero.
moving away from each other with a speed pro-
portional to their distance apart. It was long thought that q was positive, indicating that the
expansion is slowing down due to gravitational attraction.
In fact this applies to non-Cartesian spaces as long as they This would imply an age of the Universe less than 1/H
are locally homogeneous and isotropic; specically to the (which is about 14 billion years). For instance, a value for
negatively and positively curved spaces frequently consid- q of 1/2 (once favoured by most theorists) would give the
ered as cosmological models (see shape of the universe). age of the Universe as 2/(3H). The discovery in 1998 that
q is apparently negative means that the Universe could
An observation stemming from this theorem is that see-
actually be older than 1/H. However, estimates of the age
ing objects recede from us on Earth is not an indication
of the universe are very close to 1/H.
that Earth is near to a center from which the expansion is
occurring, but rather that every observer in an expanding
universe will see objects receding from them. 11.3.6 Olbers paradox
Main article: Olbers paradox
11.3.5 Ultimate fate and age of the uni-
verse
The expansion of space summarized by the Big Bang in-
terpretation of Hubbles Law is relevant to the old conun-
M = 0.3, = 0.7
M = 0 drum known as Olbers paradox: if the Universe were
M = 0.3
innite, static, and lled with a uniform distribution of
M = 1
Average distance between galaxies

stars, then every line of sight in the sky would end on a

star, and the sky would be as bright as the surface of a
star. However, the night sky is largely dark. Since the
17th century, astronomers and other thinkers have pro-
Now
posed many possible ways to resolve this paradox, but
the currently accepted resolution depends in part on the
Big Bang theory and in part on the Hubble expansion. In
a universe that exists for a nite amount of time, only the
M = 6 light of a nite number of stars has had a chance to reach
us yet, and the paradox is resolved. Additionally, in an ex-
-13.7 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 panding universe, distant objects recede from us, which
Billions of years from now
causes the light emanating from them to be redshifted and
diminished in brightness.[45]
The age and ultimate fate of the universe can be determined by
measuring the Hubble constant today and extrapolating with the
observed value of the deceleration parameter, uniquely charac- 11.3.7 Dimensionless Hubble parameter
terized by values of density parameters (M for matter and
for dark energy). A closed universe with M > 1 and =
Instead of working with Hubbles constant, a common
0 comes to an end in a Big Crunch and is considerably younger
practice is to introduce the dimensionless Hubble pa-
than its Hubble age. An open universe with M 1 and =
rameter, usually denoted by h, and to write the Hubbles
0 expands forever and has an age that is closer to its Hubble age.
parameter H 0 as h 100 km s1 Mpc1 , all the uncer-
For the accelerating universe with nonzero that we inhabit,
tainty relative of the value of H 0 being then relegated on
the age of the universe is coincidentally very close to the Hubble
age. h.[46] If a subscript is presented after h, it refers to the
value of h used in that texts preceding calculation, and
The value of the Hubble parameter changes over time, is equal to H 0 / 100. Currently h = 0.678, which can be
either increasing or decreasing depending on the value of represented as h.. This should not be confused with
11.5. DERIVATION OF THE HUBBLE PARAMETER 119

the dimensionless value of Hubbles constant, usually ex- couleurs, who claimed the value was around 100, and
pressed in terms of Planck units, with current value of Allan Sandage, who claimed the value was near 50.[25]
H 0 tP = 1.18 1061 . In 1996, a debate moderated by John Bahcall between
Gustav Tammann and Sidney van den Bergh was held in
similar fashion to the earlier Shapley-Curtis debate over
11.4 Determining the Hubble con- these two competing values.
stant This previously wide variance in estimates was partially
resolved with the introduction of the CDM model of
the Universe in the late 1990s. With the CDM model
observations of high-redshift clusters at X-ray and mi-
crowave wavelengths using the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich ef-
fect, measurements of anisotropies in the cosmic mi-
crowave background radiation, and optical surveys all
gave a value of around 70 for the constant.
More recent measurements from the Planck mission in-
dicate a lower value of around 67.[13]
See table of measurements above for many recent and
older measurements.

11.4.2 Acceleration of the expansion

Main article: Accelerating universe

A value for q measured from standard candle observa-

tions of Type Ia supernovae, which was determined in
1998 to be negative, surprised many astronomers with
the implication that the expansion of the Universe is
currently accelerating[47] (although the Hubble factor
is still decreasing with time, as mentioned above in the
Interpretation section; see the articles on dark energy and
the CDM model).

11.5 Derivation of the Hubble pa-

rameter
Value of the Hubble Constant including measurement uncertainty
for recent surveys.[13] Start with the Friedmann equation:

The value of the Hubble constant is estimated by measur-

ing the redshift of distant galaxies and then determining ( )2
a 8G kc2 c2
the distances to the same galaxies (by some other method H 2
= 2 + ,
a 3 a 3
than Hubbles law). Uncertainties in the physical assump-
tions used to determine these distances have caused vary- where H is the Hubble parameter, a is the scale factor,
ing estimates of the Hubble constant. G is the gravitational constant, k is the normalised spatial
curvature of the Universe and equal to 1, 0, or +1, and
is the cosmological constant.
11.4.1 Earlier measurement and discus-
sion approaches
11.5.1 Matter-dominated universe (with a
For most of the second half of the 20th century the cosmological constant)
value of H0 was estimated to be between 50 and 90
(km/s)/Mpc. If the Universe is matter-dominated, then the mass den-
The value of the Hubble constant was the topic of a long sity of the Universe can just be taken to include matter
and rather bitter controversy between Grard de Vau- so
120 CHAPTER 11. HUBBLES LAW

If w is constant, then
m0
= m (a) = ,
a3
ln = 3 (1 + w) ln a;
where m0 is the density of matter today. We know for
nonrelativistic particles that their mass density decreases = a3(1+w) .
proportional to the inverse volume of the Universe, so the
equation above must be true. We can also dene (see Therefore, for dark energy with a constant equation of
density parameter for m ) state w, de (a) = de0 a3(1+w) . If this is substituted
into the Friedman equation in a similar way as before,
but this time set k = 0 , which assumes a spatially at
3H 2 universe, then (see Shape of the Universe)
c = ;
8G
( )
m0 8G 2 2 3 3(1+w)
m = m ; H (z) = H 0 M (1 + z) + de (1 + z) .
c 3H02 0
so = c m /a3 . Also, by denition, If the dark energy derives from a cosmological constant
such as that introduced by Einstein, it can be shown that
w = 1 . The equation then reduces to the last equation
kc2 in the matter-dominated universe section, with k set to
k zero. In that case the initial dark energy density de0 is
(a0 H0 )2
given by[48]
and
c2
de0 = 8G and de = .
c2
, If dark energy does not have a constant equation-of-state
3H02
w, then
where the subscript nought refers to the values today, and
a0 = 1 . Substituting all of this into the Friedmann

equation at the start of this section and replacing a with de (a) = de0 e3 da a (1+w(a)) ,

a = 1/(1 + z) gives
and to solve this, w(a) must be parametrized, for example
if w(a) = w0 + wa (1 a) , giving
( )
H 2 (z) = H02 M (1 + z)3 + k (1 + z)2 + .
( )
H 2 (z) = H02 M a3 + de a3(1+w0 +wa ) e3wa (1a) .
11.5.2 Matter- and dark energy-
dominated universe Other ingredients have been formulated
recently.[49][50][51]
If the Universe is both matter-dominated and dark en-
ergy- dominated, then the above equation for the Hubble
parameter will also be a function of the equation of state 11.6 Units derived from the Hubble
of dark energy. So now:
constant
= m (a) + de (a), 11.6.1 Hubble time
where de is the mass density of the dark energy. By The Hubble constant H0 has units of inverse time; the
denition, an equation of state in cosmology is P = wc2 Hubble time tH is simply dened as the inverse of the
, and if this is substituted into the uid equation, which Hubble constant, i.e. tH H10 = 67.8km/(sMpc) 1
=
describes how the mass density of the Universe evolves
4.55 10 s = 14.4 billion years. This is slightly dierent
17
with time, then
from the age of the universe t0 13.8 billion years. The
Hubble time is the age it would have had if the expan-
( ) sion had been linear, and it is dierent from the real age
a P
+ 3 + 2 = 0; of the universe because the expansion isn't linear; they
a c
are related by a dimensionless factor which depends on
d da the mass-energy content of the universe, which is around
= 3 (1 + w) . 0.96 in the standard Lambda-CDM model.
a
11.8. NOTES
We currently appear to be approaching a period where
the expansion is exponential due to the increasing domi-
nance of vacuum energy. In this regime, the Hubble pa-
rameter is constant, and the universe grows by a factor e
each Hubble time:
a 1.
H = const. a eHt = et/tH
a
Over long periods of time, the dynamics are complicated
by general relativity, dark energy, ination, etc., as ex-
plained above.
11.6.2 Hubble length
The Hubble length or Hubble distance is a unit of distance
in cosmology, dened as cH 0 1 the speed of light mul-
tiplied by the Hubble time. It is equivalent to 4,228 mil-
lion parsecs or 13.8 billion light years. (The numerical
value of the Hubble length in light years is, by denition,
equal to that of the Hubble time in years.) The Hubble
distance would be the distance between the Earth and the
galaxies which are currently receding from us at the speed
of light, as can be seen by substituting D = c/H 0 into the
equation for Hubbles law, v = H 0 D.
11.6.3 Hubble volume
Main article: Hubble volume
The Hubble volume is sometimes dened as a volume of
the Universe with a comoving size of c/H 0 . The exact
denition varies: it is sometimes dened as the volume of
a sphere with radius c/H 0 , or alternatively, a cube of side
c/H 0 . Some cosmologists even use the term Hubble vol-
ume to refer to the volume of the observable universe, al-
though this has a radius approximately three times larger.
11.7 See also
Cosmology
Dark energy
Dark matter
Tests of general relativity
11.8 Notes
[1] Riess, A.; et al. (September 1998). Observational
Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Uni-
verse and a Cosmological Constant. The Astronomical
Journal 116 (3): 10091038. arXiv:astro-ph/9805201.
Bibcode:1998AJ....116.1009R. doi:10.1086/300499.
121
[2] Perlmutter, S.; et al. (June 1999). Measurements
of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Super-
novae. The Astrophysical Journal 517 (2): 565586.
arXiv:astro-ph/9812133. Bibcode:1999ApJ...517..565P.
doi:10.1086/307221.
[3] Coles, P., ed. (2001). Routledge Critical Dictionary of the
New Cosmology. Routledge. p. 202. ISBN 0-203-16457-
[4] Hubble Flow. The Swinburne Astronomy Online Ency-
clopedia of Astronomy. Swinburne University of Technol-
ogy. Retrieved 2013-05-14.
[5] Lematre, G. (1927). Un univers homogne de masse
constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la
vitesse radiale des nbuleuses extra-galactiques. An-
nales de la Socit Scientique de Bruxelles A (47): 49
59. Bibcode:1927ASSB...47...49L. Partially translated in
Lematre, G. (1931). Expansion of the universe, A ho-
mogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing ra-
dius accounting for the radial velocity of extra-galactic
nebulae. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society 91: 483490. Bibcode:1931MNRAS..91..483L.
doi:10.1093/mnras/91.5.483.
[6] van den Bergh, S. (2011). The Curious Case
of Lemaitres Equation No. 24. Journal of the
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada 105 (4): 151.
arXiv:1106.1195. Bibcode:2011JRASC.105..151V.
[7] Block, D. L. (2012). Georges Lemaitre and Stiglers
Law of Eponymy. In Holder, R. D.; Mitton, S.
Georges Lematre: Life, Science and Legacy. Astro-
physics and Space Science Library 395. pp. 89
96. arXiv:1106.3928. Bibcode:2012ASSL..395...89B.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32254-9_8. ISBN 978-3-642-
32253-2.
[8] Reich, E. S. (27 June 2011). Edwin Hubble in translation
trouble. Nature News. doi:10.1038/news.2011.385.
[9] Livio, M. (2011). Lost in translation: Mystery of
the missing text solved. Nature 479 (7372): 171.
Bibcode:2011Natur.479..171L. doi:10.1038/479171a.
[10] Livio, M.; Riess, A. (2013). Measuring the
Hubble constant. Physics Today 66 (10): 41.
Bibcode:2013PhT....66j..41L. doi:10.1063/PT.3.2148.
[11] Hubble, E. (1929). A relation between distance
and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
15 (3): 16873. Bibcode:1929PNAS...15..168H.
doi:10.1073/pnas.15.3.168. PMC 522427. PMID
16577160.
[12] Longair, M. S. (2006). The Cosmic Century. Cambridge
University Press. p. 109. ISBN 0-521-47436-1.
[13] Bucher, P. A. R.; et al. (Planck Collaboration) (2013).
Planck 2013 results. I. Overview of products and scien-
tic Results. arXiv:1303.5062 [astro-ph.CO].
[14] Planck reveals an almost perfect universe. ESA. 21
March 2013. Retrieved 2013-03-21.
122
[15] Planck Mission Brings Universe Into Sharp Focus. JPL.
21 March 2013. Retrieved 2013-03-21.
[16] Overbye, D. (21 March 2013). An infant universe, born
before we knew. New York Times. Retrieved 2013-03-
21.
[17] Boyle, A. (21 March 2013). Planck probes cosmic 'baby
picture' revises universes vital statistics. NBC News. Re-
trieved 2013-03-21.
[18] Bennett, C. L.; et al. (2013). Nine-year Wilkinson
Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations:
Final maps and results. The Astrophysical Journal
Supplement Series 208 (2): 20. arXiv:1212.5225.
Bibcode:2013ApJS..208...20B. doi:10.1088/0067-
0049/208/2/20.
[19] Jarosik, N.; et al. (2011). Seven-year Wilkin-
son Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observa-
tions: Sky maps, systematic errors, and basic results.
The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 192 (2):
14. arXiv:1001.4744. Bibcode:2011ApJS..192...14J.
doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/14.
[20] Results for H 0 and other cosmological parameters ob-
tained by tting a variety of models to several combi-
nations of WMAP and other data are available at the
NASA's LAMBDA website.
[21] Hinshaw, G.; et al. (WMAP Collaboration) (2009).
Five-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe ob-
servations: Data processing, sky maps, and basic results.
The Astrophysical Journal Supplement 180 (2): 225
245. arXiv:0803.0732. Bibcode:2009ApJS..180..225H.
doi:10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/225.
[22] Spergel, D. N.; et al. (WMAP Collaboration)
(2007). Three-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) Observations: Implications for cos-
mology. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Se-
ries 170 (2): 377408. arXiv:astro-ph/0603449.
Bibcode:2007ApJS..170..377S. doi:10.1086/513700.
[23] Bonamente, M.; Joy, M. K.; Laroque, S. J.; Carlstrom, J.
E.; Reese, E. D.; Dawson, K. S. (2006). Determination
of the cosmic distance scale from SunyaevZel'dovich ef-
fect and Chandra Xray measurements of highredshift
galaxy clusters. The Astrophysical Journal 647: 25.
arXiv:astro-ph/0512349. Bibcode:2006ApJ...647...25B.
doi:10.1086/505291.
[24] Freedman, W. L.; et al. (2001). Final results from the
Hubble Space Telescope Key Project to measure the Hub-
ble constant. The Astrophysical Journal 553 (1): 4772.
arXiv:astro-ph/0012376. Bibcode:2001ApJ...553...47F.
doi:10.1086/320638.
[25] Overbye, D. (1999). Prologue. Lonely Hearts of the
Cosmos (2nd ed.). HarperCollins. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-
316-64896-7.
[26] Sandage, A. R. (1958). Current problems in the
extragalactic distance scale. The Astrophysical Jour-
nal 127 (3): 513526. Bibcode:1958ApJ...127..513S.
doi:10.1086/146483.
CHAPTER 11. HUBBLES LAW
[27] Friedman, A. (1922). "ber die Krm-
mung des Raumes. Zeitschrift fr Physik 10
(1): 377386. Bibcode:1922ZPhy...10..377F.
doi:10.1007/BF01332580. Translated in Fried-
mann, A. (1999). On the Curvature of Space.
General Relativity and Gravitation 31 (12):
19912000. Bibcode:1999GReGr..31.1991F.
doi:10.1023/A:1026751225741.
[28] Block, David. A Hubble Eclipse: Lemaitre and Censor-
ship. Cornell University Library. Retrieved 12 Decem-
ber 2014.
[29] van den Bergh, Sydney. The Curious Case of Lemaitres
Equation No. 24. Cornell University Library. Retrieved
12 December 2014.
[30] Keel, W. C. (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd
ed.). Springer. pp. 78. ISBN 3-540-72534-2.
[31] Weinberg, S. (2008). Cosmology. Oxford University
Press. p. 28. ISBN 0-19-852682-2.
[32] Kirshner, R. P. (2003). Hubbles diagram and cosmic
expansion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences 101 (1): 813. Bibcode:2003PNAS..101....8K.
doi:10.1073/pnas.2536799100.
[33] What is a Cosmological Constant?". Goddard Space
Flight Center. Retrieved 2013-10-17.
[34] Isaacson, W. (2007). Einstein: His Life and Universe.
Simon & Schuster. p. 354. ISBN 0-7432-6473-8.
[35] Einsteins Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Con-
sistent With Cosmological Constant. Science Daily. 28
November 2007. Retrieved 2013-06-02.
[36] Davis, T. M.; Lineweaver, C. H. (2001). Su-
perluminal Recessional Velocities. AIP Con-
ference Proceedings 555: 348351. arXiv:astro-
ph/0011070. Bibcode:2001AIPC..555..348D.
doi:10.1063/1.1363540.
[37] Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?".
Ask an Astronomer at Cornell University. Archived from
the original on 23 November 2003. Retrieved 5 June
2015.
[38] Harrison, E. (1992). The redshift-distance and velocity-
distance laws. The Astrophysical Journal 403: 2831.
Bibcode:1993ApJ...403...28H. doi:10.1086/172179.
[39] Madsen, M. S. (1995). The Dynamic Cosmos. CRC Press.
p. 35. ISBN 0-412-62300-5.
[40] Dekel, A.; Ostriker, J. P. (1999). Formation of Structure in
the Universe. Cambridge University Press. p. 164. ISBN
0-521-58632-1.
[41] Padmanabhan, T. (1993). Structure formation in the uni-
verse. Cambridge University Press. p. 58. ISBN 0-521-
42486-0.
[42] Sartori, L. (1996). Understanding Relativity. University
of California Press. p. 163, Appendix 5B. ISBN 0-520-
20029-2.
11.11. EXTERNAL LINKS 123

[43] Sartori, L. (1996). Understanding Relativity. University 11.11 External links

of California Press. pp. 304305. ISBN 0-520-20029-2.

[44] Introduction to Cosmology, Matts Roos NASAs WAMP - Big Bang Expansion: the Hubble
Constant
[45] Chase, S. I.; Baez, J. C. (2004). Olbers Paradox. The
Original Usenet Physics FAQ. Retrieved 2013-10-17. See The Hubble Key Project
also Asimov, I. (1974). The Black of Night. Asimov on
Astronomy. Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-04111-X.
The Hubble Diagram Project

[46] Peebles, P. J. E. (1993). Principles of Physical Cosmology. Merrield, Michael (2009). Hubble Constant.
Princeton University Press. Sixty Symbols. Brady Haran for the University of
Nottingham.
[47] Perlmutter, S. (2003). Supernovae, Dark Energy,
and the Accelerating Universe (PDF). Physics To-
day 56 (4): 5360. Bibcode:2003PhT....56d..53P.
doi:10.1063/1.1580050.

[48] Carroll, Sean (2004). Spacetime and Geometry: An Intro-

duction to General Relativity (illustrated ed.). San Fraan-
cisco: Addison-Wesley. p. 328. ISBN 978-0-8053-8732-
2.

[49] Tawk, A.; Harko, T. (2012). Quark-hadron

phase transitions in the viscous early uni-
verse. Physical Review D 85 (8): 084032.
arXiv:1108.5697. Bibcode:2012PhRvD..85h4032T.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.084032.

[50] Tawk, A. (2011). The Hubble parameter in the

early universe with viscous QCD matter and nite cos-
mological constant. Annalen der Physik 523 (5):
423. arXiv:1102.2626. Bibcode:2011AnP...523..423T.
doi:10.1002/andp.201100038.

[51] Tawk, A.; Wahba, M.; Mansour, H.; Harko, T.

(2011). Viscous quark-gluon plasma in the early
universe. Annalen der Physik 523 (3): 194.
arXiv:1001.2814. Bibcode:2011AnP...523..194T.
doi:10.1002/andp.201000052.

11.9 References
Hubble, E. P. (1937). The Observational Approach
to Cosmology. Clarendon Press. LCCN 38011865.

Kutner, M. (2003). Astronomy: A Physical Per-

spective. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-
52927-1.

Liddle, A. R. (2003). An Introduction to Modern

Cosmology (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN
0-470-84835-9.

11.10 Further reading

Freedman, W. L.; Madore, B. F. (2010). The
Hubble Constant. Annual Review of Astronomy
and Astrophysics 48: 673. arXiv:1004.1856.
Bibcode:2010ARA&A..48..673F.
doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101829.
Chapter 12

General relativity

For the book by Robert Wald, see General Relativity theory that is consistent with experimental data. How-
(book). ever, unanswered questions remain, the most fundamen-
For a more accessible and less technical introduction to tal being how general relativity can be reconciled with the
this topic, see Introduction to general relativity. laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-
General relativity, also known as the general theory consistent theory of quantum gravity.
Einsteins theory has important astrophysical implica-
tions. For example, it implies the existence of black
holesregions of space in which space and time are dis-
torted in such a way that nothing, not even light, can
escapeas an end-state for massive stars. There is am-
ple evidence that the intense radiation emitted by cer-
tain kinds of astronomical objects is due to black holes;
for example, microquasars and active galactic nuclei re-
sult from the presence of stellar black holes and black
holes of a much more massive type, respectively. The
bending of light by gravity can lead to the phenomenon
of gravitational lensing, in which multiple images of
the same distant astronomical object are visible in the
sky. General relativity also predicts the existence of
gravitational waves, which have since been observed indi-
rectly; a direct measurement is the aim of projects such as
A simulated black hole of 10 solar masses within the Milky Way,
LIGO and NASA/ESA Laser Interferometer Space An-
seen from a distance of 600 kilometers.
tenna and various pulsar timing arrays. In addition, gen-
eral relativity is the basis of current cosmological models
of relativity, is the geometric theory of gravitation pub-
[1] of a consistently expanding universe.
lished by Albert Einstein in 1915 and the current de-
scription of gravitation in modern physics. General rel-
ativity generalizes special relativity and Newtons law of
universal gravitation, providing a unied description of 12.1 History
gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or
spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is di- Main articles: History of general relativity and Classical
rectly related to the energy and momentum of whatever theories of gravitation
matter and radiation are present. The relation is specied Soon after publishing the special theory of relativity in
by the Einstein eld equations, a system of partial dier- 1905, Einstein started thinking about how to incorporate
ential equations. gravity into his new relativistic framework. In 1907, be-
Some predictions of general relativity dier signicantly ginning with a simple thought experiment involving an
from those of classical physics, especially concerning the observer in free fall, he embarked on what would be an
passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of eight-year search for a relativistic theory of gravity. After
bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Exam- numerous detours and false starts, his work culminated in
ples of such dierences include gravitational time dila- the presentation to the Prussian Academy of Science in
tion, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of November 1915 of what are now known as the Einstein
light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of eld equations. These equations specify how the geom-
general relativity have been conrmed in all observations etry of space and time is inuenced by whatever matter
and experiments to date. Although general relativity is and radiation are present, and form the core of Einsteins
not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest general theory of relativity.[2]

124
12.2. FROM CLASSICAL MECHANICS TO GENERAL RELATIVITY 125

relativity and accounting for several eects unexplained

by the Newtonian theory. Einstein himself had shown in
1915 how his theory explained the anomalous perihelion
advance of the planet Mercury without any arbitrary pa-
rameters ("fudge factors").[7] Similarly, a 1919 expedi-
tion led by Eddington conrmed general relativitys pre-
diction for the deection of starlight by the Sun during the
total solar eclipse of May 29, 1919,[8] making Einstein in-
stantly famous.[9] Yet the theory entered the mainstream
of theoretical physics and astrophysics only with the de-
velopments between approximately 1960 and 1975, now
known as the golden age of general relativity.[10] Physi-
cists began to understand the concept of a black hole, and
to identify quasars as one of these objects astrophysical
manifestations.[11] Ever more precise solar system tests
conrmed the theorys predictive power,[12] and relativis-
tic cosmology, too, became amenable to direct observa-
tional tests.[13]

12.2 From classical mechanics to

general relativity
General relativity can be understood by examining its
Albert Einstein developed the theories of special and general rel-
similarities with and departures from classical physics.
ativity. Picture from 1921.
The rst step is the realization that classical mechanics
and Newtons law of gravity admit a geometric descrip-
The Einstein eld equations are nonlinear and very dif- tion. The combination of this description with the laws of
cult to solve. Einstein used approximation methods special relativity results in a heuristic derivation of gen-
[14]
in working out initial predictions of the theory. But eral relativity.
as early as 1916, the astrophysicist Karl Schwarzschild
found the rst non-trivial exact solution to the Einstein
eld equations, the so-called Schwarzschild metric. This 12.2.1 Geometry of Newtonian gravity
solution laid the groundwork for the description of the
nal stages of gravitational collapse, and the objects
known today as black holes. In the same year, the rst
steps towards generalizing Schwarzschilds solution to
electrically charged objects were taken, which eventually
resulted in the ReissnerNordstrm solution, now asso-
ciated with electrically charged black holes.[3] In 1917,
Einstein applied his theory to the universe as a whole,
initiating the eld of relativistic cosmology. In line with
contemporary thinking, he assumed a static universe,
adding a new parameter to his original eld equations
the cosmological constantto match that observational
presumption.[4] By 1929, however, the work of Hubble
and others had shown that our universe is expanding. This
is readily described by the expanding cosmological solu- According to general relativity, objects in a gravitational eld be-
tions found by Friedmann in 1922, which do not require have similarly to objects within an accelerating enclosure. For ex-
a cosmological constant. Lematre used these solutions ample, an observer will see a ball fall the same way in a rocket
to formulate the earliest version of the Big Bang mod- (left) as it does on Earth (right), 2
provided that the acceleration of
els, in which our universe has evolved from an extremely the rocket is equal to 9.8 m/s (the acceleration due to gravity at
[5] the surface of the Earth).
hot and dense earlier state. Einstein later declared the
cosmological constant the biggest blunder of his life.[6] At the base of classical mechanics is the notion that a
During that period, general relativity remained something body's motion can be described as a combination of free
of a curiosity among physical theories. It was clearly su- (or inertial) motion, and deviations from this free mo-
perior to Newtonian gravity, being consistent with special tion. Such deviations are caused by external forces act-
126 CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY

ing on a body in accordance with Newtons second law 12.2.2 Relativistic generalization
of motion, which states that the net force acting on a
body is equal to that bodys (inertial) mass multiplied by
its acceleration.[15] The preferred inertial motions are re-
lated to the geometry of space and time: in the standard
reference frames of classical mechanics, objects in free Time
motion move along straight lines at constant speed. In
modern parlance, their paths are geodesics, straight world
lines in curved spacetime.[16]
B
Conversely, one might expect that inertial motions, once
identied by observing the actual motions of bodies
and making allowances for the external forces (such as
electromagnetism or friction), can be used to dene the
geometry of space, as well as a time coordinate. How-
ever, there is an ambiguity once gravity comes into play.
According to Newtons law of gravity, and independently
C
veried by experiments such as that of Etvs and its suc- A
cessors (see Etvs experiment), there is a universality of Space
free fall (also known as the weak equivalence principle, or
the universal equality of inertial and passive-gravitational
mass): the trajectory of a test body in free fall depends
only on its position and initial speed, but not on any of
its material properties.[17] A simplied version of this is
embodied in Einsteins elevator experiment, illustrated in
the gure on the right: for an observer in a small enclosed
room, it is impossible to decide, by mapping the trajec-
tory of bodies such as a dropped ball, whether the room
is at rest in a gravitational eld, or in free space aboard
a rocket that is accelerating at a rate equal to that of the
gravitational eld.[18]
Given the universality of free fall, there is no observ- Light cone
able distinction between inertial motion and motion un-
der the inuence of the gravitational force. This suggests As intriguing as geometric Newtonian gravity may be,
the denition of a new class of inertial motion, namely its basis, classical mechanics, is merely a limiting case
that of objects in free fall under the inuence of gravity. of (special) relativistic mechanics.[21] In the language
This new class of preferred motions, too, denes a ge- of symmetry: where gravity can be neglected, physics
ometry of space and timein mathematical terms, it is is Lorentz invariant as in special relativity rather than
the geodesic motion associated with a specic connection Galilei invariant as in classical mechanics. (The den-
which depends on the gradient of the gravitational po- ing symmetry of special relativity is the Poincar group,
tential. Space, in this construction, still has the ordinary which includes translations and rotations.) The dier-
Euclidean geometry. However, spacetime as a whole is ences between the two become signicant when dealing
more complicated. As can be shown using simple thought with speeds approaching the speed of light, and with high-
experiments following the free-fall trajectories of dif- energy phenomena.[22]
ferent test particles, the result of transporting spacetime
vectors that can denote a particles velocity (time-like With Lorentz symmetry, additional structures come into
vectors) will vary with the particles trajectory; math- play. They are dened by the set of light cones (see im-
ematically speaking, the Newtonian connection is not age). The light-cones dene a causal structure: for each
integrable. From this, one can deduce that spacetime is event A, there is a set of events that can, in principle,
curved. The result is a geometric formulation of Newto- either inuence or be inuenced by A via signals or inter-
nian gravity using only covariant concepts, i.e. a descrip- actions that do not need to travel faster than light (such as
tion which is valid in any desired coordinate system.[19] In event B in the image), and a set of events for which such
this geometric description, tidal eectsthe relative ac- an inuence is impossible (such as event C in the image).
celeration of bodies in free fallare related to the deriva- These sets are observer-independent.[23] In conjunction
tive of the connection, showing how the modied geom- with the world-lines of freely falling particles, the light-
etry is caused by the presence of mass.[20] cones can be used to reconstruct the spacetimes semi-
Riemannian metric, at least up to a positive scalar factor.
In mathematical terms, this denes a conformal struc-
ture,[24] or much better, a conformal geometry, as it is
12.2. FROM CLASSICAL MECHANICS TO GENERAL RELATIVITY 127

dicult to understand how space or time or space-time 12.2.3 Einsteins equations

can have a structure.
Main articles: Einstein eld equations and Mathematics
Special relativity is dened in the absence of gravity, so
of general relativity
for practical applications, it is a suitable model when-
ever gravity can be neglected. Bringing gravity into play,
and assuming the universality of free fall, an analogous Having formulated the relativistic, geometric version of
reasoning as in the previous section applies: there are the eects of gravity, the question of gravitys source re-
no global inertial frames. Instead there are approximate mains. In Newtonian gravity, the source is mass. In spe-
inertial frames moving alongside freely falling particles. cial relativity, mass turns out to be part of a more general
Translated into the language of spacetime: the straight quantity called the energymomentum tensor, which in-
time-like lines that dene a gravity-free inertial frame cludes both energy and momentum densities as well as
are deformed to lines that are curved relative to each stress (that is, pressure and shear).[29] Using the equiva-
other, suggesting that the inclusion of gravity necessitates lence principle, this tensor is readily generalized to curved
a change in spacetime geometry.[25] space-time. Drawing further upon the analogy with ge-
ometric Newtonian gravity, it is natural to assume that
A priori, it is not clear whether the new local frames in
the eld equation for gravity relates this tensor and the
free fall coincide with the reference frames in which the
Ricci tensor, which describes a particular class of tidal
laws of special relativity holdthat theory is based on
eects: the change in volume for a small cloud of test par-
the propagation of light, and thus on electromagnetism,
ticles that are initially at rest, and then fall freely. In spe-
which could have a dierent set of preferred frames. But
cial relativity, conservation of energymomentum corre-
using dierent assumptions about the special-relativistic
sponds to the statement that the energymomentum ten-
frames (such as their being earth-xed, or in free fall), one
sor is divergence-free. This formula, too, is readily gen-
can derive dierent predictions for the gravitational red-
eralized to curved spacetime by replacing partial deriva-
shift, that is, the way in which the frequency of light shifts
tives with their curved-manifold counterparts, covariant
as the light propagates through a gravitational eld (cf.
derivatives studied in dierential geometry. With this
below). The actual measurements show that free-falling
additional conditionthe covariant divergence of the
frames are the ones in which light propagates as it does in
[26] energymomentum tensor, and hence of whatever is on
special relativity. The generalization of this statement,
the other side of the equation, is zero the simplest set
namely that the laws of special relativity hold to good
of equations are what are called Einsteins (eld) equa-
approximation in freely falling (and non-rotating) refer-
tions:
ence frames, is known as the Einstein equivalence prin-
ciple, a crucial guiding principle for generalizing special-
relativistic physics to include gravity.[27]
The same experimental data shows that time as measured On the left-hand side is the Einstein tensor, a specic
by clocks in a gravitational eldproper time, to give the divergence-free combination of the Ricci tensor R and
technical termdoes not follow the rules of special rel- the metric. Where G is symmetric. In particular,
ativity. In the language of spacetime geometry, it is not
measured by the Minkowski metric. As in the Newto-
nian case, this is suggestive of a more general geometry. R = g R
At small scales, all reference frames that are in free fall
are equivalent, and approximately Minkowskian. Con- is the curvature scalar. The Ricci tensor itself is related
sequently, we are now dealing with a curved generaliza- to the more general Riemann curvature tensor as
tion of Minkowski space. The metric tensor that denes
the geometryin particular, how lengths and angles are
measuredis not the Minkowski metric of special rela- R = R .
tivity, it is a generalization known as a semi- or pseudo- On the right-hand side, T is the energymomentum
Riemannian metric. Furthermore, each Riemannian met- tensor. All tensors are written in abstract index nota-
ric is naturally associated with one particular kind of con- tion.[30] Matching the theorys prediction to observational
nection, the Levi-Civita connection, and this is, in fact, results for planetary orbits (or, equivalently, assuring that
the connection that satises the equivalence principle and the weak-gravity, low-speed limit is Newtonian mechan-
makes space locally Minkowskian (that is, in suitable ics), the proportionality constant can be xed as =
locally inertial coordinates, the metric is Minkowskian, 8G/c4 , with G the gravitational constant and c the speed
and its rst partial derivatives and the connection coe- of light.[31] When there is no matter present, so that the
cients vanish).[28] energymomentum tensor vanishes, the results are the
vacuum Einstein equations,

R = 0.
128 CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY

There are alternatives to general relativity built upon the physics exhibit local Lorentz invariance.[39]
same premises, which include additional rules and/or
constraints, leading to dierent eld equations. Ex-
amples are BransDicke theory, teleparallelism, and 12.3.2 Model-building
EinsteinCartan theory.[32]
The core concept of general-relativistic model-building
is that of a solution of Einsteins equations. Given both
Einsteins equations and suitable equations for the proper-
12.3 Denition and basic applica- ties of matter, such a solution consists of a specic semi-
tions Riemannian manifold (usually dened by giving the met-
ric in specic coordinates), and specic matter elds de-
ned on that manifold. Matter and geometry must satisfy
See also: Mathematics of general relativity and Physical
Einsteins equations, so in particular, the matters energy
theories modied by general relativity
momentum tensor must be divergence-free. The matter
must, of course, also satisfy whatever additional equa-
The derivation outlined in the previous section contains tions were imposed on its properties. In short, such a solu-
all the information needed to dene general relativity, de- tion is a model universe that satises the laws of general
scribe its key properties, and address a question of crucial relativity, and possibly additional laws governing what-
importance in physics, namely how the theory can be used ever matter might be present.[40]
for model-building.
Einsteins equations are nonlinear partial dierential
equations and, as such, dicult to solve exactly.[41] Nev-
ertheless, a number of exact solutions are known, al-
12.3.1 Denition and basic properties though only a few have direct physical applications.[42]
The best-known exact solutions, and also those most
General relativity is a metric theory of gravitation. At its interesting from a physics point of view, are the
core are Einsteins equations, which describe the relation Schwarzschild solution, the ReissnerNordstrm solution
between the geometry of a four-dimensional, pseudo- and the Kerr metric, each corresponding to a certain type
Riemannian manifold representing spacetime, and the of black hole in an otherwise empty universe,[43] and
energymomentum contained in that spacetime.[33] Phe- the FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker and de Sit-
nomena that in classical mechanics are ascribed to the ac- ter universes, each describing an expanding cosmos.[44]
tion of the force of gravity (such as free-fall, orbital mo- Exact solutions of great theoretical interest include the
tion, and spacecraft trajectories), correspond to inertial Gdel universe (which opens up the intriguing possi-
motion within a curved geometry of spacetime in gen- bility of time travel in curved spacetimes), the Taub-
eral relativity; there is no gravitational force deecting NUT solution (a model universe that is homogeneous, but
objects from their natural, straight paths. Instead, grav- anisotropic), and anti-de Sitter space (which has recently
ity corresponds to changes in the properties of space and come to prominence in the context of what is called the
time, which in turn changes the straightest-possible paths Maldacena conjecture).[45]
that objects will naturally follow.[34] The curvature is, in
turn, caused by the energymomentum of matter. Para- Given the diculty of nding exact solutions, Einsteins
phrasing the relativist John Archibald Wheeler, space- eld equations are also solved frequently by numerical
time tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how integration on a computer, or by considering small per-
to curve.[35] turbations of exact solutions. In the eld of numerical
relativity, powerful computers are employed to simu-
While general relativity replaces the scalar gravitational late the geometry of spacetime and to solve Einsteins
potential of classical physics by a symmetric rank-two equations for interesting situations such as two colliding
tensor, the latter reduces to the former in certain limiting black holes.[46] In principle, such methods may be ap-
cases. For weak gravitational elds and slow speed rela- plied to any system, given sucient computer resources,
tive to the speed of light, the theorys predictions converge and may address fundamental questions such as naked
on those of Newtons law of universal gravitation.[36] singularities. Approximate solutions may also be found
As it is constructed using tensors, general relativity ex- by perturbation theories such as linearized gravity[47] and
hibits general covariance: its lawsand further laws for- its generalization, the post-Newtonian expansion, both
mulated within the general relativistic frameworktake of which were developed by Einstein. The latter pro-
on the same form in all coordinate systems.[37] Further- vides a systematic approach to solving for the geometry
more, the theory does not contain any invariant geometric of a spacetime that contains a distribution of matter that
background structures, i.e. it is background independent. moves slowly compared with the speed of light. The ex-
It thus satises a more stringent general principle of rel- pansion involves a series of terms; the rst terms repre-
ativity, namely that the laws of physics are the same for sent Newtonian gravity, whereas the later terms represent
all observers.[38] Locally, as expressed in the equivalence ever smaller corrections to Newtons theory due to gen-
principle, spacetime is Minkowskian, and the laws of eral relativity.[48] An extension of this expansion is the
12.4. CONSEQUENCES OF EINSTEINS THEORY
parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism, which 12.4.2 Light deection and gravitational
allows quantitative comparisons between the predictions
of general relativity and alternative theories.[49]
Main articles: Kepler problem in general relativity,
Gravitational lens and Shapiro delay
12.4 Consequences of Einsteins General relativity predicts that the path of light is bent
theory
General relativity has a number of physical consequences.
Some follow directly from the theorys axioms, whereas
others have become clear only in the course of many years
of research that followed Einsteins initial publication.
12.4.1 Gravitational time dilation and fre-
quency shift
Main article: Gravitational time dilation
Assuming that the equivalence principle holds,[50] grav-
Schematic representation of the gravitational redshift of a light
wave escaping from the surface of a massive body
ity inuences the passage of time. Light sent down into
a gravity well is blueshifted, whereas light sent in the op-
posite direction (i.e., climbing out of the gravity well) is
redshifted; collectively, these two eects are known as
the gravitational frequency shift. More generally, pro-
cesses close to a massive body run more slowly when
compared with processes taking place farther away; this
eect is known as gravitational time dilation.[51]
Gravitational redshift has been measured in the
laboratory[52] and using astronomical observations.[53]
Gravitational time dilation in the Earths gravitational
eld has been measured numerous times using atomic
clocks,[54] while ongoing validation is provided as a side
eect of the operation of the Global Positioning System
(GPS).[55] Tests in stronger gravitational elds are pro-
vided by the observation of binary pulsars.[56] All results
are in agreement with general relativity.[57] However, at
the current level of accuracy, these observations cannot
distinguish between general relativity and other theories
in which the equivalence principle is valid.[58]
129
time delay
Deection of light (sent out from the location shown in blue) near
a compact body (shown in gray)
in a gravitational eld; light passing a massive body is de-
ected towards that body. This eect has been conrmed
by observing the light of stars or distant quasars being de-
ected as it passes the Sun.[59]
This and related predictions follow from the fact that light
follows what is called a light-like or null geodesica gen-
eralization of the straight lines along which light travels
in classical physics. Such geodesics are the generaliza-
tion of the invariance of lightspeed in special relativity.[60]
As one examines suitable model spacetimes (either the
exterior Schwarzschild solution or, for more than a sin-
gle mass, the post-Newtonian expansion),[61] several ef-
fects of gravity on light propagation emerge. Although
the bending of light can also be derived by extending the
universality of free fall to light,[62] the angle of deec-
tion resulting from such calculations is only half the value
given by general relativity.[63]
Closely related to light deection is the gravitational time
delay (or Shapiro delay), the phenomenon that light sig-
nals take longer to move through a gravitational eld than
they would in the absence of that eld. There have been
numerous successful tests of this prediction.[64] In the
parameterized post-Newtonian formalism (PPN), mea-
surements of both the deection of light and the gravita-
tional time delay determine a parameter called , which
encodes the inuence of gravity on the geometry of
130 CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY

space.[65] 12.4.4 Orbital eects and the relativity of

direction

Main article: Kepler problem in general relativity

12.4.3 Gravitational waves
General relativity diers from classical mechanics in a
number of predictions concerning orbiting bodies. It pre-
Main article: Gravitational wave
dicts an overall rotation (precession) of planetary orbits,
One of several analogies between weak-eld gravity and
as well as orbital decay caused by the emission of grav-
itational waves and eects related to the relativity of di-
rection.

Precession of apsides

Ring of test particles inuenced by gravitational wave

electromagnetism is that, analogous to electromagnetic

waves, there are gravitational waves: ripples in the met-
ric of spacetime that propagate at the speed of light.[66]
The simplest type of such a wave can be visualized by its
action on a ring of freely oating particles. A sine wave
propagating through such a ring towards the reader dis-
torts the ring in a characteristic, rhythmic fashion (ani-
mated image to the right).[67] Since Einsteins equations
are non-linear, arbitrarily strong gravitational waves do
not obey linear superposition, making their description
dicult. However, for weak elds, a linear approxima-
tion can be made. Such linearized gravitational waves
are suciently accurate to describe the exceedingly weak
waves that are expected to arrive here on Earth from far-
o cosmic events, which typically result in relative dis-
tances increasing and decreasing by 1021 or less. Data
analysis methods routinely make use of the fact that these
linearized waves can be Fourier decomposed.[68]
Some exact solutions describe gravitational waves with-
out any approximation, e.g., a wave train traveling
through empty space[69] or so-called Gowdy universes,
varieties of an expanding cosmos lled with gravitational
waves.[70] But for gravitational waves produced in astro-
physically relevant situations, such as the merger of two
black holes, numerical methods are presently the only way
to construct appropriate models.[71]
Newtonian (red) vs. Einsteinian orbit (blue) of a lone planet or-
biting a star
In general relativity, the apsides of any orbit (the point of
the orbiting bodys closest approach to the systems center
of mass) will precessthe orbit is not an ellipse, but akin
to an ellipse that rotates on its focus, resulting in a rose
curve-like shape (see image). Einstein rst derived this
result by using an approximate metric representing the
Newtonian limit and treating the orbiting body as a test
particle. For him, the fact that his theory gave a straight-
forward explanation of the anomalous perihelion shift of
the planet Mercury, discovered earlier by Urbain Le Ver-
rier in 1859, was important evidence that he had at last
identied the correct form of the gravitational eld equa-
tions.[72]
The eect can also be derived by using either the ex-
act Schwarzschild metric (describing spacetime around
a spherical mass)[73] or the much more general post-
Newtonian formalism.[74] It is due to the inuence of
gravity on the geometry of space and to the contribu-
tion of self-energy to a bodys gravity (encoded in the
nonlinearity of Einsteins equations).[75] Relativistic pre-
cession has been observed for all planets that allow for
accurate precession measurements (Mercury, Venus, and
12.5. ASTROPHYSICAL APPLICATIONS 131

Earth),[76] as well as in binary pulsar systems, where it is Several relativistic eects are directly related to the rela-
larger by ve orders of magnitude.[77] tivity of direction.[82] One is geodetic precession: the axis
direction of a gyroscope in free fall in curved spacetime
will change when compared, for instance, with the di-
Orbital decay rection of light received from distant starseven though
such a gyroscope represents the way of keeping a direc-
tion as stable as possible ("parallel transport").[83] For the
MoonEarth system, this eect has been measured with
the help of lunar laser ranging.[84] More recently, it has
been measured for test masses aboard the satellite Gravity
Probe B to a precision of better than 0.3%.[85][86]
Near a rotating mass, there are so-called gravitomagnetic
or frame-dragging eects. A distant observer will deter-
mine that objects close to the mass get dragged around.
This is most extreme for rotating black holes where, for
any object entering a zone known as the ergosphere, ro-
tation is inevitable.[87] Such eects can again be tested
through their inuence on the orientation of gyroscopes
in free fall.[88] Somewhat controversial tests have been
performed using the LAGEOS satellites, conrming the
relativistic prediction.[89] Also the Mars Global Surveyor
probe around Mars has been used.[90][91]

12.5 Astrophysical applications

Orbital decay for PSR1913+16: time shift in seconds, tracked 12.5.1 Gravitational lensing
over three decades.[78]
Main article: Gravitational lensing
According to general relativity, a binary system will emit The deection of light by gravity is responsible for a new
gravitational waves, thereby losing energy. Due to this
loss, the distance between the two orbiting bodies de-
creases, and so does their orbital period. Within the Solar
System or for ordinary double stars, the eect is too small
to be observable. This is not the case for a close binary
pulsar, a system of two orbiting neutron stars, one of
which is a pulsar: from the pulsar, observers on Earth
receive a regular series of radio pulses that can serve as
a highly accurate clock, which allows precise measure-
ments of the orbital period. Because neutron stars are
immensely compact, signicant amounts of energy are
emitted in the form of gravitational radiation.[79]
The rst observation of a decrease in orbital period due
to the emission of gravitational waves was made by Hulse
and Taylor, using the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 they
had discovered in 1974. This was the rst detection of
gravitational waves, albeit indirect, for which they were
awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in physics.[80] Since then,
several other binary pulsars have been found, in partic-
ular the double pulsar PSR J0737-3039, in which both Einstein cross: four images of the same astronomical object, pro-
duced by a gravitational lens
stars are pulsars.[81]

class of astronomical phenomena. If a massive object

Geodetic precession and frame-dragging is situated between the astronomer and a distant target
object with appropriate mass and relative distances, the
Main articles: Geodetic precession and Frame dragging astronomer will see multiple distorted images of the tar-
get. Such eects are known as gravitational lensing.[92]
132 CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY

Depending on the conguration, scale, and mass distri- ious pulsar timing arrays are using millisecond pulsars to
bution, there can be two or more images, a bright ring detect gravitational waves in the 109 to 106 Hertz fre-
known as an Einstein ring, or partial rings called arcs.[93] quency range, which originate from binary supermassive
The earliest example was discovered in 1979;[94] since blackholes.[100] European space-based detector, eLISA /
then, more than a hundred gravitational lenses have been NGO, is currently under development,[101] with a precur-
observed.[95] Even if the multiple images are too close to sor mission (LISA Pathnder) due for launch in 2015.[102]
each other to be resolved, the eect can still be measured, Observations of gravitational waves promise to comple-
e.g., as an overall brightening of the target object; a num- ment observations in the electromagnetic spectrum.[103]
ber of such "microlensing events have been observed.[96]
They are expected to yield information about black holes
Gravitational lensing has developed into a tool of and other dense objects such as neutron stars and white
observational astronomy. It is used to detect the pres- dwarfs, about certain kinds of supernova implosions,
ence and distribution of dark matter, provide a natural and about processes in the very early universe, includ-
telescope for observing distant galaxies, and to obtain an ing the signature of certain types of hypothetical cosmic
independent estimate of the Hubble constant. Statistical string.[104]
evaluations of lensing data provide valuable insight into
the structural evolution of galaxies.[97]
12.5.3 Black holes and other compact ob-
jects
12.5.2 Gravitational wave astronomy
Main article: Black hole
Main articles: Gravitational wave and Gravitational wave
astronomy
Observations of binary pulsars provide strong indirect Whenever the ratio of an objects mass to its radius be-
comes suciently large, general relativity predicts the
formation of a black hole, a region of space from which
nothing, not even light, can escape. In the currently
accepted models of stellar evolution, neutron stars of
around 1.4 solar masses, and stellar black holes with a
few to a few dozen solar masses, are thought to be the
nal state for the evolution of massive stars.[105] Usually
a galaxy has one supermassive black hole with a few mil-
lion to a few billion solar masses in its center,[106] and its
presence is thought to have played an important role in the
formation of the galaxy and larger cosmic structures.[107]

Simulation based on the equations of general relativity: a star

Artists impression of the space-borne gravitational wave detector
LISA
evidence for the existence of gravitational waves (see
Orbital decay, above). However, gravitational waves
reaching us from the depths of the cosmos have not been
detected directly. Such detection is a major goal of
current relativity-related research.[98] Several land-based
gravitational wave detectors are currently in operation,
most notably the interferometric detectors GEO 600,
LIGO (two detectors), TAMA 300 and VIRGO.[99] Var-
collapsing to form a black hole while emitting gravitational waves
Astronomically, the most important property of compact
objects is that they provide a supremely ecient mech-
anism for converting gravitational energy into electro-
magnetic radiation.[108] Accretion, the falling of dust or
gaseous matter onto stellar or supermassive black holes,
is thought to be responsible for some spectacularly lu-
minous astronomical objects, notably diverse kinds of
active galactic nuclei on galactic scales and stellar-size
objects such as microquasars.[109] In particular, accretion
12.5. ASTROPHYSICAL APPLICATIONS 133

can lead to relativistic jets, focused beams of highly en- astronomical observation,[118] further observational data
ergetic particles that are being ung into space at almost can be used to put the models to the test.[119] Predictions,
light speed.[110] General relativity plays a central role inall successful, include the initial abundance of chemical
modelling all these phenomena,[111] and observations pro- elements formed in a period of primordial nucleosynthe-
vide strong evidence for the existence of black holes with sis,[120] the large-scale structure of the universe,[121] and
the properties predicted by the theory.[112] the existence and properties of a "thermal echo from the
[122]
Black holes are also sought-after targets in the search early cosmos, the cosmic background radiation.
for gravitational waves (cf. Gravitational waves, above). Astronomical observations of the cosmological expan-
Merging black hole binaries should lead to some of sion rate allow the total amount of matter in the universe
the strongest gravitational wave signals reaching detec- to be estimated, although the nature of that matter re-
tors here on Earth, and the phase directly before the mains mysterious in part. About 90% of all matter ap-
merger (chirp) could be used as a "standard can- pears to be so-called dark matter, which has mass (or,
dle" to deduce the distance to the merger eventsand equivalently, gravitational inuence), but does not inter-
hence serve as a probe of cosmic expansion at large act electromagnetically and, hence, cannot be observed
distances.[113] The gravitational waves produced as a stel- directly.[123] There is no generally accepted description of
lar black hole plunges into a supermassive one should this new kind of matter, within the framework of known
provide direct information about the supermassive black particle physics[124] or otherwise.[125] Observational ev-
holes geometry.[114] idence from redshift surveys of distant supernovae and
measurements of the cosmic background radiation also
show that the evolution of our universe is signicantly in-
12.5.4 Cosmology uenced by a cosmological constant resulting in an accel-
eration of cosmic expansion or, equivalently, by a form of
energy with an unusual equation of state, known as dark
energy, the nature of which remains unclear.[126]
A so-called inationary phase,[127] an additional phase
of strongly accelerated expansion at cosmic times of
around 1033 seconds, was hypothesized in 1980 to ac-
count for several puzzling observations that were unex-
plained by classical cosmological models, such as the
nearly perfect homogeneity of the cosmic background
radiation.[128] Recent measurements of the cosmic back-
ground radiation have resulted in the rst evidence for this
scenario.[129] However, there is a bewildering variety of
possible inationary scenarios, which cannot be restricted
by current observations.[130] An even larger question is the
physics of the earliest universe, prior to the inationary
phase and close to where the classical models predict the
This blue horseshoe is a distant galaxy that has been magnied big bang singularity. An authoritative answer would re-
and warped into a nearly complete ring by the strong gravita-
quire a complete theory of quantum gravity, which has
tional pull of the massive foreground luminous red galaxy.
not yet been developed[131] (cf. the section on quantum
Main article: Physical cosmology gravity, below).

The current models of cosmology are based on Einsteins

eld equations, which include the cosmological constant
since it has important inuence on the large-scale dy-
namics of the cosmos, 12.5.5 Time travel

1 8G
R R g + g = 4 T Kurt Gdel showed[132] that solutions to Einsteins equa-
2 c
where g is the spacetime metric.[115] Isotropic and
homogeneous solutions of these enhanced equations, the
FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker solutions,[116]
allow physicists to model a universe that has evolved
over the past 14 billion years from a hot, early Big Bang
phase.[117] Once a small number of parameters (for exam-
ple the universes mean matter density) have been xed by
tions exist that contain closed timelike curves (CTCs),
which allow for loops in time. The solutions require ex-
treme physical conditions unlikely ever to occur in prac-
tice, and it remains an open question whether further laws
of physics will eliminate them completely. Since then
othersimilarly impracticalGR solutions containing
CTCs have been found, such as the Tipler cylinder and
traversable wormholes.
134
12.6 Advanced concepts
12.6.1 Causal structure and global geome- Since no object can overtake a light pulse, all interior mat-
try
Main article: Causal structure
In general relativity, no material body can catch up with
Timelike
Infinity
Distant
Lightlike
Future Infinity
Distant Distant Spacelike
Spacetime Photon
Spacetime Infinity
Ray
Distant
time Past
space
PenroseCarter diagram of an innite Minkowski universe
or overtake a light pulse. No inuence from an event A
can reach any other location X before light sent out at A to
X. In consequence, an exploration of all light worldlines
(null geodesics) yields key information about the space-
times causal structure. This structure can be displayed
using PenroseCarter diagrams in which innitely large
regions of space and innite time intervals are shrunk
("compactied") so as to t onto a nite map, while light
still travels along diagonals as in standard spacetime dia-
grams.[133]
Aware of the importance of causal structure, Roger Pen-
rose and others developed what is known as global ge-
ometry. In global geometry, the object of study is not
one particular solution (or family of solutions) to Ein-
steins equations. Rather, relations that hold true for all
geodesics, such as the Raychaudhuri equation, and addi-
tional non-specic assumptions about the nature of matter
(usually in the form of so-called energy conditions) are
used to derive general results.[134]
12.6.2 Horizons
Main articles: Horizon (general relativity), No hair
theorem and Black hole mechanics
Using global geometry, some spacetimes can be shown to
contain boundaries called horizons, which demarcate one
region from the rest of spacetime. The best-known ex-
amples are black holes: if mass is compressed into a suf-
ciently compact region of space (as specied in the hoop
CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY
conjecture, the relevant length scale is the Schwarzschild
radius[135] ), no light from inside can escape to the outside.
ter is imprisoned as well. Passage from the exterior to the
interior is still possible, showing that the boundary, the
black holes horizon, is not a physical barrier.[136]
The ergosphere of a rotating black hole, which plays a key role
when it comes to extracting energy from such a black hole
Early studies of black holes relied on explicit solutions
of Einsteins equations, notably the spherically symmet-
ric Schwarzschild solution (used to describe a static black
hole) and the axisymmetric Kerr solution (used to de-
scribe a rotating, stationary black hole, and introducing
interesting features such as the ergosphere). Using global
geometry, later studies have revealed more general prop-
erties of black holes. In the long run, they are rather sim-
ple objects characterized by eleven parameters specifying
energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, location
at a specied time and electric charge. This is stated by
the black hole uniqueness theorems: black holes have no
hair, that is, no distinguishing marks like the hairstyles
of humans. Irrespective of the complexity of a gravi-
tating object collapsing to form a black hole, the object
that results (having emitted gravitational waves) is very
simple.[137]
Even more remarkably, there is a general set of laws
known as black hole mechanics, which is analogous to
the laws of thermodynamics. For instance, by the sec-
ond law of black hole mechanics, the area of the event
horizon of a general black hole will never decrease with
time, analogous to the entropy of a thermodynamic sys-
tem. This limits the energy that can be extracted by
classical means from a rotating black hole (e.g. by the
Penrose process).[138] There is strong evidence that the
laws of black hole mechanics are, in fact, a subset of the
laws of thermodynamics, and that the black hole area is
proportional to its entropy.[139] This leads to a modica-
12.6. ADVANCED CONCEPTS 135

tion of the original laws of black hole mechanics: for in-
stance, as the second law of black hole mechanics be-
comes part of the second law of thermodynamics, it is
possible for black hole area to decreaseas long as other
processes ensure that, overall, entropy increases. As ther-
modynamical objects with non-zero temperature, black
holes should emit thermal radiation. Semi-classical cal-
culations indicate that indeed they do, with the surface
gravity playing the role of temperature in Plancks law.
This radiation is known as Hawking radiation (cf. the
quantum theory section, below).[140]
There are other types of horizons. In an expanding
universe, an observer may nd that some regions of
the past cannot be observed ("particle horizon"), and
some regions of the future cannot be inuenced (event
horizon).[141] Even in at Minkowski space, when de-
scribed by an accelerated observer (Rindler space), there
will be horizons associated with a semi-classical radiation
known as Unruh radiation.[142]
12.6.3 Singularities
Main article: Spacetime singularity
singularities, and much of current research is devoted to
characterizing these entities generic structure (hypoth-
esized e.g. by the so-called BKL conjecture).[150] The
cosmic censorship hypothesis states that all realistic fu-
ture singularities (no perfect symmetries, matter with re-
alistic properties) are safely hidden away behind a hori-
zon, and thus invisible to all distant observers. While no
formal proof yet exists, numerical simulations oer sup-
porting evidence of its validity.[151]
12.6.4 Evolution equations
Main article: Initial value formulation (general relativity)
Each solution of Einsteins equation encompasses the
whole history of a universe it is not just some snap-
shot of how things are, but a whole, possibly matter-lled,
spacetime. It describes the state of matter and geometry
everywhere and at every moment in that particular uni-
verse. Due to its general covariance, Einsteins theory is
not sucient by itself to determine the time evolution of
the metric tensor. It must be combined with a coordinate
condition, which is analogous to gauge xing in other eld
theories.[152]

Another general feature of general relativity is the ap- To understand Einsteins equations as partial dierential
pearance of spacetime boundaries known as singularities. equations, it is helpful to formulate them in a way that
Spacetime can be explored by following up on timelike describes the evolution of the universe over time. This
and lightlike geodesicsall possible ways that light and is done in so-called 3+1 formulations, where space-
particles in free fall can travel. But some solutions of Ein- time is split into three space dimensions and one time di-
steins equations have ragged edgesregions known mension. The best-known example is the ADM formal-
as spacetime singularities, where the paths of light and ism.[153] These decompositions show that the spacetime
falling particles come to an abrupt end, and geometry be- evolution equations of general relativity are well-behaved:
comes ill-dened. In the more interesting cases, these solutions always exist, and are uniquely dened, once suit-
are curvature singularities, where geometrical quan- able initial conditions have been specied.[154] Such for-
tities characterizing spacetime curvature, such as the mulations of Einsteins eld equations are the basis of
Ricci scalar, take on innite values.[143] Well-known ex- numerical relativity.[155]
amples of spacetimes with future singularitieswhere
worldlines endare the Schwarzschild solution, which
describes a singularity inside an eternal static black
12.6.5 Global and quasi-local quantities
hole,[144] or the Kerr solution with its ring-shaped sin-
gularity inside an eternal rotating black hole.[145] The Main article: Mass in general relativity
FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker solutions and
other spacetimes describing universes have past singular- The notion of evolution equations is intimately tied in
ities on which worldlines begin, namely Big Bang singu- with another aspect of general relativistic physics. In Ein-
larities, and some have future singularities (Big Crunch) steins theory, it turns out to be impossible to nd a gen-
as well.[146] eral denition for a seemingly simple property such as a
Given that these examples are all highly symmetricand systems total mass (or energy). The main reason is that
thus simpliedit is tempting to conclude that the oc- the gravitational eldlike any physical eldmust be
currence of singularities is an artifact of idealization.[147] ascribed a certain energy, but that it proves[156]
to be funda-
The famous singularity theorems, proved using the meth- mentally impossible to localize that energy.
ods of global geometry, say otherwise: singularities are Nevertheless, there are possibilities to dene a systems
a generic feature of general relativity, and unavoidable total mass, either using a hypothetical innitely dis-
once the collapse of an object with realistic matter prop- tant observer (ADM mass)[157] or suitable symmetries
erties has proceeded beyond a certain stage[148] and also at (Komar mass).[158] If one excludes from the systems to-
the beginning of a wide class of expanding universes.[149] tal mass the energy being carried away to innity by grav-
However, the theorems say little about the properties of itational waves, the result is the so-called Bondi mass
136 CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY

at null innity.[159] Just as in classical physics, it can be
shown that these masses are positive.[160] Corresponding
global denitions exist for momentum and angular mo-
mentum.[161] There have also been a number of attempts
to dene quasi-local quantities, such as the mass of an
isolated system formulated using only quantities dened
within a nite region of space containing that system. The
hope is to obtain a quantity useful for general statements
about isolated systems, such as a more precise formula-
tion of the hoop conjecture.[162]
spacetime,[168] as well as the appearance of singularities
(where curvature length scales become microscopic), in-
dicate the need for a full theory of quantum gravity: for
an adequate description of the interior of black holes, and
of the very early universe, a theory is required in which
gravity and the associated geometry of spacetime are de-
scribed in the language of quantum physics.[169] Despite
major eorts, no complete and consistent theory of quan-
tum gravity is currently known, even though a number of
promising candidates exist.[170]

12.7 Relationship with quantum

theory
If general relativity were considered to be one of the two
pillars of modern physics, then quantum theory, the ba-
sis of understanding matter from elementary particles to
solid state physics, would be the other.[163] However, how
to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity is still
an open question.

12.7.1 Quantum eld theory in curved

spacetime
Main article: Quantum eld theory in curved spacetime

Ordinary quantum eld theories, which form the basis of

modern elementary particle physics, are dened in at Projection of a CalabiYau manifold, one of the ways of
Minkowski space, which is an excellent approximation compactifying the extra dimensions posited by string theory
when it comes to describing the behavior of microscopic
particles in weak gravitational elds like those found on Attempts to generalize ordinary quantum eld theories,
Earth.[164] In order to describe situations in which grav- used in elementary particle physics to describe funda-
ity is strong enough to inuence (quantum) matter, yet mental interactions, so as to include gravity have led to
not strong enough to require quantization itself, physicists serious problems. At low energies, this approach proves
have formulated quantum eld theories in curved space- successful, in that it results in an acceptable eective
time. These theories rely on general relativity to describe (quantum) eld theory of gravity.[171] At very high en-
a curved background spacetime, and dene a generalized ergies, however, the result are models devoid of all pre-
quantum eld theory to describe the behavior of quantum dictive power ("non-renormalizability").[172]
matter within that spacetime.[165] Using this formalism, it
can be shown that black holes emit a blackbody spectrumOne attempt to overcome these limitations is string the-
of particles known as Hawking radiation, leading to theory, a quantum theory not of point particles, but of
minute one-dimensional extended objects.[173] The the-
possibility that they evaporate over time.[166] As briey
mentioned above, this radiation plays an important roleory promises to be a unied description of all particles
for the thermodynamics of black holes.[167] and interactions, including gravity;[174] the price to pay
is unusual features such as six extra dimensions of space
in addition to the usual three.[175] In what is called the
12.7.2 Quantum gravity second superstring revolution, it was conjectured that
both string theory and a unication of general relativ-
Main article: Quantum gravity ity and supersymmetry known as supergravity[176] form
See also: String theory, Canonical general relativity, part of a hypothesized eleven-dimensional model known
Loop quantum gravity, Causal Dynamical Triangulations as M-theory, which would constitute a uniquely dened
and Causal sets and consistent theory of quantum gravity.[177]
Another approach starts with the canonical quantization
The demand for consistency between a quantum de- procedures of quantum theory. Using the initial-value-
scription of matter and a geometric description of formulation of general relativity (cf. evolution equations
12.9. SEE ALSO 137

passed many unambiguous observational and experimen-

2 tal tests. However, there are strong indications the the-
1 1 ory is incomplete.[187] The problem of quantum gravity
2 and the question of the reality of spacetime singularities
3 1 remain open.[188] Observational data that is taken as ev-
idence for dark energy and dark matter could indicate
2 2 the need for new physics.[189] Even taken as is, general
2 4 1 relativity is rich with possibilities for further exploration.
Mathematical relativists seek to understand the nature of
2 3 singularities and the fundamental properties of Einsteins
equations,[190] and increasingly powerful computer simu-

1 3 lations (such as those describing merging black holes) are

run.[191] The race for the rst direct detection of gravita-
1 2 tional waves continues,[192] in the hope of creating op-
4 1 portunities to test the theorys validity for much stronger
gravitational elds than has been possible to date.[193] A
4 4 century after its publication, general relativity remains a
1 highly active area of research.[194]

2
3 2
2 12.9 See also

1 Center of mass (relativistic)

Contributors to general relativity

Simple spin network of the type used in loop quantum gravity
Derivations of the Lorentz transformations

above), the result is the WheelerdeWitt equation (an Ehrenfest paradox

analogue of the Schrdinger equation) which, regrettably,
EinsteinHilbert action
turns out to be ill-dened.[178] However, with the intro-
duction of what are now known as Ashtekar variables,[179] Introduction to mathematics of general relativity
this leads to a promising model known as loop quan-
tum gravity. Space is represented by a web-like struc- Relativity priority dispute
ture called a spin network, evolving over time in discrete
steps.[180] Ricci calculus

Depending on which features of general relativity and Tests of general relativity

quantum theory are accepted unchanged, and on what
level changes are introduced,[181] there are numerous Timeline of gravitational physics and relativity
other attempts to arrive at a viable theory of quan-
Two-body problem in general relativity
tum gravity, some examples being dynamical triangula-
tions,[182] causal sets,[183] twistor models[184] or the path-
integral based models of quantum cosmology.[185]
12.10 Notes
All candidate theories still have major formal and con-
ceptual problems to overcome. They also face the com-
[1] O'Connor, J.J. and Robertson, E.F. (1996), General rela-
mon problem that, as yet, there is no way to put quan- tivity. Mathematical Physics index, School of Mathematics
tum gravity predictions to experimental tests (and thus and Statistics, University of St. Andrews, Scotland. Re-
to decide between the candidates where their predictions trieved 2015-02-04.
vary), although there is hope for this to change as future
data from cosmological observations and particle physics [2] Pais 1982, ch. 9 to 15, Janssen 2005; an up-to-date collec-
experiments becomes available.[186] tion of current research, including reprints of many of the
original articles, is Renn 2007; an accessible overview can
be found in Renn 2005, pp. 110. An early key article is
Einstein 1907, cf. Pais 1982, ch. 9. The publication fea-
12.8 Current status turing the eld equations is Einstein 1915, cf. Pais 1982,
ch. 1115

General relativity has emerged as a highly successful [3] Schwarzschild 1916a, Schwarzschild 1916b and Reissner
model of gravitation and cosmology, which has so far 1916 (later complemented in Nordstrm 1918)
138
[4] Einstein 1917, cf. Pais 1982, ch. 15e
[5] Hubbles original article is Hubble 1929; an accessible
overview is given in Singh 2004, ch. 24
[6] As reported in Gamow 1970. Einsteins condemnation
would prove to be premature, cf. the section Cosmology,
below
[7] Pais 1982, pp. 253254
[8] Kenneck 2005, Kenneck 2007
[9] Pais 1982, ch. 16
[10] Thorne, Kip (2003). Warping spacetime. The future
of theoretical physics and cosmology: celebrating Stephen
Hawkings 60th birthday. Cambridge University Press. p.
74. ISBN 0-521-82081-2., Extract of page 74
[11] Israel 1987, ch. 7.87.10, Thorne 1994, ch. 39
[12] Sections Orbital eects and the relativity of direction,
Gravitational time dilation and frequency shift and Light
deection and gravitational time delay, and references
therein
[13] Section Cosmology and references therein; the historical
development is in Overbye 1999
[14] The following exposition re-traces that of Ehlers 1973,
sec. 1
[15] Arnold 1989, ch. 1
[16] Ehlers 1973, pp. 5f
[17] Will 1993, sec. 2.4, Will 2006, sec. 2
[18] Wheeler 1990, ch. 2
[19] Ehlers 1973, sec. 1.2, Havas 1964, Knzle 1972. The
simple thought experiment in question was rst described
in Heckmann & Schcking 1959
[20] Ehlers 1973, pp. 10f
[21] Good introductions are, in order of increasing presup-
posed knowledge of mathematics, Giulini 2005, Mermin
2005, and Rindler 1991; for accounts of precision exper-
iments, cf. part IV of Ehlers & Lmmerzahl 2006
[22] An in-depth comparison between the two symmetry
groups can be found in Giulini 2006a
[23] Rindler 1991, sec. 22, Synge 1972, ch. 1 and 2
[24] Ehlers 1973, sec. 2.3
[25] Ehlers 1973, sec. 1.4, Schutz 1985, sec. 5.1
[26] Ehlers 1973, pp. 17; a derivation can be found in
Mermin 2005, ch. 12. For the experimental evidence,
cf. the section Gravitational time dilation and frequency
shift, below
[27] Rindler 2001, sec. 1.13; for an elementary account, see
Wheeler 1990, ch. 2; there are, however, some dier-
ences between the modern version and Einsteins original
concept used in the historical derivation of general rela-
tivity, cf. Norton 1985
CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY
[28] Ehlers 1973, sec. 1.4 for the experimental evidence, see
once more section Gravitational time dilation and fre-
quency shift. Choosing a dierent connection with non-
zero torsion leads to a modied theory known as Einstein
Cartan theory
[29] Ehlers 1973, p. 16, Kenyon 1990, sec. 7.2, Weinberg
1972, sec. 2.8
[30] Ehlers 1973, pp. 1922; for similar derivations, see sec-
tions 1 and 2 of ch. 7 in Weinberg 1972. The Einstein
tensor is the only divergence-free tensor that is a function
of the metric coecients, their rst and second derivatives
at most, and allows the spacetime of special relativity as a
solution in the absence of sources of gravity, cf. Lovelock
1972. The tensors on both side are of second rank, that
is, they can each be thought of as 44 matrices, each of
which contains ten independent terms; hence, the above
represents ten coupled equations. The fact that, as a con-
sequence of geometric relations known as Bianchi iden-
tities, the Einstein tensor satises a further four identities
reduces these to six independent equations, e.g. Schutz
1985, sec. 8.3
[31] Kenyon 1990, sec. 7.4
[32] Brans & Dicke 1961, Weinberg 1972, sec. 3 in ch. 7,
Goenner 2004, sec. 7.2, and Trautman 2006, respectively
[33] Wald 1984, ch. 4, Weinberg 1972, ch. 7 or, in fact, any
other textbook on general relativity
[34] At least approximately, cf. Poisson 2004
[35] Wheeler 1990, p. xi
[36] Wald 1984, sec. 4.4
[37] Wald 1984, sec. 4.1
[38] For the (conceptual and historical) diculties in dening
a general principle of relativity and separating it from the
notion of general covariance, see Giulini 2006b
[39] section 5 in ch. 12 of Weinberg 1972
[40] Introductory chapters of Stephani et al. 2003
[41] A review showing Einsteins equation in the broader con-
text of other PDEs with physical signicance is Geroch
1996
[42] For background information and a list of solutions, cf.
Stephani et al. 2003; a more recent review can be found
in MacCallum 2006
[43] Chandrasekhar 1983, ch. 3,5,6
[44] Narlikar 1993, ch. 4, sec. 3.3
[45] Brief descriptions of these and further interesting solu-
tions can be found in Hawking & Ellis 1973, ch. 5
[46] Lehner 2002
[47] For instance Wald 1984, sec. 4.4
[48] Will 1993, sec. 4.1 and 4.2
[49] Will 2006, sec. 3.2, Will 1993, ch. 4
12.10. NOTES
[50] Rindler 2001, pp. 2426 vs. pp. 236237 and Ohanian
& Runi 1994, pp. 164172. Einstein derived these ef-
fects using the equivalence principle as early as 1907, cf.
Einstein 1907 and the description in Pais 1982, pp. 196
198
[51] Rindler 2001, pp. 2426; Misner, Thorne & Wheeler
1973, 38.5
[52] PoundRebka experiment, see Pound & Rebka 1959,
Pound & Rebka 1960; Pound & Snider 1964; a list of
further experiments is given in Ohanian & Runi 1994,
table 4.1 on p. 186
[53] Greenstein, Oke & Shipman 1971; the most recent and
most accurate Sirius B measurements are published in
Barstow, Bond et al. 2005.
[54] Starting with the HafeleKeating experiment, Hafele &
Keating 1972a and Hafele & Keating 1972b, and culmi-
nating in the Gravity Probe A experiment; an overview
of experiments can be found in Ohanian & Runi 1994,
table 4.1 on p. 186
[55] GPS is continually tested by comparing atomic clocks on
the ground and aboard orbiting satellites; for an account
of relativistic eects, see Ashby 2002 and Ashby 2003
[56] Stairs 2003 and Kramer 2004
[57] General overviews can be found in section 2.1. of Will
2006; Will 2003, pp. 3236; Ohanian & Runi 1994,
sec. 4.2
[58] Ohanian & Runi 1994, pp. 164172
[59] Cf. Kenneck 2005 for the classic early measurements
by the Eddington expeditions; for an overview of more
recent measurements, see Ohanian & Runi 1994, ch.
4.3. For the most precise direct modern observations us-
ing quasars, cf. Shapiro et al. 2004
[60] This is not an independent axiom; it can be derived from
Einsteins equations and the Maxwell Lagrangian using a
WKB approximation, cf. Ehlers 1973, sec. 5
[61] Blanchet 2006, sec. 1.3
[62] Rindler 2001, sec. 1.16; for the historical examples, Israel
1987, pp. 202204; in fact, Einstein published one such
derivation as Einstein 1907. Such calculations tacitly as-
sume that the geometry of space is Euclidean, cf. Ehlers
& Rindler 1997
[63] From the standpoint of Einsteins theory, these derivations
take into account the eect of gravity on time, but not its
consequences for the warping of space, cf. Rindler 2001,
sec. 11.11
[64] For the Suns gravitational eld using radar signals re-
ected from planets such as Venus and Mercury, cf.
Shapiro 1964, Weinberg 1972, ch. 8, sec. 7; for signals
actively sent back by space probes (transponder measure-
ments), cf. Bertotti, Iess & Tortora 2003; for an overview,
see Ohanian & Runi 1994, table 4.4 on p. 200; for more
recent measurements using signals received from a pulsar
that is part of a binary system, the gravitational eld caus-
ing the time delay being that of the other pulsar, cf. Stairs
2003, sec. 4.4
139
[65] Will 1993, sec. 7.1 and 7.2
[66] These have been indirectly observed through the loss of
energy in binary pulsar systems such as the HulseTaylor
binary, the subject of the 1993 Nobel Prize in physics. A
number of projects are underway to attempt to observe di-
rectly the eects of gravitational waves. For an overview,
see Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, part VIII. Un-
like electromagnetic waves, the dominant contribution for
gravitational waves is not the dipole, but the quadrupole;
see Schutz 2001
[67] Most advanced textbooks on general relativity contain a
description of these properties, e.g. Schutz 1985, ch. 9
[68] For example Jaranowski & Krlak 2005
[69] Rindler 2001, ch. 13
[70] Gowdy 1971, Gowdy 1974
[71] See Lehner 2002 for a brief introduction to the methods
of numerical relativity, and Seidel 1998 for the connection
with gravitational wave astronomy
[72] Schutz 2003, pp. 4849, Pais 1982, pp. 253254
[73] Rindler 2001, sec. 11.9
[74] Will 1993, pp. 177181
[75] In consequence, in the parameterized post-Newtonian for-
malism (PPN), measurements of this eect determine a
linear combination of the terms and , cf. Will 2006,
sec. 3.5 and Will 1993, sec. 7.3
[76] The most precise measurements are VLBI measurements
of planetary positions; see Will 1993, ch. 5, Will 2006,
sec. 3.5, Anderson et al. 1992; for an overview, Ohanian
& Runi 1994, pp. 406407
[77] Kramer et al. 2006
[78] A gure that includes error bars is g. 7 in Will 2006, sec.
5.1
[79] Stairs 2003, Schutz 2003, pp. 317321, Bartusiak 2000,
pp. 7086
[80] Weisberg & Taylor 2003; for the pulsar discovery, see
Hulse & Taylor 1975; for the initial evidence for gravi-
tational radiation, see Taylor 1994
[81] Kramer 2004
[82] Penrose 2004, 14.5, Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973,
11.4
[83] Weinberg 1972, sec. 9.6, Ohanian & Runi 1994, sec.
7.8
[84] Bertotti, Ciufolini & Bender 1987, Nordtvedt 2003
[85] Kahn 2007
[86] A mission description can be found in Everitt et al. 2001;
a rst post-ight evaluation is given in Everitt, Parkinson
& Kahn 2007; further updates will be available on the mis-
sion website Kahn 19962012.
 140
[87] Townsend 1997, sec. 4.2.1, Ohanian & Runi 1994, pp. [110] For a review, see Begelman, Blandford & Rees 1984. To
469471
[88] Ohanian & Runi 1994, sec. 4.7, Weinberg 1972, sec.
9.7; for a more recent review, see Schfer 2004
[89] Ciufolini & Pavlis 2004, Ciufolini, Pavlis & Peron 2006,
Iorio 2009
[90] Iorio L. (August 2006), COMMENTS, REPLIES
AND NOTES: A note on the evidence of the
gravitomagnetic eld of Mars, Classical Quantum
Gravity 23 (17): 54515454, arXiv:gr-qc/0606092,
Bibcode:2006CQGra..23.5451I, doi:10.1088/0264-
9381/23/17/N01
[91] Iorio L. (June 2010), On the LenseThirring test with the
Mars Global Surveyor in the gravitational eld of Mars,
Central European Journal of Physics 8 (3): 509513,
arXiv:gr-qc/0701146, Bibcode:2010CEJPh...8..509I,
doi:10.2478/s11534-009-0117-6
[92] For overviews of gravitational lensing and its applications,
see Ehlers, Falco & Schneider 1992 and Wambsganss
1998
[93] For a simple derivation, see Schutz 2003, ch. 23; cf.
Narayan & Bartelmann 1997, sec. 3
[94] Walsh, Carswell & Weymann 1979
[95] Images of all the known lenses can be found on the pages
of the CASTLES project, Kochanek et al. 2007
[96] Roulet & Mollerach 1997
[97] Narayan & Bartelmann 1997, sec. 3.7
[98] Barish 2005, Bartusiak 2000, Blair & McNamara 1997
[99] Hough & Rowan 2000
[100] Hobbs, George; Archibald, A.; Arzoumanian, Z.; Backer,
D.; Bailes, M.; Bhat, N. D. R.; Burgay, M.; Burke-
Spolaor, S.; et al. (2010), The international pulsar
timing array project: using pulsars as a gravitational wave [118] E.g. with WMAP data, see Spergel et al. 2003
detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27 (8): 084013,
arXiv:0911.5206, Bibcode:2010CQGra..27h4013H, [119] These tests involve the separate observations detailed fur-
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/8/084013
[101] Danzmann & Rdiger 2003
[102] LISA pathnder overview. ESA. Retrieved 2012-04-
23.
[103] Thorne 1995
[104] Cutler & Thorne 2002
[105] Miller 2002, lectures 19 and 21
[106] Celotti, Miller & Sciama 1999, sec. 3
[107] Springel et al. 2005 and the accompanying summary
Gnedin 2005
[108] Blandford 1987, sec. 8.2.4
[109] For the basic mechanism, see Carroll & Ostlie 1996, sec.
17.2; for more about the dierent types of astronomical
objects associated with this, cf. Robson 1996
CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY
a distant observer, some of these jets even appear to move
faster than light; this, however, can be explained as an op-
tical illusion that does not violate the tenets of relativity,
see Rees 1966
[111] For stellar end states, cf. Oppenheimer & Snyder 1939 or,
for more recent numerical work, Font 2003, sec. 4.1; for
supernovae, there are still major problems to be solved,
cf. Buras et al. 2003; for simulating accretion and the
formation of jets, cf. Font 2003, sec. 4.2. Also, relativis-
tic lensing eects are thought to play a role for the signals
received from X-ray pulsars, cf. Kraus 1998
[112] The evidence includes limits on compactness from the ob-
servation of accretion-driven phenomena ("Eddington lu-
minosity"), see Celotti, Miller & Sciama 1999, observa-
tions of stellar dynamics in the center of our own Milky
Way galaxy, cf. Schdel et al. 2003, and indications that
at least some of the compact objects in question appear
to have no solid surface, which can be deduced from the
examination of X-ray bursts for which the central com-
pact object is either a neutron star or a black hole; cf.
Remillard et al. 2006 for an overview, Narayan 2006,
sec. 5. Observations of the shadow of the Milky Way
galaxys central black hole horizon are eagerly sought for,
cf. Falcke, Melia & Agol 2000
[113] Dalal et al. 2006
[114] Barack & Cutler 2004
[115] Originally Einstein 1917; cf. Pais 1982, pp. 285288
[116] Carroll 2001, ch. 2
[117] Bergstrm & Goobar 2003, ch. 911; use of these mod-
els is justied by the fact that, at large scales of around
hundred million light-years and more, our own universe
indeed appears to be isotropic and homogeneous, cf.
Peebles et al. 1991
ther on, see, e.g., g. 2 in Bridle et al. 2003
[120] Peebles 1966; for a recent account of predictions, see Coc,
VangioniFlam et al. 2004; an accessible account can
be found in Weiss 2006; compare with the observations
in Olive & Skillman 2004, Bania, Rood & Balser 2002,
O'Meara et al. 2001, and Charbonnel & Primas 2005
[121] Lahav & Suto 2004, Bertschinger 1998, Springel et al.
2005
[122] Alpher & Herman 1948, for a pedagogical introduction,
see Bergstrm & Goobar 2003, ch. 11; for the initial
detection, see Penzias & Wilson 1965 and, for preci-
sion measurements by satellite observatories, Mather et
al. 1994 (COBE) and Bennett et al. 2003 (WMAP).
Future measurements could also reveal evidence about
gravitational waves in the early universe; this additional
information is contained in the background radiations
polarization, cf. Kamionkowski, Kosowsky & Stebbins
1997 and Seljak & Zaldarriaga 1997
 12.10. NOTES 141

[123] Evidence for this comes from the determination of cosmo- [138] The laws of black hole mechanics were rst described in
logical parameters and additional observations involving Bardeen, Carter & Hawking 1973; a more pedagogical
the dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters cf. Peebles presentation can be found in Carter 1979; for a more re-
1993, ch. 18, evidence from gravitational lensing, cf. cent review, see Wald 2001, ch. 2. A thorough, book-
Peacock 1999, sec. 4.6, and simulations of large-scale length introduction including an introduction to the neces-
structure formation, see Springel et al. 2005 sary mathematics Poisson 2004. For the Penrose process,
see Penrose 1969
[124] Peacock 1999, ch. 12, Peskin 2007; in particular, ob-
servations indicate that all but a negligible portion of that [139] Bekenstein 1973, Bekenstein 1974
matter is not in the form of the usual elementary particles
[140] The fact that black holes radiate, quantum mechanically,
(non-baryonic matter), cf. Peacock 1999, ch. 12
was rst derived in Hawking 1975; a more thorough
[125] Namely, some physicists have questioned whether or not derivation can be found in Wald 1975. A review is given
the evidence for dark matter is, in fact, evidence for devi- in Wald 2001, ch. 3
ations from the Einsteinian (and the Newtonian) descrip-
[141] Narlikar 1993, sec. 4.4.4, 4.4.5
tion of gravity cf. the overview in Mannheim 2006, sec.
9 [142] Horizons: cf. Rindler 2001, sec. 12.4. Unruh eect:
Unruh 1976, cf. Wald 2001, ch. 3
[126] Carroll 2001; an accessible overview is given in Caldwell
2004. Here, too, scientists have argued that the evidence [143] Hawking & Ellis 1973, sec. 8.1, Wald 1984, sec. 9.1
indicates not a new form of energy, but the need for
modications in our cosmological models, cf. Mannheim [144] Townsend 1997, ch. 2; a more extensive treatment of this
2006, sec. 10; aforementioned modications need not solution can be found in Chandrasekhar 1983, ch. 3
be modications of general relativity, they could, for ex-
[145] Townsend 1997, ch. 4; for a more extensive treatment, cf.
ample, be modications in the way we treat the inhomo-
Chandrasekhar 1983, ch. 6
geneities in the universe, cf. Buchert 2007
[146] Ellis & Van Elst 1999; a closer look at the singularity itself
[127] A good introduction is Linde 1990; for a more recent re- is taken in Brner 1993, sec. 1.2
view, see Linde 2005
[147] Here one should remind to the well-known fact that the
[128] More precisely, these are the atness problem, the horizon important quasi-optical singularities of the so-called
problem, and the monopole problem; a pedagogical intro- eikonal approximations of many wave-equations, namely
duction can be found in Narlikar 1993, sec. 6.4, see also the "caustics", are resolved into nite peaks beyond that
Brner 1993, sec. 9.1 approximation.

[129] Spergel et al. 2007, sec. 5,6 [148] Namely when there are trapped null surfaces, cf. Penrose
1965
[130] More concretely, the potential function that is crucial to
determining the dynamics of the inaton is simply postu- [149] Hawking 1966
lated, but not derived from an underlying physical theory
[150] The conjecture was made in Belinskii, Khalatnikov & Lif-
[131] Brandenberger 2007, sec. 2 schitz 1971; for a more recent review, see Berger 2002.
An accessible exposition is given by Garnkle 2007
[132] Gdel 1949
[151] The restriction to future singularities naturally excludes
[133] Frauendiener 2004, Wald 1984, sec. 11.1, Hawking & initial singularities such as the big bang singularity, which
Ellis 1973, sec. 6.8, 6.9 in principle be visible to observers at later cosmic time.
The cosmic censorship conjecture was rst presented in
[134] Wald 1984, sec. 9.29.4 and Hawking & Ellis 1973, ch. Penrose 1969; a textbook-level account is given in Wald
6 1984, pp. 302305. For numerical results, see the review
Berger 2002, sec. 2.1
[135] Thorne 1972; for more recent numerical studies, see
Berger 2002, sec. 2.1 [152] Hawking & Ellis 1973, sec. 7.1

[136] Israel 1987. A more exact mathematical description dis- [153] Arnowitt, Deser & Misner 1962; for a pedagogical in-
tinguishes several kinds of horizon, notably event hori-
zons and apparent horizons cf. Hawking & Ellis 1973,
pp. 312320 or Wald 1984, sec. 12.2; there are also
more intuitive denitions for isolated systems that do not
require knowledge of spacetime properties at innity, cf.
Ashtekar & Krishnan 2004
[137] For rst steps, cf. Israel 1971; see Hawking & Ellis 1973,
sec. 9.3 or Heusler 1996, ch. 9 and 10 for a derivation,
and Heusler 1998 as well as Beig & Chruciel 2006 as
overviews of more recent results
troduction, see Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, 21.4
21.7
[154] Fours-Bruhat 1952 and Bruhat 1962; for a pedagogical
introduction, see Wald 1984, ch. 10; an online review can
be found in Reula 1998
[155] Gourgoulhon 2007; for a review of the basics of numeri-
cal relativity, including the problems arising from the pe-
culiarities of Einsteins equations, see Lehner 2001
[156] Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, 20.4
 142 CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY

[157] Arnowitt, Deser & Misner 1962 [177] Townsend 1996, Du 1996

[158] Komar 1959; for a pedagogical introduction, see Wald [178] Kucha 1973, sec. 3
1984, sec. 11.2; although dened in a totally dierent
[179] These variables represent geometric gravity using math-
way, it can be shown to be equivalent to the ADM mass for
ematical analogues of electric and magnetic elds; cf.
stationary spacetimes, cf. Ashtekar & Magnon-Ashtekar
Ashtekar 1986, Ashtekar 1987
1979
[180] For a review, see Thiemann 2006; more extensive
[159] For a pedagogical introduction, see Wald 1984, sec. 11.2
accounts can be found in Rovelli 1998, Ashtekar &
[160] Wald 1984, p. 295 and refs therein; this is important for Lewandowski 2004 as well as in the lecture notes
questions of stabilityif there were negative mass states, Thiemann 2003
then at, empty Minkowski space, which has mass zero, [181] Isham 1994, Sorkin 1997
could evolve into these states
[182] Loll 1998
[161] Townsend 1997, ch. 5
[183] Sorkin 2005
[162] Such quasi-local massenergy denitions are the Hawking
energy, Geroch energy, or Penroses quasi-local energy [184] Penrose 2004, ch. 33 and refs therein
momentum based on twistor methods; cf. the review ar-
[185] Hawking 1987
ticle Szabados 2004
[186] Ashtekar 2007, Schwarz 2007
[163] An overview of quantum theory can be found in standard
textbooks such as Messiah 1999; a more elementary ac- [187] Maddox 1998, pp. 5259, 98122; Penrose 2004, sec.
count is given in Hey & Walters 2003 34.1, ch. 30

[164] Ramond 1990, Weinberg 1995, Peskin & Schroeder [188]
1995; a more accessible overview is Auyang 1995
[189]
[165] Wald 1994, Birrell & Davies 1984
[190]
[166] For Hawking radiation Hawking 1975, Wald 1975; an
[191]
accessible introduction to black hole evaporation can be
found in Traschen 2000
[192]
[167] Wald 2001, ch. 3
[168] Put simply, matter is the source of spacetime curvature,
and once matter has quantum properties, we can expect [193] For the most recent papers on gravitational wave polar-
spacetime to have them as well. Cf. Carlip 2001, sec. 2
[169] Schutz 2003, p. 407
[170] A timeline and overview can be found in Rovelli 2000
[171] Donoghue 1995
[194] See, e.g., the electronic review journal Living Reviews in
[172] In particular, a technique known as renormalization, an in-
tegral part of deriving predictions which take into account
higher-energy contributions, cf. Weinberg 1996, ch. 17,
18, fails in this case; cf. Goro & Sagnotti 1985
[173] An accessible introduction at the undergraduate level can
be found in Zwiebach 2004; more complete overviews can
be found in Polchinski 1998a and Polchinski 1998b
[174] At the energies reached in current experiments, these
strings are indistinguishable from point-like particles, but,
crucially, dierent modes of oscillation of one and the
same type of fundamental string appear as particles with
dierent (electric and other) charges, e.g. Ibanez 2000.
The theory is successful in that one mode will always cor-
respond to a graviton, the messenger particle of gravity,
e.g. Green, Schwarz & Witten 1987, sec. 2.3, 5.3
[175] Green, Schwarz & Witten 1987, sec. 4.2
[176] Weinberg 2000, ch. 31
section Quantum gravity, above
section Cosmology, above
Friedrich 2005
A review of the various problems and the techniques being
developed to overcome them, see Lehner 2002
See Bartusiak 2000 for an account up to that year; up-to-
date news can be found on the websites of major detector
collaborations such as GEO 600 and LIGO
izations of inspiralling compact binaries, see Blanchet et
al. 2008, and Arun et al. 2007; for a review of work on
compact binaries, see Blanchet 2006 and Futamase & Itoh
2006; for a general review of experimental tests of general
relativity, see Will 2006
Relativity
12.11 References
Alpher, R. A.; Herman, R. C. (1948), Evo-
lution of the universe, Nature 162 (4124):
774775, Bibcode:1948Natur.162..774A,
doi:10.1038/162774b0
Anderson, J. D.; Campbell, J. K.; Jurgens, R. F.;
Lau, E. L. (1992), Recent developments in solar-
system tests of general relativity, in Sato, H.; Naka-
mura, T., Proceedings of the Sixth Marcel Gromann
Meeting on General Relativity, World Scientic, pp.
353355, ISBN 981-02-0950-9
Arnold, V. I. (1989), Mathematical Methods of Clas-
sical Mechanics, Springer, ISBN 3-540-96890-3
12.11. REFERENCES
Arnowitt, Richard; Deser, Stanley; Misner, Charles
W. (1962), The dynamics of general relativity, in
Witten, Louis, Gravitation: An Introduction to Cur-
rent Research, Wiley, pp. 227265
Arun, K.G.; Blanchet, L.; Iyer, B. R.; Qusailah, M.
S. S. (2007), Inspiralling compact binaries in quasi-
elliptical orbits: The complete 3PN energy ux,
Physical Review D 77 (6), arXiv:0711.0302,
Bibcode:2008PhRvD..77f4035A,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.064035
Ashby, Neil (2002), Relativity and the Global
Positioning System (PDF), Physics Today 55
(5): 4147, Bibcode:2002PhT....55e..41A,
doi:10.1063/1.1485583
Ashby, Neil (2003), Relativity in the Global Posi-
tioning System, Living Reviews in Relativity 6, re-
trieved 2007-07-06
Ashtekar, Abhay (1986), New variables for classi-
cal and quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 (18):
22442247, Bibcode:1986PhRvL..57.2244A,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.2244, PMID
10033673
Ashtekar, Abhay (1987), New Hamiltonian for-
mulation of general relativity, Phys. Rev. D36
(6): 15871602, Bibcode:1987PhRvD..36.1587A,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.36.1587
Ashtekar, Abhay (2007), LOOP QUANTUM
GRAVITY: FOUR RECENT ADVANCES AND
A DOZEN FREQUENTLY ASKED QUES-
TIONS, The Eleventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting
- on Recent Developments in Theoretical and
Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation and
Relativistic Field Theories - Proceedings of the
MG11 Meeting on General Relativity, p. 126,
arXiv:0705.2222, Bibcode:2008mgm..conf..126A,
doi:10.1142/9789812834300_0008, ISBN
9789812834263
Ashtekar, Abhay; Krishnan, Badri (2004), Isolated
and Dynamical Horizons and Their Applications,
Living Rev. Relativity 7, arXiv:gr-qc/0407042,
Bibcode:2004LRR.....7...10A, doi:10.12942/lrr-
2004-10, retrieved 2007-08-28
Ashtekar, Abhay; Lewandowski, Jerzy
(2004), Background Independent Quan-
tum Gravity: A Status Report, Class.
Quant. Grav. 21 (15): R53R152, arXiv:gr-
qc/0404018, Bibcode:2004CQGra..21R..53A,
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/15/R01
Ashtekar, Abhay; Magnon-Ashtekar, Anne
(1979), On conserved quantities in general
relativity, Journal of Mathematical Physics 20
(5): 793800, Bibcode:1979JMP....20..793A,
doi:10.1063/1.524151
143
Auyang, Sunny Y. (1995), How is Quantum Field
Theory Possible?, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-
19-509345-3
Bania, T. M.; Rood, R. T.; Balser, D. S. (2002),
The cosmological density of baryons from ob-
servations of 3He+ in the Milky Way, Nature
415 (6867): 5457, Bibcode:2002Natur.415...54B,
doi:10.1038/415054a, PMID 11780112
Barack, Leor; Cutler, Curt (2004), LISA
Capture Sources: Approximate Waveforms,
Signal-to-Noise Ratios, and Parameter Estimation
Accuracy, Phys. Rev. D69 (8): 082005, arXiv:gr-
qc/0310125, Bibcode:2004PhRvD..69h2005B,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.082005
Bardeen, J. M.; Carter, B.; Hawking, S. W.
(1973), The Four Laws of Black Hole Me-
chanics, Comm. Math. Phys. 31 (2):
161170, Bibcode:1973CMaPh..31..161B,
doi:10.1007/BF01645742
Barish, Barry (2005), Towards detection of gravi-
tational waves, in Florides, P.; Nolan, B.; Ottewil,
A., General Relativity and Gravitation. Proceedings
of the 17th International Conference, World Scien-
tic, pp. 2434, ISBN 981-256-424-1
Barstow, M; Bond, Howard E.; Holberg, J. B.;
Burleigh, M. R.; Hubeny, I.; Koester, D. (2005),
Hubble Space Telescope Spectroscopy of the
Balmer lines in Sirius B, Mon. Not. Roy.
Astron. Soc. 362 (4): 11341142, arXiv:astro-
ph/0506600, Bibcode:2005MNRAS.362.1134B,
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09359.x
Bartusiak, Marcia (2000), Einsteins Unnished
Symphony: Listening to the Sounds of Space-Time,
Berkley, ISBN 978-0-425-18620-6
Begelman, Mitchell C.; Blandford, Roger D.;
Rees, Martin J. (1984), Theory of extragalac-
tic radio sources, Rev. Mod. Phys. 56
(2): 255351, Bibcode:1984RvMP...56..255B,
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.56.255
Beig, Robert; Chruciel, Piotr T. (2006), Station-
ary black holes, in Franoise, J.-P.; Naber, G.;
Tsou, T.S., Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics,
Volume 2, Elsevier, p. 2041, arXiv:gr-qc/0502041,
Bibcode:2005gr.qc.....2041B, ISBN 0-12-512660-
3
Bekenstein, Jacob D. (1973), Black Holes
and Entropy, Phys. Rev. D7 (8): 2333
2346, Bibcode:1973PhRvD...7.2333B,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333
Bekenstein, Jacob D. (1974), General-
ized Second Law of Thermodynamics in
Black-Hole Physics, Phys. Rev. D9 (12):
144
32923300, Bibcode:1974PhRvD...9.3292B,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.3292
Belinskii, V. A.; Khalatnikov, I. M.; Lifschitz, E.
M. (1971), Oscillatory approach to the singular
point in relativistic cosmology, Advances in Physics
19 (80): 525573, Bibcode:1970AdPhy..19..525B,
doi:10.1080/00018737000101171; original pa-
per in Russian: Belinsky, V. A.; Lifshits, I. M.;
Khalatnikov, E. M. (1970), " Blanchet, Luc (2006), Gravitational Radiation
from Post-Newtonian Sources and Inspiralling
", Uspekhi Fizich- Compact Binaries, Living Rev.
eskikh Nauk ( ), 102(3) Bibcode:2006LRR.....9....4B, doi:10.12942/lrr-
(11): 463500, Bibcode:1970UsFiN.102..463B
Bennett, C. L.; Halpern, M.; Hinshaw, G.;
Jarosik, N.; Kogut, A.; Limon, M.; Meyer, S. S.;
Page, L.; et al. (2003), First Year Wilkinson
Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Obser-
vations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results,
Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 (1): 127, arXiv:astro-
ph/0302207, Bibcode:2003ApJS..148....1B,
doi:10.1086/377253
Berger, Beverly K. (2002), Numerical Ap-
proaches to Spacetime Singularities, Liv-
ing Rev. Relativity 5, arXiv:gr-qc/0201056,
Bibcode:2002LRR.....5....1B, doi:10.12942/lrr-
2002-1, retrieved 2007-08-04
Bergstrm, Lars; Goobar, Ariel (2003), Cosmology
and Particle Astrophysics (2nd ed.), Wiley & Sons,
ISBN 3-540-43128-4
Bertotti, Bruno; Ciufolini, Ignazio; Bender, Peter
L. (1987), New test of general relativity: Mea-
surement of de Sitter geodetic precession rate for
lunar perigee, Physical Review Letters 58 (11):
10621065, Bibcode:1987PhRvL..58.1062B,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1062, PMID
10034329
Bertotti, Bruno; Iess, L.; Tortora, P. (2003),
A test of general relativity using radio links
with the Cassini spacecraft, Nature 425
(6956): 374376, Bibcode:2003Natur.425..374B,
doi:10.1038/nature01997, PMID 14508481
Bertschinger, Edmund (1998), Simulations
of structure formation in the universe,
Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 36 (1):
599654, Bibcode:1998ARA&A..36..599B,
doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.599
Birrell, N. D.; Davies, P. C. (1984), Quantum Fields
in Curved Space, Cambridge University Press, ISBN
0-521-27858-9
Blair, David; McNamara, Geo (1997), Ripples on
a Cosmic Sea. The Search for Gravitational Waves,
Perseus, ISBN 0-7382-0137-5
CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY
Blanchet, L.; Faye, G.; Iyer, B. R.; Sinha, S.
(2008), The third post-Newtonian gravitational
wave polarisations and associated spherical har-
monic modes for inspiralling compact binaries
in quasi-circular orbits, Classical and Quantum
Gravity 25 (16): 165003, arXiv:0802.1249,
Bibcode:2008CQGra..25p5003B,
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/25/16/165003
Relativity 9,
2006-4, retrieved 2007-08-07
Blandford, R. D. (1987), Astrophysical Black
Holes, in Hawking, Stephen W.; Israel, Werner,
300 Years of Gravitation, Cambridge University
Press, pp. 277329, ISBN 0-521-37976-8
Brner, Gerhard (1993), The Early Universe. Facts
and Fiction, Springer, ISBN 0-387-56729-1
Brandenberger, Robert H. (2007), Conceptual
Problems of Inationary Cosmology and a New
Approach to Cosmological Structure Forma-
tion, Inationary Cosmology, Lecture Notes
in Physics 738, p. 393, arXiv:hep-th/0701111,
Bibcode:2008LNP...738..393B, doi:10.1007/978-
3-540-74353-8_11, ISBN 978-3-540-74352-1
Brans, C. H.; Dicke, R. H. (1961), Machs
Principle and a Relativistic Theory of
Gravitation, Physical Review 124 (3):
925935, Bibcode:1961PhRv..124..925B,
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.124.925
Bridle, Sarah L.; Lahav, Ofer; Ostriker,
Jeremiah P.; Steinhardt, Paul J. (2003),
Precision Cosmology? Not Just Yet, Sci-
ence 299 (5612): 15321533, arXiv:astro-
ph/0303180, Bibcode:2003Sci...299.1532B,
doi:10.1126/science.1082158, PMID 12624255
Bruhat, Yvonne (1962), The Cauchy Problem, in
Witten, Louis, Gravitation: An Introduction to Cur-
rent Research, Wiley, p. 130, ISBN 978-1-114-
29166-9
Buchert, Thomas (2007), Dark Energy from
StructureA Status Report, General Rel-
ativity and Gravitation 40 (23): 467527,
arXiv:0707.2153, Bibcode:2008GReGr..40..467B,
doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0554-8
Buras, R.; Rampp, M.; Janka, H.-Th.; Kifonidis,
K. (2003), Improved Models of Stellar Core Col-
lapse and Still no Explosions: What is Missing?",
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (24): 241101, arXiv:astro-
ph/0303171, Bibcode:2003PhRvL..90x1101B,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.241101, PMID
12857181
12.11. REFERENCES
Caldwell, Robert R. (2004), Dark Energy, Physics
World 17 (5): 3742
Carlip, Steven (2001), Quantum Grav-
ity: a Progress Report, Rept. Prog. Phys.
64 (8): 885942, arXiv:gr-qc/0108040,
Bibcode:2001RPPh...64..885C, doi:10.1088/0034-
4885/64/8/301
Carroll, Bradley W.; Ostlie, Dale A. (1996), An In-
troduction to Modern Astrophysics, Addison-Wesley,
ISBN 0-201-54730-9
Carroll, Sean M. (2001), The Cosmological
Constant, Living Rev. Relativity 4, arXiv:astro-
ph/0004075, Bibcode:2001LRR.....4....1C,
doi:10.12942/lrr-2001-1, retrieved 2007-07-21
Carter, Brandon (1979), The general theory of the
mechanical, electromagnetic and thermodynamic
properties of black holes, in Hawking, S. W.; Is-
rael, W., General Relativity, an Einstein Centenary
Survey, Cambridge University Press, pp. 294369
and 860863, ISBN 0-521-29928-4
Celotti, Annalisa; Miller, John C.; Sciama,
Dennis W. (1999), Astrophysical evidence for
the existence of black holes, Class. Quant.
Grav. 16 (12A): A3A21, arXiv:astro-ph/9912186,
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/16/12A/301
Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (1983), The Math-
ematical Theory of Black Holes, Oxford University
Press, ISBN 0-19-850370-9
Charbonnel, C.; Primas, F. (2005), The Lithium
Content of the Galactic Halo Stars, Astronomy
& Astrophysics 442 (3): 961992, arXiv:astro-
ph/0505247, Bibcode:2005A&A...442..961C,
doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042491
Ciufolini, Ignazio; Pavlis, Erricos C. (2004), A
conrmation of the general relativistic predic-
tion of the Lense-Thirring eect, Nature 431
(7011): 958960, Bibcode:2004Natur.431..958C,
doi:10.1038/nature03007, PMID 15496915
Ciufolini, Ignazio; Pavlis, Erricos C.;
Peron, R. (2006), Determination of frame-
dragging using Earth gravity models from
CHAMP and GRACE, New Astron. 11 (8):
527550, Bibcode:2006NewA...11..527C,
doi:10.1016/j.newast.2006.02.001
Coc, A.; VangioniFlam, Elisabeth; Descouve-
mont, Pierre; Adahchour, Abderrahim; Angulo,
Carmen (2004), Updated Big Bang Nucleosyn-
thesis confronted to WMAP observations and
to the Abundance of Light Elements, Astro-
physical Journal 600 (2): 544552, arXiv:astro-
ph/0309480, Bibcode:2004ApJ...600..544C,
doi:10.1086/380121
145
Cutler, Curt; Thorne, Kip S. (2002), An overview
of gravitational wave sources, in Bishop, Nigel;
Maharaj, Sunil D., Proceedings of 16th Interna-
tional Conference on General Relativity and Gravi-
tation (GR16), World Scientic, p. 4090, arXiv:gr-
qc/0204090, Bibcode:2002gr.qc.....4090C, ISBN
981-238-171-6
Dalal, Neal; Holz, Daniel E.; Hughes, Scott A.;
Jain, Bhuvnesh (2006), Short GRB and binary
black hole standard sirens as a probe of dark
energy, Phys.Rev. D74 (6): 063006, arXiv:astro-
ph/0601275, Bibcode:2006PhRvD..74f3006D,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.063006
Danzmann, Karsten; Rdiger, Albrecht
(2003), LISA TechnologyConcepts, Status,
Prospects (PDF), Class. Quant. Grav. 20
(10): S1S9, Bibcode:2003CQGra..20S...1D,
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/20/10/301
Dirac, Paul (1996), General Theory of Relativity,
Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-01146-X
Donoghue, John F. (1995), Introduction to the
Eective Field Theory Description of Gravity,
in Cornet, Fernando, Eective Theories: Pro-
ceedings of the Advanced School, Almunecar,
Spain, 26 June1 July 1995, Singapore: World
Scientic, p. 12024, arXiv:gr-qc/9512024,
Bibcode:1995gr.qc....12024D, ISBN 981-02-2908-
9
Du, Michael (1996), M-Theory (the The-
ory Formerly Known as Strings)", Int. J. Mod.
Phys. A11 (32): 56235641, arXiv:hep-
th/9608117, Bibcode:1996IJMPA..11.5623D,
doi:10.1142/S0217751X96002583
Ehlers, Jrgen (1973), Survey of general relativity
theory, in Israel, Werner, Relativity, Astrophysics
and Cosmology, D. Reidel, pp. 1125, ISBN 90-
277-0369-8
Ehlers, Jrgen; Falco, Emilio E.; Schneider, Peter
(1992), Gravitational lenses, Springer, ISBN 3-540-
66506-4
Ehlers, Jrgen; Lmmerzahl, Claus, eds. (2006),
Special RelativityWill it Survive the Next 101
Years?, Springer, ISBN 3-540-34522-1
Ehlers, Jrgen; Rindler, Wolfgang (1997),
Local and Global Light Bending in Ein-
steins and other Gravitational Theories,
General Relativity and Gravitation 29 (4):
519529, Bibcode:1997GReGr..29..519E,
doi:10.1023/A:1018843001842
Einstein, Albert (1907), "ber das Relativitt-
sprinzip und die aus demselben gezogene Folgerun-
gen (PDF), Jahrbuch der Radioaktivitt und Elek-
tronik 4: 411, retrieved 2008-05-05
146
Einstein, Albert (1915), Die Feldgleichungen
der Gravitation, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin: 844847,
retrieved 2006-09-12
Einstein, Albert (1916), Die Grundlage der all-
gemeinen Relativittstheorie, Annalen der Physik
49: 769822, Bibcode:1916AnP...354..769E,
doi:10.1002/andp.19163540702, archived from
the original (PDF) on 2006-08-29, retrieved
2006-09-03
Einstein, Albert (1917), Kosmologische Betra-
chtungen zur allgemeinen Relativittstheorie,
Sitzungsberichte der Preuischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften: 142
Ellis, George F R; Van Elst, Henk (1999), Lachize-
Rey, Marc, ed., Theoretical and Observational
Cosmology: Cosmological models (Cargse lec-
tures 1998)", Theoretical and observational cos-
mology : proceedings of the NATO Advanced
Study Institute on Theoretical and Observational
Cosmology (Kluwer): 1116, arXiv:gr-qc/9812046,
Bibcode:1999toc..conf....1E, doi:10.1007/978-94-
011-4455-1_1, ISBN 978-0-7923-5946-3
Everitt, C. W. F.; Buchman, S.; DeBra, D. B.;
Keiser, G. M. (2001), Gravity Probe B: Count-
down to launch, in Lmmerzahl, C.; Everitt, C. W.
F.; Hehl, F. W., Gyros, Clocks, and Interferometers:
Testing Relativistic Gravity in Space (Lecture Notes
in Physics 562), Springer, pp. 5282, ISBN 3-540-
41236-0
Everitt, C. W. F.; Parkinson, Bradford; Kahn, Bob
(2007), The Gravity Probe B experiment. Post Flight
AnalysisFinal Report (Preface and Executive Sum-
mary) (PDF), Project Report: NASA, Stanford Uni-
versity and Lockheed Martin, retrieved 2007-08-05
Falcke, Heino; Melia, Fulvio; Agol, Eric
(2000), Viewing the Shadow of the Black
Hole at the Galactic Center, Astrophysi-
cal Journal 528 (1): L13L16, arXiv:astro-
ph/9912263, Bibcode:2000ApJ...528L..13F,
doi:10.1086/312423, PMID 10587484
Flanagan, anna .; Hughes, Scott A. (2005),
The basics of gravitational wave theory,
New J.Phys. 7: 204, arXiv:gr-qc/0501041,
Bibcode:2005NJPh....7..204F, doi:10.1088/1367-
2630/7/1/204
Font, Jos A. (2003), Numerical Hydrodynamics
in General Relativity, Living Rev. Relativity 6,
doi:10.12942/lrr-2003-4, retrieved 2007-08-19
Fours-Bruhat, Yvonne (1952), Thorme
d'existence pour certains systmes d'quations aux
derives partielles non linaires, Acta Mathematica
CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY
88 (1): 141225, Bibcode:1952AcM....88..141F,
doi:10.1007/BF02392131
Frauendiener, Jrg (2004), Conformal
Innity, Living Rev. Relativity 7,
Bibcode:2004LRR.....7....1F, doi:10.12942/lrr-
2004-1, retrieved 2007-07-21
Friedrich, Helmut (2005), Is general
relativity 'essentially understood'?", An-
nalen Phys. 15 (12): 84108, arXiv:gr-
qc/0508016, Bibcode:2006AnP...518...84F,
doi:10.1002/andp.200510173
Futamase, T.; Itoh, Y. (2006), The Post-Newtonian
Approximation for Relativistic Compact Binaries,
Living Rev. Relativity 10, retrieved 2008-02-29
Gamow, George (1970), My World Line, Viking
Press, ISBN 0-670-50376-2
Garnkle, David (2007), Of singularities and
breadmaking, Einstein Online, retrieved 2007-08-
03
Geroch, Robert (1996). Partial Dierential Equa-
tions of Physics. arXiv:gr-qc/9602055 [gr-qc].
Giulini, Domenico (2005), Special Relativity: A First
Encounter, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-
856746-4
Giulini, Domenico (2006a), Algebraic and
Geometric Structures in Special Relativity,
in Ehlers, Jrgen; Lmmerzahl, Claus, Special
RelativityWill it Survive the Next 101 Years?,
Springer, pp. 45111, arXiv:math-ph/0602018,
Bibcode:2006math.ph...2018G, ISBN 3-540-
34522-1
Giulini, Domenico (2006b), Stamatescu, I. O.,
ed., An assessment of current paradigms in
the physics of fundamental interactions: Some
remarks on the notions of general covariance
and background independence, Approaches to
Fundamental Physics, Lecture Notes in Physics
(Springer) 721: 105, arXiv:gr-qc/0603087,
Bibcode:2007LNP...721..105G, doi:10.1007/978-
3-540-71117-9_6, ISBN 978-3-540-71115-5
Gnedin, Nickolay Y. (2005), Digitiz-
ing the Universe, Nature 435 (7042):
572573, Bibcode:2005Natur.435..572G,
doi:10.1038/435572a, PMID 15931201
Goenner, Hubert F. M. (2004), On the History
of Unied Field Theories, Living Rev. Relativity
7, Bibcode:2004LRR.....7....2G, doi:10.12942/lrr-
2004-2, retrieved 2008-02-28
Goro, Marc H.; Sagnotti, Augusto (1985),
Quantum gravity at two loops, Phys. Lett. 160B
(13): 8186, Bibcode:1985PhLB..160...81G,
doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)91470-4
12.11. REFERENCES
Gourgoulhon, Eric (2007). 3+1 Formalism
and Bases of Numerical Relativity. arXiv:gr-
qc/0703035 [gr-qc].
Gowdy, Robert H. (1971), Gravitational Waves
in Closed Universes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 27
(12): 826829, Bibcode:1971PhRvL..27..826G,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.27.826
Gowdy, Robert H. (1974), Vacuum spacetimes
with two-parameter spacelike isometry groups
and compact invariant hypersurfaces: Topologies
and boundary conditions, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)
83 (1): 203241, Bibcode:1974AnPhy..83..203G,
doi:10.1016/0003-4916(74)90384-4
Green, M. B.; Schwarz, J. H.; Witten, E. (1987),
Superstring theory. Volume 1: Introduction, Cam-
bridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-35752-7
Greenstein, J. L.; Oke, J. B.; Shipman, H.
L. (1971), Eective Temperature, Radius, and
Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B, Astrophysical
Journal 169: 563, Bibcode:1971ApJ...169..563G,
doi:10.1086/151174
Gdel, Kurt (1949). An Example of a New
Type of Cosmological Solution of Einsteins Field
Equations of Gravitation. Rev. Mod. Phys.
21 (3): 447. Bibcode:1949RvMP...21..447G.
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.21.447.
Hafele, J. C.; Keating, R. E. (July 14, 1972).
Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted
Relativistic Time Gains. Science 177 (4044):
166168. Bibcode:1972Sci...177..166H.
doi:10.1126/science.177.4044.166. PMID
17779917.
Hafele, J. C.; Keating, R. E. (July 14, 1972).
Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed
Relativistic Time Gains. Science 177 (4044):
168170. Bibcode:1972Sci...177..168H.
doi:10.1126/science.177.4044.168. PMID
17779918.
Havas, P. (1964), Four-Dimensional Formula-
tion of Newtonian Mechanics and Their Re-
lation to the Special and the General The-
ory of Relativity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 36
(4): 938965, Bibcode:1964RvMP...36..938H,
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.36.938
Hawking, Stephen W. (1966), The occur-
rence of singularities in cosmology, Pro-
ceedings of the Royal Society A294 (1439):
511521, Bibcode:1966RSPSA.294..511H,
doi:10.1098/rspa.1966.0221
Hawking, S. W. (1975), Particle Creation by Black
Holes, Communications in Mathematical Physics
43 (3): 199220, Bibcode:1975CMaPh..43..199H,
doi:10.1007/BF02345020
147
Hawking, Stephen W. (1987), Quantum cosmol-
ogy, in Hawking, Stephen W.; Israel, Werner, 300
Years of Gravitation, Cambridge University Press,
pp. 631651, ISBN 0-521-37976-8
Hawking, Stephen W.; Ellis, George F. R. (1973),
The large scale structure of space-time, Cambridge
University Press, ISBN 0-521-09906-4
Heckmann, O. H. L.; Schcking, E. (1959), New-
tonsche und Einsteinsche Kosmologie, in Flgge,
S., Encyclopedia of Physics 53, p. 489
Heusler, Markus (1998), Stationary Black Holes:
Uniqueness and Beyond, Living Rev. Relativity 1,
doi:10.12942/lrr-1998-6, retrieved 2007-08-04
Heusler, Markus (1996), Black Hole Uniqueness
Theorems, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-
521-56735-1
Hey, Tony; Walters, Patrick (2003), The new quan-
tum universe, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-
521-56457-3
Hough, Jim; Rowan, Sheila (2000), Gravitational
Wave Detection by Interferometry (Ground and
Space)", Living Rev. Relativity 3, retrieved 2007-
07-21
Hubble, Edwin (1929), A Relation between Dis-
tance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic
Nebulae (PDF), Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.
15 (3): 168173, Bibcode:1929PNAS...15..168H,
doi:10.1073/pnas.15.3.168, PMC 522427, PMID
16577160
Hulse, Russell A.; Taylor, Joseph H. (1975), Dis-
covery of a pulsar in a binary system, Astrophys.
J. 195: L51L55, Bibcode:1975ApJ...195L..51H,
doi:10.1086/181708
Ibanez, L. E. (2000), The second string
(phenomenology) revolution, Class. Quant.
Grav. 17 (5): 11171128, arXiv:hep-
ph/9911499, Bibcode:2000CQGra..17.1117I,
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/5/321
Iorio, L. (2009), An Assessment of the Sys-
tematic Uncertainty in Present and Future Tests
of the Lense-Thirring Eect with Satellite Laser
Ranging, Space Sci. Rev. 148 (14): 363,
arXiv:0809.1373, Bibcode:2009SSRv..148..363I,
doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9478-1
Isham, Christopher J. (1994), Prima facie ques-
tions in quantum gravity, in Ehlers, Jrgen;
Friedrich, Helmut, Canonical Gravity: From Clas-
sical to Quantum, Springer, ISBN 3-540-58339-4
Israel, Werner (1971), Event Horizons and Grav-
itational Collapse, General Relativity and Gravi-
tation 2 (1): 5359, Bibcode:1971GReGr...2...53I,
doi:10.1007/BF02450518
148
Israel, Werner (1987), Dark stars: the evolution of
an idea, in Hawking, Stephen W.; Israel, Werner,
300 Years of Gravitation, Cambridge University
Press, pp. 199276, ISBN 0-521-37976-8
Janssen, Michel (2005), Of pots and holes:
Einsteins bumpy road to general rela-
tivity (PDF), Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 14
(S1): 5885, Bibcode:2005AnP...517S..58J,
doi:10.1002/andp.200410130
Jaranowski, Piotr; Krlak, Andrzej (2005),
Gravitational-Wave Data Analysis. Formalism
and Sample Applications: The Gaussian Case,
Living Rev. Relativity 8, doi:10.12942/lrr-2005-3,
retrieved 2007-07-30
Kahn, Bob (19962012), Gravity Probe B Website,
Stanford University, retrieved 2012-04-20
Kahn, Bob (April 14, 2007), Was Einstein right?
Scientists provide rst public peek at Gravity Probe
B results (Stanford University Press Release) (PDF),
Stanford University News Service
Kamionkowski, Marc; Kosowsky, Arthur;
Stebbins, Albert (1997), Statistics of Cosmic
Microwave Background Polarization, Phys.
Rev. D55 (12): 73687388, arXiv:astro-
ph/9611125, Bibcode:1997PhRvD..55.7368K,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.7368
Kenneck, Daniel (2005), Astronomers Test Gen-
eral Relativity: Light-bending and the Solar Red-
shift, in Renn, Jrgen, One hundred authors for
Einstein, Wiley-VCH, pp. 178181, ISBN 3-527-
40574-7
Kenneck, Daniel (2007), Not Only Because of
Theory: Dyson, Eddington and the Competing
Myths of the 1919 Eclipse Expedition, Proceed-
ings of the 7th Conference on the History of Gen-
eral Relativity, Tenerife, 2005 0709, p. 685,
arXiv:0709.0685, Bibcode:2007arXiv0709.0685K
Kenyon, I. R. (1990), General Relativity, Oxford
University Press, ISBN 0-19-851996-6
Kochanek, C.S.; Falco, E.E.; Impey, C.; Lehar,
J. (2007), CASTLES Survey Website, Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, retrieved
2007-08-21
Komar, Arthur (1959), Covariant Conserva-
tion Laws in General Relativity, Phys. Rev.
113 (3): 934936, Bibcode:1959PhRv..113..934K,
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.113.934
Kramer, Michael (2004), Karshenboim, S. G.;
Peik, E., eds., Astrophysics, Clocks and Funda-
mental Constants: Millisecond Pulsars as Tools
of Fundamental Physics, Lecture Notes in Physics
CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY
(Springer) 648: 3354, arXiv:astro-ph/0405178,
Bibcode:2004LNP...648...33K, doi:10.1007/978-
3-540-40991-5_3, ISBN 978-3-540-21967-5
Kramer, M.; Stairs, I. H.; Manchester, R. N.;
McLaughlin, M. A.; Lyne, A. G.; Ferdman, R.
D.; Burgay, M.; Lorimer, D. R.; et al. (2006),
Tests of general relativity from timing the double
pulsar, Science 314 (5796): 97102, arXiv:astro-
ph/0609417, Bibcode:2006Sci...314...97K,
doi:10.1126/science.1132305, PMID 16973838
Kraus, Ute (1998), Light Deection Near Neutron
Stars, Relativistic Astrophysics, Vieweg, pp. 6681,
ISBN 3-528-06909-0
Kucha, Karel (1973), Canonical Quantization of
Gravity, in Israel, Werner, Relativity, Astrophysics
and Cosmology, D. Reidel, pp. 237288, ISBN 90-
277-0369-8
Knzle, H. P. (1972), Galilei and Lorentz Struc-
tures on spacetime: comparison of the correspond-
ing geometry and physics, Ann. Inst. Henri
Poincar a 17: 337362
Lahav, Ofer; Suto, Yasushi (2004), Measuring
our Universe from Galaxy Redshift Surveys,
Living Rev. Relativity 7, arXiv:astro-ph/0310642,
Bibcode:2004LRR.....7....8L, doi:10.12942/lrr-
2004-8, retrieved 2007-08-19
Landgraf, M.; Hechler, M.; Kemble, S. (2005),
Mission design for LISA Pathnder, Class.
Quant. Grav. 22 (10): S487S492, arXiv:gr-
qc/0411071, Bibcode:2005CQGra..22S.487L,
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/048
Lehner, Luis (2001), Numerical Rel-
ativity: A review, Class. Quant.
Grav. 18 (17): R25R86, arXiv:gr-
qc/0106072, Bibcode:2001CQGra..18R..25L,
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/18/17/202
Lehner, Luis (2002), NUMERICAL RELA-
TIVITY: STATUS AND PROSPECTS, General
Relativity and Gravitation - Proceedings of the
16th International Conference, p. 210, arXiv:gr-
qc/0202055, Bibcode:2002grg..conf..210L,
doi:10.1142/9789812776556_0010, ISBN
9789812381712
Linde, Andrei (1990), Particle Physics and Ina-
tionary Cosmology, Harwood, p. 3203, arXiv:hep-
th/0503203, Bibcode:2005hep.th....3203L, ISBN
3-7186-0489-2
Linde, Andrei (2005), Towards ina-
tion in string theory, J. Phys. Conf.
Ser. 24: 151160, arXiv:hep-th/0503195,
Bibcode:2005JPhCS..24..151L, doi:10.1088/1742-
6596/24/1/018
12.11. REFERENCES
Loll, Renate (1998), Discrete Approaches to
Quantum Gravity in Four Dimensions, Liv-
ing Rev. Relativity 1, arXiv:gr-qc/9805049,
Bibcode:1998LRR.....1...13L, doi:10.12942/lrr-
1998-13, retrieved 2008-03-09
Lovelock, David (1972), The Four-Dimensionality
of Space and the Einstein Tensor, J. Math. Phys.
13 (6): 874876, Bibcode:1972JMP....13..874L,
doi:10.1063/1.1666069
Ludyk, Gnter (2013). Einstein in Matrix Form (1st
ed.). Berlin: Springer. ISBN 9783642357978.
MacCallum, M. (2006), Finding and using exact
solutions of the Einstein equations, in Mornas,
L.; Alonso, J. D., A Century of Relativity Physics
(ERE05, the XXVIII Spanish Relativity Meeting) 841,
American Institute of Physics, p. 129, arXiv:gr-
qc/0601102, Bibcode:2006AIPC..841..129M,
doi:10.1063/1.2218172
Maddox, John (1998), What Remains To Be Discov-
ered, Macmillan, ISBN 0-684-82292-X
Mannheim, Philip D. (2006), Alternatives to
Dark Matter and Dark Energy, Prog. Part.
Nucl. Phys. 56 (2): 340445, arXiv:astro-
ph/0505266, Bibcode:2006PrPNP..56..340M,
doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2005.08.001
Mather, J. C.; Cheng, E. S.; Cottingham, D. A.;
Eplee, R. E.; Fixsen, D. J.; Hewagama, T.; Isaac-
man, R. B.; Jensen, K. A.; et al. (1994), Mea-
surement of the cosmic microwave spectrum by
the COBE FIRAS instrument, Astrophysical Jour-
nal 420: 439444, Bibcode:1994ApJ...420..439M,
doi:10.1086/173574
Mermin, N. David (2005), Its About Time. Under-
standing Einsteins Relativity, Princeton University
Press, ISBN 0-691-12201-6
Messiah, Albert (1999), Quantum Mechanics, Dover
Publications, ISBN 0-486-40924-4
Miller, Cole (2002), Stellar Structure and Evolution
(Lecture notes for Astronomy 606), University of
Maryland, retrieved 2007-07-25
Misner, Charles W.; Thorne, Kip. S.; Wheeler, John
A. (1973), Gravitation, W. H. Freeman, ISBN 0-
7167-0344-0
Mller, Christian (1952), The Theory of Relativity
(3rd ed.), Oxford University Press
Narayan, Ramesh (2006), Black holes in astro-
physics, New Journal of Physics 7: 199, arXiv:gr-
qc/0506078, Bibcode:2005NJPh....7..199N,
doi:10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/199
149
Narayan, Ramesh; Bartelmann, Matthias (1997).
Lectures on Gravitational Lensing. arXiv:astro-
ph/9606001 [astro-ph].
Narlikar, Jayant V. (1993), Introduction to Cos-
mology, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-
41250-1
Nieto, Michael Martin (2006), The
quest to understand the Pioneer anomaly
(PDF), EurophysicsNews 37 (6): 3034,
Bibcode:2006ENews..37...30N, doi:10.1051/epn:
2006604
Nordstrm, Gunnar (1918), On the Energy of the
Gravitational Field in Einsteins Theory, Verhandl.
Koninkl. Ned. Akad. Wetenschap., 26: 12381245
Nordtvedt, Kenneth (2003). Lunar Laser
Ranginga comprehensive probe of post-
Newtonian gravity. arXiv:gr-qc/0301024 [gr-qc].
Norton, John D. (1985), What was Einsteins
principle of equivalence?" (PDF), Studies in His-
tory and Philosophy of Science 16 (3): 203246,
doi:10.1016/0039-3681(85)90002-0, retrieved
2007-06-11
Ohanian, Hans C.; Runi, Remo (1994), Gravi-
tation and Spacetime, W. W. Norton & Company,
ISBN 0-393-96501-5
Olive, K. A.; Skillman, E. A. (2004), A Re-
alistic Determination of the Error on the
Primordial Helium Abundance, Astrophys-
ical Journal 617 (1): 2949, arXiv:astro-
ph/0405588, Bibcode:2004ApJ...617...29O,
doi:10.1086/425170
O'Meara, John M.; Tytler, David; Kirkman,
David; Suzuki, Nao; Prochaska, Jason X.; Lubin,
Dan; Wolfe, Arthur M. (2001), The Deu-
terium to Hydrogen Abundance Ratio Towards
a Fourth QSO: HS0105+1619, Astrophysi-
cal Journal 552 (2): 718730, arXiv:astro-
ph/0011179, Bibcode:2001ApJ...552..718O,
doi:10.1086/320579
Oppenheimer, J. Robert; Snyder, H.
(1939), On continued gravitational con-
traction, Physical Review 56 (5): 455
459, Bibcode:1939PhRv...56..455O,
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.56.455
Overbye, Dennis (1999), Lonely Hearts of the Cos-
mos: the story of the scientic quest for the secret of
the Universe, Back Bay, ISBN 0-316-64896-5
Pais, Abraham (1982), 'Subtle is the Lord...' The Sci-
ence and life of Albert Einstein, Oxford University
Press, ISBN 0-19-853907-X
150
Peacock, John A. (1999), Cosmological Physics,
Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-41072-X
Peebles, P. J. E. (1966), Primordial Helium abun-
dance and primordial reball II, Astrophysical Jour-
nal 146: 542552, Bibcode:1966ApJ...146..542P,
doi:10.1086/148918
Peebles, P. J. E. (1993), Principles of physical cos-
mology, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-
01933-9
Peebles, P.J.E.; Schramm, D.N.; Turner, E.L.;
Kron, R.G. (1991), The case for the rela-
tivistic hot Big Bang cosmology, Nature 352
(6338): 769776, Bibcode:1991Natur.352..769P,
doi:10.1038/352769a0
Penrose, Roger (1965), Gravitational collapse
and spacetime singularities, Physical Review Let-
ters 14 (3): 5759, Bibcode:1965PhRvL..14...57P,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.57
Penrose, Roger (1969), Gravitational collapse: the
role of general relativity, Rivista del Nuovo Cimento
1: 252276, Bibcode:1969NCimR...1..252P
Penrose, Roger (2004), The Road to Reality, A. A.
Knopf, ISBN 0-679-45443-8
Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W. (1965), A
measurement of excess antenna tempera-
ture at 4080 Mc/s, Astrophysical Journal
142: 419421, Bibcode:1965ApJ...142..419P,
doi:10.1086/148307
Peskin, Michael E.; Schroeder, Daniel V. (1995),
An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Addison-
Wesley, ISBN 0-201-50397-2
Peskin, Michael E. (2007), Dark Mat-
ter and Particle Physics, Journal of the
Physical Society of Japan 76 (11): 111017,
arXiv:0707.1536, Bibcode:2007JPSJ...76k1017P,
doi:10.1143/JPSJ.76.111017
Poisson, Eric (2004), The Motion of Point Parti-
cles in Curved Spacetime, Living Rev. Relativity 7,
doi:10.12942/lrr-2004-6, retrieved 2007-06-13
Poisson, Eric (2004), A Relativists Toolkit. The
Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics, Cambridge
University Press, ISBN 0-521-83091-5
Polchinski, Joseph (1998a), String Theory Vol. I: An
Introduction to the Bosonic String, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, ISBN 0-521-63303-6
Polchinski, Joseph (1998b), String Theory Vol. II:
Superstring Theory and Beyond, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, ISBN 0-521-63304-4
CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY
Pound, R. V.; Rebka, G. A. (1959),
Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Res-
onance, Physical Review Letters 3 (9):
439441, Bibcode:1959PhRvL...3..439P,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439
Pound, R. V.; Rebka, G. A. (1960), Appar-
ent weight of photons, Phys. Rev. Lett.
4 (7): 337341, Bibcode:1960PhRvL...4..337P,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.337
Pound, R. V.; Snider, J. L. (1964), Eect of
Gravity on Nuclear Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett.
13 (18): 539540, Bibcode:1964PhRvL..13..539P,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.539
Ramond, Pierre (1990), Field Theory: A Modern
Primer, Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-54611-6
Rees, Martin (1966), Appearance of Relativis-
tically Expanding Radio Sources, Nature 211
(5048): 468470, Bibcode:1966Natur.211..468R,
doi:10.1038/211468a0
Reissner, H. (1916), "ber die Eigengravi-
tation des elektrischen Feldes nach der Ein-
steinschen Theorie, Annalen der Physik 355
(9): 106120, Bibcode:1916AnP...355..106R,
doi:10.1002/andp.19163550905
Remillard, Ronald A.; Lin, Dacheng; Cooper,
Randall L.; Narayan, Ramesh (2006), The
Rates of Type I X-Ray Bursts from Tran-
sients Observed with RXTE: Evidence for
Black Hole Event Horizons, Astrophysi-
cal Journal 646 (1): 407419, arXiv:astro-
ph/0509758, Bibcode:2006ApJ...646..407R,
doi:10.1086/504862
Renn, Jrgen, ed. (2007), The Genesis of General
Relativity (4 Volumes), Dordrecht: Springer, ISBN
1-4020-3999-9
Renn, Jrgen, ed. (2005), Albert EinsteinChief
Engineer of the Universe: Einsteins Life and Work in
Context, Berlin: Wiley-VCH, ISBN 3-527-40571-2
Reula, Oscar A. (1998), Hyperbolic Methods
for Einsteins Equations, Living Rev. Relativity
1, Bibcode:1998LRR.....1....3R, doi:10.12942/lrr-
1998-3, retrieved 2007-08-29
Rindler, Wolfgang (2001), Relativity. Special, Gen-
eral and Cosmological, Oxford University Press,
ISBN 0-19-850836-0
Rindler, Wolfgang (1991), Introduction to Special
Relativity, Clarendon Press, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-
853952-5
Robson, Ian (1996), Active galactic nuclei, John Wi-
ley, ISBN 0-471-95853-0
12.11. REFERENCES
Roulet, E.; Mollerach, S. (1997), Microlensing,
Physics Reports 279 (2): 67118, arXiv:astro-
ph/9603119, Bibcode:1997PhR...279...67R,
doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(96)00020-8
Rovelli, Carlo (2000). Notes for a brief history of
quantum gravity. arXiv:gr-qc/0006061 [gr-qc].
Rovelli, Carlo (1998), Loop Quantum Gravity,
Living Rev. Relativity 1, doi:10.12942/lrr-1998-1,
retrieved 2008-03-13
Schfer, Gerhard (2004), Gravitomag-
netic Eects, General Relativity and Grav-
itation 36 (10): 22232235, arXiv:gr-
qc/0407116, Bibcode:2004GReGr..36.2223S,
doi:10.1023/B:GERG.0000046180.97877.32
Schdel, R.; Ott, T.; Genzel, R.; Eckart,
A.; Mouawad, N.; Alexander, T. (2003),
Stellar Dynamics in the Central Arcsec-
ond of Our Galaxy, Astrophysical Jour-
nal 596 (2): 10151034, arXiv:astro-
ph/0306214, Bibcode:2003ApJ...596.1015S,
doi:10.1086/378122
Schutz, Bernard F. (1985), A rst course in general
relativity, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-
27703-5
Schutz, Bernard F. (2001), Gravitational radia-
tion, in Murdin, Paul, Encyclopedia of Astronomy
and Astrophysics, Groves Dictionaries, ISBN 1-
56159-268-4
Schutz, Bernard F. (2003), Gravity from the ground
up, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-
45506-5
Schwarz, John H. (2007), String Theory:
Progress and Problems, Progress of Theoret-
ical Physics Supplement 170: 214, arXiv:hep-
th/0702219, Bibcode:2007PThPS.170..214S,
doi:10.1143/PTPS.170.214
Schwarzschild, Karl (1916a), "ber das Gravita-
tionsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Einstein-
schen Theorie, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. D.
Wiss.: 189196
Schwarzschild, Karl (1916b), "ber das Gravi-
tationsfeld eines Kugel aus inkompressibler Fls-
sigkeit nach der Einsteinschen Theorie, Sitzungsber.
Preuss. Akad. D. Wiss.: 424434
Seidel, Edward (1998), Numerical Relativity: To-
wards Simulations of 3D Black Hole Coales-
cence, in Narlikar, J. V.; Dadhich, N., Grav-
itation and Relativity: At the turn of the mil-
lennium (Proceedings of the GR-15 Conference,
held at IUCAA, Pune, India, December 1621,
1997), IUCAA, p. 6088, arXiv:gr-qc/9806088,
Bibcode:1998gr.qc.....6088S, ISBN 81-900378-3-8
151
Seljak, Uros; Zaldarriaga, Matias (1997),
Signature of Gravity Waves in the Polariza-
tion of the Microwave Background, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 78 (11): 20542057, arXiv:astro-
ph/9609169, Bibcode:1997PhRvL..78.2054S,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2054
Shapiro, S. S.; Davis, J. L.; Lebach, D. E.;
Gregory, J. S. (2004), Measurement of the
solar gravitational deection of radio waves
using geodetic very-long-baseline interferom-
etry data, 19791999, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92
(12): 121101, Bibcode:2004PhRvL..92l1101S,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.121101, PMID
15089661
Shapiro, Irwin I. (1964), Fourth test of gen-
eral relativity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (26):
789791, Bibcode:1964PhRvL..13..789S,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.789
Shapiro, I. I.; Pettengill, Gordon; Ash,
Michael; Stone, Melvin; Smith, William; In-
galls, Richard; Brockelman, Richard (1968),
Fourth test of general relativity: prelim-
inary results, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20 (22):
12651269, Bibcode:1968PhRvL..20.1265S,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.20.1265
Singh, Simon (2004), Big Bang: The Origin of the
Universe, Fourth Estate, ISBN 0-00-715251-5
Sorkin, Rafael D. (2005), Causal Sets:
Discrete Gravity, in Gombero, Andres;
Marolf, Donald, Lectures on Quantum Grav-
ity, Springer, p. 9009, arXiv:gr-qc/0309009,
Bibcode:2003gr.qc.....9009S, ISBN 0-387-23995-2
Sorkin, Rafael D. (1997), Forks in the Road,
on the Way to Quantum Gravity, Int. J.
Theor. Phys. 36 (12): 27592781, arXiv:gr-
qc/9706002, Bibcode:1997IJTP...36.2759S,
doi:10.1007/BF02435709
Spergel, D. N.; Verde, L.; Peiris, H. V.; Komatsu,
E.; Nolta, M. R.; Bennett, C. L.; Halpern, M.;
Hinshaw, G.; et al. (2003), First Year Wilkinson
Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observa-
tions: Determination of Cosmological Parameters,
Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 (1): 175194, arXiv:astro-
ph/0302209, Bibcode:2003ApJS..148..175S,
doi:10.1086/377226
Spergel, D. N.; Bean, R.; Dor, O.; Nolta, M.
R.; Bennett, C. L.; Dunkley, J.; Hinshaw, G.;
Jarosik, N.; et al. (2007), Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Re-
sults: Implications for Cosmology, Astrophysical
Journal Supplement 170 (2): 377408, arXiv:astro-
ph/0603449, Bibcode:2007ApJS..170..377S,
doi:10.1086/513700
152
Springel, Volker; White, Simon D. M.; Jenk-
ins, Adrian; Frenk, Carlos S.; Yoshida, Naoki;
Gao, Liang; Navarro, Julio; Thacker, Robert;
et al. (2005), Simulations of the formation,
evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars,
Nature 435 (7042): 629636, arXiv:astro-
ph/0504097, Bibcode:2005Natur.435..629S,
doi:10.1038/nature03597, PMID 15931216
Stairs, Ingrid H. (2003), Testing Gen-
eral Relativity with Pulsar Timing, Living
Rev. Relativity 6, arXiv:astro-ph/0307536,
Bibcode:2003LRR.....6....5S, doi:10.12942/lrr-
2003-5, retrieved 2007-07-21
Stephani, H.; Kramer, D.; MacCallum, M.; Hoense-
laers, C.; Herlt, E. (2003), Exact Solutions of Ein-
steins Field Equations (2 ed.), Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, ISBN 0-521-46136-7
Synge, J. L. (1972), Relativity: The Special Theory,
North-Holland Publishing Company, ISBN 0-7204-
0064-3
Szabados, Lszl B. (2004), Quasi-Local Energy-
Momentum and Angular Momentum in GR, Liv-
ing Rev. Relativity 7, doi:10.12942/lrr-2004-4, re-
trieved 2007-08-23
Taylor, Joseph H. (1994), Binary pulsars and
relativistic gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 66
(3): 711719, Bibcode:1994RvMP...66..711T,
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.66.711
Thiemann, Thomas (2006), Approaches
to Fundamental Physics: Loop Quantum
Gravity: An Inside View, Lecture Notes in
Physics 721: 185263, arXiv:hep-th/0608210,
Bibcode:2007LNP...721..185T, doi:10.1007/978-
3-540-71117-9_10, ISBN 978-3-540-71115-5
Thiemann, Thomas (2003), Lectures on Loop
Quantum Gravity, Lecture Notes in Physics 631:
41135, arXiv:gr-qc/0210094, doi:10.1007/978-3-
540-45230-0_3, ISBN 978-3-540-40810-9
Thorne, Kip S. (1972), Nonspherical Gravitational
CollapseA Short Review, in Klauder, J., Magic
without Magic, W. H. Freeman, pp. 231258
Thorne, Kip S. (1994), Black Holes and Time
Warps: Einsteins Outrageous Legacy, W W Norton
& Company, ISBN 0-393-31276-3
Thorne, Kip S. (1995), Gravitational radia-
tion, Particle and Nuclear Astrophysics and Cos-
mology in the Next Millenium: 160, arXiv:gr-
qc/9506086, Bibcode:1995pnac.conf..160T, ISBN
0-521-36853-7
Townsend, Paul K. (1997). Black Holes (Lecture
notes)". arXiv:gr-qc/9707012 [gr-qc].
CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY
Townsend, Paul K. (1996). Four Lectures on M-
Theory. arXiv:hep-th/9612121 [hep-th].
Traschen, Jenny (2000), Bytsenko, A.; Williams,
F., eds., An Introduction to Black Hole Evap-
oration, Mathematical Methods of Physics (Pro-
ceedings of the 1999 Londrina Winter School)
(World Scientic): 180, arXiv:gr-qc/0010055,
Bibcode:2000mmp..conf..180T
Trautman, Andrzej (2006), EinsteinCartan the-
ory, in Franoise, J.-P.; Naber, G. L.; Tsou,
S. T., Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, Vol.
2, Elsevier, pp. 189195, arXiv:gr-qc/0606062,
Bibcode:2006gr.qc.....6062T
Unruh, W. G. (1976), Notes on Black
Hole Evaporation, Phys. Rev. D 14 (4):
870892, Bibcode:1976PhRvD..14..870U,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.870
Valtonen, M. J.; Lehto, H. J.; Nilsson, K.; Heidt,
J.; Takalo, L. O.; Sillanp, A.; Villforth, C.;
Kidger, M.; et al. (2008), A massive binary
black-hole system in OJ 287 and a test of gen-
eral relativity, Nature 452 (7189): 851853,
arXiv:0809.1280, Bibcode:2008Natur.452..851V,
doi:10.1038/nature06896, PMID 18421348
Wald, Robert M. (1975), On Particle Cre-
ation by Black Holes, Commun. Math. Phys.
45 (3): 934, Bibcode:1975CMaPh..45....9W,
doi:10.1007/BF01609863
Wald, Robert M. (1984), General Relativity, Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-87033-2
Wald, Robert M. (1994), Quantum eld theory in
curved spacetime and black hole thermodynamics,
University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-87027-8
Wald, Robert M. (2001), The Thermodynam-
ics of Black Holes, Living Rev. Relativity
4, Bibcode:2001LRR.....4....6W, doi:10.12942/lrr-
2001-6, retrieved 2007-08-08
Walsh, D.; Carswell, R. F.; Weymann, R.
J. (1979), 0957 + 561 A, B: twin quasistel-
lar objects or gravitational lens?", Nature 279
(5712): 3814, Bibcode:1979Natur.279..381W,
doi:10.1038/279381a0, PMID 16068158
Wambsganss, Joachim (1998), Gravitational
Lensing in Astronomy, Living Rev.
Relativity 1, arXiv:astro-ph/9812021,
Bibcode:1998LRR.....1...12W, doi:10.12942/lrr-
1998-12, retrieved 2007-07-20
Weinberg, Steven (1972), Gravitation and Cosmol-
ogy, John Wiley, ISBN 0-471-92567-5
12.12. FURTHER READING
Weinberg, Steven (1995), The Quantum Theory of Beginning undergraduate textbooks
Fields I: Foundations, Cambridge University Press,
ISBN 0-521-55001-7
Weinberg, Steven (1996), The Quantum Theory of
Fields II: Modern Applications, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, ISBN 0-521-55002-5
Weinberg, Steven (2000), The Quantum Theory of
Fields III: Supersymmetry, Cambridge University
Press, ISBN 0-521-66000-9 Advanced undergraduate textbooks
Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), The
Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes,
M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of Ra-
dio Pulsars, Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Con-
ference Series
Weiss, Achim (2006), Elements of the past: Big
Bang Nucleosynthesis and observation, Einstein
Online (Max Planck Institute for Gravitational
Physics), retrieved 2007-02-24
Wheeler, John A. (1990), A Journey Into Gravity
and Spacetime, Scientic American Library, San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman, ISBN 0-7167-6034-7
Will, Cliord M. (1993), Theory and experiment in
gravitational physics, Cambridge University Press,
ISBN 0-521-43973-6
Will, Cliord M. (2006), The Confrontation
between General Relativity and Experiment,
Living Rev. Relativity 9, arXiv:gr-qc/0510072,
Bibcode:2006LRR.....9....3W, doi:10.12942/lrr-
2006-3, retrieved 2007-06-12
Zwiebach, Barton (2004), A First Course in String
Theory, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-
83143-1 Graduate-level textbooks
12.12 Further reading
Popular books
Geroch, R (1981), General Relativity from A to B,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-
28864-1
Lieber, Lillian (2008), The Einstein Theory of Rela-
tivity: A Trip to the Fourth Dimension, Philadelphia:
Paul Dry Books, Inc., ISBN 978-1-58988-044-3
Wald, Robert M. (1992), Space, Time, and Grav-
ity: the Theory of the Big Bang and Black Holes,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-
87029-4
Wheeler, John; Ford, Kenneth (1998), Geons, Black
Holes, & Quantum Foam: a life in physics, New
York: W. W. Norton, ISBN 0-393- 31991-1
153
Callahan, James J. (2000), The Geometry of Space-
time: an Introduction to Special and General Relativ-
ity, New York: Springer, ISBN 0-387-98641-3
Taylor, Edwin F.; Wheeler, John Archibald (2000),
Exploring Black Holes: Introduction to General Rel-
ativity, Addison Wesley, ISBN 0-201-38423-X
B. F. Schutz (2009), A First Course in General Rela-
tivity (Second Edition), Cambridge University Press,
ISBN 978-0-521-88705-2
Cheng, Ta-Pei (2005), Relativity, Gravitation and
Cosmology: a Basic Introduction, Oxford and New
York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-852957-
0
Gron, O.; Hervik, S. (2007), Einsteins General the-
ory of Relativity, Springer, ISBN 978-0-387-69199-
2
Hartle, James B. (2003), Gravity: an Introduc-
tion to Einsteins General Relativity, San Francisco:
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-8053-8662-9
Hughston, L. P. & Tod, K. P. (1991), Introduction
to General Relativity, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, ISBN 0-521-33943-X
d'Inverno, Ray (1992), Introducing Einsteins Rela-
tivity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-
859686-3
Ludyk, Gnter (2013). Einstein in Matrix Form (1st
ed.). Berlin: Springer. ISBN 9783642357978.
Carroll, Sean M. (2004), Spacetime and Geometry:
An Introduction to General Relativity, San Francisco:
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-8053-8732-3
Grn, yvind; Hervik, Sigbjrn (2007), Einsteins
General Theory of Relativity, New York: Springer,
ISBN 978-0-387-69199-2
Landau, Lev D.; Lifshitz, Evgeny F. (1980),
The Classical Theory of Fields (4th ed.), London:
Butterworth-Heinemann, ISBN 0-7506-2768-9
Misner, Charles W.; Thorne, Kip. S.; Wheeler, John
A. (1973), Gravitation, W. H. Freeman, ISBN 0-
7167-0344-0
Stephani, Hans (1990), General Relativity: An In-
troduction to the Theory of the Gravitational Field,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-
521-37941-5
Wald, Robert M. (1984), General Relativity, Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-87033-2
154 CHAPTER 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY

12.13 External links

Einstein Online Articles on a variety of aspects of
relativistic physics for a general audience; hosted by
the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics

NCSA Spacetime Wrinkles produced by the

numerical relativity group at the NCSA, with an el-
ementary introduction to general relativity

Courses

Lectures
Tutorials

Einsteins General Theory of Relativity on YouTube

(lecture by Leonard Susskind recorded September
22, 2008 at Stanford University).
Series of lectures on General Relativity given in
2006 at the Institut Henri Poincar (introduc-
tory/advanced).

General Relativity Tutorials by John Baez.

Brown, Kevin. Reections on relativity. Math-
pages.com. Retrieved May 29, 2005.

Carroll, Sean M. Lecture Notes on General Rela-

tivity. Retrieved January 5, 2014.

Moor, Ra. Understanding General Relativity.

Retrieved July 11, 2006.

Waner, Stefan. Introduction to Dierential Ge-

ometry and General Relativity (PDF). Retrieved
2015-04-05.
Chapter 13

Cosmological constant

Since the 1990s, several developments in observational

cosmology, especially the discovery of the accelerating
universe from distant supernovae in 1998 (in addition to
independent evidence from the cosmic microwave back-
ground and large galaxy redshift surveys), have shown
that around 70% of the massenergy density of the uni-
verse can be attributed to dark energy. While dark energy
is poorly understood at a fundamental level, the main re-
quired properties of dark energy are that it functions as
a type of anti-gravity, it dilutes much more slowly than
matter as the universe expands, and it clusters much more
weakly than matter, or perhaps not at all. The cosmolog-
ical constant is the simplest possible form of dark energy
since it is constant in both space and time, and this leads
to the current standard model of cosmology known as the
Lambda-CDM model, which provides a good t to many
cosmological observations as of 2014.

13.1 Equation
The cosmological constant appears in Einsteins eld
equation in the form of

Estimated ratios of dark matter and dark energy (which may be 1 8G

R R g + g = 4 T ,
the cosmological constant) in the universe. According to current 2 c
theories of physics, dark energy now dominates as the largest
where R and g describe the structure of spacetime, T per-
source of energy of the universe, in contrast to earlier epochs
tains to matter and energy aecting that structure, and G
when it was insignicant.
and c are conversion factors that arise from using tradi-
tional units of measurement. When is zero, this reduces
In cosmology, the cosmological constant (usually de- to the original eld equation of general relativity. When
noted by the Greek capital letter lambda: ) is the value T is zero, the eld equation describes empty space (the
of the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was vacuum).
originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917[1] as an The cosmological constant has the same eect as an in-
addition to his theory of general relativity to hold back trinsic energy density of the vacuum, (and an asso-
gravity and achieve a static universe, which was the ac- ciated pressure). In this context, it is commonly moved
cepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept onto the right-hand side of the equation, and dened with
after Hubble's 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside a proportionality factor of 8: = 8 , where unit
the Local Group (the group that contains the Milky Way conventions of general relativity are used (otherwise fac-
Galaxy) are moving away from each other, implying an tors of G and c would also appear, i.e. = 8 (G/c2 )
overall expanding universe. From 1929 until the early = , where is Einsteins constant). It is common to
1990s, most cosmology researchers assumed the cosmo- quote values of energy density directly, though still using
logical constant to be zero. the name cosmological constant, with convention 8 G

155
156
= 1. (In fact, the true dimension of is a length2 and
it has the value of ~1 1052 m2 or in reduced Planck
units : ~3 10122 , calculated with the best present (2015)
values of = 0.6911 0.0062 and H = 67.74 0.46 tion of the cosmological red shiftas the biggest blun-
km/s / Mpc = 2.195 0.015 1018 s1 ).
A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cos-
mological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice
versa. If the energy density is positive, the associated neg-
ative pressure will drive an accelerated expansion of the
universe, as observed. (See dark energy and cosmic in-
ation for details.)
13.1.1 (Omega Lambda)
Instead of the cosmological constant itself, cosmologists
often refer to the ratio between the energy density due to
the cosmological constant and the critical density of the
universe, the tipping point for a sucient density to stop
the universe from expanding forever. This ratio is usually
denoted , and is estimated to be 0.6911 0.0062, ac-
cording to the recent Planck results released in 2015.[2]
In a at universe is the fraction of the energy of the
universe due to the cosmological constant, i.e., what we
would intuitively call the fraction of the universe that is
made up of dark energy. Note that this value changes
over time: the critical density changes with cosmological
time, but the energy density due to the cosmological con-
stant remains unchanged throughout the history of the
universe: the amount of dark energy increases as the uni-
verse grows, while the amount of matter does not.
13.1.2 Equation of state
Another ratio that is used by scientists is the equation of
state, usually denoted w, which is the ratio of pressure that
dark energy puts on the universe to the energy per unit
volume.[3] This ratio is w = 1 for a true cosmological
constant, and is generally dierent for alternative time-
varying forms of vacuum energy such as quintessence.
13.2 History
Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in
his eld equations for general relativity because he was
dissatised that otherwise his equations did not allow,
apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a
universe that was initially at dynamic equilibrium to con-
tract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the
cosmological constant.[4] However, soon after Einstein
developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hub-
ble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding;
this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the
original general relativity equations that had been found
by the mathematician Friedmann, working on the Ein-
stein equations of general relativity. Einstein later reput-
CHAPTER 13. COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT
edly referred to his failure to accept the validation of his
equationswhen they had predicted the expansion of the
universe in theory, before it was demonstrated in observa-
der of his life.[5][6]
In fact, adding the cosmological constant to Einsteins
equations does not lead to a static universe at equilibrium
because the equilibrium is unstable: if the universe ex-
pands slightly, then the expansion releases vacuum en-
ergy, which causes yet more expansion. Likewise, a
universe that contracts slightly will continue contracting.
[7]:59
However, the cosmological constant remained a subject
of theoretical and empirical interest. Empirically, the on-
slaught of cosmological data in the past decades strongly
suggests that our universe has a positive cosmological
constant.[4] The explanation of this small but positive
value is an outstanding theoretical challenge (see the sec-
tion below).
Finally, it should be noted that some early generalizations
of Einsteins gravitational theory, known as classical uni-
ed eld theories, either introduced a cosmological con-
stant on theoretical grounds or found that it arose nat-
urally from the mathematics. For example, Sir Arthur
Stanley Eddington claimed that the cosmological con-
stant version of the vacuum eld equation expressed
the "epistemological" property that the universe is self-
gauging", and Erwin Schrdinger's pure-ane theory us-
ing a simple variational principle produced the eld equa-
tion with a cosmological term.
13.3 Positive value
Observations announced in 1998 of distanceredshift re-
lation for Type Ia supernovae[8][9] indicated that the ex-
pansion of the universe is accelerating. When combined
with measurements of the cosmic microwave background
radiation these implied a value of 0.7 ,[10] a re-
sult which has been supported and rened by more re-
cent measurements. There are other possible causes of
an accelerating universe, such as quintessence, but the
cosmological constant is in most respects the simplest
solution. Thus, the current standard model of cosmol-
ogy, the Lambda-CDM model, includes the cosmolog-
ical constant, which is measured to be on the order of
1052 m2 , in metric units. Multiplied by other con-
stants that appear in the equations, it is often expressed
as 1052 m2 , 1035 s2 , 1047 GeV4 , 1029 g/cm3 .[11] In
terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless
value, the cosmological constant, , is on the order of
10122 .[12]
As was only recently seen, by works of 't Hooft,
Susskind[13] and others, a positive cosmological constant
has surprising consequences, such as a nite maximum
entropy of the observable universe (see the holographic
13.5. SEE ALSO 157

principle). This argument depends on a lack of a variation of the dis-

tribution (spatial or otherwise) in the vacuum energy den-
sity, as would be expected if dark energy were the cosmo-
13.4 Predictions logical constant. There is no evidence that the vacuum en-
ergy does vary, but it may be the case if, for example, the
vacuum energy is (even in part) the potential of a scalar
13.4.1 Quantum eld theory eld such as the residual inaton (also see quintessence).
Another theoretical approach that deals with the issue is
See also: Vacuum catastrophe
that of multiverse theories, which predict a large num-
ber of parallel universes with dierent laws of physics
A major outstanding problem is that most quantum eld and/or values of fundamental constants. Again, the an-
theories predict a huge value for the quantum vacuum. thropic principle states that we can only live in one of the
A common assumption is that the quantum vacuum is universes that is compatible with some form of intelli-
equivalent to the cosmological constant. Although no the- gent life. Critics claim that these theories, when used as
ory exists that supports this assumption, arguments can be an explanation for ne-tuning, commit the inverse gam-
made in its favor.[14] blers fallacy.
Such arguments are usually based on dimensional analy- In 1995, Weinbergs argument was rened by Alexander
sis and eective eld theory. If the universe is described Vilenkin to predict a value for the cosmological constant
by an eective local quantum eld theory down to the that was only ten times the matter density,[19] i.e. about
Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological con- three times the current value since determined.
stant of the order of Mpl4 . As noted above, the measured
cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of
10120 . This discrepancy has been called the worst the- 13.4.3 Cyclic model
oretical prediction in the history of physics!".[15]
Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological More recent work has suggested the problem may be in-
constant that is exactly zero, which further complicates direct evidence of a cyclic universe possibly as allowed
things. This is the cosmological constant problem, the by string theory. With every cycle of the universe (Big
worst problem of ne-tuning in physics: there is no Bang then eventually a Big Crunch) taking about a trillion
known natural way to derive the tiny cosmological con- (1012 ) years, the amount of matter and radiation in the
stant used in cosmology from particle physics. universe is reset, but the cosmological constant is not.
Instead, the cosmological constant gradually diminishes
over many cycles to the small value observed today.[20]
13.4.2 Anthropic principle Critics respond that, as the authors acknowledge in their
paper, the model entails ... the same degree of tuning
One possible explanation for the small but non-zero value required in any cosmological model.[21]
was noted by Steven Weinberg in 1987 following the
anthropic principle.[16] Weinberg explains that if the vac-
uum energy took dierent values in dierent domains of 13.5 See also
the universe, then observers would necessarily measure
values similar to that which is observed: the formation
of life-supporting structures would be suppressed in do- Higgs mechanism
mains where the vacuum energy is much larger. Specif-
ically, if the vacuum energy is negative and its absolute Lambdavacuum solution
value is substantially larger than it appears to be in the
Naturalness (physics)
observed universe (say, a factor of 10 larger), holding all
other variables (e.g. matter density) constant, that would Quantum electrodynamics
mean that the universe is closed; furthermore, its lifetime
would be shorter than the age of our universe, possibly too de Sitter relativity
short for intelligent life to form. On the other hand, a uni-
verse with a large positive cosmological constant would Unruh eect
expand too fast, preventing galaxy formation. According
to Weinberg, domains where the vacuum energy is com-
patible with life would be comparatively rare. Using this
argument, Weinberg predicted that the cosmological con- 13.6 Further reading
stant would have a value of less than a hundred times the
currently accepted value.[17] In 1992, Weinberg rened Michael, E., University of Colorado, Department of
this prediction of the cosmological constant to 5 to 10 Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, "The Cosmo-
times the matter density.[18] logical Constant"
158
Ferguson, Kitty (1991). Stephen Hawking: Quest
For A Theory of Everything, Franklin Watts. ISBN
0-553-29895-X.
John D. Barrow and John K. Webb (June 2005).
Inconstant Constants. Scientic American.
Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model[22] (2014)
13.7 References
[1] Einstein, A (1917). Kosmologische Betrachtungen
zur allgemeinen Relativitaetstheorie. Sitzungsberichte
der Kniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
Berlin. part 1: 142152. line feed character in |journal=
at position 52 (help)
[2] Collaboration, Planck, PAR Ade, N Aghanim, C
Armitage-Caplan, M Arnaud, et al., Planck 2015 re-
sults. XIII. Cosmological parameters. arXiv preprint
1502.1589v2 , 6 Feb 2015.
[3] Hogan, Jenny (2007). Welcome to the
Dark Side. Nature 448 (7151): 240245.
Bibcode:2007Natur.448..240H. doi:10.1038/448240a.
PMID 17637630.
[4] Urry, Meg (2008). The Mysteries of Dark Energy. Yale
Science. Yale University.
[5] Gamov, George (1970). My World Line. Viking Press. p.
44. ISBN 978-0670503766
[6] Rosen, Rebecca J. Einstein Likely Never Said One of His
Most Oft-Quoted Phrases. The Atlantic. The Atlantic
Media Company. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
[7] Barbara Sue Ryden (2003). Introduction to cosmology.
Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0-8053-8912-8.
[8] Riess, A.; et al. (September 1998). Observational
Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Uni-
verse and a Cosmological Constant. The Astronomical
Journal 116 (3): 10091038. arXiv:astro-ph/9805201.
Bibcode:1998AJ....116.1009R. doi:10.1086/300499.
[9] Perlmutter, S.; et al. (June 1999). Measurements
of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Super-
novae. The Astrophysical Journal 517 (2): 565586.
arXiv:astro-ph/9812133. Bibcode:1999ApJ...517..565P.
doi:10.1086/307221.
[10] See e.g. Baker, Joanne C.; et al. (1999). De-
tection of cosmic microwave background structure in
a second eld with the Cosmic Anisotropy Tele-
scope. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So-
ciety 308 (4): 11731178. arXiv:astro-ph/9904415.
Bibcode:1999MNRAS.308.1173B. doi:10.1046/j.1365-
8711.1999.02829.x.
[11] Tegmark, Max; et al. (2004). Cosmological
parameters from SDSS and WMAP. Physical
Review D 69 (103501): 103501. arXiv:astro-
ph/0310723. Bibcode:2004PhRvD..69j3501T.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.103501.
CHAPTER 13. COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT
[12] John D. Barrow The Value of the Cosmological Constant
[13] Lisa Dyson, Matthew Kleban, Leonard Susskind:
Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant
[14] Rugh, S; Zinkernagel, H. (2001). The Quantum Vacuum
and the Cosmological Constant Problem. Studies in His-
tory and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33 (4): 663705.
doi:10.1016/S1355-2198(02)00033-3.
[15] MP Hobson, GP Efstathiou & AN Lasenby (2006).
General Relativity: An introduction for physicists
(Reprinted with corrections 2007 ed.). Cambridge
University Press. p. 187. ISBN 978-0-521-82951-9.
[16] Weinberg, S (1987). Anthropic Bound on the Cos-
mological Constant. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59
(22): 26072610. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..59.2607W.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2607. PMID 10035596.
[17] Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for
Other Universes, ISBN 978-0-8090-9523-0, pp. 1389
[18] Weinberg, Steven (1993). Dreams of a Final Theory: the
search for the fundamental laws of nature. Vintage Press.
p. 182. ISBN 0-09-922391-0.
[19] Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for
Other universes, ISBN 978-0-8090-9523-0, p. 146, which
references Vilenkin' Predictions from quantum cosmology,
Physical Review Letters, vol 74, p. 846 (1995)
[20] 'Cyclic universe' can explain cosmological constant, New-
ScientistSpace, 4 May 2006
[21] Steinhardt, P. J.; Turok, N. (2002-04-25). A Cyclic
Model of the Universe. Science 296 (5572): 14361439.
arXiv:hep-th/0111030v2. Bibcode:2002Sci...296.1436S.
doi:10.1126/science.1070462. PMID 11976408. Re-
trieved 2012-04-29.
[22] Austin Joyce, Bhuvnesh Jain, Justin Khoury, Mark Trod-
den (2014). Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model.
Arxiv.
13.8 External links
Cosmological constant (astronomy) at Encyclopdia
Britannica
Carroll, Sean M., The Cosmological Constant
(short), The Cosmological Constant(extended).
'Cyclic universe' can explain cosmological constant.
News story: More evidence for dark energy being
the cosmological constant
Cosmological constant article from Scholarpedia
Copeland, Ed; Merrield, Mike. " Cosmologi-
cal Constant. Sixty Symbols. Brady Haran for the
University of Nottingham.
Chapter 14

Shape of the universe

Edge of the Universe redirects here. For the Bee Gees comoving coordinates) of the 4-dimensional space-time
song, see Edge of the Universe (song). of the universe. The model most theorists currently use
is the so-called FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker
(FLRW) model. Arguments have been put forward that
The shape of the universe is the local and global ge-
ometry of the Universe, in terms of both curvature and the observational data best t with the conclusion that the
shape of the global universe is innite and at,[6] but the
topology (though, strictly speaking, the concept goes be-
yond both). The shape of the universe is related to general data are also consistent with other possible shapes, such
as the so-called Poincar dodecahedral space[7][8] and the
relativity which describes how spacetime is curved and
bent by mass and energy. Picard horn.[9]

There is a distinction between the observable universe

and the global universe. The observable universe con-
sists of the part of the universe that can, in principle, be
14.1 Shape of Observable Universe
observed due to the nite speed of light and the age of
the universe. The observable universe is understood as a Main article: Observable Universe
sphere around the Earth extending 93 billion light years See also: Distance measures (cosmology)
(8.8 *1026 meters) and would be similar at any observ- As stated in the introduction, there are two aspects to
ing point (assuming the universe is indeed isotropic , as
it appears to be from our vantage point).
According to the book Our Mathematical Universe, the
shape of the global universe can be explained with three
categories:[1]

1. Finite or innite
2. Flat (no curvature), open (negative curvature) or
closed (positive curvature)
3. Connectivity, how the universe is put together, i.e.,
simply connected space or multiply connected.

There are certain logical connections among these prop-

erties. For example, a universe with positive curvature is
necessarily nite.[2] Although it is usually assumed in the
literature that a at or negatively curved universe is in-
nite, this need not be the case if the topology is not the
trivial one.[2] Slices through the Sloan Digital Sky Survey 3-dimensional map of
The exact shape is still a matter of debate in physical the distribution of galaxies with the Earth at the center, an exam-
cosmology, but experimental data from various, indepen- ple of an experimental attempt to catalog the observable universe.
dent sources (WMAP, BOOMERanG and Planck for ex-
ample) conrm that the observable universe is at with consider:
only a 0.4% margin of error.[3][4][5] Theorists have been
trying to construct a formal mathematical model of the 1. its local geometry, which predominantly concerns
shape of the universe. In formal terms, this is a 3- the curvature of the universe, particularly the
manifold model corresponding to the spatial section (in observable universe, and

159
160 CHAPTER 14. SHAPE OF THE UNIVERSE

2. its global geometry, which concerns the topology of
the universe as a whole.
14.2 Curvature of Universe
The curvature of space is a mathematical description of
whether or not the Pythagorean theorem is valid for spa-
tial coordinates. There are three possible curvatures the
universe can have.

The observable universe can be thought of as a sphere 1. Flat (A drawn triangles angles add up to 180)
that extends outwards from any observation point for 93
billion light years, going farther back in time and more 2. Positively curved (A drawn triangles angles add up
redshifted the more distant away one looks. Ideally, one to more than 180)
can continue to look back all the way to the Big Bang,
however, in practice the farthest away one can look is 3. Negatively curved (A drawn triangles angles add up
the cosmic microwave background (CMB) as anything to less than 180)
past that was opaque. Experimental investigations show
that the observable universe is very close to isotropic and An example of a at curvature would be any Euclidean
homogeneous. geometry, e.g., a triangle drawn on a at piece of paper.
If the observable universe encompasses the entire uni- Curved geometries are in the domain of Non-Euclidean
verse, we may be able to determine the global structure geometry. An example of a positively curved surface
of the entire universe by observation. However, if the ob- would be drawing on the surface of a sphere. Drawing
servable universe is smaller than the entire universe, our a triangle on the equator to a pole gives each angle 90,
observations will be limited to only a part of the whole, giving a total of 270 for a triangle. An example of a
and we may not be able to determine its global geometry negative curved surface would be drawing a triangle on a
through measurement. From experiments, it is possible saddle or mountain pass, the curving away as the triangle
to construct dierent mathematical models of the global moves away from the center gives a smaller angle, and the
geometry of the entire universe all of which are consistent sum of the angles would add up to less than 180.
with current observational data and so it is currently un-
known whether the observable universe is identical to the
global universe or it is instead many orders of magnitude
smaller than it. The universe may be small in some di-
mensions and not in others (analogous to the way a cuboid
is longer in the dimension of length than it is in the dimen-
sions of width and depth). To test whether a given math-
ematical model describes the universe accurately, scien-
tists look for the models novel implicationswhat are
some phenomena in the universe that we have not yet ob-
served, but that must exist if the model is correctand
they devise experiments to test whether those phenom-
ena occur or not. For example, if the universe is a small
closed loop, one would expect to see multiple images of
an object in the sky, although not necessarily images of
the same age.
Cosmologists normally work with a given space-like slice
of spacetime called the comoving coordinates, the exis- The local geometry of the universe is determined by whether the
tence of a preferred set of which is possible and widely ac- density parameter is greater than, less than, or equal to 1.
cepted in present-day physical cosmology. The section of From top to bottom: a spherical universe with > 1, a hyperbolic
spacetime that can be observed is the backward light cone universe with < 1, and a at universe with = 1. Note that
(all points within the cosmic light horizon, given time to these depictions of two-dimensional surfaces are merely easily vi-
reach a given observer), while the related term Hubble sualizable analogs to the 3-dimensional structure of (local) space.
volume can be used to describe either the past light cone
or comoving space up to the surface of last scattering. To General relativity explains that mass and energy bend the
speak of the shape of the universe (at a point in time)" curvature of spacetime and is used to determine what cur-
is ontologically naive from the point of view of special vature the universe has by using a value called the density
relativity alone: due to the relativity of simultaneity we parameter, represented with Omega (). The density pa-
cannot speak of dierent points in space as being at the rameter is the average density of the universe divided by
same point in time nor, therefore, of the shape of the the critical energy density, that is, the mass energy needed
universe at a point in time. for a universe to be at. Put another way
14.3. GLOBAL UNIVERSE STRUCTURE 161

If = 1, the universe is at of the angles to 180 within experimental error, corre-

sponding to an total 1.00 0.12 .[12]
If > 1, there is positive curvature
These and other astronomical measurements constrain
if < 1 there is negative curvature the spatial curvature to be very close to zero, although
they do not constrain its sign. This means that although
The geometry of the universe is usually represented in the local geometries of spacetime are generated by the
the system of comoving coordinates, according to which theory of relativity based on spacetime intervals, we can
the expansion of the universe can be ignored. Comoving approximate 3-space by the familiar Euclidean geometry.
coordinates form a single frame of reference according to The FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker (FLRW)
which the universe has a static geometry of three spatial model using Friedmann equations is commonly used to
dimensions. model the universe. The FLRW model provides a curva-
Under the assumption that the universe is homogeneous ture of the universe based on the mathematics of uid dy-
and isotropic, the curvature of the observable universe, namics, that is, modeling the matter within the universe as
or the local geometry, is described by one of the three a perfect uid. Although stars and structures of mass can
primitive geometries (in mathematics these are called be introduced into an almost FLRW model, a strictly
the model geometries): FLRW model is used to approximate the local geome-
try of the observable universe. Another way of saying
this is that if all forms of dark energy are ignored, then
3-dimensional Flat Euclidean geometry, generally
the curvature of the universe can be determined by mea-
notated as E 3
suring the average density of matter within it, assuming
3-dimensional spherical geometry with a small cur- that all matter is evenly distributed (rather than the dis-
vature, often notated as S 3 tortions caused by 'dense' objects such as galaxies). This
assumption is justied by the observations that, while the
3-dimensional hyperbolic geometry with a small universe is weakly inhomogeneous and anisotropic (see
curvature the large-scale structure of the cosmos), it is on average
homogeneous and isotropic.
One can experimentally calculate this to determine the
curvature two ways. One is to count up all the mass-
energy in the universe and divided by the critical energy 14.3 Global Universe Structure
density. Data from Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) as well as the Planck spacecraft give val- Global structure covers the geometry and the topology
ues for the three constitutes of all the mass-energy in the of the whole universeboth the observable universe and
universe - normal mass (baryonic matter and dark mat- beyond. While the local geometry does not determine
ter), relativistic particles (photon and neutrinos) and dark the global geometry completely, it does limit the possi-
energy or the cosmological constant:[10][11] bilities, particularly a geometry of a constant curvature.
mass 0.315 0.018 The universe is often taken to be a geodesic manifold,
free of topological defects; relaxing either of these com-
relativistic 9.24 105
plicates the analysis considerably. A global geometry is
0.6817 0.0018 a local geometry plus a topology. It follows that a topol-
total = mass + relativistic + = 1.00 0.02 ogy alone does not give a global geometry: for instance,
Euclidean 3-space and hyperbolic 3-space have the same
The actual value for critical density value is measured as topology but dierent global geometries.
critical = 9.47 1027 kg/m3 . From these values, it
seems that within experimental error, the universe seems As stated in the introduction, investigations within the
to be at. study of global structure of include

Another way to measure is to do so geometrically by Whether the universe is innite or nite in extent
measuring an angle across the observable universe. We
can do this by using the CMB and measuring the power Whether the geometry of the global universe is at,
spectrum and temperature anisotropy. For an intuition, positively curved, or negatively curved
one can imagine nding a gas cloud that is not in ther- Whether the topology is simply connected like a
mal equilibrium due to being so large that light speed sphere or multiply connected, like a torus
cannot propagate the information of the thermal infor-
mation. Knowing this propagation speed, we then know
the size of the gas cloud as well as the distance to the gas 14.3.1 Innite or nite
cloud, we then have two sides of a triangle and can then
determine the angles. Using a method similar to this, the One of the presently unanswered questions about the uni-
BOOMERanG experiment has determined that the sum verse is whether it is innite or nite in extent. For intu-
162
ition, it can be understood that a nite universe has a nite
volume that, for example, could be in theory lled up with
a nite amount of material, while an innite universe is
unbounded and no numerical volume could possibly ll
it. Mathematically, the question of whether the universe
is innite or nite is referred to as boundedness. An in-
nite universe (unbounded metric space) means that there
are points arbitrarily far apart: for any distance d, there
are points that are of a distance at least d apart. A nite
universe is a bounded metric space, where there is some
distance d such that all points are within distance d of
each other. The smallest such d is called the diameter of
the universe, in which case the universe has a well-dened
volume or scale.
Bounded and Unbounded
Assuming a nite universe, the universe can either have
an edge or no edge. Many nite mathematical spaces,
e.g., a disc, have an edge or boundary. Spaces that have
an edge are dicult to treat, both conceptually and math-
ematically. Namely, it is very dicult to state what would
happen at the edge of such a universe. For this reason,
spaces that have an edge are typically excluded from con-
sideration.
However, there exist many nite spaces, such as the 3-
sphere and 3-torus, which have no edges. Mathemati-
cally, these spaces are referred to as being compact with-
out boundary. The term compact basically means that it
is nite in extent (bounded) and is a closed set. The
term without boundary means that the space has no
edges. Moreover, so that calculus can be applied, the
universe is typically assumed to be a dierentiable man-
ifold. A mathematical object that possess all these prop-
erties, compact without boundary and dierentiable, is
termed a closed manifold. The 3-sphere and 3-torus are
both closed manifolds.
An innite universe (or innite in a specic spatial direc- A positively curved universe is described by spherical ge-
tion) must be unbounded in that direction.
14.3.2 Curvature
The curvature of the universe places constraints on the
topology. If the spatial geometry is spherical, i.e., pos-
sess positive curvature, the topology is compact. For
a at (zero curvature) or a hyperbolic (negative curva-
ture) spatial geometry, the topology can be either com-
pact or innite.[13] Its very important to note that many
textbooks erroneously state that a at universe implies an
innite universe; however, the correct statement is that a
at universe that is also simply connected implies an in-
nite universe.[13] For example, Euclidean space is at,
simply connected and innite, but the torus is at, multi-
A hyperbolic universe, one of a negative spatial curva-
ply connected, nite and compact. ture, is described by hyperbolic geometry, and can be
In general, local to global theorems in Riemannian ge- thought of locally as a three-dimensional analog of an in-
ometry relate the local geometry to the global geometry. nitely extended saddle shape. There are a great variety
CHAPTER 14. SHAPE OF THE UNIVERSE
If the local geometry has constant curvature, the global
geometry is very constrained, as described in Thurston
geometries.
The latest research shows that even the most powerful fu-
ture experiments (like SKA, Planck..) will not be able to
distinguish between at, open and closed universe if the
true value of cosmological curvature parameter is smaller
than 104 . If the true value of the cosmological curvature
parameter is larger than 103 we will be able to distin-
guish between these three models even now.[14]
Results of the Planck mission released in 2015 show
the cosmological curvature parameter, K, to be
0.0000.005, coincident with a at universe.[15]
Universe with zero curvature
In a universe with zero curvature, the local geometry
is at. The most obvious global structure is that of
Euclidean space, which is innite in extent. Flat universes
that are nite in extent include the torus and Klein bot-
tle. Moreover, in three dimensions, there are 10 nite
closed at 3-manifolds, of which 6 are orientable and 4
are non-orientable. The most familiar is the aforemen-
tioned 3-Torus universe.
In the absence of dark energy, a at universe expands
forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expan-
sion asymptotically approaching zero. With dark energy,
the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down,
due to the eect of gravity, but eventually increases. The
ultimate fate of the universe is the same as that of an open
universe.
A at universe can have zero total energy.
Universe with positive curvature
ometry, and can be thought of as a three-dimensional
hypersphere, or some other spherical 3-manifold (such as
the Poincar dodecahedral space), all of which are quo-
tients of the 3-sphere.
Poincar dodecahedral space, a positively curved space,
colloquially described as soccerball-shaped, as it is the
quotient of the 3-sphere by the binary icosahedral group,
which is very close to icosahedral symmetry, the symme-
try of a soccer ball. This was proposed by Jean-Pierre Lu-
minet and colleagues in 2003[7][16] and an optimal orien-
tation on the sky for the model was estimated in 2008.[8]
Universe with negative curvature
14.4. SEE ALSO
of hyperbolic 3-manifolds, and their classication is not
completely understood. For hyperbolic local geometry,
many of the possible three-dimensional spaces are infor-
mally called horn topologies, so called because of the
shape of the pseudosphere, a canonical model of hyper-
bolic geometry. An example is the Picard horn, a neg-
atively curved space, colloquially described as funnel-
shaped.[9]
Curvature: Open or closed
When cosmologists speak of the universe as being open
or closed, they most commonly are referring to whether
the curvature is negative or positive. These meanings
of open and closed are dierent from the mathemati-
cal meaning of open and closed used for sets in topo-
logical spaces and for the mathematical meaning of open
and closed manifolds, which gives rise to ambiguity and
confusion. In mathematics, there are denitions for a
closed manifold (i.e., compact without boundary) and
open manifold (i.e., one that is not compact and without
boundary). A closed universe is necessarily a closed
manifold. An open universe can be either a closed or
open manifold. For example, the FriedmannLematre
RobertsonWalker (FLRW) model the universe is con-
sidered to be without boundaries, in which case com-
pact universe could describe a universe that is a closed
manifold.
Milne model (spherical expanding)
Main article: Milne model
If one applies Minkowski space-based Special Relativ-
Universe in an expanding sphere. The galaxies farthest away
are moving fastest and hence experience length contraction and
so become smaller to an observer in the centre.
ity to expansion of the universe, without resorting to the
163
concept of a curved spacetime, then one obtains the Milne
model. Any spatial section of the universe of a constant
age (the proper time elapsed from the Big Bang) will have
a negative curvature; this is merely a pseudo-Euclidean
geometric fact analogous to one that concentric spheres
in the at Euclidean space are nevertheless curved. Spa-
cial geometry of this model is an unbounded hyperbolic
space. The entire universe is contained within a light
cone, namely the future cone of the Big Bang. For any
given moment t > 0 of coordinate time (assuming the Big
Bang has t = 0), the entire universe is bounded by a sphere
of radius exactly c t. The apparent paradox of an in-
nite universe contained within a sphere is explained with
length contraction: the galaxies farther away, which are
travelling away from the observer the fastest, will appear
thinner.
This model is essentially a degenerate FLRW for = 0.
It is incompatible with observations that denitely rule
out such a large negative spatial curvature. However,
as a background in which gravitational elds (or gravi-
tons) can operate, due to dieomorphism invariance, the
space on the macroscopic scale, is equivalent to any other
(open) solution of Einsteins eld equations.
14.4 See also
De Sitter space
Three-torus model of the universe
Ekpyrotic universe a String theory-related model
depicting a ve-dimensional, membrane-shaped
universe; an alternative to the Hot Big Bang Model,
whereby the universe is described to have originated
when two membranes collided at the fth dimension
Extra dimensions in String Theory for 6 or 7 extra
space-like dimensions all with a compact topology.
History of the Center of the Universe
Holographic Universe
List of Cosmology paradoxes
Theorema Egregium The remarkable theorem
discovered by Gauss which showed there is an in-
trinsic notion of curvature for surfaces. This is used
by Riemann to generalize the (intrinsic) notion of
curvature to higher-dimensional spaces
Zero-energy universe
14.5 References
[1] Tegmark, Max (2014). Our Mathematical Universe: My
Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality (1 ed.). Knopf.
ISBN 978-0307599803.
164
[2] G. F. R. Ellis; H. van Elst (1999). Cosmological
models (Cargse lectures 1998)". In Marc Lachize-
Rey. Theoretical and Observational Cosmology. NATO
Science Series C. p. 22. arXiv:gr-qc/9812046.
Bibcode:1999toc..conf....1E. ISBN 978-0792359463.
[3] Will the Universe expand forever?". NASA. 24 January
2014. Retrieved 16 March 2015.
[4] Our universe is Flat. FermiLab/SLAC. 7 April 2015.
[5] Marcus Y. Yoo (2011). Unexpected connections. En-
gineering & Science (Caltech). LXXIV1: 30.
[6] Demianski, Marek; Snchez, Norma; Parijskij, Yuri N.
(2003). Topology of the universe and the cosmic mi-
crowave background radiation. The Early Universe and
the Cosmic Microwave Background: Theory and Obser-
vations. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Insti-
tute. The early universe and the cosmic microwave back-
ground: theory and observations (Springer) 130: 161.
Bibcode:2003eucm.book..159D. ISBN 1-4020-1800-2.
[7] Luminet, Jean-Pierre; Weeks, Je; Riazuelo,
Alain; Lehoucq, Roland; Uzan, Jean-Phillipe
(2003-10-09). Dodecahedral space topology
as an explanation for weak wide-angle tempera-
ture correlations in the cosmic microwave back-
ground. Nature 425 (6958): 5935. arXiv:astro-
ph/0310253. Bibcode:2003Natur.425..593L.
doi:10.1038/nature01944. PMID 14534579.
[8] Roukema, Boudewijn; Zbigniew Buliski; Agnieszka
Szaniewska; Nicolas E. Gaudin (2008). A test of the
Poincare dodecahedral space topology hypothesis with the
WMAP CMB data. Astronomy and Astrophysics 482 (3):
747. arXiv:0801.0006. Bibcode:2008A&A...482..747L.
doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078777.
[9] Aurich, Ralf; Lustig, S.; Steiner, F.; Then, H. (2004).
Hyperbolic Universes with a Horned Topology and
the CMB Anisotropy. Classical and Quantum Grav-
ity 21 (21): 49014926. arXiv:astro-ph/0403597.
Bibcode:2004CQGra..21.4901A. doi:10.1088/0264-
9381/21/21/010.
[10] Density Parameter, Omega. hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu. Retrieved 2015-06-01.
[11] Ade, P. A. R.; Aghanim, N.; Armitage-Caplan, C.;
Arnaud, M.; Ashdown, M.; Atrio-Barandela, F.; Au-
mont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; Banday, A. J.; Barreiro, R.
B.; Bartlett, J. G.; Battaner, E.; Benabed, K.; Benot,
A.; Benoit-Lvy, A.; Bernard, J.-P.; Bersanelli, M.;
Bielewicz, P.; Bobin, J.; Bock, J. J.; Bonaldi, A.; Bond,
J. R.; Borrill, J.; Bouchet, F. R.; Bridges, M.; Bucher,
M.; Burigana, C.; Butler, R. C.; Calabrese, E.; et
al. (2014). Planck2013 results. XVI. Cosmological
parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics 571: A16.
arXiv:1303.5076. Bibcode:2014A&A...571A..16P.
doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321591.
[12] De Bernardis, P.; Ade, P. A. R.; Bock, J. J.; Bond,
J. R.; Borrill, J.; Boscaleri, A.; Coble, K.; Crill, B.
P.; De Gasperis, G.; Farese, P. C.; Ferreira, P. G.;
Ganga, K.; Giacometti, M.; Hivon, E.; Hristov, V.
CHAPTER 14. SHAPE OF THE UNIVERSE
V.; Iacoangeli, A.; Jae, A. H.; Lange, A. E.; Mar-
tinis, L.; Masi, S.; Mason, P. V.; Mauskopf, P. D.;
Melchiorri, A.; Miglio, L.; Montroy, T.; Nettereld,
C. B.; Pascale, E.; Piacentini, F.; Pogosyan, D.; et
al. (2000). A at Universe from high-resolution
maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Nature 404 (6781): 9559. arXiv:astro-ph/0004404.
Bibcode:2000Natur.404..955D. doi:10.1038/35010035.
PMID 10801117.
[13] Luminet, Jean-Pierre; Lachize-Rey, Marc (1995). Cos-
mic Topology. Physics Reports 254 (3): 135214.
arXiv:gr-qc/9605010. Bibcode:1995PhR...254..135L.
doi:10.1016/0370-1573(94)00085-h.
[14] Vardanyan, Mihran; Trotta, Roberto; Silk, Joseph (2009).
How at can you get? A model comparison perspective
on the curvature of the Universe. Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society 397: 431. arXiv:0901.3354.
Bibcode:2009MNRAS.397..431V. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2966.2009.14938.x.
[15] Planck Collaboration; Ade, P. A. R.; Aghanim, N.; Ar-
naud, M.; Ashdown, M.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.;
Banday, A. J.; Barreiro, R. B.; Bartlett, J. G.; Bar-
tolo, N.; Battaner, E.; Battye, R.; Benabed, K.; Benoit,
A.; Benoit-Levy, A.; Bernard, J.-P.; Bersanelli, M.;
Bielewicz, P.; Bonaldi, A.; Bonavera, L.; Bond, J. R.;
Borrill, J.; Bouchet, F. R.; Boulanger, F.; Bucher, M.;
Burigana, C.; Butler, R. C.; Calabrese, E.; et al. (2015).
Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters.
arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO].
[16] Is the universe a dodecahedron?", article at PhysicsWeb.
14.6 External links
How do we know that the universe is at A video
explains how astrophysicists measure the geometry
of the universe at Physicsworld.com
Geometry of the Universe
The topology of the universe: the biggest manifold
of them all
Cosmic Topologies
Universe is Finite, Soccer Ball"-Shaped, Study
Hints. Possible wrap-around dodecahedral shape of
the universe
Classication of possible universes in the Lambda-
CDM model.
Fagundes, Helio V. (2002). Exploring the
global topology of the universe. Brazilian
Journal of Physics 32 (4). doi:10.1590/S0103-
97332002000500012.
Grime, James. "39 (Pi and the size of the Uni-
verse)". Numberphile. Brady Haran.
14.6. EXTERNAL LINKS 165

What do you mean the universe is at? Scientic

American Blog explanation of a at universe and the
curved spacetime in the universe.
Chapter 15
Observable universe
The observable universe consists of the galaxies and
other matter that can, in principle, be observed from
Earth at the present time because light and other signals
from these objects have had time to reach Earth since
the beginning of the cosmological expansion. Assuming
the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the
observable universe is roughly the same in every direc-
tion. That is, the observable universe is a spherical vol-
ume (a ball) centered on the observer. Every location in
the Universe has its own observable universe, which may
or may not overlap with the one centered on Earth.
The word observable used in this sense does not depend
on whether modern technology actually permits detection
of radiation from an object in this region (or indeed on
whether there is any radiation to detect). It simply indi-
cates that it is possible in principle for light or other signals
from the object to reach an observer on Earth. In prac-
tice, we can see light only from as far back as the time
of photon decoupling in the recombination epoch. That
is when particles were rst able to emit photons that were
not quickly re-absorbed by other particles. Before then,
the Universe was lled with a plasma that was opaque to
photons.
The surface of last scattering is the collection of points in
space at the exact distance that photons from the time of
photon decoupling just reach us today. These are the pho-
tons we detect today as cosmic microwave background
radiation (CMBR). However, with future technology, it
may be possible to observe the still older relic neutrino
background, or even more distant events via gravitational
waves (which also should move at the speed of light).
Sometimes astrophysicists distinguish between the visi-
ble universe, which includes only signals emitted since
recombination and the observable universe, which in-
cludes signals since the beginning of the cosmological ex-
pansion (the Big Bang in traditional cosmology, the end
of the inationary epoch in modern cosmology). Ac-
cording to calculations, the comoving distance (current
proper distance) to particles from the CMBR, which rep-
resent the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0
billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light years), while the
comoving distance to the edge of the observable uni-
verse is about 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light
years),[7] about 2% larger.
166
The best estimate of the age of the universe as of 2015 is
13.7990.021 billion years[5] but due to the expansion of
space humans are observing objects that were originally
much closer but are now considerably farther away (as de-
ned in terms of cosmological proper distance, which is
equal to the comoving distance at the present time) than
a static 13.8 billion light-years distance.[8] It is estimated
that the diameter of the observable universe is about 28.5
gigaparsecs (93 billion light-years, 8.81026 metres or
5.51023 miles),[9] putting the edge of the observable
universe at about 46.5 billion light-years away.[10][11]
15.1 The Universe versus the ob-
servable universe
Some parts of the Universe are too far away for the light
emitted since the Big Bang to have had enough time to
reach Earth, so these portions of the Universe lie out-
side the observable universe. In the future, light from
distant galaxies will have had more time to travel, so ad-
ditional regions will become observable. However, due
to Hubbles law regions suciently distant from us are
expanding away from us faster than the speed of light
(special relativity prevents nearby objects in the same lo-
cal region from moving faster than the speed of light with
respect to each other, but there is no such constraint for
distant objects when the space between them is expand-
ing; see uses of the proper distance for a discussion) and
furthermore the expansion rate appears to be accelerating
due to dark energy. Assuming dark energy remains con-
stant (an unchanging cosmological constant), so that the
expansion rate of the Universe continues to accelerate,
there is a future visibility limit beyond which objects
will never enter our observable universe at any time in
the innite future, because light emitted by objects out-
side that limit would never reach us. (A subtlety is that,
because the Hubble parameter is decreasing with time,
there can be cases where a galaxy that is receding from us
just a bit faster than light does emit a signal that reaches
us eventually[11][12] ). This future visibility limit is cal-
culated at a comoving distance of 19 billion parsecs (62
billion light years) assuming the Universe will keep ex-
panding forever, which implies the number of galaxies
15.2. SIZE
that we can ever theoretically observe in the innite fu-
ture (leaving aside the issue that some may be impossible
to observe in practice due to redshift, as discussed in the
following paragraph) is only larger than the number cur-
rently observable by a factor of 2.36.[13]
Artists logarithmic scale conception of the observable universe that the entire universe is in excess of 250 times larger
with the Solar System at the center, inner and outer planets, than the observable universe.[19]
Kuiper belt, Oort cloud, Alpha Centauri, Perseus Arm, Milky
Way galaxy, Andromeda galaxy, nearby galaxies, Cosmic Web,
Cosmic microwave radiation and the Big Bangs invisible plasma
on the edge.
Though in principle more galaxies will become observ-
able in the future, in practice an increasing number of
galaxies will become extremely redshifted due to ongoing
expansion, so much so that they will seem to disappear
from view and become invisible.[14][15][16] An additional
subtlety is that a galaxy at a given comoving distance is
dened to lie within the observable universe if we can
receive signals emitted by the galaxy at any age in its past
history (say, a signal sent from the galaxy only 500 million
years after the Big Bang), but because of the Universes
expansion, there may be some later age at which a sig-
nal sent from the same galaxy can never reach us at any
point in the innite future (so for example we might never
see what the galaxy looked like 10 billion years after the
Big Bang),[17] even though it remains at the same comov-
ing distance (comoving distance is dened to be constant
with time unlike proper distance, which is used to dene
recession velocity due to the expansion of space), which
is less than the comoving radius of the observable uni-
verse. This fact can be used to dene a type of cosmic
event horizon whose distance from us changes over time.
For example, the current distance to this horizon is about
16 billion light years, meaning that a signal from an event
happening at present can eventually reach us in the future
if the event is less than 16 billion light years away, but
the signal will never reach us if the event is more than 16
billion light years away.[11]
167
Both popular and professional research articles in cos-
mology often use the term universe to mean observ-
able universe. This can be justied on the grounds that
we can never know anything by direct experimentation
about any part of the Universe that is causally discon-
nected from us, although many credible theories require
a total universe much larger than the observable universe.
No evidence exists to suggest that the boundary of the ob-
servable universe constitutes a boundary on the Universe
as a whole, nor do any of the mainstream cosmological
models propose that the Universe has any physical bound-
ary in the rst place, though some models propose it could
be nite but unbounded, like a higher-dimensional ana-
logue of the 2D surface of a sphere that is nite in area
but has no edge. It is plausible that the galaxies within
our observable universe represent only a minuscule frac-
tion of the galaxies in the Universe. According to the the-
ory of cosmic ination and its founder, Alan Guth, if it
is assumed that ination began about 1037 seconds after
the Big Bang, then with the plausible assumption that the
size of the Universe before the ination occurred was ap-
proximately equal to the speed of light times its age, that
would suggest that at present the entire universes size is
at least 3x1023 times larger than the size of the observ-
able universe.[18] There are also lower estimates claiming
If the Universe is nite but unbounded, it is also possi-
ble that the Universe is smaller than the observable uni-
verse. In this case, what we take to be very distant galax-
ies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies,
formed by light that has circumnavigated the Universe.
It is dicult to test this hypothesis experimentally be-
cause dierent images of a galaxy would show dierent
eras in its history, and consequently might appear quite
dierent. Bielewicz et al.[20] claims to establish a lower
bound of 27.9 gigaparsecs (91 billion light-years) on the
diameter of the last scattering surface (since this is only
a lower bound, the paper leaves open the possibility that
the whole universe is much larger, even innite). This
value is based on matching-circle analysis of the WMAP
7 year data. This approach has been disputed.[21]
15.2 Size
The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the ob-
servable universe is about 14.26 gigaparsecs (46.5 billion
light years or 4.401026 meters) in any direction. The ob-
servable universe is thus a sphere with a diameter of about
28.5 gigaparsecs[22] (93 Gly or 8.81026 m).[23] Assum-
ing that space is roughly at, this size corresponds to a
comoving volume of about 1.161055 Gpc3 (3.81055
Gly3 or 3.571080 m3 ).
The gures quoted above are distances now (in
cosmological time), not distances at the time the light was
emitted. For example, the cosmic microwave background
168 CHAPTER 15. OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE

An example of one of the most common misconceptions about the

size of the observable universe. Despite the fact that the universe
is 13.8 billion years old, the distance to the edge of the observable
universe is not 13.8 billion light-years, because the universe is
expanding. This plaque appears at the Rose Center for Earth
and Space in New York City.

Hubble Ultra-Deep Field image of a region of the observable 13.8 billion light-years The age of the universe is esti-
universe (equivalent sky area size shown in bottom left corner), mated to be 13.8 billion years. While it is commonly
near the constellation Fornax. Each spot is a galaxy, consisting
understood that nothing can accelerate to velocities
of billions of stars. The light from the smallest, most red-shifted
equal to or greater than that of light, it is a com-
galaxies originated nearly 14 billion years ago.
mon misconception that the radius of the observable
universe must therefore amount to only 13.8 billion
radiation that we see right now was emitted at the time light-years. This reasoning would only make sense
of photon decoupling, estimated to have occurred about if the at, static Minkowski spacetime conception
380000 years after the Big Bang,[24][25] which occurred under special relativity were correct. In the real uni-
around 13.8 billion years ago. This radiation was emitted verse, spacetime is curved in a way that corresponds
by matter that has, in the intervening time, mostly to the expansion of space, as evidenced by Hubbles
condensed into galaxies, and those galaxies are now law. Distances obtained as the speed of light multi-
calculated to be about 46 billion light-years from us.[7][11] plied by a cosmological time interval have no direct
To estimate the distance to that matter at the time the physical signicance.[29]
light was emitted, we may rst note that according to the
FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker metric, which 15.8 billion light-years This is obtained in the same
is used to model the expanding universe, if at the present way as the 13.8 billion light year gure, but starting
time we receive light with a redshift of z, then the scale from an incorrect age of the universe that the popu-
factor at the time the light was originally emitted is given lar press reported in mid-2006.[30][31] For an analy-
by [26][27] sis of this claim and the paper that prompted it, see
1 the following reference at the end of this article.[32]
a(t) = 1+z .
WMAP nine-year results combined with other measure- 27.6 billion light-years This is a diameter obtained
ments give the redshift of photon decoupling as z = from the (incorrect) radius of 13.8 billion light-
1091.640.47,[28] which implies that the scale factor at years.
the time of photon decoupling would be 1 .. So if the
matter that originally emitted the oldest CMBR photons [33]
has a present distance of 46 billion light years, then at 78 billion light-years In 2003, Cornish et al. found
the time of decoupling when the photons were originally this lower bound for the diameter of the whole uni-
emitted, the distance would have been only about 42 mil- verse (not just the observable part), if we postu-
lion light-years. late that the universe is nite in size due to its
having a nontrivial topology,[34][35] with this lower
bound based on the estimated current distance be-
tween points that we can see on opposite sides of the
15.2.1 Misconceptions on its size cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).
If the whole universe is smaller than this sphere, then
Many secondary sources have reported a wide variety of light has had time to circumnavigate it since the big
incorrect gures for the size of the visible universe. Some bang, producing multiple images of distant points in
of these gures are listed below, with brief descriptions the CMBR, which would show up as patterns of re-
of possible reasons for misconceptions about them. peating circles.[36] Cornish et al. looked for such an
15.3. LARGE-SCALE STRUCTURE
eect at scales of up to 24 gigaparsecs (78 Gly or
7.41026 m) and failed to nd it, and suggested that
if they could extend their search to all possible ori-
entations, they would then be able to exclude the
possibility that we live in a universe smaller than 24
Gpc in diameter. The authors also estimated that
with lower noise and higher resolution CMB maps
(from WMAP's extended mission and from Planck),
we will be able to search for smaller circles and ex-
tend the limit to ~28 Gpc.[33] This estimate of the
maximum lower bound that can be established by
future observations corresponds to a radius of 14 gi-
gaparsecs, or around 46 billion light years, about the
same as the gure for the radius of the visible uni-
verse (whose radius is dened by the CMBR sphere)
given in the opening section. A 2012 preprint by
most of the same authors as the Cornish et al. paper
has extended the current lower bound to a diame-
ter of 98.5% the diameter of the CMBR sphere, or
about 26 Gpc.[37]
156 billion light-years This gure was obtained by dou-
bling 78 billion light-years on the assumption that it
is a radius.[38] Since 78 billion light-years is already
a diameter (the original paper by Cornish et al. says,
By extending the search to all possible orientations,
we will be able to exclude the possibility that we
live in a universe smaller than 24 Gpc in diameter,
and 24 Gpc is 78 billion light years),[33] the dou-
bled gure is incorrect. This gure was very widely
reported.[38][39][40] A press release from Montana
State UniversityBozeman, where Cornish works as
an astrophysicist, noted the error when discussing a
story that had appeared in Discover magazine, say-
ing "Discover mistakenly reported that the universe
was 156 billion light-years wide, thinking that 78
billion was the radius of the universe instead of its
diameter.[41]
180 billion light-years This estimate combines the er-
roneous 156-billion-light-year gure with evidence
that the M33 Galaxy is actually fteen percent
farther away than previous estimates and that,
therefore, the Hubble constant is fteen percent
smaller.[42] The 180-billion gure is obtained by
adding 15% to 156 billion light years.
15.3 Large-scale structure
Sky surveys and mappings of the various wavelength
bands of electromagnetic radiation (in particular 21-cm
emission) have yielded much information on the content
and character of the universe's structure. The organiza-
tion of structure appears to follow as a hierarchical model
with organization up to the scale of superclusters and
laments. Larger than this, there seems to be no con-
169
tinued structure, a phenomenon that has been referred to
as the End of Greatness.[43]
15.3.1 Walls, laments, nodes, and voids
DTFE reconstruction of the inner parts of the 2dF Galaxy Red-
shift Survey
The organization of structure arguably begins at the
stellar level, though most cosmologists rarely address
astrophysics on that scale. Stars are organized into
galaxies, which in turn form galaxy groups, galaxy clus-
ters, superclusters, sheets, walls and laments, which are
separated by immense voids, creating a vast foam-like
structure sometimes called the cosmic web. Prior to
1989, it was commonly assumed that virialized galaxy
clusters were the largest structures in existence, and that
they were distributed more or less uniformly throughout
the Universe in every direction. However, since the early
1980s, more and more structures have been discovered.
In 1983, Adrian Webster identied the Webster LQG, a
large quasar group consisting of 5 quasars. The discovery
was the rst identication of a large-scale structure, and
has expanded the information about the known group-
ing of matter in the Universe. In 1987, Robert Brent
Tully identied the PiscesCetus Supercluster Complex,
the galaxy lament in which the Milky Way resides. It
is about 1 billion light years across. That same year, an
unusually large region with no galaxies has been discov-
ered, the Giant Void, which measures 1.3 billion light
years across. Based on redshift survey data, in 1989
Margaret Geller and John Huchra discovered the "Great
Wall",[44] a sheet of galaxies more than 500 million light-
years long and 200 million wide, but only 15 million light-
years thick. The existence of this structure escaped no-
tice for so long because it requires locating the position
of galaxies in three dimensions, which involves combin-
ing location information about the galaxies with distance
information from redshifts. Two years later, astronomers
Roger G. Clowes and Luis E. Campusano discovered the
ClowesCampusano LQG, a large quasar group measur-
ing two billion light years at its widest point, and was the
largest known structure in the Universe at the time of its
announcement. In April 2003, another large-scale struc-
ture was discovered, the Sloan Great Wall. In August
170 CHAPTER 15. OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE

2007, a possible supervoid was detected in the constel-
lation Eridanus.[45] It coincides with the 'CMB cold spot',
a cold region in the microwave sky that is highly improba-
ble under the currently favored cosmological model. This
supervoid could cause the cold spot, but to do so it would
have to be improbably big, possibly a billion light-years
across, almost as big as the Giant Void mentioned above.
scale, no pseudo-random fractalness is apparent.[50] The
superclusters and laments seen in smaller surveys are
randomized to the extent that the smooth distribution of
the Universe is visually apparent. It was not until the
redshift surveys of the 1990s were completed that this
scale could accurately be observed.[43]

15.3.3 Observations

Panoramic view of the entire near-infrared sky reveals the dis-

tribution of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. The image is derived
Image (computer simulated) of an area of space more than 50
from the 2MASS Extended Source Catalog (XSC) more than 1.5
million light years across, presenting a possible large-scale distri-
million galaxies, and the Point Source Catalog (PSC) nearly
bution of light sources in the universe - precise relative contribu-
0.5 billion Milky Way stars. The galaxies are color-coded by
tions of galaxies and quasars are unclear.
'redshift' obtained from the UGC, CfA, Tully NBGC, LCRS, 2dF,
6dFGS, and SDSS surveys (and from various observations com-
Another large-scale structure is the Newfound Blob, a piled by the NASA Extragalactic Database), or photo-metrically
collection of galaxies and enormous gas bubbles that mea- deduced from the K band (2.2 um). Blue are the nearest sources
sures about 200 million light years across. (z < 0.01); green are at moderate distances (0.01 < z < 0.04)
and red are the most distant sources that 2MASS resolves (0.04
In recent studies the Universe appears as a collection of
< z < 0.1). The map is projected with an equal area Aito in the
giant bubble-like voids separated by sheets and laments Galactic system (Milky Way at center). [51]
of galaxies, with the superclusters appearing as occasional
relatively dense nodes. This network is clearly visible in
the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey. In the gure, a three- Another indicator of large-scale structure is the 'Lyman-
dimensional reconstruction of the inner parts of the sur- alpha forest'. This is a collection of absorption lines that
vey is shown, revealing an impressive view of the cosmic appear in the spectra of light from quasars, which are in-
structures in the nearby universe. Several superclusters terpreted as indicating the existence of huge thin sheets of
stand out, such as the Sloan Great Wall. intergalactic (mostly hydrogen) gas. These sheets appear
to be associated with the formation of new galaxies.
In 2011, a large quasar group was discovered, U1.11,
measuring about 2.5 billion light years across. On Caution is required in describing structures on a cosmic
January 11, 2013, another large quasar group, the scale because things are often dierent from how they
Huge-LQG, was discovered, which was measured to be appear. Gravitational lensing (bending of light by grav-
four billion light-years across, the largest known struc-itation) can make an image appear to originate in a dif-
ture in the Universe that time.[46] In November 2013 ferent direction from its real source. This is caused when
astronomers discovered the HerculesCorona Borealis foreground objects (such as galaxies) curve surrounding
spacetime (as predicted by general relativity), and deect
Great Wall,[47][48] an even bigger structure twice as large
as the former. It was dened by mapping of gamma-ray passing light rays. Rather usefully, strong gravitational
bursts.[47][49] lensing can sometimes magnify distant galaxies, making
them easier to detect. Weak lensing (gravitational shear)
by the intervening universe in general also subtly changes
15.3.2 End of Greatness the observed large-scale structure. As of 2004, measure-
ments of this subtle shear showed considerable promise
The End of Greatness is an observational scale discov- as a test of cosmological models.
ered at roughly 100 Mpc (roughly 300 million lightyears) The large-scale structure of the Universe also looks dif-
where the lumpiness seen in the large-scale structure ferent if one only uses redshift to measure distances to
of the universe is homogenized and isotropized in ac- galaxies. For example, galaxies behind a galaxy cluster
cordance with the Cosmological Principle.[43] At this are attracted to it, and so fall towards it, and so are slightly
15.4. MASS OF ORDINARY MATTER
blueshifted (compared to how they would be if there were
no cluster) On the near side, things are slightly redshifted.
Thus, the environment of the cluster looks a bit squashed
if using redshifts to measure distance. An opposite ef-
fect works on the galaxies already within a cluster: the
galaxies have some random motion around the cluster
center, and when these random motions are converted to
redshifts, the cluster appears elongated. This creates a
"nger of God" the illusion of a long chain of galaxies
pointed at the Earth.
15.3.4 Cosmography of our cosmic neigh-
borhood
At the centre of the Hydra-Centaurus Supercluster, a
gravitational anomaly called the Great Attractor aects
the motion of galaxies over a region hundreds of millions
of light-years across. These galaxies are all redshifted, in
accordance with Hubbles law. This indicates that they
are receding from us and from each other, but the varia-
tions in their redshift are sucient to reveal the existence
of a concentration of mass equivalent to tens of thousands
of galaxies.
The Great Attractor, discovered in 1986, lies at a dis-
tance of between 150 million and 250 million light-years
(250 million is the most recent estimate), in the direction
of the Hydra and Centaurus constellations. In its vicin-
ity there is a preponderance of large old galaxies, many
of which are colliding with their neighbours, or radiating
large amounts of radio waves.
In 1987, astronomer R. Brent Tully of the University
of Hawaii's Institute of Astronomy identied what he
called the PiscesCetus Supercluster Complex, a struc-
ture one billion light years long and 150 million light years
across in which, he claimed, the Local Supercluster was
embedded.[52][53]
15.4 Mass of ordinary matter
The mass of the observable Universe is often quoted as
1050 tonnes or 1053 kg.[3] In this context, mass refers
to ordinary matter and includes the interstellar medium
(ISM) and the intergalactic medium (IGM). However, it
excludes dark matter and dark energy. Three calculations
substantiate this quoted value for the mass of ordinary
matter in the Universe: Estimates based on critical den-
sity, extrapolations from number of stars, and estimates
based on steady-state. The calculations obviously assume
a nite universe.
15.4.1 Estimates based on critical density Next, we need average star mass which can be calculated
from the distribution of stars in the Milky Way. Within
Critical Density is the energy density where the expansion the Milky Way, if a large number of stars are counted by
of the Universe is poised between continued expansion spectral class, 73% are class M stars which contain only
171
and collapse.[54] Observations of the cosmic microwave
background from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe suggest that the spatial curvature of the Universe
is very close to zero, which in current cosmological mod-
els implies that the value of the density parameter must
be very close to a certain critical density value. At this
condition, the calculation for c critical density, is:[55]
3H02
c = 8G
where G is the gravitational constant. From The Euro-
pean Space Agencys Planck Telescope results: H0 , is
67.15 kilometers per second per mega parsec. This gives
a critical density of 0.851026 kg/m3 (commonly quoted
as about 5 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter). This den-
sity includes four signicant types of energy/mass: ordi-
nary matter (4.8%), neutrinos (0.1%), cold dark matter
(26.8%), and dark energy (68.3%).[56] Note that although
neutrinos are dened as particles like electrons, they are
listed separately because they are dicult to detect and so
dierent from ordinary matter. Thus, the density of ordi-
nary matter is 4.8% of the total critical density calculated
or 4.081028 kg/m3 . To convert this density to mass we
must multiply by volume, a value based on the radius of
the observable universe. Since the Universe has been
expanding for 13.8 billion years, the comoving distance
(radius) is now about 46.6 billion light years. Thus, vol-
ume (4 3 r3 ) equals 3.581080 m3 and mass of ordinary
matter equals density (4.081028 kg/m3 ) times volume
(3.581080 m3 ) or 1.461053 kg.
15.4.2 Extrapolation from number of stars
There is no way to know exactly the number of stars, but
from current literature, the range of 1022 to 1024 is nor-
mally quoted.[57][58][59][60]
One way to substantiate this range is to estimate the num-
ber of galaxies and multiply by the number of stars in an
average galaxy. The 2004 Hubble Ultra-Deep Field im-
age contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies.[61] The patch
of sky in this area, is 3.4 arc minutes on each side. For
a relative comparison, it would require over 50 of these
images to cover the full moon. If this area is typical for
the entire sky, there are over 100 billion galaxies in the
Universe.[62] More recently, in 2012, Hubble scientists
produced the Hubble Extreme Deep Field image which
showed slightly more galaxies for a comparable area.[63]
However, in order to compute the number of stars based
on these images, we would need additional assumptions:
the percent of both large and dwarf galaxies; and, their
average number of stars. Thus, a reasonable option is to
assume 100 billion average galaxies and 100 billion stars
per average galaxy. This results in 1022 stars.
172 CHAPTER 15. OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE

30% of the Suns mass. Considering mass and number noted above for the Critical Density method, ordinary
of stars in each spectral class, the average star is 51.5% matter is 4.8% of all energy/matter. If the Hoyle result is
of the Suns mass.[64] The Suns mass is 21030 kg. so a multiplied by this percent, the result for ordinary matter
reasonable number for the mass of an average star in the is 1.201053 kg.
Universe is 1030 kg. Thus, the mass of all stars equals
the number of stars (1022 ) times an average mass of star
(1030 kg) or 1052 kg. 15.4.4 Comparison of results
The next calculation adjusts for Interstellar Medium
In summary, the three independent calculations pro-
(ISM) and Intergalactic Medium (IGM). ISM is mate-
duced reasonably close results: 1.461053 , 1.71053 , and
rial between stars: gas (mostly hydrogen) and dust. IGM
1.201053 kg. The average is 1.451053 kg.
is material between galaxies, mostly hydrogen. Ordinary
The key assumptions using the Extrapolation from Star
matter (protons, neutrons and electrons) exists in ISM and
IGM as well as in stars. In the reference, The Cosmic Mass method were the number of stars (1022 ) and the
Energy Inventory, the percentage of each part is dened:percentage of ordinary matter in stars (5.9%). The key
stars = 5.9%, Interstellar Medium (ISM) = 1.7%, and In- assumptions using the Critical Density method were the
tergalactic Medium (IGM) = 92.4%.[65] comoving distance radius of the Universe (46.6 billion
light years) and the percentage of ordinary matter in all
Thus, to extrapolate the mass of the observable Universe
52 matter (4.8%). The key assumptions using the Hoyle
from the star mass, divide the 10 kg mass calculated
53 steady-state method were the comoving distance radius
for stars by 5.9%. The result is 1.710 kg for all the
and the percentage of dark energy in all mass (68.3%).
ordinary matter.
Both the Critical Density and the Hoyle steady-state equa-
tions also used the Hubble constant (67.15 (km/s)/Mpc).
15.4.3 Estimates based on steady-state
universe
15.5 Matter content number of
Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the mass of an observable
steady-state universe using the formula:[66]
atoms
Main article: Cosmic abundance of elements
4 ( c )3

3 H Assuming the mass of ordinary matter is about 1.451053
which can also be stated as [67] kg (reference previous section) and assuming all atoms
are hydrogen atoms (which in reality make up about 74%
of all atoms in our galaxy by mass, see Abundance of the
c3 chemical elements), calculating the estimated total num-
2GH ber of atoms in the observable Universe is straightfor-
Here H = Hubble constant, = Hoyles value for the den- ward. Divide the mass of ordinary matter by the mass of
sity, G = gravitational constant, and c = speed of light. a hydrogen atom (1.451053 kg divided by 1.671027
kg). The result is approximately 1080 hydrogen atoms.
This calculation yields approximately 0.921053 kg; The chemistry of life may have begun shortly after the
however, this represents all energy/matter and is based Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, during a habitable
on the Hubble volume (the volume of a sphere with ra- epoch when the Universe was only 1017 million years
dius equal to the Hubble length of about 13.8 billion old.[68][69][70] According to the panspermia hypothesis,
light years). The critical density calculation above was microscopic life distributed by meteoroids, asteroids
based on the comoving distance radius of 46.6 billion and other small Solar System bodies may exist through-
light years. Thus, the Hoyle equation mass/energy re- out the Universe.[71] Though life is conrmed only on
sult must be adjusted for increased volume. The comov- the Earth, many think that extraterrestrial life is not only
ing distance radius gives a volume about 39 times greater plausible, but probable or inevitable.[72][73]
(46.7 cubed divided by 13.8 cubed). However, as vol-
ume increases, ordinary matter and dark matter would
not increase; only dark energy increases with volume.
Thus, assuming ordinary matter, neutrinos, and dark mat- 15.6 Most distant objects
ter are 31.7% of the total mass/energy, and dark energy
is 68.3%, the amount of total mass/energy for the steady- The most distant astronomical object yet announced as
state calculation would be: mass of ordinary matter and of January 2011 is a galaxy candidate classied UDFj-
dark matter (31.7% times 0.921053 kg) plus the mass 39546284. In 2009, a gamma ray burst, GRB 090423,
of dark energy ((68.3% times 0.921053 kg) times in- was found to have a redshift of 8.2, which indicates that
creased volume (39)). This equals: 2.481054 kg. As the collapsing star that caused it exploded when the Uni-
15.8. SEE ALSO 173

verse was only 630 million years old.[74] The burst hap-
pened approximately 13 billion years ago,[75] so a dis-
tance of about 13 billion light years was widely quoted
in the media (or sometimes a more precise gure of
13.035 billion light years),[74] though this would be the
light travel distance (see Distance measures (cosmol-
ogy)) rather than the "proper distance" used in both
Hubbles law and in dening the size of the observ-
able universe (cosmologist Ned Wright argues against the
common use of light travel distance in astronomical press
releases on this page, and at the bottom of the page of-
fers online calculators that can be used to calculate the
current proper distance to a distant object in a at uni-
verse based on either the redshift z or the light travel
time). The proper distance for a redshift of 8.2 would
be about 9.2 Gpc,[76] or about 30 billion light years. An-
other record-holder for most distant object is a galaxy
observed through and located beyond Abell 2218, also A diagram of our location in the observable universe.
with a light travel distance of approximately 13 billion (Alternative image.)
light years from Earth, with observations from the Hubble
telescope indicating a redshift between 6.6 and 7.1, and
observations from Keck telescopes indicating a redshift
towards the upper end of this range, around 7.[77] The 15.8 See also
galaxys light now observable on Earth would have begun
to emanate from its source about 750 million years after
Big Bang
the Big Bang.[78]
Bolshoi Cosmological Simulation

Causality (physics)

Chronology of the universe

Dark ow

Event horizon of the universe

Hubble volume

Illustris project

Multiverse
15.7 Horizons
Orders of magnitude (length)

Timeline of the Big Bang

Main article: cosmological horizon

The limit of observability in our universe is set by a set
of cosmological horizons which limit, based on various
physical constraints, the extent to which we can obtain
information about various events in the Universe. The
most famous horizon is the particle horizon which sets a
limit on the precise distance that can be seen due to the
nite age of the Universe. Additional horizons are as-
sociated with the possible future extent of observations
(larger than the particle horizon owing to the expansion
of space), an optical horizon at the surface of last scat-
tering, and associated horizons with the surface of last
scattering for neutrinos and gravitational waves.
15.9 References
[1] Itzhak Bars; John Terning (November 2009). Extra Di-
mensions in Space and Time. Springer. pp. 27. ISBN
978-0-387-77637-8. Retrieved 2011-05-01.
[2] What is the Universe Made Of?
[3] Paul Davies (2006). The Goldilocks Enigma. First
Mariner Books. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-618-59226-5. Re-
trieved 1 July 2013.
[4] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html Jan-
uary 13, 2015
174
[5] Planck Collaboration (2015). Planck 2015 results. XIII.
Cosmological parameters (See Table 4 on page 31 of
pfd).. arXiv:1502.01589.
[6] Fixsen, D. J. (December 2009). The Temperature
of the Cosmic Microwave Background. The Astro-
physical Journal 707 (2): 916920. arXiv:0911.1955.
Bibcode:2009ApJ...707..916F. doi:10.1088/0004-
637X/707/2/916.
[7] Gott III, J. Richard; Mario Juri; David Schlegel;
Fiona Hoyle; et al. (2005). A Map of the Uni-
verse (PDF). The Astrophysics Journal 624 (2): 463.
arXiv:astro-ph/0310571. Bibcode:2005ApJ...624..463G.
doi:10.1086/428890.
[8] Davis, Tamara M.; Charles H. Lineweaver (2004). Ex-
panding Confusion: common misconceptions of cos-
mological horizons and the superluminal expansion of
the universe. Publications of the Astronomical Soci-
ety of Australia 21 (1): 97. arXiv:astro-ph/0310808.
Bibcode:2004PASA...21...97D. doi:10.1071/AS03040.
[9] Itzhak Bars; John Terning (November 2009). Extra Di-
mensions in Space and Time. Springer. pp. 27. ISBN
978-0-387-77637-8. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
[10] Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology. As-
tro.ucla.edu. Retrieved on 2011-05-01.
[11] Lineweaver, Charles; Tamara M. Davis (2005).
Misconceptions about the Big Bang. Scientic
American.
[12] Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?
(see the last two paragraphs)
[13] The comoving distance of the future visibility limit is cal-
culated on p. 8 of Gott et al.'s A Map of the Universe
to be 4.50 times the Hubble radius, given as 4.220 billion
parsecs (13.76 billion light years), whereas the current co-
moving radius of the observable universe is calculated on
p. 7 to be 3.38 times the Hubble radius. The number of
galaxies in a sphere of a given comoving radius is propor-
tional to the cube of the radius, so as shown on p. 8 the
ratio between the number of galaxies observable in the fu-
ture visibility limit to the number of galaxies observable
today would be (4.50/3.38)3 = 2.36.
[14] Krauss, Lawrence M.; Robert J. Scherrer (2007). The
Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology.
General Relativity and Gravitation 39 (10): 15451550.
arXiv:0704.0221. Bibcode:2007GReGr..39.1545K.
doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0472-9.
[15] Using Tiny Particles To Answer Giant Questions. Science
Friday, 3 Apr 2009. According to the transcript, Brian
Greene makes the comment And actually, in the far fu-
ture, everything we now see, except for our local galaxy
and a region of galaxies will have disappeared. The entire
universe will disappear before our very eyes, and its one
of my arguments for actually funding cosmology. We've
got to do it while we have a chance.
[16] See also Faster than light#Universal expansion and Future
of an expanding universe#Galaxies outside the Local Su-
percluster are no longer detectable.
CHAPTER 15. OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE
[17] Loeb, Abraham (2002). The Long-
Term Future of Extragalactic Astronomy.
Physical Review D 65 (4). arXiv:astro-
ph/0107568. Bibcode:2002PhRvD..65d7301L.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.047301.
[18] Alan H. Guth (17 March 1998). The inationary universe:
the quest for a new theory of cosmic origins. Basic Books.
pp. 186. ISBN 978-0-201-32840-0. Retrieved 1 May
2011.
[19] Universe Could be 250 Times Bigger Than What
is Observable - by Vanessa D'Amico on Febru-
ary 8, 2011 http://www.universetoday.com/83167/
universe-could-be-250-times-bigger-than-what-is-observable/
[20] Bielewicz, P.; Banday, A. J.; Gorski, K. M. (2013).
Constraints on the Topology of the Universe.
arXiv:1303.4004 [astro-ph.CO].
[21] Mota; Reboucas; Tavakol (2010). Observable circles-
in-the-sky in at universes. arXiv:1007.3466 [astro-
ph.CO].
[22] WolframAlpha. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
[23] WolframAlpha. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
[24] Seven-Year Wilson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
(WMAP) Observations: Sky Maps, Systematic Errors,
and Basic Results (PDF). nasa.gov. Retrieved 2010-12-
02. (see p. 39 for a table of best estimates for various
cosmological parameters)
[25] Abbott, Brian (May 30, 2007). Microwave (WMAP)
All-Sky Survey. Hayden Planetarium. Retrieved 2008-
01-13.
[26] Paul Davies (28 August 1992). The new physics. Cam-
bridge University Press. pp. 187. ISBN 978-0-521-
43831-5. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
[27] V. F. Mukhanov (2005). Physical foundations of cosmol-
ogy. Cambridge University Press. pp. 58. ISBN 978-0-
521-56398-7. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
[28] Bennett, C. L.; Larson, D.; Weiland, J. L.; Jarosik,
N.; et al. (1 October 2013). Nine-year Wilkinson
Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:
Final Maps and Results. The Astrophysical Journal
Supplement Series 208 (2): 20. arXiv:1212.5225.
Bibcode:2013ApJS..208...20B. doi:10.1088/0067-
0049/208/2/20.
[29] Ned Wright, Why the Light Travel Time Distance should
not be used in Press Releases.
[30] Universe Might be Bigger and Older than Expected.
Space.com (2006-08-07). Retrieved on 2011-05-01.
[31] Big bang pushed back two billion years space 04 Au-
gust 2006 New Scientist. Space.newscientist.com. Re-
trieved on 2011-05-01.
[32] Edward L. Wright, An Older but Larger Universe?"
15.9. REFERENCES
[33] Cornish; Spergel; Starkman; Eiichiro Ko-
matsu (May 2004) [October 2003 (arXiv)].
Constraining the Topology of the Universe.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (20). arXiv:astro-
ph/0310233. Bibcode:2004PhRvL..92t1302C.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.201302. 201302.
[34] Levin, Janna. In space, do all roads lead to home?".
plus.maths.org. Retrieved 2012-08-15.
[35] http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~{}zirbel/ast21/sciam/
IsSpaceFinite.pdf
[36] Bob Gardners Topology, Cosmology and Shape of
Space Talk, Section 7. Etsu.edu. Retrieved on 2011-
05-01.
[37] Vaudrevange; Starkmanl; Cornish; Spergel.
Constraints on the Topology of the Uni-
verse: Extension to General Geometries.
arXiv:1206.2939. Bibcode:2012PhRvD..86h3526V.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.083526.
[38] SPACE.com Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion
Light-years Wide!
[39] Roy, Robert. (2004-05-24) New study super-sizes the
universe Technology & science Space Space.com
msnbc.com. MSNBC. Retrieved on 2011-05-01.
[40] Astronomers size up the Universe. BBC News. 2004-
05-28. Retrieved 2010-05-20.
[41] MSU researcher recognized for discoveries about uni-
verse. 2004-12-21. Retrieved 2011-02-08.
[42] Space.com Universe Might be Bigger and Older than
Expected
[43] Robert P Kirshner (2002). The Extravagant Universe: Ex-
ploding Stars, Dark Energy and the Accelerating Cosmos.
Princeton University Press. p. 71. ISBN 0-691-05862-8.
[44] M. J. Geller; J. P. Huchra (1989). Map-
ping the universe.. Science 246 (4932):
897903. Bibcode:1989Sci...246..897G.
doi:10.1126/science.246.4932.897. PMID 17812575.
[45] Biggest void in space is 1 billion light years across
space 24 August 2007 New Scientist.
Space.newscientist.com. Retrieved on 2011-05-01.
[46] Wall, Mike (2013-01-11). Largest structure in universe
discovered. Fox News.
[47] Horvth, I; Hakkila, Jon; Bagoly, Z. (2014). Possible
structure in the GRB sky distribution at redshift two.
arXiv:1401.0533. Bibcode:2014A&A...561L..12H.
doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323020.
[48] Horvath, I.; Hakkila, J.; Bagoly, Z. (2013). The largest
structure of the Universe, dened by Gamma-Ray Bursts.
arXiv:1311.1104 [astro-ph.CO].
[49] Klotz, Irene (2013-11-19). Universes Largest Structure
is a Cosmic Conundrum. Discovery.
[50] LiveScience.com, The Universe Isn't a Fractal, Study
Finds, Natalie Wolchover,22 August 2012
175
[51] 1Jarrett, T. H. (2004). Large Scale Structure in the Lo-
cal Universe: The 2MASS Galaxy Catalog. Publica-
tions of the Astronomical Society of Australia 21 (4): 396.
arXiv:astro-ph/0405069. Bibcode:2004PASA...21..396J.
doi:10.1071/AS04050.
[52] Massive Clusters of Galaxies Defy Concepts of the Uni-
verse N.Y. Times Tue. November 10, 1987:
[53] Map of the Pisces-Cetus Supercluster Complex:
[54] Michio Kaku (2005). Parallel Worlds. Anchor Books. p.
385. ISBN 978-1-4000-3372-0. Retrieved 1 July 2013.
[55] Bernard F. Schutz (2003). Gravity from the ground up.
Cambridge University Press. pp. 361. ISBN 978-0-521-
45506-0. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
[56] Planck collaboration (2013). Planck 2013 re-
sults. XVI. Cosmological parameters. Submitted
to Astronomy & Astrophysics. arXiv:1303.5076.
Bibcode:2014A&A...571A..16P. doi:10.1051/0004-
6361/201321591.
[57] Astronomers count the stars. BBC News. July 22, 2003.
Retrieved 2006-07-18.
[58] trillions-of-earths-could-be-orbiting-300-sextillion-
stars
[59] van Dokkum, Pieter G.; Charlie Conroy (2010).
A substantial population of low-mass stars in lumi-
nous elliptical galaxies. Nature 468 (7326): 940
942. arXiv:1009.5992. Bibcode:2010Natur.468..940V.
doi:10.1038/nature09578. PMID 21124316.
[60] How many stars?"
[61] | NASA, Hubble News Release STSci - 2004-7
[62] James R Johnson. Comprehending the Cosmos, a Macro
View of the Universe. p. 36. ISBN 978-1-477-64969-5.
Retrieved 1 July 2013.
[63] Hubble Goes to the eXtreme to Assemble Farthest Ever
View of the Universe (Press release). 25 September
2012. Retrieved 1 July 2013.
[64] James R Johnson. Comprehending the Cosmos, a Macro
View of the Universe. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-477-64969-5.
Retrieved 1 July 2013.
[65] Fukugita, Masataka; Peebles, P. J. E. (2004). The
Cosmic Energy Inventory. Astrophysical Jour-
nal 616 (2): 643668. arXiv:astro-ph/0406095.
Bibcode:2004ApJ...616..643F. doi:10.1086/425155.
[66] Helge Kragh (1999-02-22). Chapter 5. Cosmology and
Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories
of the Universe. Princeton University Press. p. 212. ISBN
0-691-00546-X.
[67] Valev, Dimitar (2010). Estimation of the total mass and
energy of the universe. arXiv:1004.1035 [physics.gen-
ph].
176
[68] Loeb, Abraham (October 2014). The Habit-
able Epoch of the Early Universe. International
Journal of Astrobiology 13 (04): 337339.
arXiv:1312.0613. Bibcode:2014IJAsB..13..337L.
doi:10.1017/S1473550414000196. Retrieved 15
December 2014.
[69] Loeb, Abraham (2 December 2013). The Hab-
itable Epoch of the Early Universe (PDF). Arxiv.
arXiv:1312.0613v3. Retrieved 15 December 2014.
[70] Dreifus, Claudia (2 December 2014). Much-Discussed
Views That Go Way Back - Avi Loeb Ponders the Early
Universe, Nature and Life. New York Times. Retrieved
3 December 2014.
[71] Rampelotto, P.H. (2010). Panspermia: A Promising
Field Of Research (PDF). Astrobiology Science Confer-
ence. Retrieved 3 December 2014. External link in
|work= (help)
[72] Race, Margaret S.; Randolph, Richard O. (2002). The
need for operating guidelines and a decision making
framework applicable to the discovery of non-intelligent
extraterrestrial life. Advances in Space Research
30 (6): 15831591. Bibcode:2002AdSpR..30.1583R.
doi:10.1016/S0273-1177(02)00478-7. ISSN 0273-1177.
There is growing scientic condence that the discovery
of extraterrestrial life in some form is nearly inevitable
[73] Cantor, Matt (15 February 2009). Alien Life 'Inevitable':
Astronomer. newser. Archived from the original on 3
May 2013. Retrieved 3 May 2013. Scientists now believe
there could be as many habitable planets in the cosmos as
there are stars, and that makes lifes existence elsewhere
inevitable over billions of years, says one.
[74] New Gamma-Ray Burst Smashes Cosmic Distance
Record NASA Science. Science.nasa.gov. Retrieved
on 2011-05-01.
[75] More Observations of GRB 090423, the Most Distant
Known Object in the Universe. Universetoday.com
(2009-10-28). Retrieved on 2011-05-01.
[76] Meszaros, Attila; et al. (2009). Impact on cosmology of
the celestial anisotropy of the short gamma-ray bursts.
Baltic Astronomy 18: 293296. arXiv:1005.1558.
Bibcode:2009BaltA..18..293M.
[77] Hubble and Keck team up to nd farthest known galaxy
in the Universe|Press Releases|ESA/Hubble. Spacetele-
scope.org (2004-02-15). Retrieved on 2011-05-01.
[78] MSNBC: Galaxy ranks as most distant object in cosmos
15.10 Further reading
Vicent J. Martnez; Jean-Luc Starck; Enn
Saar; David L. Donoho; et al. (2005).
Morphology Of The Galaxy Distribution
From Wavelet Denoising. The Astrophysi-
cal Journal 634 (2): 744755. arXiv:astro-
ph/0508326. Bibcode:2005ApJ...634..744M.
doi:10.1086/497125.
CHAPTER 15. OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE
Mureika, J. R. & Dyer, C. C. (2004). Re-
view: Multifractal Analysis of Packed Swiss
Cheese Cosmologies. General Relativity
and Gravitation 36 (1): 151184. arXiv:gr-
qc/0505083. Bibcode:2004GReGr..36..151M.
doi:10.1023/B:GERG.0000006699.45969.49.
Gott, III, J. R.; et al. (May 2005). A
Map of the Universe. The Astrophysical
Journal 624 (2): 463484. arXiv:astro-
ph/0310571. Bibcode:2005ApJ...624..463G.
doi:10.1086/428890.
F. Sylos Labini; M. Montuori & L. Pietronero
(1998). Scale-invariance of galaxy clustering.
Physics Reports 293 (1): 61226. arXiv:astro-
ph/9711073. Bibcode:1998PhR...293...61S.
doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(97)00044-6.
15.11 External links
Calculating the total mass of ordinary matter in the
universe, what you always wanted to know
Millennium Simulation of structure forming
Max Planck Institute of Astrophysics, Garching,
Germany
Visualisations of large-scale structure: animated
spins of groups, clusters, laments and voids iden-
tied in SDSS data by MSPM (Sydney Institute for
Astronomy)
The Sloan Great Wall: Largest Known Structure?
on APOD
Cosmology FAQ
Forming Galaxies Captured In The Young Universe
By Hubble, VLT & Spitzer
NASA featured Images and Galleries
Star Survey reaches 70 sextillion
Animation of the cosmic light horizon
Ination and the Cosmic Microwave Background by
Charles Lineweaver
Logarithmic Maps of the Universe
List of publications of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Sur-
vey
List of publications of the 6dF Galaxy Redshift and
peculiar velocity survey
The Universe Within 14 Billion Light Years
NASA Atlas of the Universe Note, this map only
gives a rough cosmographical estimate of the ex-
pected distribution of superclusters within the ob-
servable universe; very little actual mapping has
15.11. EXTERNAL LINKS 177

been done beyond a distance of one billion light

years.
Video: The Known Universe, from the American
Museum of Natural History
NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database

Cosmography of the Local Universe at irfu.cea.fr

(17:35) (arXiv)

Size and age of the Universe at Astronoo

Chapter 16

Ination (cosmology)

Ination model and Ination theory redirect here. see. Light (or other radiation) emitted by objects beyond
For a general rise in the price level, see Ination. For the cosmological horizon never reaches the observer, be-
other uses, see Ination (disambiguation). cause the space in between the observer and the object is
expanding too rapidly.
In physical cosmology, cosmic ination, cosmological
ination, or just ination is a theory of exponential History of the Universe

{
expansion of space in the early universe. The inationary Gravitational Waves

Ination
epoch lasted from 1036 seconds after the Big Bang to Generates
Two Types of
Waves Waves Imprint Characteristic
sometime between 1033 and 1032 seconds. Following Density Waves Polarization Signals

the inationary period, the Universe continues to expand,

but at a less rapid rate.[1] Free Electrons
Scatter Light
Earliest Time
Visible with Light
Fluctuations
Quantum
Radius of the Visible Universe

Ination theory was developed in the early 1980s. It ex-

Cosmic Microwave Background

Neutral Hydrogen Forms

Nuclear Fusion Begins

Nuclear Fusion Ends

Modern Universe
plains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cos-
Protons Formed
Ination

Big

mos. Quantum uctuations in the microscopic ination- Bang

ary region, magnied to cosmic size, become the seeds

for the growth of structure in the Universe (see galaxy for-
mation and evolution and structure formation).[2] Many 0 1032 s 1 s 0.01 s
Age of the Universe
3 min 380,000 yrs 13.8 Billion yrs

physicists also believe that ination explains why the Uni-

verse appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic),
why the cosmic microwave background radiation is dis- History of the Universe - gravitational waves are hypothesized
tributed evenly, why the Universe is at, and why no to arise from cosmic ination, a faster-than-light expansion just
magnetic monopoles have been observed. after the Big Bang (17 March 2014).[6][7][8]

While the detailed particle physics mechanism responsi-

ble for ination is not known, the basic picture makes
a number of predictions that have been conrmed by
observation.[3] The hypothetical eld thought to be re-
sponsible for ination is called the inaton.[4]
In 2002, three of the original architects of the theory were
recognized for their major contributions; physicists Alan
Guth of M.I.T., Andrei Linde of Stanford and Paul Stein-
hardt of Princeton shared the prestigious Dirac Prize for
development of the concept of ination in cosmology.[5]
16.1 Overview
Main article: Metric expansion of space
An expanding universe generally has a cosmological hori-
zon, which, by analogy with the more familiar horizon
caused by the curvature of the Earths surface, marks the
boundary of the part of the Universe that an observer can
The observable universe is one causal patch of a much
larger unobservable universe; other parts of the Universe
cannot communicate with Earth yet. These parts of the
Universe are outside our current cosmological horizon.
In the standard hot big bang model, without ination, the
cosmological horizon moves out, bringing new regions
into view. Yet as a local observer sees such a region
for the rst time, it looks no dierent from any other
region of space the local observer has already seen: its
background radiation is at nearly the same temperature as
the background radiation of other regions, and its space-
time curvature is evolving lock-step with the others. This
presents a mystery: how did these new regions know what
temperature and curvature they were supposed to have?
They couldn't have learned it by getting signals, because
they were not previously in communication with our past
light cone.[9][10]
Ination answers this question by postulating that all the
regions come from an earlier era with a big vacuum en-
ergy, or cosmological constant. A space with a cosmolog-
ical constant is qualitatively dierent: instead of moving

178
16.1. OVERVIEW 179

outward, the cosmological horizon stays put. For any one called a de Sitter space, and to sustain it there must be
observer, the distance to the cosmological horizon is con- a cosmological constant, a vacuum energy proportional
stant. With exponentially expanding space, two nearby to everywhere. In this case, the equation of state is
observers are separated very quickly; so much so, that the p = . The physical conditions from one moment
distance between them quickly exceeds the limits of com- to the next are stable: the rate of expansion, called the
munications. The spatial slices are expanding very fast to Hubble parameter, is nearly constant, and the scale factor
cover huge volumes. Things are constantly moving be- of the Universe is proportional to eHt . Ination is of-
yond the cosmological horizon, which is a xed distance ten called a period of accelerated expansion because the
away, and everything becomes homogeneous. distance between two xed observers is increasing expo-
As the inationary eld slowly relaxes to the vacuum, the nentially (i.e. at an accelerating rate as they move apart),
while can stay approximately constant (see deceleration
cosmological constant goes to zero and space begins to
expand normally. The new regions that come into view parameter).
during the normal expansion phase are exactly the same
regions that were pushed out of the horizon during ina-
tion, and so they are at nearly the same temperature and 16.1.2 Few inhomogeneities remain
curvature, because they come from the same originally
small patch of space. Cosmological ination has the important eect of
smoothing out inhomogeneities, anisotropies and the
The theory of ination thus explains why the tempera- curvature of space. This pushes the Universe into a very
tures and curvatures of dierent regions are so nearly simple state, in which it is completely dominated by the
equal. It also predicts that the total curvature of a space- inaton eld, the source of the cosmological constant, and
slice at constant global time is zero. This prediction the only signicant inhomogeneities are the tiny quantum
implies that the total ordinary matter, dark matter and uctuations in the inaton. Ination also dilutes exotic
residual vacuum energy in the Universe have to add up heavy particles, such as the magnetic monopoles pre-
to the critical density, and the evidence supports this. dicted by many extensions to the Standard Model of
More strikingly, ination allows physicists to calculate particle physics. If the Universe was only hot enough
the minute dierences in temperature of dierent re- to form such particles before a period of ination, they
gions from quantum uctuations during the inationary would not be observed in nature, as they would be so rare
era, and many of these quantitative predictions have been that it is quite likely that there are none in the observable
conrmed.[11][12] universe. Together, these eects are called the ination-
ary no-hair theorem[15] by analogy with the no hair the-
orem for black holes.
16.1.1 Space expands
The no-hair theorem works essentially because the cos-
To say that space expands exponentially means that two mological horizon is no dierent from a black-hole hori-
inertial observers are moving farther apart with accelerat- zon, except for philosophical disagreements about what is
ing velocity. In stationary coordinates for one observer, on the other side. The interpretation of the no-hair the-
a patch of an inating universe has the following polar orem is that the Universe (observable and unobservable)
metric:[13][14] expands by an enormous factor during ination. In an
expanding universe, energy densities generally fall, or get
diluted, as the volume of the Universe increases. For ex-
1 ample, the density of ordinary cold matter (dust) goes
ds2 = (1 r2 ) dt2 + dr2 + r2 d2 .
1 r2 down as the inverse of the volume: when linear dimen-
This is just like an inside-out black hole metricit has a sions double, the energy density goes down by a factor of
zero in the dt component on a xed radius sphere called eight; the radiation energy density goes down even more
the cosmological horizon. Objects are drawn away from rapidly as the Universe expands since the wavelength of
the observer at r = 0 towards the cosmological horizon, each photon is stretched (redshifted), in addition to the
which they cross in a nite proper time. This means that photons being dispersed by the expansion. When linear
any inhomogeneities are smoothed out, just as any bumps dimensions are doubled, the energy density in radiation
or matter on the surface of a black hole horizon are swal- falls by a factor of sixteen (see the solution of the en-
lowed and disappear. ergy density continuity equation for an ultra-relativistic
uid). During ination, the energy density in the ina-
Since the spacetime metric has no explicit time depen- ton eld is roughly constant. However, the energy density
dence, once an observer has crossed the cosmological in everything else, including inhomogeneities, curvature,
horizon, observers closer in take its place. This process anisotropies, exotic particles, and standard-model parti-
of falling outward and replacement points closer in are al- cles is falling, and through sucient ination these all be-
ways steadily replacing points further outan exponen- come negligible. This leaves the Universe at and sym-
tial expansion of spacetime. metric, and (apart from the homogeneous inaton eld)
This steady-state exponentially expanding spacetime is mostly empty, at the moment ination ends and reheating
180
begins.[16]
16.1.3 Duration
A key requirement is that ination must continue long
enough to produce the present observable universe from
a single, small inationary Hubble volume. This is nec-
essary to ensure that the Universe appears at, homo-
geneous and isotropic at the largest observable scales.
This requirement is generally thought to be satised if
the Universe expanded by a factor of at least 1026 during
ination.[17]
16.1.4 Reheating
Ination is a period of supercooled expansion, when the
temperature drops by a factor of 100,000 or so. (The
exact drop is model dependent, but in the rst models
it was typically from 1027 K down to 1022 K.[18] ) This
relatively low temperature is maintained during the ina-
tionary phase. When ination ends the temperature re-
turns to the pre-inationary temperature; this is called re-
heating or thermalization because the large potential en-
ergy of the inaton eld decays into particles and lls
the Universe with Standard Model particles, including
electromagnetic radiation, starting the radiation domi-
nated phase of the Universe. Because the nature of the
ination is not known, this process is still poorly un-
derstood, although it is believed to take place through a
parametric resonance.[19][20]
16.2 Motivations
Ination resolves several problems in Big Bang cosmol-
ogy that were discovered in the 1970s.[21] Ination was
rst proposed by Guth while investigating the problem
of why no magnetic monopoles are seen today; he found
that a positive-energy false vacuum would, according to
general relativity, generate an exponential expansion of
space. It was very quickly realised that such an expansion
would resolve many other long-standing problems. These
problems arise from the observation that to look like it
does today, the Universe would have to have started from
very nely tuned, or special initial conditions at the Big
Bang. Ination attempts to resolve these problems by pro-
viding a dynamical mechanism that drives the Universe to
this special state, thus making a universe like ours much
more likely in the context of the Big Bang theory.
16.2.1 Horizon problem
Main article: Horizon problem
CHAPTER 16. INFLATION (COSMOLOGY)
The horizon problem is the problem of determining
why the Universe appears statistically homogeneous and
isotropic in accordance with the cosmological princi-
ple.[22][23][24] For example, molecules in a canister of gas
are distributed homogeneously and isotropically because
they are in thermal equilibrium: gas throughout the can-
ister has had enough time to interact to dissipate inho-
mogeneities and anisotropies. The situation is quite dif-
ferent in the big bang model without ination, because
gravitational expansion does not give the early universe
enough time to equilibrate. In a big bang with only the
matter and radiation known in the Standard Model, two
widely separated regions of the observable universe can-
not have equilibrated because they move apart from each
other faster than the speed of light and thus have never
come into causal contact. In the early Universe, it was
not possible to send a light signal between the two re-
gions. Because they have had no interaction, it is dicult
to explain why they have the same temperature (are ther-
mally equilibrated). Historically, proposed solutions in-
cluded the Phoenix universe of Georges Lematre,[25] the
related oscillatory universe of Richard Chase Tolman,[26]
and the Mixmaster universe of Charles Misner. Lematre
and Tolman proposed that a universe undergoing a num-
ber of cycles of contraction and expansion could come
into thermal equilibrium. Their models failed, however,
because of the buildup of entropy over several cycles.
Misner made the (ultimately incorrect) conjecture that
the Mixmaster mechanism, which made the Universe
more chaotic, could lead to statistical homogeneity and
isotropy.[23][27]
16.2.2 Flatness problem
Main article: Flatness problem
The atness problem is sometimes called one of the Dicke
coincidences (along with the cosmological constant prob-
lem).[28][29] It became known in the 1960s that the density
of matter in the Universe was comparable to the critical
density necessary for a at universe (that is, a universe
whose large scale geometry is the usual Euclidean geom-
etry, rather than a non-Euclidean hyperbolic or spherical
geometry).[30]:61
Therefore, regardless of the shape of the universe the
contribution of spatial curvature to the expansion of the
Universe could not be much greater than the contribution
of matter. But as the Universe expands, the curvature
redshifts away more slowly than matter and radiation. Ex-
trapolated into the past, this presents a ne-tuning prob-
lem because the contribution of curvature to the Universe
must be exponentially small (sixteen orders of magnitude
less than the density of radiation at big bang nucleosyn-
thesis, for example). This problem is exacerbated by re-
cent observations of the cosmic microwave background
that have demonstrated that the Universe is at to within
a few percent.[31]
16.3. HISTORY
16.2.3 Magnetic-monopole problem
The magnetic monopole problem, sometimes called the
exotic-relics problem, says that if the early universe were
very hot, a large number of very heavy, stable magnetic
monopoles would have been produced. This is a prob-
lem with Grand Unied Theories, which propose that
at high temperatures (such as in the early universe) the
electromagnetic force, strong, and weak nuclear forces
are not actually fundamental forces but arise due to
spontaneous symmetry breaking from a single gauge the-
ory.[32] These theories predict a number of heavy, sta-
ble particles that have not been observed in nature. The
most notorious is the magnetic monopole, a kind of sta-
ble, heavy charge of magnetic eld.[33][34] Monopoles
are predicted to be copiously produced following Grand
Unied Theories at high temperature,[35][36] and they
should have persisted to the present day, to such an ex-
tent that they would become the primary constituent of
the Universe.[37][38] Not only is that not the case, but
all searches for them have failed, placing stringent lim-
its on the density of relic magnetic monopoles in the
Universe.[39] A period of ination that occurs below
the temperature where magnetic monopoles can be pro-
duced would oer a possible resolution of this problem:
monopoles would be separated from each other as the
Universe around them expands, potentially lowering their
observed density by many orders of magnitude. Though,
as cosmologist Martin Rees has written, Skeptics about
exotic physics might not be hugely impressed by a theo-
retical argument to explain the absence of particles that
are themselves only hypothetical. Preventive medicine
can readily seem 100 percent eective against a disease
that doesn't exist!"[40]
16.3 History
16.3.1 Precursors
In the early days of General Relativity, Albert Einstein
introduced the cosmological constant to allow a static so-
lution, which was a three-dimensional sphere with a uni-
form density of matter. Later, Willem de Sitter found
a highly symmetric inating universe, which described a
universe with a cosmological constant that is otherwise
empty.[41] It was discovered that Einsteins universe is un-
stable, and that small uctuations cause it to collapse or
turn into a de Sitter universe.
In the early 1970s Zeldovich noticed the atness and hori-
zon problems of Big Bang cosmology; before his work,
cosmology was presumed to be symmetrical on purely
philosophical grounds. In the Soviet Union, this and other
considerations led Belinski and Khalatnikov to analyze
the chaotic BKL singularity in General Relativity. Mis-
ners Mixmaster universe attempted to use this chaotic
behavior to solve the cosmological problems, with lim-
181
ited success.
In the late 1970s, Sidney Coleman applied the instanton
techniques developed by Alexander Polyakov and collab-
orators to study the fate of the false vacuum in quantum
eld theory. Like a metastable phase in statistical me-
chanicswater below the freezing temperature or above
the boiling pointa quantum eld would need to nucle-
ate a large enough bubble of the new vacuum, the new
phase, in order to make a transition. Coleman found the
most likely decay pathway for vacuum decay and calcu-
lated the inverse lifetime per unit volume. He eventually
noted that gravitational eects would be signicant, but
he did not calculate these eects and did not apply the
results to cosmology.
In the Soviet Union, Alexei Starobinsky noted that quan-
tum corrections to general relativity should be impor-
tant for the early universe. These generically lead to
curvature-squared corrections to the EinsteinHilbert ac-
tion and a form of f(R) modied gravity. The solution to
Einsteins equations in the presence of curvature squared
terms, when the curvatures are large, leads to an eec-
tive cosmological constant. Therefore, he proposed that
the early universe went through an inationary de Sitter
era.[42] This resolved the cosmology problems and led to
specic predictions for the corrections to the microwave
background radiation, corrections that were then calcu-
lated in detail.
In 1978, Zeldovich noted the monopole problem, which
was an unambiguous quantitative version of the horizon
problem, this time in a subeld of particle physics, which
led to several speculative attempts to resolve it. In 1980
Alan Guth realized that false vacuum decay in the early
universe would solve the problem, leading him to propose
a scalar-driven ination. Starobinskys and Guths scenar-
ios both predicted an initial deSitter phase, diering only
in mechanistic details.
16.3.2 Early inationary models
Guth proposed ination in January 1980 to explain the
nonexistence of magnetic monopoles;[43][44] it was Guth
who coined the term ination.[45] At the same time,
Starobinsky argued that quantum corrections to gravity
would replace the initial singularity of the Universe with
an exponentially expanding deSitter phase.[46] In October
1980, Demosthenes Kazanas suggested that exponential
expansion could eliminate the particle horizon and per-
haps solve the horizon problem,[47] while Sato suggested
that an exponential expansion could eliminate domain
walls (another kind of exotic relic).[48] In 1981 Einhorn
and Sato[49] published a model similar to Guths and
showed that it would resolve the puzzle of the magnetic
monopole abundance in Grand Unied Theories. Like
Guth, they concluded that such a model not only required
ne tuning of the cosmological constant, but also would
likely lead to a much too granular universe, i.e., to large
182
density variations resulting from bubble wall collisions.
1 om
10-10
tio
radia
10-20
ius
scale factor
rad
ble
ub
H
m
od duce a perfectly symmetric universe, but that quantum
10 -30 n
at io
rb
r tu
ination
pe
10 -40
10 -50
10 m 10 m -25
10 m -15
10 m 10 m 10 m the work of Mukhanov and Chibisov at the three-week
wavelength
The physical size of the Hubble radius (solid line) as a function of
the linear expansion (scale factor) of the universe. During cos-
mological ination, the Hubble radius is constant. The physical
wavelength of a perturbation mode (dashed line) is also shown. Guth and So-Young Pi;
The plot illustrates how the perturbation mode grows larger than
the horizon during cosmological ination before coming back in-
side the horizon, which grows rapidly during radiation domina-
tion. If cosmological ination had never happened, and radi-
ation domination continued back until a gravitational singular-
ity, then the mode would never have been inside the horizon in
the very early universe, and no causal mechanism could have
ensured that the universe was homogeneous on the scale of the
perturbation mode.
Guth proposed that as the early universe cooled, it was
trapped in a false vacuum with a high energy density,
which is much like a cosmological constant. As the very
early universe cooled it was trapped in a metastable state
(it was supercooled), which it could only decay out of
through the process of bubble nucleation via quantum
tunneling. Bubbles of true vacuum spontaneously form
in the sea of false vacuum and rapidly begin expanding
at the speed of light. Guth recognized that this model
was problematic because the model did not reheat prop-
erly: when the bubbles nucleated, they did not generate
any radiation. Radiation could only be generated in col-
lisions between bubble walls. But if ination lasted long
enough to solve the initial conditions problems, collisions
between bubbles became exceedingly rare. In any one
causal patch it is likely that only one bubble would nucle-
ate.
16.3.3 Slow-roll ination
The bubble collision problem was solved by Linde[50]
and independently by Andreas Albrecht and Paul Stein-
hardt[51] in a model named new ination or slow-roll in-
ation (Guths model then became known as old ina-
tion). In this model, instead of tunneling out of a false
vacuum state, ination occurred by a scalar eld rolling
CHAPTER 16. INFLATION (COSMOLOGY)
down a potential energy hill. When the eld rolls very
n
slowly compared to the expansion of the Universe, in-
io
at
in ation occurs. However, when the hill becomes steeper,
rd
m
at
te ination ends and reheating can occur.
n
tio
ina
om
nd 16.3.4 Eects of asymmetries
Eventually, it was shown that new ination does not pro-
e
uctuations in the inaton are created. These uctua-
tions form the primordial seeds for all structure created in
the later universe.[52] These uctuations were rst calcu-
lated by Viatcheslav Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov in an-
alyzing Starobinskys similar model.[53][54][55] In the con-
text of ination, they were worked out independently of
-5 5 15 25
1982 Nueld Workshop on the Very Early Universe at
Cambridge University.[56] The uctuations were calcu-
lated by four groups working separately over the course
of the workshop: Stephen Hawking;[57] Starobinsky;[58]
[59]
and Bardeen, Steinhardt and
[60]
Turner.
16.4 Observational status
Ination is a mechanism for realizing the cosmological
principle, which is the basis of the standard model of
physical cosmology: it accounts for the homogeneity and
isotropy of the observable universe. In addition, it ac-
counts for the observed atness and absence of magnetic
monopoles. Since Guths early work, each of these ob-
servations has received further conrmation, most im-
pressively by the detailed observations of the cosmic mi-
crowave background made by the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft.[11] This analysis
shows that the Universe is at to within at least a few per-
cent, and that it is homogeneous and isotropic to one part
in 100,000.
In addition, ination predicts that the structures visible
in the Universe today formed through the gravitational
collapse of perturbations that were formed as quan-
tum mechanical uctuations in the inationary epoch.
The detailed form of the spectrum of perturbations
called a nearly-scale-invariant Gaussian random eld (or
HarrisonZel'dovich spectrum) is very specic and has
only two free parameters, the amplitude of the spectrum
and the spectral index, which measures the slight devi-
ation from scale invariance predicted by ination (per-
fect scale invariance corresponds to the idealized de Sit-
ter universe).[61] Ination predicts that the observed per-
turbations should be in thermal equilibrium with each
other (these are called adiabatic or isentropic perturba-
tions). This structure for the perturbations has been con-
rmed by the WMAP spacecraft and other cosmic mi-
crowave background (CMB) experiments,[11] and galaxy
16.5. THEORETICAL STATUS 183

surveys, especially the ongoing Sloan Digital Sky Sur- if the signal will be visible, or if contamination from fore-
vey.[62] These experiments have shown that the one part in ground sources will interfere.[79] Other forthcoming mea-
100,000 inhomogeneities observed have exactly the form surements, such as those of 21 centimeter radiation (ra-
predicted by theory. Moreover, there is evidence for a diation emitted and absorbed from neutral hydrogen be-
slight deviation from scale invariance. The spectral in- fore the rst stars turned on), may measure the power
dex, n is equal to one for a scale-invariant spectrum. The spectrum with even greater resolution than the CMB and
simplest ination models predict that this quantity is be- galaxy surveys, although it is not known if these mea-
tween 0.92 and 0.98.[63][64][65][66] From WMAP data it surements will be possible or if interference with radio
can be inferred that n = 0.963 0.012,[67] implying that sources on Earth and in the galaxy will be too great.[80]
it diers from one at the level of two standard deviations Dark energy is broadly similar to ination and is thought
(2). This is considered an important conrmation of the
to be causing the expansion of the present-day universe to
theory of ination.[11] accelerate. However, the energy scale of dark energy is
Various ination theories have been proposed that make much lower, 1012 GeV, roughly 27 orders of magnitude
radically dierent predictions, but they generally have less than the scale of ination.
much more ne tuning than should be necessary.[63][64]
As a physical model, however, ination is most valuable
in that it robustly predicts the initial conditions of the Uni-
verse based on only two adjustable parameters: the spec-
16.5 Theoretical status
tral index (that can only change in a small range) and the
amplitude of the perturbations. Except in contrived mod- In Guths early proposal, it was thought that the inaton
els, this is true regardless of how ination is realized in was the Higgs eld, the eld that explains the mass of the
particle physics. elementary particles.[44] It is now believed by some that
the inaton cannot be the Higgs eld[81] although the re-
Occasionally, eects are observed that appear to con-
cent discovery of the Higgs boson has increased the num-
tradict the simplest models of ination. The rst-year
ber of works considering the Higgs eld as inaton.[82]
WMAP data suggested that the spectrum might not be
One problem of this identication is the current tension
nearly scale-invariant, but might instead have a slight
[68] with experimental data at the electroweak scale,[83] which
curvature. However, the third-year data revealed that
is currently under study at the Large Hadron Collider
the eect was a statistical anomaly.[11] Another eect
(LHC). Other models of ination relied on the properties
remarked upon since the rst cosmic microwave back-
of Grand Unied Theories.[51] Since the simplest mod-
ground satellite, the Cosmic Background Explorer is that
els of grand unication have failed, it is now thought
the amplitude of the quadrupole moment of the CMB is
by many physicists that ination will be included in a
unexpectedly low and the other low multipoles appear to
supersymmetric theory such as string theory or a super-
be preferentially aligned with the ecliptic plane. Some
symmetric grand unied theory. At present, while ina-
have claimed that this is a signature of non-Gaussianity
tion is understood principally by its detailed predictions
and thus contradicts the simplest models of ination.
of the initial conditions for the hot early universe, the par-
Others have suggested that the eect may be due to
ticle physics is largely ad hoc modelling. As such, al-
other new physics, foreground contamination, or even
[69] though predictions of ination have been consistent with
publication bias.
the results of observational tests, many open questions re-
An experimental program is underway to further test in- main.
ation with more precise CMB measurements. In par-
ticular, high precision measurements of the so-called B-
modes of the polarization of the background radiation 16.5.1 Fine-tuning problem
could provide evidence of the gravitational radiation pro-
duced by ination, and could also show whether the en- One of the most severe challenges for ination arises from
ergy scale of ination predicted by the simplest mod- the need for ne tuning. In new ination, the slow-roll
els (1015 1016 GeV) is correct.[64][65] In March 2014, it conditions must be satised for ination to occur. The
was announced that B-mode CMB polarization consistent slow-roll conditions say that the inaton potential must
with that predicted from ination had been demonstrated be at (compared to the large vacuum energy) and that
by a South Pole experiment.[6][7][8][70][71][72] However, the inaton particles must have a small mass.[84] New in-
on 19 June 2014, lowered condence in conrming the ation requires the Universe to have a scalar eld with
ndings was reported;[71][73][74] on 19 September 2014, an especially at potential and special initial conditions.
a further reduction in condence was reported[75][76] However, explanations for these ne-tunings have been
and, on 30 January 2015, even less condence yet was proposed. For example, classically scale invariant eld
reported.[77][78] theories, where scale invariance is broken by quantum ef-
Other potentially corroborating measurements are ex- fects, provide an explanation of the atness of inationary
pected from the Planck spacecraft, although it is unclear potentials, as long as the theory can be studied through
perturbation theory.[85]
184 CHAPTER 16. INFLATION (COSMOLOGY)

Andrei Linde sion among physicists that this steady state cannot con-
tinue forever into the past.[92][93][94] Inationary space-
Linde proposed a theory known as chaotic ination in time, which is similar to de Sitter space, is incomplete
which he suggested that the conditions for ination were without a contracting region. However, unlike de Sitter
actually satised quite generically. Ination will occur space, uctuations in a contracting inationary space col-
in virtually any universe that begins in a chaotic, high lapse to form a gravitational singularity, a point where
energy state that has a scalar eld with unbounded po- densities become innite. Therefore, it is necessary to
tential energy.[86] However, in his model the inaton have a theory for the Universes initial conditions. Linde,
eld necessarily takes values larger than one Planck unit: however, believes ination may be past eternal.[95]
for this reason, these are often called large eld mod- In eternal ination, regions with ination have an expo-
els and the competing new ination models are called nentially growing volume, while regions that are not in-
small eld models. In this situation, the predictions ating don't. This suggests that the volume of the inat-
of eective eld theory are thought to be invalid, as ing part of the Universe in the global picture is always
renormalization should cause large corrections that could unimaginably larger than the part that has stopped in-
prevent ination.[87] This problem has not yet been re- ating, even though ination eventually ends as seen by
solved and some cosmologists argue that the small eld any single pre-inationary observer. Scientists disagree
models, in which ination can occur at a much lower en- about how to assign a probability distribution to this hy-
ergy scale, are better models.[88] While ination depends pothetical anthropic landscape. If the probability of dif-
on quantum eld theory (and the semiclassical approxi- ferent regions is counted by volume, one should expect
mation to quantum gravity) in an important way, it has that ination will never end or applying boundary condi-
not been completely reconciled with these theories. tions that a local observer exists to observe it, that ination
Brandenberger commented on ne-tuning in another will end as late as possible. Some physicists believe this
situation.[89] The amplitude of the primordial inhomo- paradox can be resolved by weighting observers by their
geneities produced in ination is directly tied to the en- pre-inationary volume.
ergy scale of ination. This scale is suggested to be
around 1016 GeV or 103 times the Planck energy. The
natural scale is navely the Planck scale so this small value 16.5.3 Initial conditions
could be seen as another form of ne-tuning (called a
hierarchy problem): the energy density given by the scalar Some physicists have tried to avoid the initial conditions
potential is down by 1012 compared to the Planck den- problem by proposing models for an eternally inating
sity. This is not usually considered to be a critical prob- universe with no origin.[96][97][98][99] These models pro-
lem, however, because the scale of ination corresponds pose that while the Universe, on the largest scales, ex-
naturally to the scale of gauge unication. pands exponentially it was, is and always will be, spatially
innite and has existed, and will exist, forever.
Other proposals attempt to describe the ex nihilo creation
16.5.2 Eternal ination of the Universe based on quantum cosmology and the fol-
lowing ination. Vilenkin put forth one such scenario.[90]
Main article: Eternal ination Hartle and Hawking oered the no-boundary proposal
for the initial creation of the Universe in which ination
In many models, the inationary phase of the Universes comes about naturally.[100]
expansion lasts forever in at least some regions of the Uni- Guth described the inationary universe as the ultimate
verse. This occurs because inating regions expand very free lunch":[101][102] new universes, similar to our own,
rapidly, reproducing themselves. Unless the rate of decay are continually produced in a vast inating background.
to the non-inating phase is suciently fast, new inating Gravitational interactions, in this case, circumvent (but
regions are produced more rapidly than non-inating re- do not violate) the rst law of thermodynamics (energy
gions. In such models most of the volume of the Universe conservation) and the second law of thermodynamics
at any given time is inating. All models of eternal ina- (entropy and the arrow of time problem). However, while
tion produce an innite multiverse, typically a fractal. there is consensus that this solves the initial conditions
Although new ination is classically rolling down the po- problem, some have disputed this, as it is much more
tential, quantum uctuations can sometimes lift it to pre- likely that the Universe came about by a quantum uc-
vious levels. These regions in which the inaton uctuates tuation. Don Page was an outspoken critic of ination
upwards expand much faster than regions in which the in- because of this anomaly.[103] He stressed that the ther-
aton has a lower potential energy, and tend to dominate modynamic arrow of time necessitates low entropy initial
in terms of physical volume. This steady state, which rst conditions, which would be highly unlikely. According to
developed by Vilenkin,[90] is called eternal ination. It them, rather than solving this problem, the ination the-
has been shown that any inationary theory with an un- ory aggravates it the reheating at the end of the ination
bounded potential is eternal.[91] It is a popular conclu- era increases entropy, making it necessary for the initial
16.6. ALTERNATIVES 185

state of the Universe to be even more orderly than in other ation suggests that ination arises from the motion of
Big Bang theories with no ination phase. D-branes[114] in the compactied geometry, usually to-
Hawking and Page later found ambiguous results when wards a stack of anti-D-branes. This theory, governed by
they attempted to compute the probability of ination the Dirac-Born-Infeld action, is dierent from ordinary
in the Hartle-Hawking initial state.[104] Other authors ination. The dynamics are not completely understood.
have argued that, since ination is eternal, the proba- It appears that special conditions are necessary since in-
bility doesn't matter as long as it is not precisely zero: ation occurs in tunneling between two vacua in the string
once it starts, ination perpetuates itself and quickly dom- landscape. The process of tunneling between two vacua is
a form of old ination, but new ination must then occur
inates the Universe.[105][106]:223225 However, Albrecht
and Lorenzo Sorbo argued that the probability of an in- by some other mechanism.
ationary cosmos, consistent with todays observations,
emerging by a random uctuation from some pre-existent
state is much higher than that of a non-inationary 16.5.6 Ination and loop quantum gravity
cosmos. This is because the seed amount of non-
gravitational energy required for the inationary cosmos When investigating the eects the theory of loop quan-
is so much less than that for a non-inationary alternative, tum gravity would have on cosmology, a loop quantum
which outweighs any entropic considerations.[107] cosmology model has evolved that provides a possible
Another problem that has occasionally been men- mechanism for cosmological ination. Loop quantum
tioned is the trans-Planckian problem or trans-Planckian gravity assumes a quantized spacetime. If the energy den-
eects.[108] Since the energy scale of ination and the sity is larger than can be held by the quantized spacetime,
Planck scale are relatively close, some of the quantum it is thought to bounce back.[115]
uctuations that have made up the structure in our uni-
verse were smaller than the Planck length before ination.
Therefore, there ought to be corrections from Planck-
scale physics, in particular the unknown quantum theory 16.6 Alternatives
of gravity. Some disagreement remains about the magni-
tude of this eect: about whether it is just on the thresh- Other models explain some of the observations explained
old of detectability or completely undetectable.[109] by ination. However none of these alternatives has the
same breadth of explanation and still require ination for
a more complete t with observation. They should there-
16.5.4 Hybrid ination fore be regarded as adjuncts to ination, rather than as
alternatives.
Another kind of ination, called hybrid ination, is an
extension of new ination. It introduces additional scalar
elds, so that while one of the scalar elds is responsi-
16.6.1 Big bounce
ble for normal slow roll ination, another triggers the end
of ination: when ination has continued for suciently
The big bounce hypothesis attempts to replace the cos-
long, it becomes favorable to the second eld to decay
mic singularity with a cosmic contraction and bounce,
into a much lower energy state.[110]
thereby explaining the initial conditions that led to the
In hybrid ination, one scalar eld is responsible for most big bang.[116] The atness and horizon problems are natu-
of the energy density (thus determining the rate of ex- rally solved in the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory
pansion), while another is responsible for the slow roll of gravity, without needing an exotic form of matter or
(thus determining the period of ination and its termi- free parameters.[117][118] This theory extends general rel-
nation). Thus uctuations in the former inaton would ativity by removing a constraint of the symmetry of the
not aect ination termination, while uctuations in the ane connection and regarding its antisymmetric part,
latter would not aect the rate of expansion. Therefore, the torsion tensor, as a dynamical variable. The minimal
hybrid ination is not eternal.[111][112] When the second coupling between torsion and Dirac spinors generates a
(slow-rolling) inaton reaches the bottom of its potential, spin-spin interaction that is signicant in fermionic mat-
it changes the location of the minimum of the rst ina- ter at extremely high densities. Such an interaction averts
tons potential, which leads to a fast roll of the inaton the unphysical Big Bang singularity, replacing it with a
down its potential, leading to termination of ination. cusp-like bounce at a nite minimum scale factor, before
which the Universe was contracting. The rapid expan-
sion immediately after the Big Bounce explains why the
16.5.5 Ination and string cosmology present Universe at largest scales appears spatially at,
homogeneous and isotropic. As the density of the Uni-
The discovery of ux compactications opened the way verse decreases, the eects of torsion weaken and the
for reconciling ination and string theory.[113] Brane in- Universe smoothly enters the radiation-dominated era.
186
16.6.2 String theory
String theory requires that, in addition to the three ob-
servable spatial dimensions, additional dimensions exist
that are curled up or compactied (see also KaluzaKlein
theory). Extra dimensions appear as a frequent com-
ponent of supergravity models and other approaches to
quantum gravity. This raised the contingent question of
why four space-time dimensions became large and the
rest became unobservably small. An attempt to address
this question, called string gas cosmology, was proposed
by Robert Brandenberger and Cumrun Vafa.[119] This
model focuses on the dynamics of the early universe con-
sidered as a hot gas of strings. Brandenberger and Vafa
show that a dimension of spacetime can only expand if
the strings that wind around it can eciently annihilate
each other. Each string is a one-dimensional object, and
the largest number of dimensions in which two strings
will generically intersect (and, presumably, annihilate) is
three. Therefore, the most likely number of non-compact
(large) spatial dimensions is three. Current work on this
model centers on whether it can succeed in stabilizing
the size of the compactied dimensions and produce the
correct spectrum of primordial density perturbations.[120]
Supporters admit that their model does not solve the en-
tropy and atness problems of standard cosmology .....
and we can provide no explanation for why the current
universe is so close to being spatially at.[121]
16.6.3 Ekpyrotic and cyclic models
The ekpyrotic and cyclic models are also considered ad-
juncts to ination. These models solve the horizon prob-
lem through an expanding epoch well before the Big
Bang, and then generate the required spectrum of pri-
mordial density perturbations during a contracting phase
leading to a Big Crunch. The Universe passes through the
Big Crunch and emerges in a hot Big Bang phase. In this
sense they are reminiscent of Richard Chace Tolman's
oscillatory universe; in Tolmans model, however, the to-
tal age of the Universe is necessarily nite, while in these
models this is not necessarily so. Whether the correct
spectrum of density uctuations can be produced, and
whether the Universe can successfully navigate the Big
Bang/Big Crunch transition, remains a topic of contro-
versy and current research. Ekpyrotic models avoid the
magnetic monopole problem as long as the temperature
at the Big Crunch/Big Bang transition remains below the
Grand Unied Scale, as this is the temperature required to
produce magnetic monopoles in the rst place. As things
stand, there is no evidence of any 'slowing down' of the
expansion, but this is not surprising as each cycle is ex-
pected to last on the order of a trillion years.
CHAPTER 16. INFLATION (COSMOLOGY)
16.6.4 Varying C
Another adjunct, the varying speed of light model was of-
fered by Jean-Pierre Petit in 1988, John Moat in 1992
as well Albrecht and Joo Magueijo in 1999, instead of
superluminal expansion the speed of light was 60 orders
of magnitude faster than its current value solving the hori-
zon and homogeneity problems in the early universe.
16.7 Criticisms
Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the ination-
ary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless,
many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of
science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable pre-
dictions and a lack of serious empirical support.[105] In
1999, John Earman and Jess Mostern published a thor-
ough critical review of inationary cosmology, conclud-
ing, we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds
for admitting any of the models of ination into the stan-
dard core of cosmology.[122]
In order to work, and as pointed out by Roger Penrose
from 1986 on, ination requires extremely specic initial
conditions of its own, so that the problem (or pseudo-
problem) of initial conditions is not solved: There is
something fundamentally misconceived about trying to
explain the uniformity of the early universe as resulting
from a thermalization process. [...] For, if the ther-
malization is actually doing anything [...] then it rep-
resents a denite increasing of the entropy. Thus, the
universe would have been even more special before the
thermalization than after.[123] The problem of specic
or ne-tuned initial conditions would not have been
solved; it would have gotten worse. At a conference in
2015, Penrose said that ination isn't falsiable, its fal-
sied. [] BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing
all the Ination-ists out of their shell, and giving them a
black eye.[124]
A recurrent criticism of ination is that the invoked in-
ation eld does not correspond to any known physical
eld, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an
ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data ob-
tainable. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of
inationary cosmology, has recently become one of its
sharpest critics. He calls 'bad ination' a period of ac-
celerated expansion whose outcome conicts with obser-
vations, and 'good ination' one compatible with them:
Not only is bad ination more likely than good ina-
tion, but no ination is more likely than either.... Roger
Penrose considered all the possible congurations of the
inaton and gravitational elds. Some of these cong-
urations lead to ination ... Other congurations lead
to a uniform, at universe directly without ination.
Obtaining a at universe is unlikely overall. Penroses
shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a at uni-
verse without ination is much more likely than with in-
16.9. NOTES
ation by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) [9] Using Tiny Particles To Answer Giant Questions. Science
power!"[105][106] Together with Anna Ijjas and Abraham
Loeb, he wrote articles claiming that the inationary
[10] See also Faster than light#Universal expansion.
paradigm is in trouble in view of the data from the Planck
[125][126]
satellite. Counter-arguments were presented by [11] Spergel, D.N. (2006). Three-year Wilkinson Microwave
Alan Guth, David Kaiser, and Yasunori Nomura[127] and
by Andrei Linde,[128] saying that cosmic ination is on a
stronger footing than ever before.[127]
16.8 See also
Brane cosmology
Conservation of angular momentum
Cosmology
Dark ow
Doughnut theory of the universe
Hubbles law
Non-minimally coupled ination
Nonlinear optics
Varying speed of light
Warm ination
16.9 Notes
[1] First Second of the Big Bang. How The Universe Works
3. 2014. Discovery Science.
[2] Tyson, Neil deGrasse and Donald Goldsmith (2004), Ori-
gins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution, W. W.
Norton & Co., pp. 845.
[3] Tsujikawa, Shinji (28 Apr 2003). Introductory review
of cosmic ination": 4257. arXiv:hep-ph/0304257.
Bibcode:2003hep.ph....4257T. In fact temperature
anisotropies observed by the COBE satellite in 1992
exhibit nearly scale-invariant spectra as predicted by the
inationary paradigm. Recent observations of WMAP
also show strong evidence for ination.
[4] Guth, Alan H. (1997). The Inationary Universe: The
Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Basic Books.
pp. 233234. ISBN 0201328402.
[5] The Medallists: A list of past Dirac Medallists. ictp.it.
[6] Sta (17 March 2014). BICEP2 2014 Results Release.
National Science Foundation. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
[7] Clavin, Whitney (17 March 2014). NASA Technology
Views Birth of the Universe. NASA. Retrieved 17 March
2014.
[8] Overbye, Dennis (17 March 2014). Space Ripples Re-
veal Big Bangs Smoking Gun. The New York Times.
Retrieved 17 March 2014.
187
Friday, 3 April 2009.
Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Implications
for cosmology. WMAP... conrms the basic tenets of
the inationary paradigm...
[12] Our Baby Universe Likely Expanded Rapidly, Study Sug-
gests. Space.com.
[13] Melia, Fulvio (2007). The Cosmic Horizon.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So-
ciety 382 (4): 19171921. arXiv:0711.4181.
Bibcode:2007MNRAS.382.1917M. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2966.2007.12499.x.
[14] Melia, Fulvio; et al. (2009). The Cos-
mological Spacetime. International Journal
of Modern Physics D 18 (12): 18891901.
arXiv:0907.5394. Bibcode:2009IJMPD..18.1889M.
doi:10.1142/s0218271809015746.
[15] Kolb and Turner (1988).
[16] Barbara Sue Ryden (2003). Introduction to cosmology.
Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0-8053-8912-8. Not only is
ination very eective at driving down the number den-
sity of magnetic monopoles, it is also eective at driving
down the number density of every other type of particle,
including photons.:202207
[17] This is usually quoted as 60 e-folds of expansion, where
e60 1026 . It is equal to the amount of expansion since
reheating, which is roughly E /T 0 , where T 0 = 2.7 K
is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background
today. See, e.g. Kolb and Turner (1998) or Liddle and
Lyth (2000).
[18] Guth, Phase transitions in the very early universe, in The
Very Early Universe, ISBN 0-521-31677-4 eds Hawking,
Gibbon & Siklos
[19] See Kolb and Turner (1988) or Mukhanov (2005).
[20] Kofman, Lev; Linde, Andrei; Starobinsky, Alexei
(1994). Reheating after ination. Physical Review
Letters 73 (5): 31953198. arXiv:hep-th/9405187.
Bibcode:1986CQGra...3..811K. doi:10.1088/0264-
9381/3/5/011.
[21] Much of the historical context is explained in chapters 15
17 of Peebles (1993).
[22] Misner, Charles W.; Coley, A A; Ellis, G F R; Hancock,
M (1968). The isotropy of the universe. Astrophysical
Journal 151 (2): 431. Bibcode:1998CQGra..15..331W.
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/15/2/008.
[23] Misner, Charles; Thorne, Kip S. and Wheeler, John
Archibald (1973). Gravitation. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman. pp. 489490, 525526. ISBN 0-7167-0344-0.
[24] Weinberg, Steven (1971). Gravitation and Cosmology.
John Wiley. pp. 740, 815. ISBN 0-471-92567-5.
188
[25] Lematre, Georges (1933). The expanding universe.
Annales de la Socit Scientique de Bruxelles 47A: 49.,
English in Gen. Rel. Grav. 29:641680, 1997.
[26] R. C. Tolman (1934). Relativity, Thermodynamics, and
Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-486-
65383-8. LCCN 34032023. Reissued (1987) New York:
Dover ISBN 0-486-65383-8.
[27] Misner, Charles W.; Leach, P G L (1969). Mixmas-
ter universe. Physical Review Letters 22 (15): 1071
74. Bibcode:2008JPhA...41o5201A. doi:10.1088/1751-
8113/41/15/155201.
[28] Dicke, Robert H. (1970). Gravitation and the Universe.
Philadelphia: American Philosopical Society.
[29] Dicke, Robert H.; P. J. E. Peebles (1979). The big bang
cosmology enigmas and nostrums. In ed. S. W. Hawk-
ing and W. Israel. General Relativity: an Einstein Cente-
nary Survey. Cambridge University Press.
[30] Alan P. Lightman (1 January 1993). Ancient Light: Our
Changing View of the Universe. Harvard University Press.
ISBN 978-0-674-03363-4.
[31] WMAP- Content of the Universe. nasa.gov.
[32] Since supersymmetric Grand Unied Theory is built into
string theory, it is still a triumph for ination that it is
able to deal with these magnetic relics. See, e.g. Kolb
and Turner (1988) and Raby, Stuart (2006). ed. Bruce
Hoeneisen, ed. Grand Unied Theories. arXiv:hep-
ph/0608183.
[33] 't Hooft, Gerard (1974). Magnetic monopoles in Uni-
ed Gauge Theories. Nuclear Physics B 79 (2): 276
84. Bibcode:1974NuPhB..79..276T. doi:10.1016/0550-
3213(74)90486-6.
[34] Polyakov, Alexander M. (1974). Particle spectrum
in quantum eld theory. JETP Letters 20: 1945.
Bibcode:1974JETPL..20..194P.
[35] Guth, Alan; Tye, S. (1980). Phase Transitions and
Magnetic Monopole Production in the Very Early Uni-
verse. Physical Review Letters 44 (10): 631635; Erra-
tum ibid.,44:963, 1980. Bibcode:1980PhRvL..44..631G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.631.
[36] Einhorn, Martin B; Stein, D. L.; Toussaint, Doug
(1980). Are Grand Unied Theories Compatible
with Standard Cosmology?". Physical Review D 21
(12): 32953298. Bibcode:1980PhRvD..21.3295E.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.3295.
[37] Zel'dovich, Ya.; Khlopov, M. Yu. (1978). On the con-
centration of relic monopoles in the universe. Physics
Letters B 79 (3): 23941. Bibcode:1978PhLB...79..239Z.
doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90232-0.
[38] Preskill, John (1979). Cosmological production of su-
perheavy magnetic monopoles. Physical Review Letters
43 (19): 13651368. Bibcode:1979PhRvL..43.1365P.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.1365.
CHAPTER 16. INFLATION (COSMOLOGY)
[39] See, e.g. Yao, W.M.; Amsler, C.; Asner, D.; Bar-
nett, R. M.; Beringer, J.; Burchat, P. R.; Carone, C.
D.; Caso, C.; Dahl, O.; d'Ambrosio, G.; De Gouvea,
A.; Doser, M.; Eidelman, S.; Feng, J. L.; Gherghetta,
T.; Goodman, M.; Grab, C.; Groom, D. E.; Gurtu,
A.; Hagiwara, K.; Hayes, K. G.; Hernndez-Rey, J. J.;
Hikasa, K.; Jawahery, H.; Kolda, C.; Kwon, Y.; Mangano,
M. L.; Manohar, A. V.; Masoni, A.; et al. (2006).
Review of Particle Physics. J. Phys. G 33 (1): 11232.
arXiv:astro-ph/0601168. Bibcode:2006JPhG...33....1Y.
doi:10.1088/0954-3899/33/1/001.
[40] Rees, Martin. (1998). Before the Beginning (New York:
Basic Books) p. 185 ISBN 0-201-15142-1
[41] de Sitter, Willem (1917). Einsteins theory of grav-
itation and its astronomical consequences. Third pa-
per. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society 78: 328. Bibcode:1917MNRAS..78....3D.
doi:10.1093/mnras/78.1.3.
[42] Starobinsky, A. A. (December 1979). Spectrum Of
Relict Gravitational Radiation And The Early State Of
The Universe. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical
Physics Letters 30: 682. Bibcode:1979JETPL..30..682S.;
Starobinskii, A. A. (December 1979). Spectrum of
relict gravitational radiation and the early state of the uni-
verse. Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. (Soviet Journal
of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters) 30: 719.
Bibcode:1979ZhPmR..30..719S.
[43] SLAC seminar, 1035 seconds after the Big Bang, 23
January 1980. see Guth (1997), pg 186
[44] Guth, Alan H. (1981). Inationary universe:
A possible solution to the horizon and at-
ness problems (PDF). Physical Review D 23
(2): 347356. Bibcode:1981PhRvD..23..347G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347.
[45] Chapter 17 of Peebles (1993).
[46] Starobinsky, Alexei A. (1980). A new type of isotropic
cosmological models without singularity. Physics Let-
ters B 91: 99102. Bibcode:1980PhLB...91...99S.
doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-X.
[47] Kazanas, D. (1980). Dynamics of the universe and
spontaneous symmetry breaking. Astrophysical Jour-
nal 241: L5963. Bibcode:1980ApJ...241L..59K.
doi:10.1086/183361.
[48] Sato, K. (1981). Cosmological baryon number
domain structure and the rst order phase transi-
tion of a vacuum. Physics Letters B 33: 66
70. Bibcode:1981PhLB...99...66S. doi:10.1016/0370-
2693(81)90805-4.
[49] Einhorn, Martin B; Sato, Katsuhiko (1981). Monopole
Production In The Very Early Universe In A First Order
Phase Transition. Nuclear Physics B 180 (3): 385404.
Bibcode:1981NuPhB.180..385E. doi:10.1016/0550-
3213(81)90057-2.
[50] Linde, A (1982). A new inationary universe scenario:
A possible solution of the horizon, atness, homogeneity,
16.9. NOTES
isotropy and primordial monopole problems. Physics Let-
ters B 108 (6): 389393. Bibcode:1982PhLB..108..389L.
doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)91219-9.
[51] Albrecht, Andreas; Steinhardt, Paul (1982). Cosmology
for Grand Unied Theories with Radiatively Induced
Symmetry Breaking (PDF). Physical Review Letters
48 (17): 12201223. Bibcode:1982PhRvL..48.1220A.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.1220.
[52] J.B. Hartle (2003). Gravity: An Introduction to Einsteins
General Relativity (1st ed.). Addison Wesley. p. 411.
ISBN 0-8053-8662-9
[53] See Linde (1990) and Mukhanov (2005).
[54] Chibisov, Viatcheslav F.; Chibisov, G. V. (1981). Quan-
tum uctuation and nonsingular universe. JETP Letters
33: 5325. Bibcode:1981JETPL..33..532M.
[55] Mukhanov, Viatcheslav F. (1982). The vacuum energy
and large scale structure of the universe. Soviet Physics
JETP 56: 25865.
[56] See Guth (1997) for a popular description of the work-
shop, or The Very Early Universe, ISBN 0-521-31677-4
eds Hawking, Gibbon & Siklos for a more detailed report
[57] Hawking, S.W. (1982). The development of ir-
regularities in a single bubble inationary uni-
verse. Physics Letters B 115 (4): 295297.
Bibcode:1982PhLB..115..295H. doi:10.1016/0370-
2693(82)90373-2.
[58] Starobinsky, Alexei A. (1982). Dynamics of phase tran-
sition in the new inationary universe scenario and gener-
ation of perturbations. Physics Letters B 117 (34): 175
8. Bibcode:1982PhLB..117..175S. doi:10.1016/0370-
2693(82)90541-X.
[59] Guth, A.H. (1982). Fluctuations in the new in-
ationary universe. Physical Review Letters 49
(15): 11103. Bibcode:1982PhRvL..49.1110G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1110.
[60] Bardeen, James M.; Steinhardt, Paul J.; Turner,
Michael S. (1983). Spontaneous creation Of
almost scale-free density perturbations in an in-
ationary universe. Physical Review D 28
(4): 679693. Bibcode:1983PhRvD..28..679B.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.679.
[61] Perturbations can be represented by Fourier modes of a
wavelength. Each Fourier mode is normally distributed
(usually called Gaussian) with mean zero. Dierent
Fourier components are uncorrelated. The variance of a
mode depends only on its wavelength in such a way that
within any given volume each wavelength contributes an
equal amount of power to the spectrum of perturbations.
Since the Fourier transform is in three dimensions, this
means that the variance of a mode goes as k3 to compen-
sate for the fact that within any volume, the number of
modes with a given wavenumber k goes as k3 .
[62] Tegmark, M.; Eisenstein, Daniel J.; Strauss, Michael
A.; Weinberg, David H.; Blanton, Michael R.;
Frieman, Joshua A.; Fukugita, Masataka; Gunn,
189
James E.; et al. (August 2006). Cosmological
constraints from the SDSS luminous red galax-
ies. Physical Review D 74 (12). arXiv:astro-
ph/0608632. Bibcode:2006PhRvD..74l3507T.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.123507.
[63] Steinhardt, Paul J. (2004). Cosmological perturba-
tions: Myths and facts. Modern Physics Letters A 19
(13 & 16): 96782. Bibcode:2004MPLA...19..967S.
doi:10.1142/S0217732304014252.
[64] Boyle, Latham A.; Steinhardt, PJ; Turok, N
(2006). Inationary predictions for scalar and
tensor uctuations reconsidered. Physical Re-
view Letters 96 (11): 111301. arXiv:astro-
ph/0507455. Bibcode:2006PhRvL..96k1301B.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.111301. PMID 16605810.
[65] Tegmark, Max (2005). What does ination really
predict?". JCAP 0504 (4): 001. arXiv:astro-ph/0410281.
Bibcode:2005JCAP...04..001T. doi:10.1088/1475-
7516/2005/04/001.
[66] This is known as a red spectrum, in analogy to redshift,
because the spectrum has more power at longer wave-
lengths.
[67] Komatsu, E.; Smith, K. M.; Dunkley, J.; Bennett,
C. L.; Gold, B.; Hinshaw, G.; Jarosik, N.; Larson,
D.; et al. (January 2010). Seven-Year Wilkinson
Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:
Cosmological Interpretation. The Astrophysical Journal
Supplement Series 192 (2): 18. arXiv:1001.4538.
Bibcode:2011ApJS..192...18K. doi:10.1088/0067-
0049/192/2/18.
[68] Spergel, D. N.; Verde, L.; Peiris, H. V.; Komatsu, E.;
Nolta, M. R.; Bennett, C. L.; Halpern, M.; Hinshaw, G.; et
al. (2003). First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) observations: determination of cos-
mological parameters. Astrophysical Journal Supple-
ment Series 148 (1): 175194. arXiv:astro-ph/0302209.
Bibcode:2003ApJS..148..175S. doi:10.1086/377226.
[69] See cosmic microwave background#Low multipoles for
details and references.
[70] Overbye, Dennis (24 March 2014). Ripples From the
Big Bang. New York Times. Retrieved 24 March 2014.
[71] Ade, P.A.R. (BICEP2 Collaboration); et al. (19
June 2014). Detection of B-Mode Polariza-
tion at Degree Angular Scales by BICEP2.
Physical Review Letters 112 (24): 241101.
arXiv:1403.3985. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112x1101A.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.241101. PMID
24996078.
[72] Woit, Peter (13 May 2014). BICEP2 News. Not Even
Wrong. Columbia University. Retrieved 19 January 2014.
[73] Overbye, Dennis (19 June 2014). Astronomers Hedge on
Big Bang Detection Claim. New York Times. Retrieved
20 June 2014.
[74] Amos, Jonathan (19 June 2014). Cosmic ination: Con-
dence lowered for Big Bang signal. BBC News. Re-
trieved 20 June 2014.
190 CHAPTER 16. INFLATION (COSMOLOGY)

[75] Planck Collaboration Team (19 September 2014).
Planck intermediate results. XXX. The angular power
spectrum of polarized dust emission at intermediate
and high Galactic latitudes. ArXiv. arXiv:1409.5738.
Bibcode:2014arXiv1409.5738P. Retrieved 22 September
2014.
[76] Overbye, Dennis (22 September 2014). Study Conrms
Criticism of Big Bang Finding. New York Times. Re-
trieved 22 September 2014.
[77] Clavin, Whitney (30 January 2015). Gravitational Waves
from Early Universe Remain Elusive. NASA. Retrieved
30 January 2015.
[78] Overbye, Dennis (30 January 2015). Speck of Inter-
stellar Dust Obscures Glimpse of Big Bang. New York
Times. Retrieved 31 January 2015.
[79] Rosset, C.; PLANCK-HFI collaboration (2005). Sys-
tematic eects in CMB polarization measurements. Ex-
ploring the universe: Contents and structures of the universe
(XXXIXth Rencontres de Moriond).
[80] Loeb, A.; Zaldarriaga, M (2004). Measuring
the small-scale power spectrum of cosmic den-
sity uctuations through 21 cm tomography prior
to the epoch of structure formation. Physical
Review Letters 92 (21): 211301. arXiv:astro-
ph/0312134. Bibcode:2004PhRvL..92u1301L.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.211301. PMID 15245272.
[87] Technically, this is because the inaton potential is
expressed as a Taylor series in /mP , where is the
inaton and mP is the Planck mass. While for a single
term, such as the mass term m4 (/mP )2 , the slow
roll conditions can be satised for much greater than
mP , this is precisely the situation in eective eld
theory in which higher order terms would be expected to
contribute and destroy the conditions for ination. The
absence of these higher order corrections can be seen
as another sort of ne tuning. See e.g. Alabidi, Laila;
Lyth, David H (2006). Ination models and observa-
tion. JCAP 0605 (5): 016. arXiv:astro-ph/0510441.
Bibcode:2006JCAP...05..016A. doi:10.1088/1475-
7516/2006/05/016.
[88] See, e.g. Lyth, David H. (1997). What would we
learn by detecting a gravitational wave signal in the
cosmic microwave background anisotropy?". Phys-
ical Review Letters 78 (10): 18613. arXiv:hep-
ph/9606387. Bibcode:1997PhRvL..78.1861L.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.1861.
[89] Brandenberger, Robert H. (November 2004). Chal-
lenges for inationary cosmology. arXiv:astro-
ph/0411671.
[90] Vilenkin, Alexander (1983). The birth of ina-
tionary universes. Physical Review D 27 (12):
28482855. Bibcode:1983PhRvD..27.2848V.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2848.

[81] Guth, Alan (1997). The Inationary Universe. Addison [91] A. Linde (1986). Eternal chaotic ina-
Wesley. ISBN 0-201-14942-7. tion. Modern Physics Letters A 1 (2):
8185. Bibcode:1986MPLA....1...81L.
[82] Choi, Charles (Jun 29, 2012). Could the Large Hadron
doi:10.1142/S0217732386000129. A. Linde (1986).
Collider Discover the Particle Underlying Both Mass and
Eternally existing self-reproducing chaotic inationary
Cosmic Ination?". Scientic American. Retrieved Jun
universe (PDF). Physics Letters B 175 (4): 395400.
25, 2014."The virtue of so-called Higgs ination mod-
Bibcode:1986PhLB..175..395L. doi:10.1016/0370-
els is that they might explain ination within the current
2693(86)90611-8.
Standard Model of particle physics, which successfully
describes how most known particles and forces behave. [92] A. Borde, A. Guth and A. Vilenkin (2003). In-
Interest in the Higgs is running hot this summer because ationary space-times are incomplete in past direc-
CERN, the lab in Geneva, Switzerland, that runs the LHC, tions. Physical Review Letters 90 (15): 151301.
has said it will announce highly anticipated ndings re- arXiv:gr-qc/0110012. Bibcode:2003PhRvL..90o1301B.
garding the particle in early July. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.151301. PMID 12732026.
[83] Salvio, Alberto (2013-08-09). Higgs Ina-
[93] A. Borde (1994). Open and closed uni-
tion at NNLO after the Boson Discovery.
verses, initial singularities and ination. Phys-
Phys.Lett. B727 (2013) 234-239 727: 234239.
ical Review D 50 (6): 3692702. arXiv:gr-
arXiv:1308.2244. Bibcode:2013PhLB..727..234S.
qc/9403049. Bibcode:1994PhRvD..50.3692B.
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.10.042.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.3692.
[84] Technically, these conditions are that the logarithmic
derivative of the potential, = (1/2)(V /V )2 and sec- [94] A. Borde and A. Vilenkin (1994). Eternal in-
ond derivative = V /V are small, where V is the po- ation and the initial singularity. Physical
tential and the equations are written in reduced Planck Review Letters 72 (21): 33059. arXiv:gr-
units. See, e.g. Liddle and Lyth (2000), pg 42-43. qc/9312022. Bibcode:1994PhRvL..72.3305B.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.3305.
[85] Salvio, Strumia (2014-03-17). Agravity.
JHEP 1406 (2014) 080 2014. [95] Linde (2005, V).
arXiv:1403.4226. Bibcode:2014JHEP...06..080S.
doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2014)080. [96] Carroll, Sean M.; Chen, Jennifer (2005). Does in-
ation provide natural initial conditions for the uni-
[86] Linde, Andrei D. (1983). Chaotic ination. Physics Let- verse?". Gen. Rel. Grav. 37 (10): 16714.
ters B 129 (3): 17181. Bibcode:1983PhLB..129..177L. arXiv:gr-qc/0505037. Bibcode:2005GReGr..37.1671C.
doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90837-7. doi:10.1007/s10714-005-0148-2.
 16.9. NOTES 191

[97] Carroll, Sean M.; Jennifer Chen (2004). Spontaneous [111] Andrei Linde, Prospects of Ination, Physica Scripta
ination and the origin of the arrow of time. arXiv:hep- Online (2004) (available from arXiv:hep-th/0402051 )
th/0410270.
[112] Blanco-Pillado et al., Racetrack ination, (2004) (avail-
[98] Aguirre, Anthony; Gratton, Steven (2003). Ination able from arXiv:hep-th/0406230 )
without a beginning: A null boundary proposal.
Physical Review D 67 (8): 083515. arXiv:gr- [113] Kachru, Shamit; Kallosh, Renata; Linde, Andrei;
qc/0301042. Bibcode:2003PhRvD..67h3515A. Maldacena, Juan; McAllister, Liam; Trivedi, Sandip
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67.083515. P (2003). Towards ination in string theory.
JCAP 0310 (10): 013. arXiv:hep-th/0308055.
[99] Aguirre, Anthony; Gratton, Steven (2002). Bibcode:2003JCAP...10..013K. doi:10.1088/1475-
Steady-State Eternal Ination. Physical 7516/2003/10/013.
Review D 65 (8): 083507. arXiv:astro-
ph/0111191. Bibcode:2002PhRvD..65h3507A. [114] G. R. Dvali, S. H. Henry Tye, Brane ination, Phys.Lett.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.083507. B450, 72-82 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9812483.

[115] Bojowald, Martin (October 2008). Big Bang or Big

[100] Hartle, J.; Hawking, S. (1983). Wave function
Bounce?: New Theory on the Universes Birth. Re-
of the universe. Physical Review D 28 (12):
trieved 2015-08-31.
29602975. Bibcode:1983PhRvD..28.2960H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960.; See also Hawking [116] Itzhak Bars; Paul Steinhardt; Neil Turok (November 20,
(1998). 2013). Sailing through the big crunch-big bang transi-
tion. arXiv:1312.0739v2. In the standard big bang in-
[101] Hawking (1998), p. 129.
ationary model, the cosmic singularity problem is left
[102] Wikiquote unresolved and the cosmology is geodesically incomplete.
Consequently, the origin of space and time and the pecu-
[103] Page, Don N. (1983). Ination does not explain liar, exponentially ne-tuned initial conditions required to
time asymmetry. Nature 304 (5921): 3941. begin ination are not explained. In a recent series of pa-
Bibcode:1983Natur.304...39P. doi:10.1038/304039a0.; pers, we have shown how to construct the complete set of
see also Roger Penrose's book The Road to Reality: A homogeneous classical cosmological solutions of the stan-
Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. dard model coupled to gravity, in which the cosmic singu-
larity is replaced by a bounce: the smooth transition from
[104] Hawking, S. W.; Page, Don N. (1988). How probable contraction and big crunch to big bang and expansion.
is ination?". Nuclear Physics B 298 (4): 789809.
Bibcode:1988NuPhB.298..789H. doi:10.1016/0550- [117] Poplawski, N. J. (2010). Cosmology with
3213(88)90008-9. torsion: An alternative to cosmic ina-
tion. Physics Letters B 694 (3): 181185.
[105] Steinhardt, Paul J. (2011). The ination debate: Is the arXiv:1007.0587. Bibcode:2010PhLB..694..181P.
theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply awed?" doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.09.056.
(Scientic American, April; pp. 18-25).
[118] Poplawski, N. (2012). Nonsingular, big-
[106] Paul J. Steinhardt; Neil Turok (2007). Endless Universe: bounce cosmology from spinor-torsion cou-
Beyond the Big Bang. Broadway Books. ISBN 978-0- pling. Physical Review D 85 (10): 107502.
7679-1501-4. arXiv:1111.4595. Bibcode:2012PhRvD..85j7502P.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.107502.
[107] Albrecht, Andreas; Sorbo, Lorenzo (2004).
Can the universe aord ination?". Phys- [119] Brandenberger, R; Vafa, C. (1989). Superstrings in the
ical Review D 70 (6): 063528. arXiv:hep- early universe. Nuclear Physics B 316 (2): 391410.
th/0405270. Bibcode:2004PhRvD..70f3528A. Bibcode:1989NuPhB.316..391B. doi:10.1016/0550-
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.063528. 3213(89)90037-0.
[108] Martin, Jerome; Brandenberger, Robert (2001). The [120] Battefeld, Thorsten; Watson, Scott (2006). String Gas
trans-Planckian problem of inationary cosmology. Cosmology. Reviews Modern Physics 78 (2): 435454.
Physical Review D 63 (12): 123501. arXiv:hep- arXiv:hep-th/0510022. Bibcode:2006RvMP...78..435B.
th/0005209. Bibcode:2001PhRvD..63l3501M. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.78.435.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.123501.
[121] Brandenberger, Robert H.; Nayeri, ALI; Patil, Sub-
[109] Martin, Jerome; Ringeval, Christophe (2004). Su- odh P.; Vafa, Cumrun (2007). String Gas Cos-
perimposed Oscillations in the WMAP Data?". mology and Structure Formation. International Jour-
Physical Review D 69 (8): 083515. arXiv:astro- nal of Modern Physics A 22 (21): 36213642.
ph/0310382. Bibcode:2004PhRvD..69h3515M. arXiv:hep-th/0608121. Bibcode:2007IJMPA..22.3621B.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.083515. doi:10.1142/S0217751X07037159.

[110] Robert H. Brandenberger, A Status Review of [122] Earman, John; Mostern, Jess (March 1999). A Criti-
Inationary Cosmology, proceedings Journal-ref: cal Look at Inationary Cosmology. Philosophy of Sci-
BROWN-HET-1256 (2001), (available from arXiv:hep- ence 66: 149. doi:10.2307/188736 (inactive 2015-01-
ph/0101119v1 11 January 2001) 14). JSTOR 188736.
 192 CHAPTER 16. INFLATION (COSMOLOGY)

[123] Penrose, Roger (2004). The Road to Reality: A Lyth, David H.; Riotto, Antonio (1999). Particle
Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. Lon- physics models of ination and the cosmo-
don: Vintage Books, p. 755. See also Penrose, logical density perturbation. Phys. Rept.
Roger (1989). Diculties with Inationary Cos- 314 (12): 1146. arXiv:hep-ph/9807278.
mology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sci- Bibcode:1999PhR...314....1L. doi:10.1016/S0370-
ences 271: 249264. Bibcode:1989NYASA.571..249P.
1573(98)00128-8.
doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1989.tb50513.x.
Mukhanov, Viatcheslav (2005). Physical Founda-
[124] Hloek, Rene (12 June 2015). CMB@50 day three.
Retrieved 15 July 2015. tions of Cosmology. Cambridge University Press.
This is a collation of remarks from the third day of the ISBN 0-521-56398-4.
Cosmic Microwave Background @50 conference held
Vilenkin, Alex (2006). Many Worlds in One: The
at Princeton, 1012 June 2015.
Search for Other Universes. Hill and Wang. ISBN
[125] Ijjas, Anna; Steinhardt, Paul J.; Loeb, Abra- 0-8090-9523-8.
ham. Inationary paradigm in trouble after
Planck2013. Physics Letters B723: 261266. Peebles, P. J. E. (1993). Principles of Physical Cos-
arXiv:1304.2785. Bibcode:2013PhLB..723..261I. mology. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.05.023. 01933-9.
[126] Ijjas, Anna; Steinhardt, Paul J.; Loeb, Abraham. In-
ationary schism after Planck2013. Physics Let-
ters B736: 142146. Bibcode:2014PhLB..736..142I. 16.11 External links
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.07.012.
Was Cosmic Ination The 'Bang' Of The Big Bang?,
[127] Guth, Alan H.; Kaiser, David I.; Nomura, Ya-
by Alan Guth, 1997
sunori. Inationary paradigm after Planck
2013. Physics Letters B733: 112119. An Introduction to Cosmological Ination by An-
arXiv:1312.7619. Bibcode:2014PhLB..733..112G.
drew Liddle, 1999
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.03.020.
update 2004 by Andrew Liddle
[128] Linde, Andrei. Inationary cosmology
after Planck 2013. arXiv:1402.0526. hep-ph/0309238 Laura Covi: Status of observa-
Bibcode:2014arXiv1402.0526L.
tional cosmology and ination

hep-th/0311040 David H. Lyth: Which is the best

16.10 References ination model?

The Growth of Ination Symmetry, December 2004

Guth, Alan (1997). The Inationary Universe: The
Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Perseus.
ISBN 0-201-32840-2.
Hawking, Stephen (1998). A Brief History of Time.
Bantam. ISBN 0-553-38016-8.
Hawking, Stephen; Gary Gibbons (1983). The Very
Early Universe. Cambridge University Press. ISBN
0-521-31677-4.
Guths logbook showing the original idea
WMAP Bolsters Case for Cosmic Ination, March
2006
NASA March 2006 WMAP press release
Max Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe (2014),
Chapter 5: Ination

Kolb, Edward; Michael Turner (1988). The Early

Universe. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-11604-9.

Linde, Andrei (1990). Particle Physics and Ina-

tionary Cosmology. Chur, Switzerland: Harwood.
arXiv:hep-th/0503203. ISBN 3-7186-0490-6.

Linde, Andrei (2005) Ination and String Cosmol-

ogy, eConf C040802 (2004) L024; J. Phys. Conf.
Ser. 24 (2005) 15160; arXiv:hep-th/0503195 v1
2005-03-24.

Liddle, Andrew; David Lyth (2000). Cosmologi-

cal Ination and Large-Scale Structure. Cambridge.
ISBN 0-521-57598-2.
Chapter 17
Metric expansion of space
Distances increase as more spacetime lls in between galaxies
The metric expansion of space is the increase of the
distance between two distant parts of the universe with
time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of
space itself changes. This is dierent from other ex-
amples of expansions and explosions in that, as far as
observations can ascertain, it is a property of the entirety
of the universe rather than a phenomenon that can be con-
tained and observed from the outside.
Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmol-
ogy, is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric,
and is a generic property of the universe we inhabit. How-
ever, the model is valid only on large scales (roughly the
scale of galaxy clusters and above). At smaller scales
matter has become bound together under the inuence of
gravitational attraction and such things do not expand at
the metric expansion rate as the universe ages. As such,
the only galaxies receding from one another as a result
of metric expansion are those separated by cosmologi-
cally relevant scales larger than the length scales associ-
ated with the gravitational collapse that are possible in the
age of the universe given the matter density and average
expansion rate.
At the end of the early universes inationary period, all
the matter and energy in the universe was set on an inertial
trajectory consistent with the equivalence principle and
Einsteins general theory of relativity and this is when
the precise and regular form of the universes expansion
had its origin (that is, matter in the universe is separating
because it was separating in the past due to the inaton
eld).
According to measurements, the universes expansion
rate was decelerating until about 5 billion years ago
due to the gravitational attraction of the matter con-
tent of the universe, after which time the expansion be-
gan accelerating. In order to explain the acceleration,
physicists have postulated the existence of dark energy
which appears in the simplest theoretical models as a
cosmological constant. According to the simplest ex-
trapolation of the currently-favored cosmological model
(known as "CDM), this acceleration becomes more
dominant into the future.
While special relativity prohibits objects from moving
faster than light with respect to a local reference frame
where spacetime can be treated as at and unchanging, it
does not apply to situations where spacetime curvature or
evolution in time become important. These situations are
described by general relativity, which allows the separa-
tion between two distant objects to increase faster than
the speed of light. For example, galaxies that are more
than the Hubble radius, approximately 4.5 gigaparsecs or
14.7 billion light-years, away from us have a recession
speed that is faster than the speed of light. Visibility of
these objects depends on the exact expansion history of
the universe. Light that is emitted today from galaxies be-
yond the cosmological event horizon, about 5 gigaparsecs
or 16 billion light-years, will never reach us, although we
can still see the light that these galaxies emitted in the
past.
Because of the high rate of expansion, it is also possi-
ble for a distance between two objects to be greater than
the value calculated by multiplying the speed of light by
the age of the universe. These details are a frequent
source of confusion among amateurs and even profes-
sional physicists.[1]
Due to the non-intuitive nature of the subject and what
has been described by some as careless choices of
wording, certain descriptions of the metric expansion
of space and the misconceptions to which such descrip-
tions can lead are an ongoing subject of discussion in
the realm of pedagogy and communication of scientic
concepts.[2][3][4][5]
17.1 Basic concepts and overview
193
194 CHAPTER 17. METRIC EXPANSION OF SPACE

17.1.1 Overview of metrics ent areas. There is no map projection in which the dis-
tance between any two points on Earth, measured along
Main article: Metric (mathematics) the great circle geodesics, is directly proportional to their
distance on the map.
To understand the metric expansion of the universe, it is
helpful to discuss briey what a metric is, and how metric Metric tensor
expansion works.
In dierential geometry, the backbone mathematics for
general relativity, a metric tensor can be dened which
Denition of a metric precisely characterizes the space being described by ex-
plaining the way distances should be measured in every
A metric denes how a distance can be measured be- possible direction. General relativity necessarily invokes
tween two nearby points in space, in terms of the a metric in four dimensions (one of time, three of space)
coordinate system. Coordinate systems locate points in because, in general, dierent reference frames will ex-
a space (of whatever number of dimensions) by assigning perience dierent intervals of time and space depending
unique positions on a grid, known as coordinates, to each on the inertial frame. This means that the metric ten-
point. The metric is then a formula which describes how sor in general relativity relates precisely how two events
displacement through the space of interest can be trans- in spacetime are separated. A metric expansion occurs
lated into distances. when the metric tensor changes with time (and, speci-
cally, whenever the spatial part of the metric gets larger
as time goes forward). This kind of expansion is dif-
Metric for Earths surface
ferent from all kinds of expansions and explosions com-
monly seen in nature in no small part because times and
For example, consider the measurement of distance be-
distances are not the same in all reference frames, but are
tween two places on the surface of the Earth. This is a
instead subject to change. A useful visualization is to ap-
simple, familiar example of spherical geometry. Because
proach the subject rather than objects in a xed space
the surface of the Earth is two-dimensional, points on the
moving apart into emptiness, as space itself growing
surface of the Earth can be specied by two coordinates
between objects without any acceleration of the objects
for example, the latitude and longitude. Specica-
themselves. The space between objects grows or shrinks
tion of a metric requires that one rst specify the coor-
as the various geodesics converge or diverge.
dinates used. In our simple example of the surface of
the Earth, we could choose any kind of coordinate sys- Because this expansion is caused by relative changes in
tem we wish, for example latitude and longitude, or X- the distance-dening metric, this expansion (and the re-
Y-Z Cartesian coordinates. Once we have chosen a spe- sultant movement apart of objects) is not restricted by
cic coordinate system, the numerical values of the co- the speed of light upper bound of special relativity. Two
ordinates of any two points are uniquely determined, and reference frames that are globally separated can be mov-
based upon the properties of the space being discussed, ing apart faster than light without violating special rela-
the appropriate metric is mathematically established too. tivity, although whenever two reference frames diverge
On the curved surface of the Earth, we can see this eect from each other faster than the speed of light, there will
in long-haul airline ights where the distance between two be observable eects associated with such situations in-
points is measured based upon a great circle, rather than cluding the existence of various cosmological horizons.
the straight line one might plot on a two-dimensional map Theory and observations suggest that very early in the his-
of the Earths surface. In general, such shortest-distance tory of the universe, there was an inationary phase where
paths are called "geodesics". In Euclidean geometry, the the metric changed very rapidly, and that the remaining
geodesic is a straight line, while in non-Euclidean geome- time-dependence of this metric is what we observe as the
try such as on the Earths surface, this is not the case. In- so-called Hubble expansion, the moving apart of all grav-
deed, even the shortest-distance great circle path is always itationally unbound objects in the universe. The expand-
longer than the Euclidean straight line path which passes ing universe is therefore a fundamental feature of the uni-
through the interior of the Earth. The dierence between verse we inhabit a universe fundamentally dierent
the straight line path and the shortest-distance great circle from the static universe Albert Einstein rst considered
path is due to the curvature of the Earths surface. While when he developed his gravitational theory.
there is always an eect due to this curvature, at short
distances the eect is small enough to be unnoticeable.
On plane maps, great circles of the Earth are mostly not 17.1.2 Comoving coordinates
shown as straight lines. Indeed, there is a seldom-used
map projection, namely the gnomonic projection, where Main article: Comoving coordinates
all great circles are shown as straight lines, but in this
projection, the distance scale varies very much in dier- In expanding space, proper distances are dynamical quan-
17.2. UNDERSTANDING THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE 195

tities which change with time. An easy way to correct with the creation of the Hubble diagram. Using standard
for this is to use comoving coordinates which remove candles with known intrinsic brightness, the expansion of
this feature and allow for a characterization of dier- the universe has been measured using redshift to derive
ent locations in the universe without having to charac- Hubbles Constant: H0 = 67.15 1.2 (km/s)/Mpc. For
terize the physics associated with metric expansion. In every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the
comoving coordinates, the distances between all objects rate of expansion increases by about 67 kilometers per
are xed and the instantaneous dynamics of matter and second.[6][7][8]
light are determined by the normal physics of gravity and
Hubbles Constant is not thought to be constant through
electromagnetic radiation. Any time-evolution however
time. There are dynamical forces acting on the particles
must be accounted for by taking into account the Hubble
in the universe which aect the expansion rate. It was
law expansion in the appropriate equations in addition
earlier expected that the Hubble Constant would be de-
to any other eects that may be operating (gravity, dark
creasing as time went on due to the inuence of grav-
energy, or curvature, for example). Cosmological simu-
itational interactions in the universe, and thus there is
lations that run through signicant fractions of the uni-
an additional observable quantity in the universe called
verses history therefore must include such eects in or-
the deceleration parameter which cosmologists expected
der to make applicable predictions for observational cos-
to be directly related to the matter density of the uni-
mology. verse. Surprisingly, the deceleration parameter was mea-
sured by two dierent groups to be less than zero (actu-
ally, consistent with 1) which implied that today Hub-
17.2 Understanding the expansion bles Constant is increasing as time goes on. Some cos-
mologists have whimsically called the eect associated
of the universe with the accelerating universe the cosmic jerk".[9] The
2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was given for the discovery
17.2.1 Measurement of expansion and of this phenomenon.[10]
change of rate of expansion
17.2.2 Measuring distances in expanding
space

When an object is receding, its light gets stretched (redshifted)

In principle, the expansion of the universe could be mea-

sured by taking a standard ruler and measuring the dis-
tance between two cosmologically distant points, waiting
a certain time, and then measuring the distance again, but
in practice, standard rulers are not easy to nd on cosmo-
logical scales and the time scales over which a measurable
expansion would be visible are too great to be observable
even by multiple generations of humans. The expansion
of space is measured indirectly. The theory of relativity
predicts phenomena associated with the expansion, no-
tably the redshift-versus-distance relationship known as
Hubbles Law; functional forms for cosmological distance
measurements that dier from what would be expected
if space were not expanding; and an observable change
in the matter and energy density of the universe seen at
dierent lookback times.
The rst measurement of the expansion of space occurred
196
Two views of an isometric embedding of part of the
visible universe over most of its history, showing how a
light ray (red line) can travel an eective distance of 28
billion light years (orange line) in just 13 billion years of
cosmological time. (Mathematical details)
At cosmological scales the present universe is geometri-
cally at, which is to say that the rules of Euclidean geom-
etry associated with Euclids fth postulate hold, though
in the past spacetime could have been highly curved. In
part to accommodate such dierent geometries, the ex-
pansion of the universe is inherently general relativistic;
it cannot be modeled with special relativity alone, though
such models can be written down, they are at fundamen-
tal odds with the observed interaction between matter and
spacetime seen in our universe.
The images to the right show two views of spacetime dia-
grams that show the large-scale geometry of the universe
according to the CDM cosmological model. Two of the
dimensions of space are omitted, leaving one dimension
of space (the dimension that grows as the cone gets larger)
and one of time (the dimension that proceeds up the
cones surface). The narrow circular end of the diagram
corresponds to a cosmological time of 700 million years
after the big bang while the wide end is a cosmological
time of 18 billion years, where one can see the begin-
ning of the accelerating expansion as a splaying outward
of the spacetime, a feature which eventually dominates in
this model. The purple grid lines mark o cosmological
time at intervals of one billion years from the big bang.
The cyan grid lines mark o comoving distance at inter-
vals of one billion light years in the present era (less in the
past and more in the future). Note that the circular curl-
ing of the surface is an artifact of the embedding with no
physical signicance and is done purely to make the illus-
tration viewable; space does not actually curl around on
itself. (A similar eect can be seen in the tubular shape
of the pseudosphere.)
The brown line on the diagram is the worldline of the
Earth (or, at earlier times, of the matter which condensed
to form the Earth). The yellow line is the worldline of
the most distant known quasar. The red line is the path
of a light beam emitted by the quasar about 13 billion
years ago and reaching the Earth in the present day. The
orange line shows the present-day distance between the
quasar and the Earth, about 28 billion light years, which
is, notably, a larger distance than the age of the universe
multiplied by the speed of light: ct.
According to the equivalence principle of general rela-
tivity, the rules of special relativity are locally valid in
small regions of spacetime that are approximately at. In
particular, light always travels locally at the speed c; in
our diagram, this means, according to the convention of
constructing spacetime diagrams, that light beams always
make an angle of 45 with the local grid lines. It does not
follow, however, that light travels a distance ct in a time t,
CHAPTER 17. METRIC EXPANSION OF SPACE
as the red worldline illustrates. While it always moves lo-
cally at c, its time in transit (about 13 billion years) is not
related to the distance traveled in any simple way since
the universe expands as the light beam traverses space
and time. In fact the distance traveled is inherently am-
biguous because of the changing scale of the universe.
Nevertheless, we can single out two distances which ap-
pear to be physically meaningful: the distance between
the Earth and the quasar when the light was emitted, and
the distance between them in the present era (taking a
slice of the cone along the dimension that we've declared
to be the spatial dimension). The former distance is about
4 billion light years, much smaller than ct because the uni-
verse expanded as the light traveled the distance, the light
had to run against the treadmill and therefore went far-
ther than the initial separation between the Earth and the
quasar. The latter distance (shown by the orange line) is
about 28 billion light years, much larger than ct. If ex-
pansion could be instantaneously stopped today, it would
take 28 billion years for light to travel between the Earth
and the quasar while if the expansion had stopped at the
earlier time, it would have taken only 4 billion years.
The light took much longer than 4 billion years to reach
us though it was emitted from only 4 billion light years
away, and, in fact, the light emitted towards the Earth
was actually moving away from the Earth when it was
rst emitted, in the sense that the metric distance to the
Earth increased with cosmological time for the rst few
billion years of its travel time, and also indicating that the
expansion of space between the Earth and the quasar at
the early time was faster than the speed of light. None of
this surprising behavior originates from a special property
of metric expansion, but simply from local principles of
special relativity integrated over a curved surface.
17.2.3 Topology of expanding space
A graphical representation of the expansion of the universe with
the inationary epoch represented as the dramatic expansion of
the metric seen on the left. This diagram can be confusing because
the expansion of space looks like it is happening into an empty
nothingness. However, this is a choice made for convenience
of visualization: it is not a part of the physical models which
describe the expansion.
17.2. UNDERSTANDING THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE
Over time, the space that makes up the universe is ex-
panding. The words 'space' and 'universe', sometimes
used interchangeably, have distinct meanings in this con-
text. Here 'space' is a mathematical concept that stands
for the three-dimensional manifold into which our re-
spective positions are embedded while 'universe' refers
to everything that exists including the matter and energy
in space, the extra-dimensions that may be wrapped up
in various strings, and the time through which various
events take place. The expansion of space is in refer-
ence to this 3-D manifold only; that is, the description
involves no structures such as extra dimensions or an ex-
terior universe.[11]
The ultimate topology of space is a posteriori some-
thing which in principle must be observed as there are
no constraints that can simply be reasoned out (in other
words there can not be any a priori constraints) on how the
space in which we live is connected or whether it wraps
around on itself as a compact space. Though certain cos-
mological models such as Gdels universe even permit
bizarre worldlines which intersect with themselves, ulti-
mately the question as to whether we are in something
like a "Pac-Man universe where if traveling far enough
in one direction would allow one to simply end up back
in the same place like going all the way around the sur-
face of a balloon (or a planet like the Earth) is an observa-
tional question which is constrained as measurable or non-
measurable by the universes global geometry. At present,
observations are consistent with the universe being in-
nite in extent and simply connected, though we are lim-
ited in distinguishing between simple and more compli-
cated proposals by cosmological horizons. The universe
could be innite in extent or it could be nite; but the evi-
dence that leads to the inationary model of the early uni-
verse also implies that the total universe is much larger
than the observable universe, and so any edges or exotic
geometries or topologies would not be directly observ-
able as light has not reached scales on which such aspects
of the universe, if they exist, are still allowed. For all
intents and purposes, it is safe to assume that the uni-
verse is innite in spatial extent, without edge or strange
connectedness.[12]
Regardless of the overall shape of the universe, the ques-
tion of what the universe is expanding into is one which
does not require an answer according to the theories
which describe the expansion; the way we dene space in
our universe in no way requires additional exterior space
into which it can expand since an expansion of an innite
expanse can happen without changing the innite extent
of the expanse. All that is certain is that the manifold
of space in which we live simply has the property that
the distances between objects are getting larger as time
goes on. This only implies the simple observational con-
sequences associated with the metric expansion explored
below. No outside or embedding in hyperspace is re- A consequence of metric expansion being due to inertial
quired for an expansion to occur. The visualizations often motion is that a uniform local explosion of matter into
seen of the universe growing as a bubble into nothing- a vacuum can be locally described by the FLRW geom-
etry, the same geometry which describes the expansion
197
ness are misleading in that respect. There is no reason to
believe there is anything outside of the expanding uni-
verse into which the universe expands.
Even if the overall spatial extent is innite and thus the
universe can not get any larger, we still say that space
is expanding because, locally, the characteristic distance
between objects is increasing. As an innite space grows,
it remains innite.
17.2.4 Eects of expansion on small scales
The expansion of space is sometimes described as a force
which acts to push objects apart. Though this is an ac-
curate description of the eect of the cosmological con-
stant, it is not an accurate picture of the phenomenon of
expansion in general. For much of the universes his-
tory the expansion has been due mainly to inertia. The
matter in the very early universe was ying apart for un-
known reasons (most likely as a result of cosmic ination)
and has simply continued to do so, though at an ever-
decreasing rate due to the attractive eect of gravity.
In addition to slowing the overall expansion, gravity
causes local clumping of matter into stars and galaxies.
Once objects are formed and bound by gravity, they drop
out of the expansion and do not subsequently expand un-
der the inuence of the cosmological metric, there being
no force compelling them to do so.
There is no dierence between the inertial expansion of
the universe and the inertial separation of nearby objects
in a vacuum; the former is simply a large-scale extrapo-
lation of the latter.
Once objects are bound by gravity, they no longer recede
from each other. Thus, the Andromeda galaxy, which is
bound to the Milky Way galaxy, is actually falling towards
us and is not expanding away. Within our Local Group
of galaxies, the gravitational interactions have changed
the inertial patterns of objects such that there is no cos-
mological expansion taking place. Once one goes be-
yond the local group, the inertial expansion is measurable,
though systematic gravitational eects imply that larger
and larger parts of space will eventually fall out of the
"Hubble Flow" and end up as bound, non-expanding ob-
jects up to the scales of superclusters of galaxies. We can
predict such future events by knowing the precise way the
Hubble Flow is changing as well as the masses of the ob-
jects to which we are being gravitationally pulled. Cur-
rently, our Local Group is being gravitationally pulled to-
wards either the Shapley Supercluster or the "Great At-
tractor" with which, if dark energy were not acting, we
would eventually merge and no longer see expand away
from us after such a time.
198 CHAPTER 17. METRIC EXPANSION OF SPACE

of the universe as a whole and was also the basis for the the scale factor decreases with an attendant contraction
simpler Milne universe which ignores the eects of grav- of space rather than an expansion.
ity. In particular, general relativity predicts that light will
move at the speed c with respect to the local motion of
the exploding matter, a phenomenon analogous to frame 17.2.6 Other conceptual models of expan-
dragging.
The situation changes somewhat with the introduction of
dark energy or a cosmological constant. A cosmological
constant due to a vacuum energy density has the eect
of adding a repulsive force between objects which is pro-
portional (not inversely proportional) to distance. Unlike
inertia it actively pulls on objects which have clumped
together under the inuence of gravity, and even on in-
dividual atoms. However, this does not cause the objects
to grow steadily or to disintegrate; unless they are very
weakly bound, they will simply settle into an equilibrium
state which is slightly (undetectably) larger than it would
otherwise have been. As the universe expands and the
matter in it thins, the gravitational attraction decreases
(since it is proportional to the density), while the cosmo-
logical repulsion increases; thus the ultimate fate of the
CDM universe is a near vacuum expanding at an ever
increasing rate under the inuence of the cosmological
constant. However, the only locally visible eect of the
accelerating expansion is the disappearance (by runaway
redshift) of distant galaxies; gravitationally bound objects
like the Milky Way do not expand and the Andromeda
galaxy is moving fast enough towards us that it will still
merge with the Milky Way in 3 billion years time, and it
is also likely that the merged supergalaxy that forms will
eventually fall in and merge with the nearby Virgo Clus-
ter. However, galaxies lying farther away from this will
recede away at ever-increasing rates of speed and be red-
shifted out of our range of visibility.
17.2.5 Scale factor
sion
The expansion of space is often illustrated with concep-
tual models which show only the size of space at a partic-
ular time, leaving the dimension of time implicit.
In the "ant on a rubber rope model one imagines an ant
(idealized as pointlike) crawling at a constant speed on
a perfectly elastic rope which is constantly stretching. If
we stretch the rope in accordance with the CDM scale
factor and think of the ants speed as the speed of light,
then this analogy is numerically accurate the ants po-
sition over time will match the path of the red line on the
embedding diagram above.
In the rubber sheet model one replaces the rope with
a at two-dimensional rubber sheet which expands uni-
formly in all directions. The addition of a second spatial
dimension raises the possibility of showing local pertur-
bations of the spatial geometry by local curvature in the
sheet.
In the balloon model the at sheet is replaced by a
spherical balloon which is inated from an initial size of
zero (representing the big bang). A balloon has positive
Gaussian curvature while observations suggest that the
real universe is spatially at, but this inconsistency can
be eliminated by making the balloon very large so that
it is locally at to within the limits of observation. This
analogy is potentially confusing since it wrongly suggests
that the big bang took place at the center of the balloon.
In fact points o the surface of the balloon have no mean-
ing, even if they were occupied by the balloon at an earlier
time.

At a fundamental level, the expansion of the universe is

a property of spatial measurement on the largest measur-
able scales of our universe. The distances between cos-
mologically relevant points increases as time passes lead-
ing to observable eects outlined below. This feature of
the universe can be characterized by a single parameter
that is called the scale factor which is a function of time
and a single value for all of space at any instant (if the
scale factor were a function of space, this would violate
the cosmological principle). By convention, the scale fac-
tor is set to be unity at the present time and, because the
universe is expanding, is smaller in the past and larger in
the future. Extrapolating back in time with certain cos-
mological models will yield a moment when the scale fac-
tor was zero; our current understanding of cosmology sets
this time at 13.799 0.021 billion years ago. If the uni- Animation of an expanding raisin bread model. As the bread
verse continues to expand forever, the scale factor will ap- doubles in width (depth and length), the distances between raisins
proach innity in the future. In principle, there is no rea- also double.
son that the expansion of the universe must be monotonic
and there are models where at some time in the future In the raisin bread model one imagines a loaf of raisin
17.3. THEORETICAL BASIS AND FIRST EVIDENCE
bread expanding in the oven. The loaf (space) expands
as a whole, but the raisins (gravitationally bound objects)
do not expand; they merely grow farther away from each
other.
17.3 Theoretical basis and rst ev-
idence
17.3.1 Hubbles law
Technically, the metric expansion of space is a feature of
many solutions to the Einstein eld equations of general
relativity, and distance is measured using the Lorentz in-
terval. This explains observations which indicate that
galaxies that are more distant from us are receding faster
than galaxies that are closer to us (Hubbles law).
17.3.2 Cosmological constant and the
Friedmann equations
The rst general relativistic models predicted that a uni-
verse which was dynamical and contained ordinary grav-
itational matter would contract rather than expand. Ein-
steins rst proposal for a solution to this problem in-
volved adding a cosmological constant into his theories
to balance out the contraction, in order to obtain a static
universe solution. But in 1922 Alexander Friedman de-
rived a set of equations known as the Friedmann equa-
tions, showing that the universe might expand and pre-
senting the expansion speed in this case.[13] The obser-
vations of Edwin Hubble in 1929 suggested that distant
galaxies were all apparently moving away from us, so that
many scientists came to accept that the universe was ex-
panding.
17.3.3 Hubbles concerns over the rate of
expansion
While the metric expansion of space appeared to be im-
plied by Hubbles 1929 observations, Hubble disagreed
with the expanding-universe interpretation of the data: 17.3.4
" if redshift are not primarily due to ve-
locity shift the velocity-distance relation is
linear, the distribution of the nebula is uniform,
there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of
curvature, no restriction of the time scale
and we nd ourselves in the presence of one
of the principles of nature that is still unknown
to us today whereas, if redshifts are veloc-
ity shifts which measure the rate of expansion,
the expanding models are denitely inconsis-
tent with the observations that have been made
199
expanding models are a forced interpreta-
tion of the observational results
E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936 [14]
"[If the redshifts are a Doppler shift] the
observations as they stand lead to the anomaly
of a closed universe, curiously small and dense,
and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On
the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler ef-
fects, these anomalies disappear and the region
observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but
insignicant portion of a universe extended in-
denitely both in space and time.
E. Hubble, Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society, 97, 506, 1937 [15]
Hubble would never come to subscribe to the interpre-
tation of the expanding universe. According to Owen
Gingerich, Hubbles skepticism about the universe being
too small, dense, and young was justied, though in the
view of Gingerich it turned out to be an observational er-
ror rather than an error of interpretation. Later investi-
gations appeared to show that Hubble had confused dis-
tant HII regions for Cepheid variables and the Cepheid
variables themselves had been inappropriately lumped to-
gether with low-luminosity RR Lyrae stars causing cali-
bration errors that led to a value of the Hubble Constant
of approximately 500 km/s/Mpc instead of the true value
of approximately 70 km/s/Mpc. The higher value meant
that an expanding universe would have an age of 2 bil-
lion years (younger than the Age of the Earth) and ex-
trapolating the observed number density of galaxies to a
rapidly expanding universe implied a mass density that
was too high by a similar factor, enough to force the uni-
verse into a peculiar closed geometry which also implied
an impending Big Crunch that would occur on a similar
time-scale. After xing these errors in the 1950s, the new
lower values for the Hubble Constant accorded with the
expectations of an older universe and the density param-
eter was found to be fairly close to a geometrically at
universe.[16]
Ination as an explanation for the
expansion
Until the theoretical developments in the 1980s no one
had an explanation for why this seemed to be the case,
but with the development of models of cosmic ination,
the expansion of the universe became a general feature
resulting from vacuum decay. Accordingly, the ques-
tion why is the universe expanding?" is now answered
by understanding the details of the ination decay pro-
cess which occurred in the rst 1032 seconds of the ex-
istence of our universe.[17] During ination, the metric
changed exponentially, causing any volume of space that
200 CHAPTER 17. METRIC EXPANSION OF SPACE

was smaller than an atom to grow to around 100 million

light years across in a time scale similar to the time when
ination occurred (1032 seconds).

ACCELERATING

=0
<1

=1
BETWEEN GALAXIES
AVERAGE DISTANCE

NOW

>1

TIME

The expansion of the universe proceeds in all directions as deter-

mined by the Hubble constant. However, the Hubble constant can
change in the past and in the future, dependent on the observed
value of density parameters (). Before the discovery of dark
energy, it was believed that the universe was matter-dominated,
and so on this graph corresponds to the ratio of the matter
density to the critical density ( m ).

17.3.5 Measuring distance in a metric

space

Main article: Comoving coordinates

In expanding space, distance is a dynamic quantity which

changes with time. There are several dierent ways of
dening distance in cosmology, known as distance mea- A diagram depicting the expansion of the universe and the ap-
sures, but a common method used amongst modern as- pearance of galaxies moving away from a single galaxy. The
phenomenon is relative to the observer. Object t1 is a smaller ex-
tronomers is comoving distance.
pansion than t2. Each section represents the movement of the red
The metric only denes the distance between nearby (so- galaxies over the white galaxies for comparison. The blue and
called local) points. In order to dene the distance be- green galaxies are markers to show which galaxy is the same one
tween arbitrarily distant points, one must specify both (xed center point) in the subsequent box. t = time.
the points and a specic curve (known as a "spacetime
interval") connecting them. The distance between the
points can then be found by nding the length of this
17.4 Observational evidence
connecting curve through the three dimensions of space.
Comoving distance denes this connecting curve to be a Theoretical cosmologists developing models of the uni-
curve of constant cosmological time. Operationally, co- verse have drawn upon a small number of reasonable as-
moving distances cannot be directly measured by a sin- sumptions in their work. These workings have led to
gle Earth-bound observer. To determine the distance of models in which the metric expansion of space is a likely
distant objects, astronomers generally measure luminos- feature of the universe. Chief among the underlying prin-
ity of standard candles, or the redshift factor 'z' of dis- ciples that result in models including metric expansion as
tant galaxies, and then convert these measurements into a feature are:
distances based on some particular model of spacetime,
such as the Lambda-CDM model. It is, indeed, by mak- the Cosmological Principle which demands that
ing such observations that it was determined that there is the universe looks the same way in all directions
no evidence for any 'slowing down' of the expansion in (isotropic) and has roughly the same smooth mix-
the current epoch. ture of material (homogeneous).
17.5. NOTES 201

the Copernican Principle which demands that no change in metric. Interestingly, it was not until the dis-
place in the universe is preferred (that is, the uni- covery in the year 2000 of direct observational evidence
verse has no starting point). for the changing temperature of the cosmic microwave
background that more bizarre constructions could be
Scientists have tested carefully whether these as- ruled out. Until that time, it was based purely on an as-
sumptions are valid and borne out by observation. sumption that the universe did not behave as one with the
Observational cosmologists have discovered evidence Milky Way sitting at the middle of a xed-metric with a
very strong in some cases that supports these assump- universal explosion of galaxies in all directions (as seen
tions, and as a result, metric expansion of space is consid- in, for example, an early model proposed by Milne). Yet
ered by cosmologists to be an observed feature on the ba- before this evidence, many rejected the Milne viewpoint
sis that although we cannot see it directly, scientists have based on the mediocrity principle.
tested the properties of the universe and observation pro- The spatial and temporal universality of physical laws was
vides compelling conrmation.[18] Sources of this con- until very recently taken as a fundamental philosophical
dence and conrmation include: assumption that is now tested to the observational limits
of time and space.
Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant
astronomical objects were moving away from us,
as predicted by a universal expansion.[19] Using the 17.5 Notes
redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to deter-
mine the distance and speed of remote objects in [1] Tamara M. Davis and Charles H. Lineweaver, Expanding
space, he showed that all objects are moving away Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological hori-
from us, and that their speed is proportional to their zons and the superluminal expansion of the universe. astro-
distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further ph/0310808
studies have since shown the expansion to be highly
isotropic and homogeneous, that is, it does not seem [2] Alan B. Whiting (2004). The Expansion of Space:
to have a special point as a center, but appears uni- Free Particle Motion and the Cosmological Red-
shift. ArXiv preprint. arXiv:astro-ph/0404095.
versal and independent of any xed central point.
Bibcode:2004Obs...124..174W.
In studies of large-scale structure of the cosmos
[3] EF Bunn & DW Hogg (2008). The kinematic ori-
taken from redshift surveys a so-called "End of gin of the cosmological redshift. ArXiv preprint.
Greatness" was discovered at the largest scales of the arXiv:0808.1081. Bibcode:2009AmJPh..77..688B.
universe. Until these scales were surveyed, the uni- doi:10.1119/1.3129103.
verse appeared lumpy with clumps of galaxy clus-
ters and superclusters and laments which were any- [4] Yu. V. Baryshev (2008). Expanding Space: The Root
thing but isotropic and homogeneous. This lumpi- of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics.
ness disappears into a smooth distribution of galax- Practical Cosmology 2: 2030. arXiv:0810.0153.
ies at the largest scales. Bibcode:2008pc2..conf...20B.

[5] JA Peacock (2008). A diatribe on expand-

The isotropic distribution across the sky of distant
gamma-ray bursts and supernovae is another conr-
mation of the Cosmological Principle.
The Copernican Principle was not truly tested on a
cosmological scale until measurements of the eects
of the cosmic microwave background radiation on
the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems were
made. A group of astronomers at the European
Southern Observatory noticed, by measuring the
temperature of a distant intergalactic cloud in ther-
mal equilibrium with the cosmic microwave back-
ground, that the radiation from the Big Bang was
demonstrably warmer at earlier times.[20] Uniform
cooling of the cosmic microwave background over
billions of years is strong and direct observational
evidence for metric expansion.
Taken together, these phenomena overwhelmingly sup-
port models that rely on space expanding through a [10] The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011
ing space. ArXiv preprint. arXiv:0809.4573.
Bibcode:2008arXiv0809.4573P.
[6] Planck Mission Brings universe Into Sharp Focus.
NASA. 2013-03-21. Retrieved 2013-03-21.
[7] NASAs Hubble Rules Out One Alternative to Dark En-
ergy. NASA. 2011-03-14. Retrieved 2011-03-27.
[8] Riess, Adam G.; Lucas Macri; Stefano Casertano; Hu-
bert Lampeitl; Henry C. Ferguson; Alexei V. Filippenko;
Saurabh W. Jha; Weidong Li; Ryan Chornock (2011-
04-01). A 3% solution: determination of the Hub-
ble Constant with the Hubble Space Telescope and Wide
Field Camera 3. The Astrophysical Journal 730 (2):
119. arXiv:1103.2976. Bibcode:2011ApJ...730..119R.
doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/119.
[9] Overbye, Dennis (October 11, 2003). A 'Cosmic Jerk'
That Reversed the universe. New York Times.
202 CHAPTER 17. METRIC EXPANSION OF SPACE

[11] Peebles, P. J. E. (1993). Principles of Physical Cosmology.
Princeton University Press. p. 73.
[12] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=
274
[13] Friedman, A: ber die Krmmung des Raumes, Z. Phys.
10 (1922), 377386. (English translation in: Gen. Rel.
Grav. 31 (1999), 19912000.)
[14]
[15]
[16] http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/316324
Hubble Tutorial from the University of Wisconsin
Physics Department
Expanding raisin bread from the University of Win-
nipeg: an illustration, but no explanation
Ant on a balloon analogy to explain the expanding
universe at Ask an Astronomer. (The astronomer
who provides this explanation is not specied.)
Researched Essay: The Big Bang - Proof that the
Universe is Expanding

[17] Interview with Alan Guth; THE INFLATIONARY UNI-

VERSE, [11.19.02] by Edge.org.

[18] Bennett, Charles L. (27 April 2006). Cosmology

from start to nish. Nature 440 (7088):
11261131. Bibcode:2006Natur.440.1126B.
doi:10.1038/nature04803.

[19] Hubble, Edwin, "A Relation between Distance and Radial

Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae" (1929) Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173 (Full
article, PDF)

[20] Astronomers reported their measurement in a paper pub-

lished in the December 2000 issue of Nature titled
The microwave background temperature at the redshift of
2.33771 which can be read here . A press release from
the European Southern Observatory explains the ndings
to the public.

17.6 Printed references

Eddington, Arthur. The Expanding Universe: As-
tronomys 'Great Debate', 1900-1931. Press Syndi-
cate of the University of Cambridge, 1933.
Liddle, Andrew R. and David H. Lyth. Cosmologi-
cal Ination and Large-Scale Structure. Cambridge
University Press, 2000.
Lineweaver, Charles H. and Tamara M. Davis,
"Misconceptions about the Big Bang", Scientic
American, March 2005 (non-free content).
Mook, Delo E. and Thomas Vargish. Inside Relativ-
ity. Princeton University Press, 1991.

17.7 External links

Swenson, Jim Answer to a question about the ex-
panding universe
Felder, Gary, "The Expanding universe".
NASA's WMAP team oers an "Explanation of the
universal expansion" at a very elementary level
Chapter 18

Matter

This article is about the concept in the physical sciences. Matter should not be confused with mass, as the two are
For other uses, see Matter (disambiguation). not quite the same in modern physics.[7] For example,
mass is a conserved quantity, which means that its value
Before the 20th century, the term matter included or- is unchanging through time, within closed systems. How-
dinary matter composed of atoms and excluded other ever, matter is not conserved in such systems, although
energy phenomena such as light or sound. This concept this is not obvious in ordinary conditions on Earth, where
of matter may be generalized from atoms to include any matter is approximately conserved. Still, special relativ-
objects having mass even when at rest, but this is ill- ity shows that matter may disappear by conversion into
dened because an objects mass can arise from its (pos- energy, even inside closed systems, and it can also be cre-
sibly massless) constituents motion and interaction ener- ated from energy, within such systems. However, because
gies. Thus, matter does not have a universal denition, mass (like energy) can neither be created nor destroyed,
nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today. Matter the quantity of mass and the quantity of energy remain
is also used loosely as a general term for the substance the same during a transformation of matter (which repre-
that makes up all observable physical objects.[1][2] sents a certain amount of energy) into non-material (i.e.,
non-matter) energy. This is also true in the reverse trans-
All the objects from everyday life that we can bump into, formation of energy into matter.
touch or squeeze are composed of atoms. This atomic
matter is in turn made up of interacting subatomic par- Dierent elds of science use the term matter in dierent,
ticlesusually a nucleus of protons and neutrons, and a and sometimes incompatible, ways. Some of these ways
cloud of orbiting electrons.[3][4] Typically, science con- are based on loose historical meanings, from a time when
there was no reason to distinguish mass and matter. As
siders these composite particles matter because they have
both rest mass and volume. By contrast, massless parti- such, there is no single universally agreed scientic mean-
ing of the word matter. Scientically, the term mass
cles, such as photons, are not considered matter, because
they have neither rest mass nor volume. However, not all is well-dened, but matter is not. Sometimes in the
eld of physics matter is simply equated with particles
particles with rest mass have a classical volume, since fun-
damental particles such as quarks and leptons (sometimes that exhibit rest mass (i.e., that cannot travel at the speed
of light), such as quarks and leptons. However, in both
equated with matter) are considered point particles with
no eective size or volume. Nevertheless, quarks and lep- physics and chemistry, matter exhibits both wave-like and
tons together make up ordinary matter, and their inter- particle-like
[8][9][10]
properties, the so-called waveparticle dual-
actions contribute to the eective volume of the compos- ity.
ite particles that make up ordinary matter.
Matter commonly exists in four states (or phases): solid,
liquid and gas, and plasma. However, advances in ex-
18.1 Denition
perimental techniques have revealed other previously
theoretical phases, such as BoseEinstein condensates 18.1.1 Common denition
and fermionic condensates. A focus on an elementary-
particle view of matter also leads to new phases of matter, The common denition of matter is anything that has
such as the quarkgluon plasma.[5] For much of the his- mass and volume (occupies space).[11][12] For example, a
tory of the natural sciences people have contemplated the car would be said to be made of matter, as it occupies
exact nature of matter. The idea that matter was built of space, and has mass.
discrete building blocks, the so-called particulate theory The observation that matter occupies space goes back to
of matter, was rst put forward by the Greek philosophers antiquity. However, an explanation for why matter oc-
Leucippus (~490 BC) and Democritus (~470380 BC).[6] cupies space is recent, and is argued to be a result of
the phenomenon described in the Pauli exclusion princi-
ple.[13][14] Two particular examples where the exclusion

203
204 CHAPTER 18. MATTER

Thymine A dierence between matter and mass therefore may

Adenine seem to arise when single particles are examined. In such
5 end O O
cases, the mass of single photons is zero. For particles
NH 2 3 end
O
P
O
N OH with rest mass, such as leptons and quarks, isolation of
O HN

O N
N N
the particle in a frame where it is not moving, removes its
N O O
kinetic energy.
O O

O P
O NH 2 O
N
P O A source of denition diculty in relativity arises from
O
O
O
N HN N
two denitions of mass in common use, one of which
O N
N
O is formally equivalent to total energy (and is thus ob-
O H2N

O O server dependent), and the other of which is referred to

Phosphate- O P
O
O H2N
N
O
as rest mass or invariant mass and is independent of the
deoxyribose O P O

backbone
O
NH N N observer. Only rest mass is loosely equated with mat-
O N

O
N
O ter (since it can be weighed). Invariant mass is usually
H2N
O O applied in physics to unbound systems of particles. How-
O P O
O
O P
N O
ever, energies which contribute to the invariant mass
O O N

N
NH N
may be weighed also in special circumstances, such as
O
N
NH 2
O O
when a system that has invariant mass is conned and has
OH
O
P
O
no net momentum (as in the box example above). Thus,
3 end Cytosine O
O
a photon with no mass may (confusingly) still add mass
Guanine 5 end to a system in which it is trapped. The same is true of
the kinetic energy of particles, which by denition is not
The DNA molecule is an example of matter under the atoms and part of their rest mass, but which does add rest mass to
molecules denition. systems in which these particles reside (an example is the
mass added by the motion of gas molecules of a bottle of
gas, or by the thermal energy of any hot object).
principle clearly relates matter to the occupation of space
are white dwarf stars and neutron stars, discussed further Since such mass (kinetic energies of particles, the energy
below. of trapped electromagnetic radiation and stored potential
energy of repulsive elds) is measured as part of the mass
of ordinary matter in complex systems, the matter sta-
18.1.2 Relativity tus of massless particles and elds of force becomes
unclear in such systems. These problems contribute to
Main article: Massenergy equivalence the lack of a rigorous denition of matter in science, al-
though mass is easier to dene as the total stressenergy
In the context of relativity, mass is not an additive quan- above (this is also what is weighed on a scale, and what is
tity, in the sense that one can add the rest masses of parti- the source of gravity).
cles in a system to get the total rest mass of the system.[1]
Thus, in relativity usually a more general view is that it is
18.1.3 Atoms denition
not the sum of rest masses, but the energymomentum
tensor that quanties the amount of matter. This ten-
A denition of matter based on its physical and chemi-
sor gives the rest mass for the entire system. Matter
cal structure is: matter is made up of atoms.[17] As an ex-
therefore is sometimes considered as anything that con-
ample, deoxyribonucleic acid molecules (DNA) are mat-
tributes to the energymomentum of a system, that is,
ter under this denition because they are made of atoms.
anything that is not purely gravity.[15][16] This view is
This denition can extend to include charged atoms and
commonly held in elds that deal with general relativity
molecules, so as to include plasmas (gases of ions) and
such as cosmology. In this view, light and other massless
electrolytes (ionic solutions), which are not obviously in-
particles and elds are part of matter.
cluded in the atoms denition. Alternatively, one can
The reason for this is that in this denition, adopt the protons, neutrons, and electrons denition.
electromagnetic radiation (such as light) as well as
the energy of electromagnetic elds contributes to the
mass of systems, and therefore appears to add matter to 18.1.4 Protons, neutrons and electrons
them. For example, light radiation (or thermal radiation) denition
trapped inside a box would contribute to the mass of
the box, as would any kind of energy inside the box, A denition of matter more ne-scale than the atoms
including the kinetic energy of particles held by the and molecules denition is: matter is made up of what
box. Nevertheless, isolated individual particles of light atoms and molecules are made of, meaning anything
(photons) and the isolated kinetic energy of massive made of positively charged protons, neutral neutrons,
particles, are normally not considered to be matter. and negatively charged electrons.[18] This denition goes
18.2. STRUCTURE
beyond atoms and molecules, however, to include sub-
stances made from these building blocks that are not
simply atoms or molecules, for example white dwarf
mattertypically, carbon and oxygen nuclei in a sea of
degenerate electrons. At a microscopic level, the con-
stituent particles of matter such as protons, neutrons,
and electrons obey the laws of quantum mechanics and
exhibit waveparticle duality. At an even deeper level,
protons and neutrons are made up of quarks and the force
elds (gluons) that bind them together (see Quarks and
leptons denition below).
18.1.5 Quarks and leptons denition
Under the quarks and leptons denition, the elementary and
composite particles made of the quarks (in purple) and leptons (in
green) would be matterwhile the gauge bosons (in red) would
not be matter. However, interaction energy inherent to composite
particles (for example, gluons involved in neutrons and protons)
contribute to the mass of ordinary matter.
As seen in the above discussion, many early denitions of
what can be called ordinary matter were based upon its
structure or building blocks. On the scale of elementary
particles, a denition that follows this tradition can be
stated as: ordinary matter is everything that is composed
of elementary fermions, namely quarks and leptons.[19][20]
The connection between these formulations follows.
Leptons (the most famous being the electron), and quarks
(of which baryons, such as protons and neutrons, are
made) combine to form atoms, which in turn form
molecules. Because atoms and molecules are said to be
matter, it is natural to phrase the denition as: ordinary
matter is anything that is made of the same things that
atoms and molecules are made of. (However, notice that
one also can make from these building blocks matter that
is not atoms or molecules.) Then, because electrons are
leptons, and protons, and neutrons are made of quarks,
this denition in turn leads to the denition of matter
as being quarks and leptons, which are the two types of
elementary fermions. Carithers and Grannis state: Ordi-
nary matter is composed entirely of rst-generation parti-
cles, namely the [up] and [down] quarks, plus the electron
205
and its neutrino.[20] (Higher generations particles quickly
decay into rst-generation particles, and thus are not com-
monly encountered.[21] )
This denition of ordinary matter is more subtle than it
rst appears. All the particles that make up ordinary mat-
ter (leptons and quarks) are elementary fermions, while
all the force carriers are elementary bosons.[22] The W
and Z bosons that mediate the weak force are not made
of quarks or leptons, and so are not ordinary matter, even
if they have mass.[23] In other words, mass is not some-
thing that is exclusive to ordinary matter.
The quarklepton denition of ordinary matter, how-
ever, identies not only the elementary building blocks
of matter, but also includes composites made from the
constituents (atoms and molecules, for example). Such
composites contain an interaction energy that holds the
constituents together, and may constitute the bulk of the
mass of the composite. As an example, to a great extent,
the mass of an atom is simply the sum of the masses of
its constituent protons, neutrons and electrons. However,
digging deeper, the protons and neutrons are made up of
quarks bound together by gluon elds (see dynamics of
quantum chromodynamics) and these gluons elds con-
tribute signicantly to the mass of hadrons.[24] In other
words, most of what composes the mass of ordinary
matter is due to the binding energy of quarks within pro-
tons and neutrons.[25] For example, the sum of the mass
of the three quarks in a nucleon is approximately 12.5
MeV/c2 , which is low compared to the mass of a nucleon
(approximately 938 MeV/c2 ).[26][27] The bottom line is
that most of the mass of everyday objects comes from
the interaction energy of its elementary components.
18.1.6 Smaller building blocks issue
The Standard Model groups matter particles into three
generations, where each generation consists of two quarks
and two leptons. The rst generation is the up and down
quarks, the electron and the electron neutrino; the second
includes the charm and strange quarks, the muon and the
muon neutrino; the third generation consists of the top and
bottom quarks and the tau and tau neutrino.[28] The most
natural explanation for this would be that quarks and lep-
tons of higher generations are excited states of the rst
generations. If this turns out to be the case, it would im-
ply that quarks and leptons are composite particles, rather
than elementary particles.[29]
18.2 Structure
In particle physics, fermions are particles that obey
FermiDirac statistics. Fermions can be elementary, like
the electronor composite, like the proton and neutron.
In the Standard Model, there are two types of elementary
fermions: quarks and leptons, which are discussed next.
206 CHAPTER 18. MATTER

18.2.1 Quarks made of baryonic matter. About 23% is dark matter, and
about 72% is dark energy.[31]
Main article: Quark

Quarks are particles of spin-1 2 , implying that they are

fermions. They carry an electric charge of 1 3 e (down-
type quarks) or +2 3 e (up-type quarks). For comparison,
an electron has a charge of 1 e. They also carry colour
charge, which is the equivalent of the electric charge for
the strong interaction. Quarks also undergo radioactive
decay, meaning that they are subject to the weak interac-
tion. Quarks are massive particles, and therefore are also
subject to gravity.

A comparison between the white dwarf IK Pegasi B (center), its

A-class companion IK Pegasi A (left) and the Sun (right). This
white dwarf has a surface temperature of 35,500 K.

u u Degenerate matter

Main article: Degenerate matter

d
In physics, degenerate matter refers to the ground state
of a gas of fermions at a temperature near absolute
zero.[32] The Pauli exclusion principle requires that only
two fermions can occupy a quantum state, one spin-up
and the other spin-down. Hence, at zero temperature, the
fermions ll up sucient levels to accommodate all the
available fermionsand in the case of many fermions,
the maximum kinetic energy (called the Fermi energy)
Quark structure of a proton: 2 up quarks and 1 down quark. and the pressure of the gas becomes very large, and de-
pends on the number of fermions rather than the temper-
ature, unlike normal states of matter.
Degenerate matter is thought to occur during the
Baryonic matter
evolution of heavy stars.[33] The demonstration by
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar that white dwarf stars
Main article: Baryon
have a maximum allowed mass because of the exclu-
sion principle caused a revolution in the theory of star
Baryons are strongly interacting fermions, and so are evolution.[34]
subject to FermiDirac statistics. Amongst the baryons
Degenerate matter includes the part of the universe that
are the protons and neutrons, which occur in atomic nu-
is made up of neutron stars and white dwarfs.
clei, but many other unstable baryons exist as well. The
term baryon usually refers to triquarksparticles made
of three quarks. Exotic baryons made of four quarks Strange matter
and one antiquark are known as the pentaquarks, but their
existence is not generally accepted. Main article: Strange matter
Baryonic matter is the part of the universe that is made of
baryons (including all atoms). This part of the universe Strange matter is a particular form of quark matter, usu-
does not include dark energy, dark matter, black holes ally thought of as a liquid of up, down, and strange quarks.
or various forms of degenerate matter, such as compose It is contrasted with nuclear matter, which is a liquid of
white dwarf stars and neutron stars. Microwave light seen neutrons and protons (which themselves are built out of
by Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), up and down quarks), and with non-strange quark matter,
suggests that only about 4.6% of that part of the universe which is a quark liquid that contains only up and down
within range of the best telescopes (that is, matter that quarks. At high enough density, strange matter is ex-
may be visible because light could reach us from it), is pected to be color superconducting. Strange matter is
18.4. ANTIMATTER 207

hypothesized to occur in the core of neutron stars, or,

more speculatively, as isolated droplets that may vary in
size from femtometers (strangelets) to kilometers (quark
stars).

Two meanings of the term strange matter In

particle physics and astrophysics, the term is used in two
ways, one broader and the other more specic.

1. The broader meaning is just quark matter that con-

tains three avors of quarks: up, down, and strange.
In this denition, there is a critical pressure and an
associated critical density, and when nuclear mat-
ter (made of protons and neutrons) is compressed
beyond this density, the protons and neutrons dis-
Phase diagram for a typical substance at a xed volume. Ver-
sociate into quarks, yielding quark matter (probably tical axis is Pressure, horizontal axis is Temperature. The green
strange matter). line marks the freezing point (above the green line is solid, below
it is liquid) and the blue line the boiling point (above it is liq-
2. The narrower meaning is quark matter that is more uid and below it is gas). So, for example, at higher T, a higher
stable than nuclear matter. The idea that this P is necessary to maintain the substance in liquid phase. At the
could happen is the strange matter hypothesis of triple point the three phases; liquid, gas and solid; can coexist.
Bodmer[35] and Witten.[36] In this denition, the Above the critical point there is no detectable dierence between
critical pressure is zero: the true ground state of mat- the phases. The dotted line shows the anomalous behavior of wa-
ter is always quark matter. The nuclei that we see in ter: ice melts at constant temperature with increasing pressure.[39]
the matter around us, which are droplets of nuclear
matter, are actually metastable, and given enough
as plasmas, superuids, supersolids, BoseEinstein con-
time (or the right external stimulus) would decay
densates, ...). A uid may be a liquid, gas or plasma.
into droplets of strange matter, i.e. strangelets.
There are also paramagnetic and ferromagnetic phases of
magnetic materials. As conditions change, matter may
change from one phase into another. These phenomena
18.2.2 Leptons
are called phase transitions, and are studied in the eld of
thermodynamics. In nanomaterials, the vastly increased
Main article: Lepton
ratio of surface area to volume results in matter that can
exhibit properties entirely dierent from those of bulk
Leptons are particles of spin-1 2 , meaning that they are material, and not well described by any bulk phase (see
fermions. They carry an electric charge of 1 e (charged nanomaterials for more details).
leptons) or 0 e (neutrinos). Unlike quarks, leptons do not
Phases are sometimes called states of matter, but this term
carry colour charge, meaning that they do not experience
can lead to confusion with thermodynamic states. For ex-
the strong interaction. Leptons also undergo radioactive
ample, two gases maintained at dierent pressures are in
decay, meaning that they are subject to the weak interac-
dierent thermodynamic states (dierent pressures), but
tion. Leptons are massive particles, therefore are subject
in the same phase (both are gases).
to gravity.

18.3 Phases 18.4 Antimatter

Main article: Phase (matter) Main article: Antimatter

See also: Phase diagram and State of matter
In bulk, matter can exist in several dierent forms, or
states of aggregation, known as phases,[40] depending on
ambient pressure, temperature and volume.[41] A phase
is a form of matter that has a relatively uniform chemi-
cal composition and physical properties (such as density,
specic heat, refractive index, and so forth). These
phases include the three familiar ones (solids, liquids,
and gases), as well as more exotic states of matter (such
In particle physics and quantum chemistry, antimatter is
matter that is composed of the antiparticles of those that
constitute ordinary matter. If a particle and its antiparti-
cle come into contact with each other, the two annihilate;
that is, they may both be converted into other particles
with equal energy in accordance with Einstein's equa-
tion E = mc2 . These new particles may be high-energy
photons (gamma rays) or other particleantiparticle pairs.
208
The resulting particles are endowed with an amount of ki-
netic energy equal to the dierence between the rest mass
of the products of the annihilation and the rest mass of
the original particleantiparticle pair, which is often quite
large.
Antimatter is not found naturally on Earth, except very
briey and in vanishingly small quantities (as the result
of radioactive decay, lightning or cosmic rays). This
is because antimatter that came to exist on Earth out-
side the connes of a suitable physics laboratory would
almost instantly meet the ordinary matter that Earth is
made of, and be annihilated. Antiparticles and some sta-
ble antimatter (such as antihydrogen) can be made in tiny
amounts, but not in enough quantity to do more than test Galaxy rotation curve for the Milky Way. Vertical axis is speed
a few of its theoretical properties. of rotation about the galactic center. Horizontal axis is distance
There is considerable speculation both in science and
science ction as to why the observable universe is appar-
ently almost entirely matter, and whether other places are
almost entirely antimatter instead. In the early universe,
it is thought that matter and antimatter were equally rep-
resented, and the disappearance of antimatter requires an
asymmetry in physical laws called the charge parity (or
CP symmetry) violation. CP symmetry violation can be
obtained from the Standard Model,[42] but at this time
the apparent asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the
visible universe is one of the great unsolved problems in
physics. Possible processes by which it came about are
explored in more detail under baryogenesis.
18.5 Other types
Pie chart showing the fractions of energy in the universe con-
tributed by dierent sources. Ordinary matter is divided into
luminous matter (the stars and luminous gases and 0.005% ra-
diation) and nonluminous matter (intergalactic gas and about
0.1% neutrinos and 0.04% supermassive black holes). Ordinary
matter is uncommon. Modeled after Ostriker and Steinhardt.[43]
For more information, see NASA.
Ordinary matter, in the quarks and leptons denition,
constitutes about 4% of the energy of the observable uni-
verse. The remaining energy is theorized to be due to ex-
otic forms, of which 23% is dark matter[44][45] and 73%
is dark energy.[46][47]
CHAPTER 18. MATTER
from the galactic center. The sun is marked with a yellow ball.
The observed curve of speed of rotation is blue. The predicted
curve based upon stellar mass and gas in the Milky Way is red.
The dierence is due to dark matter or perhaps a modication of
the law of gravity.[48][49][50] Scatter in observations is indicated
roughly by gray bars.
18.5.1 Dark matter
Main articles: Dark matter, Lambda-CDM model and
WIMPs
See also: Galaxy formation and evolution and Dark
matter halo
In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is matter
of unknown composition that does not emit or reect
enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly,
but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational ef-
fects on visible matter.[51][52] Observational evidence of
the early universe and the big bang theory require that
this matter have energy and mass, but is not composed of
either elementary fermions (as above) OR gauge bosons.
The commonly accepted view is that most of the dark
matter is non-baryonic in nature.[51] As such, it is com-
posed of particles as yet unobserved in the laboratory.
Perhaps they are supersymmetric particles,[53] which are
not Standard Model particles, but relics formed at very
high energies in the early phase of the universe and still
oating about.[51]
18.5.2 Dark energy
Main article: Dark energy
See also: Big bang Dark energy
In cosmology, dark energy is the name given to the
antigravitating inuence that is accelerating the rate of
expansion of the universe. It is known not to be com-
posed of known particles like protons, neutrons or elec-
trons, nor of the particles of dark matter, because these
all gravitate.[54][55]
18.6. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 209

Fully 70% of the matter density in the uni- terial for building.[59] Indeed, Aristotles conception of
verse appears to be in the form of dark energy. matter is intrinsically linked to something being made or
Twenty-six percent is dark matter. Only 4% is composed. In other words, in contrast to the early modern
ordinary matter. So less than 1 part in 20 is conception of matter as simply occupying space, matter
made out of matter we have observed experi- for Aristotle is denitionally linked to process or change:
mentally or described in the standard model of matter is what underlies a change of substance.
particle physics. Of the other 96%, apart from For example, a horse eats grass: the horse changes the
the properties just mentioned, we know abso- grass into itself; the grass as such does not persist in the
lutely nothing.
horse, but some aspect of itits matterdoes. The mat-
Lee Smolin: The Trouble with Physics, ter is not specically described (e.g., as atoms), but con-
p. 16
sists of whatever persists in the change of substance from
grass to horse. Matter in this understanding does not exist
independently (i.e., as a substance), but exists interdepen-
18.5.3 Exotic matter dently (i.e., as a principle) with form and only insofar
as it underlies change. It can be helpful to conceive of the
Main article: Exotic matter relationship of matter and form as very similar to that be-
tween parts and whole. For Aristotle, matter as such can
only receive actuality from form; it has no activity or ac-
Exotic matter is a hypothetical concept of particle tuality in itself, similar to the way that parts as such only
physics. It covers any material that violates one or more have their existence in a whole (otherwise they would be
classical conditions or is not made of known baryonic par- independent wholes).
ticles. Such materials would possess qualities like nega-
tive mass or being repelled rather than attracted by grav-
ity. 18.6.2 Early modernity
Ren Descartes (15961650) originated the modern con-
18.6 Historical development ception of matter. He was primarily a geometer. Instead
of, like Aristotle, deducing the existence of matter from
the physical reality of change, Descartes arbitrarily pos-
18.6.1 Origins tulated matter to be an abstract, mathematical substance
that occupies space:
The pre-Socratics were among the rst recorded specu-
lators about the underlying nature of the visible world.
So, extension in length, breadth, and depth,
Thales (c. 624 BCc. 546 BC) regarded water as the
constitutes the nature of bodily substance; and
fundamental material of the world. Anaximander (c.
thought constitutes the nature of thinking sub-
610 BCc. 546 BC) posited that the basic material was
stance. And everything else attributable to
wholly characterless or limitless: the Innite (apeiron).
body presupposes extension, and is only a
Anaximenes (ourished 585 BC, d. 528 BC) posited
mode of extended
that the basic stu was pneuma or air. Heraclitus (c.
Ren Descartes, Principles of
535c. 475 BC) seems to say the basic element is re,
Philosophy[60]
though perhaps he means that all is change. Empedocles
(c. 490430 BC) spoke of four elements of which ev-
erything was made: earth, water, air, and re.[56] Mean- For Descartes, matter has only the property of exten-
while, Parmenides argued that change does not exist, and
sion, so its only activity aside from locomotion is to ex-
Democritus argued that everything is composed of mi- clude other bodies:[61] this is the mechanical philoso-
nuscule, inert bodies of all shapes called atoms, a phi- phy. Descartes makes an absolute distinction between
losophy called atomism. All of these notions had deep mind, which he denes as unextended, thinking sub-
philosophical problems.[57] stance, and matter, which he denes as unthinking, ex-
Aristotle (384 BC 322 BC) was the rst to put the con- tended substance.[62] They are independent things. In
ception on a sound philosophical basis, which he did in contrast, Aristotle denes matter and the formal/forming
his natural philosophy, especially in Physics book I.[58] He principle as complementary principles that together com-
adopted as reasonable suppositions the four Empedoclean pose one independent thing (substance). In short, Aris-
elements, but added a fth, aether. Nevertheless, these totle denes matter (roughly speaking) as what things are
elements are not basic in Aristotles mind. Rather they, actually made of (with a potential independent existence),
like everything else in the visible world, are composed of but Descartes elevates matter to an actual independent
the basic principles matter and form. thing in itself.
The word Aristotle uses for matter, (hyle or hule), can The continuity and dierence between Descartes and
be literally translated as wood or timber, that is, raw ma- Aristotles conceptions is noteworthy. In both concep-
210 CHAPTER 18. MATTER

tions, matter is passive or inert. In the respective con- oers genuine explanations and that can be as-
ceptions matter has dierent relationships to intelligence. similated to the core notions of physics be-
For Aristotle, matter and intelligence (form) exist to- comes part of the theory of the material world,
gether in an interdependent relationship, whereas for part of our account of body. If we have such a
Descartes, matter and intelligence (mind) are denition- theory in some domain, we seek to assimilate
ally opposed, independent substances.[63] it to the core notions of physics, perhaps mod-
Descartes justication for restricting the inherent qual- ifying these notions as we carry out this enter-
ities of matter to extension is its permanence, but his prise.
real criterion is not permanence (which equally applied to Noam Chomsky, 'Language and
color and resistance), but his desire to use geometry to ex- problems of knowledge: the Managua
plain all material properties.[64] Like Descartes, Hobbes, lectures, p. 144[69]
Boyle, and Locke argued that the inherent properties of
bodies were limited to extension, and that so-called sec-
ondary qualities, like color, were only products of human So matter is whatever physics studies and the object of
perception.[65] study of physics is matter: there is no independent general
Isaac Newton (16431727) inherited Descartes mechan- denition of matter, apart from its tting into the method-
ical conception of matter. In the third of his Rules ology of measurement and controlled experimentation.
of Reasoning in Philosophy, Newton lists the universal In sum, the boundaries between what constitutes matter
qualities of matter as extension, hardness, impenetrabil- and everything else remains as vague as the demarcation [71]
ity, mobility, and inertia.[66] Similarly in Optics he con- problem of delimiting science from everything else.
jectures that God created matter as solid, massy, hard,
impenetrable, movable particles, which were "...even so
very hard as never to wear or break in pieces.[67] The 18.6.3 Late nineteenth and early twentieth
primary properties of matter were amenable to mathe- centuries
matical description, unlike secondary qualities such as
color or taste. Like Descartes, Newton rejected the es- In the 19th century, following the development of the
sential nature of secondary qualities.[68] periodic table, and of atomic theory, atoms were seen
as being the fundamental constituents of matter; atoms
Newton developed Descartes notion of matter by restor-
formed molecules and compounds.[72]
ing to matter intrinsic properties in addition to extension
(at least on a limited basis), such as mass. Newtons use The common denition in terms of occupying space and
of gravitational force, which worked at a distance, ef- having mass is in contrast with most physical and chem-
fectively repudiated Descartes mechanics, in which in- ical denitions of matter, which rely instead upon its
teractions happened exclusively by contact.[69] structure and upon attributes not necessarily related to
volume and mass. At the turn of the nineteenth century,
Though Newtons gravity would seem to be a power of
the knowledge of matter began a rapid evolution.
bodies, Newton himself did not admit it to be an essen-
tial property of matter. Carrying the logic forward more Aspects of the Newtonian view still held sway. James
consistently, Joseph Priestley argued that corporeal prop- Clerk Maxwell discussed matter in his work Matter and
erties transcend contact mechanics: chemical properties Motion.[73] He carefully separates matter from space
require the capacity for attraction.[69] He argued matter and time, and denes it in terms of the object referred
has other inherent powers besides the so-called primary to in Newtons rst law of motion.
qualities of Descartes, et al.[70] However, the Newtonian picture was not the whole story.
Since Priestleys time, there has been a massive expansion In the 19th century, the term matter was actively dis-
in knowledge of the constituents of the material world cussed by a host of scientists and philosophers, and a
(viz., molecules, atoms, subatomic particles), but there brief outline can be found in Levere.[74] A textbook dis-
has been no further development in the denition of mat- cussion from 1870 suggests matter is what is made up of
ter. Rather the question has been set aside. Noam Chom- atoms:[75]
sky summarizes the situation that has prevailed since that
time:
Three divisions of matter are recognized in
science: masses, molecules and atoms.
What is the concept of body that nally A Mass of matter is any portion of matter ap-
emerged?[...] The answer is that there is preciable by the senses.
no clear and denite conception of body.[...] A Molecule is the smallest particle of matter
Rather, the material world is whatever we dis- into which a body can be divided without los-
cover it to be, with whatever properties it must ing its identity.
be assumed to have for the purposes of ex- An Atom is a still smaller particle produced by
planatory theory. Any intelligible theory that division of a molecule.
18.7. SEE ALSO
Rather than simply having the attributes of mass and oc-
cupying space, matter was held to have chemical and elec-
trical properties. The famous physicist J. J. Thomson
wrote about the constitution of matter and was con-
cerned with the possible connection between matter and
electrical charge.[76]
18.6.4 Later developments
There is an entire literature concerning the structure of
matter, ranging from the electrical structure in the
early 20th century,[77] to the more recent quark struc-
ture of matter, introduced today with the remark: Un-
derstanding the quark structure of matter has been one of
the most important advances in contemporary physics.[78]
In this connection, physicists speak of matter elds, and
speak of particles as quantum excitations of a mode of
the matter eld.[8][9] And here is a quote from de Sab-
bata and Gasperini: With the word matter we denote,
in this context, the sources of the interactions, that is
spinor elds (like quarks and leptons), which are believed
to be the fundamental components of matter, or scalar
elds, like the Higgs particles, which are used to intro-
duced mass in a gauge theory (and that, however, could
be composed of more fundamental fermion elds).[79]
The modern conception of matter has been rened many
times in history, in light of the improvement in knowledge
of just what the basic building blocks are, and in how they
interact.
In the late 19th century with the discovery of the electron,
and in the early 20th century, with the discovery of the
atomic nucleus, and the birth of particle physics, matter
was seen as made up of electrons, protons and neutrons
interacting to form atoms. Today, we know that even pro-
tons and neutrons are not indivisible, they can be divided
into quarks, while electrons are part of a particle family
called leptons. Both quarks and leptons are elementary
particles, and are currently seen as being the fundamen-
tal constituents of matter.[80]
These quarks and leptons interact through four
fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, weak in- [6] J. Olmsted; G.M. Williams (1996). Chemistry: The
teractions, and strong interactions. The Standard Model
of particle physics is currently the best explanation for all
of physics, but despite decades of eorts, gravity cannot
yet be accounted for at the quantum level; it is only
described by classical physics (see quantum gravity and
graviton).[81] Interactions between quarks and leptons [8] P.C.W. Davies (1979). The Forces of Nature. Cambridge
are the result of an exchange of force-carrying particles
[82]
(such as photons) between quarks and leptons. The [9] S. Weinberg (1998). The Quantum Theory of Fields.
force-carrying particles are not themselves building
blocks. As one consequence, mass and energy (which
cannot be created or destroyed) cannot always be related [10] M. Masujima (2008). Path Integral Quantization and
to matter (which can be created out of non-matter
particles such as photons, or even out of pure energy,
such as kinetic energy). Force carriers are usually not [11] S.M. Walker; A. King (2005). What is Matter?. Lerner
considered matter: the carriers of the electric force
211
(photons) possess energy (see Planck relation) and the
carriers of the weak force (W and Z bosons) are massive,
but neither are considered matter either.[83] However,
while these particles are not considered matter, they
do contribute to the total mass of atoms, subatomic
particles, and all systems that contain them.[84][85]
18.6.5 Summary
The term matter is used throughout physics in a be-
wildering variety of contexts: for example, one refers to
"condensed matter physics",[86] elementary matter,[87]
"partonic" matter, "dark" matter, "anti"-matter, "strange"
matter, and "nuclear" matter. In discussions of matter and
antimatter, normal matter has been referred to by Alfvn
as koinomatter (Gk. common matter).[88] It is fair to say
that in physics, there is no broad consensus as to a gen-
eral denition of matter, and the term matter usually is
used in conjunction with a specifying modier.
18.7 See also
18.8 References
[1] R. Penrose (1991). The mass of the classical vacuum.
In S. Saunders, H.R. Brown. The Philosophy of Vacuum.
Oxford University Press. p. 21. ISBN 0-19-824449-5.
[2] Matter (physics)". McGraw-Hills Access Science: En-
cyclopedia of Science and Technology Online. Retrieved
2009-05-24.
[3] P. Davies (1992). The New Physics: A Synthesis.
Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 0-521-43831-4.
[4] G. 't Hooft (1997). In search of the ultimate building
blocks. Cambridge University Press. p. 6. ISBN 0-521-
57883-3.
[5] RHIC Scientists Serve Up Perfect Liquid (Press re-
lease). Brookhaven National Laboratory. 18 April 2005.
Retrieved 2009-09-15.
Molecular Science (2nd ed.). Jones & Bartlett. p. 40.
ISBN 0-8151-8450-6.
[7] J. Mongillo (2007). Nanotechnology 101. Greenwood
Publishing. p. 30. ISBN 0-313-33880-9.
University Press. p. 116. ISBN 0-521-22523-X.
Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-521-55002-5.
Stochastic Quantization. Springer. p. 103. ISBN 3-540-
87850-5.
Publications. p. 7. ISBN 0-8225-5131-4.
212
[12] J.Kenkel; P.B. Kelter; D.S. Hage (2000). Chemistry: An
Industry-based Introduction with CD-ROM. CRC Press. p.
2. ISBN 1-56670-303-4. All basic science textbooks de-
ne matter as simply the collective aggregate of all mate-
rial substances that occupy space and have mass or weight.
[13] K.A. Peacock (2008). The Quantum Revolution: A His-
torical Perspective. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 47.
ISBN 0-313-33448-X.
[14] M.H. Krieger (1998). Constitutions of Matter: Mathemati-
cally Modeling the Most Everyday of Physical Phenomena.
University of Chicago Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-226-45305-
7.
[15] S.M. Caroll (2004). Spacetime and Geometry. Addison
Wesley. pp. 163164. ISBN 0-8053-8732-3.
[16] P. Davies (1992). The New Physics: A Synthesis. Cam-
bridge University Press. p. 499. ISBN 0-521-43831-4.
Matter elds: the elds whose quanta describe the el-
ementary particles that make up the material content of
the Universe (as opposed to the gravitons and their super-
symmetric partners).
[17] G. F. Barker (1870). Divisions of matter. A text-book
of elementary chemistry: theoretical and inorganic. John
F Morton & Co. p. 2. ISBN 978-1-4460-2206-1.
[18] M. de Podesta (2002). Understanding the Properties of
Matter (2nd ed.). CRC Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-415-25788-
3.
[19] B. Povh; K. Rith; C. Scholz; F. Zetsche; M. Lavelle
(2004). Part I: Analysis: The building blocks of mat-
ter. Particles and Nuclei: An Introduction to the Physical
Concepts (4th ed.). Springer. ISBN 3-540-20168-8.
[20] B. Carithers, P. Grannis (1995). Discovery of the Top
Quark (PDF). Beam Line (SLAC National Accelerator
Laboratory) 25 (3): 416.
[21] D. Green (2005). High PT physics at hadron colliders.
Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 0-521-83509-
7.
[22] L. Smolin (2007). The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of
String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next.
Mariner Books. p. 67. ISBN 0-618-91868-X.
[23] The W boson mass is 80.398 GeV; see Figure 1 in C. Am-
sler et al. (Particle Data Group) (2008). Review of Parti-
cle Physics: The Mass and Width of the W Boson (PDF).
Physics Letters B 667: 1. Bibcode:2008PhLB..667....1P.
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.07.018.
[24] I.J.R. Aitchison; A.J.G. Hey (2004). Gauge Theories in
Particle Physics. CRC Press. p. 48. ISBN 0-7503-0864-
8.
[25] B. Povh; K. Rith; C. Scholz; F. Zetsche; M. Lavelle
(2004). Particles and Nuclei: An Introduction to the Phys-
ical Concepts. Springer. p. 103. ISBN 3-540-20168-8.
[26] A.M. Green (2004). Hadronic Physics from Lattice QCD.
World Scientic. p. 120. ISBN 981-256-022-X.
CHAPTER 18. MATTER
[27] T. Hatsuda (2008). Quarkgluon plasma and QCD. In
H. Akai. Condensed matter theories 21. Nova Publishers.
p. 296. ISBN 1-60021-501-7.
[28] K.W Staley (2004). Origins of the Third Generation of
Matter. The Evidence for the Top Quark. Cambridge
University Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-521-82710-8.
[29] Y. Ne'eman; Y. Kirsh (1996). The Particle Hunters (2nd
ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 276. ISBN 0-521-
47686-0. [T]he most natural explanation to the existence
of higher generations of quarks and leptons is that they
correspond to excited states of the rst generation, and ex-
perience suggests that excited systems must be composite
[30] C. Amsler et al. (Particle Data Group) (2008).
Reviews of Particle Physics: Quarks (PDF). Physics
Letters B 667: 1. Bibcode:2008PhLB..667....1P.
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.07.018.
[31] Five Year Results on the Oldest Light in the Universe.
NASA. 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
[32] H.S. Goldberg; M.D. Scadron (1987). Physics of Stellar
Evolution and Cosmology. Taylor & Francis. p. 202.
ISBN 0-677-05540-4.
[33] H.S. Goldberg; M.D. Scadron (1987). Physics of Stellar
Evolution and Cosmology. Taylor & Francis. p. 233.
ISBN 0-677-05540-4.
[34] J.-P. Luminet; A. Bullough; A. King (1992). Black Holes.
Cambridge University Press. p. 75. ISBN 0-521-40906-
3.
[35] A. Bodmer (1971). Collapsed Nuclei. Physical Re-
view D 4 (6): 1601. Bibcode:1971PhRvD...4.1601B.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.4.1601.
[36] E. Witten (1984). Cosmic Separa-
tion of Phases. Physical Review D 30
(2): 272. Bibcode:1984PhRvD..30..272W.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.30.272.
[37] C. Amsler et al. (Particle Data Group) (2008).
Review of Particle Physics: Leptons (PDF). Physics
Letters B 667: 1. Bibcode:2008PhLB..667....1P.
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.07.018.
[38] C. Amsler et al. (Particle Data Group) (2008). Review
of Particle Physics: Neutrinos Properties (PDF). Physics
Letters B 667: 1. Bibcode:2008PhLB..667....1P.
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.07.018.
[39] S. R. Logan (1998). Physical Chemistry for the Biomedical
Sciences. CRC Press. pp. 110111. ISBN 0-7484-0710-
3.
[40] P.J. Collings (2002). Chapter 1: States of Mat-
ter. Liquid Crystals: Natures Delicate Phase of Matter.
Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-08672-9.
[41] D.H. Trevena (1975). Chapter 1.2: Changes of phase.
The Liquid Phase. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-85109-
031-3.
[42] National Research Council (US) (2006). Revealing the
hidden nature of space and time. National Academies
Press. p. 46. ISBN 0-309-10194-8.
18.8. REFERENCES
[43] J.P. Ostriker; P.J. Steinhardt (2003). New Light
on Dark Matter. Science 300 (5627): 190913.
arXiv:astro-ph/0306402. Bibcode:2003Sci...300.1909O.
doi:10.1126/science.1085976. PMID 12817140.
[44] K. Pretzl (2004). Dark Matter, Massive Neutrinos and
Susy Particles. Structure and Dynamics of Elementary
Matter. Walter Greiner. p. 289. ISBN 1-4020-2446-0.
[45] K. Freeman; G. McNamara (2006). What can the matter
be?". In Search of Dark Matter. Birkhuser Verlag. p.
105. ISBN 0-387-27616-5.
[46] J.C. Wheeler (2007). Cosmic Catastrophes: Exploding
Stars, Black Holes, and Mapping the Universe. Cambridge
University Press. p. 282. ISBN 0-521-85714-7.
[47] J. Gribbin (2007). The Origins of the Future: Ten Ques-
tions for the Next Ten Years. Yale University Press. p.
151. ISBN 0-300-12596-8.
[48] P. Schneider (2006). Extragalactic Astronomy and Cos-
mology. Springer. p. 4, Fig. 1.4. ISBN 3-540-33174-3.
[49] T. Koupelis; K.F. Kuhn (2007). In Quest of the Universe.
Jones & Bartlett Publishers. p. 492; Fig. 16.13. ISBN
0-7637-4387-9.
[50] M. H. Jones; R. J. Lambourne; D. J. Adams (2004). An
Introduction to Galaxies and Cosmology. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. p. 21; Fig. 1.13. ISBN 0-521-54623-0.
[51] D. Majumdar (2007). Dark matter possible candi-
dates and direct detection. arXiv:hep-ph/0703310 [hep-
ph].
[52] K.A. Olive (2003). Theoretical Advanced Study Institute
lectures on dark matter. arXiv:astro-ph/0301505 [astro-
ph].
[53] K.A. Olive (2009). Colliders and Cosmology.
European Physical Journal C 59 (2): 269295.
arXiv:0806.1208. Bibcode:2009EPJC...59..269O.
doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0738-8.
[54] J.C. Wheeler (2007). Cosmic Catastrophes. Cambridge
University Press. p. 282. ISBN 0-521-85714-7.
[55] L. Smolin (2007). The Trouble with Physics. Mariner
Books. p. 16. ISBN 0-618-91868-X.
[56] S. Toulmin; J. Goodeld (1962). The Architecture of Mat-
ter. University of Chicago Press. pp. 4854.
[57] Discussed by Aristotle in Physics, esp. book I, but also
later; as well as Metaphysics III.
[58] For a good explanation and elaboration, see R.J. Connell
(1966). Matter and Becoming. Priory Press.
[59] H. G. Liddell; R. Scott; J. M. Whiton (1891). A lexi-
con abridged from Liddell & Scotts GreekEnglish lexicon.
Harper and Brothers. p. 725.
[60] R. Descartes (1644). The Principles of Human Knowl-
edge. Principles of Philosophy I. p. 53.
[61] though even this property seems to be non-essential (Ren
Descartes, Principles of Philosophy II [1644], On the
Principles of Material Things, no. 4.)
213
[62] R. Descartes (1644). The Principles of Human Knowl-
edge. Principles of Philosophy I. pp. 8, 54, 63.
[63] D.L. Schindler (1986). The Problem of Mechanism. In
D.L. Schindler. Beyond Mechanism. University Press of
America.
[64] E.A. Burtt, Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science
(Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company,
1954), 117118.
[65] J.E. McGuire and P.M. Heimann, The Rejection of
Newtons Concept of Matter in the Eighteenth Century,
The Concept of Matter in Modern Philosophy ed. Ernan
McMullin (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1978), 104118 (105).
[66] Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philos-
ophy, trans. A. Motte, revised by F. Cajori (Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, 1934), pp. 398400. Further
analyzed by Maurice A. Finocchiaro, Newtons Third Rule
of Philosophizing: A Role for Logic in Historiography, Isis
65:1 (Mar. 1974), pp. 6673.
[67] Isaac Newton, Optics, Book III, pt. 1, query 31.
[68] McGuire and Heimann, 104.
[69] N. Chomsky (1988). Language and problems of knowl-
edge: the Managua lectures (2nd ed.). MIT Press. p. 144.
ISBN 0-262-53070-8.
[70] McGuire and Heimann, 113.
[71] Nevertheless, it remains true that the mathematization
regarded as requisite for a modern physical theory car-
ries its own implicit notion of matter, which is very like
Descartes, despite the demonstrated vacuity of the latters
notions.
[72] M. Wenham (2005). Understanding Primary Science:
Ideas, Concepts and Explanations (2nd ed.). Paul Chap-
man Educational Publishing. p. 115. ISBN 1-4129-0163-
4.
[73] J.C. Maxwell (1876). Matter and Motion. Society for Pro-
moting Christian Knowledge. p. 18. ISBN 0-486-66895-
9.
[74] T.H. Levere (1993). Introduction. Anity and Matter:
Elements of Chemical Philosophy, 18001865. Taylor &
Francis. ISBN 2-88124-583-8.
[75] G.F. Barker (1870). Introduction. A Text Book of El-
ementary Chemistry: Theoretical and Inorganic. John P.
Morton and Company. p. 2.
[76] J. J. Thomson (1909). Preface. Electricity and Matter.
A. Constable.
[77] O.W. Richardson (1914). Chapter 1. The Electron The-
ory of Matter. The University Press.
[78] M. Jacob (1992). The Quark Structure of Matter. World
Scientic. ISBN 981-02-3687-5.
[79] V. de Sabbata; M. Gasperini (1985). Introduction to Grav-
itation. World Scientic. p. 293. ISBN 9971-5-0049-3.
214 CHAPTER 18. MATTER

[80] The history of the concept of matter is a history of the Stephen Toulmin and June Goodeld, The Archi-
fundamental length scales used to dene matter. Dier- tecture of Matter (Chicago: University of Chicago
ent building blocks apply depending upon whether one de- Press, 1962).
nes matter on an atomic or elementary particle level. One
may use a denition that matter is atoms, or that matter Richard J. Connell, Matter and Becoming (Chicago:
is hadrons, or that matter is leptons and quarks depending The Priory Press, 1966).
upon the scale at which one wishes to dene matter. B.
Povh; K. Rith; C. Scholz; F. Zetsche; M. Lavelle (2004). Ernan McMullin, The Concept of Matter in Greek
Fundamental constituents of matter. Particles and Nu- and Medieval Philosophy (Notre Dame, Indiana:
clei: An Introduction to the Physical Concepts (4th ed.). Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1965).
Springer. ISBN 3-540-20168-8.
Ernan McMullin, The Concept of Matter in Mod-
[81] J. Allday (2001). Quarks, Leptons and the Big Bang. CRC ern Philosophy (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of
Press. p. 12. ISBN 0-7503-0806-0.
Notre Dame Press, 1978).
[82] B.A. Schumm (2004). Deep Down Things: The Breath-
taking Beauty of Particle Physics. Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press. p. 57. ISBN 0-8018-7971-X. 18.10 External links
[83] See for example, M. Jibu; K. Yasue (1995). Quantum
Brain Dynamics and Consciousness. John Benjamins Pub- Visionlearning Module on Matter
lishing Company. p. 62. ISBN 1-55619-183-9., B. Mar-
tin (2009). Nuclear and Particle Physics (2nd ed.). John Matter in the universe How much Matter is in the
Wiley & Sons. p. 125. ISBN 0-470-74275-5. and K. Universe?
W. Plaxco; M. Gross (2006). Astrobiology: A Brief Intro-
duction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 23. ISBN NASA on superuid core of neutron star
0-8018-8367-9.
Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy Conversa-
[84] P. A. Tipler; R. A. Llewellyn (2002). Modern Physics. tions About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt
Macmillan. pp. 8991, 9495. ISBN 0-7167-4345-0. Strassler
[85] P. Schmser; H. Spitzer (2002). Particles. In L.
Bergmann; et al. Constituents of Matter: Atoms, Molecules,
Nuclei. CRC Press. pp. 773 . ISBN 0-8493-1202-7.
[86] P. M. Chaikin; T. C. Lubensky (2000). Principles of Con-
densed Matter Physics. Cambridge University Press. p.
xvii. ISBN 0-521-79450-1.
[87] W. Greiner (2003). W. Greiner, M.G. Itkis, G. Reinhardt,
M.C. Gl, ed. Structure and Dynamics of Elementary
Matter. Springer. p. xii. ISBN 1-4020-2445-2.
[88] P. Sukys (1999). Lifting the Scientic Veil: Science Appre-
ciation for the Nonscientist. Rowman & Littleeld. p. 87.
ISBN 0-8476-9600-6.

18.9 Further reading

Lillian Hoddeson; Michael Riordan, eds. (1997).
The Rise of the Standard Model. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. ISBN 0-521-57816-7.
Timothy Paul Smith (2004). The search for quarks
in ordinary matter. Hidden Worlds. Princeton Uni-
versity Press. p. 1. ISBN 0-691-05773-7.
Harald Fritzsch (2005). Elementary Particles:
Building blocks of matter. World Scientic. p. 1.
ISBN 981-256-141-2.
Bertrand Russell (1992). The philosophy of mat-
ter. A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leib-
niz (Reprint of 1937 2nd ed.). Routledge. p. 88.
ISBN 0-415-08296-X.
Chapter 19
FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker
metric
FRW redirects here. For other uses, see FRW (disam- on t all of the time dependence is in the function a(t),
biguation). known as the "scale factor".
The FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker
(FLRW) metric is an exact solution of Einsteins
eld equations of general relativity; it describes a
homogeneous, isotropic expanding or contracting
universe that may be simply connected or multiply
connected.[1][2][3] (If multiply connected, then each
event in spacetime will be represented by more than
one tuple of coordinates.) The general form of the
metric follows from the geometric properties of ho-
mogeneity and isotropy; Einsteins eld equations are
only needed to derive the scale factor of the universe
as a function of time. Depending on geographical or
historical preferences, a subset of the four scientists
Alexander Friedmann, Georges Lematre, Howard
P. Robertson and Arthur Georey Walker may be
named (e.g., FriedmannRobertsonWalker (FRW)
or RobertsonWalker (RW) or FriedmannLematre
(FL)). This model is sometimes called the Standard
Model of modern cosmology.[4] It was developed in-
dependently by the named authors in the 1920s and
1930s.
19.1 General metric
The FLRW metric starts with the assumption of
homogeneity and isotropy of space. It also assumes
that the spatial component of the metric can be time-
dependent. The generic metric which meets these con-
ditions is
2
c2 d 2 = c2 dt2 + a(t) d 2
where ranges over a 3-dimensional space of uniform
curvature, that is, elliptical space, Euclidean space, or
hyperbolic space. It is normally written as a function of
three spatial coordinates, but there are several conven-
tions for doing so, detailed below. d does not depend
215
19.1.1 Reduced-circumference polar coor-
dinates
In reduced-circumference polar coordinates the spatial
metric has the form
dr2
d 2
= +r2 d 2
, whered 2
= d2 +sin2 d2 .
1 kr2
k is a constant representing the curvature of the space.
There are two common unit conventions:
k may be taken to have units of length2 , in which
case r has units of length and a(t) is unitless. k
is then the Gaussian curvature of the space at the
time when a(t) = 1. r is sometimes called the re-
duced circumference because it is equal to the mea-
sured circumference of a circle (at that value of r),
centered at the origin, divided by 2 (like the r
of Schwarzschild coordinates). Where appropriate,
a(t) is often chosen to equal 1 in the present cosmo-
logical era, so that d measures comoving distance.
Alternatively, k may be taken to belong to the set
{1,0,+1} (for negative, zero, and positive curvature
respectively). Then r is unitless and a(t) has units of
length. When k = 1, a(t) is the radius of curvature
of the space, and may also be written R(t).
A disadvantage of reduced circumference coordinates is
that they cover only half of the 3-sphere in the case of pos-
itive curvaturecircumferences beyond that point begin
to decrease, leading to degeneracy. (This is not a problem
if space is elliptical, i.e. a 3-sphere with opposite points
identied.)
216 CHAPTER 19. FRIEDMANNLEMATREROBERTSONWALKER METRIC

19.1.2 Hyperspherical coordinates This can be extended to k 0 by dening

In hyperspherical or curvature-normalized coordinates

the coordinate r is proportional to radial distance; this
x = r cos
gives
y = r sin cos
2 2 2 2
d = dr + Sk (r) d z = r sin sin
where d is as before and where r is one of the radial coordinates dened above, but
this is rare.
1

k sin(r k), k>0
Sk (r) = r, k=0

1 19.2 Solutions
|k| sinh(r |k|), k < 0.

As before, there are two common unit conventions: Main article: Friedmann equations

k may be taken to have units of length2 , in which
case r has units of length and a(t ) is unitless. k is
then the Gaussian curvature of the space at the time
when a(t ) = 1. Where appropriate, a(t ) is often
chosen to equal 1 in the present cosmological era,
so that d measures comoving distance.
Einsteins eld equations are not used in deriving the gen-
eral form for the metric: it follows from the geometric
properties of homogeneity and isotropy. However, deter-
mining the time evolution of a(t) does require Einsteins
eld equations together with a way of calculating the den-
sity, (t), such as a cosmological equation of state.

Alternatively, as before, k may be taken to belong This metric has an analytic solution to Einsteins eld
to the set {1,0,+1} (for negative, zero, and positive equations G + g = 8G c4 T giving the Friedmann
curvature respectively). Then r is unitless and a(t ) equations when the energy-momentum tensor is similarly
has units of length. When k = 1, a(t ) is the radius assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous. The resulting
of curvature of the space, and may also be written equations are:[5]
R(t ). Note that, when k = +1, r is essentially a third
angle along with and . The letter may be used ( )2
instead of r. a kc2 c2 8G
+ 2 =
a a 3 3
Though it is usually dened piecewise as above, S is an
analytic function of both k and r. It can also be written as ( )2
a a kc2 8G
a power series 2 + + 2 c2 = 2 p.
a a a c
These equations are the basis of the standard big bang

(1)n k n r2n+1 kr3 k 2 r5 cosmological model including the current CDM model.
Sk (r) = =r + Because the FLRW model assumes homogeneity, some
n=0
(2n + 1)! 6 120
popular accounts mistakenly assert that the big bang
or as model cannot account for the observed lumpiness of the
universe. In a strictly FLRW model, there are no clusters
of galaxies, stars or people, since these are objects much

Sk (r) = r sinc (r k) denser than a typical part of the universe. Nonetheless,
the FLRW model is used as a rst approximation for the
where sinc is the unnormalized sinc function and k is evolution of the real, lumpy universe because it is sim-
one of the imaginary, zero or real square roots of k. These ple to calculate, and models which calculate the lumpi-
denitions are valid for all k. ness in the universe are added onto the FLRW models as
extensions. Most cosmologists agree that the observable
universe is well approximated by an almost FLRW model,
19.1.3 Cartesian coordinates i.e., a model which follows the FLRW metric apart from
primordial density uctuations. As of 2003, the theoret-
When k = 0 one may write simply ical implications of the various extensions to the FLRW
model appear to be well understood, and the goal is to
make these consistent with observations from COBE and
d 2 = dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 . WMAP.
19.3. NAME AND HISTORY 217

19.2.1 Interpretation 19.2.3 Newtonian interpretation

The pair of equations given above is equivalent to the fol- The Friedmann equations are equivalent to this pair of
lowing pair of equations equations:

a ( p) a3 = 3a2 a +
3a2 pa
= 3 + 2
a c c2
( ) a2 G 4a
3
kc2
a 4G 3p c2 3
= + 2 + = .
a 3 c 3 2 a 2
The rst equation says that the decrease in the mass con-
with k , the spatial curvature index, serving as a constant tained in a xed cube (whose side is momentarily a) is the
of integration for the rst equation. amount which leaves through the sides due to the expan-
The rst equation can be derived also from sion of the universe plus the mass equivalent of the work
thermodynamical considerations and is equivalent done by pressure against the material being expelled. This
to the rst law of thermodynamics, assuming the is the conservation of mass-energy (rst law of thermo-
expansion of the universe is an adiabatic process dynamics) contained within a part of the universe.
(which is implicitly assumed in the derivation of the The second equation says that the kinetic energy (seen
FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker metric). from the origin) of a particle of unit mass moving with
The second equation states that both the energy density the expansion plus its (negative) gravitational potential
and the pressure cause the expansion rate of the universe energy (relative to the mass contained in the sphere of
a to decrease, i.e., both cause a deceleration in the expan- matter closer to the origin) is equal to a constant related to
sion of the universe. This is a consequence of gravitation, the curvature of the universe. In other words, the energy
with pressure playing a similar role to that of energy (or (relative to the origin) of a co-moving particle in free-fall
mass) density, according to the principles of general rel- is conserved. General relativity merely adds a connection
ativity. The cosmological constant, on the other hand, between the spatial curvature of the universe and the en-
causes an acceleration in the expansion of the universe. ergy of such a particle: positive total energy implies neg-
ative curvature and negative total energy implies positive
curvature.
19.2.2 Cosmological constant
The cosmological constant term is assumed to be treated
The cosmological constant term can be omitted if we as dark energy and thus merged into the density and pres-
make the following replacements sure terms.
During the Planck epoch, one cannot neglect quantum ef-
fects. So they may cause a deviation from the Friedmann
c2 equations.
+
8G
c4
pp
8G
. 19.3 Name and history
Therefore the cosmological constant can be interpreted
The main results of the FLRW model were rst de-
as arising from a form of energy which has negative pres-
rived by the Soviet mathematician Alexander Friedmann
sure, equal in magnitude to its (positive) energy density:
in 1922 and 1924. Although his work was published
in the prestigious physics journal Zeitschrift fr Physik,
it remained relatively unnoticed by his contemporaries.
p = c2 . Friedmann was in direct communication with Albert Ein-
stein, who, on behalf of Zeitschrift fr Physik, acted as
Such form of energya generalization of the notion of a
the scientic referee of Friedmanns work. Eventually
cosmological constantis known as dark energy.
Einstein acknowledged the correctness of Friedmanns
In fact, in order to get a term which causes an acceleration calculations, but failed to appreciate the physical signi-
of the universe expansion, it is enough to have a scalar cance of Friedmanns predictions.
eld which satises
Friedmann died in 1925. In 1927, Georges Lematre,
a Belgian priest, astronomer and periodic professor of
c 2 physics at the Catholic University of Leuven, arrived in-
p< . dependently at similar results as Friedmann had and pub-
3
lished them in Annals of the Scientic Society of Brus-
Such a eld is sometimes called quintessence. sels. In the face of the observational evidence for the
218 CHAPTER 19. FRIEDMANNLEMATREROBERTSONWALKER METRIC
expansion of the universe obtained by Edwin Hubble in
the late 1920s, Lematres results were noticed in partic-
ular by Arthur Eddington, and in 193031 his paper was
translated into English and published in the Monthly No-
tices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
Howard P. Robertson from the US and Arthur Georey
Walker from the UK explored the problem further dur-
ing the 1930s. In 1935 Robertson and Walker rigorously
proved that the FLRW metric is the only one on a space-
time that is spatially homogeneous and isotropic (as noted
above, this is a geometric result and is not tied specically
to the equations of general relativity, which were always
assumed by Friedmann and Lematre).
Because the dynamics of the FLRW model were derived
by Friedmann and Lematre, the latter two names are
often omitted by scientists outside the US. Conversely,
US physicists often refer to it as simply Robertson
Walker. The full four-name title is the most democratic
and it is frequently used. Often the RobertsonWalker
metric, so-called since they proved its generic proper-
ties, is distinguished from the dynamical Friedmann-
Lematre models, specic solutions for a(t) which as-
sume that the only contributions to stress-energy are cold
matter (dust), radiation, and a cosmological constant.
19.4 Einsteins radius of the uni-
verse
Einsteins radius of the Universe is the radius of cur-
vature of space of Einsteins universe, a long-abandoned
static model that was supposed to represent our universe
in idealized form. Putting
a = a = 0
in the Friedmann equation, the radius of curvature of
space of this universe (Einsteins radius) is
RE = c/ 4G
where c is the speed of light, G is the Newtonian grav-
itational constant, and is the density of space of this
universe. The numerical value of Einsteins radius is of
the order of 1010 light years.
19.5 Evidence
By combining the observation data from some experi-
ments such as WMAP and Planck with theoretical results
of EhlersGerenSachs theorem and its generalization,[6]
astrophysicists now agree that the universe is almost ho-
mogeneous and isotropic (when averaged over a very
large scale) and thus nearly a FLRW spacetime.
19.6 References and notes
[1] For an early reference, see Robertson (1935); Robertson
assumes multiple connectedness in the positive curvature
case and says that we are still free to restore simple con-
nectedness.
[2] M. Lachieze-Rey; J.-P. Luminet (1995), Cos-
mic Topology, Physics Reports 254 (3): 135214,
arXiv:gr-qc/9605010, Bibcode:1995PhR...254..135L,
doi:10.1016/0370-1573(94)00085-H
[3] G. F. R. Ellis; H. van Elst (1999). Cosmological
models (Cargse lectures 1998)". In Marc Lachize-
Rey. Theoretical and Observational Cosmology. NATO
Science Series C. pp. 1116. arXiv:gr-qc/9812046.
Bibcode:1999toc..conf....1E. ISBN 978-0792359463.
[4] L. Bergstrm, A. Goobar (2006), Cosmology and Particle
Astrophysics (2nd ed.), Sprint, p. 61, ISBN 3-540-32924-
2
[5] P. Ojeda and H. Rosu (2006), Supersymmetry of FRW
barotropic cosmologies, International Journal of Theo-
retical Physics 45 (6): 11911196, arXiv:gr-qc/0510004,
Bibcode:2006IJTP...45.1152R, doi:10.1007/s10773-
006-9123-2
[6] See pp. 351. in Hawking, Stephen W.; Ellis, George
F. R. (1973), The large scale structure of space-time,
Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-09906-4. The
original work is Ehlers, J., Geren, P., Sachs, R.K.:
Isotropic solutions of Einstein-Liouville equations. J.
Math. Phys. 9, 1344 (1968). For the generalization,
see Stoeger, W. R.; Maartens, R; Ellis, George (2007),
Proving Almost-Homogeneity of the Universe: An Al-
most Ehlers-Geren-Sachs Theorem, Ap. J. 39: 15,
Bibcode:1995ApJ...443....1S, doi:10.1086/175496.
19.7 Further reading
Friedmann, Alexander (1922), "ber die Krm-
mung des Raumes, Zeitschrift fr Physik A
10 (1): 377386, Bibcode:1922ZPhy...10..377F,
doi:10.1007/BF01332580
Friedmann, Alexander (1924), "ber die
Mglichkeit einer Welt mit konstanter negativer
Krmmung des Raumes, Zeitschrift fr Physik A
21 (1): 326332, Bibcode:1924ZPhy...21..326F,
doi:10.1007/BF01328280 English trans. in 'Gen-
eral Relativity and Gravitation' 1999 vol.31,
31
Harrison, E. R. (1967), Classication of
uniform cosmological models, Monthly No-
tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 137:
6979, Bibcode:1967MNRAS.137...69H,
doi:10.1093/mnras/137.1.69
19.7. FURTHER READING 219

d'Inverno, Ray (1992), Introducing Einsteins Rela-

tivity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-
859686-3. (See Chapter 23 for a particularly clear
and concise introduction to the FLRW models.)
Lematre, Georges (1931), Expansion of the
universe, A homogeneous universe of constant
mass and increasing radius accounting for the
radial velocity of extra-galactic nebul", Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91:
483490, Bibcode:1931MNRAS..91..483L,
doi:10.1093/mnras/91.5.483 translated from
Lematre, Georges (1927), Un univers ho-
mogne de masse constante et de rayon crois-
sant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des
nbuleuses extra-galactiques, Annales de la
Socit Scientique de Bruxelles A47: 4956,
Bibcode:1927ASSB...47...49L
Lematre, Georges (1933), lUnivers en expan-
sion, Annales de la Socit Scientique de Bruxelles
A53: 5185, Bibcode:1933ASSB...53...51L

Robertson, H. P. (1935), Kinematics and

world structure, Astrophysical Journal 82:
284301, Bibcode:1935ApJ....82..284R,
doi:10.1086/143681

Robertson, H. P. (1936), Kinematics and

world structure II, Astrophysical Journal
83: 187201, Bibcode:1936ApJ....83..187R,
doi:10.1086/143716

Robertson, H. P. (1936), Kinematics and

world structure III, Astrophysical Journal
83: 257271, Bibcode:1936ApJ....83..257R,
doi:10.1086/143726

Walker, A. G. (1937), On Milnes theory of world-

structure, Proceedings of the London Mathemati-
cal Society 2 42 (1): 90127, doi:10.1112/plms/s2-
42.1.90
Chapter 20

Photon

This article is about the elementary particle of light. For the name photon for these particles, and after 1927, when
other uses, see Photon (disambiguation). Arthur H. Compton won the Nobel Prize for his scat-
tering studies, most scientists accepted the validity that
A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light quanta of light have an independent existence, and the
and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is term photon for light quanta was accepted.
the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when In the Standard Model of particle physics, photons and
static via virtual photons. The eects of this force are eas- other elementary particles are described as a necessary
ily observable at the microscopic and at the macroscopic consequence of physical laws having a certain symmetry
level, because the photon has zero rest mass; this allows at every point in spacetime. The intrinsic properties of
long distance interactions. Like all elementary particles, particles, such as charge, mass and spin, are determined
photons are currently best explained by quantum mechan- by the properties of this gauge symmetry. The photon
ics and exhibit waveparticle duality, exhibiting proper- concept has led to momentous advances in experimen-
ties of waves and of particles. For example, a single pho- tal and theoretical physics, such as lasers, BoseEinstein
ton may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference condensation, quantum eld theory, and the probabilistic
with itself, but also act as a particle giving a denite result interpretation of quantum mechanics. It has been ap-
when its position is measured. Waves and quanta, being plied to photochemistry, high-resolution microscopy, and
two observable aspects of a single phenomenon, cannot measurements of molecular distances. Recently, photons
have their true nature described in terms of any mechan- have been studied as elements of quantum computers and
ical model.[2] A representation of this dual property of for applications in optical imaging and optical communi-
light, which assumes certain points on the wave front to cation such as quantum cryptography.
be the seat of the energy, is also impossible. Thus, the
quanta in a light wave cannot be spatially localized. Some
dened physical parameters of a photon are listed.
The modern photon concept was developed gradually by
20.1 Nomenclature
Albert Einstein in the rst years of the 20th century to ex-
plain experimental observations that did not t the classi- In 1900, the German physicist Max Planck was working
cal wave model of light. In particular, the photon model on black-body radiation and suggested that the energy in
accounted for the frequency dependence of lights energy, electromagnetic waves could only be released in pack-
and explained the ability of matter and radiation to be ets of energy. In his 1901 article [5] in Annalen der
in thermal equilibrium. It also accounted for anomalous Physik he called these packets energy elements. The
observations, including the properties of black-body ra- word quanta (singular quantum) was used even before
diation, that other physicists, most notably Max Planck, 1900 to mean particles or amounts of dierent quantities,
had sought to explain using semiclassical models, in which including electricity. Later, in 1905, Albert Einstein
light is still described by Maxwells equations, but the ma- went further by suggesting that electromagnetic waves
terial objects that emit and absorb light do so in amounts could only exist in these discrete wave-packets.[6] He
of energy that are quantized (i.e., they change energy only called such a wave-packet the light quantum (German:
by certain particular discrete amounts and cannot change das Lichtquant).[Note 1] The name photon derives from the
energy in any arbitrary way). Although these semiclas- Greek word for light, (transliterated phs). Arthur
sical models contributed to the development of quantum Compton used photon in 1928, referring to Gilbert N.
mechanics, many further experiments[3][4] starting with Lewis.[7] The same name was used earlier, by the Amer-
Compton scattering of single photons by electrons, rst ican physicist and psychologist Leonard T. Troland, who
observed in 1923, validated Einsteins hypothesis that coined the word in 1916, in 1921 by the Irish physi-
light itself is quantized. In 1926 the optical physicist cist John Joly, in 1924 by the French physiologist Ren
Frithiof Wolfers and the chemist Gilbert N. Lewis coined Wurmser (1890-1993) and in 1926 by the French physi-
cist Frithiof Wolfers (1891-1971).[8] The name was sug-

220
20.2. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES 221

gested initially as a unit related to the illumination of

the eye and the resulting sensation of light and was used
later on in a physiological context. Although Wolferss Time
and Lewiss theories were never accepted, as they were
contradicted by many experiments, the new name was
adopted very soon by most physicists after Compton used
it.[8][Note 2]
In physics, a photon is usually denoted by the sym-
bol (the Greek letter gamma). This symbol for the
photon probably derives from gamma rays, which were
discovered in 1900 by Paul Villard,[9][10] named by
Ernest Rutherford in 1903, and shown to be a form
of electromagnetic radiation in 1914 by Rutherford and
Edward Andrade.[11] In chemistry and optical engineer-
ing, photons are usually symbolized by h, the energy of a
photon, where h is Plancks constant and the Greek letter
Space
(nu) is the photons frequency. Much less commonly,
the photon can be symbolized by hf, where its frequency
is denoted by f.

20.2 Physical properties

See also: Special relativity and Photonic molecule
A photon is massless,[Note 3] has no electric charge,[12]
and is stable. A photon has two possible polarization
states. In the momentum representation, which is pre-
ferred in quantum eld theory, a photon is described by The cone shows possible values of wave 4-vector of a pho-
its wave vector, which determines its wavelength and ton. The time axis gives the angular frequency (rad s1 ) and
the space axes represent the angular wavenumber (rad m1 ).
its direction of propagation. A photons wave vector may
Green and indigo represent left and right polarization
not be zero and can be represented either as a spatial 3-
vector or as a (relativistic) four-vector; in the latter case it
belongs to the light cone (pictured). Dierent signs of the m = 0:[16]
four-vector denote dierent circular polarizations, but in
the 3-vector representation one should account for the po-
larization state separately; it actually is a spin quantum E 2 = p2 c2 + m2 c4 .
number. In both cases the space of possible wave vectors
is three-dimensional. The energy and momentum of a photon depend only on
The photon is the gauge boson for its frequency () or inversely, its wavelength ():
[13]:2930
electromagnetism, and therefore all other
quantum numbers of the photon (such as lepton number,
baryon number, and avour quantum numbers) are E = = h = hc
zero.[14] Also, the photon does not obey the Pauli
[15]:1221
exclusion principle. p = k,
Photons are emitted in many natural processes. For ex-
where k is the wave vector (where the wave number k =
ample, when a charge is accelerated it emits synchrotron
|k| = 2/), = 2 is the angular frequency, and =
radiation. During a molecular, atomic or nuclear transi-
h/2 is the reduced Planck constant.[17]
tion to a lower energy level, photons of various energy will
be emitted, from radio waves to gamma rays. A photon Since p points in the direction of the photons propaga-
can also be emitted when a particle and its correspond- tion, the magnitude of the momentum is
ing antiparticle are annihilated (for example, electron
positron annihilation).[15]:572, 1114, 1172
h h
In empty space, the photon moves at c (the speed of p = k = = .
c
light) and its energy and momentum are related by E =
pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. The photon also carries spin angular momentum that does
This derives from the following relativistic relation, with not depend on its frequency.[18] The magnitude of its spin
222 CHAPTER 20. PHOTON

is 2 and the component measured along its direction perimental probes of the photon mass than the frequency
of motion, its helicity, must be . These two possi- dependence of the speed of light. If Coulombs law is
ble helicities, called right-handed and left-handed, cor- not exactly valid, then that would cause the presence of
respond to the two possible circular polarization states of an electric eld inside a hollow conductor when it is sub-
the photon.[19] jected to an external electric eld. This thus allows one
[24]
To illustrate the signicance of these formulae, the an- to test Coulombs law to very high precision. A null
nihilation of a particle with its antiparticle in free space result of such an experiment has set a limit of m 1014
2 [25]
must result in the creation of at least two photons for the eV/c .
following reason. In the center of momentum frame, the Sharper upper limits have been obtained in experiments
colliding antiparticles have no net momentum, whereas a designed to detect eects caused by the galactic vector
single photon always has momentum (since, as we have potential. Although the galactic vector potential is very
seen, it is determined by the photons frequency or wave- large because the galactic magnetic eld exists on very
length, which cannot be zero). Hence, conservation of long length scales, only the magnetic eld is observable
momentum (or equivalently, translational invariance) re- if the photon is massless. In case of a massive photon,
quires that at least two photons are created, with zero net the mass term 12 m2 A A would aect the galactic plasma.
momentum. (However, it is possible if the system inter- The fact that no such eects are seen implies an upper
acts with another particle or eld for annihilation to pro- bound on the photon mass of m < 31027 eV/c2 .[26] The
duce one photon, as when a positron annihilates with a galactic vector potential can also be probed directly by
bound atomic electron, it is possible for only one photon measuring the torque exerted on a magnetized ring.[27]
to be emitted, as the nuclear Coulomb eld breaks transla- Such methods were used to obtain the sharper upper limit
tional symmetry.)[20]:6465 The energy of the two photons, of 1018 eV/c2 (the equivalent of 1.071027 atomic mass
or, equivalently, their frequency, may be determined from units) given by the Particle Data Group.[28]
conservation of four-momentum. Seen another way, the These sharp limits from the non-observation of the eects
photon can be considered as its own antiparticle. The re- caused by the galactic vector potential have been shown to
verse process, pair production, is the dominant mecha- be model dependent.[29] If the photon mass is generated
nism by which high-energy photons such as gamma rays via the Higgs mechanism then the upper limit of m1014
lose energy while passing through matter.[21] That process eV/c2 from the test of Coulombs law is valid.
is the reverse of annihilation to one photon allowed in
the electric eld of an atomic nucleus. Photons inside superconductors do develop a nonzero
eective rest mass; as a result, electromagnetic forces be-
The classical formulae for the energy and momentum of come short-range inside superconductors.[30]
electromagnetic radiation can be re-expressed in terms of
photon events. For example, the pressure of electromag- See also: Supernova/Acceleration Probe
netic radiation on an object derives from the transfer of
photon momentum per unit time and unit area to that ob-
ject, since pressure is force per unit area and force is the
change in momentum per unit time.[22] 20.3 Historical development
Main article: Light
20.2.1 Experimental checks on photon In most theories up to the eighteenth century, light
mass

Current commonly accepted physical theories imply or

assume the photon to be strictly massless. If the photon
is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at
the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be
lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be
unaected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would
then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but
a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that
any object could theoretically attain in space-time.[23]
Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples Thomas Young's double-slit experiment in 1801 showed that light
(gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be can act as a wave, helping to invalidate early particle theories of
light.[15]:964
the speed of photons.
If a photon did have non-zero mass, there would be other was pictured as being made up of particles. Since
eects as well. Coulombs law would be modied and particle models cannot easily account for the refraction,
the electromagnetic eld would have an extra physical de- diraction and birefringence of light, wave theories of
gree of freedom. These eects yield more sensitive ex- light were proposed by Ren Descartes (1637),[31] Robert
20.4. EINSTEINS LIGHT QUANTUM
Hooke (1665),[32] and Christiaan Huygens (1678);[33]
however, particle models remained dominant, chiey
due to the inuence of Isaac Newton.[34] In the early
nineteenth century, Thomas Young and August Fres-
nel clearly demonstrated the interference and dirac-
tion of light and by 1850 wave models were gen-
erally accepted.[35] In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell's
prediction[36] that light was an electromagnetic wave
which was conrmed experimentally in 1888 by Heinrich
Hertz's detection of radio waves[37] seemed to be the -
nal blow to particle models of light.
Light wave
= wave length
E = amplitude of
electric field
M
E
M = amplitude of
magnetic field was observed experimentally[44] by Arthur Compton, for
distance
In 1900, Maxwells theoretical model of light as oscillating trodynamics and its successor, the Standard Model (see
electric and magnetic elds seemed complete. However, sev- Second quantization and The photon as a gauge boson,
eral observations could not be explained by any wave model of below).
electromagnetic radiation, leading to the idea that light-energy
was packaged into quanta described by E=h. Later experiments
showed that these light-quanta also carry momentum and, thus,
can be considered particles: the photon concept was born, lead-
ing to a deeper understanding of the electric and magnetic elds
themselves.
The Maxwell wave theory, however, does not account for
all properties of light. The Maxwell theory predicts that
the energy of a light wave depends only on its intensity,
not on its frequency; nevertheless, several independent
types of experiments show that the energy imparted by
light to atoms depends only on the lights frequency, not
on its intensity. For example, some chemical reactions
are provoked only by light of frequency higher than a cer-
tain threshold; light of frequency lower than the thresh-
old, no matter how intense, does not initiate the reac-
tion. Similarly, electrons can be ejected from a metal
plate by shining light of suciently high frequency on
it (the photoelectric eect); the energy of the ejected
electron is related only to the lights frequency, not to its
intensity.[38][Note 4]
At the same time, investigations of blackbody ra-
diation carried out over four decades (18601900)
by various researchers[39] culminated in Max Planck's
hypothesis[5][40] that the energy of any system that ab-
sorbs or emits electromagnetic radiation of frequency
is an integer multiple of an energy quantum E =
h. As shown by Albert Einstein,[6][41] some form of
energy quantization must be assumed to account for
the thermal equilibrium observed between matter and
electromagnetic radiation; for this explanation of the
photoelectric eect, Einstein received the 1921 Nobel
Prize in physics.[42]
223
Since the Maxwell theory of light allows for all possible
energies of electromagnetic radiation, most physicists as-
sumed initially that the energy quantization resulted from
some unknown constraint on the matter that absorbs or
emits the radiation. In 1905, Einstein was the rst to
propose that energy quantization was a property of elec-
tromagnetic radiation itself.[6] Although he accepted the
validity of Maxwells theory, Einstein pointed out that
many anomalous experiments could be explained if the
energy of a Maxwellian light wave were localized into
point-like quanta that move independently of one an-
other, even if the wave itself is spread continuously over
space.[6] In 1909[41] and 1916,[43] Einstein showed that,
if Plancks law of black-body radiation is accepted, the
energy quanta must also carry momentum p = h/, mak-
ing them full-edged particles. This photon momentum
which he received the Nobel Prize in 1927. The pivotal
question was then: how to unify Maxwells wave theory
of light with its experimentally observed particle nature?
The answer to this question occupied Albert Einstein for
the rest of his life,[45] and was solved in quantum elec-
20.4 Einsteins light quantum
Unlike Planck, Einstein entertained the possibility that
there might be actual physical quanta of lightwhat we
now call photons. He noticed that a light quantum with
energy proportional to its frequency would explain a num-
ber of troubling puzzles and paradoxes, including an un-
published law by Stokes, the ultraviolet catastrophe, and
of course the photoelectric eect. Stokess law said
simply that the frequency of uorescent light cannot be
greater than the frequency of the light (usually ultravio-
let) inducing it. Einstein eliminated the ultraviolet catas-
trophe by imagining a gas of photons behaving like a gas
of electrons that he had previously considered. He was
advised by a colleague to be careful how he wrote up this
paper, in order to not challenge Planck too directly, as he
was a powerful gure, and indeed the warning was justi-
ed, as Planck never forgave him for writing it.[46]
20.5 Early objections
Einsteins 1905 predictions were veried experimentally
in several ways in the rst two decades of the 20th cen-
tury, as recounted in Robert Millikan's Nobel lecture.[47]
However, before Comptons experiment[44] showing that
photons carried momentum proportional to their wave
number (or frequency) (1922), most physicists were re-
luctant to believe that electromagnetic radiation itself
might be particulate. (See, for example, the Nobel lec-
224
Up to 1923, most physicists were reluctant to accept that light it-
self was quantized. Instead, they tried to explain photon behavior
by quantizing only matter, as in the Bohr model of the hydrogen
atom (shown here). Even though these semiclassical models were
only a rst approximation, they were accurate for simple systems
and they led to quantum mechanics.
See also: Waveparticle duality, Squeezed coherent state,
tures of Wien,[39] Planck[40] and Millikan.[47] ) Instead, Uncertainty principle and De BroglieBohm theory
there was a widespread belief that energy quantization re- Photons, like all quantum objects, exhibit wave-like and
sulted from some unknown constraint on the matter that
absorbs or emits radiation. Attitudes changed over time.
In part, the change can be traced to experiments such as
Compton scattering, where it was much more dicult not
to ascribe quantization to light itself to explain the ob-
served results.[48]
Even after Comptons experiment, Niels Bohr, Hendrik
Kramers and John Slater made one last attempt to pre-
serve the Maxwellian continuous electromagnetic eld
model of light, the so-called BKS model.[49] To account
for the data then available, two drastic hypotheses had to
be made:
1. Energy and momentum are conserved only on
the average in interactions between matter and
radiation, not in elementary processes such as
absorption and emission. This allows one to rec-
oncile the discontinuously changing energy of the
atom (jump between energy states) with the contin-
uous release of energy into radiation.
2. Causality is abandoned. For example,
spontaneous emissions are merely emissions
induced by a virtual electromagnetic eld.
However, rened Compton experiments showed that
energymomentum is conserved extraordinarily well in
elementary processes; and also that the jolting of the elec-
tron and the generation of a new photon in Compton
scattering obey causality to within 10 ps. Accordingly,
Bohr and his co-workers gave their model as honorable
a funeral as possible.[45] Nevertheless, the failures of the
CHAPTER 20. PHOTON
BKS model inspired Werner Heisenberg in his develop-
ment of matrix mechanics.[50]
A few physicists persisted[51] in developing semiclassical
models in which electromagnetic radiation is not quan-
tized, but matter appears to obey the laws of quantum
mechanics. Although the evidence for photons from
chemical and physical experiments was overwhelming
by the 1970s, this evidence could not be considered
as absolutely denitive; since it relied on the interac-
tion of light with matter, a suciently complicated the-
ory of matter could in principle account for the evi-
dence. Nevertheless, all semiclassical theories were re-
futed denitively in the 1970s and 1980s by photon-
correlation experiments.[Note 5] Hence, Einsteins hypoth-
esis that quantization is a property of light itself is con-
sidered to be proven.
20.6 Waveparticle duality and un-
certainty principles
Photons in a MachZehnder interferometer exhibit wave-like in-
terference and particle-like detection at single-photon detectors.
particle-like properties. Their dual waveparticle nature
can be dicult to visualize. The photon displays clearly
wave-like phenomena such as diraction and interference
on the length scale of its wavelength. For example, a
single photon passing through a double-slit experiment
lands on the screen exhibiting interference phenomena
but only if no measure was made on the actual slit be-
ing run across. To account for the particle interpreta-
tion that phenomenon is called probability distribution
but behaves according to Maxwells equations.[52] How-
ever, experiments conrm that the photon is not a short
pulse of electromagnetic radiation; it does not spread
out as it propagates, nor does it divide when it encoun-
ters a beam splitter.[53] Rather, the photon seems to be
a point-like particle since it is absorbed or emitted as a
20.6. WAVEPARTICLE DUALITY AND UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLES
whole by arbitrarily small systems, systems much smaller
than its wavelength, such as an atomic nucleus (1015
m across) or even the point-like electron. Nevertheless,
the photon is not a point-like particle whose trajectory
is shaped probabilistically by the electromagnetic eld,
as conceived by Einstein and others; that hypothesis was
also refuted by the photon-correlation experiments cited
above. According to our present understanding, the elec-
tromagnetic eld itself is produced by photons, which in
turn result from a local gauge symmetry and the laws of
quantum eld theory (see the Second quantization and
Gauge boson sections below).
Heisenbergs thought experiment for locating an electron (shown
in blue) with a high-resolution gamma-ray microscope. The in-
coming gamma ray (shown in green) is scattered by the electron
up into the microscopes aperture angle . The scattered gamma
ray is shown in red. Classical optics shows that the electron po-
sition can be resolved only up to an uncertainty x that depends
on and the wavelength of the incoming light.
A key element of quantum mechanics is Heisenbergs
uncertainty principle, which forbids the simultaneous
measurement of the position and momentum of a particle
along the same direction. Remarkably, the uncertainty
principle for charged, material particles requires the
quantization of light into photons, and even the frequency
dependence of the photons energy and momentum. An
elegant illustration is Heisenbergs thought experiment for
locating an electron with an ideal microscope.[54] The po-
sition of the electron can be determined to within the
resolving power of the microscope, which is given by a
formula from classical optics
225
x
sin
where is the aperture angle of the microscope. Thus,
the position uncertainty x can be made arbitrarily small
by reducing the wavelength . The momentum of the
electron is uncertain, since it received a kick p from
the light scattering from it into the microscope. If light
were not quantized into photons, the uncertainty p
could be made arbitrarily small by reducing the lights
intensity. In that case, since the wavelength and inten-
sity of light can be varied independently, one could si-
multaneously determine the position and momentum to
arbitrarily high accuracy, violating the uncertainty prin-
ciple. By contrast, Einsteins formula for photon momen-
tum preserves the uncertainty principle; since the photon
is scattered anywhere within the aperture, the uncertainty
of momentum transferred equals
h
p pphoton sin = sin
giving the product xp h , which is Heisenbergs
uncertainty principle. Thus, the entire world is quantized;
both matter and elds must obey a consistent set of quan-
tum laws, if either one is to be quantized.[55]
The analogous uncertainty principle for photons forbids
the simultaneous measurement of the number n of pho-
tons (see Fock state and the Second quantization section
below) in an electromagnetic wave and the phase of that
wave
n > 1
See coherent state and squeezed coherent state for more
details.
Both (photons and material) particles such as elec-
trons create analogous interference patterns when pass-
ing through a double-slit experiment. For photons, this
corresponds to the interference of a Maxwell light wave
whereas, for material particles, this corresponds to the in-
terference of the Schrdinger wave equation. Although
this similarity might suggest that Maxwells equations are
simply Schrdingers equation for photons, most physi-
cists do not agree.[56][57] For one thing, they are math-
ematically dierent; most obviously, Schrdingers one
equation solves for a complex eld, whereas Maxwells
four equations solve for real elds. More generally, the
normal concept of a Schrdinger probability wave func-
tion cannot be applied to photons.[58] Being massless,
they cannot be localized without being destroyed; tech-
nically, photons cannot have a position eigenstate |r ,
and, thus, the normal Heisenberg uncertainty principle
xp > h/2 does not pertain to photons. A few
substitute wave functions have been suggested for the
226 CHAPTER 20. PHOTON

photon,[59][60][61][62] but they have not come into gen-

eral use. Instead, physicists generally accept the second-
quantized theory of photons described below, quantum
electrodynamics, in which photons are quantized excita-
tions of electromagnetic modes.
Another interpretation, that avoids duality, is the De
BroglieBohm theory: known also as the pilot-wave
model, the photon in this theory is both, wave and
particle.[63] This idea seems to me so natural and sim- Stimulated emission (in which photons clone themselves) was
ple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear predicted by Einstein in his kinetic analysis, and led to the de-
and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it velopment of the laser. Einsteins derivation inspired further de-
was so generally ignored,[64] J.S.Bell. velopments in the quantum treatment of light, which led to the
statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics.

20.7 BoseEinstein model of a pho- with electromagnetic radiation and atoms that can emit
ton gas and absorb that radiation. Thermal equilibrium requires
that the energy density () of photons with frequency
(which is proportional to their number density) is, on
Main articles: Bose gas, BoseEinstein statistics, Spin- average, constant in time; hence, the rate at which pho-
statistics theorem and Gas in a box tons of any particular frequency are emitted must equal
the rate of absorbing them.[72]
In 1924, Satyendra Nath Bose derived Plancks law Einstein began by postulating simple proportionality re-
of black-body radiation without using any electromag- lations for the dierent reaction rates involved. In his
netism, but rather a modication of coarse-grained count- model, the rate R for a system to absorb a photon of
ji
ing of phase space.[65] Einstein showed that this modi- frequency and transition from a lower energy E to a
j
cation is equivalent to assuming that photons are rigor- higher energy E is proportional to the number N of
i j
ously identical and that it implied a mysterious non-local atoms with energy E and to the energy density () of
j
interaction,[66][67] now understood as the requirement ambient photons with that frequency,
for a symmetric quantum mechanical state. This work
led to the concept of coherent states and the develop-
ment of the laser. In the same papers, Einstein extended
Boses formalism to material particles (bosons) and pre- Rji = Nj Bji ()
dicted that they would condense into their lowest quantum
where Bji is the rate constant for absorption. For the
state at low enough temperatures; this BoseEinstein con-
reverse process, there are two possibilities: spontaneous
densation was observed experimentally in 1995.[68] It was
emission of a photon, and a return to the lower-energy
later used by Lene Hau to slow, and then completely stop,
state that is initiated by the interaction with a passing
light in 1999[69] and 2001.[70]
photon. Following Einsteins approach, the correspond-
The modern view on this is that photons are, by virtue ing rate Rij for the emission of photons of frequency
of their integer spin, bosons (as opposed to fermions and transition from a higher energy Ei to a lower energy
with half-integer spin). By the spin-statistics theorem, Ej is
all bosons obey BoseEinstein statistics (whereas all
fermions obey FermiDirac statistics).[71]
Rij = Ni Aij + Ni Bij ()

20.8 Stimulated and spontaneous
emission
Main articles: Stimulated emission and Laser
In 1916, Einstein showed that Plancks radiation law
could be derived from a semi-classical, statistical treat-
ment of photons and atoms, which implies a relation be-
tween the rates at which atoms emit and absorb photons.
The condition follows from the assumption that light is
emitted and absorbed by atoms independently, and that
the thermal equilibrium is preserved by interaction with
atoms. Consider a cavity in thermal equilibrium and lled
where Aij is the rate constant for emitting a photon
spontaneously, and Bij is the rate constant for emit-
ting it in response to ambient photons (induced or stim-
ulated emission). In thermodynamic equilibrium, the
number of atoms in state i and that of atoms in state
j must, on average, be constant; hence, the rates Rji
and Rij must be equal. Also, by arguments analogous
to the derivation of Boltzmann statistics, the ratio of Ni
and Nj is gi /gj exp (Ej Ei )/kT ), where gi,j are the
degeneracy of the state i and that of j, respectively, Ei,j
their energies, k the Boltzmann constant and T the sys-
tems temperature. From this, it is readily derived that
gi Bij = gj Bji and
20.9. SECOND QUANTIZATION AND HIGH ENERGY PHOTON INTERACTIONS 227

8h 3
Aij = Bij .
c3
The A and Bs are collectively known as the Einstein co-
ecients.[73]
Einstein could not fully justify his rate equations, but
claimed that it should be possible to calculate the coef-
cients Aij , Bji and Bij once physicists had obtained
mechanics and electrodynamics modied to accommo-
date the quantum hypothesis.[74] In fact, in 1926, Paul
Dirac derived the Bij rate constants in using a semi-
classical approach,[75] and, in 1927, succeeded in de-
riving all the rate constants from rst principles within 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
the framework of quantum theory.[76][77] Diracs work Distance (microns)
was the foundation of quantum electrodynamics, i.e., the
quantization of the electromagnetic eld itself. Diracs Dierent electromagnetic modes (such as those depicted here)
approach is also called second quantization or quantum can be treated as independent simple harmonic oscillators. A
eld theory;[78][79][80] earlier quantum mechanical treat- photon corresponds to a unit of energy E=h in its electromag-
ments only treat material particles as quantum mechani- netic mode.
cal, not the electromagnetic eld.
Einstein was troubled by the fact that his theory seemed lent to a set of uncoupled simple harmonic oscillators.
incomplete, since it did not determine the direction of a Treated quantum mechanically, the energy levels of such
spontaneously emitted photon. A probabilistic nature of oscillators are known to be E = nh , where is the
light-particle motion was rst considered by Newton in oscillator frequency. The key new step was to identify an
his treatment of birefringence and, more generally, of the electromagnetic mode with energy E = nh as a state
splitting of light beams at interfaces into a transmitted with n photons, each of energy h . This approach gives
beam and a reected beam. Newton hypothesized that the correct energy uctuation formula.
hidden variables in the light particle determined which
path it would follow.[34] Similarly, Einstein hoped for a
more complete theory that would leave nothing to chance,
beginning his separation[45] from quantum mechanics.
Ironically, Max Born's probabilistic interpretation of the
wave function[81][82] was inspired by Einsteins later work
searching for a more complete theory.[83]

20.9 Second quantization and high

energy photon interactions
Main article: Quantum eld theory
In 1910, Peter Debye derived Plancks law of black-body
radiation from a relatively simple assumption.[84] He cor-
rectly decomposed the electromagnetic eld in a cavity
into its Fourier modes, and assumed that the energy in
any mode was an integer multiple of h , where is the
frequency of the electromagnetic mode. Plancks law of
black-body radiation follows immediately as a geomet-
ric sum. However, Debyes approach failed to give the In quantum eld theory, the probability of an event is computed
correct formula for the energy uctuations of blackbody by summing the probability amplitude (a complex number) for all
possible ways in which the event can occur, as in the Feynman
radiation, which were derived by Einstein in 1909.[41]
diagram shown here; the probability equals the square of the
In 1925, Born, Heisenberg and Jordan reinterpreted De- modulus of the total amplitude.
byes concept in a key way.[85] As may be shown classi-
cally, the Fourier modes of the electromagnetic elda Dirac took this one step further.[76][77] He treated the in-
complete set of electromagnetic plane waves indexed by teraction between a charge and an electromagnetic eld
their wave vector k and polarization stateare equiva- as a small perturbation that induces transitions in the pho-
228 CHAPTER 20. PHOTON

ton states, changing the numbers of photons in the modes, interaction of energetic photons with protons is similar
while conserving energy and momentum overall. Dirac to the interaction of photons with neutrons[88] in spite of
was able to derive Einsteins Aij and Bij coecients the fact that the electric charge structures of protons and
from rst principles, and showed that the BoseEinstein neutrons are substantially dierent.
statistics of photons is a natural consequence of quantiz- A theory called Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) was
ing the electromagnetic eld correctly (Boses reasoning developed to explain this eect. According to VMD,
went in the opposite direction; he derived Plancks law the photon is a superposition of the pure electromagnetic
of black-body radiation by assuming BE statistics). In photon (which interacts only with electric charges) and
Diracs time, it was not yet known that all bosons, includ-
vector meson.[89]
ing photons, must obey BoseEinstein statistics.
However, if experimentally probed at very short dis-
Diracs second-order perturbation theory can involve tances, the intrinsic structure of the photon is recognized
virtual photons, transient intermediate states of the elec- as a ux of quark and gluon components, quasi-free ac-
tromagnetic eld; the static electric and magnetic inter- cording to asymptotic freedom in QCD and described
actions are mediated by such virtual photons. In such by the photon structure function.[90][91] A comprehensive
quantum eld theories, the probability amplitude of ob- comparison of data with theoretical predictions is pre-
servable events is calculated by summing over all possible sented in a recent review.[92]
intermediate steps, even ones that are unphysical; hence,
virtual photons are not constrained to satisfy E = pc
, and may have extra polarization states; depending on
the gauge used, virtual photons may have three or four 20.11 The photon as a gauge boson
polarization states, instead of the two states of real pho-
tons. Although these transient virtual photons can never Main article: Gauge theory
be observed, they contribute measurably to the proba-
bilities of observable events. Indeed, such second-order The electromagnetic eld can be understood as a gauge
and higher-order perturbation calculations can give ap- eld, i.e., as a eld that results from requiring that a
parently innite contributions to the sum. Such un- gauge symmetry holds independently at every position in
physical results are corrected for using the technique of spacetime.[93] For the electromagnetic eld, this gauge
renormalization. symmetry is the Abelian U(1) symmetry of complex
Other virtual particles may contribute to the summation numbers of absolute value 1, which reects the ability
as well; for example, two photons may interact indirectly to vary the phase of a complex eld without aecting
through virtual electronpositron pairs.[86] In fact, such observables or real valued functions made from it, such
photon-photon scattering (see two-photon physics), as as the energy or the Lagrangian.
well as electron-photon scattering, is meant to be one of The quanta of an Abelian gauge eld must be massless,
the modes of operations of the planned particle acceler- uncharged bosons, as long as the symmetry is not bro-
ator, the International Linear Collider.[87] ken; hence, the photon is predicted to be massless, and to
In modern physics notation, the quantum state of the elec- have zero electric charge and integer spin. The particu-
tromagnetic eld is written as a Fock state, a tensor prod- lar form of the electromagnetic interaction species that
uct of the states for each electromagnetic mode the photon must have spin 1; thus, its helicity must be
. These two spin components correspond to the clas-
sical concepts of right-handed and left-handed circularly
|nk0 |nk1 |nkn . . . polarized light. However, the transient virtual photons of
quantum electrodynamics may also adopt unphysical po-
where |nki represents the state in which nki photons are
larization states.[93]
in the mode ki . In this notation, the creation of a new
photon in mode ki (e.g., emitted from an atomic transi- In the prevailing Standard Model of physics, the pho-
tion) is written as |nki |nki + 1 . This notation ton is one of four gauge bosons in the electroweak in-
merely expresses the concept of Born, Heisenberg and teraction; the other three are denoted W+ , W and
Jordan described above, and does not add any physics. Z0 and are responsible for the weak interaction. Un-
like the photon, these gauge bosons have mass, ow-
ing to a mechanism that breaks their SU(2) gauge sym-
20.10 The hadronic properties of metry. The unication of the photon with W and Z
gauge bosons in the electroweak interaction was accom-
the photon plished by Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam and Steven
Weinberg, for which they were awarded the 1979 Nobel
Measurements of the interaction between energetic pho- Prize in physics.[94][95][96] Physicists continue to hypoth-
tons and hadrons show that the interaction is much more esize grand unied theories that connect these four gauge
intense than expected by the interaction of merely pho- bosons with the eight gluon gauge bosons of quantum
tons with the hadrons electric charge. Furthermore, the chromodynamics; however, key predictions of these the-
20.14. TECHNOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 229

ories, such as proton decay, have not been observed terfering with the original light wave to form a delayed
experimentally.[97] wave. In a particle picture, the slowing can instead be
described as a blending of the photon with quantum ex-
citations of the matter (quasi-particles such as phonons
20.12 Contributions to the mass of and excitons) to form a polariton; this polariton has a
nonzero eective mass, which means that it cannot travel
a system at c. Light of dierent frequencies may travel through
matter at dierent speeds; this is called dispersion. In
See also: Mass in special relativity and General relativity some cases, it can result in extremely slow speeds of light
in matter. The eects of photon interactions with other
quasi-particles may be observed directly in Raman scat-
The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by tering and Brillouin scattering.[102]
the energy E of the photon as measured in the rest frame
of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in Photons can also be absorbed by nuclei, atoms or
mass in the amount E/c2 . Similarly, the mass of a sys- molecules, provoking transitions between their energy
tem that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding levels. A classic example is the molecular transition of
amount. As an application, the energy balance of nuclear retinal (C20 H28 O), which is responsible for vision, as dis-
reactions involving photons is commonly written in terms covered in 1958 by Nobel laureate biochemist George
of the masses of the nuclei involved, and terms of the Wald and co-workers. The absorption provokes a cis-
form E/c2 for the gamma photons (and for other rele- trans isomerization that, in combination with other such
vant energies, such as the recoil energy of nuclei).[98] transitions, is transduced into nerve impulses. The ab-
sorption of photons can even break chemical bonds, as
This concept is applied in key predictions of quantum in the photodissociation of chlorine; this is the subject of
electrodynamics (QED, see above). In that theory, the photochemistry.[103][104]
mass of electrons (or, more generally, leptons) is modi-
ed by including the mass contributions of virtual pho-
tons, in a technique known as renormalization. Such
"radiative corrections" contribute to a number of predic- 20.14 Technological applications
tions of QED, such as the magnetic dipole moment of
leptons, the Lamb shift, and the hyperne structure of Photons have many applications in technology. These ex-
bound lepton pairs, such as muonium and positronium.[99] amples are chosen to illustrate applications of photons
Since photons contribute to the stressenergy tensor, they per se, rather than general optical devices such as lenses,
exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, accord- etc. that could operate under a classical theory of light.
ing to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, pho- The laser is an extremely important application and is dis-
tons are themselves aected by gravity; their normally cussed above under stimulated emission.
straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, Individual photons can be detected by several meth-
as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be ods. The classic photomultiplier tube exploits the
lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as photoelectric eect: a photon landing on a metal plate
in the PoundRebka experiment. However, these eects ejects an electron, initiating an ever-amplifying avalanche
are not specic to photons; exactly the same eects would of electrons. Charge-coupled device chips use a similar
be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.[100] eect in semiconductors: an incident photon generates a
charge on a microscopic capacitor that can be detected.
Other detectors such as Geiger counters use the ability
20.13 Photons in matter of photons to ionize gas molecules, causing a detectable
change in conductivity.[105]
See also: Group velocity and Photochemistry Plancks energy formula E = h is often used by engi-
neers and chemists in design, both to compute the change
Light that travels through transparent matter does so at in energy resulting from a photon absorption and to pre-
a lower speed than c, the speed of light in a vacuum. dict the frequency of the light emitted for a given energy
For example, photons suer so many collisions on the transition. For example, the emission spectrum of a gas-
way from the core of the sun that radiant energy can take discharge lamp can be altered by lling it with (mixtures
about a million years to reach the surface;[101] however, of) gasses with dierent electronic energy level congu-
once in open space, a photon takes only 8.3 minutes to rations.
reach Earth. The factor by which the speed is decreased Under some conditions, an energy transition can be ex-
is called the refractive index of the material. In a clas- cited by two photons that individually would be insuf-
sical wave picture, the slowing can be explained by the cient. This allows for higher resolution microscopy, be-
light inducing electric polarization in the matter, the po- cause the sample absorbs energy only in the region where
larized matter radiating new light, and the new light in- two beams of dierent colors overlap signicantly, which
230 CHAPTER 20. PHOTON

can be made much smaller than the excitation volume of Medipix

a single beam (see two-photon excitation microscopy).
Moreover, these photons cause less damage to the sam- Phonons
ple, since they are of lower energy.[106] Photon counting
In some cases, two energy transitions can be coupled so
Photon energy
that, as one system absorbs a photon, another nearby sys-
tem steals its energy and re-emits a photon of a dier- Photon polarization
ent frequency. This is the basis of uorescence resonance
energy transfer, a technique that is used in molecular bi- Photonic molecule
ology to study the interaction of suitable proteins.[107] Photography
Several dierent kinds of hardware random number gen-
Photonics
erator involve the detection of single photons. In one ex-
ample, for each bit in the random sequence that is to be Quantum optics
produced, a photon is sent to a beam-splitter. In such a
situation, there are two possible outcomes of equal prob- Single photon sources
ability. The actual outcome is used to determine whether Static forces and virtual-particle exchange
the next bit in the sequence is 0 or 1.[108][109]
Two-photon physics
EPR paradox
20.15 Recent research
Dirac equation
See also: Quantum optics

Much research has been devoted to applications of pho-

20.17 Notes
tons in the eld of quantum optics. Photons seem well-
[1] Although the 1967 Elsevier translation of Plancks No-
suited to be elements of an extremely fast quantum com- bel Lecture interprets Plancks Lichtquant as photon,
puter, and the quantum entanglement of photons is a fo- the more literal 1922 translation by Hans Thacher Clarke
cus of research. Nonlinear optical processes are another and Ludwik Silberstein The origin and development of the
active research area, with topics such as two-photon ab- quantum theory, The Clarendon Press, 1922 (here ) uses
sorption, self-phase modulation, modulational instabil- light-quantum. No evidence is known that Planck him-
ity and optical parametric oscillators. However, such self used the term photon by 1926 (see also this note).
processes generally do not require the assumption of
[2] Isaac Asimov credits Arthur Compton with dening
photons per se; they may often be modeled by treating
quanta of energy as photons in 1923. Asimov, I. (1966).
atoms as nonlinear oscillators. The nonlinear process of The Neutrino, Ghost Particle of the Atom. Garden
spontaneous parametric down conversion is often used to City (NY): Doubleday. ISBN 0-380-00483-6. LCCN
produce single-photon states. Finally, photons are essen- 66017073. and Asimov, I. (1966). The Universe From
tial in some aspects of optical communication, especially Flat Earth To Quasar. New York (NY): Walker. ISBN
for quantum cryptography.[Note 6] 0-8027-0316-X. LCCN 66022515.

[3] The mass of the photon is believed to be exactly zero,

based on experiment and theoretical considerations de-
20.16 See also scribed in the article. Some sources also refer to the
relativistic mass concept, which is just the energy scaled
Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Lab- to units of mass. For a photon with wavelength or en-
ergy E, this is h/c or E/c2 . This usage for the term mass
oratory
is no longer common in scientic literature. Further info:
Ballistic photon What is the mass of a photon? http://math.ucr.edu/home/
baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
Doppler shift
[4] The phrase no matter how intense refers to intensi-
ties below approximately 1013 W/cm2 at which point
Electromagnetic radiation
perturbation theory begins to break down. In contrast,
HEXITEC in the intense regime, which for visible light is above ap-
proximately 1014 W/cm2 , the classical wave description
Laser correctly predicts the energy acquired by electrons, called
ponderomotive energy. (See also: Boreham et al. (1996).
Light "Photon density and the correspondence principle of elec-
tromagnetic interaction".) By comparison, sunlight is only
Luminiferous aether about 0.1 W/cm2 .
20.18. REFERENCES
[5] These experiments produce results that cannot be ex-
plained by any classical theory of light, since they in-
volve anticorrelations that result from the quantum mea-
surement process. In 1974, the rst such experiment
was carried out by Clauser, who reported a violation of
a classical CauchySchwarz inequality. In 1977, Kim-
ble et al. demonstrated an analogous anti-bunching ef-
fect of photons interacting with a beam splitter; this ap-
proach was simplied and sources of error eliminated in
the photon-anticorrelation experiment of Grangier et al.
(1986). This work is reviewed and simplied further in
Thorn et al. (2004). (These references are listed below
under #Additional references.)
[6] Introductory-level material on the various sub-elds of
quantum optics can be found in Fox, M. (2006). Quantum
Optics: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN
0-19-856673-5.
20.18 References
[1] Amsler, C. (Particle Data Group); Amsler; Doser;
Antonelli; Asner; Babu; Baer; Band; Barnett;
Bergren; Beringer; Bernardi; Bertl; Bichsel; Biebel;
Bloch; Blucher; Blusk; Cahn; Carena; Caso; Cec-
cucci; Chakraborty; Chen; Chivukula; Cowan; Dahl;
d'Ambrosio; Damour; et al. (2008). Review of
Particle Physics: Gauge and Higgs bosons (PDF).
Physics Letters B 667: 1. Bibcode:2008PhLB..667....1P.
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.07.018.
[2] Joos, George (1951). Theoretical Physics. London and
Glasgow: Blackie and Son Limited. p. 679.
[3] Kimble, H.J.; Dagenais, M.; Mandel, L.; Dage-
nais; Mandel (1977). Photon Anti-bunching in
Resonance Fluorescence. Physical Review Letters
39 (11): 691695. Bibcode:1977PhRvL..39..691K.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.39.691.
[4] Grangier, P.; Roger, G.; Aspect, A.; Roger; Aspect
(1986). Experimental Evidence for a Photon Anticorre-
lation Eect on a Beam Splitter: A New Light on Single-
Photon Interferences. Europhysics Letters 1 (4): 173
179. Bibcode:1986EL......1..173G. doi:10.1209/0295-
5075/1/4/004.
[5] Planck, M. (1901). "ber das Gesetz
der Energieverteilung im Normalspectrum.
Annalen der Physik (in German) 4 (3):
553563. Bibcode:1901AnP...309..553P.
doi:10.1002/andp.19013090310. English translation
[6] Einstein, A. (1905). "ber einen die Erzeugung
und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreenden heuristis-
chen Gesichtspunkt (PDF). Annalen der Physik (in Ger-
man) 17 (6): 132148. Bibcode:1905AnP...322..132E.
doi:10.1002/andp.19053220607.. An English translation
is available from Wikisource.
[7] Discordances entre l'exprience et la thorie lectromag-
ntique du rayonnement. In lectrons et Photons. Rap-
ports et Discussions de Cinquime Conseil de Physique,
edited by Institut International de Physique Solvay. Paris:
Gauthier-Villars, pp. 55-85.
231
[8] Helge Kragh: Photon: New light on an old name. Arxiv,
2014-2-28
[9] Villard, P. (1900). Sur la rexion et la rfraction des
rayons cathodiques et des rayons dviables du radium.
Comptes Rendus des Sances de l'Acadmie des Sciences
(in French) 130: 10101012.
[10] Villard, P. (1900). Sur le rayonnement du radium.
Comptes Rendus des Sances de l'Acadmie des Sciences
(in French) 130: 11781179.
[11] Rutherford, E.; Andrade, E.N.C. (1914). The
Wavelength of the Soft Gamma Rays from Radium
B. Philosophical Magazine 27 (161): 854868.
doi:10.1080/14786440508635156.
[12] Kobychev, V.V.; Popov, S.B. (2005). Constraints
on the photon charge from observations of extragalac-
tic sources. Astronomy Letters 31 (3): 147151.
arXiv:hep-ph/0411398. Bibcode:2005AstL...31..147K.
doi:10.1134/1.1883345.
[13] Role as gauge boson and polarization section 5.1 inAitchi-
son, I.J.R.; Hey, A.J.G. (1993). Gauge Theories in Particle
Physics. IOP Publishing. ISBN 0-85274-328-9.
[14] See p.31 inAmsler, C.; et al. (2008). Re-
view of Particle Physics. Physics Letters B
667: 11340. Bibcode:2008PhLB..667....1P.
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.07.018.
[15] Halliday, David; Resnick, Robert; Walker, Jerl (2005),
Fundamental of Physics (7th ed.), USA: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., ISBN 0-471-23231-9
[16] See section 1.6 in Alonso, M.; Finn, E.J. (1968). Funda-
mental University Physics Volume III: Quantum and Statis-
tical Physics. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-00262-0.
[17] Davison E. Soper, Electromagnetic radiation is made of
photons, Institute of Theoretical Science, University of
Oregon
[18] This property was experimentally veried by Raman and
Bhagavantam in 1931: Raman, C.V.; Bhagavantam, S.
(1931). Experimental proof of the spin of the photon
(PDF). Indian Journal of Physics 6: 353.
[19] Burgess, C.; Moore, G. (2007). 1.3.3.2. The Standard
Model. A Primer. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-
521-86036-9.
[20] Griths, David J. (2008), Introduction to Elementary Par-
ticles (2nd revised ed.), WILEY-VCH, ISBN 978-3-527-
40601-2
[21] E.g., section 9.3 in Alonso, M.; Finn, E.J. (1968). Funda-
mental University Physics Volume III: Quantum and Statis-
tical Physics. Addison-Wesley.
[22] E.g., Appendix XXXII in Born, M. (1962). Atomic
Physics. Blackie & Son. ISBN 0-486-65984-4.
[23] Mermin, David (February 1984). Relativity without
light. American Journal of Physics 52 (2): 119124.
Bibcode:1984AmJPh..52..119M. doi:10.1119/1.13917.
232
[24] Plimpton, S.; Lawton, W. (1936). A Very Accurate Test
of Coulombs Law of Force Between Charges. Physical
Review 50 (11): 1066. Bibcode:1936PhRv...50.1066P.
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.50.1066.
[25] Williams, E.; Faller, J.; Hill, H. (1971). New Ex-
perimental Test of Coulombs Law: A Laboratory Up-
per Limit on the Photon Rest Mass. Physical Review
Letters 26 (12): 721. Bibcode:1971PhRvL..26..721W.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.26.721.
[26] Chibisov, G V (1976). Astrophysical upper lim-
its on the photon rest mass. Soviet Physics Us-
pekhi 19 (7): 624. Bibcode:1976SvPhU..19..624C.
doi:10.1070/PU1976v019n07ABEH005277.
[27] Lakes, Roderic (1998). Experimental Lim-
its on the Photon Mass and Cosmic Magnetic
Vector Potential. Physical Review Letters 80
(9): 1826. Bibcode:1998PhRvL..80.1826L.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1826.
[28] Amsler, C; Doser, M; Antonelli, M; Asner, D;
Babu, K; Baer, H; Band, H; Barnett, R; et al.
(2008). Review of Particle Physics". Physics
Letters B 667: 1. Bibcode:2008PhLB..667....1P.
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.07.018. Summary Table
[29] Adelberger, Eric; Dvali, Gia; Gruzinov, Andrei
(2007). Photon-Mass Bound Destroyed by Vortices.
Physical Review Letters 98 (1): 010402. arXiv:hep-
ph/0306245. Bibcode:2007PhRvL..98a0402A.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.010402. PMID 17358459.
preprint
[30] Wilczek, Frank (2010). The Lightness of Being: Mass,
Ether, and the Unication of Forces. Basic Books. p. 212.
ISBN 978-0-465-01895-6.
[31] Descartes, R. (1637). Discours de la mthode (Discourse
on Method) (in French). Imprimerie de Ian Maire. ISBN
0-268-00870-1.
[32] Hooke, R. (1667). Micrographia: or some physiolog-
ical descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying
glasses with observations and inquiries thereupon ... Lon-
don (UK): Royal Society of London. ISBN 0-486-49564-
7.
[33] Huygens, C. (1678). Trait de la lumire (in French).. An
English translation is available from Project Gutenberg
[34] Newton, I. (1952) [1730]. Opticks (4th ed.). Dover (NY):
Dover Publications. Book II, Part III, Propositions XII
XX; Queries 2529. ISBN 0-486-60205-2.
[35] Buchwald, J.Z. (1989). The Rise of the Wave Theory of
Light: Optical Theory and Experiment in the Early Nine-
teenth Century. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-
07886-8. OCLC 18069573.
[36] Maxwell, J.C. (1865). "A Dynamical Theory
of the Electromagnetic Field". Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society 155:
459512. Bibcode:1865RSPT..155..459C.
doi:10.1098/rstl.1865.0008. This article followed a
presentation by Maxwell on 8 December 1864 to the
Royal Society.
CHAPTER 20. PHOTON
[37] Hertz, H. (1888). "ber Strahlen elektrischer Kraft.
Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften (Berlin) (in German) 1888: 12971307.
[38] Frequency-dependence of luminiscence p. 276f., photo-
electric eect section 1.4 in Alonso, M.; Finn, E.J. (1968).
Fundamental University Physics Volume III: Quantum and
Statistical Physics. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-00262-
0.
[39] Wien, W. (1911). Wilhelm Wien Nobel Lecture.
[40] Planck, M. (1920). Max Plancks Nobel Lecture.
[41] Einstein, A. (1909). "ber die Entwicklung unserer An-
schauungen ber das Wesen und die Konstitution der
Strahlung (PDF). Physikalische Zeitschrift (in German)
10: 817825.. An English translation is available from
Wikisource.
[42] Presentation speech by Svante Arrhenius for the 1921 No-
bel Prize in Physics, December 10, 1922. Online text
from [nobelprize.org], The Nobel Foundation 2008. Ac-
cess date 2008-12-05.
[43] Einstein, A. (1916). Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung.
Mitteilungen der Physikalischen Gesellschaft zu Zrich 16:
47. Also Physikalische Zeitschrift, 18, 121128 (1917).
(German)
[44] Compton, A. (1923). A Quantum Theory of the Scat-
tering of X-rays by Light Elements. Physical Re-
view 21 (5): 483502. Bibcode:1923PhRv...21..483C.
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.21.483.
[45] Pais, A. (1982). Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the
Life of Albert Einstein. Oxford University Press. ISBN
0-19-853907-X.
[46] Einstein and the Quantum: The Quest of the Valiant
Swabian, A. Douglas Stone, Princeton University Press,
2013.
[47] Millikan, R.A (1924). Robert A. Millikans Nobel Lec-
ture.
[48] Hendry, J. (1980). The development of attitudes
to the wave-particle duality of light and quantum the-
ory, 19001920. Annals of Science 37 (1): 5979.
doi:10.1080/00033798000200121.
[49] Bohr, N.; Kramers, H.A.; Slater, J.C. (1924). The
Quantum Theory of Radiation. Philosophical Magazine
47: 785802. doi:10.1080/14786442408565262. Also
Zeitschrift fr Physik, 24, 69 (1924).
[50] Heisenberg, W. (1933). Heisenberg Nobel lecture.
[51] Mandel, L. (1976). E. Wolf, ed. The case for and
against semiclassical radiation theory. Progress in Op-
tics. Progress in Optics (North-Holland) 13: 2769.
doi:10.1016/S0079-6638(08)70018-0. ISBN 978-0-444-
10806-7.
[52] Taylor, G.I. (1909). Interference fringes with feeble light.
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 15.
pp. 114115.
20.18. REFERENCES 233

[53] Saleh, B. E. A. and Teich, M. C. (2007). Fundamentals [68] Anderson, M.H.; Ensher, J.R.; Matthews, M.R.; Wieman,
of Photonics. Wiley. ISBN 0-471-35832-0. C.E.; Cornell, E.A. (1995). Observation of Bose
Einstein Condensation in a Dilute Atomic Vapor. Science
[54] Heisenberg, W. (1927). "ber den anschaulichen 269 (5221): 198201. Bibcode:1995Sci...269..198A.
Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und doi:10.1126/science.269.5221.198. JSTOR 2888436.
Mechanik. Zeitschrift fr Physik (in German) 43 PMID 17789847.
(34): 172198. Bibcode:1927ZPhy...43..172H.
doi:10.1007/BF01397280. [69] Physicists Slow Speed of Light. News.harvard.edu
(1999-02-18). Retrieved on 2015-05-11.
[55] E.g., p. 10f. in Schi, L.I. (1968). Quantum Mechanics
(3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. ASIN B001B3MINM. ISBN 0- [70] Light Changed to Matter, Then Stopped and Moved.
07-055287-8. photonics.com (February 2007). Retrieved on 2015-05-
11.
[56] Kramers, H.A. (1958). Quantum Mechanics. Amster-
[71] Streater, R.F.; Wightman, A.S. (1989). PCT, Spin and
dam: North-Holland. ASIN B0006AUW5C. ISBN 0-
Statistics, and All That. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-
486-49533-7.
09410-X.
[57] Bohm, D. (1989) [1954]. Quantum Theory. Dover Pub- [72] Einstein, A. (1916). Strahlungs-emission und -
lications. ISBN 0-486-65969-0. absorption nach der Quantentheorie. Verhandlungen der
Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft (in German) 18:
[58] Newton, T.D.; Wigner, E.P. (1949). Localized states
318323. Bibcode:1916DPhyG..18..318E.
for elementary particles. Reviews of Modern Physics
21 (3): 400406. Bibcode:1949RvMP...21..400N. [73] Section 1.4 in Wilson, J.; Hawkes, F.J.B. (1987). Lasers:
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.21.400. Principles and Applications. New York: Prentice Hall.
ISBN 0-13-523705-X.
[59] Bialynicki-Birula, I. (1994). On the wave function of the
photon (PDF). Acta Physica Polonica A 86: 97116. [74] P. 322 in Einstein, A. (1916). Strahlungs-emission und
-absorption nach der Quantentheorie. Verhandlungen
[60] Sipe, J.E. (1995). Photon wave func- der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft (in German) 18:
tions. Physical Review A 52 (3): 1875 318323. Bibcode:1916DPhyG..18..318E.:
1883. Bibcode:1995PhRvA..52.1875S.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.52.1875. Die Konstanten An n
m and Bm wrden sich
direkt berechnen lassen, wenn wir im Be-
[61] Bialynicki-Birula, I. (1996). Photon wave function. sitz einer im Sinne der Quantenhypothese
Progress in Optics. Progress in Optics 36: 245294. modizierten Elektrodynamik und Mechanik
doi:10.1016/S0079-6638(08)70316-0. ISBN 978-0-444- wren.
82530-8.
[75] Dirac, P.A.M. (1926). On the Theory of Quan-
[62] Scully, M.O.; Zubairy, M.S. (1997). Quantum Optics. tum Mechanics. Proceedings of the Royal Society A
Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0- 112 (762): 661677. Bibcode:1926RSPSA.112..661D.
521-43595-1. doi:10.1098/rspa.1926.0133.

[63] The best illustration is the Couder experiment, demon- [76] Dirac, P.A.M. (1927). The Quantum Theory
strating the behaviour of a mechanical analog, see https: of the Emission and Absorption of Radiation
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yWv5dqSKk (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society A 114
(767): 243265. Bibcode:1927RSPSA.114..243D.
[64] Bell, J. S., Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Me- doi:10.1098/rspa.1927.0039.
chanics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
[77] Dirac, P.A.M. (1927b). The Quantum Theory of Disper-
sion. Proceedings of the Royal Society A 114. pp. 710
[65] Bose, S.N. (1924). Plancks Gesetz und Lichtquan-
728. doi:10.1098/rspa.1927.0071.
tenhypothese. Zeitschrift fr Physik (in German)
26: 178181. Bibcode:1924ZPhy...26..178B. [78] Heisenberg, W.; Pauli, W. (1929). Zur Quan-
doi:10.1007/BF01327326. tentheorie der Wellenfelder. Zeitschrift fr Physik
(in German) 56: 1. Bibcode:1929ZPhy...56....1H.
[66] Einstein, A. (1924). Quantentheorie des einatomi-
doi:10.1007/BF01340129.
gen idealen Gases. Sitzungsberichte der Preussis-
chen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin), Physikalisch- [79] Heisenberg, W.; Pauli, W. (1930). Zur Quantenthe-
mathematische Klasse (in German) 1924: 261267. orie der Wellenfelder. Zeitschrift fr Physik (in Ger-
man) 59 (34): 139. Bibcode:1930ZPhy...59..168H.
[67] Einstein, A. (1925). Quantentheorie des einatomigen doi:10.1007/BF01341423.
idealen Gases, Zweite Abhandlung. Sitzungsberichte
der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin), [80] Fermi, E. (1932). Quantum Theory of Ra-
Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse (in German) 1925: 3 diation (PDF). Reviews of Modern Physics
14. doi:10.1002/3527608958.ch28. ISBN 978-3-527- 4: 87. Bibcode:1932RvMP....4...87F.
60895-9. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.4.87.
234 CHAPTER 20. PHOTON

[81] Born, M. (1926). Zur Quantenmechanik der [95] Abdus Salam Nobel lecture, delivered 8 December 1979.
Stossvorgnge (PDF). Zeitschrift fr Physik (in German)
37 (12): 863867. Bibcode:1926ZPhy...37..863B. [96] Steven Weinberg Nobel lecture, delivered 8 December
doi:10.1007/BF01397477. 1979.

[82] Born, M. (1926). Quantenmechanik der [97] E.g., chapter 14 in Hughes, I. S. (1985). Elementary parti-
Stossvorgnge. Zeitschrift fr Physik (in German) cles (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-
38 (1112): 803. Bibcode:1926ZPhy...38..803B. 26092-2.
doi:10.1007/BF01397184.
[98] E.g., section 10.1 in Dunlap, R.A. (2004). An Introduction
[83] Pais, A. (1986). Inward Bound: Of Matter and Forces to the Physics of Nuclei and Particles. Brooks/Cole. ISBN
in the Physical World. Oxford University Press. p. 260. 0-534-39294-6.
ISBN 0-19-851997-4. Specically, Born claimed to have
been inspired by Einsteins never-published attempts to [99] Radiative correction to electron mass section 7-1-2,
develop a ghost-eld theory, in which point-like pho- anomalous magnetic moments section 7-2-1, Lamb shift
tons are guided probabilistically by ghost elds that follow section 7-3-2 and hyperne splitting in positronium sec-
Maxwells equations. tion 10-3 in Itzykson, C.; Zuber, J.-B. (1980). Quantum
Field Theory. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-032071-3.
[84] Debye, P. (1910). Der Wahrscheinlichkeitsbegri in der
Theorie der Strahlung. Annalen der Physik (in German) [100] E. g. sections 9.1 (gravitational contribution of photons)
33 (16): 14271434. Bibcode:1910AnP...338.1427D. and 10.5 (inuence of gravity on light) in Stephani, H.;
doi:10.1002/andp.19103381617. Stewart, J. (1990). General Relativity: An Introduction to
the Theory of Gravitational Field. Cambridge University
[85] Born, M.; Heisenberg, W.; Jordan, P. (1925). Quan-
Press. pp. 86 , 108 . ISBN 0-521-37941-5.
tenmechanik II. Zeitschrift fr Physik (in German)
35 (89): 557615. Bibcode:1926ZPhy...35..557B.
[101] Naeye, R. (1998). Through the Eyes of Hubble: Birth,
doi:10.1007/BF01379806.
Life and Violent Death of Stars. CRC Press. ISBN 0-
[86] Photon-photon-scattering section 7-3-1, renormalization 750-30484-7. OCLC 40180195.
chapter 8-2 in Itzykson, C.; Zuber, J.-B. (1980). Quantum
Field Theory. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-032071-3. [102] Polaritons section 10.10.1, Raman and Brillouin scatter-
ing section 10.11.3 in Patterson, J.D.; Bailey, B.C. (2007).
[87] Weiglein, G. (2008). Electroweak Physics at the ILC. Solid-State Physics: Introduction to the Theory. Springer.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 110 (4): 042033. ISBN 3-540-24115-9.
arXiv:0711.3003. Bibcode:2008JPhCS.110d2033W.
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/110/4/042033. [103] E.g. section 11-5 C in Pine, S.H.; Hendrickson, J.B.;
Cram, D.J.; Hammond, G.S. (1980). Organic Chemistry
[88] Bauer, T. H.; Spital, R. D.; Yennie, D. R.; Pipkin, (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-050115-7.
F. M. (1978). The hadronic properties of the pho-
ton in high-energy interactions. Reviews of Modern [104] Nobel lecture given by G. Wald on December 12, 1967,
Physics 50 (2): 261. Bibcode:1978RvMP...50..261B. online at nobelprize.org: The Molecular Basis of Visual
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.50.261. Excitation.

[89] Sakurai, J. J. (1960). Theory of strong interactions. [105] Photomultiplier section 1.1.10, CCDs section 1.1.8,
Annals of Physics 11: 1. Bibcode:1960AnPhy..11....1S. Geiger counters section 1.3.2.1 in Kitchin, C.R. (2008).
doi:10.1016/0003-4916(60)90126-3. Astrophysical Techniques. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press.
ISBN 1-4200-8243-4.
[90] Walsh, T. F.; Zerwas, P. (1973). Two-photon pro-
cesses in the parton model. Physics Letters B 44 (2): [106] Denk, W.; Svoboda, K. (1997). Photon upman-
195. Bibcode:1973PhLB...44..195W. doi:10.1016/0370- ship: Why multiphoton imaging is more than a gim-
2693(73)90520-0. mick. Neuron 18 (3): 351357. doi:10.1016/S0896-
6273(00)81237-4. PMID 9115730.
[91] Witten, E. (1977). Anomalous cross section for photon-
photon scattering in gauge theories. Nuclear Physics
[107] Lakowicz, J.R. (2006). Principles of Fluorescence Spec-
B 120 (2): 189. Bibcode:1977NuPhB.120..189W.
troscopy. Springer. pp. 529 . ISBN 0-387-31278-1.
doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90038-4.

[92] Nisius, R. (2000). The photon structure from [108] Jennewein, T.; Achleitner, U.; Weihs, G.; Weinfurter,
deep inelastic electronphoton scattering. Physics Re-
ports 332 (46): 165. Bibcode:2000PhR...332..165N.
doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00115-5.
[93] Ryder, L.H. (1996). Quantum eld theory (2nd ed.).
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-47814-6.
[94] Sheldon Glashow Nobel lecture, delivered 8 December
1979.
H.; Zeilinger, A. (2000). A fast and compact quan-
tum random number generator. Review of Scientic In-
struments 71 (4): 16751680. arXiv:quant-ph/9912118.
Bibcode:2000RScI...71.1675J. doi:10.1063/1.1150518.
[109] Stefanov, A.; Gisin, N.; Guinnard, O.; Guinnard, L.;
Zbiden, H. (2000). Optical quantum random number
generator. Journal of Modern Optics 47 (4): 595598.
doi:10.1080/095003400147908.
20.20. EXTERNAL LINKS 235

20.19 Additional references Hentschel, K. (2007). Light quanta: The maturing

of a concept by the stepwise accretion of meaning.
By date of publication: Physics and Philosophy 1 (2): 120.

Clauser, J.F. (1974). Experimental dis- Education with single photons:

tinction between the quantum and classi-
cal eld-theoretic predictions for the photo-
electric eect. Physical Review D 9 (4):
853860. Bibcode:1974PhRvD...9..853C.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.853.
Kimble, H.J.; Dagenais, M.; Mandel, L. (1977).
Photon Anti-bunching in Resonance Fluo-
rescence. Physical Review Letters 39 (11):
691695. Bibcode:1977PhRvL..39..691K.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.39.691.
Pais, A. (1982). Subtle is the Lord: The Science and
the Life of Albert Einstein. Oxford University Press.
Feynman, Richard (1985). QED: The Strange The-
ory of Light and Matter. Princeton University Press.
ISBN 978-0-691-12575-6.
Grangier, P.; Roger, G.; Aspect, A. (1986). Ex-
perimental Evidence for a Photon Anticorrelation
Eect on a Beam Splitter: A New Light on
Single-Photon Interferences. Europhysics Letters
1 (4): 173179. Bibcode:1986EL......1..173G.
doi:10.1209/0295-5075/1/4/004.
Thorn, J.J.; Neel, M.S.; Donato, V.W.; Bergreen,
G.S.; Davies, R.E.; Beck, M. (2004). Observing
the quantum behavior of light in an undergraduate
laboratory (PDF). American Journal of Physics 72
(9): 12101219. Bibcode:2004AmJPh..72.1210T.
doi:10.1119/1.1737397.
Bronner, P.; Strunz, Andreas; Silberhorn, Chris-
tine; Meyn, Jan-Peter (2009). Interactive
screen experiments with single photons.
European Journal of Physics 30 (2): 345353.
Bibcode:2009EJPh...30..345B. doi:10.1088/0143-
0807/30/2/014.
20.20 External links
The dictionary denition of photon at Wiktionary
Media related to Photon at Wikimedia Commons

Lamb, W.E. (1995). Anti-photon.

Applied Physics B 60 (23): 77
84. Bibcode:1995ApPhB..60...77L.
doi:10.1007/BF01135846.

Special supplemental issue of Optics and Photonics

News (vol. 14, October 2003) article web link

Roychoudhuri, C.; Rajarshi, R. (2003). The

nature of light: what is a photon?". Optics and
Photonics News 14: S1 (Supplement).
Zajonc, A. Light reconsidered. Optics and
Photonics News 14: S2S5 (Supplement).
Loudon, R. What is a photon?". Optics and
Photonics News 14: S6S11 (Supplement).
Finkelstein, D. What is a photon?". Optics
and Photonics News 14: S12S17 (Supple-
ment).
Muthukrishnan, A.; Scully, M.O.; Zubairy,
M.S. The concept of the photonrevisited.
Optics and Photonics News 14: S18S27 (Sup-
plement).
Mack, H.; Schleich, W.P. A photon viewed
from Wigner phase space. Optics and Pho-
tonics News 14: S28S35 (Supplement).

Glauber, R. (2005). One Hundred Years of Light

Quanta (PDF). 2005 Physics Nobel Prize Lecture.
Chapter 21

Curved space

Curved space often refers to a spatial geometry which

is not at where a at space is described by Euclidean
geometry. Curved spaces can generally be described by
Riemannian geometry though some simple cases can be
described in other ways. Curved spaces play an essential
role in General Relativity where gravity is often visualized
as curved space. The Friedmann-Lematre-Robertson-
Walker metric is a curved metric which forms the current
foundation for the description of the expansion of space
and shape of the universe.

21.1 Simple two-dimensional ex-

ample
A very familiar example of a curved space is the surface
of a sphere. While to our familiar outlook the sphere
looks three-dimensional, if an object is constrained to lie
In a at space, the sum of the squares of the side of a right-angled
on the surface, it only has two dimensions that it can move triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse. This relationship
in. The surface of a sphere can be completely described does not hold for curved spaces.
by two dimensions since no matter how rough the sur-
face may appear to be, it is still only a surface, which is
the two-dimensional outside border of a volume. Even But if we now describe the three-dimensional space with
the surface of the Earth, which is fractal in complexity, four dimensions ( x, y, z, w ) we can choose coordinates
is still only a two-dimensional boundary along the outside such that
of a volume.

dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 + dw2 = dl2

21.2 Embedding
Note that the coordinate x is not the same as the coordi-
One of the dening characteristics of a curved space is nate x .
its departure with the Pythagorean theorem. In a curved
For the choice of the 4D coordinates to be valid descrip-
space
tors of the original 3D space it must have the same num-
ber of degrees of freedom. Since four coordinates have
four degrees of freedom it must have a constraint placed
dx2 + dy 2 = dl2 on it. We can choose a constraint such that Pythagorean
The Pythagorean relationship can often be restored by de- theorem holds in the new 4D space. That is
scribing the space with an extra dimension. Suppose we
have a non-euclidean three-dimensional space with coor-
dinates (x , y , z ) . Because it is not at x2 + y 2 + z 2 + w2 = constant

The constant can be positive or negative. For convenience

dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 = dl2 we can choose the constant to be

236
21.5. SEE ALSO 237

1 R2 where R2 now is positive and 1

.
dr2 2
dl2 = 2 2 2
2 + r d + r sin d
2

We can now use this constraint to eliminate the articial 1 Rr 2

fourth coordinate w . The dierential of the constraining
In the limit that the constant of curvature ( R ) becomes
equation is
innitely large, a at, Euclidean space is returned. It is
essentially the same as setting to zero. If is not zero
xdx+ydy +zdz +wdw = 0 leading to dw =
1 the space is not Euclidean. When = +1 the space is
w (xdx + ydy + zdz) .
said to be closed or elliptic. When = 1 the space is
said to be open or hyperbolic.
Plugging dw into the original equation gives
Triangles which lie on the surface of an open space will
have a sum of angles which is less than 180. Triangles
2
(xdx + ydy + zdz) which lie on the surface of a closed space will have a sum
dl2 = dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 + 1 2
R x2 y 2 z 2 of angles which is greater than 180. The volume, how-
ever, is not (4/3)r3 .
This form is usually not particularly appealing and so a
coordinate transform is often applied: x = r sin cos
, y = r sin sin , z = r cos . With this coordinate
transformation 21.5 See also
CAT(k) space
dr2 2
dl2 = 2 2 2
2 + r d + r sin d
2
Non-positive curvature
1 Rr 2

21.3 Without embedding

The geometry of a n-dimensional space can also be de-
scribed with Riemannian geometry. An isotropic and
homogeneous space can be described by the metric:

dl2 = e(r) dr2 + r2 d2 + r2 sin2 d2

This reduces to Euclidean space when = 0 . But a space
can be said to be at when the Weyl Tensor has all zero
components. In three dimensions this condition is met
when the Ricci Tensor ( Rab ) is equal to the metric times
the Ricci Scalar ( R , not to be confused with the R of the
previous section). That is Rab = gab R . Calculation of
the these components from the metric gives that
( )
= 12 ln 1 kr2 where k R
2 .

This gives the metric:

dr2
dl2 = + r2 d2 + r2 sin2 d2
1 kr2
where k can be zero, positive, or negative and is not lim-
ited to 1.

21.4 Open, at, closed

An isotropic and homogeneous space can be described by
the metric:
Chapter 22

False vacuum

182

180 Unstable
EW Vacuum
178

176
95% CL
174
m pole
t Meta
172 Stable

170

168
ILC
Stable LHC
166
Tevatron
164
GeV 120 122 124 126 128 130 132

MH

true false
A scalar eld in a false vacuum. Note that the energy E is
higher than that in the true vacuum or ground state, but there is
a barrier preventing the eld from classically rolling down to the
true vacuum. Therefore, the transition to the true vacuum must
be stimulated by the creation of high-energy particles or through
quantum-mechanical tunneling.
In quantum eld theory, a false vacuum is a metastable
sector of space that appears to be a perturbative vacuum,
but is unstable due to instanton eects that may tunnel
to a lower energy state. This tunneling can be caused by
quantum uctuations or the creation of high-energy par-
ticles. The false vacuum is a local minimum, but not the
lowest energy state, even though it may remain stable for
some time.
Diagram showing the Higgs boson and top quark masses, which
could indicate whether our universe is stable, or a long-lived 'bub-
ble'. The outer dotted line is the current measurement uncertain-
ties; the inner ones show predicted sizes after completion of future
physics programs, but their location could be anywhere inside the
outer.[1]
the possibility of calculating, from the masses of the
Higgs boson and the top quark, whether the universes
present electroweak vacuum state is likely to be stable
or merely long-lived.[8][9] (This was sometimes misre-
ported as the Higgs boson ending the universe[10] ). A
125127 GeV Higgs mass seems to be extremely close to
the boundary for stability (estimated in 2012 as 123.8
135.0 GeV[1] ). However, a denitive answer requires
much more precise measurements of the top quarks pole
mass,[1] and new physics beyond the Standard Model of
Particle Physics could drastically change this picture.[14]

22.1 Stability and instability of the

vacuum 22.1.1 Implications

For decades, scientic models of our universe have in-
cluded the possibility that it exists as a long-lived, but
not completely stable, sector of space, which could po-
tentially at some time be destroyed upon 'toppling' into a
more stable vacuum state.[2][3][4][5][6] If the universe were
indeed in such a false vacuum state, a catastrophic bubble
of more stable true vacuum could theoretically occur
at any time or place expanding outward at the speed of
light.[2][7] The Standard Model of particle physics opens
If measurements of these particles suggests that our
universe lies within a false vacuum of this kind, then
it would implymore than likely in many billions of
years[15][Note 1] that it could cease to exist as we know
it, if a true vacuum happened to nucleate.[15]
This is because, if the Standard Model is correct, the
particles and forces we observe in our universe exist as
they do because of underlying quantum elds. Quantum
elds can have states of diering stability, including 'sta-

238
22.2. VACUUM METASTABILITY EVENT 239

ble', 'unstable', or 'metastable' (meaning, long-lived but ries noted that if this was an accurate representation of
capable of being toppled in the right circumstances). If nature, then the resulting universe inside the bubble in
a more stable vacuum state were able to arise, then ex- such a case would appear to be extremely unstable and
isting particles and forces would no longer arise as they would almost immediately collapse:[3]
do in the universes present state. Dierent particles or In general, gravitation makes the probability of vacuum
forces would arise from (and be shaped by) whatever new decay smaller; in the extreme case of very small energy-
quantum states arose. The world we know depends upon density dierence, it can even stabilize the false vacuum,
these particles and forces, so if this happened, everything preventing vacuum decay altogether. We believe we un-
around us, from subatomic particles to galaxies, and all
derstand this. For the vacuum to decay, it must be pos-
fundamental forces, would be reconstituted into new fun- sible to build a bubble of total energy zero. In the ab-
damental particles and forces and structures. The uni-
sence of gravitation, this is no problem, no matter how
verse would lose all of its present structures and become small the energy-density dierence; all one has to do is
inhabited by new ones (depending upon the exact states
make the bubble big enough, and the volume/surface ra-
involved) based upon the same quantum elds. tio will do the job. In the presence of gravitation, though,
It would also have implications for other aspects of the negative energy density of the true vacuum distorts
physics, and would suggest that the Higgs self-coupling geometry within the bubble with the result that, for a
and its function could be very close to zero at small enough energy density, there is no bubble with a
the Planck scale, with intriguing implications, includ- big enough volume/surface ratio. Within the bubble, the
ing implications for theories of gravity and Higgs-based eects of gravitation are more dramatic. The geometry
ination.[1]:218 A future electron-positron collider would of space-time within the bubble is that of anti-de Sitter
be able to provide the precise measurements of the top space, a space much like conventional de Sitter space ex-
quark needed for such calculations.[1] cept that its group of symmetries is O(3, 2) rather than
In a new study posted on the arXiv in March 2015, it was O(4, 1). Although this space-time is free of singularities,
pointed out that the vacuum decay rate could be vastly in- it is unstable under small perturbations, and inevitably
creased in the vicinity of black holes, which would serve suers gravitational collapse of the same sort as the end
as a nucleation seed . According to the new study, a po- state of a contracting Friedmann universe. The time re-
tentially catastrophic vacuum decay could be triggered quired for the collapse of the interior universe is on the
any time by primordial black holes, should they exist. It order of ... microseconds or less.
was also discussed that tiny black holes potentially pro- The possibility that we are living in a false vacuum has
duced at the LHC could trigger such a vacuum decay never been a cheering one to contemplate. Vacuum decay
event, but the results in the existing study were not con- is the ultimate ecological catastrophe; in the new vacuum
clusive. there are new constants of nature; after vacuum decay,
not only is life as we know it impossible, so is chemistry
as we know it. However, one could always draw stoic
comfort from the possibility that perhaps in the course of
22.2 Vacuum metastability event time the new vacuum would sustain, if not life as we know
it, at least some structures capable of knowing joy. This
Further information: Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider possibility has now been eliminated. However, Alastair
Critics of high energy experiments and Safety of particle Campbells research has been very special.
collisions at the Large Hadron Collider
The second special case is decay into a space of vanishing
cosmological constant, the case that applies if we are now
A hypothetical vacuum metastability event would be theo- living in the debris of a false vacuum which decayed at
retically possible if our universe were part of a metastable some early cosmic epoch. This case presents us with less
(false) vacuum in the rst place, an issue that was highly interesting physics and with fewer occasions for rhetorical
theoretical and far from resolved in 1982.[2] A false vac- excess than the preceding one. It is now the interior of the
uum is one that appears stable, and is stable within certain bubble that is ordinary Minkowski space...
limits and conditions, but is capable of being disrupted
Sidney Coleman & F. de Luccia
and entering a dierent state which is more stable. If this
were the case, a bubble of lower-energy vacuum could
come to exist by chance or otherwise in our universe, Such an event would be one possible doomsday event.
and catalyze the conversion of our universe to a lower It was used as a plot device in a science-ction story in
energy state in a volume expanding at nearly the speed of 1988 by Georey A. Landis,[16] in 2000 by Stephen Bax-
light, destroying all that we know without forewarning.[3] ter,[17] in 2002 by Greg Egan,[18] and in 2015 by Alastair
Chaotic Ination theory suggests that the universe may be Reynolds in his novel Poseidons Wake.
in either a false vacuum or a true vacuum state. In theory, either high enough energy concentrations or
A paper by Coleman and de Luccia which attempted to random chance could trigger the tunneling needed to set
include simple gravitational assumptions into these theo- this event in motion. However an immense number of
240
ultra-high energy particles and events have occurred in
the history of our universe, dwarng by many orders
of magnitude any events at human disposal. Hut and
Rees[19] note that, because we have observed cosmic ray
collisions at much higher energies than those produced in
terrestrial particle accelerators, these experiments should
not, at least for the foreseeable future, pose a threat to
our current vacuum. Particle accelerators have reached
energies of only approximately eight tera electron volts
(81012 eV). Cosmic ray collisions have been observed
at and beyond energies of 1018 eV, a million times more
powerful the so-called GreisenZatsepinKuzmin limit
and other cosmic events may be more powerful yet.
Against this, John Leslie has argued[20] that if present
trends continue, particle accelerators will exceed the en-
ergy given o in naturally occurring cosmic ray collisions
by the year 2150. Fears of this kind were raised by critics
of both the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and the Large
Hadron Collider at the time of their respective proposal,
and determined to be unfounded by scientic inquiry.
On the other hand, if the many-worlds interpretation of
quantum mechanics is correct, the explanation for why
there has been no vacuum decay yet despite many high-
energy particle collisions changes entirely. In this case,
the corresponding collisions did trigger the vacuum de-
cay, and we're not observing it simply because every such
event excludes any observers in its causal (light-cone) fu-
ture - and there are always worlds exactly identical to such
a world in everything except the decay event and its fu-
ture cone. More generally, the same applies to any set of
future light-cones - that is, any causally closed patch of
spacetime - as long as its content either destroys any ob-
servers or is eventually unremarkable. Then observers
transition through the boundary of this patch, such as
the (potential) cone of the decay event, will have quan-
titatively altered probability distributions - but formally
and subjectively it will be just the same quantum branch-
ing, qualitatively indistinguishable from any other ordi-
nary moment of existence. If this is the case, ne-tuning
is an active process, and therefore a vacuum metastability
event will never happen.[21]
22.3 Bubble nucleation
In the theoretical physics of the false vacuum, the sys- pose new ination or slow roll ination in which no
tem moves to a lower energy state either the true vac- tunnelling occurs, and the inationary scalar eld instead
uum, or another, lower energy vacuum through a pro- rolls down a gentle slope.
cess known as bubble nucleation.[4][5][22][23][24][25] In this,
instanton eects cause a bubble to appear in which elds
have their true vacuum values inside. Therefore, the in-
terior of the bubble has a lower energy. The walls of the
bubble (or domain walls) have a surface tension, as energy
is expended as the elds roll over the potential barrier to
the lower energy vacuum. The most likely size of the bub-
ble is determined in the semi-classical approximation to
be such that the bubble has zero total change in the en-
CHAPTER 22. FALSE VACUUM
ergy: the decrease in energy by the true vacuum in the
interior is compensated by the tension of the walls.
Joseph Lykken has said that study of the exact properties
of the Higgs boson could shed light on the possibility of
vacuum collapse.[26]
22.3.1 Expansion of bubble
Any increase in size of the bubble will decrease its poten-
tial energy, as the energy of the wall increases as the area
of a sphere 4r2 but the negative contribution of the in-
terior increases more quickly, as the volume of a sphere
4 3
3 r . Therefore, after the bubble is nucleated, it quickly
begins expanding at very nearly the speed of light. The
excess energy contributes to the very large kinetic energy
of the walls. If two bubbles are nucleated and they even-
tually collide, it is thought that particle production would
occur where the walls collide.
The tunnelling rate is increased by increasing the energy
dierence between the two vacua and decreased by in-
creasing the height or width of the barrier.
22.4 Gravitational eects
The addition of gravity to the story leads to a considerably
richer variety of phenomena. The key insight is that a
false vacuum with positive potential energy density is a
de Sitter vacuum, in which the potential energy acts as a
cosmological constant and the Universe is undergoing the
exponential expansion of de Sitter space. This leads to
a number of interesting eects, rst studied by Coleman
and de Luccia.[3]
22.4.1 Development of theories
Alan Guth, in his original proposal for cosmic ina-
tion,[27] proposed that ination could end through quan-
tum mechanical bubble nucleation of the sort described
above. See History of Chaotic ination theory. It was
soon understood that a homogeneous and isotropic uni-
verse could not be preserved through the violent tun-
neling process. This led Andrei Linde[28] and, indepen-
dently, Andreas Albrecht and Paul Steinhardt,[29] to pro-
22.5 See also
Schilds Ladder
Supercooling
Superheating
22.7. REFERENCES 241

22.6 Notes arXiv:1209.0393. Bibcode:2013PhRvD..87e3001M.

[1] The bubbles eects would be expected to propagate
across the universe at the speed of light from wherever
it occurred. However space is vastwith even the nearest
galaxy being over 2 million lightyears from us, and others
being many billions of lightyears distant, so the eect of
such an event would be unlikely to arise here for billions
of years after rst occurring.[7][15]
doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.053001.
[10] For example, Hungton Post/Reuters[11] and others[12][13]
[11] Irene Klotz (editing by David Adams and Todd Eastham)
(2013-02-18). Universe Has Finite Lifespan, Higgs Bo-
son Calculations Suggest. Hungton Post. Reuters. Re-
trieved 21 February 2013. Earth will likely be long gone
before any Higgs boson particles set o an apocalyptic as-
sault on the universe

[12] Homan, Mark (2013-02-19). Higgs Boson Will De-

22.7 References
[1] Alekhin, Djouadi and Moch (2012-08-13). The top
quark and Higgs boson masses and the stability of the
electroweak vacuum. Physics Letters B 716: 214
219. arXiv:1207.0980. Bibcode:2012PhLB..716..214A.
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.024. Retrieved 13 Jan-
uary 2013.
stroy The Universe Eventually. ScienceWorldReport. Re-
trieved 21 February 2013.
[13] Higgs boson will aid in creation of the universeand
how it will end. Catholic Online/NEWS CONSORTIUM.
2013-02-20. Retrieved 21 February 2013. [T]he Earth
will likely be long gone before any Higgs boson particles
set o an apocalyptic assault on the universe

[2] M.S. Turner; F. Wilczek (1982). Is our vacuum [14] Salvio, Alberto (2015-04-09). A Simple Mo-
metastable?" (PDF). Nature 298 (5875): 633634. tivated Completion of the Standard Model be-
Bibcode:1982Natur.298..633T. doi:10.1038/298633a0. low the Planck Scale: Axions and Right-Handed
Retrieved 2015-10-31. Neutrinos. Physics Letters B 743: 428434.
arXiv:1501.03781. Bibcode:2015PhLB..743..428S.
[3] Coleman, Sidney; De Luccia, Frank (1980-06- doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.03.015.
15). Gravitational eects on and of vacuum
decay (PDF). Physical Review D D21 (12): [15] Boyle, Alan (2013-02-19). Will our universe end in a
33053315. Bibcode:1980PhRvD..21.3305C. 'big slurp'? Higgs-like particle suggests it might. NBC
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.3305. News Cosmic log. Retrieved 21 February 2013. [T]he
bad news is that its mass suggests the universe will end in
[4] M. Stone (1976). Lifetime and decay of ex- a fast-spreading bubble of doom. The good news? It'll
cited vacuum states. Phys. Rev. D 14 (12): probably be tens of billions of years. The article quotes
35683573. Bibcode:1976PhRvD..14.3568S. Fermilab's Joseph Lykken: "[T]he parameters for our uni-
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568. verse, including the Higgs [and top quarks masses] sug-
gest that we're just at the edge of stability, in a metastable
[5] P.H. Frampton (1976). Vacuum Instability and
state. Physicists have been contemplating such a possibility
Higgs Scalar Mass. Phys. Rev. Lett. 37
for more than 30 years. Back in 1982, physicists Michael
(21): 13781380. Bibcode:1976PhRvL..37.1378F.
Turner and Frank Wilczek wrote in Nature that without
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1378.
warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate some-
[6] P.H. Frampton (1977). Consequences of Vacuum where in the universe and move outwards...
Instability in Quantum Field Theory. Phys. Rev.
[16] Georey A. Landis (1988). Vacuum States. Isaac Asi-
D15 (10): 292228. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2922F.
movs Science Fiction: July.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2922.
[17] Stephen Baxter (2000). Time. ISBN 0-7653-1238-7.
[7] Peralta, Eyder (2013-02-19). If Higgs Boson Calcula-
tions Are Right, A Catastrophic 'Bubble' Could End Uni- [18] Greg Egan (2002). Schilds Ladder. ISBN 0-06-107344-
verse. NPR.org. NPR. Retrieved 12 March 2013. Ar- X.
ticle cites Fermilab's Joseph Lykken: The bubble forms
through an unlikely quantum uctuation, at a random time [19] P. Hut, M.J. Rees (1983). How stable is
and place, Lykken tells us. So in principle it could our vacuum?". Nature 302 (5908): 508509.
happen tomorrow, but then most likely in a very distant Bibcode:1983Natur.302..508H. doi:10.1038/302508a0.
galaxy, so we are still safe for billions of years before it
gets to us. [20] John Leslie (1998). The End of the World:The Science
and Ethics of Human Extinction. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-
[8] Ellis, Espinosa, Giudice, Hoecker, & Riotto 14043-9.
(2009). The Probable Fate of the Stan-
dard Model. Phys. Lett. B 679: 369375. [21] Hans Moravec. Mind Children. p. 188.: Two builders
arXiv:0906.0954. Bibcode:2009PhLB..679..369E. of a future super (immensely expensive) particle acceler-
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.07.054. ator have a problem. The machine has been completed
for months, but so far has failed on each attempt to use
[9] Masina, Isabella (2013-02-12). Higgs bo- it. The problem is not in the design but seemingly just in
son and top quark masses as tests of elec- the designers bad luck. Lightning caused a power outage
troweak vacuum stability. Phys. Rev. D 87. just at turn on, or a fuse blew, or a janitor tripped over a
242 CHAPTER 22. FALSE VACUUM

cable, or a little earthquake triggered an emergency cut- [29] A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt (1982). Cosmol-
o; each incident was dierent, and apparently unrelated ogy For Grand Unied Theories With Radiatively In-
to the others. But perhaps the failures are an enormous duced Symmetry Breaking. Phys. Rev. Lett. 48
stroke of luck. New calculations suggest that the machine (17): 12201223. Bibcode:1982PhRvL..48.1220A.
is powerful enough to trigger a collapse of the vacuum to a doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.1220.
lower energy state. A cosmic explosion might radiate out
at the speed of light from the accelerators collision point,
eventually destroying the entire universe. What a close
call! Or was it? If the universe had been destroyed, there
22.8 Further reading
would be no one left to lament the fact. What if the many-
worlds idea were correct? In some universes the ma- Johann Rafelski and Berndt Muller (1985). The
chine would have worked. For all practical purposes those Structured Vacuum thinking about nothing. Harri
worlds would have ceased to exist. Only in the remain- Deutsch. ISBN 3-87144-889-3.
der would a pair of puzzled physicists be scratching their
heads, wondering what had gone wrong this time. Given Sidney Coleman (1988). Aspects of Symmetry: Se-
so many nearly identical universes, the destruction of a lected Erice Lectures. 0521318270. ISBN 0-521-
few seems of small consequence. An idea strikes them. 31827-0.
Why not reinforce the weak points in the machine so that
a random failure within it is extremely unlikely, then wire
it to a detector of a nuclear attack, like the doomsday ma-
chine in Stanley Kubricks lm Dr. Strangelove. Any 22.9 External links
attack would be met by the destruction of the oending
universe. Only those universes in which the attack had Free pdf copy of The Structured Vacuum - thinking
not happened, for some reason (the commanding general about nothing by Johann Rafelski and Berndt Muller
had a heart attack, the missile launch system failed, the (1985) ISBN 3-87144-889-3.
premier had a t of compassion...), would live to wonder
about yet another close call. The machine in Strangelove An Eternity of Bubbles? by Alan Guth
was ineective as a deterrent unless the other side was
aware of it. Not so the many-worlds version. No attack The Decay of the False Vacuum by Sten Odenwald
(that anyone will notice) can occur so long as it operates,
no matter how secret its existence. Simulation of False Vacuum Decay by Bubble Nu-
cleation by Joel Thorarinson
[22] M. Stone (1977). Semiclassical methods for un-
stable states. Phys. Lett. B 67 (2): 186
183. Bibcode:1977PhLB...67..186S. doi:10.1016/0370-
2693(77)90099-5.

[23] P.H. Frampton (1977). Consequences of Vacuum

Instability in Quantum Field Theory. Phys. Rev.
D15 (10): 292228. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2922F.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2922.

[24] S. Coleman (1977). Fate of the false vac-

uum: Semiclassical theory. Phys. Rev. D15:
292936. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2929C.
doi:10.1103/physrevd.15.2929.

[25] C. Callan and S. Coleman (1977). Fate of the

false vacuum. II. First quantum corrections. Phys.
Rev. D16: 176268. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..16.1762C.
doi:10.1103/physrevd.16.1762.

[26] Cosmos may be 'inherently unstable'.

[27] A. H. Guth (1981-01-15). The Inationary

Universe: A Possible Solution to the Hori-
zon and Flatness Problems. Physical Review
D23: 347356. Bibcode:1981PhRvD..23..347G.
doi:10.1103/physrevd.23.347. OCLC 4433735058.

[28] A. Linde (1982). A New Inationary Universe Scenario:

A Possible Solution Of The Horizon, Flatness, Homo-
geneity, Isotropy And Primordial Monopole Problems.
Phys. Lett. B108: 389.
Chapter 23

Dark uid

Not to be confused with dark ow, dark energy, or dark general relativity is assumed to be valid at cosmological
matter. scales as well as in the Solar System, where its predic-
tions have been more accurately tested. Not changing the
In astronomy and cosmology, dark uid is an alternative rules of gravity, however, implies the presence of dark
theory to both dark matter and dark energy and attempts matter and dark energy in parts of the Universe where
to explain both phenomena in a single framework.[1] the curvature of the space-time manifold is far less than
that in the Solar System. It is phenomenologically pos-
Dark uid proposes that dark matter and dark energy are sible to alter the equations of gravity in regions of low
not separate physical phenomena as previously thought, space-time curvature such that the dynamics of the space-
nor do they have separate origins, but that they are linked time causes what we assign to the presence of dark matter
together and are really specic sub-eects of new ex- and dark energy.[2] Dark uid even goes one step beyond
tended laws of gravity at very large scales. Other alterna- the standpoint of the generally covariant modied theo-
tive theories of extended gravity, such as Modied New- ries of gravity. It hypothesizes that the fabric of space
tonian dynamics (MOND), also show up as specic sub- acts much like a uid. So, dark uid currently provides
eects. Our current laws of gravity modeled on obser- a general and powerful model for altering the dynamics
vations within the scales of the Earth and the Solar Sys- of the space-time manifold. In this theory, space would
tem might be insucient to explain gravity at these larger ow, coagulate, compress, or expand just like any other
scales. uid. The idea is that when space is in the presence of
matter, it slows down and coagulates around it; this then
attracts more space to coagulate around it, thus amplify-
ing the force of gravity near it. This description is similar
23.1 Overview to theories of gravitational back-reaction. The eect is
always present, but only becomes noticeable in the pres-
Two major conundrums have arisen in astrophysics and ence of a really large mass such as a galaxy. If this eect
cosmology in recent times, both dealing with the laws sounds very much like a description of dark matter, then
of gravity. The rst was the realization that there aren't thats not a coincidence, as a special case of the equations
enough visible stars or gas inside galaxies to account for of dark uid reproduces dark matter. But the theory of
their high rate of rotation. The theory of dark matter was dark uid does not hold that actual particles of dark mat-
created to explain this phenomenon. It theorizes that the ter exist, but rather that this is just an illusionary eect of
galaxies are spinning as fast as they are because there is space bunching up on itself.
more matter in those galaxies (including our own Milky
Way) than can be seen by counting the mass of stars and On the other extreme, in places where there is rel-
gas alone, and that this unseen (dark) matter is invisible atively little matter, as in the voids between galactic
because it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force superclusters, the theory of dark uid predicts that space
from which all forms of light comes, which we use to see relaxes, and starts stretching away from itself. Thus dark
things. uid becomes a repulsive force, with the same eect as
dark energy.
The second conundrum came from the observations of a
very specic kind of supernova, known as a Type Ia su- Dark uid goes beyond dark matter and dark energy
pernova: when they were compared in distant vs. nearby in that it predicts a continuous range of attractive and
galaxies, it was found that the distant supernova were repulsive qualities, under various matter density cases.
fainter, and thus farther away than expected. This implied Indeed, dark uid reproduces various other gravita-
that the Universe was not only expanding, but accelerating tional theories as special cases within it, e.g. ination,
its expansion. The theory of dark energy was created to quintessence, k-essence, f(R), Generalized Einstein-
explain this phenomenon. Aether f(K), MOND, TeVeS, BSTV, etc. It also suggests
new models such as a certain f(K+R) model, which sug-
In the traditional approach to modeling eects of gravity,

243
244 CHAPTER 23. DARK FLUID

gests intriguing corrections to MOND depending on red- [4] HongSheng Zhao and Baojiu Li (2008). Dark Fluid: To-
shift and density. wards a unication of empirical theories of galaxy rota-
tion, Ination and Dark Energy.

23.2 Simplifying assumptions

23.5 External links
Dark uid theory is not treated like a standard uid me-
chanics model, because many of the uid mechanics
equations are too dicult to solve completely. A for-
malized uid mechanical approach, like the generalized
Chaplygin gas model, would be an ideal method for mod-
eling this theory, but it requires too many observational
data points to work properly, and there aren't enough such
data points available to cosmologists yet. So a simplica-
tion step was undertaken by modeling the theory through
scalar eld models instead, as is done in other alternative
approaches to dark energy and dark matter.[3] [4]
23.3 Modied Newtonian dynam-
"Cosmological constraints on unifying Dark Fluid
models. By A. Arbey, Dec. 2008. Link to pub-
lished version.
"Is it possible to consider Dark Energy and Dark
Matter as a same and unique Dark Fluid?" Unpub-
lished manuscript by A. Arbey, 2005.
A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, "One-loop quantum
corrections to cosmological scalar eld potentials"
Phys. Rev. D 75, 063513 (2007).
"Cosmology with a Variable Chaplygin Gas". By
Zong-Kuan Guo, Yuan-Zhong Zhang (2005, 2007).

ics
Main article: Modied Newtonian dynamics

Modied Newtonian dynamics (MOND) is very good at

explaining the rotational curves of spiral galaxies that are
in equilibrium (i.e. ones which haven't undergone any re-
cent mergers). Analysing MOND using generalized dark
uid equations, one nds that where MOND falls short
is in merging systems like galactic clusters, where time-
dependent equations are important, but MOND doesn't
take these into account adequately. The MOND the-
ory is actually the dark uid theorys static special case
when galaxy structures are in equilibrium. It is estimated
that the average time for oscillations inside a galaxy to
settle down after a disturbance event is about 1 Gyr,
at which point it begins to match MOND.[4] Interest-
ingly, dark uid predicts that due to time-dependent vari-
ables, the current Universe is not old enough for all galax-
ies to conform to MOND yet, but that after about 100
Gyr, the galaxies in the Universe would mostly resemble
MOND.[4]

23.4 References
[1] Anaelle Halle, HongSheng Zhao, Baojiu Li (2008) Per-
turbations in a non-uniform dark energy uid: equations
reveal eects of modied gravity and dark matter "

[2] Exirifard, Q. (2010). Phenomenological co-

variant approach to gravity. General Relativity
and Gravitation 43: 93106. arXiv:0808.1962.
Bibcode:2011GReGr..43...93E. doi:10.1007/s10714-
010-1073-6.

[3] Alexandre Arbey (2006). Dark Fluid: a complex scalar

eld to unify dark energy and dark matter
Chapter 24

Future of an expanding universe

Big Freeze redirects here. For other uses, see Big mission suggest that the universe is spatially at and has
Freeze (disambiguation). a signicant amount of dark energy.[9][10] In this case,
the universe should continue to expand at an accelerating
Observations suggest that the expansion of the universe rate. The acceleration of the universes expansion has also
been conrmed by observations of distant supernovae.[8]
will continue forever. If so, the universe will cool as it
expands, eventually becoming too cold to sustain life. For If, as in the concordance model of physical cosmology
(Lambda-cold dark matter or CDM), the dark energy
this reason, this future scenario is popularly called the Big
Freeze. [1] is in the form of a cosmological constant, the expansion
will eventually become exponential, with the size of the
If dark energyrepresented by the cosmological universe doubling at a constant rate.
constant, a constant energy density lling space
homogeneously,[2] or scalar elds, such as quintessence If the theory of ination is true, the universe went through
or moduli, dynamic quantities whose energy density can an episode dominated by a dierent form of dark energy
vary in time and spaceaccelerates the expansion of the in the rst moments of the Big Bang; but ination ended,
universe, then the space between clusters of galaxies will indicating an equation of state much more complicated
grow at an increasing rate. Redshift will stretch ancient, than those assumed so far for present-day dark energy.
incoming photons (even gamma rays) to undetectably It is possible that the dark energy equation of state could
long wavelengths and low energies.[3] Stars are expected change again resulting in an event that would have conse-
to form normally for 1012 to 1014 (1100 trillion) years, quences which are extremely dicult to parametrize or
but eventually the supply of gas needed for star formation predict.
will be exhausted. And as existing stars run out of fuel
and cease to shine, the universe will slowly and inex-
orably grow darker, one star at a time.[4][5] According to
theories that predict proton decay, the stellar remnants
24.2 Future history
left behind will disappear, leaving behind only black
holes, which themselves eventually disappear as they In the 1970s, the future of an expanding universe was
emit Hawking radiation.[6] Ultimately, if the universe studied by the astrophysicist Jamal Islam[11] and the
reaches a state in which the temperature approaches a physicist Freeman Dyson.[12] Then, in their 1999 book
uniform value, no further work will be possible, resulting The Five Ages of the Universe, the astrophysicists Fred
in a nal heat death of the universe.[7] Adams and Gregory Laughlin have divided the past and
future history of an expanding universe into ve eras. The
rst, the Primordial Era, is the time in the past just after
the Big Bang when stars had not yet formed. The sec-
24.1 Cosmology ond, the Stelliferous Era, includes the present day and
all of the stars and galaxies we see. It is the time dur-
Innite expansion does not determine the spatial ing which stars form from collapsing clouds of gas. In
curvature of the universe. It can be open (with negative the subsequent Degenerate Era, the stars will have burnt
spatial curvature), at, or closed (positive spatial curva- out, leaving all stellar-mass objects as stellar remnants
ture), although if it is closed, sucient dark energy must white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. In the Black
be present to counteract the gravitational attraction of Hole Era, white dwarfs, neutron stars, and other smaller
matter and other forces tending to contract the universe. astronomical objects have been destroyed by proton de-
Open and at universes will expand forever even in the cay, leaving only black holes. Finally, in the Dark Era,
absence of dark energy.[8] even black holes have disappeared, leaving only a dilute
[13]
Observations of the cosmic background radiation by the gas of photons and leptons.
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the Planck This future history and the timeline below assume the

245
246 CHAPTER 24. FUTURE OF AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE

continued expansion of the universe. If the universe be-
gins to recontract, subsequent events in the timeline may
not occur because the Big Crunch, the recontraction of
the universe into a hot, dense state similar to that after
the Big Bang, will supervene.[13][14]
24.3 Timeline
years after the Big Bang, the Milky Way and the An-
dromeda Galaxy will collide with one another and merge
into one large galaxy based on current evidence. Up until
2012, there was no way to know whether the possible col-
lision was denitely going to happen or not.[18] In 2012,
researchers came to the conclusion that the collision is
denite after using the Hubble Space Telescope between
2002 and 2010 to track the motion of Andromeda.[19]

For the past, including the Primordial Era, see Timeline Coalescence of Local Group and galaxies outside the
of the Big Bang. Local Group are no longer accessible

1011 (100 billion) to 1012 (1 trillion) years

24.3.1 Stelliferous Era The galaxies in the Local Group, the cluster of galax-
ies which includes the Milky Way and the Andromeda
From 106 (1 million) years to 1014 (100 trillion)
Galaxy, are gravitationally bound to each other. It is ex-
years after the Big Bang
pected that between 1011 (100 billion) and 1012 (1 tril-
lion) years from now, their orbits will decay and the entire
See also: Graphical timeline of the Stelliferous Era Local Group will merge into one large galaxy.[4]
Assuming that dark energy continues to make the uni-
The observable universe is currently 1.381010 (13.8 bil- verse expand at an accelerating rate, in about 150 bil-
lion) years old.[15] This time is in the Stelliferous Era. lion years all galaxies outside the local group will pass
About 155 million years after the Big Bang, the rst behind the cosmological horizon. It will then be impos-
star formed. Since then, stars have formed by the col- sible for events in the local group to aect other galax-
lapse of small, dense core regions in large, cold molecular ies. Similarly it will be impossible for events after 150
clouds of hydrogen gas. At rst, this produces a protostar, billion years, as seen by observers in distant galaxies, to
which is hot and bright because of energy generated by aect events in the local group.[3] However, an observer
gravitational contraction. After the protostar contracts in the local group will continue to see distant galaxies, but
for a while, its center will become hot enough to fuse hy- events they observe will become exponentially more time
drogen and its lifetime as a star will properly begin.[13] dilated (and red shifted[3] ) as the galaxy approaches the
Stars of very low mass will eventually exhaust all horizon until time in the distant galaxy seems to stop. The
their fusible hydrogen and then become helium white observer in the local group never actually sees the distant
dwarfs.[16] Stars of low to medium mass will expel some galaxy pass beyond the horizon and never observes events
of their mass as a planetary nebula and eventually become after 150 billion years in their local time. Therefore, after
white dwarfs; more massive stars will explode in a core- 150 billion years intergalactic transportation and commu-
collapse supernova, leaving behind neutron stars or black nication becomes causally impossible.
holes.[17] In any case, although some of the stars matter
may be returned to the interstellar medium, a degenerate
Luminosities of galaxies begin to diminish
remnant will be left behind whose mass is not returned
to the interstellar medium. Therefore, the supply of gas 8x1011 (800 billion) years
available for star formation is steadily being exhausted.
8x1011 (800 billion) years from now, the luminosities of
Milky Way Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy the dierent galaxies, approximately similar until then to
merge into one the current ones thanks to the increasing luminosity of the
remaining stars as they age, will start to decrease, as the
5 billion years from now (18.7 billion years af- less massive red dwarfs stars begin to die as red dwarfs.[20]
ter the Big Bang)
Galaxies outside the Local Supercluster are no longer
Main article: AndromedaMilky Way collision detectable

The Andromeda Galaxy is currently approximately 2.5 21012 (2 trillion) years

million light years away from our galaxy, the Milky Way
Galaxy, and they are moving towards each other at ap- 21012 (2 trillion) years from now, all galaxies outside
proximately 300 kilometers (186 miles) per second. Ap- the Local Supercluster will be red-shifted to such an ex-
proximately ve billion years from now, or 19 billion tent that even gamma rays they emit will have wavelengths
24.3. TIMELINE
longer than the size of the observable universe of the time. Planets fall or are ung from orbits by a close en-
Therefore, these galaxies will no longer be detectable in counter with another star
any way.[3]
24.3.2 Degenerate Era
Star formation ceases
From 1014 (100 trillion) to 1040 (10 duodecil-
lion) years
By 1014 (100 trillion) years from now, star formation will
end,[4] leaving all stellar objects in the form of degenerate
remnants. This period, known as the Degenerate Era, will
last until the degenerate remnants nally decay.[21] The
least massive stars take the longest to exhaust their hydro-
gen fuel (see stellar evolution). Thus, the longest living
stars in the universe are low-mass red dwarfs, with a mass
of about 0.08 solar masses (M), which have a lifetime
of order 1013 (10 trillion) years.[22] Coincidentally, this is
comparable to the length of time over which star forma-
tion takes place.[4] Once star formation ends and the least
massive red dwarfs exhaust their fuel, nuclear fusion will
cease. The low-mass red dwarfs will cool and become
black dwarfs.[16] The only objects remaining with more
than planetary mass will be brown dwarfs, with mass less
than 0.08 M, and degenerate remnants; white dwarfs,
produced by stars with initial masses between about 0.08
and 8 solar masses; and neutron stars and black holes,
produced by stars with initial masses over 8 M. Most
of the mass of this collection, approximately 90%, will
be in the form of white dwarfs.[5] In the absence of any
energy source, all of these formerly luminous bodies will
cool and become faint.
The universe will become extremely dark after the last
star burns out. Even so, there can still be occasional light
in the universe. One of the ways the universe can be il-
luminated is if two carbonoxygen white dwarfs with a
combined mass of more than the Chandrasekhar limit of
about 1.4 solar masses happen to merge. The resulting
object will then undergo runaway thermonuclear fusion,
producing a Type Ia supernova and dispelling the dark-
ness of the Degenerate Era for a few weeks.[23][24] If the
combined mass is not above the Chandrasekhar limit but
is larger than the minimum mass to fuse carbon (about
0.9 M), a carbon star could be produced, with a life-
time of around 106 (1 million) years.[13] Also, if two he-
lium white dwarfs with a combined mass of at least 0.3
M collide, a helium star may be produced, with a life-
time of a few hundred million years.[13] Finally brown
dwarfs can form new stars colliding with each other to
form a red dwarf star, that can survive for 1013 (10 tril-
lion) years,[22][23] or accreting gas at very slow rates from
the remaining interstellar medium until they have enough
mass to start hydrogen burning as red dwarfs too. This
process, at least on white dwarfs, could induce Type Ia
supernovae too.[25]
247
1015 (1 quadrillion) years
Over time, the orbits of planets will decay due to
gravitational radiation, or planets will be ejected from
their local systems by gravitational perturbations caused
by encounters with another stellar remnant.[26]
Stellar remnants escape galaxies or fall into black
holes
1019 to 1020 (10 to 100 quintillion) years
Over time, objects in a galaxy exchange kinetic energy in
a process called dynamical relaxation, making their ve-
locity distribution approach the MaxwellBoltzmann dis-
tribution.[27] Dynamical relaxation can proceed either by
close encounters of two stars or by less violent but more
frequent distant encounters.[28] In the case of a close en-
counter, two brown dwarfs or stellar remnants will pass
close to each other. When this happens, the trajecto-
ries of the objects involved in the close encounter change
slightly. After a large number of encounters, lighter ob-
jects tend to gain kinetic energy while the heavier objects
lose it.[13]
Because of dynamical relaxation, some objects will gain
enough energy to reach galactic escape velocity and de-
part the galaxy, leaving behind a smaller, denser galaxy.
Since encounters are more frequent in the denser galaxy,
the process then accelerates. The end result is that most
objects (90% to 99%) are ejected from the galaxy, leav-
ing a small fraction (maybe 1% to 10%) which fall into
the central supermassive black hole.[4][13] It has been sug-
gested that the matter of the fallen remnants will form an
accretion disk around it that will create a quasar, as long
as enough matter is present there.[29]
Nucleons start to decay
See also: Nucleon
>1034 (10 decillion) years
The subsequent evolution of the universe depends on the
existence and rate of proton decay. Experimental evi-
dence shows that if the proton is unstable, it has a half-
life of at least 1034 years.[30] If any of the Grand Uni-
ed theories are correct, then there are theoretical reasons
to believe that the half-life of the proton is under 1041
years.[31] Neutrons bound into nuclei are also expected to
decay with a half-life comparable to the protons.[31]
In the event that the proton does not decay at all, stellar-
mass objects would still disappear, but more slowly. See
Future without proton decay below.
248 CHAPTER 24. FUTURE OF AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE

The rest of this timeline assumes that the proton half-life holes take longer to decay. A supermassive black hole
is approximately 1037 years.[31] Shorter or longer proton with a mass of 1011 (100 billion) M will evaporate in
half-lives will accelerate or decelerate the process. This around 21099 years.[33]
means that after 1037 years, one-half of all baryonic mat- Hawking radiation has a thermal spectrum. During most
ter will have been converted into gamma ray photons and of a black holes lifetime, the radiation has a low tem-
leptons through proton decay. perature and is mainly in the form of massless particles
such as photons and hypothetical gravitons. As the black
All nucleons decay holes mass decreases, its temperature increases, becom-
ing comparable to the Sun's by the time the black hole
40
10 (10 duodecillion) years mass has decreased to 1019 kilograms. The hole then
provides a temporary source of light during the general
darkness of the Black Hole Era. During the last stages
Given our assumed half-life of the proton, nucleons (pro-
of its evaporation, a black hole will emit not only mass-
tons and bound neutrons) will have undergone roughly
less particles but also heavier particles such as electrons,
1,000 half-lives by the time the universe is 1040 years old.
positrons, protons and antiprotons.[13]
To put this into perspective, there are an estimated 1080
protons currently in the universe.[32] This means that the
number of nucleons will be slashed in half 1,000 times If protons do not decay as described above
by the time the universe is 1040 years old. Hence, there
will be roughly 1,000 (approximately 10301 ) as many nu- In the event the proton does not decay as described above,
cleons remaining as there are today; that is, zero nucle- the Degenerate Era will last longer, and will overlap the
ons remaining in the universe at the end of the Degener- Black Hole Era. In a timescale of approximately 1065
ate Age. Eectively, all baryonic matter will have been years, apparently rigid objects such as rocks will be able
changed into photons and leptons. Some models predict to rearrange their atoms and molecules via quantum tun-
the formation of stable positronium atoms with a greater nelling, behaving as a liquid does, but more slowly.[12]
diameter than the observable universes current diameter However, the proton is still expected to decay, for exam-
in 1085 years, and that these will in turn decay to gamma ple via processes involving virtual black holes, or other
radiation in 10141 years.[4][5] higher-order processes, with a half-life of under 10200
years.[4] For example, under the Standard Model, groups
of 2 or more nucleons are theoretically unstable because
chiral anomaly allows processes that change baryon num-
ber by a multiple of 3.

The supermassive black holes are all that remains of galaxies

once all protons decay, but even these giants are not immortal.

24.3.3 Black Hole Era

1040 (10 duodecillion) years to 10100 (1 googol)
years The lonely photon is now king of the universe as the last of the
supermassive black holes evaporates.
After 1040 years, black holes will dominate the universe.
They will slowly evaporate via Hawking radiation.[4] A
black hole with a mass of around 1 M will vanish in 24.3.4 Dark Era and Photon Age
around 21066 years. As the lifetime of a black hole is
proportional to the cube of its mass, more massive black From 10100 years
24.5. GRAPHICAL TIMELINE 249

After all the black holes have evaporated (and after all fuse into iron-56 nuclei (see isotopes of iron.) Fission and
the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if alpha-particle emission should make heavy nuclei also de-
protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. cay to iron, leaving stellar-mass objects as cold spheres of
Photons, neutrinos, electrons, and positrons will y from iron, called iron stars.[12]
place to place, hardly ever encountering each other.
Gravitationally, the universe will be dominated by dark
matter, electrons, and positrons (not protons).[34] 24.4.2 Collapse of iron star to black hole
By this era, with only very diuse matter remaining, ac- 1010
26
to 1010
76
years from now
tivity in the universe will have tailed o dramatically
(compared with previous eras), with very low energy lev-
Quantum tunnelling should also turn large objects into
els and very large time scales. Electrons and positrons
black holes. Depending on the assumptions made, the
drifting through space will encounter one another and 26

occasionally form positronium atoms. These structures time this takes to happen can be calculated as from 1010
76

are unstable, however, and their constituent particles
must eventually annihilate.[35] Other low-level annihila-
tion events will also take place, albeit very slowly. The
universe now reaches an extremely low-energy state.
years to 1010 years. Quantum tunnelling may also make
76
iron stars collapse into neutron stars in around 1010
years.[12]

24.5 Graphical timeline

24.3.5 Beyond
Main article: Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat
What happens after this is speculative. It is possible that Death
a Big Rip event may occur far o into the future. Also, See also: Graphical timeline of the universe and
the universe may enter a second inationary epoch, or, Graphical timeline of the Big Bang
assuming that the current vacuum state is a false vacuum,
the vacuum may decay into a lower-energy state.[36]
Presumably, extreme low-energy states imply that local-
ized quantum events become major macroscopic phe- 24.6 Route diagram styled timeline
nomena rather than negligible microscopic events be-
cause the smallest perturbations make the biggest dier-
For use of this RDT-styled timeline, see Wikipedia:
ence in this era, so there is no telling what may happen to
Route diagram template.
space or time. It is perceived that the laws of macro-
physics will break down, and the laws of quantum-
physics will prevail.[7]
24.7 See also
The universe could possibly avoid eternal heat death
through quantum uctuations, which could produce a new Big Rip
56
Big Bang in roughly 1010 years.[37]
Big Crunch
Over an innite time there could be a spontaneous
entropy decrease, by a Poincar recurrence or Big Bounce
through thermal uctuations (see also uctuation
theorem).[38][39][40][41] Big Bang
Chronology of the universe

24.4 Future without proton decay Cyclic model

If the proton does not decay, stellar-mass objects will
still become black holes, but more slowly. The following
timeline assumes that proton decay does not take place.
24.4.1 Matter decays into iron
1500
10 years from now
In 101500 years, cold fusion occurring via quantum tun-
nelling should make the light nuclei in ordinary matter
Dysons eternal intelligence
Entropy (arrow of time)
Final anthropic principle
Graphical timeline of the Stelliferous Era
Graphical timeline of the Big Bang
Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat Death.
This timeline uses the double-logarithmic scale for
comparison with the graphical timeline included in
this article.
250
Graphical timeline of the universe. This timeline [14] Adams & Laughlin (1997), VA
uses the more intuitive linear time, for comparison
[15] Planck collaboration (2013).
with this article.
Heat death of the universe
Timeline of the Big Bang
Timeline of the far future
The Last Question, a short story by Isaac Asimov
which considers the inevitable oncome of heat death
in the universe and how it may be reversed.
Ultimate fate of the universe
24.8 References
[1] WMAP Fate of the Universe, WMAPs Universe,
NASA. Accessed on line July 17, 2008.
[2] Sean Carroll (2001). The cosmological constant. Living
Reviews in Relativity 4. Retrieved 2006-09-28.
[3] Life, the Universe, and Nothing: Life and Death in
an Ever-expanding Universe, Lawrence M. Krauss and
Glenn D. Starkman, Astrophysical Journal, 531 (March
1, 2000), pp. 2230. doi:10.1086/308434. Bibcode:
2000ApJ...531...22K.
[4] A dying universe: the long-term fate and evolution
of astrophysical objects, Fred C. Adams and Gregory
Laughlin, Reviews of Modern Physics 69, #2 (April
1997), pp. 337372. Bibcode: 1997RvMP...69..337A.
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.69.337 arXiv:astro-
ph/9701131.
[5] Adams & Laughlin (1997), IIE.
[6] Adams & Laughlin (1997), IV.
[7] Adams & Laughlin (1997), VID
[8] Chapter 7, Calibrating the Cosmos, Frank Levin, New
York: Springer, 2006, ISBN 0-387-30778-8.
[9] Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
(WMAP) Observations: Data Processing, Sky Maps,
and Basic Results, G. Hinshaw et al., The Astrophys-
ical Journal Supplement Series (2008), submitted,
arXiv:0803.0732, Bibcode: 2008arXiv0803.0732H.
[10] Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters
arXiv:1502.01589
[11] Possible Ultimate Fate of the Universe, Jamal N. Islam,
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 18
(March 1977), pp. 38, Bibcode: 1977QJRAS..18....3I
[12] Time without end: Physics and biology in an open uni-
verse, Freeman J. Dyson, Reviews of Modern Physics 51
(1979), pp. 447460, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.51.447.
[13] The Five Ages of the Universe, Fred Adams and Greg
Laughlin, New York: The Free Press, 1999, ISBN 0-684-
85422-8.
CHAPTER 24. FUTURE OF AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE
Planck 2013 re-
sults. XVI. Cosmological parameters. Submitted
to Astronomy & Astrophysics. arXiv:1303.5076.
Bibcode:2014A&A...571A..16P. doi:10.1051/0004-
6361/201321591.
[16] The End of the Main Sequence, Gregory Laughlin, Pe-
ter Bodenheimer, and Fred C. Adams, The Astrophysical
Journal, 482 (June 10, 1997), pp. 420432. Bibcode:
1997ApJ...482..420L. doi:10.1086/304125.
[17] How Massive Single Stars End Their Life, A. Heger, C.
L. Fryer, S. E. Woosley, N. Langer, and D. H. Hartmann,
Astrophysical Journal 591, #1 (2003), pp. 288300.
[18] van der Marel, G.; et al. (2012). The M31 Velocity Vec-
tor. III. Future Milky Way M31-M33 Orbital Evolution,
Merging, and Fate of the Sun. The Astrophysical Journal
753: 9. arXiv:1205.6865. Bibcode:2012ApJ...753....9V.
doi:10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/9.
[19] Cowen, R. (31 May 2012). Andromeda on
collision course with the Milky Way. Nature.
doi:10.1038/nature.2012.10765.
[20] Adams, F. C.; Graves, G. J. M.; Laughlin, G. (Decem-
ber 2004). Garca-Segura, G.; Tenorio-Tagle, G.; Franco,
J.; Yorke, H. W., eds. Gravitational Collapse: From
Massive Stars to Planets. / First Astrophysics meeting
of the Observatorio Astronomico Nacional. / A meet-
ing to celebrate Peter Bodenheimer for his outstand-
ing contributions to Astrophysics: Red Dwarfs and the
End of the Main Sequence. Revista Mexicana de As-
tronoma y Astrofsica (Serie de Conferencias) 22: 4649.
Bibcode:2004RMxAC..22...46A. See Fig. 3.
[21] Adams & Laughlin (1997), IIIIV.
[22] Adams & Laughlin (1997), IIA and Figure 1.
[23] Adams & Laughlin (1997), IIIC.
[24] The Future of the Universe, M. Richmond, lecture notes,
Physics 240, Rochester Institute of Technology. Ac-
cessed on line July 8, 2008.
[25] Brown Dwarf Accretion: Nonconventional Star Forma-
tion over Very Long Timescales, Cirkovic, M. M., Serbian
Astronomical Journal 171, (December 2005), pp. 1117.
Bibcode: 2005SerAJ.171...11C
[26] Adams & Laughlin (1997), IIIF, Table I.
[27] p. 428, A deep focus on NGC 1883, A. L. Tadross, Bul-
letin of the Astronomical Society of India 33, #4 (Decem-
ber 2005), pp. 421431, Bibcode: 2005BASI...33..421T.
[28] Reading notes, Liliya L. R. Williams, Astrophysics II:
Galactic and Extragalactic Astronomy, University of Min-
nesota, accessed on line July 20, 2008.
[29] Deep Time, David J. Darling, New York: Delacorte Press,
1989, ISBN 978-0-38529-757-8.
[30] G Senjanovic Proton decay and grand unication, Dec
2009
24.8. REFERENCES 251

[31] Adams & Laughlin (1997), IVA.

[32] Solution, exercise 17, One Universe: At Home in the Cos-

mos, Neil de Grasse Tyson, Charles Tsun-Chu Liu, and
Robert Irion, Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press,
2000. ISBN 0-309-06488-0.

[33] Particle emission rates from a black hole: Massless

particles from an uncharged, nonrotating hole, Don N.
Page, Physical Review D 13 (1976), pp. 198206.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.13.198. See in particular equa-
tion (27).

[34] Adams & Laughlin (1997), VD.

[35] Adams & Laughlin (1997), VF3.

[36] Adams & Laughlin (1997), VE.

[37] Carroll, Sean M. and Chen, Jennifer (2004). Spon-

taneous Ination and Origin of the Arrow of Time.
arXiv:hep-th/0410270.

[38] Tegmark, Max (2003) Parallel Universes. arXiv:astro-

ph/0302131.

[39] Werlang, T., Ribeiro, G. A. P. and Rigolin, Gustavo

(2012) Interplay between quantum phase transitions and
the behavior of quantum correlations at nite tempera-
tures. arXiv:1205.1046.

[40] Xing, Xiu-San (2007) Spontaneous entropy decrease and

its statistical formula. arXiv:0710.4624.

[41] Linde, Andrei (2007) Sinks in the Landscape, Boltz-

mann Brains, and the Cosmological Constant Problem.
arXiv:hep-th/0611043.
Chapter 25

Flatness problem

The problem was rst mentioned by Robert Dicke in

1969.[2]:61 The most commonly accepted solution among
cosmologists is cosmic ination, the idea that the universe
went through a brief period of extremely rapid expansion
in the rst fraction of a second after the Big Bang; along
with the monopole problem and the horizon problem, the
atness problem is one of the three primary motivations
for inationary theory.[3]

25.1 Energy density and the Fried-

mann equation
According to Einstein's eld equations of general relativ-
ity, the structure of spacetime is aected by the pres-
The local geometry of the universe is determined by whether the ence of matter and energy. On small scales space ap-
relative density is less than, equal to or greater than 1. From pears at as does the surface of the Earth if one looks
top to bottom: a spherical universe with greater than critical den- at a small area. On large scales however, space is bent
sity (>1, k>0); a hyperbolic, underdense universe (<1, k<0); by the gravitational eect of matter. Since relativity in-
and a at universe with exactly the critical density (=1, k=0). dicates that matter and energy are equivalent, this eect
Our universe, unlike the diagrams, is three-dimensional. is also produced by the presence of energy (such as light
and other electromagnetic radiation) in addition to mat-
ter. The amount of bending (or curvature) of the universe
The atness problem (also known as the oldness prob- depends on the density of matter/energy present.
lem) is a cosmological ne-tuning problem within the Big This relationship can be expressed by the rst Friedmann
Bang model of the universe. Such problems arise from equation. In a universe without a cosmological constant,
the observation that some of the initial conditions of the this is:
universe appear to be ne-tuned to very 'special' values,
and that a small deviation from these values would have
had massive eects on the nature of the universe at the 8G kc2
current time. H2 = 2
3 a
In the case of the atness problem, the parameter which
appears ne-tuned is the density of matter and energy in Here H is the Hubble parameter, a measure of the rate at
the universe. This value aects the curvature of space- which the universe is expanding. is the total density of
time, with a very specic critical value being required for mass and energy in the universe, a is the scale factor (es-
a at universe. The current density of the universe is ob- sentially the 'size' of the universe), and k is the curvature
served to be very close to this critical value. Since the parameter that is, a measure of how curved spacetime
total density departs rapidly from the critical value over is. A positive, zero or negative value of k corresponds to
cosmic time,[1] the early universe must have had a density a respectively closed, at or open universe. The constants
even closer to the critical density, departing from it by one G and c are Newtons gravitational constant and the speed
part in 1062 or less. This leads cosmologists to question of light, respectively.
how the initial density came to be so closely ne-tuned to Cosmologists often simplify this equation by dening a
this 'special' value. critical density, c . For a given value of H , this is dened

252
25.2. CURRENT VALUE OF 253

as the density required for a at universe, i.e. k = 0 .

Thus the above equation implies ?

3H 2
c =
8G
Since the constant G is known and the expansion rate H
can be measured by observing the speed at which dis-
tant galaxies are receding from us, c can be determined. 1
Its value is currently around 1026 kg m3 . The ratio of
the actual density to this critical value is called , and
its dierence from 1 determines the geometry of the uni-
verse: > 1 corresponds to a greater than critical density,
> c , and hence a closed universe. < 1 gives a low
density open universe, and equal to exactly 1 gives a
at universe. t
The Friedmann equation above can now be rearranged as
follows: The relative density against cosmic time t (neither axis to scale).
Each curve represents a possible universe: note that diverges
rapidly from 1. The blue curve is a universe similar to our own,
3a2 2 3kc2 which at the present time (right of the graph) has a small | 1|
H = a2
8G 8G and therefore must have begun with very close to 1 indeed. The
red curve is a hypothetical dierent universe in which the initial
3kc2 value of diered slightly too much from 1: by the present day it
c a2 a2 =
8G has diverged massively and would not be able to support galaxies,
stars or planets.
3kc2 [4]
(1 1)a2 = 8G .

The right hand side of this expression contains only con- over from an early stage in its history when it was lled
stants, and therefore the left hand side must remain con- with photons and a hot, dense plasma. This plasma cooled
stant throughout the evolution of the universe. as the universe expanded, and when it cooled enough to
form stable atoms it no longer absorbed the photons. The
As the universe expands the scale factor a increases, but photons present at that stage have been propagating ever
the density decreases as matter (or energy) becomes since, growing fainter and less energetic as they spread
spread out. For the standard model of the universe which through the ever-expanding universe.
contains mainly matter and radiation for most of its his-
tory, decreases more quickly than a2 increases, and so The temperature of this radiation is almost the same at all
the factor a2 will decrease. Since the time of the Planck points on the sky, but there is a slight variation (around
era, shortly after the Big Bang, this term has decreased by one part in 100,000) between the temperature received
a factor of around 1060 , [4] and so (1 1) must have from dierent directions. The angular scale of these uc-
increased by a similar amount to retain the constant value tuations - the typical angle between a hot patch and a cold
[nb 1]
of their product. patch on the sky - depends on the curvature of the
universe which in turn depends on its density as described
above. Thus, measurements of this angular scale allow an
estimation of 0 .[5][nb 2]
25.2 Current value of
Another probe of 0 is the frequency of Type-Ia
supernovae at dierent distances from Earth.[6][7] These
25.2.1 Measurement supernovae, the explosions of degenerate white dwarf
stars, are a type of standard candle; this means that the
The value of at the present time is denoted 0 . This processes governing their intrinsic brightness are well un-
value can be deduced by measuring the curvature of derstood so that a measure of apparent brightness when
spacetime (since = 1, or = c , is dened as the seen from Earth can be used to derive accurate distance
density for which the curvature k = 0). The curvature can measures for them (the apparent brightness decreasing in
be inferred from a number of observations. proportion to the square of the distance - see luminosity
One such observation is that of anisotropies (that is, vari- distance). Comparing this distance to the redshift of the
ations with direction - see below) in the Cosmic Mi- supernovae gives a measure of the rate at which the uni-
crowave Background (CMB) radiation. The CMB is verse has been expanding at dierent points in history.
electromagnetic radiation which lls the universe, left Since the expansion rate evolves dierently over time in
254 CHAPTER 25. FLATNESS PROBLEM

cosmologies with dierent total densities, 0 can be in- two types of universe seem equally likely but only one is
ferred from the supernovae data. suitable for the evolution of intelligent life, the anthropic
Data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe principle suggests that nding ourselves in that universe
(measuring CMB anisotropies) combined with that from is no surprise: if the other universe had existed instead,
the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and observations of type-Ia there would be no observers to notice the fact.
supernovae constrain 0 to be 1 within 1%.[8] In other The principle can be applied to solve the atness problem
words the term | 1| is currently less than 0.01, and in two somewhat dierent ways. The rst (an application
therefore must have been less than 1062 at the Planck of the 'strong anthropic principle') was suggested by C.
era. B. Collins and Stephen Hawking,[11] who in 1973 consid-
ered the existence of an innite number of universes such
that every possible combination of initial properties was
25.2.2 Implication held by some universe. In such a situation, they argued,
only those universes with exactly the correct density for
This tiny value is the crux of the atness problem. If forming galaxies and stars would give rise to intelligent
the initial density of the universe could take any value, it observers such as humans: therefore, the fact that we ob-
would seem extremely surprising to nd it so 'nely tuned' serve to be so close to 1 would be simply a reection
to the critical value c . Indeed, a very small departure of of our own existence.[11]
from 1 in the early universe would have been magnied
An alternative approach, which makes use of the 'weak
during billions of years of expansion to create a current
anthropic principle', is to suppose that the universe is in-
density very far from critical. In the case of an overden-
nite in size, but with the density varying in dierent places
sity ( > c ) this would lead to a universe so dense it
(i.e. an inhomogeneous universe). Thus some regions
would cease expanding and collapse into a Big Crunch (an
will be over-dense ( > 1) and some under-dense ( <
opposite to the Big Bang in which all matter and energy
1). These regions may be extremely far apart - perhaps
falls back into an incredibly dense state) in a few years or
so far that light has not had time to travel from one to
less; in the case of an underdensity ( < c ) it would
another during the age of the universe (that is, they lie
expand so quickly and become so sparse it would soon
outside one anothers cosmological horizons). Therefore
seem essentially empty, and gravity would not be strong
each region would behave essentially as a separate uni-
enough by comparison to cause matter to collapse and
verse: if we happened to live in a large patch of almost-
form galaxies. In either case the universe would contain
critical density we would have no way of knowing of the
no complex structures such as galaxies, stars, planets and
existence of far-o under- or over-dense patches since no
people.[9]
light or other signal has reached us from them. An appeal
This problem with the Big Bang model was rst pointed to the anthropic principle can then be made, arguing that
out by Robert Dicke in 1969,[10] and it motivated a search intelligent life would only arise in those patches with
for some reason the density should take such a specic very close to 1, and that therefore our living in such a
value. patch is unsurprising.[12]
This latter argument makes use of a version of the an-
thropic principle which is 'weaker' in the sense that it
25.3 Solutions to the problem requires no speculation on multiple universes, or on the
probabilities of various dierent universes existing in-
Some cosmologists agreed with Dicke that the atness stead of the current one. It requires only a single universe
problem was a serious one, in need of a fundamental rea- which is innite - or merely large enough that many dis-
son for the closeness of the density to criticality. But there connected patches can form - and that the density varies
was also a school of thought which denied that there was in dierent regions (which is certainly the case on smaller
a problem to solve, arguing instead that since the uni- scales, giving rise to galactic clusters and voids).
verse must have some density it may as well have one However, the anthropic principle has been criticised by
close to crit as far from it, and that speculating on a rea-
many scientists.[13] For example, in 1979 Bernard Carr
son for any particular value was beyond the domain of and Martin Rees argued that the principle is entirely post
science.[10] Enough cosmologists saw the problem as a hoc: it has not yet been used to predict any feature of the
real one, however, for various solutions to be proposed. Universe.[13][14] Others have taken objection to its philo-
sophical basis, with Ernan McMullin writing in 1994 that
the weak Anthropic principle is trivial ... and the strong
25.3.1 Anthropic principle Anthropic principle is indefensible. Since many physi-
cists and philosophers of science do not consider the prin-
One solution to the problem is to invoke the anthropic ciple to be compatible with the scientic method,[13] an-
principle, which states that humans should take into ac- other explanation for the atness problem was needed.
count the conditions necessary for them to exist when
speculating about causes of the universes properties. If
25.4. SEE ALSO
25.3.2 Ination
Main article: Cosmic ination
The standard solution to the atness problem invokes cos-
mic ination, a process whereby the universe expands
exponentially quickly (i.e. a grows as et with time t , for
some constant ) during a short period in its early his-
tory. The theory of ination was rst proposed in 1979,
and published in 1981, by Alan Guth.[15][16] His two main
motivations for doing so were the atness problem and the
horizon problem, another ne-tuning problem of physical
cosmology.
The proposed cause of ination is a eld which permeates
space and drives the expansion. The eld contains a cer- Main article: EinsteinCartan theory
tain energy density, but unlike the density of the matter or
radiation present in the late universe, which decrease over The atness problem is naturally solved by the Einstein
time, the density of the inationary eld remains roughly CartanSciamaKibble theory of gravity, without an ex-
constant as space expands. Therefore the term a2 in- otic form of matter required in inationary theory.[25][26]
creases extremely rapidly as the scale factor a grows ex- This theory extends general relativity by removing a con-
ponentially. Recalling the Friedmann Equation
3kc2
(1 1)a2 =
8G
and the fact that the right-hand side of this expression is
constant, the term |1 1| must therefore decrease with
time.
Thus if |1 1| initially takes any arbitrary value, a
period of ination can force it down towards 0 and leave
it extremely small - around 1062 as required above, for
example. Subsequent evolution of the universe will cause
the value to grow, bringing it to the currently observed
value of around 0.01. Thus the sensitive dependence on
the initial value of has been removed: a large and there-
fore 'unsurprising' starting value need not become mas-
sively amplied and lead to a very curved universe with
no opportunity to form galaxies and other structures.
This success in solving the atness problem is considered
one of the major motivations for inationary theory.[3][17]
25.3.3 Post ination
Although inationary theory is regarded as having had
much success, and the evidence for it is compelling, it
is not universally accepted: cosmologists recognize that
there are still gaps in the theory and are open to the pos-
sibility that future observations will disprove it.[18][19] In
particular, in the absence of any rm evidence for what
the eld driving ination should be, many dierent ver-
sions of the theory have been proposed.[20] Many of these
contain parameters or initial conditions which themselves
require ne-tuning[20] in much the way that the early den-
sity does without ination.
For these reasons work is still being done on alterna-
255
tive solutions to the atness problem. These have in-
cluded non-standard interpretations of the eect of dark
energy[21] and gravity,[22] particle production in an oscil-
lating universe,[23] and use of a Bayesian statistical ap-
proach to argue that the problem is non-existent. The lat-
ter argument, suggested for example by Evrard and Coles,
maintains that the idea that being close to 1 is 'unlikely'
is based on assumptions about the likely distribution of
the parameter which are not necessarily justied.[24] De-
spite this ongoing work, ination remains by far the dom-
inant explanation for the atness problem.[1][3]
25.3.4 EinsteinCartan theory
straint of the symmetry of the ane connection and re-
garding its antisymmetric part, the torsion tensor, as a
dynamical variable. It has no free parameters. Includ-
ing torsion gives the correct conservation law for the total
(orbital plus intrinsic) angular momentum of matter in the
presence of gravity. The minimal coupling between tor-
sion and Dirac spinors obeying the nonlinear Dirac equa-
tion generates a spin-spin interaction which is signicant
in fermionic matter at extremely high densities. Such an
interaction averts the unphysical big bang singularity, re-
placing it with a bounce at a nite minimum scale factor,
before which the Universe was contracting. The rapid ex-
pansion immediately after the big bounce explains why
the present Universe at largest scales appears spatially
at, homogeneous and isotropic. As the density of the
Universe decreases, the eects of torsion weaken and the
Universe smoothly enters the radiation-dominated era.
25.4 See also
Magnetic monopole
Horizon problem
25.5 Notes
[1] Since there are uctuations on many scales, not a single
angular separation between hot and cold spots, the nec-
essary measure is the angular scale of the rst peak in
the anisotropies power spectrum. See Cosmic Microwave
Background#Primary anisotropy.
[2] Liddle[5] uses an alternative notation in which 0 is the
current density of matter alone, excluding any contribution
from dark energy; his 0 + corresponds to 0 in this
article.
256 CHAPTER 25. FLATNESS PROBLEM

25.6 References [17] Coles, Peter; Ellis, George F. R. (1997). Is the Universe
Open or Closed? The Density of Matter in the Universe.
[1] Peacock, J. A. (1998). Cosmological Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-42270-3. 56689-4.

[2] Alan P. Lightman (1 January 1993). Ancient Light: Our [18] Albrecht, Andreas (August 2000). Proceedings of the
Changing View of the Universe. Harvard University Press. NATO Advanced Study Institute on Structure Formation in
ISBN 978-0-674-03363-4. the Universe, Cambridge 1999. arXiv:astro-ph/0007247.
Bibcode:2001sfu..conf...17A. ISBN 1-4020-0155-X.
[3] Barbara Ryden (2002). Introduction to Cosmology. San
Francisco: Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-8053-8912-1. [19] Guth, Alan (1997). Was Cosmic Ination the 'Bang' of
the Big Bang?". The Beamline 27. Retrieved 2008-09-07.
[4] Peter Coles and Francesco Lucchin (1997). Cosmology.
[20] Bird, Simeon; Peiris, Hiranya V.; Easther, Richard
Chichester: Wiley. ISBN 0-471-95473-X.
(July 2008). Fine-tuning criteria for ina-
[5] Liddle, Andrew (2007). An Introduction to Modern Cos- tion and the search for primordial gravitational
mology (2nd ed.). Chichester; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. p. waves. Physical Review D 78 (8): 083518.
157. ISBN 978-0-470-84835-7. arXiv:0807.3745. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..78h3518B.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.083518.
[6] Ryden p. 168
[21] Chernin, Arthur D. (January 2003). Cosmic vacuum
[7] Stompor, Radek; et al. (2001). Cosmologi- and the 'atness problem' in the concordant model.
cal Implications of the MAXIMA-1 High-Resolution New Astronomy 8 (1): 7983. arXiv:astro-ph/0211489.
Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Measure- Bibcode:2003NewA....8...79C. doi:10.1016/S1384-
ment. The Astrophysical Journal 561 (1): L7L10. 1076(02)00180-X.
arXiv:astro-ph/0105062. Bibcode:2001ApJ...561L...7S.
doi:10.1086/324438. [22] Nikolic, Hrvoje (August 1999). Some Remarks
on a Nongeometrical Interpretation of Grav-
[8] D. N. Spergel, et al. (June 2007). Wilkinson ity and the Flatness Problem. General Rela-
Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three tivity and Gravitation 31 (8): 1211. arXiv:gr-
Year Results: Implications for Cosmology. ApJS qc/9901057. Bibcode:1999GReGr..31.1211N.
170 (2): 337408. arXiv:astro-ph/0603449. doi:10.1023/A:1026760304901.
Bibcode:2007ApJS..170..377S. doi:10.1086/513700.
[23] Anderson, P. R.; R. Schokman; M. Zaramensky (May
[9] Ryden p. 193 1997). A Solution to the Flatness Problem via Par-
ticle Production in an Oscillating Universe. Bul-
[10] Agazzi, Evandro; Massimo Pauri (2000). The Reality letin of the American Astronomical Society 29: 828.
of the Unobservable: Observability, Unobservability and Bibcode:1997AAS...190.3806A.
Their Impact on the Issue of Scientic Realism. Springer.
p. 226. ISBN 978-0-7923-6311-8. [24] Evrard, G; P. Coles (October 1995). Getting the
measure of the atness problem. Classical Quantum
[11] Collins, C. B.; Hawking, S. (1973). Why is the Uni- Gravity 12 (10): L93L97. arXiv:astro-ph/9507020.
verse Isotropic?". Astrophysical Journal 180: 317334. Bibcode:1995CQGra..12L..93E. doi:10.1088/0264-
Bibcode:1973ApJ...180..317C. doi:10.1086/151965. 9381/12/10/001..
[12] Barrow, John D.; Tiple, Frank J. (1986). The Anthropic [25] Poplawski, N. J. (2010). Cosmology with torsion: An al-
Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 411. ternative to cosmic ination. Phys. Lett. B 694 (3): 181
ISBN 0-19-851949-4. 185. arXiv:1007.0587. Bibcode:2010PhLB..694..181P.
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.09.056.
[13] Mostern, Jess (2003). Anthropic Explanations in Cos-
mology. Retrieved 2008-08-01. [26] Poplawski, N. (2012). Nonsingular, big-
bounce cosmology from spinor-torsion cou-
[14] Carr, Bernard J.; Rees, Martin (April 1979). pling. Phys. Rev. D 85 (10): 107502.
The anthropic principle and the structure of the arXiv:1111.4595. Bibcode:2012PhRvD..85j7502P.
physical world. Nature 278 (5705): 605612. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.107502.
Bibcode:1979Natur.278..605C. doi:10.1038/278605a0.

[15] Castelvecchi, Davide (1981). The Growth

of Ination. Physical Review D 23 (2):
347. Bibcode:1981PhRvD..23..347G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347.

[16] Guth, Alan (January 1981). Inationary uni-

verse: A possible solution to the horizon and
atness problems. Physical Review D 23
(2): 347356. Bibcode:1981PhRvD..23..347G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347.
Chapter 26

Heat death of the universe

For the album by O Minor, see The Heat Death of the and are now at some particular stage of cooling. Jupiter,
Universe. for instance, is still too hot for life to arise there for thou-
sands of years, while the Moon is already too cold. The
The heat death of the universe is a historically sug- nal state, in this view, is described [3]
as one of equilib-
gested theory of the ultimate fate of the universe rium in which all motion ceases.
in which the universe has diminished to a state of The idea of heat death as a consequence of the laws of
no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no thermodynamics, however, was rst proposed in loose
longer sustain processes that consume energy (including terms beginning in 1851 by William Thomson, 1st Baron
computation and life). Heat death does not imply any par- Kelvin, who theorized further on the mechanical energy
ticular absolute temperature; it only requires that temper- loss views of Sadi Carnot (1824), James Joule (1843),
ature dierences or other processes may no longer be ex- and Rudolf Clausius (1850). Thomsons views were then
ploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this elaborated on more denitively over the next decade by
is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium Hermann von Helmholtz and William Rankine.
(maximum entropy). The hypothesis of heat death stems
from the ideas of William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin,
who in the 1850s took the theory of heat as mechanical 26.1.1 History
energy loss in nature (as embodied in the rst two laws of
thermodynamics) and extrapolated it to larger processesThe idea of heat death of the universe derives from dis-
on a universal scale. cussion of the application of the rst two laws of thermo-
dynamics to universal processes. Specically, in 1851
In a more recent view than Kelvins, it was asserted William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) outlined the view, as
by Max Planck that the phrase 'entropy of the uni- based on recent experiments on the dynamical theory of
verse' has no meaning because it admits of no accurate heat, that heat is not a substance, but a dynamical form
denition.[1][2] of mechanical eect, we perceive that there must be an
equivalence between mechanical work and heat, as be-
tween cause and eect.[4]
26.1 Origins of the idea In 1852, Thomson published his On a Universal Ten-
dency in Nature to the Dissipation of Mechanical En-
ergy in which he outlined the rudiments of the second
The idea of heat death stems from the second law of ther- law of thermodynamics summarized by the view that me-
modynamics, which states that entropy tends to increase chanical motion and the energy used to create that mo-
in an isolated system. If the universe lasts for a su- tion will tend to dissipate or run down, naturally.[5] The
cient time, it will asymptotically approach a state where ideas in this paper, in relation to their application to the
all energy is evenly distributed. In other words, in na- age of the sun and the dynamics of the universal opera-
ture there is a tendency to the dissipation (energy loss) tion, attracted the likes of William Rankine and Hermann
of mechanical energy (motion); hence, by extrapolation, von Helmholtz. The three of them were said to have ex-
there exists the view that the mechanical movement of the changed ideas on this subject.[6] In 1862, Thomson pub-
universe will run down, as work is converted to heat, in lished On the age of the Suns heat, an article in which
time because of the second law. he reiterated his fundamental beliefs in the indestructibil-
The conjecture that all bodies in the universe cool o, ity of energy (the rst law) and the universal dissipa-
eventually becoming too cold to support life, seems to tion of energy (the second law), leading to diusion of
have been rst put forward by the French astronomer heat, cessation of useful motion (work), and exhaustion
Jean-Sylvain Bailly in 1777 in his writings on the his- of potential energy through the material universe while
tory of astronomy and in the ensuing correspondence with clarifying his view of the consequences for the universe
Voltaire. In Baillys view, all planets have an internal heat as a whole. In a key paragraph, Thomson wrote:

257
258 CHAPTER 26. HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE

pared to a state in which most matter has collapsed into

black holes. Thus, such a state is not in thermodynamic
equilibrium, as it is thermodynamically unstable.[10][11]
Proposals about the nal state of the universe depend on
the assumptions made about its ultimate fate, and these
assumptions have varied considerably over the late 20th
century and early 21st century. In a hypothesized open
or at universe that continues expanding indenitely,
a heat death is also expected to occur,[12] with the uni-
verse cooling to approach absolute zero temperature and
approaching a state of maximal entropy over a very long
time period. There is dispute over whether or not an ex-
panding universe can approach maximal entropy; it has
been proposed that in an expanding universe, the value
of maximum entropy increases faster than the universe
gains entropy, causing the universe to move progressively
further away from heat death.
It is dubious whether there is a valid denition of 'the
entropy of the universe'. In a view more recent than
Kelvins, Max Planck wrote that the phrase 'entropy of the
universe' has no meaning because it admits of no accurate
denition.[2][1] More recently, Grandy writes: It is rather
Lord Kelvin originated the idea of universal heat death in 1852. presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about
which we still understand so little, and we wonder how
one might dene thermodynamic entropy for a universe
The result would inevitably be a state of and its major constituents that have never been in equi-
universal rest and death, if the universe were librium in their entire existence.[13] According to Tisza:
nite and left to obey existing laws. But it is If an isolated system is not in equilibrium, we cannot
impossible to conceive a limit to the extent of associate an entropy with it.[14] Buchdahl writes of the
matter in the universe; and therefore science entirely unjustiable assumption that the universe can be
points rather to an endless progress, through an treated as a closed thermodynamic system.[15] Accord-
endless space, of action involving the transfor- ing to Gallavotti: "... there is no universally accepted
mation of potential energy into palpable mo- notion of entropy for systems out of equilibrium, even
tion and hence into heat, than to a single nite when in a stationary state.[16] Discussing the question of
mechanism, running down like a clock, and entropy for non-equilibrium states in general, Lieb and
stopping for ever.[7] Yngvason express their opinion as follows: Despite the
fact that most physicists believe in such a nonequilibrium
In the years to follow both Thomsons 1852 and the 1865 entropy, it has so far proved impossible to dene it in a
papers, Helmholtz and Rankine both credited Thomson clearly satisfactory way.[17] In the opinion of pek and
with the idea, but read further into his papers by publish- Sheehan, "no known formulation [of entropy] applies to
ing views stating that Thomson argued that the universe all possible thermodynamic regimes.[18] In Landsbergs
will end in a "heat death" (Helmholtz) which will be the opinion, The third misconception is that thermodynam-
"end of all physical phenomena" (Rankine).[6][8] ics, and in particular, the concept of entropy, can with-
out further enquiry be applied to the whole universe. ...
These questions have a certain fascination, but the an-
26.2 Current status swers are speculations, and lie beyond the scope of this
book.[19]
See also: Entropy Cosmology and Entropy (arrow of A recent analysis of entropy states that The entropy of
time) Cosmology a general gravitational eld is still not known, and that
gravitational entropy is dicult to quantify. The anal-
Inationary cosmology suggests that in the early uni- ysis considers several possible assumptions that would be
verse, before cosmic ination, energy was uniformly needed for estimates, and suggests that the visible uni-
distributed,[9] and the universe was thus in a state super- verse has more entropy than previously thought. This is
cially similar to heat death. However, these two states are because the analysis concludes that[20]
supermassive black
actually very dierent: in the early universe, gravity was a holes are the largest contributor. Another writer goes
very important force, and in a gravitational system, if en- further; It has long been known that gravity is impor-
ergy is uniformly distributed, entropy is quite low, com- tant for keeping the universe out of thermal equilib-
26.5. REFERENCES
rium. Gravitationally bound systems have negative spe-
cic heatthat is, the velocities of their components in-
crease when energy is removed. ... Such a system does
not evolve toward a homogeneous equilibrium state. In-
stead it becomes increasingly structured and heteroge-
neous as it fragments into subsystems.[21]
26.3 Time frame for heat death
Main article: Future of an expanding universe
From the Big Bang through the present day, matter and
dark matter in the universe are thought to have been
concentrated in stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters, and
are presumed to continue to be so well into the future.
Therefore, the universe is not in thermodynamic equi-
librium and objects can do physical work.[22], VID. The
decay time for a supermassive black hole of roughly 1
galaxy-mass (1011 solar masses) due to Hawking radia-
tion is on the order of 10100 years,[23] so entropy can be
produced until at least that time. After that time, the uni-
verse enters the so-called dark era, and is expected to con-
sist chiey of a dilute gas of photons and leptons.[22], VIA.
With only very diuse matter remaining, activity in the
universe will have tailed o dramatically, with extremely
low energy levels and extremely long time scales. Specu-
latively, it is possible that the universe may enter a second
inationary epoch, or, assuming that the current vacuum
state is a false vacuum, the vacuum may decay into a
lower-energy state.[22], VE. It is also possible that entropy
production will cease and the universe will reach heat
death.[22], VID. Possibly another universe could be cre-
ated by random quantum uctuations or quantum tun-
56
neling in roughly 1010 years.[24] Over an innite time,
there would be a spontaneous entropy decrease via the
Poincar recurrence theorem, thermal uctuations,[25][26]
and Fluctuation theorem.[27][28]
26.4 See also
Arrow of time
Big Bang
Big Bounce
Big Crunch
Big Rip
Chronology of the universe
Cyclic model
Entropy (arrow of time)
Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat Death
259
Fluctuation theorem
Heat death paradox
Terasecond and longer
26.5 References
[1] Planck, M. (1897/193). Treatise on Thermodynamics,
translated by A. Ogg, p. 101.
[2] Unk, J. (2003). Irreversibility and the Second Law
of Thermodynamics, Chapter 7 of Entropy, p. 129 of
Greven, A., Keller, G., Warnecke (editors) (2003), En-
tropy, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, ISBN
0-691-11338-6. Unk writes: The importance of
Plancks Vorlesungen ber Thermodynamik (Planck 1897)
can hardly be [over]estimated. The book has gone through
11 editions, from 1897 until 1964, and still remains the
most authoritative exposition of classical thermodynam-
ics.
[3] Brush, Stephen G. (1996). A History of Modern Planetary
Physics: Nebulous Earth. Cambridge University Press. p.
77. ISBN 9780521441711.
[4] Thomson, William. (1851). "On the Dynamical Theory
of Heat, with numerical results deduced from Mr Joules
equivalent of a Thermal Unit, and M. Regnaults Observa-
tions on Steam. Excerpts. [114 & 99100], Trans-
actions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, March, 1851;
and Philosophical Magazine IV. 1852. [from Mathemat-
ical and Physical Papers, vol. i, art. XLVIII, pp. 174]
[5] Thomson, William (1852). "On a Universal Tendency
in Nature to the Dissipation of Mechanical Energy" Pro-
ceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh for April 19,
1852, also Philosophical Magazine, Oct. 1852. [This ver-
sion from Mathematical and Physical Papers, vol. i, art.
59, pp. 511.]
[6] Smith, Crosbie & Wise, Matthew Norton. (1989). Energy
and Empire: A Biographical Study of Lord Kelvin. (pg.
500). Cambridge University Press.
[7] Thomson, William. (1862). "On the age of the suns
heat", Macmillans Mag., 5, 28893; PL, 1, 39468.
[8] Physics Timeline (Helmholtz and Heat Death, 1854)
[9] Liddle, Andrew R. (1999). An introduction to cosmo-
logical ination. arXiv:astro-ph/9901124 [astro-ph].
[10] Hawking, S. (1976). Black holes and
thermodynamics. Physical Review D 13
(2): 191. Bibcode:1976PhRvD..13..191H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.13.191.
[11] Hawking, S. W.; Page, Don N. Thermodynamics of
black holes in anti-de Sitter space. Comm. Math. Phys.
87, no. 4 (1982), 577588. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
[12] Plait, Philip Death From the Skies!, Viking Penguin, NY,
ISBN 978-0-670-01997-7, p. 259
260 CHAPTER 26. HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE

[13] Grandy, W.T. (Jr) (2008). Entropy and the Time Evolution
of Macroscopic Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford
UK, ISBN 978-0-19-954617-6, p. 151.

[14] Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T

Press, Cambridge MA, p. 41.

[15] Buchdahl, H.A. (1966). The Concepts of Classical Ther-

modynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
UK, p. 97.

[16] Gallavotti, G. (1999). Short Treatise of Statistical Mechan-

ics, Springer, Berlin, ISBN 9783540648833, p. 290.

[17] Lieb, E.H., Yngvason, J. (2003). The entropy of classi-

cal thermodynamics, Chapter 8 of Greven, A., Keller, G.,
Warnecke (editors) (2003). Entropy, Princeton University
Press, Princeton NJ, ISBN 0-691-11338-6, page 190.

[18] pek, V., Sheehan, D.P. (2005). Challenges to the Sec-

ond Law of Thermodynamics: Theory and Experiment,
Springer, Dordrecht, ISBN 1-4020-3015-0, p. 26.

[19] Landsberg, P.T. (1961). Thermodynamics, with Quantum

Statistical Illustrations, Wiley, New York, p. 391.

[20] Egan, Chas A.; Lineweaver, Charles H. (2009). A

Larger Estimate of the Entropy of the Universe.
arXiv:0909.3983 [astro-ph.CO].

[21] Smolin, L. (2014). Time, laws, and future of

cosmology. Physics Today 67: 3843 [42].
Bibcode:2014PhT....67c..38S. doi:10.1063/pt.3.2310.

[22] Fred C. Adams and Gregory Laughlin (1997).

A dying universe: the long-term fate and evo-
lution of astrophysical objects. Reviews of
Modern Physics 69 (2): 337372. arXiv:astro-
ph/9701131. Bibcode:1997RvMP...69..337A.
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.69.337..

[23] Particle emission rates from a black hole: Massless

particles from an uncharged, nonrotating hole, Don N.
Page, Physical Review D 13 (1976), pp. 198206.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.13.198. See in particular equa-
tion (27).

[24] Carroll, Sean M. and Chen, Jennifer (2004). Spon-

taneous Ination and Origin of the Arrow of Time.
arXiv:hep-th/0410270.

[25] http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0302131.pdf?origin=
publication_detail

[26] "[1205.1046] Interplay between quantum phase transi-

tions and the behavior of quantum correlations at nite
temperatures. arxiv.org.

[27] Xiu-San Xing (1 November 2007). Spontaneous entropy

decrease and its statistical formula. ResearchGate.

[28] Sinks in the landscape, Boltzmann brains and the cosmo-

logical constant problem - Abstract - Journal of Cosmol-
ogy and Astroparticle Physics - IOPscience. iop.org.
Chapter 27

Horizon problem

This article is about the astronomical horizon problem. 27.1 Basic concept
For the problem relating to articial intelligence, see
Horizon eect.
The horizon problem is a problem with the standard When one looks out into the night sky, distances also cor-
respond to time into the past. A galaxy measured at ten
billion light years in distance appears to us as it was ten
billion years ago, because the light has taken that long to
travel to the viewer. If one were to look at a galaxy ten
billion light years away in one direction, say west, and
another in the opposite direction, east, the total distance
between them is twenty billion light years. This means
15 that the light from the rst has not yet reached the sec-
00
0
00
ond, because the 13.8 billion years that the universe has
0
00 existed is not a long enough time to allow it to occur. In
0
ye
ar
a more general sense, there are portions of the universe
s
300 000 years that are visible to us, but invisible to each other, outside
each others respective particle horizons.
In standard physical theories, no information can travel
faster than the speed of light. In this context, informa-
tion means any sort of physical interaction. For in-
stance, heat will naturally ow from a hotter area to a
Universe
cooler one, and in physics terms this is one example of
information exchange. Given the example above, the two
galaxies in question cannot have shared any sort of in-
When we look at the CMB it comes from 46 billion comoving light formation; they are not in "causal contact". One would
years away. However when the light was emitted the universe expect, then, that their physical properties would be dif-
was much younger (300,000 years old). In that time light would ferent, and more generally, that the universe as a whole
have only reached as far as the smaller circles. The two points would have varying properties in dierent areas.
indicated on the diagram would not have been able to contact
each other because their spheres of causality do not overlap. Contrary to this expectation, the universe is observed
to be very close to isotropic, which also implies
homogeneity.[1] The cosmic microwave background radi-
ation (CMB), which lls the universe, is nearly the same
temperature everywhere in the sky, about 2.728 0.004
cosmological model of the Big Bang which was identied K. The dierences in temperature are so slight that it
in the late 1960s, primarily by Charles Misner. It points has only recently become possible to develop instruments
out that dierent regions of the universe have not con- capable of making the required measurements. This
tacted each other because of the great distances between presents a serious problem; if the universe had started
them, but nevertheless they have the same temperature with even slightly dierent temperatures in dierent ar-
and other physical properties. This should not be pos- eas, then there would simply be no way it could have
sible, given that the transfer of information (or energy, evened itself out to a common temperature by this point
heat, etc.) can occur, at most, at the speed of light. in time.
Two theories that attempt to solve the horizon problem According to the Big Bang model, as the density of
are the theory of cosmic ination and variable speed of the universe dropped (while it expanded) it eventually
light. reached a point where photons in the mix of parti-

261
262
cles were no longer immediately impacting matter; they
"decoupled" from the plasma and spread out into the uni-
verse as a burst of light. This is thought to have occurred
about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. The volume
of any possible information exchange at that time was
900,000 light years across, using the speed of light and
the rate of expansion of space in the early universe. In-
stead, the entire sky has the same temperature, a volume
1088 times larger.
27.2 Ination
The theory of cosmic ination has attempted to solve the
problem[2] (along with several other problems such as the
atness problem) by postulating a short 1032 second pe-
riod of exponential expansion (dubbed ination) in the
rst seconds of the history of the universe. During ina-
tion, the universe would have increased in size by an enor-
mous factor. Prior to the ination the entire universe was
small and causally connected; it was during this period
that the physical properties evened out. Ination then ex-
panded the universe rapidly, locking in the uniformity
at large distances.
One consequence of cosmic ination is that the
anisotropies in the Big Bang are reduced but not en-
tirely eliminated. Dierences in the temperature of the
cosmic background are smoothed by cosmic ination,
but they still exist. The theory predicts a spectrum for
the anisotropies in the microwave background which is
mostly[3] consistent with observations from WMAP and
COBE.
However, in order to work, and as pointed out by Roger
Penrose from 1986 on, ination requires extremely spe-
cic initial conditions of its own, so that the cause of ini-
tial conditions is not explained: There is something fun-
damentally misconceived about trying to explain the uni-
formity of the early universe as resulting from a thermal-
ization process. [...] For, if the thermalization is actually
doing anything [...] then it represents a denite increas-
ing of the entropy. Thus, the universe would have been
even more special before the thermalization than after.[4]
A recurrent criticism of ination is that the invoked ina-
tion eld does not correspond to any known physical eld,
and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc
contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable.
Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of ination-
ary cosmology, has recently become one of the sharpest
critics of the theory and points out that ination does not
solve the horizon problem, because it actually produces
a multiverse that includes an innite number of patches
that are not homogeneous or isotropic. In the multiverse
picture, it is an unlikely accident that our universe is as
homogeneous and isotropic as it is observed to be.
CHAPTER 27. HORIZON PROBLEM
27.3 Variable speed of light theo-
ries
The varying speed of light (VSL) cosmology has
been proposed independently by Jean-Pierre Petit in
1988,[5][6][7][8] John Moat in 1992,[9] and the two-
man team of Andreas Albrecht and Joo Magueijo
in 1998[10][11][12][13][14][15] to explain the horizon prob-
lem of cosmology and propose an alternative to cosmic
ination. An alternative VSL model has also been
proposed.[16]
In Petits VSL model, the variation of the speed of light c
accompanies the joint variations of all physical constants
combined to space and time scale factors changes, so that
all equations and measurements of these constants remain
unchanged through the evolution of the universe. The
Einstein eld equations remain invariant through conve-
nient joint variations of c and G in Einsteins constant.
According to this model, the cosmological horizon grows
like R, the space scale, which ensures the homogene-
ity of the primeval universe, which ts the observational
data. Late-model restricts the variation of constants to the
higher energy density of the early universe, at the very be-
ginning of the radiation-dominated era where spacetime
is identied to space-entropy with a metric conformally
at.[17][18]
The idea from Moat and the AlbrechtMagueijo team
is that light propagated as much as 60 orders of magni-
tude faster in the early universe, thus distant regions of the
expanding universe have had time to interact at the be-
ginning of the universe. There is no known way to solve
the horizon problem with variation of the ne-structure
constant, because its variation does not change the causal
structure of spacetime. To do so would require modi-
fying gravity by varying Newtons constant or redening
special relativity . Classically, varying speed of light cos-
mologies propose to circumvent this by varying the di-
mensionful quantity c by breaking the Lorentz invariance
of Einstein's theories of general and special relativity in
a particular way.[19][20] More modern formulations pre-
serve local Lorentz invariance.[12]
27.4 See also
Flatness problem
Magnetic monopole
Hubble horizon
27.5 References
[1] http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Peacock/Peacock3_1.
html
27.5. REFERENCES 263

[2] An Exposition on Inationary Cosmology, Gary Scott
Watson, Dept. of Physics, Brown University
[3] Starkman, Glenn D. and Dominic J. Schwarz; Scientic
American (subscription required)
[4] Penrose, Roger (2004). The Road to Reality: A Com-
plete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. London:
Vintage Books, p. 755. See also Penrose, Roger
(1989). Diculties with Inationary Cosmology. An-
nals of the New York Academy of Sciences 271: 249
264. Bibcode:1989NYASA.571..249P. doi:10.1111/j.
1749-6632.1989.tb50513.x
[5] J.P. Petit (1988). An interpretation of cos-
mological model with variable light veloc-
ity (PDF). Mod. Phys. Lett. A 3 (16):
15271532. Bibcode:1988MPLA....3.1527P.
doi:10.1142/S0217732388001823.
[6] J.P. Petit (1988). Cosmological model with
variable light velocity: the interpretation of red
shifts (PDF). Mod. Phys. Lett. A 3 (18):
17331744. Bibcode:1988MPLA....3.1733P.
doi:10.1142/S0217732388002099.
[7] J.P. Petit, M. Viton (1989). Gauge cosmological
model with variable light velocity. Comparizon with
QSO observational data (PDF). Mod. Phys. Lett. A
4 (23): 22012210. Bibcode:1989MPLA....4.2201P.
doi:10.1142/S0217732389002471.
[15] J. Magueijo (2003). Faster Than the Speed of Light: The
Story of a Scientic Speculation. Massachusetts: Perseus
Books Group. ISBN 0-7382-0525-7.
[16] J. Casado (2003). A Simple Cosmological Model with
Decreasing Light Speed. arXiv:astro-ph/0310178 [astro-
ph].
[17] J.P. Petit, P. Midy, F. Landsheat (2001). Twin matter
against dark matter (PDF). Where is the matter?" (See
sections 14 and 15 pp. 2126). Int. Conf. on Astr. &
Cosm.
[18] J.P Petit, G. d'Agostini (2007). Bigravity: a bimet-
ric model of the Universe with variable constants, in-
cluding VSL (variable speed of light)". arXiv:0803.1362
[physics.gen-ph].
[19] M. A. Clayton, J. W. Moat (1999). Dynam-
ical Mechanism for Varying Light Velocity as
a Solution to Cosmological Problems. Phys.
Lett. B460: 263270. arXiv:astro-ph/9812481.
Bibcode:1999PhLB..460..263C. doi:10.1016/S0370-
2693(99)00774-1.
[20] B.A. Bassett, S. Liberati, C. Molina-Paris, M. Visser
(2000). Geometrodynamics of variable-speed-of-light
cosmologies. Phys. Rev. D62: 103518. arXiv:astro-
ph/0001441. Bibcode:2000PhRvD..62j3518B.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.103518.

[8] P. Midy, J.P. Petit (1989). Scale invariant cosmology

(PDF). Int. J. Mod. Phys. D (8): 271280.

[9] J. Moat (1993). Superluminary Universe: A Pos-

sible Solution to the Initial Value Problem in Cosmol-
ogy. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2 (3): 351366.
arXiv:gr-qc/9211020. Bibcode:1993IJMPD...2..351M.
doi:10.1142/S0218271893000246.

[10] J.D. Barrow (1998). Cosmologies with varying

light-speed. Physical Review D 59 (4). arXiv:astro-
ph/9811022. Bibcode:1999PhRvD..59d3515B.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.043515.

[11] A. Albrecht, J. Magueijo (1999). A time vary-

ing speed of light as a solution to cosmological
puzzles. Phys. Rev. D59: 043516. arXiv:astro-
ph/9811018. Bibcode:1999PhRvD..59d3516A.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.043516.

[12] J. Magueijo (2000). Covariant and locally

Lorentz-invariant varying speed of light theo-
ries. Phys. Rev. D62: 103521. arXiv:gr-
qc/0007036. Bibcode:2000PhRvD..62j3521M.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.103521.

[13] J. Magueijo (2001). Stars and black

holes in varying speed of light theories.
Phys. Rev. D63: 043502. arXiv:astro-
ph/0010591. Bibcode:2001PhRvD..63d3502M.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.043502.

[14] J. Magueijo (2003). New varying speed of light

theories. Rept. Prog. Phys. 66 (11): 2025. arXiv:astro-
ph/0305457. Bibcode:2003RPPh...66.2025M.
doi:10.1088/0034-4885/66/11/R04.
Chapter 28

Cosmological horizon

A cosmological horizon is a measure of the distance

from which one could possibly retrieve information.[1]
This observable constraint is due to various properties of
general relativity, the expanding universe, and the physics
of Big Bang cosmology. Cosmological horizons set the
size and scale of the observable universe. This article ex-
plains a number of these horizons.
c
0 =
H0
yielding a Hubble horizon of some 4.2 Gpc. This horizon
is not really a physical size, but it is often used as useful
length scale as most physical sizes in cosmology can be
written in terms of those factors.

28.1 Particle horizon

28.3 Event horizon
Main article: Particle horizon
Main article: Event horizon
The particle horizon is the boundary between two regions
at a point in time t = t0 : one region dened by events The particle horizon diers from the cosmic event hori-
that have already been observed by an observer, and the zon, in that the particle horizon represents the largest
other by events which cannot be observed at that time. comoving distance from which light could have reached
It represents the furthest distance from which we can re- the observer by a specic time, while the event horizon
trieve information from the past, and so denes the ob- is the largest comoving distance from which light emit-
servable universe.[1] ted now can ever reach the observer in the future.[2] The
current distance to our cosmic event horizon is about 5
Gpc, well within our observable range given by the parti-
28.2 Hubble horizon cle horizon.[3]
In general, the proper distance to the event horizon at time
One can dene a so-called Hubble Horizon which t is given by[4]
shows roughly how far light would travel if space were
not expanding. This size is
tmax
cdt
de (t) = a(t)
t a(t )
= ct
where tmax is the time-coordinate of the end of the uni-
where t is the lookback time since the Big Bang (other- verse, which would be innite in the case of a universe
wise known as the age of the universe) which, according that expands forever.
to the Friedmann Equations, is:
For our case, assuming that dark energy is due to a
cosmological constant, de (t0 ) < .
a
da
t=
H a 2 + a1 + + a2
0 0 R m k
28.4 Future horizon
where H0 is the Hubble Constant and the density pa-
rameters are, in order, the density of radiation, matter, In an accelerating universe, there are events which will
curvature, and dark energy scaled to the critical density be unobservable as t as signals from future events
of the universe. become redshifted to arbitrarily long wavelengths in the
Today, roughly: exponentially expanding de Sitter space. This sets a limit

264
28.6. REFERENCES 265

on the farthest distance that we can possibly see as mea-

sured in units of proper distance today. Or, more pre-
cisely, there are events that are spatially separated for a
certain frame of reference happening simultaneously with
the event occurring right now for which no signal will
ever reach us, even though we can observe events that
occurred at the same location in space that happened in
the distant past. While we will continue to receive sig-
nals from this location in space, even if we wait an in-
nite amount of time, a signal that left from that loca-
tion today will never reach us. Additionally, the signals
coming from that location will have less and less energy
and be less and less frequent until the location, for all
practical purposes, becomes unobservable. In a universe
that is dominated by dark energy which is undergoing
an exponential expansion of the scale factor, all objects
that are gravitationally unbound with respect to the Milky
Way will become unobservable, in a futuristic version of
Kapteyns universe.[5]

28.5 Practical horizons

While not technically horizons in the sense of an impos-
sibility for observations due to relativity or cosmological
solutions, there are practical horizons which include the
optical horizon, set at the surface of last scattering. This
is the farthest distance that any photon can freely stream.
Similarly, there is a neutrino horizon set for the farthest
distance a neutrino can freely stream and a gravitational
wave horizon at the farthest distance that gravitational
waves can freely stream. The latter is predicted to be a
direct probe of the end of cosmic ination.

28.6 References
[1] Margalef-Bentabol, Berta; Margalef-Bentabol, Juan;
Cepa, Jordi (8 February 2013). Evolution of the
cosmological horizons in a universe with countably
innitely many state equations. Journal of Cos-
mology and Astroparticle Physics. 015 2013 (02).
arXiv:1302.2186. Bibcode:2013JCAP...02..015M.
doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/015.

[2] Lars Bergstrm and Ariel Goobar: Cosmology and Parti-

cle Physics, WILEY (1999), page 65.ISBN 0-471-97041-
7

[3] Lineweaver, Charles; Tamara M. Davis (2005).

Misconceptions about the Big Bang (PDF). Scientic
American. Retrieved 2008-11-06.

[4] Massimo Giovannini (2008). A primer on the physics of

the cosmic microwave background. World Scientic. pp.
70. ISBN 978-981-279-142-9. Retrieved 1 May 2011.

[5] http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0221
266 CHAPTER 28. COSMOLOGICAL HORIZON

28.7 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

28.7.1 Text
Cosmic microwave background Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background?oldid=696260634 Contributors:
AxelBoldt, Bryan Derksen, The Anome, Tarquin, AstroNomer~enwiki, AdamW, XJaM, Roadrunner, SimonP, Jaknouse, Youandme,
Tedernst, Boud, Michael Hardy, EddEdmondson, Modster, Dominus, Loisel, Alo, Egil, Stevenj, Ec5618, Timwi, Reddi, Cmbant, Chu-
unen Baka, Donarreiskoer, Robbot, Jredmond, Peak, Mirv, Rursus, Mark Krueger, Carlj7, JerryFriedman, Kevin Sa, Graeme Bartlett,
Harp, Art Carlson, Guanaco, Gzornenplatz, SWAdair, Bobblewik, TerokNor, Quadell, Beland, Karol Langner, Oneiros, MFNickster, In-
fradig, Sam Hocevar, Lumidek, Iantresman, Tsemii, Burschik, Mschlindwein, Deglr6328, Flyhighplato, Safety Cap, Moverton, Rich Farm-
brough, Guanabot, Pjacobi, Wrp103, Vsmith, Jonathanischoice, RJHall, JustinWick, Livajo, Pt, Edward Z. Yang, Art LaPella, Army1987,
Mtruch, MITalum, Svenax, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Physicistjedi, (aeropagitica), Haham hanuka, Alansohn, Anthony Appleyard, 119,
Free Bear, Eric Kvaalen, Andrew Gray, Proxide, JHG, GeorgeStepanek, Kdau, EAi, Count Iblis, Cmapm, DV8 2XL, Gene Nygaard,
Ceyockey, Falcorian, Oleg Alexandrov, Ian Moody, Kelly Martin, TheNightFly, Pol098, Yukawa~enwiki, Jok2000, Uris, Wdanwatts,
Joke137, Tevatron~enwiki, Rnt20, Graham87, Grammarbot, Edison, Josh Parris, Sj, Drbogdan, Rjwilmsi, Zbxgscqf, Strangethinginthe-
land, Marasama, Hjb26, Mike s, Mike Peel, Ttwaring, Fragglet, Phoenix2~enwiki, Bgwhite, YurikBot, Wavelength, Jimp, RussBot, Gaius
Cornelius, Eleassar, David R. Ingham, NawlinWiki, DragonHawk, Grafen, Chrisbrl88, Deckiller, FF2010, Smkolins, Orioane, Jules.LT,
CWenger, QmunkE, ArielGold, Kungfuadam, Profero, Teply, GrinBot~enwiki, BenWandelt, SmackBot, Esradekan, Ashill, Saravask, On-
sly, Benjaminevans82, Hmains, RobertKennedy, Lindosland, Andyzweb, Bluebot, Kurykh, H2ppyme, Myxsoma, Silly rabbit, Sangrolu,
DHN-bot~enwiki, Scwlong, Modest Genius, Wikipedia brown, Rrburke, LouScheer, Aldaron, Wen D House, Cybercobra, Bowlhover,
Hgilbert, DenisRS, Zadignose, Ligulembot, Rossp, SashatoBot, Robomaeyhem, JzG, UberCryxic, Hypnosi, Wwagner, Johnny 0, KJS77,
Iridescent, Pathosbot, Mssgill, Chetvorno, Friendly Neighbour, CWY2190, Makuabob, Cydebot, Peripitus, Hsxavier~enwiki, Tbird1965,
Alaibot, ZombieLoe, , Astrophysics Kid, Headbomb, Peter Gulutzan, Davidhorman, Raphiq, Gioto, Widefox, Orionus, TexMur-
phy, Rico402, Arch dude, Hut 8.5, .anacondabot, Antelan, VoABot II, Catslash, Pcp071098, Bubba hotep, First Harmonic, Allstarecho,
LorenzoB, Kornfan71, Davidjcmorris, Keith D, R'n'B, Rrostrom, Yonidebot, Tgebbie, Jpwest, Migran, , Austin512,
Novis-M, Tarotcards, Rominandreu, Wesino, DorganBot, Epistemenical, Sheliak, VolkovBot, Svmich, Sporti, Craigheinke, TXiKiBoT,
MusicScience, Anonymous Dissident, Michael H 34, Broadbot, SwordSmurf, James McBride, Kbrose, Biscuittin, SieBot, Hertz1888, Cs-
mart287, Wing gundam, Zbvhs, Csblack, Mimihitam, Jdaloner, RMB1987, Duae Quartunciae, Anchor Link Bot, Wyattmj, Wjmummert,
Martarius, GarbagEcol, ClueBot, The Thing That Should Not Be, Niceguyedc, Agge1000, ChandlerMapBot, I am a violinist, Excirial,
Homonihilis, Nymf, Alexbot, Jeayman, SolomonFreer, PixelBot, Bob108, Telekenesis, Tnxman307, Mastertek, Natty sci~enwiki, BO-
Tarate, Panos84, Aitias, Nakomaru, Jonverve, DumZiBoT, BarretB, XLinkBot, DCCougar, BodhisattvaBot, Gwark, Dthomsen8, Ergo-
Sum88, Ich42, Addbot, Dryphi, DOI bot, Ronhjones, Chotabe, Ka Faraq Gatri, Proxima Centauri, Ehrenkater, Astro-norte, Lightbot,
OlEnglish, Zorrobot, Ben Ben, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, Legobot II, Aldebaran66, Amble, Wireader, Azcolvin429, AnomieBOT,
Stued cat, Captain Quirk, Hunnjazal, Citation bot, Xqbot, Plastadity, Seb.mag, Nnivi, Cydelin, Srich32977, Lithopsian, J04n, Grou-
choBot, EqualMusic, Frankie0607, Kyng, Amaury, Mnmngb, Bigger digger, Fotaun, CES1596, GliderMaven, Nagualdesign, FrescoBot,
LucienBOT, Paine Ellsworth, Binrdow, Citation bot 2, HamburgerRadio, Citation bot 1, HRoestBot, MoonGirl78, Jonesey95, Tom.Reding,
Lithium cyanide, Pmokeefe, RedBot, IVAN3MAN, RockSolidCosmo, TobeBot, Trappist the monk, Comet Tuttle, Michael9422, LI995,
Earthandmoon, Tbhotch, Marie Poise, Wikiborg4711, Siranmichel, DexDor, Cwsavage78, Mathewsyriac, EmausBot, WikitanvirBot, Im-
munize, Quantanew, GoingBatty, Snorgway, Italia2006, Grondilu, ZroBot, Medeis, Quondum, AManWithNoPlan, Miguelzuma, Iiar,
Pumpkinking0192, Tbgriswold, Hang Li Po, ChiZeroOne, DASHBotAV, ClueBot NG, Ulund, Factorial8, Helpful Pixie Bot, Bibcode
Bot, BG19bot, Omegafold, AvocatoBot, Socal212, Ninney, Altar, Natalia.missana, Sparkie82, Fivemusketeers, U-95, ChrisGualtieri,
JYBot, Dexbot, Neicdk, Manjolis, LightandDark2000, Antunesi, Reatlas, Rfassbind, User74~enwiki, Qmgsobserver, Praemonitus, Zle-
lik2000, OxygenBlueDansk, AbiLtoCen, Johndric Valdez, Exoplanetaryscience, Jlarks73, MSheshera, Monkbot, Filedelinkerbot, Fal-
con9v1.1, Unatnas1986, Trackteur, Werzaz, Anthul, SkyFlubbler, Samoniel1, Tullyojr, SwagYolo420ilovethis, Tetra quark, Anand2202,
GeneralizationsAreBad, Freakcrane870, Feelthhis, Outedexits, Yohoyo and Anonymous: 294

Universe Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe?oldid=696630188 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Lee Daniel Crocker, CYD, Bryan
Derksen, Ed Poor, Wayne Hardman, XJaM, Aldie, William Avery, Montrealais, Stevertigo, Lir, Nealmcb, Patrick, Boud, Michael Hardy,
Nixdorf, Liftarn, MartinHarper, Ixfd64, Minesweeper, Looxix~enwiki, Ahoerstemeier, Mac, CatherineMunro, Suisui, Angela, JWSchmidt,
Setu, Glenn, AugPi, Andres, Evercat, Hectorthebat, Samuel~enwiki, Pizza Puzzle, Timwi, Janko, Hydnjo, DJ Clayworth, Tpbradbury,
DW40, Maximus Rex, Furrykef, Saltine, Xevi~enwiki, Joseaperez, Topbanana, Fvw, Gakrivas, Pakaran, BenRG, Frazzydee, Jni, Phil
Boswell, Rossnixon, Paranoid, Astronautics~enwiki, Fredrik, Altenmann, Peak, Yelyos, Nurg, Romanm, Gandalf61, Mirv, Academic
Challenger, DHN, Borislav, Johnstone, Aetheling, Guy Peters, Mattaschen, Cordell, SpellBott, Giftlite, Dbenbenn, Graeme Bartlett,
Awolf002, Barbara Shack, Herbee, Mark.murphy, Peruvianllama, Everyking, No Guru, Michael Devore, Bensaccount, Jcobb, Pascal666,
Eequor, Matt Crypto, Python eggs, Jackol, Bobblewik, Golbez, Chowbok, Gadum, Utcursch, Andycjp, R. end, Gdm, Zeimusu, Quadell,
Antandrus, Beland, OverlordQ, Lesgles, Kaldari, Yafujide, ShakataGaNai, Karol Langner, JimWae, Latitude0116, Mike Storm, Kevin
B12, Jawed, Icairns, CesarFelipe, Zfr, Karl-Henner, Neutrality, TJSwoboda, Trevor MacInnis, Randwicked, Canterbury Tail, RevRagnarok,
Mike Rosoft, Shahab, Freakofnurture, A-giau, Naryathegreat, Discospinster, Eb.hoop, Rich Farmbrough, Vsmith, Jpk, Florian Blaschke,
StephanKetz, YUL89YYZ, Jordancpeterson, Zam, Dbachmann, Nchaimov, Martpol, Aardark, SpookyMulder, ESkog, Brian0918,
RJHall, El C, Rgdboer, Art LaPella, Bjoern~enwiki, Orlady, Sajt, Adambro, Guettarda, Bobo192, Army1987, Androo, Smalljim, K0hlrabi,
Maurreen, ParticleMan, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Juzeris, Sawadeekrap, Joe Jarvis, Acjelen, Nk, VBGFscJUn3, Ardric47, MPerel, Sam
Korn, Thial, Krellis, Storm Rider, Stephen G. Brown, Honeycake, Alansohn, Atlant, Mr Adequate, Jeltz, WTGDMan1986, Andrewpmk,
Plumbago, Bblackmoor, AzaToth, Lightdarkness, Fritzpoll, Kel-nage, Malo, Snowolf, Magnoliasucks, Wtmitchell, Velella, ProhibitOnions,
Knowledge Seeker, RaiderRobert, Vcelloho, Eddie Dealtry, Bsadowski1, Reaverdrop, SteinbDJ, MIT Trekkie, Johntex, HenryLi, Kazvor-
pal, Oleg Alexandrov, Quirkie, WilliamKF, Jerey O. Gustafson, Woohookitty, Mindmatrix, FeanorStar7, Shreevatsa, Daniel Case, Uncle
G, Savantnavas, Ruud Koot, WadeSimMiser, JeremyA, Chochopk, MONGO, Jok2000, Uris, Trevor Andersen, Jleon, Bbatsell, Sengkang,
GregorB, Andromeda321, SDC, CharlesC, TheAlphaWolf, Joke137, Christopher Thomas, Palica, Dysepsion, GSlicer, Wulla, Rnt20,
Graham87, Deltabeignet, Magister Mathematicae, BD2412, Zeroparallax, FreplySpang, Zoz, Canderson7, Drbogdan, Jorunn, Rjwilmsi,
Mayumashu, Joe Decker, P3Pp3r, Nightscream, Koavf, Zbxgscqf, Jake Wartenberg, Rillian, SMC, Mike Peel, The wub, DoubleBlue, Mar-
netteD, Yamamoto Ichiro, Dionyseus, FayssalF, Old Moonraker, Chanting Fox, RexNL, Gurch, TheDJ, Gakon5, Thewolrab, TeaDrinker,
Dsewell, Butros, King of Hearts, Chobot, Sharkface217, DVdm, Citizen Premier, Scoo, Napate, Gwernol, Wjfox2005, The Rambling
Man, Siddhant, Siddharth Prabhu, YurikBot, Wavelength, Spacepotato, Err0neous, Vedranf, Splintercellguy, Sceptre, Blightsoot, Nip-
ponese, Jimp, Retodon8, StuOfInterest, RussBot, Petiatil, Hyad, Anonymous editor, Bhny, SpuriousQ, Stephenb, Chaos, Bullzeye, Nawl-
28.7. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 267

inWiki, SEWilcoBot, Neural, Grafen, Erielhonan, Jaxl, RazorICE, Nsmith 84, Irishguy, Randolf Richardson, Chrisbrl88, Matticus78,
Rmky87, Haoie, Saggipie, Iamnotanorange~enwiki, Epipelagic, SFC9394, Roy Brumback, DeadEyeArrow, Psy guy, Martinwilke1980,
Nlu, Dna-webmaster, Dv82matt, Jpmccord, 2over0, Lt-wiki-bot, Ageekgal, Breakfastchief, Theda, Closedmouth, Arthur Rubin, KGasso,
Nemu, Th1rt3en, Reyk, Exodio, GraemeL, JoanneB, LeonardoRob0t, Leeannedy, ArielGold, Caco de vidro, Aeosynth, RG2, JuniorMu-
ruin, Serendipodous, DVD R W, Eog1916, Dupz, Kicking222, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Roger Davies, Mehranwahid, Ashill, Kurochka,
Zazaban, KnowledgeOfSelf, Olorin28, McGeddon, Unyoyega, Jacek Kendysz, Jagged 85, Davewild, WookieInHeat, Delldot, Hardyplants,
ZerodEgo, Shai-kun, DreamOfMirrors, Ga, Onsly, JFHJr, Gilliam, Ohnoitsjamie, Wlmg, Skizzik, BirdValiant, Saros136, Amatulic,
Rrscott, Persian Poet Gal, Telempe, Exploreuniverse, Miquonranger03, MalafayaBot, Silly rabbit, SchftyThree, Hibernian, Hurdygur-
dyman1234, Octahedron80, EdgeOfEpsilon, Patriarch, DHN-bot~enwiki, Sbharris, Sahsan~enwiki, Darth Panda, Firetrap9254, Ban-
garangmanchester, Diyako, Scwlong, Tsca.bot, Shalom Yechiel, Hve, Vanished User 0001, Vere scatman, Yidisheryid, Xiner, Rrburke,
Addshore, Lobner, SundarBot, UU, Madman2001, Aldaron, Krich, Tvaughn05, Cybercobra, Kntrabssi, John D. Croft, Craner Murdock,
Dreadstar, RandomP, Lcarscad, Alasdair Routh, BullRangifer, Drooling Sheep, Orczar, Kotjze, Iamorlando, Evlekis, Bejnar, Kukini, Ollj,
Ged UK, DorJ, Weatherman1126, SashatoBot, Lambiam, Danielrcote, Dr. Sunglasses, 007david, Abob6, Kuru, John, T g7, MagnaMo-
pus, N3bulous, Buchanan-Hermit, Kipala, SilkTork, Erdelyiek, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, JorisvS, Mgiganteus1, IronGargoyle,
Ekrub-ntyh, Ckatz, Ian Dalziel, The Bread, Smith609, Beetstra, Hypnosi, Waggers, Doczilla, Dr.K., EEPROM Eagle, Jose77, Yresh,
MarkThomas, Autonova, Hu12, ThuranX, Nehrams2020, Iridescent, K, Hurricaneoyd, Shoeofdeath, Newone, NativeForeigner, J Di,
Aeternus, AGK, Courcelles, Tawkerbot2, JRSpriggs, Firewall62, Chetvorno, Xammer, Uq, MarkTB, JForget, Friendly Neighbour, Ale
jrb, Insanephantom, Dycedarg, Cytocon, Scohoust, Albert.white, Woudloper, JohnCD, Dub8lad1, Mr plant420, Runningonbrains, Lawn-
chair On Jupiter, CuriousEric, MarsRover, Geniustwin, Joelholdsworth, WeggeBot, Awesome streak, Lokal Prol, Karenjc, Myasuda,
Phase Theory, Gregbard, Icarus of old, Cydebot, Ryan, Treybien, WillowW, Grahamec, Perfect Proposal, Steel, Peterdjones, UncleBubba,
Gogo Dodo, Travelbird, FellowWikipedian, Frosty0814snowman, Llort, ST47, Scroggie, Eu.stefan, Wildnox, Tawkerbot4, Doug Weller,
Moingv, Dchristle, DumbBOT, Hontogaichiban, Kozuch, Omicronpersei8, RotaryAce, Satori Son, Mattisse, Malleus Fatuorum, Joernder-
schlaue, Thijs!bot, Epbr123, Barticus88, Mbell, 271828182, Ramananrv123, Hazmat2, Keraunos, Timo3, Mojo Hand, The Dark Side,
Headbomb, Marek69, West Brom 4ever, Tapir Terric, Kathovo, Peter Gulutzan, Picus viridis, Tellyaddict, Cool Blue, Dfrg.msc, Agent-
Peppermint, Pure maple sugar, Elert, Futurebird, Escarbot, Stannered, Mentisto, WikiSlasher, AntiVandalBot, Majorly, Yonatan, Kba,
Seaphoto, Quintote, Voortle, Nseidm1, Mal4mac, Jj137, Scepia, Geogeogeo, Dylan Lake, Danger, Spencer, Larry Lawrence, Legare,
Myanw, PresN, Canadian-Bacon, JAnDbot, Jimothytrotter, Vorpal blade, Davewho2, Barek, MER-C, Epeeeche, The Transhumanist,
DarkLouis, Fetchcomms, Andonic, Hut 8.5, Rdht, Snibbe, Badacmw90, Schmackity, ILSS, Murgh, Bongwarrior, VoABot II, MartinDK,
Sushant gupta, AuburnPilot, JNW, Mclay1, Jsk Couriano, Think outside the box, Rivertorch, Depolarizer, Nyttend, Sruk77, Aka042,
SparrowsWing, Bubba hotep, BrianGV, Fabrictramp, Catgut, Animum, Spacegoat, Bloodredrover, JJ Harrison, Mlhooten, Just James,
DerHexer, Floria L, Dirtyharry2, Patstuart, Jdorwin, Sjtarr, NatureA16, B9 hummingbird hovering, Blacksqr, Sonikkua, Jackson Peebles,
Hdt83, MartinBot, NAHID, Meduban, Jim.henderson, GomeonaFinnigan, Rettetast, Keith D, CommonsDelinker, AlexiusHoratius, Pre-
stonH, WelshMatt, Ssolbergj, AlphaEta, Watch37264, J.delanoy, Pharaoh of the Wizards, JEREMYBB, Tom Kitt, Ali, MikeBaharmast,
Uncle Dick, Ciotog, Maurice Carbonaro, Brest, All Is One, G. Campbell, Q2op, Barts1a, Katalaveno, Ncmvocalist, McSly, Mikael Hg-
gstrm, Gurchzilla, Bilbobee, Pyrospirit, Qazwsx197966, Spig a digs, Vanished User 4517, TomasBat, NewEnglandYankee, Djambalawa,
Rebel700, Trilobitealive, SJP, Bobianite, LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs, Jorfer, Zojj, Mufka, Student7, Rickmeister~enwiki, Terik brunson,
MetsFan76, KylieTastic, Mattu00, Remember the dot, Gwen Gale, Sinep2, Vanished user 39948282, DavyJonesGSB, Robbiemasters89,
HiEv, Cuckooman4, Bonadea, Rickmeister6, Dude00311, JavierMC, Izno, Martial75, Xiahou, Squids and Chips, Steel1943, CardinalDan,
Idioma-bot, Funandtrvl, Thedjatclubrock, ABF, Je G., Fences and windows, Soriano9, Abhiag, Philip Trueman, Jhon montes24, TXiKi-
BoT, Dang3210, Cosmic Latte, Kip the Dip, Vipinhari, Canuckle, Hqb, GDonato, DarrynJ, Ridernyc, Anonymous Dissident, GcSwRhIc,
Vishal144, Qxz, Someguy1221, Trahern1994, Anna Lincoln, Lradrama, Clarince63, John haley, Patssle, JhsBot, Bob Andolusorn, Ab-
dullais4u, Fbs. 13, LeaveSleaves, Manchurian candidate, UnitedStatesian, Dantheman2008, Geometry guy, Saturn star, Nighthawk380,
Knightshield, SheeldSteel, Billinghurst, Lamro, Maethordaer, Pernek~enwiki, Falcon8765, Enviroboy, FKmailliW, Seresin, Someguy-
onthestreet, Ageyban, Brianga, Flyingostrich, Thealltruth, Wavehunter, AlleborgoBot, Baaleos, Logan, Domi33, Neilk9393, Scottywong,
NHRHS2010, Hcagri, EmxBot, Deconstructhis, Futuristcorporation, Blah987654, TimProof, Theoneintraining, HarryMcDeath, Shroit-
man, Brooktree, SieBot, Dusti, Ttony21, K. Annoyomous, Renil~enwiki, Gerakibot, Claus Ableiter, Caltas, Muraabi6, ConfuciusOrnis,
Yintan, Kiefer100, Srushe, Mookiefurr, Keilana, Who3, Flyer22 Reborn, TitanOne, The Evil Spartan, MinorContributor, Xingzeng, Oda
Mari, ShinobiX200, Terper, Jojalozzo, Pontoots9, Jamiepgs, JetLover, Myotis, Teles.ME, Aperseghin, Wmpearl, Oxymoron83, RobertMel,
Faradayplank, Nuttycoconut, Zharradan.angelre, Vijinjain, KibaKibbles, Lightmouse, Beej175560, Jhacob, Ks0stm, RyanParis, Fratrep,
Sunrise, Pediainsight, Silvergoat, LonelyMarble, Reneeholle, StaticGull, Mygerardromance, X31forest, Ascidian, Nathan1991nathan1991,
LAS1180, Neo., Brave warrior, Moomoomoostwos, Pinkadelica, Pyrophotographer, Supraboy001, Denisarona, Escape Orbit, Benjamin
Nicholas Johnston, Marmenta, Athenean, WikipedianMarlith, Jimmyjkjr, Loren.wilton, Martarius, Sfan00 IMG, FlamingSilmaril, Elassint,
ClueBot, Compdude47, Rumping, GorillaWarfare, The Thing That Should Not Be, Topher208, Eusticeconway, IceUnshattered, Plas-
tikspork, EMC125, Wysprgr2005, Synthiac, Johnny4netglimse, Gopher65, Alecsdaniel, Aj767, Drmies, VQuakr, Ceris2, Uncle Milty,
J8079s, Shadowdemon936, CounterVandalismBot, Wirelesspp, 03ctodd, Blanchardb, Agge1000, Kbev, Neverquick, ChandlerMapBot,
Deadman3215, Phobiaphobia, Awickert, Excirial, Pumpmeup, Alan268, -Midorihana-, Alexbot, Jusdafax, M4gnum0n, Sinteractive, Rob-
bie098, Erebus Morgaine, McLovin123459, Alejandrocaro35, SeeYouNextTuesday999, Adric Kearney, Parresh, Prancibaldfpants, Nu-
clearWarfare, Cenarium, Promethean, Vendeka, Hans Adler, Kentgen1, Lilbrew369, Razorame, Noosentaal, Olliegodwin, La Pianista,
Panos84, Thingg, Lindberg, Friedpotatoeparty, Darren23, Porthos0, Aitias, Galor612, M karthikkannan, Versus22, Mancini141, SoxBot
III, Apparition11, Goodvac, B15nes7, Vanished user uih38riiw4hjlsd, Vanished User 1004, DumZiBoT, Jolekweatin, TimothyRias, In-
ternetMeme, Williamrlinden, Anubad95, Skunkboy74, BarretB, Paidoantonio, Arianewiki1, XLinkBot, DrOxacropheles, Popol0707, Jo-
vianeye, Rror, Gwark, Grubtatorship, Purnajitphukon, Kasyap.d, Coldplayrock08, Ilikepie2221, Denton22, Coreylook, NellieBly, Mifter,
Maruthi Achsara, Noctibus, Aunt Entropy, Whizmd, ZooFari, Abomasnow, MaizeAndBlue86, Truthnlove, Dbannie07, Lemmey, Hexa-
Chord, Bigfatmonkeyturd, Houdabouda123, King Pickle, Addbot, Willking1979, Tonezilla88, Moosester, Some jerk on the Internet, DOI
bot, Tcncv, Shitonmydick1234, Fyrael, Landon1980, Vedjain, Captain-tucker, Rashaani, PaterMcFly, GSMR, Amirazemi, SpellingBot,
Reidlophile, Ronhjones, TutterMouse, NiallJones, Njaelkies Lea, Ajp4, Xlec, Vishnava, CanadianLinuxUser, Leszek Jaczuk, Fluernut-
ter, NjardarBot, Ka Faraq Gatri, Looie496, Skyezx, Xxuberzang, Download, SoSaysChappy, Jeo223344, CarsracBot, Gifas, Mjr162006,
PFSLAKES1, Mun123456789, Punkrockpiper, Debresser, Scopesmonkeys, Favonian, Azazeel, Sappho'd, CuteHappyBrute, Xoxoxox-
oxxx3, Cranberry5553, Brainmachine, Dath Dath Binks, Numbo3-bot, Debashish Mahapatra., Ljay9206, Tide rolls, Lightbot, OlEnglish,
Libertype, Sky83, Teles, Lrrasd, Smallman21, Gail, SeniorInt, LuK3, Ale66, Joshua098, Ben Ben, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, 2D, Fe-
lixmonk1, Ptbotgourou, Oscardove, Legobot II, Justintan88, SashaTheAwesome, Deadly Matty, II MusLiM HyBRiD II, Adi, Aldebaran66,
WikiworldJ, THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, Zkczkc, Godzilla 2002, PoizonMyst, AnakngAraw, Thulasidharan2k8, Donthegon101, Echt-
ner, Azcolvin429, Darkowlf8592, Madan.sreddy, Tempodivalse, Kookyunii, Synchronism, AnomieBOT, AndrooUK, Jaimeescobar, Her-
268 CHAPTER 28. COSMOLOGICAL HORIZON

manschrader, Killiondude, Jim1138, AdjustShift, Bobsexual, Cheese12345cheese, P123567890p, Georgiocj, Kingpin13, Sz-iwbot, Dr.
Gnter Bechly, Ulric1313, GWPFBE, Mann jess, Materialscientist, Hellopunish3r, RobertEves92, The High Fin Sperm Whale, Citation
bot, Srinivas, OllieFury, Mr.Kassner, Stevemanjones, Xeonxeon12, Berkeley626, Neurolysis, ArthurBot, Phlembowper99, Obersachse-
bot, Xqbot, Samoboow, Jstana, Typuifre, Animonster, S h i v a (Visnu), Intelati, JimVC3, Capricorn42, Oraculo miraculoso, Wper-
due, Renaissancee, Jerey Mall, Nothingisayisreal, Smk65536, Nickkid5, Pwnage09, Jsharpminor, Gtrbolivar, Imstillhereyoh, Light-
assasin, Grim23, Jzhuo, Superbrainr, Tomwsulcer, Br77rino, Rootswailer, Mlpearc, Gap9551, Logan6362, J04n, GrouchoBot, Nayvik,
Solphusion~enwiki, Call me Bubba, Mario777Zelda, False vacuum, Omnipaedista, Shirik, Wooitscaroline, Akshat2, Prunesqualer, Ri-
botBOT, SassoBot, Amaury, Permafry42, The Wiki ghost, GhalyBot, Someone0707, Jrossr, DarkElrad, LORDGOD7777, Shadowjams,
AlimanRuna, Peter470, Babebait227, BoomerAB, Captain-n00dle, Joel grover, Nagualdesign, George585, FrescoBot, AtomsOrSystems,
Jbvjkhgvkjukjhvkj, Tobby72, Bluto7, Dantesparda271191, Dannyat43, Endofskull, Tylergriswold, Machine Elf 1735, Ruben3186, Air-
borne84, Amicaveritas, Wireless Keyboard, Dalekian, HamburgerRadio, Citation bot 1, Familyguylover64, Rommopaula, Redrose64,
Cloroplast horse, Breadhead23, Pekayer11, Pinethicket, Jinsubpretzels, Tom.Reding, , Calmer Waters, StrawberryPink,
Dazedbythebell, Procatcher31, Jschnur, RedBot, KnowYourCosmos, SpaceFlight89, VinnyXY, Vitaliy skrynnik, Trec'hlid mitonet, Tam-
sier, Newgrounder, Innitesolid, December21st2012Freak, Utility Monster, IVAN3MAN, Meier99, TobeBot, Trappist the monk, Bible-
boy14, Jkveton08, Jules93, Hahaho~enwiki, AHeneen, Gaeruk, Jonkerz, Nickyus, GregKaye, Vrenator, , Begoon, Sidoburn,
Canuck100, Dcs002, Zachareth, Diannaa, Michael.goulais, Earthandmoon, Tbhotch, Reach Out to the Truth, Hmmwhatsthisdo, Minimac,
Brambleclawx, Jpabian01, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, JedediahBaugh, Jeglikerdeg, Mean as custard, Nate5713, Ripchip Bot, Citationeeded,
Bhawani Gautam, Beyond My Ken, LucChickenngers1873, Wintonian, Crazyj922, Slon02, Dumbdarwin, EmausBot, John of Reading,
Mzilikazi1939, WikitanvirBot, Eekerz, Akhil.aggarwal2, Katherine, Ihatejustinbeiber, GoingBatty, RA0808, JacobParker100, Strane1991,
Kamakazii101, Bt8257, Miladragon3, Pcorty, Slightsmile, Phil2324, Tommy2010, Leemadd92, Alicam8, Wikipelli, Aynan678, TeleCom-
NasSprVen, Ryuzakihateskira, Italia2006, Hhhippo, Yddam, Susfele, Tnvkumar, WelcomeBackWinter, Mattsarahcat, Xunknownxx, Hy-
perSonic X, Jhum~enwiki, Aeonx, Bilbo571, H3llBot, Git2010, Confession0791, Kirstylovesatl, Kjgiant, David J Johnson, Weirdo1990,
Tolly4bolly, Openstrings, Buttery 25007, Tiiliskivi, Capricorn4049, IGeMiNix, Coasterlover1994, Purduecit, L Kensington, Quantumor,
35, Inswoon, Farheen1973, Wikiloop, Bulwersator, Harmi.banik, Vanfug, Orange Suede Sofa, ChuispastonBot, Matthewrbowker, Bub-
ble queen, Iketsi, LikeLakers2, 28bot, H1tchh1ker4, Mjbmrbot, Jesuschristlover, Petrzak, ClueBot NG, Snoopdoug22, Dr A Thompson,
VLDG123, Thematrix007, JustKiddingPro2, Ulund, 8732Spacesh, ALovelyOne1, Gilderien, EricWaltonBall, Sdht, Deepvalley, Joe-
fromrandb, Three geeks, Hermes the Wise, Zenithfel, Braincricket, Rezabot, Sudhir.routray, Widr, Karl 334, Squirtle1994, JackizCool69,
Gunsts, Ale Ronzani, Pluma, North Atlanticist Usonian, Mightymights, Helpful Pixie Bot, Art and Muscle, Rryswny, Faus, Mophedd,
Jumpingjacksparrow, Nikhil Sasi, Winegum74, I LIVE 2 TROLL, UT200100, Bibcode Bot, Olso12345, Lowercase sigmabot, BG19bot,
Island Monkey, Sahuanimesh, Gaithdroby500, Furkhaocean, Apeconmyth, Quarkgluonsoup, MongolWiki, Xzuiko, AvocatoBot, Inkpot80,
Davidiad, J991, Abhinandan27, Dan653, Tracy49, Mariraja2007, Cadiomals, Joydeep, Omeed Was Here, Schmooble, Chretienorthodoxe,
Maharding, Mycosys, Hotturbos, Stimulieconomy, Hamish59, Eguinto, Theone70, Glacialfox, Andi2011, Mozerella8, Oleg-ch, Ghos-
tillnses, Boogawooga02, Anbu121, Amphibio, Adamlewis157, BattyBot, Tutelary, Hihihihibye, Priyamd, SFaddict42, Stigmatella auran-
tiaca, Th4n3r, Lawlessballer23, Cyberbot II, Atularunpandey, Craigc29, Khazar2, Dexbot, Webclient101, CuriousMind01, Lugia2453,
Frosty, Hair, Graphium, Philipandrew, Rmoole, Paryinmahpantz, LemonsWillWin, Keefyj, Alexfrench70, Guruparanjothijason, Bcc-
mac14, Hillbillyholiday, Reatlas, 123yokomo, Heskey eats soup with a fork, Ihatendingusernamestheyneverwork, USEFUL MENACE,
Faizan, Supercool900, Godot13, Ianreisterariola, Vcfahrenbruck, Redshiftimprove, A Wolfgang, Christofkopera, Extremind, Alihossein-
isg, Lingzhi, MarioVSYoshi, KermitTheFrogOwns, , Tentinator, Sakhail, Booe1, Infamous Castle, Jayminsiple, Leave61, Seps123,
Necron681, Dorrphilip, Ventripotent13, Alaudduin, CuirassierX, Pmacclain, Ugog Nizdast, FrogySK, Prokaryotes, Eagle3399, Jwrat-
ner1, Kogge, Damin A. Fernndez Beanato, OccultZone, Jackmerius, Anrnusna, Asterixasterix, Mikey Camarista, Beenybobby, Aleksa
is cool, LVL.6, Maderthaner, Goodkushandalcohol, BubbaLAquatics10, Concord hioz, Monkbot, Apipia, Soa Koutsouveli, Pinkpills,
Thatoneguy08, Astronomnom, PrivateNoPrivates, SkyFlubbler, Mannerheimcross, SarahTehCat, Analstingjanick, SeaMosse, Corneel1,
BenVinnie Tennieson, Squidzy Mcgavin, Jojoisawsome, EoRdE6, Julietdeltalima, Tonathan100, Satki, Atomic bacon, Snabbkae, I'm your
Grandma., Tetra quark, Isambard Kingdom, Anand2202, Mahad Asif khan, Zxzxzxzx29, Warrerrrrrrfjgfufgvgjfjfjjfjfggfu, Catman3659,
KasparBot, Miguel A Corts, Youknowwhatimsayin, Outedexits, Luka Russ, Incendiary Iconoclasm and Anonymous: 1854

Cosmology Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology?oldid=696738332 Contributors: Ed Poor, Andre Engels, William Avery,

Heron, Gabbe, IZAK, William M. Connolley, Poor Yorick, Hectorthebat, Seth ze, Peter Damian (original account), Charles Matthews,
Dragons ight, Banno, Robbot, Sdedeo, Goethean, Nurg, Sam Spade, Rursus, Giftlite, Wolfkeeper, Art Carlson, Bradeos Graphon, Jason
Quinn, Matthead, Wmahan, SarekOfVulcan, Knutux, HorsePunchKid, Karol Langner, Icairns, TreyHarris, Adashiel, Jiy, Rich Farm-
brough, Pjacobi, Vsmith, RJHall, El C, Zenohockey, Shanes, Tom, Haxwell, RoyBoy, Bobo192, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, A2Kar,
Jumbuck, Wiki-uk, Rd232, WhiteC, Mysdaao, DV8 2XL, Bushytails, Siener, Ruud Koot, WadeSimMiser, Trevor Andersen, M Alan
Kazlev, GalaazV, Joke137, Farhansher, Christopher Thomas, Rnt20, BD2412, Pranathi, Drbogdan, Rjwilmsi, Koavf, Bob A, Bruce1ee,
Smithfarm, Palpatine, Ems57fcva, DirkvdM, FlaBot, Alhutch, Gurch, Srleer, King of Hearts, Chobot, DVdm, Antiuser, Evan G, NSR,
Gwernol, McGinnis, YurikBot, Wavelength, RobotE, Deeptrivia, RussBot, Lucinos~enwiki, NawlinWiki, Robertvan1, Welsh, Ragesoss,
Bota47, Diogenes zosimus, Dna-webmaster, JonathanD, MLA, Enormousdude, Zzuuzz, RDF, Reyk, CharlesHBennett, BorgQueen, Amren,
Moonsleeper7, Innity0, KNHaw, SmackBot, FocalPoint, PiCo, Maksim-e~enwiki, InverseHypercube, Unyoyega, C.Fred, Vald, Jagged
85, HalfShadow, Alsandro, Hmains, Chaojoker, Holy Ganga, Doublestein, Chris the speller, Endroit, Fngosa, MalafayaBot, Mergatroidal,
George Rodney Maruri Game, SchftyThree, RayAYang, Deli nk, Wazronk, DHN-bot~enwiki, Colonies Chris, Hongooi, Scwlong, Can't
sleep, clown will eat me, Go for it, Jere, Hve, Saberlotus, Vanished User 0001, Yidisheryid, T-borg, RaVenX, ScotAaron, Nishkid64,
JzG, Osbus, Aleenf1, Abdullah Tahir, Ckatz, Chris Melton, Garthbarber, Sharnak, Caiaa, Keahapana, GoodCop, Nehrams2020, Irides-
cent, JMK, Astrobayes, Shoeofdeath, Trialsanderrors, Architect1, Tawkerbot2, Tommysun, Kurtan~enwiki, Rnickel, DarkWyrm, CBM,
Lentower, Casper2k3, Myasuda, Gregbard, Hsxavier~enwiki, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Peterdjones, Rmcgiv, Doug Weller, Christian75,
Abtract, Gimmetrow, Ppaterson, N5iln, Oliver202, Headbomb, Massimo Macconi, Dawnseeker2000, Solarentric, Northumbrian, Ela112,
AntiVandalBot, M Payne, Lyricmac, Tim Shuba, JAnDbot, Andrasnm, Kris9918, Christopher Cooper, Acroterion, VoABot II, Avicenna-
sis, Bluemin, BatteryIncluded, Afaprof01, Wolf Lorber, Gwern, Loof1, R'n'B, LedgendGamer, J.delanoy, All Is One, Nigholith, Ajcfreak,
AntiSpamBot, Tanaats, Umair82, Gwen Gale, Rob ten Berge, DASonnenfeld, Squids and Chips, Idioma-bot, Rucha58, Leebo, BoogaLouie,
Satani, Milenita~enwiki, MusicScience, Curtisclccurtis, Voorlandt, Snehilsharma, LeaveSleaves, Pleroma, Venny85, Nabo0o, Billinghurst,
CurtisEdward, Synthebot, Falcon8765, Blood sliver, Hrafn, SieBot, TJRC, K. Annoyomous, Paradoctor, Pengyanan, Frahod, Vinaymangal,
Hugh16, Jojalozzo, Doc Perel, Antonio Lopez, Zharradan.angelre, Monkeyspangler, Voeroesimre, WacoJacko, Adekoba, Coldcreation,
Vanished user ewsn2348tui2f8n2o2utjfeoi210r39jf, Explicit, Athenean, Hueve09, Nondistinguished, Martarius, ClueBot, GorillaWar-
fare, Hadrianheugh, Dreamback1116, Coryjones12345, Agge1000, Rprpr, Panos84, Thingg, Galor612, Versus22, Editor2020, Spirit of
the Dohgon, Dohgon Immortal, Heironymous Rowe, Bearsona, Pichpich, Manbu, Rror, Saeed.Veradi, Avoided, Jd027, J-klem, Addbot,
Bejjinks, Mootros, MrOllie, Glane23, Stevoman69, Uuda, Mmnaw, Numbo3-bot, Wikbot, F Notebook, Ssaalon, Bootyy, Daatass, Ttassr,
28.7. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 269

Tide rolls, Bguras puppy, Lightbot, Lrrasd, Zorrobot, Greyhood, HerculeBot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Zaereth, JohnHarold, Fraggle81, Amble,
Anypodetos, Houutata, Teammoto, Clubbota, GateKeeper, AmeliorationBot, Wheenguta, AnakngAraw, Jcegobrain, AnomieBOT, Hop-
sasa~enwiki, A More Perfect Onion, Taskualads, Madesfuga, Friedonc, Colutowe, Materialscientist, Limideen, Citation bot, OllieFury, Sol-
darat, Icosmology, Paul Quigley, Drosdaf, Obersachsebot, Traqwe, Haputdas, Spaduro, Necirsad, Autorads, Urggatys, Oraculo miraculoso,
Mikeybabel01, Medelezer~enwiki, Logan6362, The Grand Rans, Omnipaedista, Franco3450, Shadowjams, Spongefrog, Fortdj33, Lucien-
BOT, Tobby72, Charles Edwin Shipp, Haeinous, Machine Elf 1735, Gourami Watcher, Xxglennxx, Unrst, Pinethicket, Tom.Reding,
MastiBot, MondalorBot, Serols, Ifritnile, Reconsider the static, White Shadows, Lemmiwinks2, Jonkerz, Lotje, Destineyyyy, LilyKitty,
Krusberg, JLincoln, Mean as custard, Erichansa, Jangorheinhart, Epdennis, Energy Dome, Syncategoremata, Joeywallace9, NotAnony-
mous0, Tommy2010, Winner 42, Uploadvirus, Italia2006, John Cline, Ckyadio101, Maypigeon of Liberty, Dotoree, Bilbo571, David J
Johnson, VictorFlaushenstein, Maschen, Fusiongyro, Eiamagus, Xanchester, ClueBot NG, Euty, Helpful Pixie Bot, Peterleih, Bibcode
Bot, Bm gub2, Carolingeld, BG19bot, Coolnim, Northamerica1000, Snow Rise, Mark Arsten, Pankaj Deo, Neutral current, Cadiomals,
SadFace12345, MrBill3, Seshavatharam.bhc, GreenUniverse, Santhoshlee1, Esenthil23, Edgemeister, Purdygb, ChrisGualtieri, Dexbot,
Wjs64, Thepom, Aplaster, Theos Little Bot, BreakfastJr, Moonaut, Prokaryotes, Jwratner1, For the love of truth, Cypherquest, Hamilton-
FromAbove, Mcfete44, Saectar, Zankaon, TyB2, Stefania.deluca, Tetra quark, Isambard Kingdom, RightBKC, TheUniversalist, Wlacosta,
GeneralizationsAreBad, SocraticOath, KasparBot, Spongeberb, Vikrox, Astroplanet, Youknowwhatimsayin, Aerppab, Dan6233, Yaghob
mahmodi, Khatri.shakilamd, Qzd, Allthefoxes, , Alohascope and Anonymous: 372
Planck (spacecraft) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)?oldid=688938214 Contributors: Conti, Jni, Vespristiano,
Alan Liefting, Ploums, Giftlite, Maver1ck, Bbbl67, Hellisp, Discospinster, Vsmith, Bender235, Srbauer, Huntster, Art LaPella, Cmdrjame-
son, Russ3Z, A2Kar, Grutness, Dodonov, Abanima, Laubzega, FeanorStar7, Decrease789, GregorB, Emerson7, Rnt20, BD2412, Drbog-
dan, Rjwilmsi, Mike Peel, TheDJ, Goudzovski, PointedEars, YurikBot, Epolk, Jess Riedel, Paul D. Anderson, Gephart, Sardanaphalus,
SmackBot, Ashill, C.Fred, Nickst, Skizzik, Ephraim33, Bluebot, MalafayaBot, Papa November, Hibernian, Eer, Sbharris, Modest Ge-
nius, WDGraham, VMS Mosaic, Aldaron, Wen D House, Jashank, CapitalR, Vyznev Xnebara, Cydebot, Kanags, Michael C Price, Trev M,
Thijs!bot, Cimbalom, Headbomb, Dtgriscom, Uruiamme, Dr. Submillimeter, Dougher, Dream Focus, Snesfm~enwiki, Magioladitis, Wolf-
manSF, Swpb, Doesper, Salsa man, TechnoFaye, R'n'B, CommonsDelinker, Alexcalamaro, Micahfenner, Ohms law, SriMesh, Juliancolton,
Sheliak, Funandtrvl, TXiKiBoT, Thebigbendizzle, SwordSmurf, SieBot, AstroNerd2000, KGyST, Kasos fr, Dreamfall, Wyattmj, Nergaal,
Randy Kryn, Staylor71, Sfan00 IMG, MBK004, ClueBot, Hytar, Xav71176, Com4space, Piledhigheranddeeper, Aaaf-wiki, Alexbot, Pix-
elBot, Pmronchi, ChrisHodgesUK, Environnement2100, Chaosdruid, Panos84, Dana boomer, WikHead, Kbdankbot, Deineka, Addbot,
LenardLenard, Maddox1, Kisbesbot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, TaBOT-zerem, Rccoms, Aldebaran66, AnomieBOT, Giant bird creature, Cita-
tion bot, ArthurBot, Lithopsian, GrouchoBot, Jasonbritchie, Nagualdesign, MrAronnax, Max.Casasco, FrescoBot, RicHard-59, D'ohBot,
Trewal, WDGraham (public), Aconley314, Jonesey95, Tom.Reding, Earthandmoon, Gwyneth99, Akesich, EmausBot, Octaazacubane,
Quantanew, NikiAnna, N432138, ZroBot, Zueignung, ChiZeroOne, ClueBot NG, El Roih, Kjmonkey, Mariguld, Bulbul99, Bibcode
Bot, BG19bot, PhysicsOce, Ggiardin, Writ Keeper, U-95, Kbog, Wjs64, Jamesx12345, Dave Bowman - Discovery Won, Rfassbind,
SomeFreakOnTheInternet, Dncsky, Ihjdekeijzer, Markh89, Zapotal, Filedelinkerbot, Unatnas1986, SkyFlubbler, Tetra quark, Isambard
Kingdom, Anand2202, TychosElk and Anonymous: 62
Dark energy Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy?oldid=696886978 Contributors: The Anome, Dachshund, Roadrunner,
Schewek, Stevertigo, Thesteve, Nealmcb, Michael Hardy, Tim Starling, FrankH, Bobby D. Bryant, SebastianHelm, Ahoerstemeier, Glenn,
Tristanb, Reddi, Wik, DW40, Dragons ight, Anupamsr, Pierre Boreal, BenRG, Jeq, Donarreiskoer, Robbot, Zandperl, Korath, Scott
McNay, Vespristiano, Peak, Gandalf61, Rursus, Mlaine, UtherSRG, SC, Mattaschen, Acm, Ancheta Wis, Giftlite, Graeme Bartlett,
Awolf002, Jyril, Art Carlson, Herbee, Perl, Curps, Henry Flower, Gzornenplatz, Manuel Anastcio, Andycjp, BruceR, LucasVB, Antan-
drus, Beland, Karol Langner, Kevin B12, Bbbl67, Urvabara, JimJast, Discospinster, Rich Farmbrough, Pjacobi, Vsmith, D-Notice, Dbach-
mann, Bender235, Eric Forste, RJHall, JustinWick, Omnibus, El C, Lycurgus, Jomel, Kwamikagami, Frankenschulz, RoyBoy, Stesmo,
Reuben, Russ3Z, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Diego Moya, Keenan Pepper, Slugmaster, Axl, Benna, Wtmitchell, RainbowOfLight, Mikeo,
Vuo, Freyr, DV8 2XL, Kazvorpal, Falcorian, Velho, Batintherain, Hottscubbard, OwenX, Mindmatrix, FeanorStar7, Velvetsmog, Uncle G,
Netdragon, Je3000, GregorB, Isnow, SDC, , Joke137, Abd, Christopher Thomas, Sneakums, Dysepsion, BD2412, Doc Savage,
Malangthon, RadioActive~enwiki, Drbogdan, Loris Bennett, Rjwilmsi, Strait, TheRingess, Salleman, HappyCamper, Sohmc, Ems57fcva,
DonJuan~enwiki, BitterMan, Tomer Ish Shalom, Srleer, Smithbrenon, CJLL Wright, Chobot, DVdm, Wavelength, RobotE, SamuelR,
Dili, Bhny, Stephenb, CambridgeBayWeather, Merick, NawlinWiki, Msikma, FFLaguna, LiamE, SCZenz, FoolsWar, Bota47, Rwxr-
wxrwx, Daniel C, Enormousdude, 2over0, Helge Ros, Pb30, Dr.alf, Joedixon, Rlove, Georey.landis, Ilmari Karonen, Moonsleeper7,
Kungfuadam, Bernd in Japan, GrinBot~enwiki, Treesmill, SmackBot, Ashill, Saravask, Bayardo, Tom Lougheed, InverseHypercube,
KnowledgeOfSelf, Melchoir, J.Sarfatti, Nickst, Silverhand, Edgar181, Vixus, Gilliam, Skizzik, Jlsilva, Andy M. Wang, Tyciol, Sirex98,
Oli Filth, DHN-bot~enwiki, Sbharris, Colonies Chris, Jdthood, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, ThePromenader, PoiZaN, Chlewbot, Joema,
Cybercobra, Lpgeen, Rpf, Kendrick7, Byelf2007, Rory096, Boradis, Richard L. Peterson, Xerxesx18, Writtenonsand, JorisvS, Mgi-
ganteus1, Ckatz, Hypnosi, Megane~enwiki, Ryulong, Quaeler, Dan Gluck, Spebudmak, Paul venter, Cxat, UncleDouggie, Courcelles,
Tawkerbot2, JRSpriggs, Atomobot, Trevor.tombe, JForget, CRGreathouse, Lavateraguy, Nadyes, Mlsmith10, Arnavion, Logical2u, Rob
Maguire, Cydebot, Stebbins, Gmusser, 879(CoDe), Rracecarr, Soetermans, Michael C Price, Chrislk02, Kozuch, Landroo, Thijs!bot, Head-
bomb, Marek69, Electron9, Second Quantization, Chris goulet, Davidhorman, Turelli, Dawnseeker2000, AntiVandalBot, Orionus, Gnixon,
Fayenatic london, Tim Shuba, Empyrius, Archmagusrm, AstroPaul, Bagster, JAnDbot, Carl1011, Davewho2, MER-C, CosineKitty, Rko-
matsu, Michael Wood-Vasey, Felix116, Acroterion, Bongwarrior, VoABot II, Tripbeetle, LordCmOnur, Seleucus, Kevinwiatrowski,
Ours18, DerHexer, Nevit, Simplizissimus, NatureA16, Johann1870, Jimmilu, ARC Gritt, Nikpapag, TechnoFaye, Christian424, Tgeairn,
J.delanoy, Trusilver, Maurice Carbonaro, Natty4bumpo, Komowkwa, OttoMkel, Jlechem, Tsuite, SJP, Videokunst~enwiki, Malerin,
Jorfer, Potatoswatter, Cmichael, DorganBot, Jcmargeson, Ja 62, JHussein, Jjabellar, Sheliak, Johnassassin, Caribbean H.Q., VolkovBot,
ColdCase, JohnBlackburne, D A Patriarche, AlnoktaBOT, Fences and windows, Philip Trueman, Darren22, HowardFrampton, TXiK-
iBoT, Oshwah, Zanardm, Someguy1221, Oxfordwang, Jackfork, UnitedStatesian, Mazarin07, Venny85, Goaliemaster121, SwordSmurf,
Lamro, RayNorris, Fourthark, Wanchung Hu, Obsidianmile, Radical Robert, Noncompliant one, Donauland~enwiki, PlanetStar, TrulyBlue,
Murad.Shibli, Likebox, Flyer22 Reborn, Hotdiggity, Avidallred, Faradayplank, Poindexter Propellerhead, OKBot, Aquijex, Loren.wilton,
Martarius, BillWilliam, ClueBot, Dead10ck, The Thing That Should Not Be, Rodhullandemu, SuperHamster, Andwor, Tms9, Jusdafax, Da
rulz07, Barbarinaz, Kentgen1, Razorame, Stevecrye, AC+79 3888, Pillar of Babel, TimothyRias, Gwark, Ost316, PL290, MikeSmith10,
Parejkoj, Andreaprins, Dgirl1723, HexaChord, D.M. from Ukraine, Addbot, Gravitophoton, Uruk2008, DOI bot, Nernom, LaaknorBot,
Adfellin, Glane23, Delaszk, ChenzwBot, Sophia8891, Combatman~enwiki, Craigsjones, Arbitrarily0, Gurusoft2, Cosmos72, Luckas-bot,
Yobot, Cosoce, Systemizer, Aldebaran66, Fulcanelli, Amble, AnomieBOT, Iluziat, Materialscientist, Citation bot, Icosmology, Arthur-
Bot, Xqbot, S h i v a (Visnu), Sionus, Drilnoth, Wperdue, Tomwsulcer, BLP-outrageous move logs, ProtectionTaggingBot, Mathonius,
Shadowjams, Finncarey, PrimeMatter, FrescoBot, Tobby72, Sawomir Biay, Zero Thrust, Kvgyarmati, Woodingdean, Alpha plus (a+),
Citation bot 1, Redrose64, Pinethicket, I dream of horses, Jonesey95, Three887, Tom.Reding, Shahidur Rahman Sikder, Eciency1101e,
270 CHAPTER 28. COSMOLOGICAL HORIZON

Casimir9999, Aknochel, IVAN3MAN, Meier99, BradTheBadWiki, TADEET, Jordgette, Heurisko, Michael9422, Adi4094, Earthand-
moon, Wellsmax, RjwilmsiBot, Alph Bot, EmausBot, Mmpcq, Grrow, Quantanew, RA0808, Slightsmile, Italia2006, NicatronTg, H3llBot,
Suslindisambiguator, Paulstarpaulstar, Frigotoni, Colin.campbell.27, Iiar, HCPotter, Tunborough, RockMagnetist, Herk1955, Deathglass,
DASHBotAV, Fire Vortex, Mjbmrbot, Yceren Loq, ClueBot NG, Ccalen, Chester Markel, Matias Pocobi, Jj1236, Frietjes, Helvitica Bold,
Curb Chain, Bibcode Bot, BG19bot, Gordonben, Cheeseray1, FiveColourMap, Hippokrateszholdacskai, Yizlpku, Snow Blizzard, Ger-
hardtschmerhardt, Migrainus, Mcspaans, Szczureq, Unclejoe0306, Akshay Lattimardi, Dexbot, CityOfUr, CuriousMind01, Wjs64, JustA-
Muggle, WorldWideJuan, Epicgenius, Yheyma, MiceEater, LindaYeah, DavidLeighEllis, Federicoturner, Babitaarora, Isateach, Onecre-
ation, Prokaryotes, Christophe1946, BerdanII, Anrnusna, Stamptrader, Suelru, Monkbot, Mlsmith55, Haxxorz596, THemanRE$%S23,
Jnojha007, Richard.drapeau, MF22, ChamithN, Larsyxa, EpicLX, Tibenas, Mediavalia, ScrapIronIV, 39Debangshu, Anunaki truth, Tetra
quark, Isambard Kingdom, Anand2202, GeneralizationsAreBad, Jman135, KasparBot, ShankZeTank, Tgorewic, ShiningSword, Esadri21,
Phseek, Buckbill10, Alopresti777, Themalina, Khrpr and Anonymous: 522
Lambda-CDM model Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model?oldid=696067741 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, The
Anome, Roadrunner, Boud, Michael Hardy, Dcljr, Charles Matthews, Timwi, Forseti, Gandalf61, Wjhonson, Giftlite, Andycjp, Pja-
cobi, Vsmith, Jonathanischoice, AdamSolomon, Art LaPella, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Diego Moya, Plumbago, Ceyockey, Joke137,
Rnt20, Drbogdan, Rjwilmsi, Zbxgscqf, Mike Peel, Bubba73, Phoenix2~enwiki, Karch, YurikBot, Vuvar1, Gadget850, CharlesHBennett,
Caco de vidro, McGeddon, Bluebot, Jdthood, Hve, Yannick Copin, JorisvS, Beetstra, Hypnosi, Spebudmak, Petr Matas, CmdrObot,
Dr.enh, Thijs!bot, Headbomb, Vertium, Peter Gulutzan, Escarbot, Rico402, Huttarl, Drollere, Yobol, DAID, KylieTastic, STBotD, She-
liak, VolkovBot, RedAndr, MariAlexan, BotKung, SwordSmurf, Catdogqq, SieBot, Hertz1888, Droog Andrey, BartekChom, IlkkaP,
Sunrise, Coldcreation, Duae Quartunciae, Astrohou, DragonBot, Telekenesis, Brews ohare, Cenarium, Scog, Panos84, Ich42, Parejkoj,
Addbot, LaaknorBot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, Amirobot, Amble, Azcolvin429, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, Xqbot, Gap9551, Dendropithe-
cus, Omnipaedista, Mnmngb, FrescoBot, Craig Pemberton, SF88, Jonesey95, Tom.Reding, Pmokeefe, Puzl bustr, Sehateld, Dr. Salvia,
Earthandmoon, RjwilmsiBot, Ripchip Bot, John of Reading, Italia2006, Midas02, Suslindisambiguator, Timetraveler3.14, Brandmeister,
One.Ouch.Zero, Senator2029, Milk Coee, Fire Vortex, Jj1236, Bibcode Bot, Technical 13, BG19bot, Flekkie, Harizotoh9, Soylent-
Purple, Khazar2, Wjs64, Junjunone, Thewarriltonsiegedoc, Prokaryotes, Orrerysky, Sjzaslaw, Monkbot, Unatnas1986, Soa Koutsouveli,
Verdana Bold, Mof-tan, Tetra quark, Duganc525, TychosElk, Youknowwhatimsayin and Anonymous: 70
Cosmic Background Explorer Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer?oldid=694346250 Contributors: Di-
atarn iv~enwiki, Michael Hardy, Egil, Ahoerstemeier, Stevenj, Angela, Mahongue, RodC, Charles Matthews, Stone, Magnus.de, GPHems-
ley, Twang, Rtsher, JamesMLane, DocWatson42, Jyril, Dinomite, Sj, Curps, Ryjaz, Dyfrgi, Keith Edkins, Bbbl67, ScottyBoy900Q, Sam
Hocevar, Joyous!, Deglr6328, Imroy, Rich Farmbrough, Narsil, Mtruch, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Jumbuck, Earendur, CyberSkull, Ri-
ana, MattWade, DreamGuy, Wtmitchell, Teppic, Gene Nygaard, Kitch, Oleg Alexandrov, Natalya, Steven Luo, Duncan.france, Joke137,
Aarghdvaark, Rnt20, Drbogdan, Rjwilmsi, BlueMoonlet, Mike Peel, Bkhouser, Whosasking, FrenchIsAwesome, Taejo, Van der Hoorn,
GeeJo, DarthVader, Hinaen, Theodolite, ArielGold, Aliza250, GrinBot~enwiki, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Ashill, Hydrogen Iodide, Ren-
tier, WilyD, Eskimbot, Hmains, Hibernian, Baa, WDGraham, Egsan Bacon, SundarBot, RandomP, Daniel.Cardenas, Ligulembot, Bow-
ersj8, Novangelis, Saxbryn, Courcelles, Kurtan~enwiki, Cydebot, Ykliu, Arb, Headbomb, Capn ed, WinBot, CZmarlin, Dr. Submillime-
ter, JAnDbot, IanOsgood, Christopher Cooper, Magioladitis, Jlerner, MartinBot, CommonsDelinker, Alex68677, 739ajal22,
, Torstem, Ohms law, Cmichael, Geekdiva, Sheliak, Funandtrvl, Zerpent, TXiKiBoT, Rei-bot, Ng.j, DavidHitt, SpaceShuttleSTS6,
Sagarsavla, YonaBot, Katebooty, Murlough23, OKBot, Dravecky, Skeptical scientist, Randy Kryn, MBK004, ClueBot, Kbdankbot, Ad-
dbot, DOI bot, SamatBot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Amirobot, Aldebaran66, Xosema, Sz-iwbot, Citation bot, Xqbot, Nasa-verve, Fotaun, Cita-
tion bot 1, Edderso, Tom.Reding, Full-date unlinking bot, Iy6, GoingBatty, ZroBot, Pippo skaio, ChiZeroOne, Wikiheron, ClueBot NG,
Helpful Pixie Bot, Bibcode Bot, Philosus~enwiki, Kuki5050, YFdyh-bot, Khazar2, Anderson, TwoTwoHello, Spacerob13, Stamptrader,
Monkbot, Tetra quark, Mapping3k and Anonymous: 74
Dark matter Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter?oldid=696753772 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Chenyu, Derek Ross, CYD,
BF, Bryan Derksen, The Anome, Tarquin, Taw, XJaM, Arvindn, William Avery, Roadrunner, Mintguy, Bth, Stevertigo, Edward, Nealmcb,
Boud, FrankH, Cprompt, DopeshJustin, Bobby D. Bryant, Ixfd64, SebastianHelm, Alo, CesarB, Looxix~enwiki, Mkweise, William
M. Connolley, JWSchmidt, Glenn, Mxn, Charles Matthews, Timwi, Fuzheado, Rednblu, Haukurth, DW40, Dragons ight, Furrykef,
Saltine, Dogface, Populus, Jusjih, Finlay McWalter, Bearcat, Robbot, Zandperl, Korath, Nurg, Naddy, Arkuat, Gandalf61, Pingveno,
Rursus, Rtsher, Wereon, Diberri, Adam78, Aasim75, Marc Venot, Ancheta Wis, Giftlite, Graeme Bartlett, Laudaka, Barbara Shack,
Herbee, Fropu, Xerxes314, Dratman, Curps, Joconnor, Jdavidb, Unconcerned, Eequor, Bobblewik, Andycjp, Alexf, Geni, Antandrus,
HorsePunchKid, Melikamp, PDH, Rdsmith4, Bosmon, Bbbl67, Icairns, Sam Hocevar, Cynical, Lumidek, Iantresman, Burschik, Joyous!,
Adashiel, Urvabara, Discospinster, Rich Farmbrough, Oliver Lineham, Vsmith, Jpk, ArnoldReinhold, Murtasa, D-Notice, JPX7, KaiSeun,
SpookyMulder, Bender235, Kjoonlee, Kaisershatner, Pk2000, PsychoDave, RJHall, Mr. Billion, El C, Bletch, PhilHibbs, Shanes, Franken-
schulz, Art LaPella, RoyBoy, Themusicgod1, Bobo192, Smalljim, Shenme, Cmdrjameson, Reuben, Kmaguire, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc,
Zelda~enwiki, Mr. Brownstone, E is for Ian, Jumbuck, Storm Rider, Alansohn, Gary, Anthony Appleyard, Guy Harris, Eric Kvaalen,
Arthena, Keenan Pepper, Kocio, Bart133, RPellessier, Benna, ClockworkSoul, Cal 1234, Count Iblis, Guthrie, H2g2bob, Bsadowski1,
GabrielF, Pauli133, Leondz, DV8 2XL, Gene Nygaard, Feline1, Oleg Alexandrov, Brookie, Natalya, Flying sh, WilliamKF, Yeast-
beast, Mindmatrix, RHaworth, Plek, BillC, JPFlip, Benbest, JFG, ^demon, WadeSimMiser, Gxojo, MONGO, Jwanders, Torqueing,
, Joke137, Wisq, Christopher Thomas, Palica, Mandarax, RedBLACKandBURN, Aarghdvaark, RichardWeiss, Ashmoo, Gra-
ham87, Malangthon, Mamling, Jclemens, Drbogdan, Loris Bennett, Rjwilmsi, Lars T., Strait, Patrick Gill, Tangotango, Tawker, Smithfarm,
Stevenscollege, Mike Peel, HappyCamper, SeanMack, ScottJ, Krash, Dermeister, Rangek, Madcat87, FlaBot, Ian Pitchford, Platypean-
Archcow, A scientist, Margosbot~enwiki, Gark, Nivix, Gparker, Pathoschild, Gurch, Stevenfruitsmaak, Goudzovski, Tomer Ish Shalom,
Smithbrenon, Chobot, Moocha, DVdm, Gwernol, The Rambling Man, YurikBot, Wavelength, RobotE, Koveras, Hairy Dude, Huw Pow-
ell, Phmer, Hillman, RussBot, Michael Slone, Ohwilleke, Bhny, JabberWok, GLaDOS, DanMS, Zelmerszoetrop, Eleassar, Merick, Big
Brother 1984, NawlinWiki, Alpertron, Dugosz, Schlay, FFLaguna, BlackAndy, Dbmag9, SCZenz, Haoie, Raven4x4x, Ospalh, Dur-
val, Bota47, Supspirit, Pegship, Noosfractal, Charlie Wiederhold, WAS 4.250, Smoggyrob, Reyk, Tvaughan, Joedixon, Eric TF Bat,
Emc2, Ilmari Karonen, Allens, Bernd in Japan, InsayneWrapper, Bclayabt, Attilios, SmackBot, Cubs Fan, Ashill, IddoGenuth, Tomer
yae, Stellea, InverseHypercube, KnowledgeOfSelf, Clpo13, Nickst, RedSpruce, Nightbat, Doc Strange, Herbm, Edgar181, HalfShadow,
Flux.books, Dheerajkakar, Yamaguchi , Richmeister, Gilliam, Folajimi, The Gnome, Oscarthecat, Skizzik, Kmarinas86, Chris the
speller, SuperBuuBuu, Quinsareth, Persian Poet Gal, Sirex98, MalafayaBot, Silly rabbit, Sangrolu, Villarinho, DHN-bot~enwiki, Sbharris,
Hongooi, Jdthood, CheerLeone, Gtkysor, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Nick Levine, Tamfang, Kelvin Case, V1adis1av, Vanished User
0001, Rrburke, Jgoulden, Auvii, Krich, Wen D House, Radagast83, Engwar, Nakon, VegaDark, John D. Croft, Alexander110, KimO,
Adrigon, SpiderJon, Ultraexactzz, Zadignose, Tesseran, Byelf2007, L337p4wn, K7lim, SashatoBot, Mchavez, Swatjester, Leftydan6, Mi-
naker, John, Ashoat, Scientizzle, Acitrano, Linnell, JoshuaZ, James.S, JorisvS, Coredesat, Goodnightmush, ICBB, Plunge, JHunterJ, Hyp-
28.7. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 271

nosi, Silverthorn, Descubes, Freederick, Dr.K., Vanished user, Iridescent, Darkerprojects, Astrobayes, Newone, MOBle, Igoldste, Cap-
italR, AGK, Courcelles, Tawkerbot2, Dlohcierekim, Chetvorno, Hammer Raccoon, Owen214, Eastlaw, Peledre, Pukkie, Anakata, Run-
ningonbrains, DKOH, NickW557, Gregbard, MikeWren, Vttoth, Necessary Evil, Ryan, Viciouspiggy, Gogo Dodo, Anonymi, Xxanthippe,
A Softer Answer, Odie5533, Tawkerbot4, DumbBOT, Robertinventor, Kozuch, Mtpaley, Philza85, Starship Trooper, UberScienceNerd,
Crum375, Thijs!bot, Epbr123, Astroceltica, Passaggio, Barbarina, Mbell, Eugenespeed, N5iln, Mojo Hand, Carlif, Headbomb, Tonyle,
Marek69, Lars Lindberg Christensen, OtterSmith, SusanLesch, Mmortal03, Hmrox, Hires an editor, AntiVandalBot, Seaphoto, Orionus,
Opelio, Shirt58, Rehnn83, Joehodge, AaronY, Jj137, TTN, Dylan Lake, Chill doubt, Spencer, Yellowdesk, Sniktaw, CPitt76, Gkhan,
Jcarter1, Res2216restar, JAnDbot, Leuko, Husond, MER-C, CosineKitty, Plantsurfer, Mcorazao, Therealintellectual, Folkform, Balbers,
100110100, Autotheist, Wasell, Magioladitis, Bongwarrior, VoABot II, Timothy McVeigh, Charlesrkiss, AuburnPilot, Krkaiser, Mbarbier,
Kaivosukeltaja, Foroa, Swpb, Stigmj, T a y l o s, Ekantik, Brusegadi, Bubba hotep, Fabrictramp, Catgut, Lilian.Kaufmann, Zhanghia,
Acornwithwings, Vssun, LtHija, Whisky5, DerHexer, Prisca6023, PeteSF, Rickard Vogelberg, NatureA16, DancingPenguin, MartinBot,
Schmloof, STBot, Pagw, Fs644, Nikpapag, Anaxial, CommonsDelinker, Jean-Pierre Petit~enwiki, PrestonH, WelshMatt, Chrishy man,
Tgeairn, J.delanoy, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Trusilver, Adavidb, Kpvats, Kudpung, Rod57, Arion 3x3, PedEye1, McSly, Tarotcards, Davy
p, HiLo48, NewEnglandYankee, Ohms law, Jorfer, Blckavnger, Potatoswatter, KylieTastic, Joshua Issac, Inniteglitch, Remember the dot,
Pitpif, Vanished user 39948282, Neekap, Natl1, Ldebain, BernardZ, SoCalSuperEagle, Squids and Chips, Borat fan, CardinalDan, Idioma-
bot, Sheliak, Funandtrvl, Lights, VolkovBot, Craigheinke, Itsfullofstars, ColdCase, Je G., JohnBlackburne, Mocirne, AlnoktaBOT, Scikid,
Grammarmonger, Leojohns, Larry R. Holmgren, Philip Trueman, TXiKiBoT, Oshwah, Docanton, Authorized User, Theophilus reed,
Drestros power, Strichek, MarekMahut, Monkey Bounce, Lradrama, Sintaku, Carillonatreides, Martin451, Broadbot, Wikiisawesome,
Mazarin07, Inductiveload, Knightshield, Telecineguy, Spiral5800, Kurowoofwoof111, Greswik, RobertFritzius, SwordSmurf, Falcon8765,
Hellothere17, Enviroboy, Littlehollah, Wanchung Hu, Illumini85, SonOfMog Worf, Jazzman123, PGWG, 19merlin69, NHRHS2010,
Neparis, Bfpage, S-n-ushakov, SieBot, Calliopejen1, Tresiden, Wibubba48, Tachyonics, Pallab1234, Paradoctor, KGyST, Bentogoa, Jim-
lester51, Battlepace, Oda Mari, Aaarnooo, Suomichris, Crowstar, PromX1, Lightmouse, Tombomp, Cyberplasm, Diego Grez-Caete,
Spartan-James, Thinghy, Mygerardromance, Hamiltondaniel, Superbeecat, Denisarona, JL-Bot, Escape Orbit, Starcluster, Troy 07, Atif.t2,
ArepoEn, Ak47gforce, Ratemonth, Sfan00 IMG, ClueBot, Phoenix-wiki, GorillaWarfare, The Thing That Should Not Be, ArdClose,
Rodhullandemu, Cptmurdok, Drmies, Frmorrison, Uncle Milty, Iuhkjhk87y678, Niceguyedc, MrBosnia, Bhaskarns, Andwor, Ktr101,
Excirial, Dombom12, Cromescythe, Barbarinaz, FOARP, Brews ohare, Jotterbot, Iohannes Animosus, R.Andrae, Kentgen1, Ordovico,
Mastertek, Rgoogin, Thehelpfulone, 1ForTheMoney, Versus22, Palmer666palmer, PCHS-NJROTC, Burner0718, Pillar of Babel, SoxBot
III, Erodium, Vanished user uih38riiw4hjlsd, 1ofhissheep, TimothyRias, Arianewiki1, XLinkBot, DCCougar, Oldnoah, Rror, Gwark,
Ost316, Avoided, Webmaster369, Gthomson, Tugrul irmak, Noctibus, Ploversegg, ZooFari, Parejkoj, Tayste, Addbot, Xp54321, Grayfell,
Experimental Hobo Inltration Droid, Willking1979, Some jerk on the Internet, Uruk2008, 04aeverington, DOI bot, Tcncv, Nohomers48,
CharlesChandler, Gmeyerowitz, Haasfelix, Download, Proxima Centauri, Ashirgo, RTG, Redheylin, Glane23, Darkmatter654, SamatBot,
Nanzilla, Lzkelley, Clone 209, Tassedethe, Numbo3-bot, Peridon, Chinchinthehun, Evildeathmath, Tide rolls, Lightbot, OlEnglish, Qemist,
Gail, North Polaris, Legobot, Artichoke-Boy, Luckas-bot, Yobot, WikiDan61, Cosoce, Dov Henis, Aldebaran66, KillYourLove, CzechFal-
con, Amble, Mmxx, CinchBug, Perusnarpk, IW.HG, Einstein vs Dark energys, Eric-Wester, Tempodivalse, Synchronism, AnomieBOT,
Letuo, Girl Scout cookie, IRP, JackieBot, RBM 72, AdjustShift, Nicolaas Vroom, Henrykandrup, Iluziat, Materialscientist, Dendlai, Im-
peratorExercitus, The High Fin Sperm Whale, Citation bot, Ternity0127, Maxis ftw, Frankenpuppy, Quebec99, LilHelpa, Aksel89, Xqbot,
Stlwebs, Random astronomer, Sionus, Cureden, Jradis1337, Capricorn42, Wperdue, Deleance, Raspw, Tomwsulcer, Magicxcian, Gap9551,
AbigailAbernathy, Srich32977, NOrbeck, Artemis6234, Almabot, Abell 1367, Feldhaus, False vacuum, RibotBOT, Waleswatcher, Mikedr,
Kongkokhaw, Rvnieuwe, Shadowjams, MeDrewNotYou, A. di M., Peter470, Sageman7, , Luminique, Captain-n00dle, Imyfujita, Fres-
coBot, Andyradke0, Ag allstar, Paine Ellsworth, Originalwana, Styxpaint, Mark Renier, VS6507, PhysicsExplorer, Dbirkhofer, Steve
Quinn, Nestlefolife, Adrian Akau, 1414rwbt, SF88, Citation bot 1, Redrose64, DUUJEEGWEEM, Tyler6298, Pinethicket, I dream of
horses, Grammarspellchecker, Danlof, 10metreh, Jonesey95, Tom.Reding, Pmokeefe, A8UDI, For.a.limited.time.only, Elentirno, Ted-
derBot, Aknochel, SkyMachine, IVAN3MAN, Kgrad, Nieuwenh, Trappist the monk, Puzl bustr, Fama Clamosa, Domeinthebumhole,
Michael9422, UrukHaiLoR, Allen4names, JLincoln, Jerd10, Lovemybluetooth, Diannaa, Fastilysock, Innotata, DrCrisp, Whisky drinker,
Onel5969, RjwilmsiBot, 5mgoblue5, Blakelewis122, orri, Mathewsyriac, Leandro.lelas, Mserard313, Mdznr, Sbugnon, Ultima821,
EmausBot, Francophile124, Grrow, Super48paul, GoingBatty, RA0808, Gimmetoo, Solarra, Jmencisom, Slightsmile, Tommy2010, Win-
ner 42, SusanaMultidark, Gocows2, Wikipelli, Serketan, Krierjel, Zurich Astro, Hhhippo, Mz7, Mhatthei, Svolin, Micahqgecko, JSquish,
Josve05a, Trojanmice, MithrandirAgain, Edwinkaren, Devilaza, Arbnos, Oraclan, Suslindisambiguator, AlbertusmagnusOP, Tolly4bolly,
L1A1 FAL, Ancient Anomaly, L Kensington, Maj den, Corabilek, Donner60, Aldnonymous, Ihardlythinkso, RockMagnetist, Terra Novus,
TYelliot, DASHBotAV, Kroupap, D Phoesheezey, Travies10, Jxraynor, TheTimesAreAChanging, ClueBot NG, Rich Smith, Afjvanraan,
Crystal7878, Catinthehat93, Bped1985, Innifold, Wiggit002, Jj1236, PapaMike, MonEyshOt42069210, Muon, Esdacosta, Asukite,
Masssly, Ph.d Carl edenburgh, Widr, Gavin.perch, Helpful Pixie Bot, Curb Chain, Calabe1992, Bibcode Bot, BG19bot, Dualus, Kis-
hanparekh, Stevenwilkins, NacowY, Cheeseray1, Cyberguy5, Darkmatter adam, Yomomma8102, Hza a 9, Rarelight, Cyberpower678,
Cosmologist77, MusikAnimal, , Dahliamtl, Dodshe, Mark Arsten, Darkmatterotheruniverses, Cadiomals, Tre-
vayne08, Zedshort, Achowat, Rolandwilliamson, A2Die, Clint55555, Mgka79, NotEither, BattyBot, Eduardofeld, Ronin712, Babymush-
rooms, Davidmexican, Drphilmarshall, Dilaton, Quin71901, U-95, ChrisGualtieri, Npmay, Kvark92, Lukasz.astrus, Ducknish, JYBot,
Davidlwinkler, Astrohap, Hunterf12, Dexbot, Caroline1981, Gravityking100, Junavia, Fredrikdn, CuriousMind01, Lugia2453, Wjs64,
Andwor42, Frosty, Honneydewp243, Junjunone, DrHowzer73, JustAMuggle, WadiElNatrun, Reatlas, Rfassbind, Acetotyce, I am One of
Many, DirkXcal, Melonkelon, Ybidzian, Gig9876, M.ashrania, Trolololman12, Ilikedeletingstufromhere, DavidLeighEllis, Onecreation,
LahmacunKebab, Zenibus, Jernahthern, Hipposaregrey, Frinthruit, Stamptrader, Cyberalchemyst, Aaronknowsitall, FelixRosch, Darkmer,
Doubleknockout, Monkbot, Wardinstrument, Leegrc, Vikas Rauniyar, Apipia, Upsalla, Jkvaternik, Lol kaptyn troll, HMSLavender, Mo-
hammedshukoor, Callum92, Stefania.deluca, Ashweigh, Oldstone James, Astezar, 39Debangshu, YoYoDude012, Anunaki truth, Pyro-
tle, Tetra quark, Carazmatic, God of matterrr, Silversparkcontributions, Isambard Kingdom, Rizi0909, Absolutelypuremilk, Anand2202,
Kbap2002, Kb2002, DN-boards1, Yohoona, Denniscabrams, KasparBot, I love trains sooo much, Id6040, Boowiebear, Stephane Le Corre,
Mustachman71, Abdelrahmam shawky, Huritisho, Jeman257, Outedexits, Reg7d88, Maka Tree, Eslam nsr, Incendiary Iconoclasm, Boo-
bety boop boop boop and Anonymous: 1255
Big Bang Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang?oldid=694386762 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Chenyu, Trelvis, The Epopt, CYD,
Mav, Bryan Derksen, Zundark, Timo Honkasalo, The Anome, AstroNomer~enwiki, Manning Bartlett, Malcolm Farmer, Tim Cham-
bers, Ed Poor, Andre Engels, Josh Grosse, Danny, XJaM, William Avery, Roadrunner, SimonP, Aoineko, FvdP, David spector, Heron,
GrahamN, Bth, Montrealais, Youandme, Branko, Modemac, Bignose, Hephaestos, Stevertigo, Nealmcb, Patrick, D, Michael Hardy, Ed-
dEdmondson, Modster, Bewildebeast, MartinHarper, Collabi, Tannin, Bobby D. Bryant, Ixfd64, Bcrowell, Sannse, Huboluv, Kosebamse,
CesarB, Egil, NuclearWinner, Looxix~enwiki, Mkweise, Ahoerstemeier, KAMiKAZOW, Dgaubin, Stevenj, William M. Connolley, Muriel
Gottrop~enwiki, Angela, Jebba, Kingturtle, Bueller 007, Alvaro, Aarchiba, , Glenn, Chimpa, Susurrus, Andres, Evercat, Rob
272 CHAPTER 28. COSMOLOGICAL HORIZON

Hooft, Edaelon, Smack, Schneelocke, Hike395, Hashar, Feedmecereal, Disdero, Ec5618, Charles Matthews, Timwi, Reddi, Viajero, Jitse
Niesen, Wayne~enwiki, The Anomebot, Doradus, Bjh21, DJ Clayworth, CBDunkerson, Saltine, Paul-L~enwiki, Phys, Omegatron, Ion-
ized, Bevo, Topbanana, Raul654, BenRG, Pollinator, Rossnixon, MrJones, Astronautics~enwiki, Fredrik, Korath, Schutz, Goethean, Peak,
Yelyos, Romanm, Lowellian, Gandalf61, Academic Challenger, Rursus, Blainster, DHN, Sunray, Hadal, Fuelbottle, Raeky, Isopropyl,
JerryFriedman, Jooler, Ancheta Wis, Apol0gies, Centrx, Giftlite, Christopher Parham, Jacoplane, Andy, Qartis, Harp, Lee J Haywood,
Lupin, Timpo, Fastssion, Obli, Peruvianllama, Noone~enwiki, Wwoods, Everyking, Plautus satire, Jacob1207, Anville, Curps, Joe Kress,
Jfdwol, Guanaco, Jason Quinn, Sundar, Gracefool, Eequor, Bobblewik, Deus Ex, Golbez, Wmahan, Stevietheman, Masterhomer, Gad-
um, Utcursch, Andycjp, Sohailstyle, Mendel, Sonjaaa, Antandrus, HorsePunchKid, Dialog, Eroica, MistToys, Piotrus, Kaldari, Jossi,
Karol Langner, OwenBlacker, Latitude0116, RetiredUser2, DanielDemaret, Icairns, JDoolin, Iantresman, Neutrality, Urhixidur, Jcw69,
JohnArmagh, Djyang~enwiki, Klemen Kocjancic, Sonett72, Adashiel, Lacrimosus, Mike Rosoft, Ta bu shi da yu, HedgeHog, Jayjg,
R, Archer3, Ultratomio, Deadlock, Carl Henderson, Arensb, KeyStroke, JimJast, Discospinster, ElTyrant, Rich Farmbrough, Rhobite,
Guanabot, FT2, Kdammers, Oliver Lineham, Pjacobi, Vsmith, Jpk, Silence, Arthur Holland, Mani1, SpookyMulder, Bender235, ES-
kog, Kbh3rd, Kaisershatner, Ben Standeven, Plugwash, Violetriga, Brian0918, RJHall, Carlon, Lycurgus, Rgdboer, Jomel, Worldtraveller,
Shanes, Art LaPella, RoyBoy, JeremyLydellHaugen, Causa sui, Bobo192, Army1987, Viriditas, Cohesion, Adrian~enwiki, L33tminion,
DaveGorman, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Joe Jarvis, Man vyi, Nk, TheProject, Ajdlinux, Obradovic Goran, Sam Korn, Jonathunder,
Mdd, Orangemarlin, Ranveig, Jumbuck, Schissel, Danski14, Gary, JYolkowski, Raintaster, Comrade Tassadar, Diego Moya, Mr Ade-
quate, Andrewpmk, Paleorthid, Plumbago, Sp82, Punarbhava, Riana, Thorns among our leaves, Lectonar, Lightdarkness, Sligocki, JHG,
Snowolf, Wtmitchell, Dschwen, Schapel, Orionix, Fourthords, Rick Sidwell, Rafti Institute, Knowledge Seeker, BrandonYusufToropov,
Staeiou, Cmapm, Aaron Bruce, Deathphoenix, Itsmine, DV8 2XL, Gene Nygaard, HenryLi, Kazvorpal, Ott, Matevzk, Dmitry Brant,
Hq3473, WilliamKF, JarlaxleArtemis, Anilocra, Twobitsprite, Braxeus, Bwallum, Jacobolus, Nameneko, Ruud Koot, JeremyA, Cho-
chopk, K Lepo, Jok2000, Pi@k~enwiki, Tabletop, Schzmo, Pdn~enwiki, Al E., Terence, Optichan, Cigsandalcohol, GregorB, Dataphil-
iac, Preisler, CharlesC, Wayward, Joke137, Prashanthns, Gimboid13, Cedrus-Libani, Christopher Thomas, Srkpriv, Bebenko, Paxsimius,
GSlicer, Larman, RichardWeiss, Rnt20, Graham87, Magister Mathematicae, BD2412, Chun-hian, Fleisher, DianaS, Nairb~enwiki, David
Levy, FreplySpang, Khronos21, RxS, Icey, BorgHunter, GBoehm, Tlroche, Ketiltrout, Sj, SteveW, Drbogdan, Rjwilmsi, Wikibofh, Vary,
Xos, Tangotango, Aximilli, MZMcBride, Mike s, ErikHaugen, Mike Peel, Vegaswikian, Oblivious, Justin Hirsh, HappyCamper, Ligulem,
ElKevbo, Bubba73, Brighterorange, Krash, Dar-Ape, Sango123, Raprat0, Yamamoto Ichiro, FayssalF, Drrngrvy, FlaBot, RobertG, Old
Moonraker, Dantecubed, HiddenWolf, RexNL, Gurch, ElfQrin, Intgr, TeaDrinker, Diza, Consumed Crustacean, Phoenix2~enwiki, Mon-
greilf, Chobot, Moocha, HKT, DVdm, Mhking, JesseGarrett, UkPaolo, Satanael, YurikBot, Wavelength, Spacepotato, RobotE, Scep-
tre, Jimp, Mahahahaneapneap, JustSomeKid, RussBot, BNL52577, Icarus3, Bhny, JabberWok, Chris Mid, CanadianCaesar, Stephenb,
Madyasiwi, The1physicist, Thryllkill, Gaius Cornelius, Eleassar, Oni Lukos, Wimt, Anomalocaris, Fnorp, NawlinWiki, SEWilcoBot, Wiki
alf, Bachrach44, ChadThomson, Grafen, Jaxl, Dugosz, Willbown, Dureo, JocK, Apokryltaros, Irishguy, Sir48, Kdbualo, Anetode, Chris-
brl88, Cholmes75, PhilipO, Raven4x4x, Grakm fr, Syrthiss, Aaron Schulz, Samir, BOT-Superzerocool, Gadget850, Alex cole, Kortoso,
DeadEyeArrow, Bota47, T-rex, Mistercow, Petergalileo, Smaines, Wknight94, Boivie, FF2010, Enormousdude, 2over0, Ageekgal, En-
domion, Dr.alf, Varith, CharlesHBennett, Sean Whitton, GraemeL, JoanneB, CWenger, Carabinieri, Ilmari Karonen, Caco de vidro, Dis-
ambigBot, Katieh5584, Kungfuadam, Maxamegalon2000, Innity0, Amberrock, DVD R W, Finell, Andrewwang90, Luk, Robertd, Anton
n, Amalthea, Crystallina, KnightRider~enwiki, SmackBot, YellowMonkey, Scorpiona, Mehranwahid, Joeljoslin, Dav2008, KnowledgeOf-
Self, Melchoir, Kimon, Pgk, Blue520, WilyD, KocjoBot~enwiki, Tchernobog, Jagged 85, Davewild, Bodhislutva, Dsouza, Hew~enwiki,
Delldot, Hardyplants, Hbackman, Harald88, Edgar181, Alsandro, Trystan, Markeer, Moralis, Onsly, Gilliam, Portillo, Skizzik, Chaojoker,
Ppntori, Raghav t, Cabe6403, Qtoktok, Jero77, Fetofs, Pope523, Aryeztur, Persian Poet Gal, MalafayaBot, Papa November, MidgleyDJ,
Elerner, Dustimagic, Ikiroid, Ted87, Kungming2, Mohamed Al-Dabbagh, DHN-bot~enwiki, Terraguy, Rlevse, Mikker, Scwlong, Can't
sleep, clown will eat me, Jere, Writtenright, Ioscius, Hve, Vanished User 0001, Nixeagle, Paales, Dannylim, Yidisheryid, TheKMan,
EvelinaB, Xiner, Andy120290, Mr.Z-man, ClairSamoht, King Vegita, Jmlk17, Gwaka Lumpa, Daqu, Nakon, Mikefzhu, TedE, VegaDark,
MHoerich, MichaelBillington, Alexandra lb, Weregerbil, Jklin, Duke nemmerle, Metamagician3000, Twir, Kalathalan, Shushruth, Marcus
Brute, Captainbeefart, Ck lostsword, Samuel Sol, Pilotguy, Kukini, Rossp, Byelf2007, SashatoBot, Lambiam, Nishkid64, Rory096, Har-
ryboyles, Rklawton, Dasune, Sophia, T-dot, Kuru, John, AmiDaniel, Scientizzle, J 1982, Rijkbenik, Benesch, JoshuaZ, Robert Stevens,
Reuvenk, NathanLee, Bjankuloski06en~enwiki, Gnevin, IronGargoyle, Bilby, Heliogabulus, Kakadinho2210, 041744, Ckatz, Random-
Critic, Ezrarez, JHunterJ, Digger3000, Kyphe, Muadd, Martinp23, George The Dragon, Mr Stephen, FredrickS, Hypnosi, Waggers,
Geologyguy, AdultSwim, Potable potables, Condem, Novangelis, Sasata, Hu12, Keith-264, Vanished user, Dekaels~enwiki, Astrobayes,
Paul venter, Cxat, Lottamiata, Shoeofdeath, Newone, Twas Now, RekishiEJ, CapitalR, Az1568, Wikidude1, Tawkerbot2, Dlohcierekim,
Chetvorno, Tommysun, WikiMarshall, Kurtan~enwiki, OAP boba, Idols of Mud, VinnieCool, JForget, CmdrObot, Geremia, Irwanga-
tot, Insanephantom, Memetics, Tom33, Agathman, Mohitkhullar, Olaf Davis, BeenAroundAWhile, Leopoldhausen, CWY2190, GHe,
Aquirata, Dgw, NickW557, WeggeBot, SelfStudyBuddy, Casper2k3, Neelix, Nnp, Cnj, Myasuda, Awptics, Gregbard, Steel, Iceman14n,
CovenantD, Gogo Dodo, Zarcom, Zgystardst, Travelbird, Bridgecross, Wa2ise, Frosty0814snowman, Rlcuda, 879(CoDe), Roketjack,
Aeiownusir, Michael C Price, Tawkerbot4, Christian75, DumbBOT, Chrislk02, Dinnerbone, Wazzz, Kozuch, Septagram, Helvetica,
Scarpy, Omicronpersei8, Voldemortuet, PaladinWriter, Landroo, PamD, LilDice, Malleus Fatuorum, Ulnevets, Qwyrxian, KimDabel-
steinPetersen, Skyre.michael, Kablammo, Sry85, UniverseToday, Keraunos, Gamer007, Anupam, ANIMAL~enwiki, Sopranosmob781,
Publicola, Headbomb, Simeon H, West Brom 4ever, Warrior m4, Tapir Terric, James086, Second Quantization, Peter Gulutzan, X201,
Davidhorman, Rosencrantz1, Rhrad, Aristox, Greg L, BlytheG, Will Bradshaw, Dawnseeker2000, Navigatr85, Escarbot, KrakatoaKatie,
AntiVandalBot, Martyn Smith, Luna Santin, CodeWeasel, Bigtimepeace, Benjaburns, Gnixon, Doc Tropics, The Hut, Rabbi-m, Ste4k,
Dane 1981, Dr. Submillimeter, PhJ, John Gibbons2, Danger, Farosdaughter, Skynet1216, Tim Shuba, Chill doubt, DarthShrine, Lones-
tar662p3, Rico402, Byrgenwulf, DrMacrophage, Kaini, AstroPaul, Nate Slayer0, MER-C, Matthew Fennell, Db099221, JamesAgain, An-
donic, Tstrobaugh, Viriathus, LittleOldMe, .anacondabot, Pervect, Propaniac, Magioladitis, YishaiMagelMoganim, Murgh, Bongwarrior,
VoABot II, Jvasu 2000, P64, Bakken, Bobby McGehee, Feeeshboy, Marhadiasa, Godwillwin, OoTV, TheMusicalGenius, 0ut0ftunevi0lin,
Outoftuneviolin 5, Avicennasis, Bubba hotep, Fabricebaro, Theroadislong, Animum, Truthiness34, Cgingold, Outoftuneviolin Returns,
Outoftuneviolin VS Wikipedia, Charliet, Kevinwiatrowski, Another sockpuppet of Outoftuneviolin, BatteryIncluded, JJ Harrison, MiPe,
Joe hill, Allstarecho, Mike Payne, Lowmax2, Somearemoreequal, Shijualex, Glen, GAH GAH, DerHexer, Teardrop onthere, Benra, Khei-
der, Rickard Vogelberg, Joshua Davis, Sambop, Misarxist, Hdt83, MartinBot, Bhenderson, Verkle, Yasinmiyar, LordPhobos, Liam159,
Anaxial, R'n'B, Soccerpro, CommonsDelinker, Nwhitehair, Crisnumbertwo, Fellwalker57, Down.with.conformity, HEL, Dromoreboy,
DrKay, C Ronald, Svetovid, C T, Paulamicela, Leon kennedy8, Maurice Carbonaro, Kemiv, Extransit, WarthogDemon, TomS TDotO,
1tephania, It Is Me Here, BrokenSphere, Bot-Schafter, Katalaveno, Sonalchagi, Hialhitler, Bejerbel, Ben robbins, Grosscha, AMERICA
SUPREME, Skier Dude, Tarotcards, Hammiolo, NewEnglandYankee, Wesino, SJP, Student7, Umair82, Pinea, KylieTastic, Triangu-
lator, Cometstyles, STBotD, Kenneth M Burke, Que-Can, Johnston213, Jtankers, Sarregouset, DMCer, Ollie 9045, Cazlo0, Furrypig,
Squids and Chips, Muchclag, Azndragon2131, Idioma-bot, Funandtrvl, Spellcast, Jamesaf123, Fainites, Wikieditor06, Lights, Urrg...,
28.7. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 273

X!, UnicornTapestry, VolkovBot, Ghustug, Johan1298~enwiki, Gwuen Galeus1978, AlnoktaBOT, Kyle the bot, FergusM1970, George
Adam Horvth, Philip Trueman, Alvevind~enwiki, Childhoodsend, TXiKiBoT, Joopercoopers, NDUTU~enwiki, 99DBSIMLR, Tricky
Victoria, Kww, Udufruduhu, Flarblesarefun, Smalls1652, Dchall1, Zybez, AlysTarr, Qxz, Someguy1221, Lradrama, Melsaran, Fizza-
ckerly, PDFbot, UnitedStatesian, Henryodell, Reevesastronomy, Mazarin07, Telecineguy, Billinghurst, SwordSmurf, Lamro, Tbtkorg,
Petej010, Synthebot, Falcon8765, Moose-32, Havs84, WatermelonPotion, Insanity Incarnate, Thealltruth, AlleborgoBot, Michael Frind,
NHRHS2010, EmxBot, PaddyLeahy, Drschawrz, KyZan, SieBot, Kmasters0, Soccermonkey 77, Duguti, Lalala98, Restre419, Tiddly Tom,
Nihil novi, Invmog, Bubuntu, Phe-bot, Parhamr, Caltas, Gravitan, Radclie777677, Luke2thab, Keilana, Atl braves, Abhishikt, Flyer22
Reborn, Tiptoety, Oda Mari, Mirkoruckels, Skaggamoo, Jc-S0CO, L.P, Cheshunt, Gilmiciak, Scooby1257, Oxymoron83, Likemk687,
Yeenar, Nuttycoconut, Zharradan.angelre, Steamboatdude, Lightmouse, Jruderman, Sunrise, Pediainsight, Dsmith7707, Jay Turner,
Coldcreation, Vanished user ewsn2348tui2f8n2o2utjfeoi210r39jf, Duae Quartunciae, Anchor Link Bot, Phral, Hamiltondaniel, Fire-
y322, Superbeecat, Escape Orbit, Into The Fray, C0nanPayne, Myrvin, Asher196, Invertzoo, SallyForth123, Nondistinguished, Faith-
lessthewonderboy, ArepoEn, CrunchyAvocado000, Ixodeth, ClueBot, Wildie, RedGav, GorillaWarfare, Ryanborgz, Double kz77, Fyyer,
Kotniski, Sammmttt, Petersburg, Taboyz, Surfer9986, Vacio, EMC125, Dean Wormer, Jaygeisler, Unbuttered Parsnip, Tanglewood4,
UserDoe, Slater bob, Drmies, Russ143, Joshua Gonsalves, Altenhofen, Polyamorph, SuperHamster, Nursebhayes, CounterVandalism-
Bot, NovaDog, VandalCruncher, Agge1000, Neverquick, ChandlerMapBot, Ninjorturtle456, BlueAmethyst, Markarkrkk, Chimesmon-
ster, DragonBot, Darian Tang, Welsh-girl-Lowri, Heaney21, MissLadyZara, Peacetoyomama, Santokh01, Thebeast373, CidVSReno,
Utopial, Millionsandbillions, Cenarium, Jotterbot, PhySusie, Biochem67, M.N.Qunson, Kentgen1, Scog, Revotfel, Truth is relative, un-
derstanding is limited, Chaosdruid, Panos84, ModestMouse2, Inlovewithaboyscout, Aitias, Spino, Dana boomer, Byeahman, Johnuniq,
Oore, DumZiBoT, TimothyRias, JWhitt433, DCCougar, Stickee, MilnerJames, Gwark, Spinner198, Purnajitphukon, Ummhihello, Jprw,
Jdude3, Ilikepie2221, SilvonenBot, Shailaja87, Cow457, Stragler, Fairdeal08, Jd027, Kaiwhakahaere, Aunt Entropy, Nishbond, Leon-
doneit2, Zinger0, Good Olfactory, Parejkoj, Chris-constant, Tre2, Tayste, KirbyManiac, Maldek, Addbot, Basilicofresco, Ocrasaroon,
Uruk2008, DOI bot, Yoenit, Jazza18, Fotots, WFPM, NjardarBot, LaaknorBot, BepBot, Blueman 7, The C of E, TStein, Knightof-
baghdad, LinkFA-Bot, Patton123, Tassedethe, VASANTH S.N., Astro-norte, TundraGreen, John.St, Krukouski, , Yin-
weichen, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ht686rg90, Aldebaran66, Whileactor~enwiki, KamikazeBot, Azcolvin429, Farsight001, Armchair info guy,
AnomieBOT, 1exec1, Six words, Jim1138, RBM 72, LlywelynII, Dr. Gnter Bechly, HowDumbAreYou, Csigabi, Mann jess, Ameki,
Materialscientist, Citation bot, Stronach, MauritsBot, Xqbot, TinucherianBot II, A455bcd9, Hanberke, Gilo1969, Gap9551, GrouchoBot,
Sirrontail, Silence-is-innite, Ashershow1, RibotBOT, Waleswatcher, DASDBILL2, Championpork, GhalyBot, Canned Soul, A. di M.,
Jbananal, , Alexmaxbir, FreeKnowledgeCreator, CES1596, Nagualdesign, Lionelt, FrescoBot, LucienBOT, Paine Ellsworth, Ilikesealife,
Flygongengar, D'ohBot, EmilTyf, SF88, Kwiki, Airborne84, Citation bot 1, Careful With That Axe, Eugene, Redrose64, Theory2reality,
Dogaru Florin, Pinethicket, Edderso, Tom.Reding, AmphBot, Shahidur Rahman Sikder, Longview32, Eciency1101e, RedBot, Btilm,
MastiBot, IVAN3MAN, Gamewizard71, TobeBot, Trappist the monk, Puzl bustr, Fama Clamosa, Lotje, Callanecc, Extra999, JLincoln,
Tbhotch, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, RjwilmsiBot, Bento00, Ripchip Bot, Androstachys, Charlieadam, Techhead7890, Tesseract2, DASHBot,
Jpatros, EmausBot, Nathanl1192, WikitanvirBot, Gfoley4, Dominus Vobisdu, Katherine, MikeyTMNT, Joseph507357, Canprog, Bt8257,
Tommy2010, Wikipelli, Italia2006, Grondilu, Ida Shaw, A2soup, JosueM, Kpreet1996, Everard Proudfoot, Barbara.scherclark, H3llBot,
SporkBot, Cymru.lass, Hubbabubba3, Mop head155, Brandmeister, Vanished user jtji34toksdcknqrjn54yoimascj, L Kensington, Yob-
ingfrog, Mahendra.sharma83, Brandon82694, Krsaurabhbca, Harmi.banik, FelixG1995, 1800reverse, RockMagnetist, Blarg123456789,
Linette18, Czeror, Ebehn, ClueBot NG, Smtchahal, Gilderien, Satellizer, Joefromrandb, Movses-bot, Hiperfelix, Widr, North Atlanti-
cist Usonian, Helpful Pixie Bot, Rsercher, Bibcode Bot, BG19bot, Ymblanter, ArtifexMayhem, Stephfo, Quarkgluonsoup, Knowledge
Examiner, Hurricane2u, Dr.Toonhattan, FiveColourMap, Cadiomals, Harizotoh9, MrBill3, Cky2250, Emaha, Russianamerican1, The-
GoodBadWorst, Amphibio, BattyBot, Tomh903, Judiakok1985, Cyberbot II, ChrisGualtieri, Soulbust, Arcandam, SD5bot, Khazar2,
Rhlozier, JYBot, Wassup234, Dexbot, Inayity, Jamesx12345, Sowlos, Junjunone, Choor monster, Rfassbind, Linuxgal, Everymorning,
Hardcoreromancatholic, Curatiotech, Comp.arch, Crow, Arjunkrishna90, Rajgopal iyer, Mahusha, Monkbot, Chuckleheimersy, Owais
Khursheed, Pingumeister, Wikipedian 2, Spumuq, Hamnus, Rubbish computer, I'm your Grandma., Ll Da Mo ll, Tetra quark, Dou-
glask1835, Isambard Kingdom, Anand2202, SocraticOath, Jerodlycett, Supdiop, KasparBot, Greyhatrex, Are you freaking kidding me,
Intelligent Mr Toad 2, TychosElk, Youknowwhatimsayin, Milku3459, Reuben Miguel Felix and Anonymous: 1068

Physical cosmology Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology?oldid=696352693 Contributors: AxelBoldt, CYD, Wes-

ley, Bryan Derksen, The Anome, Koyaanis Qatsi, Ed Poor, Andre Engels, XJaM, DavidLevinson, Youandme, Modemac, Edward, Boud,
Michael Hardy, GABaker, IZAK, Looxix~enwiki, Andrewa, Glenn, Bogdangiusca, Andres, Evercat, Rob Hooft, Reddi, Dragons ight,
Phys, Wetman, BenRG, Jni, Phil Boswell, Robbot, Craig Stuntz, Merovingian, Lsy098~enwiki, Sverdrup, Rursus, Meelar, Fuelbottle,
Giftlite, Ich, Curps, Gracefool, Node ue, Bobblewik, Pgan002, Andycjp, Spatch, BozMo, Beland, OverlordQ, APH, RetiredUser2, Icairns,
Urhixidur, Centroyd, Mike Rosoft, Discospinster, Rich Farmbrough, Oliver Lineham, Pjacobi, Vsmith, Jpk, Mani1, SpookyMulder, RJHall,
El C, Shanes, Megaton~enwiki, Dralwik, Mtruch, Fritz freiheit, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Nk, Geschichte, Jumbuck, Erichwanh, Truth
seeker, Gilgameshfuel, Wtmitchell, Orionix, Tycho, Gene Nygaard, Mattbrundage, Ceyockey, Nuno Tavares, FeanorStar7, Rocastelo,
Kzollman, Mpatel, GregorB, Joke137, Graham87, Nanite, Drbogdan, Rjwilmsi, Mayumashu, Mike Peel, Maxim Razin, TeaDrinker,
DVdm, Gwernol, Wavelength, JabberWok, Trious, Salsb, SEWilcoBot, Welsh, Dna-webmaster, Jayamohan, Pawyilee, Leptictidium, Jonat-
hanD, Syd Midnight, Smoggyrob, Josh3580, Wsiegmund, Kungfuadam, Innity0, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Reedy, KnowledgeOfSelf,
Vald, Fractions, Hbackman, Edgar181, Alsandro, Hmains, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Silly rabbit, Droll, Colonies Chris, Hallenrm, Hve,
Vanished User 0001, Stangbat, Nakon, John D. Croft, Zadignose, Lambiam, Vgy7ujm, Philosophus, Mgiganteus1, Cyberstrike2000x, Ck-
atz, Dan Gluck, Aeternus, Pathosbot, Raystorm, Kurtan~enwiki, RCS, Gregbard, DumbBOT, Legis, Abtract, Shocktherapy, Letranova,
Coelacan, Oliver202, Headbomb, Peter Gulutzan, Seaphoto, Movses, Zhengdabei, Tim Shuba, CosineKitty, Jenattiyeh, Wikidudeman, No-
tACow, KConWiki, Catgut, Elentirmo, Kevinwiatrowski, NatureA16, MartinBot, R'n'B, HEL, J.delanoy, Neonguru, Maurice Carbonaro,
Lantonov, Skier Dude, Plasticup, Utad3~enwiki, CWii, Milenita~enwiki, Zrallo, WWEUNDERTAKER, Clarince63, Vendrov, BotKung,
Maxim, James McBride, PHiZiX, Undead warrior, Coee, MaynardClark, Lightmouse, Ccwth, Anchor Link Bot, ClueBot, VQuakr,
Agge1000, Djr32, Excirial, CohesionBot, Alan268, Brews ohare, Scog, Askahrc, Hercule, Panos84, TimothyRias, Avoided, Truthnlove,
Dazza79, Addbot, Atethnekos, Tassedethe, Astro-norte, AstroBjorn, Greyhood, VP-bot, Ttoolow, Yinweichen, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Boyer
the destroyer, Legobot II, Aldebaran66, Mmonne, Ccraccnam, Amble, KamikazeBot, Keeratura, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, 1exec1, Captain
Quirk, Flewis, Materialscientist, Citation bot, Icosmology, Rightly, Hexadecima, Xqbot, Gap9551, Pra1998, Nasa-verve, , Fres-
coBot, Zionist agent, Tavernsenses, SF88, Geomet9, Tom.Reding, Pmokeefe, Naturehead, Geogene, Hoo man, Aknochel, Caribibble,
Begoon, GGT, Chronulator, Earthandmoon, Brambleclawx, Marie Poise, EmausBot, Italia2006, SporkBot, David J Johnson, Eparksbuck-
eye, Donner60, HCPotter, Mentibot, ClueBot NG, Lakithunderboom, Braincricket, X-men2011, Helpful Pixie Bot, Bibcode Bot, Bm
gub2, Juro2351, Marsambe, Marsambe1, Harizotoh9, Seshavatharam.bhc, MathewTownsend, Cyberbot II, ChrisGualtieri, Louey37, Soul-
bust, Rhlozier, Von Numinous, Wjs64, Alexander1257, Rfassbind, Praemonitus, Imaloverboy12345, Wrrdsck, CuirassierX, Prokaryotes,
PirtleShell, Jwratner1, Vinny Lam, Mfb, Vsilv, Monkbot, Neeraj Bhakta, Stefania.deluca, Tetra quark, KasparBot, Huritisho and Anony-
274 CHAPTER 28. COSMOLOGICAL HORIZON

mous: 188
Hubbles law Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble{}s_law?oldid=696858386 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Mav, Bryan Derksen,
Tarquin, AstroNomer~enwiki, Andre Engels, XJaM, Diatarn iv~enwiki, Spi~enwiki, Patrick, Boud, Liftarn, Cyde, Natbat, Minesweeper,
168..., Looxix~enwiki, Mark Foskey, Je Relf, Andres, Hashar, Timwi, Random832, Evgeni Sergeev, Tpbradbury, Phoebe, Xaven, Anu-
pamsr, Kulnor, BenRG, Carbuncle, Donarreiskoer, Sverdrup, Rorro, Borislav, Xanzzibar, Enochlau, Giftlite, Jao, Karn, Noone~enwiki,
Waltpohl, Alexander.stohr, Hugh2414, Just Another Dan, Bobblewik, Tagishsimon, Dinojerm, Csmiller, Johnux, H Padleckas, Iantres-
man, Eisnel, Ta bu shi da yu, JimJast, Discospinster, Oliver Lineham, Vsmith, Jpk, Chub~enwiki, Dbachmann, Dmr2, Bender235, ESkog,
Elwikipedista~enwiki, RJHall, Ylee, Pt, Laurascudder, Art LaPella, Vervin, .:Ajvol:., Jjk, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Sjmcd, Kjkolb, Nk,
Nsaa, Tom Yates, Jumbuck, Rsholmes, Eric Kvaalen, Andrewpmk, Velella, Cmapm, Gmel, Gene Nygaard, Falcorian, Oleg Alexandrov,
WilliamKF, Nuno Tavares, OwenX, FeanorStar7, RHaworth, Logomancer, StradivariusTV, ^demon, Steinbach, Sengkang, Isnow, Joke137,
Christopher Thomas, Yegorm, Graham87, Drbogdan, Rjwilmsi, Zbxgscqf, Bubba73, The wub, Mohawkjohn, Fivemack, Nickpowerz,
Hashproduct, Nimur, RobyWayne, Fresheneesz, Alphachimp, ScottAlanHill, DVdm, Amaurea, YurikBot, Wavelength, RobotE, Wester,
Jimp, Hillman, Durand101, JabberWok, Chris Mid, Sir48, Raskolnikov The Penguin, WAS 4.250, 2over0, Acctorp, Vicarious, Caco de
vidro, Argo Navis, RG2, John Broughton, GrinBot~enwiki, SmackBot, Tarret, Delldot, Yamaguchi , Onsly, Gilliam, Hmains, Chris the
speller, MK8, OrangeDog, Dabigkid, Sadads, Farry, Yurigerhard, Darth Panda, Gracenotes, Scwlong, Trekphiler, Can't sleep, clown will
eat me, Allemannster, Hve, LouScheer, Aldaron, John D. Croft, Mr Minchin, SpaceTiger, DantheCowMan, Wirbelwind, Just plain Bill,
Kendrick7, ALK, Ligulembot, Vina-iwbot~enwiki, Lambiam, Silvem, Mr. Vernon, Imi2, Hypnosi, Mets501, Iridescent, Astrobayes,
UncleDouggie, Richard75, Phoenixrod, Az1568, Encyclopediarocketman, Tem2, Tommysun, Harold f, J Milburn, CRGreathouse, Cm-
drObot, David s gra, Olaf Davis, MrFizyx, NE Ent, Adrianinos, Vectro, Cydebot, Abeg92, ZioX, Agne27, Michael C Price, Christian75,
Kozuch, Abtract, Malleus Fatuorum, Epbr123, Headbomb, Marek69, Peter Gulutzan, Iviney, Greg L, X96lee15, AntiVandalBot, Luna
Santin, Danger, JAnDbot, Spacehippy, Brendand, 100110100, Greensburger, GermanSoccer3, Christopher Cooper, Rothorpe, Gekedo,
Michele123, Catgut, Vanished user ty12kl89jq10, Charliet, Dravick, Shijualex, R'n'B, CommonsDelinker, Uncle Dick, Maurice Carbonaro,
Ian.thomson, TomyDuby, M-le-mot-dit, NewEnglandYankee, Joshmt, Dorftrottel, Sheliak, Xnuala, Orthologist, TXiKiBoT, Ssri1983, Gc-
SwRhIc, Qxz, LeaveSleaves, BotKung, SwordSmurf, PaddyLeahy, SieBot, Jim77742, CircafuciX, Hertz1888, Dawn Bard, Wing gun-
dam, Droog Andrey, Tombomp, OKBot, CharlesGillingham, Cosmo0, Sfan00 IMG, ClueBot, Ohmygodeven, EoGuy, Wendy.krieger,
Agge1000, Sun Creator, Brews ohare, NuclearWarfare, Tnxman307, Kentgen1, Dj manton, Wnt, Darkicebot, QYV, Tarlneustaedter, Ari-
conte, Madkasse, Addbot, Mortense, DOI bot, Jojhutton, DougsTech, CarsracBot, Glane23, Bob K31416, Lzkelley, Lightbot, Finley08,
Hartz, Legobot, TaBOT-zerem, Aldebaran66, Henriettaleavitt, Tempodivalse, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, The High Fin Sperm Whale, Ard-
War, Citation bot, ArthurBot, Xqbot, Lordelicht, Nickkid5, Xmrbearx, Gap9551, Srich32977, Frosted14, QMarion II, SassoBot, A. di
M., CES1596, FrescoBot, AllCluesKey, Jc3s5h, D'ohBot, S0fakingdie, Citation bot 1, Citation bot 4, Careful With That Axe, Eugene,
Gaba p, A412, Tom.Reding, Rushbugled13, Naturehead, Serols, Liweitianux, RockSolidCosmo, Heurisko, Vrenator, Chicodroid, Strop-
polo, Bongdentoiac, Newty23125, EmausBot, Energy Dome, WikitanvirBot, Primefac, Fotoni, Minimacs Clone, Mcguyver2, Tolly4bolly,
Brandmeister, HCPotter, AndyTheGrump, Esilence, Llightex, Sven Manguard, Mattanel, ClueBot NG, Anagogist, MelbourneStar, Gilde-
rien, Braincricket, Synethos, , Helpful Pixie Bot, Bibcode Bot, Ymblanter, ElphiBot, ChronHigherEdReader, Citation-
CleanerBot, Glevum, Jason from nyc, Stigmatella aurantiaca, Javiramos, Cerabot~enwiki, Twhitguy14, Wjs64, Tony Mach, Epicgenius,
Al'Beroya, Joe LHC Portal, Beavertron, Spartacus99, Tokrabelgium, The Herald, PirtleShell, JeanLucMargot, Aabrucadubraa, Monkbot,
SlavaRodionov, Jwalker444, Tetra quark, Gcarpenter83, Rutzrutz, Halexus, Huritisho, Jpiquette and Anonymous: 263
General relativity Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity?oldid=696457157 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Mav, Bryan Derk-
sen, The Anome, AstroNomer~enwiki, Ap, RK, Andre Engels, XJaM, Chrislintott, JeLuF, Christian List, William Avery, Roadrunner, Kt-
square, B4hand, Stevertigo, Frecklefoot, Patrick, Boud, Michael Hardy, Menchi, Ixfd64, Bcrowell, Nimrod~enwiki, TakuyaMurata, Mcar-
ling, Minesweeper, Alo, Looxix~enwiki, ArnoLagrange, Ellywa, Ahoerstemeier, Stevenj, William M. Connolley, Snoyes, Angela, Mark
Foskey, Julesd, Salsa Shark, AugPi, Andres, Evercat, Hectorthebat, Hick ninja, A.Tigges~enwiki, Gingekerr, Jitse Niesen, Gutza, Rednblu,
Doradus, Wik, Dragons ight, Tero~enwiki, Phys, Shizhao, Elwoz, BenRG, Banno, Northgrove, Phil Boswell, Robbot, Craig Stuntz, Sd-
edeo, Bvc2000, Goethean, Altenmann, Romanm, Lowellian, Mayooranathan, Gandalf61, Blainster, Diderot, DHN, Hadal, Alba, Johnstone,
Fuelbottle, Isopropyl, Xanzzibar, Carnildo, Tobias Bergemann, Enochlau, Ancheta Wis, Tosha, Giftlite, JamesMLane, Graeme Bartlett,
Mikez, BenFrantzDale, Lethe, Tom harrison, Fropu, Everyking, Physman, Curps, Michael Devore, Jason Quinn, Alvestrand, SWAdair,
Glengarry, Bobblewik, Edcolins, DefLog~enwiki, Pgan002, Knutux, GeneralPatton, HorsePunchKid, Robert Brockway, Kaldari, MadIce,
Karol Langner, Rjpetti, Rdsmith4, JimWae, Anythingyouwant, Martin Wisse, Thincat, Euphoria, Icairns, Zfr, AmarChandra, Zondor,
Econrad, JimJast, Discospinster, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, Pak21, ThomasK, Masudr, Pjacobi, Vsmith, Cdyson37, Jowr, Paul Au-
gust, SpookyMulder, Dmr2, Bender235, Dcabrilo, Ground, Ben Standeven, Nabla, Livajo, El C, Worldtraveller, Shanes, Etimbo, Causa
sui, Bobo192, Robotje, Smalljim, Rbj, JW1805, ParticleMan, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Mr2001, Matt McIrvin, PWilkinson, Haham
hanuka, Schnolle, Varuna, Jumbuck, Jrme, Alansohn, Hackwrench, Cctoide, Crebbin, Wikidea, SlimVirgin, Benefros, Alexwg, Wt-
mitchell, Orionix, CloudNine, Bsadowski1, DV8 2XL, LordLoki, HenryLi, Oleg Alexandrov, Kelly Martin, Linas, FeanorStar7, Sabejias,
Moneky, Kzollman, Cleonis, Mpatel, Jok2000, Schzmo, Pdn~enwiki, GregorB, Plrk, Wayward, Joke137, Christopher Thomas, Man-
darax, Colodia, Canderson7, Rjwilmsi, WCFrancis, MarSch, Eyu100, JoshuacUK, JHMM13, Mike Peel, SanitysEdge, R.e.b., Ems57fcva,
Bubba73, Gringo300, Ian Pitchford, RobertG, Mishuletz, Arnero, Mathbot, Nihiltres, Vsion, Perfect Tommy~enwiki, Itinerant1, Alfred
Centauri, Gparker, Slant, Carrionluggage, Srleer, Chobot, DVdm, Bgwhite, Dresdnhope, Manscher, Roboto de Ajvol, YurikBot, Wave-
length, Bcarm1185, Splintercellguy, Hillman, EDG, MattWright, RussBot, Loom91, AVM, KSmrq, DanMS, SpuriousQ, Shawn81, Ele-
assar, Shanel, Syth, Madcoverboy, Tailpig, Schlay, Dputig07, Beanyk, Tony1, Dna-webmaster, Enormousdude, 2over0, KGasso, Petri
Krohn, GraemeL, Rlove, Sambc, LeonardoRob0t, Georey.landis, HereToHelp, Willtron, Meegs, Bsod2, Finell, Luk, Sardanaphalus,
SmackBot, Kurochka, Hydrogen Iodide, Pavlovi, Gnangarra, Unyoyega, Nickst, Delldot, Motorneuron, Cessator, Harald88, Edgar181,
Shai-kun, Sectryan, Gilliam, Skizzik, Dauto, Saros136, Silly rabbit, Complexica, Colonies Chris, Zven, Abyssal, RProgrammer, Hve, Red-
Hillian, BentSm, Phaedriel, Khoikhoi, Cybercobra, Downwards, Coolbho3000, Nakon, Peterwhy, SkyWriter, DMacks, Nairebis, Henning
Makholm, UncleFester, Bidabadi~enwiki, Byelf2007, SashatoBot, Lambiam, Lapaz, Cronholm144, Gizzakk, CPMcE, JorisvS, Good-
nightmush, Ckatz, Frokor, Garthbarber, SirFozzie, SandyGeorgia, Midnightblueowl, RichardF, Novangelis, Peter Horn, MTSbot~enwiki,
Kvng, JarahE, Licorne, Quaeler, Fan-1967, Editor.singapore, MFago, JoeBot, ShyK, MOBle, RekishiEJ, CapitalR, MD:astronomer, Cour-
celles, Tawkerbot2, JRSpriggs, Kurtan~enwiki, Harold f, JForget, Sakurambo, Thermochap, Avanu, NickW557, MarsRover, Harrigan,
Ian Beynon, Cydebot, Jasperdoomen, WillowW, Fl, MC10, Mato, Pascal.Tesson, Michael C Price, Christian75, DumbBOT, Biblbroks,
Omicronpersei8, Crum375, N. Macchiavelli, Epbr123, Fisherjs, Markus Pssel, Martin Hogbin, MrXow, Oliver202, Headbomb, Pjvpjv,
Tom Barlow, Davidhorman, D.H, AntiVandalBot, Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri, Tkirkman, Gnixon, VectorPosse, TimVickers,
Scepia, Dawz, Billevans~enwiki, Tim Shuba, Rico402, Archmagusrm, Jaredroberts, JAnDbot, Vorpal blade, Hut 8.5, YK Times, Acro-
terion, Pervect, Magioladitis, Connormah, RogierBrussee, WolfmanSF, JamesBWatson, Swpb, Ling.Nut, Soulbot, Pixel ;-), KConWiki,
WhatamIdoing, Eldumpo, Allstarecho, User A1, Mollwollfumble, Chris G, Archen~enwiki, Thompson.matthew, STBot, Mermaid from
28.7. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 275

the Baltic Sea, Shentino, Mschel, CommonsDelinker, Pbroks13, J.delanoy, DrKay, R. Baley, Numbo3, Leafsfan85, Lantonov, M C Y 1008,
Mathlabster, Zedmelon, Aboutmovies, C quest000, Tcisco, Marrilpet, Aatomic1, Potatoswatter, Kolja21, Lseixas, Rmih, Caracalocelot,
DemonicInuence, Sheliak, Deor, Part Deux, JohnBlackburne, Philip Trueman, TXiKiBoT, Coder Dan, GimmeBot, Gombo, Hqb, Rei-
bot, IPSOS, Qxz, T dong, Molinogi, Fizzackerly, JhsBot, Leafyplant, Geometry guy, Ilyushka88, Thebigbendizzle, SwordSmurf, Andy
Dingley, Gabrielsleitao, Lamro, Antixt, Vector Potential, James-Chin, Arcfrk, Ccheese4, StevenJohnston, Katzmik, YohanN7, Dnarby,
SieBot, Tiddly Tom, Work permit, Yintan, RadicalOne, Wizzard2k, SteakNShake, Arbor to SJ, Babareddeer, JSpung, Phil Bridger, Wm-
pearl, Oxymoron83, Henry Delforn (old), Csloomis, Thehotelambush, Lightmouse, BrightRoundCircle, OpTioNiGhT, The-G-Unit-Boss,
Emgg, AWeishaupt, Divinestu, Coldcreation, Adam Cuerden, Duae Quartunciae, Heptarchy of teh Anglo-Saxons, baby, Randomblue,
TFCforever, Danthewhale, Martarius, Sfan00 IMG, ClueBot, The Thing That Should Not Be, Rjd0060, Metaprimer, Wwheaton, Der
Golem, JTBX, TheAmigo42, CounterVandalismBot, Viran, Blanchardb, Rotational, Agge1000, Itzguru, Tanketz, CohesionBot, Eeekster,
Stealth500, Brews ohare, NuclearWarfare, PhySusie, SockPuppetForTomruen, SchreiberBike, Another Believer, RubenGarciaHernandez,
AC+79 3888, MasterOfHisOwnDomain, He6kd, TimothyRias, Lazyrussian, PseudoOne, Skarebo, NellieBly, JinJian, Truthnlove, Ev-
erydayidiot, Tayste, Balungifrancis, Addbot, Mortense, Some jerk on the Internet, Fizzycyst, DOI bot, Mistyocean3, Metagraph, Stariki,
Fluernutter, Schmoolik, MrOllie, Download, EconoPhysicist, Delaszk, Favonian, LinkFA-Bot, Tuition, Tassedethe, Nnedass, Tide rolls,
Lightbot, Knutls, Luckas-bot, Ptbotgourou, Legobot II, Julia W, Trickyboarder93, Superamoeba, AnomieBOT, Kristen Eriksen, Gior-
dano.ferdinandi, Jim1138, Jo3sampl, Materialscientist, Wandering Courier, The High Fin Sperm Whale, Citation bot, Xqbot, Stlwebs,
Sionus, Amareto2, Unigfjkl, Nickkid5, Stsang, GrouchoBot, Collin21594, RibotBOT, Rucko123, GhalyBot, Acannas, LucienBOT, Paine
Ellsworth, Lagelspeil, Steve Quinn, Knowandgive, Pokyrek, Citation bot 1, Citation bot 4, Electrozity8, Pinethicket, LittleWink, Jone-
sey95, A412, Tom.Reding, Yougeeaw, Barras, Jauhienij, Meier99, Citator, Comet Tuttle, Hughston, Defender of torch, Duoduoduo, Arib-
ashka, Iibbmm, Diannaa, Earthandmoon, Tbhotch, Brambleclawx, Marie Poise, RjwilmsiBot, Aznhero3793, Ripchip Bot, EmausBot,
WikitanvirBot, Immunize, Zhaskey, Fly by Night, DuKu, GoingBatty, Jmencisom, Slightsmile, Hhhippo, JSquish, ZroBot, Cogiati, Stan-
ford96, Empty Buer, Sanford123456, H3llBot, Quondum, REkaxkjdsc, Monterey Bay, Mr little irish, TonyMath, Brandmeister, Maschen,
Pun, Carmichael, Newstv11, RockMagnetist, Sona11235, WizardofCalculus, Milk Coee, Whoop whoop pull up, Mjbmrbot, Help-
some, ClueBot NG, Manubot, Hagenfeldt, This lousy T-shirt, SusikMkr, Ggonzalm, Jj1236, Mgvongoeden, Snotbot, Widr, Jamester234,
Pluma, Ginger.spice14, Bibcode Bot, Jeraphine Gryphon, Lowercase sigmabot, Quarkgluonsoup, Bolatbek, Marsambe, Amp71, Mark
Arsten, Lovepool1220, Marsambe1, Benzband, ENG.F.Younis, 123matt123, DeviantFrog, IrishDevil2, F=q(E+v^B), Egbertus2, Harizo-
toh9, Doctor Lipschitz, Snow Blizzard, Zoldyick, Roozitaa, BattyBot, Reed07, Vanobamo, JoshuSasori, Stigmatella aurantiaca, Cyber-
bot II, Abhay ravi, ChrisGualtieri, Maestro814, Deathlasersonline, Plokijnu, Billyshiverstick, Read Blooded, Theeditor6079, Flyer1997,
Dexbot, Suan Akhtar, Kryomaxim, Twhitguy14, CuriousMind01, J0437-4715, Jamesx12345, Among Men, Leprof 7272, WorldWide-
Juan, Devinray1991, 1888software, EvergreenFir, Enchantedscience, Mohamed F. El-Hewie, Vai ra'a toa Taina, NeapleBerlina, Jwratner1,
Gigantmozg, Ginsuloft, SirKesuma, Anrnusna, JaconaFrere, Osamabin7, Juenni32, Filedelinkerbot, SantiLak, Aryabhatt 21, Willbh15,
S11027158, Cjsmith.us, Cris Cyborg, PeterShawhan, Evgeniy E., Sweeeeeeeed, Tetra quark, Praveece, JuanLT2045, Jf2839, Generaliza-
tionsAreBad, KasparBot, Lemonberry622, Pizzaman62, Dgray101, Amrespi2007, Narasimha Kanduri and Anonymous: 709
Cosmological constant Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant?oldid=684416542 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Mag-
nus Manske, Vicki Rosenzweig, Bryan Derksen, The Anome, Ed Poor, Enchanter, William Avery, Roadrunner, Schewek, Hephaestos,
Boud, Bcrowell, Lquilter, TakuyaMurata, Minesweeper, Stevenj, Kimiko, Samw, Timwi, Reddi, Asar~enwiki, Dogface, Bevo, Anu-
pamsr, Johnleemk, BenRG, Phil Boswell, Robbot, Goethean, Wereon, Giftlite, Bobblewik, Jonel, Rjpetti, Icairns, Rgrg, Burschik, Jim-
Jast, 4pq1injbok, Pjacobi, Vsmith, StephanKetz, Pavel Vozenilek, Dmr2, Bender235, RJHall, Pt, El C, Frankenschulz, RoyBoy, Rbj,
I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Knucmo2, Jumbuck, Falcorian, Angr, OwenX, Linas, StradivariusTV, Kzollman, Mpatel, Joke137, Wisq,
Christopher Thomas, Rnt20, Ashmoo, Coneslayer, Rjwilmsi, Coemgenus, Nightscream, RE, Itinerant1, Chobot, PointedEars, YurikBot,
Hillman, RussBot, Ytrottier, SpuriousQ, Gaius Cornelius, Salsb, Sir48, Muu-karhu, DeadEyeArrow, Helge Ros, Petri Krohn, Kasug-
aHuang, SmackBot, Incnis Mrsi, WilyD, Nickst, Cush, Colonies Chris, Avb, Cybercobra, Ligulembot, Yevgeny Kats, Lambiam, Matt489,
Paladinwannabe2, Ckatz, Onionmon, Basicdesign, Newone, Sirwhiteout, Chetvorno, CmdrObot, Orannis, Hardrada, Mlsmith10, MaxEnt,
Phatom87, Forthommel, Frostlion, Dr.enh, Michael C Price, Tawkerbot4, Clovis Sangrail, Christian75, Thijs!bot, Mathmoclaire, Peter
Gulutzan, Gnarlyocelot, Escarbot, AntiVandalBot, Tim Shuba, JAnDbot, LinkinPark, .anacondabot, WolfmanSF, SHCarter, Ling.Nut,
Jlerner, DAGwyn, Nikopopl, MartinBot, Mschel, Morris729, Lantonov, BobEnyart, Jorfer, Blckavnger, Fylwind, Atheuz, TXiKiBoT, Rei-
bot, Mathwhiz 29, Thrawn562, Venny85, SieBot, El Wray, Puzhok, Gerakibot, BartekChom, OKBot, ClueBot, The Thing That Should
Not Be, Frdayeen, Excirial, Bender2k14, Brews ohare, Kentgen1, Scog, Panos84, Louis925, Alphatronic, XLinkBot, DCCougar, Sesquihy-
percerebral, Torchame, Addbot, DOI bot, Zahd, Delaszk, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Aldebaran66, Amble, Perusnarpk, AnomieBOT,
Materialscientist, Citation bot, Louelle, Srich32977, Waleswatcher, A. di M., , Paine Ellsworth, Citation bot 1, Newt Scamander, Gil987,
Tom.Reding, BlackHades, Jordgette, Michael9422, Earthandmoon, Vekov, RjwilmsiBot, Racerx11, Solomonfromnland, Italia2006, Hh-
hippo, ZroBot, Liquidmetalrob, Arbnos, Quondum, Ewa5050, Iiar, Zueignung, Khestwol, ClueBot NG, Astrocog, Frietjes, Jhmmok,
Rezabot, Const.S, Helpful Pixie Bot, Bibcode Bot, Rascal Sage, Jeoiselle, Hippokrateszholdacskai, RiseUpAgain, Makecat-bot, Kry-
omaxim, Wjs64, Andyhowlett, Jp4gs, Blackbombchu, Prokaryotes, Inanygivenhole, Kogge, Paspaspas, Christophe1946, RandomAgent-
Nation, Monkbot, Tetra quark, KasparBot, Maha Abdelmoneim and Anonymous: 139
Shape of the universe Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe?oldid=695690794 Contributors: Bryan Derksen,
Timo Honkasalo, The Anome, JeLuF, Olivier, Boud, Michael Hardy, Oliver Pereira, Menchi, Dcljr, Looxix~enwiki, Darkwind, Mark Fos-
key, Cyan, AugPi, Timwi, Reddi, Furrykef, Phys, Jusjih, BenRG, Fredrik, Romanm, Stewartadcock, Sverdrup, Rursus, Hadal, UtherSRG,
Smjg, Graeme Bartlett, Just Another Dan, Isidore, LucasVB, Erikp, Clemwang, R, JTN, Discospinster, Pjacobi, Ascnder, SpookyMul-
der, El C, Art LaPella, Bobo192, Smalljim, C S, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Franl, Wayfarer, Schaefer, Wtmitchell, Eddie Dealtry, DV8
2XL, Gene Nygaard, Oleg Alexandrov, Philthecow, Jersyko, Je3000, GregorB, Joke137, BD2412, Qwertyus, Drbogdan, Rjwilmsi, Mike
Peel, DVdm, Wavelength, Gaius Cornelius, ONEder Boy, Froth, Leptictidium, 2over0, Caco de vidro, KnightRider~enwiki, SmackBot,
Incnis Mrsi, Auctoris, Gilliam, Bluebot, PrimeHunter, Nbarth, Hve, Bear Eagleson, Jbergquist, Captainbeefart, Lambiam, Disavian, Astro-
Chemist, JorisvS, 041744, Ckatz, Macellarius, DabMachine, Richard Nowell, Twas Now, Amakuru, Blehfu, Jonathan W, CRGreathouse,
CmdrObot, Laplacian, JohnCD, Linus M., Jsd, Shirulashem, DarkLink, Repliedthemockturtle, Kablammo, Headbomb, I do not exist,
Peter Gulutzan, Rriegs, Porqin, AntiVandalBot, Sluzzelin, MER-C, .anacondabot, TassadarAlpha, VoABot II, Tripbeetle, Fusionmix, Ton-
icthebrown, Alexrussell101, Maurice Carbonaro, OttoMkel, Sarregouset, Sheliak, Taiwania Justo, VolkovBot, John Darrow, Red Act,
Qxz, Manchurian candidate, UnitedStatesian, BotKung, Wikiisawesome, SwordSmurf, BOTijo, AlleborgoBot, Drschawrz, SieBot, Flyer22
Reborn, Shahidur Rahman, Sunrise, Contestcen, ClueBot, Masamafo, Cli, LittleDevil0071, Margit rudy, ChandlerMapBot, DumZiBoT,
Nathan Johnson, John318, ErgoSum88, Addbot, Roentgenium111, Willking1979, Ersik, Redheylin, Debresser, Prim Ethics, Lightbot,
Yobot, Aldebaran66, Gallaiis, Materialscientist, Citation bot, TechBot, Gap9551, Srich32977, Omnipaedista, Point-set topologist, Ribot-
BOT, MeDrewNotYou, Peter470, Scientia-knowledge-knowing, FrescoBot, Majopius, Sae1962, Citation bot 1, Pinethicket, Jonesey95,
Tom.Reding, Night Jaguar, OxEdit, Mathwordedit, Mono, FuzzyBS, Spacestationinfo, Aoidh, Earthandmoon, WildBot, DASHBot, Emaus-
276 CHAPTER 28. COSMOLOGICAL HORIZON

Bot, Lunaibis, The Mysterious El Willstro, Cmck1980, AsceticRose, Solomonfromnland, Thecheesykid, Traxs7, JoeSperrazza, ClueBot
NG, SpikeTorontoRCP, Wcherowi, Gilderien, J kay831, LMFIV, Scottip3, Helpful Pixie Bot, Bibcode Bot, BG19bot, Mn-imhotep, Urltom,
Unnown1, BattyBot, U-95, Dexbot, Caroline1981, CuriousMind01, Dan23234, Cadillac000, Epicgenius, HFEO, Deantdeacon, Kaulfuss,
Jadhachem, Prokaryotes, Kdmeaney, Christer Berner, ErinPancakes, Npmitchell, Monkbot, Maxwell Verbeek, Eteethan, SpiritUVTruth,
Bapehu, Tetra quark, Isambard Kingdom, Israel Folau, Kitcher45 and Anonymous: 169
Observable universe Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe?oldid=696458057 Contributors: Boud, Michael Hardy,
Minesweeper, Marteau, Ciphergoth, Doradus, BenRG, Nurg, SoLando, Clementi, Giftlite, DocWatson42, DavidCary, 0x0077BE, Barbara
Shack, No Guru, Kmote, Beland, Karol Langner, Latitude0116, Mschlindwein, TJSwoboda, Rich Farmbrough, Pjacobi, Pie4all88, R6144,
Roodog2k, Dbachmann, Bender235, Ben Standeven, El C, Mytg8, Art LaPella, CDN99, Vsk, Davidruben, Viriditas, Cmdrjameson, Zig-
gurat, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Quaoar, Alansohn, Hadlock, ProhibitOnions, Mmxbass, WilliamKF, Zanaq, Fred Condo, Mindmatrix,
LOL, Chris Mason, Duncan.france, Matt Mahoney, Jleon, Thruston, GregorB, Aarghdvaark, RichardWeiss, Rnt20, Graham87, BD2412,
Drbogdan, Rjwilmsi, Koavf, Zbxgscqf, Strait, Woodsja, Spott, Mike Peel, Drrngrvy, 01101001, Kolbasz, Choess, Mathrick, Fresheneesz,
Goudzovski, Lord Patrick, Wavelength, Vedranf, Hairy Dude, Jimp, Wolfmankurd, RussBot, Xoloz, Mattgibson, Koeyahoo, Nawl-
inWiki, Trovatore, Sir48, Fulltruth, Dbrs, Falcon9x5, Cambion, WAS 4.250, 2over0, Rpvdk, Endomion, Esprit15d, CWenger, Fram,
Caco de vidro, Kungfuadam, Lengau, Serendipodous, Robertd, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Unschool, Ashill, Zazaban, Melchoir, McGed-
don, Eskimbot, MQQ, Mad Bill, Papa November, Hibernian, Nbarth, Colonies Chris, Jdthood, JGXenite, Scwlong, Fotoguzzi, Vanished
User 0001, EOZyo, Theanphibian, Radagast83, Kntrabssi, Trieste, Adrigon, Mostlyharmless, Rocky143, ArglebargleIV, Thanatosimii,
Siva1979, JunCTionS, Jpagel, UberCryxic, JorisvS, RomanSpa, Ckatz, Booksworm, Mr Stephen, Hypnosi, Quarty~enwiki, Autonova,
Alan.ca, Ossipewsk, K, NEMT, Astrobayes, Paul venter, Newone, Twas Now, LethargicParasite, CapitalR, Richard75, JRSpriggs, Cm-
drObot, Olaf Davis, Ruslik0, Icarus of old, AndrewHowse, Treybien, Michael C Price, Tawkerbot4, Casliber, Thijs!bot, Barticus88,
Jwt015, Keraunos, Headbomb, Pmrobert49, Afabbro, Elert, Anttilk, G Rose, Cdunn2001, Neitsa, Gumby600, Magioladitis, VoABot
II, Alienpeach, Harelx, Nyttend, Avicennasis, Sam Medany, JJ Harrison, Zepheriah, StuFifeScotland, Wikianon, Robin S, Flaming Fer-
rari, NatureA16, Rrostrom, Maurice Carbonaro, Natty4bumpo, NerdyNSK, Potatoswatter, Greatestrowerever, Inwind, Dorftrottel, Fu-
nandtrvl, VolkovBot, Haade, LeilaniLad, Aliento, DarkShroom, Kww, Anonymous Dissident, Macslacker, Wiendietry~enwiki, Martin451,
Broadbot, Israeld, Robert1947, SheeldSteel, SwordSmurf, Parsifal, Hellothere17, Kbenoit, DarthBotto, SieBot, Paradoctor, Hertz1888,
Dawn Bard, Wing gundam, Oda Mari, Heikki m, Faradayplank, Beast of traal, Jdaloner, Lightmouse, Sunrise, Adamtester, Cosmo0, An-
chor Link Bot, Roded86400, Gwpray, Tomahiv, VanishedUser sdu9aya9fs787sads, Soporaeternus, Sfan00 IMG, Madang1965, Ronald12,
Myqueminnetz, Agge1000, Chimesmonster, Excirial, PixelBot, Sun Creator, Brews ohare, NuclearWarfare, M.O.X, Pyrofork, BOTarate,
Panos84, Versus22, Vanished User 1004, DumZiBoT, XLinkBot, MystBot, Infonation101, Maldek, Addbot, Matthus8888, Darko.veberic,
Samiswicked, Fieldday-sunday, Zarcadia, Download, SpBot, Romulocortezdepaula, Numbo3-bot, OlEnglish, Flash.starwalker, Luckas-
bot, Justintan88, Aldebaran66, Azcolvin429, AnomieBOT, UnitarianUniversalism, Materialscientist, Citation bot, Rodhas, YouthoNation,
Plastadity, Jsharpminor, Martnym, Sirmc, Mlpearc, Gap9551, Ubcule, Jhbdel, False vacuum, Appple, Omnipaedista, Kyng, Dngnta, Mnm-
ngb, FrescoBot, Paine Ellsworth, KTParadigm, Citation bot 1, Pinethicket, Tom.Reding, Full-date unlinking bot, SkyMachine, Orenburg1,
Xeracles, Lam Kin Keung, OnesimusUnbound, Zachareth, Earthandmoon, Sideways713, RjwilmsiBot, WildBot, Troy wahl, EmausBot,
Ge3lan, WikitanvirBot, Preceding easy, Treymix, Silverlight2010, Einkleinestier, Italia2006, Chasrob, Yiosie2356, Brandmeister, JanA-
son, CountMacula, ChuispastonBot, Just granpa, Mjbmrbot, Alcazar84, ClueBot NG, Natey7, RaptorHunter, Gilderien, Lepota, Bulldog73,
Physics is all gnomes, Jj1236, Machina Lucis, Helpful Pixie Bot, Bibcode Bot, Astrofan7, BG19bot, Jwchong, Vagobot, Ugncreative
Usergname, Physicssmart, Harizotoh9, BattyBot, NOWEASELWORDS, YFdyh-bot, Khazar2, Jimjohnson2222, Thehoopisonre, Mac-
Greenbear, CuriousMind01, Rogerstrolley, Alysonbloom, Reatlas, Jamesmcmahon0, Ruwshun, Unmismoobjetivo, Tango303, Comp.arch,
NorthBySouthBaranof, PirtleShell, Jwratner1, Johndric Valdez, Uclmaps, Anrnusna, Potterbaby, Sjzaslaw, Proref2, Monkbot, Soa Kout-
souveli, DSCrowned, SkyFlubbler, Gabe schulhof, Rusty Lugnuts, Tonathan100, Fimatic, Tetra quark, Isambard Kingdom, Rhermanrher-
man, Are you freaking kidding me, Youknowwhatimsayin, Outedexits, Incendiary Iconoclasm and Anonymous: 248
Ination (cosmology) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)?oldid=696389606 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, The
Anome, Diatarn iv~enwiki, Roadrunner, David spector, Hephaestos, Stevertigo, Edward, Nealmcb, Boud, Michael Hardy, Tim Star-
ling, Dcljr, Cyde, Ellywa, William M. Connolley, Theresa knott, Je Relf, Mxn, Timwi, Rednblu, Bartosz, Pierre Boreal, Raul654,
Chuunen Baka, Robbot, Gandalf61, Rursus, Ancheta Wis, Giftlite, Barbara Shack, Mikez, Lethe, Dratman, Curps, Jcobb, Just An-
other Dan, Andycjp, HorsePunchKid, Beland, Elroch, JDoolin, Burschik, Shadypalm88, Eep, Mike Rosoft, DanielCD, Noisy, Rich
Farmbrough, FT2, Pjacobi, Luxdormiens, Dbachmann, Bender235, AdamSolomon, Pt, Worldtraveller, Art LaPella, Orlady, Drhex,
Guettarda, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Jeodesic, Rsholmes, Anthony Appleyard, Plumbago, JHG, Schaefer, EmmetCauleld, Cgmus-
selman, Dirac1933, Oleg Alexandrov, Matevzk, Yeastbeast, StradivariusTV, BillC, Bluemoose, Wdanwatts, Joke137, Rnt20, Malangthon,
Ketiltrout, Drbogdan, Rjwilmsi, Zbxgscqf, Mattmartin, Strait, Eyu100, Jehochman, Ems57fcva, Bubba73, FlaBot, Nihiltres, Itinerant1,
Phoenix2~enwiki, Chobot, Hermitage, Bgwhite, YurikBot, Wavelength, Supasheep, Ytrottier, Gaius Cornelius, Anomalocaris, Nawlin-
Wiki, LiamE, Davemck, JonathanD, Enormousdude, 2over0, Arthur Rubin, Argo Navis, Physicsdavid, Profero, Luk, SmackBot, Haza-
w, KnowledgeOfSelf, Lawrencekhoo, Onsly, Jdthood, Salmar, Jere, Hve, QFT, Vanished User 0001, Stevenmitchell, BIL, Lostart,
Ligulembot, Yevgeny Kats, Byelf2007, Lambiam, Rcapone, JorisvS, Heliogabulus, Dan Gluck, Spebudmak, JoeBot, UncleDouggie, Fso-
train09, Oshah, JRSpriggs, Chetvorno, Friendly Neighbour, Drinibot, Vanished user 2345, Brownlee, SuperMidget, Cydebot, BobQQ,
Mortus Est, Cyhawk, Ttiotsw, Julian Mendez, Dr.enh, Michael C Price, Kozuch, LilDice, Thijs!bot, Headbomb, Z10x, Jklumker, Al-
fredr, Dawnseeker2000, Pollira, Rico402, Lfstevens, Gmarsden, JAnDbot, Olaf, LinkinPark, GurchBot, Magioladitis, Jpod2, Vanished
user ty12kl89jq10, Rickard Vogelberg, Dr. Morbius, Bhenderson, TomS TDotO, Tarotcards, Wesino, Student7, Potatoswatter, Ollie
9045, Ja 62, Useight, Idioma-bot, Sheliak, Tokenhost, VolkovBot, ABF, ColdCase, Philip Trueman, TXiKiBoT, Calwiki, Thrawn562,
Gobofro, SwordSmurf, Northfox, PaddyLeahy, SieBot, Wing gundam, OpenLoop, Likebox, Flyer22 Reborn, Mimihitam, Hockeyboi34,
Lightmouse, Sunrise, Southtown, Hamiltondaniel, Epistemion, ClueBot, Niceguyedc, ChandlerMapBot, Jusdafax, ResidueOfDesign, Ploft,
Scog, SchreiberBike, TimothyRias, Katsushi, MidwestGeek, Addbot, Roentgenium111, DOI bot, Blethering Scot, Ronhjones, Glane23,
Deamon138, TStein, Barak Sh, Tassedethe, Zorrobot, Ben Ben, Legobot, Yinweichen, Luckas-bot, Amirobot, Aldebaran66, Amble, Isote-
lesis, Magog the Ogre, AnomieBOT, Pyrrhon8, Rubinbot, Piano non troppo, Collieuk, Ulric1313, Citation bot, Xqbot, Plastadity, Capri-
corn42, P14nic997, False vacuum, Waleswatcher, Ignoranteconomist, Bigger digger, Chatul, , CES1596, FrescoBot, Mesterhd, Paine
Ellsworth, Schnuus, Charles Edwin Shipp, Bbhustles, Ahnoneemoos, Pinethicket, Tom.Reding, Ganondolf, , Aknochel, Mercy11, Trap-
pist the monk, Jordgette, Wdanbae, Aabaakawad, Michael9422, CobraBot, Deathyer, Mathewsyriac, EmausBot, Thucyd, GoingBatty,
Wikipelli, Kiatdd, Italia2006, Werieth, ZroBot, Chasrob, Wackywace, Chharvey, Bamyers99, Suslindisambiguator, AManWithNoPlan,
RaptureBot, Maschen, HCPotter, Crux007, RockMagnetist, Whoop whoop pull up, ClueBot NG, J kay831, Law of Entropy, Supermint,
Helpful Pixie Bot, Bibcode Bot, Lowercase sigmabot, BG19bot, Negativecharge, MSgtpotter, Badon, BML0309, Zedshort, Hamish59,
Minsbot, BattyBot, SupernovaExplosion, ChrisGualtieri, JYBot, Rfassbind, Ikjyotsingh, Astroali, Lepton01, Pkanella, Chwon, Rolf h nel-
son, Comp.arch, Kogge, Hilmer B, Anrnusna, Stamptrader, Dodi 8238, Epaminondas of Thebes, Man of Steel 85, Abitslow, Monkbot,
28.7. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 277

Accnln, BradNorton1979, YeOldeGentleman, Waters.Justin, Tetra quark, Isambard Kingdom, Sleepy Geek, Anand2202, Quasiopinion-
ated, EnigmaLord515, Phseek, Trekkiepanda and Anonymous: 212
Metric expansion of space Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space?oldid=696581422 Contributors: Boud,
Michael Hardy, Dcljr, William M. Connolley, Julesd, Mxn, Timwi, Dragons ight, BenRG, Rursus, Giftlite, HorsePunchKid, Beland,
Zerzig, Kaldari, Sonance, Rgrg, Ukexpat, Rich Farmbrough, FT2, Dmr2, Brian0918, RJHall, Ylee, Art LaPella, Smalljim, Mpvdm, Foobaz,
I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Wayfarer, Alansohn, Free Bear, DanielVallstrom, Hoary, Cmapm, Vadim Makarov, Oleg Alexandrov, ^demon,
WadeSimMiser, Je3000, Jwanders, GregorB, Qwertyus, Ketiltrout, Sj, Coneslayer, Rjwilmsi, Koavf, Vegaswikian, Wragge, FlaBot, Kol-
basz, Jrtayloriv, Goudzovski, David H Braun (1964), DVdm, Hairy Dude, Durand101, Buster79, Dugosz, Davemck, Lomn, Georgewil-
liamherbert, 2over0, Closedmouth, Moonsleeper7, Mebden, Nippoo, SmackBot, Meshach, Vald, Rrohbeck, Nbarth, DHN-bot~enwiki,
Jdthood, Emurphy42, Mooncow, Aldaron, Hgilbert, Metamagician3000, ArglebargleIV, Serein (renamed because of SUL), Rijkbenik,
JorisvS, IronGargoyle, David Cohen, Onionmon, Siebrand, UncleDouggie, Pyrope, Myasuda, Michael C Price, DumbBOT, Landroo,
Thijs!bot, Publicola, Headbomb, Davidhorman, Dawnseeker2000, AntiVandalBot, DarkAudit, Dylan Lake, JEH, Tim Shuba, Yellowdesk,
DrMacrophage, MER-C, YK Times, Wasell, Pervect, Secret Squrrel, JamesBWatson, Jlenthe, Dr. Morbius, Pagw, Pbroks13, J.delanoy,
Maurice Carbonaro, Acalamari, Lantonov, Mikael Hggstrm, Tarotcards, Mstuomel, Jotunn, Jorfer, Sheliak, VolkovBot, ColdCase, John-
Blackburne, QuackGuru, Philip Trueman, Aholladay, Someguy1221, ARBrennan, Telecineguy, SwordSmurf, Dmcq, SieBot, Mggrant,
Hertz1888, Mverleg, Doc Perel, Doctoruy, Jdaloner, Torchwoodwho, Anchor Link Bot, Escape Orbit, Martarius, ClueBot, Methossant,
Boing! said Zebedee, Agge1000, ChandlerMapBot, Excirial, CRobClark, KnowledgeBased, Brews ohare, Arjayay, Biochem67, Tnx-
man307, Doprendek, Panos84, XLinkBot, Gwark, Wulfheart, Skarebo, Zinger0, Parejkoj, Addbot, Mortense, Landon1980, Fredrick tay-
lor, Bwikiroa, Delaszk, ChenzwBot, Brufnus, Quaristice, Lightbot, Gail, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Systemizer, II MusLiM HyBRiD II, Amirobot,
Amble, Azcolvin429, AnomieBOT, Floquenbeam, Captain Quirk, x, Jjjjc, Materialscientist, Citation bot, Eumolpo, Clark89, LilHelpa,
Capricorn42, Restu20, Mlpearc, NOrbeck, Kyng, Waleswatcher, Gordonrox24, Bluehotel, FrescoBot, Paine Ellsworth, Machine Elf 1735,
ShadowRangerRIT, Tom.Reding, BlackHades, IVAN3MAN, Meier99, CuteLittleBoy, FoxBot, Trappist the monk, EhudiDancer, Antihi-
jacker, Neptunerover, FKLS, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, RjwilmsiBot, Dbyte64, John of Reading, WikitanvirBot, Tinss, Slightsmile, .,
Eekh.eu, Solomonfromnland, Hhhippo, K.Hamze, Medeis, George Gaden, Tomsdearg92, Zueignung, Llightex, Fire Vortex, ClueBot
NG, Wcherowi, Gilderien, Johnuio, Danim, Helpful Pixie Bot, Bibcode Bot, Invirus 101, Orphadeus, Tauhidaerospace, FloAcer~enwiki,
Chronocrator, MusikAnimal, Sjesper1, Peter Lamont, Eddevinney, Samwalton9, Makecat-bot, Acoma Magic, Junjunone, Shurakai, Kei-
thsinterweb, FrigidNinja, Yardimsever, Tokrabelgium, Penitence, Babitaarora, Kogge, Jozef Stodulski, Hilmer B, Monkbot, TrollerHaxer,
DangerousJXD, Jhonny151, Tetra quark, Vixen1231 and Anonymous: 166
Matter Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter?oldid=695688720 Contributors: Carey Evans, CYD, The Anome, Tarquin, Ted
Longstae, XJaM, Roadrunner, Ben-Zin~enwiki, Heron, Camembert, Ryguasu, Isis~enwiki, Stevertigo, Patrick, D, Tim Starling, Gabbe,
Menchi, Ixfd64, Tomos, Minesweeper, Looxix~enwiki, Ahoerstemeier, Suisui, Angela, Glenn, Cyan, Mxn, Charles Matthews, Reddi, Hy-
acinth, Rm, Xevi~enwiki, Gakrivas, Jerzy, BenRG, RadicalBender, Rashack~enwiki, Chuunen Baka, Robbot, Kizor, Gandalf61, Ashley
Y, Auric, Hadal, Papadopc, Lupo, HaeB, Jan Lapre, Alan Liefting, Enochlau, Giftlite, Djinn112, Art Carlson, FeloniousMonk, Bensac-
count, Solipsist, Alexf, Quadell, Antandrus, OverlordQ, Lesgles, Karol Langner, Mikko Paananen, JimWae, DragonySixtyseven, Kevin
B12, Okapi~enwiki, Int19h, Nike, Trevor MacInnis, ELApro, Brianjd, EugeneZelenko, Discospinster, Rich Farmbrough, Vsmith, Jpk,
Autiger, Martpol, Bender235, Kbh3rd, Ghitis, JoeSmack, RJHall, MisterSheik, Mr. Billion, Zegoma beach, Remember, Jashiin, CDN99,
Adambro, Bobo192, Army1987, Whosyourjudas, Rrh02, Smalljim, Orbst, .:Ajvol:., Dungodung, Maurreen, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc,
Giraedata, PaRaLyZeDHoRSe, Jojit fb, Kjkolb, Nk, Charonn0, MPerel, Sam Korn, Haham hanuka, Jayakar, Alansohn, Arthena, At-
lant, Paleorthid, AzaToth, Kocio, Walkerma, Jaw959, Wdfarmer, Avenue, Bart133, Metron4, Snowolf, Wtmitchell, Oking83, Ott, Angr,
Woohookitty, Madchester, Canaen, Sandrapalaje, CharlesC, RuM, Graham87, Dpr, Sj, Rjwilmsi, Jake Wartenberg, Strait, MarSch,
Quiddity, Tangotango, Nneonneo, Vav11, Yamamoto Ichiro, Exeunt, FayssalF, FlaBot, Lorkki, Naraht, Nihiltres, Crazycomputers,
Andy85719, RexNL, TimSE, TheDJ, BabyNuke, TheMightyGrecian, Cloudo, King of Hearts, Chobot, DaGizza, Sharkface217, Gwer-
nol, The Rambling Man, Wavelength, RobotE, Sceptre, Jimp, Bhny, Juansmith, Stephenb, Wimt, Ugur Basak, NawlinWiki, Injinera,
Wiki alf, Grafen, Janarius, SCZenz, Retired username, Anetode, Dhollm, Jpbowen, Chichui, Alex43223, Natkeeran, DeadEyeArrow,
Dna-webmaster, Wknight94, FF2010, Vadept, Enormousdude, Zzuuzz, Leliathomas, E Wing, Sean Whitton, JuJube, Aeon1006, JoanneB,
Chez37, CWenger, Katieh5584, Junglecat, Banus, Mejor Los Indios, DVD R W, SmackBot, Unschool, KnowledgeOfSelf, Hydrogen Iodide,
Unyoyega, C.Fred, Bomac, Gilliam, Skizzik, Fogster, Dauto, Andy M. Wang, Grokmoo, Rmosler2100, Master of Puppets, SchftyThree,
Sbharris, Colonies Chris, Hallenrm, Darth Panda, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, OrphanBot, Rrburke, Addshore, Nakon, Jiddisch~enwiki,
John D. Croft, Dreadstar, SpiderJon, DMacks, Ultraexactzz, Kotjze, Kalathalan, Where, BobbyPeru, Yevgeny Kats, Byelf2007, Dbtfz, Lar-
chOye, Ocanter, Gobonobo, Breno, AstroChemist, Edwy, IronGargoyle, Vidit1, Simonalexander2005, Loadmaster, Munita Prasad, Noah
Salzman, Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii, Kyoko, Dicklyon, Waggers, Dr.K., RichardF, MHWiki, Supaman89, CrazedEwok, Levineps, Lord Anubis,
Joseph Solis in Australia, Newone, Casull, Tony Fox, Esurnir, Courcelles, JRSpriggs, JForget, DSatYVR, Ale jrb, Dycedarg, Van hels-
ing, Vyznev Xnebara, MargyL, Flapping Fish, McVities, MarsRover, Penbat, Gregbard, Fl, Bvcrist, Peterdjones, Gogo Dodo, 01011000,
Anonymi, Rracecarr, Studerby, Dr.Kane, Abtract, RickDC, Epbr123, Barticus88, Mbell, O, TonyTheTiger, Giorgio51, N5iln, Headbomb,
Trevyn, Marek69, Grayshi, Nick Number, MichaelMaggs, Troy392004, Dualactionblend, Escarbot, Oreo Priest, Dantheman531, Anti-
VandalBot, Majorly, JHFTC, Cpkondas, Quintote, Jayron32, CHollman82, Jj137, Madbehemoth, Danger, Astavats, Canadian-Bacon,
Curlingpro47, Res2216restar, Ioeth, JAnDbot, Jimothytrotter, Elias Enoc, The Transhumanist, Sanchom, Blood Red Sandman, Smid-
dle, Db099221, Andonic, Tergadare, Kerotan, Acroterion, Connormah, Bongwarrior, VoABot II, AuburnPilot, JamesBWatson, Kinston
eagle, Kajasudhakarababu, Think outside the box, Nyttend, Cic, Avicennasis, Indon, Animum, Dirac66, Cpl Syx, MindReality, Vssun,
DerHexer, Hbent, Arnesh, Tojo940, Greenguy1090, S3000, FisherQueen, MartinBot, Rettetast, Anaxial, Sm8900, Dan.g, Dogatdog,
R'n'B, AlexiusHoratius, Qwertuy, Ash, LedgendGamer, J.delanoy, Trusilver, Bogey97, Maurice Carbonaro, Ginsengbomb, Eliz81, It Is
Me Here, DarkFalls, Ben robbins, Gurchzilla, Vanished User 4517, Tcisco, NewEnglandYankee, In Transit, Newtman, Minesweeper.007,
Ionescuac, Juliancolton, Cometstyles, Tiggerjay, DH85868993, DorganBot, Natl1, Squids and Chips, Funandtrvl, Wikieditor06, Vranak,
HamatoKameko, Deor, CWii, Christophenstein, JohnBlackburne, Bry9000, Haade, Philip Trueman, Eastgate, TXiKiBoT, Kww, SCriBu,
Anonymous Dissident, Qxz, Seraphim, Melsaran, DennyColt, Abdullais4u, Noformation, UnitedStatesian, Vgranucci, Whammes2, Shad-
owlapis, CaptColon, Isis4563, Iluso, Ilkali, Wykypydya, Brainmuncher, Synthebot, Lova Falk, MCTales, Spinningspark, Kchiles, Conos-
trov, The Strange Kid, Insanity Incarnate, Alcmaeonid, Fireglowe, AlleborgoBot, Logan, TheXenocide, BriEnBest, J. Naven, SieBot, Vijai
Singh, Portalian, Nihil novi, Gerakibot, YourEyesOnly, Nathan, Triwbe, Wing gundam, Gravitan, Flyer22 Reborn, Tiptoety, Oda Mari,
Prestonmag, Frank.hedlund, Granf, Oxymoron83, Harry~enwiki, Steven Crossin, Iain99, Techman224, The-G-Unit-Boss, Pantuas, Ku-
dret abi, OKBot, Jonlandrum, Asperal, Ascidian, Denisarona, ClueBot, GorillaWarfare, Snigbrook, Foxj, The Thing That Should Not Be,
Rjd0060, Wwheaton, Drmies, TheOldJacobite, Goshwak, CounterVandalismBot, Classied as matter, Rotational, Superguy342, Puchiko,
Excirial, Jusdafax, Afoxtrotn00b, Editorman12342, MorrisRob, Bassoonboy, Rhododendrites, Brews ohare, NuclearWarfare, Cenarium,
World, Jotterbot, Mr.24SevenCrashHolly, Tnxman307, Razorame, SchreiberBike, Oswald07, Saebjorn, Polly, La Pianista, Calor, Taranet,
278 CHAPTER 28. COSMOLOGICAL HORIZON

Thingg, Aitias, Versus22, Phynicen, MelonBot, SoxBot III, Bibibita, Goodvac, Hattiel, Nishu pcp, DumZiBoT, Templarion, TimothyRias,
Jmanigold, JKeck, AlexGWU, Mattermatters, -: Wik3d Playful:-, Lord pain377, Rreagan007, Zkunz1, Facts707, WikHead, SilvonenBot,
Mifter, Vianello, ZooFari, ElMeBot, Alexcs123, RyanCross, Thatguyint, HexaChord, Gimie the beat boys, Gatorsalldawa, Addbot, Willk-
ing1979, Some jerk on the Internet, DougsTech, Ronhjones, Fieldday-sunday, Laurinavicius, Leszek Jaczuk, Ashanda, Protonk, Brent-
deezee, Chamal N, Chzz, XRK, Favonian, 5 albert square, Kisbesbot, Numbo3-bot, Ehrenkater, Tide rolls, Luckas Blade, Lrrasd, Zorrobot,
MuZemike, Grandpsykick, Yobot, Ht686rg90, Senator Palpatine, Legobot II, THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, Brougham96, Azcolvin429,
AnomieBOT, Somecrazydude, Joule36e5, Eminem69041, Killiondude, Galoubet, 9258fahskh917fas, Piano non troppo, Icalanise, Ipatrol,
Kingpin13, Yachtsman1, Abshirdheere, Ulric1313, Bluerasberry, Materialscientist, Magixdx, ShikyoSays, The High Fin Sperm Whale, Ci-
tation bot, Vuerqex, Neurolysis, Bagumba, Ianwestapleton, Xqbot, Lloydsd, Bihco, YakbutterT, Pvkeller, Jsharpminor, Grim23, The Evil
IP address, Tricko20, J04n, Paul Sinclair, Amaury, Reections of Memory, Doulos Christos, Codytz8, Tjsnu, Bigger digger, Nisamayarg,
A. di M., Peter470, Grinofwales, Joel grover, CES1596, FrescoBot, Singhking97, Alaphent, Sebastiangarth, Machine Elf 1735, Citation
bot 1, Redrose64, Pinethicket, I dream of horses, Vicenarian, The Arbiter, Tom.Reding, A8UDI, SpaceFlight89, Merlion444, Heiji hattori
is LOVE, Irbisgreif, IVAN3MAN, PhilOak, Gamewizard71, FoxBot, Calle Cool, Trappist the monk, Kimtiger12345, Daniel G J, Vrenator,
Darsie42, Reaper Eternal, Wst Nam, Devildude666, Suusion of Yellow, Tbhotch, Oualidi13, Keegscee, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, Regancy42,
Devcas, DASHBot, John of Reading, Ajraddatz, Washout4, Fotoni, Klbrain, Solarra, Turnurban, Wikipelli, P. S. F. Freitas, Anirudh Emani,
Tiniet, Thecheesykid, Jpfairweather, Jmanvball, JSquish, ZroBot, Anir1uph, Quiqui1, ElvisPresley1, Hazard-SJ, Aeonx, Quondum, L1A1
FAL, Arman Cagle, YvonneM, Inka 888, Damirgrati, Carmichael, Negovori, RockMagnetist, TYelliot, DASHBotAV, Wussication,
Morgis, Eiamagus, BigBarrelRollingHoss, Khestwol, Petrb, Xanchester, ClueBot NG, Mifapetrenko, Satellizer, Piast93, Waroe, Movses-
bot, Erichardson2626, Wallawaller, Gamerstu75, Goober6521, Dream of Nyx, CaroleHenson, 336, Be94ware, Widr, Helpful Pixie Bot,
Ramaksoud2000, Bibcode Bot, Trunks ishida, BG19bot, Sanjeevgen, Soptx, Vagobot, Moustacheluvr69, Aozf05, MusikAnimal, Thu-
mani Mabwe, Mark Arsten, Lolbading, Soukhoi, Altar, Jaloqin, Rs2360, MehFooL, GSMOL, Chiles Malesters, Glacialfox, Cimorcus,
Pratyya Ghosh, Mdann52, Khazar2, EuroCarGT, Southwing17, Maxgaineducation, EagerToddler39, Brittany taylorr, Djdjordje12345,
CoreyM1232, Lugia2453, Frosty, Graphium, Weather228, Wywin, NievesO, Reatlas, Tuckah parent, Hacker8484, Faizan, Asharia283,
Austinben1011, Sosaalhabab, Bumoa, Professor Caramel Revenge, Guymandudeme, Leompersi, Trololsir, Ginsuloft, DavRosen, Jackm-
cbarn, Frank12123, Demigod mcg1, Victortran2000, JaconaFrere, AspaasBekkelund, Kiran cb, Kaltakus, Gvdjcfhhdfvuxhhrfbj, Havj,
Harrydatz, FourViolas, Fartser, Steven ngsteven, Epic2500, Vicallssssshdggsj, CV9933, Jayster101, Uwharrie MilSim, NateBillingsley,
KasparBot, Kashabbir and Anonymous: 1142
FriedmannLematreRobertsonWalker metric Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%
E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric?oldid=692650293 Contributors: The Anome, XJaM, Roadrunner, Boud, Michael
Hardy, CesarB, Looxix~enwiki, Cyan, Silvonen, BenRG, Robbot, Sho Uemura, Giftlite, Fropu, Varlaam, Fimbulvetr, AmarChan-
dra, JDoolin, Urhixidur, Burschik, Rich Farmbrough, Ascnder, Ben Standeven, Art LaPella, Cje~enwiki, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc,
Slambo, JHG, Eddie Dealtry, Sburke, Je3000, Mpatel, Joke137, BD2412, Ketiltrout, Rjwilmsi, Mike Peel, Ligulem, Itinerant1, RexNL,
Hillman, KSmrq, Gaius Cornelius, Cryptic, Salsb, SEWilcoBot, Anotherwikipedian, Tony1, ColdFusion650, Netrapt, Caco de vidro,
KasugaHuang, That Guy, From That Show!, Sardanaphalus, KnightRider~enwiki, SmackBot, Nickst, Hbackman, Bluebot, Hve, Xiner,
Jmnbatista, Dan Gluck, JRSpriggs, Thijs!bot, Markus Pssel, Headbomb, Peter Gulutzan, R'n'B, Eifelgeist~enwiki, Astro-davis, Lseixas,
Sheliak, VolkovBot, CosmicAl, BotKung, Senemmar, Synthebot, N.Thorpe, AlleborgoBot, Adavis3, PaddyLeahy, SieBot, Bobathon71,
Pomona17, Frdayeen, Richerman, Cldv71, Brews ohare, Kentgen1, MelonBot, DumZiBoT, TimothyRias, InMemoriamLuangPu, Sesqui-
hypercerebral, Addbot, Lightbot, OlEnglish, Meisam, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, ArthurBot, Dendropithe-
cus, False vacuum, RibotBOT, Wiklol, Tom.Reding, IVAN3MAN, RockSolidCosmo, Earthandmoon, McSaks, AmigoCgn, Brazmyth,
, Law of Entropy, X-men2011, Helpful Pixie Bot, Bibcode Bot, BG19bot, Al'Beroya, DPolez, Sol1, Frinthruit, Tetra quark,
AWK1947 and Anonymous: 40
Photon Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon?oldid=696499422 Contributors: AxelBoldt, WojPob, Mav, Bryan Derksen, The
Anome, Tarquin, Koyaanis Qatsi, Ap, Josh Grosse, Ben-Zin~enwiki, Heron, Youandme, Spi~enwiki, Bdesham, Michael Hardy, Ixfd64,
TakuyaMurata, NuclearWinner, Looxix~enwiki, Snares, Ahoerstemeier, Stevenj, Julesd, Glenn, AugPi, Mxn, Smack, Pizza Puzzle, Wiki-
borg, Reddi, Lfh, Jitse Niesen, Kbk, Laussy, Bevo, Shizhao, Raul654, Jusjih, Donarreiskoer, Robbot, Hankwang, Fredrik, Eman, Sanders
muc, Altenmann, Bkalafut, Merovingian, Gnomon Kelemen, Hadal, Wereon, Anthony, Wjbeaty, Giftlite, Art Carlson, Herbee, Xerxes314,
Everyking, Dratman, Michael Devore, Bensaccount, Foobar, Jaan513, Dugosz, Zeimusu, LucasVB, Beland, Setokaiba, Kaldari, Vina,
RetiredUser2, Icairns, Lumidek, Zondor, Randwicked, Eep, Chris Howard, Zowie, Naryathegreat, Discospinster, Rich Farmbrough, Yuval
madar, Pjacobi, Vsmith, Ivan Bajlo, Dbachmann, Mani1, SpookyMulder, Kbh3rd, RJHall, Ben Webber, El C, Edwinstearns, Laurascud-
der, RoyBoy, Spoon!, Dalf, Drhex, Bobo192, Foobaz, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, La goutte de pluie, Zr40, Apostrophe, Minghong,
Rport, Alansohn, Gary, Sade, Corwin8, PAR, UnHoly, Hu, Caesura, Wtmitchell, Bucephalus, Max rspct, BanyanTree, Cal 1234, Count
Iblis, Egg, Dominic, Gene Nygaard, Ghirlandajo, Kazvorpal, UTSRelativity, Falcorian, Drag09, Boothy443, Richard Arthur Norton
(1958- ), Woohookitty, Linas, Gerd Breitenbach, StradivariusTV, Oliphaunt, Cleonis, Pol098, Ruud Koot, Mpatel, Nakos2208~enwiki,
Dbl2010, Ch'marr, SDC, CharlesC, Alan Canon, Reddwarf2956, Mandarax, BD2412, Kbdank71, Zalasur, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi,
, Strait, MarSch, Dennis Estenson II, Trlovejoy, Mike Peel, HappyCamper, Bubba73, Brighterorange, Cantorman, Egopaint,
Noon, Godzatswing, FlaBot, RobertG, Arnero, Mathbot, Nihiltres, Fresheneesz, TeaDrinker, Srleer, BradBeattie, Chobot, Jaraalbe,
DVdm, Elfguy, EamonnPKeane, YurikBot, Bambaiah, Splintercellguy, Jimp, RussBot, Supasheep, JabberWok, Wavesmikey, KevinCud-
deback, Stephenb, Gaius Cornelius, Salsb, Trovatore, Dugosz, Tailpig, Joelr31, SCZenz, Randolf Richardson, Ravedave, Tony1, Roy Brum-
back, Gadget850, Dna-webmaster, Enormousdude, Lt-wiki-bot, Oysteinp, JoanneB, Ligart, John Broughton, GrinBot~enwiki, Sbyrnes321,
Itub, SmackBot, Moeron, Incnis Mrsi, KnowledgeOfSelf, CelticJobber, Melchoir, Rokfaith, WilyD, Jagged 85, Jab843, Cessator, An-
OddName, Skizzik, Dauto, JSpudeman, Robin Whittle, Ati3414, Persian Poet Gal, MK8, Jprg1966, Complexica, Sbharris, Colonies Chris,
Ebertek, WordLife565, V1adis1av, RWincek, Aces lead, Stangbat, Cybercobra, Valenciano, EVula, A.R., Mini-Geek, AEM, DMacks, N
Shar, Sadi Carnot, FlyHigh, The Fwanksta, Drunken Pirate, Yevgeny Kats, Lambiam, Harryboyles, IronGargoyle, Ben Moore, A. Parrot, Mr
Stephen, Fbartolom, Dicklyon, SandyGeorgia, Mets501, Ceeded, Ambuj.Saxena, Ryulong, Vincecate, Astrobayes, Newone, J Di, Lifevery-
where, Tawkerbot2, JRSpriggs, Chetvorno, Luis A. Veguilla-Berdecia, CalebNoble, Xod, Gregory9, CmdrObot, Wafulz, Van helsing, John
Riemann Soong, Rwammang, Banedon, Wquester, Outriggr (2006-2009), Logical2u, Myasuda, Howardsr, Cydebot, Krauss, Kanags,
A876, WillowW, Bvcrist, Hyperdeath, Hkyriazi, Rracecarr, Diuoroethene, Edgerck, Michael C Price, Tawkerbot4, Christian75, Ldussan,
RelHistBu, Waxigloo, Kozuch, Thijs!bot, Epbr123, Opabinia regalis, Markus Pssel, Mglg, 24fan24, Headbomb, Newton2, John254,
J.christianson, Escarbot, Stannered, AntiVandalBot, Luna Santin, Jtrain4469, Normanmargolus, Tyco.skinner, TimVickers, NSH001, Do-
decahedron~enwiki, Tim Shuba, Gdo01, Lfstevens, Sluzzelin, Abyssoft, CosineKitty, AndyBloch, Bryanv, ScottStearns, Hroulf, Bong-
warrior, VoABot II, B&W Anime Fan, SHCarter, Lgoger, I JethroBT, Dirac66, Hveziris, Maliz, Lord GaleVII, TRWBW, Shijualex, Glen,
DerHexer, Patstuart, Gwern, Taborgate, MartinBot, MNAdam, Jay Litman, HEL, Ralf 58, J.delanoy, DrKay, Trusilver, C. Trie, As-
troHurricane001, Numbo3, Pursey, CMDadabo, Kevin aylward, UchihaFury, Pirate452, H4xx0r, Iamthewalrus35, Iamthewalrus36, Gee
28.7. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 279

E, Chimpy07, Dirkdiggler69, Lk69, Hallamfm, Annoying editter, Yehoodig, Acalamari, Foreigner1, McSly, Samtheboy, Tarotcards,
Rominandreu, ARTE, Tanaats, Potatoswatter, Y2H, Divad89, Scott Illini, Stack27, THEblindwarrior, VolkovBot, AlnoktaBOT, Hyper-
linker, DoorsAjar, TXiKiBoT, Oshwah, Cosmic Latte, The Original Wildbear, Davehi1, Chiefwaterfall, Vipinhari, Hqb, Anonymous Dis-
sident, HansMair, Predator24, BotKung, Luuva, Calvin4986, Improve~enwiki, Kmhkmh, Richwil, Antixt, Gorank4, Falcon8765, Glass-
FET, Cryptophile, MattiasAndersson, AlleborgoBot, Carlodn6, NHRHS2010, Relilles~enwiki, Tpb, SieBot, Timb66, Graham Beards,
WereSpielChequers, ToePeu.bot, JerrySteal, Android Mouse, Likebox, RadicalOne, Paolo.dL, Lightmouse, PbBot, Spartan-James, Duae
Quartunciae, Hamiltondaniel, StewartMH, Dstebbins, ClueBot, Bobathon71, The Thing That Should Not Be, Mwengler, EoGuy, Jagun,
RODERICKMOLASAR, Wwheaton, Dmlcyal8er, Razimantv, Mild Bill Hiccup, Feebas factor, J8079s, Rotational, MaxwellsLight, Aw-
ickert, Excirial, PixelBot, Sun Creator, NuclearWarfare, PhySusie, El bot de la dieta, DerBorg, Shamanchill, PoofyPeter99, J1.grammar
natz, Laserheinz, TimothyRias, XLinkBot, Jovianeye, Interferometrist, Petedskier, Hess88, Addbot, Mathieu Perrin, DOI bot, Doug-
sTech, Download, James thirteen, AndersBot, LinkFA-Bot, Barak Sh, AgadaUrbanit, , Dayewalker, Quantumobserver,
Kein Einstein, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Kilom691, Allowgolf~enwiki, AnomieBOT, Ratul2000, Kingpin13, Materialscientist, Cita-
tion bot, Xqbot, Ambujarind69, Mananay, Emezei, Sharhalakis, Shirik, RibotBOT, Rickproser, SongRenKai, Max derner, Merrrr, A.
di M., , CES1596, Paine Ellsworth, Gsthae with tempo!, Nageh, TimonyCrickets, WurzelT, Steve Quinn, Spacekid99, Radeksonic,
Citation bot 1, Pinethicket, I dream of horses, HRoestBot, Tanweer Morshed, Eno crux, Tom.Reding, Jschnur, RedBot, IVAN3MAN,
Gamewizard71, FoxBot, TobeBot, Earthandmoon, PleaseStand, Marie Poise, RjwilmsiBot, , Ripchip Bot, Ofercomay,
Chemyanda, EmausBot, Bookalign, WikitanvirBot, Roxbreak, Word2need, Gcastellanos, Tommy2010, Dcirovic, K6ka, Hhhippo, Co-
giati, 1howardsr1, StringTheory11, Waperkins, Jojojlj, Access Denied, Quondum, AManWithNoPlan, Raynor42, L Kensington, Maschen,
HCPotter, Haiti333, RockMagnetist, Rocketrod1960, ClueBot NG, JASMEET SINGH HAFIST, Schicagos, Snotbot, Vincius Machado
Vogt, Helpful Pixie Bot, SzMithrandir, Bibcode Bot, BG19bot, Roberticus, Paolo Lipparini, Wzrd1, Rifath119, Davidiad, Mark Arsten,
Peter.sujak, Wikarchitect, Hamish59, Caypartisbot, Penguinstorm300, Eduardofeld, KSI ROX, Bhargavuk1997, Chromastone1998, The-
JJJunk, Nimmo1859, EagerToddler39, Dexbot, EZas3pt14, Webclient101, Chrisanion, Vanquisher.UA, Tony Mach, PREMDASKAN-
NAN, Meghas, Reatlas, Profb39, Zerberos, Thesuperseo, The User 111, Eyesnore, Ybidzian, Tentinator, Illusterati, JustBerry, Celso ad,
Quenhitran, Manul, DrMattV, Anrnusna, Wyn.junior, K0RTD, Monkbot, Vieque, Tigercompanion25, BethNaught, Markmizzi, Gareld
Gareld, Dhm44444, Smokey2022, Zargol Rejerfree, RAL2014, Shahriar Kabir Pavel, Sdjncskdjnfskje, Anshul1908, Professor Flornoy,
Thatguytestw, Tetra quark, Harshit100, KasparBot, Chinta 01, Geek3, TheKingOfPhysics, Chemistry1111 and Anonymous: 505
Curved space Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curved_space?oldid=655998953 Contributors: Wavelength, ErkDemon, Esprit15d,
SmackBot, Tamfang, Alaibot, Sullivan.t.j, LookingGlass, Lantonov, Adavis3, Toniok, Addbot, Pmod, Zorrobot, WikiDan61, AnomieBOT,
Point-set topologist, Erik9bot, Paine Ellsworth, Rausch, Solomonfromnland, Patsobest, Wcherowi, TheJJJunk, Neophysics, Tetra quark
and Anonymous: 7
False vacuum Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum?oldid=696157292 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Kragen, Ehn, Charles
Matthews, Phys, Goethean, Wjhonson, David Edgar, Nagelfar, ComaVN, Dtaylor1984, Barbara Shack, Eequor, Beland, FT2, Mr. Billion,
Art LaPella, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Kocio, Colorajo, Je3000, Joke137, Betsythedevine, Jshadias, Rjwilmsi, Jehochman, Samara-
phile, Kevmitch, Ian Pitchford, Gregorik, Ahpook, Mclayto, Conscious, Ytrottier, Trovatore, Dbrs, Gadget850, Dna-webmaster, Ke6jjj,
Arthur Rubin, TheMatt, CWenger, Georey.landis, TLSuda, MacsBug, SmackBot, Kurochka, Gilliam, Aleksandar unjar, Cophus,
QFT, Daydreamer302000, Zrulli, Savidan, Pwjb, Ligulembot, Byelf2007, Lambiam, Saerain, Dark Formal, JorisvS, A. Parrot, Stwalk-
erster, Neotenic, George100, Nalpdii~enwiki, Cydebot, DumbBOT, Davidros, BuzzSkyline~enwiki, Oerjan, Headbomb, Electron9, Pe-
ter Gulutzan, Hcobb, Stannered, Pichote, Astavats, Sinnerwiki, VoABot II, Destynova, SwedishPsycho, IgorSF, Steve98052, Adavidb,
Hirschjoshua, Trilobitealive, HowardFrampton, Pitoutom, Svick, Anchor Link Bot, Bradypetersenlaine, Drmies, Anaholic, Sustainable-
futures2015, Crywalt, Addbot, Mortense, DOI bot, Strapping boulevard, Proxima Centauri, 84user, Lightbot, Yobot, Lady 6thofAu,
AnomieBOT, 1exec1, VX, Ulric1313, Aaagmnr, Citation bot, Omnipaedista, FrescoBot, Nunc aut numquam, Citation bot 1, Tom.Reding,
Johann137, Chasewc91, Jmv2009, Slightsmile, Pengkeu, Bulwersator, ClueBot NG, Widr, Helpful Pixie Bot, Bibcode Bot, BG19bot,
PhnomPencil, Nuke1st, Aroakley, Tentinator, Jloughry, Bo-dubya, Anrnusna, Strecosaurus, Impsswoon, Jwill530, Sigehelmus, BradNor-
ton1979, Tetra quark, Nkkenbuer, Stewi101015 and Anonymous: 96
Dark uid Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fluid?oldid=696751459 Contributors: Hike395, Dratman, Bbbl67, Urvabara, Dis-
cospinster, Pauli133, Kazvorpal, Camw, Uncle G, Bhny, Limulus, Sbyrnes321, Tom Morris, OrganicMan, SmackBot, Nickst, Derek
farn, John, Alaibot, Ebichu63, Tim Shuba, Lenticel, JohnBlackburne, Suraj.kapil.singh, Scog, Ost316, Addbot, Ashton1983, Lzkelley,
AnomieBOT, Westerness, Citation bot, StrontiumDogs, LilHelpa, Sae1962, Cogiati, Suslindisambiguator, RockMagnetist, ClueBot NG,
Fergusnoble, Bibcode Bot, Markwilliamlee, Junjunone, Saectar, Tetra quark and Anonymous: 26
Future of an expanding universe Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe?oldid=696018662 Contrib-
utors: Kragen, Dmytro, Jni, Giftlite, Alison, Gracefool, Kainaw, Jackol, Thincat, RJHall, El C, Lycurgus, Hadlock, Christopher Thomas,
Rjwilmsi, Koavf, Ronocdh, Jehochman, ScottJ, DoubleBlue, Spacepotato, RussBot, JocK, Gulliveig, Allens, Katieh5584, Serendipodous,
SmackBot, Ashill, Incnis Mrsi, Jab843, Onebravemonkey, Isaac Dupree, Thumperward, Colonies Chris, GrahameS, Bowlhover, Pulu,
Kendrick7, Acdx, Muadd, AdultSwim, Joseph Solis in Australia, Banedon, Keraunos, Headbomb, Najro, Peter Gulutzan, Email4mobile,
Cgingold, Captain panda, NewEnglandYankee, KylieTastic, Squids and Chips, Michaelpremsrirat, Oshwah, PlanetStar, BartekChom,
Lightmouse, DragonZero, ClueBot, CooPs89, Jusdafax, Larphenorp, Millionsandbillions, Panos84, Johnuniq, Antti29, Maldek, Addbot,
Eric Drexler, Lightbot, Yobot, Knownot, Suntag, Maldek2, Robert Treat, AnomieBOT, Letuo, Jim1138, Piano non troppo, Materialsci-
entist, Draco de Mos Fulmen, Gap9551, Volvo B9TL, Supernova0, Mnmngb, Unideanet, George585, Eronel189, Chard513, Pinethicket,
Tom.Reding, Jim37hike, BlackHades, VEO15, Double sharp, Nickyus, Abcsrfun123, Tesseract2, Acather96, Bt8257, K6ka, Thecheesykid,
Hhhippo, Jetman508, Yiosie2356, Surajt88, ClueBot NG, Lord Roem, 497glbig, Widr, Bibcode Bot, BG19bot, ISTB351, MusikAnimal,
Alvin Lee, Pikachu Bros., U-95, Dexbot, Frosty, SteenthIWbot, Sauropodomorph, Eyesnore, Madreterra, Strangenight, DavidLeighEllis,
Jwratner1, Leroybrown2000, Noyster, Patbdwll, Fixuture, MarioProtIV, Thundergodz, Wikipedian 2, Aberlamps, Tetra quark, GarStazi
and Anonymous: 100
Flatness problem Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem?oldid=695106333 Contributors: Michael Hardy, Charles
Matthews, Fredrik, Scarlet, Dmadeo, Waltpohl, Burschik, Rich Farmbrough, Pjacobi, Worldtraveller, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Pearle,
Nurban, Woohookitty, Bonus Onus, Ketiltrout, Rjwilmsi, Quuxplusone, BradBeattie, The Rambling Man, Gadget850, BorgQueen, Gar-
ion96, SmackBot, WilyD, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Egsan Bacon, Byelf2007, Hypnosi, Olaf Davis, ShelfSkewed, Cydebot, Coccoino-
mane, Mattisse, Thijs!bot, Headbomb, Peter Gulutzan, Dougher, Collegebookworm, Student7, Hillcd~enwiki, SieBot, Cosmo0, Cherf,
ClueBot, Unbuttered Parsnip, DumZiBoT, Addbot, DOI bot, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, , FrescoBot, Citation bot 1, Tom.Reding,
Trappist the monk, Wdanbae, RjwilmsiBot, Crux007, Helpful Pixie Bot, Bibcode Bot, Stamptrader, Monkbot, Tetra quark, Cc universe
and Anonymous: 24
280 CHAPTER 28. COSMOLOGICAL HORIZON

Heat death of the universe Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe?oldid=696455366 Contributors: Bryan

Derksen, Andre Engels, Jdpipe, Anders Feder, Je Relf, Michael Shields, Evercat, Schneelocke, Robinh, Seth Ilys, Cutler, Giftlite, Anville,
Alison, Arturus~enwiki, Gracefool, Golbez, Andycjp, Mike R, Zantolak, Tzarius, B.d.mills, SamSim, Burschik, Joyous!, Esperant, Dis-
cospinster, Brianhe, Dbachmann, Pavel Vozenilek, Spiralx, El C, Jomel, Marathoner, Viriditas, Foobaz, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Gi-
raedata, Nk, VBGFscJUn3, Jonathunder, Knucmo2, Alansohn, JYolkowski, Yamla, Caesura, Hohum, Wtmitchell, Jheald, LukeSurl,
Adrian.benko, Falcorian, Dmitrybrant, Bjones, Linas, LOL, Bkkbrad, BillC, Robert K S, Christopher Thomas, The Nameless, Richard-
Weiss, Ketiltrout, Rjwilmsi, Urbane Legend, SMC, Dougluce, Remurmur, Nihiltres, Bgwhite, Wjfox2005, YurikBot, Spacepotato, Phlip,
Rsrikanth05, Mike411, Herve661, Thiseye, Expensivehat, Brandon, Lomn, Aaron Schulz, Mission9801, JasonAD, Wknight94, Fram,
Tzepish, CIreland, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Ashill, Furry, Thumperward, Silly rabbit, SchftyThree, Latrosicarius, Rickythesk8r,
Hippo43, Steve Pucci, Blake-, Sbluen, Sadi Carnot, RossF18, Byelf2007, Nishkid64, Richard L. Peterson, Korean alpha for knowl-
edge, Beetstra, AdultSwim, Mdanh2002, Dan Gluck, Slammer111, ScottHolden, Tawkerbot2, Chetvorno, Rapidash, JForget, Vyznev
Xnebara, Gregbard, Lyml, Cydebot, Gogo Dodo, Ttiotsw, Michael C Price, Malleus Fatuorum, Thijs!bot, Epbr123, Coelacan, Mbell,
Matny1989, Headbomb, Najro, Pmrobert49, Peter Gulutzan, Davidhorman, Jonny-mt, Greg L, Chillysnow, Astrokid, JAnDbot, Andonic,
CrazySpas, VoABot II, Telanis, Swpb, Email4mobile, Beetfarm Louie, Zygar2k6, Skylights76, Thompson.matthew, Fastman99, Tgeairn,
Mike.lifeguard, Jerry, SkaryMonk, Adamd1008, Jarry1250, Idioma-bot, Signalhead, Larryisgood, RingtailedFox, Indubitably, Howard-
Frampton, Zanardm, Anonymous Dissident, Reddoor, MearsMan, SwordSmurf, Wasted Sapience, Vector Potential, Kbrose, Comosabi,
SieBot, BotMultichill, Paradoctor, Chazzlyy, Lightmouse, Crisis, Hamiltondaniel, Martarius, ClueBot, Artichoker, Arakunem, Der Golem,
Leopard850, Bubbles4sale, Zomno, M.O.X, Johnuniq, Arianewiki1, Matma Rex, MystBot, Truthnlove, CrackDragon, NonvocalScream,
Osarius, Maldek, Addbot, Atethnekos, ThisIsMyWikipediaName, Dansk59, WFPM, Lightbot, Zorrobot, Mikey58, Luckas-bot, Am-
ble, Maldek2, AnomieBOT, AngusCA, VX, Citation bot, ArthurBot, Hammersbach, Chjoaygame, Sanpitch, Citation bot 1, Pinethicket,
Tom.Reding, , Diannaa, Suryamp, Stephen Graetzel, RjwilmsiBot, Tanshai, EmausBot, WikitanvirBot, Slightsmile, Ornithikos, Serketan,
, K kisses, Donner60, ChuispastonBot, Whoop whoop pull up, ClueBot NG, HRO'Neill, 497glbig, Widr, Pennykohl, Bibcode
Bot, Snow Rise, LeeMcLoughlin1975, ChrisGualtieri, Zeeyanwiki, Grown up atheist, Reatlas, Madreterra, Jwratner1, Spgoggles, 1band-
saw, Stamptrader, Crow, Thundergodz, ChamithN, Tetra quark, Isambard Kingdom, Outedexits and Anonymous: 208
Horizon problem Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem?oldid=679878293 Contributors: Roadrunner, Maury
Markowitz, Heron, Theresa knott, Sverdrup, Pablo-ores, Giftlite, Eequor, Gdr, Fpahl, Lumidek, Burschik, Eep, Pjacobi, MuDavid,
Dewet, Nabla, Floorsheim, Foobaz, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, BlueNovember, Wtmitchell, Gpvos, Woohookitty, Chrkl, Eteq, Steven-
scollege, Eubot, David H Braun (1964), YurikBot, Wiki alf, Snowfalcon, T-rex, 2over0, Caco de vidro, Groyolo, Dragon of the Pants,
SmackBot, K-UNIT, Colonies Chris, Jdthood, Lostart, DabMachine, Cydebot, Paulgear, Thijs!bot, Headbomb, SGGH, Peter Gulutzan,
Zerothis, 49oxen, Dougher, Lifthrasir1, Chkno, R'n'B, Inwind, TXiKiBoT, Anonymous Dissident, Kdmcdrm, Emfocuser, Hamiltondaniel,
Martarius, Sammycef, Teacherbrock, Addbot, Lightbot, Triquetra, J JMesserly, FrescoBot, Craig Pemberton, Tom.Reding, Wdanbae, Tb-
hotch, Yiosie2356, RaptureBot, Brandmeister, ClueBot NG, HMman, Samwalton9, Salmanhabib1, Xibalban Alchemist, Hilmer B, Tetra
quark, FivePillarPurist, Sleepy Geek, Codylightful, Cc universe and Anonymous: 27
Cosmological horizon Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon?oldid=683755868 Contributors: Je Relf, Giftlite,
Eequor, Beland, Eroica, Rich Farmbrough, Cacycle, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, PWilkinson, Danski14, Hairy Dude, Xihr, ErkDemon,
2over0, Serendipodous, SmackBot, Nbarth, Keraunos, Second Quantization, Peter Gulutzan, Bencherlite, Ours18, Buttons to Push But-
tons, Wesino, Thaisk, SieBot, Matthew Yeager, Kc0tlh, Matma Rex, Addbot, Restu20, Dendropithecus, Nagualdesign, Tom.Reding, Hh-
hippo, Widr, Bibcode Bot, BG19bot, Vkdevlin, 123Hiperion321, Monkbot, HannahFord428, Tetra quark, Angel of lightness, Cmmgood,
Youknowwhatimsayin and Anonymous: 15

28.7.2 Images
File:080998_Universe_Content_240_after_Planck.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/080998_
Universe_Content_240_after_Planck.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/080998/index.html
updated data from http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/planck/news/planck20130321.html Original artist: NASA, Modied by User:
File:1e0657_scale.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/1e0657_scale.jpg License: Public domain Contrib-
utors: Chandra X-Ray Observatory: 1E 0657-56 Original artist: NASA/CXC/M. Weiss
File:2MASS_LSS_chart-NEW_Nasa.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/2MASS_LSS_chart-NEW_
Nasa.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Large Scale Structure in the Local Universe: The 2MASS Galaxy Catalog, Jarrett, T.H.
2004, PASA, 21, 396 Original artist: IPAC/Caltech, by Thomas Jarrett
File:2dfdtfe.gif Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/2dfdtfe.gif License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: http:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Great_Wall Original artist: Willem Schaap
File:Acap.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Acap.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work
Original artist: F l a n k e r
File:Albert_Einstein_portrait.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Albert_Einstein_portrait.jpg License: PD-
US Contributors:
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/628e99cf2e26233d.html Original artist:
E. O. Hoppe. (1878-1972) Published on LIFE
File:Aristarchus_working.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Aristarchus_working.jpg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Arrow_Blue_Down_001.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Arrow_Blue_Down_001.svg License:
Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Sameboat
File:Artists_impression_of_the_expected_dark_matter_distribution_around_the_Milky_Way.ogv Source: https:
//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Artist%E2%80%99s_impression_of_the_expected_dark_matter_distribution_
around_the_Milky_Way.ogv License: CC BY 4.0 Contributors: ESO Original artist: ESO/L. Calada
File:BSicon_BHF.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/BSicon_BHF.svg License: Public domain Contrib-
utors: Own work Original artist: Bernina & axpde
28.7. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 281

File:BSicon_KBHFa.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/BSicon_KBHFa.svg License: Public domain

Contributors: Own work Original artist: user:axpde
File:BSicon_STR.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/BSicon_STR.svg License: Public domain Contrib-
utors: Own work Original artist: de:User:Bernina & de:User:axpde
File:BSicon_TUNNELa.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/BSicon_tSTRa.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Icons von Bernina Original artist: T.h.
File:BSicon_TUNNELe.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/BSicon_tSTRe.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Icons von Bernina Original artist: T.h.
File:BSicon_eBHF.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/BSicon_eBHF.svg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: Own work Original artist: Bernina & axpde
File:BSicon_eKBHFe.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/BSicon_eKBHFe.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work Original artist: user:axpde
File:BSicon_hWSTR.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/BSicon_hWSTR.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work Original artist: de:User:axpde
File:BSicon_tBHF.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/BSicon_tBHF.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 de
Contributors: Own work Original artist: axpde
File:BlackHole.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/BlackHole.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100416132936/http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011015blackhole.html (direct link)
http://earthsky.org/space/comparing-theory-to-observation-in-eating-habits-of-giant-black-holes (direct link) Original artist: XMM-
Newton, ESA, NASA
File:Black_Hole_Milkyway.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Black_Hole_Milkyway.jpg License:
CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: Gallery of Space Time Travel Original artist: Ute Kraus, Physics education group Kraus, Universitt
Hildesheim, Space Time Travel, (background image of the milky way: Axel Mellinger)
File:Bohr-atom-PAR.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Bohr-atom-PAR.svg License: CC-BY-SA-
3.0 Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Original artist: Original uplo:JabberWok]] at en.wikipedia
File:CERN_LHC_Tunnel1.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/CERN_LHC_Tunnel1.jpg License: CC
BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Julian Herzog (Website)

File:CHINTREUIL_-_Le_Boulot_blanc.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/CHINTREUIL_-_Le_

Boulot_blanc.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: PHILDIC
File:CL0024+17.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/CL0024%2B17.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2007/17/image/a/ (direct link) Original artist: NASA, ESA, M.J. Jee and H.
Ford (Johns Hopkins University)
File:CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/CMB_Timeline300_no_
WMAP.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Original version: NASA; modied by Ryan Kaldari Original artist: NASA/WMAP
Science Team
File:COBEDiagram.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/COBEDiagram.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:COBELaunch.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/COBELaunch.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:COBE_DMR_Image.PNG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/COBE_DMR_Image.PNG License:
Public domain Contributors:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/dmr_image.cfm Original artist: The COBE datasets were developed by the NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center under the guidance of the COBE Science Working Group.
File:COBE_cmb_fluctuations.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/COBE_cmb_fluctuations.png Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/dmr_image.cfm Original artist: The COBE datasets were developed by the NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center under the guidance of the COBE Science Working Group.
File:COBE_galactic_disk.PNG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/COBE_galactic_disk.PNG License:
Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:COSMOS_3D_dark_matter_map.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/COSMOS_3D_dark_
matter_map.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Originally uploaded at en.wikipedia as File:COSMOS 3D dark matter map.jpg by
User:RichardMassey. (Transfered by User:Quibik.)

Also available at http://spacetelescope.org/images/heic0701b/

Original artist: NASA/ESA/Richard Massey (California Institute of Technology)

File:Calabi_yau.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Calabi_yau.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: Mathematica output, created by author Original artist: Jbourjai
File:Capital_Lambda.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Capital_Lambda.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: DarkEvil Original artist: DarkEvil
File:Cmbr.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Cmbr.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work
Original artist: Quantum Doughnut
282 CHAPTER 28. COSMOLOGICAL HORIZON

File:Cobe_vision1.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Cobe_vision1.jpg License: Public domain Con-

tributors: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/081000/index.html Original artist: NASA/COBE Science Team
File:Collage_of_six_cluster_collisions_with_dark_matter_maps.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/
03/Collage_of_six_cluster_collisions_with_dark_matter_maps.jpg License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: http://www.spacetelescope.org/
images/heic1506a/ Original artist: NASA, ESA, D. Harvey (cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne, Switzerland), R. Massey (Durham
University, UK), the Hubble SM4 ERO Team, ST-ECF, ESO, D. Coe (STScI), J. Merten (Heidelberg/Bologna), HST Frontier Fields,
Harald Ebeling(University of Hawaii at Manoa), Jean-Paul Kneib (LAM)and Johan Richard (Caltech, USA)
File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Constellation_Fornax,_EXtreme_Deep_Field.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Constellation_
Fornax%2C_EXtreme_Deep_Field.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/37/
image/a/warn/, http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/690958main_p1237a1.jpg Original artist: NASA; ESA; G. Illingworth, D. Magee,
and P. Oesch, University of California, Santa Cruz; R. Bouwens, Leiden University; and the HUDF09 Team
File:Cosmic_Background_Explorer_logo.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Cosmic_Background_
Explorer_logo.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Cosmological_Composition__Pie_Chart.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Cosmological_
Composition_%E2%80%93_Pie_Chart.svg License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Ben Finney
File:Crab_Nebula.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Crab_Nebula.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: HubbleSite: gallery, release. Original artist: NASA, ESA, J. Hester and A. Loll (Arizona State University)
File:DMPie_2013.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/DMPie_2013.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Con-
tributors: Own work Original artist: Szczureq
File:DNA_chemical_structure.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/DNA_chemical_structure.svg
License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: <a href='//validator.w3.org/' data-x-rel='nofollow'><img alt='W3C' src='https://upload.wikimedia.
org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Valid_SVG_1.1_%28green%29.svg/88px-Valid_SVG_1.1_%28green%29.svg.png' width='88'
height='30' style='vertical-align: top' srcset='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Valid_SVG_1.1_%28green%
29.svg/132px-Valid_SVG_1.1_%28green%29.svg.png 1.5x, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Valid_
SVG_1.1_%28green%29.svg/176px-Valid_SVG_1.1_%28green%29.svg.png 2x' data-le-width='91' data-le-height='31' /></a>iThe
source code of this SVG is <a data-x-rel='nofollow' class='external text' href='//validator.w3.org/check?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.
wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSpecial%3AFilepath%2FDNA_chemical_structure.svg,<span>,&,</span>,ss=1#source'>valid</a>.
Original artist: Madprime (talk contribs)
File:Dark_Energy.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Dark_Energy.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2001/09/image/g/ OR http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/
what-is-dark-energy/ Original artist: Ann Feild (STScI)
File:Drop_closeup.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Drop_closeup.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contrib-
utors: File:Flickr_-_NewsPhoto!_-_drup.jpg - original: http://www.flickr.com/photos/13088710@N02/3581239516/ Original artist: Jos
van Zetten
File:Earth{}s_Location_in_the_Universe_(JPEG).jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Earth%27s_
Location_in_the_Universe_%28JPEG%29.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Andrew Z. Colvin
File:Earth{}s_Location_in_the_Universe_SMALLER_(JPEG).jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/
Earth%27s_Location_in_the_Universe_SMALLER_%28JPEG%29.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist:
Andrew Z. Colvin
File:Earth-moon.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Earth-moon.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: NASA [1] Original artist: Apollo 8 crewmember Bill Anders
File:Edit-clear.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg License: Public domain Contributors: The
Tango! Desktop Project. Original artist:
The people from the Tango! project. And according to the meta-data in the le, specically: Andreas Nilsson, and Jakub Steiner (although
minimally).
File:Einstein_cross.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Einstein_cross.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1990/20/image/a/ Original artist: NASA, ESA, and STScI
File:Elevator_gravity.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Elevator_gravity.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors:
Elevator_gravity2.png Original artist:
derivative work: Pbroks13 (talk)
File:Embedded_LambdaCDM_geometry.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Embedded_
LambdaCDM_geometry.png License: Public domain Contributors: Own work (see mathematical details below) Original artist:
Ben Rudiak-Gould
File:Embedded_LambdaCDM_geometry_(alt_view).png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/
Embedded_LambdaCDM_geometry_%28alt_view%29.png License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Ben
Rudiak-Gould
File:En-BigBang.ogg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/En-BigBang.ogg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contrib-
utors:
Derivative of Big Bang Original artist: Speaker: Dmitry Brant
Authors of the article
28.7. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 283

File:End_of_universe.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/End_of_universe.jpg License: Public domain

Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Ergosphere.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Ergosphere.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contribu-
tors: own work based on the graphic uploaded by IMeowbot Original artist: MesserWoland
File:Expansion_of_Space_(Galaxies).png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Expansion_of_Space_
%28Galaxies%29.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Azcolvin429
File:Expansion_of_the_Universe_-_distance_measures_problem.gif Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/
6e/Expansion_of_the_Universe_-_distance_measures_problem.gif License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.
com/redshift.html Original artist: Richard Powell
File:Falsevacuum.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Falsevacuum.svg License: CC BY 2.5 Contribu-
tors: Adapted from en:Image:Falsevacuum.png Original artist: User:Stannered
File:Fermi_Observations_of_Dwarf_Galaxies_Provide_New_Insights_on_Dark_Matter.ogv Source: https://upload.wikimedia.
org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Fermi_Observations_of_Dwarf_Galaxies_Provide_New_Insights_on_Dark_Matter.ogv License: Public
domain Contributors: Goddard Multimedia Original artist: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
File:Flammarion.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Flammarion.jpg License: Public domain Contrib-
utors: Camille Flammarion, L'Atmosphere: Mtorologie Populaire (Paris, 1888), pp. 163 Original artist: Anonymous
File:Flatness_problem_density_graph.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Flatness_problem_density_
graph.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Olaf Davis
File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: Cc-by-
sa-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Formation_of_galactic_clusters_and_filaments.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Formation_
of_galactic_clusters_and_filaments.jpg License: CC BY 3.0 us Contributors: http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/filaments.html Original artist:
Andrey Kravtsov (the University of Chicago) and Anatoly Klypin (New Mexico State University)
File:Friedmann_universes.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Friedmann_universes.svg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: BenRG
File:Front_view_of_the_European_Space_Agency_Planck_satellite.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/
Front_view_of_the_European_Space_Agency_Planck_satellite.jpg License: Fair use Contributors:
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2007/01/Front_view_of_the_Planck_satellite Original artist:
ESA/AOES Medialab
File:GPB_circling_earth.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/GPB_circling_earth.jpg License: Public
domain Contributors: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_012.html Original artist: NASA
File:GalacticRotation2.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/GalacticRotation2.svg License: CC-BY-
SA-3.0 Contributors: Own work in Inkscape 0.42 Original artist: PhilHibbs
File:Gamma-ray-microscope.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Gamma-ray-microscope.svg Li-
cense: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Radeksonic
File:Gnome-searchtool.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Gnome-searchtool.svg License: LGPL Con-
tributors: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gnome-themes-extras/0.9/gnome-themes-extras-0.9.0.tar.gz Original artist: David
Vignoni
File:Gravitational_lens-full.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Gravitational_lens-full.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Gravitational_red-shifting.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Gravitational_red-shifting.png Li-
cense: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Gravitationell-lins-4.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Gravitationell-lins-4.jpg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2003/01/image/a Original artist: NASA, N. Benitez
(JHU), T. Broadhurst (Racah Institute of Physics/The Hebrew University), H. Ford (JHU), M. Clampin (STScI),G. Hartig (STScI), G.
Illingworth (UCO/Lick Observatory), the ACS Science Team and ESA
File:Gravwav.gif Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Gravwav.gif License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors:
self-made, using standard (TT-gauge) description of linearized sinusoidal gravitational wave Original artist: Mapos
File:Heic1401a-Abell2744-20140107.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/
Heic1401a-Abell2744-20140107.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: HubbleSite: NewsCenter Original artist: NASA, ESA,
and J. Lotz, M. Mountain, A. Koekemoer, and the HFF Team (STScI). Image/Video Use Policy Space Telescope imagery is free for
anyone to use. => http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1401a/ and http://www.spacetelescope.org/copyright/
File:Herschel_planck_team.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Herschel_planck_team.jpg License:
CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Guy Lebgue
File:Higgs-Mass-MetaStability.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Higgs-Mass-MetaStability.svg Li-
cense: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Original artist: Folletto at English Wikipedia
File:History_of_the_Universe.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/History_of_the_Universe.svg Li-
cense: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Yinweichen
File:Horizon_problem.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Horizon_problem.svg License: CC-BY-SA-
3.0 Contributors:
Horizon_problem2.PNG Original artist: Horizon_problem2.PNG: Original uploader was Theresa knott at en.wikipedia
File:Horizonte_inflacionario.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Horizonte_inflacionario.svg License:
CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons.; original: I created this work in Adobe Illustrator. Original artist:
Joke137 at English Wikipedia
284 CHAPTER 28. COSMOLOGICAL HORIZON

File:Horn_Antenna-in_Holmdel,_New_Jersey.jpeg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Horn_

Antenna-in_Holmdel%2C_New_Jersey.jpeg License: Public domain Contributors: Great Images in NASA Description Original
artist: NASA
File:HubbleUltraDeepFieldwithScaleComparison.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/
HubbleUltraDeepFieldwithScaleComparison.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/
releases/2004/07/image/a/warn/ Original artist: NASA and the European Space Agency. Edited by Autonova
File:Hubble_constant.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Hubble_constant.JPG License: CC BY-SA
3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Brews ohare
File:Hubble_image_of_the_galaxy_cluster_Abell_3827.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Hubble_
image_of_the_galaxy_cluster_Abell_3827.jpg License: CC BY 4.0 Contributors: http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso1514a/ Original
artist: ESO
File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png License: Public do-
main Contributors: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/121238/ilc_9yr_moll4096.png Original artist: NASA / WMAP Science Team
File:Incorrect_plaque_at_the_Rose_Center_for_Earth_and_Space,_April_2011.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/2/24/Incorrect_plaque_at_the_Rose_Center_for_Earth_and_Space%2C_April_2011.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Picture taken at the Rose Center for Earth and Space, New York, New York, during a visit. Original artist: Rogerstrolley
File:LISA.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/LISA.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Lambda-Cold_Dark_Matter,_Accelerated_Expansion_of_the_Universe,_Big_Bang-Inflation.jpg Source: https:
//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Lambda-Cold_Dark_Matter%2C_Accelerated_Expansion_of_the_Universe%
2C_Big_Bang-Inflation.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Coldcreation
File:Large-scale_structure_of_light_distribution_in_the_universe.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/
6d/Large-scale_structure_of_light_distribution_in_the_universe.jpg License: CC BY 2.0 Contributors: https://www.flickr.com/photos/
uclmaps/15051460475/ Original artist: Andrew Pontzen and Fabio Governato
File:Lensshoe_hubble.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Lensshoe_hubble.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1112/lensshoe_hubble_3235.jpg Original artist: ESA/Hubble & NASA
File:Light-wave.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Light-wave.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contribu-
tors: No machine-readable source provided. Own work assumed (based on copyright claims). Original artist: No machine-readable author
provided. Gpvos assumed (based on copyright claims).
File:Light_cone.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Light_cone.svg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: Own work Original artist: Sakurambo
File:Light_cone_colour.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Light_cone_colour.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work Original artist: Incnis Mrsi 10:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
File:Light_deflection.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Light_deflection.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: self-made, using numerical integration methods to solve the geodetic equation for light near a spherical massive object
(Schwarzschild metric) Original artist: Markus Poessel (Mapos)
File:Lord_Kelvin_photograph.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Lord_Kelvin_photograph.jpg Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/hst/scientific-identity/CF/by_scientist_display_results.cfm?
scientist=kelvin Original artist: ?
File:Mach-Zehnder_photons_animation.gif Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Mach-Zehnder_photons_
animation.gif License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: user:Geek3
File:Matter_Distribution.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Matter_Distribution.JPG License: CC
BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Brews ohare
File:MontreGousset001.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/MontreGousset001.jpg License: CC-BY-
SA-3.0 Contributors: Self-published work by ZA Original artist: Isabelle Grosjean ZA
File:Multiverse_-_level_II.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Multiverse_-_level_II.svg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: Vectorisation of Multiverse - level II.GIF (by K1234567890y), by Lokal_Prol Original artist:
Original by K1234567890y
File:NASA-HS201427a-HubbleUltraDeepField2014-20140603.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/
NASA-HS201427a-HubbleUltraDeepField2014-20140603.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/
archive/releases/2014/27/image/a/ (image link) Original artist: NASA, ESA, H. Teplitz and M. Rafelski (IPAC/Caltech), A. Koekemoer
(STScI), R. Windhorst (Arizona State University), and Z. Levay (STScI)
File:NASA_logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/NASA_logo.svg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: Converted from Encapsulated PostScript at http://grcpublishing.grc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/Insig-cl.eps Original artist: National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration
File:NO2-N2O4.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/NO2-N2O4.jpg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: en:Image:N02-N2O4.jpg Original artist: en:User:Greenhorn1
File:Nearsc.gif Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Nearsc.gif License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: http:
//www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/nearsc.html Original artist: Richard Powell
File:Nuvola_apps_edu_mathematics_blue-p.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Nuvola_apps_edu_
mathematics_blue-p.svg License: GPL Contributors: Derivative work from Image:Nuvola apps edu mathematics.png and Image:Nuvola
apps edu mathematics-p.svg Original artist: David Vignoni (original icon); Flamurai (SVG convertion); bayo (color)
File:Nuvola_apps_kalzium.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Nuvola_apps_kalzium.svg License:
LGPL Contributors: Own work Original artist: David Vignoni, SVG version by Bobarino
28.7. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 285

File:Observable_Universe_with_Measurements_01.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Observable_

Universe_with_Measurements_01.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Azcolvin429
File:Observable_universe_logarithmic_illustration.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Observable_
universe_logarithmic_illustration.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Unmismoobjetivo
File:Office-book.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Office-book.svg License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: This and myself. Original artist: Chris Down/Tango project
File:PIA16874-CobeWmapPlanckComparison-20130321.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/
PIA16874-CobeWmapPlanckComparison-20130321.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/
PIA16874 (direct link) Original artist: NASA/JPL-Caltech/ESA
File:PIA17993-DetectorsForInfantUniverseStudies-20140317.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/
PIA17993-DetectorsForInfantUniverseStudies-20140317.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/
PIA17993.jpg Original artist: NASA/JPL-Caltech
File:Penrose.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Penrose.svg License: Public domain Contributors:
Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Andrei Stroe using CommonsHelper. Original artist: Cronholm144 at English Wikipedia
File:People_icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/People_icon.svg License: CC0 Contributors: Open-
Clipart Original artist: OpenClipart
File:Phase_change_-_en.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Phase_change_-_en.svg License: Public
domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: F l a n k e r, penubag
File:Phase_diagram_for_pure_substance.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Phase_diagram_for_
pure_substance.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Brews ohare
File:Photon_waves.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Photon_waves.png License: CC-BY-SA-3.0
Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Planck_4K_reference_load_qualification_model.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Planck_
4K_reference_load_qualification_model.jpg License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Photograph by Mike Peel
(www.mikepeel.net).
File:Planck_HFI_qualification_model_5.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Planck_HFI_
qualification_model_5.jpg License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Photograph by Mike Peel (www.mikepeel.net).
File:Planck_LFI_44GHz_horn_and_front-end_chassis_1.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/
Planck_LFI_44GHz_horn_and_front-end_chassis_1.jpg License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Photograph by
Mike Peel (www.mikepeel.net).
File:Planck_LFI_focal_plane_model.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Planck_LFI_focal_plane_
model.jpg License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Photograph by Mike Peel (www.mikepeel.net).
File:Plasma-lamp_2.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Plasma-lamp_2.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0
Contributors:
own work www.lucnix.be Original artist: Luc Viatour
File:Portal-puzzle.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Portal-puzzle.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
File:PowerSpectrumExt.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/PowerSpectrumExt.svg License: Public
domain Contributors: lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov PowerSpectrumExt.pdf in a collection of WMAP Data Product Images. Converted to svg
with pdf2svg. Original artist: NASA/WMAP Science Team
File:Psr1913+16-weisberg_en.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Psr1913%2B16-weisberg_en.png
License: Public domain Contributors: M. Haynes et Lorimer (2001) (redrawn by Dantor as Image:Psr1913+16-weisberg.png, English
labels added by mapos) Original artist: ?
File:Pythagorean_triangle.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/Pythagorean_triangle.png License: PD Contrib-
utors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Quark_structure_proton.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Quark_structure_proton.svg License:
CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Arpad Horvath
File:Quartz_oisan.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Quartz_oisan.jpg License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Con-
tributors: Own work Original artist: Didier Descouens
File:Question_book-new.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Question_book-new.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0
Contributors:
Created from scratch in Adobe Illustrator. Based on Image:Question book.png created by User:Equazcion Original artist:
Tkgd2007
File:Question_dropshade.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Question_dropshade.png License: Public
domain Contributors: Image created by JRM Original artist: JRM
File:Raisinbread.gif Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Raisinbread.gif License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: From the WMAP website. Original artist: w:en:User:ScienceApologist
File:Recent_Hubble{}s_Constant_Values.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Recent_Hubble%27s_
Constant_Values.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Primefac
File:Redshift_blueshift.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Redshift_blueshift.svg License: CC-BY-
SA-3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Ale Toovsk
File:Relativistic_precession.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Relativistic_precession.svg License:
CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Own work, self-made using gnuplot with manual alterations Original artist: KSmrq
286 CHAPTER 28. COSMOLOGICAL HORIZON

File:Rotation_curve_(Milky_Way).JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Rotation_curve_%28Milky_

Way%29.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Brews ohare
File:SN1994D.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/SN1994D.jpg License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: http:
//www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/opo9919i.html Original artist: NASA/ESA, The Hubble Key Project Team and The High-Z Super-
nova Search Team
File:Size_IK_Peg.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Size_IK_Peg.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Con-
tributors: Own work Original artist: RJHall, chris (vector)
File:Sloan_Digit_Sky_Survey_1.25_Declination_Slice_2013_Data.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/
6e/Sloan_Digit_Sky_Survey_1.25_Declination_Slice_2013_Data.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.sdss.org/ Original
artist: M. Blanton and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
File:Solar_system.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Solar_system.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Sound-icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Sound-icon.svg License: LGPL Contributors:
Derivative work from Silsor's versio Original artist: Crystal SVG icon set
File:Spacetime_curvature.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Spacetime_curvature.png License: CC-
BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Spin_network.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Spin_network.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Con-
tributors: Own work Original artist: Markus Poessel (Mapos)
File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Standard_
Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: Own work by uploader, PBS NOVA [1], Fermilab, Oce of
Science, United States Department of Energy, Particle Data Group Original artist: MissMJ
File:Star_collapse_to_black_hole.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Star_collapse_to_black_hole.
png License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Stimulatedemission.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Stimulatedemission.png License: CC-BY-
SA-3.0 Contributors: en:Image:Stimulatedemission.png Original artist: User:(Automated conversion),User:DrBob
File:Stylised_Lithium_Atom.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Stylised_Lithium_Atom.svg License:
CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: based o of Image:Stylised Lithium Atom.png by Halfdan. Original artist: SVG by Indolences. Recoloring
and ironing out some glitches done by Rainer Klute.
File:ThomasDiggesmap.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/ThomasDiggesmap.JPG License: Public
domain Contributors: Thomas Digges map: public domain, copied from <a data-x-rel='nofollow' class='external text' href='http://www.
astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/30_05/copernicus.html'>here</a> Original artist: w:Thomas Digges (1546?1595)
File:Timeline_icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Timeline_icon.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0
Contributors: No machine-readable source provided. Own work assumed (based on copyright claims). Original artist: No machine-readable
author provided. Dschwen assumed (based on copyright claims).
File:Turning_Black_Holes_into_Dark_Matter_Labs.webm Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/
Turning_Black_Holes_into_Dark_Matter_Labs.webm License: Public domain Contributors: NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center
Original artist: NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center
File:Universe.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Universe.svg License: Public domain Contributors:
Based on gif version uploaded by Dpeinador Original artist: Durand
File:Universe_content_pie_chart.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Universe_content_pie_chart.jpg
License: Public domain Contributors: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/080998/index.html Original artist: Credit: NASA / WMAP Science
Team
File:Universe_expansion2.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Universe_expansion2.png License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: Created by uploader from public domain source Original artist: Gnixon at English Wikipedia
File:Universecolor.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Universecolor.jpg License: CC BY 3.0 Contrib-
utors: Own work Original artist: Drschawrz
File:Velocity-redshift.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Velocity-redshift.JPG License: CC BY-SA
3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Brews ohare
File:Vertex_correction.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Vertex_correction.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: ? Original artist: User:Harmaa
File:VisibleEmrWavelengths.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/VisibleEmrWavelengths.svg License:
Public domain Contributors: created by me Original artist: maxhurtz
File:WMAP2.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/WMAP2.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
Self-made JPEG version of original TIFF image from NASA WMAP website Original artist: Tempshill
File:Wikibooks-logo-en-noslogan.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Wikibooks-logo-en-noslogan.
svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Bastique, User:Ramac et al.
File:Wikibooks-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikibooks-logo.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Bastique, User:Ramac et al.
File:Wikinews-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Wikinews-logo.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: This is a cropped version of Image:Wikinews-logo-en.png. Original artist: Vectorized by Simon 01:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Updated by Time3000 17 April 2007 to use ocial Wikinews colours and appear correctly on dark backgrounds. Originally uploaded by
Simon.
File:Wikiquote-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
28.7. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 287

File:Wikisource-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0

Contributors: Rei-artur Original artist: Nicholas Moreau
File:Wikiversity-logo-Snorky.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Wikiversity-logo-en.svg License:
CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Snorky
File:Wikiversity-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Wikiversity-logo.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Snorky (optimized and cleaned up by verdy_p) Original artist: Snorky (optimized and cleaned up by verdy_p)
File:Wiktionary-logo-en.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Wiktionary-logo-en.svg License: Public
domain Contributors: Vector version of Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png. Original artist: Vectorized by Fvasconcellos (talk contribs),
based on original logo tossed together by Brion Vibber
File:Wz-z.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Wz-z.jpg License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Contributors: Own work
Original artist: Esadri21
File:XDF-scale.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/XDF-scale.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/37/image/c/ Original artist: NASA, ESA, and Z. Levay (STScI)
File:XDF-separated.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/XDF-separated.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/37/image/d/ Original artist: NASA, ESA, and Z. Levay, F. Summers
(STScI)
File:Young_Diffraction.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Young_Diffraction.png License: Public
domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?

28.7.3 Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0