A Nobel Prize That’s No Surprise

Unbelievable; yet again, for the fourth or fifth time since July, something related to high-energy physics hits the front pages. This time it’s not a shocking claim of a novel phenomenon, but a thoroughly expected Nobel prize awarded for the field’s greatest discovery of the 1990s: that not only is the universe expanding (as Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929), it is expanding more and more rapidly. The teams in which the prize-winners participated used Type Ia supernovas to make the first direct observations indicating that the universe is dominated by something like a “cosmological constant”, often now called “dark energy”.  [What these terms really mean deserves a longer article.]

It is interesting, given the historical juxtaposition of this award with the chaos and media circus of ten days ago, to compare this result with the OPERA experiment’s claim that neutrinos arrive earlier than expected. I am very skeptical of the OPERA result, as are most particle physicists that I talk to; I and most of my particle physics colleagues were also initially very skeptical of today’s Nobel Prize winning result.  Are there any differences?Yes, interesting ones worth keeping in mind, though I’m not predicting the future in making these comparisons.

First, three years before the Type Ia supernova measurements were announced in 1998, I had already heard or read detailed presentations by several famous theoretical astrophysicists and cosmologists (including at least Jeremiah Ostriker and Paul Steinhardt, and separately Lawrence Krauss and Michael Turner) pointing out that various other types of measurements were indirectly pointing to the existence of a cosmological constant or something like it. [Essentially, if I remember right, the density of the universe was appearing to have the critical value that makes the geometry of the universe flat (so that parallel lines crossing the universe remain never cross or diverge), but the amount of matter in the universe, including both ordinary and dark matter, appeared to be only 1/4 of that value — implying that 3/4 of the universe must be something else, with a cosmological constant being the choice most consistent with the data.] So the supernova result was not really a bolt from the blue; other data was already (somewhat weakly) pointing toward it.

Second, while one can identify measurements related to Einstein’s special relativity that are on their face (though not strictly) in some conflict with the OPERA result, forcing one to do some theoretical gymnastics to make all the experiments consistent, this was not true of the supernova-based result. What the claim of an accelerating universe really ran counter to was the expectations of particle physicists, and some astrophysicists, but not so much prior data.   In fact it was, according to the papers I mentioned above, in rough accord with a lot of prior data, confirming an already-noticed trend.

Third, these now Nobel laureates set out specifically to measure the history of the universe, and designed their research programs to carry out their observations as well as could be done. OPERA, by contrast, was designed to measure an effect of neutrino oscillations [an article on this is coming shortly], not to measure neutrino speed. Indeed, if you set out specifically to measure neutrino speed, OPERA is definitely not the experiment you would have designed — the measurement technique has a number of significant challenges, including the difficulty of calibrating the timing and distance measurements, and the fact that (as discussed here) the pulses of neutrinos used in the measurement last 10,000 nanoseconds, yet need to be used to measure a time shift of 60 nanoseconds.

Finally, the supernova result was obtained nearly simultaneously, after many years of work, by two separate and competing teams of researchers, Perlmutter’s Supernova Cosmology Project, and Schmidt and Reiss’s High-z Supernova Search Team. OPERA currently stands alone, perhaps boldly, perhaps lonely… but certainly unconfirmed.

Now here’s a question: how did particle physicists go from extremely skeptical to largely accepting of the supernova results? Already it was impressive that two similar measurements gave a similar striking result, and that there were prior suggestions that other observations were pointing in this direction. But perhaps the most important cause was that it did not take long for other, independent measurements — observing completely unrelated objects and using entirely different methods — to show independent evidence consistent with an accelerating universe and a similar-sized cosmological constant (or something like it). So it was only a matter of a few short years before the field largely concluded their measurement was correct. Thereafter it was pretty obvious that these two groups would get the credit for being first, and their leading scientists would soon win a Nobel prize for it.

The question for OPERA is whether the future will take a similar path, or instead take the path most often followed by history:  a sequence of contradicting experiments, followed by gradual oblivion.

Meanwhile, what of the supernova observation itself? The astrophysics and cosmology of the measurement will be best described by others (such as my friends over at Cosmic Variance). But in brief, it involved using Type Ia supernovas (such as  the one that has gone off recently [you can read my post on the subject here] in the Pinwheel galaxy 21,000,000 light years away, and not to be confused with Type II supernovas, such as the 1987 supernova that exploded in the Large Magellanic Cloud, about 160,000 light years away) to estimate distances to far-away galaxies. It’s not easy to measure distances in the universe — you can’t just put down a tape-measure to something millions of light years away, or even bounce a laser beam off it. Instead you have to play the following game.

Suppose you saw a distant light bulb, and you wanted to know how far away it was. Well, if you knew it was a 60 Watt bulb, then you could figure that out, since apparent brightness falls off with distance in a predictable way. But if you didn’t know if it was a 60 Watt, a 40 Watt, or a 2000 Watt bulb, then you wouldn’t be able to do that; it might be dim because it’s intrinsically a dim bulb, or it might just appear dim because it is far away. Well, most stars and galaxies and other identifiable things in the universe don’t come with their wattage marked on the box. But Type Ia supernovas do. They are very regular, in that the way they behave over time is closely related to their maximum brightness. So if you measure the change of a Type Ia’s brightness over time, and look at its maximum brightness in your telescope, you can figure out how bright it must have been intrinsically — a trick for determining the wattage of the bulb.

And then by looking at many galaxies with a supernova in them, and figuring out how far away they are [and remembering that any supernova in the distant universe that you can see today blew up long, long ago, due to the finite speed of light], you can work out the shape and size of the universe over time. So these teams of researchers measured a couple of dozen supernovas each, and came to the conclusion that the universe’s expansion was not decelerating, as most astronomers and almost all particle physicists had expected, but had been accelerating for some time.

Why this discovery shocked particle physicists is a long but interesting and important story, to be told soon; stay tuned.

21 responses to “A Nobel Prize That’s No Surprise

  1. Pingback: Why Theories Don’t Go Into Hospitals | Of Particular Significance

  2. Pingback: A Not-So-Far-Away Type Ia Supernova | Of Particular Significance

  3. Matt,

    I’m glad that you occasionally post on astronomy and cosmology subjects since that is an area I’m more familiar with.

    On the subject of a universe that is expanding in the standard cosmological sense–meaning that gravitationally-bound galaxy groupings are supposedly moving away from other gravitationally-bound galaxy groups (clusters) isotropically–of which this is the standard belief, and not that everything expands (which someone from the public might interpret), I would like to suggest we subscribe to some skepticism of this notion.

    In my review of modern cosmology I have come to the conclusion that it is built up of layer after layer of mistaken thinking and interpretation that became accepted wisdom due to our cultural/religious preferences for a created universe (or put differently, a universe with a beginning) and some mistaken ideas having to do with the supposed gravitational necessity for a finite universe as well as questions of why the universe isn’t blazing white if it is infinite.

    It is readily acknowledged that our universes’ geometry is flat, isotropic and homogenous (at scales greater than about 300 million light years). This is precisely the right kind of geometry of an infinite non-expanding universe. It is not the right kind of geometry for a finite expanding universe.

    The reason why the sky isn’t blazing white in an infinite universe is because stars don’t have infinite life times. They periodically blow up and scatter their dust around.

    The cosmological redshift (as opposed to a regular Doppler shift) likely derives from a cause other than motion. My suspicion is that the environment of space (not being completely empty) has an effect on light (at all wavelengths) such that it reduces the energy of light causing the cosmological redshift. This is the interpretation that Edwin Hubble favored. With pretty much the sole exception of his most-quoted 1929 paper, Hubble’s cosmological redshift was an indication of distance only. He went to his grave never favoring the expanding universe interpretation. So it really irks me of all the myth-making regarding Hubble as the discoverer of the expanding universe.

    All this other business of either declining or accelerating expansion and hence dark energy is just wasted speculations not unlike the old medieval debates on the nature of God or His creation. Endless papers are being presented on something that is just plain false.

    The supposed gravitational problem for an infinite universe that Seelinger, Einstein and others fell for is really no problem at all. Take any mass and place it in a sphere that represents a homogenous distribution of matter surrounding a test mass. That test mass will not feel an attractive force (or move in any direction) because the gravitational attraction from any one direction is countered by an equal attraction from the opposite direction. You can add an infinite series of larger and larger shells of matter around the first sphere and nothing will change. Gravitational influence only adds up to the degree that there are imbalances in distributions of matter and its motions.

    Type Ia supernova light curves and associated assumptions that have to work together are not free from mistaken learning and cultural bias and so forgive me for not buying the Big Bang creationism they have been selling.

    • You are forgiven. You will also forgive me for not taking your ideas very seriously.

      • Vincent Sauve

        As a philosophical materialist and atheist I expect to be not taken seriously by the majority of this society for the rest of my life so I’m not surprised by your response.

        The following comment is one of many from my web page describing the religious views of many of today’s cosmologists:

        I grew up in the sputnik generation of the fifties, maybe the first generation raised with a creation myth that was supposedly scientifically certifiable. […]
        They [the cosmologists] are the priests and the mythmakers of our technological age.
        What could be closer to the flavor of myth than the notion that the universe did in fact appear, perhaps out of nothing;…. […] It is probably part of the human condition that cosmologists (or the shamans of any age) always think they are knocking on eternity’s door, that the final secret of the universe is in reach. It may also be part of the human condition that they are always wrong.
        –Dennis Overbye (Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos: The Story of the Scientific Quest For the Secret of the Universe, HarperCollins, 1991)

        Matt, I recommend you read the quotes I have assembled on the page, https://sites.google.com/site/bigbangcosmythology/home/bigbangreligion
        and check out the new graphic I created at the bottom of that page showing the spectrum of American Style Creationism.

  4. Excellent site you have here.. It’s difficult to
    find excellent writing like yours these days.
    I really appreciate people like you! Take care!!

  5. I think the admin of this site is actually working hard in support
    of his web site, because here every stuff is quality based information.

  6. No matter if some one searches for his necessary thing, thus he/she wants to be available that in detail, therefore that thing is maintained
    over here.

  7. I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but great topic.
    I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more.
    Thanks for magnificent info I was looking for this info for my mission.

  8. What’s up to all, it’s actually a good for me to visit this
    web page, it includes useful Information.

  9. Helpful info. Fortunate me I discovered your website accidentally,
    and I am surprised why this twist of fate did not happened earlier!

    I bookmarked it.

  10. You have made some really good points there.
    I looked on the net to learn more about the issue and
    found most individuals will go along with your views on this site.

  11. I every time emailed this weblog post page to all my
    friends, since if like to read it after that my friends will too.

  12. Hey this is kind of of off topic but I was wanting
    to know if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually
    code with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no
    coding expertise so I wanted to get advice from someone with experience.
    Any help would be greatly appreciated!

  13. Good info. Lucky me I ran across your website by accident (stumbleupon).
    I have bookmarked it for later!

  14. You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to be actually something that I think I would never understand.
    It seems too complicated and extremely broad for me.
    I am looking forward for your next post, I’ll try to get the hang of it!

  15. I am genuinely grateful to the owner of this site who has shared this
    enormous paragraph at at this place.

  16. Article writing is also a excitement, if you know then you can write otherwise it is difficult to

  17. Hello there! I could have sworn I’ve visited this
    site before but after going through some of the articles I realized it’s new to me.
    Anyways, I’m definitely pleased I came across it and I’ll be book-marking it and checking back regularly!

  18. My family members every time say that I am killing my time here at web,
    however I know I am getting familiarity daily by reading such nice content.

  19. I believe this is one of the most vital info for me.
    And i’m happy studying your article. However should remark on some normal
    things, The web site style is perfect, the articles is in point of fact nice : D.
    Excellent process, cheers