EVER since Arthur Eddington travelled to the island of PrÃncipe off Africa to measure starlight bending around the sun during a 1919 eclipse, evidence for Einstein's theory of general relativity has only become stronger. Could it now be that starlight from distant galaxies is illuminating cracks in the theory's foundation?
Everything from the concept of the black hole to GPS timing owes a debt to the theory of general relativity, which describes how gravity arises from the geometry of space and time. The sun's gravitational field, for instance, bends starlight passing nearby because its mass is warping the surrounding space-time. This theory has held up to precision tests in the solar system and beyond, and has explained everything from the odd orbit of Mercury to the way pairs of neutron stars perform their pas de deux.
Yet it is still not clear how well general relativity holds up over cosmic scales, at distances much larger than the span of single galaxies. Now the first, tentative hint of a deviation from general relativity has been found. While the evidence is far from watertight, if confirmed by bigger surveys, it may indicate either that Einstein's theory is incomplete, or else that dark energy, the stuff thought to be accelerating the expansion of the universe, is much weirder than we thought (see "Not dark energy, dark fluid").
The analysis of starlight data by cosmologist Rachel Bean of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, has generated quite a stir. Shortly after the paper was published on the pre-print physics archive, prominent physicist Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena praised Bean's research. "This is serious work by a respected cosmologist," he wrote on his blog Cosmic Variance. "Either the result is wrong, and we should be working hard to find out why, or it's right, and we're on the cusp of a revolution."
If it is wrong, we should be working hard to find out why, but if it's right, we are on the cusp of a revolution
"It has caused quite a furore in astronomy circles," says Richard Massey of the Royal Observatory Edinburgh in the UK. "This paper has generated a lot of interest."
Bean found her evidence lurking in existing data collected by the Cosmic Evolution Survey, a multi-telescope imaging project that includes the longest survey yet by the Hubble Space Telescope. COSMOS, which detected more than 2 million galaxies over a small patch of sky, takes advantage of gravity's ability to bend light. Massive objects like galaxy clusters bend the light of more distant objects so that it is directed towards or away from Earth. This effect, called gravitational lensing, is at its most dramatic when it creates kaleidoscopic effects like luminous rings or the appearance of multiple copies of a galaxy.
The sky is also dominated by the distorting effects of "weak lensing", in which intervening matter bends light to subtly alter the shapes and orientations of more distant galaxies, creating an effect similar to that of looking through old window glass. Since galaxies come in all shapes and sizes, it is difficult to know whether the light from an individual galaxy has been distorted, because there is nothing to compare it with. But by looking for common factors in the distortion of many galaxies, it is possible to build up a map of both the visible and even unseen matter that bend their light.
The weak lensing technique can also be used to measure two different effects of gravity. General relativity calls for gravity's curvature of space to be equivalent to its curvature of time. Light should be influenced in equal amounts by both.
When the COSMOS data was released in 2007, the team - led by Massey - assumed these two factors were equivalent. Their analysis revealed that gravitational tugs on light were stronger than anticipated, but they put this down to a slightly higher concentration of ordinary and dark matter in the survey's patch of sky than had been predicted.
To look for potential deviations from general relativity, Bean reanalysed the data and dropped the requirement that these two components of gravity had to be equal. Instead the ratio of the two was allowed to change in value. She found that between 8 and 11 billion years ago gravity's distortion of time appeared to be three times as strong as its ability to curve space. An observer around at the time wouldn't have noticed the effect because it only applies over large distances. Nonetheless, "there is a preference for a significant deviation from general relativity", says Bean (www.arxiv.org/abs/0909.3853).
Gravity's distortion of time appeared to be three times as strong as its ability to curve space
At this stage, it's hard to say what would happen if the deviation from general relativity was confirmed. Cosmologists have already considered some modifications to general relativity that could explain the universe's acceleration (see "Not dark energy, dark fluid").
Yet finding a deviation when the universe was less than half its current age is odd - if general relativity had broken down at some level, the signs should be most dramatic more recently, long after the repulsive effect of dark energy overwhelmed the attractive powers of gravity some 6 billion years ago.
- Subscribe to New Scientist and you'll get:
- 51 issues of New Scientist magazine
- Unlimited access to all New Scientist online content -
a benefit only available to subscribers - Great savings from the normal price
- Subscribe now!
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Because the density of dark matter was lower on the other side.
No, No, NO! The density of dark matter was HIGHER on the other side. The gravity of that extra dark matter *pulled* the chicken to the other side of the road.
This is the physics of what Darth Vader told Luke Skywalker: your destiny is with the dark matter side of the Force.
No, No, No, NO!! The density/pressure was LOWER on the other side, therefore the higher pressure of the extra dark matter *pushed* the chicken across the road.
I can't believe you silly humans still buy into that "gravity" nonsense. Just flap your arms and fly already!
Why did Massey get exclusive access to COSMOS data first? It was a publicly funded project right?
All science space missions should have all data posted to the internet immediately - now wait for foggy old windbags to wring papers out first.
Don't get the Colonel mad, he'll be slinging his dark meat and special spices all over the cosmos and then well have a really big mess to figure out.
More seriously, when so much is breaking down (G.R.) and major components remain unknown ( such as dark stuff and a basic understanding of gravity ) how do scientist look at themselves in the mirror and say, "I know this, x" seriously.
"...how do scientist look at themselves in the mirror and say, "I know this, x" seriously."
They don't. If you do that you're not a scientist, you're a priest.
Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?
Wed Oct 21 22:33:33 BST 2009 by Rivd
http://freetubetv.net
So stop asking why the chicken did it. The chicken had no say in the matter.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?
Thu Oct 22 13:48:09 BST 2009 by SAm. . .
http://www.khar.com
people try not get ideas mixed up for one time in history, we have to make a distinction right now betweeen the actual chicken constant theory and space missions, if one would be likely to examplify space missions as chicken processesing, then the whole idea of science would manifest itself as a chicken, who knows maybe one day it will, but the tricky question is that, is the chicken we eat is a part of our enourmous cosmo or it is just a theory? Like the rellativity theory, it is time to face to the very important fact about the interlation between chicken and space expansions as two paradigms in terms of explanation. Is the public anger about such monies spent is up, or it is a pessimistic notions toward the news.
thank you my freind by the way, because i 180% agree with you
Um, but doesnt relativity state, that when the universe was younger, and so far denser, matter and energy fields were denser, and that time flows slower in a denser energy field? Also, with matter being closer together, it would be accelerating faster, and moving quicker, giving more time shift, and so mass shift, and so doppler shift and gravitational shift etc..?
So, wouldnt the universe when younger, have higher mass, because it was smaller, and so the matter was closer together, and so had a higher gravitational field energy, and energy is matter, and so is heavier?
Where General relaitivity just describes the shape of things?.. Or does it also include time dilation?
And what if the speed of light varied in a way that followed relativistic values. Could we measure it, or would it show up as a difference in behaviour of measurements?
Rodney - "Um, but doesnt relativity state..."
Um, are you talking about General, or Special Relativity? You mention "doppler shift".
"The Doppler redshift and the cosmological redshift are governed by two distinct formulas. The first comes from special relativity, which does not take into account the expansion of space, and the second comes from general relativity, which does. The two formulas are nearly the same for nearby galaxies but diverge for distant galaxies."
Source - a very nice pdf from Princeton entitled "Misconceptions about the Big Bang" - (long URL - click here)
I doubt you understand anything more than I do (ie virtually nothing) about the science behind this NS article (hell, I can't even understand the comments on Sean Carroll's blog that is linked to in the article), yet you feel qualified to comment?
Do you seriously imagine that Rachel Bean, Sean Carroll and everyone else involved has not thought of any of your objections posing as questions (if indeed they make any sense at all)?
ps - I'm just waiting for Polemos to turn up, should be fun.
Before light was doppler-shifted it had a shorter wavelength, and thus a higher momentum and apparent mass. Shouldn't it feel more gravity than at it's current wavelength? Is there chromatic aberration for gravity lenses?
Mmm
Wed Oct 21 21:00:19 BST 2009 by ceres
http://black-byte.com
This reminds me of the discussion about Luminiferous aether. I think there is something missing, and very important. Either the current theories have the wrong approach or more observations like this one need to be made.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.