Subscribe to New Scientist magazine
Cosmology
ARTICLE

Hints of structure beyond the visible universe

  • 01:01 10 June 2008
  • NewScientist.com news service
  • David Shiga
Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
 
Subtle signs of a skewed universe are present in the WMAP satellite's map of radiation left over from the big bang, a new study says (Image: NASA/WMAP Science Team)
Subtle signs of a skewed universe are present in the WMAP satellite's map of radiation left over from the big bang, a new study says (Image: NASA/WMAP Science Team)
 

Colossal structures larger than the visible universe – forged during the period of cosmic inflation nearly 14 billion years ago – may be responsible for a strange pattern seen in the big bang's afterglow, says a team of cosmologists. If confirmed, the structures could provide precious information about the universe's earliest moments.

In the first instant after its birth, the universe is thought to have experienced a rapid growth spurt called inflation. During this period, space itself expanded faster than the speed of light.

Inflation solves some cosmological puzzles, such as why relic radiation from the big bang, released when the universe was less than 400,000 years old, is relatively uniform.

Called the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the radiation can be observed in all directions in the sky. It has a slightly mottled appearance due to small differences in temperature from place to place in the early universe. The temperature differences are thought to be caused by variations in the density of matter, with denser regions being warmer than emptier regions.

But the theory of inflation predicts that the mottling should be equally prominent in all directions. Curiously, it is 10% more pronounced on one side of the sky than the other, an asymmetry that was reported in 2004 by Hans Eriksen of the University of Oslo in Norway, and colleagues. Their study was based on a map made by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite.

Now, cosmologists led by Adrienne Erickcek of Caltech in Pasadena, US, think they may have found the reason for this pattern. They suggest the universe has been skewed by the imprint of primordial structures that date back to the period of inflation.

Extra field

The structures stretch beyond the edge of the observable universe, which is essentially confined to a region with a radius of 14 billion light years, since only light from within that distance has had time to reach us since the big bang. The entire "global" universe is about 10100 times as large as the universe we can see.

In the inflation scenario, the expansion is driven by an energy field of still-mysterious origin. Erickcek and her colleagues argue that the asymmetry could be the remnant of fluctuations in an additional energy field, which started out very tiny, but were blown up by inflation until they were larger than the observable universe.

As a result, the value of this energy field varied from one side of the universe to the other at early times, enhancing the variations in temperature – and matter density – on one side of the sky relative to the other.

The conclusion, if correct, would shatter a cherished assumption about the universe. "One of the basic tenets of cosmology is that the universe is the same in all directions, and the standard model of inflation is built on that foundation," Erickcek told New Scientist. "If the asymmetry is real, then it tells us that one side of our universe is somehow different than the other side."

Few and far between

The asymmetry could theoretically be explained by the standard, single-field inflation scenario, though researchers say that is unlikely. That's because the standard theory allows for a few large-scale differences across vast regions of space. But these asymmetrical spots are expected to be few and far between, meaning that there is only a 1% chance that our observable universe would happen to occupy one.

Charles Bennett of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, US, the chief scientist for the WMAP mission, notes that Erickcek's team has predicted additional subtle differences in the CMB compared to the standard inflation picture.

These predictions could be tested when more sensitive CMB maps are available. "It might be within reach of WMAP, and it will be within reach of Planck," he told New Scientist, referring to the European Space Agency satellite scheduled to launch later in 2008 to scrutinise the CMB.

Mysterious era

If further observations bear out the scenario, it would provide some precious new information about the universe's earliest moments, about which little is known. "It was a period of extremely rapid expansion, but what drove that expansion and how long it lasted is an open question," Erickcek says.

Alan Guth of MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, one of the scientists who pioneered the inflation idea in the 1980s, says inflation is only the framework of a theory, with many details remaining to be filled in.

He says the team's "well thought-out" analysis is just the kind of thing needed to help do that. "Although the hint [from asymmetry] may very well turn out to be a fluke, it is only by pursuing such hints that new ideas will be generated, and that ultimately we will have a chance to find the right theory," he told New Scientist.

The asymmetry is distinct from another curious pattern in the CMB called the axis of evil, which some scientists have proposed is also a remnant of exotic physics during inflation.

Cosmology - Keep up with the latest ideas in our special report.

 
Comment subject
Comment
No HTML except lower case italic tags or lower case bold tags, please:
<i> or <b>
Your name
Your email
 

We need your email in case we need to contact you about the comment. We will not use it for any other purpose.

 
 
There are 106 comments on 7 pages
1  | 
2  | 
3  | 
4  | 
5  | 
6
 | Next
 | Most Recent
 | See all

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Kevin Boyd

Tue Jun 10 01:36:45 BST 2008

The size of the observable universe is not 14 billion light years (as David mentions) as light has been stretched by the expansion of the universe. We see light from objects that are now over 90 billion light years from us.

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Christopher Manson

Tue Jun 10 02:44:38 BST 2008

Impossible, light cannot travel that far in the time frames we are talking about. Even if the radius was doubled, you still come nowhere near 90billion.redo your math!

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Fred Sagen

Tue Jun 10 10:30:49 BST 2008

I think that the point that Kevin is making is that the objects that we perceive as 14billion light years away have been receding from us during the period that the light waves have been travelling and are, hence, further away than they seem.

I presume that his figure of 90billion is predicated on the observation that the <i>rate</i> of expansion of the universe is increasing and that during the past 14billion years the distance between us and the most distant observable objects has more than doubled by a significant factor.

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Acoyauh

Tue Jun 10 15:08:36 BST 2008

That would assume the universe is expanding at a speed faster then light.

Although Inflation proponents posit that at some point the universe did expand thet fast, matter today is nOT moving faster than light. Hard to justify anything larger than 28 billion light-years then ...

1 more reply »

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By William Smith

Wed Jun 11 16:58:01 BST 2008

Kevin and Fred are correct. If light left a star let's say 10 billion years ago and travelled towards the earth, when the light reaches the earth the star will be much more than 10 billion light years away because of cosmic expansion. This is an elementary mistake and I'm amazed it wasn't picked up by New Scientist editorial team.

Also where does the figure of 10 to power of 100 come from for the size of the 'global' universe? How does anyone know what size the universe is beyond what we can observe?

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Anonymous

Thu Jun 12 19:50:53 BST 2008

Wlliam: yes, Kevin and Fred present the common and popular interpretation as accepted by most cosmologists, and as far as that goes, is "correct". Things have receded from us since during the time the light we now see from them was emitted.

BUT, the interpretation hinges crucially on our definition of "now". For example, relativity demonstrates that observational simultaneity is an illusion. More to the point, relativity demonstrates that information carried by light is the fastest available means of conveying it. Which raises the question: what can "now" possibly mean if the information we HAVE NOW is the only information we CAN have now? In other words, to speak of those most-distant light-sources to be "now" 90 billion light-years away completely ignores the relativistic imperative to regard information carried by light to BE a record of "now".

There are two possible ways of looking at it: either one imagines that the universe has expanded in the time between transmission and reception of the light and therefore considers that the light has traveled FARTHER to reach us where we perform a distance measurement as the universe has expanded during its journey, OR, one imagines the light has traveled a SHORTER distance to reach us since the universe was SMALLER in the past during the light's journey...because the universe has been expanding and has been at no time larger than what we see "now".

Which interpretation is correct?

But don't let that confuse you: The CMB we see apparently 13.7 billion light-years from us is exactly that far away from us "NOW" - apparently. That's what relativity is all about. We must alter our preconceptions and follow the essential relativistic insight: yes, we can say that the CMB is 90 billion light-years away from us in the FUTURE...ONLY if we qualify the statement by saying that such a conclusion completely ignores the importance of the speed of light with respect to measuring what "now" is.

It's always fascinating to see this conundrum raise it's disheveled head and watch people arguing over it again and again.

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Anonymous

Thu Jun 12 20:00:56 BST 2008

Correction for the second-to-last paragraph:

We must alter our preconceptions and follow the essential relativistic insight: yes, we CAN say that the CMB is 90 billion light-years away from us "now". But the objects we're talking about are "now" in the FUTURE - they are NOT the same objects that emitted the light we NOW see. We can ONLY go with the 90-billion light-year radius if we qualify the statement by saying that such a conclusion completely ignores the importance of the speed of light with respect to measuring what "now" is.

Many apologies (See? It can even confuse a relativist!)

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By James

Tue Jun 10 20:22:27 BST 2008

Christopher, I will say this nicely, and I hope you can understand. . . There are "things" that we are not ready to be told. Some of us insiders know the truth, and it is so far removed from everything that you have learned it would take you a very long time to even except the fact that everything you know is wrong. Let me put it this way; Things work differently in different places even though they are technically the "same" place. What you see in books and online is roughly 100 years behind what we actually know. If someone comes forward, and they have, they are deemed unfit and crazy. . You'll see, within the next 20 years something will break that is off the wall,. . . Be ready.

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Starvoyager

Tue Jun 10 23:14:21 BST 2008

What the hockey sticks are you going on about? This is a SCIENCE forum.

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Andrew

Wed Jun 11 02:35:09 BST 2008

Best stuff I seen in a long time.

Share some more.

You have to open more eyes.

Thanx

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Seven

Wed Jun 11 04:36:37 BST 2008

"to even 'except' the fact that everything you know is wrong"

accept maybe?

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By David

Wed Jun 11 05:23:08 BST 2008

WHo has come forward? Why should we believe you? Why are we not ready to be told things? What things are we not ready to be told? C'mon, spill it! You've already come this far. You might as well tell all. ...

1 more reply »

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Yvonne

Wed Jun 11 09:03:00 BST 2008

Said very nicely James. I think 20 years will be more like 5 or 10 though.

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Anonymous

Thu Jun 12 20:12:55 BST 2008

"Some of us insiders know the truth..."

WHAT do you "know" about "truth"? Or does it satisfy your sense of the dramatic to hold back and pretend to be mysterious?

How can "everything" Christopher knows POSSIBLY be wrong? Or is that simply your arrogant slip showing?

Some of you "insiders" wouldn't know the difference between conceit and a crack on the noggin.

Most of see right through the rubbish-mongers. Knock it off.

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Kevin Boyd

Wed Jun 11 02:06:56 BST 2008

Sorry but your maths is what is actually wrong.

You are forgetting that empty space itself is what has been expanding for 14 billion years. When empty space expands locally it is expanding relatively slowly but when you consider vast distances of billions of light years, two points very distance from each other can be receding from each other at much faster than the speed of light. This doesn't break any relativity principles as the matter itself (stars, etc) is not what is moving, it is the space in between the two distant points of matter that is expanding.

For example, there are stars at the edge of the observable universe moving away from us at much faster than the speed of light based on their red shifts. Don't think this violates Einstein as this is because it is the space expanding in between us and the star, not because the star themselves are actually moving.at all.

Remember the ballon analogy where two points on the ballon seperate very quickly when it is blown up. In the universe, this very quickly can be much faster than the speed of light for two distant points.

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Matter

Thu Jun 12 06:21:40 BST 2008

Yes it can, as it approaches 'speed of light', time slows down, same if ya have a car accident, time slows down,Monkey man still just outside the cave', wonders of the Universe, are far beyond mortal man,QED Earthlings, nothing is as it seems, wake up and smell the flowers.Oz input brainy aren't we!!!

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Anon

Tue Jun 10 02:51:28 BST 2008

Theoretically.

If light is indeed stretched to such a "length", then would not the metric of space also be rendered equivalent as regards such extension and thus preserve the 14 bil. Ly distance that is currently fashionable?

Anyway, the idea that the MBR is indeed everywhere -- from our point of view -- seems to stand as a firm barrier to undermining the view of the universe as being homogeneous. The question of course is to what extent these measurements are the same everywhere else! Such theoretical mumbojumbo and these people have yet to see let alone think clearly. I find the current views in cosmology today highly suspect at a very fundamental level.

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Acoyauh

Tue Jun 10 15:10:24 BST 2008

I agree with you on this one.

The assumptions they make seem downright childish to me...

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Alex

Wed Jun 11 04:23:08 BST 2008

How far the objects are away from us now is irrelevant, for all we know, an object we're looking at might have been sucked into a black hole or collided with something and been destroyed since the light we're seeing now left it. We don't know, because the light of that happening hasn't reached us yet, therefore it hasn't been observed, thus cannot be claimed to be part of our observable universe, even if it used to be.

REPORT | REPLY

Call Me Ignorant, But. . .

By Mark King

Tue Jun 10 03:51:42 BST 2008

I don't understand a couple of things:

1. Given the relationship between space and the speed of light, and the "constant" status of the speed of light, how is it possible for space to have expanded faster than the spedd of light and then slowed down to be slower than the speed of light?

2. How can it be a "basic tenet(s) of cosmology ... That the universe is the same in all directions" when we have already had to fiddle with the idea of symmetry to allow for the observed lumpiness of the distribution of galaxies? Non-symmetry at this level seems to beg for non-symmetry more generally.

REPORT | REPLY

Call Me Ignorant, But. . .

By Noone

Tue Jun 10 04:59:50 BST 2008

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

Albert Einstein

REPORT | REPLY

Call Me Ignorant, But. . .

By 47

Tue Jun 10 12:28:24 BST 2008

This comment has been found to be in breach of our terms of use and has been removed.

REPORT | REPLY

Call Me Ignorant, But. . .

By Solaron Zim

Fri Jun 13 22:33:44 BST 2008

That is the most ignorant thing that Albert Einstein said. He was a smart man but one does not just change the facts. You change the theory, not the facts. It that kind of thinking that led Einstein to be a stubborn old fart at the end of his life, not listening to any new theories.

REPORT | REPLY

Call Me Ignorant, But. . .

By General Dissaray

Sun Jun 22 19:31:24 BST 2008

Wake up and smell the coffee.

REPORT | REPLY

Call Me Ignorant, But. . .

By Mark G

Tue Jun 10 05:06:47 BST 2008

1) Space itself may move faster than the speed of light because it is independent from matter. The huge expansion of the universe was caused by the supercooling of the higgs field. Now, in relativity theory, space may be distorted by matter, energy, and PRESSURE. Negative pressure is repulsive gravity an positive pressure is attractive gravity. The supercooling of the higgs field suffused space with energy and negative pressure (aka Repulsive Gravity). But since the inflation caused a huge release of potential energy, matter was created from this release of energy. Matter caused more attractive gravity to counter act the repulsive gravity. The inflation then slowed down since it tranferred so much of its energy into matter. The distribution of matter then lead to the repulsive gravity overcoming the attractive gravity since mattr is no longer concentrated. Since matter is still being dispersed throughout the universe, the repulsive gravity is accelerating.

REPORT | REPLY

Call Me Ignorant, But. . .

By Paul

Tue Jun 10 06:00:02 BST 2008

Space is independent of matter, but distorted by it? I don't understand. I thought matter created space. Or, I thought, therefore I became, therefore I became somewhere. Now I am even more confused than I was five minutes ago. What super-cooled the Higgs Field. Am I a boson? Am I missing something? What came first, matter or gravity? Is the repulsive gravity catastrophe this year's global warming (anthropological heat death)?

REPORT | REPLY

Call Me Ignorant, But. . .

By Mark G

Tue Jun 10 07:27:24 BST 2008

The higgs field was supercooled when it was prevented from attaining its lowest energy level. Matter did not create space. Matter exists within space. Space itself may exceed the speed of light because it is independent from the speed of matter. Consider the increasing distance between the galaxies. If light left one of these galaxies and space continued to expand, then if the light doesn’t travel faster than the rate of expansion it will never be able to overcome the distance. Since light travels a constant speed, and the speed of expansion is accelerating, it easily concluded that space is ...

2 more replies »

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Kevin Tennant

Tue Jun 10 04:59:47 BST 2008

Assuming relative uniformity of cmb, our place on Earth (or not far) from which we observe the asymmetry, may be an outcome of the time and place of our observation: on one side of our sky where the cmb is less "mottled" we may be looking to the "edge" of the universe but on the other we are looking back further as if observing from a 14 billion year "edge" of the universe.

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Findus

Tue Jun 10 10:31:02 BST 2008

I was going to write the same comment. All this seems to suppose that we are at the center of the universe, am I mistaken ?

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By David B

Tue Jun 10 12:42:20 BST 2008

We are at the centre of the universe we can observe, be defenition.

REPORT | REPLY

Hints Of Structure Beyond The Visible Universe

By Acoyauh

Tue Jun 10 15:21:17 BST 2008

But not at the center of THE universe.

Sorry, just started the same subject on another comment.

They want to see a uniform CMB because they assume we are at or near the center of the universe. If our observable sphere is right at the edge of the actual universe, or of an actual "large-scale disparity", that would show - from out point of view - the side to side difference we see. ...

2 more replies »

REPORT | REPLY

There are 106 comments on 7 pages
1  | 
2  | 
3  | 
4  | 
5  | 
6
 | Next
 | Most Recent
 | See all

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.

Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
Cover of latest issue of New Scientist magazine
  • For exclusive news and expert analysis every week subscribe to New Scientist Print Edition
  • For what's in New Scientist magazine this week see contents
  • Search all stories
  • Contact us about this story
  • Sign up for our free newsletter
 
PASSWORD LOGIN
username:
password:
 help
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Subscribe to New Scientist magazine