ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Measuring the universe

Posted: Monday, June 08, 2009 7:09 PM by Alan Boyle


Kochanek, Stanek, Prieto / Ohio State U.
The galaxy M81, seen here in an image from the Large Binocular
Telescope, is home to several ultra-long-period Cepheid variable stars that
could help astronomers fine-tune a new way to measure cosmic distances.

How far away is that galaxy? The more precise your answer is, the more you can find out about mysterious dark energy. In the past, astronomers have used variable stars and a special kind of supernova to make their distance estimates - and now two new measuring sticks are being added to the toolbox.

One of the yardsticks is a particularly big and bright type of variable star, known as an ultra-long-period Cepheid variable, or ULP for short. The other yardstick makes measurements using the radio emissions from the supermassive black holes lying at the center of many galaxies, including our own.

If the yardsticks can be fine-tuned in the years ahead, they can give scientists a better read on the universe's expansion rate over time, which is tied to a key number known as the Hubble constant. Right now, the number carries an uncertainty factor of 5 percent either way. If you want to get technical about it, the latest value is 74.2 kilometers per second per megaparsec, plus or minus 3.6, derived by the SHOES Team. That estimate is based on a combination of distance scales, with short-period Cepheid variables used for relatively close measurements and Type 1A supernovae for farther measurements.

Cepheid variable stars are considered "standard candles" for measurement because their pattern of brightening and dimming correlates quite well with their intrinsic brightness. Thus, you can compare how bright the star looks with how bright the star really is, and come up with a pretty good distance estimate.

Type 1A supernovae reveal a similar linkage between brightness and distance. But you need to use a closer-in measurement method, like the Cepheids, to calibrate the farther-out supernova measurements. That's a classic source of uncertainty: For example, if you say that 1 meter is equivalent to 3 feet, then multiply that figure to estimate how many feet equal a kilometer, your estimate would be off by about the length of a football field.

A decade ago, the supernova measurements led astronomers to conclude that the universe's expansion rate was speeding up - apparently due to some repulsive energy in empty space, which has come to be known as dark energy. But what is dark energy? Is it a quality of the universe that varies over time, or has it been present throughout the universe's history? The Hubble Constant could hold the answer to that question, if we know the number accurately enough.

Right now, the accuracy is just about good enough for a decision: The evidence so far suggests that dark energy has been ever-present, as a constant push on the cosmic expansion rate. The new yardsticks could help clinch the case - or push a big "reset" button on the theory-making machine.

"There's going to be renewed interest in the Hubble Constant," because the uncertainty factor can be reduced with the new techniques, said Wendy Freedman, director of the Carnegie Observatories and one of the principal investigators for the Carnegie Supernova Project.

Freedman said she and her colleagues hope to get the uncertainty factor down to 2 percent, using hundreds of hours of time on NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope to observe farther-out Cepheid variables in infrared wavelengths. But she said the brand-new yardsticks offer "promising techniques" to weed out distance conversion errors.

The ultra-long perspective
Ohio State University's Jonathan Bird, one of the researchers behind the ultra-long-period Cepheid yardstick, agreed. He compared the measurement schemes to different rungs on an extension ladder.

"If we can extend all these rungs on the cosmic distance ladder, that's truly the way to beat down the systemic errors in the Hubble constant," he said Monday at a news conference during the American Astronomical Society's summer meeting in Pasadena, Calif.

The ULPs are something like classical Cepheid stars, only with a much longer cycle of brightening and dimming. They're also brighter, which makes them easier than the classical Cepheids to spot at greater distances. At distances beyond 100 million light-years, most Cepheids are too dim to detect - but the ultra-long-period stars can still be seen at distances of 325 million light-years or so.

The problem with the ULPs is that astronomers didn't think their periods correlated with their brightness, as is the case with the regular Cepheids. But Bird and his colleagues, led by Ohio State astronomer Krzysztof Stanek, pieced together data from previously published papers to come up with a system. Right now, the accuracy level is about 10 to 20 percent. With more observations, that accuracy should improve markedly, Bird said.

Seeing the swirl around a black hole
That's also the hope for the National Radio Astronomy Observatory's James Braatz and his colleagues with the Megamaser Cosmology Project. They are pioneering a method that relies on precise measurements of the linear and angular size of the disks of material that swirl around galactic black holes.

Radio emissions from the disk could be analyzed to determine how fast one edge of a disk was moving away, and how fast the other edge was coming closer - providing the necessary numbers for calculating distance. Normally, those emissions would be too faint to pick up, but water molecules inside the disk itself amplified the signals. In effect, the water functioned like tiny molecular-scale lasers, or "masers."

The maser technique was used to determine that a galaxy called UGC 3789 was 160 million light-years from Earth. Braatz told reporters that the observational feat was analogous to determining the size of a quarter sitting on his desk in Charlottesville, Va., as seen from the conference center in Pasadena, Calif.

"We measured a direct, geometric distance to the galaxy, independent of the complications and assumptions inherent in other techniques," he said in Monday's news release. "The measurement highlights a valuable method that can be used to determine the local expansion rate of the universe, which is essential in our quest to find the nature of dark energy."

The distance measurements for UGC 3789 were published in the April 10 issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

For more on the dark-energy distance quest, check out these archived reports:

Update/correction for 3:15 p.m. June 15: Astronomer Adam Riess, who was involved in the original observations of the cosmic speed-up as well as the latest observations relating to the Hubble constant, sent me an e-mail to correct the uncertainty factor I cited for the constant. I had a bit of conflicting information from Wendy Freedman and tried to reconcile what I was hearing with what I was reading, but Riess does a much better job of it. He's a professor at Johns Hopkins University as well as a researcher at the Baltimore-based Space Telescope Science Institute. Here's his e-mail:

"There are a few small problems in your piece on 'Measuring the Universe.' The old Hubble constant measure from the HST Key Project (Freedman et al., 2001) had an uncertainty of 10%.  Our new one (which you quote without reference, its the SHOES Team, led by myself) has measured it to be 74.2 +/- 3.6.  You have the new numbers right but note that this is now a 5% uncertainty (3.6/74.2=0.05), not 10%,  which is now twice as good as the old one. Our measurement also already makes use of so-called ultra long period Cepheids.  I hope you can correct some of these. Good work otherwise as usual."

I've made the corrections as suggested, and I've made sure to mention the SHOES team. Many thanks to Adam for setting all this straight, and thanks also to the commenters who wondered about the error percentages.  


Correction for 2 a.m. ET June 9: I fixed a reference to light-year distances to add the word "million." That does make a difference. Sorry about the error, and thanks for setting me straight.

Stay tuned for further reports this week from the American Astronomical Society's summer meeting in Pasadena. Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about my upcoming book, "The Case for Pluto." 

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

@brian norwood: thanks for asking that, I've been wondering about that too...
The new Hubble may help awnser some of these questions or give more helpful data?Hope so!
the big bang did not happen in one spot.  it happened throughout the universe all at the very same moment.  how could this be? because it happened at the very moment that all matter from the previous universe converted back to a neutral nothingness (and time stopped).  with all matter gone into nothingness there was no distances.  without travel from point A to point B then you have no time.  so with no time then you have endless time for something to happen.  to the mystic observer the universe would End and a new universe would immediately spring out of the nothingness.  maybe a hole or bubble (string theory) would appear in the nothingness (sounds like Genesis doesn't it).  the inside of the hole (bubble) being positive and outside (the nothingness) being negative.  when out universe collapses into nothingness then time will stop again and the phoenix like process will start again.  this is NOT parallel universe thinking.  when matter is completely gone then time no longer exists.  there can be no connection between these universes (plural intentional). meaning these startings and stoppings are eternal.

I can be reached at t@raa.cc
Some stuff about dark energy and dark matter.

Dark Energy. It was long thought that the pull of gravity inexorably slows the rate of expansion of the universe, but, since 1998, observations have shown the opposite; for the last several billion years the rate of expansion of the universe has been increasing. Many physicists say that a source of dark (unseen) energy is needed to drive this counter-intuitive acceleration.

This dark energy could be:
the energy of the vacuum predicted by quantum theory;
a hitherto unknown energy field;
a previously unobserved property of gravity;
or a combination of the previous three possibilities.

How could cosmic acceleration be caused by gravity? When we examine the world on levels far removed from everyday experience, we often find that our expectations are wrong, and we could be wrong about the universal attraction of gravity. At "close" range gravity is attractive, but, over cosmological distances and times, gravity might be repulsive. This is compatible with Einstein's theory of gravity. In this scenario, nothing is needed to counteract gravity, as it is gravity itself that is causing the acceleration of the expansion.

Current observations are consistent with all these possibilities. Without a workable theory of quantum gravity, we can only speculate about the energy of the cosmological vacuum, so I think that a workable quantum theory of gravity is needed to distinguish between the various possibilities.

Dark matter is needed to explain the motions of stars within galaxies, and the motions of galaxies within clusters.

Stars revolve around the centres of galaxies, with our Sun taking about 230 million years to complete one orbit about the centre of our galaxy. Because a star's orbital speed about a galactic centre depends on the gravitational force that holds the star in orbit, and because gravitational force depends on the amount of matter in a galaxy, measurements of stars' orbital speeds "weigh" galaxies.

These measurements indicate that most of the masses of galaxies are dark, that is, not visible as hot, glowing matter. Motions of galaxies in clusters of galaxies also indicate this. This doesn't seem to be unexpected, as galaxies could contain a lot of material that is too cold to glow. Theoretical studies of the production of chemical elements after the Big Bang, together with observations of cosmic abundances of chemical elements today, however, show most of the dark matter is not made of the same type of matter, protons and neutrons, that make up ordinary stuff like people, planets, and stars. This also rules out black holes that formed from the collapse of stars that were originally made of protons and neutrons.

Physicists think that dark matter requires particles that have yet to be observed directly.
If we assume that just before the Big Bang, the sum total of the universe was zero, then it is a reasonable possibility that the Big Bang resulted in the creation of equal amounts of positive and negative energy, as well as matter and antimatter. It may be that there are more dimensions to the universe than we can see, and dark matter and dark energy are predominantly found in those other dimensions. This would explain why there is so little antimatter found in the visible universe--it's all in the non-visible portion.  I also suspect that the current expansion is part of a repeating cycle, like a sine wave, and the universe will eventually collapse back on itself, then repeat the Big Bang.
Alex Dickerson,

Wow, Where can I read more about this runner up idea?
Measuring the universe? What For? Does it help you know more about what is doing here to know that the stars are another 2 or 4 milllion light years away?

Expansion of the universe? I have a simple question. If the universe is expanding, what is outside of the universe that the universe is expanding into?  And if there is something that the universe is expanding into, it that something expanding or shrinking?, and where did it come from?

To add to Brian Butler's comments, that the universe is continually recreating itself, the constant recreation of the universe will cease on 10-11-2011 (it is said).
While on the subject of measuring the universe... I have a problem with the Big Bang Theroy.  With the latest Deep Feild pictures fromHubble, they are saying that they are going back 12 Billion years or so.  The galaxies that are pictured there, while close together, are rather mature and organized galaxies. With the light taking so long for it to get to our current location, and for the claims that they are "seeing" 500 million years after the Big Bang, our galaxy would have had to travel some 10 billion times faster than light to get that far ahead to observe it now.  

In my opinion, the universe must be immeasurably vaster than what is currently thought of.  There my have been a Big Bang for our current area, but then there may be multiple areas where mater coalesces and condenses until it produces another local Big Bang, scattering matter in all directions again like the ripples on a rainy pond.
Hello,
I have seen UFO's 4 times, all different from  missisauga toronto in summer of 2005 ( energy), have seen a dark image floating same time( it reminded me of ghost in The Grudge), Maybe that was related to dark energy, huh. I have also seen a shooting star very near to the earth that burst into beautiful blue with several fluroscent sticks into it. I have also felt hand out of nowhere, more like being inserted into me ( could be my karma- thinking one)
I believe so much can be learned from fire, and it is also impossible to catch fire- like time.
I hope whatever happens, it happens for good of mankind and living beings and that everyone can learn and understand.
Oh yeah when I saw the ufo's  and the moving image like a shadow, I was living with Mexican family. I 've heard there are many ufo sightings in Mexico. Maybe the energy was around them.
     Telescopic voyage's into the space around our world, allow a look back at the previous state of a given star or galaxy. We see none of it in real time. We may witness an event looking up at the night-sky that happened two thousand-years in the past, if not six-billion-years ago, simply because the light from the event took that much time to reach Earth. Be it the ignition of fusion at the birth of a star, the detonation of a Super Nova, or the transit of a planet across the face of its parent star. All go unseen by us until the light from the given event, or reflected from it, reaches Earth.
Lately I read about observations of White-Dwarf Stars, which  are a constant in that they characteristically  require a known and exact-mass to go Supernova. Ergo the known mass of these Stars, along with a measure of their brightness, can be used as a reliable mark of their distance from the Earth.
Further, by measuring the”Red-shift”or Blue-shift of the light of White-Dwarfs during these detonations at various distances, indicate that the known universe is expanding as expected, but unexpectedly, the rate of that expansion is not decreasing as might be expected even , but is instead increasing. The question, as I understand it, is this:
Does matter from the Big-Bang continue to expand outward until the  relentless attraction of their mutual gravities over time slow down the expansion, eventually stops the expansion, and finally draws all matter back toward the center for yet another crushing compression,”Big Crunch”(Singularity) and yet another “Big-Bang.” Or will matter from that first and only known great detonation we speak of as the“Big-Bang,” continue to expand forever?  Depending on what you read, scientists' can find just seven to thirty percent of the mass in the universe required to explain this increased rate of expansion, Something we cannot see or don't yet understand is causing the expansion of the universe to increase at a faster rate. Thus the theory of dark matter and dark energy, which I have seen explained as a sort of opposite gravity
Suppose the universe, as we know it, is in fact far-larger than we see with Hubble, Shandra, etcetera.  Is our Big-Bang only a local repetition of expansion and contraction happening alone, or is it a player among forces that are neither invisible, nor dark necessarily, but are simply too far away to detect. Stars, Solar systems, Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies exerting their combined force of gravity on the outskirts of our knowledge of the universe  by virtue of their incredible numbers, and despite their great distance's, yet too far away or too “recent” for us to yet detect by their light. Could matter in a universe that extends beyond our view, be lending its gravity to the increasing rate of the expansion of our universe, and by doing so, be “that” which suggests the existence of “Dark Matter and Dark energy”?  
When was it accepted that the universe is  the size we now see?  Wouldn't ejecta from a wider and surrounding universe born of many “Big Bangs in a presently unknown and far away extension of “our” universe, create the conditions we now accredit to Dark Energy or Dark Matter ? Could the increased rate of universal expansion be explained by the gravity from far outside “our” known universe in the form of Galaxy-Clusters, dust, stars ext. that were once far outside “our” Universe presumably traveling toward us from other far away sectors where other big-bangs' have also happened.  close enough now to be adding attraction to the matter from our Big-Bang which should be decelerating as physics dictates. We cannot see back even to our own Big-Bang now, but is it possible we we may begin to see new-light from new-galaxies coming toward us from Singularities  presumably from all around us. Does a Big Crunch need necessarily be composed of the self-same material from which it sprung? Or could each “Big Bang” be a collection of new matter drawn in from as yet unimagined distances,  as ours for the moment seem to favor being increasingly drawn out perhaps it is on its way to be a part of a  “Big Crunch” at distances far beyond our present ability to detect.    R. Earl Brown
It is difficult to measure
relative space time dimensions are not the same
may be sphere to cone in equivalence
so in multidiemsional gaussian or eculidean spaces
to many time dimensions, the measurement can varies so much vs actual


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1956770

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google