Quasars
A quasar (contraction of QUASi-stellAR radio source) is an extremely bright and distant active galactic nucleus. They were first identified as being high redshift sources of electromagnetic energy, including radio waves and visible light that were point-like, similar to stars, rather than extended sources similar to galaxies. While there was initially some controversy over the nature of these objects, there is now a scientific consensus that a quasar is a compact halo of matter surrounding the central supermassive black hole of a young galaxy.
Quasars show a very high redshift which is an effect of the expansion of the universe between the quasar and the Earth. When combined with Hubble's law, the implication of the redshift is that the quasars are very distant. To be observable at that distance, the energy output of quasars dwarfs every other astronomical event. Quasars may readily release energy in levels equal to the output of hundreds of average galaxies combined. The output of light is equivalent to one trillion suns.
In optical telescopes, quasars look like single points of light (i.e. point source) although many have had their "host galaxies" identified. The galaxies themselves are often too dim to be seen with any but the largest telescopes. Most quasars cannot be seen with small telescopes, but 3C 273, with an average apparent magnitude of 12.9, is an exception. At a distance of 2.44 billion light-years, it is one of the most distant objects directly observable with amateur equipment.
Some quasars display rapid changes in luminosity, which implies that they are small (an object cannot change faster than the time it takes light to travel from one end to the other; but see quasar J1819+3845 for another explanation). The highest redshift known for a quasar (as of January 2003) is 6.4, which corresponds to a distance of approximately 13 billion light-years.
Quasars are believed to be powered by accretion of material into supermassive black holes in the nuclei of distant galaxies, making these luminous versions of the general class of objects known as active galaxies. No other currently known mechanism appears able to explain the vast energy output and rapid variability.
Knowledge of quasars is advancing rapidly. As recently as the 1980s, there was no clear consensus as to their origin.
Quasars show a very high redshift which is an effect of the expansion of the universe between the quasar and the Earth. When combined with Hubble's law, the implication of the redshift is that the quasars are very distant. To be observable at that distance, the energy output of quasars dwarfs every other astronomical event. Quasars may readily release energy in levels equal to the output of hundreds of average galaxies combined. The output of light is equivalent to one trillion suns.
In optical telescopes, quasars look like single points of light (i.e. point source) although many have had their "host galaxies" identified. The galaxies themselves are often too dim to be seen with any but the largest telescopes. Most quasars cannot be seen with small telescopes, but 3C 273, with an average apparent magnitude of 12.9, is an exception. At a distance of 2.44 billion light-years, it is one of the most distant objects directly observable with amateur equipment.
Some quasars display rapid changes in luminosity, which implies that they are small (an object cannot change faster than the time it takes light to travel from one end to the other; but see quasar J1819+3845 for another explanation). The highest redshift known for a quasar (as of January 2003) is 6.4, which corresponds to a distance of approximately 13 billion light-years.
Quasars are believed to be powered by accretion of material into supermassive black holes in the nuclei of distant galaxies, making these luminous versions of the general class of objects known as active galaxies. No other currently known mechanism appears able to explain the vast energy output and rapid variability.
Knowledge of quasars is advancing rapidly. As recently as the 1980s, there was no clear consensus as to their origin.
Since quasars exhibit properties common to all active galaxies, the emissions from quasars can be readily compared to those of small active galaxies powered by supermassive black holes. To create a luminosity of 1040 W (the typical brightness of a quasar), a super-massive black hole would have to consume the material equivalent of 10 stars per year. The brightest known quasars devour 1000 solar masses of material every year. Quasars 'turn on' and off depending on their surroundings, and since quasars cannot continue to feed at high rates for 10 billion years, after a quasar finishes accreting the surrounding gas and dust, it becomes an ordinary galaxy.
Quasars also provide some clues as to the end of the Big Bang's reionization. The oldest quasars (redshift > 4) display a Gunn-Peterson trough and have absorption regions in front of them indicating that the intergalactic medium at that time was neutral gas. More recent quasars show no absorption region but rather their spectra contain a spiky area known as the Lyman-alpha forest. This indicates that the intergalactic medium has undergone reionization into plasma, and that neutral gas exists only in small clouds.
One other interesting characteristic of quasars is that they show evidence of elements heavier than helium, indicating that galaxies underwent a massive phase of star formation, creating population III stars between the time of the Big Bang and the first observed quasars. Light from these stars may have been observed in 2005 using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, although this observation remains to be confirmed.
The first quasars were discovered with radio telescopes in the late 1950s. Many were recorded as radio sources with no corresponding visible object. Using small telescopes and the Lovell Telescope as an interferometer, they were shown to have a very small angular size. Hundreds of these objects were recorded by 1960 and published in the Third Cambridge Catalogue as astronomers scanned the skies for the optical counterparts. In 1960, radio source 3C 48 was finally tied to an optical object. Astronomers detected what appeared to be a faint blue star at the location of the radio source and obtained its spectrum. Containing many unknown broad emission lines, the anomalous spectrum defied interpretation a claim by John Bolton of a large redshift was not generally accepted.
In 1962 a breakthrough was achieved. Another radio source, 3C 273, was predicted to undergo five occultations by the moon. Measurements taken by Cyril Hazard and John Bolton during one of the occultations using the Parkes Radio Telescope allowed Maarten Schmidt to optically identify the object and obtain an optical spectrum using the 200-inch Hale Telescope on Mount Palomar. This spectrum revealed the same strange emission lines. Schmidt realized that these were actually spectral lines of hydrogen redshifted at the rate of 15.8 percent. This discovery showed that 3C 273 was receding at a rate of 47,000 km/s. This discovery revolutionized quasar observation and allowed other astronomers to find redshifts from the emission lines from other radio sources. As predicted earlier by Bolton, 3C 48 was found to have a redshift of 37% the speed of light.
Later it was found that not all (actually only 10% or so) quasars have strong radio emission (are 'radio-loud'). Hence the name 'QSO' (quasi-stellar object) is used (in addition to 'quasar') to refer to these objects, including the 'radio-loud' and the 'radio-quiet' classes.
One great topic of debate during the 1960s was whether quasars were nearby objects or distant objects as implied by their redshift. It was suggested, for example, that the redshift of quasars was not due to the expansion of space but rather to light escaping a deep gravitational well. However a star of sufficient mass to form such a well would be unstable and in excess of the Hayashi limit. Quasars also show unusual spectral emission lines which were previously only seen in hot gaseous nebulae of low density, which would be too diffuse to both generate the observed power and fit within a deep gravitational well. There were also serious concerns regarding the idea of cosmologically distant quasars. One strong argument against them was that they implied energies that were far in excess of known energy conversion processes, including nuclear fusion. At this time, there were some suggestions that quasars were made of some hitherto unknown form of stable antimatter and that this might account for their brightness. Others speculated that quasars were a white hole end of a wormhole. However, when accretion disc energy-production mechanisms were successfully modeled in the 1970s, the argument that quasars were too luminous became moot and today the cosmological distance of quasars is accepted by almost all researchers.
In 1979 the gravitational lens effect predicted by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was confirmed observationally for the first time with images of the double quasar 0957+561.
In the 1980s, unified models were developed in which quasars were classified as a particular kind of active galaxy, and a general consensus emerged that in many cases it is simply the viewing angle that distinguishes them from other classes, such as blazars and radio galaxies. The huge luminosity of quasars results from the accretion discs of central supermassive black holes, which can convert on the order of 10% of the mass of an object into energy as compared to 0.7% for the p-p chain nuclear fusion process that dominates the energy production in sun-like stars.
This mechanism also explains why quasars were more common in the early universe, as this energy production ends when the supermassive black hole consumes all of the gas and dust near it. This means that it is possible that most galaxies, including our own Milky Way, have gone through an active stage (appearing as a quasar or some other class of active galaxy depending on black hole mass and accretion rate) and are now quiescent because they lack a supply of matter to feed into their central black holes to generate radiation.
Vacuum energy
Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter (known as free space). The vacuum energy results in the existence of most (if not all) of the fundamental forces - and thus in all effects involving these forces, too. It is observed in various experiments (like the spontaneous emission of light or gamma radiation, the Casimir effect, Van-Der Waals bonds, the Lamb shift, etc); and it is thought (but not yet demonstrated) to have consequences for the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales.
Quantum field theory states that all of the various fundamental fields, such as the electromagnetic field, must be quantized at each and every point in space. In a na?ve sense, a field in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position. Vibrations in this field propagate and are governed by the appropriate wave equation for the particular field in question. The second quantization of quantum field theory requires that each such ball-spring combination be quantized, that is, that the strength of the field be quantized at each point in space. Canonically, the field at each point in space is a simple harmonic oscillator, and its quantization places a quantum harmonic oscillator at each point. Excitations of the field correspond to the elementary particles of particle physics. However, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure. All calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum.
The vacuum has, implicitly, all of the properties that a particle may have: spin, or polarization in the case of light, energy, and so on. On average, all of these properties cancel out: the vacuum is after all, "empty" in this sense. One important exception is the vacuum energy or the vacuum expectation value of the energy. The quantization of a simple harmonic oscillator states that the lowest possible energy or zero-point energy that such an oscillator may have is
Summing over all possible oscillators at all points in space gives an infinite quantity. To remove this infinity, one may argue that only differences in energy are physically measurable, much as the concept of potential energy has been treated in classical mechanics for centuries. This argument is the underpinning of the theory of renormalization. In all practical calculations, this is how the infinity is always handled.
Vacuum energy can also be thought of in terms of virtual particles (also known as vacuum fluctuations) which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum. These particles are always created out of the vacuum in particle-antiparticle pairs, which shortly annihilate each-other and disappear. However, these particles and antiparticles may interact with others before disappearing, a process which can be mapped using Feynman diagrams. It is these fundamental interactions which give rise to all physical forces. Note that this method of computing vacuum energy is mathematically completely equivalent to having a quantum harmonic oscillator at each point, and therefore suffers the same renormalization problems.
Additional contributions to the vacuum energy come from spontaneous symmetry breaking in quantum field theory.
Vacuum energy has a number of consequences. In 1948 Dutch physicists Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder predicted the existence of a tiny attractive force between closely placed metal plates due to resonances in the vacuum energy in the space between them. This is now known as the Casimir effect and has since been extensively experimentally verified. It is therefore believed that the vacuum energy is "real" in the same sense that more familiar conceptual objects such as electrons, magnetic fields, etc. are real.
Other predictions are more esoteric and harder to verify. Vacuum fluctuations are always created as particle/antiparticle pairs. The creation of these virtual particles near the event horizon of a black hole has been hypothesized by physicist Stephen Hawking to be a mechanism for the eventual "evaporation" of black holes. The net energy of the universe remains zero so long as the particle pairs annihilate each other within Planck time. If one of the pair is pulled into the black hole before this, then the other particle becomes "real" and energy/mass is essentially radiated into space from the black hole. This loss is cumulative and could result in the black hole's disappearance over time. The time required is dependent on the mass of the black hole, but could be on the order of 10100 years for large solar-mass black holes.
The vacuum energy also has important consequences for Physical cosmology. General relativity predicts that energy is equivalent to mass, and therefore if the vacuum energy is "really there" it should exert a gravitational force. Essentially, a non-zero vacuum energy is expected to contribute to the cosmological constant, which affects the expansion of the universe. However, the vacuum energy is mathematically infinite without renormalization, which is based on the assumption that we can only measure energy in a relative sense, which is not true if we can observe it indirectly via the cosmological constant.
The existence of vacuum energy is also sometimes used as theoretical justification for the possibility of perpetual motion or free energy machines. However, the same quantum theory that predicts the existence of vacuum energy also predicts that it cannot ever be removed for human use because the vacuum energy is, by definition, the lowest possible energy state of the vacuum.
In 1934, Georges Lema?tre used an unusual perfect-fluid equation of state to interpret the cosmological constant as due to vacuum energy. In 1948, the Casimir effect provided the first experimental verification of the existence of vacuum energy. In 1973, Edward Tryon proposed that the Universe may be a large scale quantum mechanical vacuum fluctuation where positive mass-energy is balanced by negative gravitational potential energy. During the 1980s, there were many attempts to relate the fields that generate the vacuum energy to specific fields that were predicted by Grand unification theory, and to use observations of the Universe to confirm that theory. These efforts have failed so far, and the exact nature of the particles or fields that generate vacuum energy, with a density such as that required by inflation theory, remains a mystery.
Sources
Anti-matter
In particle physics and quantum chemistry, antimatter is the extension of the concept of the antiparticle to matter, whereby antimatter is composed of antiparticles in the same way that normal matter is composed of particles. For example an antielectron (a positron, an electron with a positive charge) and an antiproton (a proton with a negative charge) could form an antihydrogen atom in the same way that an electron and a proton form a normal matter hydrogen atom. Furthermore, mixing of matter and antimatter would lead to the annihilation of both in the same way that mixing of antiparticles and particles does, thus giving rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particleantiparticle pairs. The particles resulting from matter-antimatter annihilation are endowed with energy equal to the difference between the rest mass of the products of the annihilation and the rest mass of the original matter-antimatter pair, which is often quite large.
There is considerable speculation both in science and science fiction as to why the observable universe is apparently almost entirely matter, whether other places are almost entirely antimatter instead, and what might be possible if antimatter could be harnessed, but at this time the apparent asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics. Possible processes by which it came about are explored in more detail in the article discussing baryogenesis.
In December 1927 Paul Dirac developed a relativistic equation for the electron, now known as the Dirac equation. Curiously, the equation was found to have negative-energy solutions in addition to the normal positive ones. This presented a problem, as electrons tend toward the lowest possible energy level; energies of negative infinity are nonsensical. As a way of getting around this, Dirac proposed that the vacuum is filled with a "sea" of negative-energy electrons, the Dirac sea. Any real electrons would therefore have to sit on top of the sea, having positive energy.
Thinking further, Dirac found that a "hole" in the sea would have a positive charge. At first he thought that this was the proton, but Hermann Weyl pointed out that the hole should have the same mass as the electron. The existence of this particle, the positron, was confirmed experimentally in 1932 by Carl D. Anderson. During this period, antimatter was sometimes also known as "contraterrene matter".
Today's Standard Model shows that every particle has an antiparticle, for which each additive quantum number has the negative of the value it has for the normal matter particle. The sign reversal applies only to quantum numbers (properties) which are additive, such as charge, but not to mass, for example. The positron has the opposite charge but the same mass as the electron. For particles whose additive quantum numbers are all zero, the particle may be its own antiparticle; such particles include the photon and the neutral pion.
The artificial production of atoms of antimatter (specifically antihydrogen) first became a reality in the early 1990s. An atom of antihydrogen comprises a negatively-charged antiproton being orbited by a positively-charged positron. Stanley Brodsky, Ivan Schmidt and Charles Munger at SLAC realized that an antiproton, traveling at relativistic speeds and passing close to the nucleus of an atom, would have the potential to force the creation of an electron-positron pair. It was postulated that under this scenario the antiproton would have a small chance of pairing with the positron (ejecting the electron) to form an antihydrogen atom.
In 1995 CERN announced that it had successfully created nine antihydrogen atoms by implementing the SLAC/Fermilab concept during the PS210 experiment. The experiment was performed using the Low Energy Antiproton Ring (LEAR), and was led by Walter Oelert and Mario Macri. Fermilab soon confirmed the CERN findings by producing approximately 100 antihydrogen atoms at their facilities.
The antihydrogen atoms created during PS210, and subsequent experiments (at both CERN and Fermilab) were extremely energetic ("hot") and were not well suited to study. To resolve this hurdle, and to gain a better understanding of antihydrogen, two collaborations were formed in the late 1990s ATHENA and ATRAP. The primary goal of these collaborations is the creation of less energetic ("cold") antihydrogen, better suited to study.
In 1999 CERN activated the Antiproton Decelerator, a device capable of decelerating antiprotons from 3.5 GeV to 5.3 MeV still too "hot" to produce study-effective antihydrogen, but a huge leap forward. In late 2002 the ATHENA project announced that they had created the world's first "cold" antihydrogen. The antiprotons used in the experiment were cooled sufficiently by decelerating them (using the Antiproton Decelerator), passing them through a thin sheet of foil, and finally capturing them in a Penning trap. The antiprotons also underwent stochastic cooling at several stages during the process.
The ATHENA team's antiproton cooling process is effective, but highly inefficient. Approximately 25 million antiprotons leave the Antiproton Decelerator; roughly 10 thousand make it to the Penning trap. In early 2004 ATHENA researchers released data on a new method of creating low-energy antihydrogen. The technique involves slowing antiprotons using the Antiproton Decelerator, and injecting them into a Penning trap (specifically a Penning-Malmberg trap). Once trapped the antiprotons are mixed with electrons that have been cooled to an energy potential significantly less than the antiprotons; the resulting Coulomb collisions cool the antiprotons while warming the electrons until the particles reach an equilibrium of approximately 4 K.
While the antiprotons are being cooled in the first trap, a small cloud of positron plasma is injected into a second trap (the mixing trap). Exciting the resonance of the mixing traps confinement fields can control the temperature of the positron plasma; but the procedure is more effective when the plasma is in thermal equilibrium with the traps environment. The positron plasma cloud is generated in a positron accumulator prior to injection; the source of the positrons is usually radioactive sodium.
Once the antiprotons are sufficiently cooled, the antiproton-electron mixture is transferred into the mixing trap (containing the positrons). The electrons are subsequently removed by a series of fast pulses in the mixing trap's electrical field. When the antiprotons reach the positron plasma further Coulomb collisions occur, resulting in further cooling of the antiprotons. When the positrons and antiprotons approach thermal equilibrium antihydrogen atoms begin to form. Being electrically neutral the antihydrogen atoms are not affected by the trap and can leave the confinement fields.
Using this method ATHENA researchers predict they will be able to create up to 100 antihydrogen atoms per operational second. ATHENA and ATRAP are now seeking to further cool the antihydrogen atoms by subjecting them to an inhomogeneous field. While antihydrogen atoms are electrically neutral, their spin produces magnetic moments. These magnetic moments vary depending on the spin direction of the atom, and can be deflected by inhomogeneous fields regardless of electrical charge.
The biggest limiting factor in the production of antimatter is the availability of antiprotons. Recent data released by CERN states that when fully operational their facilities are capable of producing 107 antiprotons per second. Assuming an optimal conversion of antiprotons to antihydrogen, it would take two billion years to produce 1 gram of antihydrogen. Another limiting factor to antimatter production is storage. As stated above there is no known way to effectively store antihydrogen. The ATHENA project has managed to keep antihydrogen atoms from annihilation for tens of seconds just enough time to briefly study their behaviour.
CERN laboratories, which produces antimatter on a regular basis, said: If we could assemble all of the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes.
Antiparticles are created everywhere in the universe where high-energy particle collisions take place. High-energy cosmic rays impacting Earth's atmosphere (or any other matter in the solar system) produce minute quantities of antimatter in the resulting particle jets, which are immediately annihilated by contact with nearby matter. It may similarly be produced in regions like the center of the Milky Way Galaxy and other galaxies, where very energetic celestial events occur (principally the interaction of relativistic jets with the interstellar medium). The presence of the resulting antimatter is detectable by the gamma rays produced when it annihilates with nearby matter.
Antiparticles are also produced in any environment with a sufficiently high temperature (mean particle energy greater than the pair production threshold). The period of baryogenesis, when the universe was extremely hot and dense, matter and antimatter were continually produced and annihilated. The presence of remaining matter, and absence of detectable remaining antimatter, also called baryon asymmetry, is attributed to violation of the CP-symmetry relating matter and antimatter. The exact mechanism of this violation during baryogenesis remains a mystery.
Antimatter-matter reactions have practical applications in medical imaging, such as positron emission tomography (PET). In positive beta decay, a nuclide loses surplus positive charge by emitting a positron (in the same event, a proton becomes a neutron, and neutrinos are also given off). Nuclides with surplus positive charge are easily made in a cyclotron and are widely generated for medical use.
In antimatter-matter collisions resulting in photon emission, the entire rest mass of the particles is converted to kinetic energy. The energy per unit mass (9?1016 J/kg) is about 10 orders of magnitude greater than chemical energy (compared to TNT at 4.2?106 J/kg, and formation of water at 1.56?107 J/kg), about 4 orders of magnitude greater than nuclear energy that can be liberated today using nuclear fission (about 40 MeV per 238U nucleus transmuted to Lead, or 1.5?1013 J/kg), and about 2 orders of magnitude greater than the best possible from fusion (about 6.3?1014 J/kg for the proton-proton chain). The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce 1.8?1017 J (180 petajoules) of energy (by the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc?), or the rough equivalent of 47 megatons of TNT.
Not all of that energy can be utilized by any realistic technology, because as much as 50% of energy produced in reactions between nucleons and antinucleons is carried away by neutrinos, so, for all intents and purposes, it can be considered lost.
The scarcity of antimatter means that it is not readily available to be used as fuel, although it could be used in antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion. Generating a single antiproton is immensely difficult and requires particle accelerators and vast amounts of energymillions of times more than is released after it is annihilated with ordinary matter, due to inefficiencies in the process. Known methods of producing antimatter from energy also produce an equal amount of normal matter, so the theoretical limit is that half of the input energy is converted to antimatter. Counterbalancing this, when antimatter annihilates with ordinary matter, energy equal to twice the mass of the antimatter is liberatedso energy storage in the form of antimatter could (in theory) be 100% efficient. Antimatter production is currently very limited, but has been growing at a nearly geometric rate since the discovery of the first antiproton in 1955. The current antimatter production rate is between 1 and 10 nanograms per year, and this is expected to increase to between 3 and 30 nanograms per year by 2015 or 2020 with new superconducting linear accelerator facilities at CERN and Fermilab. Some researchers claim that with current technology, it is possible to obtain antimatter for US$25 million per gram by optimizing the collision and collection parameters (given current electricity generation costs). Antimatter production costs, in mass production, are almost linearly tied in with electricity costs, so economical pure-antimatter thrust applications are unlikely to come online without the advent of such technologies as deuterium-tritium fusion power (assuming that such a power source actually would prove to be cheap). Many experts, however, dispute these claims as being far too optimistic by many orders of magnitude. They point out that in 2004; the annual production of antiprotons at CERN was several picograms at a cost of $20 million. This means to produce 1 gram of antimatter, CERN would need to spend 100 quadrillion dollars and run the antimatter factory for 100 billion years. Storage is another problem, as antiprotons are negatively charged and repel against each other, so that they cannot be concentrated in a small volume. Plasma oscillations in the charged cloud of antiprotons can cause instabilities that drive antiprotons out of the storage trap. For these reasons, to date only a few million antiprotons have been stored simultaneously in a magnetic trap, which corresponds to much less than a femtogram. Antihydrogen atoms or molecules are neutral so in principle they do not suffer the plasma problems of antiprotons described above. But cold antihydrogen is far more difficult to produce than antiprotons, and so far not a single antihydrogen atom has been trapped in a magnetic field.
Several NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts-funded studies are exploring whether it might be possible to use magnetic scoops to collect the antimatter that occurs naturally in the Van Allen belts of Earth, and ultimately, the belts of gas giants like Jupiter, hopefully at a lower cost per gram.
Since the energy density is vastly higher than these other forms, the thrust to weight equation used in antimatter rocketry and spacecraft would be very different. In fact, the energy in a few grams of antimatter is enough to transport an unmanned spacecraft to Mars in about a monththe Mars Global Surveyor took eleven months to reach Mars. It is hoped that antimatter could be used as fuel for interplanetary travel or possibly interstellar travel, but it is also feared that if mankind ever gets the capabilities to do so, there could be the construction of antimatter weapons.
Because of its potential to release immense amounts of energy in contact with normal matter, there has been interest in various weapon uses, potentially enabling miniature warheads of pinhead-size to be more destructive than modern-day nuclear weapons. An antimatter particle colliding with a matter particle releases 100% of the energy contained within the particles, while an H-bomb only releases about 7% of this energy. This gives a clue to how effective and powerful this force is. However, this development is still in early planning stages, though antimatter weapons are popular in science fiction such as in Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy and Dan Brown's Angels and Demons where the production of antimatter leads to the possibility of use as both a fuel and highly effective weapon.
Dirac himself was the first to consider the existence of antimatter on an astronomical scale. But it was only after the confirmation of his theory, with the discovery of the positron, antiproton and antineutron that real speculation began on the possible existence of an antiuniverse. In the following years, motivated by basic symmetry principles, it was believed that the universe must consist of both matter and antimatter in equal amounts. If, however, there were an isolated system of antimatter in the universe, free from interaction with ordinary matter, no earthbound observation could distinguish its true content, as photons (being their own antiparticle) are the same whether they originate from a universe or an antiuniverse.
But assuming large zones of antimatter exist, there must be some boundary where antimatter atoms from the antimatter galaxies or stars will come into contact with normal atoms. In those regions a powerful flux of gamma rays would be produced. This has never been observed despite deployment of very sensitive instruments in space to detect them.
It is now thought that symmetry was broken in the early universe during a period of baryogenesis, when matter-antimatter symmetry was violated. Standard Big Bang cosmology tells us that the universe initially contained equal amounts of matter and antimatter: however particles and antiparticles evolved slightly differently. It was found that a particular heavy unstable particle, which is its own antiparticle, decays slightly more often to positrons (e+) than to electrons (e?). How this accounts for the preponderance of matter over antimatter has not been completely explained. The Standard Model of particle physics does have a way of accommodating a difference between the evolution of matter and antimatter, but it falls short of explaining the net excess of matter in the universe by about 10 orders of magnitude.
After Dirac, science fiction writers produced myriad visions of antiworlds, antistars and antiuniverses, all made of antimatter, and it is still a common plot device; however, no positive evidence of such antiuniverses exists.
Mini black holes
A micro black hole, also called a quantum mechanical black hole and inevitably a mini black hole, is simply a tiny black hole for which quantum mechanical effects play an important role.
The smallest mass it is believed a black hole could have is of the order of the Planck mass, which is about 2 ? 10?8 kg or 1.1 ? 1019 GeV/c2. At this scale the black hole thermodynamic formulae predict the mini-black hole would have an entropy of only 4? nats; a Hawking temperature of TP / 8?, requiring thermal energy quanta comparable in energy to almost the mass of the entire mini black hole; and a Compton wavelength equal to the black hole's Schwarzschild radius (this distance being equal to the Planck length). This is the point where a classical gravitational description of the object stops being retrievable with merely small quantum corrections, but in effect completely breaks down.
The existence of black holes of this mass is purely hypothetical but if primordial black holes exist, they might reach this condition as the final stage of runaway evaporation due to Hawking radiation.
Such an energy is orders of magnitude greater than can be produced on Earth in particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider (maximum about 1.4 ? 104 GeV), or detected in cosmic ray collisions in our atmosphere. It is estimated that to collide two aggregates of fermions to within a distance of a Planck length with the currently achievable magnetic field strength would require a ring accelerator about 1000 light years in diameter to keep the aggregates on track. Even if it were possible, any collision product would be immensely unstable, and almost immediately disintegrate.
Some string theorists have suggested that the multiple dimensions postulated by string theory might make the effective strength of gravity many orders of magnitude stronger at small distances (very high energies). This might effectively lower the Planck energy, and perhaps make black-hole-like descriptions valuable even at slightly lower masses. This higher-dimensional component to gravity is, however, highly speculative.
Others have wondered about the basic assumptions of the quantum gravity program, and whether there is really a compelling case to believe in Hawking radiation. It is only these quantum assumptions which lead to the crisis at the Planck mass: in classical general relativity, a black hole could in principle be arbitrarily small.
Physicist Brian Greene has suggested that the electron may be a micro black hole; see black hole electron. Small black holes would look like elementary particles because they would be completely defined by their mass, charge and spin. On this view, the significance of the Planck mass is that it marks a transition where the Hawking semi-classical approximation breaks down, and a fully quantum mechanical description of the system becomes required. Gravitationally dominated "black hole"-like structures might still exist with these lower masses, but the emission of Hawking radiation would be suppressed by quantum effects, just as an electron constantly accelerating round an atom does not radiate, despite the apparent predictions of classical electrodynamics.
All that can be said with certainty is that current predictions for the functioning of a black hole with a mass less than Planck mass are inconsistent and incomplete.
Cosmic microwave background
In cosmology, the cosmic microwave background radiation (most often abbreviated CMB but occasionally CMBR, CBR or MBR, also referred to as relic radiation) is a form of electromagnetic radiation discovered in 1965 that fills the entire universe. It has a thermal 2.725 kelvin black body spectrum which peaks in the microwave range at a frequency of 160.2 GHz, corresponding to a wavelength of 1.9 mm. Most cosmologists consider this radiation to be the best evidence for the Big Bang model of the universe.
The cosmic microwave background is isotropic to roughly one part in 100,000: the root mean square variations are only 18 K. The Far-Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer (FIRAS) instrument on the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite has carefully measured the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. FIRAS compared the CMB with a reference black body and no difference could be seen in their spectra. Any deviations from the black body form that might still remain undetected in the CMB spectrum over the wavelength range from 0.5 to 5 mm must have a weighted rms value of at most 50 parts per million (0.005%) of the CMB peak brightness. This made the CMB spectrum the most precisely measured black body spectrum in nature.
The cosmic microwave background is a prediction of Big Bang theory. In the theory, the early universe was made up of a hot plasma of photons, electrons and baryons. The photons were constantly interacting with the plasma through Thomson scattering. As the universe expanded, adiabatic cooling caused the plasma to cool until it became favourable for electrons to combine with protons and form hydrogen atoms. This happened at around 3,000 K or when the universe was approximately 380,000 years old (z=1088). At this point, the photons scattered off the now neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space. This process is called recombination or decoupling (referring to electrons combining with nuclei and to the decoupling of matter and radiation respectively).
The photons have continued cooling ever since; they have now reached 2.725 K and their temperature will continue to drop as long as the universe continues expanding. Accordingly, the radiation from the sky we measure today comes from a spherical surface, called the surface of last scattering, from which the photons that decoupled from interaction with matter in the early universe, 13.7 billion years (13.7 G yr) ago, are just now reaching observers on Earth. The big bang suggests that the cosmic microwave background fills all of observable space, and that most of the radiation energy in the universe is in the cosmic microwave background, which makes up a fraction of roughly 5?10-5 of the total density of the universe.
Two of the greatest successes of the big bang theory are its prediction of its almost perfect black body spectrum and its detailed prediction of the anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. The recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe has precisely measured these anisotropies over the whole sky down to angular scales of 0.2 degrees. These can be used to estimate the parameters of the standard Lambda-CDM model of the big bang. Some information, such as the shape of the Universe, can be obtained straightforwardly from the cosmic microwave background, while others, such as the Hubble constant, are not constrained and must be inferred from other measurements.
The cosmic microwave background was predicted in 1948 by George Gamow and Ralph Alpher, and by Alpher and Robert Herman. Moreover, Alpher and Herman were able to estimate the temperature of the cosmic microwave background to be 5 K, though two years later, they re-estimated it at 28 K.. Although there were several previous estimates of the temperature of space (see timeline), these suffered from two flaws. First, they were measurements of the effective temperature of space, and did not suggest that space was filled with a thermal Planck spectrum; second, they are dependent on our special place at the edge of the Milky Way galaxy and did not suggest the radiation is isotropic. Moreover, they would yield very different predictions if Earth happened to be located elsewhere in the universe.
The 1948 results of Gamow and Alpher were not widely discussed. However, they were rediscovered by Robert Dicke and Yakov Zel'dovich in the early 1960s. The first published recognition of the CMB radiation as a detectable phenomenon appeared in a brief paper by Soviet astrophysicists A. G. Doroshkevich and Igor Novikov, in the spring of 1964. In 1964, David Todd Wilkinson and Peter Roll, Dicke's colleagues at Princeton University, began constructing a Dicke radiometer to measure the cosmic microwave background. In 1965, 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 radiometer that they intended to use for radio astronomy and satellite communication experiments. Their instrument had an excess 3.5 K antenna temperature which they could not account for. After receiving a telephone call from Crawford Hill, Dicke famously quipped: "Boys, we've been scooped." A meeting between the Princeton and Crawford Hill groups determined that the antenna temperature was indeed due to the microwave background. Penzias and Wilson received the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery.
The interpretation of the cosmic microwave background was a controversial issue in the 1960s with some proponents of the steady state theory arguing that the microwave background was the result of scattered starlight from distant galaxies. Using this model, and based on the study of narrow absorption line features in the spectra of stars, the astronomer Andrew McKellar wrote in 1941: "It can be calculated that the 'rotational temperature? of interstellar space is 2 K." However, during the 1970s the consensus was established that the cosmic microwave background is a remnant of the big bang. This was largely because new measurements at a range of frequencies showed that the spectrum was a thermal, black body spectrum, a result that the steady state model was unable to reproduce.
Harrison, Peebles and Yu, and Zel'dovich realized that the early universe would have to have inhomogeneities at the level of 10-4 or 10?5. Rashid Sunyaev later calculated the observable imprint that these inhomogeneities would have on the cosmic microwave background. Increasingly stringent limits on the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background were set by ground based experiments, but the anisotropy was first detected by the Differential Microwave Radiometer instrument on the COBE satellite.
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 first acoustic peak, which COBE did not have sufficient resolution to resolve. The first peak in the anisotropy was tentatively detected by the Toco experiment and the result was confirmed by the BOOMERanG and MAXIMA experiments.. These measurements demonstrated that the Universe is approximately flat and were able to rule out cosmic strings as a major component of cosmic structure formation, and suggested cosmic inflation was the right theory of structure formation.
The second peak was tentatively detected by several experiments before being definitively detected by WMAP, which has also tentatively detected the third peak. Several experiments to improve measurements of the polarization and the microwave background on small angular scales are ongoing. These include DASI, WMAP, BOOMERanG and the Cosmic Background Imager. Forthcoming experiments include the Planck satellite, Atacama Cosmology Telescope and the South Pole Telescope.
Measurements of the CMB have made the inflationary Big Bang theory the standard model of the earliest eras of the universe. The standard hot big bang model of the universe requires that the initial conditions for the universe are a Gaussian random field with a nearly scale invariant or Harrison-Zel'dovich spectrum. This is, for example, a prediction of the cosmic inflation model. This means that the initial state of the universe is random, but in a clearly specified way in which the amplitude of the primeval inhomogeneities is 10-5. Therefore, meaningful statements about the inhomogeneities in the universe need to be statistical in nature. This leads to cosmic variance in which the uncertainties in the variance of the largest scale fluctuations observed in the universe are difficult to accurately compare to theory.
The cosmic microwave background radiation and the cosmological red shift are together regarded as the best available evidence for the Big Bang (BB) theory. The discovery of the CMB in the mid-1960s curtailed interest in alternatives such as the steady state theory. The CMB gives a snapshot of the Universe when, according to standard cosmology, the temperature dropped enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms, thus making the universe transparent to radiation. When it originated some 400,000 years after the Big Bang this time period is generally known as the "time of last scattering" or the period of recombination or decoupling the temperature of the Universe was about 3,000 K. This corresponds to an energy of about 0.25 eV, which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of hydrogen. Since then, the temperature of the radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1100 due to the expansion of the Universe. As the universe expands, the CMB photons are redshifted, making the radiation's temperature inversely proportional to the Universe's scale length. For details about the reasoning that the radiation is evidence for the Big Bang, see Cosmic background radiation of the Big Bang.
The anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background is divided into two sorts: primary anisotropy which is due to effects which occur at the last scattering surface and before and secondary anisotropy which is due to effects, such as interactions with hot gas or gravitational potentials, between the last scattering surface and the observer.
The structure of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies is principally determined by two effects: acoustic oscillations and diffusion damping (also called collisionless damping or Silk damping). The acoustic oscillations arise because of a competition in the photon-baryon plasma in the early universe. The pressure of the photons tends to erase anisotropies, whereas the gravitational attraction of the baryons which are moving at speeds much less than the speed of light makes them tend to collapse to form dense haloes. These two effects compete to create acoustic oscillations which give the microwave background its characteristic peak structure. The peaks correspond, roughly, to resonances in which the photons decouple when a particular mode is at its peak amplitude.
The peaks contain interesting physical signatures. The angular scale of the first peak determines the curvature of the Universe (but not the topology of the Universe). The second peak truly the ratio of the odd peaks to the even peaks determines the reduced baryon density. The third peak can be used to extract information about the dark matter density.
The locations of the peaks also give important information about the nature of the primordial density perturbations. There are two fundamental types of density perturbations -- called "adiabatic" and "isocurvature." A general density perturbation is a mixture of these two types, and different theories that purport to explain the primordial density perturbation spectrum predict different mixtures. For adiabatic density perturbations, the fractional overdensity in each matter component (baryons, photons ...) is the same. That is, if there is 1% more energy in baryons than average in one spot, then with a pure adiabatic density perturbations there is also 1% more energy in photons, and 1% more energy in neutrinos, than average. Cosmic inflation predicts that the primordial perturbations are adiabatic. With isocurvature density perturbations, the sum of the fractional overdensities is zero. That is, a perturbation where at some spot there is 1% more energy in baryons than average, 1% more energy in photons than average, and 2% lower energy in neutrinos than average, would be a pure isocurvature perturbation. Cosmic strings would produce mostly isocurvature primordial perturbations.
The CMB spectrum is able to distinguish these two because these two types of perturbations produce different peak locations. Isocurvature density perturbations produce a series of peaks whose angular scales (l-values of the peaks) are roughly in the ratio 1 : 3 : 5 ..., while adiabatic density perturbations produce peaks whose locations are in the ratio 1 : 2 : 3 ... Observations are consistent with the primordial density perturbations being entirely adiabatic, providing key support for inflation, and ruling out many models of structure formation involving, for example, cosmic strings.
Collisionless damping is caused by two effects, when the treatment of the primordial plasma as a fluid begins to break down: the increasing mean free path of the photons as the primordial plasma becomes increasingly rarefied in an expanding universe the finite thickness of the last scattering surface (LSS), which causes the mean free path to increase rapidly during decoupling, even while some Compton scattering is still occurring.
These effects contribute about equally to the suppression of anisotropies on small scales, and give rise to the characteristic exponential damping tail seen in the very small angular scale anisotropies.
The thickness of the LSS refers to the fact that the decoupling of the photons and baryons does not happen instantaneously, but instead requires an appreciable fraction of the age of the Universe up to that era. One method to quantify exactly how long this process took uses the photon visibility function (PVF). This function is defined so that, denoting the PVF by P(t), the probability that a CMB photon last scattered between time t and t+dt is given by P(t)dt.
The maximum of the PVF (the time where it is most likely that a given CMB photon last scattered) is known quite precisely. The first-year WMAP results put the time at which P(t) is maximum as 372 +/- 14 kyr . This is often taken as the "time" at which the CMB formed. However, to figure out how long it took the photons and baryons to decouple, we need a measure of the width of the PVF. The WMAP team finds that the PVF is greater than half of its maximum value (the "full width at half maximum", or FWHM) over an interval of 115 +/- 5 kyr. By this measure, decoupling took place over roughly 115,000 years, and when it was complete, the universe was roughly 487,000 years old.
Dark matter
In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is matter of unknown composition that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe. The observed phenomena consistent with dark matter observations include the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark matter also plays a central role in structure formation and galaxy evolution, and has measurable effects on the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which interacts with electromagnetic radiation: the remainder is called the "dark matter component".
The composition of dark matter is unknown, but may include ordinary and heavy neutrinos, recently postulated elementary particles such as WIMPs and axions, astronomical bodies such as dwarf stars and planets (collectively called MACHOs), and clouds of nonluminous gas. Current evidence favors models in which the primary component of dark matter is new elementary particles, collectively called non-baryonic dark matter.
The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the "visible" component of the universe. At present, the density of ordinary baryons and radiation in the universe is estimated to be equivalent to about one hydrogen atom per cubic metre of space. Only about 4% of the total energy density in the universe (as inferred from gravitational effects) can be seen directly. About 22% is thought to be composed of dark matter. The remaining 74% is thought to consist of dark energy, an even stranger component, distributed diffusely in space. Some hard-to-detect baryonic matter makes a contribution to dark matter, but constitutes only a small portion. Determining the nature of this missing mass is one of the most important problems in modern cosmology and particle physics. It has been noted that the names "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance, much as the marking of early maps with "terra incognita".
The first to provide evidence and infer the existence of a phenomenon that has come to be called "dark matter" was Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1933. He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge. When he compared this mass estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster, he found that there was about 400 times more mass than expected. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together.
Much of the evidence for dark matter comes from the study of the motions of galaxies. Many of these appear to be fairly uniform, so by the virial theorem the total kinetic energy should be half the total gravitational binding energy of the galaxies. Experimentally, however, the total kinetic energy is found to be much greater: in 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 predicted by the virial theorem. Galactic rotation curves, which illustrate the velocity of rotation versus the distance from the galactic center, cannot be explained by only the visible matter. Assuming that the visible material makes up only a small part of the cluster is the most straightforward way of accounting for this. Galaxies show signs of being composed largely of a roughly spherically symmetric, centrally concentrated halo of dark matter with the visible matter concentrated in a disc at the center. Low surface brightness 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 impair observations of the rotation curve of outlying stars.
According to results published in August 2006, dark matter has been observed separate from ordinary matter through measurements of the Bullet Cluster, actually two nearby clusters of galaxies that collided about 150 million years ago. Researchers analyzed the effects of gravitational lensing to determine total mass distribution in the pair and compared that to X-ray maps of hot gases, thought to constitute the large majority of ordinary matter in the clusters. The hot gases interacted during the collision and remain closer to the center. The individual galaxies and the dark matter did not interact and are farther from the center.
For nearly 40 years after Zwicky's initial observations, no other corroborating observations indicated that the mass to light ratio was anything other than unity (a high mass-to-light ratio indicates the presence of dark matter). Then, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Vera Rubin, a young astronomer at the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington presented findings based on a new sensitive spectrograph that could measure the velocity curve of edge-on spiral galaxies to a greater degree of accuracy than had ever before been achieved. Together with fellow staff-member Kent Ford, Rubin announced at a 1975 meeting of the American Astronomical Society the astonishing discovery that most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed, which implied that their mass densities were uniform well beyond the locations with most of the stars (the galactic bulge). This result suggests that either Newtonian gravity does not apply universally or that, conservatively, upwards of 50% of the mass of galaxies was contained in the relatively dark galactic halo. Met with skepticism, Rubin insisted that the observations were correct. Eventually other astronomers began to corroborate her work and it soon became well-established that most galaxies were in fact dominated by "dark matter"; exceptions appeared to be galaxies with mass-to-light ratios close to that of stars. Subsequent to this, numerous observations have been made that do indicate the presence of dark matter in various parts of the cosmos. Together with Rubin's findings for spiral galaxies and Zwicky's work on galaxy clusters, the observational evidence for dark matter has been collecting over the decades to the point that today most astrophysicists accept its existence. As a unifying concept, dark matter is one of the dominant features considered in the analysis of structures on the order of galactic scale and larger.
Rubin's pioneering work has stood the test of time. Measurements of velocity curves in spiral galaxies were soon followed up with velocity dispersions of elliptical galaxies. While sometimes appearing with lower mass-to-light ratios, measurements of ellipticals still indicate a relatively high dark matter content. Likewise, measurements of the diffuse interstellar gas found at the edge of galaxies indicate not only dark matter distributions that extend beyond the visible limit of the galaxies, but also that the galaxies are virialized up to ten times their visible radii. This has the effect of pushing up the dark matter as a fraction of the total amount of gravitating matter from 50% measured by Rubin to the now accepted value of nearly 95%.
There are places where dark matter seems to be a small component or totally absent. Globular clusters show no evidence that they contain dark matter, though their orbital interactions with galaxies do show evidence for galactic dark matter. For some time, measurements of the velocity profile of stars seemed to indicate concentration of dark matter in the disk of the Milky Way galaxy, however, now it seems that the high concentration of baryonic matter in the disk of the galaxy (especially in the interstellar medium) can account for this motion. Galaxy mass profiles are thought to look very different from the light profiles. The typical model for dark matter galaxies is a smooth, spherical distribution in virialized halos. Such would have to be the case to avoid small-scale (stellar) dynamical effects. Recent research reported in January 2006 from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst would explain the previously mysterious warp in the disk of the Milky Way by the interaction of the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds and the predicted 20 fold increase in mass of the Milky Way taking into account dark matter.
Recently (2005), astronomers from Cardiff University claim to have discovered a galaxy made almost entirely of dark matter, 50 million light years away in the Virgo Cluster, which was named VIRGOHI21. Unusually, VIRGOHI21 does not appear to contain any visible stars: it was seen with radio frequency observations of hydrogen. Based on rotation profiles, the scientists estimate that this object contains approximately 1000 times more dark matter than hydrogen and has a total mass of about 1/10th that of the Milky Way Galaxy we live in. For comparison, the Milky Way is believed to have roughly 10 times as much dark matter as ordinary matter. Models of the Big Bang and structure formation have suggested that such dark galaxies should be very common in the universe, but none have previously been detected. If the existence of this dark galaxy is confirmed, it provides strong evidence for the theory of galaxy formation and poses problems for alternative explanations of dark matter.
Dark matter affects galaxy clusters as well. X-ray measurements of hot intracluster gas correspond closely to Zwicky's observations of mass-to-light ratios for large clusters of nearly 10 to 1. Many of the experiments of the Chandra X-ray Observatory use this technique to independently determine the mass of clusters.
The galaxy cluster Abell 2029 is composed of thousands of galaxies enveloped in a cloud of hot gas, and an amount of dark matter equivalent to more than 1014 Suns. At the center of this cluster is an enormous, elliptically shaped galaxy that is thought to have been formed from the mergers of many smaller galaxies. 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 observations is gravitational lensing. Lensing relies on the effects of general relativity to predict masses without relying on dynamics, and so is a completely independent means of measuring the dark matter. Strong lensing, the observed distortion of background galaxies into arcs when the light passes through a gravitational lens, has been observed around a few distant clusters including Abell 1689 (pictured right). By measuring the distortion geometry, the mass of the cluster causing the phenomena can be obtained. In the dozens of cases where this has been done, the mass-to-light ratios obtained correspond to the dynamical dark matter measurements of clusters.
Perhaps more convincing, a technique has been developed over the last 10 years called weak lensing which looks at microscale distortions of galaxies observed in vast galaxy surveys due to foreground objects through statistical analyses. By examining the shear deformation of the adjacent background galaxies, astrophysicists can characterize the mean distribution of dark matter by statistical means and have found mass-to-light ratios that correspond to dark matter densities predicted by other large-scale structure measurements. The correspondence of the two gravitational lens techniques to other dark matter measurements has convinced almost all astrophysicists that dark matter actually exists as a major component of the universe's composition.
Dark matter is crucial to the Big Bang model of cosmology as a component which corresponds directly to measurements of the parameters associated with Friedmann cosmology solutions to general relativity. In particular, measurements of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies correspond to a cosmology where much of the matter interacts with photons more weakly than the known forces that couple light interactions to baryonic matter. Likewise, a significant amount of non-baryonic, cold matter is necessary to explain the large-scale structure of the universe.
Observations suggest that structure formation in the universe proceeds hierarchically, with the smallest structures collapsing first and followed by galaxies and then clusters of galaxies. As the structures collapse in the evolving universe, they begin to "light up" as the baryonic matter heats up through gravitational contraction and the object approaches hydrostatic pressure balance. Ordinary baryonic matter had too high a temperature, and too much pressure left over from the Big Bang to collapse and form smaller structures, such as stars, via the Jeans instability. Dark matter acts as a compactor of structure. This model not only corresponds with statistical surveying of the visible structure in the universe but also corresponds precisely to the dark matter predictions of the cosmic microwave background.
This bottom up model of structure formation requires something like cold dark matter to succeed. Large computer simulations of billions of dark matter particles have been used to confirm that the cold dark matter model of structure formation is consistent with the structures observed in the universe through galaxy surveys, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, as well as observations of the Lyman-alpha forest. These studies have been crucial in constructing the Lambda-CDM model which measures the cosmological parameters, including the fraction of the universe made up of baryons and dark matter.
Exoplanets
An extrasolar planet, or exoplanet, is a planet beyond the Solar System. As of November 2007, the count of known exoplanet candidates has reached 267. The vast majority have been detected through various indirect methods rather than actual imaging. Most of them are massive giant planets likely to resemble Jupiter.
According to the International Astronomical Union's working definition of "planet," a planet must orbit a star. There have also been reports of free-floating planetary-mass objects (sometimes called "rogue planets" or "interstellar planets"): that is, ones not orbiting any star. Since such objects are outside the working definition of "planet," they are not discussed in this article. For more information, see rogue planet. False-color infrared image of the brown dwarf 2M1207 (blue) and its planetary companion 2M1207b (red), as viewed by the Very Large Telescope. As of September 2006 this is the only confirmed extrasolar planet to have been directly imaged.
Extrasolar planets became a subject of scientific investigation in the mid-nineteenth century. Astronomers generally supposed that some existed, but how common they were and how similar they were to the planets of the Solar System remained mysteries. The first confirmed detections were finally made in the 1990s; since 2000, more than fifteen have been discovered every year with 2007 so far the most. It is now estimated that at least 10% of sunlike stars have planets, and the true proportion may be much higher. The discovery of extrasolar planets further raises the question of whether some might support extraterrestrial life.
Currently Gliese 581 d, the third planet of the red dwarf star Gliese 581 (approximately 20 light years from the Earth), appears to be the best example yet discovered of a possible terrestrial exoplanet which orbits close to the habitable zone of space surrounding its star. Going by strict terms, it appears to reside outside of the "Goldilocks Zone", but the greenhouse effect may raise the planet's surface temperature to that which would support liquid water.
Unconfirmed until 1988, extrasolar planets have long been assumed as plausible, and speculation on planets circling around the fixed stars dates to at least the early 18th century, with Isaac Newton's General Scholium (1713), which has "And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being form'd by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One" (trans. Motte 1729).
Claims about detection of exoplanets have been made from the 19th century. Some of the earliest involve the binary star 70 Ophiuchi. In 1855, Capt. W. S. Jacob at the East India Company's Madras Observatory reported that orbital anomalies made it "highly probable" that there was a "planetary body" in this system. In the 1890s, Thomas J. J. See of the University of Chicago and the United States Naval Observatory stated that the orbital anomalies proved the existence of a dark body in the 70 Ophiuchi system with a 36-year period around one of the stars. However, Forest Ray Moulton soon published a paper proving that a three-body system with those orbital parameters would be highly unstable. During the 1950s and 1960s, Peter van de Kamp of Swarthmore College made another prominent series of detection claims, this time for planets orbiting Barnard's Star. Astronomers now generally regard all the early reports of detection as erroneous.
In 1991, Andrew Lyne, M. Bailes and S.L. Shemar claimed to have discovered a pulsar planet in orbit around PSR 1829-10, using pulsar timing variations. The claim briefly received intense attention, but Lyne and his team soon retracted it.
The first published discovery to have received subsequent confirmation was made in 1988 by the Canadian astronomers Bruce Campbell, G. A. H. Walker, and S. Yang. Their radial-velocity observations suggested that a planet orbited the star Gamma Cephei. They remained cautious about claiming a true planetary detection, and widespread skepticism persisted in the astronomical community for several years about this and other similar observations. It was mainly because the observations were at the very limits of instrumental capabilities at the time. Another source of confusion was that some of the possible planets might instead have been brown dwarfs, objects that are intermediate in mass between planets and stars.
The following year, additional observations were published that supported the reality of the planet orbiting Gamma Cephei, though subsequent work in 1992 raised serious doubts. Finally, in 2003, improved techniques allowed the planet's existence to be confirmed.
In early 1992, radio astronomers Aleksander Wolszczan and Dale Frail announced the discovery of planets around another pulsar, PSR 1257+12. This discovery was quickly confirmed, and is generally considered to be the first definitive detection of exoplanets. These pulsar planets are believed to have formed from the unusual remnants of the supernova that produced the pulsar, in a second round of planet formation, or else to be the remaining rocky cores of gas giants that survived the supernova and then spiraled into their current orbits.
On October 6, 1995, Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz of the University of Geneva announced the first definitive detection of an exoplanet orbiting an ordinary main-sequence star (51 Pegasi). This discovery was made at the Observatoire de Haute-Provence and ushered in the modern era of exoplanetary discovery. Technological advances, most notably in high-resolution spectroscopy, led to the detection of many new exoplanets at a rapid rate. These advances allowed astronomers to detect exoplanets indirectly by measuring their gravitational influence on the motion of their parent stars. Several extrasolar planets were eventually also detected by observing the variation in a star's apparent luminosity as a planet passed in front of it.
To date, 267 exoplanet candidates have been found, including a few that were confirmations of controversial claims from the late 1980s. The first system to have more than one planet detected was ? And. Twenty such multiple-planet systems are now known. Among the known exoplanets are four pulsar planets orbiting two separate pulsars. Infrared observations of circumstellar dust disks also suggest the existence of millions of comets in several extrasolar systems.
Planets are extremely faint light sources compared to their parent stars. At visible wavelengths, they usually have less than a millionth of their parent star's brightness. In addition to the intrinsic difficulty of detecting such a faint light source, the parent star causes a glare that washes it out.
For those reasons, current telescopes can only directly image exoplanets under exceptional circumstances. Specifically, it may be possible when the planet is especially large (considerably larger than Jupiter), widely separated from its parent star, and hot so that it emits intense infrared radiation.
The vast majority of known extrasolar planets have been discovered through indirect methods: Diagram showing how an exoplanet orbiting a larger star could produce changes in position and velocity of the star as they orbit their common center of mass. Astrometry: Astrometry consists of precisely measuring a star's position in the sky and observing the ways in which that position changes over time. If the star has a planet, then the gravitational influence of the planet will cause the star itself to move in a tiny circular or elliptical orbit about their common center of mass (see video on the right). Radial velocity or Doppler method: Variations in the speed with which the star moves towards or away from Earth that is, variations in the radial velocity of the star with respect to Earth can be deduced from the displacement in the parent star's spectral lines due to the Doppler effect. This has been by far the most productive technique used. Pulsar timing: A pulsar (the small, ultradense remnant of a star that has exploded as a supernova) emits radio waves extremely regularly as it rotates. Slight anomalies in the timing of its observed radio pulses can be used to track changes in the pulsar's motion caused by the presence of planets. Transit method: If a planet crosses (or transits) in front of its parent star's disk, then the observed brightness of the star drops by a small amount. The amount by which the star dims depends on its size and on the size of the planet. Gravitational microlensing: Microlensing occurs when the gravitational field of a star acts like a lens, magnifying the light of a distant background star. Possible planets orbiting the foreground star can cause detectable anomalies in the lensing event light curve. Circumstellar disks: Disks of space dust surround many stars, and this dust can be detected because it absorbs ordinary starlight and re-emits it as infrared radiation. Features in dust disks may suggest the presence of planets. Eclipsing binary: In an eclipsing double star system, the planet can be detected by finding variability in minima as it goes back and forth. It is the most reliable method for detecting planets in binary star systems. Orbital phase: Like the phase of the Moon and Venus, extrasolar planets also have phases. Orbital phases depends on inclination of the orbit. By studying orbital phases scientists can calculate particle sizes in the atmospheres of planets. Polarimetry: Stellar light becomes polarized when it interacts with atmospheric molecules, which could be detected with a polarimeter. So far no planets have been found by this method.
Not counting a few exceptions, all known extrasolar planet candidates have been found using ground-based telescopes. However, many of the methods can yield better results if the observing telescope is located above the restless atmosphere. COROT (launched in December, 2006) is the only active space mission dedicated to extrasolar planet search. Hubble Space Telescope has also found or confirmed a few planets. There are many planned or proposed space missions such as Kepler, New Worlds Mission, Darwin, Space Interferometry Mission, Terrestrial Planet Finder, and PEGASE.
A lower-case letter is placed after the star name, starting with "b" for the first planet found in the system (for example, 51 Pegasi b). The next planet is labeled, for example, as "51 Pegasi c", the one following that "51 Pegasi d", and so on. (The suffix "a" was intended to refer specifically to the primary, as opposed to the system as a whole, but this did not catch on.)
Note that the letters assigned are based on the order in which the planets are discovered, and not on their position. For example, in the Gliese 876 system, the most recently discovered planet is referred to as Gliese 876 d, despite the fact that it is closer to the star than Gliese 876 b and Gliese 876 c.
Before the discovery of 51 Pegasi b in 1995, extrasolar planets were named differently. The first extrasolar planets found around pulsar PSR 1257+12 were named with capital letters: PSR 1257+12 B and PSR 1257+12 C. When a new, closer-in exoplanet was found around the pulsar, it was named PSR 1257+12 A, not D.
Some of the extrasolar planets have unofficial nicknames, as well. For example, HD 209458 b is sometimes called "Osiris," and 51 Pegasi b is called "Bellerophon." Gliese 581 c, the smallest and most Earth-like planet around main-sequence stars, has been called "Ymir." The IAU currently has no plans to officially name extrasolar planets, considering it impractical.
Gravity waves
In physics, a gravitational wave is a fluctuation in the curvature of spacetime which propagates as a wave, traveling outward from a moving object or system of objects. Gravitational radiation is the energy transported by these waves. Important examples of systems which emit gravitational waves are binary star systems, where the two stars in the binary are white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes.
Although gravitational radiation has not yet been directly detected, it has been indirectly shown to exist. This was the basis for the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics, awarded for measurements of the Hulse-Taylor binary system.
(Gravitational waves are sometimes called gravity waves, but this term is generally reserved for a completely different kind of wave encountered in hydrodynamics.)
In Einstein's theory of general relativity, the force of gravity is due to curvature of spacetime. This curvature is caused by the presence of massive objects. Roughly speaking, the more massive the object is, the greater the curvature it causes, and hence the more intense the gravity. As massive objects move around in spacetime, the curvature will change. If the objects move around in a certain way, ripples in spacetime can spread outward like ripples on the surface of a pond. These ripples are gravitational waves.
The simplest example of a strong source of gravitational waves is a spinning neutron star with a small mountain on its surface. The mountain's mass will cause curvature of the spacetime. Its movement will "stir up" spacetime, much like a paddle stirring up water. The waves will spread out through the Universe at the speed of light, never stopping or slowing down.
As these waves pass a distant observer, that observer will find spacetime distorted in a very particular way. Distances between objects will increase and decrease rhythmically as the wave passes. The magnitude of this effect will decrease the farther the observer is from the source. Any gravitational waves expected to be seen on Earth will be quite small; the change in size of any object will never be much more than 1 in 1020. Still, scientists are attempting to measure the effects of these waves using extraordinarily precise experiments.
By measuring these waves, astrophysicists hope to learn about systems they could not observe with more traditional means such as optical telescopes, radio telescopes, etc. Gravitational waves can penetrate regions that the more familiar waves cannot, providing us with a view of black holes and other mysterious objects in the distant Universe. Using precise measurements of gravitational waves in this way will also allow us to test the general theory of relativity more thoroughly.
In principle, gravitational waves could exist at any frequency. However, very low frequency waves would be impossible to detect, and very high frequency waves have no credible source able to generate detectable waves. Stephen W. Hawking and Werner Israel list different frequency bands for gravitational waves that could be plausibly detected, ranging from 10-7 Hz up to 1011 Hz.
Imagine a perfectly flat region of spacetime, with a group of motionless test particles lying in a plane. Then, a weak gravitational wave arrives, passing through the particles along a line perpendicular to the plane of the particles. What happens to the test particles? Roughly speaking, they will oscillate in a "cruciform" manner, as shown in the animations. The area enclosed by the test particles does not change, and there is no motion along the direction of propagation. In the animation at the right, the wave would be passing from you, through the screen, and out the back.
The foregoing animation is the result of a pair of masses that orbit about each other (e.g., black holes) on a circular orbit or a rotating rod or dumbbell. In this case the amplitude, A, of the gravitational wave is a constant, but its plane of polarization changes or rotates (at twice the orbital or rotating-rod rate) and so the time-varying gravitational wave size or periodic spacetime strain h, exhibits a variation as shown in the animation. If the orbit is elliptical or the rotating rods centrifugal-force change varies during rotation, then the gravitational waves amplitude (that is, the amplitude of the periodic spacetime h), A, actually also varies with time according to an equation called the quadrupole.
Like other waves, there are a few useful numbers describing a gravitational wave: Amplitude: Usually denoted h, this is the size of the wave the fraction of stretching or squeezing in the animation. The amplitude shown here is roughly h = 0.5 (or 50%). Gravitational waves passing through the Earth are many billion times weaker than this . Frequency: Usually denoted ?, this is the frequency with which the wave oscillates (1 divided by the amount of time between maximum stretch or squeeze) Wavelength: Usually denoted ?, this is the distance along the wave between points of maximum stretch or squeeze. Speed: This is the speed at which a point on the wave (for example, a point of maximum stretch or squeeze) travels. For gravitational waves with small amplitudes, this is equal to the speed of light, c.
The frequency, wavelength, and speed are related by the equation c = ? ?, just like the equation for a light wave. For example, the animations shown here oscillate roughly once every two seconds. This would correspond to a frequency of 0.5 Hz, and a wavelength of about 600,000 km, or 47 times the diameter of the Earth.
In the example just discussed, we actually assume something special about the wave. We have assumed that the wave is linearly polarized, with a "plus" polarization, written . Polarization of a gravitational wave is just like polarization of a light wave, except that the polarizations of a gravitational wave are at 45 degrees, as opposed to 90 degrees. In particular, if we had a "cross"-polarized gravitational wave, , the effect on the test particles would be basically the same, but rotated by 45 degrees, as shown in the second animation. Just as with light polarization, the polarizations of gravitational waves may also be expressed in terms of circularly polarized waves. Gravitational waves are polarized because of the nature of their sources. The polarization of a wave actually depends on the angle from the source, as we will see in the next section.
In general terms, gravitational waves are radiated by objects whose motion involves acceleration, provided that the motion is not perfectly spherically symmetric (like a spinning, expanding or contracting sphere) or cylindrically symmetric (like a spinning disk).
A simple example is the spinning dumbbell. Set upon one end, so that one side of the dumbell is on the ground and the other end is pointing up, the dumbbell will not radiate when it spins around its vertical axis but will radiate if it tumbles end-over-end. The heavier the dumbbell, and the faster it tumbles, the greater is the gravitational radiation it will give off. If we imagine an extreme case in which the two weights of the dumbbell are massive stars like neutron stars or black holes, orbiting each other quickly, then significant amounts of gravitational radiation would be given off.
Some more detailed examples: Two objects orbiting each other in a quasi-Keplerian planar orbit (basically, as a planet would orbit the Sun) will radiate. A spinning non-axisymmetric planetoid say with a large bump or dimple on the equator will radiate. A supernova will radiate except in the unlikely event that it is perfectly symmetric. An isolated non-spinning solid object moving at a constant speed will not radiate. This can be regarded as a consequence of the principle of conservation of linear momentum. A spinning disk will not radiate. This can be regarded as a consequence of the principle of conservation of angular momentum. On the other hand, this system will show gravitomagnetic effects. A spherically pulsating spherical star (non-zero monopole moment or mass, but zero quadrupole moment) will not radiate, in agreement with Birkhoff's theorem.
More technically, the second time derivative of the quadrupole moment (or the l-th time derivative of the l-th multipole moment) of an isolated system's stress-energy tensor must be nonzero in order for it to emit gravitational radiation. This is analogous to the changing dipole moment of charge or current necessary for electromagnetic radiation.
Although the waves from the Earth-Sun system are minuscule, astronomers can point to other sources for which the radiation should be substantial. One important example is the Hulse-Taylor binary a pair of stars, one of which is a pulsar. The characteristics of their orbit can be deduced from the Doppler shifting of radio signals given off by the pulsar. Each of the stars has a mass about 1.4 times that of the Sun. Also, their orbit is about 75 times smaller than the distance between the Earth and Sun which means the distance between the two stars is just a few times larger than the diameter of our own Sun. This combination of greater masses and smaller separation means that the energy given off by the Hulse-Taylor binary will be far greater than the energy given off by the Earth-Sun system roughly 1022 times as much.
The information about the orbit can be used to predict just how much energy (and angular momentum) should be given off in the form of gravitational waves. As the energy is carried off, the orbit will change; the stars will draw closer to each other. This effect of drawing closer is called an inspiral, and it can be observed in the pulsar's signals. The measurements on this system were carried out over several decades, and it was shown that the changes predicted by gravitational radiation in general relativity matched the observations very well. In 1993, Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for this experiment, which was the first experimental evidence for gravitational waves.
Inspirals are very important sources of gravitational waves. Any time two compact objects (white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes) come close to each other, they send out intense gravitational waves. As the objects come closer and closer to each other (that is, as R becomes smaller and smaller), the gravitational waves become more and more intense. At some point these waves should become so intense that they can be directly detected by their effect on objects on the Earth. This direct detection is the goal of several large experiments around the world.
The only difficulty is that systems like the Hulse-Taylor binary are so far away. The amplitude of waves given off by the Hulse-Taylor binary as seen on Earth would be roughly . There are some sources, however, that astrophysicists expect to find with the somewhat larger amplitudes of .
During the past century, astronomy has been revolutionized by the use of new methods for observing the universe. Astronomical observations were originally made using visible light. Galileo Galilei pioneered the use of telescopes to enhance these observations. However, visible light is only a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and not all objects in the distant universe shine strongly in this particular band. More useful information may be found, for example, in radio wavelengths. Using radio telescopes, astronomers have found pulsars, quasars, and other extreme objects which push the limits of our understanding of physics. Observations in the microwave band have opened our eyes to the faint imprints of the Big Bang a discovery Stephen Hawking called the "greatest discovery of the century, if not all time". Similar advances in observations using gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet light, and infrared light have also brought new insights to astronomy. As each of these regions of the spectrum has opened, new discoveries have been made that could not have been made otherwise. Astronomers hope that the same holds true of gravitational waves.
Gravitational waves have two important and unique properties. First, there is no need for any type of matter to be present nearby in order for the waves to be generated by a binary system of uncharged black holes, which would emit no electromagnetic radiation. Second, gravitational waves can pass through any intervening matter without being scattered. Whereas light from distant stars may be blocked out by interstellar dust, for example, gravitational waves will pass through unimpeded. These two features allow gravitational waves to carry information about astronomical phenomena never before observed by humans.
The sources of gravitational waves described above are in the low-frequency end of the gravitational-wave spectrum (10-7 to 105 Hz). An astrophysical source at the high-frequency end of the gravitational-wave spectrum (above 105 Hz and probably 1010 Hz) generates relic gravitational waves that are theorized to be faint imprints of the Big Bang like the cosmic microwave background. At these high frequencies it is potentially possible that the sources may be man made that is, gravitational waves generated and detected in the laboratory.
Galactic cannibalism
Interacting galaxies (Colliding galaxies) are the result of one galaxy's gravity disturbing another galaxy. An example of minor interaction is a satellite galaxy disturbing the primary galaxy's spiral arms. An example of major interaction is a galactic collision.
A giant galaxy interacting with its satellites is common. A satellite's gravity could attract one of the primary's spiral arms. Or even the satellite could dive in to the primary (e.g. Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy). This could trigger a small amount of star formation. The satellite could be a vacuum cleaner and suck up some of its primary's stars or vice versa.
Colliding galaxies are common in galaxy evolution. Colliding may lead to merging. Merging is the most violent of all galaxy interactions. This occurs when two galaxies collide and do not have enough momentum to continue traveling after the collision. Instead, they fall back into each other and eventually merge together, forming one galaxy. If one of the colliding galaxies is much larger than the other, it will remain largely intact after the merger; that is, the larger galaxy will look much the same while the smaller galaxy will be stripped apart and become part of the larger galaxy. Collisions are less violent than mergers in that both galaxies remain separate after the collisions.
Galactic cannibalism refers to the process by which a large galaxy, through tidal gravitational interactions with a companion, merges with that companion, resulting in a larger, often irregular galaxy.
The most common result of the gravitational merger of two or more galaxies is an irregular galaxy of one form or another, although elliptical galaxies may also result.
It has been suggested that galactic cannibalism is currently occurring between the Milky Way and the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. Streams of gravitationally-attracted hydrogen arcing from these dwarf galaxies to the Milky Way is taken as evidence for this theory.
Neutrinos
Neutrinos are elementary particles that travel close to the speed of light, lack an electric charge, are able to pass through ordinary matter almost undisturbed and are thus extremely difficult to detect. Neutrinos have a minuscule, but non-zero, mass too small to be measured as of 2007. They are usually denoted by the Greek letter ? (nu).
Neutrinos are created as a result of certain types of radioactive decay or nuclear reactions such as those that take place in the sun, in nuclear reactors, or when cosmic rays hit atoms. There are three types, or "flavors", of neutrinos: electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos; each type also has an antimatter partner, called an antineutrino. Electron neutrinos are generated whenever protons change into neutrons, while electron antineutrinos are generated whenever neutrons change into protons. These are the two forms of beta decay. Interactions involving neutrinos are generally mediated by the weak nuclear force.
Most neutrinos passing through the Earth emanate from the sun, and more than 50 trillion solar electron neutrinos pass through the human body every second.
The neutrino was first postulated in December 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli to explain conservation of energy in beta decay, the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron. Pauli theorized that an undetected particle was carrying away the observed difference between the energy and momentum of the initial and final particles. In 1942 Kan-Chang Wang first proposed to use beta-capture to experimentally detect neutrinos. In 1956 Clyde Cowan, Frederick Reines, F. B. Harrison, H. W. Kruse, and A. D. McGuire published the article "Detection of the Free Neutrino: a Confirmation" in Science, a result that was rewarded with the 1995 Nobel Prize. In this experiment, now known as the neutrino experiment, neutrinos created in a nuclear reactor by beta decay were shot into protons producing neutrons and positrons both of which could be detected. We now know that both the proposed and the observed particles were antineutrinos.
The name neutrino was coined by Enrico Fermi, who developed the first theory describing neutrino interactions, as a pun on neutrone, the Italian name of the neutron: neutrone seems to use the -one suffix (even if it is a complete word, not a compound), which in Italian indicates a large object, whereas -ino indicates a small one.
In 1962 Leon M. Lederman, Melvin Schwartz and Jack Steinberger showed that more than one type of neutrino exists by first detecting interactions of the muon neutrino, which earned them the 1988 Nobel Prize. When a third type of lepton, the tau, was discovered in 1975 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator, it too was expected to have an associated neutrino. First evidence for this third neutrino type came from the observation of missing energy and momentum in tau decays analogous to the beta decay leading to the discovery of the neutrino. The first detection of tau neutrino interactions was announced in summer of 2000 by the DONUT collaboration at Fermilab, making it the latest particle of the Standard Model, whose existence was already inferred both by theoretical consistency, as well as experimental data from LEP to have been directly observed.
Starting in the late 1960s, several experiments found that the number of electron neutrinos arriving from the sun was between one third and one half the number predicted by the Standard Solar Model, a discrepancy which became known as the solar neutrino problem and remained unresolved for some thirty years.
The Standard Model of particle physics assumes massless neutrinos and conserves flavors. However, non-zero neutrino mass and accompanying flavor oscillation remained a possibility.
A practical method for investigating neutrino masses (that is, flavor oscillation) was first suggested by Bruno Pontecorvo in 1957 using an analogy with the neutral kaon system; over the subsequent 10 years he developed the mathematical formalism and the modern formulation of vacuum oscillations. In 1985 Stanislav Mikheyev and Alexei Smirnov (expanding on 1978 work by Lincoln Wolfenstein) noted that flavor oscillations can be modified when neutrinos propagate through matter. This so-called MSW effect is important to understand neutrinos emitted by the Sun, which pass through its dense atmosphere on their way to detectors on Earth.
Starting in 1998, experiments began to show that solar and atmospheric neutrinos change flavors (see Super-Kamiokande, Sudbury Neutrino Observatory). Although individual experiments, such as the set of solar neutrino experiments, are consistent with non-oscillatory mechanisms of neutrino flavor conversion, taken altogether, neutrino experiments imply the existence of neutrino oscillations. Especially relevant in this context are the reactor experiment KamLAND and the accelerator experiments such as MINOS. The KamLAND experiment has indeed identified oscillations as the neutrino flavor conversion mechanism involved in the resolution of the solar neutrino problem: the electron neutrinos produced in the sun had partly changed into other flavors which the experiments could not detect. Similarly MINOS confirms the oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos and gives a better determination of the mass squared splitting (Maltoni, 2004). Raymond Davis Jr. and Masatoshi Koshiba were jointly awarded the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics. Ray Davis for his pioneer work on solar neutrinos and Koshiba for the first real time observation of supernova neutrinos. The detection of solar neutrinos, and of neutrinos of SN 1987A supernova in 1987 marked the beginning of neutrino astronomy.
The neutrino has half-integer spin () and is therefore a fermion. Because it is an electrically neutral lepton, the neutrino interacts neither by way of the strong nor the electromagnetic force, but only through the weak force and gravity.
Because the cross section in weak nuclear interactions is very small, neutrinos can pass through matter almost unhindered. For typical neutrinos produced in the sun (with energies of a few MeV), it would take approximately one light year (1016m) of lead to block half of them. Detection of neutrinos is therefore challenging, requiring large detection volumes or high intensity artificial neutrino beams.
All neutrinos observed to date have left-handed chirality.
There are three known types (flavours) of neutrinos: electron neutrino ?e, muon neutrino and tau neutrino , named after their partner leptons in the Standard Model (see table at right). The current best measurement of the number of neutrino types comes from observing the decay of the Z boson. This particle can decay into any light neutrino and its antineutrino, and the more types of light neutrinos available, the shorter the lifetime of the Z boson. Measurements of the Z lifetime have shown that the number of light neutrino types (with "light" meaning of less than half the Z mass) is 3. The correspondence between the six quarks in the Standard Model and the six leptons, among them the three neutrinos, suggests to physicists' intuition that there should be exactly three types of neutrino. However, actual proof that there are only three kinds of neutrinos remains an elusive goal of particle physics.
The possibility of sterile neutrinos relatively light neutrinos which do not participate in the weak interaction but which could be created through flavour oscillation (see below) is unaffected by these Z-boson-based measurements, and the existence of such particles is in fact hinted by experimental data from the LSND experiment. However the currently running MiniBooNE experiment suggested, until recently, that sterile neutrinos are not required to explain the experimental data, although the latest research into this area is on-going and anomalies in the MiniBooNE data may allow for exotic neutrino types, including sterile neutrinos.
Neutrinos are most often created or detected with a well defined flavour (electron, muon, tau). However, in a phenomenon known as neutrino flavour oscillation, neutrinos are able to oscillate between the three available flavors while they propagate through space. Specifically, this occurs because the neutrino flavor eigenstates are not the same as the neutrino mass eigenstates (simply called 1, 2, 3). This allows for a neutrino that was produced as an electron neutrino at a given location to have a calculable probability to be detected as either a muon or tau neutrino after it has traveled to another location. This quantum mechanical effect was first hinted by the discrepancy between the number of electron neutrinos detected from the sun's core failing to match the expected numbers, dubbed as the "solar neutrino problem". In the Standard Model the existence of flavor oscillations implies a non-zero neutrino mass, because the amount of mixing between neutrino flavors at a given time depends on the differences in their squared-masses (although it is not generally so, on the Standard Model mixing would be zero for massless neutrinos). Despite their massive nature, it is still possible that the neutrino and antineutrino are in fact the same particle, a hypothesis first proposed by the Italian physicist Ettore Majorana.