You are on page 1of 9

11,874 views | May 30, 2017, 10:00am

Is There Really A Cosmological


Constant? Or Is Dark Energy
Changing With Time?
Starts With A Bang Contributor
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Science

POST WRITTEN BY

Sabine Hossenfelder
Sabine is a theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.
She also freelance writes about science.

The history of the Universe tells the story of a race between gravitation and expansion, until about six billion
years ago, when dark energy becomes important.

According to physics, the universe and everything in it can be explained by just a


handful of equations. They’re difficult equations, all right, but their simplest
feature is also the most mysterious one. The equations contain a few dozen
parameters that are – for all we presently know – unchanging, and yet these
numbers determine everything about the world we inhabit. Physicists have spent
much brainpower questioning where these numbers come from, whether they
could have taken any other values than the ones we observe, and whether their
exploring their origin is even within the realm of science.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT

One of the key questions when it comes to these parameters is whether they are
really constant, or whether they are time-dependent. If they vary, then their time-
dependence would have to be determined by yet another equation, which would
change the entire story that we currently tell about our Universe. If even one of
the fundamental constants isn't truly a constant, it would open the door to an
entirely new subfield of physics.

Representative of the energy inherent to space itself, the cosmological constant (or dark energy) is thought to
arise from the zero-point energy of empty space. It is assumed to be a constant, but that's not necessarily
true. SLAC NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LABORATORY

Perhaps the best-known parameter of all is the cosmological constant: the zero-
point energy of empty space itself. It is what causes the universe’s expansion to
accelerate. The cosmological constant is usually assumed to be, well, a constant.
If it isn’t, it can be more generally referred to as ‘dark energy.’ If our current
theories for the cosmos are correct, our universe will expand forever into a cold
and dark future.

The value of the cosmological constant is infamously the worst prediction ever
made using quantum field theory; the math says it should be 120 orders of
magnitude larger than what we observe. But that the cosmological constant has a
small, non-zero value that causes the Universe to accelerate is extremely well
established by measurement. The evidence is so thoroughly robust that a Nobel
Prize was awarded for its discovery in 2011.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

The construction of the cosmic distance ladder involves going from our Solar System to the stars to nearby
galaxies to distant ones. Each “step” carries along its own uncertainties; the Type Ia supernova step is the
one that resulted in the 2011 Nobel Prize.

Exactly what the value of the cosmological constant is, though, is controversial.
There are different ways to measure the cosmological constant, and physicists
have known for a few years that the different measurements give different results.
This tension in the data is difficult to explain, and it has so-far remained
unresolved.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT

One way to determine the cosmological constant is by using the cosmic


microwave background (CMB). The small temperature fluctuations between
different locations and scales in the CMB encode density variations in the early
universe and the subsequent changes in the radiation streaming from those
locations. From fitting the CMB's power spectrum with the parameters that
determine the expansion of the universe, physicists get a value for the
cosmological constant. The most accurate of all such measurements is currently
the data from the Planck satellite.

Three different types of measurements, distant stars and galaxies, the large scale structure of the Universe,
and the fluctuations in the CMB, tell us the expansion history of the Universe.

Another way to determine the cosmological constant is to deduce the expansion


of the universe from the redshift of the light from distant sources. This is the way
the Nobel-Prize winners made their original discoveries in the late 1990s, and the
precision of this method has since been improved. In addition, there are now
multiple ways to make this measurement, where the results are all in general
agreement with one another.

But these two ways to determine the cosmological constant give results that differ
with a statistical significance of 3.4-σ. That’s a probability of less than one in
thousand to be due to random data fluctuations, but admittedly not strong
enough to rule out statistical variations. Multiple explanations for this have since
been proposed. One possibility is that it’s a systematic error in the measurement,
most likely in the CMB measurement from the Planck mission. There are reasons
to be skeptical, because the tension goes away when the finer structures (the large
multipole moments) of the data are omitted. In addition, incorrect foreground
subtractions may be continuing to skew the data, as they did in the infamous
BICEP2 announcement. For many astrophysicists, these are indicators that
something’s amiss either with the Planck measurement or the data analysis.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT

One way of measuring the Universe's expansion history involves going all the way back to the first light we
can see, when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. The other ways don't go backwards nearly as far, but
also have a lesser potential to be contaminated by systematic errors. EUROPEAN SOUTHERN OBSERVATORY

But maybe it’s a real effect after all. In this case, several modifications of the
standard cosmological model have been put forward. They range from additional
neutrinos to massive gravitons to actual, bona fide changes in the cosmological
constant.

The idea hat the cosmological constant changes from one place to the next is not
an appealing option because this tends to screw up the CMB spectrum too much.
But currently, the most popular explanation for the data tension in the literature
seems to be a time-varying cosmological constant.
The different ways dark energy could evolve into the future. It's assumed it will remain constant but if it
increases in strength (into a Big Rip) or reverses sign (leading to a Big Crunch), other fates are possible.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT

A group of researchers from Spain, for example, claims that they have a stunning
4.1-σ preference for a time-dependent cosmological constant over an actually
constant one. This claim seems to have been widely ignored, and indeed one
should be cautious. They test for a very specific time-dependence, and their
statistical analysis does not account for other parameterizations that might
instead be tried. (The theoretical physicist’s variant of post-selection bias.)
Moreover, they fit their model not only to the two above mentioned datasets, but
to a whole bunch of others at the same time. This makes it hard to tell why their
model seems to work better. A couple of cosmologists who I asked about this
remarkable result and why it has been ignored complained that the Spanish
group's method of data analysis is non-transparent.
Any configuration of background points of light -- stars, galaxies or clusters -- will be distorted due to the
effects of foreground mass via weak gravitational lensing. Even with random shape noise, the signature is
unmistakeable.

Be that as it may, just when I put the Spaniards’ paper away, I saw another paper
that supported their claim with an entirely independent study based on weak
gravitational lensing. Weak gravitational lensing happens when a foreground
galaxy distorts the image shapes of more distant, background galaxies. The
qualifier ‘weak’ sets this effect apart from strong lensing, which is caused by
massive nearby objects – such as black holes – and deforms point-like sources to
arcs, rings, and multiple images. Weak gravitational lensing, on the other hand, is
not as easily recognizable and must be inferred from the statistical distribution of
the ellipticities of galaxies.

The Kilo Degree Survey (KiDS) has gathered and analyzed weak lensing data from
about 15 million distant galaxies. While their measurements are not sensitive to
the expansion of the universe, they are sensitive to the density of dark energy,
which affects the way light travels from the galaxies towards us. This density is
encoded in a cosmological parameter imaginatively named σ_8, which measures
the amplitude of the matter power spectrum on scales of 8 Mpc/h, where h is
related to the Hubble expansion rate. Their data, too, is in conflict with the CMB
data from the Planck satellite.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT

The overlay in the lower left hand corner represents the distortion of background images due to gravitational
lensing expected from the dark matter 'haloes' of the foreground galaxies, indicated by red ellipses. The blue
polarization "sticks" indicate the distortion. This reconstruction accounts for both shear and weak lensing in
the Hubble Deep field.

The members of the KiDS collaboration have tried out which changes to the
cosmological standard model work best to ease the tension in the data.
Intriguingly, it turns out that ahead of all explanations, the one that works best
has the cosmological constant changing with time. The change is such that the
effects of accelerated expansion are becoming more pronounced, not less.
In summary, it seems increasingly unlikely the tension in the cosmological data is
due to chance. Cosmologists are justifiably cautious, and most of them bet on a
systematic problem with either the Planck data or, alternatively, with the
calibration of the cosmic distance ladder. However, if these measurements
receive independent confirmation, the next best bet is on time-dependent dark
energy. It won't make our future any brighter, though. Even if dark energy
changes with time, all indications point towards the universe continuing
to expand, forever, into cold darkness.

Purchase our books, Treknology & Beyond the Galaxy, follow us on Twitter,
Facebook, Google+, Tumblr, and support Starts With A Bang on Patreon.

Starts With A Bang Contributor

Starts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of what we know about the Universe as
well as how we know it, with a focus on physics, astronomy, and the scientific story that the
Universe tells us about itself. Written by Ph.D. scientists and edited/created by astro...
Read More

Starts With A Bang Contributor Group

Starts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of what we know about the Universe as
well as how we know it, with a focus on physics, astronomy, and the scientific story that the
Universe tells us about itself. Written by Ph.D. scientists and edited/created by astro...
Read More

You might also like