Skin Design:
Free Blogger Skins
Cosmologists also study:
* whether primordial black holes were formed in our universe, and what happened to them.
* the GZK cutoff for high-energy cosmic rays, and whether it signals a failure of special relativity at high energies
* the equivalence principle, and whether Einstein's general theory of relativity is the correct theory of gravitation, and if the fundamental laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe
If the universe is to be flat, there must be an additional component making up 71% (in addition to the 25% dark matter and 4% baryons) of the density of the universe. This is called dark energy. In order not to interfere with big bang nucleosynthesis and the cosmic microwave background, it must not cluster in haloes like baryons and dark matter. There is strong observational evidence for dark energy, as the total mass of the universe is known, since it is measured to be flat, but the amount of clustering matter is tightly measured, and is much less than this. The case for dark energy was strengthened in 1999, when measurements demonstrated that the expansion of the universe has begun to gradually accelerate.
However, apart from its density and its clustering properties, nothing is known about dark energy. Quantum field theory predicts a cosmological constant much like dark energy, but 120 orders of magnitude too large. Steven Weinberg and a number of string theorists (see string landscape) have used this as evidence for the anthropic principle, which suggests that the cosmological constant is so small because life (and thus physicists, to make observations) cannot exist in a universe with a large cosmological constant, but many people find this an unsatisfying explanation. Other possible explanations for dark energy include quintessence or a modification of gravity on the largest scales. The effect on cosmology of the dark energy that these models describe is given by the dark energy's equation of state, which varies depending upon the theory. The nature of dark energy is one of the most challenging problems in cosmology.
A better understanding of dark energy is likely to solve the problem of the ultimate fate of the universe. In the current cosmological epoch, the accelerated expansion due to dark energy is preventing structures larger than superclusters from forming. It is not known whether the acceleration will continue indefinitely, perhaps even increasing until a big rip, or whether it will eventually reverse.
Evidence from big bang nucleosynthesis, the cosmic microwave background and structure formation suggests that about 25% of the mass of the universe consists of non-baryonic dark matter, whereas only 4% consists of visible, baryonic matter. The gravitational effects of dark matter are well understood, as it behaves like cold, non-radiative dust which forms around haloes around galaxies. Dark matter has never been detected in the laboratory: the particle physics nature of dark matter is completely unknown. However, there are a number of candidates, such as a stable supersymmetric particle, a weakly interacting massive particle, an axion, and a massive compact halo object. Alternatives to the dark matter hypothesis include a modification of gravity at small accelerations (MOND) or an effect from brane cosmology.
The physics at the center of galaxies (see active galactic nuclei, supermassive black hole) may give some clues about the nature of dark matter.
Understanding the formation and evolution of the largest and earliest structures (ie, quasars, galaxies, clusters and superclusters) is one of the largest efforts in cosmology. Cosmologists study a model of hierarchical structure formation in which structures form from the bottom up, with smaller objects forming first, while the largest objects, such as superclusters, are still assembling. The most straightforward way to study structure in the universe is to survey the visible galaxies, in order to construct a three-dimensional picture of the galaxies in the universe and measure the matter power spectrum. This is the approach of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey.
An important tool for understanding structure formation is simulations, which cosmologists use to study the gravitational aggregation of matter in the universe, as it clusters into filaments, superclusters and voids. Most simulations contain only non-baryonic cold dark matter, which should suffice to understand the universe on the largest scales, as there is much more dark matter in the universe than visible, baryonic matter. More advanced simulations are starting to include baryons and study the formation of individual galaxies. Cosmologists study these simulations to see if they agree with the galaxy surveys, and to understand any discrepancy.
Other, complementary techniques will allow cosmologists to measure the distribution of matter in the distant universe and to probe reionization. These include:
* The Lyman alpha forest, which allows cosmologists to measure the distribution of neutral atomic hydrogen gas in the early universe, by measuring the absorption of light from distant quasars by the gas.
* The 21 centimeter absorption line of neutral atomic hydrogen also provides a sensitive test of cosmology
* Weak lensing, the distortion of a distant image by gravitational lensing due to dark matter.
These will help cosmologists settle the question of when the first quasars formed
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is the theory of the formation of the elements in the early universe. It finished when the universe was about three minutes old and its temperature fell enough that nuclear fusion ceased. Because the time in which big bang nucleosynthesis occurred was so short, only the very lightest elements were produced, unlike in stellar nucleosynthesis. Starting from hydrogen ions (protons), it principally produced deuterium, helium-4 and lithium. Other elements were produced in only trace abundances. While the basic theory of nucleosynthesis has been understood for decades (it was developed in 1948 by George Gamow, Ralph Asher Alpher and Robert Herman) it is an extremely sensitive probe of physics at the time of the big bang, as the theory of big bang nucleosynthesis connects the abundances of primordial light elements with the features of the early universe. Specifically, it can be used to test the equivalence principle, to probe dark matter and test neutrino physics. Some cosmologists have proposed that big bang nucleosynthesis suggests there is a fourth "sterile" species of neutrino.
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is the theory of the formation of the elements in the early universe. It finished when the universe was about three minutes old and its temperature fell enough that nuclear fusion ceased. Because the time in which big bang nucleosynthesis occurred was so short, only the very lightest elements were produced, unlike in stellar nucleosynthesis. Starting from hydrogen ions (protons), it principally produced deuterium, helium-4 and lithium. Other elements were produced in only trace abundances. While the basic theory of nucleosynthesis has been understood for decades (it was developed in 1948 by George Gamow, Ralph Asher Alpher and Robert Herman) it is an extremely sensitive probe of physics at the time of the big bang, as the theory of big bang nucleosynthesis connects the abundances of primordial light elements with the features of the early universe. Specifically, it can be used to test the equivalence principle, to probe dark matter and test neutrino physics. Some cosmologists have proposed that big bang nucleosynthesis suggests there is a fourth "sterile" species of neutrino.
While the early, hot universe appears to be well explained by the big bang from roughly 10-33 seconds onwards, there are several problems. One is that there is no compelling reason, using current particle physics, to expect the universe to be flat, homogeneous and isotropic (see the cosmological principle). Moreover, grand unified theories of particle physics suggest that there should be magnetic monopoles in the universe, which have not been found. These problems are resolved by a brief period of cosmic inflation, which drives the universe to flatness; smooths out anisotropies and inhomogeneities to the observed level; and exponentially dilutes the monopoles. The physical model behind cosmic inflation is extremely simple, however it has not yet been confirmed by particle physics, and there are difficult problems reconciling inflation and quantum field theory. Some cosmologists think that string theory and brane cosmology will provide an alternative to inflation.
Another major problem in cosmology is what has caused the universe to contain more particles than antiparticles. Cosmologists can use X-ray observations to deduce that the universe is not split into regions of matter and antimatter, but rather is predominantly made of matter. This problem is called the baryon asymmetry, and the theory to describe the resolution is called baryogenesis. The theory of baryogenesis was worked out by Andrei Sakharov in 1967, and requires a violation of the particle physics symmetry, called CP-symmetry, between matter and antimatter. Particle accelerators, however, measure too small a violation of CP-symmetry to account for the baryon asymmetry. Cosmologists and particle physicists are trying to find additional violations of the CP-symmetry in the early universe that might account for the baryon asymmetry.
Both the problems of baryogenesis and cosmic inflation of these problems are very closely related to particle physics, and their resolution might come from high energy theory and experiment, rather than through observations of the universe.
Observations suggest that the universe as we know it began around 13.7 billion years ago. Since then, the evolution of the universe has passed through three phases. The very early universe, which is still poorly understood, was the split second in which the universe was so hot that particles had energies higher than those currently accessible in particle accelerators on Earth. Therefore, while the basic features of this epoch have been worked out in the big bang theory, the details are largely based on educated guesses. Following this, in the early universe, the evolution of the universe proceeded according to known high energy physics. This is when the first protons, electrons and neutrons formed, then nuclei and finally atoms. With the formation of neutral hydrogen, the cosmic microwave background was emitted. Finally, the epoch of structure formation began, when matter first started to aggregate into the first stars and quasars, and ultimately galaxies, clusters of galaxies and superclusters formed. The future of the universe is not yet firmly known, but according to the ?CDM model it will continue expanding forever.
Particle physics, which deals with high energies, is extremely important in the behavior of the early universe, since it was so hot that the average energy density was very high. Because of this, scattering processes and decay of unstable particles are important in cosmology.
As a thumb rule, a scattering or a decay process is cosmologically important in a certain cosmological epoch if its relevant time scale is smaller or comparable to the time scale of the universe expansion, which is 1 / H with H being the Hubble constant at that time. This is roughly equal to the age of the universe at that time.
The equations of motion governing the universe as a whole are derived from general relativity with a small, positive cosmological constant. The solution is an expanding universe; due to this expansion the radiation and matter in the universe are cooled down and become diluted. At first the expansion is slowed down by gravitation due to the radiation and matter content of the universe. However, as these become diluted, the cosmological constant becomes more dominant and the expansion of the universe starts to accelerate rather than decelerate. In our universe this has already happened, billions of years ago.
Modern cosmology developed along tandem observational and theoretical tracks. In 1915, Albert Einstein developed his theory of general relativity. At the time, physicists were prejudiced to believe in a perfectly static universe without beginning or end. Einstein added a cosmological constant to his theory to try to force it to allow for a static universe with matter in it. The so-called Einstein universe is, however, unstable. It is bound to eventually start expanding or contracting. The cosmological solutions of general relativity were found by Alexander Friedmann, whose equations describe the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker universe, which may expand or contract.
In the 1910s, Vesto Slipher and later Carl Wilhelm Wirtz interpreted the red shift of spiral nebulae as a Doppler shift that indicated they were receding from Earth. However, it is notoriously difficult to determine the distance to astronomical objects: even if it is possible to measure their angular size it is usually impossible to know their actual size or luminosity. They did not realize that the nebulae were actually galaxies outside our own Milky Way, nor did they speculate about the cosmological implications. In 1927, the Belgian Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began with the "explosion" of a "primeval atom"—what was later called the big bang. In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. Hubble proved that the spiral nebulae were galaxies and measured their distances by observing Cepheid variable stars. He discovered a relationship between the redshift of a galaxy and its luminosity. He interpreted this as evidence that the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds (relative to the Earth) directly proportional to their distance. This fact is known as Hubble's law. The relationship between distance and speed, however, was accurately ascertained only relatively recently: Hubble was off by a factor of ten.
Given the cosmological principle, Hubble's law suggested that the universe was expanding. This idea allowed for two opposing possibilities. One was Lemaître's Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow. The other possibility was Fred Hoyle's steady state model in which new matter would be created as the galaxies moved away from each other. In this model, the universe is roughly the same at any point in time.
For a number of years the support for these theories was evenly divided. However, the observational evidence began to support the idea that the universe evolved from a hot dense state. Since the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1965 it has been regarded as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Before the late 1960s, many cosmologists thought the infinitely dense singularity at the starting time of Friedmann's cosmological model was a mathematical over-idealization, and that the universe was contracting before entering the hot dense state and starting to expand again. This is Richard Tolman's oscillatory universe. In the sixties, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose demonstrated that this idea was unworkable, and the singularity is an essential feature of Einstein's gravity. This led the majority of cosmologists to accept the Big Bang, in which the universe we observe began a finite time ago.
Light elements, primarily hydrogen and helium, were created in the Big Bang. These light elements were spread too fast and too thinly in the Big Bang process (see nucleosynthesis) to form the most stable medium-sized atomic nuclei, like iron and nickel. This fact allows for later energy release, as such intermediate-sized elements are formed in our era. The formation of such atoms powers the steady energy-releasing reactions in stars, and also contributes to sudden energy releases, such as in novae. Gravitational collapse of matter into black holes is also thought to power the most energetic processes, generally seen at the centers of galaxies (see quasars and in general active galaxies).
Cosmologists are still unable to explain all cosmological phenomena purely on the basis of known conventional forms of energy, for example those related to the accelerating expansion of the universe, and therefore invoke a yet unexplored form of energy called dark energy[1] to account for certain cosmological observations. One hypothesis is that dark energy is the energy of virtual particles (which mathematically must exist in vacuum due to the uncertainty principle).
There is no unambiguous way to define the total energy of the universe in the current best theory of gravity, general relativity. As a result it remains controversial whether one can meaningfully say that total energy is conserved in an expanding universe. For instance, each photon that travels through intergalactic space loses energy due to the redshift effect. This energy is not obviously transferred to any other system, so seems to be permanently lost. Nevertheless some cosmologists insist that energy is conserved in some sense.[2]
Thermodynamics of the universe is a field of study to explore which form of energy dominates the cosmos - relativistic particles which are referred to as radiation, or non-relativistic particles which are referred to as matter. The former are particles whose rest mass is zero or negligible compared to their energy, and therefore move at the speed of light or very close to it; the latter are particles whose kinetic energy is much lower than their rest mass and therefore move much slower than the speed of light.
As the universe expands, both matter and radiation in it become diluted. However, the universe also cools down, meaning that the average energy per particle is getting smaller with time. Therefore the radiation becomes weaker, and dilutes faster than matter. Thus with the expansion of the universe radiation becomes less dominant than matter. In the very early universe radiation dictates the rate of deceleration of the universe's expansion, and the universe is said to be radiation dominated. At later times, when the average energy per photon is roughly 10 eV and lower, matter dictates the rate of deceleration and the universe is said to be matter dominated. The intermediate case is not treated well analytically. As the expansion of the universe continues, matter dilutes even further and the cosmological constant becomes dominant, leading to an acceleration in the universe's expansion.
Physical cosmology, as a branch of astronomy, is the study of the large-scale structure of the universe and is concerned with fundamental questions about its formation and evolution. Cosmology involves itself with studying the motions of the celestial bodies and the first cause. For most of human history, it has been a branch of metaphysics. Cosmology as a science originates with the Copernican principle, which implies that celestial bodies obey identical physical laws to those on earth, and Newtonian mechanics, which first allowed us to understand those motions. This is now called celestial mechanics. Physical cosmology, as it is now understood, began with the twentieth century development of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity and better astronomical observations of extremely distant objects.
The twentieth century advances made it possible to speculate about the origins of the universe and allowed scientists to establish the Big Bang as the leading cosmological theory, which most cosmologists now accept as the basis for their theory and observations. Vanishingly few researchers still advocate any of a handful of alternative cosmologies, but professional cosmologists generally agree that the big bang best explains observations. Physical cosmology, roughly speaking, deals with the very largest objects in the universe (galaxies, clusters and superclusters), the very earliest distinct objects to form (quasars) and the very early universe, when it was nearly homogeneous (hot big bang, cosmic inflation and the cosmic microwave background radiation).
Cosmology is unusual in physics for drawing heavily on the work of particle physicists' experiments, and research into phenomenology and even string theory; from astrophysicists; from general relativity research; and from plasma physics. Thus, cosmology unites the physics of the largest structures in the universe to the physics of the smallest structures in the universe.
Because Astrobiology relies mostly on scientific extrapolations, over solid, factual evidence, the authenticity of astrobiology as a science can be questioned. Astrobiology is more theoretical than scientific. While other branches of science remain heavily theoretical, there is a greater degree of mathematical, pragmatic and/or observational evidence supporting the theories. For example, while science cannot prove string theory, there is a great deal of mathematical computation which implies the existence of strings of energy. Such evidence does not exist with Astrobiology, save for an asteroid segment which is believed to have fossilized Martian microbes. [55] the University of Glamorgan, UK, started just such a degree in 2006.[56]
Characterization of non-Earth life is extraordinarily unsettled; hypotheses and predictions as to its existence and origin vary wildly; true astrobiological experiments (with modest exceptions such as the study of the ALH84001 meteorite and searches for indications of life in Earthshine) simply cannot occur at present. Finally, astrobiology has been criticized for being unimaginative in the tacit assumption that Earth-like life presents the most likely template for life elsewhere. For example, Michael Crow, the president of Arizona State University, said the following:[57]
For the last 3,000 years of our science, we really haven't gotten around to the notion that there might be something going on somewhere other than in this small, rural village [called Earth], in this isolated corner of our own galaxy or the Universe itself.
Biologist Jack Cohen and mathematician Ian Stewart, amongst others, consider xenobiology separate from astrobiology for this reason. Cohen and Stewart stipulate that astrobiology is the search for earth-like life outside of our solar system and say that xenobiologists are concerned with the possibilities open to us once we consider that life need not be carbon-based or oxygen-breathing, so long as it has the defining characteristics of life. See carbon chauvinism.
As with all space exploration, there is the classic argument that there is still a lot more scientists have to learn about Earth. Critics of astrobiology may prefer that federal funding remain dedicated towards searching for unknown species in our own terrestrial biosphere. They feel that earth is the most plausible and practical region to search for and study life.
In the United States, President George W. Bush's Fiscal Year 2007 NASA Budget cut funding for astrobiological research by 50 percent.[53] In the 2007 plan, $89 million will be cut from astrobiological research, partly because of a $2.3 billion error in the Space Shuttle Budget.[54] In a letter to the astrobiological community in the United States, SETI chief executive Thomas Pierson and former NAI director Baruch Blumberg said the following: "Action is needed immediately to prevent the slowing down, or even cessation, of astrobiological research".[54] Hiroshi Ohmoto, the director of the Astrobiology Research Center in Penn State, said the following in response to the budget cuts to astrobiology:[54]
Astrobiology is the reason we go into space, to answer fundamental questions about the origins of life and how it evolved, and whether there are other places where organisms are living. It is the whole justification for future space missions.
The three most likely candidates for life in the solar system (besides Earth) are the planet Mars, the Jovian moon Europa, and Saturn's moon, Titan.[38][39][40][41][42] This speculation is primarily based on the fact that (in the case of Mars and Europa) the planetary bodies may have liquid water, a molecule essential for life as we know it for its use as a solvent in cells.[43] Water on Mars is found in its polar ice caps, and newly-carved gullies recently observed on Mars suggest that liquid water may exist, at least transiently, on the planet's surface,[44] [45] and possibly in subsurface environments such as hydrothermal springs as well. At the Martian temperatures and pressures, such liquid water is likely to be highly saline.[46] As for Europa, liquid water likely exists beneath the moon's icy outer crust.[47] This water may be warmed to a liquid state by volcanic vents on the ocean floor (an especially intriguing theory considering the various types of extremophiles that live near Earth's volcanic vents), but the primary source of heat is probably tidal heating.[48][49]
Another planetary body that could potentially sustain extraterrestrial life is Saturn's largest moon, Titan.[42] Titan has been described as having conditions similar to those of early Earth; according to bbc.co.uk, "The atmosphere on Titan could be identical to that of the early Earth when life began".[50] On Titan, scientists have discovered the first liquid lakes outside of Earth, but they are made of ethane and methane, not water.[51] Additionally, Saturn's moon Enceladus may have an ocean below its icy surface.[52]
The fossil record provides the oldest known evidence for life on Earth.[37] By examining this evidence, geologists are able to better understand the types of organisms that arose on the early Earth. Some regions on Earth, such as the Pilbara in Western Australia are also considered to be geological analogs to regions of Mars and as such might be able to provide clues to possible Martian life.
Extremophiles (organisms able to survive in extreme environments) are a core research element for astrobiologists. Such organisms include biota able to survive kilometers below the ocean's surface near hydrothermal vents and microbes that thrive in highly acidic environments.[33] Characterization of these organisms—their environments and their evolutionary pathways—is considered a crucial component to understanding how life might evolve elsewhere in the universe. Recently, a number of astrobiologists have teamed up with marine biologists and geologists to search for extremophiles and other organisms living around hydrothermal vents on the floors of our own oceans. Scientists hope to use their findings to help them create hypotheses on whether life could potentially exist on certain moons in our own solar system, such as Europa.[34][35][36]
The origin of life, as distinct from the evolution of life, is another ongoing field of research. Oparin and Haldane postulated that the conditions on the early Earth were conducive to the formation of organic compounds from inorganic precursors and thus to the formation of many of the chemicals common to all forms of life we see today. The study of this process, known as prebiotic chemistry, has made some progress but it is still unclear whether or not life could have formed in such a manner on Earth. The alternative theory of panspermia is that the first elements of life may have formed on another planet with even more favourable conditions (or even in interstellar space, asteroids, etc.), and then have been carried over to Earth by a variety of means.
Most astronomy-related astrobiological research falls into the category of extrasolar planet (exoplanet) detection, the hypothesis being that if life arose on Earth then it could also arise on other planets with similar characteristics. To that end, a number of instruments designed to detect 'Earth-like' exoplanets are under development, most notably NASA's Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) and ESA's Darwin programs.[27] Additionally, NASA plans to launch the Kepler mission in 2008, and the French Space Agency has already launched the COROT space mission.[28][29] There have also been several less ambitious ground-based efforts are also underway (see exoplanet).
The goal of these missions is not only to detect Earth-sized planets but also to directly detect light from the planet so that it may be studied spectroscopically. By examining planetary spectra it will be possible to determine the basic composition of an extrasolar planet's atmosphere and/or surface; given this knowledge, it may be possible to assess the likelihood of life being found on that planet. A NASA research group, the Virtual Planet Laboratory[1] (VPL), is using computer modelling to generate a wide variety of 'virtual' planets to see what they would look like if viewed by TPF or Darwin. It is hoped that once these missions come online, their spectra can be cross-checked with these 'virtual' planetary spectra for features that might indicate the presence of life. The photometry (astronomy) temporal variability of extrasolar planets may also provide clues to their surface and atmospheric properties. One mission was planned to the Jupiter moon, Europa, before recent cuts by NASA. This mission would have searched for life in the ocean of this moon.
An estimate for the number of planets with (intelligent) extraterrestrial life can be gleaned from the Drake equation, essentially an equation expressing the probability of intelligent life as the product of factors such as the fraction of planets that might be habitable and the fraction of planets on which life might arise:[30]
N = R^{*} ~ \times ~ f_{p} ~ \times ~ n_{e} ~ \times ~ f_{l} ~ \times ~ f_{i} ~ \times ~ f_{c} ~ \times ~ L
However, whilst the rationale behind the equation is sound, it is unlikely that the equation will be constrained to reasonable error limits any time soon. The first term, Number of Stars, is generally constrained within a few orders of magnitude. The second and third terms, Stars with Planets and Planets with Habitable Conditions, are being evaluated for the Sun's neighbourhood. Another associated topic is the Fermi paradox, which suggests that if intelligent life is common in the universe then there should be obvious signs of it. This is the purpose of projects like SETI, which tries to detect signs of radio transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations.
Another active research area in astrobiology is solar system formation. It has been suggested that the peculiarities of our solar system (for example, the presence of Jupiter as a protective 'shield' or the planetary collision which created the Moon) may have greatly increased the probability of intelligent life arising on our planet.[31][32] No firm conclusions have been reached so far.
When looking for life on other planets, some simplifying assumptions are useful to reduce the size of the task of astrobiologists. One is to assume that the vast majority of life-forms in our galaxy are based on carbon chemistries, as are all life-forms on Earth.[22] While it is possible that non carbon-based life exists, carbon is well known for the unusually wide variety of molecules that can be formed around it. However, it should be noted that astrobiology concerns itself with an interpretation of existing scientific data; that is, given more detailed and reliable data from other parts of the universe (perhaps obtainable only by physical space exploration) the roots of astrobiology itself--biology, physics, chemistry--may have their theoretical bases challenged. Much speculation is entertained in the field to give context, but astrobiology concerns itself primarily with hypotheses that fit firmly into existing theories.
The presence of liquid water is also a useful assumption, as it is a common molecule and provides an excellent environment for the formation of complicated carbon-based molecules that could eventually lead to the emergence of life.[23] Some researchers posit environments of ammonia, or more likely water-ammonia mixtures.[24] These environments are considered suitable for carbon or noncarbon life, while opening more temperature ranges (and thus worlds) for life.
A third assumption is to focus on Sun-like stars. This comes from the idea of planetary habitability.[25] Very big stars have relatively short lifetimes, meaning that life would not likely have time to evolve on planets orbiting them. Very small stars provide so little heat and warmth that only planets in very close orbits around them would not be frozen solid, and in such close orbits these planets would be tidally "locked" to the star.[26] Without a thick atmosphere, one side of the planet would be perpetually baked and the other perpetually frozen. In 2005, the question was brought back to the attention of the scientific community, as the long lifetimes of red dwarfs could allow some biology on planets with thick atmospheres. This is significant, as red dwarfs are extremely common.
About 10% of the stars in our galaxy are Sun-like, and there are about a thousand such stars within 100 light-years of our Sun. These stars would be useful primary targets for interstellar listening. Since Earth is the only planet known to contain life, there is no way to know if any of the simplifying assumptions are correct.
In the book Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, Peter Ward, a geologist and paleontologist, and Donald Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist, propose that life as we know it is rare in the universe.[19][20] They suggest that microbial life, however, is probably common in the universe, because of recently discovered extremophiles.[21] The book argues that the chances of all the conditions that occurred to create the Earth occurring again would be rare; thus intelligent life would be rare. One important factor focused on in the book is planetary habitability (see section below).
Peter Ward, one of the authors, said the following:[1]
How do we define life as we do know it? Life on Earth has DNA, a specific genetic code. It also uses only 20, and the same 20, amino acids. Life is always cellular according to some people, but I think not. I personally define a virus as alive. As for other life, what could it be? Could there be non-DNA life? If such life does exist, what does chemistry permit? Certainly chemistry permits certain types of life on our planet and others not. But once we move out in the solar system, especially in the vast realm of cold, chemistry changes. There could be different information systems, different solvents, different membranes. And as we go from hotter to colder, when we go to Venus, out to Mars, to Europa, and to Titan, we really should expect radically different chemistries.
In the book Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, Peter Ward, a geologist and paleontologist, and Donald Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist, propose that life as we know it is rare in the universe.[19][20] They suggest that microbial life, however, is probably common in the universe, because of recently discovered extremophiles.[21] The book argues that the chances of all the conditions that occurred to create the Earth occurring again would be rare; thus intelligent life would be rare. One important factor focused on in the book is planetary habitability (see section below).
Peter Ward, one of the authors, said the following:[1]
How do we define life as we do know it? Life on Earth has DNA, a specific genetic code. It also uses only 20, and the same 20, amino acids. Life is always cellular according to some people, but I think not. I personally define a virus as alive. As for other life, what could it be? Could there be non-DNA life? If such life does exist, what does chemistry permit? Certainly chemistry permits certain types of life on our planet and others not. But once we move out in the solar system, especially in the vast realm of cold, chemistry changes. There could be different information systems, different solvents, different membranes. And as we go from hotter to colder, when we go to Venus, out to Mars, to Europa, and to Titan, we really should expect radically different chemistries.
Giant elliptical galaxies are probably formed by mergers on a grander scale. In the Local Group, the Milky Way and M31 (the Andromeda Galaxy) are gravitationally bound, and currently approaching each other at high speed. Since we cannot determine the speed of M31 perpendicular to the line from us to it, we do not know if it will collide with the Milky Way. If the two galaxies do meet they will pass through each other, with gravity distorting both galaxies severely and ejecting some gas, dust and stars into intergalactic space. They will travel apart, slow down, and then again be drawn towards each other, and again collide. Eventually both galaxies will have merged completely, streams of gas and dust will be flying through the space near the newly formed giant elliptical galaxy. Out of the gas ejected from the merger, new globular clusters and maybe even new dwarf galaxies may form and become the halo of the elliptical. The globulars from both M31 and the Milky Way will also form part of the halo; globulars are so tightly held together that they are largely immune to large scale galactic interactions. On the stellar scale, little will happen. If anybody is around to watch the merger, it will be a slow, but magnificent event, with the sight of a distorted M31 spectacularly spanning the entire sky. M31 is actually already distorted: the edges are warped. This is probably because of interactions with its own galactic companions, as well as possible mergers with dwarf spheroidal galaxies in the recent past - the remnants of which are still visible in the disk populations.
In our epoch, large concentrations of galaxies (clusters and superclusters) are still assembling. This "bottom-up" picture is referred to as hierarchical structure formation (similar to the SZ picture of galaxy formation, on a larger scale).
While we have learned a great deal about ours and other galaxies, the most fundamental questions about formation and evolution remain only tentatively answered.
The earliest modern theory of the formation of our galaxy (known by astronomers as ELS, after the initials of the authors of that paper, Olin Eggen, Donald Lynden-Bell, and Allan Sandage[3]) describes a single (relatively) rapid monolithic collapse, with the halo forming first, followed by the disk. Another view published in 1978 (known as SZ for its authors, Leonard Searle and Robert Zinn[4]) describes a more gradual process, with smaller units collapsing first, then later merging to form the larger components. An even more recent idea is that significant portions of the stellar halo could be stellar debris from destroyed dwarf galaxies and globular clusters that once orbited the Milky Way. The halo would then be a "newer" component made of "recycled" old parts.
In recent years, a great deal of focus has been put on understanding merger events in the evolution of galaxies. Rapid technological progress in computers have allowed much better simulations of galaxies, and improved observational technologies have provided much more data about distant galaxies undergoing merger events. After the discovery in 1994 that our own Milky Way has a satellite galaxy (the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy, or SagDEG) which is currently gradually being ripped up and "eaten" by the Milky Way, it is thought these kinds of events may be quite common in the evolution of large galaxies. The Magellanic Clouds are satellite galaxies of the Milky Way that will almost certainly share the same fate as the SagDEG. A merger with a fairly large satellite galaxy could explain why M31 (the Andromeda Galaxy) appears to have a double core.
The SagDEG is orbiting our galaxy at almost a right angle to the disk. It is currently passing through the disk; stars are being stripped off of it with each pass and joining the halo of our galaxy. Eventually, only the core of SagDEG will exist. Although it will have the same mass as a large globular cluster like Omega Centauri and G1, it will appear rather different, as it has far lower surface density due to the presence of substantial amounts of dark matter, while globular clusters appear, mysteriously, to contain very little dark matter.
Further examples of satellite dwarf galaxies that are in the process of merging with the Milky Way are the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy, discovered in 2003 and thought to be responsible for the Monoceros Ring, and the Virgo Stellar Stream, discovered in 2005.
In astrophysics, the questions of galaxy formation and evolution are:
* How, from a homogeneous universe, did we obtain the very heterogeneous one we live in?
* How did galaxies form?
* How do galaxies change over time?
After the Big Bang, the universe had a period when it was remarkably homogeneous, as can be observed in the Cosmic Microwave Background, the fluctuations of which are less than one part in one hundred thousand.
The most accepted view today is that all the structure we observe today was formed as a consequence of the growth of primordial fluctuations. The primordial fluctuations caused gas to be attracted to areas of denser material, hierarchically forming superclusters, clusters, galaxies, star clusters and stars. One consequence of this model is that the location of galaxies indicates areas of higher density of the early universe. Hence the distribution of galaxies is closely related to the physics of the early universe.
The observed components of galaxies (including our own Milky Way) that must be explained in, or at least not be at odds with, a theory of galactic evolution, include:
* the stellar disk is quite thin, dense, and rotates
* the stellar halo is very large, sparse, and does not rotate (or has perhaps even a slight retrograde rotation), with no apparent substructure
* halo stars are typically much older and have much lower metallicities than disk stars (there is a correlation, but there is no absolute connection between these data)
* some astronomers have identified an intermediate population of stars, variously called the "metal weak thick disk", the "intermediate population II", et al. If these are indeed a distinct population, they would be described as metal-poor (but not as poor as the halo stars), old (but not as old as the halo stars), and orbiting very near the disk, in a sort of "puffed-up", thicker disk shape.
* globular clusters are typically old and metal-poor as well, but there are a few which are not nearly as metal-poor as most, and/or have some younger stars. Some stars in globular clusters appear to be as old as the universe itself (by entirely different measurement and analysis methods)!
* in each globular cluster, all the stars were born at virtually the same time (except for a few globulars that show multiple epochs of star formation)
* globular clusters with smaller orbits (closer to the galactic center) have orbits which are somewhat flatter (less inclined to the disk), and less eccentric (more circular), while those further out have orbits in all inclinations, and tend to be more eccentric.
* High Velocity Clouds, clouds of neutral hydrogen are "raining" down on the galaxy, and presumably have been from the beginning (these would be the necessary source of a gas disk from which the disk stars formed).
On the 11th July 2007, using the 10 metre Keck II telescope on Mauna Kea, Richard Ellis of the California Institute of Technology at Pasedena and his team found six star forming galaxies about 13.2 billion light years away and therefore created when the universe was only 500 million years old [1].
Recent research as a part of the Galactic Zoo project suggests that there is an unexplained parity violation, with a greater proportion of the galaxies rotating in an anticlockwise direction when seen from the Earth[2].
The formation of galaxies is still one of the most active research areas in astrophysics; and, to some extent, this is also true for galaxy evolution. Some ideas, however, have gained wide acceptance.
Galaxy formation is presently believed to proceed directly from structure formation theories, formed as a result of tiny quantum fluctuations in the wake of the Big Bang. N-body simulations have also been able to predict the types of structures, morphologies, and distribution of galaxies which we observe today both in our present universe, and - by examining distant galaxies - in the early universe.
A standard set of subcategories is used by astronomical journals to split up the subject of Galactic Astronomy:
1. abundances - the study of the location of elements heavier than helium
2. bulge - the study of the bulge around the center of the Milky Way
3. center - the study of the central region of the Milky Way
4. disk - the study of the Milky Way disk (the plane upon which most galactic objects are aligned)
5. evolution - the evolution of the Milky Way
6. formation - the formation of the Milky Way
7. fundamental parameters - the fundamental parameters of the Milky Way (mass, size etc)
8. globular clusters - globular clusters within the Milky Way
9. halo - the large halo around the Milky Way
10. kinematics and dynamics - the motions of stars and clusters
11. nucleus - the region around the black hole at the center of the Milky Way (Sagittarius A*)
12. open clusters and associations - open clusters and associations of stars
13. solar neighbourhood - nearby stars
14. stellar content - numbers and types of stars in the Milky Way
15. structure - the structure (spiral arms etc)
Galactic astronomy is the study of our own Milky Way galaxy and all its contents. This is in contrast to extragalactic astronomy, which is the study of everything outside our galaxy, including all other galaxies.
Galactic astronomy should not be confused with galaxy formation and evolution, which is the general study of galaxies, their formation, structure, components, dynamics, interactions, and the range of forms they take.
Our own Milky Way galaxy, where our solar system belongs, is in many ways the best studied galaxy, although important parts of it are obscured from view in visible wavelengths by regions of Cosmic dust. The development of radio astronomy, infrared astronomy and submillimeter astronomy in the 20th Century allowed the gas and dust of the Milky Way to be mapped for the first time.
RSS Feed (xml)