3 Observational Tests

It has been suspected for some time now that there are good reasons to think that a cosmology with an appreciable cosmological constant is the best fit to what we know about the universe [1882481487995147151181245]. However, it is only very recently that the observational case has tightened up considerably, to the extent that, as the year 2000 dawns, more experts than not believe that there really is a positive vacuum energy exerting a measurable effect on the evolution of the universe. In this section I review the major approaches which have led to this shift.

3.1 Type Ia supernovae

The most direct and theory-independent way to measure the cosmological constant would be to actually determine the value of the scale factor as a function of time. Unfortunately, the appearance of Ωk in formulae such as (42View Equation) renders this difficult. Nevertheless, with sufficiently precise information about the dependence of a distance measure on redshift we can disentangle the effects of spatial curvature, matter, and vacuum energy, and methods along these lines have been popular ways to try to constrain the cosmological constant.

Astronomers measure distance in terms of the “distance modulus” m − M, where m is the apparent magnitude of the source and M its absolute magnitude. The distance modulus is related to the luminosity distance via

m − M = 5 log10[dL(Mpc )] + 25. (47 )
Of course, it is easy to measure the apparent magnitude, but notoriously difficult to infer the absolute magnitude of a distant object. Methods to estimate the relative absolute luminosities of various kinds of objects (such as galaxies with certain characteristics) have been pursued, but most have been plagued by unknown evolutionary effects or simply large random errors [221].

Recently, significant progress has been made by using Type Ia supernovae as “standardizable candles”. Supernovae are rare – perhaps a few per century in a Milky-Way-sized galaxy – but modern telescopes allow observers to probe very deeply into small regions of the sky, covering a very large number of galaxies in a single observing run. Supernovae are also bright, and Type Ia’s in particular all seem to be of nearly uniform intrinsic luminosity (absolute magnitude M ∼ − 19.5, typically comparable to the brightness of the entire host galaxy in which they appear) [36]. They can therefore be detected at high redshifts (z ∼ 1), allowing in principle a good handle on cosmological effects [236108].

The fact that all SNe Ia are of similar intrinsic luminosities fits well with our understanding of these events as explosions which occur when a white dwarf, onto which mass is gradually accreting from a companion star, crosses the Chandrasekhar limit and explodes. (It should be noted that our understanding of supernova explosions is in a state of development, and theoretical models are not yet able to accurately reproduce all of the important features of the observed events. See [274114121] for some recent work.) The Chandrasekhar limit is a nearly-universal quantity, so it is not a surprise that the resulting explosions are of nearly-constant luminosity. However, there is still a scatter of approximately 40% in the peak brightness observed in nearby supernovae, which can presumably be traced to differences in the composition of the white dwarf atmospheres. Even if we could collect enough data that statistical errors could be reduced to a minimum, the existence of such an uncertainty would cast doubt on any attempts to study cosmology using SNe Ia as standard candles.

View Image

Figure 3: Hubble diagram (distance modulus vs. redshift) from the High-Z Supernova Team [212Jump To The Next Citation Point]. The lines represent predictions from the cosmological models with the specified parameters. The lower plot indicates the difference between observed distance modulus and that predicted in an open-universe model.

Fortunately, the observed differences in peak luminosities of SNe Ia are very closely correlated with observed differences in the shapes of their light curves: Dimmer SNe decline more rapidly after maximum brightness, while brighter SNe decline more slowly [200214115]. There is thus a one-parameter family of events, and measuring the behavior of the light curve along with the apparent luminosity allows us to largely correct for the intrinsic differences in brightness, reducing the scatter from 40% to less than 15% – sufficient precision to distinguish between cosmological models. (It seems likely that the single parameter can be traced to the amount of 56Ni produced in the supernova explosion; more nickel implies both a higher peak luminosity and a higher temperature and thus opacity, leading to a slower decline. It would be an exaggeration, however, to claim that this behavior is well-understood theoretically.)

View Image

Figure 4: Hubble diagram from the Supernova Cosmology Project [197Jump To The Next Citation Point]. The bottom plot shows the number of standard deviations of each point from the best-fit curve.

Following pioneering work reported in [180], two independent groups have undertaken searches for distant supernovae in order to measure cosmological parameters. Figure 3View Image shows the results for m − M vs. z for the High-Z Supernova Team [102223Jump To The Next Citation Point212Jump To The Next Citation Point101Jump To The Next Citation Point], and Figure 4View Image shows the equivalent results for the Supernova Cosmology Project [195194197Jump To The Next Citation Point]. Under the assumption that the energy density of the universe is dominated by matter and vacuum components, these data can be converted into limits on ΩM and ΩΛ, as shown in Figures 5View Image and 6View Image.

View Image

Figure 5: Constraints in the ΩMΩ Λ plane from the High-Z Supernova Team [212Jump To The Next Citation Point].

It is clear that the confidence intervals in the ΩMΩΛ plane are consistent for the two groups, with somewhat tighter constraints obtained by the Supernova Cosmology Project, who have more data points. The surprising result is that both teams favor a positive cosmological constant, and strongly rule out the traditional (ΩM, Ω Λ) = (1,0) favorite universe. They are even inconsistent with an open universe with zero cosmological constant, given what we know about the matter density of the universe (see below).

Given the significance of these results, it is natural to ask what level of confidence we should have in them. There are a number of potential sources of systematic error which have been considered by the two teams; see the original papers [223Jump To The Next Citation Point212Jump To The Next Citation Point197Jump To The Next Citation Point] for a thorough discussion. The two most worrisome possibilities are intrinsic differences between Type Ia supernovae at high and low redshifts [75Jump To The Next Citation Point213Jump To The Next Citation Point], and possible extinction via intergalactic dust [2Jump To The Next Citation Point3Jump To The Next Citation Point4Jump To The Next Citation Point226Jump To The Next Citation Point241Jump To The Next Citation Point]. (There is also the fact that intervening weak lensing can change the distance-magnitude relation, but this seems to be a small effect in realistic universes [123143].) Both effects have been carefully considered, and are thought to be unimportant, although a better understanding will be necessary to draw firm conclusions. Here, I will briefly mention some of the relevant issues.

View Image

Figure 6: Constraints in the ΩMΩ Λ plane from the Supernova Cosmology Project [197Jump To The Next Citation Point].

As thermonuclear explosions of white dwarfs, Type Ia supernovae can occur in a wide variety of environments. Consequently, a simple argument against evolution is that the high-redshift environments, while chronologically younger, should be a subset of all possible low-redshift environments, which include regions that are “young” in terms of chemical and stellar evolution. Nevertheless, even a small amount of evolution could ruin our ability to reliably constrain cosmological parameters [75]. In their original papers [223212197Jump To The Next Citation Point], the supernova teams found impressive consistency in the spectral and photometric properties of Type Ia supernovae over a variety of redshifts and environments (e.g., in elliptical vs. spiral galaxies). More recently, however, Riess et al. [213] have presented tentative evidence for a systematic difference in the properties of high- and low-redshift supernovae, claiming that the risetimes (from initial explosion to maximum brightness) were higher in the high-redshift events. Apart from the issue of whether the existing data support this finding, it is not immediately clear whether such a difference is relevant to the distance determinations: first, because the risetime is not used in determining the absolute luminosity at peak brightness, and second, because a process which only affects the very early stages of the light curve is most plausibly traced to differences in the outer layers of the progenitor, which may have a negligible affect on the total energy output. Nevertheless, any indication of evolution could bring into question the fundamental assumptions behind the entire program. It is therefore essential to improve the quality of both the data and the theories so that these issues may be decisively settled.

Other than evolution, obscuration by dust is the leading concern about the reliability of the supernova results. Ordinary astrophysical dust does not obscure equally at all wavelengths, but scatters blue light preferentially, leading to the well-known phenomenon of “reddening”. Spectral measurements by the two supernova teams reveal a negligible amount of reddening, implying that any hypothetical dust must be a novel “grey” variety. This possibility has been investigated by a number of authors [234226241]. These studies have found that even grey dust is highly constrained by observations: first, it is likely to be intergalactic rather than within galaxies, or it would lead to additional dispersion in the magnitudes of the supernovae; and second, intergalactic dust would absorb ultraviolet/optical radiation and re-emit it at far infrared wavelengths, leading to stringent constraints from observations of the cosmological far-infrared background. Thus, while the possibility of obscuration has not been entirely eliminated, it requires a novel kind of dust which is already highly constrained (and may be convincingly ruled out by further observations).

According to the best of our current understanding, then, the supernova results indicating an accelerating universe seem likely to be trustworthy. Needless to say, however, the possibility of a heretofore neglected systematic effect looms menacingly over these studies. Future experiments, including a proposed satellite dedicated to supernova cosmology [154], will both help us improve our understanding of the physics of supernovae and allow a determination of the distance/redshift relation to sufficient precision to distinguish between the effects of a cosmological constant and those of more mundane astrophysical phenomena. In the meantime, it is important to obtain independent corroboration using other methods.

3.2 Cosmic microwave background

The discovery by the COBE satellite of temperature anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background [228] inaugurated a new era in the determination of cosmological parameters. To characterize the temperature fluctuations on the sky, we may decompose them into spherical harmonics,

ΔT--= ∑ a Y (𝜃,ϕ ), (48 ) T lm lm lm
and express the amount of anisotropy at multipole moment l via the power spectrum,
Cl = ⟨|alm|2⟩. (49 )
Higher multipoles correspond to smaller angular separations on the sky, 𝜃 = 180 ∘∕l. Within any given family of models, Cl vs. l will depend on the parameters specifying the particular cosmology. Although the case is far from closed, evidence has been mounting in favor of a specific class of models – those based on Gaussian, adiabatic, nearly scale-free perturbations in a universe composed of baryons, radiation, and cold dark matter. (The inflationary universe scenario [113Jump To The Next Citation Point159Jump To The Next Citation Point6Jump To The Next Citation Point] typically predicts these kinds of perturbations.)
View Image

Figure 7: CMB data (binned) and two theoretical curves: The model with a peak at l ∼ 200 is a flat matter-dominated universe, while the one with a peak at l ∼ 400 is an open matter-dominated universe. From [35Jump To The Next Citation Point].

Although the dependence of the Cl’s on the parameters can be intricate, nature has chosen not to test the patience of cosmologists, as one of the easiest features to measure – the location in l of the first “Doppler peak”, an increase in power due to acoustic oscillations – provides one of the most direct handles on the cosmic energy density, one of the most interesting parameters. The first peak (the one at lowest l) corresponds to the angular scale subtended by the Hubble radius −1 HCMB at the time when the CMB was formed (known variously as “decoupling” or “recombination” or “last scattering”) [129]. The angular scale at which we observe this peak is tied to the geometry of the universe: In a negatively (positively) curved universe, photon paths diverge (converge), leading to a larger (smaller) apparent angular size as compared to a flat universe. Since the scale H −1 CMB is set mostly by microphysics, this geometrical effect is dominant, and we can relate the spatial curvature as characterized by Ω to the observed peak in the CMB spectrum via [141138130]

− 1∕2 lpeak ∼ 220 Ω . (50 )
More details about the spectrum (height of the peak, features of the secondary peaks) will depend on other cosmological quantities, such as the Hubble constant and the baryon density [34128137276].

Figure 7View Image shows a summary of data as of 1998, with various experimental results consolidated into bins, along with two theoretical models. Since that time, the data have continued to accumulate (see for example [172171Jump To The Next Citation Point]), and the near future should see a wealth of new results of ever-increasing precision. It is clear from the figure that there is good evidence for a peak at approximately l ∼ 200 peak, as predicted in a spatially-flat universe. This result can be made more quantitative by fitting the CMB data to models with different values of ΩM and ΩΛ [352616421072], or by combining the CMB data with other sources, such as supernovae or large-scale structure [268238101Jump To The Next Citation Point127237783814]. Figure 8View Image shows the constraints from the CMB in the ΩMΩΛ plane, using data from the 1997 test flight of the BOOMERANG experiment [171Jump To The Next Citation Point]. (Although the data used to make this plot are essentially independent of those shown in the previous figure, the constraints obtained are nearly the same.) It is clear that the CMB data provide constraints which are complementary to those obtained using supernovae; the two approaches yield confidence contours which are nearly orthogonal in the ΩMΩ Λ plane. The region of overlap is in the vicinity of (ΩM, Ω Λ) = (0.3,0.7), which we will see below is also consistent with other determinations.

View Image

Figure 8: Constraints in the ΩMΩΛ plane from the North American flight of the BOOMERANG microwave background balloon experiment. From [171].

3.3 Matter density

Many cosmological tests, such as the two just discussed, will constrain some combination of ΩM and Ω Λ. It is therefore useful to consider tests of ΩM alone, even if our primary goal is to determine Ω Λ. (In truth, it is also hard to constrain Ω M alone, as almost all methods actually constrain some combination of ΩM and the Hubble constant h = H0 ∕(100 km ∕sec∕Mpc); the HST Key Project on the extragalactic distance scale finds h = 0.71 ± 0.06 [175], which is consistent with other methods [88Jump To The Next Citation Point], and what I will assume below.)

For years, determinations of ΩM based on dynamics of galaxies and clusters have yielded values between approximately 0.1 and 0.4 – noticeably larger than the density parameter in baryons as inferred from primordial nucleosynthesis, −2 ΩB = (0.019 ± 0.001)h ≈ 0.04 [22441], but noticeably smaller than the critical density. The last several years have witnessed a number of new methods being brought to bear on the question; the quantitative results have remained unchanged, but our confidence in them has increased greatly.

A thorough discussion of determinations of Ω M requires a review all its own, and good ones are available [66Jump To The Next Citation Point15Jump To The Next Citation Point24788Jump To The Next Citation Point206]. Here I will just sketch some of the important methods.

The traditional method to estimate the mass density of the universe is to “weigh” a cluster of galaxies, divide by its luminosity, and extrapolate the result to the universe as a whole. Although clusters are not representative samples of the universe, they are sufficiently large that such a procedure has a chance of working. Studies applying the virial theorem to cluster dynamics have typically obtained values ΩM = 0.2 ± 0.1 [4566Jump To The Next Citation Point15]. Although it is possible that the global value of M ∕L differs appreciably from its value in clusters, extrapolations from small scales do not seem to reach the critical density [18]. New techniques to weigh the clusters, including gravitational lensing of background galaxies [227] and temperature profiles of the X-ray gas [155], while not yet in perfect agreement with each other, reach essentially similar conclusions.

Rather than measuring the mass relative to the luminosity density, which may be different inside and outside clusters, we can also measure it with respect to the baryon density [269], which is very likely to have the same value in clusters as elsewhere in the universe, simply because there is no way to segregate the baryons from the dark matter on such large scales. Most of the baryonic mass is in the hot intracluster gas [97], and the fraction fgas of total mass in this form can be measured either by direct observation of X-rays from the gas [173] or by distortions of the microwave background by scattering off hot electrons (the Sunyaev–Zeldovich effect) [46], typically yielding 0.1 ≤ fgas ≤ 0.2. Since primordial nucleosynthesis provides a determination of Ω ∼ 0.04 B, these measurements imply

ΩM = ΩB ∕fgas = 0.3 ± 0.1, (51 )
consistent with the value determined from mass to light ratios.

Another handle on the density parameter in matter comes from properties of clusters at high redshift. The very existence of massive clusters has been used to argue in favor of ΩM ∼ 0.2 [16], and the lack of appreciable evolution of clusters from high redshifts to the present [1744] provides additional evidence that Ω < 1.0 M.

The story of large-scale motions is more ambiguous. The peculiar velocities of galaxies are sensitive to the underlying mass density, and thus to ΩM, but also to the “bias” describing the relative amplitude of fluctuations in galaxies and mass [6665]. Difficulties both in measuring the flows and in disentangling the mass density from other effects make it difficult to draw conclusions at this point, and at present it is hard to say much more than 0.2 ≤ ΩM ≤ 1.0.

Finally, the matter density parameter can be extracted from measurements of the power spectrum of density fluctuations (see for example [187]). As with the CMB, predicting the power spectrum requires both an assumption of the correct theory and a specification of a number of cosmological parameters. In simple models (e.g., with only cold dark matter and baryons, no massive neutrinos), the spectrum can be fit (once the amplitude is normalized) by a single “shape parameter”, which is found to be equal to Γ = ΩMh. (For more complicated models see [82].) Observations then yield Γ ∼ 0.25, or ΩM ∼ 0.36. For a more careful comparison between models and observations, see [15615771205].

Thus, we have a remarkable convergence on values for the density parameter in matter:

0.1 ≤ ΩM ≤ 0.4. (52 )
Even without the supernova results, this determination in concert with the CMB measurements favoring a flat universe provide a strong case for a nonzero cosmological constant.

3.4 Gravitational lensing

The volume of space back to a specified redshift, given by (44View Equation), depends sensitively on Ω Λ. Consequently, counting the apparent density of observed objects, whose actual density per cubic Mpc is assumed to be known, provides a potential test for the cosmological constant [1099624448Jump To The Next Citation Point]. Like tests of distance vs. redshift, a significant problem for such methods is the luminosity evolution of whatever objects one might attempt to count. A modern attempt to circumvent this difficulty is to use the statistics of gravitational lensing of distant galaxies; the hope is that the number of condensed objects which can act as lenses is less sensitive to evolution than the number of visible objects.

In a spatially flat universe, the probability of a source at redshift zs being lensed, relative to the fiducial (ΩM = 1, ΩΛ = 0) case, is given by

[ ]−3 ∫ as [ ] Plens = 15 1 − (1 + zs)−1∕2 -H0-- dA(0,a)dA-(a,as) da, (53 ) 4 1 H (a) dA(0,as)
where a = 1∕(1 + z) s s.
View Image

Figure 9: Gravitational lens probabilities in a flat universe with ΩM + Ω Λ = 1, relative to ΩM = 1, Ω Λ = 0, for a source at z = 2.

As shown in Figure 9View Image, the probability rises dramatically as Ω Λ is increased to unity as we keep Ω fixed. Thus, the absence of a large number of such lenses would imply an upper limit on Ω Λ.

Analysis of lensing statistics is complicated by uncertainties in evolution, extinction, and biases in the lens discovery procedure. It has been argued [14683] that the existing data allow us to place an upper limit of Ω Λ < 0.7 in a flat universe. However, other groups [5251] have claimed that the current data actually favor a nonzero cosmological constant. The near future will bring larger, more objective surveys, which should allow these ambiguities to be resolved. Other manifestations of lensing can also be used to constrain Ω Λ, including statistics of giant arcs [275], deep weak-lensing surveys [133], and lensing in the Hubble Deep Field [61].

3.5 Other tests

There is a tremendous variety of ways in which a nonzero cosmological constant can manifest itself in observable phenomena. Here is an incomplete list of additional possibilities; see also [48Jump To The Next Citation Point58218Jump To The Next Citation Point].


  Go to previous page Go up Go to next page