October 1, 1994 Scientific American
THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE
P. James E. Peebles, David N. Schramm, Edwin L. Turner and Richard G.
Kron
Some 15 billion years ago the universe
emerged from a hot, dense sea of matter and energy. As the cosmos expanded and
cooled, it spawned galaxies, stars, planets and life.
P. JAMES E. PEEBLES, DAVID N. SCHRAMM, EDWIN L. TURNER and RICHARD G. KRON have
individually earned top honors for their work on the evolution of the universe.
Peebles is professor of physics at Princeton University, where in 1958 he began
an illustrious career in gravitational physics. Most of his free time is spent
with his three grandchildren. Schramm is Louis Block Professor in the physical
sciences department at the University of Chicago. When he is not directing the
Board on Physics and Astronomy of the National Research Council, he can be found
flying his 1967 King Air. Turner is associate chair of astrophysical sciences at
Princeton and leads the council that oversees research at the Space Telescope
Science Institute in Baltimore. Turner has a personal, cultural and religious
interest in Japan. Since 1978 Kron has served on the faculty of the department
of astronomy and astrophysics at Chicago, and he is also a member of the
experimental astrophysics group at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. He
enjoys observing distant galaxies almost as much as visiting Lake Geneva in
Wisconsin.
GALAXY CLUSTER is representative of what
the universe looked like when it was 60 percent of its present age. The
Hubble Space Telescope captured the image by focusing on the cluster as it
completed 10 orbits. This image is one of the longest and clearest exposures
ever produced. Several pairs of galaxies
appear to be caught in one another's gravitational field. Such interactions are
rarely found in nearby clusters and are evidence that the universe is evolving.
At a particular instant roughly 15 billion years ago, all the matter and energy
we can observe, concentrated in a region smaller than a dime, began to expand
and cool at an incredibly rapid rate. By the time the temperature had dropped to
100 million times that of the sun's core, the forces of nature assumed their
present properties, and the elementary particles known as quarks roamed freely
in a sea of energy. When the universe had expanded an additional 1,000 times,
all the matter we can measure filled a region the size of the solar system.
At that time, the free quarks became confined in neutrons and protons. After the
universe had grown by another factor of 1,000, protons and neutrons combined to
form atomic nuclei, including most of the helium and deuterium present today.
All of this occurred within the first minute of the expansion. Conditions were
still too hot, however, for atomic nuclei to capture electrons. Neutral atoms
appeared in abundance only after the expansion had continued for 300,000 years
and the universe was 1,000 times smaller than it is now. The neutral atoms then
began to coalesce into gas clouds, which later evolved into stars. By the time
the universe had expanded to one fifth its present size, the stars had formed
groups recognizable as young galaxies.
When the universe was half its present size, nuclear reactions in stars had
produced most of the heavy elements from which terrestrial planets were made.
Our solar system is relatively young: it formed five billion years ago, when the
universe was two thirds its present size. Over time the formation of stars has
consumed the supply of gas in galaxies, and hence the population of stars is
waning. Fifteen billion years from now stars like our sun will be relatively
rare, making the universe a far less hospitable place for observers like us.
Our understanding of the genesis and
evolution of the universe is one of the great achievements of 20th-century
science. This knowledge comes from decades of innovative experiments and
theories. Modern telescopes on the ground and in space detect the light
from galaxies billions of light-years away, showing us what the universe looked
like when it was young. Particle accelerators probe the basic physics of the
high-energy environment of the early universe. Satellites detect the cosmic
background radiation left over from the early stages of expansion, providing an
image of the universe on the largest scales we can observe.
Our best efforts to explain this wealth
of data are embodied in a theory known as the standard cosmological model or the
big bang cosmology. The major claim of the theory is that in the
large-scale average the universe is expanding in a nearly homogeneous way from a
dense early state. At present, there are no fundamental challenges to the big
bang theory, although there are certainly unresolved issues within the theory
itself. Astronomers are not sure, for example, how the galaxies were formed, but
there is no reason to think the process did not occur within the framework of
the big bang. Indeed, the predictions of the theory have survived all tests to
date.
Yet the big bang model goes only so far, and many fundamental mysteries remain.
What was the universe like before it was expanding? (No observation we have made
allows us to look back beyond the moment at which the expansion began.) What
will happen in the distant future, when the last of the stars exhaust the supply
of nuclear fuel? No one knows the answers yet.
Our universe may be viewed in many lights - by mystics, theologians,
philosophers or scientists. In science we adopt the plodding route: we accept
only what is tested by experiment or observation. Albert Einstein gave us the
now well-tested and accepted Theory of General Relativity,which establishes the
relations between mass, energy, space and time. Einstein showed that a
homogeneous distribution of matter in space fits nicely with his theory. He
assumed without discussion that the universe is static, unchanging in the
large-scale average [see "How Cosmology Became a Science," by Stephen G. Brush;
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, August 1992].
In 1922 the Russian theorist Alexander A. Friedmann realized that Einstein's
universe is unstable; the slightest perturbation would cause it to expand or
contract. At that time, Vesto M. Slipher of Lowell Observatory was collecting
the first evidence that galaxies are actually moving apart.
Then, in 1929, the eminent astronomer
Edwin P. Hubble showed that the rate a galaxy is moving away from us is roughly
proportional to its distance from us.
The existence of an expanding universe implies that the cosmos has evolved from
a dense concentration of matter into the present broadly spread distribution of
galaxies. Fred Hoyle, an English cosmologist, was the first to call this process
the big bang. Hoyle intended to disparage the theory, but the name was so catchy
it gained popularity. It is somewhat misleading, however, to describe the
expansion as some type of explosion of matter away from some particular point in
space.
That is not the picture at all: in Einstein's universe the concept of space and
the distribution of matter are intimately linked; the observed expansion of the
system of galaxies reveals the unfolding of space itself.
An essential feature of the theory is
that the average density in space declines as the universe expands; the
distribution of matter forms no observable edge. In an explosion the fastest
particles move out into empty space, but in the big bang cosmology, particles
uniformly fill all space. The expansion of the universe has had little influence
on the size of galaxies or even clusters of galaxies that are bound by gravity;
space is simply opening up between them. In this sense,
the expansion is similar to a rising
loaf of raisin bread. The dough is analogous to space, and the raisins, to
clusters of galaxies. As the dough expands, the raisins move apart.
Moreover, the speed with which any two raisins move apart is directly and
positively related to the amount of dough separating them.
The evidence for the expansion of the universe has been accumulating for some 60
years. The first important clue is the redshift. A galaxy emits or absorbs some
wavelengths of light more strongly than others. If the galaxy is moving away
from us, these emission and absorption features are shifted to longer
wavelengths - that is, they become redder as the recession velocity increases.
This phenomenon is known as the redshift.
Hubble's measurements indicated that the redshift of a distant galaxy is greater
than that of one closer to the earth. This relation, now known as Hubble's law,
is just what one would expect in a uniformly expanding universe. Hubble's law
says the recession velocity of a galaxy is equal to its distance multiplied by a
quantity called Hubble's constant. The redshift effect in nearby galaxies is
relatively subtle, requiring good instrumentation to detect it. In contrast, the
redshift of very distant objects - radio galaxies and quasars - is an awesome
phenomenon; some appear to be moving away at greater than 90 percent of the
speed of light.
Hubble contributed to another crucial
part of the picture. He counted the number of visible galaxies in different
directions in the sky and found that they appear to be rather uniformly
distributed. The value of Hubble's constant seemed to be the same in all
directions, a necessary consequence of uniform expansion. Modern surveys confirm
the fundamental tenet that the universe is homogeneous on large scales. Although
maps of the distribution of the nearby galaxies display clumpiness, deeper
surveys reveal considerable uniformity.
The Milky Way, for instance, resides in a knot of two dozen galaxies; these in
turn are part of a complex of galaxies that protrudes from the so-called local
supercluster. The hierarchy of clustering has been traced up to dimensions of
about 500 million light-years. The fluctuations in the average density of matter
diminish as the scale of the structure being investigated increases.
In maps that cover distances that reach
close to the observable limit, the average density of matter changes by less
than a tenth of a percent.
To test Hubble's law, astronomers need to measure distances to galaxies. One
method for gauging distance is to observe the apparent brightness of a galaxy.
If one galaxy is four times fainter in the night sky than an otherwise
comparable galaxy, then it can be estimated to be twice as far away. This
expectation has now been tested over the whole of the visible range of
distances.
MULTIPLE IMAGES of a distant quasar (left) are the result of an effect known as
gravitational lensing. The effect occurs when light from a distant object is
bent by the gravitational field of an intervening galaxy. In this case, the
galaxy, which is visible in the center, produces four images of the quasar. The
photograph was produced using the Hubble telescope.
Some critics of the theory have pointed out that a galaxy that appears to be
smaller and fainter might not actually be more distant. Fortunately, there is a
direct indication that objects whose red- shifts are larger really are more
distant. The evidence comes from observations of an effect known as
gravitational lensing [see illustration on opposite page]. An object as massive
and compact as a galaxy can act as a crude lens, producing a distorted,
magnified image (or even many images) of any background radiation source that
lies behind it. Such an object does so by bending the paths of light rays and
other electromagnetic radiation. So if a galaxy sits in the line of sight
between the earth and some distant object, it will bend the light rays from the
object so that they are observable [see "Gravitational Lenses," by Edwin L.
Turner; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, July 1988]. During the past decade, astronomers
have discovered more than a dozen gravitational lenses. The object behind the
lens is always found to have a higher redshift than the lens itself, confirming
the qualitative prediction of Hubble's law.
Hubble's law has great significance not only because it describes the expansion
of the universe but also because it can be used to calculate the age of the
cosmos. To be precise, the time elapsed since the big bang is a function
of the present value of Hubble's constant and its rate of change. Astronomers
have determined the approximate rate of the expansion, but no one has yet been
able to measure the second value precisely. Still, one can estimate this
quantity from knowledge of the universe's average density. One expects that
because gravity exerts a force that opposes expansion, galaxies would tend to
move apart more slowly now than they did in the past. The rate of change in
expansion is therefore related to the gravitational pull of the universe set by
its average density. If the density is that of just the visible material in and
around galaxies, the age of the universe probably lies between 12 and 20 billion
years. (The range allows for the uncertainty in the rate of expansion.)
Yet many researchers believe the density is greater than this minimum value.
So-called dark matter would make up the difference. A strongly defended argument
holds that the universe is just dense enough that in the remote future the
expansion will slow almost to zero. Under this assumption, the age of the
universe decreases to the range of seven to 13 billion years.
HOMOGENEOUS DISTRIBUTION of galaxies is apparent in a map that includes objects
from 300 to 1,000 million light-years away. The only inhomogeneity, a gap near
the center line, occurs because part of the sky is obscured by the Milky Way.
Michael Strauss of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., created
the map using data from NASA'S Infrared Astronomical Satellite.
To improve these estimates, many astronomers are involved in intensive research
to measure both the distances to galaxies and the density of the universe.
Estimates of the expansion time provide an important test for the big bang model
of the universe. If the theory is correct, everything in the visible universe
should be younger than the expansion time computed from Hubble's law.
These two timescales do appear to be in at least rough concordance. For example,
the oldest stars in the disk of the Milky Way galaxy are about nine billion
years old - an estimate derived from the rate of cooling of white dwarf stars.
The stars in the halo of the Milky Way are somewhat older, about 15 billion
years - a value derived from the rate of nuclear fuel consumption in the cores
of these stars. The ages of the oldest known chemical elements are also
approximately 15 billion years - a number that comes from radioactive dating
techniques. Workers in laboratories have derived these age estimates from atomic
and nuclear physics. It is noteworthy that their results agree, at least
approximately, with the age that astronomers have derived by measuring cosmic
expansion.
Another theory, the steady state theory, also succeeds in accounting for the
expansion and homogeneity of the universe. In 1946 three physicists in England -
Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold - proposed such a cosmology. In their
theory the universe is forever expanding, and matter is created spontaneously to
fill the voids. As this material accumulates, they suggested, it forms new stars
to replace the old. This steady state hypothesis predicts that ensembles of
galaxies close to us should look statistically the same as those far away. The
big bang cosmology makes a different prediction if galaxies were all formed long
ago, distant galaxies should look younger than those nearby because light from
them requires a longer time to reach us. Such galaxies should contain more
short-lived stars and more gas out of which future generations of stars will
form.
The test is simple conceptually, but it took decades for astronomers to develop
detectors sensitive enough to study distant galaxies in detail. When astronomers
examine nearby galaxies that are powerful emitters of radio wavelengths, they
see, at optical wavelengths, relatively round systems of stars. Distant radio
galaxies, on the other hand, appear to have elongated and sometimes irregular
structures. Moreover, in most distant radio galaxies, unlike the ones nearby,
the distribution of light tends to be aligned with the pattern of the radio
emission [see top illustration on next two pages].
Likewise, when astronomers study the population of massive, dense clusters of
galaxies, they find differences between those that are close and those far away.
Distant clusters contain bluish galaxies that show evidence of ongoing star
formation. Similar clusters that are nearby contain reddish galaxies in which
active star formation ceased long ago. Observations made with the Hubble Space
Telescope confirm that at least some of the enhanced star formation in these
younger clusters may be the result of collisions between their member galaxies,
a process that is much rarer in the present epoch.
DISTANT GALAXIES differ greatly from
those nearby - an observation that shows that galaxies evolved from earlier,
more irregular forms. Among galaxies that are bright at both optical ( blue) and
radio ( red) wavelengths, the nearby galaxies tend to have smooth elliptical
shapes at optical wavelengths and very elongated radio images. As
redshift, and therefore distance, increases, galaxies have more irregular
elongated forms that appear aligned at optical and radio wavelengths. The galaxy
at the far right is seen as it was at 10 percent of the present age of the
universe. The images were assembled by Pat McCarthy of the Carnegie Institute.
So if galaxies are all moving away from one another and are evolving from
earlier forms, it seems logical that they were once crowded together in some
dense sea of matter and energy. Indeed, in 1927, before much was known
about distant galaxies, a Belgian cosmologist and priest, Georges Lema�tre,
proposed that the expansion of the universe might be traced to an exceedingly
dense state he called the primeval "super-atom." It might even be possible, he
thought, to detect remnant radiation from the primeval atom. But what would this
radiation signature look like?
When the universe was very young and
hot, radiation could not travel very far without being absorbed and emitted by
some particle. This continuous exchange of energy maintained a state of thermal
equilibrium; any particular region was unlikely to be much hotter or cooler than
the average. When matter and energy settle to such a state, the result is a
so-called thermal spectrum, where the intensity of radiation at each wavelength
is a definite function of the temperature. Hence, radiation originating in the
hot big bang is recognizable by its spectrum.
In fact, this thermal cosmic background radiation has been detected. While
working on the development of radar in the 1940s, Robert H. Dicke, then at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, invented the microwave radiometer - a
device capable of detecting low levels of radiation. In the 1960s Bell
Laboratories used a radiometer in a telescope that would track the early
communications satellites Echo-1 and Telstar. The engineer who built this
instrument found that it was detecting unexpected radiation. Arno A. Penzias and
Robert W. Wilson identified the signal as the cosmic background radiation. It is
interesting that Penzias and Wilson were led to this idea by the news that Dicke
had suggested that one ought to use a radiometer to search for the cosmic
background.
Astronomers have studied this radiation in great detail using the Cosmic
Background Explorer (COBE) satellite and a number of rocket-launched,
balloon-borne and ground-based experiments. The cosmic background radiation has
two distinctive properties. First, it is nearly the same in all directions. (As
George F. Smoot of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and his team discovered in 1992,
the variation is just one part per 100,000.) The interpretation is that the
radiation uniformly fills space, as predicted in the big bang cosmology. Second,
the spectrum is very close to that of an
object in thermal equilibrium at 2.726 kelvins above absolute zero. To be
sure, the cosmic background radiation was produced when the universe was far
hotter than 2.726 degrees, yet researchers anticipated correctly that the
apparent temperature of the radiation would be low. In the 1930s Richard C.
Tolman of the California Institute of Technology showed that the temperature of
the cosmic background would diminish because of the universe's expansion.
DENSITY of neutrons and protons in the universe determined the abundances of
certain elements. For a higher density universe, the computed helium abundance
is litlle different, and the computed abundance of deuterium is considerably
lower. The shaded region is consistent with the observations, ranging from an
abundance of 24 percent for helium to one part in 1010 for the lithium isotope.
This quantitative agreement is a prime success of the big bang cosmology.
The cosmic background radiation provides direct evidence that the universe did
expand from a dense, hot state, for this is the condition needed to produce the
radiation. In the dense, hot early universe thermonuclear reactions
produced elements heavier than hydrogen, including deuterium, helium and
lithium. It is striking that the computed mix of the light elements agrees with
the observed abundances. That is, all evidence indicates that the light elements
were produced in the hot, young universe, whereas the heavier elements appeared
later, as products of the thermonuclear reactions that power stars.
The theory for the origin of the light elements emerged from the burst of
research that followed the end of World War II. George Gamow and graduate
student Ralph A. Alpher of George Washington University and Robert Herman of the
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and others used nuclear
physics data from the war effort to predict what kind of nuclear processes might
have occurred in the early universe and what elements might have been produced.
Alpher and Herman also realized that a remnant of the original expansion would
still be detectable in the existing universe.
Despite the fact that significant details of this pioneering work were in error,
it forged a link between nuclear physics and cosmology.
The workers demonstrated that the early
universe could be viewed as a type of thermonuclear reactor. As a result,
physicists have now precisely calculated the abundances of light elements
produced in the big bang and how those quantities have changed because of
subsequent events in the interstellar medium and nuclear processes in stars.
Our grasp of the conditions that
prevailed in the early universe does not translate into a full understanding of
how galaxies formed. Nevertheless, we do have quite a few pieces of the puzzle.
Gravity causes the growth of density fluctuations in the distribution of matter,
because it more strongly slows the expansion of denser regions, making them grow
still denser. This process is observed in the growth of nearby clusters of
galaxies, and the galaxies themselves were probably assembled by the same
process on a smaller scale.
The growth of structure in the early universe was prevented by radiation
pressure, but that changed when the universe had expanded to about 0.1 percent
of its present size. At that point, the temperature was about 3,000 kelvins,
cool enough to allow the ions and electrons to combine to form neutral hydrogen
and helium. The neutral matter was able to slip through the radiation and to
form gas clouds that could collapse to star clusters.
Observations show that by the time the
universe was one fifth its present size, matter had gathered into gas clouds
large enough to be called young galaxies.
A pressing challenge now is to reconcile the apparent uniformity of the early
universe with the lumpy distribution of galaxies in the present universe.
Astronomers know that the density of the early universe did not vary by much,
because they observe only slight irregularities in the cosmic background
radiation. So far it has been easy to develop theories that are consistent with
the available measurements, but more critical tests are in progress. In
particular, different theories for galaxy formation predict quite different
fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation on angular scales less than
about one degree. Measurements of such tiny fluctuations have not yet been done,
but they might be accomplished in the generation of experiments now under way.
It will be exciting to learn whether any of the theories of galaxy formation now
under consideration survive these tests.
The present-day universe has provided ample opportunity for the development of
life as we know it - there are some 100 billion billion stars similar to the sun
in the part of the universe we can observe. The big bang cosmology implies,
however, that life is possible only for a bounded span of time: the universe was
too hot in the distant past, and it has limited resources for the future. Most
galaxies are still producing new stars, but many others have already exhausted
their supply of gas. Thirty billion
years from now, galaxies will be much darker and filled with dead or dying
stars, so there will be far fewer planets capable of supporting life as it now
exists.
The universe may expand forever, in
which case all the galaxies and stars will eventually grow dark and cold.
The alternative to this big chill is a big crunch. If the mass of the universe
is large enough, gravity will eventually reverse the expansion, and all matter
and energy will be reunited. During the next decade, as researchers improve
techniques for measuring the mass of the universe, we may learn whether the
present expansion is headed toward a big chill or a big crunch.
In the near future, we expect new experiments to provide a better understanding
of the big bang. As we improve measurements of the expansion rate and the ages
of stars, we may be able to confirm that the stars are indeed younger than the
expanding universe. The larger telescopes recently completed or under
construction may allow us to see how the mass of the universe affects the
curvature of spacetime, which in turn influences our observations of distant
galaxies.
We will also continue to study issues that the big bang cosmology does not
address. We do not know why there was a big bang or what may have existed
before. We do not know whether our universe has siblings - other expanding
regions well removed from what we can observe. We do not understand why the
fundamental constants of nature have the values they do. Advances in particle
physics suggest some interesting ways these questions might be answered; the
challenge is to find experimental tests of the ideas.
In following the debate on such matters of cosmology, one should bear in mind
that all physical theories are approximations of reality that can fail if pushed
too far. Physical science advances by
incorporating earlier theories that are experimentally supported into larger,
more encompassing frameworks. The big bang theory is supported by a
wealth of evidence: it explains the cosmic background radiation, the abundances
of light elements and the Hubble expansion. Thus, any new cosmology surely will
include the big bang picture. Whatever
developments the coming decades may bring, cosmology has moved from a branch of
philosophy to a physical science where hypotheses meet the test of observation
and experiment.
FURTHER READING
LONELY HEARTS OF THE COSMOS: THE SCIENTIFIC QUEST FOR THE SECRET OF THE
UNIVERSE. Dennis Overbye. Harper-Collins, 1991.
THE SHADOWS OF CREATION: DARK MATTER AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE. Michael
Riordan and David N. Schramm. W. H. Freeman and Company, 1991.
THE LIGHT AT THE EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE: ASTRONOMERS ON THE FRONT LINES OF THE
COSMOLOGICAL REVOLUTION. Michael D. Lemonick. Villard Books, 1993.
PRINCIPLES OF PHYSICAL COSMOLOGY. P.J.E. Peebles. Princeton University Press,
1993.
BACK TO ARTICLE LISTINGS
|| FLOW CHART || WWWBoard ||