To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The transition the Universe makes from a fully ionised plasma to a neutral gas happens very quickly when the age of the Universe is around 380 000 years, i.e. a redshift of z ~ 1500. From our point of view, looking out into the distant Universe, and hence into the past, we see this as a cosmic photosphere. This is referred to as the surface of last scattering since this corresponds to the time after which most of the CMB photons travel freely towards us. The event of the Universe becoming neutral is referred to as the epoch of recombination.
The image of this surface we create with our radiometers is a snapshot of the Universe as it was when it was still only slightly inhomogeneous: we see the initial conditions for the birth of cosmic structure.
Recombination
The photons of the CMB that we observe come from the epoch at a redshift z ~ 1090 when the cosmic plasma was almost neutral and the timescale for electron–photon collisions became longer than the cosmic expansion timescale. The Universe was then some ~ 380 000 years old. Prior to that time, electrons and photons had been held in thermodynamic equilibrium by the Thomson scattering process, while after that time the baryonic component of the cosmic plasma could evolve as an independent component of the plasma.
This was the time of the decoupling of matter from the radiation field. Shortly after that time most of the CMB photons were able to travel directly to us now without being scattered by free electrons. This gave us a direct view of the early conditions that led to the formation of the cosmic structures we see today, the galaxies, clusters of galaxies and their organisation into what is now known as the ‘cosmic web’.
The Universe did not suddenly become neutral as it emerged from the fully ionised fire-ball phase of the cosmic expansion. The neutralisation, or ‘recombination’, of the cosmic plasma took place over several tens of thousands of years. That is enough to slightly blur the details of the structure that might be observed on the last scattering surface: we are looking into the cosmic photosphere.
The study of the very early Universe has given birth to a discipline that is broadly referred to as astro-particle physics, a subject that sits on the border of high energy particle physics, nuclear physics and astrophysics. Astro-particle physics has proven to be a wonderful symbiosis of experimental physics and experimental astrophysics in which the early Universe is, in effect, a high energy physics laboratory. Arguably, it was Gamow and his collaborators, in the immediate post World War II decade, who took the first tentative steps in this direction by arguing that the early Universe was the site of synthesis of the chemical elements.
The physics domain of cosmic nucleosynthesis is the first few minutes of the Big Bang. Hayashi (1950) took the first step further back into the past and towards the Big Bang itself with his exploitation of weak interactions to describe what had happened just prior to the period of nucleosynthesis. Since then, particle experiments have pushed back our understanding of the physics of matter to the point where we can now discuss the period before the first micro-seconds of the cosmic origin within the context of known high energy physics.
Early Thermal History
Astro-particle physics inevitably brings in an even wider domain of physics than the classical cosmology of general relativistic models. Some fine texts have been written on this subject from a variety of points of view and at different levels. The approach used here is to explain the physics of the early Universe with a view to understanding what precision cosmology has to say about the particle and nuclear physics aspects of the earliest moments after the Big Bang.
The first steps in this direction were taken by Gamow and his co-workers during the first decade after the Second World War. Gamow had realised that the wartime research into nuclear physics could answer some important questions about his concept of the early Universe that he had started working on prior to 1939. We can trace back Gamow's interest in a Big Bang Universe to Gamow and Teller (1939a,b) in which he had described a simple idea for the formation of galaxies, and no doubt his interest extended back to his brief association with Friedmann.
Almost every civilisation throughout history has had a cosmology of some kind. By this we mean a description of the Universe in which they live based on their state of knowledge. The Vikings, for example, had a complex cosmology in which the world and its inhabitants were controlled by a set of Gods, both good and bad. Nature was ruled not by the laws of physics, but by the forces of nature controlled by the whims of these Gods. However bizarre that may seem to us now, at the time this belief-set dominated human behaviour: its social mores and values.
Today we live in a Universe that is described by physical laws. What is remarkable is that these laws have more often than not been discovered on the basis of laboratory experiments, and subsequently found to work on the vastest scales imaginable. That fact leads us to believe that our explanations of the Universe are a valid description of what is actually happening. We do not need to invoke special laws just to explain the cosmos and our position within it.
The physical laws governing the Universe and its constituents were discovered over a period of several centuries. Some might say this path to realisation started with Copernicus putting the Sun at the centre of everything rather than the Earth. Others might argue that this was merely descriptive and that knowledge of the laws started to emerge following on from the work of Kepler, Galileo and Newton. However one sees it, by the beginning of the 20th century, with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, the scene was set to embark on a journey of observational cosmology which 100 years later would lead to most scientists agreeing that we have a self-consistent theory of the Universe based on known laws of physics. Some, no doubt, would go as far as to say that the current view was incontrovertible.
Just as the early map makers measured and marked out our planet, the cosmographers of the 20th century marked out and mapped the Universe.
The inter-war years, 1918–1939, were a period of coming to terms (a) with Einstein's General Relativity and (b) with Hubble's discovery of the redshift–distance relationship. By the end of the period our cosmological framework was understood well enough in terms of an expanding homogeneous and isotropic solution of the Einstein equations and it probably seemed a matter of acquiring redshift in order to settle the parameters of the model. Two parameters would do the job.
It could not have been imagined that by 1955 there would be a heated argument between two camps: Gamow, who said there was a Hot Big Bang, and Hoyle, Bondi and Gold who said there was not. Added to that was another heated, even acrimonious, argument about the interpretation of the counts of recently discovered radio sources made by Ryle in Cambridge, England and Mills in Sydney, Australia. Ten year after that we had the Quasars and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) that, at the time, not everyone believed was cosmic in origin.
This chapter relates some of that story. It is an essential part of explaining how come we are where we are.
Models of the Cosmic Expansion
Several spatially homogeneous solutions of the equations of the General Theory of Relativity were discovered within the first decade following their publication (Einstein, 1916a). At that time relatively little was known about the Universe: it was still uncertain whether or not the nebulae were merely parts of our own Galaxy, although, through the pioneering work of Slipher, it was known that most of them were rushing away from us. Little or nothing was known about the homogeneity or isotropy of the Universe, but the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy would simplify the largely intractable Einstein equations. During the decade following the publication of the Einstein equations several important cosmological solutions were discovered. These are discussed next.
It is interesting in this context to read and compare the texts of Eddington (1923), published before Edwin Hubble's study of the nebulae and his consequent discovery of the cosmic expansion, and the text of Tolman (1934b) which was published shortly thereafter. The search for understanding the Universe in terms of models is beautifully described in Michael Heller's Ultimate Explanations of the Universe (Heller, 2010).
In all cases the full title of the article and other bibliographic data are available from the corresponding entry in the References section. ‘CCC’ refers to permissions gained through the Copyright Clearance Centre and the number following is the granted licence number. These cover situations where the authors’ permission was required but was not available.
NASA copyright policy states that ‘NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted’. Thus Figure 3.1 is in the public domain.
Unless otherwise noted, images and video on Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) public web sites (public sites ending with a ligo.caltech.edu or ligo.mit.edu address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission. See Figure 4.6.
Figure 3.10: The Particle Data Group publishes annual Reports on Particle Physics (RPP which are published in the journal Chinese Physics, C. Since 2014, the figures from RPP are in the public domain (Olive and Particle Data Group, 2014) and author permission is automatically granted. This concerns Figure 27.1 of Scott and Smoot (2014).
The distance to an astronomical source is a fundamental astronomical datum about the source. While astronomers measure sizes of objects in centimeters, meters or kilometers, distances to distant objects are measured in light years or parsecs. Large objects like galaxies and clusters of galaxies are also measured in light years or parsecs.
The light year is simply the distance travelled by light in one year and it is a fairly convenient unit of measure for the distances to stars. However, distances to stars are not measured using the travel time of light rays: nearby stellar distances are measured using parallax. The parallax is the maximum apparent angular shift in position of a star on the sky as the Earth goes from one side of its orbit to the other. This is the same as the angle subtended by the Earth's orbit as viewed from the star.
The parsec is the distance at which the parallax of an object would be 1 arc second. The parallax of the nearest star, 4.2 light years away, is 0.772 arcsec. The relationship between light years and parsecs is 1 parsec = 3.26 light years. Distances to cosmological objects are to be measured in Megaparsecs (Mpc).
Because of the curvature of space the distance as measured by parallax is not the same as the distances measured by brightness, or by diameter.
Magnitudes and all that
It is difficult to avoid discussing the apparent brightness of objects such as stars and galaxies without encountering one of astronomy's major idiosyncrasies – the magnitude scale. Ever since the time of Hipparchus of Niacea (c190BC–120BC), the brightnesses of stars have been measured relative to one another on a logarithmic scale. Around 150BC, Hipparchus had classified the brightest stars he could see as being of ‘magnitude 1’ and the faintest as being of ‘magnitude 6’: a change of 5 magnitudes represented a factor of 100 in brightness. Because the brain perceives increments in brightness logarithmically, each increment of 1 magnitude corresponded to a change in brightness by a factor of 10⅕ = 2.512.
The magnitude scale, as we know it today, was introduced by Pogson (1856). Nowadays we might decide to base a logarithmic brightness scale on powers of two, so that each ‘magnitude’ was twice as bright as its predecessor.
Systems of units are always a problem, despite international agreement to standardise on the SI system. The old cgs system and its multitude of mutually inconsistent variants (Gauss, Lorentz–Heaviside, esu, emu, etc.) is still in use. This is particularly an issue when it comes to using the Maxwell equations. In astrophysics we generally see a mixture of cgs units and subject-specific units, like the magnitude scale for brightness, parsecs for distance, and flux units in the older radio astronomy literature. This is what we might call the Astrophysical System of Units and, like many contemporary authors, I have adhered to that in this text. However, certain issues must be clarified, and in particular the conventions used in the Maxwell equations.
This appendix provides translation between Gaussian cgs units and the SI system for several of the quantities that are used in the text, and provides some update on the values of the fundamental physical constants that have occurred since the decision to fix the speed of light at a given numerical value. The Maxwell equations have a small section to themselves.
SI, MKS and cgs
There has been a slow move in astronomy away from the traditional centimetre-gram-second (CGS) based system of units that evolved in the 19th century towards the metric metre-kilogram-second (MKS) based system of units and the subsequent International System (SI), which is also known as the MKSA system. However, the change has been slow or, as in the case of astronomy, only partial. By the 1950s many fields had adopted their own subject-specific units, chosen largely because they were particularly convenient or simply entrenched in the culture of the discipline. There are perhaps just two reasons for the slowness of this change: teachers today were often taught in cgs or hybrid systems, and used textbooks with which they were familiar. Moving from cgs to SI units takes people out of their comfort zone.
The full details of the system of physical units are maintained and documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, which is maintained by the US
Department of Commerce. The information presented here is for convenience and is largely abstracted from the NIST web site.
In the Newtonian perspective, light simply moves in straight lines with constant velocity. The propagation of light through space was not an issue that Newtonian theory could address without making additional assumptions. In the curved geometry of Einstein's space-times, light responds to the ever changing curvature of the space-time.
In special relativity the light rays are defined by the fact that the proper distance moved by light is zero. This is enshrined in saying that light rays are the curves on which the line element is ds2 = 0. Given a coordinate system and a metric expressed in those coordinates, we can, in principle, solve the resulting equations. There is no reason to believe that our Minkowskian intuition about the propagation of light would be of help, and some of the results can at first be quite surprising. Like the result that the angular diameter subtended by an object of fixed size can increase with distance!
Aside from this counter intuitive behaviour there is another problem: the problem of understanding and interpreting the coordinates in terms of what a person sitting in an inertial frame observes. This is fundamental to the astronomer observing the Universe, and so we develop the relevant equation for an FLRW Universe.
Light Propagation in Curved Space-Time
Understanding the physics of light propagation is a vital step in interpreting the observed cosmological redshift. Getting to understand the redshift was not at all straightforward even though it is a consequence of the cosmological models constructed within the context of general relativity. Some of this early story with regard to de Sitter's Universe was retold in Section 15.6.4.
As late as the 1960s and 1970s there was still an active, and often heated, debate as to whether the observed redshifts of galaxies and quasars were of cosmological origin. That was not simply a question of whether or not general relativity could provide the explanation for the phenomenon. The debate was more about whether there was an additional contribution from phenomena intrinsic to the source or from something that might happen along the path of the light rays (as in ‘tired light’). Some of the debate even suggested that the constants of nature might be a function of time, an idea that originated with Dirac (1937, 1938) following up on earlier ideas of Milne and Eddington.
The subject matter in this book covers the theory and observations relating to the earliest epochs of our evolving Universe, from its singular origin to just beyond the epoch of recombination: the first half million years. This is a fundamental period of the Universe's lifetime, and the period from which the key parameters describing it can be determined. As our understanding of the Universe grew, and new observations were found to rule out the simplest models, new physical entities and concepts had to be introduced to ensure consistency between theory and observation. The subsequent period, from recombination to the present epoch, is the era during which stellar and galactic physics takes place, and is not covered in this volume.
Precision Cosmology is a teaching book and a technical reference book which aims to provide a clear and understandable description of the applied mathematics and physics required to establish the high level of precision which can now be achieved for the study of the Universe – Precision Cosmology. It details the background and mathematical tools needed to enable a student embarking on advanced studies and research to understand what others have done and published.
This book is also an experiment in presentation. The printed text is accompanied by extensive online supplements, which provide a high level of didactic mathematical material too extensive to be included in the main text. These supplements are freely available for download and are intended as a source of teaching material for both teachers and students across a range of topics in physics, mathematics and statistics. They are suitable for all levels of university study, from undergraduate to postdoctoral research. The online supplements and other support material are available from
www.BernardJones.net/PrecisionCosmology.html
Figures in the text marked cc are available on this website and are free for use under the terms of the CC-BY-SA Creative Commons License. Exercises and slides for teaching purposes are also to be found on this site.
In this way, much of the book should be accessible to physics and mathematics undergraduates who have had courses in mechanics, electromagnetism and special relativity. The aim is to take the student beyond this basic knowledge, right up to the level of being able to follow and understand research papers, and thus to understand today's cosmology in its proper context as a branch of physics.
While the CMB experiments have played a central role in setting precise values for many cosmological parameters, there are other astronomical datasets which can, by themselves, produce remarkably precise results, in particular the Type Ia supernovae (SN Ia) and the baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO). Bringing these together will both serve as mutual confirmation and generally reduce the errors in the estimates of the parameters. This may also highlight areas of tension or discord between estimates of some parameters.
It is important to realise that, had the CMB data not been taken, we would almost certainly have measured the values of the cosmological parameters, possibly with comparable accuracy in many cases, by studying distant objects, e.g. supernovae, and huge catalogues of galaxy positions and redshifts. What is scientifically important is that the CMB data analysis largely rests on a foundation that is based in the physics of the early Universe.
With CMB data, we calibrate fundamental cosmic-length scales by understanding the physics of the power spectrum of the temperature fluctuations, which arise mostly in a narrow redshift band around the time when the Universe was becoming neutral. In contrast, the astronomical determinations tend to be based on calibrations of distant data by detailed understanding of relatively nearer objects, and rarely, if ever, make reference to the CMB.
This duality of approaches is powerful evidence that we are not being somehow fooled by something unknown when coming to our conclusions: the approaches are mutually corroborative. So far there is compelling evidence from both approaches for the existence of copious amounts of both dark matter and for dark energy. Both approaches will play a part in coming to terms with these two great unknowns.
Observing the Universe
The increased level of precision with which we can determine the parameters that define our Universe has grown as a result of research by thousands of astronomers and physicists. Although a few lines of research have grown to dominate our thinking in regard to cosmological parameters, we have only arrived at that point due to efforts in a large number of different explorations. The culmination of that effort was perhaps the discovery of the acceleration of the cosmic expansion, and the subsequent efforts to pin down the properties of the expansion using high-precision techniques.
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation not only provided the key evidence for what has become our basic view of the Universe, but it has also provided a powerful tool with which to study the Big Bang itself. The radiation we see comes from a red-shift of around 1000 and is the result of some complex physical processes that take place in the preceding ‘fireball' phase of the cosmic expansion. The tools for studying the early Universe come from an understanding of those physical processes. The goal of this chapter is to explain the physics of the fireball from the point of view of the radiation field, and to present the means by which we analyse the measurements to extract information about the Universe.
These measurements are now being made with extraordinary accuracy over a wide range of angular scales and frequencies. It is that accuracy that allows us to use the CMB as a probe of the physics of the fireball and to determine the values of cosmological parameters with a precision of a mere few percent. In this chapter we present the theory of the radiation field, what we expect from our observations and how we interpret what is seen.
The Radiation Field
The cosmic fireball is a somewhat unusual environment, far from any laboratory experience. The principal difference lies in the intensity of the cosmic radiation field: in the Universe photons outnumber baryons by some eight orders of magnitude.
Some of the material in this chapter is based on the seminal paper of Sunyaev and Zel'dovich (1970). This is one of the most important papers written on the subject of the CMB.
The Equilibrium Distribution of Photons
The radiation field can be most simply defined by telling how many photons there are of a given frequency moving in a particular direction. However, things are complicated somewhat because the radiation field is measured in terms of the flux of energy carried across a unit surface by photons of a given frequency moving into a given solid angle about a direction normal to the surface. For radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium at some temperature, this flux follows the famous Planck law. In this section we discuss the concept of flux and then relate it to the equilibrium distribution function for the photons and so derive the Planck law from basic principles.