Looking for Background Noise: The Cosmic Reality Check

A celestial audit suggests that astronomers' inventory of luminous bodies may soon be complete















Share on Tumblr

To be sure, some researchers think we may still be missing some crucial piece of the puzzle, such as galaxies that are too spread out to see directly or stars that formed before galaxies did [see “The First Stars in the Universe,” by Richard B. Larson and Volker Bromm; Scientific American, December 2001]. Sources other than AGNs have been proposed for the very high-energy tail of the CXB. For example, a significant fraction of the gamma rays could be produced by electrons catapulted to immense speeds during the formation of the large-scale structure of the universe.

Further intensive surveys are needed to disentangle the various processes that contribute to the background, and future observatories—such as the Space Infrared Telescope Facility, the Herschel Far-Infrared Telescope, the Next Generation Space Telescope and the Atacama Large Millimeter Array—will be required to study some of the objects that x-ray satellites have detected. X-ray spectrometry by the planned XEUS mission could be crucial because it might be able to estimate redshifts from x-ray data alone, thereby allowing observation of objects too heavily obscured to be visible in the optical at all. Such work might finally explain the mysterious link between galaxies and the black holes at their centers, deduce which formed first, and describe how star formation relates to black-hole activity.

 

The Bright Night Sky  The study of the background is a classic example of how nothing in astronomy is quite what it appears to be. The mere presence of the background indicates that, despite first appearances, the night sky is not completely dark. For most of human history, the darkness of the night sky was taken for granted, and the question was why it was so. In an infinite universe filled with stars, every line of sight should eventually meet the surface of a star. The dimming of starlight with distance should be exactly canceled by the increase in the number of stars you see as you look farther out, so the night sky should appear as bright as the surface of the sun. Day and night should blend into one.

This puzzle, known as Olber’s paradox, was solved in 1848 by Edgar Allan Poe. In his prose poem Eureka, he argued that the stars must not have had enough time to fill the universe with light. The darkness of the night sky, then, tells us that the universe has not existed forever. Not only has that hypothesis stood the test of time, it eventually proved crucial to formulating the big bang theory.

Still, the night is not pitch-black; it is pervaded by the cosmic background. Although we have made much progress in explaining it, we have much left to do. Whereas 19th-century thinkers had to explain why the night sky isn’t bright, modern cosmologists must figure out why it isn’t completely dark.



ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

GÜNTHER HASINGER and ROBERTO GILLI began to work together on the x-ray background radiation at the Astrophysical Institute in Potsdam, Germany, where Hasinger was the director and Gilli did some of the work for his Ph.D. At the time this was published, Hasinger was a director at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany and primarily an observer. Gilli, then at Arcetri Observatory in Florence, Italy, was primarily a modeler. Hasinger very nearly became a rock musician instead of an astronomer. He played bass guitar and traverse flute and was recording his first album when his mother insisted that he enroll at the University of Munich, lest she lose child-support benefits. He still jams occasionally. Gilli, for his part, was steered away from a career in soccer.


2 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. ethicspiedpiper 02:58 PM 9/6/09

    every major type of ???
    hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
    land mamals is a relative easy shout
    but what of the microscopic world
    or deep ocean
    this article is flawed as he aint a biologist
    if you catch what i banging big on about
    or small

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. ethicspiedpiper 03:17 PM 9/6/09

    the thing is.......................................................

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital

Latest from SA Blog Network

  SA Digital

Email this Article

Looking for Background Noise: The Cosmic Reality Check

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X