Year of the Comet
Comet C/2011 L4 (PANSTARRS)

PANSTARRS information

Comet C/2012 S1 (ISON)

ISON information

Astronomy News
E-mail Article to a FriendPrint ArticleBookmark and Share

Integral challenges physics beyond Einstein

The gamma-ray observatory has placed stringent new limits on the size of quantum “grains” in space, ruling out some quantum loop gravity theories.
By ESA, Noordwijk, Netherlands Published: July 1, 2011
Gamma-ray-burst
Gamma-ray burst. ESA/SPI Team/ECF
The European Space Agency’s (ESA) Integral gamma-ray observatory has provided results that will dramatically affect the search for physics beyond Einstein. It has shown that any underlying quantum “graininess” of space must be at much smaller scales than previously predicted.

Einstein’s general theory of relativity describes the properties of gravity and assumes that space is a smooth, continuous fabric. Yet quantum theory suggests that space should be grainy at the smallest scales, like sand on a beach.

One of the great concerns of modern physics is to marry these two concepts into a single theory of quantum gravity.

Now, Integral has placed stringent new limits on the size of these quantum “grains” in space, showing them to be smaller than some quantum gravity ideas would suggest.

According to calculations, the tiny grains would affect the way gamma rays travel through space. The grains should “twist” the light rays, changing the direction in which they oscillate, a property called polarization.

High-energy gamma rays should be twisted more than the lower-energy ones, and the difference in the polarization can be used to estimate the size of the grains.

Philippe Laurent from the Commission of Atomic Energy (CEA) in Saclay, France, and his collaborators used data from Integral’s IBIS instrument to search for the difference in polarization between high- and low-energy gamma rays emitted during one of the most powerful gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) ever seen.

GRBs come from some of the most energetic explosions known in the universe. Most are thought to occur when massive stars collapse into neutron stars or black holes during a supernova, leading to a huge pulse of gamma rays lasting just seconds or minutes, but briefly outshining entire galaxies.
Integral observatory
ESA’s Integral gamma-ray observatory is able to detect gamma-ray bursts, the most energetic phenomena in the universe. ESA/Medialab
GRB 041219A took place December 19, 2004, and was immediately recognized as being in the top 1 percent of GRBs for brightness. It was so bright that Integral was able to measure the polarization of its gamma rays accurately.

Laurent and colleagues searched for differences in the polarization at different energies, but found none to the accuracy limits of the data.

Some theories suggest that the quantum nature of space should manifest itself at the “Planck scale”: the minuscule 10^-35 of a meter, where a millimeter is 10^-3 (0.001) m.

However, Integral’s observations are about 10,000 times more accurate than any previous and show that any quantum graininess must be at a level of 10^-48 m or smaller.

“This is a very important result in fundamental physics and will rule out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories,” said Laurent.

Integral made a similar observation in 2006 when it detected polarized emission from the Crab Nebula, the remnant of a supernova explosion just 6,500 light-years from Earth in our own galaxy.

This new observation is more stringent, however, because GRB 041219A was at a distance estimated to be at least 300 million light-years.

In principle, the tiny twisting effect due to the quantum grains should have accumulated over the large distance into a detectable signal. Because nothing was seen, the grains must be even smaller than previously suspected.

“Fundamental physics is a less obvious application for the gamma-ray observatory, Integral,” said Christoph Winkler from ESA. “Nevertheless, it has allowed us to take a big step forward in investigating the nature of space itself.”

Now, it’s over to the theoreticians, who must re-examine their theories in the light of this new result.

Find us on FacebookFind us on Twitter
User Comments
Be the first to leave your comment below!

Only registered members of Astronomy.com are allowed to comment on this article. Registration is FREE and only takes a couple minutes.

Register Today!
 
5 stars
CHRIS R BAKER from CALIFORNIA said:
Dr. John has an interesting point and I ask "how do they tell the initial polarization angles to begin with?" What if the conditions that cause the polarization cause the different wavelengths to polarize at different angles?
3 stars
DR JOHN OCCHUIZZO from PENNSYLVANIA said:
Hmmmm....It has been my education that says a Plank length is 10E-33cm and light takes 10E-43 seconds to travel this distance, so 10E-46cm is fantastically small, one ten thousandth of a billionth of a Plank length! Something smells fishy here. Perhaps the premise of polarization is incorrect. Polarization of photons takes time in itself, it's not instantaneous. I think the jury is still out on this one.
JOHN MOES from MICHIGAN said:
The micro waves of the background radiation were gamma rays when they started in our direction, and all the grains in the visible universe were in a sphere the size of a basketball less than a second before that. The grains must have been the size of quarks.
4 stars
ROGER MOORE JR from MISSOURI said:
10^-48 m. How small is that compared to an atom? Or maybe even a proton, neutron or electron? Or does it go even smaller?
5 stars
LAURENCE W HUNT from OREGON said:
Since the observed data yields a finding that the quantum graininess must be smaller than 10^-48 it goes a long way to proving that the universe is not "grainy". IMHO
2 stars
KELLY FRAVEL from COLORADO said:
Robert my thought too. Is there any evidence that these "grains" yuck yuck... exist on any scale?

As a non scientifically trained person myself with an avid interest in science... I can not help but noticed how often scientists act pack like.

And as we all know... phenomena may be given a sign/word from observations that are indeed "verified" by experimental data... but... just because the praxis gives them functionality... that is practical application... does not mean that the original insight is valid or a complete understanding.

I don't think humans understand what "dimension," actually means for instance. Place holders in equations work. But the mystery and the assumptions are still rife in the equations.

For instance "where" the heck is all of that matter/energy that "Black Holes," ... 'disappear.' That was a noun/verb! For I don't like the eating Black Hole idea on a number of levels... not the least of which is that I prefer not to live in a Universe that may eat me!

A better term is a "Black Whole." I just thought of that but I am sure someone else has also? The mystery is solved by infinity. But then I am an analogue thinker... proudly.

The hole Dark Energy/Dark Matter thing I sense is wrong. But it sure does create tenured positions!
R SCREETON from ARKANSAS said:
This is great news, could Mr. Planck be wrong?
ALEJANDRO POPOVSKY said:
These negative results of the experiments by the Commission of Atomic Energy (CEA) about the size of quantum “grains”, remind me of the Michelson Morley experiment and the search for ether in the late 1800s.
BILL SIMPSON from LOUISIANA said:
The great question is what is the limit to smallness? It reminds me of the problem of cutting the distance in half between 2 points over and over again. At some scale it would seem to become meaningless. An infinitely small distance is hard to grasp. But numbers can get smaller forever. So I guess infinite smallness is impossible? It gives me a headache. I just hope that all the theoretical physicists don't all try to comment at once, and crash the server.
5 stars
ROBERT MCCABE from NORTH CAROLINA said:
"Because nothing was seen, the grains must be even smaller than previously suspected."

Or they don't exist!

SEARCH SITE
Subscriber Only Access
Subscriber Only Content
Look for this icon. This denotes premium subscriber content. Learn more »
Become a Member of Astronomy.com
Register today for access to more valuable resource information.
Interact in our forums, comment on articles, receive our newsletter and much more!
Not a member?
Subscriber and Member Login
Password
Remember me