Is Earth In A Giant Cosmic Void? Why New Research Could Change Everything
Presented at the Royal Astronomical Society's National Astronomy Meeting, new research led by Dr Indranil Banik from the University of Portsmouth proposes that this "void", also known as an underdensity, could help solve one of astrophysics' biggest puzzles: the Hubble Tension, a long-standing discrepancy in measurements of the universe's rate of expansion.
'We showed that a void model is about one hundred million times more likely than a void-free model,' Dr Banik said, explaining that their data was based on 20 years of measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations – faint, frozen ripples in matter left over from the Big Bang, often described as the "sound" of the early universe.
If true, this theory means we're sitting inside a cosmic bubble roughly a billion light-years wide and about 20% less dense than the average universe. This sparsity of matter could distort our view of how quickly galaxies are racing away, essentially tricking us into thinking the universe is expanding faster than it actually is.
The idea of a local void is not new; scientists have debated it for decades, but it has remained controversial because it challenges the principle that the universe should be evenly spread out at large scales. However, Dr Banik's model, which incorporates redshift measurements and the latest Planck satellite data, offers compelling evidence that could shift mainstream scientific opinion.
If confirmed, the implications are profound: not only would it reshape our understanding of cosmology, but it could also suggest that the "heat death" of the universe, when all energy is evenly spread and nothing happens anymore, might be much further in the future than previously believed.
The research team plans to compare their void model with other measurements to further test its validity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
21 hours ago
- News18
Are These 'Little Red Dots' The Universe's First Stars And Not Galaxies?
Last Updated: JWST spotted over 300 mysterious red dots from the early universe. Though once thought to be galaxies, scientists now believe they may be massive stars, not galaxies The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has realised humanity's ambition of observing the early universe. It recently transmitted images from when the universe was merely 600 million years old. However, these images revealed something puzzling: hundreds of small red spheres, now referred to as Little Red Dots (LRDs). JWST identified over 300 of these red dots. Despite being faint and extremely distant, they appear unusually bright, suggesting a very high mass. Initially, scientists believed these were early galaxies, but new research proposes a surprising alternative: they may actually be supermassive stars (SMS), not galaxies. A recent study by Devesh Nandal of the University of Virginia and Abraham Loeb of Harvard suggests these mysterious LRDs could be Population III supermassive stars; stars that formed in the very early universe. These stars contained no metals and could have masses up to 1 million times that of our Sun. However, they lived for only a few thousand years before exploding as supernovae. These explosions may have contributed to the formation of the first supermassive black holes (SMBHs), which are now found at the centres of quasars and large galaxies. The red appearance of LRDs is due to the thick clouds of gas and dust surrounding them. Initially, scientists speculated they might be active galactic nuclei (AGN), with black holes at their centres. However, key differences such as the absence of X-ray emissions, a flat infrared spectrum, and minimal light variation challenged that theory, prompting researchers to consider alternative explanations. What Did the Research Find? Nandal and Loeb created a model of a metal-free supermassive star with a mass of one million Suns. They found that its light spectrum and brightness closely matched those of the LRDs observed by JWST. Most importantly, the model showed a strong Hβ emission line and Balmer absorption lines, features typically created when gas expands on the surface of a supermassive star. This strongly supports the theory that LRDs are not galaxies but giant stars. Could This Solve a Cosmic Mystery? If proven true, this theory could help solve a long-standing puzzle: how did SMBHs form so soon after the Big Bang? According to current models, they should have taken billions of years to develop. However, the presence of quasars and SMBHs just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang contradicts this. The theory of short-lived, massive stars collapsing into black holes provides a much simpler explanation. The researchers adhered to the principle of Occam's Razor, the idea that the simplest explanation is often the most likely. While the AGN theory requires multiple complex assumptions, the SMS model explains all the observed features straightforwardly. Nevertheless, scientists emphasise that this is still a developing theory. Further telescopic observations and improved modelling will be necessary to confirm whether these Little Red Dots are indeed ancient supermassive stars. Despite the limitations of current technology, JWST has opened a new window into the universe's earliest moments – and potentially, into one of its greatest mysteries. First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Where is the centre of the universe?
A:The universe has no top, bottom or middle and no centre either. Scientists know today that the universe is spreading out in all directions and in all places at the same time. This means galaxies that are 500 lightyears away, 5,000 lightyears away, and 5 million lightyears away are all moving away from the earth. The earth itself is moving away from another object somewhere else. On a more fundamental level, we often consider the Big Bang to be a central event in space, but this is not true. Our universe is not located inside some larger space (at least to the extent that we can study and prove). Right after the Big Bang, space grew, changed, and evolved everywhere at once. The human mind is accustomed to a three-dimensional surrounding where specific parts of space begin and end. It is more used to shapes with points and straight lines. Thus, for example, we can say a spherical soap bubble has a centre. But the universe bends space and time and has a shape that is not easily comprehensible by the mind. It has no edges or vertices and thus no centre either. As the German physicist Werner Heisenberg once said, 'Physics does not offer comfort; it offers reality.' (Shamim Haque Mondal is a researcher in the Physics Division, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata.)
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
Matter's elusive dark twin: Most expensive substance in the universe
In 1930, theoretical physicist Paul Dirac was trying to reconcile quantum mechanics with Einstein's theory of relativity when his equations hinted at something strange: the existence of a 'mirror' particle identical to the electron, but with opposite charge. Its implications made him uneasy — that every particle has an antiparticle, and that perhaps the whole of nature is constructed in this way. Dirac's calculation wasn't to be a mere mathematical quirk. Two years later, American particle physicist Carl Anderson found the positron, the electron's antimatter twin, in cosmic ray experiments. It was a moment of rare scientific poetry: a particle predicted by pure mathematics, then seen in nature. Antimatter sounds like something from science fiction. And indeed, it has captured the imagination of writers from Star Trek (where it powers warp drives) to Angels and Demons (where it threatens to obliterate Vatican City). But antimatter is very real, though vanishingly rare in our universe. Whenever a particle meets its antiparticle, they annihilate in a flash of energy — converting all their mass, as per Einstein's , into pure light. That property makes antimatter the most energy-dense substance imaginable. A single gram could, in theory, produce as much energy as a nuclear bomb. But if it's so powerful, why don't we use it? And why don't we see it everywhere? Here lies one of the deepest mysteries in cosmology. The Big Bang, as we understand it, should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. But for reasons not yet fully known, the early universe tipped the scales ever so slightly toward matter — by just one part in a billion. That tiny excess is what makes up everything we see: stars, galaxies, people, planets. The rest annihilated with its antimatter counterpart in the early universe. Physicists are still trying to understand why the universe has this imbalance. One possibility is that antimatter behaves slightly differently than matter — a tiny asymmetry in how particles decay, known as CP violation. Experiments at CERN and Fermilab are probing these effects, but so far, no definitive explanation has emerged. The reality of antimatter: not just theory Despite its elusiveness, antimatter isn't merely theoretical. We make it — routinely. In fact, hospitals around the world use positrons (antimatter electrons) every day in PET scans. The 'P' in PET stands for 'positron,' and the scan works by injecting a radioactive tracer that emits positrons. When these encounter electrons in the body, they annihilate and emit gamma rays, which are detected to create precise images of tissues. Physicists at CERN's Antimatter Factory even trap anti-hydrogen atoms, composed of an antiproton and a positron, in magnetic fields for a few milliseconds at a time, to study their properties. The dream is to answer a simple but profound question: does antimatter fall down like regular matter, or does it somehow respond differently to gravity? Early experiments suggest it falls the same way, but the precision isn't yet conclusive. Energy source or weapon? Harnessing antimatter sounds like a sci-fi superpower, and indeed, the energy from matter-antimatter annihilation could, in theory, power spacecraft far more efficiently than any rocket we've built. But there's a catch: antimatter is mind-bogglingly expensive. Producing a single gram would cost about $60 trillion using today's particle accelerators. Worse, storing it safely is a nightmare. Let it touch anything, and boom, it annihilates. That hasn't stopped the speculation. NASA has funded studies on antimatter propulsion, suggesting it could one day shorten interstellar travel. But for now, it remains out of reach, a gleaming prize at the edge of possibility. Antimatter in space Cosmic rays from deep space occasionally strike Earth's upper atmosphere, producing short-lived showers of antimatter particles. The International Space Station even carries an instrument called the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, scanning for signs of antimatter nuclei that could hint at entire regions of the universe made of antimatter — a speculative idea, but one not yet ruled out. Neutron stars and black hole jets may also generate antimatter in tiny amounts, adding to the cosmic fireworks. But overall, the universe appears matter-dominated. Why nature chose this option, why there's something instead of nothing, remains among the deepest riddles in physics. Final Reflections In Star Trek, antimatter is a tame servant of human ambition. In reality, it's a fleeting, elusive shadow of the particles we know. Dirac's equations suggested a universe with perfect symmetry, but nature, like a mischievous artist, left a flaw in the mirror. The story of antimatter reminds us that physics isn't just about numbers or formulas. It's about imagination, daring, and a relentless curiosity about the hidden sides of reality. Somewhere in the collision of matter and anti-matter lies a spark — of annihilation, yes, but also of wonder. Shravan Hanasoge is an astrophysicist at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research.
