text:
# Braids and symplectic four-manifolds with abelian fundamental group

## 1 Floer homology

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a closed symplectic manifold. To any symplectic automorphism $`\varphi `$ of $`M`$ one can associate its Floer homology group $`HF_{}(\varphi )`$, which is a finite-dimensional $`/2`$-graded vector space over the “universal Novikov field” $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We will use Floer homology only for manifolds of dimension $`4`$, where the definition becomes considerably easier (as a consequence of “weak monotonicity”). Here are some basic properties:

1. $`HF_{}(\mathrm{id})H_{}(M;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ canonically,
2. $`HF_{}(\varphi ^1)`$ is the vector space dual of $`HF_{}(\varphi )`$,
3. for any $`\varphi ,\psi `$ there is a canonical isomorphism $`HF_{}(\varphi )HF_{}(\psi \varphi \psi ^1)`$,
4. $`HF_{}(\varphi )`$ is invariant under Hamiltonian isotopies of $`\varphi `$.

We emphasize that $`HF_{}(\varphi )`$ is not in general invariant under symplectic isotopies (an exception is the case when $`\mathrm{id}\varphi ^{}:H^1(M;)H^1(M;)`$ is an isomorphism, because then any symplectic isotopy of $`\varphi `$ can be replaced by a Hamiltonian isotopy followed by conjugation).

Floer homology can be formally described as Morse theory for the action functional on the twisted free loop space $`(M,\varphi )=\{uC^{\mathrm{}}(,M):u(t)=\varphi (u(t+1))\}`$. More concretely, it is the homology of a chain complex whose generators are the fixed points of $`\varphi `$ (in the generic situation where these are nondegenerate). The grading is given by the Lefschetz index $`sign(det(1D\varphi ))`$. This implies that the Euler characteristic of Floer cohomology is the Lefschetz fixed point number:

$$dimHF_0(\varphi )dimHF_1(\varphi )=L(\varphi ).$$
(1)
For more information about the construction of Floer homology, see , . There is a considerable amount of additional structure on these groups, which we will not mention at all here.

An example: Floer homology for braids. On the two-sphere $`S^2`$, choose a set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_d\}`$ of $`d2`$ marked points. Around each of these points choose distinguished local coordinates, which means an oriented embedding $`\iota :D_ϵ\times \{1,\mathrm{},d\}S^2`$ with $`\iota (0,k)=z_k`$, where $`D_ϵ`$ is the closed disc of radius $`ϵ>0`$. Let $`𝒢_d`$ be the group of diffeomorphisms $`\varphi :S^2S^2`$ which preserve $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and are compatible with the local coordinates, in the sense that $`\varphi (\iota (z,k))=\iota (z,\sigma (k))`$ for some permutation $`\sigma S_d`$. The framed spherical braid group is defined to be $`\pi _0(𝒢_d)`$. An element $`\beta `$ of this group will be called a transitive braid if the induced permutation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is $`\sigma =(12\mathrm{}d)`$.

To associate a Floer group to a transitive braid, choose a symplectic form on $`S^2`$ such that $`\iota `$ is symplectic with respect to the standard form on $`D_ϵ`$. By Moser’s lemma on volume forms, $`\beta `$ has a symplectic representative $`\varphi `$. Consider $`S^{}=S^2\iota (int(D_{ϵ/2})\times \{1,\mathrm{},d\})`$ and its symplectic automorphism $`\varphi ^{}=\varphi |S^{}`$. One defines

$$HF_{}(\beta )\stackrel{def}{=}HF_{}(\varphi ^{}).$$
(2)
We are overstepping the bounds slightly, since we did not originally introduce Floer homology for manifolds with boundary. However, this is not really a problem: by transitivity of $`\beta `$, there are no fixed points on the boundary, and an easy maximum principle argument shows that the “connecting orbits” of Floer theory never touch the boundary. (An alternative way of defining $`HF_{}(\beta )`$ is to glue in a torus to each boundary component, which yields a closed genus $`d`$ surface. One can extend $`\varphi ^{}`$ to a symplectic map of this surface which permutes the tori transitively, and then define $`HF_{}(\beta )`$ to be the Floer homology of this extension. The techniques of  ensure that both approaches yield the same result.) Again using Moser’s lemma, we know that the representative $`\varphi `$ is unique up to symplectic isotopies within $`𝒢_d`$. All such isotopies are Hamiltonian, even though the Hamiltonian functions involved do not necessarily vanish near $`S^{}`$. As a consequence (2) is independent of the choice of $`\varphi `$. This is evident if one defines $`HF_{}(\beta )`$ in terms of the closed genus $`d`$ surface, since the induced isotopy on that surface is Hamiltonian. If one wants to stay on $`S^{}`$, the proof requires another application of the maximum principle to solutions of the “continuation” equation.

It is not entirely clear how much information $`HF_{}(\beta )`$ contains. Conjugate braids have the same Floer homology, by (iii) above. A “neck-stretching” argument in the spirit of , using the transitivity of $`\beta `$, shows that Floer homology does not really see the framings: if $`\tau 𝒢_d`$ is a Dehn twist along a small loop encircling just one point of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then $`HF_{}(\beta )HF_{}(\beta [\tau ])`$ for all $`\beta `$. On the positive side, Nielsen theory provides a nontrivial lower bound. Recall that for each connected component $`l\pi _0((S^{},\varphi ^{}))`$ of the twisted free loop space there is a Nielsen number $`N_l(\varphi ^{})`$, which counts (with the usual sign) the fixed points whose associated constant paths lie in that component. Floer homology admits a corresponding splitting into direct summands, whose Euler characteristics are the $`N_l(\varphi ^{})`$; this is a refinement of (1). As a consequence

$$dimHF_{}(\beta )\underset{l}{}|N_l(\varphi ^{})|.$$
(3)
This is a general feature of Floer homology, not at all limited to braids, but it is particularly relevant in this case due to the richness of $`\pi _1(S^{})`$. For all I know, (3) might be an equality for all transitive $`\beta `$ (note however, that there are plenty of counterexamples among more general surface diffeomorphisms, starting with Poincaré’s geometric theorem).

Non-Hamiltonian Floer homology. Let $`M`$ be a closed symplectic manifold. To any $`aH^1(M;)`$ one can associate a Hamiltonian isotopy class of automorphisms: it consists of maps $`\varphi _a`$ which can be obtained from the identity by a symplectic isotopy with Calabi class $`a`$ (see \[8, Chapter 10\] for a thorough discussion; what we call the Calabi class is the “flux” in their terminology, and moreover our sign convention is opposite to theirs). The “non-Hamiltonian Floer homology” $`HF_{}(\varphi _a)`$ is an invariant of $`(M,a)`$. From the properties stated above one sees that for $`a=0`$ it is ordinary homology; that the groups associated to $`a`$ and $`a`$ are dual; and that $`HF_{}(\varphi _a)HF_{}(\varphi _{a+\gamma })`$ for all $`\gamma `$ in the flux subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }H^1(M;)`$ (again, this is defined in ).

For monotone symplectic manifolds (of arbitrary dimension) $`HF_{}(\varphi _a)`$ can be determined completely. This has been done by Lê and Ono in ; their result, stated in a slightly different form, is

###### Theorem 1 (Lê-Ono).

Assume that $`[\omega ]=\lambda c_1(M)`$ with some $`\lambda 0`$ (if $`\lambda `$ is negative, they also assume that the minimal Chern number $`N`$ satisfies $`2NdimM4`$). Then $`HF_{}(\varphi _a)H_{}(M;\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a),`$ where $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_aM`$ is the flat bundle of invertible $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules canonically associated to $`a`$.

The assumption on $`N`$ can probably be dropped, in view of the technical developments which have occurred in the meantime. On the other hand, the monotonicity condition is essential, as we will see now.

Given an arbitrary symplectic automorphism $`\psi `$ of $`M`$, one can form the symplectic mapping torus $`E`$, which is the quotient of $`S^1\times \times M`$ by the $``$-action $`(s,t,x)(s,t1,\psi (x))`$, with the obvious product symplectic structure. Informally speaking, the purpose of mapping tori is to make maps isotopic to the identity. In our context, this means that the symplectic automorphism $`\varphi `$ of $`E`$ given by $`(s,t,x)(s,t,\psi (x))`$ is the time one map of the symplectic vector field $`/t`$. In terms of the notation introduced above, $`\varphi =\varphi _a`$ with $`a=[ds]H^1(M;)`$.

###### Proposition 2.

$`HF_{}(\varphi )HF_{}(\psi )_\mathrm{\Lambda }H_{}(T^2;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

On a naive level, this “suspension” isomorphism reflects the fact that each fixed point of $`\psi `$ gives rise to a $`T^2`$ of fixed points of $`\varphi `$. Note that mapping tori are never monotone: and indeed, in contrast to Theorem 1, non-Hamiltonian Floer homology does not reduce to a form of ordinary homology. Another obvious remark is that non-Hamiltonian Floer homology depends not only on $`a`$, but also on the cohomology class of the symplectic form. Indeed, if one rescales $`a`$ by some small amount and keeps the symplectic form on $`E`$, then all fixed points of $`\varphi _a`$ disappear; and the same happens if one keeps $`a`$ fixed and changes the symplectic form to $`\delta (dsdt)+\omega `$, for $`\delta `$.

For the purposes of four-dimensional symplectic topology, Proposition 2 is not very satisfactory, since the mapping tori of surface diffeomorphisms have highly nontrivial fundamental groups, so that one can often distinguish between them on topological grounds.

Path components. When explaining (3), we had already mentioned the decomposition of $`HF_{}(\varphi )`$ into direct summands corresponding to components of the twisted free loop space. For $`\varphi =\varphi _a`$ which is homotopic to the identity, this is just the ordinary free loop space, so summands are enumerated by conjugacy classes in $`\pi _1(M)`$. For our purpose, it is sufficient to have a coarser splitting, which distinguishes only homology classes. We denote this by

$$HF_{}(\varphi _a)\underset{cH_1(M;)}{}HF_{}(\varphi _a;c).$$
(4)
The duality between $`HF_{}(\varphi _a)`$ and $`HF_{}(\varphi _a)`$ relates the components belonging to $`c`$ and $`c`$. Some examples: in Theorem 1 only the summand corresponding to $`c=0`$ is nonzero. In fact, the proof of that result is essentially by deformation to $`a=0`$, where one can arrange that all fixed points lie in the trivial connected component. In Proposition 2 there can be several nontrivial summands, but all of them are for $`c0`$. The reason is that the isotopy from the identity to $`\varphi (s,t,x)=(s,t,\psi (x))`$ winds once around the base $`T^2`$ in $`t`$-direction.

## 2 A surgery construction

Let $`\beta `$ be a transitive framed spherical braid on $`d`$ strands. We choose a symplectic representative $`\varphi `$ as in the previous section. Let $`M_1=(S^1\times \times S^2)/`$ be the symplectic mapping torus of $`\varphi `$. The “graph of the braid” is a canonical symplectic torus $`H_1M_1`$: it is the image of the embedding $`T^2M_1`$ which sends $`(s,t)`$, for $`k1/dtk/d`$, to $`(s,dtk+1,z_k)`$. Because we are working with framed braids, the normal bundle of $`H_1`$ has a canonical trivialization. Moreover, $`vol(H_1)=d`$. Next take $`M_2=T^4`$ with the disjointly embedded tori

$`H_1^{}=S^1\times S^1\times \{\xi _1\}\times \{\xi _2\},`$
$`H_3^{}=\{\xi _3\}\times S^1\times S^1\times \{\xi _4\},`$
$`H_4^{}=\{\xi _5\}\times S^1\times \{\xi _6\}\times S^1`$
where the $`\xi _r`$ are all different. We identify each of these tori with $`T^2`$ by using coordinates in the given order. Their normal bundles have preferred (translation-invariant) trivializations. Equip $`M_2`$ with some constant symplectic form which makes all the $`H_k^{}`$ symplectic, and such that $`vol(H_1^{})=d`$. The remaining parts $`M_3,M_4`$ will be elliptically fibered K3 surfaces, with embedded tori $`H_3M_3`$, $`H_4M_4`$ which are the fibres. We identify them with $`T^2`$ in an arbitrary way, and use the standard trivialization of their normal bundles (given by the fibration). The symplectic forms should be normalized in such a way that $`vol(H_3)=vol(H_3^{})`$, $`vol(H_4)=vol(H_4^{})`$. Now glue together all these pieces by Gompf-style sums, pairing the tori $`H_k`$ with $`H_k^{}`$ for $`k=1,3,4`$. The outcome (keeping the choices of $`M_2,M_3,M_4`$ fixed) depends up to symplectic isomorphism only on the conjugacy class of the framed braid $`\beta `$. We denote it by $`M^\beta `$.

The idea can be summarized as follows. By deforming $`\varphi `$ to the identity inside $`Diff(S^2)`$, one can identify $`M_1`$ with $`T^2\times S^2`$. From this point of view, the two-torus $`H_1T^2\times S^2`$ is knotted in a way which is determined by the braid (as observed in  and , one can use the fundamental group of the complement to verify that many different knot types occur). At this point, one could choose to directly glue in a K3 surface to $`H_1`$. This is an appealing possibility, somewhat similar to \[3, Section 5\], but since the resulting fundamental group is $`/d`$, non-Hamiltonian Floer homology cannot be applied in a meaningful way. The role of the intermediate piece $`M_2`$, which we have borrowed from  and , is to let a slightly larger part of $`\pi _1(M_1H_1)`$ survive.

Topological aspects. As has been already mentioned, $`\pi _1(M^\beta )\times /d`$ for all $`\beta `$. More explicitly, let $`z_0S^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a fixed point of $`\varphi `$, and consider the loops $`l_1=S^1\times \{0\}\times \{z_0\}`$, $`l_2=\{0\}\times S^1\times \{z_0\}`$ in $`M_1H_1M^\beta `$, oriented in the obvious way. The isomorphism can be chosen such that $`[l_1],[l_2]`$ correspond to $`(1,0)`$ and $`(0,1)`$ in $`/d`$, respectively. To verify this, it is useful to carry out the gluing in a particular order. Consider the manifold $`M_2^{}`$ obtained by putting together $`M_2,M_3,M_4`$ in the way described above; this still contains the torus $`H_1^{}`$. It is a familiar fact that $`\pi _1(M_3H_3)=\pi _1(M_4H_4)=1`$, and as a consequence

$`\pi _1(M_2^{}H_1^{})`$ $`\pi _1(M_2H_1^{})/\pi _1(H_3^{}),\pi _1(H_4^{})`$
$`d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4:[d_1,d_2]=1/d_2,d_3,d_4`$
$`=d_1.`$
Note that $`d_1`$ is the first longitude of $`H_1^{}`$; the other longitude (which would be $`d_2`$) and the meridian (which would be $`[d_3,d_4])`$ have got killed. As for the remaining piece, the fundamental group of $`M_1H_1`$ is quite large, but it is generated by $`l_1`$ (which is the first longitude of $`H_1`$, and commutes with all other elements) together with $`l_2`$ and various conjugates of the meridian of $`H_1`$. Joining together this with $`M_2^{}H_1^{}`$ kills the meridian and identifies $`l_1`$ with $`d_1`$, from which one sees that the fundamental group becomes abelian.

The characteristic numbers are $`c_2(M^\beta )=48`$, $`c_1(M^\beta )^2=0`$. In fact $`dc_1(M^\beta )`$ can be represented by the disjoint union of $`6d2`$ embedded symplectic tori, each of which has trivial normal bundle: $`2d2`$ parallel copies of $`H_1`$, and $`2d`$ copies of $`H_3`$ and $`H_4`$ each (see  for how to do this kind of computation). The next step would be to compute the homology of the universal cover, as a $`\pi _1(M^\beta )`$-module, and the intersection form on it (presumably, that goes a long way towards determining the homeomorphism type of $`M^\beta `$). We have not done this, but informal considerations suggest that it might turn out to be the same for all $`\beta `$.

Floer homology. Let $`a_1H^1(M^\beta ;)`$ be the unique class with $`a_1,[l_1]=1`$. The next result determines certain summands in the splitting (4) of the non-Hamiltonian Floer group $`HF_{}(\varphi _{a_1})`$.

###### Theorem 3.

$`HF_{}(\varphi _{a_1};[l_2])HF_{}(\beta )_\mathrm{\Lambda }H_{}(T^2;\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Moreover $`HF_{}(\varphi _{a_1};c)=0`$ for any other nonzero torsion class $`cH_1(M^\beta ;)`$.

Consider the direct sum of the groups $`HF_{}(\varphi _a;c)`$ where $`a`$ ranges over the two generators of $`H^1(M^\beta ;)H^1(M^\beta ;)`$, and $`c`$ over all nonzero torsion elements of $`H_1(M^\beta ;)`$. Using the duality between $`HF_{}(\varphi _a;c)`$ and $`HF_{}(\varphi _a;c)`$ one computes that the total dimension of the direct sum is $`8dim(HF_{}(\beta ))`$. On the other hand, the direct sum is defined without reference to any particular basis of homology. As a consequence:

###### Corollary 4.

The total dimension of $`HF_{}(\beta )`$ is a symplectic invariant of $`M^\beta `$.

As in our discussion of mapping tori, $`HF_{}(\varphi _a;c)`$ becomes zero if one changes the symplectic class slightly, by changing the area of the $`T^2`$ factor in $`M_1`$, and rescaling the symplectic forms of the other $`M_k`$ accordingly. However, one can compensate for this by rescaling $`a`$, and recover the Floer homology groups in this way. Of course, it is not clear what happens under “large” deformations of the symplectic class.

The proof of Theorem 3 consists of two steps. The first is a variant of Proposition 2 adapted to surfaces with boundary. The second step is a “Mayer-Vietoris” argument in which one considers the behaviour of Floer homology under Gompf sums. In general this is a hard problem, as a look at the formulae for Gromov-Witten invariants shows , but the particular case needed here is fairly simple. The reason is essentially topological: the components $`c`$ which we are interested in lie in the image of $`H_1(M_1H_1;)H_1(M^\beta ;)`$, but not in that of $`H_1(M_2^{}H_1^{};)H_1(M^\beta ;)`$. Therefore only the fixed points lying in $`M_1H_1`$ are relevant, which are precisely those coming from the braid.

Finally, we would like to point out that non-Hamiltonian Floer homology also merits some attention in higher dimensions. For instance, take a symplectic manifold $`M`$ with an automorphism $`\varphi `$ that is differentiably, but not symplectically, isotopic to the identity (in dimension $`4`$, plenty of such exist). Then the symplectic mapping torus $`E`$ is diffeomorphic to $`T^2\times M`$ but with a potentially nonstandard symplectic structure, which one could try to detect using Proposition 2. There are also examples of “fragile” symplectic automorphisms, which become symplectically isotopy to the identity after a slight change of the symplectic class . In that case, one can hope to show that $`E`$ is symplectically deformation equivalent, but not symplectomorphic, to $`T^2\times M`$.

Paul Seidel
Centre de Mathématiques
U.M.R. 7640 du C.N.R.S.
Ecole Polytechnique
91128 Palaiseau cedex
France


format: text

text:
# THE MEASURE OF COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETERS

## 1 General Background Cosmology and Assumptions

Based on the assumption that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, the framework for modern cosmology rests on Einstein’s general theory of relativity, leading to the very successful hot big bang or Friedmann–Robertson–Walker cosmological model. The dynamics of the expanding universe are described by the Friedmann equation, relating the expansion rate to the density and curvature of the universe:

$$\mathrm{H}^2=\frac{8\pi \mathrm{G}\rho _\mathrm{m}}{3}\frac{\mathrm{k}}{\mathrm{R}^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}$$

where R(t) is the scale factor, H=$`\frac{\dot{R}}{R}`$ is the Hubble parameter (and H0 is the Hubble ‘constant’, the expansion rate at the present epoch), $`\rho _m`$ is the average mass density, k is the curvature term, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant, a term which represents the energy density of the vacuum. However, as described in Section 3, the last term of the Friedmann equation may arise from a different form of dark energy parameterized by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$, rather than a cosmological constant. Generally, the matter density is expressed as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=8\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{G}\rho _\mathrm{m}/3\mathrm{H}_0^2`$ and the vacuum energy density as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }/3\mathrm{H}_0^2`$. The values of these parameters are not specified by the model, but must be determined experimentally.

Measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) spectrum have provided evidence of isotropy on large scales at the thousandths of a percent level $`^\mathrm{?}`$. But, until very recently, questions about the homogeneity of the universe on large scales have remained, primarily because of the discovery, in the 1980s, of unexpectedly large filaments, giant walls and voids – features having dimensions up to the sizes of the survey volumes themselves ($``$200 Mpc) $`^\mathrm{?}`$. However, in the most recent generation of galaxy surveys (LCRS$`^\mathrm{?}`$, SDSS $`^\mathrm{?}`$, and 2DFGRS $`^\mathrm{?}`$), which now extend six to more than an order of magnitude times greater distances, out to redshifts of z$``$0.3, the largest observed structures no longer rival the observed survey volumes. What were for Einstein two convenient mathematical approximations, homogeneity and isotropy, are also apparently very good approximations to the real universe.

Preliminary results from 2DFGRS $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and SDSS $`^\mathrm{?}`$ are beginning to provide improved statistics on the shape of the galaxy power spectrum. The power spectrum, P(k), is the Fourier transform of the correlation function (which represents the probability of finding a pair of galaxies over a random distribution); k is the wave number. The power spectrum can be parameterized by the shape parameter, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$h, which characterizes the horizon scale at the time of matter and radiation equality. On small to intermediate scales, the observed power spectrum is well represented by a power law, but then turns over at larger scales. These recent, as well as earlier, surveys are consistent with a value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$0.15–0.20. An important advance resulting from these new large surveys is that the scale range of the observed galaxy power spectrum is now beginning to overlap that in the CMB anisotropy measurements, which will offer an increasingly precise means of constraining a number of cosmological parameters.

## 2 The Total Matter/Energy Density

Currently, the determination of the total matter/energy density of the universe is most accurately achieved from measurements of the angular power spectrum of microwave background temperature anisotropies. Recent results from a number of independent groups working with either balloon or high–altitude mountain experiments are finding that the first acoustic peak in the angular power spectrum is located at a multipole value of $`l`$ 210. This result is consistent with a value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{total}`$ very near unity:

$``$ Boomerang$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$: 1.02 $`{}_{0.03}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.06}`$

$``$ DASI $`^\mathrm{?}`$: 1.04 $`\pm `$ 0.06

$``$ MAXIMA $`^\mathrm{?}`$: 0.9$`{}_{0.16}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.18}`$

Under the assumption that the initial density fluctuations that gave rise to these temperature fluctuations are Gaussian and adiabatic, these results provide the most compelling evidence to date that we live in a flat ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{total}`$ = 1.0) universe. The data are no longer restricted to the first peak alone; there is solid evidence for additional peaks located at $`l`$ 540 and 840. CBI $`^\mathrm{?}`$ has provided coverage over the range $`l`$ = 400 to 1500, showing a predicted sharp decrease in power at higher multipoles. All of these experiments are consistent with an adiabatic, cold dark matter (CDM) inflationary model with a power law initial perturbation spectrum index, ns, close to 1. The next generation of polarization experiments will test this hypothesis further and yield information on the gravitational wave spectrum predicted by inflation.

## 3 The Cosmological Constant / Dark Energy

For several years, something has not been quite right in the state of cosmology. Until a few years ago, the “standard” cold dark matter (sCDM) model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ = 1, h (= H0 / 100) = 0.5, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 0 was the favored model. However, this model has been found to fall short in a number of very different ways. In numerical simulations, sCDM fails to produce the large–scale distribution of galaxies, producing too little power on large scales $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The expansion ages derived for Hubble constants of 60 or more (most estimates in the recent literature) yield ages of less than 11 Gyr for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ = 1; these ages are lower than most estimates for the Galaxy $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, which range from 12 to 15 Gyr. And finally, measurements of the matter density (Section 4) have tended to yield values of only about 1/3 of the critical density.

All of these inconsistencies are removed by allowing a non-zero value for the cosmological constant, or more precisely, by having a flat universe with a contribution from some form of dark energy. Direct evidence for a current acceleration of the universe has come with the observation that supernovae at high redshifts are fainter than predicted by their redshifts, in comparison to their local counterparts $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Although systematic effects due dust or differing chemical compositions could produce an observed difference between the high and low redshift supernovae, several tests have failed to turn up any such systematics. The resulting implication is that the universe is now undergoing an acceleration, and the data are consistent with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ = 0.3, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ = 0.7, assuming a flat universe, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ represents some form of dark energy having a large, negative pressure $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Although the CMB angular power spectrum contains information on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$, a direct determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ is not possible from CMB measurements alone. This is due to intrinsic degeneracies among the cosmological parameters which allow models with the same matter content, but very different geometries $`^\mathrm{?}`$. However, the position of the first peak in the CMB angular power spectrum, combined with large–scale structure data, can be used to break these degeneracies and are also consistent with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$0.75 $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

In future, it may be possible to measure the expansion rate as a function of redshift directly $`^\mathrm{?}`$ by measuring the displacement of individual Lyman $`\alpha `$ lines in quasar absorption spectra over a time baseline of a decade or so. The velocity shift is predicted to be at the level of only $``$2 m/sec/century (see Figure 1), beyond current technical reach, but of interest for the next generation of 30–meter–class ground–based telescopes being planned for the next decade.

## 4 The Matter Density / Dark Matter

There are several completely independent routes to measuring the average matter density of the universe. In the past decade, increasingly strong evidence for dark matter has emerged, from a wide variety of independent studies. Only about 5% of the universe appears to be made of ordinary baryons. However, there is a strong consensus that the amount of dark matter falls well short of the critical density.

One of the most fundamental outstanding questions in cosmology is the nature of the dark matter. No one simple explanation is sufficient to explain all of the available data - that is, there appears to be more than one type of dark matter. There is dark matter in galaxies thought to be in the form of ordinary baryons whose form has not yet been identified, perhaps warm (100,000K) gas or faint stellar remnants; there is cold, dark matter in clusters whose form has also not been identified, but which must be non–baryonic or else it would violate big bang nucleosynthesis constraints; atmospheric neutrino experiments yield evidence for hot, non–baryonic dark matter in the form of neutrinos with a total mass density about equal to that in luminous stars ($`<`$1% of the critical density); perhaps there is warm or self–interacting dark matter that might explain some of the observed properties of galaxies on small (galaxy) scales And there is also the evidence that 70% of the total mass/energy density of the universe is in a form of dark (vacuum) energy (Section 3).

Most recent estimates of the global matter density have used clusters of galaxies as probes of the matter distribution, assuming that clusters are large enough that they are representative of the overall average mass density. A number of independent techniques have been used for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ estimates: cluster mass–to–light ratios $`^\mathrm{?}`$, the baryon density in clusters both from x-ray $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and Sunyaev-Zeldovich $`^\mathrm{?}`$ measurements, the distortion of background galaxies behind clusters or weak lensing $`^\mathrm{?}`$ (also on supercluster scales of $``$3 h-1 Mpc $`^\mathrm{?}`$), and the existence of very massive clusters at high redshift $`^\mathrm{?}`$. A widespread consensus has emerged that the apparent matter density appears to fall in the range $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ 0.2-0.4, at least on scales up to about 2h-1 Mpc; i.e., only $``$20-40% of the critical density required for a flat, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{total}`$ = 1 universe.

## 5 The Hubble Constant

The Hubble constant, the current expansion rate of the universe, is one of the most critical parameters in big bang cosmology. Together with the energy density of the Universe, it sets the age, t, and the size of the observable Universe (Robs = ct). The square of the Hubble constant relates the total energy density of the Universe to its geometry. The density of light elements (H, D, 3He, 4He and Li) synthesized after the Big Bang also depends on the expansion rate. Determinations of mass, luminosity, energy density and other properties of galaxies and quasars require knowledge of the Hubble constant. In addition, the Hubble constant defines the critical density of the Universe ($`\rho _{crit}=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}`$). The critical density (and therefore H) further determines the epoch in the Universe at which the density of matter and radiation were equal. Hence, the growth of structure in the Universe is also dependent on the expansion rate. During the radiation era, growth of matter on small scales is suppressed – the turnover in the power spectrum corresponds to the point at which the Universe changes from radiation to matter dominated. This feature, set by the critical density, is used to normalize cosmic structure formation models $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

For several decades, over a factor of two discrepancy has persisted in measurements of the Hubble constant spanning a range of about 40 to 100 km/sec/Mpc. Why has the measurement of H0 been so difficult? It requires measurements of recession velocities and the distances to galaxies at large distances (where deviations from the smooth Hubble expansion are small). Progress in measuring H0 has been limited by the fact that measuring accurate distances presents an enormous challenge. Primarily as a result of new instrumentation at ground-based telescopes, and with the availability of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), the precision with which H0 can be measured has evolved at a rapid pace.

A key project of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) was the measurement of distances to a sample of nearby galaxies using Cepheid variables. These intrinsically bright stars follow a well–defined relation between luminosity and period of variation, from which, given a measurement of apparent luminosity and period, their distances can be established by applying the inverse square law. The Cepheid distances may then be used to provide a calibration of several independent methods for measuring relative distances which can be extended further than Cepheids: for example, type Ia supernovae, the Tully–Fisher relation (a relation between the luminosity of a spiral galaxy and its rotational velocity), or the fundamental plane for elliptical galaxies (relating luminosity to velocity dispersion). A summary of the final results for the key project $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ yields a value of H0 = 72 $`\pm `$ 3 (statistical) $`\pm `$ 7 (systematic) km/sec/Mpc based on 5 different methods (see Figure 2).

These measurements are consistent with other recent measurements of the Hubble constant from the measurement of the Sunyaev–Zeldovich effect and time delays for gravitational lenses. These methods, currently with systematics at the $`\pm `$20–25% level are yielding values of H$`{}_{0}{}^{}`$ 60 km/sec/Mpc $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ for cosmologies in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ = 0.3, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 0.7.

## 6 The Optical Extragalactic Background Light (EBL)

The luminosity of stars falls off as $`\frac{1}{r^2}`$, but the surface area intercepted increases as r2. In an infinite universe, the cancelling r2 terms ought to result in a constant surface brightness, and the sky should be as bright as the surface of a star (Olber’s paradox). This paradox was resolved with the discovery of the expansion of the universe, and the finite lifetimes (and the universe itself). But the measurement of the actual value of the optical night sky brightness has remained elusive simply because of just how dark the sky actually is. And because the optical background light is swamped by both by the foreground airglow of the Earth as well as the foreground zodiacal light in the ecliptic plane (at the level of two orders of magnitude), to date it has only been possible to place limits on the EBL contribution. With HST it has been possible for the first time to make a direct measurement of the total optical background light from extragalactic sources $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

The total star formation history of the universe is recorded in the extragalactic background light. The EBL is a record of the baryonic mass processed in stars, and the formation of elements heavier than lithium (the metal production). The intensity of the EBL can be expressed:

$$𝐈_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐁𝐋}}=\frac{𝐜}{\mathrm{𝟒}\pi }_{𝐭_𝐟}^{𝐭_\mathrm{𝟎}}\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{𝐛𝐨𝐥}}(𝐭)}{\mathrm{𝟏}+𝐳}\mathrm{𝐝𝐭}$$

where tf and t0 represent the formation and current epochs respectively, $`\rho _{bol}`$ is the total bolometric luminosity, and the factor (1+z) accounts for the expansion of the universe $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. The measured EBL also includes a contribution from active galactic nuclei (AGN) and accreting black holes in quasars; recent estimates suggest that this contribution could amount to about 15% $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

An important lower bound to the optical luminosity in extragalactic sources can be obtained by integrating the luminosities from individually detected galaxies (for example, the Hubble Deep Field (HDF) $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$). However, the total  amount of light in galaxies cannot yet be determined directly from individual galaxy counts because cosmological surface–brightness dimming (which goes as (1+z)4) is sufficiently severe that even intrinsically bright galaxies of L (Milky Way) luminosities can be missed at high redshift in deep surveys, and the outer lower surface–brightness regions in galaxies can easily escape detection even in relatively nearby galaxies $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Figure 3, from Kuchinski et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ illustrates directly how the well–known Messier objects, M51 and M101 would appear when observed at successively higher redshifts. Corrections for redshift and surface–brightness dimming are applied to rest–frame ultraviolet (U–band and 1500 Angstrom) images. Only the highest surface–brightness features remain visible at high redshift (see also the discussion by Colley et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$), and these reasonably bright (as well as all fainter) galaxies will be missed in deep galaxy surveys.

The optical HST EBL measurements are shown in Figure 4, from Bernstein, Freedman & Madore $`^\mathrm{?}`$, in addition to measurements at longer wavelengths. The grey shaded band corresponds to the model of Dwek et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ scaled to fit the HST data. This model is based on a star formation model including corrections for dust extinction and reradiation. From this figure, it can be seen that approximately 30% of the optical radiation (that produced in stars) is absorbed and then reradiated by dust at infrared wavelengths. The total EBL contribution from 0.l to 1000 $`\mu `$m amounts to 100 $`\pm `$ 20 nW/m2/sr.

The measured optical EBL exceeds the light computed from counts in the Hubble Deep Field by a factor (depending on bandpass) ranging from two to three $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. There are two major components to the missing light, the first being from the outer parts of detected galaxies (beyond the aperture used for photometry measurements), and the second being from galaxies below the surface brightness threshold of the HDF. Roughly 30% of the missing light comes from the outer parts of galaxies and 60% from galaxies below the detection threshold. This background light measurement is consistent with a star formation history of the universe characterized by a steep increase of star formation between redshifts of 0 and 1 (as observed in the CFRS survey $`^\mathrm{?}`$) and a flat or slightly increasing star formation rate beyond in the redshift range 1-4, consistent with observations of star–forming galaxies at these redshifts (the Lyman break galaxies) $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Thus, much of the contribution to the background light may be due to normal galaxies at redshifts less than 4 that are missed because of cosmological surface–brightness dimming (and K-corrections due to band shifting with redshift). However, an earlier generation of stars, not yet detected, may also be contributing to the total background light $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The value measured for the optical EBL implies that the mass processed through stars contributes about 1% of the critical density (for h = 0.7); i.e., a small overall contribution, but a factor of two higher than previous estimates.

## 7  Concluding Remarks

At the current time, there is an impressive convergence on a new standard cosmological model: a flat $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{total}`$ = 1 model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ 0.3, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ 0.7, h = 0.7, and an age of about 14 billion years. As the number of independent determinations of these parameters increases, so will our confidence in this overall picture. Importantly, this convergence does not depend on the results from a single experiment. For example, a non-zero value for a dark energy component, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$, is implied not solely by the type Ia supernovae, but also by the combined CMB anisotropy and large–scale structure surveys. The position of the first acoustic CMB peak at a scale of about 1 degree strongly favors a flat universe, whereas several direct estimates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ yield low values, again pointing to a missing energy component. Values of the Hubble constant exceeding 60 km/sec/Mpc lead to a conflict with the ages of the Milky Way globular clusters in an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ = 0 universe. Many of the parameter measures would have to move beyond their current 2–$`\sigma `$ error bounds for the cosmological model to change. Given the difficulty in eliminating systematic errors, such a possibility cannot be ruled out, but as more accurate data (from MAP, Planck, SDSS, Chandra, SIM, GAIA, LSST, GSMT and other ongoing or planned experiments) become available, the prospects for robustly constraining the cosmological parameters, ultimately leading to an understanding the physical basis of the underlying cosmological model, are looking extremely promising.

## Acknowledgments

I gratefully acknowledge support by NASA through grant GO-2227-87A from STScI for HST observations, and the ASTRO-2 Guest Investigator Program through NAG8-1051 for the UIT observations. It was a pleasure to participate in the inauguration of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, and I thank the organizers for a very enjoyable meeting.

## References