The BICEP2 Project at the South Pole:

[paddoboy]

Will new physics sail on gravitational waves?

19 March 2014
Magazine issue 2961. Subscribe and save
For similar stories, visit the Leaders and Cosmology Topic Guides
The discovery of primordial ripples in space-time is exciting. But does it really herald a new era for cosmology?

A SIGNAL from the beginning of the universe, detected at the end of the Earth. To find the faint marks left by gravitational waves on the big bang's afterglow, physicists had to hunker down at the South Pole; one heroic researcher endured three harsh Antarctic winters in succession.

The BICEP2 team's efforts were rewarded this week, when they announced to mass acclamation that they had indeed found those marks. Their finding supports inflation – the idea that the universe "boomed" briefly in its infancy – which in turn hints that our universe may be only one of many (see "Multiverse gets real with glimpse of big bang ripples"). It is a champagne moment for physicists, made all the sweeter because many felt it would never come.

Should we all drink to their triumph? It somewhat resembles the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012. In both cases, the researchers knew what they were looking for, guided by precise theory and earlier results. While the Higgs result was a triumph for the particle's discoverers, it mostly confirmed what we already knew, providing little food for future thought.

Will this latest finding fall similarly flat? Certainly, once the brouhaha has died down we will probably find that it hasn't moved us on terribly far – particularly as long as it remains unconfirmed by other experimenters.

But there are good reasons to expect the indecision to clear up soon. The reported signal is surprisingly strong, meaning telescopes in Chile and Antarctica should be able to quickly verify or refute the result. The Planck satellite, which has measured temperature differences across the sky in unprecedented detail, will also play a vital role.

The theoreticians will be busy, too. Unlike the Higgs result, this one opens up many possibilities, so in the coming days and weeks, we can expect a deluge of papers chewing over the results from BICEP2 and its rivals. Modelling inflation is a bit like playing whack-a-mole; while the new result will knock some out, more will pop up to take their place. And there are deeper questions. Why did inflation happen at all, and what is behind it? What does it mean for the fate of our universe – and of others?

What will it take to answer these? The story of a lowly Swiss patent clerk called Einstein has seduced us into thinking major advances in physics need genius. And so they do: inflation was an idea born of genius, sorely lacking evidence. But it takes discoveries, too: the kinds of discoveries that can only be made by those willing to go to the ends of the Earth for them. Their efforts rightly deserve applause.



http://www.newscientist.com/article...sail-on-gravitational-waves.html#.U2wrvoGSxco

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Time will tell I suppose, time will tell.

 

[lpetrich]

It's good to see some balance on this over-hyped affair. Also see Alexander Unzicker's blog.

Pure bellyaching. I'm not impressed.

If you follow up on my black hole thread by reading about inflation, you may appreciate that there may be some issues coming for inflation. Like, it is superfluous.

What makes it superfluous? It accounts for:

• The flatness problem
• The horizon problem
• Primordial fluctuations -- it even gets the right spectrum of density fluctuations

See what Unzicker said: How could an effect of the first 10^-32 seconds be tracked over 50 orders of magnitude, to 380,000 years? Absurd.

Maybe to Alexander Unzicker, but that's the way that the numbers work out.

I'm the guy who tells you what Einstein said

So like a theologian. As if Einstein was a Prophet of Inspired Truth.

and points out the hard scientific evidence, remember?

Something I also do.

Don't you get it yet? I'm not into alternative pseudoscience. You are.

Farsight, it's your theories that are "alternative pseudoscience" here.

No, I'm the guy who shows you what Einstein said and the evidence that proves he was right. You're just some abusive kid who won't pay attention to what Einstein said.

Again, as if he was some Prophet of Inspired Truth. Farsight, you have a LOT to learn about science, it seems. You will have to learn to argue about theories independent of who proposed them.

 

[Layman]

I found it hilarious that they felt they had to go into details about how the photons went into the machine at the conference, as though that was something questionable. Then since photons don't have charge and handedness like electrons, it is no surprise that they found evidence of these "gravitational waves" by finding handedness in their apparatus.

I think it is a direct consequence of letting a physicist trying to explain the fundamentals of engineering with concepts of Yang-Mills theory that really hasn't even kept up to par with explaining the Higgs Boson and how two photons come from a particle that doesn't have charge...

You guys should really let the engineers do the interpreting.

 

[wellwisher]

One thing I am not clear on is, inflation occurred in an extremely contracted space-time reference, as inferred by the entire mass density of the universe still in a small volume; via GR. Do the time scales we use for inflation reflect this reference, or does it reflect an earth reference that did not yet exist?

The reason I ask is, the small times attributed to inflation, If viewed from the earth, implies the inflation reference was moving much slower. How does slow inflation impact things? Or if we measure from the inflation itself, then time will speed up when the aftermath is witnessed from earth reference, thereby appearing to break Planck based time records.

 

[Layman]

One thing I am not clear on is, inflation occurred in an extremely contracted space-time reference, as inferred by the entire mass density of the universe still in a small volume; via GR. Do the time scales we use for inflation reflect this reference, or does it reflect an earth reference that did not yet exist?

The reason I ask is, the small times attributed to inflation, If viewed from the earth, implies the inflation reference was moving much slower. How does slow inflation impact things? Or if we measure from the inflation itself, then time will speed up when the aftermath is witnessed from earth reference, thereby appearing to break Planck based time records.

In Alan Guth's theory of inflation, all the matter of the universe didn't exist at the moment of the Big Bang. The energy that created matter was transferred via an unknown type of inflation field. Then inflation happened in multiple periods faster than the speed of light. Then this wasn't subject to normal relativity, because it was space itself that was expanding. Then there wasn't an infinite amount of energy present at the moment of the Big Bang in inflationary theory, so a length smaller than the Planck Scale couldn't be detected.

Alan Guth discovered the inflation theory by assuming that the universe had the same density throughout its growth. Then he found that the negative energy was the same as the positive energy created from it. Then a lot of this energy included the expansion of space itself. Then as it expanded it could then gain more mass, or as it gained more mass it could expand even more. Then the mass of the universe would have been very small at the Planck Scale, and it shouldn't break Planck based time records.

 

[wellwisher]

The point I was making is connected to reference and time. In the twin paradox, the clock of one twin runs slower relative to the other. If we measure the time of inflation in the inflation reference, time is moving slower compared to earth. If the inflation references sees the Planck scale time, the earth would see an even faster interval due to our reference having time move faster. If we assume out reference sees this time interval of inflation, then since time is moving slower in the inflation reference, then the process occurs over a longer duration that what we see.

The inflation period lasts about 10-36 seconds. If the speed of light 3 x 10+8 meter/second. The universe only inflates to roughly 10-27 meters. That is very small. Even if we increase the inflation rate to 100 times the speed of light, the universe is still tiny after inflation. I am trying to figure out which reference this is being viewed at since the two clocks are different by orders of magnitude.

 

[origin]

During inflation the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light objects are not moving through that tiny universe greater than the speed of light so you question is meaningless. There were no objects anyway because there was no mass at the time either.

 

[paddoboy]

In Alan Guth's theory of inflation, all the matter of the universe didn't exist at the moment of the Big Bang. The energy that created matter was transferred via an unknown type of inflation field. Then inflation happened in multiple periods faster than the speed of light.

That's a weird convoluted way of putting it.
The energy that became matter, stemmed from the gradual decoupling of the "Superforce" as far as we know.
At those early periods just after the BB, temperatures and pressures were such that matter could not possibly exist.

With regards to the Inflationary epoch, that most likely happened for a very short brief period of time.

 

[paddoboy]

Alan Guth discovered the inflation theory by assuming that the universe had the same density throughout its growth. Then he found that the negative energy was the same as the positive energy created from it. Then a lot of this energy included the expansion of space itself. Then as it expanded it could then gain more mass, or as it gained more mass it could expand even more. Then the mass of the universe would have been very small at the Planck Scale, and it shouldn't break Planck based time records.

Alan Guth proposed Inflation to explain the isotropic and homegenious observed nature of the Universe, as well as flatness.
At the time Inflation took hold, the observable Universe was still tiny, and then expanded at a rate around 10 to the 25th power,

 

[Layman]

That's a weird convoluted way of putting it.
The energy that became matter, stemmed from the gradual decoupling of the "Superforce" as far as we know.
At those early periods just after the BB, temperatures and pressures were such that matter could not possibly exist.

With regards to the Inflationary epoch, that most likely happened for a very short brief period of time.

Alan Guth must have been a weird convoluted person...
The superforce you mention, that was the combination of all the four fundamental forces, is a result of the Big Bang singularity. Alan Guth's theory doesn't assume that there was a Big Bang singularity. So it seems like you are mixing and matching different Big Bang theory models. Although, Alan Guth's theory of inflation has shown to be the most accurate model of the Big Bang so far, and a lot of the older models have been shown to be incorrect from more recent studies. The problem is that there a lot of skeletons in the inflation closet, so to speak. It has some concepts that really don't have any physical grounding on the real world today. There has been no evidence that there is an inflation field that effects anything in science today.

 

[paddoboy]

Alan Guth must have been a weird convoluted person...
The superforce you mention, that was the combination of all the four fundamental forces, is a result of the Big Bang singularity. Alan Guths theory doesn't assume that there was a Big Bang singularity. So it seems like you mix and matching different Big Bang theory models. Although, Alan Guths theory of inflation has shown to be the most accurate model of the Big Bang so far, and a lot of the older models have been shown to be incorrect from more recent studies. The problem is that there a lot of skeletons in the inflation closet, so to speak. It has some concepts that really don't have any physical grounding on the real world today. There has been no evidence that there is a inflation field that effects anything in science today.

Unless what you posted at post 45 is an Alan Guth quote, [which you should have labeled so] then I stand by my summation of your wording and claims.

Alan Guth's Inflationary theory is part and parcel of the generally accepted BB/Inflationary model.
Inflation certainly does not say anything about the Superforce or Singularity from whence the BB arose. That's because it's an addition describing a fraction of a second after the event....In fact the accepted BB model before Inflation was added, also does not say anything about the BB singularity or the first 10-43 seconds.

And Inflation will be further enhanced if after more research into the current findings support it.
No model as yet does say anything about that Planck/Quantum scale.

While agreeing that the further we go back to that initial event, the less certainty we get about our interpretations, the BB/Inflationary model still holds pride of place in our theory of Universal/space/time evolution.

 

[Layman]

Unless what you posted at post 45 is an Alan Guth quote, [which you should have labeled so] then I stand by my summation of your wording and claims.

I saw a documentary on Netflix about it recently.

Alan Guth's Inflationary theory is part and parcel of the generally accepted BB/Inflationary model.

Even at the conference of the BICEP2 discovery, they even mentioned that they have disproved a lot of BB models, and inflation theory was one of the few that they have not...

Inflation certainly does not say anything about the Superforce or Singularity from whence the BB arose. That's because it's an addition describing a fraction of a second after the event....In fact the accepted BB model before Inflation was added, also does not say anything about the BB singularity or the first 10-43 seconds.

And Inflation will be further enhanced if after more research into the current findings support it.
No model as yet does say anything about that Planck/Quantum scale.

That's funny because early papers Guth made about inflation actually does just that, mentioning the Planck Scale.

Here is an introductory paper about inflation so that you can say that you actually know something about it, http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0101507v1.pdf, and I am not the one that lost their marbles here or just gone off the rails.

 

[paddoboy]

The following WIKI article gives a good description of the Universal time line from t=10-43 seconds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Very_early_universe

 

[paddoboy]

I saw a documentary on Netflix about it recently.

Even at the conference of the BICEP2 discovery, they even mentioned that they have disproved a lot of BB models, and inflation theory was one of the few that they have not...
That's funny because early papers Guth made about inflation actually does just that, mentioning the Planck Scale.

Here is an introductory paper about inflation so that you can say that you actually know something about it, http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0101507v1.pdf, and I am not the one that lost their marbles here or just gone off the rails.

Nothing but nothing that we have as yet, says anything about the first 10-43 seconds.

Plus there is only one generally accepted mainstream theory of Universal evolution, and that is as I have stated...The BB/Inflationary model.

Now in what you thought Guth said about the Planck/Quantum epoch, you are mistaken.
Read your paper again.

 

[paddoboy]

The paper you listed is on "Eternal Inflation" which I don't know a lot about.
As far as I know this is a variation and not the generally accepted model.
It also predicts multiverses.

 

[Layman]

Nothing but nothing that we have as yet, says anything about the first 10-43 seconds.

Plus there is only one generally accepted mainstream theory of Universal evolution, and that is as I have stated...The BB/Inflationary model.

Now in what you thought Guth said about the Planck/Quantum epoch, you are mistaken.
Read your paper again.

I never actually read the paper to begin with, I found it for you to read since you seem to be so confused about the model.
It seems like your just going to be at a loss then, and forever lack the true knowledge about it. You can go look up Alan Guth papers on your own, it wouldn't take you long to find one that mentions the Planck Scale. He actually even got the value of the Planck Scale wrong in his papers before, but I doubt they have been taken down because of it.

Now that I am done talking to you about how little you know about inflation, back to the topic of this thread and the conference I mentioned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iasqtm1prlI

 

[paddoboy]

Also, while we have various models of Inflation, it is accepted that we have one BB model.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
According to the simplest inflationary models, inflation ended at a temperature corresponding to roughly 10−32 seconds after the Big Bang. As explained above, this does not imply that the inflationary era lasted less than 10−32 seconds. In fact, in order to explain the observed homogeneity of the universe, the duration must be longer than 10−32 seconds. In inflationary cosmology, the earliest meaningful time "after the Big Bang" is the time of the end of inflation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Inflationary_epoch
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

[Layman]

^That's funny, cause the Planck Scale is 10^-33 cm and 10^-34 sec. The Big Bang would have started after 10^-34 sec of t=0. This wiki link is clearly wrong. There would have been no way inflation would have ended before this time. That time wouldn't have actually even existed or been able to have any impact on anything afterwards without a singularity.

 

[Layman]

The paper you listed is on "Eternal Inflation" which I don't know a lot about.
As far as I know this is a variation and not the generally accepted model.
It also predicts multiverses.

Obviously, well of course something couldn't be generally accepted as actual science that presumed there where multiverses, right? What I wouldn't give to live in your convoluted little world...

 

[paddoboy]

Obviously, well of course something couldn't be generally accepted as actual science that presumed there where multiverses, right? What I wouldn't give to live in your convoluted little world...

You have it all wrong....I am quite attracted towards the concept of multi/parallel Universes, but we have no evidence at all for it...just speculation.
Unlike Guth's original Inflation model.