The BICEP2 Project at the South Pole:

river said:
Talk about dramatic flair
Click to expand...


Dramatic flair???
You mean its a good example of mainstream science and peer review in action, being self correcting, logical and open to falsification.


river said:
The mainstream does what it does ….....
Click to expand...

The anti mainstream conspiracy nutter brigade does what it does but with zero success.



river said:
If science really did what it does , then it would publish all theories presented , regardless

And have a publication , that is public , that is dedicated , to all theories , approved or not
Click to expand...



You mean abandon the scientific method and peer review?
Open slather for the nutbags?
Dream on baby! :)
 
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Are the BICEP2 Results Invalid? Probably Not.


Recently rumors have been flying that the BICEP2 results regarding the cosmic inflationary period may be invalid. It all started with a post by Dan Falkowski on his blog Resonaances, where he claimed that the BICEP2 had misinterpreted some data, which rendered their results invalid, or at least questionable. The story was then picked up by Nature’s Blog and elsewhere, which has sparked some heated debate.
So what’s really going on?


For those who might not remember, BICEP2 is a project working to detect polarized light within the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Specifically they were looking for a type of polarization known as B-mode polarization. Detection of B-mode polarization is important because one mechanism for it is cosmic inflation in the early universe, which is exactly what BICEP2 claimed to have evidence of.
Part of the reason BICEP2 got so much press is because B-mode polarization is particularly difficult to detect. It is a small signal, and you have to filter through a great deal of observational data to be sure that your result is valid. But you also have to worry about other sources that look like B-mode polarization, and if you don’t account for them properly, then you could get a “false positive.” That’s where this latest drama arises.


In general this challenge is sometimes called the foreground problem. Basically, the cosmic microwave background is the most distant light we can observe. All the galaxies, dust, interstellar plasma and our own galaxy is between us and the CMB. So to make sure that the data you gather is really from the CMB, you have to account for all the stuff in the way (the foreground). We have ways of doing this, but it is difficult. The big challenge is to account for everything.



Soon after the BICEP2 results, another team noted a foreground effect that could effect the BICEP2 results. It involves an effect known as radio loops, where dust particles trapped in interstellar magnetic fields can emit polarized light similar to B-mode polarization. How much of an effect this might have is unclear. Another project being done with the Planck satellite is also looking at this foreground effect, and has released some initial results (seen in the figure), but hasn’t yet released the actual data yet



Now it has come to light that BICEP2 did, in fact, take some of this foreground polarization into account, in part using results from Planck. But since the raw data hadn’t been released, the team used data taken from a PDF slide of Planck results and basically reverse-engineered the Planck data. It is sometimes referred to as “data scraping”, and it isn’t ideal, but it works moderately well. Now there is some debate as to whether that slide presented the real foreground polarization or some averaged polarization. If it is the latter, then the BICEP2 results may have underestimated the foreground effect. Does this mean the BICEP2 results are completely invalid? Given what I’ve seen so far, I don’t think it does. Keep in mind that the Planck foreground is one of several foreground effects that BICEP2 did account for. It could be a large error, but it could also be a rather minor one.



The important thing to keep in mind is that the BICEP2 paper is still undergoing peer review. Critical analysis of the paper is exactly what should happen, and is happening. This type review used to be confined to the ivory towers, but with social media it now happens in the open. This is how science is done. BICEP2 has made a bold claim, and now everyone gets to whack at them like a piñata.
The BICEP2 team stands by their work, and so we’ll have to see whether it holds up to peer review. We’ll also have to wait for the Planck team to release their results on B-mode polarization. Eventually the dust will settle and we’ll have a much better handle on the results.



Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/112008/are-the-bicep2-results-invalid-probably-not/#ixzz32CYbht5x
 
Big Bang breakthrough team allows they may be wrong:

American astrophysicists who announced just months ago what they deemed a breakthrough in confirming how the universe was born now admit they may have got it wrong.


The team said it had identified gravitational waves that apparently rippled through space right after the Big Bang.
If proven to be correctly identified, these waves—predicted in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity—would confirm the rapid and violent growth spurt of the universe in the first fraction of a second marking its existence, 13.8 billion years ago.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-big-breakthrough-team-wrong.html#jCp
 
Farsight said:
It's good to see some balance on this over-hyped affair. Also see Alexander Unzicker's blog.

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.
Click to expand...

Once again, before our friend Farsight pops in to claim some non existent victory....
This latest update [as I have been keeping an eye out for] does in no way invalidate Inflation/Gravitational radiation or anything else.
In actual fact it is the scientific methodology and peer review in action as it should be, and the same scientific method and peer review, some of our more excuberent anti mainstreamers will undoubtedly grab and run with.

The update does nothing more then acknowledge that other anomalies maybe responsible....MAYBE!
The extract as follows supports that.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
After weeks in which they avoided the media, the team published its work Thursday in the US journal Physical Review Letters.
In a summary, the team said their models "are not sufficiently constrained by external public data to exclude the possibility of dust emission bright enough to explain the entire excess signal," as stated by other scientists who questioned their conclusion.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

"What I would say to the forthcoming "I told you so" claims from the anti brigade, is that scientists are human....potential findings such as this can promote excessive initial joy and excitement. Understandable.
But as per usual immediate follow ups and reviews then ask for "caution"on those findings.
This "caution was what this thread was started for in the OP by myself...
paddoboy said:
Cosmologists cast doubt on inflation evidence
Mar 25, 2014 by Jason Major, Universe Today:
Click to expand...

Then I would ask the "I told you so's" about there own claims that many hold up as 100% faitre complei certainties, and smugly tell all those who want to listen, that they have rewritten 20th century cosmology, all without the present technology open to the real cosmologists and real scientists, that are working hard, that do have access to some of this wonderous equipment, and that do sometimes make excitable claims which later are doused somewhat by the excellent peer review and methodology that mainstream is working under.

It's worth noting once again, that the essential claims in cosmology, and the peer reviews itself, are all from within the mainstream.
Inflation is still overwhelmingly supported. If this data is false, it does not invalidate Inflation. If this data is correct, it will further reinforce Inflation and one of the final predictions of GR to be verified.

Great to see science, the scientific method and peer review in action.
 
You're behind the times, paddoboy. See the Nature article Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble:

Nature said:
"Premature hype over gravitational waves highlights gaping holes in models for the origins and evolution of the Universe, argues Paul Steinhardt..."
Click to expand...

After all the Nobel-mongering and "multiverse proven" nonsense, I've been making a few comments on the internet, such as on Sean Carroll's blog and Alexander Unzicker's blog. The thing is, once you understand gravity and black holes, you appreciate that the original "frozen star" interpretation has to be the one that's right. Then you use a flipped-round version of this in lieu of the Big Bang point singularity, and you find that inflation is just... superfluous. You realise that it was always superfluous, and has always been hyped to high heaven. You find yourself agreeing with this:

Nature said:
"The answer given by proponents is alarming: the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests. First, inflation is driven by a hypothetical scalar field, the inflaton, which has properties that can be adjusted to produce effectively any outcome. Second, inflation does not end with a universe with uniform properties, but almost inevitably leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Scanning over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, every*thing that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable..."
Click to expand...

You realise that inflation is pseudoscience, just like the multiverse, that there's never been any evidence for it, and Big Bang cosmology is better off without it.
 
Farsight said:
You realise that inflation is pseudoscience, just like the multiverse, that there's never been any evidence for it, and Big Bang cosmology is better off without it.
Click to expand...

Inflation is not pseudoscience as you believe, and no reference is saying Inflation did not happen. The articles so far presented, may invalidate the "Positive outcome" of the experiment in question.
It was proposed for obvious reasons.
Mainstream cosmology in the future, will show defining evidence one way or the other re cosmic Inflation, I'm sure.
Like them, I'll remain open minded as to any definitive evidence, one way or the other.
And of course, one way or the other, it does not invalidate the BB theory.
 
Undefined said:
I was lambasted by trolls like you for cautioning against accepting at face value those recent BICEP2 team's papers/claims because I saw immediately obvious flaws in assumtions/interpretations, methodology and systemics. These same trolls soon went very quiet and rationalized their comments away to themselves, but have yet to apologize to me for their outrageous trolling calling me 'crank' etc for noticing right away those flaws which mainstreamers soon after confirmed were there!
Click to expand...

Undefined said:
Yet I was the only one here and at the other site who could immediately and objectively spot the OBVIOUS and EGREGIOUS flaws in the recent BICEP2 papers 'work/claim'. :)
Click to expand...

The above from one of the complaint threads is not as it is stated...in fact quite false.

The first person to be "lambasted"as you put it was Farsight for immediatley jumping on the "all science is wrong" bandwagon, and claiming Inflation was invalidated.
It was not invalidated, and still has not been invalidated.
The only result out of the latest article from myself, was that the initial excitement, and possible claims, may not be as they should be.
And of course you jumped on that, just as I said in an early post.....like any good anti mainstream person, you jump on any negative that ever raises its ugly head.
Again, the data from the experiment concerned, may not be all it was originally trumped up to be....Nothing certain yet, one way or the other.
Inflation is still accepted as most likely, and we still need solid evidence to support it. That's all.

The doubt as to any positive outcome was already evident in the OP started by myself.
The possibility of errors etc was raised by mainstream physicists anyway.....
If the errors are 100% factual, it does not invalidate Inflation, and/or gravitational radiation.
It only means we need to keep researching to overcome similar data errors in the future.
It's science methodology in action. It's peer review in action.

You saying you saw the possible flaws was nothing new. It was part of the article.
What pissed people off, was the fact that you and Farsight, [as I said in post 5] grabbed it with glee, as though, you two had made or predicted the possible data problems.
 
Farsight said:
You're behind the times, paddoboy. See the Nature article Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble:
Click to expand...
I hate it when science journals make the mistake of having a comment section where they allow a scientist to make claims that simply aren't true; it allows cranks like Farsight to cite these mistakes. The article is just a bunch of invective, so I guess that makes it perfect for Farsight.
After all the Nobel-mongering and "multiverse proven" nonsense, I've been making a few comments on the internet, such as on Sean Carroll's blog
Click to expand...
Hah! "Hidden due to low comment rating." "Hidden due to low comment rating." There is truth out there on the internet!
The thing is, once you understand gravity and black holes,
Click to expand...
Says the evangelist who can't do any math.
 
paddoboy said:
Inflation is not pseudoscience as you believe, and no reference is saying Inflation did not happen. The articles so far presented, may invalidate the "Positive outcome" of the experiment in question.
It was proposed for obvious reasons.
Mainstream cosmology in the future, will show defining evidence one way or the other re cosmic Inflation, I'm sure.
Like them, I'll remain open minded as to any definitive evidence, one way or the other.
And of course, one way or the other, it does not invalidate the BB theory.
Click to expand...

One thing for sure Farsight never read the papers associated with this experiment and it's results. As usual he's making a fool of himself with his ridiculous predictions. This experiment isn't over. It's really about the contribution associated with a 'dust' component. The research team believed there calculations predict a maximum dust contribution < attributed to the signature. It's the main focus of the paper. If it turns out that this isn't correct then the research to isolate the signature continues. Anytime you're working with the CMBR the main scientific tool is resolution. So a verification of the signature 'may need > scientific resolution'. That's what cosmologists do. What 'science journalists' and pseudoscience cranks can't do. This will probably be a very interesting discussion. Based on what I know about the science of inflation and gravity I'm predicting this is just a small bump on the road to verification of the gravitational wave signature.
 
brucep said:
One thing for sure Farsight never read the papers associated with this experiment and it's results. As usual he's making a fool of himself with his ridiculous predictions. This experiment isn't over. It's really about the contribution associated with a 'dust' component. The research team believed there calculations predict a maximum dust contribution < attributed to the signature. It's the main focus of the paper. If it turns out that this isn't correct then the research to isolate the signature continues. Anytime you're working with the CMBR the main scientific tool is resolution. So a verification of the signature 'may need > scientific resolution'. That's what cosmologists do. What 'science journalists' and pseudoscience cranks can't do. This will probably be a very interesting discussion. Based on what I know about the science of inflation and gravity I'm predicting this is just a small bump on the road to verification of the gravitational wave signature.
Click to expand...



Exactly brucep. as I have said, the way they grab any negative at all, to promote personal agendas, is staggering to say the least.
As I pointed out, all findings and revelations, are all within the mainstream cosmological circles. Nothing from any renegade from left field.
Inflation is still most certainly supported as it nullifies the horizon, Isotropic, and homogeneity problem.

The following conclusions from a paper says it all.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
More data are clearly required to resolve the situation.
We note that cross-correlation of our maps with the Planck
353 GHz maps will be more powerful than use of those
maps alone in our field. Additional data are also expected
from many other experiments, including Keck Array
observations at 100 GHz in the 2014 season

http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.241101
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

An example of the scientific method and peer review in action, as already mentioned.
 
river said:
Talk about dramatic flair

The mainstream does what it does ….....

If science really did what it does , then it would publish all theories presented , regardless

And have a publication , that is public , that is dedicated , to all theories , approved or not
Click to expand...

Like 'you' would know what constitutes the scientific literature? All that stuff is already available for 'you' to read. The fact 'you' don't know this [the scientific literature is available for 'you' to read on any scientific subject] is a good reason for 'you' putting a cork in it until 'you' do and 'you' use it. You think the literature is secret? LOL.

Now I get it. You want the bullshit pseudoscience you've been touting to be on 'equal footing' with mainstream science. Doesn't work since being mainstream means the theoretical model has to work. Do a little reading.
 
paddoboy said:
...What pissed people off, was the fact that you and Farsight, [as I said in post 5] grabbed it with glee, as though, you two had made or predicted the possible data problems.
Click to expand...
I didn't grab anything with glee. I like many others was pissed off with the Nobel-mongering and pimping hype wherein the BICEP2 collaboration were trying to bypass peer-review and get media hacks to promote them by peddling woo like multiverse proven! And did you see that Linde interview? Oh puke. They were pulling a fast one, and they've got their comeuppance. Good.

brucep said:
One thing for sure Farsight never read the papers associated with this experiment and it's results. As usual he's making a fool of himself with his ridiculous predictions...
Click to expand...
Not so. I said there's no evidence for inflation. And now we've got an article in Nature saying exactly that.
 
Farsight said:
. I like many others was pissed off with the Nobel-mongering and pimping hype wherein the BICEP2 collaboration were trying to bypass peer-review
Click to expand...


The same peer review that have reviewed your ToE?

Real scientists are human you know....no cynical attempt to side step peer review, [that's your usual method] rather enthusiastic scientists, that may have pre-empted instead of waiting a bit.
That sometimes happens, and is not that much to worry about, compared to the more insidious undermining by the fringe alternative conspiracists types.


Farsight said:
Not so. I said there's no evidence for inflation. And now we've got an article in Nature saying exactly that.
Click to expand...

Inflation explains a lot. This particular experiment did not invalidate Inflation.
 
Cosmic inflation solves several problems:

The flatness problem. The Universe is very close to flat to within measurement accuracy, and without inflation, that requires extreme fine tuning in the early Universe. But inflation produces flattening without requiring extreme fine tuning.

The horizon problem. We are seeing more and more of the Universe as time goes on, which means that primordial fluctuations had earlier not been causally connected over their extent. But during inflation, one saw less and less of the Universe, and primordial fluctuations got frozen into place by being stretched across their locale's event horizon.

The relic problem. As the early Universe expanded, Grand Unified symmetry broke, and as it did so, it produced numerous topological defects, much like how a many materials solidify in polycrystalline form. Among these are magnetic monopoles. However, the present density of magnetic monopoles is very small, much too small to be produced by plausible GUT symmetry breaking. But if inflation happened after GUT symmetry breaking, then those monopoles would be diluted into undetectability.

It also makes the right prediction for the spectrum of primordial fluctuations in density. A power law with a power near -1, and also Gaussian behavior.

So I think that the difficulties with the BICEP2 results are not fatal to inflation.
 
Cosmic inflation appears to solve several problems, lpetrich. But as you know singlularities are mentioned in the context of black holes and the Big Bang. Once you understand the "frozen star" black hole interpretation then flip it around, the flatness problem and the horizon problem go away. Then when you understand electromagnetism the relic problem goes away. The BICEP2 results aren't fatal to inflation, but getting people's backs up might turn out to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top