Gravitational waves - finally, The topic cover Big bang, inflation and the CMB Options

[centsworth_II]

If we're going to talk multiverse and many worlds, we might as well start a UFO thread as well.

LET'S NOT - ADMIN

[centsworth_II]

My job here is done.

[Holder of the Tw...]

Some doubts about all this ...
Physical Review Letters - BICEP2 researcher agree more studies needed.

[Gerald]

Let's wait for the corresponding Planck papers later this year.

[Gerald]

A Joint Analysis of BICEP2/Keck Array and Planck Data

In order to further constrain or detect IGW, additional data are required.

IGW = inflationary gravitational waves

[TheAnt]

A Joint Analysis of BICEP2/Keck Array and Planck Data

IGW = inflationary gravitational waves

Yes this looked very good and solid when they published, but comparing with Planck data revealed that some of the result were caused by dust.
It was on a channel of TV here not so long ago with interviews with both teams, their equipment and how they had arrived at the result. And that was treating the US team nicely since it have turned out that they in their rush to publish had used one image of the distribution of dust taken from a power point presentation.
Yes I started this thread, and honestly thought those people had a better foundation for their claims when publishing.

[fredk]

Yes this looked very good and solid when they published... I started this thread, and honestly thought those people had a better foundation for their claims when publishing.

Many involved (myself included) were sceptical from the start, and what BICEP actually wrote in the paper was quite measured. Unfortunately, the BICEP team appears to not have controlled the message put out in their institution's press release material, which probably gave the impression of a solid result. So you're not to blame!

they in their rush to publish had used one image of the distribution of dust taken from a power point presentation.

Incredible, but true. But sensibly, that part had to be removed from BICEP's paper before it could be published.

comparing with Planck data revealed that some of the result were caused by dust.

Yes. A year ago BICEP said they saw a total signal of gravity waves + dust at about 20% (compared to ordinary matter fluctuations). BICEP thought it most likely (based in part on that presentation image!) that only a few of that 20% was dust, leaving something like 17% for gravity waves. Now with Planck we see that possibly all of the 20% is dust. But there are uncertainties here, and as much as about 8% could still be gravity waves. We'll have to wait for better telescopes to narrow that down better.

[TheAnt]

Thank you for your nice reply fredk. =)

A carefully phrased paper actually do give me a sense of credence for what is published even if it is a subject I have no good insight in.
The facts I knew was that it was based on a long study which should have given numerous datapoints, and the time spent for analyse the data made it seem good.

You are rather kind with them also, whereas I personally now view this matter on par with certain papers on cloning and stemcells.
"Incredible" is almost an understatement after the Nobel price class claims, though I am not the only one who come with a red face in this matter, there should be some tomato impersonators among their reviewers also. =)

[fredk]

The facts I knew was that it was based on a long study which should have given numerous datapoints, and the time spent for analyse the data made it seem good.

That's right, they did a very good job of measuring the total, 20%. Where they failed was in what they did and said about how much of that might be dust. And in controlling the public release.

"Incredible" is almost an understatement after the Nobel price class claims, though I am not the only one who come with a red face in this matter, there should be some tomato impersonators among their reviewers also.

This is true: there were some overly optimistic statements from experts in the field who should've known better, and from some non-experts who should've said nothing!

[Astro0]

ADMIN: This topic has run afoul of forum rule 2.6 and at the risk of attracting further '20/20 hindsight' comments, has been closed.