Last Week's Announcement About Gravitational Waves and Inflation May Be Wrong

KentuckyFC (1144503) writes "If you've been living under a stone, you might not have heard last week's announcement that astrophysicists from the BICEP2 experiment have found the first evidence of two extraordinary things. The first is primordial gravitational waves--ripples in spacetime from the very first moments after the Big Bang. The second is that these waves are evidence of inflation, the theory that the universe expanded rapidly, by twenty orders of magnitude in the blink of an eye after the Big Bang. But that can only be possible if the gravitational waves formed before inflation occurred. Now critics have begun to mutter that the waves might have formed later and so provide no evidence of inflation. The new thinking is that as the universe cooled down after inflation, various phase changes occurred in the Universe which generated the laws of physics we see today. These phase changes would have been violent events that generated their own ripples in space time, which would look very much like the primordial gravitational waves that the BICEP2 team claims to have found. So the BICEP2 team must rule out this possibility before they can claim evidence of inflation. But the critics say the data does not yet allow this to be done. That doesn't mean inflation didn't occur. Indeed, the critics say this is still the most likely explanation. But until the phase change possibility is ruled out, the result must be considered ambiguous. So put the champagne back in the fridge."

Comments

No confirmation

[cciechad]

Um also this is one experiment with no confirmation yet. No one else has repeated the results as of yet so how about putting the champagne away until another group of experimenters confirms?

Re:No confirmation

[JaredOfEuropa]

Look at what that champagne (& other stuff) cost you last week compared to a few years ago; that's proof of inflation right there...

Re:No confirmation

[bigpat]

We are just going to have to recreate another big bang and then see what happens and therefore settle this debate once and for all.

Re:No confirmation

[i kan reed]

Oh yeah, because controlled experiments haven't established any of the laws being applied, right?

Are you a moron who'd say "we don't know what gravity on Jupiter is like because we haven't experimented there"?

No? Then why are you a moron who says "Carbon dioxide doesn't retain heat on a planetary scale because our experiments that clearly establish that mechanism have only been on a small scale"?

Observational evidence is evidence, and controlled experiments are only necessary for the process of establishing and challenging the laws that we use to assess the real world.

Re:No confirmation

[interkin3tic]

It sounds like this is actually sort of the confirmation.

Last year, another telescope in Antarctica — the South Pole Telescope (SPT) — became the first observatory to detect a B-mode polarization in the CMB (see Nature http://doi.org/rwt; 2013). That signal, however, was over angular scales of less than one degree (about twice the apparent size of the Moon in the sky), and was attributed to how galaxies in the foreground curve the space through which the CMB travels (D. Hanson et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 141301; 2013). But the signal from primordial gravitational waves is expected to peak at angular scales between one and five degrees...

Furthermore, data taken with a newer, more sensitive polarization experiment, the Keck array, which the team finished installing at the South Pole in 2012 and will continue operating for two more years, showed the same characteristics. “To see this same signal emerge from two other, different telescopes was for us very convincing,” says Kovac.

Nature

So it's not just one experiment, there are multiple other readings that support it, though I guess a complete experiment duplication is not yet complete. That nature article mentions that the SPT is a competitor to BICEP2, which published the findings, and they were literally a few meters away at the south pole. So I'd assume that SPT and maybe some other competitor is most of the way to confirming the findings, enough that they were confident in publishing.

That said, I'm totally not a physicist. It just sounds like this isn't a single experiment.

Phase changes

[P-niiice]

I think phase changes on a universal scale is an amazing thing to ponder.

Re:Phase changes

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Absolutely. Regardless of whether the results confirm or are consistent with the theory of Inflation, the every existence of coherant structure the scale of the universe itself is an amazing result. By default, there is no reason to expect any structure whatsoever at the highest cosmic sale. (I would argue that up to now this, there was essentially no struture to the CMB)

Yet here we have "waves" of polarisation over a gigantic region of the night sky. The Universe has uniform strutures at the most enormous scales. It's a deep and awesome result that must be addressed, by inflation or whatever other theory we can propose for it.

Re:Phase changes

[VortexCortex]

Now imagine phase changes on a multiversal scale. All those infinite chaotic dimensions then BLAM a few align such that their properties harmonize and propagate in a brilliant momentary flash before returning to chaos time and again like fireworks and then the energy density becomes low enough that the explosions stop among some dimensions and yet occur among others, and one of those final big bangs was this universe wherein at the smallest levels of reality we see the infinitely differentiable quantum uncertain foam from which chaotic energy crystallizes into matter momentarily and is destroyed in tiny little flashes, like fireworks, before returning to the chaos.

Now imagine phase changes on a gigaversal scale... For this experiment beings aware of less than 12 dimensions will need a visual aid. You'll need to wrap your cognitive locus in tin-foil and have access to an old microwave oven. A turn table is optional -- it's the lamp and timer's "Ding" that's most important.

Creationisticism

[dingleberrie]

This aspect of the story is great as an example of science.
It seems stubborn to hold onto a single interpretation of evidence during pursuit a theory, including the origin of the universe.
Science is the willingness to relegate that evidence to be less significant than what some people want it to be.
When you won't relegate the evidence, then you are practicing faith (in the evidence) instead of science.

Re:What a crock of shit.

[VortexCortex]

This is un-provable and wild and rampant speculation. Keep twisting the evidence to support your beliefs, meanwhile I will worship God and be granted life Everlasting. You, on the other hand, will burn in the Pit.

Have you heard the bitchin' news?! I reject your god because I don't need some elitist hipster cloud club. I've had my fill of standing in lines and getting judged at the door in this life, screw doing it again in the next. So, I bought my front-row ticket to the hottest show in Earth because all the good bands and fun people will be there.

You may be interested in my pamphlet, "So, you've decided to go to Hell."

Re:Jumping the gun

[MightyMartian]

The media hyped this up. The BICEP2 team did nothing wrong.

Re:Jumping the gun

[Baloroth]

Over the last... long while now scientists have developed a bad habit of getting really excited and presenting findings as concrete, only to get shot down. Besides, doesn't an experiment have to be repeated for the results to be confirmed? Regardless, if the alternate interpretation proves true, I find it no less significant.

It's customary in science to present your findings exactly as they are, with the statistical certainty associated with the findings. They never said their results were confirmed or "concrete", they said their findings confirmed several other theories and that they were highly certain of the results given the known sources of error and the model they were using. You can always come up with other theories that would also fit the observational data: heck, half the point of publishing your data is so the scientific community can look at it and see if you did something wrong, or if there are other interpretations that fit the data better.

Re:Jumping the gun

[photonic]

Scientist are still analyzing the data of ESA's Planck satellite, with first results expected in October this year. This instrument is supposedly sensitive enough to confirm or reject BICEP's results. I guess Planck's team must feel pretty depressed that the potential big discovery of their 700 MEuro instrument is scooped by the relatively small-scale BICEP experiment.

Re:But it's still inflation?

[MightyMartian]

I urge anyone interested in these questions to go to Professor Matt Strassler's blog: http://profmattstrassler.com/ . In particular he goes to some length to describe what BICEP2's data might mean.