Slashdot Mirror
ESA: No Conclusive Evidence of Big Bang Gravitational Waves
hypnosec writes: The European Space Agency has made a joint analysis of data gathered by the ground-based BICEP2 and Keck Array experiments and its own Planck satellite to try to verify previous reports of BICEP2's primordial gravitational wave detection. However, the ESA was unable to find evidence of primordial gravitational waves, and they think the earlier report was simply based on an outdated model that didn't take interstellar dust into account.
"The Milky Way is pervaded by a mixture of gas and dust shining at similar frequencies to those of the CMB, and this foreground emission affects the observation of the most ancient cosmic light. Very careful analysis is needed to separate the foreground emission from the cosmic background. Critically, interstellar dust also emits polarized light, thus affecting the CMB polarization as well. ... The BICEP2 team had chosen a field where they believed dust emission would be low, and thus interpreted the signal as likely to be cosmological. However, as soon as Planck’s maps of the polarized emission from Galactic dust were released (PDF), it was clear that this foreground contribution could be much higher than previously expected."
"The Milky Way is pervaded by a mixture of gas and dust shining at similar frequencies to those of the CMB, and this foreground emission affects the observation of the most ancient cosmic light. Very careful analysis is needed to separate the foreground emission from the cosmic background. Critically, interstellar dust also emits polarized light, thus affecting the CMB polarization as well. ... The BICEP2 team had chosen a field where they believed dust emission would be low, and thus interpreted the signal as likely to be cosmological. However, as soon as Planck’s maps of the polarized emission from Galactic dust were released (PDF), it was clear that this foreground contribution could be much higher than previously expected."
Scientists and those who understand science: "Yep, that's how science works. No matter how exciting a new finding may be, if later analysis finds that its conclusions are flawed, it's out the door."
Popular media and pundits: "See? Science is a sham! They just make stuff up to get the big research bucks! Why are we wasting money on this, instead of spending it on something that matters, like welfare or fighter jets?"
I just have this feeling...
I go on working for the same reason a hen goes on laying eggs. -- H.L. Mencken
Because his abdomen is swollen with chicken eggs?
Yet more evidence that the Kabbalistic, pseudoscientific entity known as the "big bang" is not and never was real.
There are 2 competing theories for the beginnings of the Universe. One that has been pounded into everyone's heads for the last century called "Big Bang" and another more recent theory called "Expanding Vacuum" (also called Quantum Vacuum).
The Big Bang, as mentioned, has been pounded into everyone's head as the right theory even though people have pointed out countless flaws with the theory since the beginning. The more recent theory has been ignored, largely by people claiming to be pro-science. The Big Bang has even evolved in the last few decades to be more like EV/QV theory. Very few people will say "Hey, what about this other theory" and generate the necessary discussion.
Personally I don't see this as shocking or new. Science likes to hang onto bad theory for as long as possible, people invest a lot of time into their opinions and it's very difficult to change them. History has a good amount of these issues if you care enough to study history (see Newton especially a great book called "Newton and the Counterfeiter).
This is a case where it's not so much people claiming science is a sham, it's people saying "that theory is wrong". Some people lack the knowledge and/or desire to move on to a new/better/different theory. Many of those people are "scientists" who have invested a long long time in a theory that's broken.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Just wait until I bang your Mom! She's so fat I slapped her ass and rode the wave in!
Or to misuse the words of the Red Hot Chili Peppers:
Give it away, Give it away, Give it away, Give it away Now!
Give it away to a big fat cow now!
Give it away to a chick that's not hot
roll her in the flour and aim for the wet spot!
How could one galaxy pass another or collide with it? Assuming that everything that exists started from the same point, and receive its primary ejection vector (speed + direction), how is it that one galaxy could crash into another? Its not like one galaxy would decide to make a right turn into another. Plus there would be a VERY compelling velocity/vector gradient map that would point back (overall) to the point of origin of the big bang. Anyone seen one of these? Science is based on observed evidence, but can also develop theories that go beyond. Fine. The big tip off is corroboration. Do bodies observed in the universe have a radial/spherical pattern with Faster bodies further from a common location, and slower bodies being closer to that point? If so, I'll start to listen. Next, string theory, if I heat up a gyroscope, hang it onto a spring, and attach that spring to a buoy in the ocean, will I have a 12 dimensional energy state that is as valid as a 12 dimensional universe that we -had- been tired of hearing about. Even Sheldon Cooper is off string theory. didn't see a paper that says it was discredited. Time for someone to step into the role of Science-Man - sort of like weather-man. Tell us whats coming, but would have to be just a teeny bit more accountable, as tax payers do drive science, substantially.
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
What evidence would disprove the big bang?
Title should read; "ESA: No Conclusive Evidence of Big Bang Gravitational Waves from BICEPS"
The ESA is saying that a previous experiment that claims to have detected primordial gravitational waves (supportive evidence as to the Big Bang theory) didn't account for dust. It doesn't invalidate the Big Bang as a potential candidate for the formation of the universe.
Hofstadter isn't THAT heavy...
#DeleteChrome
Think of a 1-D analogy:
- object i is at position i.
- object i is traveling at speed i + c + Math.random().
A galaxy could crash into another because its speed has a random component.
The center of expansion is at object -c. The problem is that any constant c works, so every point is equally the center of expansion.
Its not like one galaxy would decide to make a right turn into another.
Except for a thing called gravity which does tend to pull things together, causing galaxies to "turn" into each other.
Plus there would be a VERY compelling velocity/vector gradient map that would point back (overall) to the point of origin of the big bang.
Says who? Even pop-sci tends to get it right that there is not necessarily a point of origin and tries to make an analogy with balloons.
Do bodies observed in the universe have a radial/spherical pattern with Faster bodies further from a common location, and slower bodies being closer to that point?
Yes, that is what Hubble et al. discovered. This has been demonstrated pretty heavily, although it is in such a manner that from any point in the universe it would look like everything is moving away from the observer.
that's retarded and you should go engage in risky behavior
If everything is moving away from us, perhaps we -are- the center of the Universe! Sounds like there are still things we dont understand about the observable universe if we cant get the red/green shift stuff to make consistent sense.
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
Maybe things would be more consistent appearing if you spent time to actually learn about the topic, even a bit more, before throwing out that what you don't understand is universal.
Why not a regional bang? Could a galaxy (or subset of the universe) invert into a medium bang? Always wondered if intelligent beings, always being fascinated by science and understanding, eventually win the Darwin-Award by blowing themselves up? Or... imploding their Solar System into a black hole... (also winning the Darwin-Award !!).
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
You're imagining the big bang as a grenade explosion in the middle of an empty space, but that's not what it was.
Simplify by reducing dimensions: a ball is a 3d object, its surface is an infinite plane (2d). Take a small ball (V=100cm3). Mark two points on its surface, measure their distance along the ball surface. Inflate the ball (V=1000cm3). The distance between the marks along the surface has grown. In the 2d universe of the ball surface, this expansion has no center. Any two originally adjacent points are now separated by some distance.
Our universe might be a surface of an inflating 4d object. At least, its expansion has no center. Galaxies (clusters, superclusters) are like points on the inflating ball surface. Everything is getting farther from everything else.
Spooky, if you ask me.
So if you have two galaxies fairly close to each other, their overall motion relative to each other, equal to the expansion of space between them minus their mutual gravitational infall can be overall negative and therefore they get closer, which decreases the value of the expansion related velocity and increases the gravitational pull between them.
And so the galaxies collide.
If everything is moving away from us, perhaps we -are- the center of the Universe! Sounds like there are still things we dont understand about the observable universe if we cant get the red/green shift stuff to make consistent sense.
Get a rubber balloon and a marker, or just use your imagination. Put a bunch of dots on the balloon. Now choose one dot as a reference and inflate the balloon--all of the other dots move away as the balloon expands. Try using a different dot as the reference and you get the same result. Note that there are limitations to this analogy, but I found it helpful.
P.S. It's red/blue shift, not red/green.
This means that Neil Turok's much more elegant and simpler theory (cyclic universe) may actually be the correct one. No gravitational waves, no Big Bang inflation. Rapid inflation has too many fudge factors built into it to sustain it to be correct, and many of them scan not ever be falsified. It's simpler than that. I think Mr. Hawking will soon be paying Neil is his money.
DaveyJJ
What does it even mean mean for time, the fourth d, to expand? Expansion is a physical phenomena, ie limited to the first 3 dimensions. Looking at the universe as you suppose implies that we are on the surface and without access to the actual center or to any parts closer to the center than we are. Intriguing for sure but doesnt seem to make sense. Am I missing something here?