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was unable to find evidence of primordial gravitational waves, and they think the earlier report was simply based on an outdated model that didn't take interstellar dust into account.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."

Comments

Wrong, IMHO

[s.petry]

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.