Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ESA: No Conclusive Evidence of Big Bang Gravitational Waves

Posted by Soulskill on from the science-is-self-correcting dept.

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unable to find evidence of primordial gravitational waves, and they think the earlier report was simply based on an outdated model that didn't take interstellar dust into account.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

40 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. Thus confirming existing opinions: by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?"

    1. Re:Thus confirming existing opinions: by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Of course, if you're being a real scientist, presumably you don't announce spectacular results till they've been peer-reviewed....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Thus confirming existing opinions: by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you are a real scientist, you don't go around proclaiming final answers, ever. Science is a journey of discovery. The land of answers is religions turf.

    3. Re:Thus confirming existing opinions: by starless · · Score: 1

      Of course, if you're being a real scientist, presumably you don't announce spectacular results till they've been peer-reviewed....

      And even more than just announcing a non-reviewed piece of work, they went overboard with the hype it seems to me,
      including the highly-staged video they made of arriving at Andre Linde's house and telling him the result:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    4. Re:Thus confirming existing opinions: by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, your observation is very accurate. And with politics and religions liking what science finds less and less, it gets worse.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Thus confirming existing opinions: by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed. The success of religion clearly shows that most people are not actually interested in knowledge or understanding, but rather want to be lied to as long as they like the lie and it comes as absolute truth.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Thus confirming existing opinions: by Methadras · · Score: 1

      No, science isn't a sham and never was. However, if you can't find the gravitational waves you need to bolster the big bang, they either have already passed you by and you can't see their wake at all. I say keep looking for them, but the possibility that the theory of the big bang might need to be revised. Maybe it didn't create any gravitational waves at all and it if did, they where all on the leading edge surface boundary of it's creation/inflation.

    7. Re:Thus confirming existing opinions: by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      For many religious people, they are interested in knowing and understanding things, including things that can't be scientifically investigated. Science isn't the only source of truth, it's just by far the best we know of when applied to fields where scientific investigation is possible. Their evidence of God tends to be direct perception, which happens with some people and not others. While science can investigate this phenomenon, it can't distinguish between said perception being something more or less real or an artifact of brain evolution.

      The more religious people I know tend to be interested in other perspectives, and dislike being lied to. They have certain specific and very firm beliefs I don't share, but they're also willing to sacrifice more for others than I am, and I generally respect them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. Back to steady state in our lifetimes? by towermac · · Score: 1

    I just have this feeling...

    1. Re:Back to steady state in our lifetimes? by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Guess that means we should ignore you when it comes to astrophysics!

    2. Re:Back to steady state in our lifetimes? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I suspect it will be closer to eternal and ever changing.
      The idea of the big bang always wreaked of religion to me anyway. It just seems like a way to reconcile our inability to conceive the universe as being eternal. We look at all things as having a beginning and an end. To accept that the universe has neither can be mind shattering. It is so much easier to interpret the data in a way which shows a beginning and insinuates an end.

    3. Re:Back to steady state in our lifetimes? by towermac · · Score: 1

      That was exactly my thought. I believe creationism and religion has had an influence on the big bang theory, as it has on everything else in our society.

      The haters up there don't see that their reaction to having the big bang questioned is the same reaction the religious have to having their stuff questioned.

      Einstein's gut was steady state, and he had to be convinced of the big bang. I'm just trying to keep my mind open.

  3. Wrong, IMHO by s.petry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Wrong, IMHO by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      There are 2 competing theories for the beginnings of the Universe.

      There are many more theories (read: thousands) for the expansion of the Universe since the last scattering (CMB) (the topic of your post), and hundreds for the origin of the early universe (mostly inflation, but also others). Another hundred theories for what Dark Energy is (the most recent expansion).
      If you only hear people talking about one theory, you are probably in the wrong room.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:Wrong, IMHO by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Or in other words: There are a lot of bad scientists around that cling to the little part of science that they thought they had mastered. When it turns out they did not, they turn irrational. Good scientists do not regard it as a loss if a theory they have worked on turns out to be invalid. They are intrigued, applaud the advancement of knowledge, regard their working on the failed theory as getting more insight and skill, and move on.

      The sad thing is that Sturgeon's Law applies to scientists as well. It also matches my experience as a scientist, and especially as a peer-reviewer: Good researchers and good research is rare, most do small incremental and usually irrelevant stuff, because they do not have what it takes. Many of these researchers also excel at hindering, sabotaging, ridiculing and stealing from researchers that are actually good at it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Wrong, IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've been working in Cosmology for 10 years now and I haven't seen a single paper talking about your "EV" theory on the archive, or in any journal that I read.

      There are hundreds of alternative guesses, but very few of them make any testable predictions. It's not a surprise that scientists hold on to old theories - the burden of proof of anyone positing a change from the status quo is that they have to 1) match the correct results of the existing theory and 2) introduce a new result that the old theory doesn't match. We don't hold on to old theories out of habit, or some sense of reverence - it's far, far better for us (career wise and ego wise) if we jump into a new area early and establish results there as we get our names on new things. However most of us are quite conservative in this regard because coming up with any old crap is easy. Coming up with something that both matches existing tests and predicts new ones is hard. If you've got a proof of your pet theory doing something new and testable, and you can show it matches (say) CMB observations etc. we'd all love to see it.

    4. Re:Wrong, IMHO by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      He was a little bit sloppy with his EV/QV reference. Typing "Quantum Vacuum" into Wiki produces this page. In other words, QFT.

      --
      I come here for the love
    5. Re:Wrong, IMHO by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      > because you're using terms like "pounded in everyone's head"

      The BB theory is the only one that is well-known, because it's the only one that is mentioned in modern (and not so modern) textbooks, when making any cursory reference to a number of phenomena.
      That doesn't make him a crank, it makes him savvy to the current state of education (largely, across the world). The crank part comes from promoting another theory as the only alternative.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    6. Re:Wrong, IMHO by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      people invest a lot of time into their opinions and it's very difficult to change them.

      Oh people's opinions are easily changed. The problem however is that theories are just that. They exist in models and mathematics which all seems to work out quite well for a small subset of scenarios. We have one model of gravity for interaction of galaxies, and another model for interaction of subatomic particles. Both of them are "wrong" in a way.

      I have no doubt if someone discovers the Theory of Everything and models it and can show the model remains consistent all the way to the start of the universe meeting all the necessary statistical requirements, then people's opinions on their own theories will change.

      You know the old saying, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. And I haven't seen any extra-ordinary proof that the big bang theory is a bad theory. Incomplete maybe, hard to fathom yes, but not "bad" and not from what I can see displaced by anything "less bad".

    7. Re:Wrong, IMHO by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Call me a skeptic, but the fact that you don't know the EV/QV theory indicates that you don't really work in Cosmology. At least as a scientist.

      There are hundreds of alternative guesses, but very few of them make any testable predictions.

      See above, read "A Universe from Nothing" and then talk. Spouting from ignorance does not change my skepticism in your favor.

      the burden of proof of anyone positing a change from the status quo is that they have to 1) match the correct results of the existing theory and 2) introduce a new result that the old theory doesn't match.

      This is wrong on just about every level, and surely not science. In fact doing this is exactly the Einstein definition of insanity. "Well, we know it's wrong but fuck it..."

      Now if we were talking about something like gravity, we have things that are close enough. The Big Bang has never been close, hence most models of the Universe requiring upwards of 90% dark matter and energy (which EV/QV does not require).

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    8. Re:Wrong, IMHO by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I first read papers on the Quantum Vacuum theory called "Expanding Vacuum", and Lawrence Kraus who published several books on this subject used the terms synonymously the first time I heard him speak. In the first paragraph I wrote, I stated exactly "Expanding Vacuum" (also called Quantum Vacuum)." The only thing sloppy is people's ability to read.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    9. Re:Wrong, IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, it really doesn't. Post a link to a peer reviewed paper, a posting on the ArXiv, or something concrete. "A Universe from Nothing" is a book by Lawrence Krauss in which he posits that the big bang came to be as a quantum fluctuation. Nothing to do with some new "There was no big bang" theory. It seems to me that you are the one who knows just about nothing here. Krauss also works on, and /requires/ dark energy in his model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L....

      You're also misquoting Einstein, and have no idea how scientific research works. The first burden of replacing an existing theory is that you recreate the correct results of that theory. The first thing that Einstein worked on when he had a general theory of relativity was showing that it reduced to Newtonian gravity in the correct limits. The first work on scattering amplitudes in QFT was to show that they give the existing observations that worked in quantum mechanics. The correspondence principle of quantum mechanics stats that as quantum numbers get large, classical mechanics (and all the results therein) are reproduced. This is precisely how science works. You can't come up with a new guess that doesn't match existing results and claim it's a good theory. It isn't, and the older, existing theory will always be favored because it's a) Testable and b) Passed those tests.

    10. Re:Wrong, IMHO by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that for thousands of years it was settled science that the world was flat and the sun revolved around it. Just because something is considered settled science does not mean that it has any bearing on reality.

      Religious thinking has always, and will always plague science. When people have invested a great portion of their lives researching something using a single model for the base of the research the idea of throwing out that model is terrifying. Making small changes to that model isn't so hard as long as the accumulating changes do not alter the base of the model. Religious thinking creeps in, and before you know it the model cannot be wrong. Any inconsistencies observed are haphazardly explained away as not yet fully understanding the model. At that point the scientific theory becomes a religion, and is just as hard to get rid of.

  4. Re:zerp by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    No, this is evidence that we don't understand gravitational waves.

  5. If everything started from a point in space/time.. by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    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.
  6. Re:Falsify the Big Bang by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    a 14 billion year birthday card standing on the mantel?

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  7. Re:zerp by gweihir · · Score: 1

    That is actually a complete fail on your part. The theory is getting refined, not invalidated. That is a different process. Also, if it is an entity then it is real. Really, you are confused and rather dramatically so.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  8. Big Bang gravitational waves? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Hofstadter isn't THAT heavy...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  9. Re:Falsify the Big Bang by Kahlandad · · Score: 1

    Discovering a star that is older than the Big Bang.

    This was the case for quite awhile during the late 80's and 90's. Astronomers studying the age of the universe calculated its age to be between 10 and 15 billion years old, while other astronomers studying ancient stars calculated their ages to be between 15 and 20 billion years old. Eventually they discovered more accurate ways to take measurements and the calculations worked this apparent paradox out.

    Finding a star that is older than the big bang wouldn't disprove the big bang... it would only mean that more research needs to be done.

  10. Re:Falsify the Big Bang by pastafazou · · Score: 1

    out of mod points, but you're clearly a troll

  11. Re:zerp by Kahlandad · · Score: 1

    Oops, nobody's perfect.

    Except for creationists, so they claim.

  12. Re:Falsify the Big Bang by harperska · · Score: 1

    If you come up with a different theory that can explain doppler shift and the cosmic microwave background, as well as all other phenomena predicted by the big bang theory, while simultaneously correctly predicting observations that the big bang theory fails to predict, then yes, it is possible.

  13. Re:Falsify the Big Bang by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    that's your opinion and you're welcome to it, valueless to anyone else though it is. I was offering a theory, all you've offered is a character attack, which not knowing me clearly marks YOU as the troll. Now, kindly fuck off and die.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  14. Re:If everything started from a point in space/tim by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    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.
  15. Multiple medium Bangs? by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    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.
  16. Re:If everything started from a point in space/tim by jdschulteis · · Score: 1

    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.

  17. Cyclic by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

    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
  18. Re:Falsify the Big Bang by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

    Neil Turok's cyclic universe theory *is* a simpler theory, without any of the fudge factors needed to get inflation to be correct, and everything in it can be confirmed by observation. It has yet to be falsified, and the lack of gravitational waves is another factor supporting the theory. Furthermore, if the lack of gravitational waves actually falsifies rapid inflation, which means there is evidence that shows we must throw that one out.

    --
    DaveyJJ
  19. Re: Falsify the Big Bang by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

    The difference between modern and pre-20th century science is that we now have very good mathematical models and very poor representations. Our human minds simply cannot understand general relativity and quantum mechanics intuitively.
    So we don't disprove the big bang but we disprove formula A and replace it with formula B which may be a scientific revolution but may still match the global idea of a big bang.

  20. Re:Falsify the Big Bang by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    Finding out that redshift can be an inherent part of a galaxy and not only existing from extremely fast movement, or that redshift occurs naturally as light travels extremely great distances in space. The big bang is based on redshift, without it the theory has no base at all.