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unable to find evidence of primordial gravitational waves, and they think the earlier report was simply based on an outdated model that didn't take interstellar dust into account.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

9 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 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.
    4. 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. 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 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.
    2. 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.

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

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