Faint whispers of the early universe detected, bolsters the cosmic inflation theory, aka 'big bang'

“This has been like looking for a needle in a haystack, but instead we found a crowbar…”

South Pole station where the scientists made the discovery
The 10-meter South Pole Telescope and the BICEP (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) Telescope against the Milky Way. BICEP2 recently detected gravitational waves in the cosmic microwave background, a discovery that supports the cosmic inflation theory of how the universe began. (Photo: Keith Vanderlinde, National Science Foundation)

From the Stanford Report, March 17, 2014 (h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard) video follows

New evidence from space supports Stanford physicist’s theory of how universe began

The detection of gravitational waves by the BICEP2 experiment at the South Pole supports the cosmic inflation theory of how the universe came to be. The discovery, made in part by Assistant Professor Chao-Lin Kuo, supports the theoretical work of Stanford’s Andrei Linde.

Almost 14 billion years ago, the universe we inhabit burst into existence in an extraordinary event that initiated the Big Bang. In the first fleeting fraction of a second, the universe expanded exponentially, stretching far beyond the view of today’s best telescopes. All this, of course, has just been theory.

Researchers from the BICEP2 collaboration today announced the first direct evidence supporting this theory, known as “cosmic inflation.” Their data also represent the first images of gravitational waves, or ripples in space-time. These waves have been described as the “first tremors of the Big Bang.” Finally, the data confirm a deep connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

“This is really exciting. We have made the first direct image of gravitational waves, or ripples in space-time across the primordial sky, and verified a theory about the creation of the whole universe,” said Chao-Lin Kuo, an assistant professor of physics at Stanford and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, and a co-leader of the BICEP2 collaboration.

These groundbreaking results came from observations by the BICEP2 telescope of the cosmic microwave background – a faint glow left over from the Big Bang. Tiny fluctuations in this afterglow provide clues to conditions in the early universe. For example, small differences in temperature across the sky show where parts of the universe were denser, eventually condensing into galaxies and galactic clusters.

Because the cosmic microwave background is a form of light, it exhibits all the properties of light, including polarization. On Earth, sunlight is scattered by the atmosphere and becomes polarized, which is why polarized sunglasses help reduce glare. In space, the cosmic microwave background was scattered by atoms and electrons and became polarized too.

“Our team hunted for a special type of polarization called ‘B-modes,’ which represents a twisting or ‘curl’ pattern in the polarized orientations of the ancient light,” said BICEP2 co-leader Jamie Bock, a professor of physics at Caltech and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).

Gravitational waves squeeze space as they travel, and this squeezing produces a distinct pattern in the cosmic microwave background. Gravitational waves have a “handedness,” much like light waves, and can have left- and right-handed polarizations.

“The swirly B-mode pattern is a unique signature of gravitational waves because of their handedness,” Kuo said.

The team examined spatial scales on the sky spanning about 1 to 5 degrees (two to 10 times the width of the full moon). To do this, they set up an experiment at the South Pole to take advantage of its cold, dry, stable air, which allows for crisp detection of faint cosmic light.

“The South Pole is the closest you can get to space and still be on the ground,” said BICEP2 co-principal investigator John Kovac, an associate professor of astronomy and physics at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who led the deployment and science operation of the project. “It’s one of the driest and clearest locations on Earth, perfect for observing the faint microwaves from the Big Bang.”

The researchers were surprised to detect a B-mode polarization signal considerably stronger than many cosmologists expected. The team analyzed their data for more than three years in an effort to rule out any errors. They also considered whether dust in our galaxy could produce the observed pattern, but the data suggest this is highly unlikely.

“This has been like looking for a needle in a haystack, but instead we found a crowbar,” said co-leader Clem Pryke, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Minnesota.

Physicist Alan Guth formally proposed inflationary theory in 1980, when he was a postdoctoral scholar at SLAC, as a modification of conventional Big Bang theory. Instead of the universe beginning as a rapidly expanding fireball, Guth theorized that the universe inflated extremely rapidly from a tiny piece of space and became exponentially larger in a fraction of a second. This idea immediately attracted lots of attention because it could provide a unique solution to many difficult problems of the standard Big Bang theory.

However, as Guth, who is now a professor of physics at MIT, immediately realized, certain predictions in his scenario contradicted observational data. In the early 1980s, Russian physicist Andrei Linde modified the model into a concept called “new inflation” and again to “eternal chaotic inflation,” both of which generated predictions that closely matched actual observations of the sky.

Linde, now a professor of physics at Stanford, could not hide his excitement about the news. “These results are a smoking gun for inflation, because alternative theories do not predict such a signal,” he said. “This is something I have been hoping to see for 30 years.”

BICEP2’s measurements of inflationary gravitational waves are an impressive combination of theoretical reasoning and cutting-edge technology. Stanford’s contribution to the discovery extends beyond Kuo, who designed the polarization detectors. Kent Irwin, a professor of physics at Stanford and SLAC, also conducted pioneering work on superconducting sensors and readout systems used in the experiment. The research also involved several researchers, including Kuo, affiliated with the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC), which is supported by Stanford, SLAC and the Kavli Foundation.

BICEP2 is the second stage of a coordinated program, the BICEP and Keck Array experiments, which has a co-principal investigator structure. The four PIs are Jamie Bock (Caltech/JPL,) John Kovac (Harvard), Chao-Lin Kuo (Stanford/SLAC) and Clem Pryke (UMN). All have worked together on the present result, along with talented teams of students and scientists. Other major collaborating institutions for BICEP2 include the University of California, San Diego; University of British Columbia; National Institute of Standards and Technology; University of Toronto; Cardiff University; and Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique.

BICEP2 is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF also runs the South Pole Station where BICEP2 and the other telescopes used in this work are located. The Keck Foundation also contributed major funding for the construction of the team’s telescopes. NASA, JPL and the Moore Foundation generously supported the development of the ultra-sensitive detector arrays that made these measurements possible.

Technical details and journal papers can be found on the BICEP2 release website: http://bicepkeck.org

Video by Kurt HickmanAssistant Professor Chao-Lin Kuo, right, delivers news of the discovery to Professor Andrei Linde.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

559 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Les Johnson
March 17, 2014 10:35 am

This article has a good graphic of how the gravity waves affect the polarization of the CMB….
http://www.nbcnews.com/#/science/space/smoking-gun-reveals-how-inflationary-big-bang-happened-n54686

March 17, 2014 10:36 am

I read the article and found it fascinating. But while physicists are trying to prove the Big Bang Theory (or supply more evidence for it), I wonder where the big bang came from. Each time our knowledge is pushed forward (or backwards in this case), we go on to the next phase – where did the previous phase come from?

hswiseman
March 17, 2014 10:36 am

How was this theory confirmed. Not with a model or an algorithm. With a telescope. Through observation of nature. Using a scientific instrument in a new way or building a new instrument. Every important discovery or confirmation of theory that I can think of was done this way.

March 17, 2014 10:40 am

“In the first fleeting fraction of a second, the universe expanded exponentially, stretching far beyond the view of today’s best telescopes”.
I’m confused. Doesn’t this imply that there is a mechanism in the known physical universe for FTL travel?

Reply to  grumpyoldmanuk
March 18, 2014 5:28 am

@grumpyoldmanuk – Great question! I have not read all responses to see if anyone can answer that, but that would tend to break at least part of Einsteins theory.

Frank K.
March 17, 2014 10:46 am

@philjourdan
That’s always been my proof for the existence of God. Where did that “tiny piece of space” that “inflated” to become the known universe come from???

ddpalmer
March 17, 2014 10:48 am

Congratulations to these scientists. Form a theory, predict what physical conditions result from this theory, conduct real world experiments to confirm the predictions and even when your results agree with your theory conduct extensive review of your data to ensure no other source for your results exists.
Good thing they got this exciting result when they did. What with Antarctica slated to become a moist tropical climate due to AGW, the conditions their telescoped needed won’t exist for much longer. [/sarc]

Les Johnson
March 17, 2014 10:54 am

Grumpy: Like most laws, there are plenty of loopholes in FTL travel….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster_than_light#Universal_expansion

Reply to  Les Johnson
March 18, 2014 5:34 am

@les Johnson – thank you. However that does not really answer Grumpy’s (or my) question. Today we have “co-moving” objects (heading in the opposite direction) that when their speeds are combined, exceed the limit. However at the moment of the Big Bang, they are indicating that the objects were moving at FTL from the origin (which for the sake of argument, we assume to be stationary since there was nothing to reference motion to it beforehand).

Navy Bob
March 17, 2014 10:59 am

I love this part: “The team analyzed their data for more than three years in an effort to rule out any errors.” Can you imagine members of another too-familiar “discipline” doing that?

March 17, 2014 11:00 am

It’s funny how astronomers can be surprised at their findings, but still claim those findings support their theories. I thought theories were supposed to be predictive. I also like how their theories don’t bother to be internally consistent.
Here’s an alternative theory, internally consistent, with a track record of successful prediction.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/02/19/redshifts-and-microwaves-3/

John Boles
March 17, 2014 11:01 am

To philjoudan – you ask what came before the Big Bang, the answer is: (by definition) the Big Unbanged Banger. I just wonder if things go in cycles, Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch…

Kelvin vaughan
March 17, 2014 11:03 am

grumpyoldmanuk says:
March 17, 2014 at 10:40 am
I’m confused. Doesn’t this imply that there is a mechanism in the known physical universe for FTL travel?
It probably means light travelled a lot faster then.

Bill Parsons
March 17, 2014 11:04 am

“…detected gravitational waves in the cosmic microwave background,”
So, not cosmic dust then?

TheLastDemocrat
March 17, 2014 11:10 am

If you ever denied the Big Bang theory, you were wrong. Plus, you were anti-science, bigoted, hateful, in-bred, and a knuckle-dragger. You were probably stingey, to boot. To suggest it be noted in the kiddies’ textbooks as a theory rather than fact made you equal to the Taliban.
That was, of course, until we figured out the Big Bang theory was wrong.

Janice Moore
March 17, 2014 11:12 am

“This is something I have been hoping to see for 30 years.”
Dr. Andrei Linde
Well, Dr. Linde managed to hold back his tears, but I could not. SO HAPPY FOR YOU, DR. LINDE! Wonderful news. Truth sets us free — from error and doubt… .
*****************************************************
“In the beginning, … God said, ‘Let there be light, and there was light. … And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse … And it was so.'” Genesis 1:1-8.
**************************************************************
Oh, this is, indeed, GREAT cause for celebration!
So, (of course!) a song:
The Creation — Franz Josef Haydn

Rejoice!
Oh, REJOICE!

Tom In Indy
March 17, 2014 11:13 am

“In the first fleeting fraction of a second, the universe expanded exponentially, stretching far beyond the view of today’s best telescopes”.
I think the larger question is “how/why did this happen?”
Beginning one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the universe’s birth, the idea goes, space-time expanded incredibly rapidly, ballooning outward faster than the speed of light.

Greg Roane
March 17, 2014 11:14 am

Quick question:
Do scientists and Government types (any of y’all out there) begin with a nifty acronym and then force the jargon into it or does all of your work/project/equipment/Bill/treaty title jargon always naturally fall out to become an appropriate/cool/hip sounding acronyms?
Examples: START 1 and 2 Treaties, BICEP, BICEP2, WISE, SLAC, MACHO, GAAP, BATTeRS, FIRST, and MARVEL – just to name a few.
I have always just … wondered about this. ‘:-)~

Janice Moore
March 17, 2014 11:20 am

Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard (and An-th-ony), for bringing this to our delighted attention.
(somebody get that wonderful Dr. Kuo a new backpack… in tan or gray … (smile) — he has more important things to occupy his mind)

Janice Moore
March 17, 2014 11:22 am

Re: “I have always just … wondered … .” (Greg Roane at 11:14am)
Evidence of design is evidence for a Designer.
#(;))

JDN
March 17, 2014 11:23 am

I used to be in love with the big bang theory. However, the cosmology researchers I’ve spoken with are not open to other ideas, nor to the idea that they don’t know enough to propound on the subject. The key line in this chain of logic is the belief that this effect is unique to gravitational waves and not distribution of matter or some other issue. How does one prove uniqueness in the absence of omniscience? Everybody tries to pull this trick of “uniqueness” when they are less than certain.

Resourceguy
March 17, 2014 11:24 am

It’s nice to know there is still some real science out there and working.

Logan5
March 17, 2014 11:25 am

Grumpy:
My suspicion would be that since space/time was itself expanding, light traveling within that expanding universe would still be limited to 186,000 mi/sec. The speed of light would be relative to the contents of the universe, while the boundaries of the universe itself would be free to expand “faster”, though there would be no external frame of reference to measure that speed of expansion. It’s a mind-boggling concept.

March 17, 2014 11:29 am

Phrases and acronyms
Blend in a mixture
Each changes the other
For happier fit
Some BICEPs go SLAC though
There’s GAAPs in the fixture
Some names are such bother
They don’t give a SPIT
The cosmic beginnings
Have big implications
But none of us know
Just how all this occurred
Before the first innings
The game had equations
Is all this “uncaused”
Or has God sat and stirred?
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

wyn palmer
March 17, 2014 11:31 am

grumpyoldmanuk says:
March 17, 2014 at 10:40 am
I’m confused. Doesn’t this imply that there is a mechanism in the known physical universe for FTL travel?
No, it was space that expanded faster than light, and there’s no such restriction for that.

Reply to  wyn palmer
March 18, 2014 5:42 am

@Wyn Palmer – Ok, but then what is “space”?

Kelvin vaughan
March 17, 2014 11:31 am

If the universe is still expanding are we and everything else expanding with it?

Reply to  Kelvin vaughan
March 18, 2014 5:41 am

vaughan

If the universe is still expanding are we and everything else expanding with it?

I do not know about you, but I have been expanding horizontally since middle age. 😉

nvw
March 17, 2014 11:35 am

Assistant Professor Chao-Lin Kuo – this is probably a good time to submit your application for tenure.

1 2 3 22