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

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.
Lief,
I may not have gotten it Lief. Maybe you ought to say it one more time. So you say that galaxies etc are not moving, rather space is stretching and that Doppler red shift is not due to superposition of light speed on galaxy recession, but to the stretching of space, thereby the stretching of the waves within the space. Maybe you could say it just one more time and we will get it.
you say either and i say either
you say neither and i say neither
either, either, neither, neither
let’s call the whole thing off
you say tomato, i say tomato
you eat potato and i eat potato
tomato, tomato, potato, potato
let’s call the whole thing off
6 of one, one half dozen…
How come when I look in the mirror, my image is reversed left to right, but not up and down? How does it know?
john: Your mind is no more open than those who say the science is settled.
Paul Westhaver says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:54 am
I may not have gotten it Lief. Maybe you ought to say it one more time. So you say that galaxies etc are not moving, rather space is stretching and that Doppler red shift is not due to superposition of light speed on galaxy recession, but to the stretching of space, thereby the stretching of the waves within the space. Maybe you could say it just one more time and we will get it.
Indeed, some people are slower than others, so repetition might work for them. But, some other people have their own reasons for not getting it, so for them repetition does not help. Which one to those two groups do you consider yourself to belong to?
And the red-shift is not a Doppler shift.
lsvalgaard: “All of infinite space expands. This simply means that the distance between ANY two objects [no matter where] increases with time.”
Right.
Except of course those pesky particles that just happened to defy this law and stick close together, slow down their relative velocity, and coalesce into large scale objects.
Eric Anderson says:
March 18, 2014 at 10:07 am
Except of course those pesky particles that just happened to defy this law and stick close together, slow down their relative velocity, and coalesce into large scale objects.
As I said several times the expansion only occurs for particles [that are not ‘pesky’] that are far enough from each other that their mutual gravitational attraction is negligible. And that is FAR: several million light years.
Wow.
It is amazing how many people have a preconceived notion or theory and defend it with such emotion and vigor. Reminds me of the CAGW (to which I do not subscribe, BTW) debates this site does so well in debunking.
Never once does it cross some people’s minds that their pet theory could be wrong (pick a topic – General Relativity, 7-day, Ydggrasil, Quantai, Creationist, Electric, Aesther, et al). Nor can they accept the possibility that someone else’s theory, that they dismiss outright, “because the other guy(gal) is pig-ignorant and there is no way in an-unnamed-and-rather-warm-location-that-is-much-less-desirable-than-here-since-I-refuse-to-believe-in-a-place-called-Hell” may actually be correct. The hubris demonstrated by of some individuals above (on all sides of the respective argument) is breathtaking.
I would say that it is a safe bet ALL OF US who have commented on/read/or will read this post is truly pig-ignorant of Large-Scale Cosmology: any other belief appears as posturing from those who happens to believe that they are just slightly less pig-ignorant relative to another and need to “prove” it. I admit it, I can definitively state that I don’t have a flipping clue. I also know that there is zero chance that any of this will be answered definitively by anyone here in the foreseeable future. I mean, can you REALLY grasp how short a time 1×10^-36 seconds is or how far 16BLY is? Who could?
The universe, for all intents and purposes, is infinite – relative to us, here, on Earth. Any model developed to explain it doesn’t even have a chance of being WRONG, much less RIGHT.
Thanks Dr. Svalgaard for the post and topic. As well as to Anthony and the other Mods for keeping it all within shouting distance of civility. 🙂
Greg [the Comologicly Pig-Ignorant]
Lief, Nope. Not according to Doppler himself. But what do I know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cber_das_farbige_Licht_der_Doppelsterne_und_einiger_anderer_Gestirne_des_Himmels
“The title “Über das farbige Licht der Doppelsterne und einiger anderer Gestirne des Himmels – Versuch einer das Bradley’sche Aberrations-Theorem als integrirenden Theil in sich schliessenden allgemeineren Theorie” (On the coloured light of the binary stars and some other stars of the heavens – Attempt at a general theory including Bradley’s theorem as an integral part) specifies the purpose: describe the hypothesis of the Doppler effect, use it to explain the colours of binary stars, and establish a relation with Bradley’s stellar aberration”
so….
Whatever you say there Lief.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/XYCoordinates.gif
When splitting hairs, ones actually doesn’t split the hair, rather the space between the two slivers of hair grows and the hairs don’t move.
A knife splitting the hairs actually doesn’t move either. It reduces the space between the hairs so knives are thus made from pure gravitons.
Paul Westhaver says:
March 18, 2014 at 10:35 am
Lief, Nope. Not according to Doppler himself. But what do I know.
You said it well: “What do you know”.
If the light source and the observer are moving through space relative to each other there will be a Doppler shift, but galaxies are not moving [much] and the red shift we observe for them is not a Doppler shift, but the result of space stretching and in the process lengthening the light-waves making them look redder.
Wow, my mind is racing after reading this article and the comments. I’m comfortable with the Big Bang, as I’ve been conditioned to accept it for my whole life. But I’m curious about the non-cosmological red shifts. Explaining them away as chance or optical illusions seems a bit too convenient. Dr. Svalgaard, if you could for a moment accept the premise that there are non-cosmological red shifts in evidence, just for the sake of argument, then would this necessarily obviate the notion of gravity waves in the CMB? I mean, could not both be true? Could there not be an ongoing mechanism in the universe that creates new, but smaller localized expansions of space time? Is this too fanciful for your tastes?
Paul Westhaver,
Your link: “…use it to explain the colours of binary stars…” refers to stars. Maybe Doppler was not referring to galaxies?
Just remember that you’re standing on a planet that’s evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour
That’s orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it’s reckoned
A sun that is the source of all our power
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour
Of the galaxy we call the ‘milky way’
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars
It’s a hundred thousand light years side to side
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick
But out by us, it’s just three thousand light years wide
We’re thirty thousand light years from galactic central point
We go ’round every two hundred million years
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, the speed of light, you know
Twelve million miles a minute and that’s the fastest speed there is
So remember, when you’re feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere up in space
‘Cause there’s bugger all down here on Earth
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html
“So to determine an object’s distance, we only need to know its velocity. Velocity is measurable thanks to the Doppler shift. By taking the spectrum of a distant object, such as a galaxy, astronomers can see a shift in the lines of its spectrum and from this shift determine its velocity. Putting this velocity into the Hubble equation, they determine the distance. Note that this method of determining distances is based on observation (the shift in the spectrum) and on a theory (Hubble’s Law). If the theory is not correct, the distances determined in this way are all nonsense. Most astronomers believe that Hubble’s Law does, however, hold true for a large range of distances in the universe.”
We better inform NASA they have got it all wrong.
Mickey Reno says:
March 18, 2014 at 10:45 am
if you could for a moment accept the premise that there are non-cosmological red shifts in evidence
But there is no evidence for that. There are objects with different red-shifts found near each other, but that could happen just by chance. Analysis of more than 100,000 galaxies show that the observed number of close ones is no larger than what chance would predict.
just for the sake of argument, then would this necessarily obviate the notion of gravity waves in the CMB? I mean, could not both be true?
The red-shift issue has nothing to do with the CMB or gravity waves, so is a red herring as far as the article under discussion is concerned.
lsvalgaard you have it wrong. You have a single photon bouncing back and forth in a cylinder that is not expanding. If this photon is red-shifting, where is the energy going. A redder photon has less energy. It is funny to see the stupid academics feeling so confident in their stupidity. The expansion of the universe cannot create a red-shift. It violates conservation of energy.
Paul Westhaver says:
March 18, 2014 at 10:54 am
We better inform NASA they have got it all wrong.
What you cite has been dumbed down [wrongly, unfortunately] to a level where NASA thinks you could understand it.
Paul Westhaver says:
March 18, 2014 at 10:52 am
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, the speed of light, you know
Twelve million miles a minute and that’s the fastest speed there is
Another case of dumbing down. The expansion is generally much faster than light-speed. This is allowed as the galaxies are not moving at all, so the ‘speed limit’ does not apply.
You sure are a slow learner.
@Lsvalgaard – Just for clarification (and you can take it that I am not one of the fastest learners).
#1 – The present galaxies are not really moving.
#2 – Space is expanding. But only space?
#3 – so beyond the galaxies, we have just a bunch of empty space?
Thank you for your time in clarifying this for me.
The red-shift is caused by a change in referential and/or a Doppler effect.
Marc77 says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:06 am
You have a single photon bouncing back and forth in a cylinder that is not expanding. If this photon is red-shifting
It is not red-shifted.
Marc77 says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:07 am
The red-shift is caused by a change in referential and/or a Doppler effect.
If you are sitting still at the end of the cylinder the photon goes away from you half of the time and towards to the other half of the time, thus no net shift.
lsvalgaard says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:06 am
The expansion is generally much faster than light-speed. This is allowed as the galaxies are not moving at all, so the ‘speed limit’ does not apply.
Stop saying the galaxies are not moving. There is no zero speed in the universe.
The photon is constantly in an expanding universe, but there is no net shift. So the expansion does not cause a shift.
Marc77 says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:16 am
lStop saying the galaxies are not moving. There is no zero speed in the universe.
Let me be pedantly precise: the galaxies are not moving RELATIVE to us.
Marc77 says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:19 am
The photon is constantly in an expanding universe, but there is no net shift. So the expansion does not cause a shift.
If your cylinder is a billion light-year long you will observe the red-shift due to the expansion [after a lapse of two billion years].
The cylinder does not need to be long. The photon is constantly traveling in an expanding universe. And the photon cannot have lost energy when it comes back.
Marc77 says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:35 am
The cylinder does not need to be long.
If it is not several million light-years long the cylinder does not expand.
Only the universe is in expansion, not the cylinder. You have a red-shift when the distance between the emitter and the receiver is expanding. If the universe is extending but the receiver and emitter are always at the same distance, you don’t have a red-shift. This is the exact definition of the Doppler effect.