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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
559 Comments
Joseph Murphy
March 18, 2014 2:47 pm

lsvalgaard says:
March 18, 2014 at 1:22 pm
Rather than me typing in a long explanation, I would refer you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
————————————-
Thanks! Does the red shift happen because the back of the wave literally has to travel through more space than the front of the wave?

March 18, 2014 2:47 pm

Paul Westhaver says:
March 18, 2014 at 2:14 pm
1) Hubble demonstrated [in 1936] that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us, as predicted by a universal expansion.
Another popularized piece:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/universe.html
“However, the galaxies are not moving through space, they are moving in space, because space is also moving. In other words, the universe has no center; everything is moving away from everything else. If you imagine a grid of space with a galaxy every million light years or so, after enough time passes this grid will stretch out so that the galaxies are spread to every two million light years, and so on, possibly into infinity”

ossqss
March 18, 2014 2:50 pm

Wow, so may thought provoking comments in one thread. Thanks all.
To some, I hope your fingerprints grow back after typing so many comments 😉
Now, off to ponder the subject matter at hand. Cheers!

Scarface
March 18, 2014 2:52 pm

Logan5 says: (March 17, 2014 at 11:25 am)
“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.”
Space/time was itself expanding… Down to earth yet beyond comprehension.
To me this sounded like the best definition of a 4th dimension.
I will look at the stars tonight slightly different now.
Thanks!

March 18, 2014 2:54 pm

Paul Westhaver says:
March 18, 2014 at 2:14 pm
1) Hubble demonstrated [in 1936] that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us, as predicted by a universal expansion.
More here:
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l10_p4.html
“The galaxies are not really moving through space away from each other. Instead, what is happening is the space between them is expanding (just like the rubber band expanded, separating the dots fixed to it from each other). As the universe expands, the galaxies get farther from each other, and the apparent velocity will appear to be larger for the more distant galaxies”

Paul Westhaver
March 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Lief,
The galaxies are not still.
You said they were. They are not.
I never said that there was no expansion though you seem to imply that I suggested that. I did not. You on the other hand said that galaxies don’t move. At 6:21pm you wrote:” It is that ‘spacial underlying background’ that is expanding. The objects within that are essentially sitting still.” You are wrong. They move. I have cited several source who have stated that.
Your emphasis of one attribute of expansion does not negate the known motion of objects and galaxies. Furthermore, your not helping anyone by denying establish fact so that you can emphasize the more esoteric elastic reference frame. That isn’t clever. It is confusing and unnecessarily so.
Nicole Bell said it better, and she said that both expansion AND motion happen.

phlogiston
March 18, 2014 3:00 pm

@lsvalgaard
In particular, it’s perfectly plausible to have distant galaxies whose “recession velocity” is greater than the speed of light. (We couldn’t see such galaxies directly, since light from them would never reach us, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.)
Is this what is meant by something being outside of our “light cone”?

phlogiston
March 18, 2014 3:03 pm

A very good book for a primer in both relativity (special and general) and quantum physics, then a dive into superstrings, all accessible to the non-specialist, is “The Elegant Universe” by Brian Greene.
This explains how in terms of string theory the big bang becomes the big pop.

Paul Westhaver
March 18, 2014 3:04 pm

Lief,
Galaxies are not still and you said they were. You are wrong. They are in motion.
Galactic motion does not exclude intergalactic expansion. Also expansion has the attribute of measurable recession speeds as quoted by NASA, Harvard, and FermiLAb.
I don’t suggest that there is no expansion. You, however, said that galaxies are essentially still.

March 18, 2014 3:05 pm

lsvalgaard says:
March 18, 2014 at 2:54 pm
Paul Westhaver says:
March 18, 2014 at 2:14 pm
1) Hubble demonstrated [in 1936] that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us, as predicted by a universal expansion.
More here:
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/lectures/cosmo_101.html
“In a real sense, Hubble’s law, the recession velocity of galaxies, is an illusion. The galaxies are not moving, the space between them is literally expanded”
“When, in fact, the galaxies have not moved at all, the space between them has increased”
“So the redshift we see for distant galaxies is really an effect of spacetime expanding, not real motion. This is good because some of the redshifts for the most distant galaxies have recessional velocities in excess to the speed of light. But this is not a contradiction for special relativity since the space is expanding, not true motion”.
Since galaxies are members of clusters and are acted upon by gravity, they will have ‘small’ local movements within the cluster. E.g. The Andromeda nebula is current moving towards our Galaxy. Those movements are real and can be detected by their Doppler effects, but are red herrings as far as the general expansion of the universe is concerned.

March 18, 2014 3:07 pm

phlogiston says:
March 18, 2014 at 3:00 pm
Is this what is meant by something being outside of our “light cone”?
To save me some typing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
Google is your Friend.

March 18, 2014 3:09 pm

Paul Westhaver says:
March 18, 2014 at 1:34 pm
To suggest that the motions don’t exist and only space expansion is all there is, is misinformation at best and sophistry at worst.
Time to wash your mouth out with soap.

Paul Westhaver
March 18, 2014 3:30 pm

Lief,
Hubble’s law may well be an illusion of sorts as well may be specifics of expansion. Space-Time will tell.
What we know is that galaxies are moving in any event. You insist that they aren’t. So rather that saying that I am stupid, explain why at 6:21 pm above you said “The objects within that are essentially sitting still.”
Galaxies are subject to reference frame expansion and motion, both of which are perceived as shifts to the red spectrum, like a doppler shift.

Paul Westhaver
March 18, 2014 3:46 pm

Since Lief seems unwilling to modify his absurd statements I will state what he meant to say.
Lief should have said:
Galaxies move. They move very fast. However, based on doppler-like redshift measurements of very remote galaxies, the speeds calculated for this motion is too fast to accept. So how can this be explained? The current explanation for this is that though a galaxy is moving, so too is the space between the galaxy and the observer growing. The redshift is a combination of both lower actual galactic velocities and higher space expansion rates.
Instead Lief said that galaxies are essentially still. They aren’t.

phlogiston
March 18, 2014 4:06 pm

Paul Westhaver says:
March 18, 2014 at 3:46 pm
Instead Lief said that galaxies are essentially still. They aren’t.
Leif did not say that, instead he said that while there is movement, at great distances its meaning is diminished by the universe expansion:
“A profound feature of relativity is that two objects passing by each other cannot have a relative velocity greater than the speed of light. An even more profound feature, one which has received much less publicity, is that the concept of “relative velocity” does not even make sense unless the objects are very close to each other. In Einstein’s general theory of relativity (which describes gravity as the curvature of spacetime), there is no way to define the velocity between two widely-separated objects in any strictly correct sense. The “velocity” that cosmologists speak of between distant galaxies is really just a shorthand for the expansion of the universe; it’s not that the galaxies are moving, it’s that the space between them is expanding.
Some of what we know about dark matter for instance comes from observing galaxies colliding with each-other. Collision of galaxies requires them to be moving relative to each-other at a SHORT scale relative to the galaxy size. It serves no purpose to argue that Leif is saying that galaxies dont move.
Failure to understand what someone is saying is not the same thing as proving them wrong.

phlogiston
March 18, 2014 4:11 pm

@lsvalgaard
In particular, it’s perfectly plausible to have distant galaxies whose “recession velocity” is greater than the speed of light. (We couldn’t see such galaxies directly, since light from them would never reach us, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.)
Is this what is meant by something being outside of our “light cone”?
lsvalgaard says:
March 18, 2014 at 3:07 pm
To save me some typing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
Google is your Friend.

I know what a light cone is, but the wiki article on the same does not answer my question.
Is a “distant galaxy whose “recession velocity” is greater than the speed of light” out of our light cone?

Paul Westhaver
March 18, 2014 4:23 pm

phlogiston says:
March 18, 2014 at 4:06 pm
Paul Westhaver says:
March 18, 2014 at 3:46 pm
Instead Lief said that galaxies are essentially still. They aren’t.
Leif did not say that,
_________________________________________________________
Yes Lief did say that!. It is on this page at time stamp 6:21pm I quote: “It is that ‘spacial underlying background’ that is expanding. The objects within that are essentially sitting still.”
Had Leif retracted that absurd assertion or not said it at all, then I would have said nothing.
Pride comes before the fall.

phlogiston
March 18, 2014 4:35 pm

Paul Westhaver says:
March 18, 2014 at 4:23 pm
Meditate on the word “essentially”. Enlightenment might come.

Jim G
March 18, 2014 4:51 pm

Perhaps the main feature of the velocity constant, C, which some seem to be missing is that time, itself, is variable in relativistic theory and time dilation occurs as velocity increases and becomes very noticeable at relativistic speeds. Time, which the theory holds, is a part of the very fabric of space which is curved in the presence of mass, which when present also results in time dilation. Velocity, as well as the presence of mass, slow time down. These issues have been proven experimentally to significant precision levels.

Paul Westhaver
March 18, 2014 4:58 pm

Phlogiston,
If Lief desires to write in a confusing manner, repeatedly, explain to me why the readers must try and read his mind to make his statements correct. What he said was wrong.
He said it over and over and over again like it was his new exciting idea. He said it wrong in such an ambiguous,obtuse and provocative manner AND he was prickly with people who kept asking what it all meant. It is a simple concept made complicated by inept English usage.
Now he, and you for him, are pretending he never said, nor meant , that still means still. The burden is on him to write his thoughts out properly.

Tom in Florida
March 18, 2014 5:00 pm

Relativity is all about the observer. If I am sitting on my couch and my cat is sleeping on a chair nearby, to me the cat is not moving. However, to an observer next to the Sun the cat is moving but the Sun is not. To an observer outside the Solar System the cat and the Sun are moving but not the Galaxy. To an observer outside the Galaxy the cat, the Sun and the Galaxy are moving. Next is the matter of how much relative speed there is. If my cat gets up and walks away to me his speed is slow but real and interesting to me. For the observer next to the Sun the cat’s motion around the Sun is the important thing and the speed of his walk is irrelevant and uninteresting to the point that the cat could be considered still in his locale. So for us being inside the expanding universe, which we do not feel, we can see the local motion of the other galaxies which appears interesting to us. However, that speed when compared to the expanding universe is so slow it makes their movement irrelevant, uninteresting and almost still in their locale.

milodonharlani
March 18, 2014 5:06 pm

Paul Westhaver says:
March 18, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Here’s Dr. S.’s initial response:
“lsvalgaard says:
March 17, 2014 at 12:51 pm
“Paul Westhaver says:
March 17, 2014 at 12:16 pm
2) In blast mechanics, like a grenade, there is a front of debris that propagates from the blast site outward in an ever-increasing shell. So too is our universe expanding with a wave front of cosmic condensate.”
“Except that there is no debris front. ALL of space is expanding, but the matter in the Universe is just sitting essentially motionless in the expanding space. There is no debris front moving through space.”
He later explained what he meant by “essentially”, & provided links for further explication. Your own Wiki link also clarifies that on the large scale of the universe, the galaxies lie still while space expands between or beyond them, whatever may be the case on the “small” scale of nearby galaxies relative to each other.

Paul Westhaver
March 18, 2014 5:20 pm

milodonharlani
My blast mechanics thought was again, a metaphor M-E-T-A-P-H-O-R to suggest a concept quite remote from the present thread. You don’t understand. I have no criticism of Lief’s criticism of the blast concept I wrote in general. It is one many people have.
I stopped discussing it because I could not adequately describe the geometry with words in this forum. I need a diagram, and I don’t have one available at this time.
You are confusing 2 subjects that share some terminology but are quite different.

March 18, 2014 5:29 pm

Seems relevant given the discussion of relative velocities: http://calgary.rasc.ca/howfast.htm
Now, as we speak you are heading to the west at between 1000 km/h (for those near 50 N or S) to 1,600 km/h (near the equator) which of course drops off at the poles.
If you can see the Sun you can turn and face south, point your left hand at the Sun and point your right hand 90 degrees from it, you’re traveling roughly that way at around 100,000 km/h.
Lastly, if you can see Vega you’re traveling roughly towards it at around 447,000 km/hr.

March 18, 2014 6:35 pm

Paul Westhaver says:
Lief, The galaxies are not still. You said they were. They are not.
Paul,
Funny, I think I understood what Lief was saying all along. He said “essentially”, he did not say “absolutely”.
Of course galaxies can be moving relative to one another. From an observer’s point of view, one galaxy can be spiraling clockwise, another counter-clockwise. But that’s not what Lief is saying.
I think he is saying that at great distances, two galaxies’ movement relative to one another is essentially unchanging. Rather, it is the expansion of the universe that makes it appear that they are moving away from one another. That is different from a Doppler shift, too.
Correct me if I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong often enough before.

1 10 11 12 13 14 22