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
Jim G
March 19, 2014 12:58 pm

lsvalgaard says:
March 19, 2014 at 12:49 pm
Jim G says:
March 19, 2014 at 12:32 pm
Self destruction would not have anything to do with the design only the actions or inactions of those self destructing.
Designing something that self destructs is shabby design in my book.
It is called free will, unless you are a Calvinist and believe in predestination. A form of predeterminism.

milodonharlani
March 19, 2014 1:00 pm

Doug Huffman says:
March 19, 2014 at 12:53 pm
The Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation is not homogenous, hence contains information allowing hypothesis testing for pre-Bang conditions & speculation as to the fate of the universe.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm
If the earth indeed be going to pot, then maybe there was a Big Bong.

March 19, 2014 1:03 pm

Jim G says:
March 19, 2014 at 12:58 pm
It is called free will, unless you are a Calvinist and believe in predestination.
You are assuming that there is such a thing. and even if there were, it is not credible that all the trillions [billions, whatever large number you prefer] of civilizations ALL decide of their own free will to self destruct. Unless they really don’t have free will, and their ‘free’ choice was built in.

Jim G
March 19, 2014 1:07 pm

milodonharlani
lsvalgaard
Thanks for the interesting discussion. I now have to go babbysit my granddaughter. Even more interesting and challenging. Will check back later.

milodonharlani
March 19, 2014 1:09 pm

Jim G says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:07 pm
An activity perhaps not dissimilar to interacting with WUWT commentators.

Jim G
March 19, 2014 1:10 pm

lsvalgaard says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Jim G says:
March 19, 2014 at 12:58 pm
It is called free will, unless you are a Calvinist and believe in predestination.
“You are assuming that there is such a thing. and even if there were, it is not credible that all the trillions [billions, whatever large number you prefer] of civilizations ALL decide of their own free will to self destruct. Unless they really don’t have free will, and their ‘free’ choice was built in.”
Nope, just differentiating between shabby design and acts of the designees.

Doug Huffman
March 19, 2014 1:37 pm

milodonharlani says: March 19, 2014 at 1:00 pm “The Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation is not homogenous, hence contains information allowing hypothesis testing for pre-Bang conditions & speculation as to the fate of the universe.”
You missed my predicate of the singularity, not surprisingly.

milodonharlani
March 19, 2014 1:46 pm

Doug Huffman says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:37 pm
No, I didn’t.
The CMB records the early expansion, which contains info about both the singularity & conditions before it, as reading the link would have showed you. Should I be surprised you didn’t read it?

Doug Huffman
March 19, 2014 1:51 pm

Not at all. I promise to NEVER read HowStuffWorks.com

milodonharlani
March 19, 2014 2:01 pm

Doug Huffman says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Even when it cites its sources & quotes them accurately? Interesting.

milodonharlani
March 19, 2014 3:35 pm

lsvalgaard says:
March 18, 2014 at 10:24 pm
Fascinating lecture & graphics by your colleague Kuo detailing observational confirmation of inflation. Liked his explanation of likelihood of detection of gravity waves & plans for follow up experiments at the South Pole. Also his salute to Guth. Good scientific method.
Hypothesis author Linde’s presentation comes next.
https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/kipac-colloquium-bicep2
Thanks! Also appreciate your discussion of vacuum.
Will have to study what implications this finding has for Vilenkin & Tegmark’s multiverse version of inflation.

milodonharlani
March 19, 2014 3:58 pm

Charming, self-effacing presentation by Linde, pointing out that among the many inflation models ruled out at high level of probability by gravity wave observations is his own 1981 “new inflation”.

Jim G
March 19, 2014 5:09 pm

lsvalgaard
I am back. From your wikipedia links: “Vacuum is space that is devoid of matter. The word stems from the Latin adjective vacuus for “vacant” or “void”. If one believes in the Big Bang then our space/time originated at that time. Prior to that time there was no space, nor was there any “prior” as there was no time within which the QED vacuum could exist nor fluctuations could occur. Fluctuations are changes and changes require a time element. So, the singularity had to exist within which the fluctuations occured to cause inflation. The singularity is therefore the “something from nothing”, not the inflation.

Jim G
March 19, 2014 5:17 pm

milodonharlani says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:09 pm
Jim G says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:07 pm
“An activity perhaps not dissimilar to interacting with WUWT commentators.”
An excellent simile, or is it more metaphorical?

milodonharlani
March 19, 2014 5:21 pm

Jim G says:
March 19, 2014 at 5:17 pm
A simile is a metaphor, but not all metaphors are similes. My lame attempt was IMO a simile because it implies the use of “like”, if “not dissimilar” means the same as “not unlike”.

milodonharlani
March 19, 2014 5:36 pm

Jim G says:
March 19, 2014 at 5:09 pm
One school of cosmological inflation thought, quantum “eternal inflation”, as championed by string theorist Valenkin (like Linde, an ex-Soviet emigre), does hold that nothing, ie no energy, mass or time, existed before the Big Bang, just the physical laws. This potentially theistic view perhaps strangely arises from a multiverse vision, in which not just our universe but its sister universes all arose at the same time. If I have understood its proponents correctly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29
Interestingly, the probable gravity wave discovery rules out cyclic models of inflation, in which “something” could exist before the Big Bang. But it does not necessarily falsify all models in which something precedes the start of inflation of our universe, again if I understand the implications of the discovery, as elucidated in the presentations linked by Dr. S.

March 19, 2014 6:01 pm

Leo Norekens:
Lemaître developed his theory in constant consultations with Vatican.
Perhaps, you need a more detailed and substantiated source of information than Wikipedia.

March 19, 2014 6:09 pm

Fun discussion.
Jim G says:
…where did the singularity come from? Something from nothing.
Maybe. Maybe not. Our knowledge base isn’t advanced enough to know yet.
But if there was a Big Bang [I’m one of those who thinks there was], then it would seem intuitive that the universe is finite. Unless you think it had a definite beginning, but no end…

Jim G
March 19, 2014 6:16 pm

milodonharlani says:
Found your citation:
“Some physicists have tried to avoid the initial conditions problem by proposing models for an eternally inflating universe with no origin.[81][82][83][84] These models propose that while the universe, on the largest scales, expands exponentially it was, is and always will be, spatially infinite and has existed, and will exist, forever.”
The concept of an infinite universe seems to have gained followers (cosmological acoustics) and from what I understand those that buy that version also consider it to have had no beginning, though not neccesarily eternal into the future. Some consider this to be antitheistic, but then, would not an infinite and eternal God have such a construct?
Logic still has me captive regarding something from nothing, scientificly, before space and time there could be no QED fluctuations re the Big Bang, unless it was, indeed, a local happening in an infinite universe.

Jim G
March 19, 2014 6:21 pm

dbstealey says:
March 19, 2014 at 6:09 pm
Fun discussion.
Jim G says:
…where did the singularity come from? Something from nothing.
“Maybe. Maybe not. Our knowledge base isn’t advanced enough to know yet.
But if there was a Big Bang [I’m one of those who thinks there was], then it would seem intuitive that the universe is finite. Unless you think it had a definite beginning, but no end…”
There is always the colliding “brane” multiverse option which gives rise to results that mimic a BB.

milodonharlani
March 19, 2014 6:27 pm

Jim G says:
March 19, 2014 at 6:16 pm
The theorem of Borde, Guth & Vilenkin doesn’t require “absolute nothingness”:
http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/
The link is from a site attacking Christian apologist W. L. Craig, but the quotations from Vilenkin are worth reading, as is his 2006 book for laymen, “Many Worlds in One”.

milodonharlani
March 19, 2014 6:29 pm

Jim G says:
March 19, 2014 at 6:21 pm
I could be wrong, but IMO the colliding brane hypothesis is falsified by this week’s gravity wave result, if it holds up. Hope someone who knows more than I will correct me if wrong.

Alan Esworthy
March 19, 2014 6:45 pm

I hope that somewhere Joe Weber is smiling.

milodonharlani
March 19, 2014 7:03 pm

Alan Esworthy says:
March 19, 2014 at 6:45 pm
He was a saint if all he’s doing is smiling & not going, “Nyah, nyah, nyah, I told you so, oh ye of little faith!”

Jim G
March 19, 2014 7:17 pm

milodonharlani says:
Just read it and though interesting, my position is that if the universe ( all space/time, energy and matter ) began as a singularity, ala the BB, then from what did the singularity arise? Don’t see that answer anywhere so far, just conjecture. Actually don’t see how anyone could do more than posit some guesses, at least from a scientific standpoint. I have come to believe, however, that mathematically anything can be conjured up. Had lots of math myself up through advanced calculus and differential equations and most every type of statistical methods available then, long ago of course, but none of the truely esoteric stuff, algebraic topology, etc. So still can be overwhelmed. Not that I won’t believe it can be proven mathematically, just that it does not follow that it represents what is really going on in the real world. Not that it could’nt, just that it does’nt necessarily.

1 13 14 15 16 17 22