“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.
Jim G says:
March 24, 2014 at 8:12 pm
I do not disagree with what GR and Quantum theory say about the physical world today, including E.P. I am withholding my future choices and keeping my mind open to further developments and future information.
If you agree that E.P. holds you have no future choices as to whether the Universe is infinite. I also keep my mind open to the possibility that I win the Mega Millions Lottery next week, but that is not really a rational position.
lsvalgaard says:
Who said I was “rational”? I have rarely been accused of being “normal” either. I take these non happenings as compliments.
Jim G says:
March 24, 2014 at 8:37 pm
Who said I was “rational”?
If not, then we part ways.
Sorry, complements.
lsvalgaard says:
Remember, though, most of the greatest new scientific ( as well as business, political, musical and artistic) concepts came from those considered irrational and abnormal by their contemporaries.
Jim G says:
March 24, 2014 at 9:32 pm
Remember, though, most of the greatest new scientific concepts came from those considered irrational and abnormal by their contemporaries
Simply not true. You could, perhaps, defend ‘abnormal’ if you by that mean ‘extraordinary. Newton, Einstein, Feynman, etc, cannot be accused of being ‘irrational’. You are sliding into Dunning-Kruger land http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
lsvalgaard says:
I did not say they were abnormal or irrational, only that they were considered such by their contemporaries. Particularly those with whom they disagreed and who were many times in positions of power or authority within the establishment of the times.
lsvalgaard says:
In which case their contemporaries were the ones living in Dunning-Kruger land.
Jim G says:
March 24, 2014 at 9:55 pm
I did not say they were abnormal or irrational, only that they were considered such by their contemporaries
No true either, and it is not becoming of you to put yourself in their class.
Jim G says:
March 24, 2014 at 9:59 pm
In which case their contemporaries were the ones living in Dunning-Kruger land.
It is a bad idea to dig your hole deeper.
lsvalgaard says:
“No true either, and it is not becoming of you to put yourself in their class.”
Never said I was in their class. The idea is that I would accept their ideas more quickly than those contemporaries of whom I was speaking.
In some areas I am even more conventional and dislike new ideas (change) more than than you seem to. I am told this is a result of getting older. For instance, I like my XP system, out of date and unsupported as it is, more than any of my other computers and it is freezing up on me again!! Had to restart it just now, again.
I always enjoy your comments and hope you have a good evening but I am going to sign off for now. The computer gods seem to heal this machine after I shut it down for a while. I am going to hate having to use one of the newer systems on a regular basis.
I wish you a good night.
Jim G says:
March 24, 2014 at 10:26 pm
Never said I was in their class. The idea is that I would accept their ideas more quickly than those contemporaries of whom I was speaking.
With the hindsight of centuries and decades that does not require much, but your basic premise is dead wrong. The truly great ideas put forward by rational people are quickly accepted, except for a few hold-outs who are ‘withholding their future choices’.
lsvalgaard @ur momisugly 10-33pm March 24.
now who is seeking to position himself more favourably on the premises of an inadequate GR theory and likely highly distorted myopic observation?
however, going back to 4-32pm….
I take it then in your GR EP world of “an infinite number of infinite Universes” all of them, from being infinite, must still be expanding since (infinitely?) long ago and on and on into the infinite future along with others ever being created – what, every other weekend (or seventh day)?
otherwise your stretched rubber band analogy of ever-expanding Space would seem inferior to that of say a recovering sponge of such mass that it has a habit of collapsing in on itself on regular occasion. So perhaps my earlier shot at comparing (y)our Universe with boats anchored on a deep pond should in fact envisaged a highly rippled surface connection between vessels in “The Beginning” which then calms as the storm that created them subsides and increasingly frees them from the restraints of crushed matter, energy and time of their entombment.
(but)
beyond that each and every new Universe must have vacant space in which to infinitely expand at infinite speed if it isn`t that the other elephants already in the matchbox cannot shift over a bit at comparable speed. If they are all in the same dimension that is – no?
lsvalgaard says:
“The truly great ideas put forward by rational people are quickly accepted”
But you are not doing that, you merely defend the status quo, ‘With the hindsight of centuries and decades that does not require much.’
Joseph Murphy says:
March 24, 2014 at 5:22 am
If we are talking about broken eggs your argument is acceptable (in a Wittgenstein/conveying meaning sort of way). When talking about God the illogical nature of the argument
I don’t your god has anything to do with this or that ‘logic’ applies to her.
—————–
I don’t think I explained myself well. With the analogy of the broken egg, I said it conveys meaning. That is to say, to someone that has experienced an egg, we can convey the meaning of a broken egg without having complete knowledge of the egg. That tells us nothing about whether a broken egg is better or worse. Your original argument (correct me if wrong) was that you can see that the universe is broken (or not optimal) without understanding it as a whole. Where that argument fails with the egg is that you are not making a claim about whether it is better or worse to be broken, although broken may imply that in some cases. You are simply making a claim to know the current state of the egg, for better or worse. To a baker it is better, for the potential chicken probably worse, for the egg itself irrelevant perhaps.
Back to the universe then. When you make a claim that the universe would be better off with X change, you can only make that claim based on what you know about the universe, an incomplete picture. In this case of course what you don’t know could invalidate your prior opinion. But, more than that you are making a claim about the purpose of the universe, what it should be doing. If you know how to improve you also know what result you want. So, assuming you are not making your claim based solely on self benefit, you are either claiming complete knowledge of the universe, or at the very least (most?), knowledge of the purpose of the universe. That is why I said your argument was silly. Trying to disprove God (if that was your goal) by pointing out faults with the universe is just a ridiculous line of reasoning. If you want to disprove God then at least define it first so we can both be talking about the same thing: a little woman in the sky, the creator, omnipotent and omniscient, whatever. I am not picky.
While that conversation is fun I am here for the science. But, I feel my lack of physics knowledge is to much of a burden to toss around on this forum and you have been most generous with your replies already so I will leave it be. Thank you for your help on this difficult (for me!) subject.
Jim G says:
March 25, 2014 at 7:39 am
But you are not doing that, you merely defend the status quo
Nonsense, there is status quo. A hundred years ago, none of this was even dreamed of, and since then progress has been ever accelerating with [undoubtedly] more confirming or detailed data in the future. The foundation [E.P.] is solid, and, in any event one must go by with one knows so far. It is just like the question whether the Earth is round or flat. No future discovery [made by people with open minds] can turn it back to flat again. We may find ever better approximations to the oblateness of our ’round’ globe, but that is it.
david(swuk) says:
March 25, 2014 at 6:55 am
each and every new Universe must have vacant space in which to infinitely expand at infinite speed if it isn`t that the other elephants already in the matchbox cannot shift over a bit at comparable speed. If they are all in the same dimension that is – no?
No. This is your mental block. Here is an exercise you can do [three times a day until you get]:
Imagine a hotel with infinitely many rooms that are all occupied. At a certain point, an infinite number of new guest arrive each needing a room for the night. The clerk says “no problem” and moves all stating guests into a room number that is twice the number of the room they currently hold [as every number has a double, the clear will not run out of rooms]. Now, the clerk has infinitely many vacant rooms [all the ones with an odd room number] and can easily accommodate all the new guests. No new rooms are created. If tomorrow another batch of infinitely many guests show up, the clerk just repeats the procedure, and so on, ad infinitum.
Joseph Murphy says:
March 25, 2014 at 8:54 am
you are making a claim about the purpose of the universe
There is no data that the Universe has a purpose, just as the is no purpose in the natural selection leading to homo sapiens sapiens from whatever ‘green slime’ we came from.
Trying to disprove God
One cannot disprove something that is not even wrong.
lsvalgaard @ur momisugly 10-23am
ok, the coffee should have penetrated by now I hope…………
so the Earth WAS flat until found round(ish).
twice times infinity is still infinity. so the old joke about how to fit a third elephant into a matchbox was only funny until you heard it.
I cannot disprove GR as it is not wrong per se and so will never have had your ear until I do – if you follow.
the purpose behind natural selection is to preserve and prosper life in all its differently evolving forms, including mankind. presently he is embroiled in the problem of how to shed those Earthly bounds of his which he knows one day will cause his demise.
david(swuk) says:
March 25, 2014 at 11:00 am
the purpose behind natural selection is to preserve and prosper life in all its differently evolving forms, including mankind.
Who is perhaps the greatest threat to life on our Earth [at least according to some folks], so you have a nice contradiction here. But it doesn’t matter: the Universe and Evolution have no purpose other than what your wishful thinking makes up.
david(swuk) says:
March 25, 2014 at 11:00 am
Natural selection & other evolutionary processes have no purpose. No one is guiding them. They are a consequence of reproduction & work with whatever genetic material & its encoded structures & processes are available. After mass extinction events, life starts over working with whatever is left.
lsvalgaard says:
“in any event one must go by with one knows so far”
Not that long ago that would mean a flat earth with the sun revolving around it and those saying otherwise were heretics with the “experts” defending what was known so far…..
Jim G says:
March 25, 2014 at 3:14 pm
Not that long ago that would mean a flat earth with the sun revolving around it
And you would not accept the evidence to the contrary, but rather keep your future choices open. Willful Ignorance of progress is no excuse.
milodonharlani says:
March 25, 2014 at 2:33 pm
david(swuk) says:
March 25, 2014 at 11:00 am
“Natural selection & other evolutionary processes have no purpose.”
they have the purpose of perpetuating the species, by instinct habit or desire – get you head straight (you wouldn`t be another SP by any chance?)
Jim G says:
March 25, 2014 at 3:14 pm
There was never (at least in the ancient Near East) a model with a flat earth & the sun revolving around it. In the Bible, the unmoving earth is flat, & the sun goes over it, entering by one door in the solid vault of heaven & leaving by another, then hurrying around outside the dome to the place of his rising, which isn’t revolving as now understood. Some Early Church Fathers clung to this model, but after the first few centuries AD the Church adopted the Ptolemaic model, with a spherical earth resting at (or near) the center of a series of nested spheres, one of which carried the sun.
The closest to a “revolving” sun was the Egyptian cosmos, in which the sun traveled under the flat earth to return to the place of his rising.
david(swuk) says:
March 25, 2014 at 3:29 pm
I don’t know what an SP is in this context.
Evolutionary processes have no purpose because purpose implies some end or goal. Natural selection & other evolutionary processes arise from the fact of reproduction, a characteristic of populations of living things. When you get your head straight around this fact, you can begin to understand nature.
lsvalgaard says:
March 25, 2014 at 2:25 pm
the purpose behind natural selection is to preserve and prosper life in all its differently evolving forms, including mankind.
“Who is perhaps the greatest threat to life on our Earth [at least according to some folks], so you have a nice contradiction here. But it doesn’t matter: the Universe and Evolution have no purpose other than what your wishful thinking makes up”
same reply as that given to your “sell” mate Mil
(to a typically one-dimensional reply from a born again Flat Earther) `.