“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.
david(swuk) says:
March 25, 2014 at 3:29 pm
they have the purpose of perpetuating the species,
No, there is no purpose in nature, only blind, meaningless action. Your view seems to be like saying that the purpose of mountains is to provide a gradient so rain water can flow back to the sea where is came from.
milodonharlani says:
March 25, 2014 at 3:34 pm
There was never (at least in the ancient Near East) a model with a flat earth & the sun revolving around it.
It seems to me that Jim G is arguing that he would cling to the flat earth model, rejecting knowledge gained since because he would like to keep his future choice open [having an open mind = not accepting progress] and not be locked into new ideas, which will change with time anyway.
milodonharlani says:
As long as you are here on this page with some of us other hold outs, and talking about evolution, what do you think of this:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/peer-reviewed_s_1067421.html
as well as the thoeries regarding virus introduced mutations speeding up evolution?
Poor Dembski and Behe and other such folks
Try to put science sheen on creation
But when matched with the evidence, they become jokes
This can’t bring God any elation
I have argued for decades against Dembski’s notions
“Probabilities” diced on my easel
His “intermediates” idea should cause no commotions
Methinks it is like a weasel
When Behe gets down to details of a case
Like the Type III pumps in cell membranes
He quickly gets lost, and is badly off-base
Making non-fact assertions like dumb-brains
But viruses do indeed add DNA
And this shows as historic “scar tissues”
We carry such chunks, and they have much to say
As a speed-up cause? I have no issues
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
To return to science: http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.5166v1
milodonharlani says:
March 25, 2014 at 3:38 p
I don’t know what an SP is in this context.
no,well you picked-up on my reply to one who is apparently still nailed down to a Flat Earth believer type logic like you in your joint misunderstanding of the depth of meaning in the word “purpose” and its derivatives. Procreation by means of instinct, habit and/or desire is not a random event.
lsvalgaard says:
“It seems to me that Jim G is arguing that he would cling to the flat earth model, rejecting knowledge gained since because he would like to keep his future choice open [having an open mind = not accepting progress] and not be locked into new ideas, which will change with time anyway.”
Actually I was arguing that you would defend flat earth as the accepted proven science of the day.
You are digging your hole deeper, as you like to say.
Jim G says:
March 25, 2014 at 3:50 pm
Dembski & Marks are totally clueless as to biology in general & genetics in particular. It’s ludicrous to assert that there isn’t sufficient time for evolution to occur. Evolution is observed directly occurring around us all the time, as well as in the past, demonstrated in the fossil record & within the genomes of organisms now living.
As was hilariously shown in the Dover case trial, ID is just warmed over anti-scientific creationism.
Viruses are not only a source of mutations but of additional genetic material upon which evolutionary processes can work in more complex organisms.
lsvalgaard says:
March 25, 2014 at 3:47 pm
So it would appear. General relativity is as well established as any other valid, confirmed scientific theory, such as for example the germ theory of disease.
milodonharlani says:
“Viruses are not only a source of mutations but of additional genetic material upon which evolutionary processes can work in more complex organisms.”
It is my understanding that viral introduced mutations act as an accelerator to other mutational processes.
Jim G says:
March 25, 2014 at 4:18 pm
Actually I was arguing that you would defend flat earth as the accepted proven science of the day
Your ‘argument’ [?] falters on your ignorance of what constitutes science.And on your refusal to accept any scientific progress because something better might come down the pipe later on [the ‘open mind’ fallacy]. Solid knowledge cannot be undone. You cannot reject a round Earth simply because you hope that in future there might be evidence [that we don’t know of now] that the Earth is flat after all.
Your arguement is based completely upon misrepresentation of what I have said. Unproven theory, no matter how often science has failed to disprove it, is not proven scientific fact. Your dark matter is an excellent example. No one has YET found any, only unexplained gravitational disturbances that a construct of theoretical dark matter conveniently fits the with the math. Other models also fit the math. However you consider the gravitational irregularities as observations of Dark Matter itself when they are only observations of the gravitational irregularities, the effects, not neccesarily the proposed cause, ie Dark Matter. The most popular theory of the day wins your support. An open mind does not cause one to obviate proven facts of science but it does allow one to consider the possibility of IMPROVEMENTS based upon new facts.
Jim G says:
March 25, 2014 at 4:31 pm
The amazingly rapid mutation & evolution of viruses is an area of active research, for obvious reasons, but so too is the effect of viruses & virus-like particles, such as horizontal gene transfer agents, on the evolution of bacteria, archaea & eukaryotes.
Survey article from last year:
http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/virus-and-virus-like-particles-in-evolution
Jim G says:
March 25, 2014 at 4:54 pm
The most popular theory of the day wins your support.
No, the theory with the most supporting data wins my favor.
An open mind does not cause one to obviate proven facts of science but it does allow one to consider the possibility of IMPROVEMENTS based upon new facts.
That has nothing to do with ‘open mind’. Any scientist worth her salt considers new data [‘facts’ is too big a word] as important input, but does not [as you] reject sound and hard-won knowledge simply because of the possibility of future improvements. In fact, it is good science to state one’s case in a way that maximizes its chances of being wrong. That is: without using weasel-words like ‘shoulda’, ‘coulda’, ‘might’, etc. Paint the picture as starkly as possibly to maximize its glaring problems.
Dark matter is a good case in point. Evidence has been accumulating for 80+ years and have reached the point where it must be taken seriously. It is possible to explain the evidence in terms understandable to freshman physics, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf For me, this is good enough to lend my support. If you disagree, show where the article goes off the rail in your opinion. This is not rocket science.
lsvalgaard says:
March 25, 2014 at 3:47 pm
david(swuk) said.
(they have the purpose of perpetuating the species,)
“No, there is no purpose in nature, only blind, meaningless action……………………..”
and so the horn on the end of a Rhinoceroses snout has no purpose then?
Go annoy one and “discover”.
please.
lsvalgaard says:
March 25, 2014 at 4:07 pm
To return to science: http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.5166v1
so its all still “in the air” then – tee the ball a bit lower next time perhaps….
david(swuk) says:
March 25, 2014 at 5:22 pm
and so the horn on the end of a Rhinoceroses snout has no purpose then?
It was not put there in all its glory with the intent of keeping me away, but rather evolved by blind chance from, perhaps, a little knob on its snout that turned out to be useful to deter predators or attracting the opposite sex. Natural selection quickly turns so small chance improvements into full-fledged features. No ‘purpose’ here.
david(swuk) says:
March 25, 2014 at 5:28 pm
so its all still “in the air” then
No, that is not what the short paper says, which is that the BICEP2 result does not necessarily rule out ALL competing theories of inflation, “even [as the paper ends:] though existing data from cosmology is strongly suggesting that it does”. The main result [the signature of gravitational waves] stands.
lsvalgaard says:
I did go to your link and have read this all before. I have never said that dark matter is not the answer, only that I feel that it is too convenient and, as I said, no one has actually found any, YET, only gravitational effects credited to Dark Matter which are not the same as ‘oberving’ Dark Matter. So I have my doubts. Other possible answers exist. http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/, Variable Speed of Light theories, Space Separate from Time http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/pdf/1008.1915.pdf. All, including Dark Matter, have their weaknesses. None are as yet proven. All are works in progress. Reading Einstein, he felt that the final answers would be simple, like his E=MC2. You may “support” what you like and I reserve the right to continue to question if Dark Matter truely exists until someone comes up with some. Continued skepticism IS a scientific mind. Theories are not proven scientific facts. The speed of light (at present energy levels in our observable universe), time dilation, quantum entanglement, etc. have all been proven. Dark Matter is still a theory.
Jim G says:
March 25, 2014 at 5:59 pm
I have never said that dark matter is not the answer, only that I feel that it is too convenient
Once you say something like that you betray bias. DM is the result of an 80+ year struggle to understand what we observe. What you ‘feel’ is hardly a compelling argument against the evidence presented to you.
Dark Matter is still a theory.
Perhaps, you do not understand what ‘theory’ means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory :”A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation”.
As for nobody ‘has found it yet’, that goes for most particles, e.g. quarks. They are not ‘found’ [isolated, put in a box] but are inferred from the effects, just like Dark Matter. Being ‘skeptical’ about this, especially considering your bias [betrayed by the ‘too convenient’ remark] is just a ‘cover up’ for some underlying agenda, and such has no place in science.
Jim G says:
March 25, 2014 at 5:59 pm
Other possible answers exist. http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/, Variable Speed of Light theories, Space Separate from Time http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/pdf/1008.1915.pdf
To my knowledge, none of those [nor of other ones] explain the shape of the curves in Figure 2 and 4 of the sound wave paper. Perhaps I have missed it, so please provide links to such explanation of those particular observations are described. If you cannot, then you must stop saying that ‘other possible answers exist’.
All, including Dark Matter, have their weaknesses
And what are the weaknesses in the Dark Matter explanation? I don’t know of any, please enlighten me.
lsvalgaard says:
I see you must escape to the quantum world to support your effects equal cause proposition. Yes, it is really hard to see those quarks or the collapse of a wave function. The inconvenient truth here is that since this Dark Matter supposedly makes up the vast majority of matter in our universe and the rules, as you say, are the same everywhere, so are you not somewhat skeptical that there is no Dark Matter to be found in our local vacinity or anywhere else so far, other than supposedly light years away? Not even in a collider? Just one little subatomic particle? You have greater faith than I.
Jim G says:
March 25, 2014 at 6:33 pm
I see you must escape to the quantum world to support your effects equal cause proposition
Your tendentious comment makes your bias clear. I chose that example, because I though you would understand it. But, never mind, almost everything we know and accept are the result of inferences made by observing the effects of objects, for example: we know that the Earth’s outer core is liquid because it does not transmit transverse seismic waves, yet nobody has held a piece of that core in his hand or had it in a suitable box for closer observation.
The inconvenient truth here is that since this Dark Matter supposedly makes up the vast majority of matter in our universe and the rules, as you say, are the same everywhere, so are you not somewhat skeptical that there is no Dark Matter to be found in our local vicinity or anywhere else so far, other than supposedly light years away?
The density of DM would be exceeding small so no wonder that it is hard to observe, but with your belief in future ‘improvements’ it should not be hard to accept that DM will eventually be found.
You have greater faith than I.
Perhaps I just know a bit more about these matters and have thought the matter through a bit more, and am unencumbered by whatever bias ails you.
lsvalgaard says:
My ‘bias’ is toward skepticism. Yours is apparently towards generally accepted theory. DM may, ideed, eventually be found and then I will accept what is found. Until then it is a theory. Perhaps even the best one, so far, but still a theory, not fact. In spite of the source, I found this article interesting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/dark-matter-search_n_4536287.html
It may be below your level but I found it an interesting summary of what is/was going on with the attempts to rectify observations with GR.
Jim G says:
March 25, 2014 at 7:08 pm
Science is all theory. Nothing is ever “proven”. But to make it to theory level, a body of hypotheses have to have survived tests of predictive power without being shown false.
Some theories have better support than others, such as the heliocentric theory, confirmation of which is now directly observable in so far as the earth can be seen to go around the sun. However details & implications of the theory still need confirmation.
Other well-supported theories also still need further elaboration & refinement, such as the germ theory of disease, atomic theory of matter & theory of gravitation. OTOH other once popular theories have been shown false, like phlogiston & the humors theory of disease.
Jim G says:
March 25, 2014 at 7:08 pm
My ‘bias’ is toward skepticism. Yours is apparently towards generally accepted theory.
My bias is towards what convinces me, not what generally goes, although these two approaches often go along the same path [not always]. skepticism is good to a point only. Once the evidence becomes overwhelming, overwrought skepticism becomes a hindrance to progress and a brake that holds back your understanding of nature. Some people are happy with such an outcome, not wanting to be bothered by things that they consider ‘too convenient’.
DM may, indeed, eventually be found and then I will accept what is found. Until then it is a theory.
“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation”.
In spite of the source, I found this article interesting
As it says: “Physicists still have no proof that dark matter exists at all, but the evidence for it is substantial. The movements of stars and galaxies can apparently be explained only if there is much more gravitating matter in the universe than the visible stuff of atoms and molecules. Attempts to correct the discrepancy by rewriting the rules of gravity in Einstein’s general theory of relativity have repeatedly failed“.
Some of the better popular explanations are:
http://galileospendulum.org/2013/03/21/planck-results-our-weird-and-wonderful-universe/
and http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/02/26/dark-matter-just-fine-thanks/#.UzI28NJdX3R
milodonharlani says:
“Science is all theory. Nothing is ever “proven”. ”
Perhaps not all of a given theory is ‘proven’ but parts most certainly are. Take nuclear fission and fusion for instance. That part of nuclear theory is beyond a shadow of a doubt. Much of GR is proven and so on, as in your examples as well. Time has been experimentally shown to slow down in the presence of the curved space/time near a large mass. Dark matter, not so much. Medical theories come and go and sometimes go backwards, as in the wisdom of tonsil removal. That seems to change every 10 years or so. I understand the concept, thank you very much. Mostly, I object to stating theory as fact when that part of it being discussed does not have such supporting evidence and is based more upon interpretation than hard evidence. My early employment was heavily invoved with statistical analysis of research data and I know what can be done with such analyses.
Jim G says:
March 25, 2014 at 8:07 pm
Mostly, I object to stating theory as fact when that part of it being discussed does not have such supporting evidence and is based more upon interpretation than hard evidence.
You are confusing ‘theory’ and ‘fact’. We accept a theory as ‘fact’ if evidence for it is so overwhelming that not accepting it becomes an obstacle to understanding and progress. The evidence for DM is substantial and compelling and there are no other ‘explanations’ that fit the observations. So DM is not seriously ‘being discussed’, except, perhaps in some circles like ‘evolution’ is being discussed by creationists. The search is now on for direct detection. Your ‘skepticism’ is of the worst kind: that which is based on a combination of ignorance and willful neglect of evidence. This is sad because a scientific literate populace is highly desirable if not necessary. The USA ranks low on the literacy scale often because of unwillingness to learn under varying guises such as skepticism, religion, new-age relativism, conspiracy-theories [“I know what can be done with such analyses”], and general proliferation of pseudo-science of all stripes.