“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.
lswalgaard
said (last night) amongst other things……
“general proliferation of pseudo-science of all stripes”
Yes indeed, if we ever could spend as much on satisfying our thirst for real knowledge we as we do our “darker sides” we would be seeing more light for sure – but, for that darker side though, we would perhaps still be living in caves and living in fear of that big ugly demon with a big sharp horn on the end of his snout every time we went out even though, like many others in different ways, he is so tethered by his `accidental or was it designed` lack of imagination and fear of his rivals that he`ll starve in a field of plenty .
Otherwise I have to conclude that the word “purposeful” loses its meaning somewhere across The Pond. Too many big ripples I guess.
As for DM our need of it is still based upon our interpretation of observation and expounded theory as I understand it and which we know to be inadequate for crossing all the t`s`never mind dotting the `hi`s`, so don`t let rhinocerotidaen attitude stop you from questioning you own budding convictions.
(? if I shot, say the first msec dot of an S.O.S. signal at the Moon, would the photons that soon landed there be the same ones that came out of the ass end of my laser?)
lsvalgaard says:
March 25, 2014 at 10:23 am
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.
—————-
yes, so you retract your former statement, “If the Universe were designed for life, it would be a poor designer that lets her creation self destruct.” as completely nonsensical?
—————-
lsvalgaard says:
March 25, 2014 at 10:23 am
One cannot disprove something that is not even wrong.
—————-
Agreed, and nice reference. I thought you were starting down that path so it is good to see it is not the case.
Jim G says:
March 25, 2014 at 8:07 pm
Proof is for math, not science, which relies on testing of predictions to see if they can be shown false, not on “proofs”. Facts are observations, upon which hypotheses & theories must be based & their predictions tested. Part of a theory may become a fact, as with the present ability directly to observe that earth goes around the sun, which in 1543 was not observable so had to be inferred by Copernicus in formulating his heliocentric theory. His posited rotation of the earth has also been observed.
milodonharlani says:
Go find the errors in string theory, as Leif asked me to do relative to DM in his link on DM. (“please provide links to such explanation of those particular observations are described.”) Each theory sets out in a particular direction to explain certain observations. When they do explain them, those proposing the theory feel they are on the right track as do others, rightfully, in the scientific community. Explaining those particular observations does not prove the theory, only that it is one possible answer to why that observation is so. Others may exist or come later. String theory may, as the article points out, be disproved by these most recent observations re gravity waves. At present the main problem with DM is not that it is not a good theory to explain what has been observed but that no one can find any. My “bias” is in the fact that the answer to the dilemma fits the mathematical theory and is ‘conveniently’ invisable and undetectable by any means, so far, when it supposedly makes up 85% of all matter. So far the answers that come back sound more like religion than science, DM is too small, too dense, inside the sun, etc
The big one is “only interacts with other matter/energy through gravity”. For this reason, many scientists continue to look at our understanding of gravity, electromagnetism, the space/time concept, VSL, etc. in an attempt to find out what is going on. This is science.
Joseph Murphy says:
March 26, 2014 at 8:11 am
yes, so you retract your former statement, “If the Universe were designed for life, it would be a poor designer that lets her creation self destruct.” as completely nonsensical?
Of course not, as that statement was an argument against purposeful design.
Jim G says:
March 26, 2014 at 9:21 am
At present the main problem with DM is not that it is not a good theory to explain what has been observed but that no one can find any.
That is not a problem for the existence of DM, just as the fact that Newton could not find a cause for gravitation was not a problem for the existence of gravity.
My “bias” is in the fact that the answer to the dilemma fits the mathematical theory and is ‘conveniently’ invisable and undetectable by any means, so far, when it supposedly makes up 85% of all matter.
It is measured to make up the 85% of all matter. Even the various [semi-serious] attempts to explain the data by modifications to our theories of gravity assumes the existence of DM.
So far the answers that come back sound more like religion than science
The objections against DM sound more like religion than science. I think your objection is simply based on ignorance of the science involved, as so clearly exposed in your comments.
The big one is “only interacts with other matter/energy through gravity”. For this reason, many scientists continue to look at our understanding of gravity, electromagnetism, the space/time concept, VSL, etc. in an attempt to find out what is going on.
Many scientists are interested in finding out what DM is [a Nobel prize beckons if you find out], not whether DM exists, of which there is no doubt anymore [after 80+ years of research]. Why would you investigate something that does not exist?
Jim G says:
March 26, 2014 at 9:21 am
Dark matter exists, & most of it is non-baryonic, ie not composed of “ordinary” matter. Baryonic dark matter is just ordinary matter that isn’t readily detectable for various reasons.
lsvalgaard says:
“conspiracy-theories [“I know what can be done with such analyses”],”
No conspiracy theory involved, just observation of human behaviour when self interest overwhelms data and observations. ‘ Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much ‘ and much too emotionally. The closer one gets to the truth the more vehemence and name calling (“ignorance and willful neglect of evidence” you say) becomes evident from the other side. I have not argued that DM is necessarily wrong, nor even that it is not the strongest fit to the observations SO FAR, as I have said, it may well be correct, but that considering other possible answers is, ignorant, pseudoscience, bias, dare I say heresy. You apparently extremely dislike the concept of other people’s ideas or perhaps of not being the smartest one on the block to whom everyone concedes your superiority. Science is nothing if not skepticism.
I don’t understand…gravity is a consequential physical force caused by two objects already in existence. How could the emanation of gravity waves be possible without pre-existing structures?? I refere to the Genesis quote from the bible (I am not a Christian, but do dwell in Christ Conciousness), “…And God Spoke and there was light…” I believe SOUND SOUND SOUND SOUND SOUND SOUND SOUND SOUND LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT FREQUENCIES FREQUENCIES FREQUENCIES FREQUENCIES FREQUENCIES ……….to be the source of all vibration in the cosmos. Every living thing, including every cell in its body, and every non-living thing, such as rocks and planets, vibrate at a frequency. ONE SHOULD INVESTIGATE CYMATICS…to see the geometrical patterns derived from a tone generator and metal shavings. These geometries are the platonic solids in their entirety, but also these geometries can exist without forming matter….crashing through the universe at the speed of light, colliding with other waves and FORMING NEW GEOMETRIES IN SPACE TIME. Space is the breath of god and waves are his voice, time is simply a bystander along for the ride.
Please comment as this is very sacred to me.
Thank You
Here are some publishers, their websites (or websites about them) and publications listings, some of which are outside the box in physics. I realize the theoretical nature of this material. However alternative theories and approaches do exist and can be quite interesting.
http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2012/Files/damasco.pdf
“Without theorists such as Verlinde or Sakharov or Pauli, alternate modes of thinking about gravity may not have existed for a long time.”
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/11/our-understanding-of-gravity-is-fundamentally-wrong-two-conflicting-theories-of-the-universe.html
“Dark Matter Might Not Exist”
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/AP/faces/pages/read/Home.jsp?person=j.magueijo&_adf.ctrl-state=azjzxmgp7_3
Joao Magueijo Author: “Faster Than the Speed of Light”
http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/faculty/horava.html
Petr Hořava “Splitting time from space”
Jim G says:
March 26, 2014 at 10:52 am
when self interest overwhelms data and observations.
And now you accusing the scientists involved of unseeming behavior.
You apparently extremely dislike the concept of other people’s ideas or perhaps of not being the smartest one on the block to whom everyone concedes your superiority.
The generally accepted science is the intersection of the ideas of very many smart people and it is usually a good idea not to dislike the ideas of so many people most of whom are smarter than oneself.
Science is nothing if not skepticism.
Skepticism in itself is not science.
Skepticism when based on ignorance (real or willful) is not science either.
alan mcduffie says:
March 26, 2014 at 11:21 am
Please comment as this is very sacred to me.
The sound waves during the birth of our Universe were critical in determining the structure and are critical in framing our knowledge of said birth. The rest of your comment may have meaning for you personally.
Jim G says:
March 26, 2014 at 1:19 pm
some of which are outside the box in physics
The more something is ‘outside the box’, the more skeptical one must be. It seems that you adhere to just the opposite.
alternative theories and approaches do exist
None of them can calculate the accurately measured amplitudes of the peaks of the sound-wave signatures observed in the CMB, and are therefore of little or no interest. The viability of scientific speculation rests on the capability of the hypothesis to predict or at least fit the observations. And every other speculation I know of [including what you cite] fail in that respect. This is enough to excluding serious support for such [otherwise interesting and entertaining] speculations.
and can be quite interesting
or more correctly: ‘quite entertaining’
Jim G says:
alternative theories and approaches do exist and can be quite interesting
lsvalgaard says:
“or more correctly: ‘quite entertaining’”
There are Thoroughbreds and there are Belgians, each has a valuable function to perform.
I’ve been a member for quite a few years
Of the Yahoo group “Special Relativity”
And over and over, some new guy appears
And he’ll debunk Albert with new alacrity
But this group had quite clever people on board
Math pros, historians, physicists, wizards
Each new attempt from the high-boasting hoard
Was slaughtered like cattle, and slunk off like lizards
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Keith DeHavelle says:
House painters abound. Few can make it as an artist. However, an artist’s creativity is, now and then, invaluable.
In response to Zekes says on March 20, 2014 at 11:58 am, yes, Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille has read the papers on WMAP, COBE, and FIRAS, extensively. The cosmic background radiation signal does not exist insofaras as it comes from the earth’s oceans. Read his papers. Black holes and big bang universes cannot coexist by their definitions. Read Stephen Crothers papers. Einstein was wrong on general and special relatively. Read Crothers’ papers. He points out the errors in Einstein’s math. You cannot divide by zero, but Einstein thinks he can. Einstein also mixes in Newtonian two body equations into his field equations based on a single body. You can’t do that. Black body radiation is not universal. Read Robitaille’s papers. He is the world’s leading expert on black radiation. The sun is a liquid, not a gas. Read Robitaille’s paper.
Have a gaseous day,
Greg Gribbon
Bradford, ON
Greg Gribbon,
Who to believe? Robitaille? Or Einstein?
Who to believe? Crothers? Or Einstein?
General and Special Relativity have not only stood the test of time without ever being falsified, they have also been validated to many, many, many decimal points. There are very few theories anywhere that have been confirmed so thoroughly.
So…
Who to believe? Robitaille? Or Einstein?
Who to believe? Crothers? Or Einstein?
I think a common problem here is surfacing, the difference between things in the world we know, at the scales we know, and the differences in the world of the really huge, cosmic scale, and the really tiny, subatomic scale. The rules, or natural laws, at those two scales are so different than the rules at the scale of “real life”, that we live in, that it does not seem possible. Hence, when told that such and such is so, it is so different from “real life” that it simply seems impossible, and people seek alternative explainations that seem more like “real life”. Such explainations have failed, however, and the only ones that match observations are so unlike “real life” or “common sense” that you either reject the observations and thus reject reality, or learn to eccept them.
For something like “dark matter”, well, whatever it is falls in the realm of both the cosmic and the subatomic scales, and can thus be expected to be weird times two. Get used to it, “we are stuck with this preposterous universe”.
Personally I thnk it’s more interesting this way.
Here is a description of what was found.
It is a fantastic, modest, and concise video of why the gravity waves are significant.
http://www.youtube.com/user/1veritasium/videos
http://www.wimp.com/gravitationalwave/
So, you haven’t read any of the papers.
Is Einstein a god, deity, demigod, infallible? So we teach our students not to question Einstein? Even Einstein admitted that he might be wrong.
The sun does not bend light due to gravity. It bends it due to refraction through the sun’s atmosphere. This was one of Einstein’s proofs. His math is wrong is also wrong. His field equation derivations involve dividing by zero. Since when has any mathematician worth his salary ever admitted this is possible. Relativity has not been confirmed thoroughly no matter how many decimal places you think it is right. Relativity makes no sense whatsoever as it does not reflect anything in the real universe. It’s astromathimagics i.e. complete nonsense. And a cult has arisen out of it.
Read just the papers on black body radiation. I dare you.
Greg Gribbon