“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.
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.
Interesting find. I like that they tried to first find other explanations for what they were seeing. You know that falsification thing. Too bad our climate scientists don’t practice that.
A very short moment before the “Big” bang, the known universe consisted of an Infinitesimally
small ball of string theory, with which Schrödinger’s cat may or may not have been playing.
lsvalgaard says:
March 17, 2014 at 12:51 pm
I apparently am not getting a concept. “ALL of space is expanding, but the matter in the Universe is just sitting essentially motionless in the expanding space.” Is what you are saying that the matter itself isn’t moving but the space it sits in is pulling it along with it. Overly simplistic I realize. Otherwise Hubble’s Law doesn’t seem to make sense.
lsvalgaard says:
March 17, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Kelvin vaughan says:
March 17, 2014 at 11:31 am
If the universe is still expanding are we and everything else expanding with it?
Looking at my waistline one would think so, but, no, we are not expanding. Gravity is strong enough to keep assemblies of particles up to sizes of galaxies from expanding. And, it is not that the matter in the universe is flying away from each other through space. The galaxies are essentially motionless in space. It is space itself that is expanding.
Doesn’t that mean the electromagnetic waves in space are not expanding too?
hswiseman says:
March 17, 2014 at 10:36 am
How was this theory confirmed. Not with a model or an algorithm. With a telescope. Through observation of nature. Using a scientific instrument in a new way or building a new instrument. Every important discovery or confirmation of theory that I can think of was done this way.
Indeed. And note that at the end of the short film posted in the article, Linde still, despite his excitement, retains some scepticism. That’s a real scientist.
Paul:
I am admittedly pig-ignorant (if not moreso) of large-scale cosmology, so I am not one to argue your explanations (although, your sum of conclusions on my thought experiment was “2”, not “3” – as “3” seemed more of an extrapolation of “2” than a separate conclusion of its own 🙂 ).
Your explanation of 14.5BYO as it relates to overall age seems a bit stretched though, given the example you posited: your example would “prove”, if true, that 14.5BYA the matter that is separated by the observable universe today (from our POV) would have been more “condensed” (galaxies and clusters and such) but not necessarily be the limiting age of the universe. Since all observable matter seems … clunky … today, it could have been in even larger chunks with less space between it long ago, thus the universe could be stupendously older (or younger) than we currently comprehend. (Remember, Faster than Light = time travel and Inflation occured at rates exceeding c early on – so they say.)
If we can only see about 14.5BY into the “past”, who is to say that inside and behind the blast front in the center of the basketball/baloon (at, say, 16 or 50BLY away) there isn’t a grenade of unimaginable size exploding, thus providing the inflating power of the universe today (Dark Energy) – and we cannot, nor ever will be able to, directly see it.
In the Navy, we used to call this type of theory “FM” aka “Frickin’ Magic.”
At Church on Sunday’s, I call that grenade “God.”
Greg
At the BICEP2 FAQ is the answer, “What does “BICEP2” stand for? Officially, “BICEP2″ is not an acronym. It’s simply a name. ”
The apt dimensionally reduced analogy for me is the expansion of the skin of an inflating balloon.
Lsvalgaard, Consider this, rather consider hubbles law.
Hubbles law measures the relative rates of separation of stars and galaxies wrt each other by virtue of their red shift/blue shift. We also know that space is increasing at an increasing rate.
But that does not exclude space which may have been created as matter passed though it as if by a front. ?
I guess what I am saying is that space creation does not exclude a blast front model. The blast front being at least as thick, and possibly (probably) thicker than the observable universe. So I am saying that space creation as a mechanism expansion is valid within our observable universe since it is my contention that the whole universe is within the blast front itself. Do you follow?
Imagine if our galaxy was a grain of steel in the shell of the grenade. Once detonated we would observe local grains o steel moving, Doppler-esque away from us, while space is being created. Image then that the steel, was actually explosive material that detonated itself.
I don’t see how this notion is excluded by the space creation theory.
This is the hurdle in front of me but I don’ t really see it as mutually exclusive.
Greg, Exactly!!.. I have not trapped my assumptions in the rules of the speed-of-light since that is a measure of space-time here and now, and that is what the big bang was making so, maybe there were other rules for space making before the Higgs Field appeared? 10^-43 seconds into the bang.
I don’t see why that which is observable is all that there is. It is just what happens to be the limits of what is observable…. today.
P…. Cheers.
grumpyoldmanuk says:
March 17, 2014 at 10:40 am
“I’m confused. Doesn’t this imply that there is a mechanism in the known physical universe for FTL travel”
==========================================================================
Clearly the physics of our current universe came into existence at a particular point so I suppose one should not apply this understanding to something that came before. I have always wondered how many times this may have happened but the physics turned out to be not right for intelligent beings to appear who would then contemplate these questions.
I thought it was settled science??!!
It was settled science when the Vatican proclaimed heliocentrism heretical in 1616.
It was settled science until Newton published his law of universal gravitation, in 1687.
It was settled science until Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity was initially confirmed in 1919 by Eddington.
It was settled science until Hubble demonstrated the universe is expanding faster the further one looked and published his Red-shift distance law in 1929.
It was settled science until two teams in 1998 independently found the expansion is accelerating and evidence that a vacuum energy, dark energy, exists.
It was settled science that the CMB was merely the Big Bang afterglow, until now we have hard data the Big Bang was vastly more extensive than a simple light speed space-time-energy expansion.
And so as skeptics, we have seen anthropogenic CO2-caused catastrophic global warming foisted as settled science. That is until the physical climate system decided to show us it wasn’t. Unless of course our climate rests on turtles, and each turtle has a human name, i.e. Hansen, Trenberth, Mann, Gore…ad nauseum ad infinitum..
chemman says:
March 17, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Is what you are saying that the matter itself isn’t moving but the space it sits in is pulling it along with it. Overly simplistic I realize. Otherwise Hubble’s Law doesn’t seem to make sense.
Yes, that is how it works. Hubble’s law makes eminent sense as the light waves are stretched out by the expansion of space and thus look redder in proportion with the distance traveled. Note, that this is not a Doppler shift [as is often said].
Kelvin vaughan says:
March 17, 2014 at 1:04 pm
Doesn’t that mean the electromagnetic waves in space are not expanding too?
We are not expanding because gravity and electromagnetic forces keep us together. Waves in space become longer, because they are stretched by the expansion of space.
Not believable, to wit, “Almost 14 billion years ago, the universe we inhabit burst into existence…”
It was just a few years ago that the universe was 13 billion years old! HOG-WASH.
@Chemman (1:03pm)
Re: “… you are saying that the matter itself isn’t moving but the space it sits in is pulling it along with it… .”
I don’t thing Dr. Svalgaard said anything about matter being “pulled along.”
It is so easy to understand that I think you may have (due to having a great amount of knowledge at your fingertips) overcomplicated this basic concept.
If you and a friend were sitting at a table in a small café in the middle of a convention hall and while you were talking and eating the portable dividing walls surrounding you were moved away and back so that you were soon sitting in a large banquet hall instead, would you have to then shout to be heard by your friend?
#(:))
***********************************
@Jay H. D. — So did Blaise Pascal. He was a pretty bright fellow.
Further, we should soon expect the question; what is the universe expanding into? I particularly enjoy Lee Smolin’s attempts to illustrate this.
Chem Man: “… you are saying that the matter itself isn’t moving but the space it sits in is pulling it along with it… .”
Dr. Svalgaard: “Yes, that is how it works.”
Janice Moore: Oh. (blush) I was wrong. I beg your pardon, Chem Man.
Joel O’Bryan says:
March 17, 2014 at 1:21 pm
It was settled science until Newton published his law of universal gravitation, in 1687.
It was settled science until Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity was initially confirmed in 1919 by Eddington.
It was settled science until Hubble demonstrated the universe is expanding faster the further one looked and published his Red-shift distance law in 1929.
It was settled science until two teams in 1998 independently found the expansion is accelerating and evidence that a vacuum energy, dark energy, exists.
It was settled science that the CMB was merely the Big Bang afterglow, until now we have hard data the Big Bang was vastly more extensive than a simple light speed space-time-energy expansion.
Note that these examples of settled science include each other and are just the result of better measurements of the universe, so to the accuracy with which we could know things all of these examples are consistent with everything that came along later, so the science has indeed been ‘settled’ to the accuracy of our observations all along.
Janice Moore says:
March 17, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Chem Man: “… you are saying that the matter itself isn’t moving but the space it sits in is pulling it along with it… .”
Perhaps the word ‘pulling’ is not the ‘right’ one as there are no forces involved. Maybe ‘going along with the ride’ would be better, but for the understanding of the issue being pedantic about it does not bring more enlightenment.
So.
Where is the center of the Cosmos?
Thank you for the clarification, Dr. Svalgaard.
Lol, I wish I knew enough about this subject to even TRY to be pedantic. I just simplemindedly (not stupid, just ignorant) completely misunderstood the concept Chemman was asking you about. I thought Chemman mistakenly thought that you were saying that matter was not travelling along WITH the “bubble,” but instead was being pulled outward, toward the sides of the simultaneously expanding bubble.
Glad you and he can understand each other!
Paul Westhaver says:
March 17, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Where is the center of the Cosmos?
already Newton was confronted with that question. His answer is still the best: “the cosmos in infinite and it does not make sense to speak about a center”. An analogy, perhaps, is to drop down a couple of dimensions and define ‘infinite’ as ‘having no limit’. The surface of a sphere has no limits measured along any path on/in the surface. Where is the center of the surface?
@ur momisugly Janice Moore, et.al.
Man invented gods to explain the unexplainable, fire, sun, stars, death, lightening, etc. Science has now answered almost all those questions and gods were not needed. Religion is down to two last key questions that science has not definitvely answered yet (as I see it) as proof of the existence of gods. How did the universe begin and how did life begin. Important questions to be sure. You can claim this victory as yours if you wish, but religion has lost every battle with science and retreated to the shore line of reason. For the sake of humanity I hope that soon we can dispense with these bronze age myths.
@James Baldwin Willis – actually science has only described the physics of how things attributed to God could be done. It has not described why they occurred. So the myths still exist.
Science cannot answer all questions. But it can provide possible explanations for how things occur.
The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.
Vibrating strings nor energy can just pop into existence. If we are expanding what are we expanding into?
Frank K. says (March 17, 2014 at 10:46 am): ‘That’s always been my proof for the existence of God. Where did that “tiny piece of space” that “inflated” to become the known universe come from???’
Strangely enough, the existence of God has always been my proof for the existence of Super-God. After all, where did God come from? 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/08/models-all-the-way-down/