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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
559 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 17, 2014 1:53 pm

Expanding inside Al Gores dark matter.

March 17, 2014 1:55 pm

Our expanding universe is made up of the dark matter that did not make the grade in the dark matter universe.

March 17, 2014 1:55 pm

mkelly says:
March 17, 2014 at 1:46 pm
If we are expanding what are we expanding into?
A late guest comes to a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, but all are taken for the night. The guest asks for room, and the clerk says “no problem, Sir’ and just asks all guests to vacate their room and move into the room with room number one higher. This leaves room #1 vacant, and the new guest can be accommodated. Then an infinite number of guest show up. ‘No problem’ says the clerk, and asks every resident guest to move to a room number twice that of his current room, leaving an infinite number of vacant rooms [all those with an odd room number].
As there is no edge to the infinite [open] space there is always room to expand.

Gary Hladik
March 17, 2014 1:59 pm

Paul Westhaver says (March 17, 2014 at 1:39 pm): “So.
Where is the center of the Cosmos?”
According to Nobel Laureate Al Gore, it’s wherever he is. Excelsior! 🙂
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s10e06-manbearpig
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)

holts7
March 17, 2014 2:06 pm

God is always there. Eternity. We live in a temporary world…Sure, it was created with the universe by the eternal God who was and is and is always, All other explanations don’t work.

Doug Huffman
March 17, 2014 2:06 pm

LOL, Hotel California, where you can check out anytime you want but you can never leave.

Jeff Mitchell
March 17, 2014 2:06 pm

I have a few of big bang dust bunnies I would like explained. Please keep in mind I may not have understood the subject matter correctly when I originally read material relating to the big bang. But here goes anyway.
I have always wondered what was before the big bang, and how did what exploded get to that point in the first place? When I have asked this question, I’ve got the response that there was no time before the big bang, and that time started at that point. My confusion stems from the logic that if there was a state 1, and the bang was state 2, how could the transition occur if there was no time?
Second, where did all this stuff come from. The observable universe is very large, at least to us. How did all the energy fit into a such a tiny area as the definition of a point? What caused it to change state?
If all the matter and energy in the universe came from this object, what were its properties before it exploded? Does the math predict any of this?
It still feels like we know little enough that it still seems like magic. I notice that a number of comments invoke God which does not explain anything. It isn’t that there isn’t a God that did it, its just that the question we’re asking is what happened and how did it work and is there a way to understand it? Each time we get an answer, we find more questions to ask. The “who”, if any, will show up after we understand what it takes to create a big bang.
It would be like if we had tested atomic bombs on an inhabited planet that didn’t know about us. They would see the pillar of fire, the mushroom cloud and wonder what the beep just happened. They could attribute it to God but they would have no evidence until they figured out nuclear physics and realize that explosions like that can’t happen without someone or something creating it. We haven’t got that far with the big bang just yet.
In the meantime, if anyone has explanations for my questions, I’d love to read them.

March 17, 2014 2:08 pm

A late guest comes to a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, but all are taken for the night…
If you changed your religion, you could be a cantor! ☺
[That’s a Hilbert joke. Nevermind…]

Doug Huffman
March 17, 2014 2:13 pm

Jeff Mitchell says: March 17, 2014 at 2:06 pm “I have a few of big bang dust bunnies I would like explained. I have always wondered what was before the big bang, and how did what exploded get to that point in the first place? In the meantime, if anyone has explanations for my questions, I’d love to read them.”
Lee Smolin – #Theories_and_work #The_Trouble_with_Physics #Publications at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin

March 17, 2014 2:25 pm

Think outside the ever expanding circle and you will be the answer.

Steve Jones
March 17, 2014 2:29 pm

At 1:45 onwards in the video Prof Linde states, “Even if this is true…”, and then goes on to express his worry about having been tricked by nature and that he could still be wrong. Quite incredible and humbling to hear such a distinguished gentleman talk like that about his life’s work.
That is the humility common to all truly great scientists who seek the truth and they are the ones who advance mankind’s knowledge and boundaries. Contrast that with the pig-headed arrogance of those who have the ear of our policy makers and who would gladly destroy real science and propel man back into the dark ages. Hopefully, the modern scourge of faux-science will soon be swept away along with the charlatans that practice it.
I feel better now!

Jim G
March 17, 2014 2:35 pm

lsvalgaard says:
1. In an infinite universe any “big bang” would need to have been merely a local event.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2014/01/08/boss-one-percent/
http://www.extremetech.com/…/174427-astrophysicists-create-the-first-accurate- map-of-the-universe-its-very-flat-and-probably-infinite‎
2. Inflation requires a mechanism to do the inflating. As you have often said regarding theories lacking same. Have not seen anything really ringing that bell as yet. The problem with inflation is that it is too convenient for explaining observations which do not support the “big bang” theory.
It may well be but the science is not settled here, either. It is good that the researchers still sound skeptical even within their desire to grab the gold ring.

aGrimm
March 17, 2014 2:37 pm

Last week, I happened to purchase Max Tegmark’s, Our Mathematical Universe (which was nice timing for this announcement). For those not well versed in cosmology, it may be as good a place as any to begin understanding cosmology. So far it has been an interesting and entertaining read. I got my copy via Kindle.
Many of the questions posed here are discussed in this book. Cosmologists have built the Big Bang theory based principally on mathematical theory which appears to be getting confirmed by observations such as this latest announcement. If Tegmark is an example, cosmologists are getting more and more confident in their theory, but recognize they still have a long,long way to go. Each new discovery/observation seems to create more mysteries. Heck, I’m hoping to be around when the day comes that we can define dark matter and dark energy – more than 70% of the universe and of which we have dang little clue.
I am closely paying attention to those here who dissent against the Big Bang theory. If you can point me to alternative explanations, I would be grateful.

charles nelson
March 17, 2014 2:43 pm

“In the first fleeting fraction of a second, the universe expanded exponentially, stretching far beyond the view of today’s best telescopes”.
Did it really. So from the inside of our galaxy, with its own super massive black hole, these guys claim to have measured something in inter galactic space (which they don’t understand anyway namely Gravity.)…which proves that in the first fleeting fraction of a second the entire universe expanded exponentially etc…’
Sounds very much to me like the sound of one hand clapping.

March 17, 2014 2:44 pm

Jim G says:
March 17, 2014 at 2:35 pm
2. Inflation requires a mechanism to do the inflating.
The detailed physics is not yet known, but we are not completely in the dark:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
“While the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known, the basic picture makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed by observation.[5] The hypothetical particle or field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton”
The problem with inflation is that it is too convenient
A good explanation is never ‘too convenient’. It is like you are saying “Newton’s law are too convenient for explaining away the idea that angels are pushing the planets along in their orbits”.

Paul Westhaver
March 17, 2014 2:51 pm

Jeff Mitchell
Hey whoa! Before the big bang? LOL I’d like an answer to before, before there was a fore!
Science, being the useful tool that it is, requires models, data, observations. “before the big bang” has none of these.
I’d say you are in the realm of philosophy and logic and maybe ….causality.
I do see a trend amongst those who claim to be scientists like Michio Kaku who have stepped wwwaaaayyy into the metaphysical on this one. The trend is… “we scientists better come up with an unprovable, untestable, unfalsifiable alternative to “creation” from nothing for if we don’t, we might have some splainin’ to do.”
These guys have defacto become the new priests of the cosmos multiverse/brain-ism. Not unlike the Gaia Earth-God Green religion. Anything but that Hewbrew God! It is kind of amusing to witness the desperate explanations.

Doug Huffman
March 17, 2014 2:54 pm

aGrimm says: March 17, 2014 at 2:37 pm “If you can point me to alternative explanations, I would be grateful.” Lee Smolin mentioned and linked above offers an alternative.

Jim G
March 17, 2014 2:54 pm

lsvalgaard says:
Until there is a mechanism, it is too convenient. The angels were too convenient for the theories of that time. The numbers worked for Newton to overcome the angels theory but not well enough to overcome relativity when it came along with better predictions. In both latter cases there was a mechanism and good observations. Gravity as a “force” was just not as good as curvature of space/time.
No comment about the infinite universe?

March 17, 2014 2:59 pm

Jim G says:
March 17, 2014 at 2:54 pm
Until there is a mechanism, it is too convenient.
There is a mechanism. It may not a detailed mechanism, but you have to begin somewhere, in short: “decay of the false vacuum”.
“Inflation was first discovered by Guth while investigating the problem of why no magnetic monopoles are seen today; he found that a positive-energy false vacuum would, according to general relativity, generate an exponential expansion of space”.
No comment about the infinite universe?
Are any needed?

March 17, 2014 3:00 pm
Matt
March 17, 2014 3:01 pm

Frank K, the fact that you WONDER about where the Big Bang came from is your PROOF for god?
If you are interested in the latest developments in the field, presented in a pop-science way that everybody can understand, read Lawrence Krauss’ A Universe from Nothing, or watch one of his numerous talks on the subject on Youtube. Because your proof really isn’t that compelling in plain day light…

Jim G
March 17, 2014 3:06 pm

lsvalgaard says:
No comment about the infinite universe?
“Are any needed?”
I am always interested in your thoughts on such an issue. There are actually two issues. Infinite in space only and infinite in time as well. And, yes, I do realize that no one knows, but your thoughts would be welcomed.

Gary Hladik
March 17, 2014 3:16 pm

lsvalgaard says (March 17, 2014 at 2:59 pm): ‘There is a mechanism. It may not a detailed mechanism, but you have to begin somewhere, in short: “decay of the false vacuum”.’
This stuff makes my head hurt, but I looked up “false vacuum” on Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum
While I don’t pretend to understand the “mechanism” or its implications, I was reminded of Douglas Adams:
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

March 17, 2014 3:16 pm

This theory has little to with the big bang myth……the universe was known to be expanding in the 15th c., congrats 21rst c., on catching up but this idea by itself does not prove that order came from chaos or constellations from expanding gases……title of article is false and misleading.

March 17, 2014 3:19 pm

Jim G says:
March 17, 2014 at 3:06 pm
I am always interested in your thoughts on such an issue. There are actually two issues. Infinite in space only and infinite in time as well.
One cannot separate space and time. E.g. for a photon time does not exist. People who don’t like a ‘beginning of time [or of space or of ‘space-time’] can think of a ‘bouncing universe’ [e.g. as proposed by Lee Smolin: http://www.leif.org/EOS/PT-Lee-Smolin-2014.pdf ]