“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.
Alexander Feht says:
March 17, 2014 at 11:55 pm
In the case of the Big Bang theory they are not simply aggressive, they become outright hysterical when they face any kind of criticism. One wonders, why.
It seems to me that the hysteria is on your part. One wonders not about that.
Excuse me? How a single observation in one point of the sky (which is what the BICEP2 telescope did) fits the theoretically predicted structure of the cosmic microwave background 85 times around the sky?
Before we continue this rather fruitless discussion, let me ask two questions:
1) The observed gravity waves were predicted by the Einstein’s general relativity theory in the absence of any reference to the Big Bang inflation, dark matter, or dark energy. Yes or no?
2) Fred Hoyle, as well as many other distinguished astrophysicists, pointed to the simple fact that there are pairs of connected galaxies exhibiting different red shifts or even a red shift and a blue shift simultaneously. How is it consistent with the prevailing Doppler interpretation of the red shift?
As long as the obligatory instability of the Universe can express itself “imperceptibly” — as you kindly admitted — it is not necessary to accept creationist Ptolemaic circles around the truth, painstakingly introduced at Vatican’s direction by Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître.
Alexander Feht says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:42 am
Excuse me? How a single observation in one point of the sky (which is what the BICEP2 telescope did) fits the theoretically predicted structure of the cosmic microwave background 85 times around the sky?
you should take the trouble to actually read the paper [what a concept] then you would see that it was not a single point observation, but covers an area 20 degrees x 100 degrees.
1) The observed gravity waves were predicted by the Einstein’s general relativity theory in the absence of any reference to the Big Bang inflation, dark matter, or dark energy. Yes or no?
Yes, but a red herring.
2) Fred Hoyle, as well as many other distinguished astrophysicists, pointed to the simple fact that there are pairs of connected galaxies exhibiting different red shifts or even a red shift and a blue shift simultaneously. How is it consistent with the prevailing Doppler interpretation of the red shift?
As pointed out here http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.2641v2 based on a sample of hundred thousand galaxies the associations are no more than can be explained by chance.
As long as the obligatory instability of the Universe can express itself “imperceptibly” — as you kindly admitted
The theory does not predict how fast the expansion should be, but our precise observations show that the expansion is present and clearly perceptible.
— it is not necessary to accept creationist Ptolemaic circles around the truth, painstakingly introduced at Vatican’s direction by Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître.
What has ‘creationism’ to do with anything? We are talking about observations. But you just gave away from what well your venom springs.
Alexander Feht says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:42 am
How is it consistent with the prevailing Doppler interpretation of the red shift?
And BTW, the red shift is not a Doppler shift as the galaxies are not moving through space [if they did, it would be a Doppler shift and the speed of light would be the limit], but it is rather space itself that is stretching [making the light waves longer and thus redder] for which the light-speed limit does not apply.
@Alexander Feht: “…..painstakingly introduced at Vatican’s direction by Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître”.
???! Lemaître published his theory in 1927. It wasn’t until 24 years later that the Pope became a fan.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre :
“By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître’s theory provided a scientific validation for existence of God and Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope’s proclamation. When Lemaître and Daniel O’Connell, the Pope’s science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He convinced the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology. While a devoted Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion.“
Adrian Mann says:
March 17, 2014 at 3:43 pm
“…In fact it’s impossible to depict as it wasn’t ‘like’ anything and all analogies will be flawed.
No need to invoke gods or supernatural forces either – in fact, by doing so you put an end to all further enquiries by putting it in a box labelled “god did it” and closing the lid.”
I see what you mean by “flawed” analogies.
If the universe is endless , more than 1 Big Bang is possible. What is the chance we run in incoming material from an other BB.
If in our local BB universe we are still traveling away from the centre of the BB why The Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are going to collide in the future?
It is sad that our ‘teacher’ must admonish “Forget the word ‘proof’. That has no place in science …” here among the presumably scientifically literate. Falsifiability provides the demarcation between science and non-science.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Fascinating post, and the comments are an education. Dr. Leif Svalgaard is always worth paying attention to.
To Grumpyoldmanuk
General Relativity allows space to expand at faster than light speed. This is what inflation says ie that space expanded at many multiples of light speed. However objects with space cannot exceed light speed
God, how I hate religion.
Steven Mosher says:
March 17, 2014 at 3:30 pm
“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.”
Where were Popper and Feynman to tell them that the whole theory must be falsified.
No fair making changes and improving theory. its either false or true.
hehe
————————————
We are more forgiving when they do not claim certainty. 😉
Frank K. says:
March 17, 2014 at 10:46 am
@philjourdan
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???
——————————-
Why should the existence of God hinge on a mystery? If one defines God then all that is needed is something that fits the definition. If God is the creator, and you are quite sure you didn’t create yourself, then God necessarily exists (and is not you, it’s no fun when your God. One could argue some random, spontaneous, pop into existence scenario. Which is fine, that’s God then.). For a more complex definition, God is the creator, omnipotent, and omniscient. We have the universe itself which fits that definition (one could say “everything” instead of “universe” if you want to take precaution against a multi-verse). The universe is the cause of existence (big bang being part of the universe for this thought experiment) and it contains all power (energy) and all knowledge (laws and arrangement of energy, and also our own knowledge). I always found it strange that people who wanted to argue for God what to argue for something entirely beyond the scope of our comprehension and perception. Arguing for God with science and logic seems like a much easier endeavor.
@Alexander Feht:
“painstakingly introduced at Vatican’s direction by Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître.”
???!
Lemaître published his theory in 1927. It wasn’t until 24 years later that the Pope became a fan…
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre :
“By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître’s theory provided a scientific validation for existence of God and Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope’s proclamation. When Lemaître and Daniel O’Connell, the Pope’s science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He convinced the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology. While a devoted Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion.“
milodonharlani says (March 17, 2014 at 4:16 pm): “No version of the Big Bang Theory in any way corresponds to the various creation myths in the Bible.”
Boo, hoo, hoo. Those evil theists. They will never acknowledge the right of us scientists to be rulers of everything, as Plato properly placed us, in his Republic.
Job 26:7: “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.”
–A two-for: God continues to spread the sky, AND Job informs us that the earth is not resting on turtles all the way down, but is hung over nothing.
For a poem to be so spot-on to the cosmology that was not recognized by “science” until nearly 3,000 years later should raise an eyebrow.
I wonder how this jives w/D-brane theory? Some have been saying that the theory of a D-brane collision produces similar effects that inflation would. I’d ask Motl on his blog, but his webpage locks up my browser.
There is science, and there is scientism. Science is a process for indicating the most likely theories about the nature of the physical world; Scientism is the belief that the physical world is all there is, and all knowledge must be organized to fit this initial principle.
My physical body -the actual atoms, the actual cells – have been replaced many times over, yet I can pretty well recall being myself going decades back in time. Am I merely a physical-material bag of cytoplasm? I have a hard time buying this Scientism.
I understand people not being religious, and or not believing in God. I used to be in that type of boat, generally. That is quite different from the anti-religious hostility felt and conveyed by some. To defend Scientism, itself quite shaky, cult-like attitudes are required. This includes vilifying non-believers. Also, it includes declaring how “science” has answered so many questions, and should be preached from all pulpits.
Thank God that genuine scientists show more humility.
A few illogical things have been said on this thread.
Objects cannot be motion less. There is no zero speed in the universe. Motion less is in contradiction with relativity.
Also, the expansion of the universe cannot stretch photons. Let’s prove that with a thought experiment.
We have a cylinder with a perfect mirror at each end and both are parallel. If a photon is constantly bouncing from one mirror to the other in an expanding universe, does it experience a red-shift? No, because of conservation of energy. Take in note that the number of bounces per second can be modified by changing the length of the cylinder.
In the same cylinder, we put a second photon in such a way that the two photons hit any mirror at a different time. Does the distance between the two photons change with time? No, there is no way to tell which photon is the first and which is the second. If you have two points on a circle and you measure the distances clock-wise. Increasing the distance from A to B would reduce the distance from B to A. Also, if the timing of the two photons was changing, it would suggest a different speed and at some point the two would hit at the same time. The idea that an expansion of the fabric of the universe would increase the distance between two photons makes no sense at all.
So we know that the expansion of the universe cannot stretch photons in any kind of way. The red-shift associated with an expansion is probably a combination of the Doppler effect and a change in referential. An other possibility would be that the expansion only affects massive objects.
I love the sound of crushing consensus of academics.
Love all these moronic god-believers desperately trying to make sense of this discovery by finding the odd phrase in the bible to cling onto. I thought he did the whole thing in 7 days, not the 14,000,000,000 years that we now know the universe has existed. Bit of a difference, huh? And what the hell was he doing for the 13,998,000,000 million years before humans appeared? OK, we know there were dinosaurs from 13,750,000,000 years after the big bang, but that’s still a lot of sitting around doing nothing for billions of years, and anyway dinosaurs didn’t make it into the bible, as the people who made up the bible weren’t armed with any facts.
Come on people. Study this amazing science about the universe’s origins, not some old book written by ignorant middle-eastern shepherds 2 thousand years ago!
The amount of processing and adjustments of the original CMB data might be interesting to quantify and itemize sometime.
John,
“And the earth was without form, and void. And darkness moved upon the face of the deep.” If you use “fluid” instead of “deep” this is an accurate depiction of the coming heat death of the Universe. Those shepherds weren’t so far off, and it was a lot more than 2000 years ago that the Book of Genesis was written…
Michael
Your quote from the Bible is about the start of the world not the end of the world. So even if it accurately depicts the heat death of the Universe (which it doesn’t because by the time of the heat death the earth won’t exist any more), since it is suppose to be depicting the begin of the Universe it is obviously way off base. Nice job shooting your own foot.
John says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:38 am
Stop.
Take a breathe.
Calm down.
What anyone else believes as a matter of THEIR faith makes NO difference to what you believe as a matter of YOUR faith.
On the other hand, certain 7th century fundamentalist faiths and the modern, up-to-date, computer-assisted and deliberately ungodly current anti-theist “faith” of government and universal institutions of government-paid workers (er, professors) are an exception Those ungodly and god-hating “faiths” ARE trying to, and fully capable of, actually DO WANT to kill you and actually ARE killing you, your family, and many millionis of other innocents as a required process of THEIR “faith” in THEIR “books” … Such as the IPCC, UN, and the current climate science CAGW religions.
THOSE are the people of “faith” in THEIR beliefs who ARE killing people.
US poor skeptics are merely reading those “old books by itinerant shepherds” who couldn’t write, couldn’t read, and had problems counting past 70 x 7 … and marveling at how those guys got all of the nuclear physics and biology and plate tectonics and evolution right.
Marc77 says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:27 am
If a photon is constantly bouncing from one mirror to the other in an expanding universe, does it experience a red-shift? No, because of conservation of energy.
There is no violation of conservation of energy. The energy is the same, but in an expanding universe the constant energy is spread over an increasing volume, so the energy per unit of volume [and unit of time] becomes less.
more from Stanford: https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/news/2014-03-17-physicists-find-cosmic-inflation.aspx
?itok=Z81_5mkl
This is a nice pictorial:
John says (March 18, 2014 at 8:38 am): “Love all these moronic god-believers desperately trying to make sense of this discovery by finding the odd phrase in the bible to cling onto. I thought he did the whole thing in 7 days, not the 14,000,000,000 years that we now know the universe has existed.”
John – Why the animosity? Why the insults? Do we theists threaten your cherished Church of Scientism?
What is your evidence that any of us are “desperately” trying to do anything? I really don’t feel rattled at all. I am comfortable commenting here amongst others with varied opinions. I can handle listening to the various views, including those of the Church of Dogmatic Scientism.