A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 20th 14, 09:35 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?

In article , jacob navia
writes:

Yes. That would completely destroy my argument.
You have a reference where I could take a deeper look at that?

Or the whole issue of foreground object contamination when studying the CMB?


Put "CMB foregrounds" into your favourite search engines. There have
been entire conferences devoted to this. Read the proceedings.
  #12  
Old May 20th 14, 09:45 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

On Monday, May 19, 2014 3:00:49 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
papers on this. Someone once said that we know more about the centre of
the Sun than the centre of the Earth.


(1) If we understood the center of the Sun, we could
explain the 22-year solar cycle, but it remains
a mystery that we have not yet understood.


I wrote MORE, not EVERYTHING. No, scientists don't know everything.
That is why they continue to do science.

(2) When I look at the cosmos and all of its structure
on all the different scales, I would not call it
"smooth". It is inhomogeneous right up to the largest
reliably observable scales. To me a "smooth" and
non-turbulent BB is a Platonic fiction


First, there is a difference between the initial state and the current
state. Otherwise, there would be no field of study called "structure
formation". Second, the universe IS homogeneous on the largest scales;
it is not inhomogeneous right up to the largest reliably observed
scales. Yes, there are 2 or 3 people who---regardless of the state of
observations---have been claiming that the universe has a fractal
structure, but suffice it to say that they are a VERY small minority.
Just because someone claims something doesn't make it true.

I do not think we understand the details
of the Big Bang event any better than we understand
the center of the Sun, stellar formation, or especially
galaxy formation. Just-so stories don't count as
explanations.


Who said it is a just-so story? The big bang is SIMPLE. Known physics
predicts the light-element abundances, the CMB power spectrum etc etc.

And I still doubt the preservation fine details about
what was going on at 10^-30 sec after eons of time and
what I believe to be turbulent expansion.


Your "doubt" and what you "believe" are not science.

Look at the detailed structure of a typical supernova
remnant, then compare it with the detailed structure
of the vast filamentary cosmic web, which is definitely
not smooth. See any self-similarity? I see lots of that.


Some people see Jesus on a burnt piece of toast.
  #13  
Old May 20th 14, 07:12 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply][_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?

Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
(1) If we understood the center of the Sun, we could
explain the 22-year solar cycle, but it remains
a mystery that we have not yet understood.


Solar neutrino fluxes do not show a 22-year time dependence, so we
know that there is NOT a 22-year solar cycle in the center of the sun
(which is where solar neutrinos are generated). So understanding the
center of the sun doesn't really have much to do with understanding
the solar cycle.

--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]"
Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched
at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police
plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable
that they watched everybody all the time." -- George Orwell, "1984"
  #14  
Old May 20th 14, 07:16 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Richard D. Saam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?

On 5/20/14, 1:29 AM, jacob navia wrote:
Yes. That would completely destroy my argument.
You have a reference where I could take a deeper look at that?

Or the whole issue of foreground object contamination when studying the CMB?

Thanks

Don't forget that CMB is a Blackbody spectrum with maximum energy at
2.725K 160.6 GHz that theoretically continues to +or- infinity
A millikelvin difference at T = 2.725 degrees
may not be the same at .1 K or 1000 K.
This may be reflected in:
Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5076
"Despite the success of the standard LCDM model, this cosmology does not
provide a good fit to the CMB power spectrum at low multipoles, as noted
previously by the WMAP team. While not of decisive significance, this is
an anomaly in an otherwise self-consistent analysis of the Planck
temperature data."

See figure 1."Planck foreground-subtracted temperature power spectrum--"

Richard D Saam
  #15  
Old May 21st 14, 01:46 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?

In article , "Richard D. Saam"
writes:

Don't forget that CMB is a Blackbody spectrum with maximum energy at
2.725K 160.6 GHz that theoretically continues to +or- infinity
A millikelvin difference at T = 2.725 degrees
may not be the same at .1 K or 1000 K.
This may be reflected in:
Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5076
"Despite the success of the standard LCDM model, this cosmology does not
provide a good fit to the CMB power spectrum at low multipoles, as noted
previously by the WMAP team. While not of decisive significance, this is
an anomaly in an otherwise self-consistent analysis of the Planck
temperature data."

See figure 1."Planck foreground-subtracted temperature power spectrum--"


This is more or less OK as far as it goes. However, note that the
puzzle with low multipoles is mostly LACK of power. So, you would need
foreground objects which somehow make the already smooth CMB even
smoother at scales of several degrees to several tens of degrees.
  #16  
Old May 24th 14, 01:45 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,172
Default Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?

In article ,
Martin Hardcastle writes:
It is
very, very hard to see how the large-scale structure in the CMB could
be related to any known cosmological foreground object, so your
conjecture can only be true if there are otherwise unknown, invisible,
extremely large-scale foreground objects that affect the CMB via
physical mechanisms that are not understood but that exactly mimic the
expectations for primordial fluctuations in their power and frequency
spectral properties.


Just to emphasize, "spectral properties" means the supposed effect
has to be the same at all frequencies. Most known foreground effects
are strongly frequency-dependent, gravitational lensing being the
only exception I can think of.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
  #17  
Old May 27th 14, 08:38 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Richard D. Saam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?

On 5/21/14, 7:46 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
This is more or less OK as far as it goes. However, note that the
puzzle with low multipoles is mostly LACK of power. So, you would need
foreground objects which somehow make the already smooth CMB even
smoother at scales of several degrees to several tens of degrees.


Another interpretation of the CMB low multipoles anomaly
is not in the foreground but in a non homogenous background:
that there is something in the BBN process
that generates a non continuous or clumpy phase
incongruous with and perturbing the CMB continuous spectrum
at low multipoles.

Richard D Saam

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]
  #18  
Old May 27th 14, 07:50 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?

In article , "Richard D. Saam"
writes:

On 5/21/14, 7:46 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
This is more or less OK as far as it goes. However, note that the
puzzle with low multipoles is mostly LACK of power. So, you would need
foreground objects which somehow make the already smooth CMB even
smoother at scales of several degrees to several tens of degrees.


Another interpretation of the CMB low multipoles anomaly
is not in the foreground but in a non homogenous background:
that there is something in the BBN process
that generates a non continuous or clumpy phase
incongruous with and perturbing the CMB continuous spectrum
at low multipoles.


Again, at low multipoles there is LESS power, i.e. the CMB is SMOOTHER
than one would otherwise expect. It seems rather a stretch to think
that some clumpy phase during BBN (for which there is no evidence
whatsoever) just happens to be the right size at the right place to
smooth out the CMB.
  #19  
Old May 28th 14, 07:00 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Richard D. Saam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?

On 5/27/14, 1:50 PM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

Again, at low multipoles there is LESS power, i.e. the CMB is SMOOTHER
than one would otherwise expect. It seems rather a stretch to think
that some clumpy phase during BBN (for which there is no evidence
whatsoever) just happens to be the right size at the right place to
smooth out the CMB.

CMB power density 3.15E-03 erg/cm^2/sec
as an expression of Black Body at 2.73 K
does not vary across the sky.
It is smooth at the millikelvin. (There is not smoother than smooth)
In the = millikelvin range,
it is perturbed by the foreground and/or background
and in a particularly anomalous manner in the low multipoles.
  #20  
Old May 29th 14, 07:46 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?

In article , "Richard D. Saam"
writes:

Again, at low multipoles there is LESS power, i.e. the CMB is SMOOTHER
than one would otherwise expect. It seems rather a stretch to think
that some clumpy phase during BBN (for which there is no evidence
whatsoever) just happens to be the right size at the right place to
smooth out the CMB.

CMB power density 3.15E-03 erg/cm^2/sec
as an expression of Black Body at 2.73 K
does not vary across the sky.


Of course it does. The structure in the CMB are temperature
fluctuations. Yes, the strongest single is an almost perfect black
body. The second is a strong dipole (due mostly to our motion). At a
much lower level are temperature fluctuations.

It is smooth at the millikelvin. (There is not smoother than smooth)


Right.

In the = millikelvin range,
it is perturbed by the foreground and/or background
and in a particularly anomalous manner in the low multipoles.


Right. But at LOW multiples, i.e. LARGE scales, it has LESS power than
the otherwise best-fit cosmological model suggests. So, if you think
that the lack of power is due to foreground objects, these foreground
objects would have to make the CMB more smooth than it would otherwise
be on LARGE scales. (Again, at the mK level, of course.)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy? Martin Hardcastle Research 0 May 17th 14 09:08 AM
BICEP2 results about gravity waves wrong? Yousuf Khan[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 May 13th 14 10:57 PM
THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS IN JEOPARDY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 7 March 23rd 12 10:08 PM
This. . .is. . .JEOPARDY! Starstuffed Amateur Astronomy 8 October 16th 03 12:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.