Inflation after Big Bang possibly confirmed!

First tremors of the Big Bang? Scientists spot evidence of
'gravitational waves' linked to birth of universe | CTV News
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/real-...purt-1.1732509

On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:33:44 AM UTC+2, Yousuf Khan wrote:
First tremors of the Big Bang? Scientists spot evidence of

'gravitational waves' linked to birth of universe | CTV News

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/real-...purt-1.1732509

Polarization

Main article: Polarization in astronomy

The cosmic microwave background is polarized at the level of a few microkelvin. There are two types of polarization, called E-modes and B-modes. This is in analogy to electrostatics, in which the electric field (E-field) has a vanishing curl and the magnetic field (B-field) has a vanishing divergence. The E-modes arise naturally from Thomson scattering in a heterogeneous plasma. The B-modes are not sourced by standard scalar type perturbations. Instead they can be sourced by two mechanisms: first one is by gravitational lensing of E-modes, which has been measured by South Pole Telescope in 2013[69]. Second one is from gravitational waves arising from cosmic inflation.. Detecting the B-modes is extremely difficult, particularly as the degree of foreground contamination is unknown, and the weak gravitational lensing signal mixes the relatively strong E-mode signal with the B-mode signal.[70]

Reference (19.3.2014):
Cosmic microwave background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ave_background


My opinion is that gravitational lensing could be correct explanation
for observed B-mode polarization of cosmic background radiation.

Those spots in CMBR are size of order super galaxy cluster.

I know that Hanna-Maria's diamonds, cluster of Hanna-Maria's diamonds
and super cluster of Hanna-Maria's diamonds could cause
gravitational lensing which was recently observed in B-mode polarization
of cosmic background radiation.

Hanna-Maria's diamond is not ordinary matter due it is formed
from neutrino matter and it is really 10-dimensional. Form of this diamond
is singlecut 8/8 diamond. At present time this kind Hanna-Maria's diamond
is in nucleus of almost every galaxy.

Hanna-Maria's diamond looks approximately like the following picture
of singlecut 8/8 diamond shows (girdle in this picture is removed):

http://www.danielprince.co.uk/Diamon..._Diamonds.html

I wrote these from year 1992 to about 2013 in the Usenet. My writings
can be found (Summary most of them is stored only not any more than
up to date 31.7.2014) in "Hannu Poropudas Home Page" (Summary article is
*.txt format (ASCII) and is about 1500 pages long)

"Summary of my articles (very long)"

http://www.student.oulu.fi/~haporopu/

Or this can be found by Google with search words "Hannu Poropudas Home Page"

Best Regards,

Hannu Poropudas

Finland

In article ,
Hannu Poropudas writes:
My opinion is that gravitational lensing could be correct explanation
for observed B-mode polarization of cosmic background radiation.

You might want to look again at the data (at
http://bicepkeck.org/ ) and in particular at the power spectrum at
http://bicepkeck.org/B2_2014_i_figs/powspecres.png .

In the lower left plot, the black points show the data, and the red
solid line shows the effects of lensing. Lensing is far too small to
explain the data at multipole numbers of 50-100 (say sizes of 3-8
degrees on the sky), though it can account for the polarization at
higher multipoles (smaller angular sizes). The apparent excess at
multipole numbers around 200 is not statistically significant.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 11:22:36 PM UTC+2, Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,

Hannu Poropudas writes:

My opinion is that gravitational lensing could be correct explanation

for observed B-mode polarization of cosmic background radiation.



You might want to look again at the data (at

http://bicepkeck.org/ ) and in particular at the power spectrum at

http://bicepkeck.org/B2_2014_i_figs/powspecres.png .



In the lower left plot, the black points show the data, and the red

solid line shows the effects of lensing. Lensing is far too small to

explain the data at multipole numbers of 50-100 (say sizes of 3-8

degrees on the sky), though it can account for the polarization at

higher multipoles (smaller angular sizes). The apparent excess at

multipole numbers around 200 is not statistically significant.



--

Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.

Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123

Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

Text of Figure2
(http://bicepkeck.org/) you mentioned above:

"BICEP2 power spectrum results for signal (black points) and
temporal-split jackknife (blue points).
The red curves show the lensed-lambda-CDM theory expectations-
in the case of BB an r=0.2 spectrum is also shown.
The error bars are the standard deviations of the
lensed-lambda-CDM+noise simulations.
The probability to exceed (PTE) the observed value of a simple
Khi^2 statistic is given (as evaluated against the simulations).
Note the very different y-axis scales for the jackknife spectra
(other than BB). See the text for additional discussion of
the BB spectrum."

Maybe the model of lensed-lambda-CDM theory is not the correct one?
I would try instead here some closed models (=oscillation models)
of the Universe.


Best Regards,

Hannu Poropudas

Finland

On Friday, March 21, 2014 9:31:33 AM UTC+2, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 11:22:36 PM UTC+2, Steve Willner wrote:

In article ,



Hannu Poropudas writes:



My opinion is that gravitational lensing could be correct explanation



for observed B-mode polarization of cosmic background radiation.







You might want to look again at the data (at



http://bicepkeck.org/ ) and in particular at the power spectrum at



http://bicepkeck.org/B2_2014_i_figs/powspecres.png .







In the lower left plot, the black points show the data, and the red



solid line shows the effects of lensing. Lensing is far too small to



explain the data at multipole numbers of 50-100 (say sizes of 3-8



degrees on the sky), though it can account for the polarization at



higher multipoles (smaller angular sizes). The apparent excess at



multipole numbers around 200 is not statistically significant.







--



Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.



Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123



Cambridge, MA 02138 USA



Text of Figure2

(http://bicepkeck.org/) you mentioned above:



"BICEP2 power spectrum results for signal (black points) and

temporal-split jackknife (blue points).

The red curves show the lensed-lambda-CDM theory expectations-

in the case of BB an r=0.2 spectrum is also shown.

The error bars are the standard deviations of the

lensed-lambda-CDM+noise simulations.

The probability to exceed (PTE) the observed value of a simple

Khi^2 statistic is given (as evaluated against the simulations).

Note the very different y-axis scales for the jackknife spectra

(other than BB). See the text for additional discussion of

the BB spectrum."



Maybe the model of lensed-lambda-CDM theory is not the correct one?

I would try instead here some closed models (=oscillation models)

of the Universe.





Best Regards,



Hannu Poropudas



Finland

In every cycle those Hanna-Maria's diamonds get harder and harder
(as I have written in some of my text in above mentioned summary
of my articles).

In my opinion this solves the entropy problem which is mentioned
in the following reference:

"Cyclic model

Overview

In the 1920s, theoretical physicists, most notably Albert Einstein,
considered the possibility of a cyclic model for the universe as
an (everlasting) alternative to the model of an expanding universe.
However, work by Richard C. Tolman in 1934 showed that these early
attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: according to the
Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase.[1]
This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger.
Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one
become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang
and thus not replacing it."

(R.C. Tolman (1987) [1934]. Relativity, Thermodynamics, and Cosmology. New York: Dover. ISBN 0-486-65383-8. LCCN 34032023.)

Reference 22.3.2014:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

Best Regards,

Hannu Poropudas

Finland

In article ,
Hannu Poropudas writes:
Maybe the model of lensed-lambda-CDM theory is not the correct one?

Maybe.

I would try instead here some closed models (=oscillation models)
of the Universe.

Feel free. Let us know if you find one that fits the data. But why
do you think closed models will change the lensing between the CMB
and now?

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 12:22:57 AM UTC+2, Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,

Hannu Poropudas writes:

Maybe the model of lensed-lambda-CDM theory is not the correct one?



Maybe.



I would try instead here some closed models (=oscillation models)

of the Universe.



Feel free. Let us know if you find one that fits the data. But why

do you think closed models will change the lensing between the CMB

and now?



I'am not sure did I understood your question right.

I think that our present Universe could be in phase of second cycle
not in phase of the first.

Reason for gravitational lensing I mentioned my earlier posting. Those
Hanna-Maria's diamonds (not ordinary matter) and radiation could be
main remains of the first cycle.

Very rough picture of two phases of oscillation of the Universe
(vertical is R-radius axis):

* *

* *
* *
------------ time-axis

Best Regards,

Hannu Poropudas

Finland