Big bang confirmed?

Much has been written about the "ripples in spacetime", etc. Big Bang
theorist are very happywith the new "confirmation" of gravitational
waves in the CMB using polarized light.

But...

See:
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/56c8050f60db
quote
But here's the crucial question. How do we know that the polarisation is
the result of a process that happened before inflation and not one that
occurred much later, after inflation?
end quote

:-)

jacob

[Mod. note: Non-ASCII character removed, please post in ASCII.
Everyone working in this field is well aware that that's the crucial
question -- mjh]

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:04:55 AM UTC-4, jacob navia wrote:
Much has been written about the "ripples in spacetime", etc. Big Bang

theorist are very happywith the new "confirmation" of gravitational

waves in the CMB using polarized light.

-----------------------------------------------------

Theoretical cosmologist Peter Coles has a very nice discussion of, and
warning about, the BICEP2 results.

See: http://telescoper.wordpress.com/2014...reality-check/

Matt Strassler also has a good and balanced discussion.

See: http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03...iscovery-mean/

It will be very interesting to see what the Planck team has to report
later this year. Will the BICEP2 frenzy be another faster-than-light
neutrino fiasco? Time, and hopefully more comprehensive empirical
evidence, will tell.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

[Mod. note: reformatted -- mjh]

In article , jacob navia
writes:

Much has been written about the "ripples in spacetime", etc. Big Bang
theorist are very happywith the new "confirmation" of gravitational
waves in the CMB using polarized light.

But...

See:
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/56c8050f60db
quote
But here's the crucial question. How do we know that the polarisation is
the result of a process that happened before inflation and not one that
occurred much later, after inflation?
end quote

Err, read their paper? Take in the serious discussion on this topic?

You are not alone. There are several pundits who see one graph and
within a few minutes come up with some alternative explanation. The
people behind this result worked long and hard. They are not stupid.
They do not work in a vacuum. They know what they are doing.

If you have an alternative theory, you need to back it up with at least
as much evidence as the theory you are attacking.

Yes, the internet is good for discussing new scientific results.
However, in some cases the signal-to-noise ratio is just too low to be
useful.

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

Theoretical cosmologist Peter Coles has a very nice discussion of, and
warning about, the BICEP2 results.

Based on publicly available information. Yes, one should always be
sceptical. But once the results have been verified, one should not be
sceptical without good reason.

It will be very interesting to see what the Planck team has to report
later this year.

Planck wasn't built for polarization. Some capability was added later.
My guess is that Planck will see the same, but with less significance.

Will the BICEP2 frenzy be another faster-than-light
neutrino fiasco?

No.

Time, and hopefully more comprehensive empirical
evidence, will tell.

The empirical evidence is already there, but one needs to read all the
technical papers, not just the buzz-words in headlines written by hacks
looking to create hype.

In article ,
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply writes:
If you have an alternative theory, you need to back it up with at least
as much evidence as the theory you are attacking.

That's along the right lines but I think too stringent. I'd say an
alternative theory has to show _quantitative_ agreement with at least
some of the key observational data and no obvious disagreement with
any. Given the amount of work done on the Concordance Model, or any
similarly established theory, no alternative can hope to show "as
much evidence" in an initial paper, but doesn't mean alternatives
aren't worth considering.

Phillip is certainly right that a vague, handwaving "Maybe it could
be ..." is useless.

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