|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 2:10:03 PM UTC-4, Jonathan Thornburg wrote:
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. So you think the 22-year cycle within the Sun is unrelated to the deep inner core of the Sun? Is there no doubt in your mind about that? [Mod. note: reformatted -- mjh] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 2:10:03 PM UTC-4, Jonathan Thornburg wrote: 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. So you think the 22-year cycle within the Sun is unrelated to the deep inner core of the Sun? Is there no doubt in your mind about that? Consider how long it takes a photon to get from the core to the surface of the Sun. I don't recall the number, but it is 1 million years or so. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:18:37 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
Consider how long it takes a photon to get from the core to the surface of the Sun. I don't recall the number, but it is 1 million years or so. But I think that electromagnetic and gravitational interactions between the inner core of the Sun and its convective layers take a good deal less time than a million years. Would you not agree? (;-) [Mod. note: reformatted -- mjh] |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?
On 5/29/2014 8:44 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:18:37 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: Consider how long it takes a photon to get from the core to the surface of the Sun. I don't recall the number, but it is 1 million years or so. But I think that electromagnetic and gravitational interactions between the inner core of the Sun and its convective layers take a good deal less time than a million years. EM? Perhaps you are thinking of an oscillating magnetic dipole with a frequency of 22 year^(-1), i.e. flipping every 11 years, which has its source in the center? But it will have it's field strongly attenuated by the conducting medium around it. The field changes we are talking of are now still photons, but with a very low frequency. Basically the attenuation length for EM waves applies here, which is the "skin-depth" in the medium at this frequency. For EM communication from the center to the surface we need 10^8 to 10^9m for this skin-depth: delta = sqrt(2/omega sigma mu) If we assume mu=mu0 (non-magnetic medium) this is the same as requiring: sigma 0.001 [S/m] But I would expect the plasma to conduct much better (may astrophysicists here correct me if I'm wrong). So EM communication would seem to be impossible. And for the gravitational interaction you mention, you'd need gravitating density fluctuations in the core, i.e. quite strong ones. But in that case, shouldn't we also look at simple pressure waves (sound) as the mechanism? -- Jos |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 2:44:10 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Getting back to the BICEP2 issue, here is a new paper by those who have the expertise to review the current situation. http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7351 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 2:35:36 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
And here is another discussion of the present status of the BICEP2 claims. It is low-tech and accessible piece from Nature with interesting personal comments. http://www.nature.com/news/no-eviden...-waves-1.15322 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?
On Friday, May 30, 2014 9:22:36 AM UTC+2, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 2:35:36 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: And here is another discussion of the present status of the BICEP2 claims. http://www.nature.com/news/no-eviden...-waves-1.15322 In this document we can read: "That is a problem, because on small scales, gravitational lensing -- the bending of light due to massive objects -- exactly mimics the twisting polarization pattern that gravitational waves imprint on larger spatial scales." (Exactly ?) That is not only a problem for gravitational wave detection but also for CMB radiation in general. The central part of this document http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/fea...30/dark-matter shows an image of a galaxy cluster. At the right hand side we see the Milky Way. The left side shows a distant galaxy and two virtual galaxy's. The picture shows one straight line starting from the galaxy cluster which goes through the galaxy cluster and which ends in the Milky Way. What you should do is the reverse. Use a laser pen and point the pen to the center of that cluster. First the light will be a bundle going straight towards the center but there after the light will be fanned out in "all" different directions. For the CMB radiation the same happens but in reverse order. The issue is: the influence of this noise in order to calculate the cosmological parameters. Maybe the original CMB was much more uniform as presently observed. Nicolaas Vroom http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/ [Mod. note: the influence of galaxy clusters on the CMB is well understood, as I pointed out some time ago -- mjh] |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy?
In article , Nicolaas Vroom
writes: On Friday, May 30, 2014 9:22:36 AM UTC+2, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: And here is another discussion of the present status of the BICEP2 claims. http://www.nature.com/news/no-eviden...-waves-1.15322 In this document we can read: "That is a problem, because on small scales, gravitational lensing -- the bending of light due to massive objects -- exactly mimics the twisting polarization pattern that gravitational waves imprint on larger spatial scales." (Exactly ?) That is not only a problem for gravitational wave detection but also for CMB radiation in general. The key point is "on small scales". BICEP2 was not the first to detect B-mode polarization. However, previous detection was on smaller scales and understood in terms of gravitational lensing. BICEP2 looked at larger scales where the signal won't be from gravitational lensing. (Of course, as recent discussion shows, this does not automatically mean that it is from gravitational waves.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Uh, Oh: BICEP2 Results In Jeopardy? | jacob navia[_5_] | Research | 22 | June 3rd 14 07:16 AM |
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 09:08 PM |
This. . .is. . .JEOPARDY! | Starstuffed | Amateur Astronomy | 8 | October 16th 03 12:49 AM |