First hints of gravitational waves in the Big Bang's afterglow

Mar 18, 2014 by Krzysztof Bolejko, The Conversation
Graduate student Justus Brevik testing the BICEP2 used to find evidence of cosmic inflation nearly 14 billion years ago. Credit: EPA/Steffen Richter/Harvard University

Scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics in the US have announced overnight what they believe is the indirect detection of gravitational waves in the afterglow of the Big Bang.

The discovery by the Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarisation (BICEP) collaboration, indeed even the rumours of such a discovery, sparked a huge discussion among the scientific community. Why?

As the last untested prediction of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, finding is a big deal.

The BICEP discovery provides further indirect evidence for the existence of gravitational waves (the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor for finding a double pulsar that strongly supported these "ripples" in spacetime).

Secondly, and most importantly, it advances our knowledge of the enormously.

Before this announcement, thanks to Big Bang nucleosynthesis (when light elements such as hydrogen and helium were created), we could measure the universe back to about a minute after the Big Bang.

The finding today has allowed us to study the universe when it was a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second old, when so-called "" took place.

Inflation was a period of accelerated expansion of the early universe, but before we explain what that is and why it's so important, first a few words about what was actually detected by the BICEP telescope.

Cosmic microwave background

Everywhere astronomers point their (microwave) telescopes there is a faint glow of light. The picture formed from this (microwave) light is almost perfectly the same in all directions and corresponds to an object shining with a temperature of just 2.72548 Kelvin above absolute zero (or a chilly -270.42452 Celsius).

This afterglow of the Big Bang, called the (CMB), is a fossil radiation emitted when the universe was still very young, just 380,000 years old.

Why the CMB looks so similar in all directions was one of the greatest riddles of 20th century cosmology.

Another conundrum that puzzled astronomers was the source of tiny changes in temperature that were discovered by the COBE satellite (winning the 2006 Nobel Prize), and appearing as blue and red spots in the picture above from the WMAP satallite. Inflation provides a neat solution to these problems.

Inflation

So what does inflation mean for the early universe? Generically, inflation theories suggest the universe expanded from a tiny 10-33cm (the Planck scale) to many times larger than the visible universe today (>> 1028 cm).

This means that a small region of the young universe with the same temperature is expanded to larger than the entire observable universe, explaining why the observed CMB has such a similar temperature everywhere.

Furthermore, the world of the very small (governed by quantum mechanics) has been expanded into the realm of the very large. One thing that Quantum Mechanics tells us is that on the smallest scales everything fluctuates.

The BICEP2 telescope at the Dark Sector Lab at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. Credit: Harvard University

After inflation these tiny fluctuations are expanded to enormous scales, becoming the imperfections we see in the CMB. These are the gravitational seeds around which galaxies will later form.

The problem of why the CMB is so similar everywhere but not perfectly so is naturally answered by inflation.

There is another signature that inflation predicts. Fluctuations in not just what would become the normal matter we see in the CMB, but in a background gravitational field which delicately imprints itself on the light from the CMB.

This can't be seen in the normal maps of the CMB (such as the above picture), but instead in the polarisation (the direction in which light oscillates as it travels) of the CMB.

Polarisation of the CMB

The BICEP telescope split the polarised CMB light into two types of shapes or "modes": B-modes and E-modes.

It is relatively easy to create the E-modes and this pattern of polarisation has been known since 2002 with the DASI telescope.

Much harder to create (and a far weaker signal) is the B-mode. These can only come from gravitational lensing of the CMB light by intervening galaxies or gravitational waves from the expanded to enormous scales by inflation. The B-mode polarisation induced by was detected last year. Today it's the turn of the gravitational waves.

Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation. The blue spots correspond to colder (approximately 2.7253 K or −270.4247 °C), while red spots to warmer regions (approximately 2.7257 K or -270.4243 °C). Credit: NASA / WMAP Science Team

Gravitational waves from the early universe

Alternative theories to inflation do not produce gravitational waves so the existence of B-modes detected by BICEP is strong evidence not only of the gravitational wave background but also inflation itself.

The B-mode signal of the gravitational waves is a bit stronger than previous efforts such as the Planck satellite had suggested.

This result implies the energy scales at which inflation kicks in is close to that of Grand Unified Theory, meaning that inflation could occur even sooner after the Big Bang.

It is also the first indirect detection of the gravitational wave background. So far there has still been no direct detection of the gravitational radiation.

The first direct detection should follow in a few months, when the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (or Advanced LIGO for short) will start to operate. It is envisaged that the experiment will directly detect coming from astrophysical sources from nearby galaxies.

Gravitational waves from inflation generate a faint but distinctive twisting pattern in the polarisation of the cosmic microwave background, known as a “curl” or B-mode pattern. The red and blue shading shows the degree of twisting of this B-mode pattern. Credit: EPA/Harvard University

Gravitational insight into the origin of the universe

If today's announcement by BICEP is confirmed by other experiments it will be a huge boost to the theory of inflation and the existence of gravitational waves.

Everything we know about the world around us is based on seeing light (electromagnetic waves). Yet this discovery opens up the possibility of an entirely new sense with which to view our universe – gravitational waves.

Who knows what they will allow us to see? At the very least we will be able to "see" into the hearts of exploding stars, or titanic collisions between galaxies and of course right back to the start of our entire universe as shown by this discovery.

It will allow us access to the unimaginable world of our universe just after the Big Bang and has already given hints of a new realm of physics, perhaps a more significant discovery for particle physics than even the confirmation of the Higgs Boson.

More accurate measurements of the gravitational waves across different scales on the sky will allow us to test models of inflation. All of which has taken us one step closer to answering the ultimate question of the nature of the Big Bang itself.

Explore further: Rumours fly that gravitational waves have been detected

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Rumours fly that gravitational waves have been detected

Mar 17, 2014

Last week the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) stated rather nonchalantly that they will be hosting a press conference on Monday, March 17th, to announce a "major discovery." Without a potential ...

First direct evidence of cosmic inflation (Update)

Mar 17, 2014

(Phys.org) —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 ...

Researchers propose a new way to detect the elusive graviton

Mar 04, 2014

(Phys.org) —Among the four fundamental forces of nature, only gravity has not had a basic unit, or quanta, detected. Physicists expect that gravitational force is transmitted by an elementary particle called a graviton, ...

Herschel throws new light on oldest cosmic light

Oct 01, 2013

(Phys.org) —Cosmologists have achieved a first detection of a long-sought component in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). This component, known as B-mode polarisation, is caused by gravitational lensing, ...

Recommended for you

Mystery of rare five-hour space explosion explained

Sep 17, 2014

Next week in St. Petersburg, Russia, scientists on an international team that includes Penn State University astronomers will present a paper that provides a simple explanation for mysterious ultra-long gamma-ray ...

Glowing galaxies in telescopic timelapse

Sep 17, 2014

We often speak of the discoveries and data flowing from astronomical observatories, which makes it easy to forget the cool factor. Think of it—huge telescopes are probing the universe under crystal-clear ...

User comments : 73

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

bee_farms_7
5 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2014
HOLY COW!!!!! THAT IS JUST A GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT!!!!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2014
They are likely detecting the signature of relatively local Birkeland currents, that would explain the "twisting pattern in the polarisation of the cosmic microwave background".
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2014
They are likely detecting the signature of relatively local Birkeland currents, that would explain the "twisting pattern in the polarisation of the cosmic microwave background".
No, dumdum, they think they are detecting exactly what they say they think they are detecting! What kind of idiot continues to post EU garbage after having been shown conclusively that everything he thinks is correct about the EU pseudo-science is wrong? What, do you think people are just going to stop paying attention to your idiotic ramblings and stop pointing out how stupid and wrong your whole stupid EU premise is?

It's stupid and wrong cantthinkforhimself!!! It is a ridiculously outdated, stupid, wrong idea that belongs with the flat Earth or hollow moon theories! Its WRONG cantthink!!
GSwift7
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2014
I'm eagerly waiting to see responses from the rest of the community.

So far, I've been hearing that the amplitude calculated from their observation is a bit higher than expected, and maybe outside the limits according to existing theory. Has anyone else seen follow-up on this yet? Right now, there are so many article flying around about this that it's hard to sort them all out.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2014
I'm eagerly waiting to see responses from the rest of the community.

So far, I've been hearing that the amplitude calculated from their observation is a bit higher than expected, and maybe outside the limits according to existing theory. Has anyone else seen follow-up on this yet? Right now, there are so many article flying around about this that it's hard to sort them all out.

It matters little the observation is outside the limits, as Maggots said they "think" they are detecting what they want to detect and the "limits" will now be "adjusted" to fit the observation. It is the M.O. of astrophysics.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2014
It matters little the observation is outside the limits, as Maggots said they "think" they are detecting what they want to detect and the "limits" will now be "adjusted" to fit the observation. It is the M.O. of astrophysics.
You know, it's funny that you don't even realize the importance of the paradigm shift you are describing! If you weren't so convinced of your infallibility you would see this result for the amazing scientific work that it is.

Alas, your own blinders prevent you from that. You really ought to learn to think for yourself.
Zachia
1 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2014
You shouldn't be surprised, when new observations like these ones will ruin the whole Big bang theory together with inflation and occasional Nobel prizes given for it. The point is, until you cannot explain inflation in other way, than with tired light model, then the theory holds water in similar way, like the epicycle model of medieval times: from quantitative perspective works well (being fitted to data with multiple constants), but from qualitative perspective remains nonsensical.

There are multiple logical problems with inflationary theory, like the question, how the distant galaxies would perceive the inflation from their own perspective. Now we can see them residing inside of inflating - but will these galaxies see inflating us? Is the inflation physical process, or rather geometrical artifact of emergent steady state? Etc..
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2014
Is the inflation physical process, or rather geometrical artifact of emergent steady state universe? And so on...


I think it's the water walking electron ducks paddling through the not so dense aether. Zeph, are you ever going to take a day off?
Zachia
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2014
You should never stop to use your brain, or you'll suffer with consequences, Q-Star...;-)

The main problem of inflationary model is the physically feasible explanation of inflation itself. What forced the Universe into inflation? That is to say, the inflation is not a problem for tired light model based on light scattering - but this is just the model, which the mainstream physicists dismissed. Currently the inflation is nothing but a formal regression of observational data. The finding of "gravitational waves" just helps this idea to live its own life.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2014
You should never stop to use your brain, or you'll suffer with consequences, Q-star...;-) The main problem of inflationary model is the physically feasible explanation of inflation itself. That is to say, the inflation is not a problem for tired light model based on light scattering - but this is just the model, which the mainstream physicists dismissed.


Well Zeph, I'm not sure of what that means, but I'm sure it will all come down to water ripples at the surface. Are there transverse and longitudinal waves in those ripples?
Zachia
1 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2014
Are there transverse and longitudinal waves in those ripples
Yes, but their ratio changes with distance there. At proximity, where the Brownian motion applies, the water surface appears full of longitudinal waves. At the medium distance most of energy spreads in transverse waves in regular circles in background independent way - this is just the scope, where the relativistic perspective applies in AWT model. But when the distance increases even more, then the longitudinal waves will manifest itself again - and this is just the point, where the observation of "gravitational waves" takes place.

If you would live at the water surface like the waterstrider and if you would observe it with its own ripples only, then the distant perspective would appear very similar, like the distant universe for us: influenced with turbulence and scalar density waves. Therefore the observation of gravitational waves at distance has a good meaning even in water surface analogy of space-time.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2014
Finally the linkto the conference worked for me. Just brings home what an
extraordinary moment this is.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2014
Awww, isn't it cute! I see some 'scientists' here still naively believe/trust that 'the right maths' will 'obviate' all logical and/or assumptive and/or procedural/setup errors inherent in the exercise itself? GIGO guaranteed no matter the 'maths techniques'.

Touching in a way; like little children still believing in Santa Clause even when grown up.

Take my hint. Re-read papers/work without 'maths-trust' biased 'blinkers' on. Then see just how quickly the flaws jump out at you out of the 'blizzard' of 'pretty maths overlays' in inherently flawed exercise no 'maths' can rescue from its inherent flaws.

If you've 'read it through' and can't see the flaws, then no wonder 'peer review' gives 'passes' to overwhelming instances of fraudulent/nonsense 'science' (as recent experiment reported on here in phys.org patently proved happens too often).

"Remember: Reality first; Maths second; Always." ---RC.

And what was it Einsten said about "mathematicians" taking over his theory etc? :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2014
@ The Really-Skippy you aren't supposed to be talking while you are in the corner with the silly looking pointy cap on your head. You wake up stupid every day or is a thing you need to work on for a few hours?

Now sit over there you and leave the place orderly for the smart peoples, eh? Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy. The ol Ira is watching you cher.
Jizby
Mar 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2014
So poseur
Take my hint. Re-read papers/work without 'maths-trust' biased 'blinkers' on. Then see just how quickly the flaws jump out of your ass
-post your objections to the paper or STFU. Come on. Heres your big chance.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2014
Ira and Ghost. Whatsamatter, you 'smart peoples' couldn't find OBVIOUS flaws and you're upset others did? Tch. Tch.

Already, (really) smart peoples (in mainstream too) finding same OBVIOUS flaws. So I was not only one. When you clowns/pretenders get so outraged but do not go read/understand the papers/work for yourself PROPERLY, no wonder you 'find nothing wrong'.

It's like watching children dressing up in parent's clothes, pretending 'all grown up'. Only you, Ira and the rest of the mindless 'me toos' dress yourselves up in 'mantle of mainstream' and think you're 'scientists' who have the right to talk about others! Too funny!

Drop feigned outrage and get to it! See what other flaws (still at least a couple more than the professionals have pointed to already) you can find if you leave your 'schoolgirl excitement' and 'maths blinkers' out of the 'reading/understanding' for a change.

You know, like REAL 'smart peoples' and REAL 'grown up scientists' SHOULD do. LoL.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2014
You know, like REAL 'smart peoples' and REAL 'grown up scientists' SHOULD do. LoL.


Really-Skippy is that most you can come up with? No wonder you get the bad karma points. If you going to play the couyon at least put some effort in it. Still thinking you the Big Chief, eh? Why you tell these people you so smart that you find where the scientist man a mistake while you not smart enough to find out the mistake and put the name to it, eh?

You act this way every where you go or just here. Now put that silly looking pointy cap on your head and go sit in the corner. If you would learn to keep quiet then people wouldn't be seeing how big stupid you are. So sit over there and mind your manners, these smart people don't need your couyon foolishment. Some us been to the college you know, eh cher? You been to the college?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy and shut up so the Ira Skippy don't have to slap you again, eh mon ami?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2014
Ira and Ghost. Whatsamatter, you 'smart peoples' couldn't find OBVIOUS flaws and you're upset others did? Tch. Tch

@RealityCheck
ok, NOW you are being a childish & idiotic TROLL
worse even than Cantdrive or Rygg

POST YOUR EVIDENCE or shut up!

Most of the people here are NOT PHYSICISTS

YOU CLAIM TO BE ONE

now, you like pretending to be/being smart? NOW is your chance to prove that you are not some trolling idiot who is just trying to irritate people

POST YOUR PROOF
and forget about your whining and "no time" crap.
If you have time to TROLL, you have time to post proof of your CONJECTURES
UNTIL you do, you are no better than any other one-shot TROLL posting to piss people off

Or are you afraid of being singled out as just another TROLLING IDIOT? is that it? that why you are just posting and not offering proof?

you should be ashamed of yourself! that is the HEIGHT of cowardice. submit to a position or be considered a troll
qquax
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
Thank you for mentioning the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics that went to Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor.

So many other outlets completely missed that their work already provided excellent indirect evidence for gravitational waves.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
Already, (really) smart peoples (in mainstream too) finding same OBVIOUS flaws. So I was not only one. When you clowns/pretenders get so outraged but do not go read/understand the papers/work for yourself PROPERLY, no wonder you 'find nothing wrong'.
Just more unsubstantiated word salad. What's worse, much worse, is your failure to recognize what this discovery means, assuming it holds up to scientific scrutiny. And that means you cannot be a physicist as you claim.

Just another crank pretending to have the answer.
dedereu
not rated yet Mar 19, 2014
It is "out of limit" and "indirect evidence" for inflation and gravitational waves, but it is the only model coherent able to explain all the experimental measurements.
Other models are far from being able to explain and less coherent, but if they can reach the same level of coherent explanation, they must be worked.
It remains a lot to discover and to understand.
But it is no more surprising than the quantum reality of our world, described by accurate quantum equations, which, without any assumption give, the logical Everett splitting of our world in many different parallel worlds at each decoherence event.
Inflation is one such particular event and Everett splitting of our world into parallel worlds, is similar in expansion, may be larger, basic in the quantum mechanic, and occurs at each microscopic time.
Gawad
5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
NOW you are being a childish & idiotic TROLL
I don't get it Captain, why are you wasting time with this chump? I mean, I could understand if his posts weren't such an obvious troll, but given that they are (seriously, he doesn't even make an effort to "disguise" them as something else), what's the point?

I've slowly been reading through the paper (look, it's weekdays) and what's obvious from the care they took is that they understood the magnitude of what they were abut to present. And everyone worth their salt in the community is naturally urging caution. If you're looking for things to make you go "humm?", the difference between the BICEP2 results and the expectations from the ΛCDM at higher power spectrum values in their multipole data could be one of them. Meaning you might wonder if whatever is causing THAT might also be skewing the lower power spectrum values they consider relevant. But it turns out they have already stated the Planck data doesn't present this problem.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2014
@ Gawad,

@ Captain Stumpy,

RealityCheck is an unapologetic troll to be sure. After his little act last night I did some Google checking. Apparently this is the only site that he hasn't been banned from. He is about as welcome as Zeph on most sites I could find. There were some interesting discussions on his "ToE" on a couple of them, it appears this has been a pet theme of his trolling for a very long time, and he's not getting any closer to "completing" it.

By the By: @ Uncle Ira,,, Good call Ira. He does seem fond of trying to play the "big guy" so much more wise and paternal than the people he constantly comments to in such a condescending tone. The condescending tone is an affect that he has found to be successful in his trolling game.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
Neil Turok is not very impressed with inflationary interpretation of BICEP results too http://physicswor...-results

Geepers Zephyr, that has to be the fastest made sock-puppet ever!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
I mean, I could understand if his posts weren't such an obvious troll, but given that they are (seriously, he doesn't even make an effort to "disguise" them as something else), what's the point?

@Gawad
it is mostly due to a much earlier conversation (closer to when I first arrived here on Phys.org) that he and I had over this same subject matter (in which he admonished others for trolling)
that and I just got really irritated with his condescending manner and his perceptions of personal superiority over others, especially given all the work these guys did to insure that all the bases were covered...
and he's not getting any closer to "completing" it.
@Q-Star
how long has he been dangling this carrot? A decade? More? I know I should not have argued against him in irritation, but I just couldn't help myself. Those guys did a lot of work and he has not shown us DIDDLY-SQUAT... I should have just downvoted and called him TROLL and moved on.

sorry guys
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
@Q-Star
how long has he been dangling this carrot? A decade? More? I know I should not have argued against him in irritation, but I just couldn't help myself. Those guys did a lot of work and he has not shown us DIDDLY-SQUAT... I should have just downvoted and called him TROLL and moved on.


It seems to be one of his trolling devices. Yeppers, about a decade I'm told.

sorry guys


No need to be sorry. His "alter ego" (puppet) Reg Mundy has been doing the same for not quite as long, but just as annoying.
Gawad
5 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2014
@Gawad
it is mostly due to a much earlier conversation


Got it. Didn't know there was a "history" involved ;^)

sorry guys


No sweat. It's just that this guy has zip, nada, nothing. Not worth it. (Unlike Zeph and Muddy, who think they actually do, and Zeph-puppets who puke oodles and oodles of gobbledygook until they can collapse any thread into a supercritical mass of degenerate subject-matter composed of electron ducks twaddling with themselves).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
Oh dear, seems the clowns and pretenders of 'mainstream' are revolting. "Kill the messenger!" they cry!

This sort of confirmation biased/assumptive/interpretational OBVIOUS BS has been issuing from mainstream for decades, each unwitting BS used for the next BS exercise; so why bother to waste my time every time? I'd never get my own work done!

The BS is OBVIOUS, so I let mainstreamer dissidents clean up mainstream mess if they can. Even those dissidents are still constrained in what they can do/say and still keep their status/funding, so it will take courage!

Like I said, takes decades for complete and thorough work like my ToE.

Darwin and other scientists with work of great and novel scope and revolutionary importance/implications took decades before finally publishing. So why double standard denying me same time frame for finalizing/publishing my complete and consistent reality-contextual maths/physics ToE?

I don't suffer from 'publish or perish disease' like you lot do. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
I don't suffer from 'publish or perish disease' like you/they do

You couldn't publish if your life depended on it...

...so yeah: 'perish' is your only option in life.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
a_p: :)
I don't suffer from 'publish or perish disease' like you/they do

You couldn't publish if your life depended on it...

...so yeah: 'perish' is your only option in life.
There is a perfect example of what passes for 'due diligence' in the minds of mainstream pretenders today.

You've no actual coherent idea of what my complete and consistent ToE work entails/explains, yet you make a self-satisfied 'interpretation' which confirms your bias and soothes your personal ego.

The fact that 'peer review' has failed all too many times (as recently confirmed via internet experiment reported on this site), doesn't even bother you at all.

Instead you lash out at the messenger who calls "OBVIOUS BS".

It's lose-lose proposition engaging with you lot. Blame yourselves for why I won't say anymore.

I am lone, scrupulously independent researcher into the real universal physics, in it 'for the long haul'.

So "Publish or Perish" is MOOT for me and my work/goals. Capisce? :)
animah
5 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
what my complete and consistent ToE work entails/explains

Okay, post a link then!
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2014
what my complete and consistent ToE work entails/explains

Okay, post a link then!


Good luck with that. It's been a super secret project going on seven or eight years now. (It's also been the center of his being banned at more sites than Zeph with his AWT.)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
what my complete and consistent ToE work entails/explains

Okay, post a link then!

What link? I am readying it for a book publication WHOLE. No 'publish or perish' imperatives for me to pursue piecemeal discussions of it at this stage, especially not on forums infested with clowns and pretenders to mainstream authority while preferring to indulge in 'personality cult gossiping' and missing the science being pointed out. Waste of time.

You'll have to wait till the book is out. let it speak for itself, without all the personality cult prattle which seems to be what you all prefer/applaud from mainstream INTERPRETATIONAL assumptive-riddled BS 'publish or perish' motivated 'papers/work' like that latest in a long stream of INTERPRETATIONAL assumptive-riddled BS 'papers/work'.

Patience. Meanwhile, don't believe everything you read from the mainstream work/literature. Think it through for yourself. Good luck. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
Poor Q-S. :)

Good luck with that. It's been a super secret project going on seven or eight years now. (It's also been the center of his being banned at more sites than Zeph with his AWT.)


Darwin took decades and kept the details secret except to a few confidants. He wasn't the only real scientist in it for the long haul and not motivated by the publish or perish' paradigm which insanely drives the nonsense from otherwise respectable scientists in mainstream today.

Get real and stop lying to yourself and the readers here. Your agenda is "known" long since. It has nothing at all to do with advancing real science, but only your personal EGOS.

Shock, horror! Trolls/clowns infest internet forums and pretend to mainstream authority/concern! What next from you great practitioners of 'due diligence' that gets the 'facts' all wrong and have to lie like billy-o to cover up? Lol. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2014
seems the clowns and pretenders of 'mainstream' are revolting
@RealityCheck
what is revolting is blatant stupidity and unsubstantiated derogatory comments meant to troll like this one
the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I have read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years
now, I know your ego is smarting at having been scooped, proven inadequate, or whatever, but until you provide empirical data/links/proof or some legitimate references to substantiate this claim, you are nothing but an acrimonious old hack TROLLING out of a bitter recognition of personal failure and fear of being forgotten or ignored

this is NOT about your idiotic ToE claims... I dont care about that. Nor will I until there is something to see/understand/talk about.

Until you publish/specifically reveal it, your ToE has all the authority as the comment: "Fairy snot causes Unicorn faeces to look like Leprechauns"
Zachia
1 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2014
The rumors are, that the gravitational waves weren't detected (1, 2)
GSwift7
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2014
The rumors are, that the gravitational waves weren't detected


That's not exactly what turok said. His comments were more in the nature of a wait-and-see attitude. It won't be too long before two other projects release B data as well, so that should help figure out whether the above results are valid or not. There are a couple of questions regarding the data, but Turok didn't come straight out and say it was wrong.
GSwift7
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2014
You must always be careful when looking at one-of-a-kind data sets. In this case, the only way to validate it is by calculating a ratio which we 'think' should be in a certain range. That calculation also assumes that the other half of the ratio is correct, which also can't really be proven yet. Furthermore, the calculation itself really only holds if GR remains in tact.

In a nutshell, that's why Turok is cautious..
Zachia
3 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
I didn't say, Turok or someone else doubted the B-mode obsevation. He's catious, because he's a proponent of ekpyrotic model, i.e. not an inflation. What he has said is, the B-mode polarization observed may not be of cosmological origin. This excludes all gravitational waves formed during inflation.
Zachia
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2014
More details about it Don't parrot with crowds and mainstream press, just think. Whole the science is about it.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
The rumors are, that the gravitational waves weren't detected

Directly... More likely - inferred via observation.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
Hi Captain Stumpy. :) Please see my two posts to you in the 'cosmic dust' thread:

http://phys.org/n...sus.html

I wasn't accusing YOU of lying, mate, I did NOT have you in mind when I posted that the Q-S et al trolls and frauds were lying about me.

Will link to something in the near future for your interest. Cheers.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
Hi Captain Stumpy. :) Please see my two posts to you in the 'cosmic dust' thread:

http://phys.org/n...sus.html

I wasn't accusing YOU of lying, mate, I did NOT have you in mind when I posted that the Q-S et al trolls and frauds were lying about me.

Will link to something in the near future for your interest. Cheers.


@ Really-Skippy now you just put on the show for everybody. This is the third time you post this message to the Captain-Skippy. If it was something Really-Skippy meant for him you would just send one of the private message things.

Now knock it off before I have to tell the sheriff about your trolling out of season with not the license, eh?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy maybe you want to go somewhere else where the peoples don't realize you the couyon, eh?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
Hi Captain Stumpy. :) Please see my two posts to you in the 'cosmic dust' thread
@RC
and please read my three posts in reply
read them all the way through... You seem to not understand what I keep asking and you cannot seem to address it
Will link to something in the near future for your interest
unless it is proof/links supporting your claims about the team or a retraction, I am not sure I am interested
this is what I mean when I say you seem to not understand. you are posting about others making comments about YOU, when you did exactly the same to a team of people that couldn't defend themselves
what do you think they would do if they were made aware of those remarks?

again: read my reply posts: http://phys.org/n...sus.html

I am specific in what you should be addressing
GSwift7
5 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
What he has said is, the B-mode polarization observed may not be of cosmological origin


I read the interview, and I don't recall him claiming that. I don't feel like going back and re-reading the article, so forgive me if I'm wrong here, but I believe he was merely proposing that as a possibility. It needs to be investigated to a greater certainty, since their statistical confidence wasn't that great. The other two experiments should help to answer this question, so wait and see.

Like I said above, lots of people will be looking at this.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2014
@Captain Stumpy. :)

Please refer to my posts here: http://phys.org/n...sus.html

...and here: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

Be aware that Q-S et al attacks on RealityCheck record/persona are justb that, personal, and unsubstantiated. He 'links' but does not do due diligence on the background info (some since deleted/distorted by the same mod-troll gangs that were proven to infest the forum back then). So all his claims about my 'bans' and my 'not posting any ToE discussion points/issues' are outright lies of willful commision and misleading omission.

Those attacks against RealityCheck are in a totally separate category than my observing/cautioning due diligence to find FOR YOURSELVES the flaws in the latest WORK offered by those mainstream TEAM who I have nothing personal to say about them, only their 'paper/interpretation' WORK which even mainstreamers are realizing is just another BS publish-or-perish' offering. Bye. :)
GSwift7
5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2014
Be aware that Q-S et al attacks on RealityCheck record/persona are justb that, personal, and unsubstantiated


Dude, there's no way you believe that. You're a total troll, and you know it.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014
Be aware that Q-S et al attacks on RealityCheck record/persona are justb that, personal, and unsubstantiated


Dude, there's no way you believe that. You're a total troll, and you know it.

Every one of your posts epitomizes trolling.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2014
GSwift7.

Be aware that Q-S et al attacks on RealityCheck record/persona are just that, personal, and unsubstantiated


Dude, there's no way you believe that. You're a total troll, and you know it.


Dude, what's 'belief' got to do with the facts in evidence? They have been proven by objective demonstration and historical record they can't deny but try to because you at least will 'believ' their BIG LIE if they tell it you often enough. Of course, your 'belief' is helped along by you having been drawn into becoming one of them. How does it feel to be given '5's by fellow trolls while they downvote everybody they don't like irrespective of science presented?

You know the trolls, they are the ones that band together to downvote based on the source/person irrespective of what the ideas presented may be. Proud of your way of 'doing science discourse' and being manipulated by insidious troll types who care nothing about you, only your willingness to be cowed. Sad. :(
Jizby
Mar 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2014
Despite most trolls here, even the most sound physicists http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.5166 are evidence of gravitational waves from inflation. @RealityCheck: Don't react to trolls or you'll be considered and downvoted like the troll too.


Zeph, that is a very good paper, I'll give ya 5 stars for posting it. But your interpretation on what the authors are saying is wrong. They aren't expressing "doubts" they are offering suggestion for "eliminating" doubts. There is a difference. But it is a good paper and ya deserve thanks for posting it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2014
@CptS. Please see my post to you in: http://phys.org/n...sus.html Goodbye.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2014
@CptS. Please see my post to you in: http://phys.org/n...sus.html Goodbye.


Why should he?
katesisco
1 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2014
adding to the troll count may I suggest that there is no gravity waves but there is 'magnetic flakes' (NASA has described the shaken-off old magnetic field as such) that impact the planets and we here on Earth feel these 'magnetic waves of energy'. These are generated when the sun completes reversal --the delayed magnetic reversal itself the only indication of our monopole sun created when our Beetle Sun imploded into Sol. They are sufficiently weak that the hopes of harnessing energy to allow fusion is a pipe dream.
Jizby
Mar 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2014
Alternative theories to inflation do not produce gravitational waves so the existence of B-modes detected by BICEP is strong evidence not only of the gravitational wave background but also inflation itself


Wow. What a fallacy.

Let's see, how to summarize it?

"Our theory is true simply because nobody else randomly pulled a bigger piece of shit out of their ass yet..."

...to many times larger than the visible universe today (>> 1028 cm).


This portion of the clause is non-falsifiable, since it can never be observed by any means, and as such is not within the scope of the scientific method.

Further, in the absence of physical proof of the cause of Gravitational Waves (assuming they exist at all), does not prove that a theory initially predicting their existence is correct in the mechanism. It could be a cooincidence that G waves exist, if they exist at all.

GSwift7
5 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2014
cantdrive:

Every one of your posts epitomizes trolling


How ironic.

RC:

How does it feel to be given '5's by fellow trolls while they downvote everybody they don't like irrespective of science presented?


You look at the ratings? Why?

Kate:

adding to the troll count may I suggest that there is no gravity waves but there is 'magnetic flakes'


Well, at least you're having fun and playing along. :)

Returners:

Let's see, how to summarize it?


Well, that's only a good summary if you don't really understand it. At least you're reading some of it though. Keep at it, but try to understand it and then you'll be able to make serious objections which people might take seriously.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2014
Be aware that Q-S et al attacks on RealityCheck record/persona are justb that, personal, and unsubstantiated
@RC
I've seen links to forums that support their argument...whereas I've seen NOTHING from you to support your argument, so if it comes down to choosing, I am forced to go with the one that provides evidence, and you are falling ever behind choosing to argue instead of PROVE yourself: & THAT is what really irritates me re: your posts slamming people & "fatal flaws"
we see NOTHING from you until other physicists make statements to the media

you KNOW not everyone here is a physicist, so why not support your claims? it is usually how comments here are separated from the TROLLS

as for your "due diligence" comment... this is laudable ONLY if you are teaching a class

this is a public comment section on a science site. failure to provide your OWN "due diligence" by linking supporting evidence is nothing but TROLLING

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2014
adding to the troll count may I suggest that there is no gravity waves but there is 'magnetic flakes' (NASA has described the shaken-off old magnetic field as such)
@katesisco
thanks for clarifying that... I thought magnetic flakes were people like CD supporting the EU philosophy
even the most sound physicists doubt that BICEP observations are
@Jiz Zeph
I'm with Q-Star on this one... good paper, bad interpretation. ya get a 5 for the paper though
If it was something Really-Skippy meant for him you would just send one of the private message things
@Ira
la fonction PM ne fonctionne plus. bas-voter le troll et de les ignorer parce qu'ils ne valent pas le mal de tête
la fête, mon ami, et profiter de la vie
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
GSwift7.
How does it feel to be given '5's by fellow trolls while they downvote everybody they don't like irrespective of science presented?


You look at the ratings? Why?
Because you can't avoid it. It's right there at the top of your posts, next to the name when you look for the poster you are about to reply to. Your failure to see the bleedin obvious seems all of a piece with with either your lack of perspicacity as a 'scientific observer' or your intentionally ignoring the facts in evidence for trolling purposes. Either way, you just betrayed your agenda as a 'mainstream pretender' and/or 'gangmember troll'.

That trollish attitude to people and obtuse interpretation of the obvious evidence right under your nose is the sum total of your 'original contribution' to science and humanity, is it?

And the forum notes you DIDN'T DENY being a troll/downrating.

Good luck with that nasty mentality destined to demean both the science and the humanity discourse, GSwift7. Lol.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
CaptS. You missed that the record has been deleted/distorted at some forums by proven mod-troll gangs in charge. You miss that the lies about RealityCheck's bans were started and now promulgated still by Q-S et al irrespective of the truth. You miss that I have supported with scientific evidence and reality-referenced logics my arguments/perspectives (those that I was at liberty to discuss/provide) also in a number of other forums. You miss that I already told you why I don't want to divulge/discuss ToE details anymore here because of just such insensible trolls and timewasting emotional/personal BS like you STILL posting after my straightforward opinion/caution urging you to find OBVIOUS flaws in that latest mainstream 'publish or perish' offering which even mainstreamers are readily finding some (not yet all) of same flaws which were obvious to me because of the built-in 'cascade' of flawed works which the PROVEN BROKEN peer review passed before. You're trolling. Wasted effort. Bye.
GSwift7
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2014
Because you can't avoid it


I manage.

you just betrayed your agenda


I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

And the forum notes you DIDN'T DENY being a troll/downrating


I don't rate anyone, so you've got the wrong guy, and you saying that to me is as ironic as when cantdrive said it.

Good luck with that nasty mentality


I think my responses were reasonable. Did you see the things people said to me? Or, were you joking?
Jizby
Mar 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
You missed that the record has been deleted/distorted
@RC
your assumption. actually, I am querying the forum moderators for more info
dont assume that you think like I do. I am an investigator, not a scientist
You miss that the lies
see last comment
I make up MY OWN MIND, but I also have nothing but comments from you, and no supporting evidence. please pay attention
about other forums- I make a decision based upon evidence available. if YOU cant provide any supporting your claims, then how can I see your "scientific evidence"?(especially if deleted)
stil dont care about your ToE. either. until it is published, it has all the validity of anyone elses claims because there is no proof of anything
I CAN PROVE THAT YOU TROLLED the thread, now go away or provide proof, or at least get back on topic
couldn't we somehow reduce the noise/signal ratio
@Jiz
this is satirical hyperbole, right? especially given your historical spamming with pseudoscience?
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2014
GSwift7, RealityCheck, Captain Stumpy: couldn't we somehow reduce the noise/signal ratio of this forum? At the moment, when my posts are deleted, then the whole rest of thread consist of frog & mice fights for moral qualities of people involved. Frankly, it gets annoying at times. Try to focus on subject, not on its commenters. If you would follow strictly the rules of Socratic discussion, such a mess would never happen here.


Jesus H. Christ, never have I met anyone so completely blind to their own condition. It simply beggars the imagination, and on so many levels.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
@Captain Stumpy. :)

What claims? Only posted an opinion cautioning/urging you to find for yourselves a number of obvious flaws which even mainstream are finding some of. Calm down and stop with your trolling innuendoes and move on, mate. :)

@Jizby. :)

I'm trying my damnedest to disengage from the 'personality cult' trolls, but they persist in trolling further personal lies and innuendos which I am honor bound to defend against. If the above 'emotionally invested' troll and his mates stop trolling personal lies and innuendoes, then I won't need to make defending posts correcting/exposing said trolls/lies. Let's hope they got the message and move on so we can all get on with it, hey? Cheers. :)

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2014
Jesus H. Christ, never have I met anyone so completely blind to their own condition. It simply beggars the imagination, and on so many levels.

I've always wondered - what's the H stand for, anyway...?
Gawad
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
Jesus H. Christ, never have I met anyone so completely blind to their own condition. It simply beggars the imagination, and on so many levels.

I've always wondered - what's the H stand for, anyway...?


Uncertain, maybe Haploid :)

http://en.wikiped...._Christ
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2014
I'm trying my damnedest to disengage from the 'personality cult' trolls
This is easy. Stop posting your empty, inciteful bullshit. And get your fat ass off the couch and get a little exercise.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2014
@TheGost... :)
I'm trying my damnedest to disengage from the 'personality cult' trolls
This is easy. Stop posting your empty, inciteful bullshit. And get your fat ass off the couch and get a little exercise.
And you unnecessarily continuing the exchange like this with your inciteful BS is helping? Pull the other one, mate, it has bells on! Butt out. Move on. :)
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2014
Jesus H. Christ, never have I met anyone so completely blind to their own condition. It simply beggars the imagination, and on so many levels.

I've always wondered - what's the H stand for, anyway...?


Uncertain, maybe Haploid :)

http://en.wikiped...._Christ


Apparently Harold - as in "Our Father who art in heaven, Harold be thy name".....

http://www.straig...h-christ
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2014
@TheGost... :)And you unnecessarily continuing the exchange like this with your inciteful BS is helping? Pull the other one, mate, it has bells on! Butt out. Move on. :)


@ Really-Skippy, you should have thought of that when you trolled around the forum posting the same whiny boohoo postings one ever article endinglessly for six or five days. If you can't stand the heat Cher, maybe you should have stayed in the corner with your silly looking pointy cap on.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy but remember, you ain't one of the smart ones here no. If the couyon act out people going to treat him like the couyon you.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2014
@Poor poor poor Uncle Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy, you should have thought of that when you trolled around the forum posting the same whiny boohoo postings one ever article endinglessly for six or five days. If you can't stand the heat Cher, maybe you should have stayed in the corner with your silly looking pointy cap on.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy but remember, you ain't one of the smart ones here no. If the couyon act out people going to treat him like the couyon you.


And you should have thought at all. Period.

Poor poor poor Uncle Ira can't think at all in that haze of weed smoke and booze mist.

Lay off the puff 'n stuff, dude. :(
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2014
@Q-Star
No need to be sorry. His "alter ego" (puppet) Reg Mundy has been doing the same for not quite as long, but just as annoying.

Just came across this thread, a bit late.
I don't know whether you should apologise to me or to Realitycheck, but even you must realise that your grip on reality is slipping. So far, you have accused me of being 12 different people, including even Johan Prins! He is just about the only honest person who posts here, and publishes his work and credentials for all to see. Your paranoia has convinced you that all the dozens of people who post on physorg who think you are a total prat are actually all the same person, a kind of gestalt comprised from me, RC, JfP, etc., etc., etc.
I realise that reading my book will have melted your brain, so I will forgive you this time, BUT DON'T DO IT AGAIN or I'll set the Illuminati on you like before!
Q-Star
5 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2014
Just came across this thread, a bit late.
I don't know whether you should apologise to me or to Realitycheck, but even you must realise that your grip on reality is slipping.


It was an intended insult to ya in both of your personae.

So far, you have accused me of being 12 different people, including even Johan Prins!


Nice try boyo. But I never accused ya of be JohanPrins, ya aren't as smart as his big toe.

Your paranoia has convinced you that all the dozens of people who post on physorg who think you are a total prat are actually all the same person, a kind of gestalt comprised from me, RC, JfP, etc., etc., etc.


I take it a badge of honor that those particular think that. I would much embarrassed by them agreeing with me in a public forum.

I realise that reading my book will have melted your brain, so I will forgive you this time, BUT DON'T DO IT AGAIN or I'll set the Illuminati on you like before!


Makes no difference to me who ya set on me sure.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2014
@Q-Pee
Makes no difference to me who ya set on me sure.

Hey, I was only kidding! I wouldn't really do that!
Anyway, glad to see you are getting over your previous Knights Templar/Illuminati paranoia, it wasn't pleasant seeing a grown man cringe.
Meanwhile, I have completely lost track of all the people you have accused me of being, I wonder if you could recap for my benefit and for any other readers who want a good laugh.
One last point, your insults and wit seem to lack that old elan, that old fire-in-the-belly, in fact they are a bit puerile and weak. I miss the old Q-Pee, perhaps another good long vacation back home in the boondocks will restore you, let your brain recover from reading the book which must have been a profound shock to your basis of beliefs, possibly causing your brain to melt.