Big Bang breakthrough team allows they may be wrong

Jun 20, 2014
A NASA image shows hundreds of thousands of stars crowded into the swirling core of the Milky Way galaxy

American astrophysicists who announced just months ago what they deemed a breakthrough in confirming how the universe was born now admit they may have got it wrong.

The team said it had identified gravitational waves that apparently rippled through space right after the Big Bang.

If proven to be correctly identified, these waves—predicted in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity—would confirm the rapid and violent growth spurt of the universe in the first fraction of a second marking its existence, 13.8 billion years ago.

The apparent first direct evidence of such so-called cosmic inflation—a theory that the universe expanded by 100 trillion trillion times in barely the blink of an eye—was announced in March by experts at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

The detection was made with the help of a telescope called BICEP2, stationed at the South Pole.

After weeks in which they avoided the media, the team published its work Thursday in the US journal Physical Review Letters.

In a summary, the team said their models "are not sufficiently constrained by external public data to exclude the possibility of dust emission bright enough to explain the entire excess signal," as stated by other scientists who questioned their conclusion.

The team was led by astrophysicist John Kovac of Harvard.

BICEP2 stands for Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization.

"Detecting this signal is one of the most important goals in cosmology today," Kovac, leader of the BICEP2 collaboration at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said back in March.

By observing the , or a faint glow left over from the Big Bang, the scientists said small fluctuations gave them new clues about the conditions in the early universe.

The gravitational waves rippled through the universe 380,000 years after the Big Bang, and these images were captured by the telescope, they claimed.

For weeks, some scientists have expressed doubts about the findings of the BICEP2 team.

David Spergel, a theoretical astrophysicist at Princeton University, queried whether what the BICEP2 telescope picked up really came from the first moments of the universe's existence.

"We know that galactic dust emits polarized radiations. We see that in many areas of the sky, and what we pointed out in our paper is that pattern they have seen is just as consistent with the galactic dust radiations as with ," Spergel told AFP last week.

He said the question will likely be settled in the coming months when another, competing group, working with the European Space Agency's Planck telescope, publishes its results.

That telescope observes a large part of the sky—versus the BICEP2's two percent—and carries out measurements in six frequencies, compared to just one for BICEP2, according to Spergel.

"I think in retrospect, they should have been more careful about making a big announcement," he said.

Explore further: Experts cast doubt on Big Bang bolstering discovery

More information: Paper: Detection of -Mode Polarization at Degree Angular Scales by BICEP2, journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/… ysRevLett.112.241101

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Experts cast doubt on Big Bang bolstering discovery

Jun 14, 2014

Astrophysicists are casting doubt on what just recently was deemed a breakthrough in confirming how the universe was born: the observation of gravitational waves that apparently rippled through space right ...

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 ...

Has dust clouded the discovery of gravitational waves?

Jun 04, 2014

It's almost three months since a team of scientists announced it had detected polarised light from the afterglow of the Big Bang. But questions are still being asked about whether cosmic dust may have clou ...

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

Oct 22, 2014

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

User comments : 38

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Egleton
3 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2014
The physicists were not wrong. The theory was wrong.
Physicists are only wrong if they ignore empirical evidence.
Then they are very wrong.
Then they are diseased.
George_Rajna
Jun 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 20, 2014
It's a piece trying to construct a "controversy" with the original data release, but the original data release allowed for the team to be wrong. Comparing the papers, very little have changed.

In an added note, the group responds to a discovered lapse (not filtering out lensing) which very slightly makes dust better to predict the whole signal. It remains the worst predictor though, as it needs to be lucky to predict the expected primordial gravity wave pattern. And Kovac still maintains that. See e.g. the World Science Fair discussion, where Kovac notes that the signal "quacks like a duck".

They also note the Planck data release, but that it isn't enough to enable predicting the signal from dust. And they note that the many dust experts, like Spergel, in their controversial papers makes erroneous claims on their data analysis.

So, meh. If Planck or BICEP (Keck 2014 data release) can release their pipeline data soon, we will really know more.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 20, 2014
So, anti-science trolls not bothering to read the paper or even article. And anti-science crackpots linking to their own products of (likely, life is too short) garbage.

Meh, nothing new there either. =D
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2014
It would seem the apologists cannot set their pride aside for even a moment, hey mr. larssen
no fate
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2014
So, anti-science trolls not bothering to read the paper or even article. And anti-science crackpots linking to their own products of (likely, life is too short) garbage.

Meh, nothing new there either. =D


Part of science is falsfication, they jumped the gun with their announcement prior testing for alternate explanations. That is far more "anti-science" than merely proposing an absurd theory. But right in line with defending the work as though they did it right.
bobbylon_5
1 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2014
It's quite easy.

There was a NOTUniverse (not bound by space time and atomic physics).
Something moved, creating a spacial reference (dimension).
This created an explosion of sub atomic and atomic effects.

I'm actually not surprised that gravity and mass were likely some of the later effects.

However one of the first has to be related to space and time... i.e. movement or change.

Without that change and that movement the NOTUniverse would still exist and our Universe wouldn't.

otero
Jun 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
barakn
4 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2014
Zephir, do the mods know about this latest sockpuppet of yours?
otero
Jun 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Code_Warrior
4.7 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2014
I don't know whose worse, the fringe theory trolls or the trolls that constantly point out the fringe trolls. Doesn't really matter, both types are making the comment sections virtually unreadable and almost not worth posting in.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2014
I don't know whose worse, the fringe theory trolls or the trolls that constantly point out the fringe trolls. Doesn't really matter, both types are making the comment sections virtually unreadable and almost not worth posting in.


Just about one of the most accurately stated posts I've seen here in a long, long time.

There is a lot of anti-science posting that goes on here. Let it be known you have a degree in some field of scientific & mathematical endeavor and see how fast the "troll crowd", who never saw a differential equation they could solve, start showing up to cast one star votes as their input to shut down your posts.

Not a one of this troll crowd can follow a single differential equation of Einstein's Thesis of General Relativity, therefore none of them are capable of understanding why Einstein clearly states in his GR thesis that we live in a limited quasi-spherical universe, not an infinite flat one.
Uncle Ira
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2014
see how fast the "troll crowd", who never saw a differential equation they could solve


@ Bennie-Skippy I am not sure you never did saw one either. You like to say different equation a lot but how we know you really know what they are? Maybe one day you might show us how much you know for the different equations without you just telling us you know about them Cher.

Not a one of this troll crowd can follow a single differential equation of Einstein's Thesis of General Relativity, therefore none of them are capable of understanding why Einstein clearly states in his GR thesis that we live in a limited quasi-spherical universe, not an infinite flat one.


Hoooiyeei Skippy, you worked in the different equation with your other favorite thing to say the quasi sphere universe all in the same sentence. You practice all this week to do that? I'm not sure you know any more about them quasi spheres than you do about the different equations.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2014
@ P.S. for you Bennie-Skippy. While you at explaining the different equations like I know you aren't going to do. Would you toss in some of that thermodynamical stuffs for us too? I really like that one a lot.
komone
5 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2014
If you can't deal with "science in action" you should maybe wait for the textbook (which btw may also be proven incorrect later). Seems to me that there's a good bet that the BICEP-2 analysis is right; and taking that bet at this early stage is probably more likely the best guess at the model we have of the early universe at this stage. What is maybe a curious fact to non-scientists is that convincing disproof (which this is not) is more interesting than confirmatory results to scientists, since that releases new spurts of scientific creativity and understanding. I'm just interested to see what Planck comes back with... exciting stuff!
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2014
@ komone-Skippy you make the best comment so far today. You should make more posting here you.
otero
Jun 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2014
@ P.S. for you Bennie-Skippy. While you at explaining the different equations like I know you aren't going to do. Would you toss in some of that thermodynamical stuffs for us too? I really like that one a lot.


The fact that you put up two posts so quickly is your admission you are, and have been, part of the trolling problem for a long, long time. I'm a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer with better than a two year history discussing the science & math of scientific discussions at this site. What is your claim to fame for input about scientific discussions on this site?

Actually I think I get it, you get confused & think the descriptive words used in mathematics & science are just knock off adjectives, nouns, & pronouns of your meaningless banter & if only we (in the science community) would include your vocabulary as part of ours, just imagine how enlightened we scientists & engineers could become.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2014
I'm a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer with better than a two year history discussing the science & math of scientific discussions at this site.


Sure Cher. We all believe you on that. You only tell us this thing every time you post here. When you don't forget because you busy typing different equations and quasi circle universes that is.

just imagine how enlightened we scientists & engineers could become.


Does that mean you still can't do the different equations Cher? I didn't think you would just like all the other hundred times we ask. If the different equation is too hard Cher, maybe you just start off easy and tell what the quasi circle universes is. And don't forget that thermodynamical stuff too, that's always good to me.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2014
you make the best comment so far today
IMO it's OFF TOPIC POINTLESS VERBIAGE, but whatever... Who wouldn't expect, you'll like it?


Socratic-Skippy you sure have gotten to being the grumpy old man lately you. I liked you better when you was Zephir-Skippy. You making me feel bad about giving you all those good karma points when I was the only one giving them to you.
someone11235813
5 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2014
...universe expanded by 100 trillion trillion times in barely the blink of an eye...


wasn't it supposed to have happened in a planck length of time which is considerably less than the blink of an eye. And as for the 100 trillion trillion, I though it was more like 10^80 times. If we are going to speculate on the expansion of the universe then lets not trivialise it.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2014
Are you talking with me? I never ever posted as a Zephir here in the past
@otero-Zephir
I don't know about posting as Zephir, but you have been posting as:
osnova
Zwentoo
Pejico
Spadia
Antuka
Teper
Incosa
Jantoo
Sikla
otero
Doiea
Did I miss anyone? this is just since last year when I started posting here.
and you STILL have yet to post empirical data on your pet pseudoscience philosophy.

I think I am with komone on this one...
Zephir, do the mods know about this latest sockpuppet of yours?
@barakn
they do now...
otero
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Jun 21, 2014
every thread where I'm posting is archived as an evidence of censorship at public forums

You are aware that this is a private website - owned by a private company and that you are merely a guest here? There is no right to freedom of speech on such websites. They can damn well censore, delete, distort or do whatever they want here.

That they choose to let us post here is not a right but a privilege they grant. And like with all such privileges it can be revoked when abused. That your accounts get deleted has nothing to do with censorship. It has everything with you abusing that privilege.

What you are archiving is only the everlasting proof to subsequent generations of your douche-baggery. Congratulations.
otero
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 21, 2014
Do any of you as*****es remember what this article was originally about? All of the last dozen comments are crapslinging at each other! Please get back on topic and think about the failure of "experts at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics" to actually detect gravity waves when they originally stated their observation as fact.
Ain't no gravity.......think about that!
otero
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2014
Can you imagine, some stranger would call you a Skippy at public repeatedly? Me not.


@ Socratic-Skippy, I do it all the time everywhere to everybody. I keep telling you it don't mean nothing bad. I even call Ira-Skippy the Skippy. I call the Mrs-Ira-Skippette the Skippette. That's how you call the female Skippy, Skippette. I even call my boss the Skipper-Skippy. Right up to his Skippy face I do. And if you were was in my Skippy face I would call you the Zephir-Skippy or the Socratic-Skippy if that is one you like now for discussing the science stuffs like you said last week.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Somebody else is using the Socratic-'Skippy, I see that they posted something today using that name. If you came first before him let me know so I can give the right one of you the right name.
otero
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2014
You're fully right


No Cher. He is fully wrong. Them astrophysics-Skippys at the Harvard-Smithsonian Astro Center place don't even have a gravity wave detector thing there, so how does he expect them to fail at finding them? Did you know they don't have one? I only know because when they first put up the story I looked to see who had them. We got one down here in Louisiana that don't seem to be working to good maybe they put him too close to Texas. And they got the another one in Washington (the state not the city). They are the only two in the whole country. Harvard is in Massachusetts and they don't have one no.
otero
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2014
You won me over. I used to be called Mississippi Red...


I am not the really bad Skippy. I like the science stuffs when one of the smart peoples is saying something about it. And I like the silly-Skippys too when they say their silly stuffs. But I don' t feel no shame from having to say all the time that something is more than I can understand. The really silly-Skippys are the ones who know they understand every little thing even when all the science-Skippys show them they are wrong.

I mean, I might not be so science smart, but I"m smart enough to believe science-Skippys who spend their whole life studying something instead of believing some no-name-Skippy on the interweb who doesn't even have a college to teach in. The really smart genius professional science peoples, they have people pay them money. They don't have time to put foolishment up here all day long like the silly-Skippys with their weird theories.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2014
don't even have a gravity wave detector thing there
Yea I know, but they believed, they have it. Whole five years.


No they never believed they had one. Only two in the whole country. One here in Louisiana which they put to close to Texas for it work right. And the another one way out in Washington which I don't know why it don't work, maybe it's too close to Montana or Canada or something.
otero
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2014
Well - you see.. So that these guys did believe, they all have a gravitational wave detector and they placed it a bit southward - into Antarctica, cause they're all Skippies, you know..


You making less sense than usual Cher. Harvard ain't in Antarctica. So now you and the Reg-Skippy are wrong. I'm beginning to think you might be jealous of Reg-Skippy's silly looking pointy cap and want one of your own. I'll see what I can rummage up.
otero
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
OZGuy
5 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: No problem, every thread where I'm posting is archived as an evidence of censorship at public forums. I hope, you don't consider it as a conspiracy of scientific community against outsiders. BTW Your names are "OZGuy, Ojorf, jsdarkdestruction, CaptainCosmic, Captain Stumpy, IMP-9, Vietvet", etc. instead. Should I report you instead?


Hey f-wit I'm no-ones sockpuppet! Come down to Australia anytime you like - happy to meet in person and I guarantee you'll remember I'm a physical person for the rest of your life!
big_hairy_jimbo
5 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2014
Well Feck me dead!!!! After reading all the pure dribble posts above me, I have COMPLETELY forgotten what the article I read was about!!!!!

Come on people, this has got way out of hand, to the point of being insane!!!

The posts section on here resembles a digital asylum these days.
ROBTHEGOB
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2014
Well, I don't know who is correct about the age or size of the universe; I frankly think it is beyond human comprehension, despite all our high-tech toys. but scientists should not go off half-cocked, as they say. It ain't over till the fat lady sings.
otero
Jun 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jun 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DeliriousNeuron
2 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2014
Uncle Ira the Gravity Wizard is at it again with the stupid "Skippy" reference.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: No problem, every thread where I'm posting is archived as an evidence of censorship at public forums. I hope, you don't consider it as a conspiracy of scientific community against outsiders. BTW Your names are "OZGuy, Ojorf, jsdarkdestruction, CaptainCosmic, Captain Stumpy, IMP-9, Vietvet", etc. instead. Should I report you instead?

try it, a few may be the same guy but most like me are totally different people. ive been here for 5 years now zeph, unlike your accounts im not a sock puppet. In fact when you post on topic and make sense, which does happen once in a great great while, I give you 5's.
PhotonX
4.5 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2014
It's quite easy.

There was a NOTUniverse (not bound by space time and atomic physics).
Something moved, creating a spacial reference (dimension).
This created an explosion of sub atomic and atomic effects.

I'm actually not surprised that gravity and mass were likely some of the later effects.

However one of the first has to be related to space and time... i.e. movement or change.

Without that change and that movement the NOTUniverse would still exist and our Universe wouldn't.
I was going to call you out on this post with a bit of satire (starting with "First there was NOTgobbledygook") but there is entirely too much flaming going on here already.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2014
Father and Son.

Son: "Dad, you tell me that gravity waves don't exist".

Father: "Not quite boy, what I say is that none have been detected and until there's a confirmed observation, logic dictates you must assume they don't exist"

Son: "I got into trouble because my science teacher says that something called bike steps in the South Pole has proved gravity waves are true".

Father: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Sad as it is. Just like belief in God. I'll believe in gravity waves when there's a confirmed observation."

Son: "Is it okay if I believe in gravity waves, to keep my teacher happy"?

Father: "Sure, do you to want go to church on Sunday too?

It's not time to make a change, just sit back and take it easy, you're still young ...
otero
Jun 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jun 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2014
When do you stop looking? We did a few tests to detect the aether, then stopped, accepted the nonexistence of an aether and formulated better explanations. When do we stop wasting time and money searching for gravity waves. It's been done. They don't exist. Accept it and move on.

Toss a ball in the air, it comes back down. Do you repeat this endlessly in the belief that maybe sometimes the ball will stay up? No, instead you accept the reality and use the information to come to a better understanding.

The next step is to assess the implications of the nonexistence of gravity waves and propose other testable hypothesis. Or our we out of ideas?
otero
Jun 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jun 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2014
Therefore the gravitational waves still exist, but in quite different form, than the physicists considered: they're masked as a common photons.


So, when it gets dark I float away?

Doiea
Jun 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
sandler
1 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2014
In my (layman) mind the oscillating model is better than Big Bang one. By analogy of water life cycle (http://tinyurl.com/nz9y36m) but on infinitely larger scale we can observe that light (and all types of radiation) has similar life cycle and plays important role in the universe. It originates from matter in stars and travels across empty space to heat up gas inside galaxy cores which in turn churn out new stars to make more light. However in contrast as water cools things down, light heats them up which explains why universe is expanding since heat is associated with expansion according to thermodynamics, and lack of it with contraction. I don't think the oscillating model is right about this occurring every billion years. Instead I think it's constantly occurring as often as rainfall on earth, but for some unknown reason (may be due to global warming problem in space?) it's started to expand more rapidly as of lately.
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2014
@bluehigh
When do you stop looking? We did a few tests to detect the aether, then stopped, accepted the nonexistence of an aether and formulated better explanations. When do we stop wasting time and money searching for gravity waves. It's been done. They don't exist. Accept it and move on.

Toss a ball in the air, it comes back down. Do you repeat this endlessly in the belief that maybe sometimes the ball will stay up? No, instead you accept the reality and use the information to come to a better understanding.

The next step is to assess the implications of the nonexistence of gravity waves and propose other testable hypothesis. Or our we out of ideas?

No, we are not out of ideas, it's just that when anybody comes up with a new one, the establishment howls them down without considering they may be correct. Preserving the status quo and the lucrative jobs associated with the search for gravity waves, etc., is the main priority. For examples of this, check my book reviews.
Doiea
Jun 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Doiea
Jun 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jul 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jul 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2014
the public don't trust the BigBang theory very much
@otero-Doiea-Zephir
and this is where you differ from real scientists: the real scientists take either an active approach and try to replicate the evidence to prove/disprove it, or wait and see what other scientists who are replicating the experiment are doing and see what the outcome is.
A scientists does not let public opinion sway his thoughts, only the empirical data... unlike you
Isn't it nice to see, how the only correct person from the whole thread gets persecuted over bunch of twaddlers, just because it doesn't play well with crowds?
you get banned for posting pseudoscience like DAW/AW and cold fusion BS... not for posting correct info or empirical data
which I got over thirty downovotes here for a single post
you got downvoted for talking out your buttocks... try using real science and empirical data and you might not be banned as much!
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2014
@ Socratic-Skippy, you got over thirty down-karma-votes for one post Cher? Maybe that is a new record for the most. That's more than I can remember that I never did see. Maybe we give you the new name for that? We could call you the "30-down-for-1" Skippy. How you like that one huh?