Planck: Gravitational waves remain elusive

January 30, 2015
This image shows a patch of the southern sky and is based on observations performed by ESA's Planck satellite at microwave and sub-millimetre wavelengths. The colour scale represents the emission from dust, a minor but crucial component of the interstellar medium that pervades our Milky Way galaxy. The texture, instead, indicates the orientation of the Galactic magnetic field. It is based on measurements of the direction of the polarised light emitted by the dust. The highlighted region shows the position of a small patch of the sky that was observed with two ground-based experiments at the South Pole, BICEP2 and the Keck Array, and yielding a possible detection of curly B-modes in the polarisation of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the most ancient light in the history of the Universe. However, a joint analysis of data from BICEP2, the Keck Array, and Planck has later shown that this signal is likely not cosmological in nature, but caused by dust in our Galaxy. The image shows that dust emission is strongest along the plane of the Galaxy, in the upper part of the image, but that it cannot be neglected even in other regions of the sky. The small cloud visible in red, to the upper right of the BICEP2 field, shows dust emission from the Small Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way. The image spans 60° on each side. Credit: ESA/Planck Collaboration. Acknowledgment: M.-A. Miville-Deschênes, CNRS - Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale, Université Paris-XI, Orsay, France

Despite earlier reports of a possible detection, a joint analysis of data from ESA's Planck satellite and the ground-based BICEP2 and Keck Array experiments has found no conclusive evidence of primordial gravitational waves.

The Universe began about 13.8 billion years ago and evolved from an extremely hot, dense and uniform state to the rich and complex cosmos of galaxies, stars and planets we see today.

An extraordinary source of information about the Universe's history is the Cosmic Microwave Background, or CMB, the legacy of light emitted only 380 000 years after the Big Bang.

ESA's Planck satellite observed this background across the whole sky with unprecedented accuracy, and a broad variety of new findings about the early Universe has already been revealed over the past two years.

But astronomers are still digging ever deeper in the hope of exploring even further back in time: they are searching for a particular signature of cosmic 'inflation' – a very brief accelerated expansion that, according to current theory, the Universe experienced when it was only the tiniest fraction of a second old.

This signature would be seeded by gravitational waves, tiny perturbations in the fabric of space-time, that astronomers believe would have been generated during the inflationary phase.

Interestingly, these perturbations should leave an imprint on another feature of the cosmic background: its polarisation.

When light waves vibrate preferentially in a certain direction, we say the light is polarised.

The CMB is polarised, exhibiting a complex arrangement across the sky. This arises from the combination of two basic patterns: circular and radial (known as E-modes), and curly (B-modes).

Different phenomena in the Universe produce either E- or B-modes on different angular scales and identifying the various contributions requires extremely precise measurements. It is the B-modes that could hold the prize of probing the Universe's early inflation.

"Searching for this unique record of the very early Universe is as difficult as it is exciting, since this subtle signal is hidden in the polarisation of the CMB, which itself only represents only a feeble few percent of the total light," says Jan Tauber, ESA's project scientist for Planck.

Planck is not alone in this search. In early 2014, another team of astronomers presented results based on observations of the polarised CMB on a small patch of the sky performed 2010–12 with BICEP2, an experiment located at the South Pole. The team also used preliminary data from another South Pole experiment, the Keck Array.

They found something new: curly B-modes in the polarisation observed over stretches of the sky a few times larger than the size of the full Moon.

The BICEP2 team presented evidence favouring the interpretation that this signal originated in primordial gravitational waves, sparking an enormous response in the academic community and general public.

The anisotropies of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) as observed by Planck. The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380 000 years old. It shows tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure: the stars and galaxies of today. The highest resolution version of this image [12 572 px × 6286 px] is available upon request. Please make inquiries using the "Contact Us" link in the left-hand menu. Credit: ESA, Planck Collaboration

However, there is another contender in this game that can produce a similar effect: interstellar dust in our Galaxy, the Milky Way.

The Milky Way is pervaded by a mixture of gas and dust shining at similar frequencies to those of the CMB, and this foreground emission affects the observation of the most ancient cosmic light. Very careful analysis is needed to separate the foreground emission from the cosmic background.

Critically, interstellar dust also emits polarised light, thus affecting the CMB polarisation as well.

"When we first detected this signal in our data, we relied on models for Galactic dust emission that were available at the time," says John Kovac, a principal investigator of BICEP2 at Harvard University, in the USA.

"These seemed to indicate that the region of the sky chosen for our observations had dust polarisation much lower than the detected signal."

The two ground-based experiments collected data at a single microwave frequency, making it difficult to separate the emissions coming from the Milky Way and the background.

On the other hand, Planck observed the sky in nine microwave and sub-millimetre frequency channels, seven of which were also equipped with polarisation-sensitive detectors. By careful analysis, these multi-frequency data can be used to separate the various contributions.

The BICEP2 team had chosen a field where they believed dust emission would be low, and thus interpreted the signal as likely to be cosmological.

However, as soon as Planck's maps of the polarised emission from Galactic dust were released, it was clear that this foreground contribution could be much higher than previously expected.

In fact, in September 2014, Planck revealed for the first time that the polarised emission from dust is significant over the entire sky, and comparable to the signal detected by BICEP2 even in the cleanest regions.

So, the Planck and BICEP2 teams joined forces, combining the satellite's ability to deal with foregrounds using observations at several frequencies – including those where dust emission is strongest – with the greater sensitivity of the ground-based experiments over limited areas of the sky, thanks to their more recent, improved technology. By then, the full Keck Array data from 2012 and 2013 had also become available.

This image shows the all-sky maps recorded by Planck at nine frequencies during its first 15.5 months of observations. These were collected using the two instruments on board Planck: the Low Frequency Instrument (LFI), which probes the frequency bands between 30 and 70 GHz, and the High Frequency Instrument (HFI), which probes the frequency bands between 100 and 857 GHz. The Cosmic Microwave Background is most evident in the frequency bands between 70 and 217 GHz. Observations at the lowest frequencies are affected by foreground radio emission from the interstellar material in the Milky Way, which is mostly due to synchrotron radiation emitted by electrons that spiral along the lines of the Galactic magnetic field, but also comprises bremsstrahlung radiation, emitted by electrons that are slowed down in the presence of protons, as well as emission from spinning dust grains. Observations at the highest frequencies are affected by foreground emission from interstellar dust in the Milky Way. The combination of data collected at all of Planck's nine frequencies is crucial to achieve an optimal reconstruction of the foreground signals, in order to subtract them and reveal the underlying Cosmic Microwave Background. Credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration

"This joint work has shown that the detection of primordial B-modes is no longer robust once the emission from Galactic dust is removed," says Jean-Loup Puget, principal investigator of the HFI instrument on Planck at the Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale in Orsay, France.

"So, unfortunately, we have not been able to confirm that the signal is an imprint of cosmic inflation."

Another source of B-mode polarisation, dating back to the early Universe, was detected in this study, but on much smaller scales on the sky.

This signal, first discovered in 2013, is not a direct probe of the inflationary phase but is induced by the cosmic web of massive structures that populate the Universe and change the path of the CMB photons on their way to us.

This effect is called 'gravitational lensing', since it is caused by massive objects bending the surrounding space and thus deflecting the trajectory of light much like a magnifying glass does. The detection of this signal using Planck, BICEP2 and the Keck Array together is the strongest yet.

As for signs of the inflationary period, the question remains open.

This illustration shows how photons in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) are deflected by the gravitational lensing effect of massive cosmic structures as they travel across the Universe. Using data from ESA's Planck satellite, cosmologists have been able to measure this gravitational lensing of the CMB over the whole sky for the first time. The CMB consists of the most ancient photons in the history of the Universe, which were emitted only 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Since then, CMB photons have travelled for over 13 billion years across the Universe, witnessing the dramatic changes that took place during the various cosmic epochs such as the formation of stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters. Several observable effects arise from the interaction between CMB photons and the large-scale structure they crossed during their journey. One of the most intriguing is gravitational lensing, the deflection of light as it travels in the vicinity of massive objects such as galaxies and galaxy clusters. Gravitational lensing creates tiny, additional distortions to the mottled pattern of the CMB temperature fluctuations. On their way to the Solar System, where they are eventually detected by the sensors on board Planck, photons from the CMB may cross many different massive systems as well as empty spaces. The photons encounter structures in different evolutionary stages, since the massive structures grow denser and the cosmic voids become less dense as time goes by. All of the structures from the different cosmic epochs contribute to bending the path of CMB photons. The total effect of these multiple deflections is a modification to the pattern of CMB temperature fluctuations, thus changing the typical 'shapes' of hot and cold spots in the CMB. As a result of the detection of gravitational lensing experienced by CMB photons, cosmologists can use Planck to explore 13 billion years of the formation of structure in the Universe. Credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration

"While we haven't found strong evidence of a signal from primordial gravitational waves in the best observations of CMB polarisation that are currently available, this by no means rules out inflation," says Reno Mandolesi, principal investigator of the LFI instrument on Planck at University of Ferrara, Italy.

In fact, the joint study sets an upper limit on the amount of gravitational waves from inflation, which might have been generated at the time but at a level too low to be confirmed by the present analysis.

"This analysis shows that the amount of gravitational waves can probably be no more than about half the observed signal", says Clem Pryke, a principal investigator of BICEP2 at University of Minnesota, in the USA.

"The new upper limit on the signal due to gravitational waves agrees well with the upper limit that we obtained earlier with Planck using the temperature fluctuations of the CMB," says Brendan Crill, a leading member of both the Planck and BICEP2 teams from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the USA.

"The gravitational wave signal could still be there, and the search is definitely on."

Explore further: Evidence of gravity waves clouded by interstellar dust

More information: Notes:

"A Joint Analysis of BICEP2/Keck Array and Planck Data" by the BICEP2/Keck and Planck collaboration has been submitted to the journal Physical Review Letters.

The study combines data from ESA's Planck satellite and from the US National Science Foundation ground-based experiments BICEP2 and the Keck Array, at the South Pole.

The analysis is based on observations of the CMB polarisation on a 400 square degree patch of the sky. The Planck data cover frequencies between 30 GHz and 353 GHz, while the BICEP2 and Keck Array data were taken at a frequency of 150 GHz.

A public release of Planck data products will follow later next week.

Related Stories

Evidence of gravity waves clouded by interstellar dust

September 24, 2014

In March, scientists working on the BICEP2 experiment, a microwave telescope based at the South Pole, announced that they had seen 'gravity waves' from the early universe, created just after the Big Bang. Ever since the announcement, ...

Image: The magnetic field along the galactic plane

December 16, 2014

While the pastel tones and fine texture of this image may bring to mind brush strokes on an artist's canvas, they are in fact a visualisation of data from ESA's Planck satellite. The image portrays the interaction between ...

Researchers image the Milky Way's magnetic fingerprint

May 6, 2014

(Phys.org) —Our Galaxy's magnetic field is revealed in a new image from ESA's Planck satellite. This image was compiled from the first all-sky observations of 'polarised' light emitted by interstellar dust in the Milky ...

Are the BICEP2 results invalid? Probably not

May 20, 2014

Recently rumors have been flying that the BICEP2 results regarding the cosmic inflationary period may be invalid. It all started with a post by Dan Falkowski on his blog Resonaances, where he claimed that the BICEP2 had misinterpreted ...

Gravitational waves according to Planck

September 22, 2014

Scientists of the Planck collaboration, and in particular the Trieste team, have conducted a series of in-depth checks on the discovery recently publicized by the Antarctic Observatory, which announced last spring that it ...

Herschel throws new light on oldest cosmic light

October 1, 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, the bending ...

Recommended for you

Solar minimum surprisingly constant

November 17, 2017

Using more than a half-century of observations, Japanese astronomers have discovered that the microwaves coming from the sun at the minimums of the past five solar cycles have been the same each time, despite large differences ...

53 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
2.3 / 5 (18) Jan 30, 2015
'The Universe began about 13.8 billion years ago and evolved from an extremely hot, dense and uniform state to the rich and complex cosmos of galaxies, stars and planets we see today.

"While we haven't found strong evidence of a signal from primordial gravitational waves in the best observations of CMB polarisation that are currently available, this by no means rules out inflation," '

Ah yes, but we so much want to believe....in the fantasy.

Yes, I like the Wizard of Oz fantasy too, but it is simply a fantasy from a vivid imagination, as are gravity waves.
JoeBlue
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2015
'The Universe began about 13.8 billion years ago and evolved from an extremely hot, dense and uniform state to the rich and complex cosmos of galaxies, stars and planets we see today.

"While we haven't found strong evidence of a signal from primordial gravitational waves in the best observations of CMB polarisation that are currently available, this by no means rules out inflation," '

Ah yes, but we so much want to believe....in the fantasy.

Yes, I like the Wizard of Oz fantasy too, but it is simply a fantasy from a vivid imagination, as are gravity waves.


Fantasy seems to be all the rage in "science" these days.
pbreb
1 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2015
It is obvious that our standard notions of gravity are wrong. We say that mass causes warps in spacetime. It seems more like warps in spacetime cause mass.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (22) Jan 30, 2015
Well we don't seem to be off to a good start on this one and I wish some other peoples would come along and say something that says what is right and what is wrong instead of just saying Bah, Humbug. Choot, I can say Bah, Humbug but it does not mean I understand the article any better than the first three Skippys don't either.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.6 / 5 (12) Jan 30, 2015
@Tuxford

We can indirectly infer the existence of gravity waves by measuring the decay in between two gravitational bodies.

Gravitational waves are weak so that means they have the most notable effects between two massive bodies that are close together.

A binary Neutron star system fits those criteria, and here is an example:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913+16

Observed in that system we indeed find that there is a measurable decay in orbit between these two bodies. Also note the plotted graph of observed data vs what the decay rate would be if was energy being emitted through gravitational waves, according to the theory of relativity.

I ask you, if gravitational waves are not responsible for this, what is?
Losik
Jan 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Jan 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Jan 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osiris1
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2015
Real meaning of the denial = It is now 'classified'
Al-Lex1000
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2015
Really Odd: How we can detect and map things that have no bearing on any part of our future when what we really need is a safe and continuous way to change minute bits of matter to the energy we need or a real way to harmonize our civilization. Talk about rearranging deck chairs on doomed ships continuously.
viko_mx
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2015
The faith of the majority of society during the Middle Ages that the Earth was flat which was politically correct, hard has given way to the idea that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun, defended by the honest and talented astronomers at that time. By analogy, because history has the quality to repeat itself, the idea for a big bang and expanding universe in the same way would hardly yield to the truth about young static universe. ust because many people earn their salaries by supporting mass illusions. Gravitational waves are in fact gravitational disturbances and have nothing to do with ripples or distortion of space, but with interference in the summary vector of gravitational forces to any body in space thanks to movement of all cosmic objects in space. Most profitable is to seek something that does not exist for a fee. This ensures permanent employment and regular income.
TimLong2001
3 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2015
Well stated, viko_mx! Gravitational waves: https://www.youtu...yDUFPWV2
swordsman
2 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2015
The gravitational force is an instantaneous vector combination force. Until these investigators realize this, they will be going in circles.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2015
Well we don't seem to be off to a good start on this one and I wish some other peoples would come along and say something that says what is right and what is wrong instead of just saying Bah, Humbug. Choot, I can say Bah, Humbug but it does not mean I understand the article any better than the first three Skippys don't either.

Hi, Ira. I'm witchya on that.
But, at least the pbr guy (not a bad domestic beer, btw) had something alternative to offer;
It is obvious that our standard notions of gravity are wrong. We say that mass causes warps in spacetime. It seems more like warps in spacetime cause mass.

If he'd have phrased it as a question, I'm sure it would have come off better...
Tuxford
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2015
@Tuxford

I ask you, if gravitational waves are not responsible for this, what is?


Ah. Well, indeed. I have a preferred concept, but any idea would be quickly ridiculed here by limited imaginations locked in irrationally-rational thought processes. I would start first by asking:

What is the physical mechanism described mathematically as space-time???

or

What is the physical mechanism causing what is described mathematically as a field???

or

What is the smallest 3-D sub-atomic particle actually composed of??? And don't tell me a string! What is the material substance? There must be an answer? Otherwise you are just indulging in another math fantasy. Sure, math is fun. But it is no answer.
psidre
4.5 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2015
.. math is fun. But it is no answer.


Well here's the problem with that ideology: Math actually holds up and can be applied to instrumentation. Words, on the other hand, simply provide us with labels by which we can communicate our perceptions. No matter what we call it we are dealing with forces that science seeks to employ for technological advancement.

It's not just a course in transcendental philosophy or coffee shop etiquette, although that aspect is also just as fun.
Rustybolts
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2015
There goes that stupid big bang theory again. This is about as stupid as there is no other life out there!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2015
What is the material substance? There must be an answer? Otherwise you are just indulging in another math fantasy. Sure, math is fun. But it is no answer


When dealing with a lot of Cosmology, we must first "observe" & derive the mathematics from what we observe. The pendulum often swings far too distantly in the other direction & we end up with fanciful notions leading us far astray from the laws of Conservation of Energy.

To date, the biggest problem facing the "black hole" hypothesis is that we've only observed "anomalies of gravity". No one has even seen an "event horizon", but look at all the math that has been calculated for something we've never observed.

Most of this kind of stuff is simply one astro-physicist trying to "one-up" the competition, which in its own way is not bad, but when Ufologists get the slightest wind of this kind of speculation a new religion is born & the pathway to nirvana is through a wormhole created by a BH never yet observed.
Losik
Jan 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2015
Tuxford

Space and time are equivalent things, as nothing in the universe is stationary, its position in space depends on what time it is.

All forces of nature are mathematically described as fields, relativity is described in tensor fields so that you're able to say in which direction, in how much time, with how much energy an object moves.

"What is the smallest 3-D sub-atomic particle actually composed of??? And don't tell me a string! What is the material substance? There must be an answer? Otherwise you are just indulging in another math fantasy. Sure, math is fun. But it is no answer."

Sub atomic particles aren't really anything to begin with. A naked electron floating through space isn't really something we can imagine. It doesn't exist formally anywhere until you measure it being somewhere. It is just a property of a localized region of the universe.
viko_mx
3 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2015


"Space and time are equivalent things, as nothing in the universe is stationary, its position in space depends on what time it is."

For me space and time are very different things with very different meaning. The time reflects the change in the state of a given system. Space is a geometric concept that describes where are all systems that make up our being. It contains physical object spatial vacuum that has certain physical characteristics and all matter. The combination of time and space in space-time concept is philosophical and mathematical approach, a scientific speculation that does not lead to more clear understanding of the our being.
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2015
For me space and time are very different things with very different meaning. The time reflects the change in the state of a given system.

Time is what ALLOWS a given state to change...
Space is a geometric concept that describes where are all systems that make up our being. It contains physical object spatial vacuum that has certain physical characteristics and all matter.

This is the "state" that we have evolved to perceive, which time has so graciously allowed us to see change...:-)
The combination of time and space in space-time concept is philosophical and mathematical approach, a scientific speculation that does not lead to more clear understanding of the our being.

I choose to perceive it as space that exists within time... Without time space has no function. Without space, time has no function. So - space-time.
It's clear that way for ME, anyway...
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2015
The Cosmic microwave as well as every thing within the "gravitational wave?" Consider a Gs field as a plane wave moving over the planet at any amplitude or frequency or direction. This would infer what deviation from present reality? Hence, the uWave is related, how? Given knowledge of an unknown volume of plasma at multiple states, from zero to ...| Then Gs for very "suspect" Gravity wave, I would expect a bigger response? Much bigger! The EM and particle affects? But first, somebody show me the separation of G and E to relate uW???!
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
Understand that the wave-front of light is a vector, many types of particle's motion may create polarized light. First I would apply "known physics" instead of the "maybe" physics to explain this polarization by reverse engineering the field relative to the Poynting Vector and particle motion.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (21) Jan 31, 2015
Well here's the problem with that ideology: Math actually holds up and can be applied to instrumentation
You cannot explain the mechanism/principle of photon, gravity or magnetic field with math.


Well Zephir-Skippy, let the radio and television peoples and the eyeglasses people and satellite peoples try designing their stuffs using the water ripple electron ducks ducking under the surface waves theory and see how well all their stuff works.
Losik
Jan 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2015
The theory of EM radiation for radio and television people has been developed with aetherist, Maxwell-Skippy guy, if you don't remember it. He really did use a surface wave model of fluid for it and it worked so well, his theory was left unchanged up to these days.


Well, no actually Zephyr, he didn't. He spent a great deal of time determining the application of mathematical formulas to explain phenomena he was seeing. Unlike you, who spends a great deal of time formulating imaginary phenomena that avoids the application of mathematics.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (20) Jan 31, 2015
The theory of EM radiation for radio and television people has been developed with aetherist, Maxwell-Skippy guy, if you don't remember it. He really did use a surface wave model of fluid for it and it worked so well, his theory was left unchanged up to these days.


Yeah I remember the Maxwell-Skippy. I have read a couple of books about him and some of the others. From what I have read about him as person I think he was a great guy and wish I had known him personal.

I have also read what the real scientists think of him as the scientist, they all seem to think his stuff is as important as Newton and Einstein Skippys. He is in the tip-top exclusive group of scientists for sure.

Now I am reading the book about Faraday who knew and worked with Maxwell-Skippy. He is a good guy too him.

Oh yeah, I almost forget, I'm trying to cut back on my Skippys for everybody who suggest it. I want to keep it down to 3 or 2 Skippys per postum.
Losik
Jan 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Jan 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (18) Jan 31, 2015
Actually I'm not right with the claim, that Maxwell's theory was left unchanged. Maxwell based his theory on real fluid governing the continuity equation, and in physical fluid the transverse wave is never possible without longitudinal wave. His original theory was therefore more detailed, than today. But in Maxwell times the physics has been already flooded with theorists, who didn't understand the physics, they just managed the math. And one of them, a lone freak Heaviside did realize, that the Maxwell's equations would be much simpler, if the longitudinal component would be removed. So he did it - and in this moment the controversy about massless light and photons was born. Because the reduced Maxwell's-Heaviside equations utilize the (nonphysically) abstract pure transverse waves, they cannot predict the existence of solitons - photons - and they


Uuh huh, well I will just have to take your word for that because I don't really understand it.
Losik
Jan 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2015
@viko

Spacetime is the proper way to physically describe space and time.

The driving force behind physics is that seemingly unrelated phenomenon are actually just different manifestations of the same thing.

For example, gravity was formally discovered when Isaac Newton realized that the force that makes an apple fall is the same thing that makes things orbit. Things in orbit are just moving sideways fast enough that they miss the body by the time they fall down.

We know what atoms look like because our understanding of all forces, friction, electricity, pressure, ect do not make sense if atoms do not have the structure described by quantum mechanics, everything we see in the world and the laboratory can be reduced to a manifestation of a fundamental force.

That's what the theory of everything is about, how to reduce the properties of atoms and gravity to a singular idea and what determining aspects cause the differences between forces.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (22) Jan 31, 2015
because I don't really understand it
Oh, really? I can't believe it, as you're such a smart Skippy..


I do not know who told you that lie. I am always the first to tell that I am not the real scientist and did not go to the science schools. When it comes to the hard stuffs, I am really ignorant, and also a lot of the medium stuffs.

Being ignorant is not a shameful thing, the shameful thing is all the ignorant peoples on here claiming to not be ignorant. You know, the ones who tell what is wrong, without trying to tell you what is right. At least you are not one of those so I don't give bad karma votes, you at least make the attempt to explain what you think is right, I wish everybody would.

So, which first sentence of the above quote did become incomprehensible for you? Maybe we could localize your misunderstanding...


A lot of the specialized science words trip me up a lot. Especial when there are a lot of them at once.
Losik
Jan 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (21) Jan 31, 2015
OK, but which word was the first one?


Well it's not just a word here and another there. It's the way they work all together. Like this part,,,,

fluid governing the continuity equation, and in physical fluid the transverse wave is never possible without longitudinal wave


I do not know enough about it to know what that means. I am sure the person who went to the science school would know what you mean, even if he disagreed with it. But I can not agree or disagree because I don't know what that is.

It's why I like the physorg articles, most of them are written out so I can at least get a hint of what they are saying even I don't understand it like professional scientists do. The books I really like to read too. But they are the easy ones for regular Skippys like me, not the kind that the real scientists write for each other.
Losik
Jan 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Jan 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Jan 31, 2015
Either way you play it, you are using Maxwell to explain what has never been demonstrated. Seems sort of futile. Simply visualize everything within a moving G field - Assuming gravity is a phenom other than EM based upon mass that requires a new particle definition and the modal response of an EM field looks like a shroedinger's cat chasing its "tail" - is the field response we are looking. Or should I say "Tale"

I hear better theories from religious circles, most of the synchronistic truths are at least based upon misinterpreted absurd tales based in reality.
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Jan 31, 2015
QM defines all possible states based upon energy as quantized. Fourier define a real-time signal as a power spectrum. Depends upon what equalizations are used to understand interpretation. Certain states only have a finite set of stable states, the definition for stability is the moot point, not the interpretation of reality. So first, we must agree upon what we are talking, from what we see and know with the logic of - reality vs "math"-

All I see is a very, very poor dichotomy of charge.
Losik
Jan 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Jan 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2015
Planck: Gravitational waves remain elusive


Edit:
Gravitational waves remain fictional, as they always will...
Losik
Jan 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (16) Jan 31, 2015
Well thank you everybody. Ol Ira-Skippy feels so much smarter now, I feel like going out and teaching a class on the physics stuffs.
Losik
Jan 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2015
The extremely comical part about this topic has to be the comments made on these threads no more than a year ago. The usual mainstream cheerleaders such as Q-star, Maggnutts, Cap'n Stupid, Axe, Uncle irritate, anti a, among others did their thing. They had a rah rah session, patting each other on the back, high fives all around.
While at the same time some were skeptical (some claimed them trolls), such as Reality Check and Zeph -as always- with his AWT twist. In an ultimate irony, RC seems to be correct and the Pep Squad is chock full of crow. Save from a few innocuous comments, most are not so suspiciously absent from the discussion here. This is a theme that will continue as we go forward. The standard theory of cosmology and particle physics are dead theories walking, it's only a matter of time that their epicycles will fall.

http://phys.org/n...nal.html
Tuxford
1 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2015

Sub atomic particles aren't really anything to begin with. A naked electron floating through space isn't really something we can imagine. It doesn't exist formally anywhere until you measure it being somewhere. It is just a property of a localized region of the universe.


Nonsense. You really believe that convenient explanation? That the particle is a property isn't really saying anything except that you don't understand it at the most basic level.

Lost in the math fantasy. Fantasy becomes reality for lack of technical imagination and skill.

However, still your statement yields further insight into what is actually happening. If the particle is not really anything, and is only a property of the surrounding local region, what is that really saying?
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2015
sure gravity is carried by energy density of quantum vacuum....www.fopi.info
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2015
@Tuxford
Nonsense. You really believe that convenient explanation?


I've heard QM called many things, but "convenient" is not one of them
Here's a youtube video about the famous debate between Neils Bohr and Einstein over the nature of QM. It really drove home a lot of the points that I didn't understand. It also explains what the phenomenon observed as entanglement is, it's really awesome.

www.youtube.com/w...JOZ51tmc
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2015
It was fantastic to see and hear comments from Wheeler, Bell, and Bohm. Thank you Steve.
smallicoat
1 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2015
If gravitational radiators comprising black holes and tethered objects exist at the center of a galaxy as is almost certainly true, then consider the near field of these.
Analogous to EM antennas, there is a near field component to spacetime distortion that could have mass-like properties that would extend the effective central mass along the axis of rotation and explain the observed flat rotation velocity curve of galaxies without needing new particles nor MOND-like modifications to existing laws.
vidyunmaya
not rated yet Feb 02, 2015
Ignorant society on a perfect ride

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.