Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Big Bang - maybe its not gravity waves

iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 7:50:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is now talk that the BICEP2 observations may not be due to gravity waves after all. Good thing about this, is that it shows that science does do what science deniers claim it never does. However, it will be a pity if it is not true.

Lets see how this all pans out, what are your thoughts on this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.sciencemag.org...
(subscription neede)
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 7:53:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To clarify again if it did not sound like this in the first post. It does not mean it is wrong, they are just wondering if the data is a correct interpretation. Further analysis needs to be done.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 10:36:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 7:50:10 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
There is now talk that the BICEP2 observations may not be due to gravity waves after all. Good thing about this, is that it shows that science does do what science deniers claim it never does. However, it will be a pity if it is not true.

Lets see how this all pans out, what are your thoughts on this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.sciencemag.org...
(subscription neede)

I love the fact that you this out as an example that science goes with the data, not preconceived beliefs. We scientists are biting at the bit to disprove major scientific theories like evolution and the Big Bang. As soon as legitimate data presents itself and seems to contradict a previous belief, we love it.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 3:55:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm glad you posted this. I was just thinking about it the other day. This is science at its best. I hope the team that did the study releases the data soon so the other scientist who are trying to validate it can examine it with the rigor required either question the validity or support it.

At the heart of it is whether they were able to successfully eliminate the data of the twisted polarization pattern which could be caused from other sources than a gravity wave. There is some real merit to the skepticism.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 1:01:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 3:55:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm glad you posted this. I was just thinking about it the other day. This is science at its best. I hope the team that did the study releases the data soon so the other scientist who are trying to validate it can examine it with the rigor required either question the validity or support it.

At the heart of it is whether they were able to successfully eliminate the data of the twisted polarization pattern which could be caused from other sources than a gravity wave. There is some real merit to the skepticism.

I agree they really do need to release the data. I can only gather they are working on something else within the data at the moment that they don't want to release as usually physicists are pretty good with sharing data.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 4:11:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 7:50:10 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
There is now talk that the BICEP2 observations may not be due to gravity waves after all. Good thing about this, is that it shows that science does do what science deniers claim it never does. However, it will be a pity if it is not true.

Lets see how this all pans out, what are your thoughts on this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.sciencemag.org...
(subscription neede)

They have been working on it for years. Addressing alternate theories that can account for the ripples.

http://www.nature.com...

I'm just glad my understanding of cosmology and early universe were not thrown upside down by the research, haha.

What shocked me was the strength and the clear asymmetry across the cmb.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 4:12:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 7:50:10 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
There is now talk that the BICEP2 observations may not be due to gravity waves after all. Good thing about this, is that it shows that science does do what science deniers claim it never does. However, it will be a pity if it is not true.

Lets see how this all pans out, what are your thoughts on this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.sciencemag.org...
(subscription neede)

And the post title should be gravitational waves NOT gravity waves. fyi
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 5:05:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 4:11:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/22/2014 7:50:10 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
There is now talk that the BICEP2 observations may not be due to gravity waves after all. Good thing about this, is that it shows that science does do what science deniers claim it never does. However, it will be a pity if it is not true.

Lets see how this all pans out, what are your thoughts on this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.sciencemag.org...
(subscription neede)

They have been working on it for years. Addressing alternate theories that can account for the ripples.

http://www.nature.com...

I'm just glad my understanding of cosmology and early universe were not thrown upside down by the research, haha.

What shocked me was the strength and the clear asymmetry across the cmb.

Yeh, I know that what I am pointing out is the fact that some scientists are doubting exactly what they found. Or should I say not what they found but what the observation is. The Nature article was interesting, I read it a few weeks back.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 5:06:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 4:12:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/22/2014 7:50:10 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
There is now talk that the BICEP2 observations may not be due to gravity waves after all. Good thing about this, is that it shows that science does do what science deniers claim it never does. However, it will be a pity if it is not true.

Lets see how this all pans out, what are your thoughts on this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.sciencemag.org...
(subscription neede)

And the post title should be gravitational waves NOT gravity waves. fyi

My bad.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 5:09:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 5:05:18 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 5/24/2014 4:11:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/22/2014 7:50:10 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
There is now talk that the BICEP2 observations may not be due to gravity waves after all. Good thing about this, is that it shows that science does do what science deniers claim it never does. However, it will be a pity if it is not true.

Lets see how this all pans out, what are your thoughts on this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.sciencemag.org...
(subscription neede)

They have been working on it for years. Addressing alternate theories that can account for the ripples.

http://www.nature.com...

I'm just glad my understanding of cosmology and early universe were not thrown upside down by the research, haha.

What shocked me was the strength and the clear asymmetry across the cmb.

Yeh, I know that what I am pointing out is the fact that some scientists are doubting exactly what they found. Or should I say not what they found but what the observation is. The Nature article was interesting, I read it a few weeks back.

Here is their paper. One reason why the spent so long on the data was to prepare for nay sayers. Most of the paper is over my head but I can tell they accounted for electromagnetic polarization.

I wish I knew more about cosmology because I'm curious how they account for the expansion and the breaking of the electromagnetic force. I'm sure that's in the paper just haven't taken time to read through it all in detail.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 5:10:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 5:09:47 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/24/2014 5:05:18 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 5/24/2014 4:11:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/22/2014 7:50:10 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
There is now talk that the BICEP2 observations may not be due to gravity waves after all. Good thing about this, is that it shows that science does do what science deniers claim it never does. However, it will be a pity if it is not true.

Lets see how this all pans out, what are your thoughts on this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.sciencemag.org...
(subscription neede)

They have been working on it for years. Addressing alternate theories that can account for the ripples.

http://www.nature.com...

I'm just glad my understanding of cosmology and early universe were not thrown upside down by the research, haha.

What shocked me was the strength and the clear asymmetry across the cmb.

Yeh, I know that what I am pointing out is the fact that some scientists are doubting exactly what they found. Or should I say not what they found but what the observation is. The Nature article was interesting, I read it a few weeks back.

Here is their paper. One reason why the spent so long on the data was to prepare for nay sayers. Most of the paper is over my head but I can tell they accounted for electromagnetic polarization.

I wish I knew more about cosmology because I'm curious how they account for the expansion and the breaking of the electromagnetic force. I'm sure that's in the paper just haven't taken time to read through it all in detail.

try again http://arxiv.org...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 6:08:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 5:09:47 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/24/2014 5:05:18 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 5/24/2014 4:11:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/22/2014 7:50:10 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
There is now talk that the BICEP2 observations may not be due to gravity waves after all. Good thing about this, is that it shows that science does do what science deniers claim it never does. However, it will be a pity if it is not true.

Lets see how this all pans out, what are your thoughts on this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.sciencemag.org...
(subscription neede)

They have been working on it for years. Addressing alternate theories that can account for the ripples.

http://www.nature.com...

I'm just glad my understanding of cosmology and early universe were not thrown upside down by the research, haha.

What shocked me was the strength and the clear asymmetry across the cmb.

Yeh, I know that what I am pointing out is the fact that some scientists are doubting exactly what they found. Or should I say not what they found but what the observation is. The Nature article was interesting, I read it a few weeks back.

Here is their paper. One reason why the spent so long on the data was to prepare for nay sayers. Most of the paper is over my head but I can tell they accounted for electromagnetic polarization.

I wish I knew more about cosmology because I'm curious how they account for the expansion and the breaking of the electromagnetic force. I'm sure that's in the paper just haven't taken time to read through it all in detail.

I got the arvix link thanks. But I am not sure what you mean by how they account for expansion and breaking of the EM force?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 6:28:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 6:08:25 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 5/24/2014 5:09:47 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/24/2014 5:05:18 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 5/24/2014 4:11:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/22/2014 7:50:10 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
There is now talk that the BICEP2 observations may not be due to gravity waves after all. Good thing about this, is that it shows that science does do what science deniers claim it never does. However, it will be a pity if it is not true.

Lets see how this all pans out, what are your thoughts on this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.sciencemag.org...
(subscription neede)

They have been working on it for years. Addressing alternate theories that can account for the ripples.

http://www.nature.com...

I'm just glad my understanding of cosmology and early universe were not thrown upside down by the research, haha.

What shocked me was the strength and the clear asymmetry across the cmb.

Yeh, I know that what I am pointing out is the fact that some scientists are doubting exactly what they found. Or should I say not what they found but what the observation is. The Nature article was interesting, I read it a few weeks back.

Here is their paper. One reason why the spent so long on the data was to prepare for nay sayers. Most of the paper is over my head but I can tell they accounted for electromagnetic polarization.

I wish I knew more about cosmology because I'm curious how they account for the expansion and the breaking of the electromagnetic force. I'm sure that's in the paper just haven't taken time to read through it all in detail.

I got the arvix link thanks. But I am not sure what you mean by how they account for expansion and breaking of the EM force?

Sorry It was/is late I meant to say the electroweak force. The early universe would of expanded extremely fast and the energies extremely high. Witch is where the gravitational waves spawn from. The electromagnetic and the weak atomic force would have been fused in that epoch. Electromagnetic polarization is different from gravitational polarization. I saw they accounted for EM but I was wondering if the EW would warp the waves as well?

Like I said I just skimmed the articles and It truly is way outside what I am comfortable commenting on. Many of the things like the equations and the people mentioned I have never studied.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 6:02:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 6:28:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/24/2014 6:08:25 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 5/24/2014 5:09:47 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/24/2014 5:05:18 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 5/24/2014 4:11:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/22/2014 7:50:10 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
There is now talk that the BICEP2 observations may not be due to gravity waves after all. Good thing about this, is that it shows that science does do what science deniers claim it never does. However, it will be a pity if it is not true.

Lets see how this all pans out, what are your thoughts on this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.sciencemag.org...
(subscription neede)

They have been working on it for years. Addressing alternate theories that can account for the ripples.

http://www.nature.com...

I'm just glad my understanding of cosmology and early universe were not thrown upside down by the research, haha.

What shocked me was the strength and the clear asymmetry across the cmb.

Yeh, I know that what I am pointing out is the fact that some scientists are doubting exactly what they found. Or should I say not what they found but what the observation is. The Nature article was interesting, I read it a few weeks back.

Here is their paper. One reason why the spent so long on the data was to prepare for nay sayers. Most of the paper is over my head but I can tell they accounted for electromagnetic polarization.

I wish I knew more about cosmology because I'm curious how they account for the expansion and the breaking of the electromagnetic force. I'm sure that's in the paper just haven't taken time to read through it all in detail.

I got the arvix link thanks. But I am not sure what you mean by how they account for expansion and breaking of the EM force?

Sorry It was/is late I meant to say the electroweak force. The early universe would of expanded extremely fast and the energies extremely high. Witch is where the gravitational waves spawn from. The electromagnetic and the weak atomic force would have been fused in that epoch. Electromagnetic polarization is different from gravitational polarization. I saw they accounted for EM but I was wondering if the EW would warp the waves as well?

Like I said I just skimmed the articles and It truly is way outside what I am comfortable commenting on. Many of the things like the equations and the people mentioned I have never studied.

I agree most of the stuff is way different to what I study.

The one thing that I thought was strange was that the CMB was obtained from a satellite and not ground based which I thought would be problematic. However, it seems that they did correct for this using various subtractions/additions over a range of experiments.

Also what was pretty remarkable and I didn't realize was that its 7.7 sigma which is far above the 5 sigma which is the minimum expected. So the problems people are pointing at must be something pretty big. Like I say its a fun time ahead for science.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 7:31:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So from what I now understand. The one background the scientists used to correct for (the Plank dust) was a prelimenary data set and not a refined data set.

When this calculation was repeated by another group using the correct Planck dust dataset. They find that the gravitational waves do not show up.

http://www.nature.com...
and the second paper
http://arxiv.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 7:59:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 7:31:47 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
So from what I now understand. The one background the scientists used to correct for (the Plank dust) was a prelimenary data set and not a refined data set.

When this calculation was repeated by another group using the correct Planck dust dataset. They find that the gravitational waves do not show up.

http://www.nature.com...
and the second paper
http://arxiv.org...

Hm, it looks like we really need another portion of the CMB looked at. But it's easy to overlook how much manipulation the data goes through until it becomes useful.

Reminds me of when I was learning how NMR machines actually work... After using them in ignorance for years, hah. The nitty gritty is where gold lies.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 8:27:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 7:59:42 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:31:47 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
So from what I now understand. The one background the scientists used to correct for (the Plank dust) was a prelimenary data set and not a refined data set.

When this calculation was repeated by another group using the correct Planck dust dataset. They find that the gravitational waves do not show up.

http://www.nature.com...
and the second paper
http://arxiv.org...

Hm, it looks like we really need another portion of the CMB looked at. But it's easy to overlook how much manipulation the data goes through until it becomes useful.

Reminds me of when I was learning how NMR machines actually work... After using them in ignorance for years, hah. The nitty gritty is where gold lies.

Agreed, or at least the same data with more than one polarization angle. would be helpful.

Who knows maybe later data confirms the initial result, but for now it seems the champagne was uncorked too early.

As for NMR's agreed when you realize the strength of the various types of experiments and correlations available it opens a new world.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 1:07:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't know the merits of the issue over the claimed discovery of gravitational waves. At this point there are not too many cosmologist who doubt inflation theory, but there is ample skepticism over the claim.

In general, how willing are scientists willing to abandon theories in the face of new evidence? I think it all depends on the nature of the theory and how many scientists have allied themselves with it.

The prime example is global warming. In 2000, scientists said that climate was a solved problem, that computer models could accurately predict future climate, and that CO2 completely dominated the factors affecting climate. Hence future global warming was a certainty. Now, after 17 years without any increase in global warming, despite CO2 increases as predicted, what is the status of the claims made in 2000? Skepticism is certainly increasing, but many still hold on to the claims.

Perhaps one of the greatest strikeouts is the claim that saturated fasts are bad for people. Recent studies have shown that people with diets high in saturated fats fare no worse than diets low in saturated fats. The original theory goes back to a guy named Mays who outright falsified the data. He studied 22 countries and threw away the data from all but seven countries, the seven that had a correlation that showed harm. Two megastudies published recent showed there is in fact no harm from saturated fats. So has the government abandoned the food pyramid concept that gives carbs the privileged position in a good diet? I'll bet few people have heard of the issue.

And, no, there is not the slightest hope for evolution being overthrown. That some science proves bad does not imply that most is bad.