Skip to comments.‘No evidence for or against gravitational waves’: Big Bang 'ripples' too weak to be significant.
Posted on 06/02/2014 10:34:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The astronomers who this spring announced that they had evidence of primordial gravitational waves jumped the gun because they did not take into proper account a confounding effect of galactic dust, two new analyses suggest.
Although further observations may yet find the signal to emerge from the noise, independent experts now say they no longer believe that the original data constituted significant evidence.
Researchers said in March that they had found a faint twisting pattern in the polarization of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the Big Bangs afterglow, using a South Pole-based radio telescope called BICEP2. This pattern, they said, was evidence for primordial gravitational waves, ripples in the fabric of space-time generated in the early Universe (see 'Telescope captures view of gravitational waves'). The announcement caused a sensation because it seemed to confirm the theory of cosmic inflation, which holds that the cosmos mushroomed in size during the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang.
However two independent analyses now suggest that those twisting patterns in the CMB polarization could just as easily be accounted for by dust in the Milky Way Galaxy
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
“All we are is dust in the wind”
All we are is dust in the wind.
Seriously though, The main reason for postulating gravitational waves is that Einstein was staunchly against the idea of nonlocal interactions, i.e., spooky actions at a distance as he called them. He insisted that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, including gravity and EM waves.
But now we realize that Einstein was wrong about the spookiness of quantum physics.
The Scientific Method once again proves itself.
There is no other area of knowledge that polices itself as rigorously as Science.
This is a null value determination. But a really good catch.
Ahhh yes. The Big bang. When there was nothing and then it blew up.
LOL, that’s great. I haven’t seen that one.
And I thought that this was settled science and that the evidence of primordial gravitational waves was incontrovertible and accepted by 97% of physicists.
Nothing comes from nothing.
We've seen with global warming the political influence on science. And the willingness of too many scientists to get on board and promote global warming without criticallly examining the data.
At least one scientist proposes a modification to Einstein's theory of gravity, whereby the beginning was more of a big "push" than explosion. And he's not the only scientist who supposes the sum total energy (including the energy represented by matter) is exactly zero.
No matter how you decide to look at it, the universe is a vast and intriguing place.
According to the article, within six months there will be much better data for dust and CMB light that could settle the issue. It’s been over 13 billion years. A few more months won’t hurt.
My understanding, which could be wrong, is that a vacuum would have to exist. I don't know about the vacuum back then, but the vacuum we have today is much more than nothing.
Something comes from nothing.
Well, there was a singluarity.
But the big bang, if it happened, is God's creation. Something from nothing.
>>We’ve seen with global warming the political influence on science. And the willingness of too many scientists to get on board and promote global warming without criticallly examining the data.<<
Sadly, yes. Science will follow the money, especially when it is impossible to gauge the results (unlike, say Cold Fusion, which has to demonstrably work).
AGW is a very very new field of study and defies any and all scientific fundamentals — it meets exactly zero of the criteria of a Scientific Theory.
The tiny but growing AGW corner of “science” is like the tiny corner of business that is made up of government-subsidized “green” businesses.
I assure you AGW is an embarrassment to real scientists everywhere, especially since it gets thrown in the face of those who do pursue real science.
>>But the big bang, if it happened, is God’s creation. Something from nothing.<<
This is where science meets theology.
The Big Bang theory says the universe expanded from a single point. Have they ever located where in the universe that is? Seems like they should be able to figure that out.
The scientific community too often doesn't investigate new ideas before disputing them. They are quick to ridicule new ideas without even attempting to scientifically prove them false.
And the dogma and "just so" stories that comes out of evolutionist camps is another major embarrassment to real scientists.
Something comes from something.
In the beginning was the Word.
Nothing comes from nothing.
Anything has to come from something. That is the problem that scientists now face. I was taught in grammar school science that nothing comes from nothing. Now scientists are saying everything came from nothing. The “big bang” and Jesus Christ came from the same “something”.
I've always thought that what we call the Big Bang would be a most excellent mechanism for God to use to initiate a self supporting system of creation and renewal. "Let there be light" and with a word...all matter we can see was released from the tips of His fingers.
When one looks at the massive structures of galaxies that Hubble has provided, I do not understand how people can believe this all cane from a singularity.
I believe the the Big Bang was other the hand of God, or a portal from another dimension. I know of no physics that can explan how all the matter in the known univrese can be compressed to the head of a pin.
Could be. If massive amounts of matter is compressed in an ever shrinking mass, we get a black hole. If this mechanism were multiplied a trillion fold, or more, would such a mass be able to rip a hole through the fabric of space/time? Perhaps. And what was on the other side? Was there anything on the other side? Or was this simply a conduit for Him to create where we now live?
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
>>And the dogma and “just so” stories that comes out of evolutionist camps is another major embarrassment to real scientists.<<
If you can scientifically refute evolution, you will be the first to ever do so.
I can nail AGW using the Scientific Method with my little finger (scientific alternative addresses all know facts — the Earth has undergone broad climate changes which include changes of No2 since its birth).
If you have a physical scientific (not theological/philosophical) alternative that explains the billions of data points that cross multiple disciplines (physics/geology/cosmology/archaeology) let’s see it. The world will be your oyster.
>>Anything has to come from something. That is the problem that scientists now face. I was taught in grammar school science that nothing comes from nothing. <<
You were taught quantum physics in grammar school? Wow. They just taught me the basics. You must have had one heck of a science program. Did you study monopoles at recess?
>>Now scientists are saying everything came from nothing. The big bang and Jesus Christ came from the same something.<<
Please provide a link where that comparison is made in any scientific journal.
I’m surprised the muzzies haven’t claimed the big bang for themselves by why of the pedophile Mohamed.
Many have refuted macroevolution but the scientific consensus just shrugs and says okay maybe we were wrong on that individual point but the theory must still be true. The list of evolutionist claims that have been proved false is extremely long. Thus evolution is not falsifiable. Evolution is a belief system. It's dogma.
Excellent point. The world has been looking for gravitational waves since at least the mid-50's. Robert Forward (Hughes Research Labs) built one of those big aluminum cylinder detectors that he housed in the UCLA Engineering building in that time-frame. Others may have preceded him.
That's a long time to look with ZERO results. If we have a theory of gravitational waves then we should have some idea of the magnitude of the phenomenon. If so then the requirements for detection should also be calculable. I'm no expert but your thought that maybe Einstein was wrong is sounding more and more like Occam's best guess.
>>Many have refuted macroevolution but the scientific consensus just shrugs and says okay maybe we were wrong on that individual point but the theory must still be true. The list of evolutionist claims that have been proved false is extremely long. Thus evolution is not falsifiable. Evolution is a belief system. It’s dogma.<<
To reputable scientific sources.
And, if you can, provide scientific refutation. Not just “it has been refuted.”
Please provide specific scientific links that refute TToE.
But I will make it easier for you — provide a specific alternate Scientific Theory that explains the data. (hehe, you thought your straw man would just wander through the debris?)
Put up or shut up.
I forgot to thank you for that hilarious link of strawmen and so many other logical fallacies.
I had to check several times to see if it wasn’t The Onion.
The entire parody is disabled with one word: stochasticism.
But thanks for playing.
Your prize is development of things like cells that lock rather than change viruses, thus ending the ability to EVOLVE.
Or you can just die from your ignorance: your choice.
And there is the group think. You can't publish on intelligent design because no "reputable" scientific source wants to hear the competing theory. And since no "reputable" scientific theory publishes anything about intelligent design, it must not be scientific.
You believe what you want to believe. The sites are out there if you want to know the answers. My time is more important than to waste it on people who can't be convinced no matter what.
The idea that “nothing comes from nothing” predates the study of quantum physics. Maybe I didn’t first hear it in science class, but I it did first hear it in grammar school. During recess I experimented with gravity. Do you believe that something (the universe) came from nothing (pre-universe)?
Not sure about what you mean by “comparison”. Of course I can’t provide a link. I am shooting from the hip. Are you disagreeing that the bing bang theory is scientists practically saying that everything came from nothing?
Either everything came from nothing, or something has always existed. Do you have an alternative?
I believe that something has always existed. The Creator. Everything, as we are given to sense it with our five senses, was created by the Creator. If there was a Big Bang, it was His work. It may be a matter of terminology, but, for example, when FatherofFour posted “But the big bang, if it happened, is God’s creation. Something from nothing.” I agree with him on the first part, but disagree that it means “something from nothing”. I would argue that if the Big Bang is God’s creation then it is something from something (that something being God).
It looks like it’s possible that the original optimism around the “findings” of gravitational waves in the ripples in the background radiation might have been misplaced, that it was the effect of dust on the observations that was causing the results to be misinterpreted.
So what does that mean?
As far as the Big Bang goes, it means nothing. Those ripples were not part of the Big Bang theory, the evidence for which is in the background radiation itself, not the ripples. So the Big Bang survives this as a theory, which is no surprise.
What is in question here isn’t the Big Bang but the Theory of Cosmic Inflation. These ripples, as possible evidence of gravitational waves, were seen as strong support for Inflation.
Well, now that support (using these recent observations) is turning to dust, but that just means that these observations can’t be used as evidence for inflation... it does not mean they are evidence against inflation.
First of all, the jury is still out on just how much of this is dust and how much remains that just might actually be what the original interpretations said it was: evidence of gravity waves.
Second, bigger, better, more precise instrumentation is going to be trained on this subject — properly subtracting out the dust and properly getting the precise measurements required — to eventually be able to answer the question: Is there evidence of gravitational waves in the background radiation or not? And these improvements aren’t that many years away so the question will be answered fairly soon.
Third, even if no gravitational waves are found, that doesn’t mean the theory of inflation is dead. Before you kill inflation, you better come up with a credible alternative. You better come up with a theory that explains everything inflation explains but without the inflationary epoch to do it and as far as I know there are currently no credible alternatives out there. There are alternatives, but they all explain less than inflation does and they all introduce problems of their own.
Anyway, we might live in very depressing times as far as the crumbling of the Western and American Civilizations goes, but we certainly live in fascinating times if you consider what we are going to be finding out about our universe in the coming decades. Not just with regard to the background radiation, but in terms of being able to detect biological activity in atmospheres of exoplanets. It’s all good stuff. Too bad the situation here on earth is taking such a unenlightened turn. Scientific progress against a background of declining personal freedom. Bright lights in a collapsing cave.
>>And there is the group think. You can’t publish on intelligent design because no “reputable” scientific source wants to hear the competing theory.<<
OK — provide a competing theory that meets all (heck any) criteria of a Scientific Theory. I ave invited you to do so several times.
As I said, if you can do so you will be the first to do so in 200 years and you will be rich beyond the dreams of avarice...
One of the best scientific minds of all time, but today's evo-idiots would say he's unscientific.
Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific? Here's a good article, describing why the claims that Intelligent Design is not "scientific" fails miserably.
"Centuries ago the church was the ultimate authority, and dissenters from orthodoxy were excommunicated and punished for their supposed heresy. But science and the church have reversed positions in modern times, and secularized scientific institutions now have the upper hand. Scientists who deviate in their public writings or teachings from the prevailing naturalistic orthodoxy are now ostracized, ridiculed, and sometimes even denied tenure or research funding. Those dissenters are modern day Galileos who are standing up to the Neo-Darwinian dogma and the misleading attacks by its believers, who fear the truth just as the church did centuries ago." - conclusion from the above link.
>>”This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. —Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia”<<
Very colorful philosophy and I agree. Not science.
>>Here’s a good article, describing why the claims that Intelligent Design is not “scientific” fails miserably.<<
Well it is an article. Redefining science to include philosophy and discarding large parts of the Scientific Method, although fanciful, is not science.
Still waiting for an alternative to TToE that meets
the current definition. One that can actually be used.
If something always existed then we can just say that the potentials for a Big Bang (whatever those are) always existed. A “god” is not a required step.
Such closed mindedness to other alternatives does not suit science well. It's every much as big of an embarrassment as global warming. And you can't see it anymore than the global warming advocates can.
Science should be primarily about the pursuit of knowledge and applying the scientific method to confirm that knowledge. Science should not be limiting itself through arbitrarily applied definitions. And when it does limit itself, it's no longer science, it's dogma.