Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Physicist
OK, open mouth insert whole leg. The paper looks cool. The crazy universe thing is mentioned in one sentence near the back -- the bulk of the paper is about removing contamination sources from the raw data. Looks like the NYT may have jumped the gun.

Either that or I'm misreading things.

Either way, my gut says there's some other source of contamination that was missed.

MD
18 posted on 03/11/2003 10:37:55 AM PST by MikeD (In the year of '39 came a ship in from the blue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: MikeD
Either way, my gut says there's some other source of contamination that was missed.

My gut says "statistical fluctuation".

Look at the maps in Figure 1. The largest cold spot happens to lie just to the right of center, and the largest hot spot happens to lie just to the right of that. The hot spot roughly lines up with one of the two hot spots in the quadrupole plot (Figure 14a) and the cold spot roughly lines up with one of the two cold spots in the quadrupole plot.

Furthermore, that hot spot and cold spot also roughly line up with hot and cold spots in the octopole plot. Since the alignment of the quadrupole and octopole moments is dominated by those two features in the CMB map, perhaps it's not surprising that they roughly line up.

What are the odds of a random fluctuation of that size, in the absence of any preferred direction in space? I haven't the foggiest idea. I suspect it's not negligible, but I could be wrong.

I'll go ask Max.

20 posted on 03/11/2003 11:02:44 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: MikeD
The crazy universe thing is mentioned in one sentence near the back -- the bulk of the paper is about removing contamination sources from the raw data. Looks like the NYT may have jumped the gun.

From the paper:

What does all this mean? Although we have presented these low multipole results merely in an exploratory spirit, and more thorough modeling of the foreground contribution to l=2 and l=3 is certainly warranted, it is difficult not to be intrigued by the similarities of Figure 13 with what is expected in some non-standard models, for instance ones involving a flat "small Universe" with a compact topology [...] and one of the three dimensions being relatively small (of order the Horizon size or smaller).

The Times article certainly did miss the point of the paper. The quote from the paper could hardly have been more circumspect.

23 posted on 03/11/2003 11:41:46 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson