“For my part I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of the stars makes me dream.” -Vincent Van Gogh
Ever since the BICEP2 team reported their findings -- and evidence for B-mode polarization of the cosmic microwave background indicating gravitational waves from inflation -- the physics world has never been the same.
Images credit: Seljak & Zaldarriaga (L), Wayne Hu (R), viahttp://cosmology.berkeley.edu/~yuki/CMBpol/CMBpol.htm.
Recently, there have been rumors that perhaps this B-mode signal is due to the Milky Way, and not due to inflation after all. If this does turn out to be the case, what does this mean for cosmic inflation? Is it still on rock-solid footing, or will it come tumbling down like a house of cards?
Image credit: Bock et al. (2006, astro-ph/0604101); modifications by me.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
“I don’t think at this point we have any way of knowing where the laws of physics came from. We could hope that when we really understand the laws of physics that they will describe how the Universe came into existence.” -Alan Guth
So, since Monday's big story -- about the BICEP2 collaboration…
“Despite its name, the big bang theory is not really a theory of a bang at all. It is really only a theory of the aftermath of a bang.” -Alan Guth
So, you've heard the big news by now, no doubt? Primordial B-modes have been detected in the polarization of the cosmic microwave background!
Images…
“Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties.” -Paul Steinhardt, 2014
Cosmic inflation is alternately talked about by serious scientists as either the definitive beginning to our Universe,…
"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." -T.S. Eliot
It's been a remarkably exciting week for science, and you've had a lot to say about our new articles at the main Starts With A Bang blog.…
With all the wonderful things in theoretical physics and astronomy, why keep posting same things over and over?
You wrote 2 articles about inflation with more or less same text and charts as this one, just 2 months ago. And they were the same as articles 2 months before that. The only news is BICEP2, but it's not news anymore.
So the question is why keep recycling?? There are so many things you never ever wrote about, especially in the realm of theoretical physics, yet you keep on pushing the same articles over and over again. :(
I don't believe in cosmic inflation any more. I don't have an issue with Big Bang cosmology, just inflation. This comes from my re-appraisal of the original "frozen-star" black hole interpretation, wherein the universe is likened to an inside-out black hole. The early universe started out "frozen" and therefore uniform. So you just don't need inflation to smooth it out. Inflation is thereby spurious.
This is all fine and a relatively old stuff, except linking relevance of BICEPS 2, in a simpler script; but, a few equally old questions - was there anything / any field / etc where universe is exapnding? How can so much matter or energy confine itself to a space of size in Plank's scale? At what point could dark matter / energy have come to form?
Keep recycling. New readers arriving all the time. Maybe I only have coffee house internet so don't have time for in depth searches. The posts don't take up a lot of room: hooray for links, it starts me on a trail. And as Chaucer says, who-so list it nat y-here,Turne over the leef, and chese another tale;