http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-05

Almost 14 billion years ago, the universe we inhabit burst into existence in an extraordinary event that initiated the Big Bang. In the first fleeting fraction of a second, the universe expanded exponentially, stretching far beyond the view of our best telescopes. All this, of course, was just theory.

Researchers from the BICEP2 collaboration today announced the first direct evidence for this cosmic inflation. Their data also represent the first images of gravitational waves, or ripples in space-time. These waves have been described as the "first tremors of the Big Bang." Finally, the data confirm a deep connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

"Detecting this signal is one of the most important goals in cosmology today. A lot of work by a lot of people has led up to this point," said John Kovac (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), leader of the BICEP2 collaboration.

These groundbreaking results came from observations by the BICEP2 telescope of the cosmic microwave background -- a faint glow left over from the Big Bang. Tiny fluctuations in this afterglow provide clues to conditions in the early universe. For example, small differences in temperature across the sky show where parts of the universe were denser, eventually condensing into galaxies and galactic clusters.

Since the cosmic microwave background is a form of light, it exhibits all the properties of light, including polarization. On Earth, sunlight is scattered by the atmosphere and becomes polarized, which is why polarized sunglasses help reduce glare. In space, the cosmic microwave background was scattered by atoms and electrons and became polarized too.

"Our team hunted for a special type of polarization called 'B-modes,' which represents a twisting or 'curl' pattern in the polarized orientations of the ancient light," said co-leader Jamie Bock (Caltech/JPL).

Gravitational waves squeeze space as they travel, and this squeezing produces a distinct pattern in the cosmic microwave background. Gravitational waves have a "handedness," much like light waves, and can have left- and right-handed polarizations.

"The swirly B-mode pattern is a unique signature of gravitational waves because of their handedness. This is the first direct image of gravitational waves across the primordial sky," said co-leader Chao-Lin Kuo (Stanford/SLAC).

The team examined spatial scales on the sky spanning about one to five degrees (two to ten times the width of the full Moon). To do this, they traveled to the South Pole to take advantage of its cold, dry, stable air.

"The South Pole is the closest you can get to space and still be on the ground," said Kovac. "It's one of the driest and clearest locations on Earth, perfect for observing the faint microwaves from the Big Bang."

They were surprised to detect a B-mode polarization signal considerably stronger than many cosmologists expected. The team analyzed their data for more than three years in an effort to rule out any errors. They also considered whether dust in our galaxy could produce the observed pattern, but the data suggest this is highly unlikely.

"This has been like looking for a needle in a haystack, but instead we found a crowbar," said co-leader Clem Pryke (University of Minnesota).

When asked to comment on the implications of this discovery, Harvard theorist Avi Loeb said, "This work offers new insights into some of our most basic questions: Why do we exist? How did the universe begin? These results are not only a smoking gun for inflation, they also tell us when inflation took place and how powerful the process was."

BICEP2 is the second stage of a coordinated program, the BICEP and Keck Array experiments, which has a co-PI structure. The four PIs are John Kovac (Harvard), Clem Pryke (UMN), Jamie Bock (Caltech/JPL), and Chao-Lin Kuo (Stanford/SLAC). All have worked together on the present result, along with talented teams of students and scientists. Other major collaborating institutions for BICEP2 include the University of California at San Diego, the University of British Columbia, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the University of Toronto, Cardiff University, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique.

BICEP2 is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF also runs the South Pole Station where BICEP2 and the other telescopes used in this work are located. The Keck Foundation also contributed major funding for the construction of the team’s telescopes. NASA, JPL, and the Moore Foundation generously supported the development of the ultra-sensitive detector arrays that made these measurements possible.

Technical details and journal papers can be found on the BICEP2 release website:

http://bicepkeck.org

Headquartered in Cambridge, Mass., the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) is a joint collaboration between the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Harvard College Observatory. CfA scientists, organized into six research divisions, study the origin, evolution and ultimate fate of the universe.


More information can be found here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BICEP2

BICEP and the Keck Array are a series of cosmic microwave background (CMB) experiments. They aim to measure the polarisation of the CMB; in particular, measuring the B-mode of the CMB. The experiments have had three generations of instrumentation, consisting of BICEP1, BICEP2 and the Keck Array, with BICEP3 currently being constructed. On 17 March 2014 the collaboration announced the detection of B-modes at the level of r=0.2.

And the recent collaborations submitted

http://bicepkeck.org

http://bicepkeck.org/b2_respap_arxiv_v1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.5830.pdf

See also;

http://www.nature.com/news/polarizat...s-echo-1.13441

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1022101009.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-modes

and the related paper references in there for a better understanding of what is being measured.

Hope this is not an overoptimistic statement. Inflation is one of those weird things we really do need evidence/counterevidence on.

And not to forget that whatever forces the universe to be created this way at super high energy densities may have a lot to do with what happens at the black hole singularity with of course the significant difference that spacetime iself is preexisting in the black hole collapse formation case but not on the original cosmological singularity (and additional differences on the net energy content possibly).

Still of course it remains to be seen if we observe what we imagine took place or what the real theory effectively make our world look like due to something else going on. Lets invest more time in understanding the main effect here of a rapid expansion on CMBR.

Maybe not related, or maybe not even a valid question, but is there any way to point at the center of the universe, the point where expansion began? Or does expansion mean we are all a part of that same point which is simply growing in all directions?

Oh, I just posted about this in the smp news thread, didnt see this one sorry xD Yeah so I was wondering, to the guy who doesn't follow physics, how big of a deal is this? Is this the theory of evolution via natural selection for biology? Is it plate tectonics for geology? Jw how significant xD

Think of the balloon analogy only imagine the balloon is a point (or not a point but say the pin of a pen) when you start inflating that special material that is the world. In reality Geometry is matter/energy/interactions/QM all together. Geometry is the result of the others not a preexisting (even abstract) system in which the others appear and start expanding. You cannot have Geometry without the content of that Geometric Space. And this is why the term content is wrong in a way. Since Geometry emerges because of the other things. So as you inflate the balloon the content spreads in an expanding space that is also the material of the balloon (that material creates for you the Geometry - that of a sphere, forget the room inside which the balloon is and think of the geometric space here that is defined by the surface of the balloon, eg the metric of that surface).

So every location therefore today is a fraction of the original in terms of content. Although even that idea is not exactly accurate because particles are created and destroyed etc (phase transitions exist etc). That center you are looking for is every point or it doesnt exist, take your pick. Like the balloon every point of the resulting sphere is the same point initially or at least the same neighborhood. Only of course in the balloon analogue you have the external space you are inflating it inside and the material of the balloon is not really changing state from eg superdense quark gluon plasma in a small region to atoms and vacuum in a much larger one.

Of course here with inflation the interesting think is that space is expanding exponentially fast in ways that have nothing to do with speed of light limits etc. Something clearly ( a mechanism that is not yet understood by high energy physics) is rapidly expanding that space. After that expansion the standard one we imagine today continues. At least this is what observations suggest has happened.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29

In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation is the extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 10^78 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.[1] The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but at a slower rate.
The term "inflation" is used to refer to the hypothesis that inflation occurred, to the theory of inflation, or to the inflationary epoch. The inflationary hypothesis was originally proposed in 1980 by American physicist Alan Guth, who named it "inflation"

As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally connected region. Inflation answers the classic conundrum of the Big Bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous, and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the Big Bang, a highly curved, heterogeneous universe? Inflation also explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation).[3]

While the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known, the basic picture makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed by observation.[4] The hypothetical particle or field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton.[5]

On 17 March 2014, astrophysicists of the BICEP2 collaboration announced the detection of inflationary gravitational waves in the B-mode power spectrum, providing strong evidence for inflation and the Big Bang.[6][7]



Read also the current assumed timeline of the Big Bang to get perspective in terms of time and space created;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

eg from the last link;


Inflation as an explanation for the expansion.

Until the theoretical developments in the 1980s no one had an explanation for why this seemed to be the case, but with the development of models of cosmic inflation, the expansion of the universe became a general feature resulting from vacuum decay. Accordingly, the question "why is the universe expanding?" is now answered by understanding the details of the inflation decay process which occurred in the first 10^−32 seconds of the existence of our universe.[17] During inflation, the metric changed exponentially, causing any volume of space that was smaller than an atom to grow to around 100 million light years across in a time scale similar to the time when inflation occurred (10^−32 seconds).

(see how fast you get to 100 mil light years and its still just 10^-32 s since the start , hence the term inflation which is more like an unreal expansion beyond any imagination of the usual sense of the term expansion)

Thx Masque, I believe you explained it before in another thread, but I sort of reverted back to my original picture of things for lack of a very clear understanding. Thinking of this sort of reminds me of trying to conceptualize dimensions beyond three, just really hard to grasp.

So you walk around naked in the middle of a dinner party like you did earlier when nobody was there because you can't conceptualize time?

Wait, do I know you IRL?

This proof, if it can be repeated, is further diminishing the need to have a god for starting everything off. This should be in the category like finding the Higg's boson. I thought we were quite a bit from finding gravitational waves. But that was obviously about smaller objects than big bang.


Looks they aren't wasting time before updating the introduction of the wiki cosmic inflation article, you don't see these things every day about basic things like this. The previous date mentioned is 1980, when the hypothesis was proposed.

To be honest, I have even doubted the cosmic inflation theory is true. Now it looks it really is. You have come across it every time you have read/seen anything about the big bang. Like "...then the universe suddenly expanded with an incredible rate...", etc.

It doesn't address what caused the big bang at all. It addresses something that happened after the big bang. Nobody knows why the big bang happened exactly when it did and not before or after, and nobody knows why it happened in the way that it did, causing the precise asymmetries to our universe that we have. Scientists can only wave their hands and mumble something about random quantum fluctuations. We have no deeper understanding of that, so whether you call it random quantum fluctuations or God is a matter of semantics. At least if you believed in parallel universes, you could remove the need for randomness and say that it didn't just happen a particular way, but it happened every way, and we are only aware of one of the ways.


It doesn't mean it's true, it means that we have new evidence that is consistent with it. It could be consistent with many other things that we haven't thought of yet. Science, like evolution, operates by a process of natural selection. It takes stabs in the dark about how things might work, picking the simplest possible extensions of the models we already have. The stabs that fail to explain observations well are discarded. The ones that explain observations better are maintained. Over a period of time, we obtain complex theories which appear to explain observations well. But just as the existence of complex living things doesn't imply an intelligent creator, the existence of complex theories that explain observations and make correct predictions, even seemingly spectacular predictions, doesn't imply that these theories are founded in reality. Science merely builds belief systems. Most of the time this doesn't matter because we only care about explaining what we can observe so that we can interact with our world effectively. But we have a different situation when we're talking about whether something happened a certain way in the past or a different way. There's only one right answer to that question, and the natural selection process of science can develop theories that explain all our observations and still get that answer completely wrong. Even hypotheses that were long since rejected may not have been wrong. They may only fail to explain observations due to our incomplete understanding, just as giving an eyeball to a bacteria wouldn't do him any good at all, but it's still a wonderful thing I think you would agree.

Scientific methodology constructs systems of explanations that best fit the evidence, and that is both reproducible and provides for predictive capabilities. You can choose to believe (or trust) that methodology, or choose to discard it for other methodologies that provide explanations though a whole host of other types of constructive systems.

When I had trouble with my ear I went to a doctor and had an MRI done. I sought an explanation through a scientific investigative methodology. I could have went to a Shaman. I thought that silly and unproductive for the knowledge I wished to gain.

How many Jesuses did you find in the image? Or, to expand a little, Shamans? Or Einsteins? Eisensteins?

You have a higher standard of evidence upon which you base your beliefs, hence you go to the doctor instead of the Shaman but if your standard of evidence was lower and you didn't particularly care whether the doctor's knowledge was based in empirical evidence, then the Shaman would be an equally preferable option.

In a way, every time you choose the doctor over the Shaman, you're putting a vote forward, for empirical systems of inquiry over other systems, yet you refer to the other systems as 'constructive'. When it comes to medicine in particular, I wouldn't refer to the other systems as 'constructive', but rather 'misleading' and 'detrimental'.

But you don't trust your ear doctor based on a theory of something that supposedly happened 13.8 billion years ago. You base it on a theory that repeatedly makes correct predictions for things that happen today. Even if the cosmological theory somehow did lead to other correct predictions of things that affect your ears, that still wouldn't mean that the cosmological theory is right. It would only mean that the cosmological theory is consistent with the predictions about your ears. You don't have to believe the cosmological theory in order to benefit from the ear theory. You don't have to believe the cosmological theory in order to believe in the ear theory. You may choose to believe the cosmological theory on the basis of the fact that it's consistent with your ear theory, but that would be solely a matter of how you choose to construct your belief system. It should not be confused with truth lest you turn science into dogma.

And what do you think was the forerunner of modern medicine? Our medicines owe to Shaman who experimented with plants for thousands of years. Then starting a couple hundred years ago, Western analytical science decided to take these plants apart and figure out what makes them work. They took opium apart and figured out that its affects were largely due to morphine. So they started to give people morphine, and then they started modifying morphine to make a host of other derivatives stronger than morphine, like heroin. Then they derived synthetic opiods which can be up to 100 times more potent than morphine. Morphine, morphine derivatives, and synthetic opioids are much more insidious than opium in its natural form. People used to consume opium like it was alcohol, and 10% of the US population used it regularly while remaining productive upstanding citizens. Yet it's the highly purified products and modified products that are regularly dispensed by so-called modern medicine often with disastrous results, while opium in its natural form is almost unobtainable in the West. This effect has been detrimental, and it's only one example.

The scientific method clearly has its advantages. It eliminates a lot of nonsense by requiring strict standards for what passes as knowledge. But you must also recognize that you lose something when you do that. There will be many things that the Shaman and the practitioners of Eastern medicine have right, and you will reject those right answers because they don't meet your particular standards of proof. Your views that only the Western scientific methodology can be constructive, and everything else is misleading and detrimental, is a product of cultural bias. If you were a scientist in the East, you wouldn't even question the value of alternative systems. You would recognize the benefits of empirical investigations that have taken place over thousands of years even if they don't meet the standards of so-called rigorous Western science. You would recognize that obtaining proof by those standards of Western science is often difficult, and you would not immediately assume that means you can't benefit from the results of alternative systems. And your so-called Western science isn't nearly as rigorous as you think. Most medical research is worthless because the researchers lack the statistical abilities to properly carry out your beloved scientific method.

I'm lucky I live in the West I guess.

Anyways any news about the BICEP2 results?

Already looking forward to the BICEPS3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BICEP_and_Keck_Array

Some nice pictures:

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/CMB/bicep2/

Bruce makes some fine points, most I find some agreement with. However the statements are misleading in a very fine but important sense, whether intended or not. Further example/explanation may suffice:

Note that I said that I went to a doctor to gain some specific knowledge about my ear through an MRI. It would be silly to think I could get this same level of detailed information from a Shaman, who would not employ such sophisticated instrumentation. Now, if I had been in China and something similar happened, it would be interesting to conduct an experiment on myself. Go to a traditional Chinese doctor and get a diagnosis/explanation and prescribe treatment and do the same with a doctor that uses only 'modern medical' techniques. Presumably only a few doors down the street. Compare and analysis both.

It is better to think of medical practices as a long lineage of refinement. And it is a disserve to quality critical thinking skills to so differentiate 'western' and 'eastern' practices. Both use a scientific methodology, rigor and testing and control groups aside, though not exclusively. To say that 'eastern' is alternative is not correct. There is nothing alternative about it. It is a branch of the same tree of medicine. Bruce, while decrying bias, shows some himself.

And speaking of a long lineage of refinement, this built in corrective measure was used by ancient as well as modern peoples - we have just added more rigor, precision, and accuracy to the forefront in recent times. That is why direct evidence for cosmic inflation has been measured. We should be thanking everyone - from the first stargazers that mapped the stars and traced the planets progression across the sky to the all the individuals that made BICEP2 possible, right down to the scientists that published the most important peer-reviewed papers.

Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer is adequate. But a Belgium Ale is exquisite. And you can thank the science of the brewmaster for that.

Quite so. Interesting we have preserved the namings of the star constellations. We can thank those ancient people for them. At least they discovered the configurations really don't change, a good start

Here's the view the BICEP2-people enjoyed, not what most of us are used to:

Been hanging out in politics and OOT a bit too much lately. Refreshing to observe an intelligent discussion not wrought by unquenchable ignorance and insecurity.

I really like the Prof. Matt Strassler website for physics stuff explained to us that are not experts but not quite laymen either. He has some good articles on the BICEP2 results. Basically, he says that we need to take it easy with the interpretations - at least until we get the results confirmed from an independent source.

That being said, his latest article is on the consequences of the BICEP2 results IF they hold up and IF we interpret them correctly.


Again, I am not a physicist but to me, interpreting results as these must be very difficult indeed. Yes, it is nice that it doesn't contradict our theory of inflation, but as was said above, it probably also doesn't contradict a lot of other theories that we haven't thought of yet.

I think we have "known" about the existence of gravitational waves for quite some time and they even gave a Nobel Prize for the discovery. See also this. But yeah, BICEP2 helps in really confirming it as far as I understand.

It's gravitons we haven't detected, and probably won't in the foreseeable future.