Gravity Waves from Big Bang Seen?

[Knight of Clear Skies]

But they dont seem to be too worried about that - surprising aspect - !

I guess they aren't too worried because the Planck data hasn't been fully analysed yet and the r<0.11 figure only has a 95% confidence level, which is pretty weak. Your link has one possible explanation for the discrepancy, but I can't make much sense of it.

I hope the announcement isn't premature - remember the fuss over faster-than-light neutrinos? I'll be just a touch concerned about this until there is some independent verification. If there was something badly wrong with the BICEP2 results, this would be gleefully seized upon in some circles.

[Ptarmigan]

Planck data hasn't been fully analysed yet and the r<0.11 figure only has a 95% confidence level, which is pretty weak. 

...

remember the fuss over faster-than-light neutrinos?

Yes, you make very good points.

but the fact that "less than" is pointing the wrong way is worrying !

watch the space

Statistics were never my strong subject, does 95% allow sufficient spread (error bar?) to include the 0.2 ?

yes I do remember the neutrino debacle, an interesting time,

in fact I used it in the FLOclearence thread when there was a bit of an upset during some speedy buying :)

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/210211-clearance-offers-2014/page-13#entry2251266

[Ptarmigan]

sorry for talking to myself but

"does 95% allow sufficient spread (error bar?) to include the 0.2 ?"

surely I can answer that for myself 0.11 to 0.2 is nearly double !

so either 0.11 is badly wrong or 0.2 is badly out of kilter !

?

[Zakalwe]

This is all very well, but what/who started

Its perfectly normal to think that someone/something must have started it. However, there's no reason for the Universe to act in the ways that an evolved monkey brain can understand. I'm sure that the laws of Nature give not one jot if an evolved tree-dweller that has less than a couple of hundred years experience in science can explain it or not.

Another way to look at it is why do you think that a why or who is needed to start it?

[goodricke1]

Another way to look at it is why do you think that a why or who is needed to start it?

 

Presumably because if it didn't start it wouldn't exist... even a monkey should understand that.

[Zakalwe]

   

Presumably because if it didn't start it wouldn't exist... even a monkey should understand that.

Thats not what was asked though. The fact that it started is not in question.

What was asked was who or what started it.

[Ptarmigan]

Actually, what was asked was

"Gravity waves from Big Bang Seen ?"

which was a bit rhetorical or implied or somfink !

Other matters arose which stray into philosophy and are in danger of straying even further afield,

then a Mod. will arrive and a perfectly interesting thread will get closed,

so please , , ,

lets forget about "turtles all the way down".

[JamesF]

Perhaps we can understand how our universe came to "start", or be part of our universe, but not both at the same time

James

[George Jones]

Inflation, in and of itself, is not a cause for the universe. Whether a cause for the universe lies inside of or outside of science is pure speculation and personal opinion, and has no place anywhere on Stargazers Lounge.

Form the Stargazers Lounge Code of Conduct:

The “not allowed” list is pretty short, but it should be remembered that what can seem to be light-hearted comments and fun to one person, can be offensive to another. This is especially true in politics and religion. Therefore:
• No politics
• No religion

This thread is about the science behind cosmology, inflation, gravity waves, etc. Please stick to science, and cease and desist the discussion of first causes.

[Treeden]

... Whether a cause for the universe lies inside of or outside of science is pure speculation and personal opinion, and has no place anywhere on Stargazers Lounge.

... cease and desist the discussion of first causes.

George, is it not you that has introduced the word ‘cause’?  Is it not you that has then taken that word and extended it to produce an accusation that members here are discussing ‘first cause’?

    

Are you saying then, that we can discuss:

* The way that these (theoretical) gravity waves are detected at the South Pole.

and before that...

* How they travelled across the universe and how the information they may contain is likely to have been changed or corrupted en route.

and before that...

* The moment and circumstances in which they were generated.

... and then we must stop?

Anything before then is not science?  It then becomes speculation and therefore has no place on this forum?

Surely the purpose of science is to transform speculation into fact? Isn't that why we look up and try to learn about what's up there?

I think you are being a little harsh in your rebuttal and have probably lost a number of potential contributors in the process.

[Tiki]

A good explanation regarding polarization of the CMB can be found here. It was posted 3 weeks ago and is only 2 minutes long.

[Jussi]

[Hugechris]

George, is it not you that has introduced the word ‘cause’?  Is it not you that has then taken that word and extended it to produce an accusation that members here are discussing ‘first cause’?

    

Are you saying then, that we can discuss:

* The way that these (theoretical) gravity waves are detected at the South Pole.

and before that...

* How they travelled across the universe and how the information they may contain is likely to have been changed or corrupted en route.

and before that...

* The moment and circumstances in which they were generated.

... and then we must stop?

Anything before then is not science?  It then becomes speculation and therefore has no place on this forum?

Surely the purpose of science is to transform speculation into fact? Isn't that why we look up and try to learn about what's up there?

I think you are being a little harsh in your rebuttal and have probably lost a number of potential contributors in the process.

This area always opens up a can of worms (and what they may have evolved into .... ), but I think that most of the users of Stargazers lounge have very open minds and could start an intelligent debate on potential causes. There was a very interesting HORIZON (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj)  program a few months ago showing how the scientific community is struggling with the concept of how the universe (that we can see) came about. 

It was clear that many of the theorists struggle with the initial framework (which always begs the question how did the initial framework come about) ... and so on.

However there were some very interesting testable predictions made by some (eg Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton) that are very interesting and hint towards a multitude of universes ....