3 ms·

From the abstract of the paper: "The expected amplitude of the dust polarization power spectrum remains uncertain by about a factor of three. The lower end of t

From the abstract of the paper: "The expected amplitude of the dust polarization power spectrum remains uncertain by about a factor of three. The lower end of the prediction leaves room for a primordial contribution, but at the higher end the dust in combination with the standard CMB lensing signal could account for the BICEP2 observations, without requiring the existence of primordial gravitational waves." Two things to note. First, they aren't saying that is is wrong, only that it could be wrong. Second, the source of this doubt appears to come from a single professor at Princeton.

T-A 12y ago
Not just one. This has been mounting for a while: http://resonaances.blogspot.se/2014/05/is-bicep-wrong.html http://resonaances.blogspot.se/2014/05/is-bicep-wrong.html http://resonaances.blogspot.se/2014/05/follow-up-on-bicep.html http://resonaances.blogspot.se/2014/05/follow-up-on-bicep.ht... http://resonaances.blogspot.se/2014/05/weekend-plot-bicep-limits-on-tensor.html http://resonaances.blogspot.se/2014/05/weekend-plot-bicep-li... Note also Steinhardt's opinon piece: http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346 http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multi...
- mahranch 12y ago
  > "Not just one." But you linked to random blogspot articles, and Steinhardt is the guy who the first source is referencing. His name is mentioned in the byline. He's the guy from Princeton I mentioned. All of this is mainly coming from him, and those blogs you linked are the result of his statements (aka opinion sprawl).
  - T-A 12y ago
    The "random blog posts" are by Adam Falkowski, a particle physicist who has been following the controversy over BICEP2 from the start. They document how opinion has been swinging over time. Steinhardt is not "the guy who the first source is referencing". The two references in the first source are 1) http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5857 http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5857 , by Mortonson and Seljak, both at LBNL and UC 2) http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7351 http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7351 , by Faluger, Hill and Spergel, from IAS, NYU and Princeton, respectively. As you may have noticed, none of them is Steinhardt.
- ISL 12y ago
  Steinhardt, an early advocate/expounder of inflation, now has a major bone to pick with the theory. His opinion piece is more nuanced than attacking the BICEP result directly; his major point and criticism is directed at inflation. Whether BICEP has resolved B-modes or not, his main point persists. Whether he's right or not is yet another separate issue, but he has compelling points to consider. If BICEP's foreground subtraction contains an error, the situation will be resolved soon after Planck's release later this year. The already-running follow-on to BICEP2 will provide an independent check.

T-A 12y ago

Not just one. This has been mounting for a while: http://resonaances.blogspot.se/2014/05/is-bicep-wrong.html http://resonaances.blogspot.se/2014/05/is-bicep-wrong.html http://resonaances.blogspot.se/2014/05/follow-up-on-bicep.html http://resonaances.blogspot.se/2014/05/follow-up-on-bicep.ht... http://resonaances.blogspot.se/2014/05/weekend-plot-bicep-limits-on-tensor.html http://resonaances.blogspot.se/2014/05/weekend-plot-bicep-li... Note also Steinhardt's opinon piece: http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346 http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multi...

mahranch 12y ago
> "Not just one." But you linked to random blogspot articles, and Steinhardt is the guy who the first source is referencing. His name is mentioned in the byline. He's the guy from Princeton I mentioned. All of this is mainly coming from him, and those blogs you linked are the result of his statements (aka opinion sprawl).
- T-A 12y ago
  The "random blog posts" are by Adam Falkowski, a particle physicist who has been following the controversy over BICEP2 from the start. They document how opinion has been swinging over time. Steinhardt is not "the guy who the first source is referencing". The two references in the first source are 1) http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5857 http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5857 , by Mortonson and Seljak, both at LBNL and UC 2) http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7351 http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7351 , by Faluger, Hill and Spergel, from IAS, NYU and Princeton, respectively. As you may have noticed, none of them is Steinhardt.
ISL 12y ago
Steinhardt, an early advocate/expounder of inflation, now has a major bone to pick with the theory. His opinion piece is more nuanced than attacking the BICEP result directly; his major point and criticism is directed at inflation. Whether BICEP has resolved B-modes or not, his main point persists. Whether he's right or not is yet another separate issue, but he has compelling points to consider. If BICEP's foreground subtraction contains an error, the situation will be resolved soon after Planck's release later this year. The already-running follow-on to BICEP2 will provide an independent check.