Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 9/28/14 at 19:44pm UTC, wrote Peter, Ontology + dialectic "coincidence of opposites" to "grab"...

Peter Jackson: on 9/24/14 at 16:48pm UTC, wrote Vladimir, Thanks. Good plan. A summary as I did for the QM solution using...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 9/24/14 at 15:32pm UTC, wrote Peter, For me in your article a lot of new information is first of all...

Steve Agnew: on 9/24/14 at 3:41am UTC, wrote It would be much more reasonable to presume that the tensor to scaler ratio...

Peter Jackson: on 9/23/14 at 13:09pm UTC, wrote Vladimir, Agreed. Maths is secondary. My classical dynamics and empirical...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 9/23/14 at 12:40pm UTC, wrote Hi, Peter. Roger Penrose's hypothesis «CCC» - is a theory without...

Steve Agnew: on 9/23/14 at 3:12am UTC, wrote Ahh geez, I was so hoping for gravity waves...However, the Bicep tensor to...

Robert McEachern: on 9/22/14 at 21:57pm UTC, wrote The October 2014 issue of Scientific American has an article about this by...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Jorma Seppaenen: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi BLOGS
May 25, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Dust Settling on the BICEP2 results [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 22, 2014 @ 15:35 GMT
Just opening up a forum thread for discussing the intermediate Planck results (arXiv:1409.5738v1) which show that the BICEP2 signal -- lauded as direct of evidence of primordial gravitational waves earlier this year -- could be down to dust, which has long been a concern.

The image shows Planck's Northern (on the left) and Southern (right) sky projections. Dark blue indicates parts of the sky that are clearer of dust. BICEP2 looked at the region marked by the black box in the Southern projection.

For background, listen to our podcast editions from May, with interviews with Andrei Linde and especially Joao Magueijo (who raised these particular concerns and others), and June, with Alan Guth.

Reports from Quanta, the BBC and Nature.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Sep. 22, 2014 @ 16:11 GMT
Zeeya,

I will make the prediction that we will ultimately come to the conclusion that we are bathed in gravity waves.

It is called light.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 22, 2014 @ 18:53 GMT
Zeeya,

All this assumes a BB, yet nobody stood up to defend the BB theory when invited at recent conference referred in this video about increasingly popular conformal cyclic cosmology from an originator of the ('BB') singularity theorems Roger Penrose. I've just also posted this to Kjetil.

Conformal Cyclic Cosmology explained 2014. Penrose, a mathematician rather than astronomer,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 22, 2014 @ 19:56 GMT
Peter,

Keep in mind that gravity is an effect all the way across the energy to mass contraction and the main examples of this are galaxies, which radiate enormous amounts of light and other electromagnetic energy in the process. Then, as you point out, that which does fall into the vortex forming at the center, gets ejected out the poles. So, if we are looking for a form of waves radiating from the gravitational process, it is not hiding.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Sep. 23, 2014 @ 12:40 GMT
Hi, Peter.

Roger Penrose's hypothesis «CCC» - is a theory without ontological justification, as well as the Big Bang theory. That the theory was a fundamental need deep ontological basis. which introduces the physical theory of the limit values of matter and the deep sense of the "LifeWorld" (Husserl). The theories of "CCC" and "BB" - mathematical-physicalist. But mathematics and physics as the fundamental sign systems without the ontological justification until now. "The second law of thermodynamics" - is not a "law of laws", not "meta-law" (Lee Smolin) and can not be spread on the Universum as a whole, in which the "mind" ("memory") - this is the central core concept.

Questions for theories "CCC" and "BB": When there were "fundamental physical constants" and "laws of nature"? What is the nature of the "laws of nature"? What is the nature of time and information? And many other fundamental questions of physics and the "LifeWorld".

These questions should meet with the fundamental theory of ontological justification. Facts (observations) + ontology +heuristics - is necessary requirements for a fundamental theory, which can be a common base, carcass and framework of the whole system of knowledge.

Aeonic thinking - is thinking of eternity. It is therefore necessary to seek "general framework structure" (D.Gross) for the whole system of knowledge, but do not represent physicalist model without ontological justification as "standard". They are the "standard" for physics, but not for the whole system of knowledge. It is necessary to move from linear thinking (the theories of "BB" and "CCC", and other parametric theories of physics) to the structural thinking. We should look for the primordial structure of the Universum.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 23, 2014 @ 13:09 GMT
Vladimir,

Agreed. Maths is secondary. My classical dynamics and empirical approach constructs a full ontology which appears to overcome al the problems the Penrose approach can't resolve.

If you haven't yet seen my cyclic cosmology model (paper linked above) I hope you will and comment. All the astrophysical etc. effects invoked are well referenced and to me the conclusions seem convincingly derived, and very important.

But are there flaws? Is there anything I'm missing that, however consistent, makes those who read it shake their heads and tell themselves they've worshipped at their own church for too long to change beliefs now?

If so, are we stuck with the BB forever? Or do you have any ideas how I may better present the ontological construction described?

Many thanks in advance.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Sep. 22, 2014 @ 21:57 GMT
The October 2014 issue of Scientific American has an article about this by Lawrence Krauss.

"Dust grains in our Milky Way Galaxy also emit polarized light that is hard to distinguish from CMB radiation. Recently the Planck satellite revealed that such dust could be more prevalent than previously thought."

"... in the intervening months, the Planck satellite has reported new measurements that indicate the Milky Way may contain more dust than assumed by the BICEP2 team. Several groups have tried to reanalyze the BICEP2 signal in light of these new data, as well as incorporating more sophisticated models of dust backgrounds from other experiments, and have concluded that it is possible that dust could reproduce all (or most of) the claimed BICEP2 polarized signal."

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Sep. 23, 2014 @ 03:12 GMT
Ahh geez, I was so hoping for gravity waves...However, the Bicep tensor to scalar ratio of 0.2 was really quite difficult to fit any model at 380,000 yrs. The scaling of gravity to charge must evolve very fast no matter what the model of universe you use.

The gravity to charge force ratio begins at one, but once the universe forms hydrogen, the ratio has to be on the order of the the size of the atom to the size of the universe. A ratio of 0.2 would only be very, very early on...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Sep. 24, 2014 @ 03:41 GMT
It would be much more reasonable to presume that the tensor to scaler ratio would be more on the order of the first peak in the CMB, l = 200, which would be 0.005, a factor of forty less than the bicep 0.2.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.