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

Zeeya Merali: on 12/3/14 at 2:33am UTC, wrote Hi Georgina, Yes, I agree your wording is better! I also like your...

Georgina Woodward: on 12/3/14 at 2:28am UTC, wrote Plank, our activities/objectives

Georgina Woodward: on 12/3/14 at 2:25am UTC, wrote Its pretty Zeeya but I disagree when you say ..."but it is a patch of sky...

Zeeya Merali: on 12/2/14 at 20:19pm UTC, wrote This image isn't a close-up of part of Van Gogh's "The Starry Night," but...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: "The acrobats central to the rotation of a platform, share the same type of..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.


FQXi BLOGS
August 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Planck Sheds Light on Dark Matter and Closes the Gap with WMAP [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Dec. 2, 2014 @ 20:19 GMT
ESA-Planck
This image isn't a close-up of part of Van Gogh's "The Starry Night," but it is a patch of sky showing the swirling the magnetic field inferred from Planck data. (Image via ESA-Planck Collaboration, prepared by Marc-Antoine Miville-Deschenes.)

Yesterday, the Planck collaboration announced more CMB results and there's been plenty of news coverage. There aren't many dramatic findings. If anything, discrepancies between Planck's earlier data and WMAP's CMB data seem to be reducing, as more Planck data comes in. From Adrian Cho, quoting Nazzareno Mandolesi, a cosmologist with Italy's National Institute for Astrophysics in Bologna, in Science:

"WMAP and Planck had disagreed by about 1% to 1.5% on their absolute temperature measurements, Mandolesi explains. A recalibration reduces the mismatch to less than 0.3%, within the statistical uncertainties, he says. Regarding the parameters of the cosmological theory, Planck researchers derived a slightly longer age and a slightly smaller current expansion rate for the universe than WMAP showed, Mandolesi says. But with more data, the numbers have shifted slightly and now agree to within the experimental uncertainties, he says."

It does help us narrow in on what dark matter may be, or rather what it's not. From Dennis Overbye in the NYT:

"Recently space experiments like NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope and Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer have recorded excess cosmic ray emissions that, some say, could be evidence of a certain kind of dark matter particles colliding and annihilating one another.

"After Planck, we need another answer for those experiments, the French agency concluded in a statement."

and

"Planck dealt a blow to another possible dark matter candidate, namely a brand of the ghostly particles known as neutrinos. Physicists have known of three types of neutrinos for some time and have wondered if there were any more, whose accumulated mass would affect the evolution of the universe. Planck's results leave little room for a fourth kind, so-called sterile neutrinos."

While we're waiting for the joint analysis by Planck and the BICEP2 team to say something about the latter's claimed evidence of B-modes supporting inflation--and while I'm subtly plugging the podcast by opening a few threads today--I'll invite you to listen to our podcast interview with astrophysicist Andrew Liddle from October to help put things into perspective.

ESA-Planck
Planck's polarization map of the CMB.

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

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Dec. 3, 2014 @ 02:25 GMT
Its pretty Zeeya but I disagree when you say ..."but it is a patch of sky showing the swirling the magnetic field inferred from Planck data." it is an image produced from Plank data collected from an area of space, from which swirling magnetic fields can be inferred.

I took a look at Planck's major Objectives. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Planck/Scien
ce_objectives

Number 1 is: Quote "To determine the large-scale properties of the Universe with high precision. Planck will take a census of the main constituents of the Universe and build a history of their evolution in time. For example, it will accurately determine the density of normal matter, allowing us to calculate the total number of atoms in the visible Universe."

But the visible universe isn't made of atoms its an output generated from received radiation of one kind or another or many kinds simultaneously. The Objects made of atoms, are not part of the visible universe but exist unseen. Just because radiation persists for a very long time it doesn't mean the material(made of atoms) sources of that information also persist. So calculating the total number of atoms that the images seen would have if they were all objects with existence seems an irrelevant abstract goal to have among primary

objectives. Why calculate something that doesn't exist?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 3, 2014 @ 02:28 GMT
Plank, our activities/objectives

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Dec. 3, 2014 @ 02:33 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Yes, I agree your wording is better! I also like your philosophical take on Planck's objectives and the question of what is "visible" and what can be inferred to exist now or to have existed in the past.

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.