pantheory Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) Finding gravity waves, if that's what they really are, is cool but determining or interpreting their cause or meaning is another matter. Although Einstein predicted gravity waves so did many past and present aether models. As to these "waves" being produced by an Inflation epoch, I think is highly speculative since It would seem they could have had many other causes and explanations. This is good news for supporters of General Relativity and for those supporting other models and hypothesis that have predicted such waves. Edited March 17, 2014 by pantheory -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 As to these "waves" being produced by an Inflation epoch, I think is highly speculative since It would seem they could have had many other causes and explanations. There is a model. The model produces precise quantitative predictions. Data are found that are consistent, to a high level of accuracy, with those predictions. If that is your definition of "speculative", I think you need a new dictionary. You are so determined to prop up your crank "theory," you refuse to acknowledge reality when it spits in your face. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted March 20, 2014 Author Share Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) There is a model. The model produces precise quantitative predictions. Data are found that are consistent, to a high level of accuracy, with those predictions. If that is your definition of "speculative", I think you need a new dictionary. You are so determined to prop up your crank "theory," you refuse to acknowledge reality when it spits in your face. Concerning the details explained in Sean Carroll's blog, it might be realized that gravity waves were not directly observed or detected. They instead are looking at the type of polarization in the micro-wave background. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/03/16/gravitational-waves-in-the-cosmic-microwave-background/ Here are a number of quotes from Carrol's explanation of this research. His blog was written when the rumor was out and just before the announcement and press release: So inflation makes certain crude predictions, which have come true: the universe is roughly homogeneous, and the curvature of space is very small. But the perturbations on top of this basic smoothness provide more specific, quantitative information, and offer more tangible hope of learning more about the inflationary era (including whether inflation happened at all). But of course most every static and infinite universe model has made these same predictions shown in the first line of this quote. Gravitational waves from inflation are interesting for a couple of reasons. First, we know they should be there; gravitation certainly exists, and it’s a massless field. Second, there is a way to disentangle the gravitational waves from the density fluctuations, using the polarization of the CMB. These quotes have unstated assumptions some of which I have added and italicized following the quote. ..."we know they (gravity waves) should be there" based upon one or more of the Inflation hypothesis. ...."there is a way to disentangle the gravitational waves from the density fluctuations, using the polarization of the CMB" based upon implications of one or more of the Inflation hypothesis. ... "we can distinguish density-induced polarization (“scalar modes”) from gravitational-wave-induced polarization (“tensor modes”) by the shape of the polarization pattern on the sky" according to implications of gravitational wave theory. "Very roughly: density (scalar, Inflation) perturbations produce only E-mode polarization, whereas gravitational wave (tensor) perturbations produce B-mode polarization as well as E-modes .......That’s why looking for the B-modes is such a big deal" according to implications of Inflation theory. It’s also hard, for a number of reasons. When we said “very roughly,” we meant it — there are various effects other than gravity waves that can create B-modes, typically by taking some E-modes and messing with them. One such effect is gravitational lensing — the deflection of light by matter in between us and the CMB. Indeed, B-modes from lensing have already been detected twice, by the South Pole Telescope and by the PolarBEAR experiment. These are means by which B polarization of the micro-wave background might be achieved, but not necessarily the only means. The strong assumption of theory for all quotes above and below is of course that the microwave background is the remnant of a Big Bang beginning. If this assumption is wrong then all of the interpretations and conclusions of this study could be wrong too. "....the BICEP2 experiment has found a signature of honest-to-goodness B-modes from primordial gravitational waves." There are a number of assumptions being made here, one is that the microwave background is of BB origin, the second that the B-mode polarizations observed were produced by gravity waves, and the third is that the possible gravitational waves producing B polarization are primordial in origin. Even if the first two assumptions were valid gravity waves influencing this background radiation polarization seemingly could come from numerous possible sources. "Both density perturbations and gravitational-wave perturbations arise from quantum fluctuations generated during inflation, and the amount of perturbation depends on the energy scale E at which inflation happens, defined as the energy density to the 1/4 power. (I’m presuming here that inflation is the right story, but of course we don’t know that for sure.)" Here Dr. Carroll explains the assumption. "Gravitational-wave perturbations are different. They are not modulated by some unknown potential; they are produced by inflation, and we observe them directly. In straightforward models of inflation, the amplitude of the gravitational waves is directly proportional to the inflationary energy scale." Here the assumption again is Inflation theory. Inflation theory is being used to support the gravitational wave interpretation. More importantly than the prospects for any given model, however, this is great news for inflation itself. While it’s the starting point for much contemporary cosmological theorizing about the early universe, honest physicists are quick to admit that inflation has its conceptual problems. The prediction of gravitational waves is one of the strongest empirical handles we have on whether inflation actually happened....... Here concept problems with Inflation theories in general are mentioned. There is always the possibility that a result is announced but it doesn’t hold up, of course. These are really hard measurements, with many ways to go wrong, even for experimenters as undoubtedly careful as the BICEP folks are. According to my readings they spent 3 years analyzing their results and confirming prior observations. This was a very careful research and observation study indeed, but based upon the explanations and assumptions being made, as explained above and in Sean Carrol's explanations, it would not be wrong to say that much speculation was and is involved in their conclusions IMO. Edited March 21, 2014 by pantheory -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zidzad1 Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 ofcourse not its all propaganda to make you think in a certain way, Miles Mathis explains this perfectly : http://milesmathis.com/guth.pdf -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) Concerning the details explained in Sean Carroll's blog, it might be realized that gravity waves were not directly observed or detected. ... These are means by which B polarization of the micro-wave background might be achieved, but not necessarily the only means. Feel free to produce a detailed mathematical model that predicts results consistent with the observations. Just let us know which peer-reviewed journal it is published in. Miles Mathis explains this perfectly He also claims that Pi = 4. So I think we can safely dismiss him as a complete crank. Edited March 22, 2014 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) When this story originally broke here in the NEWS I cautioned concerning the interpretation of gravity waves, and particularly gravity waves relating to Inflation since there were other likely possibilities for this polarization. My posting was considered hijacking or off-topic and was removed from the NEWS section to its own thread, seen below. I believe this was a form of censorship to stop contention rather than to allow a differing opinion. Allowing differing points of view is one of the primary hallmarks of good science and related discussions. This was not the first time such censorship has occurred to me when questioning possible errors or misinterpretations in news reports and related papers. There will always be those that strongly dislike dissenting opinions and make snide remarks against persons rather than offering their own opinion. IMO moderation should uphold the right to on-topic descent within every thread if disrupting language is not used, and reprimand those insulting dissenters rather than discussion of their own perspectives. Otherwise if we all agreed what would be the main purpose of science forums if not to discuss differing opinions? Posting #13 removed my comments concerning claims of gravity waves as being off-topic, from the original thread below. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82239-bulging-biceps-surfing-gravitational-waves-bicep2-results-thread/ My comments concerning the claim of gravity waves: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82309-were-gravitational-waves-actually-detected/ Edited February 11, 2015 by pantheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Still got your martyr complex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 When this story originally broke here in the NEWS I cautioned concerning the interpretation of gravity waves, and particularly gravity waves relating to Inflation since there were other likely possibilities for this polarization. My posting was considered hijacking or off-topic and was removed from the NEWS section to its own thread, seen below. I believe this was a form of censorship to stop contention rather than to allow a differing opinion. Allowing differing points of view is one of the primary hallmarks of good science and related discussions. This was not the first time such censorship has occurred to me when questioning possible errors or misinterpretations in news reports and related papers. There will always be those that strongly dislike dissenting opinions and make snide remarks against persons rather than offering their own opinion. IMO moderation should uphold the right to on-topic descent within every thread if disrupting language is not used, and reprimand those insulting dissenters rather than discussion of their own perspectives. Otherwise if we all agreed what would be the main purpose of science forums if not to discuss differing opinions? Posting #13 removed my comments concerning claims of gravity waves as being off-topic, from the original thread below. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82239-bulging-biceps-surfing-gravitational-waves-bicep2-results-thread/ My comments concerning the claim of gravity waves: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82309-were-gravitational-waves-actually-detected/ ! Moderator Note It was off topic then and is still off-topic now. We have no problem discussing these issues - what we object to is News stories being hijacked by every members who has a personal theory (/ or a disagreement with a mainstream theory) which is contradicted by said News Story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) "It was off topic then and is still off-topic now. We have no problem discussing these issues - what we object to is News stories being hijacked by every member who has a personal theory (/ or a disagreement with a mainstream theory) which is contradicted by said News Story." I don't see my response being off-topic. The topic was gravity waves being detected related to the Inflation era of cosmology. My response was to question whether gravity waves were really detected considering other possibilities which I mentioned, and if so why would they necessarily be a product of the Inflation era, also considering other possibilities. Mainstream news stories and papers make assertions and come to conclusions which one can discuss, or question why their conclusions may be valid or not. In my response I made no mention of any particular alternative theory, but alternative possibilities should have been discussed IMO, not just the mainstream interpretation. As we now know their news story interpretation of what they had observed could likely have been wrong. Edited February 11, 2015 by pantheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyman Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 /Snip/ I don't see my response being off-topic. /Snip/The rules are pretty simple: don't argue moderation in a science thread and keep fringe science outside of mainstream areas. /Snip/ I believe this was a form of censorship to stop contention rather than to allow a differing opinion. /Snip/There is nothing preventing you from discussing alternatives regarding determining or interpreting the cause or meaning of gravity waves. They gave you a new thread to discuss your "alternative possibilities", they didn't even move it to Speculations and kept it here in the Science News section. But instead of nurture the discussion you wanted, you are ruining it by moaning about moderation and censorship. My advice is for you to stop the complaining and proceed to make a new, fresh and objective thread in the Speculations area instead. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 In fact, there are already two (at least) threads discussing the news that the results may be wrong. So maybe the discussion could take place there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) This was a great article from swansont's blog about the nature of the scientific process (and, incidentally, why pantheory's whining is irrelevant non-science). https://theconversation.com/failure-in-real-science-is-good-and-different-from-phony-controversies-37217 Edited February 12, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts