BICEP2’s Cosmic Polarization: Published, Reduced in Strength

I’m busy dealing with the challenges of being in a quantum superposition, but you’ve probably heard: BICEP2’s paper is now published, with some of its implicit and explicit claims watered down after external and internal review. The bottom line is as I discussed a few weeks ago when I described the criticism of the interpretation of their work (see also here).

  • There is relatively little doubt (but it still requires confirmation by another experiment!) that BICEP2 has observed interesting polarization of the cosmic microwave background (specifically: B-mode polarization that is not from gravitational lensing of E-mode polarization; see here for more about what BICEP2 measured)
  • But no one, including BICEP2, can say for sure whether it is due to ancient gravitational waves from cosmic inflation, or to polarized dust in the galaxy, or to a mix of the two; and the BICEP2 folks are explicitly less certain about this, in the current version of their paper, than in their original implicit and explicit statements.

And we won’t know whether it’s all just dust until there’s more data, which should start to show up in coming months, from BICEP2 itself, from Planck, and from other sources. However, be warned: the measurements of the very faint dust that might be present in BICEP2’s region of the sky are extremely difficult, and the new data might not be immediately convincing. To come to a consensus might take a few years rather than a few months.  Be patient; the process of science, being self-correcting, will eventually get it straight, but not if you rush it.

Sorry I haven’t time to say more right now.

86 responses to “BICEP2’s Cosmic Polarization: Published, Reduced in Strength

  1. Thanks for your nondeterminism.

  2. kashyap vasavada

    Relax until the dust settles!! There is no point in fighting now.

    • Ervin Goldfain

      …until the the dust settles…
      Nice pun upon words, given the context.

    • Nicely done; and nicely done, too, to Professor Matt. We seem to be getting to what we’ve actually got and where this has to go next.

      There’s been a river raft of blog posts and papers on this over the last 3 months or so. The CURRENT picture that’s emerged is this:

      1. That very earnest large bunch associated with BICEP2 think they’ve come up with something important; but …
      2. It’s not, or at least not yet, any of the things that have caught the attention of general public, the popular press, and the cheerleading teams for some of the more speculative derivative quasi-religious or mystical takes on what may, or may not, turn out in some reasonable period of time (to wit: while I’m still alive and have enough of brains to still focus) to be accepted as owing to the Guth/Linde inflation theory; so …
      3. Not surprisingly, the most enduring praise for the BICEP group is for its measurement technology, since …
      4. The next logical step in this process is for KECK and others more independent to use the same technology or something like it in aiming at so many points in the sky out of the galaxy into intergalactic space that we build up a library of measurements, which effectively might become something like the Hubble library of pictures was to that project, particularly Hubble and Standage, except in this case painting a larger picture of ex-galactic b-modes, one that …
      5. STATISTICALLY can withstand and possibly overcome the objections of those pointing at the ubiquity of b-modes in intragalactic dust as another, even more compelling suspect.

  3. I think that the question is similar to what E. Silverstein asked M. Zaldarriaga at the Caltech workshop: Does there exist a model of interstellar dust, such that, given an electroamgnetic wave signal, it’s possible to extract the dust contribution to, at least, 5 standad deviations? In that case, further measurements will be able to reliably say what the remaining part could be. If this is not the case, then any further measurements will remain uncertain, to the level of uncertainty of the modeling of the dust. Let’s recall that the reason it was possible to discover the Higgs at the LHC was that Standard Model calculations were able to master the backgrounds to such precision that search strategies could be developed. I find puzzling that there’s a lot of dicussion about *measurements*, but not a lot about backgrounds-except after the fact, like here.

    • Thing is, I have trouble seeing THIS problem as more intractable than what Boltzmann and Feynman had to wrestle with in overcoming problems posed by infinity.

  4. Kevin Fairweather

    I think you have said exactly what needs to have been said. Thanks Professor :)

  5. Thanks, professor.
    You are back in saddle on the white horse.
    Your fan, bob-2

    • So the particle nature of the photon cannot exist without a heavy quantum super position, which delayed (polarized), due to magnetic waves – like the sudden change of magnetic monopole to dippole (polarization or spin), during inflation.
      Without this there is no non zero value or angular momentum (mass).
      If any further magnetic wave occurs, will change this balance, and the rest masses of the elementary particles ?

      • The particle nature of the photon cannot exist without a heavy quantum super position, which was delayed (polarized), due to Gravitational waves – like the sudden change of magnetic monopole to dipole (polarization or spin), during inflation.
        Without this there is no non zero value or angular momentum (mass).
        If any further Gravitational wave occurs, will change this balance and the rest masses of the elementary particles ?

        If two polarizing films are aligned in the same direction light from the first polarizer passes through the second. If the polarizers are opposed at a 90° angle, the polarized light from the first polarizer is stopped by the second. If a third polarizer is sandwiched between the two opposed polarizers at a 45° angle some light gets through the last polarizer.
        If it is analysed based on the quantum mechanical superposition principle, 1/8 (= ½ ½ ½) of the photons incident on the initial vertical polarizer pass the final horizontal polarizer.
        So a heavy super (partner) position may had been filtered by flat universe (spacetime) ?

  6. Question:

    Assume there is a GUT and also assume the gravitational field is the fundamental since it is the longest reaching and the lowest in intensity hence the lowest number.

    So if the gravitation field is fundamental then it should be everywhere now and indeed has been everywhere since the beginning of the oscillations. And what we see are varying concentrations of the field in different forms, EM, weak and strong fields. So because these forms are at higher intensities we cannot see what is underneath the peaks.

    So here is my question: are particle colliders the right direction to spend our energies, human and money to find the GUT. Should we not be looking more into “empty” space, the lowest, quietest vacuum?

    • I think the industry’s already pretty clearly headed in this direction, and not just for reasons of science: governments, even the quasi-government of Europe (leave aside the fundy hillbilly government of the US of A), are limited in terms of what they now can justify spending on pure research, and the next meaningful power levels for particle accelerators are prohibitively expensive, technologically ridiculously costly (on the scale of 1% or more of a pointless imperialistic military incursion into the Middle East – THAT ridiculously costly), and simply unfeasible on a planet of these dimensions.

      • How did you get from “empty” space to the “pointless imperialistic military incursion into the Middle East”?

        I have a feeling no matter where you start from you will end up in the “pointless imperialistic military incursion into the Middle East”

        Anyway back to nothingness, Professor please respond or I will go sit naked on the lawn in front of your window on campus until I get a response. Nah, just kidding, but we did bricked one of our professor office door once. He took a sledge hammer broke into his office and went on his “normal” day with all broken bricks lying on the floor. A whole week before maintenance cleared it.

        • I was referring to priorities. The updated budget for the Texas Supercollider that was the basis for Congress cancelling its funding forecast completion for $4.4 billion total, of which $2 billion already had been spent, meaning an additional $2.4 billion was forecast as required to complete. Now consider that Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz’ latest forecast for the costs associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the subsequent occupation of and presence in Iraq thru 2010, plus the costs of otherwise unnecessary long term care and financial support for American casualties associated with those activities, puts the total at about $5.6 billion, or ~$2.8 billion per day. To be clear: the estimated cost of completing the Supercollider was less than what it cost to keep the U.S. in Iraq for one day.

          • 5.6 billion total, 2.8 billion per day, makes 2 days. You have a mistake somewhere.

            In general, of course, I agree; the cost of the SSC is trivial compared to US military costs, which are more than 1 million dollars—per minute.

          • Don’t really care who pays for it, I just want know (before my days are done) where did all this “energy” come from and if it always existed then why do we even consider time as a variable? Was inserting time in the equations an asset to better visualize or a curse to foggy things up?

            Only time variable worth considering (and it may not be valid either) is not the t in Schrodinger’s equation but the t in the energy-time uncertainty principle. Unit time for the most fundamental change of state, which may or may not constant.

          • Philip Helbig – You’re correct: I meant $5.6 TRILLION – which I think qualifies more a slip than a mistake, but regardless.

  7. Dear Matt, you wrote: “But no one, including BICEP2, can say for sure whether it is due to ancient gravitational waves from cosmic inflation, or to polarized dust in the galaxy, or to a mix of the two;” Why couldn’t there be a third more simple origin: MAGNETIC POLARIZATION by primordial electric currents?

  8. Matt: IMHO there’s some big undercurrents with all this. For example see the Nature article Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble: “Yet some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP2 announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected. How is this possible? The answer given by proponents is alarming: the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests…” IMHO once you understand gravity and black holes, you appreciate that the original “frozen star” interpretation has to be the one that’s right. Then when you think in terms of a flipped-round version of this in lieu of the Big Bang point singularity, inflation starts looking superfluous.

    • The black hole and the big bang are easily proven false:

      THE RISE AND FALL OF BLACK HOLES AND BIG BANGS

      http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-black-holes-and-big-bangs.html

      • You’ve got this missing:

        (4) Spatially finite (k = 0, flat spacetime)

        Don’t be so negative about black holes. The frozen-star black hole isn’t that different to the gravastar, which features a “void in the fabric of space and time”, which makes it more of a hole than the point-singularity black hole.

        • There’s nothing missing. And the contradictions are still there.

          • This piece seriously confuses the universe with black holes. There is nothing wrong with not knowing everything, or even not knowing anything, about cosmology, but I find it strange that people who obviously lack any understanding of even the most basic concepts devote their time to crusading against the establishment.

          • “It is immediately apparent that none of the foregoing defining characteristics of black hole universes are compatible with those of the big bang universes. Consequently black holes and big bangs are mutually exclusive. Nonetheless cosmologists thoughtlessly blend them to obtain billions upon billions of black holes in some unspecified big bang universe that is of finite age.”

            I’m sure readers here will draw their own conclusions.

        • No, it’s not missing. At least in classical cosmology with trivial topology, this possibility doesn’t exist. If you want to allow it on grounds of non-trivial topology, you have to allow others as well.

          First learn the basics then post comments.

          • No, there is no confusion of “the universe with black holes”. Each and every alleged black hole is no less an independent universe than are each and every alleged big bang universe. All alleged types of black hole universes pertain to different sets of Einstein field equations and so they have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. And since there is no bound on asymptotic, for otherwise it would not be asymptotic, each alleged black hole constitutes a universe. The alleged black hole universe is not constrained to the alleged interior bounded by its alleged event horizon.

          • Phillip Helbig said: “I’m sure readers here will draw their own conclusions.”

            Yes, indeed. All the generic defining characteristics of black holes and big bangs are contradictory. Only elementary logic is required.

          • I love how in your so-called proof of the alleged contradiction of a so-called black hole existing in our alleged universe, you use an alleged physicist mis-speaking on an alleged mainstream so-called nightly news program (the so-called escape velocity of an alleged black hole is *greater* than so-called c) as alleged proof of so-called light escaping alleged black alleged holes creating a so-called alleged contradiction. That is some really high-quality alleged reasoning.

    • Anon (see below, June 25, 2014 at 11:50 AM), like Professor Joss Bland-Hawthorn of the Astronomy Institute at the University of Sydney, and all proponents of black holes, does not even understand escape velocity. All proponents of the black hole unwittingly claim that their black holes have and do not have an escape velocity simultaneously. Marvellous!

      THE RISE AND FALL OF BLACK HOLES AND BIG BANGS

      http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-black-holes-and-big-bangs.html

      • The quote is “the escape speed is basically the speed of light”, apparently from a television interview. Here’s what happened: he should have said “the escape speed is basically greater than the speed of light”. Just a mistake like many people make when speaking off the cuff. Dude, you are reading way too much into this. You seriously claim that all proponents of black holes do not understand escape velocity. What have you been smoking?

        Now for some real physics content: Even though Newtonian physics gives the same “black hole” mass by setting the escape velocity to the speed of light, there is an important difference: One can easily escape from a Newtonian black hole even if one never gets close to the speed of light: just use a ladder, or a rocket. In Newtonian physics, the only restriction is that you can’t escape if your initial speed is limited to the speed of light and then you travel inertially. In GR, however, the event horizon is a real horizon. (Of course, in Newtonian physics, this is not a problem, because either there is nothing special about the speed of light or it can be taken to be infinite.)

        • Phillip Helbig:- It’s clear from your remarks that you too do not even understand escape velocity. All proponents of the black hole thoughtlessly assert that their black holes have and do not have an escape velocity simultaneously. It’s part of their theory. So they don’t in fact even understand escape velocity. This alone completely ruins the theory of black holes.

          Professor Bland-Hawthorn said what he said. He is a proponent of black holes. He does not understand escape velocity either. You, Helbig, making excuses for him does not count. And you don’t even quote fully, or correctly render the argument. Bland-Hawthorn said on national television that not only is the escape speed of a black hole basically the speed of light, he concluded from this that light therefore can’t escape. Here again is what he actually said:

          “some objects are so massive that the escape speed is basically the speed of light and therefore not even light escapes.”

          Bland-Hawthorn was not talking “off the cuff” Helbig. It was a prepared interview for television. Anybody can watch it for themselves to verify statements and circumstances.

          All the generic defining characteristics of the black holes contradict all the generic defining characteristics of the big bangs, and so they are mutually exclusive. Only elementary logic is required to fathom this:

          THE RISE AND FALL OF BLACK HOLES AND BIG BANGS

          http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-black-holes-and-big-bangs.html

          • I am sure that readers have made up their minds (that you are wrong and I am right) and so this will be my last comment here, so that the signal-to-noise level of the universe is not reduced by too much.

            One last question: Write to Bland-Hawthorn and ask him to clarify his quotation and post the response here.

        • Phillip Helbig:- Yes, you are right, readers can indeed make up their own minds as to whether or not proponents of the black hole are right with their claims that their black holes have and do not have an escape velocity simultaneously! I maintain that this is impossible.

          THE RISE AND FALL OF BLACK HOLES AND BIG BANGS

          http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-black-holes-and-big-bangs.html

          • Black holes, like all objects, have an escape velocity that varies with distance from the center of mass. It is possible to both have an escape velocity of c (this is the definition of Schwarzchild radius), and not (within that radius an object’s escape speed exceeds c and nothing can escape, which you could call “none”).

            Can readers understand that different circumstances result in different values of a property? I believe anyone can.

      • ‘Anon’ (see July 12, 2014) said this: “Black holes, like all objects, have an escape velocity that varies with distance from the center of mass. It is possible to both have an escape velocity of c (this is the definition of Schwarzchild radius), and not (within that radius an object’s escape speed exceeds c and nothing can escape, which you could call “none”).”

        It is clear from these comments that ‘Anon’ does not understand the meaning of escape velocity, just like all proponents of the black hole, and did not read the article below which explains the simple facts without any recourse to mathematics. I therefore reiterate: On the one hand it is claimed by all proponents of black holes, including ‘Anon’, that the escape velocity at the event horizon (e.g. the alleged ‘Schwarzschild radius’) of a black hole has the speed c, the speed of light (in vacuo). On the other hand they also assert that nothing can even leave the event horizon. Thus, at the alleged event horizon the black hole has and does not have an escape velocity simultaneously. That is impossible! This fact alone ruins the black hole phantasmagoria completely. Furthermore, an escape velocity > c does not mean that things can’t leave. Escape velocity does not prevent things from leaving other things, only from escaping if the initial velocity is less than the escape velocity. But in the case of the black hole event horizon, it allegedly has an escape velocity yet nothing can even leave it, hence, according to the black holers, their black hole has an escape velocity and no escape velocity simultaneously. Contra-hype!

        The Rise and Fall of Black Holes and Big Bangs

        http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-black-holes-and-big-bangs.html

        • So… you don’t understand the difference between “at the event horizon” and “within the event horizon”. At the event horizon, escape velocity is c. Within the event horizon, escape velocity is greater than c and therefore nothing can escpae. These are not contradictory statements, if you understand “at” implies “equals” while “within” implies “less than”.

          • You don’t read the written word ‘Anon’, so I refer you back to my previous post. Like all proponents of black holes you don’t understand the meaning of ‘escape velocity’. On the one hand the black hole is alleged by the proponents thereof to have an escape velocity at or below the ‘event horizon’. On the other hand they also assert that the ‘event horizon’ is a one-way membrane from which nothing can even leave or emerge. This is a contradiction. Escape velocity does not stop things leaving or emerging.

          • In a Relativistic universe, that is exactly what an escape velocity greater than c does. You’re thinking in terms of leaving a regular planet like earth, which can be done under thrust at less than escape velocity. But that Newtonian understanding does not apply to extreme circumstances within General Relativity. Within the event horizon of a black hole anything that is not moving faster than light (which is everything) is moving towards the singularity regardless of how much energy it exerts to resist gravity.

            Maybe you should try resorting to math and calculate the geodesic of an object that is within the Schwarzschild radius.

          • No ‘Anon’, you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. The proponents of black holes assert on the one hand that their black holes have an escape velocity at their event horizons and that this escape velocity is c, but on the other hand they also assert that nothing can even leave their event horizons because the event horizon is a one-way membrane; things can only go in, never even leave or emerge, let alone escape. Thus, according to them, their black holes have and do not have an escape velocity simultaneously at the same place! One does not need to do any sums to understand that this is a monumental contradiction which alone ruins their black hole theory completely. It is a matter of elementary logic, not complicated mathematics.

  9. Terima kasih, informasi yang Saya dapat dari web ini sangat bermanfaat sekali.
    Salam dari :
    Poker Online, Game Facebook, Judi Online, Nagapoker

  10. Indeed, time will tell whether they have bitten the dust altogether.

  11. protoniclaboratories

    Reblogged this on INTP Archive.

  12. Intelligence down under is not to be mixed up with gut feeling.

  13. Prof. Strassler, I believe you’re wasting your time…
    Why can’t people limit their comments to the subject of the discussion, namely the BICEP2 results? For example, why should anyone open the subject of black holes in this context?

  14. Just read the news that calculations by ‘the King’s College team lead by Robert Hogan show that the Higgs and the BICEP2 results and inflation combined would have stopped the further development of the universe after the Big Bang. I do not understand why but thus seems interesting news to me.

  15. BICEP2 : heavy photon onto waterfalls (curved spacetime or another dimension). Super position, entanglement possible – information not lost.
    Black hole: Photon, by its own weight, like whirlpool, collapse into abyss (out of so called spacetime). Information lost – chaos between entangled particles.
    Inflation : Against the formation of point particles – thus no black holes and rest masses ??

  16. The ultimate solution after 90 years of debate: Matt Strassler’s: “I am dealing with the challenges of being in a quantum superposition”
    IMHO In super symmetrical raspberry shaped Multiverse all possible outcomes of superposition collapes are in each (anti-) copy universe the same.
    So we don’t live in a continuos splitting- and soap bubbeling multiverse, but we are a part of the whole raspberry set of universes.
    See: “Democratic Free Will in the Instant Entangled Multiverse”. http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0071

  17. For the time being multiverses like the Iliad, Odyssey etc. are the real ones.

  18. BICEP2 : Curvature and energy density are very closely related in cosmology. So if the so called spacetime is curved by Gravitational waves, the speed of light “c” changes (delayed or polarized) according to the variations in energy density – in order to keep its speed “constant” to reach the other end at the same time – but if it is heavy ?

    If there’s an intrinsic energy to space (mass energy), and it’s expanding (and therefore creating more space), aren’t we violating the conservation of energy? The answer is no, because dark energy doesn’t only have an energy density: it also has a negative pressure with very specific properties. As that negative pressure pushes outwards on space, it does negative work on the Universe, and the work it does is exactly equal to the increased mass/energy of whatever patch of space you’re looking at.

  19. GAUGE INVARIANCE : If there is no particle, there is no field. There is no vacuum energy is to suppose that really the theory concerns particles.

    If one takes fields as fundamental, rather than as devices for introducing local particle interactions, then there is a clear intuitive argument for supposing the ground state has non-zero energy, deriving from the elementary theory of the harmonic oscillator.
    In consequence it is pictured as fluctuating, a picture which clearly in evidence in vacuum polarization effects in petrubation theory, where one interprets bubble diagrams for internal lines as virtual pair creation and annihilation events.

    “GRAVITY” had better couple to the net stress-energy tensor with the shifted vacuum energy densities.

    The quantum fluctuation is established only in Microworld, there may be some mechanism in play to establish correlations with macroscopic phenomena. It may be that here is a basis to explain the observed approximate parity between the energy density of vacuum and matter,
    And there remain the unknown, but possibly large shifts in the vacuum energy density due to Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking – due to gravitational waves ?

  20. what if light slows down as it travels due to a property of photons known as vacuum polarization—where a photon splits into a positron and an electron, for a very short time before recombining back into a photon. ??

    http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicist-slower-thought.html

  21. /* ..no one, including BICEP2, can say for sure whether it is due to ancient gravitational waves from cosmic inflation, or to polarized dust in the galaxy, or to a mix of the two..*/

    There are many other sources of B-lensing possible. IMO much more significant are the dark matter filaments between galaxies, which are currently just about to be revealed by optical and infrared telescopes.

  22. Pingback: BICEP2 Redux: How the Sausage is Made | Whiskey…Tango…Foxtrot?

  23. Hi, I thank so much if you comment about this article about quantum gravity & two gluons by Zvi Bern, Lance J. Dixon and David A. Kosower

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0409039v2.pdf

    regards

  24. I have an unrelated question about electromagnetic radiation, I have heard that light is a self propagating wave consisting of a magnetic and electric field. This idea is what brought about the end of the “Eather” hypothesis. But after learning more about quantum field theory and the discovery of the higgs particle, I have learned that photons are just another particle with another quantum field. So which one is it a self propagating wave of two different fields or just one field with one particle that serves as the electric and magnetic force?

    • Eather was carefully replaced by Einstein’s spacetime (self propagating).
      Higgs field is more heavy (scalar) field is a (heavy) super partner of spacetime (or eather). ?
      So the higgs mechanism’s coupling and the entanglement between highenergy (heavy super partner) photon and massless photon are the same ?. Polarization was the symmetry breaking occured during inflation ?

      • … which kept the matter – antimatter imbalance through angular momentum c^2. Without this delay in speed of light, there is no electric force and magnetic force due to magnetic monopple ?

    • Edwin Steiner

      The electric and the magnetic field are not really two separate fields, they transform into each other under Lorentz transformations. In more simple words: What looks like a magnetic field to one observer can look like an electric field to another observer moving relative to the first one, and vice versa. So if you consider special relativity, you need to combine the electric and magnetic field into a single electromagnetic field (tensor) for a correct Lorentz-invariant description. This electromagnetic field is in turn derived from the so-called electromagnetic vector potential “A”. Photons are quanta of the quantum field corresponding to “A”, so everything fits together.

      • Thank you, is it the electric and magnetic field is in uncertanity principle at macro level under Lorentz transformations ?
        “Time dilation and restmass cannot coexist”
        Lorentz invariance (tensor) is possible if there is large energy (vacuum energy) binding them – what we call as restmass.
        This sudden constant (coexistance) is possible only if thete was inflation. The space expansion compared to inflation is small – so we didn’t feel it at macro level, but at quantum level as uncertanity principle ?

  25. Thanks I was wondering about that for a while.

  26. Quantum effects in respiration.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/09/1322966111.full.pdf+html

    O’Regan: “This work helps to illustrate the fact that quantum mechanical effects, which may sometimes be viewed as somehow very exotic or only relevant under extreme conditions, are at play in the day-to-day regimes where biology, chemistry and materials science operate. (…) We have succeeded in showing that quantum mechanical effects that we more often think of arising in advanced technological materials can be critical in determining the energy differences that drive biochemical processes occurring in the body. It is remarkable that myoglobin seems to be extremely well adapted to exploit the specific Hund’s exchange strength of atomic iron, an intrinsically quantum mechanical property, in order to strongly promote O2 binding at the expense of CO. It is interesting, perhaps, to take a step back and even think of the implications with regards to early natural selection”.

    • Edwin Steiner

      This looks like interesting research in computational techniques for quantum mechanical systems (I don’t have the knowledge to really judge it), but I wonder a bit about the spin of the quote above. After all, practically all of chemistry is quantum mechanical effects. We could not even explain the periodic table of elements without quantum mechanics. I think physicists should remind people more often that quantum mechanics is completely standard and confirmed knowledge today, and has been for a long time now.

      • Yes, that is the difference between physicists and ordinary people (laypersons) who are not aware of it. Thanks for your reminder. :-)
        Well, those quantum effects (in human as well as plant and animal physiology, see photosynthesis and magnetoreception, nurmuration etc.) in principal open doors for amazing efficiency and amazing efficiency increases.

  27. kashyap vasavada

    Yes. I agree. People are finding quantum effects in larger and larger systems even at high temperatures. So it is just a matter of time when they will be established beyond any reasonable doubt in biological systems and perhaps in brain and consciousness.

  28. In the context of quantum mechanics, the wave–particle duality of energy and matter and the uncertainty principle provide a unified view of the behavior of photons, electrons, and other atomic-scale objects.

    If the charge and current become zero, the photons are reduced to massless in vacuum – which have no charge and no current.
    Einstein’s theory of special relativity removed the need for a static, absolute reference frame through which objects and waves could move. Special relativity does away with the twin Newtonian absolutes of space and time, replacing it with a single absolute: the speed of light.

    More frequency more correlation with heavy super partner ?

  29. Hardline Shirker

    Congratulations , we love reading your thoughts …

  30. Does Negative Mean Colder?

    One result from this experiment is that when the gas of potassium atoms (which happens to be a Bose Einstein Condensate) is experiencing negative temperatures, it is also experiencing negative pressure (creation of new space?) . If the pressure were not negative, then these highly attractive potassium atoms would collapse on each other.

    This idea of an attractive system not collapsing is similar to the universe wanting to collapse due to the attractive nature of mass. However, the universe is expanding according to all our measurements and scientists have determined that something must be there to cause it not to collapse….

    http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/negative-temperature.cfm

  31. There is no time without clocks. There are no clocks without mass. There is no mass without the Higgs field. There was no Higgs field before it was frozen out from being unified with other fields. Massless particles travel at the speed of light. When traveling at the speed of light, all components of its motion are through space and none are through time.

    Wouldn’t these conditions of the early universe by themselves explain the homogeneous and isotropic qualities without needing cosmic inflation? If energy can radiate arbitrarily far in space without time passing, there is no need for esoteric explanations of how that happened so quickly.

    Is there merit to this line of reasoning?

    • Re: “If energy can radiate arbitrarily far in space without time passing”

      You seem to assume that massless particles travel with infinite speed. This is not so. Massless particles travel with a finite speed c, called the “speed of light” (in vacuum), which is the same no matter which observer in which state of motion measures the particle’s speed.

      • In beta decay, the creation of W virtual particle with more energy, out of cosmological constant’s positive vacuum energy – means more speed of light than “c” for a while and due to some conservation of vacuum energy, retain again to “c” ?
        Beause, Positive vacuum energy implies negative pressure and creates MORE new space – MORE new space means MORE speed of light than “c” ?

      • Massless particles travel a finite distance per unit time from the perspective of an observer who has mass in the form of a clock. Without mass anywhere, there are no clocks, and therefore no time.

        • I think you have a logical contradiction there: You are trying to explain the uniformity by a process of thermalization that happened infinitely fast in no time at all. But a process by definition happens over a certain time. Without time, you do not have a process but just a condition. So effectively you are saying “at the beginning there was an (almost) totally uniform condition”, which is not an explanation but just a re-statement of the original riddle.

  32. We believe that the early universe was extremely hot and dense and that these conditions produced a large number of very heavy particles, including stable magnetic monopoles. As stable particles, they should have persisted to the present day. Using the Big Bang model alone, they should exist with an abundance that would make them easily detectable. Our theoretical explanation for why magnetic monopoles have not been detected is based on a speculative theory of cosmology, the theory of Inflation. The period of exponential expansion of space that the Inflationary model predicts would have occurred after the universe had cooled below the temperature where magnetic monopoles could be produced. Thus, the magnetic monopoles existing at that time would have been diluted to the point where the chance of finding one in our observable universe would be essentially zero. The fact that theory predicts that magnetic monopoles must exits, together with the fact that we do not seem to be able to find them, is one of several arguments in favor of cosmic Inflation.

    When I was 12-13 years old, I first came to know about the Einstein’s Theory of Relativity explained by cartoons in a Soviet Russia magazine called Sputnik. I never understood it except the time travel. Then I felt it was the speed of light “c” is important rather than the relativity itself. Now I feel his equation hide in a tricky manner the “mathematics of cosmic law”- means “the mathematics governs the cosmos didn’t want humans to exist”.

    His “momentum” embedded in “c^2″ itself says, the necessity of cosmic INFLATION to hold the definition of mass – the magnetic dipole (or spin, angular momentum).

  33. This guy says he’s heard that Planck’s about to publish its steaming hot intergalactic dust po- uh, pics NEXT WEEK: http://telescoper.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/bicep2-watch-this-space/

  34. IMHO,
    The Higgs mass found in the LHC at Geneva of 126 GeV,is interpreted as pure oscillatory energy of real “new Higgs” vacuum particles.
    The new Higgs particles are supposed to be convertible by an internal rotational structure they
    are responsible for the creation of “Something” out of “Nothing”

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1209.0092v1.pdf

  35. Still busy dealing with the challenges of being in a quantum superposition?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s