Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Beer w/Straw

Thread: Bicep2

  1. #1 Bicep2 
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Can someone tell me a good source of information regarding the findings of Bicep2?

    I'm interested in gravitational waves, inflation, the idea of the multiverse and I think that probability theory of large numbers (too advanced for me right now) is the main skepticism for it being valid. Believing they're all related to the findings of Bicep2.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    The idea of searching for "beginner's guide" or "for dummies" is probably great advice for people.

    I just found a beginner's guide to probability from the University of Oxford pdf.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    But the more advanced thing to do would be to go to the Bicep2 site and find their publications on arxiv I presume?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    But the more advanced thing to do would be to go to the Bicep2 site and find their publications on arxiv I presume?
    Well, here is the original paper :

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.3985v2.pdf

    The problem is that unless you are intimately familiar with all the technical details of the subject, you won't get very much out of this publication. My advice would be to stick with popular explanations of the results instead.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    I would only be interested with the results.

    Like a CERN experiment verifying the speed of light as constant, I'd take it on trust that they did their job correctly.

    Right now I'm more keen on probability theory really.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Right now I'm more keen on probability theory really.
    Good - so you'll never waste your money on playing Lotto again
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    The idea of searching for "beginner's guide" or "for dummies" is probably great advice for people.

    I just found a beginner's guide to probability from the University of Oxford pdf.
    http://users.uoa.gr/~dcheliotis/Stir...CUP%201999.pdf
    pikpobedy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    out there
    Posts
    306
    One page on BICEP 2 in Scientific American May 2014. "Not just a validation of inflation... but a good way to narrow down the many possible versions of it...."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Last month I was reading an abstract of Scientific American. I got half way through and it was getting too kooky to finish Multiverse Controversy Heats Up over Gravitational Waves - Scientific American
    I'm skeptical about inflation being justifiably validated, as you quote, just yet. I came here and posted to see if someone could offer more reputable information. I also looked up probability theory (probably should have done that years ago) with the thought that it may help me weed out kooky ideas encountered in the future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    See Woit's blog, he gets irritated about "multiverse mania":

    https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6758

    IMHO there's a growing fear amongst commentators that cosmology is becoming infected with pseudoscience, and that certain cosmologists and sections of the media are promoting it in order to promote themselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    See Woit's blog, he gets irritated about "multiverse mania":

    https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6758

    IMHO there's a growing fear amongst commentators that cosmology is becoming infected with pseudoscience, and that certain cosmologists and sections of the media are promoting it in order to promote themselves.
    That seems to be a condemnation of wikipedia, not cosmology. It should serve as a warning for anyone who thinks of providing a link to wikipedia for a scientific topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Irony is a blog condemning Wiki.

    I'd just say be cautious when Wiki is of unsubstantiated things.

    The Pythagorean theorem is safe though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    He wasn't condemning Wikipedia, he was having a go at the people promoting the multiverse, when there's no evidence for it.

    See Planck versus BICEP2: Round One! on Peter Coles' blog. This is the important bit:

    "...Critically, the claim relies on the assumption that foreground polarised emissions are almost negligible in this region....

    ...but the fact that polarized foreground emission is so strong at these frequencies does give one pause for thought..."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    He wasn't condemning Wikipedia, he was having a go at the people promoting the multiverse, when there's no evidence for it.
    That is an unwarranted conclusion, since the entire post, and the comments below it, are about wikipedia. Perhaps you are confusing your link with some other link?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •