PLANCK COLLABORATION vs BIBHAS DE

September 22, 2014

Planck collaboration, Bibhas De, BICEP2 B-Mode polarization

Planck collaboration, Bibhas De, BICEP2, B-Mode polarization

PLANCK SATELLITE REPORT ON BICEP2

September 22, 2014

There is a Bengali proverb: (After years of elaborate gestation) The mountain gives birth to a mouse.

That is what has happened with Planck report. It says nothing definitive. And this lack of definitiveness is quickly being turned into a positive for BICEP2.

Planck Collaboration has left more “outs” for the BICEP2 Team than there are fire escapes in a modern highrise.

The dangling gravitational wave carrot remains dangling, waving vigorously.

Here is my take:

Planck Satellite test of BICEP2 Telescope, Planck Collaboration, John Kovac Harvard, Jamie Bock CalTech, Chao-Lin Kuo Stanford, george efstathiou cambridge, Sean Carroll CalTech, NSF OIG Allison C. Lerner

Planck Satellite test of BICEP2 Telescope, Planck Collaboration, John Kovac Harvard, Jamie Bock CalTech, Chao-Lin Kuo Stanford, george efstathiou cambridge, Sean Carroll CalTech, NSF OIG Allison C. Lerner

BICEP2 AND PLANCK: Applicable proverbs

September 19, 2014

American proverb:

If you lie down with the dog, you will get up with fleas.

The astute observer must have noticed that following the questionings of the BICEP2 results by elements of the scientific community in March 2014, there started a concerted campaign by the American scientific establishment concerned and the affiliated blogosphere and the media (collectively, the BICEP2 Camp) to entangle BICEP2 with Planck Satellite as inextricably as possible. They have succeeded.

Planck is being used as the escape capsule of the James Bond villain.

The world knows – and it is true – that as much as any other group of experts, Planck has the inhouse ability to analyze the BICEP2 instrumentation. The world will reasonably assume they have done this.

Therefore, any haziness, any “out”, left in the upcoming Planck report will be treated at the very least as authoritative proof that what BICEP2 saw is on the sky.

My scientific evaluations – in case anyone has taken note of these – will be superceded.

This will be a phenomenal triumph for BICEP2. From here they will be easily able to revive the discovery in one form or another. Once again our universe will be falsified.

Planck is a fine instrument, but its legacy may be forever tarnished. For all the good it has done and stands to do, the world will know it mostly as the collaborator of BICEP2. The BICEP2 Camp – with its formidable publicity machine – will make sure of this.

Azerbaijani proverb:

It is not by saying halva halva that your mouth will become sweet.

We have seen frequent assertions from the BICEP2 Camp that their map is “on the sky”, “on the sky”, “on the sky” … without a shred of proper scientific evidence. It is as if repeating this often enough will make it into a discovery.

BICEP2: New development

September 17, 2014

Here is what I had said about BICEP2 instrumental botch up:

There is a paper just published suggesting that BICEP2 may have detected gravitational wave after all. I have not studied the paper yet, but have noted a most significant statement:

“The BICEP2 B-mode map is several (sigma) in terms of signal-to-noise, and they find the same modes however they rotate their telescope and whether they consider the first or last half of their data. There thus seems little question that this signal is on the sky and not an instrumental effect.”

My issue did not concern whether they find “the same modes however they rotate their telescope.”

This does not prove anything at all. This is truism. Of course they can find the same type of swirls by rotating a crappy telescope that makes swirls because it is crappy.

They need to present evidence that they find the exact same polarization map on the sky, however they position (rotationally) their telescope.

Indeed, if they found the sky map invariant with respect to the telescope rotation, why didn’t they say just that?

It seems that they have found that the maps are not the same, and they are resorting to linguistic trickery to cover the manifest instrumental botch up.

Until and unless they produce for the scientific community several maps marked with telescope angles 0, 30, 45, 60, 90 degrees (e.g.) that are all exactly the same map “glued” on the sky (i.e. not a map that rotates with the telescope), the charge of instrumental botch up stands.

That charge is based on fatal scientific defects in plain evidence in the design of the instrument.

Do they think that the defects average out and produce phenomenal results?!

UPDATE 09/17/2014:

I have read the paper. We should wait for the Planck-BICEP2 joint reports.

COBE SATELLITE FRAUD SIMPLIFIED

September 6, 2014

Folks, as we wait for the BICEP2 announcement, let me address one final matter. As you know, I have presented my hardcore science and engineering analysis of how the COBE Satellite fraud was committed in my free eBook

THE FALSIFIERS OF THE UNIVERSE

But clearly, I also need to present a watered-down, Kitchy Kitchy Koo baby talk version for the present-day deniers of relic blackbody fraud. So here it is, pretty in pink, with lullaby and all:

COBE Satellite fraud

COBE Satellite fraud

OFF TOPIC: Further considerations in electromagnetic communication

September 3, 2014

Nothing on the BICEP2 front as far as I can tell. So let me turn to off-topic matters and tell you about another interesting letter that turned up from the dusty recesses of my old, cobwebbed files. But first, a little back story.

The following diagram shows the subject at issue:

Further considerations in electromagnetic communication

Further considerations in electromagnetic communication

The following is a link to a paper that is more specific than the one I sent to Arno Penzias (see below):

A NEW MODE OF RADIO COMMUNICATION (pdf, 3.6 MB)

The following is a self-explanatory correspondence with Arno Penzias. I thought this was a fair comment. I also appreciated that he took the time to reply, and even write it in his own hand.

Arno Penzias comments

Arno Penzias comments

OFF TOPIC: A little physics history!

August 28, 2014

An almost faded out copy of a historical 1942 paper turned up! I suppose one could get a new copy by going to the original journal issue, but it is not so easy to find journals issues this old anymore. The reference is Nature 1942, 150, 405.

In this brief paper Hannes Alfvén discovered and laid down the foundation of the science of Magnetohydrodynamics. This subject concerns electromagnetic effects in a magnetized conducting fluid, and combines the complexities of electromagnetism and hydrodynamics. Thus, in short hand:

Electromagnetism + Hydrodynamics = Magnetohydrodynamics.

The British physicist Lord P. M. S. Blackett used to express this to his students as follows:

“Electromagnetism is difficult, hydrodynamics is very difficult, but magnetohydrodynamics is damn difficult.”

Hannes Alfvén’s 1942 discovery paper on Magnetohydrodynamics. This paper reports a form of waves in a conducting magnetized fluid that would later come to be known as Alfvén wave.

Hannes Alfvén’s 1942 discovery paper on Magnetohydrodynamics. This paper reports a form of waves in a conducting magnetized fluid that would later come to be known as Alfvén wave.

FOOTNOTE:

In the following 1979 paper I showed that, in principle, the theory of Magnetohydrodynamics need not be confined to a conducting fluid but could be generalized to any fluid at all: conducting, dielectric, conducting-dielectric.

Hannes Alfvén’s student Bibhas De generalized Magnetohydrodynamics to include dielectric fluids.

Hannes Alfvén’s student Bibhas De generalized Magnetohydrodynamics to include dielectric fluids.

Later I would suggest that this generalization can be taken one step even further to empty space, imagined as a fluid – and that there are tangible consequences of this.

PLANCK SATELLITE: Nou breekt mijn klomp!

August 27, 2014


I have just come across this curious statement:

Very many independent studies of the cosmic microwave background radiation carried out over a few decades show the observed spectrum is very close to a blackbody spectrum. The more precise studies, such as those from the Planck spacecraft, show the cosmic background radiation is extremely close to a blackbody. (Actually astonishingly so.)

I have also reported at least one other statement like this in another professor’s blog site.

I have to believe that this is the prevailing view inside the academia; that this is the basis on which the academic gravy boat is riding.

I have done due diligence each time I have seen a statement like this from the academics, and I have found hide nor hair of a Planck Satellite-determined blackbody, astonishing or not.

So where is it, Mijnheer?!

S’il vous plaît me mettre hors de ma misère!

OFF TOPIC: Management Theory and scientific R&D

August 27, 2014

Another interesting tidbit turned up during my clearing out accumulated papers and files!

In this letter, then Chevron Corporation Chairman and CEO Kenneth T. Derr explains the TOTAL QUALITY Management Theory as applied to a scientific R&D center in the industry.

Former Chevron Chairman and CEO Kenneth T. Derr explained the TOTAL QUALITY Management Theory as applied to scientific R&D

Former Chevron Chairman and CEO Kenneth T. Derr explained the TOTAL QUALITY Management Theory as applied to scientific R&D

BICEP2 TELESCOPE MODUS OPERANDI

August 26, 2014

bicep2 telescope, bicep2 discovery, bicep2 instrumentation

bicep2 telescope, bicep2 discovery, bicep2 instrumentation

BICEP2 imaging plane is set up in an xy grid. Theoretically, the instrument should determine the sky polarization correctly however this plane is oriented (with regard to rotation about the telescope axis.) But this has not been demonstrated experimentally, and the design of the plane is such that the x and y axis are not interchangeable. So what does this random spin mean for the final BICEP2 “discovery”?

Round and round she goes;
Where she stops nobody knows.

The only industry professional involvement in BICEP2 development seems to have taken place when a complete in-house design was taken outside for manufacturing. So who were the seasoned expert engineering R&D professionals who designed the imaging plane? I have not found any such people in the BICEP2 Team.

Why did the industry professionals think the design was “crazy”? Surely there was a basis for this!

If I go to Home Depot and pick up a piece of black iron pipe to fix my water line, and the HD guy says “You’re crazy!”, I best listen!

The establishment is turning blind eyes and deaf ears to transparent bunglings that went on, and establishment theoreticians are publicly praising BICEP2 instrumentation.

The radio astronomy instrumentation types, who are the only establishment people that know what is going on, are totally silent, except for the Planck group. The latter have legitimized the botched instrumentation by agreeing to collaborate on its result on an equal basis.

But the real question that matters the most is: Are the funding agencies watching? Are Government watchdogs watching? Is there another Dr. Michael Griffin out there?!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.