BIG BANG STORIES: The education of Assumpta Innocent

July 22, 2014

Bicep2 discovery, Big Bang Cosmology

Bicep2 discovery, Big Bang Cosmology

BICEP2: Alexei Alexandrovich speaks

July 14, 2014

One of the 2014 Kavli Laureates, Alexei Starobinsky, has just given an interview. This is in Russian. So I used Google Translate, and then tried to polish up the machine translation a little bit. But there may still be translational glitches.

There are important points to note here:

(1). The Kavli Prize for inflation was indeed the direct result of the Bicep2 verification. (This verification is totally bogus.)

(2). The predictions of inflation theories pertain to the cosmic blackbody radiation, and the gravitational wave imprint is predicted to be in that blackbody radiation. (The existence of this blackbody has been repeatedly and emphatically disproved by COBE, WMAP and Planck Satellites. Enormous amounts of public moneys continue to be invested in ideas whose foundation has already been solidly disproved by the very same community with enormous amounts of public moneys.)

(3). Therefore, 2014 Kavli Prize for Cosmology should be seen as an enormous embarrassment. It marks a new low in the ongoing “Decadence and Declivity in the Contemporary Physics Establishment.” Physics as we knew it has been demolished and a totally false edifice is being erected in its place – complete with its heroes, geniuses, wunderkinds … Pretend physicists are making pretend discoveries and are garnering real life prizes.

Once you get past the humor, try and think how frightening it is what is going on. If you are an establishment physicist, your house is on fire. Right now!


Alexei Alexandrovich, first let me congratulate your on being awarded the prestigious Kavli Prize along with Andrei Linde. Was it a surprise to you?

Thank you. For me it was a great surprise that the Kavli Foundation decided to give the award for this because the past awards were more of observational nature. If Gruber Prize (which Starobinsky received in 2013) was for cosmology, the Kavli Prize so far, except for Astrophysicist Lynden-Bell, has been given for observation.

And I think the award is in order, so to speak; I am no longer being bypassed for appreciation of my pioneering work of 1979-1980.

When it came not to the words but to the observational data, then they remembered my work.

What kind of data?

First data – the COBE Satellite experiment of 1992. Then there were the results of observations of WMAP and Planck, which best relates to my work in 1980, and a recent result of BICEP 2, which best relates to my work in 1979.

In those years there were created several models of the expanding universe; what are their differences?

The main difference is: Should we go on the geometry or on physics? My 1980 model was in the spirit of Einstein, who had a general idea of geometricization of physics, and my model really was purely geometrical, since it all depended only on the curvature of spacetime. Another approach inherent in the work of Guth and Linde starts from elementary particle physics. So from the beginning they have postulated a scalar field.

Then in a funny way it turned out that the difference between these two approaches is not that big, and people began to talk about a certain duality. When two theories that formally look like completely different, but mathematical transformation one into another, their observational predictions can be the same. So now it turns out that there is not such a profound difference between the two approaches. In the last year a lot of Andrei Linde’s work is committed to both of his approach and supergravity which appears my original model.

Therefore, our two models rather complement each other.

What is the infamous unreliability of the experimental results BICEP2?

Our two models differ in the prediction of gravitational waves. In my model parameter r was 0.5%. In the model Linde – 15%, the ratio of the square of the amplitude of gravitational waves to the square of the amplitude of density perturbations. General prediction was that the gravitational wave has less than the scalar value, that is, must be less than unity. By how much it should be lessis dependent on the particular model assumed.

BICEP2 measurements, at first glance, speak more in favor of a model of Andrei. The only experiment that achieves accuracy in measuring the polarization of the CMB 10**-7 is BICEP2, but the price of such sensitivity is that that they measure the only one wavelength. And we are interested in not just any temperature of electromagnetic radiation, but only the black body temperature. Everything extraneous, produced by secondary sources, which are not too far away – the dust in our galaxy, or synchrotron radiation from active nuclei of nearby galaxies (complicate the situation). Therefore, strictly speaking, we cannot assert that Bicep2 measured the blackbody component. The survey data recently published by the Planck team are not in the galactic pole, where BICEP2 looked, because it is believed there is less dust in that direction, in high galactic latitudes.

The Planck conclusion was pessimistic: if their observations take the most “cold” area, the dust emission is sufficient to explain the results BICEP2 as not primarily due to gravitational waves, but mostly due to dust.

Just dust itself radiates: its temperature is about 20 degrees Kelvin.

So we should not blindly accept the results BICEP2, and check them. But check them not referring to other parts of the sky, but at the same location (as Bicep2), and also make measurements at other wavelengths. In principle, there are Planck results covering the entire sky, and the puzzle is why they keep it a secret. They have promised to publish these results in late October.

What should happen to bring this matter to a conclusion?

I think that the experimental data from Planck will be enough.

If this is not enough, you will need to do a new experiment.

We will need to look at other frequencies and measure the intensities that give the r value itself at three different frequencies.


July 1, 2014

bicep2 telescope, bicep2 discovery, bicep2 cmb, bicep2 south pole, b-mode polarization, intelligent designer, cosmic inflation, gravitational wave, john kovac harvard, Chao-lin kuo stanford, jamie bock caltech, clem pryke minnesota, andrei linde stanford, alan guth mit, bicep2 nsf, bicep2 keck foundation, bicep2 kavli, harvard smithsonian center for astrophysics

bicep2 telescope, bicep2 discovery, bicep2 cmb, bicep2 south pole, b-mode polarization, intelligent designer, cosmic inflation, gravitational wave, john kovac harvard, Chao-lin kuo stanford, jamie bock caltech, clem pryke minnesota, andrei linde stanford, alan guth mit, bicep2 nsf, bicep2 keck foundation, bicep2 kavli, harvard smithsonian center for astrophysics


June 30, 2014

Things are hotting up. This is what will happen in a conference in Valencia, Spain later this week:

Another issue of particular interest is the results of the BICEP2 experiment, which according to recent announcement, establish some primary evidence of the cosmic inflation process that occurred in the first moments of the universe after the Big Bang. “A presentation and discussion of the results will be held as well as the confirmation or contestation that should be provided by the European satellite Planck. This issue is to be one of the hot moments of the Conference”, Fuster states.

Another report has it that a wood-framed glass case has been set up in front of Alan Guth’s MIT office to hold the forthcoming Nobel Diploma:

“It” is not just any prize but one thing in particular: a citation for the Nobel Prize in physics. Even since his remarkable work analyzing the gravitational ripples after the big bang, Guth’s perhaps inevitable acceptance of a Swedish-accented phone call from the Nobel committee is now the talk of the physics world.

When Planck issued its main results in 2013, no one asked them about corroborating the Nobel prizewinning COBE Satellite discovery of the 2.7 degree K cosmic blackbody spectrum, and the Planck team never said anything. They knew there was hide nor hair of this blackbody in the sky – but they kept mum. Faces were saved and science was sacrificed.

Now bicep2 is being readied for the next round of Big Bang Nobel Prizes. The first necessary step towards this – the publication of the discovery in a refereed journal – has already been accomplished. The dust issue will blow over (It was planned that way!). So the only other thing that is necessary now is for Planck to keep mum on bicep2 instrumental botch up. That will clear the way to filling Guth’s glass case.

Believe me, the Planck people are smart cookies, and if anyone within the establisahment has figured out that bicep2 was a scandalous instrumental botch up, the Planck people have. In fact, I would go so far as to surmise that they have known this from long before I ever came on the scene.

Since the Nobelgivers will not read Internet blog sites, they will never know that there were any instrumental issues in absence of any indications from Planck. Everything will be shipshape for the award to proceed.

(Have you been enjoying as much as I have this jockeying for position among the potential Inflation Nobel candidates? Kovac and Guth have the most campaign clout going for them!)

Don’t be COBEd by Planck yet once again, World! Don’t let them biceptwo you too. Don’t let them equivocate. Remember this:

planck satellite, bicep2 discovery, bicep2 cmb, bicep2 telescope, jean-jacques dordain esa, galactic dust, b-mode polarization, cosmic inflation, gravitational wave, john kovac harvard, bicep2 nsf, bicep2 keck foundation, bicep2 kavli

planck satellite, bicep2 discovery, bicep2 cmb, bicep2 telescope, jean-jacques dordain esa, galactic dust, b-mode polarization, cosmic inflation, gravitational wave, john kovac harvard, bicep2 nsf, bicep2 keck foundation, bicep2 kavli


June 28, 2014


III.1 Image presentation

When the Bicep2 sky images of polarization in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (an all pervasive isotropic radiation with no directionality of any kind) were unveiled, they were plotted on a Right Ascension-Declination diagram with different scales for the different axes. On this diagram, the full Moon would look like a vertical bar. In Figure 5 below, I have resized one such diagram to where the full Moon would look like a circular disc.

Figure 5

And what do we see here?! There was a pronounced preference of the gravitational waves produced during the inflation era 14 billion years ago to favor the Earthly coordinate system. Lord how mysteriously you do work!

A first coincidence?

Wait a moment. Don’t answer. There’s more.

III.2 Little boxes little boxes ….

Now this point requires that you sit down with your kid and give him/her a red pencil and ask him/her to mark as many right angles as can be found.

All of them are perfectly aligned with RA-Dec coordinate system.

A second coincidence?

What does the kid say?


June 26, 2014


II.1 Basic concepts

Bicep2 focal plane is populated with small (physically and electrically) slot antennas cut in a metal plane in a rectangular grid arrangement. There are some 500 such slots in the focal plane. The slots are alternately “horizontal” (parallel to the x axis say) and “vertical” (y axis) – to receive two orthogonal polarizations.

The horizontal slots receive vertically polarized radiation and the vertical slots are horizontally polarized radiation.

Consider two nearby antennas that are orthogonal to each other. They look at the same spot in the sky and receive the same sky polarization.

If the horizontal antenna detects maximum power and the vertical antenna detects zero power, the incident sky polarization is vertical.

If the horizontal antenna detects zero power and the vertical antenna detects maximum power, the incident sky polarization is horizontal.

If both antennas detect the same power, the incident sky polarization is at 45 degree angle (or 135 degree angle).

When the two antennas record different amounts of nonzero power, the sky polarization angle can be calculated.

Any ambiguity in the angle is resolved by adding other information and coordinating across the entire imaging plane.

This is the basic principle of Bicep2 polarimetry we need to know. Of course the practice is far more complicated.

The main points for our purpose are:

1. Each location a in the focal plane corresponds to a location A in the sky. If a moves, A moves.

2. The antennas must be identical in their electromagnetic properties. What this means for our specific purpose is that for the same amount of co-polarized power incident on an antenna, each antenna must report exactly the same amount of energy. When I say exactly, I mean there is very little tolerance, probably only a small fraction of 1%.

Note that the Bicep2 telescope can be rotated about its axis. We assume that the imaging plane is rigidly fixed to the body of the telescope so that it rotates with the telescope.

II.2 The antenna fault

Now let us refer to Figure 2 which shows the flipside of the Bicep2 focal plane. You can see the horizontal and the vertical slots and the associated microstrip circuitry connecting the antennas to the detectors (not shown).

Figure 2

The design of a slot antenna requires that the microstrip transmission lines on the circuit board stay clear of the antenna to some distance around it – as shown in the case of the vertical antennas. However, this principle was not followed for the horizontal antennas.

As a result, the properties of the horizontal and the vertical antennas are different. They will report different amounts of power when the same amount of copolarized power is incident on them. As I have explained, such a difference translated to a polarization angle ascribed to the incoming sky wave.

Thus, an intrinsic instrumental polarization is introduced at all circuit board locations a.

This instrumental polarization is introduced all across the board and are ascribed to all corresponding sky points A being observed.

Furthermore, the difference in the power reported varies across the board because of the way the circuit has been designed.

So the instrumental polarization has an entire polarization map (mosaic) of itself.

If there is any polarization in the sky, the map Bicep2 obtains is some kind of convolution of the instrumental map and the actual sky map.

If the focal plane (the telescope) is rotated, the location of a in the telescope changes with respect to the sky. And so the location A in the sky changes. Thus the instrumental map of the sky rotates with the telescope.

Therefore, when the telescope is rotated, the sky image reported by Bicep2 structurally rotates.

This what was implied in the humor in this figure.

Remember that Bicep2 was looking for the smallest of small signals. There needed to be not even an appearance that the horizontal and the vertical antennas are different. Instead, we have this clear design violation!

To summarize:

1 The horizontal and the vertical antennas are not the same.

2 The focal plane has a clear directionality.

3 The focal plane properties become convoluted with any actual sky map the telescope is observing to provide an artifactual sky map.

II.3 The array fault

Let us now turn to the antenna array, a portion of which is shown in Figure 3. The progress of the Bicep2 class telescopes has been driven by packing more and more antenna elements into this area, reportedly to provide higher resolution and faster imaging of the sky.

Figure 3

One of the fundamental limitations of Electromagnetic Theory is that electromagnetic waves cannot resolve (discern, discriminate) structures that are smaller in size than ~ λ/3 ( λ= the wavelength, in this case 2 mm).

What this means in the present context is that to the incoming wave, antennas placed closer than this length do not act as independent detectors of radiation. So this is like providing more pixels to an image after it has been fully resolved. All that happens is that the data file gets bigger and bigger with no practical benefit added.

But in the Bicep2 case, this is not only needless increase of the number of antenna elements. It can also be detrimental because of cross-talk between antennas that are assumed by the researchers to be independent.

For experts, you can read between the lines and see some of the roots of misunderstandings in this scientific design approach statement from the Bicep2 camp below. They gave up the most crucial need for aperture area to accommodate the mistaken idea that more and more antennas can be packed to get more and more capability!

Traditionally,bolometers have been used with horns to match the detectors’ optical response to the camera/telescope optics. At Caltech, we have developed an entirely planar equivalent with an integrated, printable, phased array antenna. Whereas technology from circa 2005 allowed for 50 pixels in the progenitor camera BICEP-1, we recently deployed over 1500 pixels in the Keck-array and BICEP-2 cameras, providing 8.5uK sqrt(s) sensitivity. In December of 2013, we will bring another 1500 detectors to the field in the BICEP-3 camera, which will expand our coverage from just 150GHz to 90GHz so we can discriminate CMB photons from galactic foregrounds. The balloon bourn SPIDER will also fly December 2013, with a mixture of 90 and 150GHz, but a comparable number of pixels as Keck. We realistically expect that the data sets from these experiments over the next few years will let us constrain the tensor-scalar ratio r of modes from inflation to r=0.01. The key behind this rapid scale-up has been to use small aperture cameras with just enough resolution to see the 2-degree primordial B-mode peak (an aperture of 26cm at 150GHz), thus making the design scalable to multiple cameras.

Somebody needs to do something about what is going on here under the guise of advanced research.

II.4 Bicep2 observation technique

It is clear that the Bicep2 team were not aware of the issues I have discussed above. They have in fact bandied around images of the focal plane all over the place with great parental pride. These images contained clear visual signal of what was wrong.

However, it seems that they concluded that some type of attention needed to be given to the angular position of the telescope about its axis. This is how they described this:

To make accurate measurements over a wide area, the challenge is to control false signals. … Finally, to remove from the system any effects that might arise from having a preferred direction, we spin our telescope around its axis every day.

So it seems that some type of angle-averaging or angle randomization with regard to some unknown suspected directionality in the telescope underlies the Bicep2 sky maps unveiled.

This is most curious in a state-of-the-art, pioneering experiment attempting to make the grandest of discoveries.

If there is a suspected directionality, would you not want to examine this? Especially when it takes no more effort than making sky images with the telescope fixed at 0, 45 and 90 degrees position (for example).

What does it mean exactly to average maps if they were structurally rotating?

So the Bicep2 team had the burden to produce those angle-specific sky maps before publishing their discovery. This crucial scientific burden for the Bicepe2 experiment cannot be avoided with statements like We compared Bicep2 with other telescopes and everything is fine.

II.5 The proof offered: Bicep1 vs Bicep2

Let us nevertheless consider the self-explanatory Figure 4. Here we see that for the E-mode polarization, there is some correspondence between Bicep1 and Bicep2. (Not so for B-mode). Specifically, the directionality in the map seems to be the same.

Note that Bicep1 did not have the grid type focal plane. It had tried and true polarized horns in its focal plane.

Figure 4

So we end up with a contradiction between basic physics principles in the textbooks and astronomical observations reported by the Bicep2 team

SCIENTIFIC DESIGN ANALYSIS: The telescope is not capable of measuring polarization features in the CMB radiation because of its small aperture. The imaging plane has a pronounced directionality, and adds an instrumental polarization component across the sky map. Tighter packing of antennas cannot lead to higher resolution beyond a certain point – which was crossed by a great extent. When that happens, even the limiting resolution is lost.

OBSERVATION REPORTED: The telescope is reporting crisp high resolution polarization sky maps that do not depend on the angle of the telescope.

SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT RECEPTION: The astronomical discovery has been accepted in toto and without any qualification. The only debate concerns the interpretation of this observation.

Where have we seen these three steps unfold before?!


June 24, 2014



I.1 Basic fallacies

Bicep2 is a refractor telescope directed at observing the polarization characteristics of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) at 150 GHz (wavelength 2 mm). It has an aperture diameter 26 cm. Its focal plane is populated by a large number ( ~ 500) of small (physically and electrically) antennas with wide beams. The linearly polarized antennas are alternately at 90 degrees to one another to receive two orthogonal polarizations.

The aperture of the bicep2 telescope has two fatal design faults stemming from:

A. MISUNDERSTANDINGS (of telescope science)

B. MISINFORMATION (about the amount of CMB power available in the sky)

I.2 Misunderstandings

While I cannot speak for others, I myself was most baffled that such a small diameter (about the diameter of a standard dinner plate) telescope could not only receive, but also produce detailed high resolution maps of the very dilute CMB radiation. Remember that the scientists and engineers in the past went to larger and larger collecting aperture from COBE to WMAP to Planck satellites – all directed at observing CMB. The COBE-FIRAS instrument which had a collecting area comparable to BICEP2 was a total failure.

However, the following scientific justification was offered by the bicep2 team for the use of the “novel” use of small aperture:

Small telescopes have an overlooked capability to gather a lot of light with a wide field of view. … it was a novel approach in CMB measurements and gave us an enormous 20 degree field of view. In fact the light gathering power of BICEP is not so different from that of the 10-meter telescope looming over us at the South Pole, but BICEP’s aperture is just 26 centimeters.

While it is not spelled out, this comment refers to an isotropic radiation field (which is what CMB is) where the spectral radiation flux Fν (watts per sq meter, say, integrated over the bandwidth) is the same in all directions.

Figure 1


d = diameter of BICEP2 (= 26 cm)

D = diameter of 10-meter South Pole Telescope (=1000 cm)

A_B = PI*d**2/4, the aperture of BICEP2 telescope

A_SP = PI*D**2 /4, the aperture of South Pole Telescope

Referring to Figure 1, we see that for the BICEP2 Telescope, radiation enters the antenna aperture from all directions within its 20 degree field of view. For the narrow beam South Pole Telescope, radiation enters only in the direction parallel to the telescope axis. This is how it is possible for the same amount of radiation (watts) to enter the aperture of a small telescope and a large telescope. To this extent, the statement from the BICEP2 team is correct.

But it has nothing to do with anything.

What has everything to do with everything is how much radiation P (watts) is received by a single focal plane antenna element. This amount is

P_B = Fν*A_B

P_SP = Fν*A_SP

P_SP/P_B ~ 1500

So everything is in order. An antenna element at the focal plane of a small telescope receives little power, and the same at the focal plane of a large telescope receives great power. This is true in a directed radiation field or an isotropic radiation field. There is no “novel” way to defeat this basic physics.

The above comments pertain to the design of the BICEP2 Telescope. Is there any observational affirmation that the design is defective? It should be noted that Planck Satellite, with vastly larger aperture than BICEP2, reports low power levels difficult to process in the region of the sky that BICEP2 mapped with such clarity. This should rightly be accepted as the observational evidence that BICEP2 Telescope results do not pertain to CMB.

I.3 Misinformation

To design a telescope aperture, one needs a design value for the flux available. In this case it is the CMB flux Fν in the sky.

It is a matter of record that the BICEP2 Telescope was designed for a value of Fν corresponding to the ~ 3 K cosmic blackbody radiation discovered by the COBE Satellite.

However, it is an open secret within the scientific establishment that this blackbody does not exist and the actual value of Fν may be two orders of magnitude lower. This information has been available to the BICEP2 team for many years. But the academics have such an inflated collective ego that they would rather design wrong things and report wrong results than to acknowledge that a grave science fraud was committed with their COBE discovery.

The above two faults in BICEP2 design constitute more than enough reason to retract the BICEP2 discovery. However, in Part II I will discuss the BICEP2 imaging technique and associated faults for good measure. I will tell you about how a modern high precision multi-million dollar scientific instrument is periodically given a whirl the way Buddhist prayer wheels are periodically given a whirl.

I do not know yet if BICEP2 is periodically given a whack also, the way the olden days TVs sometimes needed to be given a whack. But I live and learn.

BICEP2: Now we are getting somewhere!

June 23, 2014

I have just come across some key information about the bicep2 telescope science in a CalTech Magazine. I had missed this crucial information earlier. I should not have – and I offer my apologies.

I do not exaggerate by much when I say that as I read the above report, I nearly fell off my chair!

The thing is that I grossly underestimated the incredible botch up that went down. The situation is actually far worse than I had described to you – and I can now point you to the documented evidence. And I can also tell you that they possess the data that I said they should produce.


I have said repeatedly that the bicep2 aperture is too small to be mapping CMB polarization.

But this question had already been answered: Their answer is that the 26 cm dia. Bicep2 (refractor) Telescope has the same radiation gathering power as the nearby 10 meter dia. South Pole (reflector) Telescope.

This was the scientific principle on which bicep2 was designed to produce such high resolution CMB polarization maps with a coffee can sized telescope.

No, this is not a joke. Read it below yourself.

All I can say is: LORD HAVE MERCY!

So I will repeat: The bicep2 aperture is too small to be mapping CMB polarization. Its design was based on basic misunderstandings.

(I will see if I can explain this is simple terms later.)

Enough said!


I had always assumed that measurements were made with the telescope’s imaging plane in a fixed orientation. This is why I said they should produce the sky imaged for different orientations of the telescope.

But this was not what they reported. It seems that measurements were averaged continuously (daily) in some weird way (by spinning the telescope) over 360-degree rotation of the imaging plane about the telescope axis.

This means that the botch ups were averaged. In other words, the artifactual image was rotated in the sky and averaged over the full rotation.

This averaging is scientifically nonsensical because the imaging plane is not rotationally indistinguishable. Its antenna layout has a rectangular architecture and manifestly different x-dependence and y-dependence.

I mean, would you average the trajectories of five incoming missiles and direct your countermeasure to the average trajectory?

But it seems therefore that the sky image for each angular orientation has been recorded and is available. So they simply have to produce the images for several angles (e.g. near 0, 45 and 90 degrees) and show that they are all the same. In fact this step needed to take place BEFORE they resorted to the averaging, in order to justify the averaging. So chances are this information is ready and handily available.

They can, for example, give these to a blogger to publish.

So the question I asked is still the same: Where are the primary skymaps as a function of the orientation of the imaging plane?

So I repeat: They should produce the sky images for different angular orientations of the telescope about its axis, from their existing data files.


June 19, 2014

I have made some comments in recent posts based on the following news report of 6 June 2014:

There are a series of claims that the experiment is flawed, and so the paper is being revised and will be resubmitted for publication at a latter date.

Until then, it is recommended that any findings be viewed as preliminary.

I read this as a commendable positive step on the part of the Bicep2 team, and expressed this. But it now turns out that this report was unreliable (and so eggs on my face), for the Bicep2 discovery paper has just been published in full glory today 19 June 2014 (submitted 4 April 2014) in the Physical Review Letters.

There is no hint of any instrumental issues.

This publication provides the essential basis for the nomination for the 2015 Nobel Prize for Physics that was being targeted – potentially the fourth batch of Big Bang Nobel Prizes. No doubt a number of other high profile prizes are in the cards. The Kavli Prize for this discovery has already been announced. So there is no stopping this anymore. That means there is no stopping Big Bang anymore.

It seems that the Planck people are also on board (“Dr. Kovac said the group was in negotiations with the Planck team to collaborate on a more thorough study of the dust.” – NYT). So Planck may even “corroborate” this discovery in Fall. That would certainly clinch the Nobel Prize.

Nothing changes for me. Bicep2 is an instrumental botch up, period. It is scientifically, technically and engineering-wise incapable of making the measurements it claims to have made. Its aperture is far too small to be obseving CMB polarization, and its imaging plane is crappy, resulting in the artifactual gridwork in the sky. I have laid out the case in great detail here – and hopefully this record will endure. (But to what avail?)

The entire Bicep2 paper discussing interpretation of these measurements is thus entirely irrelevant. And so is the discussion in the scientific community of galactic dust. The two camps are jointly helping keep the real issue out of public view.

There is one and only one issue: A scandalous instrumental botch up involving Bicep2 and a number of other currently active instruments. The funding agencies should commission an independent investigation of this before these faulty instruments are used to corroborate one another in their scientific conclusions.

A projection of the telescope’s focal plane gridwork in the sky has now been documented as a great discovery by the establishment’s foremost and toughest journal. This graphic adorns the cover of the journal issue.

After such a resounding endorsement, what is there to say?

I am a little tired. I must now concede technical defeat: In the eyes of the good citizens of the world whom I sought so laboriously to educate, the establishment has shut me down good and proper with this weighty peer-reviewed publication.


Why is the public being psychologically readied to wait on the Planck verdict on the amount of dust and not on the Planck verdict on the swirls in the sky? Because the former would simply change the bicep2 scientific conclusion while the latter would lead headlong into the finding of instrumental botch up.

The planck team should do a thorough engineering study of bicep2 before saying anything.
For Planck Satellite to say that bicep2 measured all dust and no cmb is to acknowledge that bicep2 measured something in the sky. That acknowledgement would be wrong. It would be to use ESA trustworthiness to mask the truth and mislead the world.
It would be John Mather all over again.
Not again, Monsieur Jean-Jacques Dordain?!

Next expected development: Planck Satellite. They have the scientific ability to corroborate my position once again. But will they? Judging from the past, I am not hopeful.


Pierre Meystre Editor, Physical review letters, american physical society aps, american institue of physics aip, bicep2 discovery, bicep2 keck, harvard smithsonian center for astrophysics, john kovac harvard, Jamie bock caltech, clem pryke minnesota, chao-lin kuo stanford, big bang cosmology inflation theory, b-mode polarization, gravitational waves, kavli prize astrophysics 2014

Pierre Meystre Editor, Physical review letters, american physical society aps, american institute of physics aip, bicep2 discovery, bicep2 keck, harvard smithsonian center for astrophysics, john kovac harvard, Jamie bock caltech, clem pryke minnesota, chao-lin kuo stanford, big bang cosmology inflation theory, b-mode polarization, gravitational waves, kavli prize astrophysics 2014


bicep2 discovery, bicep2 cmb, bicep2 telescope, Planck Satellite, galactic dust, b-mode polarization, cosmic inflation, ias princeton, raphael flauger ias, david spergel princeton, paul steinhardt princeton, uros seljak berkeley, michael mortonson berkeley, subir sarkar oxford, philipp mertsch kavli institute stanford, hao liu niels bohr institut, john kovac harvard, jamie bock caltech, chao-lin kuo stanford, clem pryke minnesota

bicep2 discovery, bicep2 cmb, bicep2 telescope, Planck Satellite, galactic dust, b-mode polarization, cosmic inflation, ias princeton, raphael flauger ias, david spergel princeton, paul steinhardt princeton, uros seljak berkeley, michael mortonson berkeley, subir sarkar oxford, philipp mertsch kavli institute stanford, hao liu niels bohr institut, john kovac harvard, jamie bock caltech, chao-lin kuo stanford, clem pryke minnesota

BICEP2: Lemme ‘splain the Princeton Paper!

June 18, 2014

The Princeton paper Toward an Understanding of Foreground Emission in the Bicep2 Region by Raphael Flauger, J. Colin Hill and David N. Spergel (28 May 2014) forms the basis of the current media blitz that is circling the world like a tsunami wave that is bigger than the one that circled the world when the Bicep2 discovery was announced.

There was yet one more report just this morning, quoting the ubiquitous authority David Spergel.

I will now show you that this paper’s conclusions are laughable – to put it mildly.

The paper uses interpreted data (not the machine numbers) mainly from the following telescopes:

BICEP1 Telescope– 100 GHz

BICEP2 Telescope – 150 GHz

Keck Array Telescope – 100 GHz (preliminary data)

Planck Satellite – 353 GHz

The paper then tacitly assumes that these data sets are a priori on the same footing (of data quality), and correlates and cross-correlates them to reach its various conclusions.

Let us leave aside the issue of Bicep2 botch up, and look only at the hard established facts that were known to the authors of this paper when they wrote it.

Now, the first three telescopes have the same aperture size that was designed to receive the 3 K blackbody radiation (Cosmic Microwave Background – CMB), peaking near 150 GHz. This is recorded fact.

But that blackbody radiation is not there in the sky, and that is an open secret for this scientific establishment.

Thus the three telescopes have apertures far too small to be observing trace polarization in CMB (E-mode or B-mode or any mode) which in actuality has an isotropic power level probably two orders of magnitude lower than the 3 K power level.

Hence there simply does not exist an issue of these telescopes having observed any CMB polarization.

I think I said that the very day the Bicep2 discovery was announced.

So if these telescopes did correctly observe any polarization in the sky, it most definitely was not CMB polarization. This much is given. You can take that to the bank.

Why do you then have to go raise holy hell about galactic dust and whatnot and write a bloviating paper only to conclude that Bicep2 is unlikely to have observed CMB polarization?

Worse yet, why do you promise the world that Keck will observe CMB polarization?

You can correlate and cross-correlate anything with anything, and you can write a paper about that. You can correlated and cross-correlate Planck Satellite with a ham sandwich. But why would you do that?!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.