PHYS. REV. LETTERS: Scam retraction of sham discovery

March 2, 2015

There you have it, folks!

Physical Review Letters had published the bogus B-mode polarization paper in June 2014. Now they are publishing a retraction that fully maintains the B-modes and stengthens them.

So you can construct a quack gadget and get two PRL publications out of it!

Also, James Bock has come out swinging. He avers that his instrumentation is fine!

Remember a couple of posts ago I showed how the B-mode maps were completely different for BICEP2 and Keck because of botched instrumentation?

All Bock has done is deep-sixed the bottom half of this diagram! He is showing you the top half and telling you everything is shipshape.

Remember that the bottom half is their own data they have proudly put out, after thorough review by the BICEP2 and the Planck Collaborations. No doubt there will now be a cover story that somebody accidentally pushed a wrong button and a wrong map got inadvertently published.

This deep-sixing seems to be a dominant character trait with these Big Bang guys. CMB spectrum not a blackbody?! Let’s deep-six it. B-mode maps reveal instrumental botch-up?! Let’s deep-six ‘em.

Hey, let’s get Mikey … er .. Pierre to publish it. He will publish anything!

LORD HAVE MERCY!

BBB: Big Bang Bogosity

February 21, 2015

Big Bang Cosmology

Big Bang Cosmology

Beware of geeks bearing predictions…

February 20, 2015

(Chapter draft)

CHAPTER V-14
Beware of geeks bearing predictions

Sometime in 2008 the World had a rude awakening. We learned about how abstract Wall Street investment instruments like Derivatives and Credit Default Swaps threatened the economy. Some of these were actually designed by physicists and mathematicians who saw a new fertile field in the financial arena to apply their skills. The renowned investor Warren Buffett wrote to his shareholders:

Constructed by a nerdy-sounding priesthood using esoteric terms such as beta, gamma, sigma and the like, these models tend to look impressive. Too often, though, investors forget to examine the assumptions behind the symbols. Our advice: Beware of geeks bearing formulas.

Our discussion thus far has been about experimenters. It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the Big Bang theorists are blameless. But they are very much a party to the grand deception. So let us talk about the priesthood in cosmology.

Now, if I were a theoretician and had made some theoretical studies to predict that the star Alpha Centauri is made of antimatter, I would have a good gut feeling about how well-formed this prediction is. Is this an idea that can be handed over right away to the experimenters? Is this an idea ready for the investment of tens of millions of dollars of public funds? My conclusion would be that this is a very long shot, not worth spending great funds on. I would not want to be responsible for such a commitment. If some hotshots from big name universities came to me and said they wanted to make experimental verification of my prediction and that they would have no problem getting funds, I would gently dissuade them. That is what a theoretician’s responsibility is: To know in his physics gut what he has produced and not to oversell it and not to sit passively as funds are solicited by others for this purpose.

The Big Bang theoreticians likewise make theories and predictions. But when men like Alan Guth and Andrei Linde encourage – actively or passively – the lavishing of public money to verify their predictions, they are being irresponsible. For they have to know full well that their fanciful omphaloskepsis does not merit this expenditure. Either that, or they have no physics in their gut at all.

To make the above point more concrete, let me cite what Andrei Linde – in a recent unguarded confessional moment – said about his idea that the BICEP2 team was trying to verify:

I always live with this feeling: What if I believe in this just because it is beautiful?

And yet he condones the spending of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on his private fantasy.

Suppose in the example about Alpha Centauri, some people went ahead anyway and collected satellite evidence that I am right. Would I exalt over it? No. I would have grave doubts even though it is my own theory that has reportedly been verified.

But the inflation theorists gloried (in the noble way they glory) when they heard about the BICEP2 confirmation of their ideas. Again, Andrei Linde’s comment here is revealing:

If this is true, this is a moment of understanding of nature of such a magnitude that it just overwhelms,…

We have here scientists that have been prematurely put on such lofty pedestals that they could not develop a sense of an intellectual’s responsibility vis-à-vis the society down below.

BICEP2 BOTCH-UP: Clear as daylight!

February 15, 2015

Folks, logical clarity is our friend.

BICEP2 and Keck Array are two separate telescope units at the South Pole. They use exactly the same imaging technique.

(a). If the two telescopes report exactly the same image of exactly the same part of the sky, the image may be an artifact of measurement or truly “on the sky.” We cannot tell without more information.

(b). If the two images are different, they are unambiguously instrumental artifacts. We do not need any more information.

Now compare the skymaps:

Historically, Big Bang cosmologists have talked their way out of a hundred jams. Don’t let them bs their way out of this one!

BICEP2: Digging further

February 6, 2015

You will recall that one of the fatal problems with BICEP2 I identified was that its imaging plane antenna elements were far closer together than the ultimate resolution of electromagnetic wave ( ~ one-third the wavelength – a basic physics limitation.) How did this situation come about?

There is now this paper which explains how the spacing was calculated.Here is the relevant portion:

This paper explains that the antenna spacing was determined inside a wafer of quartz above the antenna slots, with a dielectric constant of 11.8. The thickness of the wafer appears to be about one free space wavelength. The slots are much smaller than one wavelength.

By using the grating lobe criterion they find that the minimum spacing at 180 GHz should be 0.46 mm.

But this calculation is wrong. The dielectric constant that needed to be used in the above calculation is that of air (=1.0). Then the spacing would 1.6 mm – which would have avoided the spacing fatality issue I raised.

BICEP2 IS NOW A FRAUD

February 3, 2015

There is out a new paper on BICEP2 instrumentation. It also pertains to Keck and SPIDER instrumentation. While I do not need any more information to know that this instrument is a total botch up, others may be swayed by this most impressive-looking paper.

So I took a look see. To get into the good stuff, you have to know where exactly to look. I will give you four major issues, each fatal in itself. Now it is all there in evidentiary black and white.

They have laid out their reasoned final position. I am giving you my reasoned final position.

ANTENNA CONCEPT

BICEP2 antennas are a series of slots cut into a metal plane. Below the metal plane is a thin layer of dielectric. On the bottom side of this dieletric substrate is the microstrip circuitry.

I had explained that placing microstrip circuitry to close to the antenna slot alters the performance of the antenna. They say that the metal plane shields the microstrip circuitry from the electromagnetic radiation incident on it (from above.) They are saying there are no electromagnetic fields below the metal plane.

This is how antenna engineer wannabes think. I have seen this before. The very way the slot antennas work is by the induction of electromagnetic fields in the slot and above and below it. If there were no fields below the plane, the antennas would not be working!

So they have not understood the very first thing about the very first level of their imaging science.

POLARIZATION

Now that they have let it all hang out, it seems that their axial ratio is around ~ 20 -25 dB. This is not anywhere near the kind of axial ratio needed in astronomical polarimetry (probably >> 40 dB), and certainly not good enough to detect those beautiful B-mode swirls with a sensitivity of 1 in 30 million.

ANTENNA SPACING

I had explained that the BICEP2 antennas have been placed far closer than permitted by electromagnetic theory and antenna theory. Closest spacing between the nearest antennas has to be greater than one-third wavelength. Now they say that their spacing was dictated by grating lobe considerations for their phased array.

These considerations refer to the maximum spacing corresponding to a maximum angle through which you wish to steer your beam from the forward direction. It is common sense that you should not want to steer the beam so much as to make the maximum distance equal to one-third the wavelength.

Yet their spacing is less than this. But wait a moment! It is even worse.

The phased array concept underlying the above issue is also wrong. Phased array theory they refer to pertains to a plane wave (equal phase front) incident on the array at some angle. This is not at all the case for BICEP2.

ANTENNA ISOLATION (CROSSTALK)

These people think that the nearest distance we are concerned with is the distance between two adjacent parallel antennas. This is a misconception. In their case it is the distance between the nearest antenna pair – even though these two antennas are orthogonal. And this distance here is much smaller than one-third wavelength.

The bottom line is that the principle of BICEP2 imaging required each antenna to be independent of its neighboring antennas. This is not the case. In fact, there is a continuous linkage (through crosstalk) running all across the imaging plane. Like interlocked wood flooring.

Planck Collaboration has aggressively endorsed BICEP2 technology in spite of all these, and more. They have even granted that BICEP2 technology is superior to Planck’s. They have confirmed that BICEP2 detected B-mode polarization on the sky. Physical Review Letters is going to publish this. This falsehood is going to be enshrined for posterity.

When a group of powerful scientists engage in blatant quackery and another group of powerful scientists back them up and the rest of the scientific establishment gives silent support, who do you go to?

It is most outrageous what is happening right in front of our eyes in the name of science. Esoteric scientific ideas are being installed by brute force, by collective establishment power. This is no longer an issue of collective ineptness. It is collective science fraud and collective taxpayer fraud. I can say it because it is true, and it is defensible in any forum other than a thoroughly corrupt scientific establishment.

CHECK THIS OUT, Monsieur Jean-Jacques Dordain!

February 2, 2015

THIS POST IS REMOVED BECAUSE IT STEMMED FROM A MISUNDERSTANDING ON MY PART OF LANGUAGE IN A PRESS RELEASE. APOLOGIES!

SEE THE NEXT POST INSTEAD.

POST NO. 500: PUBLIC ADMISSION OF BIG BANG BOTCH UP

January 31, 2015

THIS POST IS REMOVED BECAUSE IT STEMMED FROM A MISUNDERSTANDING ON MY PART OF LANGUAGE IN A PRESS RELEASE. APOLOGIES!

SEE INSTEAD THE POST AFTER NEXT.

What will be the legacy of Planck Satellite?

January 9, 2015

Here is the current draft of my little section on Planck Satellite:

CHAPTER V-13:
Planck Collaboration

V-13.1 Planck Satellite and the Big Bang Blackbody Spectrum

Planck Collaboration is the name of the scientific team behind the Planck Satellite, belonging to the European Space Agency (ESA). The satellite operates at nine discrete frequencies that were carefully chosen to hug the COBE Satellite 2.7 K blackbody spectrum.

The first results from the Planck Satellite were released in 2013. One of the very first calculations they would have made is the absolute intensity in the sky at each of the nine frequencies. In other words, the very first result they obtained – the result that would underpin all subsequent results – was the CMB radiation spectrum. It was expected by the Big Bang establishment to mimic the COBE Satellite blackbody spectrum.

Planck Collaboration would release a great deal of data and scientific results after that. However, they never ever released that spectrum which was to confirm the COBE spectrum. The reason is most obvious: It did not confirm the COBE spectrum. On the contrary, it solidly disproved the COBE spectrum and thus falsified Big Bang Theory.

Nor did Planck Collaboration release the skymaps in total intensity (the anisotropy skymaps released being in differential intensity.)

It may be that buried somewhere in the data files they have released there is information to construct the missing spectrum and the skymaps. That would place Planck Collaboration technically in the clear from the charge of suppressing negative data. But why would they engage in such a subterfuge?

Having suppressed the all important spectrum, Planck Collaboration then proceeded as though Big Bang were fully intact, and made all kinds of pronouncements about the Big Bang early Universe.

In sum, Planck Collaboration started to scam in order to cover up the COBE Satellite fraud in particular and the Big Bang scam in general.

V-13.2 Planck Collaboration and BICEP2 Collaboration

When the BICEP2 matter came along, everyone looked to Planck Collaboration for support. There was the issue of how much of the BICEP2 B-Mode signal was due to the deep background CMB and how much of it was due to the foreground galactic dust. For the BICEP2 discovery to stand, it was necessary to demonstrate that the latter contribution was minor. And only Planck Collaboration had the data bearing on the foreground emission.

This was the issue as it was presented to the public. But it was not the real issue. The real issue was that the BICEP2 B-Mode results were the result of total instrumental botch up. The B-Mode sky swirls were artifactual.

Planck Collaboration, a part of ESA, had access to the most advanced engineering knowhow in the field. Therefore they, if anyone, would know that BICEP2 was an instrumental botch up. Therefore, they would not engage in such a collaboration with BICEP2 that averred that the BICEP2 data were scientifically sound.

But they did. They showed that the foreground was the dominant contribution. This made the BICEP2 discovery of the primordial gravitational waves go away, but solidly confirmed that BICEP2 was the first instrument to observe B-Mode swirls in the sky. Planck Collaboration knowingly covered up the BICEP2 botch up.

Sure enough, Planck Satellite has acquired very high quality, highly valuable data. But as long as this treasure trove is considered the domain of Big Bang, everyone else would feel excluded, not welcome. The treasure trove would remain private property. The lasting legacy of Planck Satellite will be that they repeatedly covered up American botch ups.

BICEP2: Stanford University quackery continues apace

January 4, 2015

The three polarimeter telescopes BICEP2, BICEP3 (ground-based, in Antarctica) and SPIDER (balloon-borne, in Antarctica) are based on the quack engineering design of Stanford professor Chao-lin Kuo.

The quackery was first exposed on 17 March 2014 – the very day the BICEP2 discovery was announced. Since then increasing levels of detailed scientific explanation and education have been provided.

In mid-December Kuo announced that BICEP2 instrument is fine and that he is proceeding with BICEP3.

On New Year’s Day SPIDER was launched.

It seems that no one in the scientific establishment or the Government funding agencies is interested in dealing with this rampant quackery. Everyone is happy to see universe-shattering cosmological discoveries with mind-numbing precision come out the wazoo.

Kuo now fits all the criteria on which Jan Hendrik Schon and Victor Ninov were adjudged science frauds by this scientific establishment.

Here are a just few questions one might ask Kuo:

– What is your qualification in advanced antenna & microwave design & development engineering?

– Who all did the expert engineering design review of BICEP2 and approved it?

– Where are your test data on the radiation patterns and polarization pattern on a single antenna element?

– Based on these data, where are your signal-to-noise ratio and gain-to-temperature ratio calculations showing a sensitivity of 1 part in 30 million is achievable?

If there is no satisfactory answer to any of these questions, the project should never have got off the ground.

LORD HAVE MERCY!

UPDATE 01/04/2015:

Here is a copy of the pdf draft chapter from my book:

BICEP2-BICEP3-SPIDER INSTRUMENTAL BOTCH UP


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.