BICEP2: Lemme ‘splain the Princeton Paper!

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?!


Tags: , , , ,

Leave a reply relevant to the above post.

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s