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!
EXCERPTS FROM THE INTERVIEW
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.