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