## Was WMAP wrong?

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>A second look at the publicly available WMAP data reveals anomalies at\nthe largest angular scales (&gt; 60°). Strong correlation with the\norientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane) and with its motion\n(measured as the CMB dipole) showed up, see\n\nhttp://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4\n\nAnyone know what the significance of this is?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">&nbsp;&nbsp;View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>A second look at the publicly available WMAP data reveals anomalies at
the largest angular scales (> 60°). Strong correlation with the
orientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane) and with its motion
(measured as the CMB dipole) showed up, see

http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4

Anyone know what the significance of this is?



In article <24a23f36.0412010138.399c834f@posting.google.com>, thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com (Thomas Larsson) wrote: > A second look at the publicly available WMAP data reveals anomalies at > the largest angular scales (> 60°). Strong correlation with the > orientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane) and with its motion > (measured as the CMB dipole) showed up, see > > http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4 > > Anyone know what the significance of this is? I don't know, but the WMAP year two data has been delayed for quite a while now without any explanation that I know of. Perhaps there's a relation? Aaron



In article <24a23f36.0412010138.399c834f@posting.google.com>, Thomas Larsson wrote: >A second look at the publicly available WMAP data reveals anomalies at >the largest angular scales (> 60°). Strong correlation with the >orientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane) and with its motion >(measured as the CMB dipole) showed up, see > >http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4 > >Anyone know what the significance of this is? The paper referred to in this article is http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/http://www....tro-ph/0403353 This is part of a series of results suggesting that there are statistical anomalies in the largest-scale multipoles of the microwave background as measured by WMAP. The original hint of trouble was that there is less overall large-scale power than theoretical models predicted. This was first quantified as a low quadrupole in the COBE data and was confirmed with much better data by WMAP. It turns out not to be just the quadrupole but the octupole as well. The statistical significance of that discrepancy isn't all that great, because there's a lot of cosmic variance in the first few multipoles. Essentially, that just means that there are very few modes we can sample on those largest scales, so there's lots of room for random fluctuations. What Schwarz et al. have done in this paper is quantify the *directions* of the quadrupole and octupole and point out that there are funny-seeming coincidences. This is a method of quantifying some more qualitative observations made earlier by Tegmark, de Oliveira-Costa, and collaborators. It's hard to be sure just how worried we should be about these coincidences. They suffer from the classic problem of assigning statistical significances a posteriori: if you first notice something strange in the data, and then calculate its statistical significance, you're going to get a high significance -- after all, the reason you noticed this thing in the first place is that it was unlikely! In this particular case, there are many different "coincidences" that could have arisen between all the different vectors that are lying around. When assigning a statistical significance to the coincidence that was found, one should take into account all of the other coincidences that could have been found but weren't. I haven't read this paper carefully enough to be 100% sure, but it doesn't look to me like they've done that. I'm not saying that there's nothing to this result -- there may well be. I think it's something that people in the community should continue to scrutinize. Although there's not, in my opinion, a smoking gun at the moment, there are hints that something interesting may be going on. $$-Ted$$ -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]

## Was WMAP wrong?

> A second look at the publicly available WMAP data reveals anomalies at
> the largest angular scales (> 60°). Strong correlation with the
> orientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane) and with its motion
> (measured as the CMB dipole) showed up, see
>
> http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4
>
> Anyone know what the significance of this is?

Well, it would nail down the requirement for a special "universal frame" for
GR. I suppose you could consider that significant.

Quite simply, instead of attributing the anomaly to "bad luck", it might
simply indicate that the values depend upon the time of stellar year when
the data is taken.

Since the result is "very planar and aligned, i.e. all minima and maxima
happen to fall on a great circle on the sky - another unexpected feature",
this also would provide support for aether theorists. As such is only
"unexpected" for GR and standard cosmology. (According to the announcement,
a 99.9% CL that standard
"inflation" is wrong.)

Hey this looks like fun. What research is all about! Now I'll have to read
the real paper.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}



thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com (Thomas Larsson) wrote in message news:<24a23f36.0412010138.399c834f@p...google.com>... > A second look at the publicly available WMAP data reveals anomalies at > the largest angular scales (> 60°). Strong correlation with the > orientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane) and with its motion > (measured as the CMB dipole) showed up, see > > http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4 > > Anyone know what the significance of this is? This is extraordinary for 2 reasons - one, a dominant local contribution to the CMB without explanation, and two, utter refutation of inflation (long overdue). $$-drl$$



thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com (Thomas Larsson) wrote in message news:<24a23f36.0412010138.399c834f@p...google.com>... > A second look at the publicly available WMAP data reveals anomalies at > the largest angular scales (> 60°). Strong correlation with the > orientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane) and with its motion > (measured as the CMB dipole) showed up, see > > http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4 > > Anyone know what the significance of this is? From what I've read the WMAP data is not necessarily a problem for inflation or the Big Bang itself but could be a problem for the standard Big Bang Nucleosynthesis model. Apparently another model involving plasma likes the WMAP data. From Tony Smith's website: .... The WMAP results contradict the Big Bang theory and support the plasma cosmology theory in another extremely important respect. Tegmark et al ... have shown that the quadruple and octopole component of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadruple and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. ... the plasma explanation is far simpler. If the density of the absorbing filaments follows the overall density of matter, as assumed by this theory, then the degree of absorption should be higher locally in the direction along the axis of the (roughly cylindrical) Local Supercluster and lower at right angles to this axis, where less high-density matter is encountered. This in turn means that concentrations of the filaments outside the Local Supercluster, which slightly enhances CBR power, will be more obscured in the direction along the supercluster axis and less obscured at right angle to this axis, as observed. More work will be needed to estimate the magnitude of this effect, but it is in qualitative agreement with the new observations. ...".



Quoting from the news release (I've downloaded www.arxiv.org/abs/astro- $ph/0403353,$ but have not yet read): "... or that the largest scales of the microwave sky are dominated by a local foreground." Just speculating... could this mean that the CBR is an artifact of space itself, rather than a leftover of the big bang? For what it's worth to ponder, I just looked up CBR and universe mass density comparisons: In MTW, they cite the equivalent mass density of the CBR as: 4 $x 10^-31 kg/m3$ A recent exam cited an assumed mass density of the universe as: $10^-28 kg/m3$ Just pondering... In <2b93dd16.0412011635.53b28e99@posting.google.com> Danny Ross Lunsford wrote: > thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com (Thomas Larsson) wrote in message news: > <24a23f36.0412010138.399c834f@posting.google.com>... >> A second look at the publicly available WMAP data reveals anomalies >> at the largest angular scales (> 60?). Strong correlation with the >> orientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane) and with its motion >> (measured as the CMB dipole) showed up, see >> >> http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4 >> >> Anyone know what the significance of this is? > > This is extraordinary for 2 reasons - one, a dominant local > contribution to the CMB without explanation, and two, utter refutation > of inflation (long overdue). > > $-drl$ > >



In article , "greywolf42" writes: > > The statistical significance of that discrepancy isn't all that great, > > because there's a lot of cosmic variance in the first few multipoles. > > Well, that is the ad hoc rationalization. False. The concept of cosmic variance in CMB data was discussed quantitatively before these new, surprising things were observed. There were many papers on "Predictions for MAP" etc. Many included error bars on theoretical predictions, dominated by cosmic variance at low l. Only if the measurements were way outside the predicted error bars would there be a problem in this regard. > > Essentially, that just means that there are very few modes we can > > sample on those largest scales, so there's lots of room for random > > fluctuations. > > But this mode isn't random at all. Random was the prediction. Instead it > was found to be linked directly and significantly to the ecliptic plane. I believe that at this point the discussion was confined to the amplitude, not the orientation.



ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message news:... > > I'm not saying that there's nothing to this result -- there may well > be. I think it's something that people in the community should > continue to scrutinize. Although there's not, in my opinion, a > smoking gun at the moment, there are hints that something interesting > may be going on. That's a very sensible attitude, but I wonder if you are aware that people are rejecting papers about this on the basis that "this isn't science, cosmic variance blah blah blah." This happened to one of my former teachers. The paper was subsequently accepted by Phys Rev, so we aren't talking crackpottery here. *Obviously* these observations *may* mean nothing, but you can say that about nearly all observations! People who excrete "cosmic variance" ought to specify the precise circumstances under which CV would *not* be regarded as an acceptable "explanation". Either that, or shut up. Sorry, but I am very disappointed by the way many in the community have handled this situation. A lot of people seemed *very* determined not to see any significance in the quad/octupole stuff, no matter what, and to hide behind this lame CV excuse. The correct attitude is Ted's: let's not get carried away, but it is still worth thinking about what it all may mean, and [in my opinion] it is worth while to do a little theoretical work on possible explanations.



"g starkman" wrote in message news:ce6fcd8e.0412021257.2c164cfa@posting.google.com... > (2) The quadrupole and the octopole align. (The quadrupole and the > octopole are the two lowest sets of "notes".) This was first pointed > out by de Oliveira Costa and collaborators, but, as pointed out by the > paper in question, the alignment is stronger than they realized. This > is because to properly compare, one should first subtract from the > quadrupole the piece caused by the motion of the solar system through > the universe. The allignment is unlikely at the 99.86% level. > This alignment is independent of the lack of power. Since the time these fascinating results came out, I was wondering whether the quadrupole (and octupole) pieces from the motion of the sun were already accounted for, when comparing the relative alignment of octupole and quadrupole. Obviously you did this in your paper (escaped my notice, sorry). This makes the case for some unusual physics much stronger. Thank you for the nice review (points 1 to 4). Made things much clearer to me. So there might really be an "anisotropy" problem. I wonder if this is related to the long delay of the WMAP polarization data? Are there any models, extensions of the FRW-type models, or different solutions of the field equations all together, that could explain this anisotropy? [I know at least one, but I rather want an unbiased opinion] Best MP



g starkman writes >There are other such effects that I oculd list, but I think you get >the point. While each of these is a posteori, they are also each odd, >and, we would argue, taken together they are seriously troubling. I am slightly puzzled by this thread. If I had an experiment that showed this sort of local patterning on what should be an unrelated observation, the very first thing that would concern me would be an error in the design of the experiment or a partial failure of the equipment. Given the exquisite sensitivity required for this one, that would seem to me to be entirely plausible, and quite worrying. But you all seem to be completely unconcerned with this possibility. So you must have good reason for this viewpoint. -- Oz



In article , Serenus Zeitblom wrote: >That's a very sensible attitude, but I wonder if you are aware that >people are rejecting papers about this on the basis that "this isn't >science, cosmic variance blah blah blah." This happened to one of my >former teachers. The paper was subsequently accepted by Phys Rev, so >we aren't talking crackpottery here. *Obviously* these observations $>*may*$ mean nothing, but you can say that about nearly all >observations! People who excrete "cosmic variance" ought to specify >the precise circumstances under which CV would *not* be regarded as an >acceptable "explanation". Well, it's certainly not uncommon for the peer review system to fail. It's quite possible that your teacher had a paper rejected by a referee who did a lousy job. I wish I could say I was shocked by such a possibility. But that doesn't mean that the term "cosmic variance" is meaningless or imprecise. It has quite a precise meaning: Theoretical models don't predict the r.m.s. amplitude of the CMB fluctuations in a given multipole l (e.g., the quadrupole amplitude, which $is l=2)$. They predict a probability distribution for that amplitude. In Gaussian theoretical models, the variance of that probability distribution is $2/(2l+1),$ so it's quite large for low l. (Non-Gaussian theories generically have still higher variances.) This means that even a perfect measurement of the low-l amplitudes provides only weak constraints on theories. The mathematics behind all this is utterly precise and indeed quite simple. There's nothing handwavy about it. >Either that, or shut up. Sorry, but I am very disappointed by the way >many in the community have handled this situation. A lot of people >seemed *very* determined not to see any significance in the >quad/octupole stuff, no matter what, and to hide behind this lame CV >excuse. The correct attitude is Ted's: let's not get carried away, >but it is still worth thinking about what it all may mean, and [in my >opinion] it is worth while to do a little theoretical work on >possible explanations. Glad you agree! $$-Ted$$ -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]



Oz wrote in message news:qNFV7eGuP$sBFwL$@port995.com... > g starkman writes > > >There are other such effects that I oculd list, but I think you get > >the point. While each of these is a posteori, they are also each odd, > >and, we would argue, taken together they are seriously troubling. > > I am slightly puzzled by this thread. > > If I had an experiment that showed this sort of local patterning on what > should be an unrelated observation, the very first thing that would > concern me would be an error in the design of the experiment or a > partial failure of the equipment. Given the exquisite sensitivity > required for this one, that would seem to me to be entirely plausible, > and quite worrying. > > But you all seem to be completely unconcerned with this possibility. > > So you must have good reason for this viewpoint. Well, no one has identified an experimental error or procedural error in the paper. The proper approach would be to have an independent group redo the experiment and analysis. Preferably in a blinded fashion. -- greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas {remove planet for return e-mail}



Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote in message news:coqrci$51n$1@online.de... > In article , "greywolf42" > writes: > > > > The statistical significance of that discrepancy isn't all that great, > > > because there's a lot of cosmic variance in the first few multipoles. > > > > Well, that is the ad hoc rationalization. > > False. The concept of cosmic variance in CMB data was discussed > quantitatively before these new, surprising things were observed. But were there any that predicted orientations w.r.t. the ecliptic? > There > were many papers on "Predictions for MAP" etc. Many included error bars > on theoretical predictions, dominated by cosmic variance at low l. Only > if the measurements were way outside the predicted error bars would > there be a problem in this regard. And that *is* the problem, apparently. At least according to the paper. > > > Essentially, that just means that there are very few modes we can > > > sample on those largest scales, so there's lots of room for random > > > fluctuations. > > > > But this mode isn't random at all. Random was the prediction. Instead > > it was found to be linked directly and significantly to the ecliptic > > plane. > > I believe that at this point the discussion was confined to the > amplitude, not the orientation. No, the discussion was not so limited. Your defense of the standard paradigm was limited to this. But neither my statements, the paper under discussion, nor the data are limited to this question. -- greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas {remove planet for return e-mail}



"Oz" wrote in message news:qNFV7eGuP$sBFwL$@port995.com... > g starkman writes > > >There are other such effects that I oculd list, but I think you get > >the point. While each of these is a posteori, they are also each odd, > >and, we would argue, taken together they are seriously troubling. > > I am slightly puzzled by this thread. > > If I had an experiment that showed this sort of local patterning on $wha=$ t > should be an unrelated observation, the very first thing that would > concern me would be an error in the design of the experiment or a > partial failure of the equipment. Given the exquisite sensitivity > required for this one, that would seem to me to be entirely plausible, > and quite worrying. But what failure of equipment would have several different measure- ment devices (COBE, WMAP, other equipment) measure the same alignment of axes, all along the dipole? And this common alignment even more pronounced, after corrections (e.g. for the higher order contributions of the motion of the sun with respect to the CMBR) have been taken into account? It would have to be quite a peculiar failure or equipment. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. > But you all seem to be completely unconcerned with this possibility. I'm not. But first such a common failure of different equipment all in the same "direction" appears unlikely. And then, if failure of equipment were a viable possibility, I would expect the WMAP team (and the COBE-team), who know best what failure modes their equipment might have, to come out with a statement with respect to possible failure modes, that might be able to explain the unexpected results. > So you must have good reason for this viewpoint. This common alignment isn't at all unexpected for one who has studied the spherically symmetric metric: $$r0/r dt^2 - r/r0 dr^2 - r^2 d_{Omega}^2$$ r0 of order Planck length [the so called "holostar" metric, see e.g. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405007 and papers referenced therein.] In the "holostar" model of the universe you would expect such an anisotropy [alignment of the dipole (i.e preferred direction of motion of the solar system with respect to the CMBR) with the ecliptic plane (i.e. plane defined by angular momentum).] It is actually easy to see, when you know some basic features of the above metric. [although so far in the papers only the missing angular correlation at angles $> 60=B0$ has been discussed, and so far, as the papers are concerned, it is an a-posterio explanation, not a "true" prediction, because the explanation requires some (reasonable) assumptions, i.e. that at the Planck- temperature there are particles of roughly .$2 - 1$. the Planck mass. Now if I could predict this mass-range from first principles it would be a real prediction. But so far I can't. I'm working on it. There is some progress, but not yet a breakthrough] Best MP



In article , MP wrote: >Apparently the directions that can be extracted from the >quadrupole and octupole data are aligned with the dipole. >What I wonder (but I haven't seen it addressed in any >paper) whether this type of alignment is really so unexpected? >I am not an expert, but couldn't the apparent alignment >of the quadrupole and octupole planes with the dipole >not just be a second and third order effect of the fact, that >the sun moves with respect to the (presumably) isotropic >CMBR? This obviously is the cause of the dipole. But does >this motion result in $a *pure*$ dipole or does in result in >some dipole with higher order corrections? I guess this >can be answered trivially? The Sun's motion with respect to the CMB frame does indeed produce higher-order multipoles in addition to the dipole. Once you've measured the dipole (which is assumed to be entirely due to our own motion), you can figure out these kinematic contributions to the higher multipoles. The kinematic quadrupole is smaller than the actual quadrupole but not so much to be negligible. In analyses like these, it matters whether you take it out or now. Beyond the quadrupole, the kinematic contributions are completely negligible. If I recall correctly, the amplitudes of the kinematic contributions go down by powers of $(v/c),$ which is about .01, as you go up in multipole. >> It's hard to be sure just how worried we should be about these >> coincidences. They suffer from the classic problem of assigning >> statistical significances a posteriori: if you first notice something >> strange in the data, and then calculate its statistical significance, >> you're going to get a high significance -- after all, the reason you >> noticed this thing in the first place is that it was unlikely! > >That is always the problem with unexpected effects. On the other >hand the coincidences appear to be persistent, rather pointing >to some not yet understood systematics. But as long as the origin >of the systematics is not known, it is too early to say that inflation >has been debunked or the FRW-model is failing. In my personal opinion, this is a very accurate assessment. $$-Ted$$ -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]



g starkman wrote: > As an author of the study in question, I would like to suggest that > Ted Bunn's conclusion should itself be taken with a grain of salt. > While it is true that "a posteori statistics" should be treated > cautiously, it is also true that when there are enough pieces of a > posteori evidence stacking up of something strange you need to pay > attention. So here are the pieces of evidence that something odd is > happening with the large angular scale CMB All very interesting, but in order to tell how significant these coincidences are, we need one more piece of information. Instead of listing more coincidences, you need to tell us what we need to know to evaluate the ones we already have. How many coincidences did you look for? In other words, how many alignments are there that you *would* you have found if they *had* been present in the data? It might seem that coincidences that $*don't*$ appear in the data are irrelevant, but actually they are critical. So critical that I tend to get suspicious when they are left out. It is true that if there are enough pieces of evidence, we need to pay attention, but without knowing how many pieces were looked for, we have no way to know how many are enough. After all, if you looked for ten million different coincidences, you would *expect* to find several that are unlikely at the 99.9999 level. Your case may be less extreme than this, but $I *have*$ seen it done. > (3) The quadrupole and the octopole align with the ecliptic plane. > This is a main point of the paper in question. The details of how > they align are technical, but this is again unlikely at the >99% > level. In addition, they > are alligned with the ecliptic, again at an unlikely level. > > (3b) Alternately, you can view this alignment as being an alignment > with the dipole -- the direction of the solar system's motion through > the universe. Viewed this way, the allignment is unlikely at the > 99.5%. Is the dipole aligned with the ecliptic? If not, doesn't one of those have to be a coincidence? > There are other such effects that I oculd list, but I think you get > the point. While each of these is a posteori, they are also each odd, > and, we would argue, taken together they are seriously troubling. I would call it troubling. If they turn out to be as significant as you claim, the alignments practically scream systematic error. An uncorrected (or miss corrected) non-linearity in the sensor might cause leakage between the low order terms. Also, if I recall correctly, WMAP uses the earth's orbit as one of its scan axes, so the ecliptic is built in to the instrument. Ralph Hartley