| Thread Closed |
Was WMAP wrong? |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Dec1-04, 11:07 AM | #1 |
|
|
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 (> 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"> 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? |
| Dec2-04, 06:13 AM | #2 |
|
|
<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>In article <24a23f36.0412010138.399c834f@posting.google.com>,\nthomas_larsso n_01@hotmail.com (Thomas Larsson) wrote:\n\n> A second look at the publicly available WMAP data reveals anomalies at\n> the largest angular scales (> 60°). Strong correlation with the\n> orientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane) and with its motion\n> (measured as the CMB dipole) showed up, see\n>\n> http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4\n>\n> Anyone know what the significance of this is?\n\nI don\'t know, but the WMAP year two data has been delayed for quite a\nwhile now without any explanation that I know of.\n\nPerhaps there\'s a relation?\n\nAaron\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>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 |
| Dec2-04, 06:15 AM | #3 |
|
|
<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>In article <24a23f36.0412010138.399c834f@posting.google.com>,\nThomas Larsson <thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com> wrote:\n>A second look at the publicly available WMAP data reveals anomalies at\n>the largest angular scales (> 60°). Strong correlation with the\n>orientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane) and with its motion\n>(measured as the CMB dipole) showed up, see\n>\n>http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4\n>\n>Anyone know what the significance of this is?\n\nThe paper referred to in this article is\n\nhttp://www.arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0403353\n\nThis is part of a series of results suggesting that there are\nstatistical anomalies in the largest-scale multipoles of the microwave\nbackground as measured by WMAP.\n\nThe original hint of trouble was that there is less overall\nlarge-scale power than theoretical models predicted. This was first\nquantified as a low quadrupole in the COBE data and was confirmed with\nmuch better data by WMAP. It turns out not to be just the quadrupole\nbut the octupole as well.\n\nThe statistical significance of that discrepancy isn\'t all that great,\nbecause there\'s a lot of cosmic variance in the first few multipoles.\nEssentially, that just means that there are very few modes we can\nsample on those largest scales, so there\'s lots of room for random\nfluctuations.\n\nWhat Schwarz et al. have done in this paper is quantify the\n*directions* of the quadrupole and octupole and point out that there\nare funny-seeming coincidences. This is a method of quantifying some\nmore qualitative observations made earlier by Tegmark, de\nOliveira-Costa, and collaborators.\n\nIt\'s hard to be sure just how worried we should be about these\ncoincidences. They suffer from the classic problem of assigning\nstatistical significances a posteriori: if you first notice something\nstrange in the data, and then calculate its statistical significance,\nyou\'re going to get a high significance -- after all, the reason you\nnoticed this thing in the first place is that it was unlikely!\n\nIn this particular case, there are many different "coincidences" that\ncould have arisen between all the different vectors that are lying\naround. When assigning a statistical significance to the coincidence\nthat was found, one should take into account all of the other\ncoincidences that could have been found but weren\'t. I haven\'t read\nthis paper carefully enough to be 100% sure, but it doesn\'t look to me\nlike they\'ve done that.\n\nI\'m not saying that there\'s nothing to this result -- there may well\nbe. I think it\'s something that people in the community should\ncontinue to scrutinize. Although there\'s not, in my opinion, a\nsmoking gun at the moment, there are hints that something interesting\nmay be going on.\n\n-Ted\n\n--\n[E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <24a23f36.0412010138.399c834f@posting.google.com>,
Thomas Larsson <thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com> 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. [tex]-Ted[/tex] -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.] |
| Dec2-04, 06:15 AM | #4 |
|
|
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>Thomas Larsson <thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com> wrote in message\nnews:24a23f36.0412010138.399c834f@posting.google.com...\n> A second look at the publicly available WMAP data reveals anomalies at\n> the largest angular scales (> 60°). Strong correlation with the\n> orientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane) and with its motion\n> (measured as the CMB dipole) showed up, see\n>\n> http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4\n>\n> Anyone know what the significance of this is?\n\nWell, it would nail down the requirement for a special "universal frame" for\nGR. I suppose you could consider that significant.\n\nQuite simply, instead of attributing the anomaly to "bad luck", it might\nsimply indicate that the values depend upon the time of stellar year when\nthe data is taken.\n\nSince the result is "very planar and aligned, i.e. all minima and maxima\nhappen to fall on a great circle on the sky - another unexpected feature",\nthis also would provide support for aether theorists. As such is only\n"unexpected" for GR and standard cosmology. (According to the announcement,\na 99.9% CL that standard\n"inflation" is wrong.)\n\nHey this looks like fun. What research is all about! Now I\'ll have to read\nthe real paper.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Thomas Larsson <thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com> 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? 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} |
| Dec2-04, 06:16 AM | #5 |
|
|
<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>thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com (Thomas Larsson) wrote in message news:<24a23f36.0412010138.399c834f@posting.google.com>...\n> A second look at the publicly available WMAP data reveals anomalies at\n> the largest angular scales (> 60°). Strong correlation with the\n> orientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane) and with its motion\n> (measured as the CMB dipole) showed up, see\n>\n> http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4\n>\n> Anyone know what the significance of this is?\n\nThis is extraordinary for 2 reasons - one, a dominant local\ncontribution to the CMB without explanation, and two, utter refutation\nof inflation (long overdue).\n\n-drl\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>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). [tex]-drl[/tex] |
| Dec3-04, 04:54 PM | #6 |
|
|
<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>thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com (Thomas Larsson) wrote in message news:<24a23f36.0412010138.399c834f@posting.google.com>...\n> A second look at the publicly available WMAP data reveals anomalies at\n> the largest angular scales (> 60°). Strong correlation with the\n> orientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane) and with its motion\n> (measured as the CMB dipole) showed up, see\n>\n> http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4\n>\n> Anyone know what the significance of this is?\n\nFrom what I\'ve read the WMAP data is not necessarily a problem for\ninflation or the Big Bang itself but could be a problem for the\nstandard Big Bang Nucleosynthesis model. Apparently another model\ninvolving plasma likes the WMAP data.\n\nFrom Tony Smith\'s website:\n\n.... The WMAP results contradict the Big Bang theory and support the\nplasma cosmology theory in another extremely important respect.\nTegmark et al ... have shown that the quadruple and octopole component\nof the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in\nthe sky. The quadruple and octopole power is concentrated on a ring\naround the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The\ndirection of this axis is identical with the direction toward the\nVirgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local\nSupercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation\ncompletely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated\nfar from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale,\nisotropic without a preferred direction in space. ... the plasma\nexplanation is far simpler. If the density of the absorbing filaments\nfollows the overall density of matter, as assumed by this theory, then\nthe degree of absorption should be higher locally in the direction\nalong the axis of the (roughly cylindrical) Local Supercluster and\nlower at right angles to this axis, where less high-density matter is\nencountered. This in turn means that concentrations of the filaments\noutside the Local Supercluster, which slightly enhances CBR power,\nwill be more obscured in the direction along the supercluster axis and\nless obscured at right angle to this axis, as observed. More work will\nbe needed to estimate the magnitude of this effect, but it is in\nqualitative agreement with the new observations. ...".\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>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. ...". |
| Dec3-04, 04:56 PM | #7 |
|
|
<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>Quoting from the news release (I\'ve downloaded www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-\nph/0403353, but have not yet read):\n"... or that the largest scales of the microwave sky are dominated by a\nlocal foreground."\n\nJust speculating... could this mean that the CBR is an artifact of space\nitself, rather than a leftover of the big bang?\n\nFor what it\'s worth to ponder, I just looked up CBR and universe mass\ndensity comparisons:\n\nIn MTW, they cite the equivalent mass density of the CBR as:\n4 x 10^-31 kg/m3\n\nA recent exam cited an assumed mass density of the universe as:\n10^-28 kg/m3\n\nJust pondering...\n\n\n\nIn <2b93dd16.0412011635.53b28e99@posting.google.com> Danny Ross Lunsford\nwrote:\n> thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com (Thomas Larsson) wrote in message news:\n> <24a23f36.0412010138.399c834f@posting.google.com>...\n>> A second look at the publicly available WMAP data reveals anomalies\n>> at the largest angular scales (> 60?). Strong correlation with the\n>> orientation of the solar system (ecliptic plane) and with its motion\n>> (measured as the CMB dipole) showed up, see\n>>\n>> http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4\n>>\n>> Anyone know what the significance of this is?\n>\n> This is extraordinary for 2 reasons - one, a dominant local\n> contribution to the CMB without explanation, and two, utter refutation\n> of inflation (long overdue).\n>\n> -drl\n>\n>\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Quoting from the news release (I've downloaded www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-
[itex]ph/0403353,[/itex] 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 [itex]x 10^-31 kg/m3[/itex] A recent exam cited an assumed mass density of the universe as: [itex]10^-28 kg/m3[/itex] 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). > > [itex]-drl[/itex] > > |
| Dec4-04, 03:11 PM | #8 |
|
|
<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>In article <C4Nrd.1523\\$fi2.1520@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"\n<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\n> > The statistical significance of that discrepancy isn\'t all that great,\n> > because there\'s a lot of cosmic variance in the first few multipoles.\n>\n> Well, that is the ad hoc rationalization.\n\nFalse. The concept of cosmic variance in CMB data was discussed\nquantitatively before these new, surprising things were observed. There\nwere many papers on "Predictions for MAP" etc. Many included error bars\non theoretical predictions, dominated by cosmic variance at low l. Only\nif the measurements were way outside the predicted error bars would\nthere be a problem in this regard.\n\n> > Essentially, that just means that there are very few modes we can\n> > sample on those largest scales, so there\'s lots of room for random\n> > fluctuations.\n>\n> But this mode isn\'t random at all. Random was the prediction. Instead it\n> was found to be linked directly and significantly to the ecliptic plane.\n\nI believe that at this point the discussion was confined to the\namplitude, not the orientation.\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <C4Nrd.1523$fi2.1520@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"
<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes: > > The statistical significance of that discrepancy isn't all that great, > > because there's a lot of cosmic variance in the first few multipoles. > > Well, that is the ad hoc rationalization. False. The concept of cosmic variance in CMB data was discussed quantitatively before these new, surprising things were observed. There were many papers on "Predictions for MAP" etc. Many included error bars on theoretical predictions, dominated by cosmic variance at low l. Only if the measurements were way outside the predicted error bars would there be a problem in this regard. > > Essentially, that just means that there are very few modes we can > > sample on those largest scales, so there's lots of room for random > > fluctuations. > > But this mode isn't random at all. Random was the prediction. Instead it > was found to be linked directly and significantly to the ecliptic plane. I believe that at this point the discussion was confined to the amplitude, not the orientation. |
| Dec4-04, 03:13 PM | #9 |
|
|
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message news:<col9mm\\$uhf\\$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu>...\n>\n> I\'m not saying that there\'s nothing to this result -- there may well\n> be. I think it\'s something that people in the community should\n> continue to scrutinize. Although there\'s not, in my opinion, a\n> smoking gun at the moment, there are hints that something interesting\n> may be going on.\n\nThat\'s a very sensible attitude, but I wonder if you are aware that\npeople are rejecting papers about this on the basis that "this isn\'t\nscience, cosmic variance blah blah blah." This happened to one of my\nformer teachers. The paper was subsequently accepted by Phys Rev, so\nwe aren\'t talking crackpottery here. *Obviously* these observations\n*may* mean nothing, but you can say that about nearly all\nobservations! People who excrete "cosmic variance" ought to specify\nthe precise circumstances under which CV would *not* be regarded as an\nacceptable "explanation". Either that, or shut up. Sorry, but I am\nvery disappointed by the way many in the community have handled this\nsituation. A lot of people seemed *very* determined not to see any\nsignificance in the quad/octupole stuff, no matter what, and to hide\nbehind this lame CV excuse. The correct attitude is Ted\'s: let\'s not\nget carried away, but it is still worth thinking about what it all may\nmean, and [in my opinion] it is worth while to do a little theoretical\nwork on possible explanations.\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message news:<col9mm$uhf$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu>...
> > 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. |
| Dec4-04, 03:17 PM | #10 |
|
|
<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>"g starkman" <gds6@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message\nnews:ce6fcd8e.0412021257.2c164cfa@posting.google.com...\n\n> ; (2) The quadrupole and the octopole align. (The quadrupole and the\n> octopole are the two lowest sets of "notes".) This was first pointed\n> out by de Oliveira Costa and collaborators, but, as pointed out by the\n> paper in question, the alignment is stronger than they realized. This\n> is because to properly compare, one should first subtract from the\n> quadrupole the piece caused by the motion of the solar system through\n> the universe. The allignment is unlikely at the 99.86% level.\n> This alignment is independent of the lack of power.\n\nSince the time these fascinating results came out, I was\nwondering whether the quadrupole (and octupole) pieces from\nthe motion of the sun were already accounted for, when\ncomparing the relative alignment of octupole and quadrupole.\nObviously you did this in your paper (escaped my notice,\nsorry). This makes the case for some unusual physics much\nstronger.\n\nThank you for the nice review (points 1 to 4). Made things\nmuch clearer to me. So there might really be an\n"anisotropy" problem. I wonder if this is related\nto the long delay of the WMAP polarization data?\n\nAre there any models, extensions of the FRW-type models, or\ndifferent solutions of the field equations all together, that could\nexplain this anisotropy?\n\n[I know at least one, but I rather want an unbiased opinion]\n\nBest MP\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"g starkman" <gds6@po.cwru.edu> 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 |
| Dec6-04, 07:18 AM | #11 |
|
|
<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>g starkman <gds6@po.cwru.edu> writes\n\n>There are other such effects that I oculd list, but I think you get\n>the point. While each of these is a posteori, they are also each odd,\n>and, we would argue, taken together they are seriously troubling.\n\nI am slightly puzzled by this thread.\n\nIf I had an experiment that showed this sort of local patterning on what\nshould be an unrelated observation, the very first thing that would\nconcern me would be an error in the design of the experiment or a\npartial failure of the equipment. Given the exquisite sensitivity\nrequired for this one, that would seem to me to be entirely plausible,\nand quite worrying.\n\nBut you all seem to be completely unconcerned with this possibility.\n\nSo you must have good reason for this viewpoint.\n\n--\nOz\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>g starkman <gds6@po.cwru.edu> 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 |
| Dec7-04, 08:06 AM | #12 |
|
|
<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>\n\n\n\nIn article <c7fd6c7a.0412031720.418a69d@posting.google.com>,\nSerenus Zeitblom <serenuszeitblomphd@yahoo.com> wrote:\n\n>That\'s a very sensible attitude, but I wonder if you are aware that\n>people are rejecting papers about this on the basis that "this isn\'t\n>science, cosmic variance blah blah blah." This happened to one of my\n>former teachers. The paper was subsequently accepted by Phys Rev, so\n>we aren\'t talking crackpottery here. *Obviously* these observations\n>*may* mean nothing, but you can say that about nearly all\n>observations! People who excrete "cosmic variance" ought to specify\n>the precise circumstances under which CV would *not* be regarded as an\n>acceptable "explanation".\n\nWell, it\'s certainly not uncommon for the peer review system to\nfail. It\'s quite possible that your teacher had a paper rejected\nby a referee who did a lousy job. I wish I could say I was shocked\nby such a possibility.\n\nBut that doesn\'t mean that the term "cosmic variance" is meaningless\nor imprecise. It has quite a precise meaning:\n\nTheoretical models don\'t predict the r.m.s. amplitude of the CMB\nfluctuations in a given multipole l (e.g., the quadrupole amplitude,\nwhich is l=2). They predict a probability distribution for that\namplitude. In Gaussian theoretical models, the variance of that\nprobability distribution is 2/(2l+1), so it\'s quite large for low l.\n(Non-Gaussian theories generically have still higher variances.)\nThis means that even a perfect measurement of the low-l amplitudes\nprovides only weak constraints on theories.\n\nThe mathematics behind all this is utterly precise and indeed quite\nsimple. There\'s nothing handwavy about it.\n\n>Either that, or shut up. Sorry, but I am very disappointed by the way\n>many in the community have handled this situation. A lot of people\n>seemed *very* determined not to see any significance in the\n>quad/octupole stuff, no matter what, and to hide behind this lame CV\n>excuse. The correct attitude is Ted\'s: let\'s not get carried away,\n>but it is still worth thinking about what it all may mean, and [in my\n>opinion] it is worth while to do a little theoretical work on\n>possible explanations.\n\nGlad you agree!\n\n-Ted\n\n--\n[E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <c7fd6c7a.0412031720.418a69d@posting.google.com>,
Serenus Zeitblom <serenuszeitblomphd@yahoo.com> 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 [itex]>*may*[/itex] 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 [itex]is l=2)[/itex]. They predict a probability distribution for that amplitude. In Gaussian theoretical models, the variance of that probability distribution is [itex]2/(2l+1),[/itex] 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! [tex]-Ted[/tex] -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.] |
| Dec7-04, 08:06 AM | #13 |
|
|
<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>\n\nOz <oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message\nnews:qNFV7eGuP\\$sBFwL\\$@port995.com...\n> g starkman <gds6@po.cwru.edu> writes\n>\n> >There are other such effects that I oculd list, but I think you get\n> >the point. While each of these is a posteori, they are also each odd,\n> >and, we would argue, taken together they are seriously troubling.\n>\n> I am slightly puzzled by this thread.\n>\n> If I had an experiment that showed this sort of local patterning on what\n> should be an unrelated observation, the very first thing that would\n> concern me would be an error in the design of the experiment or a\n> partial failure of the equipment. Given the exquisite sensitivity\n> required for this one, that would seem to me to be entirely plausible,\n> and quite worrying.\n>\n> But you all seem to be completely unconcerned with this possibility.\n>\n> So you must have good reason for this viewpoint.\n\nWell, no one has identified an experimental error or procedural error in the\npaper. The proper approach would be to have an independent group redo the\nexperiment and analysis. Preferably in a blinded fashion.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Oz <oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:qNFV7eGuP$sBFwL$@port995.com... > g starkman <gds6@po.cwru.edu> 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} |
| Dec7-04, 08:06 AM | #14 |
|
|
<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>\n\n\nPhillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>\nwrote in message news:coqrci\\$51n\\$1@online.de...\n> In article <C4Nrd.1523\\$fi2.1520@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"\n> <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n>\n> > > The statistical significance of that discrepancy isn\'t all that great,\n> > > because there\'s a lot of cosmic variance in the first few multipoles.\n> >\n> > Well, that is the ad hoc rationalization.\n>\n> False. The concept of cosmic variance in CMB data was discussed\n> quantitatively before these new, surprising things were observed.\n\nBut were there any that predicted orientations w.r.t. the ecliptic?\n\n> There\n> were many papers on "Predictions for MAP" etc. Many included error bars\n> on theoretical predictions, dominated by cosmic variance at low l. Only\n> if the measurements were way outside the predicted error bars would\n> there be a problem in this regard.\n\nAnd that *is* the problem, apparently. At least according to the paper.\n\n> > > Essentially, that just means that there are very few modes we can\n> > > sample on those largest scales, so there\'s lots of room for random\n> > > fluctuations.\n> >\n> > But this mode isn\'t random at all. Random was the prediction. Instead\n> > it was found to be linked directly and significantly to the ecliptic\n> > plane.\n>\n> I believe that at this point the discussion was confined to the\n> amplitude, not the orientation.\n\nNo, the discussion was not so limited. Your defense of the standard\nparadigm was limited to this. But neither my statements, the paper under\ndiscussion, nor the data are limited to this question.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>
wrote in message news:coqrci$51n$1@online.de... > In article <C4Nrd.1523$fi2.1520@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42" > <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> 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} |
| Dec7-04, 11:10 AM | #15 |
|
|
<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>"Oz" <oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message\nnews:qNFV7eGuP\\$sBFwL\\$@port995.com...\n> g starkman <gds6@po.cwru.edu> writes\n>\n> >There are other such effects that I oculd list, but I think you get\n> >the point. While each of these is a posteori, they are also each odd,\n> >and, we would argue, taken together they are seriously troubling.\n>\n> I am slightly puzzled by this thread.\n>\n> If I had an experiment that showed this sort of local patterning on wha=\nt\n> should be an unrelated observation, the very first thing that would\n> concern me would be an error in the design of the experiment or a\n> partial failure of the equipment. Given the exquisite sensitivity\n> required for this one, that would seem to me to be entirely plausible,\n> and quite worrying.\n\nBut what failure of equipment would have several different measure-\nment devices (COBE, WMAP, other equipment) measure the same\nalignment of axes, all along the dipole? And this common alignment\neven more pronounced, after corrections (e.g. for the higher order\ncontributions of the motion of the sun with respect to the CMBR)\nhave been taken into account?\n\nIt would have to be quite a peculiar failure or equipment. Not\nimpossible, but highly unlikely.\n\n> But you all seem to be completely unconcerned with this possibility.\n\nI\'m not. But first such a common failure of different equipment all\nin the same "direction" appears unlikely. And then, if failure of\nequipment were a viable possibility, I would expect the WMAP\nteam (and the COBE-team), who know best what failure modes\ntheir equipment might have, to come out with a statement with\nrespect to possible failure modes, that might be able to explain\nthe unexpected results.\n\n> So you must have good reason for this viewpoint.\n\nThis common alignment isn\'t at all unexpected for one who has\nstudied the spherically symmetric metric:\n\nr0/r dt^2 - r/r0 dr^2 - r^2 d_Omega^2\n\nr0 of order Planck length\n\n[the so called "holostar" metric, see e.g. gr-qc/0405007\nand papers referenced therein.]\n\nIn the "holostar" model of the universe you would\nexpect such an anisotropy [alignment of the dipole (i.e\npreferred direction of motion of the solar system with respect\nto the CMBR) with the ecliptic plane (i.e. plane defined by\nangular momentum).]\n\nIt is actually easy to see, when you know some basic\nfeatures of the above metric.\n\n[although so far in the papers only the missing angular\ncorrelation at angles > 60=B0 has been discussed, and\nso far, as the papers are concerned, it is an a-posterio\nexplanation, not a "true" prediction, because the\nexplanation requires some (reasonable) assumptions,\ni.e. that at the Planck- temperature there are particles\nof roughly 0.2 - 1.0 the Planck mass. Now if I could\npredict this mass-range from first principles it would\nbe a real prediction. But so far I can\'t. I\'m working\non it. There is some progress, but not yet a\nbreakthrough]\n\nBest MP\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Oz" <oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:qNFV7eGuP$sBFwL$@port995.com... > g starkman <gds6@po.cwru.edu> 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 [itex]wha=[/itex] 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: [tex]r0/r dt^2 - r/r0 dr^2 - r^2 d_{Omega}^2[/tex] 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 [itex]> 60=B0[/itex] 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 .[itex]2 - 1[/itex]. 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 |
| Dec7-04, 11:11 AM | #16 |
|
|
<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>In article <conhrn\\$ab9\\$2@online.de>, MP <pet.antispam@onlinehome.de> wrote:\n\n\n>Apparently the directions that can be extracted from the\n>quadrupole and octupole data are aligned with the dipole.\n>What I wonder (but I haven\'t seen it addressed in any\n>paper) whether this type of alignment is really so unexpected?\n>I am not an expert, but couldn\'t the apparent alignment\n>of the quadrupole and octupole planes with the dipole\n>not just be a second and third order effect of the fact, that\n>the sun moves with respect to the (presumably) isotropic\n>CMBR? This obviously is the cause of the dipole. But does\n>this motion result in a *pure* dipole or does in result in\n>some dipole with higher order corrections? I guess this\n>can be answered trivially?\n\nThe Sun\'s motion with respect to the CMB frame does indeed produce\nhigher-order multipoles in addition to the dipole. Once you\'ve\nmeasured the dipole (which is assumed to be entirely due to our own\nmotion), you can figure out these kinematic contributions to\nthe higher multipoles.\n\nThe kinematic quadrupole is smaller than the actual quadrupole\nbut not so much to be negligible. In analyses like these,\nit matters whether you take it out or now.\n\nBeyond the quadrupole, the kinematic contributions are completely\nnegligible. If I recall correctly, the amplitudes of the kinematic\ncontributions go down by powers of (v/c), which is about .01, as you\ngo up in multipole.\n\n>> It\'s hard to be sure just how worried we should be about these\n>> coincidences. They suffer from the classic problem of assigning\n>> statistical significances a posteriori: if you first notice something\n>> strange in the data, and then calculate its statistical significance,\n>> you\'re going to get a high significance -- after all, the reason you\n>> noticed this thing in the first place is that it was unlikely!\n>\n>That is always the problem with unexpected effects. On the other\n>hand the coincidences appear to be persistent, rather pointing\n>to some not yet understood systematics. But as long as the origin\n>of the systematics is not known, it is too early to say that inflation\n>has been debunked or the FRW-model is failing.\n\nIn my personal opinion, this is a very accurate assessment.\n\n-Ted\n\n\n--\n[E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <conhrn$ab9$2@online.de>, MP <pet.antispam@onlinehome.de> 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 [itex]a *pure*[/itex] 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 [itex](v/c),[/itex] 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. [tex]-Ted[/tex] -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.] |
| Dec7-04, 11:12 AM | #17 |
|
|
<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>g starkman wrote:\n> As an author of the study in question, I would like to suggest that\n> Ted Bunn\'s conclusion should itself be taken with a grain of salt.\n> While it is true that "a posteori statistics" should be treated\n> cautiously, it is also true that when there are enough pieces of a\n> posteori evidence stacking up of something strange you need to pay\n> attention. So here are the pieces of evidence that something odd is\n> happening with the large angular scale CMB\n\nAll very interesting, but in order to tell how significant these\ncoincidences are, we need one more piece of information. Instead of listing\nmore coincidences, you need to tell us what we need to know to evaluate the\nones we already have.\n\nHow many coincidences did you look for?\n\nIn other words, how many alignments are there that you *would* you have\nfound if they *had* been present in the data?\n\nIt might seem that coincidences that *don\'t* appear in the data are\nirrelevant, but actually they are critical. So critical that I tend to get\nsuspicious when they are left out.\n\nIt is true that if there are enough pieces of evidence, we need to pay\nattention, but without knowing how many pieces were looked for, we have no\nway to know how many are enough.\n\nAfter all, if you looked for ten million different coincidences, you would\n*expect* to find several that are unlikely at the 99.9999 level. Your case\nmay be less extreme than this, but I *have* seen it done.\n\n> (3) The quadrupole and the octopole align with the ecliptic plane.\n> This is a main point of the paper in question. The details of how\n> they align are technical, but this is again unlikely at the >99%\n> level. In addition, they\n> are alligned with the ecliptic, again at an unlikely level.\n>\n> (3b) Alternately, you can view this alignment as being an alignment\n> with the dipole -- the direction of the solar system\'s motion through\n> the universe. Viewed this way, the allignment is unlikely at the\n> 99.5%.\n\nIs the dipole aligned with the ecliptic? If not, doesn\'t one of those have\nto be a coincidence?\n\n> There are other such effects that I oculd list, but I think you get\n> the point. While each of these is a posteori, they are also each odd,\n> and, we would argue, taken together they are seriously troubling.\n\nI would call it troubling. If they turn out to be as significant as you\nclaim, the alignments practically scream systematic error. An uncorrected\n(or miss corrected) non-linearity in the sensor might cause leakage between\nthe low order terms.\n\nAlso, if I recall correctly, WMAP uses the earth\'s orbit as one of its scan\naxes, so the ecliptic is built in to the instrument.\n\nRalph Hartley\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"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>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 [itex]*don't*[/itex] 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 [itex]I *have*[/itex] 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 |
| Thread Closed |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: Was WMAP wrong?
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Papers on WMAP | Cosmology | 2 | ||
| wmap and razors | Astrophysics | 6 | ||
| Subject: Was WMAP wrong? | General Physics | 5 | ||
| Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and Bush's Desert Shield Jr. | Current Events | 6 | ||
| Wmap | General Astronomy | 7 | ||
Physorg.com Science News Partner
