Cosmology for Enthusiasts: Understanding Bicep2 Data

[Duhoc]

I am not a student, just a cosmology enthusiast. I have read many articles and books on the subject, but very often the level of these books is beyond my scope. Often, I have found, that very complex presentations can be presented in a way that casual enthusiasts can understand. So if anyone is interested in clarifying certain points, I would be most appreciative. With the new Bicep2 data coming to the fore, I was motivated to read Dr Linde's article, "Universe, Life, Consciousness." It is excellent. He claims that he could make a universe in the laboratory with about a milligram of matter. I am assuming he would compress this matter to the vacuum state he needs to enact his inflationary scenario. I think he says that quantum fluctuations would trigger the reaction. Could he trigger it himself? Also, I'm thinking that if all the matter in our universe were compacted to a single point, to a singularity, it would release a ton of energy if it every underwent this reaction. Have they been able to calculate whether or not there was sufficient energy to generate our universe from the data on bicep2?

 

[Bill_K]

Often, I have found, that very complex presentations can be presented in a way that casual enthusiasts can understand. So if anyone is interested in clarifying certain points, I would be most appreciative.

Duhoc, I hate to dampen your enthusiasm. Ideas that are presented in a friendly, conversational tone may seem understandable at the time, yet they may or may not be correct. The difficulty comes when, as you say, certain points need to be clarified, at which point the entire argument may break down.

With the new Bicep2 data coming to the fore, I was motivated to read Dr Linde's article, "Universe, Life, Consciousness." It is excellent.

What makes you feel it is excellent? It starts off safely, with a description of inflationary cosmology. When he gets to eternal inflation, what you must realize is that although this is an appealing idea, it is rather far out and hand wavy, lacking in evidence, and not universally accepted.

He claims that he could make a universe in the laboratory with about a milligram of matter. I am assuming he would compress this matter to the vacuum state he needs to enact his inflationary scenario. I think he says that quantum fluctuations would trigger the reaction. Could he trigger it himself? Also, I'm thinking that if all the matter in our universe were compacted to a single point, to a singularity, it would release a ton of energy if it every underwent this reaction. Have they been able to calculate whether or not there was sufficient energy to generate our universe from the data on bicep2?

At this point, you are well-advised to put the paper aside and turn to something else! Especially the concluding remarks about human consciousness and its relation to quantum mechanics simply border on mysticism.

Is it not possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete? ... Is it possible to introduce a “space of elements of consciousness,” and investigate a possibility that consciousness may exist by itself, even in the absence of matter, just like gravitational waves, excitations of space, may exist in the absence of protons and electrons?

 

[Duhoc]

Well, putting the Boltzman Brain aside, I thought the article amalgamated strong research and some strong ideas. I think that cosmologists in general, despite their training, embark in the realm of mysticism, theology and philosophy, and I gather you frown upon that. And frankly, I am inclined to agree with you. But it seems it has become a profitable endeavor in a field where years of hard work are likely to get you a job driving a taxi. But anyway, I believe, Professor Linde thought up the original idea. And, it seemed that newspapers were asserting that the Bicep2 confirmed his theories. And with respect to Bicep2, I understand they are having some difficulty with the data being accepted. I don't think I am alone in a general population that wants to know how the universe began, what it is, and what it is doing. So if you are inclined, and you have the expertise, I would welcome your opinion on the theory Bicep2 might confirm. And, I would also look forward to your opinion of the scientific cult some of the prominent members of the cosmology community have joined, including it seems Dr. Linde who may have provided the original rationale for it. (Not mentioning any names of course.)

 

[Chronos]

The mounting problem facing BICEP2 is foreground contamination. David Spergel is one among many who have expressed skepticism. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7351, Toward an Understanding of Foreground Emission in the BICEP2 Region, for discussion.

 

[sardar]

Thank you for your interest in cosmology and the Bicep2 data. As a scientist, it is always exciting to see enthusiasm for our field and a desire to understand complex concepts. I will do my best to address your questions and provide clarification.

Firstly, I want to clarify that Dr. Linde's article, "Universe, Life, Consciousness," is a theoretical proposal and not a confirmed scientific fact. While it is based on scientific principles and data, it is still a hypothesis that requires further testing and evidence.

Regarding the possibility of creating a universe in a laboratory with a milligram of matter, this is a theoretical concept known as "cosmic inflation." It suggests that in the very early stages of the universe, there was a rapid expansion driven by a high-energy field. This expansion would have been triggered by quantum fluctuations, which are small, random variations in energy at the subatomic level. However, this is still a highly debated and unproven theory. It is not possible to trigger this reaction in a laboratory setting, as we do not have the technology or understanding to manipulate matter at the subatomic level in such a precise and controlled manner.

Additionally, the idea of compressing all the matter in our universe to a singularity is based on the theory of the Big Bang. However, this is also a theoretical concept and not a proven fact. The idea of a singularity is based on our current understanding of physics, but it is not certain that the universe began in this way. Therefore, it is not possible to calculate the energy released from such an event.

In regards to the Bicep2 data, it is important to note that the observations made by the Bicep2 telescope were of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, which is the leftover radiation from the early stages of the universe. This data does not provide information about the energy required to create the universe or the existence of a singularity.

In summary, while it is fascinating to consider the possibility of creating a universe in a laboratory or compressing all matter to a singularity, these are still theoretical concepts that require further research and evidence. The Bicep2 data provides valuable insights into the early universe, but it does not offer a definitive answer to these questions. I encourage you to continue exploring and learning about cosmology, and I hope this response has provided some clarification.