Does BICEP2's observation rules out ekpyrotic cosmological model ?

In summary, the observation by BICEP2 of r=0.2 and n_t=0 excludes almost all current string inflation model (SIM) such as KKLMMT, because this observation requires inflaton field vary at leasts 10Mp.
  • #1
sufive
23
0
Dear every specialists, I heard that BICEP2's observation r=A_t/A_s=0.2 n_t=0 indicate two things:

1) n_t=0 excludes ekpyrotic cosmological model (ECM) definitely because ECM predicts n_t=2

2) r=0.2 excludes almost all current string inflation model (SIM) such as KKLMMT because this observation requires inflaton field vary at leasts 10Mp while SIM do not allows such big range varyings

Who can tell me more about this two point of view
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.5463
The Tilt of Primordial Gravitational Waves Spectra from BICEP2
Cheng Cheng, Qing-Guo Huang
(Submitted on 21 Mar 2014)
In this paper we constrain the tilt of the spectra of primordial gravitational waves from Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization (BICEP2) data only. We find r=0.21+0.04−0.10 and nt=−0.06+0.25−0.23 (at 68% C.L.) which implies that a scale-invariant primordial gravitational waves spectra is consistent with BICEP2 nicely. Our results provide strong evidence for supporting inflation model, and the alternative models, for example the ekpyrotic model which predicts n_t=2, are ruled out at more than 5σ significance.
Comments: 3 pages, 1 figure

This might also interest you, although it does not precisely address your two points:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0745
Does the BICEP2 Observation of Cosmological Tensor Modes Imply an Era of Nearly Planckian Energy Densities?
Chiu Man Ho, Stephen D. H. Hsu
(Submitted on 3 Apr 2014)
BICEP2 observations, interpreted most simply, suggest an era of inflation with energy densities of order (1016GeV)4, not far below the Planck density. However, models of TeV gravity with large dimensions might allow a very different interpretation involving much more modest energy scales. We discuss the viability of inflation in such models, and conclude that existing scenarios do not provide attractive alternatives to single field inflation in four dimensions. Because the detection of tensor modes strengthens our confidence that inflation occurred, it disfavors models of large extra dimensions, at least for the moment.
4 pages
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #3
sufive said:
Dear every specialists, I heard that BICEP2's observation r=A_t/A_s=0.2 n_t=0 indicate two things:

1) n_t=0 excludes ekpyrotic cosmological model (ECM) definitely because ECM predicts n_t=2

2) r=0.2 excludes almost all current string inflation model (SIM) such as KKLMMT because this observation requires inflaton field vary at leasts 10Mp while SIM do not allows such big range varyings

Who can tell me more about this two point of view


Turok commented on this here:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/news/new-window-big-bang
“It would conclusively refute the ekpyrotic and cyclic models we proposed a decade ago. However, more recent bouncing universe models based on the Higgs field might still be viable.”
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #4
Jim Carrey on ekpyrotic Universe (start at about 3:00):
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes 1 person

1. What is the BICEP2 observation and how does it relate to the ekpyrotic cosmological model?

The BICEP2 (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) experiment was a study of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, which is the leftover radiation from the Big Bang. In 2014, the BICEP2 team announced that they had observed a pattern in the CMB that they believed was evidence of gravitational waves, which are ripples in the fabric of space-time. The ekpyrotic cosmological model is a theory that proposes the universe was created from the collision of two branes (multidimensional objects) in a pre-existing higher dimensional space. This model predicts that there should be certain characteristics in the CMB that can be observed, and the BICEP2 observation was initially thought to support this model.

2. What evidence did the BICEP2 team use to support their claim?

The BICEP2 team used data from the CMB to identify a specific polarization pattern, called B-mode polarization, which they believed could only be caused by gravitational waves. This pattern was thought to be a "smoking gun" for the existence of gravitational waves and therefore support the ekpyrotic cosmological model.

3. How was the BICEP2 observation challenged?

After the initial announcement, other scientists began to question the BICEP2 team's findings. One of the main challenges was that the B-mode polarization pattern observed by BICEP2 could also be caused by dust in our own galaxy, rather than gravitational waves. This was a significant concern because the BICEP2 team's analysis did not account for the potential contamination from dust.

4. What was the final conclusion about the BICEP2 observation and the ekpyrotic cosmological model?

After further analysis and data from other experiments, it was determined that the BICEP2 team's original claim was not supported by the evidence. The B-mode polarization pattern was likely caused by dust in our own galaxy, rather than gravitational waves. This means that the BICEP2 observation does not support the ekpyrotic cosmological model.

5. Are there any other experiments or observations that could provide evidence for or against the ekpyrotic cosmological model?

Yes, there are ongoing experiments and observations that could potentially provide evidence for or against the ekpyrotic cosmological model. For example, the European Space Agency's Planck satellite is currently collecting data on the CMB, which could help to further refine our understanding of the early universe. Additionally, future experiments such as the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) may be able to detect gravitational waves directly, providing more evidence for or against the ekpyrotic cosmological model.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
28
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
24
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Back
Top