A How Do Recent Studies Impact Our Understanding of CMB Anomalies?

[Adrian Lee]

Significance of https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.00120 ,also https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.11092 on CMB anomaly and holographic models?
Support?Confirmation?Interpretation?
Not my field,but striking!

 

[Adrian Lee]

Nobody?
Seems like nobody’s willing to waste time reading
For short the authors listed some well known anomalies in CMB,and noted that in standard view these are seen as statistical flukes.However they calculated the coherence with holographic models and found support .They concluded that these anomalies might not be simply flukes but hints of spacetime’s nature.

 

[Astronuc]

For short the authors listed some well known anomalies in CMB,and noted that in standard view these are seen as statistical flukes.However they calculated the coherence with holographic models and found support .They concluded that these anomalies might not be simply flukes but hints of spacetime’s nature.

Please be patient. The subject matter has come up periodically in other discussions. For example,

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/hawking-points-discovered-in-cmb.953100/

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-universe-anisotropic.1006701/

One could have searched PF for "CMB anomalies" and found several discussions, with the latter aforementioned thread seemingly relevant.

Also, one could search PF to see if someone has already cited the ArXiV paper(s).

 

[berkeman]

Also, one could search PF to see if someone has already cited the ArXiV paper(s).

And the OP can look at the list of "Related Threads" at the bottom of the page...

 

[Astronuc]

And the OP can look at the list of "Related Threads" at the bottom of the page...

Certainly, once a thread is created. I was thinking preemptively.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Seems like nobody’s willing to waste time reading

Seems like somebody expects others to jump to do their bidding when they snap their fingers. Seems like some people think PF is composed of their servants.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

It seems, @Adrian Lee, we've two recent papers with shared authors.

The first paper concludes, "The results presented here are not conclusive, but are striking enough to warrant additional studies."

And the second paper concludes, "These results motivate further investigation of the possibility that the 2D angular correlation function of primordial curvature may be governed by causally-coherent quantum gravity."

So, as with other potentially anomalous events, it may be nothing...or it may be something, but more telescope time (and a new CMB telescope!) is required to progress the thinking.

 

[Adrian Lee]

Seems like somebody expects others to jump to do their bidding when they snap their fingers. Seems like some people think PF is composed of their servants.

Guys,I’m deeply sorry for my arrogance.I thought that PF’s got a lot of members and maybe someone’s going to be there at once…Apologies anyway!

 

[berkeman]

Guys,I’m deeply sorry for my arrogance.I thought that PF’s got a lot of members and maybe someone’s going to be there at once…Apologies anyway!

No worries. Thanks for that.

So have the replies from Astro or Melbourne or the Releated Threads helped?

 

[Adrian Lee]

No worries. Thanks for that.

So have the replies from Astro or Melbourne or the Releated Threads helped?

Yes,to some extent I am educated that maybe these anomalies aren’t as significant as they seem to be.Lack of academic experience leads to my disability to identify.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

Guys,I’m deeply sorry for my arrogance.I thought that PF’s got a lot of members and maybe someone’s going to be there at once…Apologies anyway!

It's an understandable infraction, @Adrian Lee, social media has tuned us to expect instantaneous reactions to our every little utterance. But irrespective of the number of members, a response to a technical question with two studies cited was always likely to take time. Unless it's obvious quackery or someone has encountered the research before, people need to read the papers, digest the concepts, assess the methodology, and consider their response

As for the significance of the anomalies examined, they seem typical of the "it looks like something is here, if only we had more data," cosmological investigation. The something is a flavour of holographic inflation but the analysis detailed in the papers requires a lot of manipulation of CMB maps and it seems a non-trivial effort to walk through the method and ascertain the conclusion that hints of new physics is lurking in the data. The authors expect that telescopes that can separate cosmological signals from astrophysical foregrounds (and note the The Primordial Inflation Explorer (PIXIE) as one example mission, I'm not sure if that's planned, it was being talked about about a decade ago from memory) will be needed to resolve the issue.

 

[Adrian Lee]

It's an understandable infraction, @Adrian Lee, social media has tuned us to expect instantaneous reactions to our every little utterance. But irrespective of the number of members, a response to a technical question with two studies cited was always likely to take time. Unless it's obvious quackery or someone has encountered the research before, people need to read the papers, digest the concepts, assess the methodology, and consider their response

As for the significance of the anomalies examined, they seem typical of the "it looks like something is here, if only we had more data," cosmological investigation. The something is a flavour of holographic inflation but the analysis detailed in the papers requires a lot of manipulation of CMB maps and it seems a non-trivial effort to walk through the method and ascertain the conclusion that hints of new physics is lurking in the data. The authors expect that telescopes that can separate cosmological signals from astrophysical foregrounds (and note the The Primordial Inflation Explorer (PIXIE) as one example mission, I'm not sure if that's planned, it was being talked about about a decade ago from memory) will be needed to resolve the issue.

Hi Mel,
Don’t blame it on the social media,it’s all my fault.
About the paper,Hogan has been trying different approaches towards holography.PF threads earlier talked about his “holometer “,and he has been on this program since 2000s.So,it is that you think,the analysis isn’t conclusive,but supportive indeed ,and they would use further data?This seems to be their conclusion too.I just can’t tell to what extent it is “supportive “!

 

[Astronuc]

So,it is that you think,the analysis isn’t conclusive,but supportive indeed ,and they would use further data?

Looking the conclusion section in 2109.11092.pdf:

A simple geometrical model, constrained by precise null symmetries, agrees quantitatively with data.

Seems supportive. Then,

These results motivate further investigation of the possibility that the 2D angular correlation function of primordial curvature may be governed by causally-coherent quantum gravity. Demonstration of an exact symmetry of the two-point correlation function on large angular scales would have a profound significance. Instead of being an uninter-esting, anomalous fluke of random cosmic variance, the large-scale pattern of anisotropy could carry unique, pre-cise signatures of basic principles underlying holographic quantum gravity.

So there is some significance.

More precise tests of this possibility, and of specific candidate holographic models and symmetries using CMB data, will require better control of Galactic foregrounds.

They suggest 'better control of Galactic foregrounds. I'd wonder about intergalactic foregrounds over the age of the universe.

What do the authors indicate about the WMAP and Planck results?

In the other paper, 2110.00120.pdf, looking at the summary,

Our results lend support to a new interpretation of long-studied large-angle CMB anomalies [15]: several of them may not be independent random statistical flukes, but may be related signatures of new physics not currently included in the standard quantum system used to describe inflation.

and then a reference to more data carefully

One promising path forward to improve these would be better multi-frequency maps, preferably over the entire sky. New all-sky experiments, in particular PIXIE [22, 23], will provide all-sky CMB maps with well controlled large angular scale systematics and very broad spectral coverage to markedly reduce the uncertainties in the low-ℓ CMB structure.

 

[Adrian Lee]

Looking the conclusion section in 2109.11092.pdf:

Seems supportive. Then,

So there is some significance.

They suggest 'better control of Galactic foregrounds. I'd wonder about intergalactic foregrounds over the age of the universe.

What do the authors indicate about the WMAP and Planck results?

In the other paper, 2110.00120.pdf, looking at the summary,

and then a reference to more data carefully

I’d note that 2109.11092 is the [15] in 2110.00120!And that’s how I came to the former.

 

[Astronuc]

I’d note that 2109.11092 is the [15] in 2110.00120!

Ahhh, I see a lot of that in scientific literature, and I find it self-serving and rather annoying. I also often see essentially the same work published in slightly different format in multiple journals in the same field, which is another annoyance.

 

[Adrian Lee]

Ahhh, I see a lot of that in scientific literature, and I find it self-serving and rather annoying. I also often see essentially the same work published in slightly different format in multiple journals in the same field, which is another annoyance.

However the case here isn’t (completely)self-serving.One seems to be the theoretical discussion and the other tends to calculate.
So in summary,these literature provides data in favor of holographic inflation but aren’t conclusive,and would require more data to make sure that these “really aren’t “underinteresting flukes!

 

[Astronuc]

However the case here isn’t (completely)self-serving.One seems to be the theoretical discussion and the other tends to calculate.

Fair enough.