Large Scale anomaly in Planck data

[skydivephil]

Just watching tweets come out of the conference, apparently there is a large scale anomaly that has come out of PLanck . One tweet says challenge to inflation, another says could be pre big bang physics. Obvioulsy I am just reading tweets, so not sure what's real yet. But this could be exciting stuff.
The papers are released in a few hours. So we shall see what this is really about.

 

[skydivephil]

Hearing "amplitude of the vairations in the CMB are larger on one side of the sky than the other"

 

[skydivephil]

Other sutff: dark matter: 26.8 % , 4.9% baryonic matter, 26.8% dark energy. Hubble constant = 67.15km/s/Mpc age of universe = 13.82 bio year, 3 species of neutrinos.

 

[skydivephil]

Anyone know is this is the so called lopsided universe mentioned here?
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0377

 

[TrickyDicky]

Just watching tweets come out of the conference, apparently there is a large scale anomaly that has come out of PLanck . One tweet says challenge to inflation, another says could be pre big bang physics. Obvioulsy I am just reading tweets, so not sure what's real yet. But this could be exciting stuff.
The papers are released in a few hours. So we shall see what this is really about.

Wow! Is there some link where one can have access to info from the conference?

EDIT: Nevermind I just saw the other thread.

 

[skydivephil]

So now the dust has settled a bit, the papers are out, if you go on the other thread I started on Planck results, you will see a link and to conclusions. The paper did not consider the results a challenge to inflation, but it did say the WMAP anomalies were still present.

 

[Chronos]

The papers are here: http://www.sciops.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK&page=Planck_Published_Papers . About 30 papers all told, however, only a dozen or so are really interesting. It appears the consensus on CMB anomalies is yep, they are there and we don't quite know what to make of it. It certainly implies some sort of new physics in the very early universe.

 

[Haelfix]

I would say that the consensus is that we don't know, and more work needs to be done. It is very premature to talk about new physics at this stage at all.

 

[DennisN]

Here is an article from ESA: "Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe" (21 March 2013)

 

[d3mm]

Other sutff: , 26.8% dark energy.

26.8% dark energy?

Typo? 86.2 or 68.2?

 

[TrickyDicky]

26.8% dark energy?

Typo? 86.2 or 68.2?

68.6%

 

[TrickyDicky]

From the cosmological parameters paper of the Planck collaboration:


"If we accept that the base CDM model
is the correct cosmology, then as discussed in Sect. 5 Planck is
in tension with direct measurements of the Hubble constant (at
about the 2,5 sigma level) and in mild tension with the SNLS Type
Ia supernova compilation (at about the 2 sigma level). For the base
CDM model, we also find a high amplitude for the present-day
matter fluctuations, σ8 = 0,828±0,012, in agreement with previous
CMB experiments. This value is higher than that inferred
from counts of rich clusters of galaxies, including our own analysis
of Planck cluster counts (Planck Collaboration XX 2013).
One possible interpretation of these tensions is that some
sources of systematic error are not completely understood in
some astrophysical measurements. The fact that the Planck results
for the base CDM model are in such good agreement with
BAO data, which are based on a simple geometrical measurement,
lends support to this view. An alternative explanation is
that the base CDM model is incorrect.

Our overall conclusion is that the Planck data are remarkably
consistent with the predictions of the base CDM cosmology.
However, the mismatch with the temperature spectrum at
low multipoles, evident in Figs. 1 and 39, and the existence of
other “anomalies” at low multipoles, is possibly indicative that
the model is incomplete. The results presented here are based on
a first, and relatively conservative, analysis of the Planck data.
The 2014 data release will use data obtained over the full mission
lifetime of Planck, including polarization data. It remains
to be seen whether these data, together with new astrophysical
data sets and CMB polarization measurements, will offer any
convincing evidence for new physics."

I think saying "it is possibly indicative that the model is incomplete" is at the least an understatement, but it is also understandable given where is coming from.