The
BICEP2 study was released yesterday, and found some evidence of
something called b-mode polarization in the early universe. Advocates
of the theory of cosmic inflation were quick to trumpet these
results, with many of them claiming that the study had finally
confirmed the theory of cosmic inflation. This theory maintains that
the universe underwent a period of exponential inflation during a
fraction of its first second.
But
there are several reasons why the BICEP2 study does not confirm cosmic inflation or even provide substantial evidence for it.
The
first reason is that a single scientific study rarely proves
anything. Having followed scientific developments closely for more
than four decades, I have lived through many a case of scientific
announcements that did not stand the test of time. I remember back
around 1980 an announcement in which scientists announced a fate for
the universe (collapse) that is the exact opposite of the fate they
now predict for it (unending expansion). I also remember the famous
“life on Mars” announcement in the 1990's which did not pan out.
At this web site a scientist says that there is only a 50% chance that the results
from this BICEP2 study will hold.
Another
reason for doubting this BICEP2 study is that it makes an estimate
for an important cosmological ratio called the tensor-to-scalar ratio,
and that estimate is about twice the maximum possible value, according to
the estimate from a very definitive source on the topic, the Planck team of scientists (larger than the BICEP group). Apparently some group of
scientists are in serious error in regard to this matter, and there
is a 50% chance that it is the team that made yesterday's BICEP2
study. If they are the ones who are wrong, it throws much of their
study into doubt.
A
third reason why the BICEP2 study does not confirm the theory of
cosmic inflation is that BICEP2's results do not match well with the
predictions of that theory.
The
supporters of the inflation theory are citing the graph below from
the BICEP2 study. The black dots are the BICEP2 observations, with
the vertical lines being error bars (representing uncertainty in the
data). The bottom red dashed line is what we expect from the cosmic
inflation theory.
Considering
just what is predicted from the theory of cosmic inflation, the
results do not match well at all. The little black dots show a rise
in the line exactly where the cosmic inflation theory predicts a fall
in the line.
What
is interesting, however, is that even if you accept as gospel truth
this estimate of the amount of gravitational lensing, the data from
BICEP2 ends up strongly diverging from the expected results produced
from the estimated amount of gravitational lensing and cosmic
inflation.
It
is very hard to tell how big this discrepancy is from the graph shown
above, because it uses two sneaky data presentation techniques to
make the discrepancy look much smaller than it is. The techniques
are: (1) the graph unnecessarily includes a whole load of irrelevant
data in the top half of the graph, causing the scale of the graph to
be unnecessarily large; (2) the graph uses a logarithmic scale (a
type of scale that often tends to make two data items look closer
than they are).
I
can use exactly the same techniques to make a graph that makes it
look like a dishwasher makes almost the same amount of money as a
Wall Street bond trader.
But,
thankfully, buried within the BICEP2 scientific paper is a nice
simple non-logarithmic graph that shows just how great the difference
is between the BICEP2 results and the results predicted from the
cosmic inflation theory. The graph is below.
In
the graph above the black dots are the new BICEP2 observations. The
vertical lines are uncertainties in the data. The bottom red dotted
line is the prediction from the theory of cosmic inflation. The
solid red line is the estimated gravitational lensing factor. The
upper red dashed line is the result predicted given a combination of
the gravitational lensing factor and the theory of cosmic inflation.
Notice
the big difference between the observed results and the expected
result. Even if we include this highly uncertain gravitational lensing
fudge factor, the predicted results from the cosmic inflation theory
do not closely match the observed results. Note that the sixth and
seventh black dots are way above the top dashed red line.
Therefore
these results are far from being a confirmation of the theory of
cosmic inflation. They can't even be called good evidence for cosmic
inflation.
I
may also note that there are numerous non-inflationary cosmological
models that might produce the type of polarization observations that
BICEP2 has produced. If there is currently a shortage of such
models, it is largely because cosmic inflation speculations have
almost monopolized the activities of theoretical cosmologists during
recent decades.
The
BICEP2 observations can be explained by the decay of exotic
particles, or by some noninflationary exotic phase transition. Or it
could be that all of the observed effect is produced by gravitational
lensing and none of it produced by cosmic inflation. Scientists are
already assuming that most of the observed effect is being produced
by gravitational lensing; it's a short jump from “most” to “all”
(particularly given the many uncertainties involved in estimating the
amount of gravitational lensing).
If
cosmologists spend as much time producing non-exponential
non-inflationary models of the early universe as they do producing
models that involve inflationary exponential expansion, they will
probably find that non-exponential non-inflationary models are able
to explain the observed BICEP2 results just as well, and perhaps even
better.
Because
the effect observed by the BICEP2 study can be produced by
gravitational lensing, and because we will for many decades be highly
uncertain about how much gravitational lensing has occurred in the
past, it is very doubtful that any study like the BICEP2 will ever be
able to provide real evidence for a theory of cosmic inflation. Just
as UFO photographs rarely prove anything (because there are so many
ways in which lights in the sky can be produced), a study like BICEP2
doesn't prove cosmic inflation (because there are other ways, such as
gravitational lensing, that the observed polarization effect can be
produced).
The
case for the theory of cosmic inflation theory is much weaker than
many think. In a nutshell the standard sales pitch for the theory is
that it solves two cosmological problems: one called the flatness
problem and the other called the horizon problem. The flatness
problem is an apparent case of cosmic fine-tuning, and the horizon
problem is an example of cosmic uniformity. The weakness in trying to
solve these problems with a theory of cosmic inflation is that we
have many other apparent cases of cosmic fine-tuning and many other
cases of astonishing cosmic uniformity (including laws of nature and
constants that are uniform throughout the universe). Inflation theory
claims to solve only one of these many cases of apparent cosmic
fine-tuning, and only one of the many cases of cosmic uniformity.
That puts it in not a very good position, rather like a theory of
the origin of species that only explains the origin of lions and
tigers without explaining the origin of any other animals. I will
explain this point more fully in a later blog post.
What
is particularly ironic is that the theory of cosmic inflation claims
to help in getting rid of some cosmic fine-tuning, but the theory
itself requires abundant fine-tuning of its own to work, as many
parameters in the theory have to be adjusted in just the right way to
get a universe that starts exponentially inflating and stops inflating in a way
that matches observations.
Postscript: The chart below (in which I have added a green line) shows one way we can explain the BICEP2 observations without requiring any cosmic inflation. We simply imagine a slightly higher amount of gravitational lensing (shown in the green line). The shape of this line matches the shape of the gravitational lensing estimated by the BICEP2 study (solid red line). Because the green line passes through all of the vertical error bars, it is consistent with the BICEP2 observations.
Post-postscript: at this link cosmologist Neil Turok says, "I believe that if both Planck and the new results agree, then together they would give substantial evidence against inflation!"
Post-post-postscript: See the post here for a discussion of wishful thinking and cherry picking involved in the main graph shown above.
Post-post-post-postscript: See this link for a National Geographic story on how the BICEP2 results may be caused by dust, not cosmic inflation.
Yet another postscript: see this post for a discussion of a talk at Princeton University in which a scientist gives a presentation that gives a devastating blow to the inflated claims of the BICEP2 study. The scientist gives projections of dust and gravitational lensing which show how such common phenomena (not from the Big Bang or cosmic inflation) can explain the BICEP2 observations.
Postscript: The chart below (in which I have added a green line) shows one way we can explain the BICEP2 observations without requiring any cosmic inflation. We simply imagine a slightly higher amount of gravitational lensing (shown in the green line). The shape of this line matches the shape of the gravitational lensing estimated by the BICEP2 study (solid red line). Because the green line passes through all of the vertical error bars, it is consistent with the BICEP2 observations.
BICEP2 graph with an added trend line (green)
Post-postscript: at this link cosmologist Neil Turok says, "I believe that if both Planck and the new results agree, then together they would give substantial evidence against inflation!"
Post-post-postscript: See the post here for a discussion of wishful thinking and cherry picking involved in the main graph shown above.
Post-post-post-postscript: See this link for a National Geographic story on how the BICEP2 results may be caused by dust, not cosmic inflation.
Yet another postscript: see this post for a discussion of a talk at Princeton University in which a scientist gives a presentation that gives a devastating blow to the inflated claims of the BICEP2 study. The scientist gives projections of dust and gravitational lensing which show how such common phenomena (not from the Big Bang or cosmic inflation) can explain the BICEP2 observations.
Yet another postscript: In this article in the scientific journal Nature, it is explained that two recent scientific papers have concluded that there is no significant evidence the BICEP2 signals are from cosmic inflation or gravitational waves, with dust and cosmological lensing being an equally plausible explanation.
No comments:
Post a Comment