Talk:BICEP and Keck Array

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Starting the TALK accompanying article here[edit]

Headine-1: BICEP2 finds first direct evidence of cosmic inflation

QUOTE: “Cosmic evolution from the Big Bang to today” [Very popular news coverage, everywhere!] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC) PS: one reference is in the Article here, but this will explode to more in popular media.[reply]

Headine-2: Evidence of young universe's growth spurt is discovered

QUOTE: “Researchers focusing on gravitational waves find the first direct evidence for the theory of cosmic inflation, a faster-than-light expansion just after the big bang.” [One person says the work is worthy of the Nobel Prize.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Useful BICEP3 video reference[edit]

Even though BICEP3 is mostly built, there isn't a lot of information about it available on line. One good source I found is this video of a seminar by Chao-Lin Kuo (26 June 2013):

There's also a diagram on p. 25 of this presentation:

71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New paper in Reference 28 http://workshops.ift.uam-csic.es/files/177/Ahmed.pdf It has all the current data about Bicep2, Keck and Bicep 3. All the chart here is wrong: angular resolution is not like posted (are 0,35° for bicep3 and 0,7° bicep2/keck) nor the frecquencies (keck: 2 telescopes at 95ghz, 1 at 150ghz and 2 at 220mhz. And never had 100ghz. Bicep3 is in 95ghz). The bicep3 throughoutput is described as 10x the bicep2. The article also finish the controversy about bicep2 false cmb discoveries: it was all background dust and even with bicep3 we will have only an estimated 3,3 sigma. I cannot correct the chart as I only have an smartphone and ia difficult to navigate it. If someone can update it all the data i post here can be checked in the pdf paper I cited here. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.28.124.245 (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to note:
  • These are talk slides, not an article. Most information here already appears in published papers such as the BICEP2/Planck joint analysis. Useful new information is current status of BICEP3 and Keck Array during 2015 observing season.
  • 100 GHz vs. 95 GHz is just a mismatch of nomenclature. We should refer to 100 GHz for BICEP1, 95 GHz for Keck Array and BICEP3, but the bands mostly overlap.
  • 0.7° beams refer to Keck Array at 95 GHz. At 150 GHz the angular resolution is finer, as given in the table. A bit finer still at 220 GHz.
  • Keck Array has had several configurations. All 150 GHz through 2012; 2 x 95 GHz and 3 x 150 GHz in 2014; 2 x 95 GHz, 1 x 150 GHz, 2 x 220 GHz for 2015.
  • Results on dust are not new here, they're from the BICEP2+Keck/Planck joint analysis paper out earlier this year arXiv:1502.00612 (astro-ph.CO). The conclusions are not quite as you state them. --Amble (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S&T update on B-modes[edit]

The Sept 2014 issue of Sky and Telescope has a news update on the B-modes [1], complete with links to relevant preprints. Two preprints have criticized the announcement. The S&T column also explains the source of the controversy. In brief, Planck has not finished analyzing all its data, especially near the poles, BICEP2 extrapolated from what has been published, the two preprints are pessimistic based on extrapolations from other Planck data. Planck itself expects to publish the relevant analysis by the end of the year, which will presumably settle this controversy. Choor monster (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise: BICEP2 announced in March, extrapolating from an older Planck data release that did not include an accounting of galactic dust. Planck released last May a partial map, not including the region BICEP2 looked at, a preliminary accounting of galactic dust. Two other teams then extrapolated from the Planck before and after in regions where BICEP2 did not look. Choor monster (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

See this, but I'm not well-enough versed to write about it in the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second S&T update on BICEP2[edit]

S&T has provided a second summary article of the dust question, [2]. In brief, it is still not settled, but it does look the dust signal will be of the same order of magnitude as the B-modes. Planck has partially extended their analysis to include the area BICEP2 was looking at: one frequency far from what BIPEP2 was observing. The goal is to complete the analysis around December. Choor monster (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Lensing Finding re: BICEP2 Unclear[edit]

This page presently states that : "However, the B-modes measured by POLARBEAR did not arise from inflationary gravity waves, but from gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background by intervening structure.[24]"

While there may be another source documenting that the BICEP2 B-mode findings were the result of lensing rather than inflation, the footnoted source does not state this. What it does state is that:

"Since then, however, new maps of intervening dust produced by the European Space Agency's Planck Space Telescope have indicated that dust is more ubiquitous in the region of sky the team observed than they had estimated. The primordial b-mode signal is likely to be in there somewhere, mixed in with the dust's signal, other researchers say. But its detection is now far less certain.

“We generally thought that some of the signal was due to inflation,” Dr. Koberlein says. “But BICEP2 couldn't prove it, ” he adds, referring to the project responsible for the March announcement. “These guys are saying: There is a signal, it does look like inflation, let's move forward.”

Can the party(s) responsible for the above lensing statement please provide the source or otherwise clarify? Calawpro (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POLARBEAR and BICEP2 are not the same. The B-modes (somewhat weakly) measured by POLARBEAR are certainly lensing B-modes and aren't relevant to resolving the nature of the BICEP2/Keck Array signal. I'm not really sure why POLARBEAR is mentioned here. --Amble (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of papers[edit]

FYI, the BICEP/Keck papers are listed here. The information is updated when a paper appears on arxiv or is published in a refereed journal or proceeding. This page might also be a suitable external link. --Amble (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Pole[edit]

I think it might be useful to explain why these observations are made at the south pole. RobLandau (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BICEP and Keck Array. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose and collaboration section introduction too technical[edit]

Coming from a nonphysics background, I find the beginning of the purpose and collaboration way too technical and jargony at the moment to quickly understand what BICEP actually does. I've temporarily tagged that section, and hope that someone more versed in this can expand/explain it a bit more. (B-modes? curl component? Why is the physics community spending billions on this? (Not that I horribly object, but it's an excellent place to briefly note the importance of the purpose). Jed (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The CMB has nothing to do with a Big Bang theory[edit]

As described, the CMB is nothing but black body radiation from galactic dust. The prediction that the CMB would be around 50K and found to be just 3K was quickly 're-modeled' and the Nobel Prize was awarded to two fraudsters. Such re-modeling every time there is a 'crisis' brings science into disrepute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.117.25.35 (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BICEP Array[edit]

I put an Update template in there. I don't have access to Nature Astronomy, but here's an article someone who does might find helpful in updating: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-01260-5 IAmNitpicking (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BICEP_and_Keck_Array&oldid=1199752509"