Hi Everyone, A number of you have asked why, when I refer to the Big Bang breakthrough announcement of last month (as I do in my Smithsonian article--see post below from 4/23, or in my brief write-up on John Kovac for the TIME magazine 100, see below) I keep saying things like if the results stand or if the results are confirmed. Here are two quick and related answers: First, Id use that language for just about any new result in science. Generally speaking, confidence in a result is dependent on different groups, employing different approaches, getting the same answer. Second, more specifically to the case at hand: The measurement of a swirling pattern in the heat left over from the big bang is extremely difficult. The signal is weak and delicate. Moreover, less exotic effects can create a similar swirling pattern, and yet have nothing to do with the big bang. (An intervening mass, like a galaxy, can lens the radiation, or the optics of the telescope itself can distort the signal, both capable of imparting something akin to a swirling pattern, etc.) So, with these complications, and many others, you absolutely need independent confirmation to have confidence that the swirl is indeed an imprint of physics from the big bang itself. We should have such confirmation, or refutation, well within a year, so stay tuned. --BG
Posted on: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:09:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015