BICEP2 bites the dust.. or does it?

Well, it’s come about three weeks later than I suggested – you should know that you can never trust anything you read in a blog – but the long-awaited Planck analysis of polarized dust emission from our Galaxy has now hit the arXiv. Here is the abstract, which you can click on to make it larger:

PlanckvBICEP2

My twitter feed was already alive with reactions to the paper when I woke up at 6am, so I’m already a bit late on the story, but I couldn’t resist a quick comment or two.

The bottom line is of course that the polarized emission from Galactic dust is much larger in the BICEP2 field than had been anticipated in the BICEP2 analysis of their data (now published  in Physical Review Letters after being refereed). Indeed, as the abstract states, the actual dust contamination in the BICEP2 field is subject to considerable statistical and systematic uncertainties, but seems to be around the same level as BICEP2’s claimed detection. In other words the Planck analysis shows that the BICEP2 result is completely consistent with what is now known about polarized dust emission.  To put it bluntly, the Planck analysis shows that the claim that primordial gravitational waves had been detected was premature, to say the least. I remind you that the original  BICEP2 result was spun as a ‘7σ’ detection of a primordial polarization signal associated with gravitational waves. This level of confidence is now known to have been false.  I’m going to resist (for the time being) another rant about p-values

Although it is consistent with being entirely dust, the Planck analysis does not entirely kill off the idea that there might be a primordial contribution to the BICEP2 measurement, which could be of similar amplitude to the dust signal. However, identifying and extracting that signal will require the much more sophisticated joint analysis alluded to in the final sentence of the abstract above. Planck and BICEP2 have differing strengths and weaknesses and a joint analysis will benefit from considerable complementarity. Planck has wider spectral coverage, and has mapped the entire sky; BICEP2 is more sensitive, but works at only one frequency and covers only a relatively small field of view. Between them they may be able to identify an excess source of polarization over and above the foreground, so it is not impossible that there may a gravitational wave component may be isolated. That will be a tough job, however, and there’s by no means any guarantee that it will work. We will just have to wait and see.

In the mean time let’s see how big an effect this paper has on my poll:

 

 

Note also that the abstract states:

We show that even in the faintest dust-emitting regions there are no “clean” windows where primordial CMB B-mode polarization could be measured without subtraction of dust emission.

It is as I always thought. Our Galaxy is a rather grubby place to live. Even the windows are filthy. It’s far too dusty for fussy cosmologists, who need to have everything just so, but probably fine for astrophysicists who generally like mucking about and getting their hands dirty…

This discussion suggests that a confident detection of B-modes from primordial gravitational waves (if there is one to detect) may have to wait for a sensitive all-sky experiment, which would have to be done in space. On the other hand, Planck has identified some regions which appear to be significantly less contaminated than the BICEP2 field (which is outlined in black):

Quieter dust

Could it be possible to direct some of the ongoing ground- or balloon-based CMB polarization experiments towards the cleaner (dark blue area in the right-hand panel) just south of the BICEP2 field?

From a theorist’s perspective, I think this result means that all the models of the early Universe that we thought were dead because they couldn’t produce the high level of primordial gravitational waves detected by BICEP2 have no come back to life, and those that came to life to explain the BICEP2 result may soon be read the last rites if the signal turns out to be predominantly dust.

Another important thing that remains to be seen is the extent to which the extraordinary media hype surrounding the announcement back in March will affect the credibility of the BICEP2 team itself and indeed the cosmological community as a whole. On the one hand, there’s nothing wrong with what has happened from a scientific point of view: results get scrutinized, tested, and sometimes refuted.  To that extent all this episode demonstrates is that science works.  On the other hand most of this stuff usually goes on behind the scenes as far as the public are concerned. The BICEP2 team decided to announce their results by press conference before they had been subjected to proper peer review. I’m sure they made that decision because they were confident in their results, but it now looks like it may have backfired rather badly. I think the public needs to understand more about how science functions as a process, often very messily, but how much of this mess should be out in the open?

 

UPDATE: Here’s a piece by Jonathan Amos on the BBC Website about the story.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s the Physics World take on the story.

ANOTHER OTHER UPDATE: A National Geographic story

17 Responses to “BICEP2 bites the dust.. or does it?”

  1. superluminal neutrinos all over again

    • James Gallagher Says:

      Ross, it’s a bit unfair to say this is like the OPERA superliminal neutrino fiasco, in that case a very basic experimental error was discovered. Nobody is accusing BICEP of a “loose cable” type error – just over enthusiasm perhaps, but they made a very detailed year-long study of their data before making the claim of a discovery of B-Modes due to primordial gravitation waves. This is perhaps why the huge Planck collaboration is struggling to convincincly dismiss the BICEP2 result – they have, now, after the delays (originally polarisation results were due early/mid-year) some good statistical arguments for a dust pattern, but my god, the BICEP2 guys pushed them to the limits – a little embarrassing for the european team in my humble opinion

      • James Gallagher Says:

        Ross, it’s a bit unfair to say this is like the OPERA superluminal neutrino fiasco, in that case a very basic experimental error was discovered. Nobody is accusing BICEP of a “loose cable” type error – just over enthusiasm perhaps, but they made a very detailed year-long study of their data before making the claim of a discovery of B-Modes due to primordial gravitation waves. This is perhaps why the huge Planck collaboration is struggling to convincingly dismiss the BICEP2 result – they have, now, after the delays (originally polarisation results were due early/mid-year) some good statistical arguments for a dust pattern, but my god, the BICEP2 guys pushed them to the limits – a little embarrassing for the european team in my humble opinion

  2. Good stuff Peter. IMHO as much as possible needs to be out in the open. The public doesn’t like things being done behind closed doors. And they aren’t stupid. They know that scientists indulge in hype. What would be more damaging would be the suspicion that people in some field are colluding behind closed doors to hype some hypothesis and stifle dissent.

  3. […] Lesenswerte Artikel (auf Englisch) bei Nature und von Peter Coles. […]

  4. […] het is niet uitgesloten dat er dan alsnog een ‘inflatie-signaal’ wordt gevonden. Bron: In the Dark + Not even […]

  5. Vote? Will nature be like the majority of voters believe?

    Does the Universe behave according to pols?

    The point is that Science is not a democratic endeavour. Weather we like or not.

  6. I voted for grav waves because (a) I heard a senior Planck scientist in the summer talk for an hour about BICEP2 while bemoaning the cancellation of the competing UK CLOVER experiment. Now would he have gone on for an hour if there was nothing in the BICEP2 result? (b) George Efstathiou is giving a few caveats about the current Planck paper over on Sean Carroll’s blog in the comments section. So maybe Planck is tutting – emphasising BICEP2 needs Planck dust map to make a statement about grav waves but the joint paper in November may still come out with a more positive result.

    Anyway if result is real then it still could be evidence of a primordial magnetic field – see eg arxiv:1403.6768

  7. […] (25/09/14): Mainitsen vielä Resonaancesin ja Telescoperin blogimerkinnät […]

  8. “have no come back to life” —> have now come back to life

  9. “The BICEP2 team decided to announce their results by press conference before they had been subjected to proper peer review.”

    Yes, and a bad move in my view. However, suppose they had posted the submitted (i.e. not yet refereed) paper to arXiv. Would there have been that much difference?

    Some people like the idea of putting stuff which is not yet accepted on arXiv in order to generate feedback, but frown on a press conference with the same goals.

    If the Open Journal of Astrophysics (or whatever it’s called now —I haven’t heard much about it recently, except that promising young researchers say they won’t waste any papers on their CV by submitting them there until big-name folks submit their papers (and, if they support the aims of the journal, all their papers) there as well (at which point it will no longer be a waste)) ever takes off, it should provide at least an alternative non-arXiv submission route: for stuff which should have peer review before going public, for people from institutes who have an “arXiv only after acceptance” policy, and for people who for various reasons have difficulty posting to arXiv (I don’t mean crackpots).

  10. […] “Planck has wider spectral coverage, and has mapped the entire sky; BICEP2 is more sensitive, but works at only one frequency and covers only a relatively small field of view,” explained Prof Peter Coles from Sussex University, who has been tracking the developing story on his blog, In The Dark. […]

  11. […] BICEP-Debatte auch Papers hier, hier und hier und Artikel hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: