(No) Primordial Non-Gaussianity from Planck

After yesterday’s decennial celebration of the launch of ESA’s Herschel and Planck missions, I noticed that this morning a new paper from the Planck Consortium has arrived on the arXiv. Coincidence?

The other 2018 `last’ papers from Planck were released last year.

Anyway, this is the long-awaited paper IX about primordial non-Gaussianity and the abstract is:

In a nutshell, there’s no evidence for primordial non-Gaussianity from the Planck observations. The paper is rather long, but well worth reading because it shows how much work has to go in to extract higher-order statistical information from CMB data. It’s far harder than the (second-order) power-spectrum, which is no doubt why this paper to so long to emerge.


6 Responses to “(No) Primordial Non-Gaussianity from Planck”

  1. Dark Energy Says:

    Your opinion about how scientific result is published and documented
    has been the topic of your blog on many occasion. How come you are less verbal when it comes to making your opinion public about issues concerning how the research is actually done before they get published. Are there any issue about authorship, author ordering,
    acknowledging support from those who has contributed but not in the list? but, many who hasn’t are in the list? bothers you.
    What do you think about the fact that the big collaborations actually operate outside the rules and norms that otherwise are mandatory in
    many employment contract. Do you think that most European collaborations simply use non-European students/post.doc.s as cheap labour. Do you think funding and operation of multi-national
    collaborations should be scrutinized more by external bodies.
    The current landscape of scientific research is completely dominated
    by few multinational collaborations. Being involved in such
    projects can give long term security while career of many
    others can get ruined. While gender bias in such collaborations
    has recently attracted many comments but very few will
    acknowledge that there are issues with career progression
    of non-EU student/post.docs who has contributed from a
    very early stage when such projects are not even conceived
    properly only to be replaced by local graduates when
    the real work actually gets done.

    • telescoper Says:

      As you know I was never a member of the Planck Consortium so I have no grounds to comment on authorship of these papers. I have however stated on numerous occasions that I think the authorship concept is rather silly for papers from large consortia when many of the `authors’ haven’t even read the paper never mind authored it.

      In any case I’m not convinced that a person who left a collaboration ten years ago has any grounds to complain about not being an author of a new paper.

      • telescoper Says:

        The Euclid Consortium has a very clear policy on authorship of papers: anyone can be in the Consortium – even me! – but there’s strict control of who is on individual publications: you have to prove that you’ve contributed.

        Of course the main papers are some way off in the future so we don’t really know who this will work in practice.

  2. Dark Energy Says:

    I have many friends who works in such collaborations.
    My comments were not about a specific project but are in general about various ongoing EU
    projects where individuals don’t decide if he leaves or remains
    10 years before, or 10 years after. It is decided by handful
    of senior academics. The system of giving
    credit can be arbitrary as well as opaque and remains in the hand of chosen few who are selected for life. Most of the hard work
    is done by people who are hired from the third world, to do the dirty work in exchange of long-term stay.
    As these projects mature the actual science is done by Oxbridge
    graduates who take the credits and secure permanent positions.
    This a new age apartheid regime.

  3. Darm Energy Says:

    I have heard unconfirmed rumors that after Brexit Euclid is getting renamed as non-EUclid as it is probing mainly
    the dark-sector namely the dark matter and dark energy. Is this
    really true?

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: