What's new

Big Bang: Indian physicist says he’s vindicated

wolfschanzze

BANNED
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
4,838
Reaction score
-25
Country
India
Location
India
Big Bang: Indian physicist says he’s vindicated - The Times of India

Big Bang: Indian physicist says he’s vindicated
IANS | Jun 7, 2014, 05.30 PM IST


BANGALORE: Indian astrophysicist Abhas Mitra who rubbished the much publicised claim by a team of US-led astronomers that they had obtained "direct" evidence for the Big Bang origin of the universe now feels vindicated after receiving support from a top theoretical physicist at Princeton University in the US.

In March, astronomers working with BICEP-2 (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) radio telescope at the South Pole created a worldwide sensation with their startling announcement that they had detected gravitational waves generated in the first instants after the Big Bang.

This was claimed to be the long-sought "smoking gun" for the theory that the universe was born in a Big Bang and that its volume increased almost immediately by an unimaginable factor (of ten raised to the power 78) in what is known as "cosmic inflation".

Even as the world was going ga-ga over the BICEP-2 result and Nobel prizes were being predicted for the discovery, Mitra, who's with Mumbai's Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), was the lone Indian scientist who firmly rejected the finding saying it was only a "smokescreen and not a smoking gun".

"My rejection of the BICEP-2 result was based not on any crackpot bravado but on exact mathematical proof that the Big Bang universe can expand only with a uniform speed and the model simply does not allow inflationary or cyclic cosmologies," Mitra told IANS. His peer-reviewed paper demolishing the BICEP-2 result was published in "New Astronomy" international journal.

Now, Mitra says he stands vindicated as "the BICEP-2 propaganda balloon has been punctured" by none other than Paul Steinhardt, a top theoretical physicist at Princeton. Steinhardt, in a June 3 report in the prestigious "Nature" journal, has pointed out "serious flaws in the analysis" of data by the BICEP-2 team and described its claim of having detected the gravitational waves as "premature hype".

36210207.cms

This illustration shows how astronomers believe the universe developed from the 'Big Bang' 13.7 billion years ago to today. (Getty Images photo)

The BICEP-2 team identified a "twisty" pattern in its maps of the polarization of the cosmic microwave background and had concluded that this was a detection of primordial gravitational waves, Steinhardt said. But "a careful re-analysis by scientists at Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study, also in Princeton, has concluded that the pattern observed by the BICEP-2 team could be the result mostly or entirely of foreground effects without any contribution from gravitational waves", Steinhardt added.

The BICEP-2 instrument detects radiation at only one frequency and so it cannot distinguish the cosmic contribution from other sources. Steinhardt said that "other effects, including light scattering from dust and the synchrotron radiation generated by electrons moving around galactic magnetic fields within our own galaxy, can also produce these twists."

For Mitra, it is not the first time he challenged theories of mainstream cosmologists and succeeded.

36210298.cms

An artist's depiction of a black hole and it's accretion disk in interstellar space pulling in gas and dust from a nearby nebula. (Getty Images photo)

His earlier research had claimed that the so-called black holes proposed by the famed British physicist Stephen Hawking must be "grey holes" and not exact black holes, and that the so-called Dark Energy theory that won the Nobel prize in physics in 2011 must be an artifact rather than a real entity. His views remain uncontested till now.
 
.
How is it a suceed when two guys say they have another opinion while thousands of other experts believe that this is gravitational waves? Do you know how science works?
 
.
I am not a physicist, but I find it hard to accept the "Big Bang" theory. Our mortal science which cannot formally define stuff like "Time", "Straight Line", "Parallel Line" cannot be trusted with the discovery of the origin of the Universe. Such discovery will require a new thinking process. Our scientific thinking is flawed.
 
. . .
I am not a physicist, but I find it hard to accept the "Big Bang" theory. Our mortal science which cannot formally define stuff like "Time", "Straight Line", "Parallel Line" cannot be trusted with the discovery of the origin of the Universe. Such discovery will require a new thinking process. Our scientific thinking is flawed.

Then STFU, and don't talk about something you have no clue about.
 
.
Thank you, that's all we needed to know.

OK Since you are the expert here, can you please use your scientific brain to define:
A. Time
B. Straight Line
C. Mass and Force (F=ma rule given by Newton establishes circular dependency between mass and force)

Please give it a try.

Then STFU, and don't talk about something you have no clue about.
Why? You are the Referee here?
 
.
OK Since you are the expert here, can you please use your scientific brain to define:
A. Time
B. Straight Line
C. Mass and Force (F=ma rule given by Newton establishes circular dependency between mass and force)

Please give it a try.


Why? You are the Referee here?

K.O :suicide:
that pretty much ended the argument here.
 
.
.
How is it a suceed when two guys say they have another opinion while thousands of other experts believe that this is gravitational waves? Do you know how science works?
It says, his papers are published in all peer reviewed journals and none came forward to challenge his theories,says it all.
"His earlier research had claimed that the so-called black holes proposed by the famed British physicist Stephen Hawking must be "grey holes" and not exact black holes, and that the so-called Dark Energy theory that won the Nobel prize in physics in 2011 must be an artifact rather than a real entity. His views remain uncontested till now."

"My rejection of the BICEP-2 result was based not on any crackpot bravado but on exact mathematical proof that the Big Bang universe can expand only with a uniform speed and the model simply does not allow inflationary or cyclic cosmologies," Mitra told IANS. His peer-reviewed paper demolishing the BICEP-2 result was published in "New Astronomy" international journal.

This should be enough i guess.
 
.
I am an Engineer. In Machine Learning theory (Artificial Intelligence is the flashy term) we use a concept called Dimensional Reduction to simplify certain complex problems which we encounter in real life. My theory is that our brain uses Dimensional Reduction to see a much more simplified version of the Universe which is not 100% accurate. It has been proven that our brain does that very often in day-to-day scenario. Like I have explained before, there are many natural phenomena which are not well understood by us (including the concept of Time and Dimension). Under such constraint how are we supposed to discover the "origin of the universe"? Our calculations will simply not give us accurate solution.
 
.
How is it a suceed when two guys say they have another opinion while thousands of other experts believe that this is gravitational waves? Do you know how science works?

It does not work on the basis of giving opinions poll of a 1000 vs 2...If you have some information that contributes to the topic, then please share it with us.
 
.
It does not work on the basis of giving opinions poll of a 1000 vs 2...If you have some information that contributes to the topic, then please share it with us.

That is because we are talking about Indians here and it is "their" moral duty to prove the brown Indians wrong.
 
. .
It does not work on the basis of giving opinions poll of a 1000 vs 2...If you have some information that contributes to the topic, then please share it with us.


I stick to the majority of scientists and trust their understanding on that matter. Thats how popular science works.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom