Momentous Big Bang Findings Questioned 154
sciencehabit writes "The biggest discovery in cosmology in a decade could turn out to be an experimental artifact, according to a report by a physics blogger. The blogger says the BICEP group — the team behind the huge announcement of the moments after the Big Bang a few weeks back — had subtracted the wrong Planck measurement of foreground radiation in deriving its famous evidence for gravitational waves. As a result, the calculation is invalid and the so-called evidence inconclusive. Intriguingly, the BICEP team has yet to flat-out deny this."
Peer review (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Peer review (Score:2, Insightful)
Religion also has peer review; witness Martin Luther. However, disagreements often result in forking the religion, not down-grading one, unless you count popularity. If you count popularity and forking, then indeed there is peer review roughly equivalent to science and the difference is blurred, for good or bad.
Ain't Science Grand (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting, and sort of icky, how much "science" is being done by blog these days. No hard data to back up the claims, just rumors and hearsay. Yech.
Re:Peer review (Score:5, Insightful)
One side won, the other defeated. But it did not feel settled until someone admitted defeat. Someone has to go on record saying its dead, Jim.
This is utter B/S! What's with this black/white way of looking at things? By this line of reasoning, Copernicus was a hack for being too obsessed with the Sun. Galileo failed for not anticipating Newton. Newton failed for not anticipating Einstein. Einstein is a looser for being unable to handle QM. And we're all Dumbasses for not knowing the answer to every question ever asked. Seriously?
Whatever the case may be, BICEP should be acknowledged for taking a gutsy and ingenious shot at a daunting question. The approach is laudable and should be appreciated as modern, cutting-edge scientific research at its best: the meticulousness and dedication of working out of the South Pole, the engineering effort that went into such precise equipment design, the camaraderie and team spirit mustered among all the professional collaborators.
People who are eager to smear the project are doing a great disservice to science literacy by perpetuating low-brow stereotypical notion of what scientific research is about in this day and age. It is unsettling that the tendency toward sensationalism has somehow become a legitimate way of thinking and talking about these things. We're all becoming brain-dead National Inquirerers. This is shameful for a modern civilized society.
Re:um (Score:4, Insightful)
...but come on. 1 guy suggesting a problem isn't news worthy.
This is Slashdot.
"You must be new here."
Re:Peer review (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone pokes a hole in this thing I believed, and still do.
Now it gets weird.
I can fight against the establishment, for what I believe. Or I can admit defeat, and consider my theory back to hypothesis, or perhaps passing thought.
Now, if someone pokes a hole in my theory by pointing out a miscalculation, I'm not going to jump the gun and say, "You're Right!" first thing. I'm going to have to peer review that information, and depending on my (re)evaluation I'll come out and say what the updated calculation means for my hypothesis and release an updated or different conclusion -- I may even determine that the supposed erroneous calculation meant nothing to the results or determine that the critique was wrong and list the reasons why. Then this back and forth will continue until either my hypothesis is refuted or proven.
Both sides believe their ideas. Being on the bleeding edge of science means one side does not stand with science. Both may have solid evidence and good reason. Both sides have faith in their procedures.
No, there is no such thing as faith in science. No one strongly believes anything. We have strong evidence for things, and we conclude that based on evidence A, B, and C, it appears that X, Y, and Z are true; However anyone can come along and show that our conclusion is incorrect because of T, U or V and we'll embrace the correction. We don't have faith that our hypotheses and theories are correct, we have evidence. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Go back to theology101, you failed it son.
One side won, the other defeated. But it did not feel settled until someone admitted defeat. Someone has to go on record saying its dead, Jim.
Give them a chance to then, doofus. You sound like a raving loon. Time apparently exists, as evidenced by the delay in response. Right?