Recall that this past March results from BICEP2 were announced, claiming a greater than 5 sigma detection of a primordial B-mode signal in the CMB polarization. This result received a huge amount of world-wide attention (and see some commentary here). Yesterday saw a very curious situation, with Adam Falkowski at the Resonaances blog claiming that the BICEP2 foreground analysis was flawed, and that “Various rumors place the significance of the corrected signal between 0 and 2 sigma.” Adrian Cho at Science magazine has a story about this, quoting Clement Pryke, co-PI of BICEP as saying “We stand by our paper”, while acknowledging that, with respect to a plot of Planck data they used to estimate the foreground “It is unclear what that plot shows”.
The controversy surrounds slide 6 of this presentation, with the BICEP foreground analysis evidently relying on scraping data from this slide. The claim at Resonaances is that they didn’t take into account the “Not CIB subtracted” notation on the slide:
However, it seems they misinterpreted the Planck results: that map shows the polarization fraction for all foregrounds, not for the galactic dust only (see the “not CIB subtracted” caveat in the slide). Once you correct for that and rescale the Planck results appropriately, some experts claim that the polarized galactic dust emission can account for most of the BICEP signal.
This is backed up by David Hogg’s report of a talk by Raphael Flauger at NYU yesterday:
At lunch, Raphael Flauger (NYU) gave a beautiful talk on foreground uncertainties related to the BICEP2 results. He built his foreground models as did the BICEP2 team by scraping data out of Keynote ™ presentations posted on the web! I have to say that again: The Planck team showed some maps of foregrounds in some Keynote presentations and posted them on the web. Flauger (and also the BICEP2 team before him) grabbed those presentations, scraped them for the all-sky maps, calibrated them using the scale bars, and worked from there. The coolest thing is that Flauger also simulated this whole process to account in his analysis for the digitization (scraping?) noise. Awesome! He concludes that the significance of the BICEP2 results is much lower than stated in the paper, which makes him (and many others) sad: He has been working on inflation models that produce large signals.
It sounds like this issue is not going to get resolved until there is something more substantial from Planck about this than a slide suitable for data scraping. In the meantime, blogs are your best source of information. Or maybe Twitter, where Erik Verlinde tweets from the Princeton PCTS workshop Searching for Simplicity that:
News from Princeton: BICEP2 polarization data are due to dust foreground and not caused by primordial gravity waves.
Update: There’s also a New Scientist story here. It should be emphasized that the BICEP team are denying that there is any need to revise what is in their paper, with New Scientist quoting John Kovac of BICEP as follows:
Kovac says no one has admitted anything. “We tried to do a careful job in the paper of addressing what public information there was, and also being upfront about the uncertainties. We are quite comfortable with the approach we have taken.”
See comments in the comment section here from Sesh Nadathur and Shaun Hotchkiss explaining why there may not be very much significance to this issue.
Update: Sesh Nadathur has a detailed post up now about this, New BICEP rumours, nothing to see here. Bottom line is:
The BICEP result is exciting, but because it is only at one frequency, it cannot rule out foreground contamination. Other observations at other frequencies are required to confirm whether the signal is indeed cosmological. One scenario is that Planck, operating on the whole sky at many frequencies but with a lower sensitivity than BICEP, confirms a gravitational wave signal, in which case pop the champagne corks and prepare for Stockholm. The other scenario is that Planck can’t confirm a detection, but also can’t definitively say that BICEP’s detection was due to foregrounds (this is still reasonably likely!), in which case we wait for other very sensitive ground-based telescopes pointed at that same region of sky but operating at different frequencies to confirm whether or not dust foregrounds are actually important in that region, and if so, how much they change the inferred value of r.
Until then I would say ignore the rumours.
Peter Coles also has a blog post here, with bottom line
I repeat what I’ve said before in response to the BICEP2 analysis, namely that the discussion of foregrounds in their paper is disappointing. I’d also say that I think the foreground emission at these frequencies is so complicated that none of the simple approaches that were available to the BICEP2 team are reliable enough to be convincing. My opinion on the analysis hasn’t therefore changed at all as a result of this rumour. I think BICEP2 has definitely detected something at 150 GHz but we simply have no firm evidence at the moment that it is primordial. That will change shortly, with the possibility of other experiments (specifically Planck, but also possibly SPTPol) supplying the missing evidence.
I’m not particularly keen on the rumour-mongering that has gone on, but then I’m not very keen either on the way the BICEP2 result has been presented in some quarters as being beyond reasonable doubt when it clearly doesn’t have that status. Yet.
Update: There will be a talk about this issue in Princeton tomorrow morning, see here.
Update: Slides from the Flauger talk at Princeton are here. I’ll leave discussion of the results presented to the better-informed, but will comment that this work appears to definitely involve new heights in the technology of data-scraping from Keynote presentations.
Update: Video of the Flauger talk is here. Quite interesting are the introductory remarks of Paul Steinhardt, and the concluding remarks of Lyman Page. See also new blog posts from Jester and Sesh Nadathur. Sesh (via Eiichiro Komatsu at Facebook) includes a transcription of part of Page’s comments on the situation:
This is, this is a really, peculiar situation. In that, the best evidence for this not being a foreground, and the best evidence for foregrounds being a possible contaminant, both come from digitizing maps from power point presentations that were not intended to be used this way by teams just sharing the data. So this is not – we all know, this is not sound methodology. You can’t bank on this, you shouldn’t. And I may be whining, but if I were an editor I wouldn’t allow anything based on this in a journal. Just this particular thing, you know. You just can’t, you can’t do science by digitizing other people’s images.
From looking at all this, and seeing what the people in Princeton are saying, my non-expert opinion is that the BICEP2 result should be interpreted as an observation of B-mode polarization, but there’s no convincing data yet about the crucial question of whether this is foreground or cosmological. The BICEP2 data could not address this, and the relevant Planck data is not yet available (other experiments will soon also provide the data needed to resolve this question). The BICEP2 press release claiming “the first direct evidence for cosmic inflation” now looks like it may have been a highly premature claim.
At Caltech CMB workshop. #BICEP2 folks seem completely unconcerned about recent worries about galactic foregrounds. Wait for Planck paper…
Zaldarriaga on CMB grav waves vs. dust: sane answer is “let’s just wait.” On the other hand… we just can’t. No scientist is that patient…
MZ: Planck hasn’t measured dust in #BICEP2 region. But extrapolating from where they did measure, apparently can fit B-mode signal.
MZ: “I’m not happy this is on Facebook and Twitter.”
Seems to me we’re now stuck with Planck saying they think this is dust, BICEP saying they think it’s not. Planck is the side that has data about dust, BICEP is the side that has something they scraped off a slide of a Keynote presentation…
Update: Excellent article about this in the Washington Post from Joel Achenbach: Big Bang backlash.
Last Updated on