{"id":246,"date":"2005-08-23T23:52:39","date_gmt":"2005-08-24T03:52:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=246"},"modified":"2005-09-27T09:59:53","modified_gmt":"2005-09-27T13:59:53","slug":"more-on-wmap","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=246","title":{"rendered":"More on WMAP"},"content":{"rendered":"

In reference to my recent posting<\/a> about the status of the WMAP experiment, an anonymous (but as far as I can tell, well-informed) source writes:<\/p>\n

Hi Peter,<\/p>\n

I am *not* a WMAP person, and would appreciate you not mentioning my name or my institution, but here is the story in the interests of keeping things sane:<\/p>\n

1. WMAP is fine.<\/p>\n

2. They are being very, very careful with their analysis.<\/p>\n

3. Polarization foregrounds are difficult to model.<\/p>\n

4. I doubt WMAP has detected GWs. Someone would have leaked that by now. <\/p>\n

5. Note that WMAP does not have the sensitivity to detect the GWs predicted by inflation, it is hard to see how any simple, reasonable models could produce a GW signal much larger than that, and so a GW signal would be truly revolutionary if WMAP saw it.<\/p>\n

6. The conspiratorial “Cosmology News” that you have linked to looks pretty slanted to me. They are talking about the famous missing power in low multipoles, discussed in the first year data release. Note that COBE also saw this missing power. IMO, I very much doubt this is due to systematics, as that site alleges, and statements that the team thinks –at the late date of 2004 — otherwise are almost certainly made up.
\n<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In reference to my recent posting about the status of the WMAP experiment, an anonymous (but as far as I can tell, well-informed) source writes: Hi Peter, I am *not* a WMAP person, and would appreciate you not mentioning my … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=246"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}