# Which BICEP2 r value should be compared to Planck's r<0.11?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
59 views

The BICEP2 paper reports a tensor/scalar ratio $r = 0.20_{-0.05}^{+0.07}$, but then says:

Subtracting the various dust models and re-deriving the r constraint still results in high significance of detection. For the model which is perhaps the most likely to be close to reality (DDM2 cross) the maximum likelihood value shifts to $r = 0.16_{-0.05}^{+0.06}$

Which value is proper to compare with Planck's $r<0.11$?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-25 16:58 (UCT), posted by SE-user DavePhD
As far as I know, Planck has not yet released any B-mode polarization data. Its value of r was calculated by trying to estimate the value of the amplitude of the tensor modes that is due to the interactions of the temperature-E modes and the temperature-temperature modes (E-E and T-B modes not producing any tensor amplitudes). But the strongest tensor mode amplitudes should come from the B-B mode interactions, which is what BICEP2 includes. So until Planck releases that data, I don't think we should be comparing the two r values

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-25 16:58 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jim
thanks, I was seeing that South Pole Telescope reported r<0.13 and WMAP9 reported r<0.11 even prior to the Planck data arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3921.pdf. Would you say that the BICEP2 results completely supercede these results?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-25 16:58 (UCT), posted by SE-user DavePhD
I skimmed that paper and it seems they were doing predictions using best-fit parameters from WMAP9. That is not quite the same as results from experiment. As I said, Planck has not yet released all of its data on the B-mode polarization. So at the moment, it would seem that we should wait for the data before making many comparisons

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-25 16:58 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jim

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

The BICEP2 paper reports a tensor/scalar ratio r=0.20+0.07−0.05, but then says:

This is the value taken before corrections. There exist contributions to the B- mode due to changes in the photon polarization of the CMB while it is traveling before reaching the detector. The dust is the interstellar dust that has to be modeled.

Subtracting the various dust models and re-deriving the r constraint still results in high significance of detection. For the model which is perhaps the most likely to be close to reality (DDM2 cross) the maximum likelihood value shifts to r=0.16+0.06−0.05

Which value is proper to compare with Planck's r<0.11?

Assuming that Planck has corrected for the dust before giving its limit, ( a reasonable assumption since the existence of dust is known) it is the second value you have to compare with, which is different only by 1 sigma from the bound given by Planck, i.e. is consistent.

At these errors one does not call measurements definitive. Once many standard deviations separate old from new measurements, old ones can be ignored.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-25 16:58 (UCT), posted by SE-user anna v
answered Mar 20, 2014 by (1,785 points)
ok, yes, I see now "Additional nuisance parameters are included to model ... the residual Galactic dust contribution" in the Planck paper.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-25 16:58 (UCT), posted by SE-user DavePhD

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar\varnothing$sicsOverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.