Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,862 answers , 20,637 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

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
asked Mar 19, 2014 in Astronomy by DavePhD (65 points) [ no revision ]
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

1 Answer

+ 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 anna v (1,785 points) [ no revision ]
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

Your answer

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):
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$\hbar\varnothing$sicsOverflow
Then 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.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...