Nature | Column: World View

P. Papier

Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

Article tools

When a team of cosmologists announced at a press conference in March that they had detected gravitational waves generated in the first instants after the Big Bang, the origins of the Universe were once again major news. The reported discovery created a worldwide sensation in the scientific community, the media and the public at large (see Nature 507, 281–283; 2014).

According to the team at the BICEP2 South Pole telescope, the detection is at the 5–7 sigma level, so there is less than one chance in two million of it being a random occurrence. The results were hailed as proof of the Big Bang inflationary theory and its progeny, the multiverse. Nobel prizes were predicted and scores of theoretical models spawned. The announcement also influenced decisions about academic appointments and the rejections of papers and grants. It even had a role in governmental planning of large-scale projects.

The BICEP2 team identified a twisty (B-mode) pattern in its maps of polarization of the cosmic microwave background, concluding that this was a detection of primordial gravitational waves. Now, serious flaws in the analysis have been revealed that transform the sure detection into no detection. The search for gravitational waves must begin anew. The problem is that other effects, including light scattering from dust and the synchrotron radiation generated by electrons moving around galactic magnetic fields within our own Galaxy, can also produce these twists.

The BICEP2 instrument detects radiation at only one frequency, so cannot distinguish the cosmic contribution from other sources. To do so, the BICEP2 team used measurements of galactic dust collected by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and Planck satellites, each of which operates over a range of other frequencies. When the BICEP2 team did its analysis, the Planck dust map had not yet been published, so the team extracted data from a preliminary map that had been presented several months earlier. Now a careful reanalysis by scientists at Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study, also in Princeton, has concluded that the BICEP2 B-mode pattern could be the result mostly or entirely of foreground effects without any contribution from gravitational waves. Other dust models considered by the BICEP2 team do not change this negative conclusion, the Princetonteam showed (R. Flauger, J. C. Hill and D. N. Spergel, preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7351; 2014).

The sudden reversal should make the scientific community contemplate the implications for the future of cosmology experimentation and theory. The search for gravitational waves is not stymied. At least eight experiments, including BICEP3, the Keck Array and Planck, are already aiming at the same goal.

“The inflationary paradigm is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless.”

This time, the teams can be assured that the world will be paying close attention. This time, acceptance will require measurements over a range of frequencies to discriminate from foreground effects, as well as tests to rule out other sources of confusion. And this time, the announcements should be made after submission to journals and vetting by expert referees. If there must be a press conference, hopefully the scientific community and the media will demand that it is accompanied by a complete set of documents, including details of the systematic analysis and sufficient data to enable objective verification.

The BICEP2 incident has also revealed a truth about inflationary theory. The common view is that it is a highly predictive theory. If that was the case and the detection of gravitational waves was the ‘smoking gun’ proof of inflation, one would think that non-detection means that the theory fails. Such is the nature of normal science. Yet some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP2 announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected. How is this possible?

The answer given by proponents is alarming: the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests. First, inflation is driven by a hypothetical scalar field, the inflaton, which has properties that can be adjusted to produce effectively any outcome. Second, inflation does not end with a universe with uniform properties, but almost inevitably leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Scanning over all possible bubbles in the multi­verse, every­thing that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable.

This may seem confusing given the hundreds of theoretical papers on the predictions of this or that inflationary model. What these papers typically fail to acknowledge is that they ignore the multiverse and that, even with this unjustified choice, there exists a spectrum of other models which produce all manner of diverse cosmological outcomes. Taking this into account, it is clear that the inflationary paradigm is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless.

Cosmology is an extraordinary science at an extraordinary time. Advances, including the search for gravitational waves, will continue to be made and it will be exciting to see what is discovered in the coming years. With these future results in hand, the challenge for theorists will be to identify a truly explanatory and predictive scientific paradigm describing the origin, evolution and future of the Universe.

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
510,
Pages:
9
Date published:
()
DOI:
doi:10.1038/510009a

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Paul Steinhardt is professor of physics at Princeton University.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.

Comments for this thread are now closed.

Comments

24 comments Subscribe to comments

  1. Avatar for milan earl
    milan earl
    Driver - I like the boat analogy...seems to fit the state of cosmology. Also, you touch on the problems with the big bang. I hope you agree that the standard model is in a quandary. My own position is that Friedmann made a math mistake, and all work after him is wrong. that means basically all facets of the standard model are wrong. its sort of like building a brick tower after someone forgot a few bricks in the foudation. your sailors (scientists) have to rebuild the boat, and the materials they found aboard just won't do.
  2. Avatar for James Ph. Kotsybar
    James Ph. Kotsybar
    DARK DRIVER -- James Ph. Kotsybar What was there to slow cosmic inflation, which occurred shortly after the Big Bang? Nothing obstructed this fomentation, which from an infinitely dense point sprang. The claim is expansion somehow reduced its speed, the second after Creation, (yet, through observation, it’s been deduced there’s still a speed-limit violation). As though this were viewed -- aloof and astute -- some claim the cosmos first increased its size, from sub-atomic limit to grapefruit, then paused, allowing heat to equalize. But no one can say what put on the brake and then released it for the heaven’s sake.
  3. Avatar for milan earl
    milan earl
    A problem in experimental physics is that noone wants to work hard for years and be proven wrong. i think the fundamentals of cosmology are incorrect, and with theories to date its like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
  4. Avatar for James Ph. Kotsybar
    James Ph. Kotsybar
    RIGGED FOR SUCCESS -- James Ph. Kotsybar There’s a philosophical anecdote that’s relevant to physicists today: One must stay afloat and rebuild the boat when, out at sea, safe harbor’s far away. The cargo is loaded, voyage begun, and progress made can’t be abandoned now, although it seems the work that must be done involves the ship’s revision stern to prow. On board materials may not be best, such as one could acquire in dry dock, but sailors can’t afford to take a rest nor even step back, detached, to take stock. They must prove resourceful and full of spunk, or else the vessel they sail will be sunk.
  5. Avatar for Mohammad Shafiq Khan
    Mohammad Shafiq Khan
    BICEP2 is already a dead duck. It is already proved beyond any doubt that Big Bang has never taken place. Under Big Bang paradigm there is absolutely no possibility of existence of God for following reasons. 1. Philosophically for existence; it has to be some substance (visible, invisible, perceivable or not perceivable) and this applies to God also. Substances occupy space but there is absolutely no space for God to exist at the time of Big Bang & before. 2. Four things come out of Big Bang namely space, time, matter & light/radiation. We cannot look for eternal God in space & time as both had the beginning; secondly humans are in a position to produce all types of light/radiation and something which humans can produce could not be the God and since matter is made up of electrons, protons & neutrons these too could not be the God. Now the very adopted paradigm of physics including Big Bang Theory & Cosmic Inflation has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally proved as baseless in the published paper "Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe" which is available at the journal site at http://indjst.org/index.php/indjst/issue/view/2885. Here is the beginning of revolution in physics. Physics, according to which God cannot exist, shall have to be soon discarded. Read http://www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/455880/Stephen-Hawking-says-there-is-no-such-thing-as-black-holes-Einstein-spinning-in-his-grave Absence of Black Holes means Stephen Hawking has finally accepted that there are serious problems with both Newton's perspective of Gravity & Einstein's General Theory of Relativity because both require Black Holes at the center of the galaxies. This justifies standing open challenge to the adopted paradigm of physics which is at http://worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2 and at http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4018
  6. Avatar for zar athustra
    zar athustra
    Wait, what?
  7. Avatar for rufus warren
    rufus warren
    (Lo/Le -1)C =V; L is lambda the observed and emitted wavelength, what then is the limit upon Lambda observed without the erroneous GR? Then what is the real size of the universe when we correct for transmitted velocities relative to us? Also what is the possible spectrum from particles separation and attraction under various initial conditions? Do protons and electrons have an impenetrable boundary? ( The standard model is an absurdity, it begins with the asinine gluon.) We should back up before we started making absurd findings using poorly defined events based upon the amount of the prize. What I see is a world of charge and radiation with the relation described by Maxwell. The magic that is observable is charge. The magnetic and electrical comply, charge groupings comply, i.e. either attractive or repulsive. I conjecture that particles do not transition into waves but create these waves, and these waves only affect the particles state. Hence there are no other forces other than the coulomb force.
  8. Avatar for rufus warren
    rufus warren
    First, the only evidence of dark matter is our measurements do not agree with present theory. It's not logical to invent something as a correction. How can we define what we see until we get our theory correct. The way I see it, Maxwell and Newton explain it all. You nust abandon silly ideas like the wave front of light moves at the same velocity as repeated events in a wave, divided by the time between these events. The red shift simply shows the velocity of the source relative to the wave front emitted from the observer. So we presently show observer to observer is a constant unless someone can create an object that moves relative to the observer prior to emission. ( this could create faster than light communication.) The amount and diversity of plasma throughout the sky creates all sorts of radiation. To to explain this via a theory that must have a magical beginning, like Genesis or some creepy bubble makes no sense, So the background radiation describes some stocastic process of changinging particles speeds relaive to an observer not to mention the infinite number of possible transition states among the universe. So show the summation of all this radiation at any given point in space and time then tell me this measurement supports a crazy theory. Lets get real.
  9. Avatar for Zephir AWT
    Zephir AWT
    What the BICEP2 cooperation is still missing is the structure of dark matter fibers across the whole sky. The dark matter background AROUND galaxies was indeed filtered out from data, but the fibers BETWEEN galaxies not. The dust background implies, that the background signal will disappear when we look at "proper" spot of the sky (from technical reasons the BICEP2 scanned only narrow region around south pole). But IMO this background is systematical, quite intensive and it essentially blurs the option, that we could ever observe the primordial gravitational waves before inflation. Dark matter fibers were already observed independently (1, 2). There is no apparent reason, why not to account them into background data of BICEP2. The watching of isolated narrow spots on they sky from the Earth is a cheap technology, but it isn't the most systematical/effective way, how to do it. The astronomers therefore have to wait for Planck polarization data, once they will be released. The signal of true gravitational waves should shrink with increasing frequency, the background signal of dark matter filaments will expand with increasing frequency of radiation used for observation. In this way both signals could be separated computationally with FFT analysis of the spectra. The tiny localized spot of BICEP2 is a nice technological achievement, but the amount of data provided is not sufficient for reliable analysis of CMBR spectra.
  10. Avatar for rufus warren
    rufus warren
    Would it not be simpler to accept a fact that gravity is not an external force of nature but a quadrupole coulomb force? Before we accept the theory of the big bang should we not satisfy ourselves of the boundary conditions of subatomic particles. If there are only two subatomic particles then there should exist many states for these two particles both dynamic and static conditions. The radiation spectrum of particles moving away from each other and toward each other under controlled conditions capable of particle placement with a set amount of energy would be something to be analyzed. As for the spectrum of the sky, this spectrum is created naturally and maybe some are not. Would be nice to know what is created naturally, not wither it fits a crazy theory. Do we have the correct focus in our physics or is it based on winning awards?
  11. Avatar for Gennady Shkliarevsky
    Gennady Shkliarevsky
    Facts, as they are, do not speak for themselves. They are interpreted. And that's the crux. The proponents of the Big Bang have refined their theory to the point that it has become unfalsifiable. And if there is some data that contradicts their theory, they will simply multiply their hypotheses to fit in the data. This theory is, scientifically speaking, meaningless. But that will not convince the believers. Nothing will convince them.
  12. Avatar for David Brown
    David Brown
    "... the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests ..." This might be true of Newton-Einstein inflation with the string landscape, but Milgrom inflation combined with 't Hooft determinism might lead to several decisive tests. the dark matter crisis
  13. Avatar for Robert Matthews
    Robert Matthews
    Incidentally, "Big Bang blunder" is the kind of headline more suited to the tabloids than to a learned journal. Did PS write/approve/know of it before publication?
  14. Avatar for Robert Matthews
    Robert Matthews
    "According to the team at the BICEP2 South Pole telescope, the detection is at the 5–7 sigma level, so there is less than one chance in two million of it being a random occurrence". Nope, it doesn't mean that. It means that, _assuming_ that chance were the true explanation, there's a 1 in 2 x 10^6 chance (at 5 sigma) of witnessing an effect at least as impressive as that observed. Having assumed chance as the cause in making the calculation, simply flipping it round and claiming that's also the probability of it being a fluke is clearly inadmissible. The good news for critics of BICEP2 is that when the calculation is done properly (using a Bayesian framework) the inherent plausibility of the claim becomes crucial to the assessment. One can impute the prior needed to reach the 5-sigma level, and I would not be at all surprised if dust models are quite capable of knocking the result on the head.
  15. Avatar for Mark Mahin
    Mark Mahin
    Steinhardt had the bad luck to release a very good critique of the cosmic inflation theory a few days before the BICEP2 story broke. Now that BICEP2 is in limbo, you should go back and read his paper. It's written in language even a non-physicist can understand: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.6980v2.pdf
  16. Avatar for Daniel Park
    Daniel Park
    Evidence of deflation theory discovered.
  17. Avatar for Mensur Omerbashich
    Mensur Omerbashich
    Isn't Steinhardt in a conflict of interest here, as BICEP2 kills his cyclic universe model (grants)? Strange to see him get so much space for what seems to be campaigning... Besides, latest news of Fri/Sat, 30/31 May from WSF discussion tell: - BICEP2 stand by their result - there is no proof whatsoever that dust forges polarization as observed by BICEP - Linde is more convinced (and convincing) than ever - Guth is not suspicious of BICEP - Princeton (Steinhardt and team) seems alone in attacks, while crying about grants. From WSF: Rumor 1: Planck final result coming up in 3 weeks tops, not in October Rumor 2: Planck to confirm BICEP VIDEO: http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/2014/05/ripples-from-the-big-bang-listening-to-the-beginning-of-time/
  18. Avatar for Abhas Mitra
    Abhas Mitra
    What has conveniently overlooked by Steinhardt here is the fact that the INFLATION paradigm has already been rejected from most fundamental consideration irrespective of the claims and counterclaims for observational evidences either in terms of BICEP2 result or any any other would be result. This is so because it has been shown that, in order that total energy density is unique Big Bang model (FRW metric) has a unique solution: It is spatially flat, k=0, and expansion is linear a(t) ~t: ``Why the Big Bang Model does not allow inflationary and cyclic cosmologies though mathematically one can obtain any model with favourable assumptions'' A. Mitra, New Astronomy, Volume 30, p. 46-50 (2014) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1384107613001413 The same result has also been obtained in another paper: A. Mitra, General Relativity and Gravitation, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp.1-12 (2014) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10714-014-1670-x This EXACT result unfortunately also rules out all forms of CYCLIC or or other fanciful models which are purports to offer ``alternatives'' to ``inflation'' ``ndian scientist contests Big Bang theory'' http://www.vancouverdesi.com/news/indian-scientist-contests-big-bang-evidences/736873/ As far as the so-called concordance or LCDM cosmology is concerned, this author has conclusively shown that Cosmological Constant is EXACTLY ZERO, and hence ``Dark Energy'' is likely to be an illusion/artifact resulting from explaining an unknown complex universe either by the Big Bang model or the assumption of isotropy & homogeneity: 1. A. Mitra, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Issue 03, article id. 007, pp. (2013). http://iopscience.iop.org/1475-7516/2013/03/007/ 2. A. Mitra et al. International Journal of Modern Physics D, Volume 22, Issue 3, id. 1350012 (2013) http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271813500120 3. A. Mitra, Nature Scientific Reports, Volume 2, id. 923 (2012). http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121204/srep00923/full/srep00923.html 4. A. Mitra, International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 1, issue 04, pp. 183-199 (2011): http://file.scirp.org/Html/16372.html http://zeenews.india.com/news/space/indian-physicist-questions-physical-reality-of-dark-energy_815854.html There are still other reasons why the Big Bang model cannot explain the physical universe. Ideal Hubble flow implies radial recession without any mutual collision so that ACTUALLY pressure & temperature are zero (in BBM) 5. The matter in the Big-Bang model is dust and not any arbitrary perfect fluid! A. Mitra, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 333, Issue 1, pp.351-356 (2011) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10509-011-0635-8 6. Why the Big Bang Model Cannot Describe the Observed Universe Having Pressure and Radiation A. Mitra, Journal of Modern Physics, vol. 2, issue 12, pp. 1436-1442 (2011) http://file.scirp.org/Html/2-7500253_16501.htm And of course, Big Bang Model cannot be real because it implies wild violation of Principle of Conservation of Energy 7. Einstein energy associated with the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric A. Mitra, General Relativity and Gravitation, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp.443-469 (2010) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10714-009-0863-1
  19. Avatar for Mariano Mendez
    Mariano Mendez
    "...one would think that non-detection means that the theory fails. Such is the nature of normal science." My field is not cosmology, so I don't give an opinion on inflation. But this statement is logically incorrect. Lack of proof is not proof of lack.
  20. Avatar for b r
    b r
    'Lack of proof is not proof of lack.' but in this case 'non-detection' means that the signature should have been measured but it wasn't. So that is proof of lack (as opposed to not having looked, therefore not having seen).
  21. Avatar for Mariano Mendez
    Mariano Mendez
    I don't know the details, but if the foreground was not properly subtracted (as said in the article), the upper limits are not reliable.
  22. Avatar for Daniel Zeigler
    Daniel Zeigler
    Perhaps. But it is also possible that BICEP2 used a detection method that could not reasonably be expected to produce a definitive result, since it cannot distinguish the contributions of cosmic and other sources. If so, then a lack of proof simply means it is time to design a better experiment and get more data.
  23. Avatar for Doug Hoffman
    Doug Hoffman
    "...some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP2 announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected... it is clear that the inflationary paradigm is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless." Are you sure these physicists are not taking lessons from climate scientist?
  24. Avatar for b r
    b r
    'Are you sure these physicists are not taking lessons from climate scientist?' climate science is fundamentally measurable, from the lab scale (CO2/water absorption spectra) to global scale (land/sea/air temperatures etc).

Top Story

MethaneMicrobes

Sea floors host surprise methane-munching microbes

Organisms living in carbonate rock provide a previously unrecognized sink for the greenhouse gas.