back to article Tearful boffins confirm grav wave tsunami NOT caused by Big Bang

Claims that a gravitational wave tsunami swept the universe from the Big Bang have turned to dust ... interstellar dust. Last September, the smart money was already backing the idea that the signal didn't come from the early universe and, on Friday, scientists agreed that the "gravitational waves remain elusive." No …

  1. ZSn


    From my reading of this it seems that the groups didn't collaborate on the dust measurement. The BICEP group didn't properly account for the dust because they didn't have (or didn't request) the dust measurements. Big science, especially places like CERN, tend to be very competitive so these sort of SNAFUs can occur. I wish it didn't, but it does.

    1. asdf Silver badge

      Re: Competition

      Yeah and unfortunately it feeds ammo to the various truthers who don't understand anything but pseudo science are looking to trash the real thing any time they can.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. ZSn

        Re: Competition

        Yes, unfortunately science is done by scientists, i.e. humans, and as such is riven by rivalries and jealousy. It's a measure of how well it works in the long run that it can overcome these problems. It's never the nice linear narative that the schoolbooks present and as such can confuse those who like their truths simple and convenient.

  2. Florida1920 Silver badge

    In the beginning

    The wave began when the World Turtle jumped into the primordial soup.

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: In the beginning

      I'll hope he yelled "Surf's up!!!"

      1. NumptyScrub

        Re: In the beginning

        I suspect it may have been more "fuck that's cold!"

        Although since we're talking about gravity wave tsunami, maybe "belly flop!" is more appropriate ^^;

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    ...who was leading this project? It wasn't Dr Sheldon Cooper was it?

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: "THE RETRACTOR"!

      Kripke? Is that you?

  4. Graham Marsden

    "This pic shows dust emission from the Small Magellanic Cloud"

    Really? Looks like a Van Gogh to me...

    1. John Gamble

      Re: "This pic shows dust emission from the Small Magellanic Cloud"

      Damn you, I was going to make a Van Gogh comparison. Have an retaliatory upvote as part of my revenge.

    2. tony2heads

      Re: "This pic shows dust emission from the Small Magellanic Cloud"

      not so much 'Starry Night' as 'Dusty Night'

  5. pizzamcrib

    Many boffins died to bring us this information

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      RE: Many Boffins died....

      Well, their reputations anyway.

  6. dr.drew

    Cosmic Inflation will never be proven for one reason, light never traveled faster than it's current speed and the theory depends on that assumption.

    There is an answer to how the Primordial Universe was energized without the using the Inflation theory that scientist will soon come to recognize.

    The Phantom Theory, Atoms are not perpetual motions machines as we have come to find out recently, the spinning subatomic particles keep their rotation, alignment and orbits perfect because a Phantom particle containing a positive and negative charge enters them regularly and then Annihilates. The Phantom particle is not created in our Universe but acts on everything in it.

    During the first few moments of the Universe antimatter and matter became charged to create all the elements that make up the Universe today. Inflation says energy/light moved faster for a moment charging all these particles across great distances but what really happened was the Phantom particle appeared inside our Universe in an instant at each of the particles making a Flash or what we call the Big Bang. The fact is light did not go faster, it just looks like it must have because it looked to be moving across great distances faster than it's current speed. What really happened was the Light was created by the annihilation of the Phantom particle and light never had to exceed the speed limit set by Einstein. The Phantom particle is the spark of life to all matter in the Universe and proves that Chaos is not what created the Universe. Individuals with a minimum of a 180 I.Q. will understand what I have written here and will undoubtedly understand this theory.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      RE: ' individuals with a minimum of a 180 I.Q.'....

      ...would that be 180 UKIP supporters?

    2. Steve Knox

      I don't think you want people who actually understand this hypothesis* of yours commenting here.

      Find someone who will do a rational analysis of the assumptions in your hypothesis, and the testability of its predictions, and listen to them.

      * What you have proposed is a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory has been tested against observed evidence.

      1. dr.drew

        Steve Knox, thank you for defining the differences between hypothesis and a theory, what I failed to mention is my background is in Optical science. I have been using electron microscopic imaging devices to enhance and observe microscopic particles. To prove my theory that The Phantom Particle's has the ability to replace the Inflation theory only requires the computation of how much energy is produced inside an atom. The answer to the Phantom particle energy output during annihilation is or will be soon known by CERN and I look for the answer from them soon? At that point I could infer values of a variable in an unobserved interval from values within an already observed interval. It is possible to measure the amount of matter at the moment of the Big Bang and extrapolate it's value proving the hypothesis correct. The Science community has been trying for over 59 years to prove light moved faster in the beginning moments of the Universe because it's the only way mathematically the difference in time/distance it travel can be reconciled.

        Thanks again.

    3. Brandon 2

      I'm just a lay-astrophotographer. I have a degree in psychology and mathematics, for whatever that's worth (not much if you ask my paycheck). I'd just like to point out that there are some pretty huge margins of error in Astronomy. Margins unacceptable in even the world of "soft science". For example, if we attempt to use parallax to measure the distance to Betelgeuse, the distance is 643 ± 146 ly. That's ± 25% (approximately but who cares)!!! Perhaps I should have gotten a degree in astronomy, but, I am at a loss for how we can, in any reasonable or scientific way, measure the distance to stars and galaxies 100's of millions of ly away, when we can't even reasonably measure the distance to ones in our own back yard... let alone understand the beginning of the universe. Blah, blah, red shift, blah blah, Hubble was a genius, blah blah, but what is the base measurement used to derive distance based on red-shift? For me, it takes as much faith to believe much of the astronomy jargon as it does to simply believe a cosmic Jewish zombie's father spoke and, POOF... we're all here a couple thousand years ago.

      1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

        @Brandom 2

        Your answer.

        Celestial distances don't depend on Alpha Orionis so it's not an issue. However Delta Cephei, which is important for the distance scale, is known to be 887±26 lightyears (272±8 in sensible units (Pc)). About 3%.

        I'm sure, if Betelgeuse was important, we'd've turned space telescope on it and got a decent measurement. Finite resources.

    4. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Let's see if I have this right.... right immediately after the "Big Bang" or "Universe Creation", a Phantom Particle, not of this universe, entered every atom and annihilated itself while giving the atom it's rotation, etc. And these paticles continue to enter each and every atom to spin things back up? How often does and atom need a recharge? And not just one atom but all.. boggles the mind the quantity does... and these particles just keep re-appearing out of some unlimited source...???

      So, who or what, is launching this massive barrage of particles or do they just appear as if my magic? I've done some reading and this smells a lot like a "hand of <$deity>" or "magic".

      Oh... and your caveat about IQ is something I've heard a lot of snakeoil salesman say over the years. Similar to: "Oh trust me, I and the people who discovered this miracle cure are a lot smarter than you are." <cough>bulls**t<cough>

      1. dr.drew

        Mark 85, It's clear you don't get what I'm talking about and that's ok, the Phantom particle is as troubling as the double-slit experiment which demonstrates that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena. I don't expect you to understand, I expected you would use your self defense mechanism to hurl insults. Understanding Quantum mechanics is like reading a book on wizardry and Black magic, it's world is so strange and bizarre it frightens most people. Clearly I was not targeting you with my post, I hope you have a wonderful day and all is well.

        1. Mark 85 Silver badge

          I have no issue with the double-slit experiment and results. I can see where that's possible. Nor do I have issues with the Quantum theories. It was this statement about the particles coming from "not of this universe"... and the implication that they keep coming to each and every atom.

          1. dr.drew

            mark 85 Phantom particles are particles that come in and out of existence on the quantum level. Space "bubbles" with these particles, but because they are matter/anti-matter pairs and self annihilate quickly they do not count as matter or energy being created. It does have ramifications for the origin of the matter in our universe since the big bang event involved 1,000,000 particles of anti-matter forming for every 100,000,001 particles of matter in a manner that is very similar to how phantom particles form.

            Did you know if atoms were not 100% pure and perfect the entire Universe would collapse into Chaos and life would cease. Phantom particles are not nearly as strange as quirks and anti-quirks and the subatomic particles that surround them. If you don't like the idea of Phantom particles popping in and out of existence your going to just hate it when you find out we live in a Hologram Universe...

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Pretty sure if I had an IQ of 180 or above and a background in Quantum theory I'd spell them "Quarks" rather than "Quirks". Also I wouldn't copy verbatim the first line of the Wikipedia article on the double-slit experiment... and then copy a slightly later sentence from the same article- all in the same response to Mark85.

              Atoms are not perpetual motion machines, nor would anyone claim that they were for a loooooong time. They move because they've got energy applied to them. Remove that energy and they slow down and stop. Re-apply that energy and they start to move again- this is provable, repeatable science. No Phantom Particles required. Or, rather, the place of your Phantom Particle is taken up by transferred energy.

              As for computation of how much energy is produced in an atom? That's easy, none. They store energy- they even release some of it- but do not produce it. Again, this can be demonstrated by sticking them in a cryogenic situation (removing the vast bulk of their releasable energy)- they don't spontaneously heat themselves up.

              If an element DOES heat itself up it's through radioactivity or some other mechanism releasing previously well-bound potential energy stored within it. The magnitude of energy so released can be calculated and measured and is the basis for nuclear power plants.

              Plus, if there was a matter/antimatter reaction occurring within each and every atom, it would become more or less impossible to cool things down to cryogenic levels as your Phantom Particle would be constantly bumping up their energy levels.

              What the initial source of the universe's energy was I have no idea and if I ever find out I'll give you a shout out during my Nobel Prize awards ceremony.

              Also, does Optical Science cover electron microscopes? You're no longer working with optics then, you're using quantum tunnelling and that's a whole other bag of cats (alive or dead, who knows?).

            2. NumptyScrub

              Phantom particles are particles that come in and out of existence on the quantum level. Space "bubbles" with these particles, but because they are matter/anti-matter pairs and self annihilate quickly they do not count as matter or energy being created.

              Guys I think I found that "phantom particle" Doctor Drew was talking about :D

              Except we've known about them for nearly a century (first proposed 1916) and yet cosmology has not been shaken to it's very core yet. Not sure why, maybe there is more thinking needs to be done about it :/

              Phantom particles are not nearly as strange as quirks and anti-quirks and the subatomic particles that surround them. If you don't like the idea of Phantom particles popping in and out of existence your going to just hate it when you find out we live in a Hologram Universe...

              Ahh, bless, that old "the universe is a fiction" meme that's been around for a few thousand years and has been (and is) a staple of philosophy. Unfortunately, in the absence of an alternative method of perception (i.e. Morpheus and Trinity busting you out of the Matrix), then your personal perception of "reality" is really the only one you can actually use to make your own judgements and decisions.

              Solipsism for the win! I'm glad I keep imagining people like you, it does keep me amused :D

    5. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      So long then, based phantom particle.


      Film at 11 on Fox News, immediately after "How much Munich is Putin?" and the latest on Creationism.

      Individuals with a minimum of a 180 I.Q. will understand what I have written here

      Levels of sophomorism attained I have long not been witness to. Kudos to that at least.

    6. MrDamage

      Phantom Particle

      Does this particle of yours wear purple longjohns, ride a white horse, and have a pet wolf by any chance?

    7. Bunbury


      You say that individuals with a minimum IQ of 180 will "undoubtably" understand this.

      How do you know? Firstly, what is the test that you are using to establish such an IQ? Most standard tests are unable to go above 160 reliably. Groups like Mega Society are somewhat limited in that there is no good test at that level of intelligence.

      Then, how many 180+ IQs have you run this past to establish that their understanding is undoubtable. I'm thinking you'd need perhaps 10 of them to all get it to be correct even by the loosest of interpretations of "undoubtably".

      Further, what of those with IQs less than 180? Have they a chance of understanding it, just not in the "undoubtably" category? Perhaps the plain Joes in the 150s have a chance?

      Or could I perhaps understand your majestic theory by perhaps cribbing from Wikipedia. Oooo - let's say I look at QED Vacuum and find the following quote:

      “The quantum theory asserts that a vacuum, even the most perfect vacuum devoid of any matter, is not really empty. Rather the quantum vacuum can be depicted as a sea of continuously appearing and disappearing [pairs of] particles that manifest themselves in the apparent jostling of particles that is quite distinct from their thermal motions. These particles are ‘virtual’, as opposed to real, particles. ...At any given instant, the vacuum is full of such virtual pairs, which leave their signature behind, by affecting the energy levels of atoms.”

      -Joseph Silk On the shores of the unknown, p. 62

      Plagiarism perhaps?

    8. DugEBug

      Speaking for the 99.999% of us

      I don't get it...

    9. kamikrazee

      I understand your theory!

      I do! I really do!

      You are bat-crap crazy! You should get your meds checked ASAP, I think they are beyond their freshness date. It's OK, you can have a Kool_Aid and an Oreo while the nice technicians get some new pills for you.

      Spark of life my toenail.

      But I do enjoy your posts. (I mean that). More than some of the real ones.

  7. is this real

    Novice hear,

    Does this newer discovery have anything to do with "the cosmic radiation background"? If so is the map of the universe that take us back to around 300,000 l years after big bang affected by this?

  8. Faux Science Slayer

    "Mysterious 'Dr X' says....Universe is NOT Expanding"

    In a Dec 14, 1936 Time magazine interview, "Shift On Shift" the father of big bang said it was a HOAX.

    Visit the Cosmology tab at FauxScienceSlayer and the excellent Electric Universe video....

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019