Urs Schreiber
Shared publicly1:12 PM
Planck without BICEP2 is maybe even more exciting. With all the attention to the BICEP2 claim, which now has mainly evaporated [0], what is striking is that the Planck satellite data alone implies something at least as exciting, if not much more so.
I was alerted of this only recently when I heard talks about it. The Planck data (certainly as of 2013) strongly favors what is called the Starobinsky model of cosmic inflation [1]. That model sits right there in the middle of the preferred parameter range of Planck, all other types of models scattered around elsewhere.
Now moreover, and that's the interesting aspect, the Starobinsky model has variously been argued to prefer being embedded into supergravity.
I have collected some references making this connection in the above entry, see notably [2], as well as the other reference you'll see there.
Now I am not expert enough on model building to really judge how strong this "preference" is. I had a long chat with an expert who is more on the theoretical side, and that was very inspiring. I was trying to get some more hints at [3], but no luck yet.
If you see what I mean: detecting a primordial gravitational wave is really neat, but we entirely expect such waves to be there. On the other hand a genuine hint for genuine new physics and notably for supergravity, now that's quite something. Pinning this down of course may be just as elusive as so many statements in this business, but at the very least it seems to me that if you found the BICEP2 claim exciting, then you have no reason to be less excited about Planck without BICEP2.
[0] http://resonaances.blogspot.de/2014/09/bicep-what-was-wrong-and-what-was-right.html
[1] http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Starobinsky+model+of+cosmic+inflation
[2] http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Starobinsky+model+of+cosmic+inflation#Ellis13
[3] http://www.physicsoverflow.org/26235/starobinsky-inflation-and-supergravity
I was alerted of this only recently when I heard talks about it. The Planck data (certainly as of 2013) strongly favors what is called the Starobinsky model of cosmic inflation [1]. That model sits right there in the middle of the preferred parameter range of Planck, all other types of models scattered around elsewhere.
Now moreover, and that's the interesting aspect, the Starobinsky model has variously been argued to prefer being embedded into supergravity.
I have collected some references making this connection in the above entry, see notably [2], as well as the other reference you'll see there.
Now I am not expert enough on model building to really judge how strong this "preference" is. I had a long chat with an expert who is more on the theoretical side, and that was very inspiring. I was trying to get some more hints at [3], but no luck yet.
If you see what I mean: detecting a primordial gravitational wave is really neat, but we entirely expect such waves to be there. On the other hand a genuine hint for genuine new physics and notably for supergravity, now that's quite something. Pinning this down of course may be just as elusive as so many statements in this business, but at the very least it seems to me that if you found the BICEP2 claim exciting, then you have no reason to be less excited about Planck without BICEP2.
[0] http://resonaances.blogspot.de/2014/09/bicep-what-was-wrong-and-what-was-right.html
[1] http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Starobinsky+model+of+cosmic+inflation
[2] http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Starobinsky+model+of+cosmic+inflation#Ellis13
[3] http://www.physicsoverflow.org/26235/starobinsky-inflation-and-supergravity
'via Blog this' The Honourable Schoolboy
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário