other universes, found only on the arxiv blog…
Is it just me or is the CMBR becoming more like a Rorschach test for some theoretical physicists as of late? I mean, first we have Roger Penrose seeing traces of past Big Bangs and assembling them into a somewhat shaky and dubious model of cyclical cosmology, and now we have a team of astronomers who think they’re seeing traces of collisions with other universes, big bruises left by an alien cosmos bumping into ours. As is the custom for Technology Review writers, the tentative papers are hyped as grand discoveries that shake up what we know about our very existence, offering evidence of former Big Bangs and of other universes floating around on the periphery of ours. And wouldn’t you know it, the evidence of these alien cosmoses comes to us in the form of circles in the WMAP data. The basic idea is that entire universes are like bubbles that float in an infinite plane and because they don’t exactly have GPS or GPP, they collide once in a while, leaving imprints in the temperature of the CMBR. As the writers for Technology Review rush to trump it in their post..
Now Stephen Feeney at University College London and a few pals say that they’ve found tentative evidence of this bruising in the form of circular patterns in cosmic microwave background. In fact, they’ve found four bruises, implying that our universe must have smashed into other bubbles at least four times in the past. Again, this is an extraordinary result: the first evidence of universes beyond our own.
Well, actually no, it’s not. We have patterns in the WMAP data which look like circles if you play around with a few temperature thresholds. Whether they’re just random noise or the traces of collisions between universes remains to be seen and the latter requires a whole lot more evidence that the former. All the sensationalistic, breathless, Daily Galaxy-style headlines and write-ups in TR are extremely premature at best and needless hype at worst. And as always, the reservations and notes that all this may be just a fluke and that oh, there’s a spacecraft taking a far more detailed and accurate map of the CMBR right now in which all these circles and bruises might just evaporate, are saved after the klaxon of supposedly great discoveries has been rung. The comments, in the meanwhile, have been left to internet physics cranks pitching their theories and spouting a fountain of gibberish best befitting the Bogdanov brothers. I know, I know, I’ve grumbled about TR’s policy of highlighting bizarre, poorly thought out, cryptic papers before when reviewing an end of time hypothesis that mathematically stopped time in the entire universe just because the authors wanted physics to stay tidy, but the blog just seems to be getting worse month in, month out.
I’m sure there are some great papers laying there in the depths of arXiv, filled to the brim with cool stuff. But in the editorial rush to hype up alternative cosmologies based on very shaky foundations or some mathematical constructs blatantly named after famous figures in physics to give them a patina of respectability, we’re highly unlikely to see them. Sometimes I wonder if I could just take my post about warp drive construction, wrap it in some highly esoteric C# code that looks fancy but really just does simple calculations you could easily get to work in Microsoft Excel, pepper it with words about aliens, mega-engineering, and SETI, then submit it as a paper showing how to better search for alien civilizations even though it’s just basic, back of the napkin math and pure speculation that may be fun for a longer blog post, but certainly not an academic paper. But what do you want to bet TR’s blog would write it up as something meaningful and usable to actual astronomers trying to find out if we’re alone in the cosmos?
See: Feeney, S., et al. (2010). First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation arXiv: 1012.1995v1
I am afraid it is not a problem with just the CMBR but there has been a change in the mentality of the High Energy Physics community (I include everything there ranging from accelerator physics, theoretical particle physics, string theory, quantum gravity and cosmology). I am working in cosmology for the past ~10 years and I have noticed that more and more people follow the “hop on the bandwagon” mentality lately. Any bump on the data, any statistical anomaly (a la Penrose et al) etc could be due to new and unexplored physics, even before all the possible explanations are taken into account!!!
A typical example of this attitude is what happened with Nima Arkani-Hamed et al (see http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0713) and the Pamela data a few years ago. In the first release (ca summer 2008) there was a large difference between the Pamela data for the excess of positrons and the theoretical predictions. Therefore, according to Arkani-Hamed this means new physics, new dark sectors etc and in his paper he introduces a whole bunch of weird and unjustifiable stuff in order to explain this bump in the data. Of course, a few months later (early 2009 I am not sure) the Fermi data were released and the discrepancy was only 1 or 2 sigmas, ie nothing serious and possibly having an astrophysical explanation. Of course, Arkani-Hamed didn’t withdraw his paper, which by the way currently has 415 citations! Another example is Horava-Lifshitz gravity, but probably that’s a whole post by itself.
The reason for this behavior is the fact that the community is based very much on the count of citations, number of papers (“productivity”) and this forces even good scientists (like Arkani-Hamed) to hastily publish every idea they come up with. What’s even worse is the fact that the community rewards people for this behavior! In the end, citations are always citations and they always count positively in one’s CV even for papers that are totally wrong or bogus.
To conclude, I am afraid that the community is going down a dangerous path and whenever I am given the chance I try to warn the younger people not to follow this way, but produce good physics instead. I am sorry for the long post, but I believe that someone should clarify this.
Cheers,
nobody
PS I remain anonymous for reasons of self-preservation…
I completely agree with you nobody. There’s a style of doing physics now which values publishing every brain fart, no matter how tenuously moored to data. The arxiv — it’s a blessing and a curse. Peer review is supposed to be our bulwark of quality control. Review is supposed to guarantee that if you see it published somewhere, it’s been checked thoroughly, and has a good chance of being correct. Now — pfft — you can’t believe what you read in Science, Nature, Physical Review Letters. I’m too young to be cranky like this, but it’s true.
About this sudden mass outbreak of CMBR paradolia: I wonder if a lot of people are watching too much Stargate: Universe? (where in one recent episode it is revealed that the reason of the existance of Destiny – the ship the cast are trapped on – is….patterns in the CMBR left by the supposed builders of the universe)
@Mithy: The story with the CMBR paradolia are much older than the SGU episode. The Penrose paper is just on the latest in the mill. Some of the earliest examples were about the “Axisof Evil”, where the early CMBR data “pointed” to a particular direction in the sky. Of course many papers were written and careers were built on this as usual.
Regarding the story in SGU, my guess is that the story is a rip-off from Sagan’s Contact where there were patterns in Pi=3.14159…, but is of course modernized to include the CMBR (appears in the news quite often lately) instead of Pi.
Ah, cheers Nobody, much obliged. I didn’t realise that this strain of wishful thinking had a history. But then I tend only to use arXiv to grab copies of papers that my institution doesn’t subscribe to or don’t appear on ADS in full (I’m looking at you, Science magazine, grr); I tend to find the…murkier depths of the archive a tad… murky to go round hunting for the latest and greatest in speculative fiction.
I guess you will find this interesting:
http://snarxiv.org/
It uses a combination of random physics buzzwords to create mock abstracts for papers. It also looks like the arxiv! Some times if you compare these with real papers from Hep-th, there’s almost no difference!!!