WMAP troubles

[D_Archer]

Hi all,

The latest alternative cosmology newsletter (http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2009.06.pdf) contains a link to a paper called > Observation number correlation in WMAP data By Ti-Pei Li et al. Link to paper.

Here is the full quote from the newsletter about this new WMAP study:
----------
WMAP catastrophe
This month, we’ve chosen to highlight a paper that is causing a stir in cosmology. Serious doubt is cast upon the validity of the entire body of WMAP analysis. Thanks to Eric Lerner for the following analysis:
An important new paper shows that there are serious errors in the WMAP team’s analysis of the satellite’s data. The new paper, Observation number correlation in WMAP data By Ti-Pei Li et al, which has been accepted by MNRAS, shows that a spurious apparent temperature is introduced into the map of the CMB by the WMAP team’s analyses. As a result, the conclusions based on this analysis, including the widely-publicized supposed agreement with some predictions of the dominant LCDM cosmology, are thrown into doubt. Li et al’s recent paper on WMAP observation number effects arXiv 0905.0075 is a follow-up to Liu and Li’s earlier paper on the same subject, 0806.4493, which was reported in this newsletter, but whose significance was not fully recognized at the time.
WMAP mapped the tiny variations of anisotropies in the CMB by comparing the inputs of two receivers or horns placed 141 degrees apart, as the satellite spun and scanned the entire sky. Complex mathematical procures were used to transform these differences in inputs into a map of absolute temperature or intensity at every point in the sky. In outline the authors argue that:
1.
The way temperature is calculated by the WMAP team based on the differential between the two WMAP horns is in error, as is best explained in the Li et al paper. When the number of observations of a given pixel by the “plus” horn (the number of times that point in the sky is scanned) is different than the number of observation by the “minus” horn, there is a spurious temperature added, dependent on transmission imbalances, which are different for different bands. (Esq. 5 and 6 of Li et al). These spurious temperatures, up to 10-20 micros K are clearly shown in figure 3, which shows the pixel-by-pixel correlation of the difference in observation number and temperature. This spurious temperature, dependent on observation number, in turn produces a spurious fluctuation in temperature which is dependent on the number of observations. The number of observations in turn is a strong function of declination. See figure 2 of Liu and Li, which tells the story very well. Li explains procedures by which the raw data can be re-analysed to eliminate these artefacts.
2.
The method by which WMAP temperatures are calculated also does not accurately correct for the fact that pixels 141 degrees way from hot spots are measured too cold. In Liu and Li, p.18, they show that pixels 141 degrees away from the 2000 hottest pixels in the map are on average 12-14 micro Kelvin cooler than average pixels, depending on the band. This is several hundred times above the expected random variation. Since each circle contains 15,000 pixels spread across a good section of the sky, the average temperature should be very close to the average of the whole sky. This is even truer for 2,000 such circles. But that is not what Liu and Li found.

So, from these papers, it seems that there are spurious temperature anisotropies that are comparable with the entire anisotropy found in the WMAP team’s maps. Therefore the entire analysis of cosmological parameters based on these maps is wrong. Indeed it seems very puzzling that an analysis that is so contaminated with errors should come up with parameters anywhere near those expected by LCDM models. The fact that the Li et al paper was accepted by MNRAS is perhaps an indication that some of the leading journals are becoming more open to work that challenges conventional assumptions in cosmology.
----------

Oops, the consensus opinion (among conventional cosmologists) about the WMAP data was that it fit the theory (ie inflation, BB, LCDM) 'perfectly', since the data is in error what value to these theories hold if at all?

I was also also looking for a coherent explanation of the MBR from an electric universe point of view, but i have only read a few blurbs about the phenomen but couldnt find a good enough/reasonable explanation. Any good reads?

Kind regards,
Daniel

[mharratsc]

Now that is very interesting... some disputes becoming apparent within the ivory towers of Astronomy, eh?

I'm sure one of the guys will come back with a link to some articles, but I do remember that Thornhill thinks that this 'Cosmic' Microwave Background Radiation is nothing more than the emissions of our local plasma sheath surrounding our sun putting out some energy... I think.

Sometimes I read these articles waaay too late at night. >.<


Mike H.

[moses]

The following study gives evidence of the CMB coming from the Sun's heliosheath:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.0181v1
Mo

[rduke]

I always imagined it would be difficult to take a microwave picture inside of a microwave oven..

[D_Archer]

The following study gives evidence of the CMB coming from the Sun's heliosheath:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.0181v1
Mo

Thank you for the paper, read through it and remember indeed that the heliopause had something to do with. Although this paper only tries to explain a distortion in the CMB, it is still possible that the entirety of the MBR is coming from the heliopause double layer.

I always imagined it would be difficult to take a microwave picture inside of a microwave oven..

My thoughts exactly, the CMBR has only been detected in this solar system, you would preferebaly want a probe inside and outside the heliosheath, to understand the heliopause you also need to fly a probe (with sufficient energy and measurement devices, unlike Voyager) through it i guess.

Thx so far for the feedback guys.

[nick c]

Just for reference purposes, here is a relevant quote about the CMB from the Holoscience site:
[url2=http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=d4fsrk24]Nobel Prize for Big Bang is a Fizzer[/url2]

If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify?

The simplest answer, from the highly successful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Radio astronomers have mapped the interstellar hydrogen filaments by using longer wavelength receivers. The dense thicket formed by those filaments produces a perfect fog of microwave radiation—as if we were located inside a microwave oven. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe. We cannot "see" them through the local microwave fog.

nick c

[mharratsc]

Thanks for backing me up with the links, gents

Tip of the hat to Moses for posting the link to that paper! It's great to see the science behind the EU/PC theories put to test and come up winning like that! So many of the detractors cite our "lack of math", lack of reference to "published, peer-reviewed papers" and etc, so it's really good to see stuff like this turn up.

Say- is there a site where EU/PC maintains a compendium of experiments & papers like the one above? I know that Dr. Peratt has several links to published papers, and I think Plasma Cosmology had some references... but is there a place where someone has been tucking away all of the stuff from the scientific realm that has direct bearing to validation of the EU/PC perspective?

If there isn't... do you think we could create a forum here for it?

Mike H.

[Solar]

Say- is there a site where EU/PC maintains a compendium of experiments & papers like the one above? I know that Dr. Peratt has several links to published papers, and I think Plasma Cosmology had some references... but is there a place where someone has been tucking away all of the stuff from the scientific realm that has direct bearing to validation of the EU/PC perspective?

If there isn't... do you think we could create a forum here for it?

Mike H.

Hello Mike

An effort was put forth to this end in the thread "RECOVERED: Electric Universe Papers, etc." which was salvaged from a forum crash.

You can also review Eric Lerner's video "Focus Fusion: The Fastest Route to Cheap, Clean Energy" for and overview of plasma dynamics applicable to space and practical use.

The website Cosmology Quest has a very good selection of peer reviewed articles regarding EU/PC by forum member Mnemeth.

Also, search request for:

Astrophysical Plasma

Space Plasma

Plasma Astrophysics

Cosmic Plasma

The "Publications" section of "US/Russia Collaboration in Plasma Astrophysics"

Things of this nature are directly related and you'll find getting a handle on search terms most useful. The science of EU/PC is readily available.

[D_Archer]

Two papers about detecting non-Gaussianity in the WMAP data.

Paper 1
Y. Wiaux,1! P. Vielva,2! R. B. Barreiro,2! E. Mart´ınez-Gonz´alez2!
and P. Vandergheynst1!
1Signal Processing Institute, Ecole Polytechnique F´ed´erale de Lausanne (EPFL), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
2Instituto de F´ısica de Cantabria (CSIC – UC), 39005 Santander, Spain

Quote from paper: "The observed non-Gaussianity is therefore
probably to be imputed to the CMB temperature field itself, thereby
questioning the basic inflationary scenario upon which the concordance
cosmological model relies. In this context, taking the CMB
temperature angular power spectrum of the concordance cosmological
model at face value, further analysis also naturally suggests that
this non-Gaussianity of the WMAP temperature data is not confined
to the localized distribution of anomalous signed-intensities. However,
this last result, in particular, might be sensitive to uncertainties
affecting the cosmological parameters. Further analyses should be
performed before giving it full credit."(emphasis added)

paper 2
A high-significance detection of non-Gaussianity in the WMAP 5-year data using directional spherical wavelets
Authors: J. D. McEwen, M. P. Hobson, A. N. Lasenby, D. J. Mortlock
(Submitted on 14 Mar 2008 (v1), last revised 29 Apr 2008 (this version, v2))

Abstract: We repeat the directional spherical real Morlet wavelet analysis, used to detect non-Gaussianity in the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) 1-year and 3-year data (McEwen et al. 2005, 2006a), on the WMAP 5-year data. The non-Gaussian signal detected previously is present in the 5-year data at a slightly increased statistical significance of approximately 99%. Localised regions that contribute most strongly to the non-Gaussian signal are found to be very similar to those detected in the previous releases of the WMAP data. When the localised regions detected in the 5-year data are excluded from the analysis the non-Gaussian signal is eliminated.(emphasis added)

About non-Gaussianity:
The term non-Gaussian has a connotation similar to
that of "non-linear;" rather than meaning those problems which are
not simple (the simple ones being the Gaussian or linear ones),
these terms refer instead to the general problem - all possible
stationary random sequences or all systems. In general,
"non-Gaussian detection theory" makes no
assumption as to the specific form of the noise amplitude
distribution (Kassam). This generality
mimics situations where the additive noise is variable, having an
unpredictable structure which makes a priori models of the noise
difficult to justify.(emphasis added)

Regards,
Daniel

[michael.suede]

That's soooo money.

Getting caught in the act.

Lerner is the man.

I think I'm going to take some time out of my day to send him some fan mail.

[Lloyd]

I got this email today.
Dear All,

COBE and WMAP are in serious trouble. Attached are recent papers by Prof. Pierre-Marie Robitaille of Ohio State University; one hot off the presses. They, and others, can be downloaded (as appended).

Yours faithfully,
Stephen J. Crothers.

PS. BCC'd widely.
__________________________________

Robitaille P.-M.
COBE: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -19-03.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
WMAP: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -08-01.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
On the Origins of the CMB: Insight from the COBE, WMAP, and Relikt-1 Satellites
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -08-02.PDF

Robitaiile P.-M.
On the Earth Microwave Background: Absorption and Scattering by the Atmosphere
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -10-01.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
On the Nature of the Microwave Background at the Lagrange 2 Point. Part I
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -11-11.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
The Earth Microwave Background (EMB), Atmospheric Scattering and the Generation of Isotropy
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -13-24.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission: 150 Years
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -19-01.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
Blackbody Radiation and the Loss of Universality: Implications for Planck's Formulation and Boltzman's Constant
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -19-02.PDF

http://www.springer.com/astronomy/gener ... 42-00791-0

[Harry Costas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

It has taken them 80 years to realize the errors.

So what happens now?

The Big Bang People do not look at the evidence, they are happy with what they have.

[D_Archer]

Thank you Lloyd for the papers. Will peruse them all when i find the time, so far only checked the first one.

Some choice qoutes from:
Robitaille P.-M.
COBE: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -19-03.PDF

1) "Despite popular belief to
the contrary, COBE has not proven that the microwave background originates from the
universe and represents the remnants of creation."

2) "In late 2006, I prepared a detailed review of WMAP
which uncovered many of the shortcomings of this instrument
[20]. A range of issues were reported, including: 1) the inability
to properly address the galactic foreground, 2) dynamic
range issues, 3) a lack of signal to noise, 4) poor contrast,
5) yearly variability, and 6) unjustified changes in processing
coecients from year to year. In fact, WMAP brought only
sparse information to the scientific community, related to the
dipole and to point sources."

3) "If anything,
this instrument provides tangential evidence for an earthly
source, but the data was discounted."

The CMB can now be explaind by emissions from our local group of galaxies, the suns heliosheath and the earth itself!
That it is definitely not a 'cosmic' background radiation from an hypothetical big bang/creation of the universe is conclusively proven on the basis of the now known data and measurements.

For EU theorists it is also less needed to find an explanation for this radiaton when the data itself is so 'multi-interpretational'.
It is like rduke said:'I always imagined it would be difficult to take a microwave picture inside of a microwave oven.."

Regards,
Daniel

[bdw000]

Alexander Dalgarno, a Harvard astrophysicist, has a mainstream possibility that the CMBR could have a local (our solar system) source.

He tones it down with "at least SOME of it may be local" (my paraphrase of memory), but the science is UNDENIABLE.

there is a paper somewhere, I think you had to pay for it a few years ago, but this lecture about comets and X-rays from 2003 is very interesting:

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=7418


He doesn't get to the the issue until the end, but the whole lecture is worth listening to just to see where his science is coming from.

It is obvious that his idea could easily explain ALL of the CMBR locally. Not saying I KNOW that it DOES, just that it is an obvious possibility.

[Lloyd]

* If JL is listening, this one seems to undermine Planck's constant: http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -19-01.PDF

... I have stated that Kirchhoff’s law is not universal [8, 12, 26, 27] and is restricted to the study of cavities which are either made from, or contain, perfect absorbers. Arbitrary cavity radiation is not black [12]. There can be no universal function. Planck’s equation presents a functional form which, far from being universal, is highly restricted to the emission of bodies, best represented on Earth by materials such as graphite, soot, and carbon black [8].
... The fact that all of electromagnetics stands in firm opposition to the universality, instilled in Kirchhoff’s law, is easily [erroneously] dismissed as science unrelated to thermal emission [61, 62]. Losses in electromagnetics are usually thermal in origin. Nonetheless, electromagnetics is treated almost as an unrelated discipline. This occurs despite the reality that Kirchhoff himself specifically included other processes, such as fluorescence, provided enclosures were maintained.

* What does JL think of that? I think APM regards Planck's constant as a true constant.