WMAP Year Two Data?

[Jerry]

Nereid's comments are much more succinct than my own, but I do need to clarify - sorry.

There are three factual errors in the above passage:

1) The peaks in the angular power spectrum were not produced by inflation.

Yes and no – as you stated in clarification 3 – the location of the peaks is determined by inflation in WMAP cosmology. Peaks can be anywhere. Since there appears to be local contamination of unknown causality and magnitude who knows what is what?

2) The relative peak heights, shapes and positions exactly matched predictions and the general level of the anisotropy signal was within the limits of earlier predictions.

Just Barely correct. They are much closer in position and amplitude, to Tracy McGaugh’s predictions for MOND. The amplitude of the second peak was predicted to be MUCH greater, before the Balloon data proved otherwise. It was hastily redrawn with the new limits.
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/

3) Dark Energy does not affect the peak heights whatsoever, only their location along the horizontal axis. They are located exactly where inflation predicted them to be.

Frankly I am not impressed with this prediction, because Dark Energy is a parameter that is not independently constrained. Any radiation spectrum is likely to have secondary peaks, so using ad hoc, independent, non-verifiable and unknown in the local universe parameters to tune the spectrum does not provide us with any scientific validity. This falls within the same scope as the probability that a psychic can predict a victim has a car key in his pocket, and the key has at least two ridges in it. If the peaks could have been successfully modeled before the balloon data, and without conjuring up new Dark Stuff, that would have been impressive. It didn't happen that way.

[folkhemmet]

Hi everyone,

Well, did everyone notice that the WMAP updated their website in August and gave an explanation for the delay which does not include anything about the low-l anomalies? Still, they do not give any indication as to when new data will be released. Frankly, I wonder if they will even bother to release any more data? WMAP was supposed to provide us with CMB data prior to the launch of the Planck Surveyor mission; the science team has only provided the tax payers with one year of data which growing evidence suggests is contaminated. Unfortunately for WMAP, since Planck will be a substantial improvement over WMAP and is due to launch in the not too distant future, this means that any WMAP releases post-Planck will seem untimely and irrelevant. Think about it this way, would it have made sense to delay the release of the COBE data until after February 2003...who would use it, who would pay much attention to it...? What do you all think? I wonder why NASA has agreed to fund the WMAP mission through 2010 given these shortcomings? Has anyone else heard anything about the status of the WMAP mission lately?

[Jerry]

The Messenger:



Let's not forget that the acoustic peaks are at multipoles 200+, these anomalies are at 2 and 3. These problems along the (supposedly inflation produced) Sachs-Wolfe plateau are problematic for inflation, but not for the acoustic peaks and their physics.


There are three factual errors in the above passage:

1) The peaks in the angular power spectrum were not produced by inflation.
2) The relative peak heights, shapes and positions exactly matched predictions and the general level of the anisotropy signal was within the limits of earlier predictions.
3) Dark Energy does not affect the peak heights whatsoever, only their location along the horizontal axis. They are located exactly where inflation predicted them to be. See http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/index.html, choose CMB Movies and click on the Omega_Lambda bar which is the third from the top.

Reflective harmonics are usually where they should be. So are hetrodyned harmonics. The inflationary peaks were expected to be of a much higher magnitude, a reflection off of a brickwall. What we have observed is more like the reflection of thunder off of a cloud. Weak.

I presume you mean the GZK limit.

Yes, that would be the dylexic KZG Limit.

Just recently it was announced that Pierre Auger Observatory in Argentina could only find cosmic rays below the limit, contradicting the earlier claims by the AGASA collaboration. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam.../mg18725085.100

No, it says more information is needed:

But the observatory's first results, which were released on 1 July, reveal only low-energy cosmic rays below the GZK limit. Observatory spokesman Alan Watson of Leeds University in the UK says that with less than half its 1400 detectors so far up and running, it is too early to tell whether the rays above the GZK limit will eventually be detected. "It's sort of tantalising. In two years we will solve the problem," he promises.

Solve the problem, or determine which set of investigators is providing good science? If there is a problem with the AGASA detectors or data reduction, It can't be corrected with a new array that may or may not be as sensitive to ultra high energy events.

All cosmic ray detectors rely upon secondary indicators. If a prior assumption is made during the calibration phase of Auger that the GKZ limit is the known upper detection boundary, by definition the limit will never be breached. To end the controversy, a systemic error must be assigned to the AGASA observations...or breaches in the limit detected by Auger.

[Jerry]

29-May-2004, 11:10 PM

I got an email responce from Paul Butterworth of the WMAP image team. He says the results of year two will be released in a matter of weeks, not months.

Would that be Biblical weeks? Best evidence of time dilation I have ever seen.

[folkhemmet]

Since title of this thread is "WMAP year two data when is it coming out?", I was wondering if we could limit our in depth scientific discussions of the CMB; these discussions are more appropriately had in the astronomy or alternative theories section of the bautforum. This is just a friendly suggestion, please do not take offense.

In any case, I believe the thread should focus on the policy aspect of the continued delay of the WMAP data. Is it good policy to delay the data for such a long period time until the mission's product is superseded by newer instruments (this may happen)? Is it responsible to keep the tax-payers in the dark about a publicly funded project?

By the way, has anybody heard anything about if and when the new WMAP data will come out? Perhaps they will release in Feb 2006 which is three years after the first year release. I still believe that the public should continue to demand answers from the WMAP team to these questions.

[nodem]

According to this article http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...=mg18625061.800 the data is due for release in September. It also sounds like there are some "issues" with the results and another team have received a grant to independently investigate the WMAP data.

Took another look at the article and it didn't mention which year. I guess they meant 2006?

[Jerry]

Took another look at the article and it didn't mention which year. I guess they meant 2006?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0510/0510406.pdf

Examining the Effect of the Map-Making Algorithm on Observed Power Asymmetry in WMAP Data

P. E. Freeman, C. R. Genovese, C. J. Miller, R. C. Nichol, L. Wasserman

(From summary and conclusion)

These results clearly indicate that the posited power asymmetry in WMAP data is real...

The natural next steps are to determine the dipole velocity vector that minimizes asymmetry (with error bars), to make new maps based on that vector, and to examine the frequency dependence of any remaining significant asymmetry to attempt to differentiate between systematic or foreground causes. However, without the ability to recalibrate the first-year WMAP data, such an exercise may not yield accurate results. We thus would ask that both raw time-ordered data and calibration software be made available to the public in future data releases.

[Jerry]

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/news-releas...004/04-055.htm

Using WMAP, scientists captured the afterglow of the big bang and revealed that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and dominated by a mysterious “dark energy.” The confirmation of the dark energy, which drives the universe to expand at an ever increasing rate, was hailed by Science magazine as the 2003 “Breakthrough of the Year.”

I vote the WMAP second year release as the "Breakdown of the Year" for 2004.

[peassens]

When are scientists of the WMAP team going to release the data over the year 2004 ?..

And are they working on the 2005 data right now ? Or have they put the whole WMAP project in the freezing box for a while ?.

Yesterday i was reading an article about the first stars in the universe, Ned Wrigt was very skeptical about these findings, he thought the stars where more local than distant. Maybe he is also skeptical or rethinking the year one data of the WMAP project !..

[folkhemmet]

Greetings my friends,

I agree with Jerry in terms of being disappointed with the direction the WMAP project has taken. The main purpose of the project was, or I guess still is, is to provide the public and the scientific community with high-quality CMB sky maps prior to the launch of the Planck Surveyor. Look at it this way, would it have made sense to delay the COBE data until now. Who would look at it? It would only have marginal value. The Surveyor will be such a substantial improvement over the WMAP observatory such that if the WMAP folks decide to release their data until after the Planck release, then WMAP data will seem irrelevant. That would be ashame.

I agree with Peassan. Ned wright's comments on the Spitzer results seem to be in conflict with what you might expect him to say given the fact that the Spitzer results confirm the WMAP first year data. Also, Lyman Page was supposed to give a talk titled Recent Results from WMAP at Caltech on Nov. 17, 2005, but I checked the website and the talk was conceled! Again! meaning this same talk by the same speaker has been put off in this manner for well over a year. http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~physcoll/PhysColl.html

I suggest that as many baut forum members as we can possibly get should email the WMAP website and demand answers. They may be able to blow-off antoniseb or another individaul, but not dozens of us. What do you all think of this idea? Please reply to this post with ideas on what the email should say.

Peace.

[John L]

I took it one step further, Folkhemmet, by writing to my Congressman several months ago asking him to look into this. My request was that he demand to know why the data was not being released, why the raw data couldn't be made public so that other bright young minds could be applied to the problem. I also asked that if their response was not satisfactory that their funding be cut and the raw data be made public anyway.

This is like the Dead Sea Scrolls. A small cloistered team of "experts" monoploized the scrolls for decades applying only what they knew to them to preserve and translate them. Then they were released onto the internet, imaged in multiple spectra to bring out hidden text, and now they've all been translated by thousands of people, and not just a handful. The WMAP data could use this sort of approach...

[peassens]

Mailing the WMAP site is a goog idea !..

2.5 year waiting time for us folks with interesed in the data is long as 't can be i think. And when the plack project is launched WMAP will be burried almost certain. So there has been a lot of speculation in the popular scientific press about these data. The question how serious are these data, maybe WMAP map is not more than merely locale.

[Jerry]

When are scientists of the WMAP team going to release the data over the year 2004 ?..

And are they working on the 2005 data right now ? Or have they put the whole WMAP project in the freezing box for a while ?.

Yesterday i was reading an article about the first stars in the universe, Ned Wrigt was very skeptical about these findings, he thought the stars where more local than distant. Maybe he is also skeptical or rethinking the year one data of the WMAP project !..

I would hope so. Ned is echoing the argument a number of us have raised about the cosmic signature in the WMAP data. Is the pot calling the kettle black?

The WMAP data is so late, I have been contemplating starting a thread on the 'C-word' page. The word arrogant is certainly not in-appropriate.

The very act of withholding the WMAP data long after the expected release says "trust us, even if we don't know what we are doing.". The WMAP data released-to-date has been seriously challenged, and these questions, and any further systematic bias identified in WMAP, should be answered before, not after PLANCK is launched. Since many of the WMAP team have a vested (meaning monetary) interest in the PLANCK mission, the delay is tempting issues outside the realm of science.

[folkhemmet]

Jerry,

I take cosmology very seriously. It is the "grandest of environmental sciences", as Martin Rees has said. The universe is a fascinating place and I don't mind having my tax-dollars spent on exploring it as long as those trusted to explore it don't withhold information as if they are part of a top-secret high-security organization.

Indeed, the more attention the delay of the WMAP data gets and the more people that email the WMAP team the harder it will be for them to continue to be ambiguous about both the nature of the delay and the time when new data may be released. You are echoing my point exactly. Yes, start a new thread on the C-word page. Also, we need to get as many baut forum members as possible to email them. I wasn't aware that people on the WMAP team have a vested financial interest in the Planck surveyor mission? I guess I figured that the cosmologists on the WMAP team might, once it becomes available, use the Planck data just as various members of the Planck team have been using the WMAP data.

I recently emailed the WMAP website, but so far I've not received any response. My email basically said, look, people care about cosmology and we feel as though we have a right to know about the course that a publicly funded mission is taking.

[Kullat Nunu]

Nothing wrong in an email campaign. But remember there's a danger that it may become a deluge of mails that results in dismissal.

[peassens]

I found a fascinating article on Ned Wright's website. I conclude out of this writing that there is something wrong with the WMAP data. But i am not really certain about that, can anyone help me out.


http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CM...ov05-clean.pdf

[Jerry]

Nice find, Peassens

Ned isn't changing his tune, but he does seem to be admitting there may be another band somewhere with a completely new sound.

On one hand (in his presentation) he is admitted there are circular arguments, on the other, he is quite certain Dark Energy (Alpha) is a real and critical parameter.

He also eludes to the 'fact' Dark Engry played a much more significant role during 'inflation', and then backed off. (IAOTO variable dark parameters, like accordians, should be avoided.)

I don't see any indication that there is 'something wrong' with WMAP in his presentation, but I like the last line in his conclusion:

But are we ignoring something? Are there new "CN" lines out there?

That is a far cry from the fanfare and certainty with which the WMAP I interpretive data was announced in early 2003.

I think we are finally starting to make progress; rooting out some 'deep rooted misconceptions'.

Edited to add: Ned is using five basic parameters to model the universe - this is represented in some target-like 3d plots that demonstrate both 'negative' and positive curves to space (w) can be assigned to the model. The best constraint is the attenuation curve plotted using high redshift supernova, that seem to indicate the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing slightly, but there is a big caveat:

As the number of supernova observed at high redshift have increased, supernova researchers have recently widened the error bars, meaning there is less certainty as the data base expanse. This should not be happening, and it may indicate one of the fundamental parameters used to characterize supernova (such as the attenuation of space, and the resulting average supernova bightness parameter) may need some adjustment. Any adjustment would change the shape of the supernova Hubble distance curve, which would effect the current agreement between WMAP and Supernova data.

Hubble Space Telescope and Ground-Based Observations of Type Ia Supernovae at Redshift 0.5: Cosmological Implications:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510155

[folkhemmet]

Hi everyone,

I just found out some information which at least hints at when new WMAP data may be released. WMAP science team member Lyman page is due to give a talk in Chile this December. The title of his talk is Recent Results from WMAP. http://www.larim2005.cl/index.php?value=program

I also looked at the AAS website to see if there were any talks scheduled about new WMAP data; however, I was not able to find any.

I am trying not to get my hopes up since they have announced talks with this title before only to cancel them. I guess we'll find out soon.

[Jerry]

Lyman Page's presentation on "Recent WMAP Results" is scheduled on the Monday, DEC 12, 2005.

Unfortunately, Recent is a relative term.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/ms_status.html

WMAP Science Team: Member Institution
Charles L. Bennett (PI), Johns Hopkins University
Mark Halpern, University of British Columbia
Gary Hinshaw, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Norman Jarosik, Princeton University
Al Kogut NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center
Michele Limon, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/SSAI
Stephan Meyer, University of Chicago
Lyman Page, Princeton University
David N. Spergel, Princeton University
Greg Tucker, Brown University
David Wilkinson, Princeton University
Ed Wollack, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Edward L. (Ned) Wright, University of California- Los Angeles

Aug. 2002
One Year at L2
Second full sky scan completed. More data are collected as WMAP continues to orbit the sun.

Feb. 2003
First Data Release
A release based on the initial full sky data.
Aug. 2003
Two Years at L2

Aug. 2004
Three years at L2
The WMAP observatory continues to operate flawlessly.

Mar. 2005
WMAP Science Impact
Two of the WMAP first-year papers were listed as the two most highly cited papers in all of space science.

Aug. 2005
Four years at L2
The WMAP observatory continues to operate flawlessly.

Last update: Wednesday, 10-26-2005

There was a time when holy scripture was cloistered by the high priests, revealed only from the pulpit to the masses, who could not posssibly divine the deeper meanings.

[dgruss23]

This thread was started over 1 1/2 years ago. The question was valid in May 2004 and it's even more valid today. What the heck is going on? Is turbo-1 right? Is the year 2 data going to show variations from year 1 data that suggest a lot of local contamination or even a local origin?

[VanderL]

This thread was started over 1 1/2 years ago. The question was valid in May 2004 and it's even more valid today. What the heck is going on? Is turbo-1 right? Is the year 2 data going to show variations from year 1 data that suggest a lot of local contamination or even a local origin?

The answer is only known to the WMAP team, and I think the delay must mean something important. We can only speculate about it, let me give it a shot. We already know that the WMAP data show that at least some of the microwave radiation is not background and possibly none is. I guess there is a certain logic to the tactic of delaying the release of the followup data; there's a new instrument to be launched soon (Planck, when will that be?) and my guess is that they hope to stall until they can verify the findings of WMAP with the Planck data. Maybe there's reason to doubt the instrument itself, and only by verification with Planck data cab the (hypothetical) "issue" be resolved.
I think either something momentous is underway, or we will hear about an unexpected instrument problem (or instrument behaviour at L2), invalidating all the WMAP data.

Cheers.

[folkhemmet]

The WMAP website, as Jerry shows us, has little to say about when the new data may come out, although they do say that the spacecraft is operating "flawlessly." This seems to imply that there have been no technical glitches or instrument failures. As for the nature of the delay, I know not only from people who've emailed them but also from the mission status page that the delay is related to the complexity of the polarization signal. Or is it?

I am not thoroughly convinced that the main reason for the delay has to do with the complexity of the polarization signal. First of all, several other teams have come out with accurate measurements of the CMB E-mode polarization, albeit over smaller areas of the sky. These other teams have used different instruments, different analysis techniques, and have mapped the E-mode polarization over different patches of the sky. Their conclusion: foreground contamination of the polarization signal is not severe. So this, at least to me, seems sort of hard to reconcile with the WMAP team's line. Also, and I don't want to get into too many technical details on this thread, there are the low-l CMB anomalies. Remember what philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn had to say about anomalies and scientific progress.

As for waiting for Planck data, they'll be waiting at least 5 years for that data. First Planck has to launch in summer of 2007 assuming no delays between now and then, then it will take a year and half of observations, and then the public data release should occur in 2011. That would mean that the WMAP team will be waiting another 5 or 6 years to release their data. I think by then the much higher quality of the Planck data along with the cosmology community's overall frustration with the WMAP project will mean that few people will give the WMAP data any notice.

Lastly, have people noticed that WMAP team members have been giving talks lately with titles such as "Recent Results from WMAP", "WMAP and future directions", "WMAP and Beyond"? Perhaps instead giving talks about what's beyond WMAP they should release the new data.

[VanderL]

Thanks Folhemmet,

If you're right (and I think you are) this leavs only on possible explanation; the WMAP data do not agree with current cosmological model(s), and they need to be absolutely sure before publishing it. As dgruss23 said, could it be that year two data show variation compared to the year one data? That would take the C out of CMB, and my guess is that they want to either find a way around this to rescue the current paradigm, or they want to start talking about an alternative model. Either way, it's interesting to see what happens, I just hope someone would tell us about it soon.

Cheers.

[folkhemmet]

Some of us on this thread, including myself, have wondered if the timing of the next WMAP data release will take place right around when the Planck surveyor mission finishes its observations. Well, it looks like Planck/Herschel is now being delayed slightly. So this should make it even harder for the WMAP team, if this is indeed their plan, to delay future releases of the data until Planck data become available.

For reference: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ariane-05l.html
"The Herschel and Planck launch is currently scheduled for launch in late 2007/early 2008."

Also, another interesting web page is David Spergel's web page. On that page you can download a lengthy powerpoint pres that Dr. Spergel gave at the US Naval Observatory last month. A brief synopsis: cosmology now has a standard model and is in a golden age. No mention of when new WMAP data may come out. However, it seems hard to believe that he would give such an upbeat pres about the 'standard model' and 'the golden age' if, as some of us on this thread suspect, the first year WMAP conclusions are radically mistaken.

[VanderL]

Some of us on this thread, including myself, have wondered if the timing of the next WMAP data release will take place right around when the Planck surveyor mission finishes its observations. Well, it looks like Planck/Herschel is now being delayed slightly. So this should make it even harder for the WMAP team, if this is indeed their plan, to delay future releases of the data until Planck data become available.

For reference: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ariane-05l.html
"The Herschel and Planck launch is currently scheduled for launch in late 2007/early 2008."

Also, another interesting web page is David Spergel's web page. On that page you can download a lengthy powerpoint pres that Dr. Spergel gave at the US Naval Observatory last month. A brief synopsis: cosmology now has a standard model and is in a golden age. No mention of when new WMAP data may come out. However, it seems hard to believe that he would give such an upbeat pres about the 'standard model' and 'the golden age' if, as some of us on this thread suspect, the first year WMAP conclusions are radically mistaken.

A bit like the band still playing while the Titanic sinks?

[Kullat Nunu]

If the standard model is proved to be wrong, the golden age of cosmology wouldn't be over, but opposite.

[folkhemmet]

If the standard model is proved to be wrong, then that would be progress. However, if we do not ever have a standard model of cosmology which is at least basically correct, even if incomplete, I think it would be hard to say that we will ever be in a golden age of cosmology. I know there are those contributing to this thread who do not like the standard model of cosmology and are convinced that it is just plain wrong. Personally, however, it's not that I like or dislike the standard model but rather I am happy to see that cosmology is maturing as a science and at least we seem to be getting somewhere in our understanding of our cosmic surroundings. Afterall, it was not that long when cosmology was still defined in dictionaries as a branch of metaphysics. I am excited that we may finally know the size, shape, age, expansion rate, and matter content of the universe. I am not excited at the prospect of us never knowing beyond a reasonable doubt how our universe formed and evolved on large scales.

Martin Rees said something along the lines that people should not be so sketpical of the conclusions reached by cosmologists because unlike archeologists the cosmologists can directly see the past they are studying through telescopes. Moreover, the basic equations describing the expansion of the universe are much simpler than all of the metabolic pathways in a cell. Size alone does not make something harder to understand. Perhaps the opposite.

Of course in science all ideas are subject to revision. However, our observations of the size and shape of the earth, the depths of the oceans, the distance to the Sun are examples of scientific knowledge which most reasonable people would be willing to say are not subject to this kind of theoretical revision. I hope our situation with respect to the universe is similar to the time when people knew the size and shape of the Earth without knowing what elements make it up. We now probably know the size and age of the universe without yet knowing what is dark matter and dark energy.

[VanderL]

If the standard model is proved to be wrong, then that would be progress. However, if we do not ever have a standard model of cosmology which is at least basically correct, even if incomplete, I think it would be hard to say that we will ever be in a golden age of cosmology. I know there are those contributing to this thread who do not like the standard model of cosmology and are convinced that it is just plain wrong. Personally, however, it's not that I like or dislike the standard model but rather I am happy to see that cosmology is maturing as a science and at least we seem to be getting somewhere in our understanding of our cosmic surroundings. Afterall, it was not that long when cosmology was still defined in dictionaries as a branch of metaphysics. I am excited that we may finally know the size, shape, age, expansion rate, and matter content of the universe. I am not excited at the prospect of us never knowing beyond a reasonable doubt how our universe formed and evolved on large scales.

Martin Rees said something along the lines that people should not be so sketpical of the conclusions reached by cosmologists because unlike archeologists the cosmologists can directly see the past they are studying through telescopes. Moreover, the basic equations describing the expansion of the universe are much simpler than all of the metabolic pathways in a cell. Size alone does not make something harder to understand. Perhaps the opposite.

Of course in science all ideas are subject to revision. However, our observations of the size and shape of the earth, the depths of the oceans, the distance to the Sun are examples of scientific knowledge which most reasonable people would be willing to say are not subject to this kind of theoretical revision. I hope our situation with respect to the universe is similar to the time when people knew the size and shape of the Earth without knowing what elements make it up. We now probably know the size and age of the universe without yet knowing what is dark matter and dark energy.

Hi Folkhemmet,

Thanks for sharing these thoughts and remarks, I am probably one of those you describe as not "liking" the standard cosmology. I think cosmology is stil in it's infancy and what I do not like about the current model is not so much the model itself but the idea that it doesn't have any serious problems. For me mostly caused by the blind acceptance of redshift as distance/lookback-time indicator (this is the way I see it, I know opinions differ and it might even be a correct assumption). Especially Rees is guilty of walking far in front of the parade. Let's just not assume too much, is all I want to say, and having said that, I don't want this thread to turn into another antiBB thread, just a way of keeping in mind what happens to the Year Two WMAP data.
After all, data and their interpretation is what science is about and there's never enough data and too much interpretation.

Cheers.

[trinitree88]

As yet there is no news from Chile. Apparently the Dec. 12 talk scheduled by Lyman Page of Princeton and the WMAP data team either has not taken place, or they are holding the information for a later press release. The conference ends today, I believe.

[folkhemmet]

Hi everyone,

I found out some information which leads me to believe strongly that the next WMAP data release will occur within the next couple of months, probably right around the three year anniversary of the first year data release. I did a general search for "cosmology meetings 2006" and one of the results of that search had a list of past and future cosmology meetings going back to 2002. Here is what I found for 2006: http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/g.../meetings.html

Meetings in 2006
Cosmic microwave background temperature and polarization anisotropies (Irvine, Mar 23-25, 2006)
Contents and structure of the Universe (Italy, Mar 18-25, 2006)
Galaxies in the cosmic web (Las Cruces, NM, May 15-19, 2006)

In the first March talk ( URL: http://www.physics.uci.edu/CMB/ ) not one but several WMAP team members are scheduled to attend. How could they all attend without having released the new data? How would it look when several are set to attend and then they all cancel? It is one thing for a single member to schedule a talk and then cancel it as has happened numerous occasions in past few years, but several members of the WMAP team canceling all at once seems like a different story, at least to me. However, I am not going to get my hopes up too much.