Banned
If you go to http://newviews.uchicago.edu/abstracts-date.html you will see that a presentation, which had no cancelation or postponement notice next to it, involving 3 year WMAP observations was given about a week ago. This may mean that new data has been released, just not to the public. However, just the fact that we are seeing a title and abstract of this nature indicates that we can expect to see a resolution of this thread's main question in the not too distant future.
Established Member
Aurelien Fraisse is a graduate student at Princeton and I don't think the WMAP team would allow him to break any of the news on the second data release. Although the passage is worded in a way that gives the impression that Fraisse has access to unpublished data, I think he was either exploring the limits as the 3-year data should have them. And it was a poster, not a presentation.
Established Member
You could write a book about it. A secretive group of old bearded men are in possession of well guarded esoteric information that deals with the structure of the universe. Then a rival group strives to acquire this same information, but their rocket explodes due to "cryostat failure". Throw in some shady catholic church stuff and it's a sure hit.Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
Order of Kilopi
Aurelien A. Fraisse (Princeton University):
Not at easy task: WMAP interpretations are completely dependent upon the assumption that a power law can be used to characterize the CMB, therefore there is an algorythm that will properly eliminate galactic contamination. I don't see how residual 'defects' can be parameterized without assignable causality. Simply assuming the underlying shape and distribution is 'as expected', and removing what doesn't fit the model is unreasonably iffy science.During the conference, we will present the limits on topological defects formation in hybrid inflationary models from 3-year WMAP observations, using both the measured temperature and polarization of the CMB.
David L. Larson (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Hot and ColdSpot Tests for non-Gaussianity in the WMAP CMB Data
We check the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) data for non-Gaussianity with a detailed statistical analysis of the one and two-point properties of the local extrema in the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) data. For the one-point functions, our previous work found that the simple white noise model indicated a 95% detection of non-Gaussianity in the mean temperature of the hot and cold spots: the hot and cold spots are not hot and cold enough. We have tested this with simulated noise and have found this result to be dependent on the noise model. In an analysis where we smooth to remove that dependence, we find a 99.7% detection in one of the two-point functions.
Banned
I strongly suspect that a new WMAP data release will occur in the next month or so. To see why I think this go to: http://www.physics.uci.edu/CMB/
However, I can't help but wonder, what if the first year results are wrong? This would count as scientific progress, but it would also be quite embarassing for the WMAP team depending on how wrong they happen to be.
I am assuming here that there are degrees of wrongness. How wrong do you think the first year data is? What do you think they got right? I know I've said before not to go into too much technical jargon on this thread, so try to keep responses to these questions in layman's terms.
Here is a quote from WMAP team member David Spergel: "WMAP papers are now the #1 and #2 most cited new papers in all of science."
Established Member
I saw no indication. Way back in the day there was a section on the MAP (before it was renamed) site called "future events" where the release date for DR1 was announced well in advance. The team members themselves were quite open about it with release date estimates, but these days we get nothing. They seem to have no idea how long the job is going to take, but one would guess that they follow the earlier policy and the data does not just suddenly appear with no prior announcement.
If there are major discrepancies between DR1 & DR2, inflation and reionization are the obvious culprits.How wrong do you think the first year data is? What do you think they got right?
Probably the worst possible finding as far as inflation is concerned would shear anisotropy, indicating that the CMB exhibits large scale rotation. Inflation simply can't deal with this. Almost as bad would be a confirmation of the 'axis of evil' at very high confidence both in the temperature and polarization data.
As for reionization, the large scale EE data (say, l = 2-10) could show some crazy behaviour that is in conflict with their earlier predictions.
Let's summarize here what the WMAP team members have stated in recent times:
"making sense of this data (polarization data) has turned out to be much more challenging than we anticipated" - Gary Hinshaw in a private communication with John L earlier in this thread
"So far, the standard model appears to fit the data, but stay tuned!" - David Spergel in a recent talk
"But are we ignoring something? Are the new 'CN lines' out there?" - Ned Wright in a recent talk
"Who knows what we will find." - Charles Bennett in the July 05 issue of New Scientist
Order of Kilopi
Periodic variability that correlates with solar activity?
The correlation with the solar elliptic found in the WMAP I data would be consistent with solar origins.
Banned
Has anybody tried emailing the status page recently?
The indication I saw at http://www.physics.uci.edu/CMB/ is subtle. I don't think they still have the future events section on the WMAP status page because they have not been absolutely sure, as those of us viewing this thread are painful aware LOL, when they will release new data. As for the subtle indication, it is this: about 6 or 7 WMAP science team members are scheduled to meet at this CMB meeting at UCIrving in March 2006. The team makes up a large percentage of the total number of participants which leads me to believe that the meeting will be based around new state-of-the-art WMAP data. I find it hard to believe that almost the entire WMAP team, most of whom are easterners, will arrange to meet on the west coast just to discuss data which is now 3 years old. Of course they could cancel the meeting, but this seems less likely.
Zahl, would you agree or disagree that a meeting where almost the whole science team is scheduled to attend will be harder and more egregious to cancel than a meeting where only one member of the science team is set to give a talk?
As for the quotes by Wright, Bennett, and Spergel you mentioned, they do seem to hint that the new data will raise new questions.
Established Member
I think you are holding onto straws. There will be about 50 people attending, including about half of the WMAP science team members, but also about half of the CBI team. WMAP is not the only game in town. There will be a CMB Task Force report and some of the WMAP guys are also members of that effort (Page, Hinshaw). WMAP team members will not be there "just to discuss data which is now 3 years old" but to discuss fresh topics listed on that info page with their colleagues.
Banned
Zahl, I am trying to be optimistic here! LOL. So if I am reading your position correctly, you don't think they'll be a new data release any time soon? I checked out the American Astronomical Society 207th meeting site to see if there are any WMAP related presentations due to be held in Washington D.C. this week. Unfortunately, there are a couple of WMAP related presentations, but they only talk about the first year data.
My email account is currently maxed out, otherwise I'd email them and ask if the new data is due to come out at or before the time of this March 2006 meeting. Does anybody who has working email want to try emailing them to see what we can find out? I think there is a contacts page at the WMAP webpage.
Established Member
I have no idea when they release the data. My point was that just because half of the team attends a scientific conference does not mean that the data will be released there or before the event. One could e-mail them, but I doubt they will reveal anything interesting. If they knew (even tentatively) when the data will be released, they would probably follow their earlier policy and publish this info on their site.
It is interesting to keep in mind though that operating NASA missions are reviewed every two years for continued funding and the WMAP team has now violated not one, but two deadlines set for them by the previous NASA Senior Review conducted in April 2004:
"Overall assessment and recommendations:
We recommend continued funding of WMAP at the requested level in FY05 and FY06,
with a potential final extension to two additional years of observation if the 2006 Senior
Review finds that the quality and rate of improvement of the polarization results (not yet
released) justify it. This recommendation is contingent on annual public releases of
calibrated time-ordered data and polarized and unpolarized sky maps at the five
observing frequencies within one year of data taking, i.e., a 2-year release by September
2004, a 3-year release by September 2005, etc.
These public data releases are the equivalent of a GI program since they allow
community access to the data. Thus the WMAP team should not be required to reduce all
relevant systematic uncertainties to negligible levels before data release, but instead to
identify and, to the extent feasible, quantify these errors."
http://science.hq.nasa.gov/universe/docs/SenRev04.pdf
The next review will be this year, but I couldn't find the exact date. I wonder what the review panel says about the missed deadlines, especially if the new data is still not released by then. Also note the bit on reducing systematics.
Established Member
Wow Zahl,
That's a whole lot of pertinent information, the current delay was justified because of the complexity of the data and iit seems that this is (was) not a valid reason as you show in the quoted text. They need to come up with a very, very good reason to explain the delay. I still have a feeling that there are only two options for this delay:
1. Data show a clear conflict with current models, meaning that the current models are untenable and a frantic search for an alternative is underway (look for an increase in alternative cosmologies in the arXiv database). Something of "paradigm-shifting" importance.
2. Data show a systematic error that might be caused by something "stupid", the WMAP team wants to cover their collective butt.
Cheers.
Order of Kilopi
Perhaps we have entered the era of Faith-based data releases.
In the NASA Report Zahl cited, WMAP is give a score of seven on a scale of ten, Lamda, (Which is an archival program for CMB data) a 5.5...
The report notes:
The disconnect is between the WMAP team and john Q. public.Popularity of a Web site does not necessarily indicate the
ease of usability for formal or informal education audiences. If the team proposes to use
the Web site as a major dissemination tool, they should have it evaluated professionally
to determine its efficacy.
Overall Comments: There is an apparent disconnect between the WMAP and LAMBDA
E/PO efforts.
It would be interesting to file a request for data under the freedom of inforamation act...or is that another freedom we have lost in the war?
Last edited by Jerry; 2006-Jan-12 at 06:37 AM.
Banned
I am prepared to be totally wrong, as there have been other occasions during the past few years when my speculations about when the new data is due to come have turned out wrong. However, Zahl's comments about the Senior Review lead me to believe that the WMAP team may release at least some data before this April which is when the next (2006) Senior Review is due to come out. The second reason is symbolic: we are at the 3-year anniversary of the first year data release. Also, as for the UCI March meeting, why would seven or so WMAP team members, even those not officially on the CMB task force, need to attend the meeting unless there was going to be a new data release in which specific team members would be available to answer specific questions about their part of the analysis. To my knowledge, the last time this many WMAP team member's met was at the first year data release press conference 3 years ago. Lastly, the UCI program includes "current polarization measurements." The WMAP polarization measurements from 3 years ago aren't really current.
Established Member
I don't think you can file a request for scientific data. Probably the only thing that U.S. citizens could do would be to contact their representatives, refer to the Senior Review report where it says that continued funding of WMAP is contingent on annual public releases of the data, refer to the fact that the WMAP team has now missed two deadlines and that millions of taxpayers' money is at stake.
Established Member
Folkhemmet, I hope your hopes are not unfounded, but CBI and others have recently released polarization data.
Order of Kilopi
Is it based upon year one, year two, or the first three years?
Established Member
The CBI paper was based on data gathered from September 2002 to April 2005. Unlike the WMAP team, the CBI collaboration had to deal with atmospheric foregrounds, but still managed to polish their data for release in less than six months whereas WMAP apparently needs more than three years.
By the way, I was reading through the latest CMB Task Force report (July 11 2005) and noticed the following bits:
"Excellent, all-sky, low frequency, data will soon be available from the WMAP satellite."
"Results of the direct measurement of the EE power spectrum from WMAP are expected soon."
http://www.science.doe.gov/hep/TFCRreport.pdf
So even Page and Hinshaw have no idea.
Banned
Hey everybody,
I found some new information about when the new WMAP data may come out. This talk is scheduled to take place at Caltech right before the CMB Task Force meeting will take place. The CMB Task Force meeting, again, will be held starting on March 23, 2006 at UCIrvine. These events are less than 60 days from now. Also, in about 2 weeks we will be at the third year anniversary of the first year data release. Moreover, the next Senior Review is due to come out in April 2006. I guess we'll see....
See: http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~gma/colloquia.html
March 22
Gary Hinshaw (NASA) New Results from WMAP
Host: Andrew Lange
What are your thoughts?
Member
Has our very own Bad Astronomer commented on the WMAP delay?
I wonder why this issue hasn't been percolating through the more public science outlets.
Established Member
Nice find, folkhemmet. It seems like they are at least planning on releasing new data in less than two months. Have you found any info on the 2006 Senior Review?
mancur, Bad Astronomy Blog search did not return anything on WMAP, but various science blogs have dealt with the delay every now and then. The usual line goes "yeah, they are reducing systematics" no matter how many years go by without release even though they are only required to identify and quantify the errors.
Established Member
Paul Butterworth replied to my inquiry and said that the second data release is being prepared, and they hope it will occur before Hinshaw's talk (March 22), but he stressed that the schedule is still uncertain.
Established Member
There were some new papers in the arXive database hinting at ways that reduce the hotspots from "local contamination", or "axis of evil" to no more than the level of statistical noise. I guess they can now safely release the WMAP data and still remain confident about the match with BB predictions.
Cheers.
Established Member
I got a second e-mail from Paul Butterworth where he said that the plan is to include years 2 and 3 in the second data release, with polarization data from years 1 to 3.
Established Member
Are you suggesting that the WMAP team would prefer one result to another? If so, why do you think that?
Established Member
Why speculate on the basis of incomplete information? I want them to do the best job possible, and I'm willing to wait longer to get their most thorough analysis. I suspect a lot of people feel the same way I do.
Order of Kilopi
Any technique that removes the elliptic contamination without assigning causality for the contamination is, by definition, doing just that - skimming off what cannot be cosmic and assuming that the rest of the signal is. A couple of papers have been posted where they do just that. I have to admonish that this is NOT a valid data reduction technique.
In 3-D X-ray analysis, there are artifacts that are caused by bulky metal fixtures that hold down the parts being X-rayed. Even though we can clearly identify the 'shadows' of these objects, we cannot assume that if we simply subtract the obvious shadow, the underlying image is an accurate rendition of the material. (My avitar is such an image, complete with artifacts.)
The reason we cannot, is the reason we are X-raying the object in the first place: We are looking for unknown contaminations. If the contamination happens to fall only under the shadow of the artifact, we would subtract the contamination with the artifact. To correctly remove the artifact, we would have to know both the refactive characteristics and geometry of both the interfering object, AND the underlying, unknown contaminant; and how they interact with each other. If we do not know the nature of the contaminant, this is a mathematical impossibility.
We can rejig the the part, move the shadows, and examine the underlying strata that way, but from our Earth platform, we cannot rejig the cosmos, and even from WMAP's Lagrange vantage point, this becomes a single viewing point a hundred or so parsecs out. The WMAP observers have no way to remove unknown contaminants, other than to assume the CMB spectrum is exactly what they think it is.
Established Member
This seems like a rather unflattering description.
Established Member
Do you attribute this to incompetence, malfeasance, or something else?
Order of Kilopi
Good question.
A couple of months ago, I was watching a presentation on the Big Bang and cosmic evolution, and the narrator said something like:
"x number of eons ago, an epoch usually called the Inflationary Period occurred. We do not know what happened during this period, but we are absolutely certain about what happened before."
This is absurd - We cannot effectively extrapolate through a cosmic event we cannot model. This is not like a break in the fossil record, where we can pick up the trail on the other side. We do not know what happened beyond our ability to look-back in time.
Cosmologists base their expectations upon the work of particle physicists, and this is how they determined what they think the cosmic background should look like. It became obvious a decade ago that the power function of the CMB did not fit the model, and another free parameter, dark energy, was added to explain the data. Even assuming the particle physics model is correct, it is now necessary to assume sets of properties for Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation, and the local contaminent. None of these spectral distributions, real or imagined, have roots in known physical models.
So to answer your question, something else: Faith in a model that does not have any supporting evidence in the observed cosmos.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote