I don't speak French and the google translate is rough. But, it appears that some mild feelings of skepticism are expressed. For example, '[BICEP's] confidence in their result "is a bit exaggerated."' The blog also mentions that BICEP studied a very small section of the sky while Planck is more exhaustive. While the blog entry seems to agree that evidence is strong for r > 0, they seem unconvinced of the BICEP2 team's specific claims.
Do you feel that their skepticism is warranted?
Would you be surprised if Planck publishes tensor-to-scalar ratio substantially different than BICEP2's?
If they were to do so, what are the steps to resolve the discrepancy?
Most of all, congratulations on the huge announcement and thanks for the incredible work!
nameless_minion39 karma
There appears to be a blog entry with a reaction from Planck.
I don't speak French and the google translate is rough. But, it appears that some mild feelings of skepticism are expressed. For example, '[BICEP's] confidence in their result "is a bit exaggerated."' The blog also mentions that BICEP studied a very small section of the sky while Planck is more exhaustive. While the blog entry seems to agree that evidence is strong for r > 0, they seem unconvinced of the BICEP2 team's specific claims.
Most of all, congratulations on the huge announcement and thanks for the incredible work!
View HistoryShare Link