Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · R&D & Science · Strategic decision · 2014–2015

The smoking gun of cosmic inflation was a smudge of galactic dust

A press-conference 'smoking gun' for the Big Bang, ten months of Nobel talk — then the joint analysis showed the signal was dust in our own galaxy.

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics · 2014-03-17

What happened

On 17 March 2014 the BICEP2 collaboration — a telescope at the South Pole led by John Kovac of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics — announced at a Harvard press conference that it had found B-mode polarisation in the cosmic microwave background: the twist imprinted on the oldest light by gravitational waves from the first fraction of a second of the universe. The signal was 'quite a bit stronger than many scientists had dared hope', seven sigma. Inflation's smoking gun, found at last.

The reaction was a coronation. Inflation pioneer Alan Guth said he was 'completely astounded'; a researcher on the rival Planck satellite said 'if this is confirmed, it's huge'; the BBC's report noted that 'assuming the results are confirmed, a Nobel Prize seems assured'. The team said it had spent three years checking for contamination — including the one troublemaker every cosmologist knew about: dust in our own galaxy.

The doubts arrived within months. BICEP2's telescope saw the sky at one frequency, and dust shines at frequencies it could not see. In June the team lowered its confidence and its peer-reviewed paper carried an appendix on dust; in September Planck's full-sky maps showed dust alone produced a signal as strong as BICEP2's. On 30 January 2015 a joint BICEP2/Keck/Planck paper conceded the point: the signal could not be distinguished from dust, and the best estimate of primordial gravitational waves was consistent with zero. Nature's headline: 'Gravitational waves discovery now officially dead'.

The collaboration paid a smaller bill than it might have: it co-authored the refutation with its rival and kept taking data — every limit since (r < 0.12 in 2015, r < 0.036 in 2021) has found nothing, and the signal remains undetected. What died was the announcement itself: a press conference, Nobel talk and ten months of headlines built on a foreground. Brian Keating, a member of the collaboration, wrote the whole affair up in a book titled Losing the Nobel Prize.

Why it happened

  • Announced at a press conference before peer review: seven sigma, Nobel framing, 'smoking gun' — the claim was a press event first and a paper second, so the correction had to fight the headline.
  • One instrument, one frequency: BICEP2 could not see the dust it needed to subtract, so three years of checking missed the point — a signal indistinguishable from a foreground it could not measure.
  • The caveats were on the record while the headlines ran: the accepted paper carried an appendix on dust, and David Spergel argued dust in June — months before the joint paper.
  • Extraordinary claims need the rival's data: the resolution came only when Planck's full-sky dust maps and the joint analysis arrived, ten months after the press conference.
What it costTen months of Nobel talk for a galactic dust signalcostly

The lesson

Seven sigma is only as good as what you cannot see. BICEP2 checked three years for contamination and missed the dust — the one instrument that could see it was the one it didn't have.

Aftermath

The collaboration recovered by doing the right thing twice: it co-authored the refutation with its rival, and its instruments kept running. Every limit since — r < 0.12 in 2015, r < 0.07 in 2018, r < 0.036 in 2021 — has found no trace of the signal, and primordial gravitational waves remain undetected. The affair gave cosmology its running joke about dust and produced a book, Brian Keating's Losing the Nobel Prize (2018), written by a collaboration member about what the rush cost: credibility, and a Nobel that never was.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →