Compared to results from Planck’s predecessor, WMAP, t5he results coming out of Planck have appeared in the public domain excruciatingly slowly. But here they are at last.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01582.pdf

The European Space Agency’s Planck satellite, dedicated to studying the early Universe and its subsequent evolution, was launched 14 May 2009
and scanned the microwave and submillimetre sky continuously between 12 August 2009 and 23 October 2013. In February 2015, ESA and the
Planck Collaboration released the second set of cosmology products based on data from the entire Planck mission, including both temperature and
polarization, along with a set of scientific and technical papers and a web-based explanatory supplement. This paper gives an overview of the main
characteristics of the data and the data products in the release, as well as the associated cosmological and astrophysical science results and papers.
The science products include maps of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, and diffuse foregrounds
in temperature and polarization, catalogues of compact Galactic and extragalactic sources (including separate catalogues of Sunyaev-Zeldovich
clusters and Galactic cold clumps), and extensive simulations of signals and noise used in assessing the performance of the analysis methods and
assessment of uncertainties. The likelihood code used to assess cosmological models against the Planck data are described, as well as a CMB
lensing likelihood. Scientific results include cosmological parameters deriving from CMB power spectra, gravitational lensing, and cluster counts,
as well as constraints on inflation, non-Gaussianity, primordial magnetic fields, dark energy, and modified gravity.

Papers accompanying this data and analysis release – most available on ArXiV

I. Overview of products and results (this paper)
II. Low Frequency Instrument data processing
III. LFI systematic uncertainties
IV. LFI beams and window functions
V. LFI calibration
VI. LFI maps
VII. High Frequency Instrument data processing: Time-ordered
information and beam processing
VIII. High Frequency Instrument data processing: Calibration
and maps
IX. Diffuse component separation: CMB maps
X. Diffuse component separation: Foreground maps
XI. CMB power spectra, likelihood, and consistency of cosmological parameters
XII. Simulations
XIII. Cosmological parameters
XIV. Dark energy and modified gravity
XV. Gravitational lensing
XVI. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB
XVII. Primordial non-Gaussianity
XVIII. Background geometry and topology of the Universe
XIX. Constraints on primordial magnetic fields
XX. Constraints on inflation
XXI. The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
XXII. A map of the thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect
XXIII. The thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect–cosmic infrared background correlation
XXIV. Cosmology from Sunyaev-Zeldovich cluster counts
XXV. Diffuse, low-frequency Galactic foregrounds
XXVI. The Second Planck Catalogue of Compact Sources
XXVII. The Second Planck Catalogue of Sunyaev-Zeldovich Sources
XXVIII. The Planck Catalogue of Galactic Cold Clumps

Although the results from Planck are the most important documents ever produced on the topic of cosmology, they fail to excite any interest, and I think I know why.

A certain percentage of people are slightly unhinged, and a certain percentage are complete nutcases. Each of the papers about the results from Planck has about 200 authors, and among those authors are those who are slightly unhinged and those who are complete nutcases. Because the papers have to be approved by all authors, they can’t afford to alienate any of the complete nutcases among the authors.

I’ve been trying to think of an analogy. Suppose there was a paper on the geology of Earth and one of the authors had staked his professional reputation on the hypothesis that rocks are super-intelligent beings. Then in order not to alienate that author, the paper will include a section on “rocks as super-intelligent beings” and include graphs of, say the rate of motion of rocks plotted against their mass with 68% and 95% confidence levels. The same sort of thing happens all through the Planck papers. There is absolutely no attempt in the printed pages to apply Occam’s razor.

When I step outside the printed pages and apply Occam’s razor myself I find the following from the Planck results.

1. Planck measured a whole suite of cosmological constants, including the Hubble constant and amount of dark matter in the universe, to unprecedented accuracy.

2. Confirm the lambda cold dark matter (i.e. Einstein’s cosmological constant) (ΛCDM) theory of dark matter and energy to unprecedented accuracy. This eliminates the quintessence, phantom energy, and higher order deviations from the cosmological constant.

3. Confirm that our universe is uniform out to the CMB, there is no sign of interaction with an unseen further universe.

4. Confirm that space is flat Euclidean to unprecedented accuracy – not positively or negatively curved.

5. Reject all forms of topological multiverse out to the distance of the CMB (including some weird topologies I never would have dreamed of).

6. Reject alternative non-Einsteinian formulations of gravity, particularly the f® models of gravity that grew ad hoc out of MOND.

So has anyone yet recalculated the size of the universe based on the Planck results?

Bubblecar said:

So has anyone yet recalculated the size of the universe based on the Planck results?

can it be calculated beyond near infinite?

mollwollfumble said:

5. Reject all forms of topological multiverse out to the distance of the CMB (including some weird topologies I never would have dreamed of).

Does this include a matter/antimatter model and if so how?

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

So has anyone yet recalculated the size of the universe based on the Planck results?

can it be calculated beyond near infinite?

A paper several years ago presented calculations saying that the resolution of the CMB is such that we’ll never know if it’s any bigger than about 100,000 times the size of our observable bit.

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

So has anyone yet recalculated the size of the universe based on the Planck results?

can it be calculated beyond near infinite?

I’m reading Brian Cox’s Wonders of Life. It’s actually very well written (surprisingly so for a “coffee table” style book), but it does have three annoyances:

There are many obvious errors in numbers that I picked up, there must be a load more I didn’t notice.
Way to many photos of Brian Cox looking thoughtfully into the distance.
Frequent use of the phrase “almost infinite”.

In spite of all that, it’s a good read (and look).

Bubblecar said:

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

So has anyone yet recalculated the size of the universe based on the Planck results?

can it be calculated beyond near infinite?

A paper several years ago presented calculations saying that the resolution of the CMB is such that we’ll never know if it’s any bigger than about 100,000 times the size of our observable bit.

aah I see.

What is a “topological multiverse “?

The Rev Dodgson said:

What is a “topological multiverse “?

Seems even Wikipedia hasn’t heard of them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

So has anyone yet recalculated the size of the universe based on the Planck results?

can it be calculated beyond near infinite?

I’m reading Brian Cox’s Wonders of Life. It’s actually very well written (surprisingly so for a “coffee table” style book), but it does have three annoyances:

There are many obvious errors in numbers that I picked up, there must be a load more I didn’t notice.
Way to many photos of Brian Cox looking thoughtfully into the distance.
Frequent use of the phrase “almost infinite”.

In spite of all that, it’s a good read (and look).

How is relativity, physics and cosmology so summed up by Brian Cox’s thoughtful gaze into distance? Which distance is he observing? The past? Does he look into our future? It is a quandary for the ages.

Seriously I enjoy watching his tv stuff. Might get time to get around to his literature once I’ve established a routine at home here.

The Rev Dodgson said:

What is a “topological multiverse “?

Don’t know, and in that summary molly might possibly be backing his pet ideas :)

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What is a “topological multiverse “?

Don’t know, and in that summary molly might possibly be backing his pet ideas :)

That thought did occur to me, but I won’t say anything.

The Rev Dodgson said:

What is a “topological multiverse “?

You don’t know?

The simplest way to illustrate it is to think of a the universe as cube. Now suppose that cubes are stacked together so that opposite faces connect. Then if I look out to see a galaxy or quasar or cluster in one direction, I can also see that same galaxy or quasar or cluster looking in different directions, across the face of the cube into another copy of the same universe, another cube. Because the universes are time-linked, and because of the time delay due to the speed of light, the different copies of the same galaxy or quasar or cluster that I see will have different ages, which makes it difficult to identify whether I am indeed looking at the same object in different copies of the universe or whether I am looking at different objects.

With me so far? In summary, if I can see the same galaxy or quasar or cluster in two or more different directions then I’m in a topological multiverse.

The shape in the middle of the topological multiverse doesn’t have to be a cube. For instance, the universe may be slab shape – infinite in two directions and finite in extent in the third, that also yields a topological multiverse. Other polyhedral solids can replace the unit cube. Faces of the cube could be fitted together with or without a 90, 180 or 270 degree twist. It is only a few years since somebody succeeded in counting all self-consistent 3-D topologies can be generated by geometry in this way.

I’m having a bit of trouble finding an appropriate web link. I think this is now better known as a Tegmark type 4 multiverse. Since Tegmark published his book about multiverses, the most easily accessible web references to the topological multiverse have become harder to locate.

There’s a slow but good web video on 3-D manifolds on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKpxuBnuqKs

The Planck results that relate to this are on http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5086.pdf