<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A joint analysis of Planck and BICEP2 B modes including dust polarization uncertainty · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1405.5857/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1405.5857/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A joint analysis of Planck and BICEP2 B modes including dust polarization uncertainty — mentioned by jwuphysics</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8242885</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1405.5857:8242885</guid><pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:17:55 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I study astrophysics, so I won&amp;#x27;t be able to say much about SUSY or string theories or conformal field theories. I do agree that we&amp;#x27;re living in a golden age of physics! But your second and third points, inflation and SUSY-- those are definitely not confirmed. In fact, the primordial gravitational waves from BICEP2 are almost certainly dust contamination signal (e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5857). The discovery of supersymmetric particles would also be extremely shocking to me, since my institution is heavily involved in CERN LHC experiments, and I haven&amp;#x27;t heard any hints of a discovery…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1405.5857/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>astro-ph.CO</category></item><item><title>A joint analysis of Planck and BICEP2 B modes including dust polarization uncertainty — mentioned by T-A</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7851568</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1405.5857:7851568</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2014 12:33:57 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;random blog posts&amp;quot; are by Adam Falkowski, a particle physicist who has been following the controversy over BICEP2 from the start. They document how opinion has been swinging over time. Steinhardt is not &amp;quot;the guy who the first source is referencing&amp;quot;. The two references in the first source are 1) http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5857 , by Mortonson and Seljak, both at LBNL and UC 2) http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7351 , by Faluger, Hill and Spergel, from IAS, NYU and Princeton, respectively. As you may have noticed, none of them is Steinhardt.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1405.5857/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>astro-ph.CO</category></item></channel></rss>
