From Pawel.Bielewicz w fuw.edu.pl Thu Jun 19 13:01:24 2003 From: Pawel.Bielewicz w fuw.edu.pl (Pawel Bielewicz) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:01:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: inflation vs topology (fwd) Message-ID: hi boud, everyone On Mon, 18 Apr 2003, boud wrote: > > > > > (So far there is no evidence for > > > deviations from gaussianity). > > > > There were several COBE analyses such as Pando, Valls-Gabaud & Fang: > > > > http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9810165 > > > > that showed non-Gaussianity. Since the WMAP map looks similar to COBE > > on large scales, i guess there should still be the same non-Gaussianity. > > > > Do you know of an article that claims Pando et al were wrong? >> I didn't read that paper, but I just rely, on the papers released >> along with WMAP data (eg. astro-ph/0302223 and many references therein >> among others the one of Pando 98) so maeybe I should write "so far there >> is no significant cosmological non-Gaussianity". And WMAP data are found >> to be consistent with assumption of Gaussian primordinal fluctuations. >Don't believe everything you watch/read on/in CNN/BBC/ApJ/MNRAS/A&A/... >In professional astronomy research articles, people often write sentences >which sound good, but are vague, misleading and sometimes simply wrong. >It's not because they want to be wrong, it's just that they don't have >the time to do the analysis properly and they're under pressure to publish >and to conform. >If you can find a WMAP analysis which shows that Pando et al 9810165 are >wrong, that would be interesting. there is a paper http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9908070 where non-Gaussianity in the COBE data is explained by the so called 'eclipse effect'.