tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post5430142407624416510..comments2023-10-14T14:48:57.183-07:00Comments on The Trenches of Discovery: Combined constraints from BICEP2, Keck, Planck and WMAP on primordial gravitational wavesShaun Hotchkisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04832423210563130467noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-8188271982738640682015-02-04T03:34:14.263-08:002015-02-04T03:34:14.263-08:00Well, that's because you don't *just* mult...Well, that's because you don't *just* multiply the two likelihoods together as I claimed in the text. You also need to normalise the new likelihood such that the integral over all r gives 1.<br /><br />The two distributions are large over a range ~0.1, therefore the amplitude of the likelihoods are ~10 on average over this range. This then gets squared and has to integrate to 1 over the 0.1 range, so the combined likelihood essentially needs to be divided by 10. With my crude curves the actual number comes out to be ~8 (presumably because the likelihoods do leak outside of 0.1 a bit).<br /><br />It'll be fascinating to see the ns vs r plot Planck produce, especially when the data is combined with BICEP2/Keck. B/K will produce the exact opposite milestone to what it seemed they'd produced last March!Shaun Hotchkisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04832423210563130467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-77904289238795135912015-02-04T03:11:29.766-08:002015-02-04T03:11:29.766-08:00Interesting! How tightly is m^2 phi^2 now ruled ou...Interesting! How tightly is m^2 phi^2 now ruled out (which has r=0.16)? I think this is a big milestone. Nflation and the simplest inflating curvaton models have the same value of r. <br />Also its strange that the combined constraint is so much better than either of the others at r=0.15, this looks wrong.Chris Byrneshttp://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/168364noreply@blogger.com