New York: 23:29 || London: 04:29 || Mumbai: 07:59 || Singapore: 10:29

Reports US

US stock market daily report (June 20, 2014, Friday)

June 23, 2014, Monday, 05:42 GMT | 00:42 EST | 09:12 IST | 11:42 SGT
Contributed by Millennium Traders

'Cosmic Inflation' - occurring at the speed of a barely blinking eye - a theory that the universe expanded by 100 trillion trillion times. Experts at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics made the announcement in March.

But now, just a few months later, the team of American astrophysicists, led by astrophysicist John Kovac, leader of the BICEP2 collaboration at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, announced what they deemed a breakthrough in confirming how the universe was born - now say they may have got it wrong. The team's work reportedly appeared in the US journal Physical Review Letters on Thursday, after weeks of avoiding the media.

In March, Kovac said, "Detecting this signal is one of the most important goals in cosmology today,"

The astrophysicists said they identified gravitational waves that apparently rippled through space right after the 'Big Bang'. With the help of a telescope - known as BICEP2 - stationed at the South Pole, the detection was made. BICEP2 stands for Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization.

By observing the cosmic microwave background or faint glow left over from the Big Bang, the team said small fluctuations gave them new clues about the conditions in the early universe. The team claimed they captured images - using BICEP2 - of the gravitational waves rippling through the universe, 380,000 years after the Big Bang and these images were captured by the telescope.

As predicted in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity - if proven to be correctly identified - these waves would confirm the rapid and violent growth spurt of the universe in the first fraction of a second marking its existence, 13.8 billion years ago. Wow, that's intense!

The teams summary in whey they feel they got it wrong - their models "are not sufficiently constrained by external public data to exclude the possibility of dust emission bright enough to explain the entire excess signal," - as stated by other scientists who questioned their conclusion.