Loading in 5 sec....

Concordance, Cosmological isotropy, Gaussianity and the CMB (or, is the Universe boring?)PowerPoint Presentation

Concordance, Cosmological isotropy, Gaussianity and the CMB (or, is the Universe boring?)

Download Presentation

Concordance, Cosmological isotropy, Gaussianity and the CMB (or, is the Universe boring?)

Loading in 2 Seconds...

- 97 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

Concordance, Cosmological isotropy, Gaussianity and the CMB (or, is the Universe boring?)

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Concordance,Cosmological isotropy, Gaussianity and the CMB(or, is the Universe boring?)

Andrew Jaffe

Open Questions in Cosmology

August 2005

- Relationship between
- Physical processes
- Cosmological Parameters
- Power Spectra
- Higher-order Correlations
- Maps

- As Universe cools, p+e H, when kT=0.3 eV~13.6 eV[400,000 yrs]Sound horizon at LSS ~1°Very rapid transitionionized neutral, opaque transparent

W. Hu

- Initial temperature (density) of the photons
- Doppler shift due to movement of baryon-photon plasma
- Gravitational red/blue-shift as photons climb out of potential wells or fall off of underdensities
- Photon path from LSS to today
- All linked by initial conditions ⇒ 10-5 fluctuations

Cooler

Hotter

Flat

=1

Us!

Last Scattering Surface

Closed

1

Us!

Last Scattering Surface

Open

1

Us!

Last Scattering Surface

Mean square fluctuation amplitude

~180°/Angular scale

Amount of “dark energy”

(cosmological constant)

Flat Universe

tot=m+ Λ=1

WMAP

Amount of “matter”

(normal + dark)

COLD

HOT

e

v

v

- Ionized plasma + quadrupole radiation field:
- Thomson scattering⇒polarized emission

- Unlike intensity, only generated when ionization fraction, 0<x<1 (i.e., during transition)
- Scalar perturbations: traces ~gradient of density (like velocity)

- 2-d (headless) vector field on a sphere
- Spin-2/tensor spherical harmonics
- grad/scalar/E + curl/pseudoscalar/B patterns
- NB. From polarization pattern⇒ E/B decomposition requires integration: non-local
- (data analysis problems)

E

B

B

E

Temperature

Temperature x Polarization

- “isotropy”
- “statistical isotropy”
- scalars: statistical properties determined by distances

- Anisotropy in the standard model
- Local physics
- Bad luck

- Beyond the standard model
- Bianchi models
- Global topology
- Generally require coincidences of scales

- Standard lore:
- nearly scale-free primordial adiabatic* perturbations in growing mode distributed as a Gaussian (e.g., inflation)
- Coherent oscillations

- Small fluctuations (~10-5) prior to last scattering
- Linear theory

- Free-streaming since last scattering
- ⇒ Gaussian, linear CMB(*Large isocurvature fractions allowed — but ~little large qualitative effect on parameters, esp w/ Polarization, LSS, H0 — Moodley, Dunkley, Skordis, Ferreira)

- nearly scale-free primordial adiabatic* perturbations in growing mode distributed as a Gaussian (e.g., inflation)

- Gaussian, isotropic, linear fluctuations in potential⇒ Gaussian, isotropic, linear CMB
- distribution only depends on l
- methodology: this distribution is the maximum-entropy (minimum information) distribution for an isotropic field
- Distinction between non-Gaussianity and anisotropy depends on information about the sky signal (e.g., hot/cold spots)

- Concordance Cosmology (Ostriker & Steinhardt 1995)
- Moderate H0, low matter density

- Acceleration from SNIae
- Flat Universe from CMB
- Bond & Jaffe; Knox & Page
- Clinched by Maxima/Boomerang etc

- Strong measurements of other parameters: WMAP

- Largely confirms results from COBE, MAXIMA, BOOMERANG, etc.
- Flat Universe (=1)
- 23%Dark Matter
- 4%Normal Matter
- 73%“Dark Energy”/Quintessence/Λ (accelerating the expansion)

- Initial seeds consistent w/ Inflation
- Hubble constant 72 km/s/Mpc

- Flat Universe (=1)
- Also some hints of new science:
- first objects at 200 Million Years

- Depends on
- Parameterization
- prior information
- other data
- data analysis methods (!)

- Not independent
- CMB alone ~5 parameters

Spergel et al

VSA: Rebolo et al 2004

ℓ(ℓ+1)Cℓ/2π

Mean-square fluctuation power (µK2)

(If isotropic)

(otherwise)

Multipole ℓ~ 180°/angle

ν=0.03±1.5

“# of sigma”

Multipole ℓ~ 180°/angle

- Confirms nearly scale-invariant adiabatic perturbations (inflation), detailed parameters.
- reionization bump:
- τ = 0.17 ± 0.04 due tozrec = 20 ± 5

WMAP

CBI (Readhead et al 04)

DASI (Leitch et al 04)

CBI: Readhead et al

- Low quadrupole
- (cf DMR)
- +Niarchou et al

- (cf DMR)
- Aligned multipoles
- (+Tegmark et al,Land & Magueijo, …)
- “Unlikely” distribution of low-lalm…
- Bianchi models?

- Local model:
- WMAP: -58 < fNL < 134 (2σ) [Komatsu et al]
- From map statistics & higher-order moments
- (cf. inflation: |fNL|~1)

- NB. Non-Gaussian statistics not independent

Magueijo & Madeiros

- Just the one-point function (PDF)
- Can also check the 2-point distribution, etc

- The answer depends on the question
- astro-ph/0405341 “Detection of a non-Gaussian Spot in WMAP”, M. Cruz, E. Martinez-Gonzalez, P. Vielva, L. Cayon
- astro-ph/0404037 “The Hot and Cold Spots in the WMAP Data are Not Hot and Cold Enough”, D. L. Larson, B. D. Wandelt

- The more averaging, the more “consistent”
- Parameters ⇒ spectra ⇒ maps
- (central limit theorem, not physics)

- The fewer numbers, the more we expect deviations
- Biases?
- for standard spectra
- For interesting non-gaussianity

- Robust broad outlines of standard model
- Within adiabatic, power-law, isotropic context:
- Flat, accelerating, scale-free, non-baryonic CDM
- ~early first objects?

- Sensitive (pixel) measurements of CMB Intensity
- Beginning to be dominated by systematics?

- Statistical measurements of polarization
- Inconsistencies due to physics or small statistics?