Dick Bond - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

paul2
dick bond l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Dick Bond PowerPoint Presentation
play fullscreen
1 / 49
Download Presentation
Dick Bond
321 Views
Download Presentation

Dick Bond

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Dick Bond Inflation & its Cosmic Probes, now&then CMB & tilted LCDM status as of Feb 25, 2008: ACBAR08 & CBI5year peaks 3+4+5+damping & ACBAR excess cf. CBI excess WMAP5year aph this week; @CIFAR08 next week July 1982 Nuffield Conference on Very Early Universe Cambridge: how to test inflation – gravitational metric / density fluctuation spectrum Outgrowth: nearly scale invariant, amplitude TBD Dec 2007 VEU 25 years after: assess the progress on inflation, both theoretical and observational

  2. Dick Bond Inflation Trajectories, now&then Inflation Thenk=(1+q)(a) = -dlnH/dlna ~r(k)/16 0<  <1 = multi-parameter expansion in (lnHa ~ lnk) ~ 10 good e-folds in a (k~10-4Mpc-1 to ~ 1 Mpc-1 LSS) ~ 10+ parameters? Bond, Contaldi, Huang, Kofman, Vaudrevange 08 H(f),V(f)  ~0 to 2 to 3/2 to ~.4 now, on its way to 0? Inflation Now1+w(a) goes to2(1+q)/3 ~1 good e-fold. only ~2params es= (dlnV/dy)2/4 @ pivot pt all 1+w <2/3 trajectories give an allowed potential & kinetic energy but … Huang, Bond & Kofman 07

  3. INFLATION NOW PROBES NOW • Cosmological Constant (w=-1) • Quintessence (-1≤w≤1) • Phantom field (w≤-1) • Tachyon fields (-1 ≤ w ≤ 0) • K-essence (no prior on w)

  4. Measuring constant w (SNe+CMB+WL+LSS) 1+w = 0.02 +/- 0.05 w(a)=w0+wa(1-a) piecewise parameterization 4,9,40 modes in redshift 9 & 40 into Parameter eigenmodes data cannot determine >2 EOS parameters DETF Albrecht etal06, Crittenden etal06, hbk07 s1=0.12 s2=0.32 s3=0.63

  5. Inflation Now1+w(a)= esf(a/aeq;as/aeq;zs)Zhiqi Huang, Bond & Kofman07: 3-param formula accurately fits slow-to-moderate roll & even wild rising baroque late-inflaton trajectories, as well as thawing & freezing trajectories Cosmic Probes Now CFHTLS SN(192),WL(Apr07),CMB,BAO,LSS,Lya • es= (dlnV/dy)2/4 = late-inflaton (potential gradient)2 • =0.0+-0.25 now; • weak as < 0.3 (zs>2.3) now • esto +-0.07then Planck1+JDEM SN+DUNE WL, weak as <0.21 then, (zs>3.7) • 3rdparamzs (~des /dlna) ill-determined now & then • cannot reconstruct the quintessence potential, just the slope es& hubble drag info (late-inflaton mass is < Planck mass, but not by a lot) Cosmic Probes Then JDEM-SN + DUNE-WL + Planck1

  6. Measuring the single parameter es(SNe+CMB+WL+LSS+Lya) Modified CosmoMC with Weak Lensing and time-varying w models

  7. Measuring the 3 parameters with current data • Use 3-parameter formula over 0<z<4 & w(z>4)=wh(irrelevant parameter unless large). as<0.3 data (zs>2.3)

  8. INFLATION NOW PROBES THEN

  9. Forecast: JDEM-SN(2500 hi-z + 500 low-z)+ DUNE-WL(50% sky, gals @z = 0.1-1.1, 35/min2 ) + Planck1yr Beyond Einstein panel: LISA+JDEM as<0.21 (95%CL) (zs>3.7) ESA (+NASA/CSA) es=0.02+0.07-0.06 zs (~des /dlna) ill-determined

  10. CMB NOW

  11. I N F L A T I O N the nonlinear COSMIC WEB • Secondary Anisotropies • Non-Linear Evolution • Weak Lensing • Thermal and Kinetic SZ effect • Submm/radio sources, etc. • Primary Anisotropies • Tightly coupled Photon-Baryon fluid oscillations • viscously damped • Linear regime of perturbations • Gravitational redshifting Decoupling LSS reionization 19 Mpc 13.7-10-50Gyrs 10Gyrs 13.7Gyrs today

  12. Probing the linear & nonlinear cosmic web CMBology Inflation Histories (CMBall+LSS) subdominant phenomena (isocurvature, BSI) Secondary Anisotropies (CBI,ACT) (tSZ, kSZ, reion) Foregrounds CBI, Planck Polarization of the CMB, Gravity Waves (CBI, Boom, Planck, Spider) Non-Gaussianity (Boom, CBI, WMAP) Dark Energy Histories (& CFHTLS-SN+WL) roulette inflation potential T=t+iq

  13. CBI pol to Apr’05@Chile Bicep @SP Quiet2 (1000 HEMTs) @Chile CBI2 to early’08 Acbar to Jan’06, 07f @SP QUaD @SP Quiet1 SCUBA2 Spider (12000 bolometers) 2312 bolometer @LDB APEX SZA JCMT @Hawaii (~400 bolometers) @Chile (Interferometer) @Cal ACT Clover @Chile (3000 bolometers) 3 frequencies @Chile Boom03@LDB EBEX@LDB 2017 2004 2006 2008 LMT@Mexico 2005 2007 SPT LHC 2009 Bpol@L2 WMAP@L2to 2009-2013? (1000 bolometers) @South Pole ALMA DASI @SP (Interferometer) @Chile Polarbear (300 bolometers)@Cal CAPMAP Planck08.9 AMI (84 bolometers) + HEMTs @L2 9 frequencies GBT

  14. CMB/LSS Phenomenology • Dalal • Dore • Kesden • MacTavish • Pfrommer • Shirokov • CITA/CIfAR there • Mivelle-Deschenes (IAS) • Pogosyan (U of Alberta) • Myers (NRAO) • Holder (McGill) • Hoekstra (UVictoria) • van Waerbeke (UBC) • CITA/CIfAR here • Bond • Contaldi • Lewis • Sievers • Pen • McDonald • Majumdar • Nolta • Iliev • Kofman • Vaudrevange • Huang • UofT here • Netterfield • Crill • Carlberg • Yee • & Exptal/Analysis/Phenomenology Teams here & there • Boomerang03 (98) • CBI5yr, CBI2 • Acbar08 • WMAP (Nolta, Dore) • CFHTLS – WeakLens • CFHTLS - Supernovae • RCS2 (RCS1; Virmos-Descart) Parameter data now:CMBall_pol SDSS P(k), BAO, 2dF P(k) Weak lens (Virmos/RCS1, CFHTLS, RCS2) ~100sqdeg Benjamin etal. aph/0703570v1 Lya forest (SDSS) SN1a “gold”(192,15 z>1) CFHTLS then:ACT (SZ),Spider, Planck, 21(1+z)cm GMRT,SKA Prokushkin

  15. WMAP3 sees 3rd pk, B03 sees 4th • ‘Shallow’ scan, 75 hours, fsky=3.0%, large scale TT • ‘deep’ scan, 125 hours, fsky=0.28% 115sq deg, ~ Planck2yr B03+B98 final soon

  16. Current state October 06 Polarization a Frontier CBI E CBI B Current state October 06 You are seeing this before people in the field CBI 2.5 yr EE, ~ best so far, ~QuaD WMAP3 V band

  17. ACBAR08 Reichardt et.al. astro-ph Thurs Jan 10 2.1 x detector-hours of ACBAR07 4.9 x sky coverage of ACBAR07 1.7% of sky Calibration uncertainty down to 2.2% from 6% via WMAP3 3rd & 4th & 5th peaks, brilliant damping tail ACBAR excess > 2000, 1.7sigma consistent with CBI excess (tSZ), but could be enhanced sub-mm sources @ 150 GHz

  18. ACBAR sees 3rd 4th 5th peaks & damping tail out to 2000+

  19. Lens – no-lens ~3s but it would prefer a larger amplitude ~2.3 times the Lens – no-lens CL rather than 1

  20. CBI excess 04, 2.5 yrs cf. CBI excess Feb08, 4.5 yrs

  21. tSZ~f(n) x s87 x CL-SZ template Current high L state Feb08 CBI5yr excess 08 ACBAR08 excess marginalizationcritical to get ns & dns /dlnk; tSZ, radio, submm sources

  22. primary lensed cmb + SZ sources primary lensed cmb + submm sources (enhanced) acbar08+CBIcomb05 +BIMA+WMAP3+ Std 6 + s8SZ7 s8 =0.80±0.03primary =0.95±0.04SZ SZtemplate-dependent (Wm = 0.26±0.03) weak lensing CFHTLS’07 + Virmos-Descart s8 = 0.80 +- .05 if Wm = 0.26 CBI only s8 dilemma

  23. CMB THEN

  24. ACT@5170m why Atacama? driest desert in the world. thus: cbi, toco, apex, asti, act, alma, quiet, clover CBI2@5040m

  25. WMAP-BOOM-ACBAR-ACT: the high resolution frontier Toby marriage 01.08 for the act collabration

  26. ACT Science: Observations: CMB: l>1000 Growth of structure Eqn. of state Cluster (SZ, KSZ X-rays, & optical) Atacama Cosmology Telescope Neutrino mass Diffuse SZ Ionization history OV/KSZ Inflation Lensing Power spectrum Collaboration: Cardiff Columbia CUNY INAOE NASA/GSFC Haverford NIST Princeton UPenn Toronto Rutgers UBC U. Catolica U. KwaZulu-Natal UMass U. Pittsburgh

  27. ACBAR-ACT: Bullet Cluster a la Clowe 6 min of ‘07 data @ 145 GHz (30d) 2008: 145, 215, 280 GHZ @ 1000 bolometers each; observing plan 0.5yr in 08 & in 09

  28. PRIMARY END @ 2012? CMB ~2009+Planck1+WMAP8+SPT/ACT/Quiet+Bicep/QuAD/Quiet +Spider+Clover

  29. COSMIC PARAMETERS NOW & THEN

  30. Standard Parameters of Cosmic Structure Formation r < 0.47 or < 0.2895% CL New Parameters of Cosmic Structure Formation

  31. TheParameters of Cosmic Structure Formation Cosmic Numerology: aph/0801.1491 – our Acbar paper on the basic 7+; bckv07 WMAP3modified+B03+CBIcombined+Acbar08+LSS (SDSS+2dF) + DASI (incl polarization and CMB weak lensing and tSZ) ns = .962 +- .014(+-.005 Planck1) .93 +- .03 @0.05/Mpcrun&tensor r=At / As < 0.47cmb95% CL (+-.03 P1) <.36 CMB+LSS run&tensor; < .05 ln r prior! dns /dln k=-.04 +- .02 (+-.005 P1) CMB+LSS run&tensorprior change? As = 22 +- 2 x 10-10 1+w = 0.02 +/- 0.05 ‘phantom DE’ allowed?! Wbh2 = .0226 +- .0006 Wch2= .116 +- .005 WL = .72 +.02- .03 h = .704 +- .022 Wm= .27 + .03 -.02 zreh =11.7 +2.1- 2.4 fNL=87+-60?! (+- 5-10 P1)

  32. INFLATION PARAMETERS THEN ns(+-.005 Planck1) r (+-.03 P1) dns /dln k (+-.005 P1) cf. .04 +- .02 Blind scalar & tensor power spectrum analyses then more parameters Blind primoridial non-Gaussian analyses then fNL (+- 5-10 P1) cf. 87+-60?!

  33. INFLATION THEN WHAT IS ALLOWED? radically broken scale invariance by variable braking as acceleration approaches deceleration, preheating & the end of inflation k=(1+q)(a) =r(k)/16 Blind power spectrum analysis cf. data, then & now expand k in localized mode functions e.g. Chebyshev/B-spline coefficients b the measures on bmatter choice for “theory prior” = informed priors?

  34. lne(nodal 5) + 4 params. Uniform in exp(nodal bandpowers) cf. uniform in nodal bandpowers reconstructed from April07 CMB+LSS data using B-spline nodal point expansion & MCMC: shows prior dependence with current data self consistency: order 5 ln(e +0.1) ~uniform prior r(.002) <0.55 eself consistency: order 5 ln(e +0.0001) ~ log prior r(.002) <0.22

  35. lne(nodal 5) + 4 params. Uniform in exp(nodal bandpowers) cf. uniform in nodal bandpowers reconstructed from April07 CMB+LSS data using Chebyshev nodal point expansion & MCMC: shows prior dependence with current data extreme log prior uniform prior

  36. CL BB forlne(nodal 5) + 4 paramsinflation trajectories reconstructed from CMB+LSS data using Chebyshev nodal point expansion & MCMC Planck satellite 2008.6 Spider balloon 2009.9 uniform prior Spider+Planck broad-band error extreme log prior

  37. Planck1 simulation:input LCDM (Acbar)+run+uniform tensor order 5 expansions recover input r to r ~0.05 PsPtreconstructed cf. input of LCDM with scalar running & r=0.1 esorder 5 uniform prior esorder 5 log prior lnPslnPt(nodal 5 and 5) B-pol simulation:~10K detectors > 100x Planck stringent test of the e-trajectory method: input recovered to r <0.001

  38. INFLATION THEN WHAT IS PREDICTED? Smoothly broken scale invariance by nearly uniform braking (standard of 80s/90s/00s) r~0.03-0.5 or highly variable braking r tiny (stringy cosmology) r<10-10

  39. Old view: Theory prior = delta function of THE correct one and only theory Old Inflation 1980 -inflation Chaotic inflation New Inflation Power-law inflation SUGRA inflation Double Inflation Radical BSI inflation variable MP inflation Extended inflation 1990 Natural pNGB inflation Hybrid inflation Assisted inflation SUSY F-term inflation SUSY D-term inflation Brane inflation Super-natural Inflation 2000 SUSY P-term inflation K-flation N-flation DBI inflation inflation Warped Brane inflation Tachyon inflation Racetrack inflation Roulette inflation Kahler moduli/axion

  40. lnV~y = Uniform acceleration, ns= .97, r = 0.26, (ns= .95 r = 0.50) Power-law inflation V/MP4~y2, r=0.13, ns=.97, Dy ~10 ~ y4r = 0.26, ns= .95, Dy ~16 Chaotic inflation ), r(k), ns(k), e(k) V (f|| , fperp Radical BSI inflation anything goes V/MP4 ~Lred4sin2(y/fred2-1/2 ), ns~ 1-fred-2 , to match ns=.96, r~0.032, fred~ 5, to match ns= .97, r ~0.048, fred~ 5.8, Dy ~13 Natural pNGB inflation

  41. Old view: Theory prior = delta function of THE correct one and only theory New view: Theory prior = probability distribution on an energy landscape whose featuresare at best only glimpsed, huge number of potential minima, inflation the late stage flow in the low energy structure toward these minima. Critical role of collective coordinates in the low energy landscape: moduli fields, sizes and shapes of geometrical structures such as holes in a dynamical extra-dimensional (6D) manifold approaching stabilization moving brane & antibraneseparations (D3,D7) Theory prior ~ probability of trajectories given potential parameters of the collective coordinatesX probability of the potential parameters X probability of initial conditions

  42. Roulette: which minimum for the rolling ball depends upon the throw; but which roulette wheel we play is chance too. The ‘house’ does not just play dice with the world. V~MP4Ps r (1-e/3)3/2 ~(1016Gev)4r/0.1 (1-e/3) ~(few x1013Gev)4 ns~ - dlne /dlnk /(1-e) i.e., a finely-tuned potential shape Roulette inflation Kahler moduli/axion

  43. V/MP4~y2, r=0.13, ns=.97, Dy ~10 Chaotic inflation stringy inflation 2003-08 General argument (Lyth96 bound): if the inflaton < the Planck mass, then Dy < 1 over DN ~ 50, since e = (dy /d ln a)2 & r = 16e hence r < .007 …N-flation? typical r < 10-10 D3-D7 brane inflation, a la KKLMMT03 Dy ~. 2/nbrane1/2 << 1 BM06 Roulette inflation Kahler moduli/axion r <~ 10-10 &Dy<.002 As & ns~0.97 OK but by statistical selection! running dns/dlnk exists, but small via smallobservable window

  44. forecast Planck2.5 100&143 Spider10d 95&150 Synchrotron pol’n Dust pol’n are higher in B Foreground Template removals from multi-frequency data is crucial 10-40

  45. SPIDER Tensor Signal • Simulation of large scale polarization signal http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~lgg/spider_front.htm No Tensor Tensor GW/scalar curvature: current from CMB+LSS: r < 0.47 or < 0.28 95%; good shot at 0.02 95% CL with BB polarization (+- .02 PL2.5+Spider), .01 target; Bpol .001 BUT foregrounds/systematics? But r(k), low Energy inflation

  46. Inflation then summary the basic 6 parameter model with or without GW fits all of the data OK Usual GW limits come from adding r with minimal consistency (7 params). r <.28 comes from relating high k region of 8 & LSS to low k region of GW CL uniform priors in (k) ~ r(k)/16: for current data, (k) goes up at low k & the scalar power downturns (if there is freedom in the mode expansion to do this). Enforces GW. ln (+ TINY) prior gives lower r. a B-pol with r<.001 breaks this prior dependence, even Planck+Spider r~.03 Prior probabilities on the inflation trajectories are crucial and cannot be decided at this time. Philosophy: be as wide open and least prejudiced as possible An ensemble of trajectories arises in many-moduli string models. Roulette inflation: complex hole sizes in `large 6D volume’TINY r~10-10& data-selected braking to get ns & Dy <<1 (general theorem: if the normalized inflatony < 1 over ~50 e-folds then r < .007). By contrast,for nearly uniform acceleration, (e.g. power law & PNGB inflaton potentials), r ~.03-.3 but Dy~10. Is this deadly??? Even with low energy inflation, the prospects are good with Spider and even Planck to either detect the GW-induced B-mode of polarization or set a powerful upper limit vs. nearly uniform acceleration, pointing to stringy or other exotic models. Both experiments have strong Cdn roles.Bpol is ~ 20x0

  47. Inflation now summary • the data cannot determine more than 2 w-parameters (+ csound?). general higher order Chebyshev or spline expansion in1+was for “inflation-then”=(1+q)is not that useful. Parameter eigenmodes show what is probed • The w(a)=w0+wa(1-a) phenomenology requires baroque potentials • Philosophy of HBK07:backtrack from now (z=0) all w-trajectories arising from quintessence(es >0) and the phantom equivalent (es <0); use a 3-parameter model to well-approximate even rather baroque w-trajectories. • We ignore constraints on Q-density from photon-decoupling and BBN because further trajectory extrapolation is needed. Can include via a prior on WQ(a) at z_dec and z_bbn • For general slow-to-moderate rolling one needs 2 “dynamical parameters” (as, es) & WQ to describe w to a few % for the not-too-baroque w-trajectories. A 3rd param zs, (~des /dlna) is ill-determined now & in aPlanck1yr-CMB+JDEM-SN+DUNE-WL future. • In the early-exit scenario, the information stored inasis erased by Hubble friction over the observable range &w can be described by a single parameteres. • asis < 0.3 current data (zs >2.3) to <0.21 (zs >3.7) in Planck1yr-CMB+JDEM-SN+DUNE-WL future • current observations are well-centered around the cosmological constantes=0.0+-0.25 • in Planck1yr-CMB+JDEM-SN+DUNE-WL futureesto +-0.07 • but one cannot reconstruct the quintessence potential, just the slope es & hubble drag info • late-inflaton mass is < Planck mass, but not by a lot

  48. End