Concordance (pre-WMAP2++) & discordant notes. The “basic parameters”: LCDM with power law index and no/little GW is concordant. Some discord .. always. Extension to larger parameter lists.
Are current discordant notes statistically significant, systematics, astrophysics, fundamental physics? Add parameters: theory priors – cost function, baroqueness, taste? r_ts (<.72/<.36??), k_BSI, dn_s/dlnk, size_U/chi_U, subdominant (isoc/adiab), z_reh (+VMOs?) {e.g. Vaudrevange, Lewis, McDonald @ CITA/PI focus gp; soon Nolta
WMAP2}
Resolving (or celebrating) discord with planned experiments. break degeneracies of cosmic parameters planned CMB+ext, with ext= z-surveys, cl-gp surveys (Sunyaev-Zeldovich/Opt/X/weaklens), weak lensing LSS surveys, SN
CMB High-L frontier TT: near term, cbipol, boom2Kpol, acbar forecasts. Long term Apex, ACT, SPT, Quiet forecasts.
CMB Polarization EE/BB, High & Low-L: CBI, BOOM2K , DASI, CAPMap, WMAP2, BICEP, QUaD, Polarbear, QUIET, AMiBA, Planck, … CMBpol
Early & Late Inflation Theory
cf. CMB+LSS @ CITA
Anomalies: Systematics, Statistics, AstroPhysics or
Fundamental Physics?“anomalies” @ low L 2,3; ~20-30; check@200, > 600?
ET checkmarks 2, 22, 222, 2222
Issues: L=2,3 how low is the probability? Glitches? non-WMAP data e.g. Acbar/CBI calibration
CBI anomalous power @ L > 2000, Sunyaev Zeldovich
effect in the cosmic web is plausible if 8 if ~ 0.9
(nonlinear gasdynamics)
Statistical isotropy broken on large scales?
Jan04
CMB data
cf.
good-fit CDM
uniform-acceleration
model
Jan04
CMB data
cf.
good-fit CDM
uniform-acceleration
model
String Theory Landscape @ Stanford String Theory Landscape @ Stanford
Perhaps 10 different vacua Perhaps 10 different vacua
100100
single field inflation vs. WMAP1+ext+ext
Monte Carlo simulations using “flow-equations” (Kinney 2002). slow-roll priors are artificial, highly restrictive & misleading about allowed inflationary phase space. Equivalent to a power series expansion of order 5, 6, 8 of histories.
CITA approach: efficiently sampled inflation acceleration histories (trajectories).
Physics priors: NONE - all are allowed (constrain by taste, e.g. allowed bumpiness).
Only data can decide, includes very weak “priors” like “anthropic data” as well as high precision CMB+LSS. Monte Carlo simulation of acceleration histories
Each point is a “viable slow-roll” model, able to sustain inflation for sufficient e-foldings to solve the horizon problem and make the Universe (nearly) flat BUT highly restricted.
WMAP1 Peiris et al. 2003
String Theory Landscape & Inflation++ Phenomenology for CMB+LSS String Theory Landscape & Inflation++ Phenomenology for CMB+LSS
running index as simplest breaking (back to early 80s), radically broken scale invariance, 2+-field inflation, isocurvatures, Cosmic
strings/defects, compactification & topology, & other baroque add-ons.
subdominant
String/Mtheory-motivated, extra dimensions, brane-ology, reflowering of inflaton/isocon models (includes curvaton), modified kinetic energies, k-
essence, Dirac-Born-Infeld [sqrt(1-momentum**2), “DBI in the Sky” Silverstein etal 2004], etc.
14 std inflation parameters
+ many many more e.g.
“blind” search for patterns in the primordial
power spectrum
Potential of the Hybrid D3/D7 Inflation Model
KKLT, KKLMMTany acceleration trajectory will
do??
q (ln Ha)
H(phi,…)
V(phi,…)
Measure??
anti-baroque prior
Running of the Spectral Index : Parameter Fits[Spergel et al. ApJS, 148, 175] [Tegmark et al. astro-ph/0310723]
[Bond, Contaldi & Pogosyan astro-ph/0310735] [CBI VII, Readhead et al. astro-ph/0402359]
CMB data only
[dns/dlnk]
<0 in Jan03,
Mar03 & Mar04
CMB
+ weak
lens 8
PLANCK vs. WMAP4yr + Ground based telescopes
(circa ~ 2008)
• WMAP 4yr
• + Ground-based telescopes pre-Planck ACT/SPT-like (bolometers) ; QUIET (HEMT arrays). Coverage assumed; ~few % of the sky (1000 sq deg); polarization included
•PLANCK (2007+)
END
No running: dn/dlnk~0
Damped Lyman alpha system effect at small scales + increased WMAP errors at large scales of Slosar & Seljak 04
Systematic error budget? .. McDonald etal, Haehnelt etal
acceleration trajectories, “featured” potentials,
expansions about uniform q(T) (aka slow-roll-ology in
the Hamilton-Jacobi/stochastic
inflation formulation –
works OK), … & the nonlocal
WKB++ approximation
(Habib etal 02,04)
acceleration trajectories, “featured” potentials,
expansions about uniform q(T) (aka slow-roll-ology in
the Hamilton-Jacobi/stochastic
inflation formulation –
works OK), … & the nonlocal
WKB++ approximation
(Habib etal 02,04)
B+Contaldi+Kofman+Souradeep+Vaudrevange+B+Contaldi+Kofman+Souradeep+Vaudrevange+