third year wmap results dave wilkinson. nasa/gsfc bob hill gary hinshaw al kogut michele limon nils...
TRANSCRIPT
Third Year WMAP Results
Dave Wilkinson
NASA/GSFCBob Hill Gary Hinshaw Al KogutMichele LimonNils OdegardJanet WeilandEd Wollack
PrincetonNorm Jarosik Lyman PageDavid Spergel.
UBCMark Halpern
ChicagoStephan MeyerHiranya Peiris
BrownGreg Tucker
UCLANed Wright
Science Team:
WMAPA partnership between NASA/GSFC and Princeton
QuickTime™ and aCinepak decompressorare needed to see this picture.
Johns HopkinsChuck Bennett (PI)
CornellRachel Bean Microsoft
Chris Barnes
CITAOlivier DoreMike Nolta
PennLicia Verde
UT AustinEiichiro Komatsu
What’s New in the Measurement?
Three times as much data, sqrt(3) smaller errors in maps: more than 50x reduction in model parameter space.
Direct measurement of CMB polarization.
Much better understanding of instrument, noise, gain, beams, and mapmaking.
One of 20
A-B-A-B B-A-B-A
Amplifiers from NRAO, M. Pospieszalski design
For temperature: measure difference in power from both sides. CMB: 30 uK rms
For polarization: measure the difference between differential temperature measurements with opposite polarity. CMB 0.3 uK rms
<ExEx> <ExEy><EyEx> <EyEy>
* ***
=0
0I/2I/2
(( )
))(+ Q/2
-Q/2U/2
U/2
Coherency matrix
Stability of instrument is critical
Physical temperature of B-side primary over three years. This is the largest change on the instrument.
Jarosik et al.
Three parameter fit to gain over three years leads to a clean separation of gain and offset drifts.
K Band, 22 GHz
Ka Band, 33 GHz
Q Band, 41 GHz
V Band, 61 GHz
W Band, 94 GHz
Compare Spectra
Cosmic variance limited to l=400.
First peak
Window function dominates difference
Reionization
Best fit model
Maps of Multipoles
Too aligned?
Too symmetric?
Summary of Temperature Maps
Data + completely new pipeline consistent with first year.
Maximum likelihood for low l (Efstathiou, Seljak et al.)
New improved power spectrum. No clear glitches, low-l less anomalous, clear second peak.
Calibration error still 0.5%
Polarization
New measurement of optical depth to the surface of last scattering.
First all sky measurement of polarized foreground emission.
Direct measurement of low-l E modes.
K Band, 22 GHz 50
Ka Band, 33 GHz
Q Band, 41 GHz
V Band, 61 GHz
CMB 6 uK
W Band, 94 GHz
Q&U Maps
Blowouts
Berkhuijsen et al.
Loops
Polarized Foreground Emission
B-field
Synchrotron emission
Starlight polarization
Dust emission
Dust grain
5 GHz Polarization & B field
Polarized Foreground Emission
B field from K band B field from model
Foreground Model•Template fits (not model just shown).•Use all available information on polarization directions.•Sync: Based on K band directions•Dust: Based on directions from starlight polarization.•Increase errors in map for subtraction.•Examine power spectrum l by l and frequency.•Examine results with different bands.•Examine the results with different models.
Ka 2.14 1.096Q 1.29 1.02V 1.05 1.02W 1.06 1.05
Band Pre-Cleaned Cleaned
4534 DOF
Table of
Raw vs. Cleaned
Maps
Galaxy masked in analysis
Mask
Use 75% of sky for cosmological analysis
High l TE
Crittenden et al.
High l EE
All direct polarization measurements to date.
Low-l TE
New noise, new mapmaking, pixel space foreground subtaction, different sky cut, different band combination.
New results consistent with original results.
New results also consistent with zero!
4 to model
Low l EE/BB “Features”
Still, though, even accounting for this, EE W-band l=5,7 is problematic. All others OK.
Low-l EE/BB
EE (solid)
BB (dash)
BB model at 60 GHz
r=0.3
Frequency space
“Spikes” from correlated polarized sync and dust.
Spectrum of Foreground Subtraction
Pre-cleaned error bars do not include 2NF term.
Recall, foreground subtraction is done on maps, not spectra.
We use QV for analysis, check with other channels.
Low-l EE/BB
EE Polarization: from reionization of first stars
BB Polarization: null check and limit on gravitational waves.
r<2.2 (95% CL) from just EE/BB
EE BB
Just Q and V bands.
OpticaL Depth
Optical Depth
Knowledge of the optical depth affects the determination of the cosmological parameters, especially ns
0.111 +/- 0.0220.100 +/- 0.0290.111 +/- 0.0210.107 +/- 0.018
0.111 +/- 0.0220.092 +/- 0.0290.101 +/- 0.0230.106 +/- 0.019
KaQVQVQVWKaQVW
Bands EE only EE +TE only
Best overall with 6 parameters
=0.088 +/- 0.031
BB r=0.3
EE
TE
TT
Approx EE/BB foreground
BB Lensing
BB inflation
New Cosmological Parameters
New analysis based primarily on WMAP alone.
Knowledge of optical depth breaks the n-tau degeneracy.
Take WMAP and project to other experiments to test for consistency.
Degeneracy
Knowledge of optical depth breaks the degeneracy
1yr WMAP
3yr WMAP
Best Fit LCDM Model
WMAP-1
WMAP-3 1.037 for 3162 DOF TT+TE+EE
Mean
= 0.92+-0.1 = 0.29+-0.07
WMAP-10.0230.1450.68…0.100.970.880.32Max L
0.02220.1280.73…0.0920.9580.770.24
Smaller error bars and better fit that year 1
WMAP-3
Max L
WMAP-3 SZ Marg0.02233 +/-0.00080.1268 +/-0.010.734 +/- 0.03…0.088 +/- 0.030.951 +/- 0.0170.744 +/- 0.0550.238 +/- 0.035
Max L, sym err
Add 2dFGRS, SDSS, CMB,SN,WL
The general trend is:
drops to 0.945-0.950 +0.015/-0/017
drops when CMB added & rises when
galaxies added A “working number” is 0.26
The scalar spectral index is 0.97+/- 0.02 Seljak et al. and 0.98+/-0.03 (Tegmark et al.) for WMAP-1 +SDSS.
What Does the Model Need?
Model needs , 8
Model needs not unity, 8
Model needs dark matter, 248
Model does not need: running, r, or massive neutrinos, le 3.
Gravitational Waves
WMAP alone, r<0.55 (95% CL)
WMAP+2dF, r<0.30 (95% CL)
WMAP+SDSS, r<0.28 (95% CL)
In all cases, n_s rises to compensate.
WMAP-1+SDSS Tegmark et alWMAP-1+SDSS+Lya Seljak et al
Similar behavior:
Inflation Parameters, No Running
Equation of State & Curvature
WMAP+CMB+2dFGRS+SDSS+SN
Interpret as amazing consistency between data sets.
Final Bits
No evidence for non-Gaussanity in any of our tests: Minkowski functionals, bispectrum, trispectrum…..
Sum of mass of light neutrinos is <0.68 eV (95% CL). Has not changed significantly.
New ILC
Now can be used for l=2,3!
However, some non-Gaussanity persists!
THANK YOU