Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
“The map of what we call reality is an ever-shifting mosaic of ideas.” Marcelo Gleiser
Quadrant asymmetry in the angular distribution of the CMB: what do we know so far?
Larissa SantosUniversity of Science and Technology of China, USTC
The early universe, cosmology and fundamental physicsBeijing. September 16th, 2015
Outline
❖ A very, very brief introduction to CMB
❖ Anomalies in the CMB temperature distribution
❖ The quadrant asymmetry in CMB data
❖ Results for WMAP and Planck
❖ Influence of different masks in the previous results
A very brief introduction
❖ 50th anniversary of the article that revealed the discovery of CMB
❖ May 1965: Penzias and Wilson
❖ COBE satellite: discovery of the CMB temperature anisotropies
2009 Planck
A very brief introduction
❖ 50th anniversary of the article that revealed the discovery of CMB
❖ May 1965: Penzias and Wilson
❖ COBE satellite: discovery of the CMB temperature anisotropies
1965ApJ...142..419P
1965ApJ...142..419P
2009 Planck
Is the universe really isotropic?
❖ In the LCDM model the universe is homogeneous and isotropic
❖ We analyze the temperature fluctuations of the CMB
❖ Finally, we must compare the observations with the theoretical model
Anomalies in the CMB temperature distribution
Low quadrupole amplitude
Concordance modelCosmic variance
Low quadrupole amplitudeSpergel et al. (2003), Tegmark et al. (2003)
The alignment between the quadrupole and octopole
❖ The quadrupole and octupole are aligned
❖ The difference between these two axes is of only 10 degrees.
Tegmark et al. (2003), Oliveira-Costa et al. (2004)
North-south asymmetry and the cold spot
Systematics? Not statistically significant?
Bennett et al. (2011), Bennett et al. (2013)
Vielva et al. (2004), Cruz et al. (2007)Eriksen et al. (2004), Hansen et al. (2004)
❖ It was found a cold spot in the sky with a diameter of approximately 10 degrees
❖ The probability of finding such feature on LCDM simulations is of approximately 2% according to Planck 2015 results
❖ The north-south asymmetry was discovered between the Galactic north and south hemispheres
❖ The asymmetry is in disagreement with the standard cosmological model not exceeding 99% C.L. (Planck collaboration, 2015)
On one hand❖ Planck data confirms most anomalies found in WMAP data
❖ astro-ph arXiv:1303.5083
❖ astro-ph arXiv:1506.07135
❖ Other authors also confirm different anomalies
❖ North-south asymmetry: Bernui et al. (2014), astro-ph arXiv:1404.2936
❖ Quadrupole/octupole alignment: Polastri el al. (2015), astro-ph arXiv:1404.2936
❖ Cold spot: Gurzadyan et a. (2014), astro-ph arXiv:1404.6347
On the other hand❖ Anomaly claims are not statistically significant and there is no
compelling evidence for deviations from the LCDM model - 9 year data release from WMAP team
❖ astro-ph arXiv:1001.4758
❖ No evidence for significant hemispherical anomalies (Quartin et al., 2015)
❖ astro-ph arXiv:1408.5792
❖ After subtraction of astrophysical and second oder effects, only the low quadrupole may still be considered anomalous (Rassat et al., 2014)
❖ astro-ph arXiv:1405.1844
The quadrant asymmetry
❖ Comparing quadrants in the sky using the two point correlation function (TPCF)
( ) 〉〈= )()( qp nn TTC γ
CMB sky vs CDM simulationsΛ
Residual Galactic foregrounds: WMAP KQ85 mask
❖ Available sky fraction = 85%
Step by step
❖ 1000 Monte Carlo simulations were generated using CMB LCDM best fit power spectrum
❖ We divided the CMB sky foreground-cleaned maps and each simulated map in 4 quadrants
❖ To avoid residual foregrounds in the CMB maps, we mask the contaminated pixels
❖ We then calculate the TPCF for each quadrant of every map
❖ Finally, we compare the results between observations and the model
Results obtained for WMAP dataNorthwestern Quadrant (NWQ) Northeastern Quadrant (NEQ)
Southeastern Quadrant (SEQ)Southwestern Quadrant (SWQ)
Planck first released mask ❖ Available sky fraction (mask-rulerminimal) = 83.65%
Comparing WMAP and Planck first data release
Statistics for Planck1
∑=
=binsN
ii
bins
fN 1
21σ
Mean value for the simulations
Value for the Planck map
SMICA1
❖ The excess of power in the SEQ occurs in 19.3% of the MC simulations and the lack of power in the NEQ occurs with a only 0.5% chance considering the LCDM model
❖ The probability that the asymmetry SEQ/NEQ found in the data happen in the simulations is of 0.8%
Planck 2015 data release (SMICA2)
❖ The excess of power found in the CMB SEQ occurs in 27.1% of the MC simulations and the lack of power in the NEQ occurs with a only 0.6% chance considering the LCDM model
❖ The probability that the asymmetry SEQ/NEQ found in the data happen in the simulations is of 1.4%
❖ The new result is consistent with previous ones
What are these anomalies?❖ Are there any explanations for these anomalies?
❖ Could we still think about systematics?
❖ Maybe foregrounds?
❖ New physics?
❖ Are they statistically independent or do they have a common origin?
❖ Are they actually even statistically significant?
Quadrant asymmetry and the low quadrupole amplitude
❖ We generated simulations with a modified LCDM seed power spectrum assuming C2 = C2WMAP and C3 = C3WMAP
❖ The probability that the asymmetry SEQ/NEQ found in the data happen in this new set of simulations was calculated in approximately 3%
❖ We conclude that it is unlikely that the quadrant asymmetry is related to the low quadrupole amplitude
Quadrant asymmetry and the cold spot
R = 50 R = 100
R = 150
Masking the cold spot
❖ The excess of power in the SEQ is not due to the presence of the cold spot
Rotating the axis with respect to z direction
Anti-clockwise rotation performed in the SEQ
Clockwise rotation performed in the SEQ
❖ The TPCF reaches its highest value for a 5-degree clockwise rotation
❖ Its value increases 3% in comparison to the previous chosen SEQ quadrant
❖ The excess of power on the TPCF starts to decrease as we rotate the sky above 10 degrees
❖ The rotations in the anti-clockwise direction show a more evident dissipation of the excess of power as the rotation angle increases
σ
Foregrounds: testing different sky cuts
❖ A more severe mask (U73): fsky = 74.83
Results
❖ Overall results seem consistent with the ones previously found using WMAP masks and Planck mask-rulerminimal
❖ We can still see an excess of power in the SEQ for CMB observations
❖ The lack of power in the NEQ CMB observations is still there
The new Planck mask
❖ Planck 2015 mask UT78: fsky = 78.67
Unexpected results using UT78
Consistency check with other 2015 CMB Planck maps
❖ The excess of power in the SEQ becomes bigger and more anomalous, decreasing its probability to occur in the LCDM model to 10.9%
❖ On the other hand, using UT78 mask, the NEQ is no longer anomalous.
❖ Can we considere UT78 a good mask? It is in opposition with all the other tested masks.
Mask-rulerminimal+UT78❖ Consistent results with mask-rulerminimal alone and U73
alone
❖ fsky = 74.6
❖ We combined UT78 with the other masks, calculated the TPCF for each resulting quadrant and its correspondent value
❖ The new results are in agreement with the previous ones using mask-rulerminimal and U73 alone
❖ The lack of correlation in the NEQ is still present for the combined masks
Performing some more tests
❖ Calculating the histograms in the regions of CMB map which is covered by the other masks and uncovered ny UT78
UT78-mask-rulerminimal UT78-U73
❖ We calculated the statistics of the histograms (kurtosis and skewness) for each quadrant
❖ We found that the value for the kurtosis in the NEQ in these regions is always above 3 for the data and in average not bigger than 2.42 for the simulations
❖ We found a particularly high kurtosis for the case UT78-U73: 4.94
❖ We did not find any simulated map among 1000 with such value of kurtosis in the same region of the sky
❖ The results suggests that UT78 leaves residual foregrounds in the data unmasked, if so, being unsuitable for cosmological analysis
Is the power asymmetry dependent of our previous choice of quadrants?
❖ We considered circular regions in CMB map as well as in simulations
❖ We tested different radius for each choose region
❖ For a direct comparison with the previously chosen quadrants (in number of pixels), we restricted ourselves to radius that run from from 60 to 80 degrees.
φ,θ( ) = 270!,135!( ) φ,θ( ) = 270!, 45!( )
φ,θ( ) = 225!, 45!( )
❖ We found that the biggest excess of power falls in the region centered at and radius of 80 degrees
❖ We found significant lack of power for regions centered at and for radius 60 and 70 degrees, respectively.
❖ Both the excess of power and the lack of power shown above have low probability to occur in the simulations (between 1% and 5%).
φ,θ( ) = 270!,135!( )
φ,θ( ) = 270!, 45!( ) φ,θ( ) = 225!, 45!( )
❖ These results are in agreement with the previous ones when we divided the sky in quadrants
❖ Finally, as expected, we concluded by choosing different regions in the CMB sky that the power asymmetry is not dependent of our previous choice of quadrants
So, what is the explanation?❖ Attempt to explain these features in terms of systematics or
emission of local astrophysical sources have not been successful.
❖ Some phenomenological models have been suggested to account for the observations
❖ So far, they don’t provide a complete and satisfactory explanations for the so called anomalies in the CMB temperature distribution
Thank you!