Transcript Implication of the WMAP Data - University of California, Davis

Implication of the
WMAP Data For
Inflation
David Spergel
Princeton University
WMAP
A partnership between
NASA/GSFC and Princeton
Science Team:
NASA/GSFC
Chuck Bennett (PI)
Michael Greason
Bob Hill
Gary Hinshaw
Al Kogut
Michele Limon
Nils Odegard
Janet Weiland
Ed Wollack
Brown
UCLA
Greg Tucker
Ned Wright
UBC
Mark Halpern
Chicago
Stephan Meyer
Princeton
Chris Barnes
Norm Jarosik
Eiichiro Komatsu
Michael Nolta
Lyman Page
Hiranya Peiris
David Spergel
Licia Verde
Standard Cosmological Model
 GR
+ standard physics always valid
 Universe is flat (total density = critical
density)



Atoms 4%
Dark Matter 23%
Dark Energy (cosmological constant?) 72%
 Adiabatic,
scale invariant, Gaussian
Fluctuations (Harrison-Zeldovich-Peebles, Inflation)
It may be funny looking, but it works!
Features of Standard Model
 Early
universe radiation dominated, matter
domination at z ~2000
 Light element nucleosynthesis
 Recombination at z~1088
 Linear growth of structure--- galaxy form
through gravitational collapse
Temperature
85% of sky
cosmic variance
Best fit model
n=0.99
1 deg
s8 = 0.9
Wbh2 = 0.024
Wxh2 = 0.126
H0 = 72
t = 0.17
Temperaturepolarization
Consistent Cosmological Model

Consistent with BBN
estimate of baryon
density
 HST measurements of
expansion rate
 Stellar evolution
estimates of stellar ages
 Estimates of density
fluctuations




Gravitational lensing
Clusters
Large scale structure
Lyman a forest
P(k)
k
2dfGRS
LCDM Best Fit Parametrs

Weak evidence for running
spectral index

Need better Lyman a data
Beyond the Standard Model:
Dark Energy
-1.0
-1.0
CMB data consistent with other
data sets if w is near -1
(dark energy is a cosmological
constant)
-1.0
-1.0
Constraining Composition of Universe

Varying energy density in
relativistic species alters
evolution of CMB fluctuations:
1.6 < Nn < 8 (Hannested 2003;
Pierpaoli 2003)




Growth of structure constrains
neutrino mass mn < 0.23 eV
Dark matter must be nonbaryonic
Evidence for Dark Energy
independent of Supernovae
Rules out “standard CDM”
Testing Inflation

Universe is flat
Wtot = 1.02 +/- 0.02

No evidence for nonGaussianity
-58 < fNL < 134



Fluctuations are
adiabatic
Large scale TE
correlations
Fluctuations are nearly
scale invariant
What would make you abandon inflation?
-better model
-vector modes?
- non-flat universe
Probing Physics of Inflation

CMB data requires
spectral index near 1
and disfavors
significant tensor
contribution
Too Many Bumps and
Wiggles?


C2 = 1.09 (3% probability)
Need to include several systematic effects in error
budget



Lensing of CMB
Beam variations & asymmetries
1/f noise non-Gaussian contribution to 4pt
Too Little Large Scale Power?

Lack of large scale power




Seen in COBE but clearer
now
Is the universe finite?
Are we seeing a
characteristic scale?
Is it just chance?
More to
Come….
Quic kTime™ and a TIFF ( Uncompr es s ed) dec ompres sor ar e needed to s ee this pic ture.

WMAP has effectively no lifetime
limit
 Approved for 4 years of operation
 Improved TE + EE data will
significantly improve t
measurement
 More accurate 2nd and 3rd peaks
Calibrate ground-based high l
measurements
 Improvements in complementary
measurements (SDSS,
supernova[ACS, Carnegie,
NOAO])
0.30

0.20
t 0.10
0,00
0.90
0.95 1.00
ns
1.05 1.10
Future CMB Experiments
MAP (4 yr)
Planck
Altacama Cosmology Telescope
(100 sq deg 1.7’ Resolution)
Cosmology Now Has A Standard Model
 Basic
parameters are accurately
determined


Many can be measured using multiple
techniques
CMB best fit now consistent with other
measurements
 Mysteries
remain: dark matter, dark
energy, physics of inflation
 Data will continue to improve!