4.7 Article

Foregrounds and forecasts for the cosmic microwave background

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 530, Issue 1, Pages 133-165

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/308348

Keywords

cosmic microwave background; diffuse radiation; methods : numerical; polarization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

One of the main challenges facing upcoming cosmic microwave background (CMB) experiments will be to distinguish the cosmological signal from foreground contamination. We present a comprehensive treatment of this problem and study how foregrounds degrade the accuracy with which the Boomerang, MAP, and Planck experiments can measure cosmological parameters. Our foreground model includes not only the normalization, frequency dependence, and scale dependence for each physical component, but also variations in frequency dependence across the sky. When estimating how accurately cosmological parameters can be measured, we include the important complication that foreground model parameters (we use about 500) must be simultaneously measured from the data as well. Our results are quite encouraging: despite all these complications, precision measurements of most cosmological parameters are degraded by less than a factor of 2 for our main foreground model and by less than a factor of 5 in our most pessimistic scenario. Parameters measured though large-angle polarization signals suffer more degradation: up to 5 in the main model and 25 in the pessimistic case. The foregrounds that are potentially most damaging and therefore most in need of further study are vibrating dust emission and point sources, especially those in the radio frequencies. It is well known that E and B polarization contain valuable information about reionization and gravity waves, respectively. However, the crosscorrelation between polarized and unpolarized foregrounds also deserves further study, as we find that it carries the bulk of the polarization information about most other cosmological parameters.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available