4.6 Article

Isotropic non-Gaussian gNL-like toy models that reproduce cosmic microwave background anomalies

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 626, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833698

关键词

cosmic background radiation; cosmology: observations; inflation

资金

  1. ASI Grant [2016-24-H.0]
  2. NASA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context. Based on recent observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), claims of statistical anomalies in the properties of the CMB fluctuations have been made. Although the statistical significance of the anomalies remains only at the similar to 2-3 sigma significance level, the fact that there are many different anomalies, several of which support a possible deviation from statistical isotropy, has motivated a search for models that provide a common mechanism to generate them. Aims. The goal of this paper is to investigate whether these anomalies could originate from non-Gaussian cosmological models, and to determine what properties these models should have. Methods. We present a simple isotropic, non-Gaussian class of toy models that can reproduce six of the most extensively studied anomalies. We compare the presence of anomalies found in simulated maps generated from the toy models and from a standard model with Gaussian fluctuations. Results. We show that the following anomalies, as found in the Planck data, commonly occur in the toy model maps: (1) large-scale hemispherical asymmetry (large-scale dipolar modulation), (2) small-scale hemispherical asymmetry (alignment of the spatial distribution of CMB power over all scales l = [2, 1500]), (3) a strongly non-Gaussian hot or cold spot, (4) a low power spectrum amplitude for l < 30, including specifically (5) a low quadrupole and an unusual alignment between the quadrupole and the octopole, and (6) parity asymmetry of the lowest multipoles. We note that this class of toy model resembles models of primordial non-Gaussianity characterised by strongly scale-dependent g(NL)-like trispectra.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据