4.7 Article

QUANTIFYING DISCORDANCE IN THE 2015 PLANCK CMB SPECTRUM

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 818, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/132

关键词

cosmic background radiation; cosmological parameters; cosmology: observations

资金

  1. NASA [NNX14AF64G]
  2. Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR)
  3. ESA
  4. NASA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examine the internal consistency of the Planck 2015 cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature anisotropy power spectrum. We show that tension exists between cosmological constant cold dark matter (Lambda CDM) model parameters inferred from multipoles l < 1000 (roughly those accessible to Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe), and from l >= 1000, particularly the CDM density, Omega(c)h(2), which is discrepant at 2.5 sigma for a Planck -motivated prior on the optical depth, tau = 0.07 +/- 0.02. We find some parameter tensions to be larger than previously reported because of inaccuracy in the code used by the Planck Collaboration to generate model spectra. The Planck l >= 1000 constraints are also in tension with low-redshift data sets, including Planck's own measurement of the CMB lensing power spectrum (2.4 sigma), and the most precise baryon acoustic oscillation scale determination (2.5 sigma). The Hubble constant predicted by Planck from l >= 1000, H-0 = 64.1 +/- 1.7 km s(-1) Mpc(-1), disagrees with the most precise local distance ladder measurement of 73.0 +/- 2.4 km s(-1) Mpc(-1) at the 3.0 sigma level, while the Planck value from l < 1000, 69.7 +/- 1.7 km s(-1) Mpc(-1), is consistent within 1 sigma. A discrepancy between the Planck and South Pole Telescope high-multipole CMB spectra disfavors interpreting these tensions as evidence for new physics. We conclude that the parameters from the Planck high-multipole spectrum probably differ from the underlying values due to either an unlikely statistical fluctuation or unaccounted-for systematics persisting in the Planck data.

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

4.7
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