4.6 Article

THE BARYON ACOUSTIC OSCILLATION BROADBAND AND BROAD-BEAM ARRAY: DESIGN OVERVIEW AND SENSITIVITY FORECASTS

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 145, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/3/65

关键词

cosmological parameters; distance scale; instrumentation: interferometers; large-scale structure of universe; techniques: interferometric

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work describes a new instrument optimized for a detection of the neutral hydrogen 21 cm power spectrum between redshifts of 0.5 and 1.5: the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Broadband and Broad-beam (BAOBAB) array. BAOBAB will build on the efforts of a first generation of 21 cm experiments that are targeting a detection of the signal from the Epoch of Reionization at z similar to 10. At z similar to 1, the emission from neutral hydrogen in self-shielded overdense halos also presents an accessible signal, since the dominant, synchrotron foreground emission is considerably fainter than at redshift 10. The principle science driver for these observations are baryon acoustic oscillations in the matter power spectrum which have the potential to act as a standard ruler and constrain the nature of dark energy. BAOBAB will fully correlate dual-polarization antenna tiles over the 600-900 MHz band with a frequency resolution of 300 kHz and a system temperature of 50 K. The number of antennas will grow in staged deployments, and reconfigurations of the array will allow for both traditional imaging and high power spectrum sensitivity operations. We present calculations of the power spectrum sensitivity for various array sizes, with a 35 element array measuring the cosmic neutral hydrogen fraction as a function of redshift, and a 132 element system detecting the BAO features in the power spectrum, yielding a 1.8% error on the z similar to 1 distance scale, and, in turn, significant improvements to constraints on the dark energy equation of state over an unprecedented range of redshifts from similar to 0.5 to 1.5.

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