4.7 Article

MEASURING THE REDSHIFT DEPENDENCE OF THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND MONOPOLE TEMPERATURE WITH PLANCK DATA

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 757, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/144

关键词

cosmic background radiation; cosmology: observations; cosmology: theory

资金

  1. FCT/MICINN [AIC10-D-000443]
  2. FCT, Portugal [PTDC/FIS/111725/2009]
  3. Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia, Spain [FIS2009-07238, CSD 2007-00050]
  4. Ciencia Research Contract
  5. FCT/MCTES (Portugal)
  6. POPH/FSE (EC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study the capability of Planck data to constrain deviations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) blackbody temperature from adiabatic evolution using the thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich anisotropy induced by clusters of galaxies. We consider two types of data sets depending on how the cosmological signal is removed: using a CMB template or using the 217 GHz map. We apply two different statistical estimators, based on the ratio of temperature anisotropies at two different frequencies and on a fit to the spectral variation of the cluster signal with frequency. The ratio method is biased if CMB residuals with amplitude similar to 1 mu K or larger are present in the data, while residuals are not so critical for the fit method. To test for systematics, we construct a template from clusters drawn from a hydro-simulation included in the pre-launch Planck Sky Model. We demonstrate that, using a proprietary catalog of X-ray-selected clusters with measured redshifts, electron densities, and X-ray temperatures, we can constrain deviations of adiabatic evolution, measured by the parameter alpha in the redshift scaling T(z) = T-0(1 + z)(1-alpha), with an accuracy of sigma(alpha) = 0.011 in the most optimal case and with sigma(alpha) = 0.018 for a less optimal case. These results represent a factor of 2-3 improvement over similar measurements carried out using quasar spectral lines and a factor 6-20 with respect to earlier results using smaller cluster samples.

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