CMB Angular Power Spectra and Cosmological Implications

154 Pages·2006·4.94 MB·English

CMB Angular Power Spectra and Cosmological
Implications from the 2003 LDB Flight of the
BOOMERANG Telescope
by
Carolyn Judith MacTavish
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Physics
University of Toronto
Copyright c June 2006 by Carolyn Judith MacTavish
(cid:13)
Abstract
CMB Angular Power Spectra and Cosmological Implications from the 2003 LDB Flight
of the BOOMERANG Telescope
Carolyn Judith MacTavish
Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Physics
University of Toronto
June 2006
In January 2003 the BOOMERANG telescope completed a second successful flight
over theAntarcticcontinent. Inthisthesis anoverview oftheBOOMERANGinstrument
is given, with emphasis on the pointing system. The analysis of the BOOMERANG 2003
(B03) flight data from Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) maps to angular power
spectra is also described. The final B03 temperature angular power spectrum represents
the most precise intermediate scale measurement of CMB temperature anisotropy to
date. The final polarization power spectrum represents a 5σ detection in the ℓ = 100
∼
to ℓ = 1000 multipole range. The Polarization Sensitive Bolometers (PSBs) used in B03
are the first of their kind and will be used in the High Frequency Instrument (HFI) on
the Planck Surveyor satellite. The successful B03 CMB anisotropy measurements using
PSBs represents a critical first step for the Planck satellite mission.
The B03 data alone constrains the parameters of the standard ΛCDM model–a Uni-
verseinwhichColdDarkMatterandacosmologicalconstant, Λ,arethedominantenergy
components–remarkably well and is consistent with constraints from a multi-experiment
combined CMB data set (hereafter CMBall). Several extensions to the standard model
are tested using both the CMBall data set and a combined CMBall + Large Scale Struc-
ture (LSS) data set. The resulting constraints from the CMBall+LSS data set, represent-
ing the most up-to-date parameter analysis, are: slight evidence (both < 2σ) for a run-
ii
ning index and curvature; an upper (95% confidence) limit on the tensor-to-scalar ratio
of A /A < 0.36; an upper (95% confidence) limit on the neutrino mass of m < 0.40eV
t s ν
m < 0.4eV (m < 1.0eV fromCMBdataalone); and, after addingthesupernova (SNIa)
ν ν
data, a constraint on the dark energy equation of state of w = 0.94+0.093 (68% confi-
− −0.097
dence interval). Also included is an analysis of the CMBall + HST (H value determined
0
from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project) constraints to a model which includes a
CDM isocurvature mixture. The resulting allowed isocurvature CMB bandpower con-
tamination is only a few percent.
iii
For Mom and Dad
iv
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the entire BOOMERANG Antarctic field team for being part of the expe-
rience of a lifetime; particularly to Barth Netterfield, Francesco Piacentini, Ted Kisner,
Bill Jones, Enzo Pascale, Tom Montroy and Brendan Crill. It was an honour to work
with Brendan Crill, Tom Montroy, Carlo Contaldi and Bill Jones during the long, hard
years of data analysis. Thanks to my theorist friends Carlo Contaldi, Antony Lewis
and Dick Bond for their patience and guidance in parameter estimation. Thanks to my
committee members, Kim Strong and Norm Murray, for their positive feedback and ac-
cessibility. Finally, thanks especially to Barth Netterfield for his continuous support on
all matters, both large and small, throughout my degree. Every graduate student should
be so lucky as to have a supervisor with such boundless enthusiasm, limitless knowledge
and an ability to both challenge and inspire.
This thesis wouldn’t have been possible without the support of my family and friends.
Thanks especially to Jen Cutts, Heather MacLeod, Randy Ray, Tammy Grime, Jen
Egsgard, Nicole Fram, Rebecca Kohler and A.K. Cowdy. Thanks to the all the fabulous
ladies of the book club and to my improv buddies. Thanks most of all to my family:
to Matt for climbing the walls with me and for being such a good listener; to Alli for
reminding me that I am a sun worshiper and that there is a whole world out there; to
Mom for her infinite wisdom and endless supply of kind words; and to Dad for inspiring
me to do this in the first place.
v
BOOMERANG Collaboration
Case Western Reserve University J. Ruhl, T. Kisner, E. Torbet, T. Montroy
Universita’ di Roma La Sapienza P. de Bernardis, S. Masi, F. Piacentini,
A. Iacoangeli, G. De Troia, A. Melchiorri G. Polenta, S. Ricciardi, F. Nati,
P. Santini, M. Veneziani
California Institute of Technology A. Lange, W. Jones, V. Hristov
University of Toronto B. Netterfield, C. MacTavish, E. Pascale
Cardiff University P. Ade, P. Mauskopf
IROE Andrea Boscaleri
ING G. Romeo, G. di Stefano
JPL J. Bock
IPAC E. Hivon, B. Crill
CITA D. Bond, A. M. Lewis
LBNL, UC Berkeley J. Borrill
Imperial College A. Jaffe, C. Contaldi
Institut d’Astrophysique S. Prunet
University of Alberta D. Pogosyan
Universita’ di Roma Tor Vergata N. Vittorio, G. de Gasperis, P. Natoli, A. Balbi,
P. Cabella
MIT M. Tegmark, A. de Oliveira-Costa
vi
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Big Bang Theory 8
2.1 The Zeroth Order Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Generating Anisotropies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.1 Initial conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.2 The Angular Power Spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3 Outstanding Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3 The Instrument 27
3.1 The Telescope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2 The Receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.2.1 The Focal Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.2.2 The Detectors and Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2.3 Detector Readout Electronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.3 The Cryostat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.4 The Attitude Control System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.4.1 The Star Camera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4 The LDB Flight 44
4.1 Altitude and Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
vii
4.2 Ballast Drop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.3 Sky Brightness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.4 Flight Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.4.1 Cryostat and Receiver Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.4.2 ACS Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5 Instrument Characterization 58
5.1 Pointing Sensor Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.2 Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.3 Time Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.4 Calibration and Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.5 Polarization Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6 The CMB Pipeline: From Raw Data to Power Spectra 67
6.1 Bolometer Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2 Pointing Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.2.1 Cleaned, Calibrated and Derived Pointing Data . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.2.2 Determination of Absolute Gondola Attitude . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.3 Making I, Q and U Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.4 Constructing a Noise Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.5 Making Power Spectra out of CMB Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.5.1 The Monte Carlo Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.6 The B03 CMB Spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6.6.1 Instrumental Systematics Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6.6.2 Foregrounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7 Cosmological Parameters B03 101
7.1 Data Products and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
7.1.1 Summary of B03 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
viii
7.1.2 Parameter Estimation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7.2 Data Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.2.1 The CMB Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.2.2 The Large Scale Structure Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.2.3 Other Data Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7.3 Adiabatic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.3.1 Baseline Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.3.2 Modified Standard Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
7.4 Sub-dominant Isocurvature Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
8 Conclusions 129
Bibliography 132
ix
List of Tables
5.1 Pointing Alignment Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.2 Physical Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.3 Calibration and Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.4 Polarization Properties for B03 Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.1 Table of B03 Bandpowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.2 B03 Jackknife Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.1 Multipole Range of B03 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
7.2 The Weak Priors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
7.3 The CMBall Data Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
7.4 Parameter Constraints for the Baseline Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.5 Parameter Constraints for Five Modifications of the Baseline Model . . . 124
7.6 Parameter Constraints for an Adiabatic+Isocurvature Model . . . . . . . 128
x