| Authors: | C. L. Reichardt, P. A. R. Ade, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. A. Brevik, C. R. Contaldi, M. D. Daub, J. T. Dempsey, J. H. Goldstein, W. L. Holzapfel, C. L. Kuo, A. E. Lange, M. Lueker, M. Newcomb, J. B. Peterson, J. Ruhl, M. C. Runyan, Z. Sta |
| Abstract: | In this paper, we present results from the complete set of cosmic microwave
background (CMB) radiation temperature anisotropy observations made with the
Arcminute Cosmology Bolometer Array Receiver (ACBAR) operating at 150 GHz. We
include new data from the final 2005 observing season, expanding the number of
detector-hours by 210% and the sky coverage by 490% over that used for the
previous ACBAR release. As a result, the band-power uncertainties have been
reduced by more than a factor of two on angular scales encompassing the third
to fifth acoustic peaks as well as the damping tail of the CMB power spectrum.
The calibration uncertainty has been reduced from 6% to 2.2% in temperature
through a direct comparison of the CMB anisotropy measured by ACBAR with that
of the dipole-calibrated WMAP3 experiment. The measured power spectrum is
consistent with a spatially flat, LambdaCDM cosmological model. We see evidence
for weak gravitational lensing of the CMB at >3-sigma significance by comparing
the likelihood for the best-fit lensed/unlensed models to the ACBAR+WMAP3 data.
On fine angular scales, there is weak evidence (1.7 sigma) for excess power
above the level expected from primary anisotropies. The source of this power
cannot be constrained by the ACBAR 150 GHz observations alone; however, if it
is the same signal seen at 30 GHz by the CBI and BIMA experiments, then it has
a spectrum consistent with the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. |
|
[PDF]
[PS] [BibTex] [Bookmark]
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alessandro Melchiorri
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 110
Affiliation: University of Rome
|
 Posted: January 11 2008 |
 |
|
Hi all,
The new results from ACBAR are impressive.
However I have some doubts on the following sentence:
"We see evidence for weak gravitational lensing of the CMB at >3-sigma significance by comparing the likelihood for the best-fit lensed/unlensed models to the ACBAR+WMAP3 data.".
How you can claim any evidence for weak lensing by just comparing the best fits ?
The "true" model can be 2 sigma away from the best fit in both cases...
I don't understand...
cheers
Alessandro |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Antony Lewis
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 512
Affiliation: University of Sussex
|
| Posted: January 12 2008 |
|
|
| I agree. What I would do is introduce a new parameter AL that scales the lensing potential, and plot the posterior constraint on AL. So AL=0 correspond to unlensed, AL=1 is the expected lensed result. The ratio of the marginalized posterior curve at 1 and 0 gives you the posterior odds for lensing. But you can also look at the curve, and if it peaks at AL=10 then you should be a bit worried. [I did this with old WMAP3+ data, the peak was away from zero, but consistent with both zero and one - great ACBAR is now giving something interesting!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
SmartFeed
Register
Profile
Log in
![[ Hidden ]](templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif "[ Hidden ]"){kind=icon}