[astro-ph/0703470] Anomalous SZ Contribution to 3 Year WMAP
Posted: April 11 2007
Yet another paper for the perusal of LCDM cosmologists.
Comments?
The cosmo coffee is turning quite bitter - I need more sugar!
I am alarmed by their Fig. 4b, which indicates that along the directions
to 38 of the richest clusters of the Universe WMAP detected absolutely
no SZ effect. (note the data shown are from the W band, which has the
cleanest CMB signals and the best point spread function). This is much worse
than what we originally found, which was to do with a slightly lower z sample.
So, one could blame it to the higher z of the 38-member sample, but hav'nt we
been hearing all that song and dance about how SZE is insensitive to z? What
happened to them?
Another really fascinating point is in their Fig. 5 upper panels, where the authors
further divided our lower z sample according as 20<b<40 and b>40 deg, with b=Galactic
latitude. The absence of SZE in WMAP is much more severe in the former sub-sample.
Isn't this corroborating what Verschuur and Rudnick et al are telling us (see my
two earlier postings), viz. that significant foreground effects still exist on small scales -
scales that affect SZE and acoustic peaks? Note that 20<b<40 is not a low
latitude zone. It is a zone that stays well outside the Galactic disk, where cosmological
inferences were made from WMAP observations.
Comments?
The cosmo coffee is turning quite bitter - I need more sugar!
I am alarmed by their Fig. 4b, which indicates that along the directions
to 38 of the richest clusters of the Universe WMAP detected absolutely
no SZ effect. (note the data shown are from the W band, which has the
cleanest CMB signals and the best point spread function). This is much worse
than what we originally found, which was to do with a slightly lower z sample.
So, one could blame it to the higher z of the 38-member sample, but hav'nt we
been hearing all that song and dance about how SZE is insensitive to z? What
happened to them?
Another really fascinating point is in their Fig. 5 upper panels, where the authors
further divided our lower z sample according as 20<b<40 and b>40 deg, with b=Galactic
latitude. The absence of SZE in WMAP is much more severe in the former sub-sample.
Isn't this corroborating what Verschuur and Rudnick et al are telling us (see my
two earlier postings), viz. that significant foreground effects still exist on small scales -
scales that affect SZE and acoustic peaks? Note that 20<b<40 is not a low
latitude zone. It is a zone that stays well outside the Galactic disk, where cosmological
inferences were made from WMAP observations.