1: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \shorttitle{Peaks in the CMB}
5: \shortauthors{Netterfield et al}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{A measurement by BOOMERANG of multiple peaks in the angular power
10: spectrum of the cosmic microwave background}
11:
12:
13: \author{
14: C.B.~Netterfield\altaffilmark{1},
15: P.A.R.~Ade\altaffilmark{2},
16: J.J.~Bock\altaffilmark{3},
17: J.R.~Bond\altaffilmark{4},
18: J.~Borrill\altaffilmark{5},
19: A.~Boscaleri\altaffilmark{6},
20: K.~Coble\altaffilmark{7},
21: C.R.~Contaldi\altaffilmark{4},
22: B.P.~Crill\altaffilmark{8},
23: P.~de Bernardis\altaffilmark{9},
24: P.~Farese\altaffilmark{7},
25: K.~Ganga\altaffilmark{10},
26: M.~Giacometti\altaffilmark{9},
27: E.~Hivon\altaffilmark{10},
28: V.V.~Hristov\altaffilmark{8},
29: A.~Iacoangeli\altaffilmark{9},
30: A.H.~Jaffe\altaffilmark{11},
31: W.C.~Jones\altaffilmark{8},
32: A.E.~Lange\altaffilmark{8},
33: L.~Martinis\altaffilmark{9},
34: S.~Masi\altaffilmark{9},
35: P.~Mason\altaffilmark{8},
36: P.D.~Mauskopf\altaffilmark{12},
37: A.~Melchiorri\altaffilmark{13},
38: T.~Montroy\altaffilmark{7},
39: E.~Pascale\altaffilmark{6},
40: F.~Piacentini\altaffilmark{9},
41: D.~Pogosyan\altaffilmark{4},
42: F.~Pongetti\altaffilmark{9},
43: S.~Prunet\altaffilmark{4},
44: G.~Romeo\altaffilmark{14},
45: J.E.~Ruhl\altaffilmark{7},
46: F.~Scaramuzzi\altaffilmark{9}
47: }
48:
49: \affil{
50: $^{1}$ Depts. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Toronto, Canada \\
51: $^{2}$ Queen Mary and Westfield College, London, UK \\
52: $^{3}$ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, USA \\
53: $^{4}$ Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics,
54: University of Toronto, Canada \\
55: $^{5}$ National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center,
56: LBNL, Berkeley, CA, USA \\
57: $^{6}$ IROE-CNR, Firenze, Italy \\
58: $^{7}$ Dept. of Physics, Univ. of California,
59: Santa Barbara, CA, USA \\
60: $^{8}$ California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA \\
61: $^{9}$ Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita' La Sapienza,
62: Roma, Italy \\
63: $^{10}$ IPAC, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA \\
64: $^{11}$ Department of Astronomy, Space Sciences Lab and
65: Center for Particle Astrophysics, \\
66: University of CA, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA\\
67: $^{12}$ Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University,
68: Cardiff CF24 3YB, Wales, UK \\
69: $^{13}$ Nuclear and Astrophysics Laboratory, University of Oxford,
70: Keble Road, Oxford, OX 3RH, UK\\
71: $^{14}$ Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica, Roma,~Italy \\
72: }
73:
74: \begin{abstract}
75: This paper presents a measurement of the angular power spectrum of the
76: Cosmic Microwave Background from $\ell=75$ to $\ell=1025$ ($\sim 10'$ to
77: $2.4^o$) from a combined analysis of four 150 GHz channels in the
78: BOOMERANG experiment. The spectrum contains multiple peaks and minima,
79: as predicted by standard adiabatic-inflationary models in which the
80: primordial plasma undergoes acoustic oscillations. These results, in
81: concert with other types of cosmological measurements and theoretical
82: models, significantly constrain the values of $\Omega_{\rm tot}$,
83: $\Omega_{b}h^2$, $\Omega_{c}h^2$ and $n_s$.
84: \end{abstract}
85: \keywords{Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy, Cosmology}
86:
87:
88: \section{Introduction}
89:
90: The presence of a harmonic series of ``acoustic'' peaks in the angular
91: power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) was predicted
92: as early as 1970 \citep{SZ70,Peb70}. These
93: peaks arise due to the evolution of pressure waves in the pre-recombination
94: universe and are a generic feature \citep{Bon87} of most, but not all, cosmological
95: models (e.g., \citet{Hu1997}). Specifically, a well-defined set of peaks
96: is predicted for both adiabatic and some classes of isocurvature models
97: of structure formation, but not for models that rely on topological
98: defects.
99:
100: Since the COBE measurement of the amplitude of fluctuations in the
101: cosmic microwave background at the largest scales \citep{bennet}, a
102: large literature has developed which predicts, in the context of
103: adiabatic cold dark matter (CDM) models, the relative position and
104: amplitude of these peaks for different values of the fundamental
105: cosmological parameters. A general prediction of these models is the
106: presence of a dominant fundamental peak at an angular scale $\approx
107: 1^o$ ($\ell\approx 200$), decreasing in angular scale when $\Omega$
108: decreases. Data from a variety of experiments
109: \citep{Mil99, Maus2000, Hana2000} including a small fraction of the data
110: from the BOOMERANG 1998/1999 Long Duration
111: Ballooning (BOOM/LDB) campaign (\citet{debe2000}; B00 hereafter) clearly
112: show this feature and provide strong evidence for a low curvature
113: universe, a generic prediction of many inflation models.
114:
115: There is also convincing evidence that the broad-band average of power
116: at smaller angular scales gradually declines in a manner consistent with
117: adiabatic CDM models \citep{Pad01, church}. However, these experiments
118: do not have the necessary combination of sensitivity and sky coverage to
119: convincingly detect or reject the presence of harmonics of the
120: fundamental peak in the power spectrum. The detection of such harmonic
121: peaks would provide strong evidence
122: that the scenario of structure formation from acoustic oscillations in
123: the primordial plasma is accurate.
124:
125: Present here is an analysis of a larger set of data than previously
126: released from the BOOM/LDB \citep{debe2000} experiment which shows clear
127: evidence of multiple peaks in the angular power spectrum of the CMB.
128: Data from four separate detectors that each observe 1.8\% of the sky are
129: combined. A new data analysis algorithm is used and refined estimates
130: of the beam shape and overall experimental calibration are presented.
131: The spectrum is consistent with low spatial curvature,
132: $\Lambda$-dominated adiabatic CDM models.
133:
134: \section{Instrument}
135:
136: BOOMERANG is a Long Duration Balloon (LDB) experiment designed to
137: measure the angular power spectrum of the CMB at degree and sub-degree
138: scales. For a complete description of the instrument see
139: \citet{Cril2001} and \citet{Piac2001}.
140: Instrument characteristics are summarized in
141: Table~\ref{table_inst}.
142:
143: %-------------------------------
144: % INSERT table_inst HERE
145: %-------------------------------
146:
147: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
148: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
149:
150: \tablecaption{Instrument Characteristics. \label{table_inst}}
151: \tablewidth{0pt}
152:
153: \tablehead{
154: \colhead{Channel} & \colhead{Band (GHz)} &
155: \colhead{$NET_{CMB}$ ($\mu K \sqrt{s}$)} & \colhead{Beam FWHM (')} }
156:
157: \startdata
158: B150A & 148.0 - 171.4 & $130$ & $9.2\pm 0.5$\\
159: B150B & 145.8 - 168.6 & Variable & $9.2\pm 0.5$\\
160: B150A1 & 145.5 - 167.3 & $231$ & $9.7\pm 0.5$\\
161: B150A2 & 144.0 - 167.2 & $158$ & $9.4\pm 0.5$\\
162: B150B1 & 144.2 - 165.9 & $196$ & $9.9\pm 0.5$\\
163: B150B2 & 143.7 - 164.3 & $184$ & $9.5\pm 0.5$\\
164: \tableline
165: 90 (2 Chs) & 79 - 95 & $140$ & $18\pm 1 $\\
166: 240 (3 chs) & 228 - 266 & $200$ & $14.1\pm 1$\\
167: 410 (4 chs) & 400 - 419 & $\sim 2700$ & $12.1\pm 1$\\
168: \enddata
169:
170: \tablecomments{Summary of relevant instrument characteristics. Only
171: results from the 150GHz channels are presented in this paper. B150B
172: is not used due to non-stationary detector noise. The bandwidth limits
173: are computed to include 68\% of the total detected power for a flat
174: spectrum source. The NET is computed at 1Hz.}
175: \end{deluxetable}
176:
177: BOOMERANG was launched for its first LDB flight on December 29, 1998
178: from McMurdo station, Antarctica, and acquired 257 hours of data from an
179: altitude of $\approx39$km. BOOMERANG is comprised of a 1.2m off axis
180: parabolic mirror which feeds a cryogenic mm-wave bolometric receiver.
181: Observations are made simultaneously in four unpolarized bands centered
182: at 90 GHz, 150 GHz, 240 GHz and 410GHz.
183:
184: The telescope is steerable in azimuth by moving the entire gondola, and
185: in elevation by moving an inner frame containing both the receiver and
186: the optics. The illumination of the optics is not modulated by the
187: scan, which minimizes scan synchronous optically generated offsets.
188: Extensive shielding permits observations in the azimuth range $\pm 60^o$
189: from the anti-sun direction, for all sun elevations experienced in the
190: antarctic ballooning environment.
191:
192: \section{Observations and Calibration}
193:
194: Observations are made by scanning the telescope in azimuth by $60^o$
195: peak-to-peak at an angular velocity of $2 ^o/{\rm s}$ (hereafter 2dps)
196: (for the first half of the flight) or $1^o/{\rm s}$ (hereafter 1dps)
197: (for the second half of the flight) at fixed elevation. Each day, the
198: elevation is shifted. Observations are made at elevations of $40 ^o$,
199: $45 ^o$, and $50 ^o$. The scans are centered well away from the
200: Galactic plane. Interspersed in the CMB observations are observations
201: of selected point sources near the Galactic plane. The CMB sky coverage
202: is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:coverage}.
203:
204: %-------------------------------
205: % INSERT fig:coverage HERE
206: %------------------------------
207:
208: \begin{figure}[tbhp]
209: \epsscale{0.7} \plotone{f1.eps}
210: \caption{Sky coverage. The upper panel shows the BOOMERANG 150GHz
211: map. The locations of the three bright quasars are circled. The sky
212: subset used in B00 (rectangle) and this paper (ellipse) are shown.
213: The bottom panel shows the integration time/pixel. The ellipse for
214: this analysis was chosen to include the well sampled sky, and to avoid
215: the poorly sampled sky} \label{fig:coverage}
216: \end{figure}
217:
218:
219: The results in this paper contain data from the entire BOOM/LDB flight (as
220: compared to the second half only in B00)
221: and incorporate data from 4 150 GHz channels (as opposed to 1
222: for B00). This was enabled by using the new data analysis techniques
223: described in Section~\ref{sec:DataAnalysis} and in \citet{Hivo2001}.
224: In addition, the most significant source of systematic uncertainty at
225: multipoles, $\ell>400$ is the effective beam size (dominated by pointing
226: uncertainties). Since the release of B00, the understanding of the
227: beam and pointing has been significantly improved, allowing computation
228: of the power spectrum out to higher multipoles.
229:
230: Observations of extra Galactic sources in the main map and scanned
231: observations of bright HII regions near the Galactic plane are used to
232: estimate the beam full width half maxima (FWHM) for each channel. These
233: values are presented in Table \ref{table_inst}. While these
234: observations provide good statistics on the width of the main lobe, the
235: signal to noise of these data are not sufficient to fully characterize
236: the near sidelobe response and deviation from gaussianity of the beam.
237: To obtain a detailed model of the near sidelobe response of the
238: telescope, a physical optics calculation of the beam shape is performed
239: for each channel using the measured position of the horns in the focal
240: plane. To check the precision of the model calculations, a comparison
241: with near field beam maps is made. Azimuthal cuts through the telescope
242: beams are measured to the $\sim -20$ dB level. While the channels
243: utilizing conical feed horns compare well with the beam map data, a
244: $\sim 10\% $ discrepancy is observed between the calculated and measured
245: FWHM of the photometer beams. In all cases, the measured FWHM are
246: larger than the calculated beam size. This discrepancy is attributed to
247: the multi--moded nature of the Winston concentrators utilized by these
248: channels. For these channels the FWHM are scaled to fit the
249: measurements of RCW38. To correct for the extended nature of the source,
250: the angular extent of RCW38 was measured independently by the ACBAR
251: instrument to be $2.5'$ \citep{acbar}. The two dimensional far-field
252: radiation patterns from the physical optics calculation are then used to
253: generate the window functions for each channel.
254:
255: The telescope pointing is determined using a combination of
256: rate-gyros and an azimuth sun sensor. In order to recover the long time
257: scale pendulations, the gyroscopes are integrated with a 400s time
258: constant. Given the quoted noise in the gyroscopes of less than
259: $8'/\sqrt{hour}$, a pointing uncertainty of less than 2.7' ($1 \sigma$)
260: is predicted. The Galactic plane point source observations give a
261: pointing uncertainty of 2.5' ($1 \sigma$). In the analysis, the
262: calculated beam is convolved with the Gaussian approximation of the
263: pointing uncertainty.
264:
265: The pointing solution has been improved in this analysis (compared with
266: B00) by better use of the pitch and roll rate gyros, and the regression
267: of a thermally dependent offset in the elevation. A re-analysis of the
268: pointing jitter in the B00 pointing solution, utilizing the apparent
269: centroids of point sources along the Galactic plane yields an effective
270: beam size of $12.9 \pm 1.4'$, for the original pointing solution (as
271: compared to the quoted $10'\pm 1'$ used in B00). When the calibration
272: and beam uncertainties are taken into account, the new results lie, bin
273: by bin, within the overall uncertainty of the B00 spectrum, which was
274: restricted to $\ell$ </= 600. The B00 results are systematically lower
275: at high $\ell$ than those presented here, due to the smaller effective
276: beam that was assumed for the B00 analysis. However, it is reassuring
277: to note that correcting the B00 spectrum with the new estimate of the
278: B00 pointing jitter eliminates any residual discrepancy between the new
279: results and the B00 spectrum \citep{deb01}.
280:
281: The gain calibrations of the 150 GHz channels are obtained from
282: observations of the CMB dipole. The data are high-pass filtered with a
283: filter described by $F=0.5\left(1-\cos\left(\pi\nu\over
284: f_0\right)\right)$ for $0<\nu<f_0$ and 1 elsewhere. In order to retain
285: more large-scale information than is needed in the anisotropy analysis,
286: $f_0$ is set to the relatively low value of 0.01~Hz. To compare with
287: the data, we artificially sample the CMB dipole signal \citep{Line1996},
288: corrected for the Earth's velocity around the sun \citep{Stump1980},
289: according to the BOOMERANG scanning, and filter this fake time stream in
290: the same way as the data. The 1dps data is then fit simultaneously to
291: this filtered dipole, a similarly filtered dust emission model
292: \citep{Fink99}, an offset and the BOOMERANG 410 GHz data for all data
293: more than $20^o$ below the Galactic plane. The dipole calibration
294: numbers obtained with this fit are robust to changes in Galactic cut,
295: and to whether or not a dust model is included in the fit; this
296: indicates that dust is not a serious problem for the contamination. They
297: are insensitive to the inclusion of a 410 GHz channel in the fit,
298: which is a general indication that there is no problem with a wide range
299: of systematics such as atmospheric contamination, as these would be
300: traced by the 410 GHz data.
301:
302: Overall, the calibration of the spectrum has risen by 10\% in $C_l$ (5\%
303: in $\Delta T$) compared to B00 due to a refinement of the dipole calibration
304: (improved treatment of the time stream filters) and is further raised by a
305: better calculation of the beam sidelobes.
306:
307:
308: \section{Data Analysis} \label{sec:DataAnalysis}
309:
310: The data are analyzed in four basic steps: i) the reduction of the raw
311: data into pointed and flagged time streams, ii) the estimation of the
312: noise via an iterative map-making algorithm, iii) the estimation of the
313: angular power spectrum via Monte-Carlo calibrated spherical harmonic
314: transforms, and iv) estimation of parameters by likelihood methods. The
315: size and nature of the BOOMERANG data have required the development
316: of new techniques.
317:
318: In the reduction of the raw bolometer data, the filter response of the
319: detector and associated electronics is deconvolved from the time stream,
320: and transient phenomena (predominantly cosmic rays) are flagged and replaced in
321: the time stream with a constrained realization of the noise. Similarly,
322: the RA/Dec pointing for each channel is reconstructed from the rate
323: gyros, azimuth sun sensor angle, GPS co-ordinates of the package, and
324: the focal plane geometry. Details can be found in \citet{Cril2001}.
325:
326: The receiver noise for each channel is estimated from the raw time
327: stream by iteratively solving simultaneously for the detector noise
328: spectrum $n(f)$ and the maximum likelihood CMB map, $\Delta = (\bf {P}^\dagger
329: \bf {N}^{-1}\bf {P})^{-1}\bf {P}^\dagger \bf {N}^{-1} d$. The algorithm
330: used is an approximate Jacobi method:
331:
332:
333:
334: \vskip 0.5cm
335: \parbox[c]{8cm}{
336: {\bf loop on j}
337: \begin{itemize}
338: \item{$ \bf {n}^{(j)} = \bf{d} - \bf{P\tilde\Delta}^{(j)} \Rightarrow
339: \bf{N}^{(j)-1} =
340: \langle\bf{nn}^\dagger\rangle^{-1} $}
341: \item{$ \bf{\tilde\Delta}^{(j+1)} - \bf{\tilde\Delta}^{(j)} =
342: \left(\bf{P^\dagger P}\right)^{-1}\bf{P^\dagger}\bf{N}^{(j)-1}\bf{n}^{(j)}$}
343: \end{itemize}
344: {\bf end loop}}
345: \vskip 0.5cm
346:
347: where is $\bf {N}$ is the time-time correlation matrix, $\bf {P}$
348: is the pointing
349: matrix, $\bf {d}$ is the time-stream data, and $\bf {n}$ is the noise time
350: stream. If the noise is stationary, then $\bf {N}^{-1}$ is diagonal in
351: Fourier
352: space, and multiplication by $\bf {N}^{-1}$ is just a convolution. And
353: multiplication by $\left(\bf{P^\dagger P}\right)^{-1}\bf{P^\dagger}$ represents
354: binning into pixels and dividing by hits per pixel. For details see
355: \citet{Prun2000}. A complete map and noise spectra takes about 15
356: minutes on an alpha-ev67 computer.
357:
358: Two closely related estimators were used to recover the underlying CMB
359: power spectrum $C_{\ell}$ from the data. Both methods are based on the
360: Monte Carlo Spherical Harmonic Transform ({\sl MASTER}) technique described in
361: \cite{Hivo2001}. {\sl MASTER} allows fast and accurate determination
362: of $C_\ell$ {\em without} performing the extremely time
363: consuming matrix-matrix manipulations that characterize exact methods
364: and limit their applicability (\cite{Borr1999}). It can be
365: summarized as follows. The spherical harmonic transform of a naively
366: binned map of the sky is calculated using a fast ${\cal
367: O}(N_{pix}^{1/2}\ell)$
368: method based on the Healpix tessellation of the sphere
369: \citep{Gors1998}. The angular power in the noisy maps, $\tilde{C_{\ell}}$,
370: can
371: be related to the true angular power spectrum on the full sky,
372: $C_{\ell}$, by the effect of finite sky
373: coverage ($M_{\ell \ell'}$), time and spatial filtering of the maps
374: ($F_{\ell}$),
375: the finite beam size of the instrument ($B_{\ell}$), and instrument noise
376: (${N_{\ell}}$) as
377:
378: \begin{equation}
379: \left\langle \widetilde{C_{\ell}}\right\rangle =
380: \sum _{\ell'}M_{\ell\ell'}F_{\ell'}B_{\ell'}^{2}\left\langle
381: C_{\ell'}\right\rangle
382: + \sum _{\ell'}M_{\ell\ell'}F_{\ell'}\left\langle N_{\ell'}\right\rangle.
383: \label{eqn_cl}
384: \end{equation}
385:
386: The coupling matrix $M_{\ell \ell'}$ is computed analytically,
387: $B_{\ell}$ is determined by the measured beam, $F_{\ell}$
388: is determined from Monte-Carlo simulations of signal-only time streams,
389: and $N_{\ell}$ from noise-only simulations of the time streams.
390:
391: The simulated time streams are created using the actual flight pointing
392: and transient flagging. The signal component of the simulated time
393: streams is generated from simulated CMB maps and the noise component
394: from realizations of the measured detector noise $n(f)$. $F_{\ell}$
395: and $N_{\ell}$ are determined by averaging over $150$ and
396: $200$ realizations respectively. Once all of the components are known the
397: estimation is carried out in two ways.
398:
399: In the first case the power is determined by solving directly for the
400: unbiased estimator $C_{\ell}$ of eqn.~\ref{eqn_cl}. The uncertainties
401: in the estimated top-hat binned $C_{\ell}$ spectrum are measured by
402: averaging over ensembles (typically $400$ realizations) of signal+noise
403: simulations created using a best fit model power spectrum obtained from
404: the data. This allows one to calculate the quantities needed to
405: approximate the full likelihood function for the binned $C_{\ell}$,
406: using the formalism of
407: \cite{bjk00}.
408:
409: In the second case a suitable quadratic estimator of the {\em full sky}
410: spectrum in the {\em cut sky} variables ${\tilde C}_{\ell}$ together
411: with it's Fisher matrix is constructed via the coupling matrix $M_{\ell
412: \ell'}$ and the transfer function $F_{\ell}$ \citep{bjk98,b01}. The
413: underlying power is recovered through the iterative convergence of the
414: quadratic estimator onto the maximum likelihood value as in standard
415: Maximum Likelihood (ML) techniques. A great simplification and speed-up
416: is obtained due to the diagonality of all the quantities involved,
417: effectively avoiding the ${\cal O}(N^3)$ large matrix inversion problem
418: of the general ML method. The extension of the quadratic estimator
419: formalism to montecarlo techniques such as MASTER have the added
420: advantage that the Fisher matrix characterizing the uncertainty in the
421: estimator is recovered directly in the iterative solution and does not
422: rely on any potentially biased signal+noise simulation ensembles.
423:
424: The two procedures agree to within a few percent in the estimated values
425: with the quadratic estimator giving slightly more optimal errors (at the
426: $5\%$ level) over the sample variance limited range of the data. The
427: parameter extraction pipeline was run over results from both methods and
428: the two were found to agree to within the numerical accuracy of the
429: fits.
430:
431: The drawback of using naively binned maps in the pipeline is that the
432: aggressive time filtering completely suppresses the power in the maps
433: below a critical scale $\ell_c$ \cite{Hivo2001}. This results in one or
434: more bands in the power spectrum running over modes with no power and
435: which are thus unconstrainable. In pratice we deal with this by binning
436: the power so that all the degenerate modes lie within the first band
437: $2<\ell<50$ and regularize the power in the band at DMR power in the
438: likelihood analysis. The estimate in the second band $50\ge\ell<100$
439: will be correlated to this regularized value and as such may be also be
440: considered to be biased by a prior theoretical input. We therefore
441: discard the estimates in the first two bands thus avoiding any
442: correlation to the regularizing scheme used to constrain the power on
443: the largest scales.
444:
445: An area equivalent to $1.8\%$ of the sky was analysed. The region is
446: enclosed in an ellipse with $20$ and $12$ degree semi-axes centred at
447: $RA=85$ and $Dec=-46$. The data and simulations were pixelised with $7$
448: arcminute pixels (Healpix $N_{\rm side}=512$). The simulations were run at
449: an angular resolution up to $\ell=1300$.
450:
451: Inspection of the BOOMERANG maps shows faint stripes of nearly constant
452: declination, (hereafter ``isodec'' strips) which vary in amplitude and
453: phase between bolometer channels. The striping patterns vary on day
454: time scales, and are not reproduced in simulated maps made with the same
455: scan pattern and best estimated noise correlations from the time stream
456: data.
457:
458: To eliminate this contaminant, all modes with a small $k_{RA}$ (which
459: corresponds to isodec stripes) are removed with a Fourier filter. While
460: this clearly eliminates isodec stripes, it also filters out CMB signal.
461: This is accounted for by applying the same filter to the simulated maps
462: in the {\sl MASTER} procedure, so that the effects are included in the
463: determination of $F_{\ell}$. The removal of the stripes still permits
464: an unbiased estimate of the power spectrum of the sky, but does cause a
465: considerable increase in the uncertainties at large angular scales.
466:
467: The inclusion of several channels is achieved by averaging the maps
468: (both from the data, and from the Monte-Carlos of each channel)
469: before power spectrum estimation. Weighting in the addition is by
470: hits per pixel, and by
471: receiver noise at 1Hz. Each channel has a slightly different beam size,
472: which must be taken into account in the generation of the simulated
473: maps. Any inaccuracy in assuming a common $B_{\ell}$ in the angular
474: power spectrum estimation is then absorbed into $F_{\ell}$.
475:
476: The calculation of the full angular power spectrum and covariance matrix
477: for the four good 150 GHz channels of BOOMERANG (57103 pixels and
478: $\approx 216,000,000$ time samples) takes approximately 1 day running on
479: 8 AMD-athlon 800 MHz work stations.
480:
481: \section{Internal Consistency Tests}
482:
483: The BOOMERANG observing strategy allows for a rich set of internal
484: consistency checks, implemented as a variety of difference maps in which
485: the sky signal should cancel. The power spectra of these difference
486: maps are sensitive to improper characterization of the receiver noise,
487: and contamination not fixed to the celestial sphere. The precision of
488: these difference tests are much more powerful than a comparison of the
489: power spectra, since the sample variance contribution to the power
490: spectrum error bars is proportional to the signal found in each bin,
491: which is near zero for the difference maps. The results of these tests
492: are summarized in Table~\ref{table:chi2}.
493:
494: %----------------------------------------
495: % INSERT table:chi2 HERE
496: %----------------------------------------
497: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
498: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
499: \tablecaption{Internal Consistency Tests. \label{table:chi2}}
500: \tablewidth{0pt}
501: \tablehead{
502: \colhead{Test} & \colhead{Reduced $\chi^2$} & \colhead{$P_>$}
503: }
504: \startdata
505: B150A 1dps - 2dps & 0.91 & 0.57 \\
506: B150A1 1dps - 2dps & 0.92 & 0.56 \\
507: B150A2 1dps - 2dps & 1.04 & 0.41 \\
508: B150B1 1dps - 2dps & 2.73 & $7\times 10^{-5}$\\
509: B150B2 1dps - 2dps & 0.60 & 0.91 \\
510: 4 Ch 1dps - 2dps & 1.80 & 0.02 \\
511: 4 Ch Left - Right & 1.21 & 0.24 \\
512: (A+A1) - (A2+B2) & 0.61 & 0.90 \\
513: \enddata
514:
515: \tablecomments{Reduced $\chi^2$ with 19 degrees of freedom for internal
516: symmetry tests for BOOMERANG. $P_>$ gives the probability of obtaining a
517: $\chi^2$ larger than the one reported. B150B1 fails the test, and is not
518: used in the analysis. The '4 Ch' entries combine maps from B150A,
519: B150A1, B150A2, and B150B2. The 1dps-2dps 4 Ch spectrum fails
520: marginally. This is dominated by 4 bins centered between $l=150$ and
521: $l=300$. The mean signal of these 4 bins is $50\mu K^2$, compared to a
522: signal over the same range of
523: $\approx 4000\mu K^2$(see Table~\ref{table:spec}).}
524:
525: \end{deluxetable}
526:
527: The most powerful of these tests is to difference the map made from data
528: acquired while scanning at 2dps (the first half of the flight) from data
529: acquired while scanning at 1dps. (the second half of the flight). This
530: test is sensitive to solar and ground pickup, since between the center
531: of the 2dps data and the center of the 1dps data, the sun
532: moves $5^o$ on the sky, and the gondola has moved half way around the
533: continent between the time centroids of the two maps. The test is also
534: sensitive to errors in the deconvolution of the transfer
535: function of the time-domain signal, since the scan speed changes the
536: spatio-temporal mapping of the signals.
537:
538: This test is performed on each of the five 150 GHz channels
539: individually. Without filtering out the isodec modes as described
540: previously this test is failed. With the filtering, 4 of the 5 channels
541: pass, and 1 of the 5 channels (150B1) shows a small but statistically
542: significant signal. This channel is excluded from subsequent
543: analysis. The isodec removal is applied to all of the channels included
544: in the analysis.
545:
546: The 1st half - 2nd half difference test is also performed on maps with
547: the four channels combined. At $l < 300$, there is a statistically
548: significant residual in the difference map at the level of $50\mu K^2$.
549: Since the signal only appears in the combined channel 1dps - 2dps
550: analysis, this is consistent with a noise term which changes slowly on
551: the sky and is correlated between channels, such as atmosphere. At
552: these angular scales, the CMB signal is $\approx 4000\mu K^2$. Since
553: the residual signal is small compared to the CMB signal, its effects are
554: neglected.
555:
556: A test for artifacts specific to particular detectors is made by
557: differencing the map made from combining B150A and B150A1 with the
558: combination of B150A2 and B150B2, and a test for artifacts due to
559: scan-synchronous baselines is made by differencing maps using only the
560: left-going and right-going portions of the scans. There is no evidence
561: of any residual signal in either of these tests, which is again
562: consistent with a noise term that changes slowly on time scales
563: comparable to the scan time.
564:
565:
566: \section{Foregrounds}
567:
568: The comparison of the maps at the 4 different frequencies measured by
569: BOOMERANG is a powerful tool to test for contamination from foregrounds
570: at 150 GHz. At the resolution frequencies probed by BOOMERANG, thermal
571: emission from interstellar dust grains is expected to be the most
572: important foreground (see e.g. \citet{Tegm00}). \citet{Mas01}
573: probes the level of dust in the BOOMERANG maps by correlating
574: BOOMERANG data with a dust template derived from the 3000 GHz
575: IRAS/DIRBE maps \citep{Schl99, Fink99} and extrapolating the
576: dust dominated 410 GHz signal to 150 GHz using the measured correlations.
577: The deduced power spectrum of dust fluctuations contributes less than
578: $1\%$ to the power spectrum of sky temperature measured at 150 GHz.
579: For this reason Galactic dust contamination is neglected in the following.
580:
581: Radio point sources are another potential form of contamination in the
582: maps and angular power spectrum. The \citet{wombat} radio point source
583: extrapolations are used to estimate the effects of known radio sources
584: in the BOOMERANG fields. The WOMBAT extrapolated fluxes are converted
585: to temperature using a Gaussian beam that is a good approximation of the
586: beam + pixel window function. Assuming that each of the WOMBAT sources
587: is in a separate pixel, the $rms$ contributed by these point sources to
588: the map is calculated. In the $C_\ell$ power spectrum this should show
589: up as a constant $C_\ell = C_0$ contribution, which is found by using
590: the effective rms contributed by a random distribution of point sources,
591: $rms^2 = \sum_\ell{( 2\ell+1) C_0 W_\ell/ (4 \pi)}$, and the known beam
592: window function $W_\ell$. For results quoted in the units of
593: Table~\ref{table:spec}, this leads to an estimated point source
594: contribution as a function of $\ell$ of $160 (\ell/1000)^2 \mu$K$^2$.
595:
596: However, three quasars are easily identified in
597: the maps and removed. The brightest two of these are
598: also the two highest flux objects in the Wombat catalog in our region;
599: the third quasar is the eighth brightest in the catalog. Removing only
600: the two brightest sources from the catalog and repeating the
601: above analytic estimate leads to a prediction for the contribution
602: of the remaining sources of only $85(l/1000)^2 \mu$K$^2$.
603:
604: The power spectrum is evaluated directly from the maps before and after
605: removing the three quasars. This was done by ignoring pixels within
606: $0.5^o$ of the quasar position. This cutting induces very small
607: additional bin-bin correlations in the power spectrum, which are
608: negligible given the small area of the cuts. The effect of cutting the
609: three quasars is less than $170 \mu$K$^2$ at all $\ell<1000$. This, combined
610: with the analytic estimates above, gives us good confidence that the
611: residual radio point source contamination is far less than the quoted
612: errors at all $\ell$.
613:
614: \section{Power Spectra}
615:
616:
617: %----------------------------------------
618: % INSERT fig:spec75 HERE
619: %----------------------------------------
620: \begin{figure}[tbp]
621: \plotone{f2.eps} \caption{The angular power spectrum of the
622: CMB, as measured at 150 GHz by BOOMERANG. The vertical error bars show
623: the statistical + sample variance errors on each point. There is a
624: common 10\% calibration uncertainty in temperature, which becomes a
625: 20\% uncertainty in the units of this plot. The points are also
626: subject to an uncertainty in the effective beam width of $\pm1.4'$ ($1
627: \sigma$). The effect of a $1\sigma$ error in the beam width would be to
628: move the red points (all up together if the beam width has been
629: underestimated, or all down together if the beam width has been
630: overestimated) to the positions shown by the black triangles. The blue
631: points would move in a similar fashion. The blue and red points show
632: the results of two independent analyses using top-hat binnings offset and
633: overlapping by 50\%. This shows the basic result is not dependent on
634: binning. While each of the independent spectra (red circles or blue
635: squares) are internally nearly uncorrelated, each red point is highly
636: correlated with its blue neighbors, and vice versa. These data are
637: listed in Table~\ref{table:spec75}}
638: \label{fig:spec75}
639: \end{figure}
640:
641: %----------------------------------------
642: % INSERT table:spec HERE
643: %----------------------------------------
644: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
645: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
646: \tablecaption{The Angular Spectrum \label{table:spec}}
647: \tablewidth{0pt}
648: \tablehead{
649: \colhead{$\ell$ range} & \colhead{$\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{2\pi}C_\ell (\mu
650: K^2)$}
651: & \colhead{(1dps-2dps)/2 ($\mu K^2$)} & \colhead{(left-right)/2 ($\mu K^2$)} &
652: \colhead{((A+A1)-(A2+B2))/2 ($\mu K^2$)}}
653: \startdata
654: (~76~ - ~125) & $3519~\pm~558$ & $\phm{-}\phn\phn2~\pm~\phn\phn8$ &
655: $-\phn\phn11~\pm~\phn\phn11$ & $\phm{-}\phn\phn4~\pm~\phn\phn4$ \\
656: (126~ - ~175) & $4688~\pm~555$ & $\phm{-}\phn40~\pm~\phn13$ &
657: $-\phn\phn17~\pm~\phn\phn13$ & $\phm{-}\phn\phn3~\pm~\phn\phn4$ \\
658: (176~ - ~225) & $5592~\pm~548$ & $\phm{-}\phn23~\pm~\phn14$ &
659: $-\phn\phn15~\pm~\phn\phn19$ & $-\phn\phn1~\pm~\phn\phn5$ \\
660: (226~ - ~275) & $5699~\pm~486$ & $\phm{-}\phn45~\pm~\phn19$ &
661: $-\phn\phn27~\pm~\phn\phn25$ & $\phm{-}\phn\phn0~\pm~\phn\phn7$ \\
662: (276~ - ~325) & $3890~\pm~316$ & $\phm{-}\phn69~\pm~\phn24$ &
663: $-\phn\phn44~\pm~\phn\phn33$ & $-\phn\phn8~\pm~\phn\phn9$ \\
664: (326~ - ~375) & $2591~\pm~207$ & $\phm{-}\phn10~\pm~\phn26$ &
665: $-\phn\phn32~\pm~\phn\phn44$ & $-\phn\phn9~\pm~\phn12$\\
666: (376~ - ~425) & $1842~\pm~152$ & $\phm{-}\phn14~\pm~\phn33$ &
667: $-\phn\phn98~\pm~\phn\phn55$ & $-\phn\phn3~\pm~\phn16$\\
668: (426~ - ~475) & $2070~\pm~161$ & $-\phn58~\pm~\phn37$ &
669: $-\phn\phn90~\pm~\phn\phn70$ & $-\phn\phn8~\pm~\phn20$ \\
670: (476~ - ~525) & $2267~\pm~174$ & $\phm{-}\phn24~\pm~\phn53$ &
671: $-\phn\phn30~\pm~\phn\phn95$ & $\phm{-}\phn23~\pm~\phn27$ \\
672: (526~ - ~575) & $2293~\pm~182$ & $-\phn\phn9~\pm~\phn68$ &
673: $-\phn150~\pm~\phn118$ & $\phm{-}\phn26~\pm~\phn36$ \\
674: (576~ - ~625) & $2058~\pm~181$ & $\phm{-}100~\pm~\phn93$ &
675: $-\phn161~\pm~\phn155$ & $-\phn11~\pm~\phn43$ \\
676: (626~ - ~675) & $1934~\pm~190$ & $\phm{-}\phn28~\pm~115$ &
677: $\phm{-}\phn203~\pm~\phn217$ & $-\phn23~\pm~\phn56$ \\
678: (676~ - ~725) & $1828~\pm~207$ & $-\phn58~\pm~145$ &
679: $\phm{-}\phn\phn71~\pm~\phn269$ & $-\phn32~\pm~\phn71$ \\
680: (726~ - ~775) & $1440~\pm~226$ & $\phm{-}196~\pm~198$ &
681: $-\phn421~\pm~\phn324$ & $\phm{-}\phn89~\pm~\phn99$ \\
682: (776~ - ~825) & $1920~\pm~288$ & $-336~\pm~235$ & $-\phn808~\pm~\phn411$ &
683: $\phm{-}160~\pm~131$ \\
684: (826~ - ~875) & $2243~\pm~361$ & $-211~\pm~317$ &
685: $-\phn\phn73~\pm~\phn580$ & $\phm{-}176~\pm~171$ \\
686: (876~ - ~925) & $1752~\pm~428$ & $-\phn94~\pm~437$ &
687: $-\phn613~\pm~\phn757$ & $-\phn23~\pm~217$ \\
688: (926~ - ~975) & $~985~\pm~506$ & $-\phn78~\pm~591$ & $-\phn607~\pm~1013$ &
689: $-458~\pm~278$ \\
690: (976~ - 1025) & $~502~\pm~627$ & $-128~\pm~800$ & $-1370~\pm~1347$ &
691: $-\phn82~\pm~395$ \\
692: \enddata
693:
694: %% Text for table notes should follow after the \enddata but before
695: %% the \end{deluxetable}. Make sure there is at least one \tablenotemark
696: %% in the table for each \tablenotetext.
697:
698: \tablecomments{The spectrum of the CMB, as used in the parameter
699: extraction. The spectrum is further subject to an overall 10\%
700: calibration uncertainty, and a 1.4' effective beam uncertainty. The
701: spectrum of the all-channel consistency tests are also given. Adjacent
702: bins are weakly correlated}
703:
704: \end{deluxetable}
705:
706: %----------------------------------------
707: % INSERT table:spec75 HERE
708: %----------------------------------------
709:
710: \begin{deluxetable}{cc}
711: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
712: \tablecaption{The Angular Spectrum \label{table:spec75}}
713: \tablewidth{0pt}
714: \tablehead {
715: \colhead{$\ell$ range} & \colhead{$\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{2\pi}C_\ell (\mu
716: K^2)$}}
717: \startdata
718: (~50~ - ~113) & $3035~\pm~557$\\
719: (~75~ - ~150) & $3776~\pm~428$\\
720: (112~ - ~187) & $4481~\pm~416$\\
721: (150~ - ~225) & $5380~\pm~429$\\
722: (187~ - ~262) & $5810~\pm~413$\\
723: (225~ - ~300) & $5245~\pm~345$\\
724: (262~ - ~337) & $4056~\pm~257$\\
725: (300~ - ~375) & $2942~\pm~184$\\
726: (337~ - ~412) & $2218~\pm~140$\\
727: (375~ - ~450) & $1861~\pm~119$\\
728: (412~ - ~487) & $1992~\pm~123$\\
729: (450~ - ~525) & $2424~\pm~138$\\
730: (487~ - ~562) & $2443~\pm~142$\\
731: (530~ - ~605) & $2520~\pm~162$\\
732: (567~ - ~642) & $2298~\pm~160$\\
733: (600~ - ~675) & $1868~\pm~144$\\
734: (637~ - ~712) & $1858~\pm~154$\\
735: (675~ - ~750) & $1696~\pm~163$\\
736: (712~ - ~787) & $1560~\pm~179$\\
737: (750~ - ~825) & $1736~\pm~211$\\
738: (787~ - ~862) & $2021~\pm~250$\\
739: (825~ - ~900) & $2172~\pm~292$\\
740: (862~ - ~937) & $1847~\pm~333$\\
741: (900~ - ~975) & $1174~\pm~377$\\
742: (937~ - 1012) & $~762~\pm~437$\\
743: (963~ - 1038) & $~499~\pm~623$\\
744: \enddata
745:
746: %% Text for table notes should follow after the \enddata but before
747: %% the \end{deluxetable}. Make sure there is at least one \tablenotemark
748: %% in the table for each \tablenotetext.
749:
750: \tablecomments{The spectrum of the CMB, as shown in
751: Figure~\ref{fig:spec75}. These are the the results of two independent
752: analyses using $\Delta l = 75$ top-hat binnings offset by $\Delta l =
753: 75/2$ and thus overlapping by 50\%. While each of the independent
754: spectra are internally nearly uncorrelated, each red point is highly
755: correlated with its neighbors from the other binning. This binning is
756: not used in the parameter extraction. Rather, the non-overlapping (and
757: thus only weakly correlated) $\Delta l = 50$ top-hat binning listed in
758: Table~\ref{table:spec} is. The spectrum is further subject to an
759: overall 10\% calibration uncertainty, and a 1.4' effective beam
760: uncertainty.}
761:
762: \end{deluxetable}
763:
764:
765: The results are summarized in Table~\ref{table:spec75} and
766: Table~\ref{table:spec}, and in Figure~\ref{fig:spec75} and
767: Figure~\ref{fig:models}.
768:
769: The sensitivity of the results to different
770: binnings is explored. Figure~\ref{fig:spec75} and
771: Table~\ref{table:spec75} summarize the results from two independent
772: analysis using top-hat binning of width $\Delta l = 75$, and offset and
773: overlapping by 50\%. Because of this overlap, adgacent points are
774: strongly correlated. This binning is not used in the parameter
775: extraction.
776:
777: Figure~\ref{fig:models} and Table~\ref{table:spec} summarized the
778: results from an analysis with non-overlapping top-hat bins of width
779: $\Delta l = 50$. The sources of uncertainty that are included in the
780: errors quoted in Table~\ref{table:spec} include sample variance and
781: statistical noise. The former dominates at $\ell < \approx 600$ and the
782: latter at higher $\ell$. These uncertainties are only weakly
783: correlated.
784:
785:
786: Uncertainty in the effective beam-size introduces an additional
787: uncertainty in the power spectrum that is highly correlated across the
788: spectrum. The uncertainty in the effective beam size has contributions
789: from uncertainty in the physical beam and from uncertainty in the rms
790: amplitude of the pointing jitter. These combine to produce an
791: uncertainty in the effective beam of $\pm13\%$. This uncertainty is not
792: included in the errors quoted in Table~\ref{table:spec}, as its effect is
793: to produce an overall tilt to the spectrum. The amplitude of the tilt
794: corresponding to the 1 sigma uncertainty that is assigned to the effective
795: beam width is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:spec75}. This uncertainty is
796: included in the parameter estimation outlined in the next section.
797:
798: Uncertainty due to instrumental and atmospheric artifacts in the maps
799: are small, based on the internal consistency tests, and are neglected.
800: Similarly, contamination of the maps by both diffuse and compact
801: astrophysical foregrounds are also negligible with respect to the other
802: uncertainties and are neglected.
803:
804:
805: \section{Cosmological Parameters}
806:
807: %----------------------------------------
808: % INSERT fig:models HERE
809: %----------------------------------------
810: \begin{figure}[tbp]
811: %\plottwo{f3.eps}{f4.eps} \caption{\scriptsize Selected best fit models
812: \plotone{f3.eps}\\ \plotone{f4.eps} \caption{\scriptsize Selected best fit models
813: normalized to the best compromise amplitude between COBE-DMR and
814: BOOMERANG are shown overlayed on the BOOMERANG spectrum. The upper
815: panel shows the points plotted as listed in
816: table~\ref{table:spec}. The best-fit models for the ``weak'' and ``no
817: priors'' cases coincide (blue, solid curve) with $\Omega_{tot} = 1.05,
818: H_0 = 50, \Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.5, \omega_b = 0.020, \omega_c = 0.120,
819: \tau_c= 0, n_s=0.925, t_0 = 15.8 Gyrs $. Strong Hubble prior gives the
820: best fit model with parameters $\Omega_{tot} = 1., H_0 = 68,
821: \Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7, \omega_b = 0.020, \omega_c = 0.120, \tau_c= 0,
822: n_s=0.925, t_0 = 13.8 Gyrs $. The full analysis takes into account
823: the calibration and beam uncertainties which best fit models take
824: advantage of. This explains the apparent mismatch between some of the
825: models in the upper panel and the plotted central values of Boomerang
826: band powers. The green (dash-dot) curve is the best fit model
827: ($\Omega_{tot} = 1.15, H_0 = 42, \Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7, \omega_b =
828: 0.020, \omega_c = 0.060, \tau_c= 0.2, n_s=0.925, t_0 = 20 Gyrs$) when
829: both beam and calibration uncertainties are switched off. The model
830: fits closely the central values as expected. To demonstrate the
831: effect of beam and calibration uncertanties, in the lower panel the
832: data points have been replotted with a $4\%$ decrease in calibration
833: ($0.4 \sigma$) and a 0.5 arcminute change in beam size ($0.4 \sigma$).
834: The plot makes it clear that the best-fit conventional CDM models are
835: indeed good fits to the data, once these uncertainties are correctly
836: accounted for.}
837: \label{fig:models}
838: \end{figure}
839:
840: The angular power spectrum shown in Figure~\ref{fig:models} can be used
841: in conjunction with other information to determine cosmological
842: parameters. In this paper, the parameter extraction methods and tools
843: described in detail in \citet{lange01} are used.
844:
845: Specifically, the relative agreement between these data and theoretical
846: predictions over a broad 7-dimensional cosmological parameter space is
847: explored. This parameter space is appropriate for models with adiabatic
848: initial conditions (e.g. inflationary models). The resolution of the
849: second peak virtually rules out alternative models such as defect based
850: scenarios which predict a single broader peak with no secondaries
851: \citep{Turo98,Cont99}.
852:
853: Parameters explored include those describing energy densities, including
854: the total energy density $\Omega_{\rm {tot}}$, the vacuum energy density
855: $\Omega_\Lambda$, and the physical densities of baryons and cold dark
856: matter, $\Omega_b h^2$ and $\Omega_c h^2$ respectively. The power
857: spectrum of initial adiabatic density fluctuations is described by a
858: normalization $\ln\mathcal{C}_{10}$ and a power law exponent $n_s$. The
859: effects of recent reionization of the universe on the observed angular
860: power spectrum, parameterized by the optical depth to decoupling,
861: $\tau_C$, are also explored. For this parameter, the liklihood does not
862: fall sufficiently by the edge of the explored parameter range
863: ($\tau_c<0.5$) to produce significant limits, though a preference for
864: low values of $tau_c$ are evident in Figure~\ref{fig:like}.
865:
866: %----------------------------------------
867: % INSERT table:parameters HERE
868: %----------------------------------------
869:
870: \begin{deluxetable}{llllllllll}
871: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
872: \tablecaption{Results of Parameter Extraction\label{table:parameters}}
873: \tablewidth{0pt}
874: \tablehead{\colhead{Priors}
875: & \colhead{$\Omega_{tot}$}
876: & \colhead{$n_s$}
877: & \colhead{$\Omega_bh^2$}
878: & \colhead{$\Omega_{cdm}h^2$}
879: & \colhead{$\Omega_{\Lambda}$}
880: & \colhead{$\Omega_m$}
881: & \colhead{$\Omega_b$}
882: %& \colhead{$\tau_c$}
883: & \colhead{$h$}
884: & \colhead{Age}
885: }
886: \startdata
887: Weak only
888: & $1.02^{0.06}_{0.06}$
889: & $0.96^{0.10}_{0.09}$
890: & $0.022^{0.004}_{0.003}$
891: & $0.13^{0.05}_{0.05}$
892: & $(0.51^{0.23}_{0.20})$
893: & $(0.51^{0.20}_{0.20})$
894: & $0.07^{0.03}_{0.03}$
895: %& $0.12^{0.18}_{0.09}$
896: & $(0.56^{0.10}_{0.10})$
897: & $15.2^{1.9}_{1.9}$
898: \\
899: \tableline
900: LSS
901: & $1.02^{0.04}_{0.05}$
902: & $0.97^{0.10}_{0.08}$
903: & $0.022^{0.004}_{0.003}$
904: & $0.13^{0.03}_{0.02}$
905: & $0.55^{0.09}_{0.09}$
906: & $0.49^{0.12}_{0.12}$
907: & $0.07^{0.02}_{0.02}$
908: %& $0.10^{0.15}_{0.08}$
909: & $0.56^{0.09}_{0.09}$
910: & $15.0^{1.3}_{1.3}$
911: \\
912: SN1a
913: & $1.02^{0.07}_{0.05}$
914: & $0.99^{0.11}_{0.10}$
915: & $0.023^{0.004}_{0.004}$
916: & $0.10^{0.04}_{0.04}$
917: & $0.73^{0.07}_{0.10}$
918: & $0.31^{0.06}_{0.06}$
919: & $0.06^{0.03}_{0.03}$
920: %& $0.14^{0.21}_{0.11}$
921: & $0.61^{0.09}_{0.09}$
922: & $15.9^{2.5}_{2.5}$
923: \\
924: LSS \& SN1a
925: & $0.99^{0.03}_{0.04}$
926: & $1.03^{0.10}_{0.09}$
927: & $0.023^{0.003}_{0.003}$
928: & $0.14^{0.03}_{0.02}$
929: & $0.65^{0.05}_{0.06}$
930: & $0.34^{0.07}_{0.07}$
931: & $0.05^{0.02}_{0.02}$
932: %& $0.14^{0.17}_{0.10}$
933: & $0.67^{0.09}_{0.09}$
934: & $13.7^{1.2}_{1.2}$
935: \\
936: $h = 0.71 \pm 0.08$
937: & $0.98^{0.04}_{0.05}$
938: & $0.97^{0.10}_{0.09}$
939: & $0.022^{0.004}_{0.003}$
940: & $0.14^{0.05}_{0.04}$
941: & $0.62^{0.10}_{0.18}$
942: & $0.40^{0.13}_{0.13}$
943: & $0.05^{0.02}_{0.02}$
944: %& $0.10^{0.16}_{0.08}$
945: & $(0.65^{0.08}_{0.08})$
946: & $13.7^{1.6}_{1.6}$
947: \\
948: \tableline
949: Flat
950: & (1.00)
951: & $0.95^{0.09}_{0.08}$
952: & $0.021^{0.003}_{0.003}$
953: & $0.13^{0.04}_{0.04}$
954: & $(0.57^{0.12}_{0.37})$
955: & $(0.48^{0.24}_{0.24})$
956: & $0.06^{0.02}_{0.02}$
957: %& $0.09^{0.13}_{0.07}$
958: & $(0.61^{0.13}_{0.13})$
959: & $14.3^{0.6}_{0.6}$
960: \\
961: Flat \& LSS
962: & (1.00)
963: & $0.98^{0.10}_{0.07}$
964: & $0.021^{0.003}_{0.003}$
965: & $0.13^{0.01}_{0.01}$
966: & $0.62^{0.07}_{0.07}$
967: & $0.38^{0.07}_{0.07}$
968: & $0.05^{0.01}_{0.01}$
969: %& $0.12^{0.16}_{0.08}$
970: & $0.62^{0.06}_{0.06}$
971: & $14.5^{0.7}_{0.7}$
972: \\
973: Flat \& SN1a
974: & (1.00)
975: & $0.98^{0.11}_{0.09}$
976: & $0.022^{0.003}_{0.003}$
977: & $0.12^{0.01}_{0.02}$
978: & $0.68^{0.04}_{0.06}$
979: & $0.33^{0.05}_{0.05}$
980: & $0.05^{0.01}_{0.01}$
981: %& $0.10^{0.15}_{0.08}$
982: & $0.66^{0.05}_{0.05}$
983: & $14.0^{0.6}_{0.6}$
984: \\
985: Flat, LSS \& SN1a
986: & (1.00)
987: & $1.03^{0.10}_{0.09}$
988: & $0.023^{0.003}_{0.003}$
989: & $0.13^{0.01}_{0.01}$
990: & $0.66^{0.04}_{0.06}$
991: & $0.33^{0.05}_{0.05}$
992: & $0.05^{0.01}_{0.01}$
993: %& $0.15^{0.17}_{0.10}$
994: & $0.66^{0.05}_{0.05}$
995: & $14.0^{0.6}_{0.6}$
996: \\
997: \enddata
998: \tablecomments{Results of parameter extraction using successively more
999: restrictive priors, following \citet{lange01}. The confidence
1000: intervals are 1$\sigma$. The quoted values are reported after
1001: marginalizing over all other parameters. For the primary database
1002: parameters, 16\% and 84\% integrals are reported as $\pm1\sigma$
1003: errors. For $\Omega_m$, $\Omega_b$, $h$, and Age, which are functions
1004: of the other parameters, the mean and standard deviation over the
1005: distribution are reported. All entries are subject to a weak prior in
1006: which only models with $0.45<h<0.90$ and age~$> 10$~Gyr are
1007: considered. The LSS \citep{bj99} and SN1a supernovae \citep{riess,
1008: perlm} priors are as described in \citet{lange01}. The strong $h$
1009: prior is a Gaussian with the stated 1$\sigma$ error. Parentheses are
1010: used to indicate parameters that did not shift more than 1-$\sigma$ or
1011: have their errors reduced by a factor of two upon the inclusion of the
1012: CMB data, compared with an analysis using the priors only. Thus, in
1013: these cases the parameter range reflects the choice of prior, rather
1014: than a constraint by the CMB. The age column is in units of Gyr.}
1015: \end{deluxetable}
1016:
1017:
1018: Given the data, likelihoods as a function of theoretically predicted
1019: power spectra are calculated throughout this parameter space. For every
1020: comsological model, beam and calibration uncertainties add two
1021: additional parameters. We approximate the possible correction to the
1022: beam of effective width $\omega$ by a gaussian form $W_\ell
1023: (\omega+\delta \omega)/W_\ell(\omega)= e^{-\ell(\ell+1) \omega \delta
1024: \omega} $, with $\delta \omega$ assumed to be gaussian distributed with
1025: the standard deviation corresponding to $1.4'$. Effectively, every theoretical
1026: spectrum is multipled by $e^{2 \ell(\ell+1) \omega \delta \omega} $.
1027: Calibration uncertainty of 10\% adds to the variance of
1028: $\ln\mathcal{C}_{10}$. We do not calculate likelihoods on a grid in
1029: beam-width -- calibration space, rather for every model we search for a
1030: maximum of likelihood in $\delta \omega$ and $\ln\mathcal{C}_{10}$,
1031: calculate the curvature of the likelihood near this maximum, and
1032: marginalize over the beam and the amplitude by integrating likelihood in
1033: the gaussian approximation. The best fit value of $\ln\mathcal{C}_{10}$
1034: and it's variance is used when combining Boomerang predictions with
1035: other data.
1036:
1037: Parameters are constrained individually by marginalizing over all
1038: others, including two describing the calibration and beam window
1039: function uncertainties. The 16\% and 84\% integrals are reported as
1040: $\pm1\sigma$ errors. Other quantities such as the Hubble constant and
1041: the age of the Universe are derived from those used to define the
1042: parameterization, using the mean and variance over the posterior
1043: distribution. The details of the discrete numerical database used for
1044: this process, including the limits and values of each parameter tested,
1045: and exact prescription used for calculating likelihoods and extracting
1046: confidence limits, is fully described in \citet{lange01}.
1047:
1048: Before marginalization, the calculated likelihood for each model is
1049: multiplied by the likelihood derived from a series of ``prior
1050: probabilities'', or priors, which represent knowledge from other
1051: cosmological measurements. All results considered here have a
1052: ``weak $h$ + age'' top-hat prior applied (hereafter simply the ``weak
1053: prior'') which eliminates models where the universe is younger than
1054: 10~Gyr, and limits the Hubble constant, $H_0 = 100 \, h \mbox{\, km
1055: s}^{-1}\mbox{Mpc}^{-1}$, to $0.45 \le h \le 0.9$.
1056:
1057: Applying stronger priors in conjunction with this weak prior exercises
1058: the ability of the CMB data to combine with other measurements (or
1059: theoretical prejudice) to significantly narrow the parameter confidence
1060: intervals. Considered here is the impact of applying a stronger
1061: constraint on $h$, constraints derived from measurements of large scale
1062: structure (LSS)\citep{bj99}, results from recent measurements of type Ia
1063: supernovae~\citep{riess, perlm}, and the theoretical bias that
1064: $\Omega_{\rm tot} = 1$.
1065:
1066: The parameter estimates, given these various combinations of priors,
1067: are shown in Table~\ref{table:parameters}, with marginalized likelihood
1068: curves for several important parameters given in
1069: Figure~\ref{fig:like}.
1070:
1071: \citet{lange01} reports a family of models within the database that
1072: provide good fits to the angular power spectrum up through $\ell \sim
1073: 600$, but represent very young, high baryon density, very closed models
1074: outside the normal realm of consideration in modern cosmology. In
1075: \citet{lange01}, the weak prior was used to keep these models from
1076: affecting the parameter estimates. Using the power spectrum shown in
1077: Figure~\ref{fig:models}, but limiting consideration to the points with
1078: $\ell \le 600$, similar behavior is exhibited; the very young, high
1079: baryon density, very closed models dominate the fits, but can be
1080: eliminated by the weak prior. As in \citet{Jaf01}, adding the higher
1081: $\ell$ points, which exclude models with either a very high or very
1082: small third peak, eliminates the high baryon density models. It does
1083: not eliminate the closed models in the absence of the weak priors.
1084: Thus, just as in \citet{lange01}, cases with the weak priors applied are
1085: the focus of the extraction.
1086:
1087: %----------------------------------------
1088: % INSERT fig:like HERE
1089: %----------------------------------------
1090: \begin{figure}[tbhp]
1091: \plotone{f5.eps} \caption{ Likelihood functions for a subset of the
1092: priors used in Table~\ref{table:parameters}. $\Omega_bh^2$, and $n_s$
1093: are well constrained, even under the ``whole database'' case, and are
1094: insensitive to additional priors. $\Omega_{\rm tot}$ is poorly
1095: constrained over the whole database, but when the weak priors are
1096: applied, it becomes stably consistent with the flat case. With the
1097: weak priors, $\Omega_\Lambda$ and $\Omega_c h^2$ are poorly
1098: constrained, but become significant detections with the addition of
1099: the other priors considered. For all cases, $\tau_c$ is poorly
1100: constrained, but does prefer low values.} \label{fig:like}
1101: \end{figure}
1102:
1103: As is apparent in Figure~\ref{fig:like} and
1104: Table~\ref{table:parameters}, $\Omega_b h^2$ and $n_s$ are well
1105: localized for all choices of priors. The range for $\Omega_b h^2$ is
1106: very consistent with determinations based on Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
1107: and measurements of light element abundances \citep{Tyt00}, while $n_s$
1108: is localized near unity, consistent with inflation-based models.
1109: Similarly, once the weak priors are applied, $\Omega_{\rm tot}$ is well
1110: constrained and consistent with a flat universe.
1111: $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ and $\Omega_c h^2$ are poorly constrained for the
1112: weak prior case. $\tau_C$ favors low values, but not at a
1113: statistically significant level.
1114:
1115: These limits agree well with those found in \citet{lange01}, with one
1116: exception. There, the $1\sigma$ range for $\Omega_b h^2$ (with the weak
1117: prior) is $0.036\pm0.005$. Considering only the points in
1118: Figure~\ref{fig:models} with $\ell \le 600$ results in a $1\sigma$ limit of
1119: $0.027\pm0.005$. This shift is presumably due to the improvement of the
1120: pointing solution and smaller error bars compared with B00.
1121: The table reflects the estimate made using all points up to
1122: $\ell = 1000$; the addition of the information contained in the
1123: high-$\ell$ points has moved the confidence intervals still further.
1124:
1125: Having found tight limits on $\Omega_b h^2$, $\Omega_{\rm tot}$, and $n_s$
1126: with the weak priors, the impact of adding other priors can be
1127: discussed, to see whether these results are stable (i.e., consistent
1128: with the prior) and whether any new
1129: parameters can be localized. The table indicates that, in fact, these
1130: three parameters are very stable to the addition of the LSS, SN1a,
1131: strong $h$ and the theoretically motivated $\Omega_{\rm tot} = 1$ priors, in
1132: various combinations. This insensitivity to choice of priors is a
1133: powerful indication that the cosmology is consistent and that these
1134: parameters have been robustly determined.
1135:
1136: The table also shows that the CMB data can be combined with these priors
1137: independently to make statistically significant determinations of
1138: $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ and $\Omega_c h^2$. While the confidence intervals
1139: shift somewhat depending on the chosen prior, the rough agreement among
1140: these three results, giving $\Omega_{\Lambda} \sim 0.65$ and $\Omega_c
1141: h^2 \sim 0.12$, is very compelling. These LSS and SN1a results are
1142: similar to those found in \citet{lange01}. For the first time, however,
1143: the combination of CMB data with just a strong limit on $h$ is powerful
1144: enough to yield such a detection.
1145:
1146: The table also shows a consistent story for the age of the universe and
1147: for the Hubble Constant. For the prior combinations where the limits on
1148: $h$ are dominated by the CMB data rather than the priors, the extraction finds
1149: $h \sim 0.65$, with ages between 13 and 15 Gyr. These quantities are
1150: most strongly constrained by the CMB data along with the combination of
1151: the SN1a prior and flatness.
1152:
1153: \section{Conclusions}
1154:
1155: A measurement of the angular power spectrum of the CMB, characterized by
1156: a series of harmonic peaks, has been presented, confirming the existence
1157: of this unique signature of acoustic oscillations in the early universe.
1158: This is an important confirmation of standard adiabatic
1159: models of structure formation, and thus of the process of constraining
1160: cosmological parameters based on increasingly precise measurements of
1161: the position and amplitude of these peaks by current and future CMB
1162: experiments.
1163:
1164: The precision and extent of the angular power spectrum that is reported
1165: here already allow an accurate determination of several cosmological
1166: parameters with the assumption of only weak astrophysical priors.
1167: Assuming $0.45 < h < 0.90$, the CMB data tightly
1168: constrain the values of $\Omega_{\rm {tot}}$ and $n_s$ to lie close to
1169: unity and tightly constrain $\Omega_b$ to a value consistent with BBN.
1170:
1171: Adding constraints from observations of Large Scale Structure and of
1172: type 1a supernovae, yields a value for the Hubble constant of $h=0.67
1173: \pm 0.09$, that is in good agreement with the HST key project final
1174: value of $0.72 \pm 0.08$ \citep{free}. These data also
1175: provide compelling evidence for the existence of both dark matter and
1176: dark energy. Including LSS, SN1a or a prior on the Hubble constant of
1177: $h = 0.71 \pm 0.08$ each yields $\Omega_\Lambda \approx 2/3$ and
1178: $\Omega_m \approx 1/3$.
1179:
1180: \acknowledgments
1181:
1182: The BOOMERanG project has been supported by NASA and by NSF OPP in the
1183: U.S., by PNRA, Universit\'a ``La Sapienza'', and ASI in Italy, by PPARC
1184: in the UK, and by the CIAR and NSERC in Canada. We received excellent
1185: logistical support from Kathy Deniston, and superb field and flight
1186: support from NSBF and the USAP personnel in McMurdo.
1187:
1188: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1189:
1190: \bibitem[Acbar, 2001]{acbar}Preliminary analysis of Acbar data, J. Ruhl, 2001,
1191: private communication.
1192:
1193: \bibitem[Bond and Efstathiou(1987)]{Bon87} Bond, J. R. and Efstathiou, G.,
1194: \mnras, 226, 655(1987).
1195:
1196: \bibitem[Bennet et al.(1996)]{bennet} Bennett, C.L. et al. 1996,
1197: \apjl, 464, 1
1198:
1199: \bibitem[Bond, Jaffe, and Knox(2000)]{bjk00} J.R.~Bond, A.H.~Jaffe \&
1200: L.~Knox, \apj, 533, 19-37, 2000. astro-ph/9808264
1201:
1202: \bibitem[Bond, Jaffe, and Knox(1998)]{bjk98} J.R.~Bond, A.H.~Jaffe \&
1203: L.~ Knox, \prd, 57, 2117, 1998. astro-ph/9708203
1204:
1205: \bibitem[Bond \& Jaffe(1999)]{bj99} J.R. Bond and A.H. Jaffe,
1206: Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London, 357, 57(1999), astro-ph/9809043.
1207:
1208: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2001)]{b01}Bond, J.R. et al., 2001, in preparation.
1209:
1210: \bibitem[Borrill(1999)]{Borr1999}
1211: Borrill J. 1999, Proc. of the 3K Cosmology EC-TMR conference,
1212: eds. L. Maiani, F. Melchiorri, N. Vittorio, AIP CP 476, 277
1213:
1214: \bibitem[Church et al.(1997)]{church} Church, S.E., Ganga, K.M., Ade,
1215: P.A.R., Holzapfel, W.L., Mauskopf, P.D., Wilbanks, T.M. and Lange, A.E.
1216: 1997, ApJ, 484, 523
1217:
1218: \bibitem[Contaldi et al.(1999)]{Cont99} Contaldi, C.R., Hindmarsh,
1219: M.B. and Magueijo, J., 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 679-682
1220:
1221: \bibitem[Crill et al.(2001)]{Cril2001} Crill, B. et al., 2001, in
1222: preparation
1223:
1224: \bibitem[de Bernardis et al.(2000)]{debe2000} de Bernardis, P., et
1225: al. 2000, Nature, 404, 955-959
1226:
1227: \bibitem[de Bernardis et al. (2002)]{deb01} de Bernardis, P., et al,
1228: 2002, \apj, 564.
1229:
1230: \bibitem[Efstathiou and Bond(1999)]{Efs99} Efstathiou G., and Bond, J. R.,
1231: \mnras, 304, 75(1999).
1232:
1233: \bibitem[Finkbeiner et al.(1999)]{Fink99} Finkbeiner D.P. et al. 1999,
1234: \apj, 524, 867.
1235:
1236: \bibitem[Freedman et al, 2000]{free} Freedman W. L. et al, 2000, ApJ in
1237: press, preprint astro-ph/0012376.
1238:
1239: \bibitem[G\'orski et al.(1998)]{Gors1998} G\'orski, K.M., Hivon, E. and
1240: Wandelt, B.D., in "Analysis Issues for Large CMB Data Sets", 1998,
1241: eds. A.J. Banday, R.K. Sheth and L. Da Costa, ESO(astro-ph /9812350),
1242: see also http://www.tac.dk/~healpix/
1243:
1244: \bibitem[Jaffe et al.(2001)]{Jaf01} Jaffe, A., et al., 2001, \prl, 86, 3475-3479
1245:
1246: \bibitem[Hanany et al.(2000)]{Hana2000} Hanany, S. et al., 2000, \apj,
1247: 545, L5-L9
1248:
1249: \bibitem[Hivon et al.(2001)]{Hivo2001} Hivon, E., Gorski, K.M.,
1250: Netterfield, C.B., Crill, B.P., Prunet, S. \& Hansen F., 2001,
1251: astro-ph/0105302, accepted in ApJ
1252:
1253: \bibitem[Hu et al.(1997)]{Hu1997} Hu W., Sugiyama N. \& Silk J., 1997,
1254: Nature, 386, 37
1255:
1256: \bibitem[James(1981)]{james} James,G.L.\lq\lq Analysis and design of TE11
1257: to HE11 corrugated cylindrical waveguide mode converters\rq\rq, {\em
1258: IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory and Techniques}, Vol. MTT-29, pp 1059-1066,
1259: 1981.
1260:
1261: \bibitem[Lange et al.(2001)]{lange01} Lange, A.E., et al, 2001,
1262: \prd, 63, 042001
1263:
1264: \bibitem[Lineweaver et al.(1996)]{Line1996} Lineweaver, C.H., et al. 1996,
1265: \apj, 470:38-42.
1266:
1267: \bibitem[Masi et al.(2001)]{Mas01} Masi S., et al. 2001, \apjl in
1268: press, astro-ph/0101539
1269:
1270: \bibitem[Mauskopf et al.(2000)]{Maus2000} Mauskopf, P. et al. 2000, \apj,
1271: 536, L59
1272:
1273: \bibitem[Miller et al.(1999)]{Mil99} Miller, A. et al. 1999, \apj, 524,
1274: L1
1275:
1276: \bibitem[Murphy et al.(2001)]{murphy} Murphy, J.A., Ruth Colgan,
1277: Creidhe O\rq Sullivan, Bruno Maffei, and Peter Ade. "Radiation Patterns
1278: of Multi-Moded Corrugated Horns for Far-IR space
1279: Applications". Preprint, TeraHz Technology Conference, 2001.
1280:
1281: \bibitem[Netterfield et. al.(1997)]{Net97} Netterfield, C. B., et. al.
1282: 1997, \apj, 474, 47
1283:
1284: \bibitem[Padin et al.(2001)]{Pad01} Padin, S., et al., 2001, \apj, 549,
1285: L1-L5
1286:
1287: \bibitem[Peebles \& Yu(1970)]{Peb70} Peebles, P.J.E, and Yu J.T., 1970,
1288: \apj 162, 815
1289:
1290:
1291: \bibitem[Piacentini et al.(2002)]{Piac2001}
1292: Piacentini, F. et al., 2002, accepted by \apjs
1293:
1294: \bibitem[Prunet et al.(2000)]{Prun2000} Prunet, S. et al., 2000, in "Energy
1295: densities in the Universe", Bartlett J., Dumarchez J. eds., Editions
1296: Frontieres, Paris - astro-ph/0006052
1297:
1298: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1999)]{perlm} S. Perlmutter et al.,
1299: \apj, 517, 565(1999)
1300:
1301: \bibitem[Riess et al.(1998)]{riess} Riess et al., 1998, \aj, 116, 1009
1302:
1303: \bibitem[Rao et al.(1982)]{rao} Rao,~S.M., D.~R.~Wilton, and
1304: A.~W.~Glisson,\lq\lq Electromagnetic scattering by surfaces of arbitrary
1305: shape\rq\rq, {\em IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propagation}, Vol. AP-30,
1306: no. 3, pp 409-418, May 1982.
1307:
1308: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1999)]{Schl99} Schlegel D.J. et al. 1999,
1309: \apj 500, 525.
1310:
1311: \bibitem[Stumpff(1980)]{Stump1980} Stumpff, 1980, A\&A Suppl, 41, 1.
1312:
1313: \bibitem[Sunyaev \& Zeldovich(1970)]{SZ70}Sunyaev, R.A. \& Zeldovich ,
1314: Ya.B., 1970, Astrophysics and Space Science 7, 3-19
1315:
1316: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2000)]{Tegm00} Tegmark M. et al., 2000, \apj 530,
1317: 133.
1318:
1319: \bibitem[Turok et al.(1998)]{Turo98} Turok, N., Pen, U-L. and Seljak,
1320: U. 1998, Phys. Rev. D58 023506
1321:
1322: \bibitem[Tytler et al.(2000)]{Tyt00} Tytler, D. et al. 2000, \physscr,
1323: submitted, astro-ph/0001318.
1324:
1325: \bibitem[Wright(1998)]{Wrig98} Wright, E.L., 1998, \apj 496, 1.
1326:
1327: \bibitem[WOMBAT(1998)]{wombat} WOMBAT collaboration, 1998, see
1328: http://astron.berkeley.edu/wombat/foregrounds/radio.html.
1329:
1330: \end{thebibliography}
1331:
1332: \end{document}
1333: