1: \documentclass[10pt,twocolumn]{hdthep}
2: \input epsf
3:
4: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,bm,graphicx,booktabs}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6: \usepackage{subfigure}
7:
8: \newcommand{\dtau}[1][]{\frac{\textrm{d}#1}{\textrm{d}\tau}}
9: \newcommand{\bdtau}[1][]{ \left ( \dtau[#1] \right ) }
10: \newcommand{\scale}{ a(\tau) }
11: \newcommand{\ro}[2][0]{\ensuremath{ \rho^{\textrm{#1}}_{\textrm{#2}}}}
12: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}\;$}}
13: \newcommand{\Mp}{\ensuremath{M_{\bar P}}}
14: \newcommand{\weff}{\ensuremath{\overline{w}_0}}
15: \newcommand{\ome}[2][]{ \ensuremath{
16: \Omega_{\textrm{#1}}^{#2}}}
17: \newcommand{\omebar}[2][]{\ensuremath{
18: \overline{\Omega}_{\textrm{#1}}^{\ensuremath{#2}}}}
19: \newcommand{\sh}[1][]{\ensuremath{\delta \varphi_{#1}}}
20: \newcommand{\osh}[1][]{\ensuremath{\varphi_{#1}}}
21:
22: \newcommand{\rstar}{\ensuremath{r_\star}}
23: \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\Alph{enumi}}
24: \newcommand{\obh}{\ensuremath{\Omega_b h^2}}
25: \newcommand{\iv}[1]{
26: \textbf{#1}\\
27: }
28: \newcommand{\pam}{\ensuremath{\left (\obh, r^*, n,
29: \overline{\Omega}_{\rm ls}^{\phi} \right)}}
30: \hyphenation{quint-ess-ence}
31:
32:
33:
34: \begin{document}
35: \hdthep{01-22}
36: \pubdate{April 2001}
37: \title{The Location of CMB Peaks in a Universe with Dark Energy}
38: \author{Michael Doran and Matthew Lilley}
39:
40: \abst{
41: The locations of the peaks of the
42: CMB spectrum are sensitive indicators of cosmological parameters, yet
43: there is no known analytic formula which accurately describes their
44: dependence on them. We parametrize the location of the peaks as $l_m
45: = l_A(m - \varphi_m)$, where $l_A$ is the analytically calculable
46: acoustic scale and $m$ labels the peak number. Fitting formulae for
47: the phase shifts $\varphi_m$ for the first three peaks and the first
48: trough are given. It is shown that in a wide range of parameter
49: space, the acoustic scale $l_A$ can be retrieved from actual CMB
50: measurements of the first three peaks within one percent accuracy.
51: This can be used to speed up likelihood analysis. We describe how the
52: peak shifts can be used to distinguish between different models of
53: dark energy.}
54:
55: \maketitle
56: %\begin{keywords}
57: %cosmic microwave background---cosmology: theory
58: %\end{keywords}
59:
60: \section{Introduction}
61: The locations of the peaks and troughs of the CMB anisotropy spectrum
62: can serve as a sensitive probe of cosmological parameters
63: \cite{Huey:1999se, Hu:1996qz,Amendola:2000er,Brax:2000yb,Coble:1997te,Doran:2000jt}.
64: %(Huey et. al. 1999; Hu \& White 1996; Amendola 2000; Brax, Martin \& Riazuelo 2000;
65: %Coble, Dodelson \& Frieman 1997; Doran et. al. 2000)
66:
67: There are however many processes which contribute to the final
68: anisotropies, and these must be calculated from systems of coupled
69: partial differential equations \cite{Seljak:1996is}. As such it is
70: not possible {\em a priori} to derive an accurate analytic formula for
71: the peak locations. There exists a numerically-obtained estimate of
72: the location of the first peak \cite{Kamionkowski:1994aw} for a
73: universe with no cosmological constant, namely $l_1 \sim 200\
74: \Omega_m^{-1/2}$. This was recently extended to universes with
75: $\Lambda \neq 0$, by perturbing around the $\Lambda = 0$ value
76: \cite{Weinberg:2000ts}, but holding all other parameters fixed. In
77: this work, we calculate the locations of the first three peaks as a
78: function of several cosmological parameters, including universes with
79: a large dark energy component. We show how these results can be used
80: to extract cosmological information about, for instance the history of
81: quintessence, from just a handful of CMB data points and also to speed
82: up multi-parameter likelihood analysis.
83:
84:
85: Before last scattering, the photons and baryons are tightly bound by
86: Compton scattering and behave as a fluid. The oscillations of this
87: fluid, occuring as a result of the balance between the gravitational
88: interactions and the photon pressure, lead to the familiar spectrum of
89: peaks and troughs in the averaged temperature anisotropy spectrum
90: which we measure today. The odd peaks correspond to maximum
91: compression of the fluid, the even ones to rarefaction
92: \cite{Hu:1997qs}. In an idealised model of the fluid, there is an
93: analytic relation for the location of the $m$-th peak: $l_m \approx
94: m\, l_A$ \cite{Hu:2000ti,Hu:1995uz} where $l_A$ is the {\em acoustic
95: scale} which may be calculated analytically \cite{Doran:2000jt} and
96: depends on both pre- and post-recombination physics as well as the
97: geometry of the universe.
98:
99: \begin{table}
100: \begin{center}
101: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
102: \toprule
103: $\Omega_m$ & $\Omega_\Lambda$ & $l_1$ (estim.) & $l_1$ (numeric.) &
104: $\%$ error\\
105: \midrule
106: 0.4 & 0.6 & 296 &219 & 35\\
107: 1.0 & 0.0 & 269 &205 & 31\\
108: \bottomrule
109: \end{tabular}
110: \caption{Values of the location of the first peak $l_1$ estimated by
111: $l_1 \approx l_A$ and calculated numerically via {\protect\textsc
112: CMBFAST} {\protect\cite{Seljak:1996is}}. The intuitive model clearly does
113: not describe the location of the first peak well, though the
114: spacings between other peaks is better. The above values were
115: calculated assuming $h=0.65$, $\Omega_b = 0.05$, $n=1$ and $a_{\rm
116: ls} = 1100^{-1}$.}
117: \label{table:error}
118: \end{center}
119: \end{table}
120:
121: The simple relation $l_m \approx m\, l_A$ however does not hold very
122: well for the first peak (see Table \ref{table:error}) although it is
123: better for higher peaks \cite{Hu:1996qz}. Driving effects from the
124: decay of the gravitational potential as well as contributions from the
125: Doppler shift of the oscillating fluid introduce a shift in the
126: spectrum. In order to compensate for this, we parametrize the
127: location of the peaks and troughs as in \cite{Hu:2000ti} by\footnote{
128: The peaks are labelled by integer values of $m$ and the troughs by
129: half-integer values.}
130: \begin{equation} \label{our_phi}
131: l_m \equiv l_A \left(m - \osh[m]\right) \equiv l_A \left(m -
132: \bar{\varphi} - \sh[m] \right).
133: \end{equation}
134: For convenience, we define $\bar\varphi \equiv \osh[1]$ to be the
135: overall peak shift, and $\sh[m] \equiv \osh[m] - \bar\varphi$ the
136: relative shift of the $m$-th peak relative to the first. The reason
137: for this parametrization is that the phase shifts of the peaks are
138: determined predominantly by pre-recombination physics, and are
139: independent of the geometry of the Universe. In particular, the ratio
140: of the locations of the first and $m$-th peaks
141: \begin{equation}\label{ratio}
142: \frac{l_m}{l_1} = \frac{l_A}{l_A} \frac{ \left(m -
143: \bar{\varphi} - \delta \varphi_m \right)}{\left(1 -
144: \bar{\varphi}\right)} = 1 + \frac{m-1 -\delta
145: \varphi_m }{1 - \bar{\varphi}},
146: \end{equation}
147: probes mostly pre-recombination physics and so can be used to extract
148: information on the amount of dark energy present before last
149: scattering \cite{Doran:2000jt}.
150:
151: If we knew how the phase shifts depended on cosmological parameters,
152: it would be possible to extract $l_A$ from the measured CMB spectrum.
153: Since any given cosmological model predicts a certain value of $l_A$,
154: this is a simple way of distinguishing between different models -- in
155: particular it has been shown \cite{Doran:2000jt} that different
156: quintessence models with the same energy density and equation of state
157: today can have significantly different values of $l_A$. Finally,
158: having extracted $l_A$ from observations, we could speed up likelihood
159: analysis by being able to discard models not leading to the right
160: value of the acoustic scale before a single perturbation equation has
161: to be solved.
162:
163: In a recent paper \cite{Hu:2000ti}, a fitting formula
164: for $\bar{\varphi}$ was given
165: \begin{equation} \label{phase_fit}
166: \bar{\varphi} \approx 0.267 \left(\frac{\rstar }{ 0.3}\right)^{0.1},
167: \end{equation}
168: for the values $n=1$, $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.02$. In this formula,
169: $\rstar$ is the ratio of radiation to matter at last
170: scattering\footnote{This relation also holds in the presence of
171: quintessence.}
172: \begin{equation}\label{r_star}
173: \rstar = \rho_r(z_\star) / \rho_m(z_\star) = 0.042 \left(\Omega_m
174: h^2\right)^{-1} \left(z_\star / 10^3\right).
175: \end{equation}
176: Equation (\ref{phase_fit}) however, is valid only for the given values
177: of spectral index, Hubble parameter and baryon density. It does not
178: include the dependence of the peak location on the amount of
179: quintessence present at last scattering, and is valid only for the
180: first peak $l_1$. In this paper, we give fitting formulae (see Appendix \ref{sec::fit})
181: for the shifts of the first three peaks and the first trough and describe how
182: one can use them to extract cosmological information from future CMB
183: experiments.
184:
185: \begin{table}
186: \begin{center}
187: \begin{tabular}{cc}
188: \toprule
189: Symbol & Range\\
190: \midrule
191: \ome[0]{m} & $[0.2,\,0.6]$ \\
192: \obh & $[0.005,\,0.04]$ \\
193: \omebar[ls]{\phi} & $[0,\,0.23]$ \\
194: $h$ & $[0.55,\,0.80]$ \\
195: $n$ & $[0.8,\,1.2]$ \\
196: \bottomrule
197: \end{tabular}
198: \caption{Parameter ranges used in this work.}
199: \label{tab::parameters}
200: \end{center}
201: \normalsize
202: \end{table}
203:
204: Our first task in computing fitting formulae for the peak locations is
205: to decide which cosmological parameters to fit to. The dependence on
206: the baryon density and the Hubble parameter is sensitive only to the
207: product $\Omega_b h^2$, and so we do not seek to fit for them
208: separately. We further take $\rstar$ defined in Equation (\ref{r_star})
209: and the spectral index $n$ as parameters.
210: For the quintessence dependence, we use the effective average
211: density component before last scattering $\omebar[ls]{\phi}$ defined
212: as in \cite{Doran:2000jt}
213: \begin{equation}\label{omebar_defn}
214: {\omebar[ls]{\phi}} \equiv \tau_{\rm ls}^{-1}
215: \int_0^{\tau_{\rm ls}} \ome[]{\phi}(\tau) \textrm{d}\tau.
216: \end{equation}
217:
218: We recall that the peak shifts are sensitive mainly to
219: pre-recombination physics and so we do not need to use the value of
220: $\Omega^{\phi}$ today as a parameter. Of course the acoustic scale
221: $l_A$ does depend on today's quintessence component -- we give a
222: relation for $l_A$ in Section \ref{sec::estimate}. We will thus seek
223: to find the dependence of $(\bar{\varphi},\delta\varphi_m)$ on the
224: cosmological parameter set \pam. In performing these calculations, we
225: restricted each of the cosmological parameters used to lie within a
226: certain interval, which in each case is over- rather than
227: under-cautious. The ranges of parameter values chosen are displayed
228: in Table \ref{tab::parameters}. To gain intuition for the fitting formulae,
229: we plot curves for the shift of the first and the second peak as well
230: as the relative shifts of the first trough and the second peak in
231: Figure \ref{fig::histphi3}.
232:
233:
234: \begin{figure*}
235: \begin{minipage}{6.2in}
236: \begin{tabular}{rr}
237: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{phiOverview.eps}} &
238: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{dphi32Overview.eps}}\\
239: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{dphi2Overview.eps}} &
240: \subfigure[\label{fig::p3o}]{\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{phi3Overview.eps}}
241: \end{tabular}
242: \label{fig::histphi3}
243: \caption{The overall shift $\bar\varphi$ (a) and the relative shifts of
244: the first trough (b) and the second peak (c). Also given is the
245: overall shift of the third peak (d). In all figures, the long
246: dashed, dotted and the dashed lines represent the fitting formulae
247: for the parameters $\pam = (0.02,\,\rstar,\,1,\,0)$,\
248: $(0.02,\,\rstar,\,1,\, 0.1)$ and $(0.01,\,\rstar,\,1,\,0)$
249: respectively. The large symbols show the data corresponding to these
250: curves. The errors quoted in Appendix \ref{sec::fit} are calculated
251: from the spread of these symbols relative to the curves.
252: The sprinkled dots represent thousands of models
253: selected at random from the parameter space given in Table
254: \ref{tab::parameters}, and indicate the ranges of values taken on
255: by $\bar\varphi$ etc. for these models.}
256: \end{minipage}
257: \end{figure*}
258:
259:
260: In Sections \ref{sec::phase} and \ref{sec::estimate} we describe a
261: systematic procedure for extracting the acoustic scale $l_A$ from the
262: location of the first three peaks. Section \ref{sec::kappa}
263: introduces a quantity $\kappa$ which is useful as it depends only on
264: two of our four parameters.
265: The model (in)dependence of the fitting formulae is discussed in
266: Section \ref{sec::dependence}.
267: Finally, our fitting formulae are given in Appendix
268: \ref{sec::fit}.
269:
270: \section{Retrieving the shifts from CMB measurements}
271: \label{sec::phase}
272:
273: With future high precision measurements of the {\it MAP}\footnote{http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/}
274: and
275: {\it PLANCK}\footnote{http://astro.estec.esa.nl/SA-general/Projects/Planck/}
276: satellites, we expect that the position of the
277: first three peaks and troughs will be determined to high accuracy.
278: From these few data points, it is possible to extract valuable
279: information on the cosmological parameters. We have observed, during
280: our computation of CMB spectra for thousands of universes, that the
281: overall shift of the third peak \osh[3] (i.e. \osh[3] $=
282: \bar{\varphi}+\sh[3]$) is a relatively insensitive quantity. In the
283: parameter range we used (see Table \ref{tab::parameters}) we found
284: that $\osh[3] =0.341 \pm 0.024$.\footnote{Here and in the following,
285: we quote 1-$\sigma$ errors. All errors follow approximately a bell
286: curve.} In using $\osh[3] = 0.341$ we introduce slight (at most one
287: percent) systematic deviations in our estimate, because an increase of
288: $\omebar[ls]{\phi}$ typically increases $\osh[3]$ (see Fig.
289: \ref{fig::p3o}). We will partially correct for these effects by
290: improving our estimate for $\osh[3]$, via the procedure described
291: below.
292:
293: We start by extracting our first estimate of the overall phase shift,
294: from the measured locations of the first and third peaks
295: \begin{equation}\label{est_phi}
296: \bar \varphi = 1 - (3 - \varphi_3) \frac{l_1}{l_3} \approx 1 - 2.66
297: \frac{l_1}{l_3}.
298: \end{equation}
299: Comparing this estimate with the value calculated from numerical
300: simulations, we find $\Delta \bar\varphi = 0.006$. Having a handle on
301: the overall phase shift, it is now simple to infer the relative shifts
302: \sh[m] of the remaining troughs and peaks. From equation (\ref{ratio})
303: we get the relation
304: \begin{equation}\label{est_dphi}
305: \sh[m] = (m-1) - \left (\frac{l_m}{l_1} - 1 \right )\left (1 -
306: \bar\varphi \right).
307: \end{equation}
308: The error of this estimate is
309: \begin{equation}
310: \Delta \left(\sh[m]\right) = \left (\frac{l_m}{l_1} - 1 \right )
311: \Delta \bar\varphi.
312: \end{equation}
313: Having a first (and already quite accurate) estimate of the shifts, we
314: now correct for the systematic effects described above. Taking the
315: cosmological parameter set we wish to maximise over (i.e. Table
316: \ref{tab::parameters}), we calculate for each model universe the phase
317: shifts of the first three peaks using the fitting formulae given in
318: Appendix \ref{sec::fit}. We then discard those models for which any
319: phase shift deviates significantly (say $>2$-$\sigma$) from the
320: data-inferred values. This leaves an improved cosmological parameter
321: set, for which the average value of $\osh[3]$ is calculated (see
322: Table \ref{tab::sys3}). This
323: improved $\osh[3]$ can then be used to re-calculate the phase shifts
324: from Equations (\ref{est_phi}) and (\ref{est_dphi}).
325:
326: \begin{table}
327: \begin{center}
328: \begin{tabular}{r@{\,-\,}lcc}
329: \toprule
330: \multicolumn{2}{c}
331: {\omebar[ls]{\phi} ($\%$) }& $\langle \osh[3]^{\rm num}
332: \rangle$ & $\langle \osh[3]^{\rm improved} \rangle$ \\
333: \midrule
334: 0 & 2 & 0.313 & 0.326 \\
335: 10&12 & 0.340 & 0.337 \\
336: 18 & 20 & 0.362 & 0.348 \\
337: \bottomrule
338: \end{tabular}
339: \caption{Binned average $\osh[3]$ of the numerical simulation and the
340: improved deduction.}
341: \label{tab::sys3}
342: \end{center}
343: \normalsize
344: \end{table}
345:
346: \section{Estimating $\lowercase{l}_A$}\label{sec::estimate}
347: Using the improved value\footnote{In fact, using $\osh[3] = 0.34$
348: instead of the improved value also gives reasonable results.} for
349: $\osh[3]$ from the previous section, we can extract to very good
350: accuracy the acoustic scale $l_A$ -- the quantity which determines the
351: overall spacing of CMB
352: peaks:
353: \begin{equation}
354: l_A = \frac{l_3}{3-\varphi_3} % \approx \frac{l_3}{2.66}
355: \end{equation}
356: In fact, the deviation of the value of $l_A$ estimated from this
357: formula and the numerically-obtained value is small, with a
358: $1$-$\sigma$ error of $0.8\%$ (see also Table \ref{tab::leaping}).
359: This is a very valuable result, for the value of $l_A$ can be simply
360: computed for any given quintessence (or indeed any other) cosmology.
361: For flat universes it is given by \cite{Doran:2000jt}
362: \begin{multline}
363: \label{sep}
364: l_A = \pi \bar c_s^{-1} \Bigg[
365: \frac{F(\ome[0]{\phi},\weff)}{\sqrt{1-{\omebar[ls]{\phi}}}}
366: \Bigg \{ \sqrt{a_{\rm ls} +
367: \frac{\ome[0]{r}}{ 1 - \ome[0]{\phi}}} \\
368: - \sqrt{\frac{\ome[0]{r}}{1 - \ome[0]{\phi}}} \Bigg \} ^{-1} - 1 \Bigg],
369: \end{multline}
370: with
371: \begin{multline} \label{F_int}
372: F(\ome[0]{\phi},\weff) = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^1 \textrm{d}a \Bigg( a +
373: \frac{\ome[0]{\phi}}{1-\ome[0]{\phi}} \, a ^{(1 - 3 \weff)} \\
374: + \frac{\ome[0]{r}(1-a)}{1-\ome[0]{\phi}} \Bigg)^{-1/2},
375: \end{multline}
376: where $\ome[0]{r}, \ome[0]{\phi}$ are today's radiation and
377: quintessence components, $a_{\rm ls}$ is the scale factor at last
378: scattering (if $a_0=1$) and $\bar c_s$ is the average sound speed before
379: last scattering:
380: \begin{equation}
381: \bar c_s \equiv \tau_{\rm ls}^{-1} \int_0^{\tau_{\rm
382: ls}} {\rm d}\tau \left [ 3 + (9/4)(\rho^{\rm b}(t)/\rho^{\gamma}(t)) \right ]^{-1/2}.
383: \end{equation}
384: The effective equation of state, $\weff$ is the $\Omega^\phi$-weighted
385: average over conformal time
386: \begin{equation}
387: \label{w_eff}
388: \weff = \int_0^{\tau_0} \ome[]{\phi}(\tau) w(\tau) \textrm{d} \tau
389: \times \left( \int_0^{\tau_0} \ome[]{\phi}(\tau) \textrm{d} \tau
390: \right)^{-1}.
391: \end{equation}
392: In particular, different quintessence models with the same energy
393: density and equation of state today can have significantly different
394: values of $l_A$. In this way stringent bounds on cosmological models
395: can be imposed just by comparing the $l_A$ value of specific models.
396:
397: \section{Insensitive Quantities} \label{sec::kappa}
398:
399: The phase shifts depend on the cosmological parameters \pam. Of
400: course, if it were possible to find a linear combination of phase
401: shifts which is insensitive to some of these parameters and thus
402: reduce the dimensionality of our parameter space, it would greatly
403: help in extracting cosmological information. To this end, we note an
404: anti-correlation between $\bar\varphi$ and \sh[3] -- empirically, we
405: have found that the quantity
406: \begin{equation}
407: \kappa \equiv \bar\varphi + \frac{2}{5} \sh[3]
408: \end{equation}
409: is practically insensitive to $\rstar$ and $\obh$, and depends only on
410: $n$ and $\omebar[ls]{\phi}$. In fact, it is to very good approximation
411: given by the fit
412: \begin{equation}
413: \kappa = \left (0.277 + 0.284 \omebar[ls]{\phi} \right ) (1.3 -
414: 0.3 n),
415: \end{equation}
416: with $\Delta \kappa^{\rm fit} \approx 0.0024$ being the deviation of
417: the fit from the numerically-simulated values (see Fig.
418: \ref{fig::kappaOverview}). Following the procedure in Section
419: \ref{sec::phase}, we can deduce $\kappa$ from the measured values of
420: the peak locations. Within our parameter range, $\kappa$ is then
421: determined with error $\Delta \kappa ^{\rm deduc.} = 0.013$.
422:
423: \begin{figure}
424: \scalebox{0.6}[0.6]{
425: \includegraphics{kappaOverview.eps}}
426: \caption{The quantity $\kappa$
427: as a function of $\rstar$. It is practically insensitive to
428: $\rstar$ and $\obh$ for most of the initial conditions considered.
429: The dots represent fifty thousand models with parameters in the
430: ranges given in Table \ref{tab::parameters} The $+$'s and
431: $\times$'s represent models with \omebar[ls]{\phi} = 0 and 0.22
432: respectively, for $n=1$, and all values of other input parameters.
433: \label{fig::kappaOverview}}
434: \end{figure}
435:
436: In the parameter space we have considered, the value of $\kappa$
437: varies between $0.26$ and $0.36$. Hence to 1-$\sigma$ confidence
438: level, about three quarters of our two-dimensional
439: $(n,\omebar[ls]{\phi})$ parameter space can be excluded for any given
440: $\kappa$. For instance, without quintessence, the value of $\kappa$
441: lies between $0.26$ and $0.29$ for $n \in [0.8,1.2]$. The measurement
442: by {\it MAP} or {\it PLANCK} of a value of $\kappa>0.29$ would therefore be a
443: strong hint of a dark energy component playing a role at last
444: scattering.
445:
446: \section{Model dependence} \label{sec::dependence}
447: The fitting formulae were obtained using a standard exponential
448: potential \cite{Wetterich:1988fm} for the quintessence component.
449: Because the shifts are almost independent of post recombination
450: physics, we expect the results to be approximately correct for any
451: realization of quintessence, i.e. all potentials. One should however
452: be cautious with models that are qualitatively extremely different
453: from the exponential potential before last scattering, as for example
454: the Ratra-Peebles inverse power law \cite{Peebles:1988ek} with
455: substantial \omebar[ls]{\phi}. In these models there is a sharp
456: increase in \ome[]{\phi} during recombination, whereas the
457: quintessence content for the exponential potential is fairly constant
458: at this epoch.
459:
460: The inverse power law is characterized by its potential
461: $V^{\rm IPL} = A / \varphi^{\alpha}$. Models with $\alpha \gtrapprox 2$
462: are phenomenologically disfavoured \cite{Balbi:2001kj}.
463: We use these models only as cross checks for the fitting formulae.
464:
465:
466: In terms of phase shifts, one finds that the sensitive relative shifts
467: of the first trough and the second peak differ substantially for the
468: two models (see Table \ref{tab::leaping}). However, $\bar\varphi$ and
469: $\kappa$ are seen to be more robust and the deduced value of $l_A$ is
470: accurate to within one percent in every case.
471:
472:
473: \begin{table*}
474: \begin{center}
475: \begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
476: \toprule
477: \omebar[ls]{\phi} ($\%$) & $l_1$ & $l_{3/2}$ & $l_2$ &
478: $l_3$ & $l_A$ & $\bar\varphi$ & \sh[3/2] & \sh[2] & $\kappa$ \\
479: \midrule
480: \multicolumn{10}{c}{Leaping kinetic term}\\[0.4ex]
481:
482: 3 & 214 & 396 & 521 & 788 & 293 & 0.269 & -0.121 & -0.045 &
483: 0.287 \\
484: & & & & & 294 & 0.271 & -0.119 & -0.041 & 0.292 \\[0.4ex]
485: 13 & 210 & 396 & 522 & 799 & 301 & 0.301 & -0.120 & -0.038 &
486: 0.317 \\
487: & & & & & 301 & 0.301 & -0.120 & -0.038 & 0.318 \\[0.4ex]
488: 22 & 208 & 397 & 524 & 808 & 307 & 0.324 & -0.116 & -0.030 &
489: 0.341 \\
490: & & & & & 305 & 0.320 & -0.120 & -0.035 & 0.333 \\[0.4ex]
491: \multicolumn{10}{c}{Ratra Peebles inverse power law} \\[0.4ex]
492: $5\times 10^{-3}$ & 199 & 366 & 480 & 724 & 269 & 0.259 & -0.119 & -0.043 &
493: 0.278 \\
494: & & & & & 270 & 0.261 & -0.117 & -0.038 & 0.284 \\[0.4ex]
495: 10 & 178 & 339 & 443 & 674 & 251 & 0.294 & -0.140 & -0.054 &
496: 0.304 \\
497: & & & & & 253 & 0.298 & -0.138 & -0.050 & 0.312 \\[0.4ex]
498: 22 & 172 & 338 & 444 & 683 & 258 & 0.333 & -0.144& -0.057 &
499: 0.340 \\
500: & & & & & 258 & 0.334 & -0.145 & -0.057 & 0.340 \\
501: \bottomrule
502: \end{tabular}
503: \caption{The peak locations and the phase shifts of leaping kinetic term
504: {\protect\cite{Hebecker:2001zb}} and Ratra Peebles inverse power law
505: {\protect\cite{Peebles:1988ek}}
506: models for $\obh = 0.021,\ \ome[0]{\phi}=0.6,\
507: h=0.65,\ n=1$ and varying \omebar[ls]{\phi}.
508: The inverse power law models correspond to $\alpha=6,\, 22$ and $40$
509: respectivly.
510: The first row of each
511: model gives the {\textsc CMBFAST}-obtained values of the locations of
512: the peaks and the phase shifts as well as $l_A$ and $\kappa$. The
513: second row gives the values deduced using the method described in
514: Section \ref{sec::phase}.}
515: \label{tab::leaping}
516: \end{center}
517: \end{table*}
518:
519: \section{Conclusions}
520: In this paper we have shown that within a wide range of parameters,
521: one can accurately deduce the acoustic scale $l_A$, as well as the
522: shifts of the peaks and troughs provided the locations of the first
523: three peaks are measured. Not only will this enable faster testing in
524: likelihood analysis by providing a filter before any fluctuation
525: equations are solved, but it could also in principle lead to a
526: detection of quintessence -- measuring a non-zero value of the dark
527: energy at last scattering (e.g by computing the quantity $\kappa$
528: described in Section \ref{sec::kappa}) would distinguish it from a
529: cosmological constant, whose contribution to the energy density of the
530: Universe would become significant only very recently.
531:
532: \section*{Acknowledgments}
533:
534: We would like to thank C.~Wetterich and G.~Aarts for helpful
535: discussions.
536:
537: \appendix
538: \section{Fitting formulae}\label{sec::fit}
539:
540: We present here our fitting formulae for the overall phase shift
541: $\bar{\varphi}$, followed by the relative shifts of the first trough
542: (\sh[3/2]) and the second (\sh[2]) and third (\sh[3])
543: peaks.\footnote{A small c++ package providing functions for the shifts
544: is available at http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/\~\,
545: \!\!\!doran/peak.html} In each case we also give an estimate of the
546: accuracy of the formulae.
547:
548:
549: \subsection{Overall phase shift $\bar\varphi$}
550: For the overall phase shift $\bar{\varphi}$ (i.e. the phase shift of
551: the first peak) we find the formula
552: \begin{equation} \label{phi_1}
553: \bar{\varphi} =(1.466 - 0.466n) \left[ a_1 r_{\star}^{a_2} + 0.291
554: \omebar[ls]{\phi} \right],
555: \end{equation}
556: where $a_1$ and $a_2$ are given by
557: \begin{eqnarray}
558: a_1 & = & 0.286 + 0.626\left(\Omega_b h^2\right) \\
559: a_2 & = & 0.1786 - 6.308 \,\obh + 174.9\left(\obh\right)^2\\
560: && - 1168 \left(\obh\right)^3.
561: \end{eqnarray}
562: It contains the main dependence of any shift $\varphi_m$ on
563: \omebar[ls]{\phi}. The 1-$\sigma$ error for $\bar\varphi$ is
564: \begin{equation}
565: \Delta \bar\varphi = 0.0031
566: \end{equation}
567: \subsection{Relative shift of first trough \sh[3/2]}
568: The relative shift of the first trough is a very sensitive quantity
569: spanning a wide range of values. It can very well be used to restrict
570: the allowed parameter space for cosmological models. We have
571: \begin{equation}
572: \sh[3/2] = b_0 + b_1 \rstar^{1/3} \exp(b_2 \rstar) + 0.158\, (n-1),
573: \end{equation}
574: with
575: \begin{eqnarray}
576: \nonumber b_0 &=& -0.086 - 0.079 \, \omebar[ls]{\phi} - \left
577: (2.22 - 18.1 \omebar[ls]{\phi}\right ) \obh \\
578: && -\left [140 + 403 \omebar[ls]{\phi} \right]
579: \left(\obh\right)^2\\
580: b_1 &=& 0.39 - 0.98 \, \omebar[ls]{\phi} - \left (18.1 - 29.2
581: \omebar[ls]{\phi}\right) \obh \\
582: &&+ 440 \left(\obh\right)^2 \\
583: b_2 &=& -0.57-3.8 \exp\left\{-2365.0 \left(\obh\right)^2\right\}.
584: \end{eqnarray}
585: For the one standard-deviation error we have
586: \begin{equation}
587: \Delta \sh[3/2] = 0.0039.
588: \end{equation}
589:
590: \subsection{Relative shift of second peak \sh[2]}
591: The relative shift of the second peak is a very sensitive quantity.
592: It is thus not surprising to find a strong dependence of \sh[2] on the
593: parameters. We have
594:
595: \begin{equation}
596: \delta \varphi_2 = c_0 - c_1 \rstar - c_2 \rstar ^{-c_3} + 0.05\,
597: (n-1),
598: \end{equation}
599: with
600: \begin{eqnarray}
601: c_0 &=& -0.1 + \left( 0.213 - 0.123 \,\omebar[ls]{\phi} \right)\\
602: &&\times \exp\left\{ - \left( 52 - 63.6
603: \,\omebar[ls]{\phi}\right) \obh \right\}\\
604: c_1 &=& 0.063 \,\exp\left \{-3500 \left(\obh\right)^2\right\} +
605: 0.015\\
606: c_2 &=& 6\times 10^{-6} + 0.137 \left (\obh - 0.07 \right) ^2\\
607: c_3 &=& 0.8 + 2.3 \,\omebar[ls]{\phi} + \left( 70 - 126
608: \,\omebar[ls]{\phi}\right) \obh.
609: \end{eqnarray}
610: The error of this approximation is
611: \begin{equation}
612: \Delta \sh[2] = 0.0044.
613: \end{equation}
614:
615: \subsection{Relative shift of third peak $\delta \varphi_3$}
616: For the third peak, we find
617: \begin{equation}
618: \delta \varphi_3 = 10 - d_1\rstar^{d_2} + 0.08\, (n-1),
619: \end{equation}
620: with
621: \begin{eqnarray}
622: d_1 &=& 9.97 + \left(3.3 -3 \ome[ls]{\phi}\right) \obh \\
623: \nonumber d_2 &=& 0.0016 - 0.0067 \,\ome[ls]{\phi} + \left(0.196 - 0.22
624: \,\ome[ls]{\phi}\right) \obh\\
625: && + \frac{(2.25 + 2.77 \,\ome[ls]{\phi} ) \times 10^{-5}}{ \obh},
626: \end{eqnarray}
627: and error given by
628: \begin{equation}
629: \Delta \sh[3] = 0.0052.
630: \end{equation}
631:
632: \subsection{Overall shift of third peak $\varphi_3$}
633: For completeness, we give a fit for $\varphi_3$ which in principle
634: could be obtained by adding $\bar\varphi$ and \sh[3]. However, a
635: one-step-fit yields better errors here. Our formula is
636: \begin{equation}
637: \varphi_3 = e_1 \left(1 + e_3 \rstar\right)\rstar^{e_2} + e_4 - 0.037
638: \, (n-1),
639: \end{equation}
640: with
641: \begin{eqnarray}
642: e_1 &=& 0.302 - 2.112 \,\obh + 0.15 \exp\left\{-384 \obh\right\}\\
643: e_2 &=& -0.04 - 4.5 \,\obh\\
644: e_3 &=& \left(-0.118 + 44.7 \,\obh\right) \omebar[ls]{\phi} \\
645: e_4 &=& \left(0.214 \exp\left\{-48 \obh\right\}+ 0.106\right)
646: \omebar[ls]{\phi},
647: \end{eqnarray}
648: and error
649: \begin{equation}
650: \Delta \varphi_3 = 0.0017.
651: \end{equation}
652:
653:
654:
655: \begin{thebibliography}{}
656: %\cite{Huey:1999se}
657: \bibitem{Huey:1999se}
658: Huey, G., Wang, L.,
659: Dave, R., Caldwell, R. R., Steinhardt, P. J., 1999,
660: %``Resolving the Cosmological Missing Energy Problem,''
661: Phys.\ Rev.\ D, 59, 063005 [astro-ph/9804285]
662: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9804285;%%
663:
664: %\cite{Hu:1996qz}
665: \bibitem{Hu:1996qz}
666: Hu, W., White, M., 1996,
667: %``Measuring the Curvature of the Universe,''
668: in Proceedings of 31st Rencontres de Moriond: Microwave
669: Background Anisotropies, Les Arcs, France, 16-23 March 1996
670: (Editions Frontieres) [astro-ph/9606140]
671: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9606140;%%
672:
673: %\cite{Amendola:2000er}
674: \bibitem{Amendola:2000er}
675: Amendola, L., 2000,
676: %``Coupled quintessence,''
677: Phys.\ Rev.\ D, 62, 043511 [astro-ph/9908023]
678: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9908023;%%
679:
680: %\cite{Brax:2000yb}
681: \bibitem{Brax:2000yb}
682: Brax, P., Martin, J., Riazuelo, A., 2000,
683: %``Exhaustive study of cosmic microwave background anisotropies in
684: %quintessential scenarios,''
685: Phys.\ Rev.\ D, 62, 103505 [astro-ph/0005428]
686: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0005428;%%
687:
688: %\cite{Coble:1997te}
689: \bibitem{Coble:1997te}
690: Coble, K., Dodelson, S., Frieman, J. A., 1997,
691: %``Dynamical Lambda models of structure formation,''
692: Phys.\ Rev.\ D, 55, 1851 [astro-ph/9608122].
693: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9608122;%%
694:
695: %\cite{Doran:2000jt}
696: \bibitem{Doran:2000jt}
697: Doran, M., Lilley, M. J., Schwindt. J., Wetterich, C., 2000,
698: %``Quintessence and the separation of CMB peaks,''
699: ApJ in press [astro-ph/0012139].
700: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0012139;%%
701:
702:
703: %\cite{Seljak:1996is}
704: %\bibitem[\protect\citename{Seljak \& Zaldarriaga
705: %}{1996}]{Seljak:1996is}
706: \bibitem{Seljak:1996is}
707: Seljak, U., Zaldarriaga, M., 1996,
708: %``A Line of Sight Approach to Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies,''
709: ApJ, 469, 437 [astro-ph/9603033]
710: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9603033;%%
711:
712:
713:
714:
715: %\cite{Kamionkowski:1994aw}
716: \bibitem{Kamionkowski:1994aw}
717: Kamionkowski, M., Spergel, D. N., Sugiyama, N., 1994,
718: %``Small scale cosmic microwave background anisotropies as a probe of
719: %the geometry of the universe,''
720: ApJ, 426, L57 [astro-ph/9401003]
721: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9401003;%%
722:
723: %\cite{Weinberg:2000ts}
724: \bibitem{Weinberg:2000ts}
725: Weinberg, S., 2000,
726: %``Curvature dependence of peaks in the cosmic microwave background
727: %distribution,''
728: Phys.\ Rev.\ D, 62, 127302 [astro-ph/0006276]
729: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D62,127302;%%
730:
731:
732:
733: %\cite{Hu:1997qs}
734: \bibitem{Hu:1997qs}
735: Hu, W., Sugiyama, N., Silk, J., 1997,
736: %``The Physics of microwave background anisotropies,''
737: Nat, 386, 37 [astro-ph/9604166]
738: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9604166;%%
739:
740:
741:
742: %\cite{Hu:2000ti}
743: \bibitem{Hu:2000ti}
744: Hu, W., Fukugita, M., Zaldarriaga, M., Tegmark, M., 2000,
745: %``CMB Observables and Their Cosmological Implications,''
746: astro-ph/0006436
747: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0006436;%%
748:
749:
750: %\cite{Hu:1995uz}
751: \bibitem{Hu:1995uz}
752: Hu, W., Sugiyama, N., 1995,
753: %``Anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background: An Analytic approach,''
754: ApJ, 444, 489
755: %%CITATION = ASJOA,444,489;%%
756:
757:
758: %\cite{Wetterich:1988fm}
759: \bibitem{Wetterich:1988fm}
760: Wetterich, C., 1988,
761: %``Cosmology And The Fate Of Dilatation Symmetry,''
762: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, 302, 668
763: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B302,668;%%
764:
765:
766:
767: %\cite{Peebles:1988ek}
768: \bibitem{Peebles:1988ek}
769: Peebles, P. J. E., Ratra, B., 1988,
770: %``Cosmology With A Time Variable Cosmological 'Constant',''
771: ApJ, 325, L17
772: %%CITATION = ASJOA,325,L17;%%
773:
774:
775:
776:
777: %\cite{Balbi:2001kj}
778: \bibitem{Balbi:2001kj}
779: A.~Balbi, C.~Baccigalupi, S.~Matarrese, F.~Perrotta and N.~Vittorio,
780: %``Implications on quintessence models from MAXIMA-1 and BOOMERANG-98,''
781: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 547} (2001) L89
782: %[astro-ph/0009432].
783: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0009432;%%
784:
785: %\cite{Hebecker:2001zb}
786: \bibitem{Hebecker:2001zb}
787: Hebecker, A., Wetterich, C., 2001,
788: %``Natural quintessence?,''
789: Phys.\ Lett.\ B, 497, 281
790: [hep-ph/0008205]
791: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008205;%%
792:
793:
794: \end{thebibliography}
795: \end{document}
796:
797: %%% Local Variables:
798: %%% mode: latex
799: %%% TeX-master: "paper"
800: %%% End:
801: