1: %----------------------------------------------------
2: % Short version: first created on Mar. 08, 2002
3: %----------------------------------------------------
4: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5: %\documentclass{aastex}
6: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
10: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
11: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
12: \begin{document}
13: \title{MHD Turbulence as a Foreground for CMB Studies}
14: \author{Jungyeon Cho, \& A. Lazarian}
15: \affil{Dept. of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin,
16: 475 N. Charter St., Madison, WI53706; cho, lazarian@astro.wisc.edu}
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19:
20: Measurements of intensity and polarization of diffuse Galactic synchrotron
21: emission as well as starlight polarization reveal power law
22: spectra of fluctuations. We show that these fluctuations
23: can arise from magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence in the Galactic
24: disk and halo. To do so we take into account the
25: converging geometry of lines of sight for the observations when
26: the observer is within the turbulent volume.
27: Assuming that
28: the intensity of turbulence changes along the line
29: of sight, we get a reasonable fit to the observed synchrotron
30: data. As for the spectra of polarized starlight we get
31: a good fit to the observations taking into account the
32: fact that the observational sample is biased toward
33: nearby stars.
34:
35: \end{abstract}
36: \keywords{cosmic microwave foregrounds-galaxy:structure-MHD-
37: turbulence-polarization}
38:
39: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
40:
41: \section{Introduction}
42:
43: Attempts to determine the statistics of intensity and polarization
44: fluctuations of cosmic microwave background (CMB) renewed
45: interest to the fluctuations of Galactic foreground radiation
46: (see Tegmark et al.~2000).
47: Spectra of intensity of synchrotron emission and synchrotron polarization
48: (see papers in de Oliveira-Costa \& Tegmark 1999)
49: as well as starlight polarization
50: (Fosalba et al. 2002; henceforth FLPT)
51: have been measured. Those measurements revealed a range of power-laws,
52: the origin of which has not been addressed as far as we know. In
53: Tegmark et al.~(2000) there is an allusion that the spectra may be
54: relevant to Kolmogorov turbulence, but the issue of how those different spectra
55: may arise has not been addressed.
56:
57:
58: Interstellar medium is turbulent and Kolmogorov-type spectra
59: were reported on the scales from several AU to several kpc
60: (see Armstrong et al. 1995; Lazarian \& Pogosyan 2000; Stanimirovic
61: \& Lazarian 2001). Therefore it is natural to think of the
62: turbulence as the origin of the fluctuations of the diffuse foreground
63: radiation. Interstellar medium is magnetized with magnetic
64: field making turbulence anisotropic.
65: It may be argued that although the spectrum of
66: MHD turbulence exhibits scale-dependent anisotropy if
67: studied in the system of reference defined by the local
68: magnetic field (Goldreich \& Sridhar 1995; Lithwick \&
69: Goldreich 2001; Cho \& Lazarian 2002),
70: in the observer's system of reference the spectrum will
71: show only moderate scale-independent anisotropy. Thus
72: from the observer's point of view Kolmogorov description of
73: interstellar turbulence is acceptable in spite of the fact that
74: magnetic field is dynamically important and even dominant (see discussion in
75: Lazarian \& Pogosyan 2000; Cho, Lazarian \& Vishniac 2002).
76:
77: It is customary for
78: CMB studies to expand
79: the foreground intensity over spherical harmonics $Y_{lm}$,
80: $I(\theta, \phi)= \sum_{l,m}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)$,
81: and write the spectrum in terms of
82: $C_l\equiv \sum_{m=-l}^{m=l} |a_{lm}|^2/(2l+1)$.
83: The measurements indicate that
84: angular power spectra ($C_l$) of the Galactic emission
85: follows power law ($C_l\propto l^{-\alpha}$)
86: (see FLPT and references in \S3).
87:
88: This paper tests whether the measured spectra are compatible
89: with the theoretical
90: predictions of spatial statistics that is expected in the presence of
91: MHD turbulence.
92: Analytical studies in this direction were
93: done in Lazarian (1992, 1994, 1995) and here we supplement them
94: with numerical simulations of the synthetic spectra.
95:
96:
97:
98:
99:
100:
101: \section{Spectra of Fluctuations}
102:
103: \subsection{$C_l$ for small angle limit}
104: In this section we show that, when the angle between the lines of sight
105: is small (i.e.~$\theta < L/d_{max}$), the
106: angular spectrum $C_l$ has the same slope as the 3-dimensional
107: energy spectrum of turbulence.
108: Here $L$ is the typical size of the largest energy containing eddies,
109: which is sometime called as outer scale of turbulence or energy injection
110: scale,
111: and
112: $d_{max}$ is the distance to the farthest eddies (see Fig.~\ref{fig_all}a).
113: %%%This topic has been addressed earlier in Lazarian \& Shutenkov (1990),
114: %%%Lazarian (1994), and Lazarian \& Pogosyan (2000).
115:
116: To illustrate the problem consider the observations with lines of sight being
117: parallel. The observed intensity is the intensity summed
118: along the {\it line of sight}, $r_z$.
119: \begin{eqnarray}
120: {I}_{2D}(r_x,r_y) & \equiv & \int d{r_z}~i_{3D}({\bf r}) \label{2d3d} \\
121: & = & \int d{r_z}\ \int dk_x dk_y dk_z\ \hat{i}_{3D}({\bf k})\
122: e^{i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf r}}.
123: \end{eqnarray}
124: Rearranging the order of summation and using
125: $\int d{r_z}\ e^{ik_zr_z}=\delta(k_z)$, we get
126: \begin{equation}
127: {I}_{2D}(r_x,r_y) =
128: \int d{k_x} dk_y ~\hat{i}_{3D}(k_x,k_y,0) ~e^{ik_xr_x+ik_yr_y},
129: \end{equation}
130: which means Fourier component of $ {I}_{2D}(r_x,r_y)$
131: is $\hat{i}_{3D}(k_x,k_y,0)$.
132:
133: When the angular size of the observed region
134: ($\Delta \theta \times \Delta \theta$ in radian)
135: on the sky is small,
136: $C_l$ is approximately the `energy' spectrum of ${I}_{2D}(r_x,r_y)$
137: (Bond \& Efstathiou 1987; Hobson \& Majueijo 1996; Seljak 1997), which means
138: $C_l \sim |\hat{i}_{3D}(k_x,k_y,0)|^2$ with $l\sim k (\pi/\Delta \theta)$
139: and $k=(k_x^2+k_y^2)^{1/2}$.
140: The analysis of the geometry of crossing lines
141: of sight is more involved, but for power-law statistics it follows from
142: Lazarian \& Shutenkov (1990) that if $|\hat{i}_{3D}|^2\propto k^{-m}$,
143: then the `energy' spectrum
144: of ${I}_{2D}(r_x,r_y)$ is also $k^{-m}$. Therefore, we have
145: \begin{equation}
146: C_l \propto |\hat{i}_{3D}(k_x,k_y,0)|^2 \propto l^{-m}.
147: \end{equation}
148: in the small $\theta$ limit\footnote{
149: In some cases, we infer $C_l$ from the observation of
150: the correlation function ${\cal K}(r)$
151: in real space (or $K(\theta)$ on the sky).
152: When the three-dimensional spectrum of turbulence
153: follows a power law ($\sim k^{-m}$),
154: ${\cal K}(r) \propto {\cal K}_0-r^{m-2}$, where ${\cal K}_0\sim L^{m-2}$
155: is a constant.
156: However, when the slope of the turbulence spectrum is
157: steeper than $k^{-4}$,
158: this relation breaks down and
159: ${\cal K}(r) \propto {\cal K}_0-r^{2}$ regardless
160: of the turbulence slope.
161: When we infer $C_l$ from this ${\cal K}(r)$, we obtain $C_l\propto l^{-4}$
162: regardless of the true slope, when the slope is steeper than $-4$.
163: }.
164:
165: For Kolmogorov turbulence ($|\hat{i}_{3D}|^2\propto k^{-11/3}$),
166: we expect
167: \begin{equation}
168: C_l \propto l^{-11/3}, \mbox{~~~if $\theta<L/d_{max}$.}
169: \label{eq_5}
170: \end{equation}
171: Note that $l\sim \pi/\theta$.
172:
173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
174: % FIGURE
175: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
176: \begin{figure*}[!t]
177: %%%\begin{tabbing}
178: %%%~\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{f1a.eps}
179: %%%\=
180: %%%\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{f1b.eps}
181: %%%\=
182: %%%~\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{f1c.eps}
183: %%%\\
184: %%%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(a) \> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (b)
185: %%%\> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (c)
186: %%%\\ \\
187: %%%\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{f1d.eps}
188: %%%\=
189: %%%\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{f1e.eps}
190: %%%\=
191: %%%~\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{f1f.eps} \\
192: %%%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(d) \> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (e)
193: %%%\> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (f)
194: %%%\end{tabbing}
195: \plotone{f1.eps}
196: \caption{
197: (a) Small $\theta$ limit ($\theta <L/d_{max}$). The fluctuations
198: along the entire length of the lines of sight are correlated.
199: (b) Large $\theta$ limit ($\theta >L/d_{max}$).
200: Only points close to the observer
201: are correlated.
202: (c) Angular correlation function for disk (solid line) and
203: for halo (dotted line).
204: When $\theta$ is small, $K(\theta)\propto constant-\theta^{5/3}$.
205: When $\theta$ is large, $K(\theta)\propto \theta^{-1}$.
206: (d) Spectra for disk ($d_{max}$ = 10 kpc; turbulence size L = 100 pc)
207: and for halo ($d_{max}$ = 1 kpc; turbulence size L = 100 pc).
208: (e) Angular spectrum for Galactic disk. We considered geometry of
209: Galactic disk.
210: (f) Angular spectra of degree of polarization.
211: Fixed Distance means all star are at the same distance.
212: Random Distance means random sampling of stars according to equation
213: (\ref{eq_13}).
214: Zero point of the y-axis is arbitrary for all graphs.
215: }
216: \label{fig_all}
217: \end{figure*}
218: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
219: % FIGURE
220: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
221:
222:
223: \subsection{$C_l$ for large angle limit}
224:
225: {}Following Lazarian \& Shutenkov (1990), we can show that
226: the correlation function for $ \theta > L/d_{max}$,
227: \begin{eqnarray}
228: K(\theta) & = & \int \int dr_1 dr_2 ~{\cal K}( |{\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2| ), \nonumber
229: \\
230: & = & \frac{1}{\sin{\theta}}
231: \int_0^{\infty}dr ~r {\cal K}(r) \int_0^{\pi/2}d\psi
232: \sim \frac{const}{\theta},
233: \end{eqnarray}
234: where we change variables: $(r_1,r_2)\rightarrow (r,\psi)$ is clear from
235: Fig.~1b; we accounted for the Jacobian of which is $r/\sin{\theta}$.
236: We can understand $1/\theta$ behavior qualitatively from Fig.~1b.
237: When the angle is large, points along of the lines-of-sight near the observer
238: are still correlated. These points extend from the observer
239: over the distance $\propto 1/\sin{(\theta/2)}$.
240:
241: In the limit of $\theta\ll 1$
242: we get the angular power spectrum $C_l$
243: using Fourier transform:
244: \begin{eqnarray}
245: C_l & \sim & \int \int K(\theta)
246: e^{-i{\bf l}\cdot {\bf \theta}} d\theta_x d\theta_y
247: \nonumber \\
248: & \sim & \int d\theta ~\theta J_0(l\theta) K(\theta) \propto l^{-1},
249: \label{eq_7}
250: \end{eqnarray}
251: where $\theta=(\theta_x^2+\theta_y^2)^{1/2}$, $J_0$ is the Bessel function, and
252: we use $K(\theta)\propto \theta^{-1}$.
253:
254: In summary, for Kolmogorov turbulence, we expect from equations (\ref{eq_5}) and
255: (\ref{eq_7}) that
256: \begin{equation}
257: C_l \propto \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
258: l^{-11/3} & \mbox{if $l>l_{cr}$} \\
259: l^{-1} & \mbox{if $l<l_{cr}$.}
260: \end{array}
261: \right.
262: \label{eq_1_11_3}
263: \end{equation}
264: which means that the power index $\alpha$ of $C_l$ is\footnote{
265: Note that point sources would result in $\alpha \sim 0$.}
266: $-1 \leq \alpha \leq -11/3$.
267: The critical number $l_{cr} ~(\sim 3d_{max}/L)$
268: depends on the size of the size of the large
269: turbulent eddies and on the direction of the observation. If in the
270: naive model we assume that turbulence is homogeneous along the lines
271: of sight and has $L\sim 100\ pc$ corresponding to a typical size of the
272: supernova remnant for disk with $d_{max}\sim 10$~kpc, we get $l_{cr}\sim
273: 300$. For the synchrotron
274: halo, $d_{max}\sim 1$~kpc (see Smoot 1999) and we get $l_{cr}\sim
275: 30$.
276:
277:
278:
279:
280:
281:
282:
283:
284:
285:
286:
287: \section{Synchrotron Radiation}
288:
289: Recent statistical studies of {\it total} synchrotron intensity
290: include Haslam all-sky map at 408 MHz that
291: shows that the power index $\alpha$ is in the
292: range between
293: 2.5 and 3 (Tegmark \& Efstathiou 1996; Bouchet, Gispert, \& Puget 1996).
294: Parkes southern Galactic plane survey at 2.4 GHz suggests shallower slope:
295: Giardino et al.~(2002) obtained $\alpha \sim 2.05$ after point source removal
296: and Baccigalupi et al.~(2001) obtained $\alpha \sim -0.8$ to $-2$.
297: Using Rhodes/HartRAO data at 2326 MHz, Giardino et al.~(2001) obtained
298: $\alpha\sim 2.43$ for all-sky data and $\alpha\sim 2.92$ for
299: high Galactic latitude regions with $|b|>20^o$. The rough tendency
300: that follow from these data is that $\alpha$ which is close to $2$
301: for the Galactic plane gets steeper (to $\sim -3$) for higher latitudes.
302: In other words $-2\leq \alpha \leq -3$ which differs from naive expectations
303: given by equation (\ref{eq_1_11_3}).
304:
305: Can the difference be due to non-linear law of synchrotron emissivity?
306: For synchrotron radiation, emissivity at a point ${\bf r}$,
307: $i({\bf r}) \propto n(e) |{B}_{\bot}|^{\gamma}$,
308: where $n(e)$ is the electron number density, $B_{\bot}$ is the component
309: of magnetic field perpendicular to the line of sight. The index
310: $\gamma$ is approximately $2$ for radio synchrotron frequencies
311: (see Smoot 1999).
312: If electrons
313: are uniformly distributed over the scales of magnetic field inhomogeneities,
314: the spectrum of intensity reflects the statistics of magnetic field.
315: For small amplitude perturbations
316: ($\delta b/B\ll 1$; this is true for scales several times
317: smaller than $L$ when we interpret $B$ as local mean magnetic field strength),
318: if $\delta b$
319: has a power-law behavior, the statistics of intensity will have the
320: same power-law behavior (see Deshpande et al.~2000).
321: Therefore emissivity non-linearity does not account
322: for the difference between the observed spectra and the theoretical
323: expectations.
324:
325:
326: To address the problem, we perform simple numerical calculations
327: for galactic disk and halo.
328: We obtain $C_l$ using the relation
329: \begin{eqnarray}
330: & &K(\cos \theta) = \frac{1}{4\pi}\sum_{l} (2l+1)C_l P_l(\cos{\theta}), \\
331: & &C_l = \frac{1}{2} \int P_l(\cos{\theta}) K(\cos \theta)\ d(\cos\theta).
332: \label{c_l_leg}
333: \end{eqnarray}
334: We use Gauss-Legendre quadrature integration (see Szapudi et al.~2001 for its
335: application to CMB) to obtain $C_l$.
336: We numerically calculate the angular correlation function from
337: \begin{equation}
338: K(\cos{\theta})=\int dr_1 \int dr_2 ~{\cal K}(|{\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2|),
339: \label{eq_ctheta}
340: \end{equation}
341: where $|{\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2|=r_1^2+r_2^2-2r_1r_2 \cos{\theta}$ and
342: assume
343: that
344: the spatial correlation function ${\cal K}(r)$ follow Kolmogorov statistics:
345: \begin{equation}
346: {\cal K}(r) \propto \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
347: {\cal K}_0-r^{2/3} & \mbox{if $r<L$} \\
348: 0 & \mbox{if $r>L$,}
349: \end{array}
350: \right. \label{c_r_3D}
351: \end{equation}
352: where ${\cal K}_0\sim L^{2/3}$ is a constant.
353: %%%In actual calculations, we use a function that is smooth at $r=L$.
354: Fig.~\ref{fig_all}c and Fig.~\ref{fig_all}d
355: illustrate the agreement of our calculations with the
356: theoretical expectations within the naive model of the disk and the
357: halo from the previous section.
358:
359:
360: To make the spectrum closer to observations we need
361: to consider more realistic models.
362: First, synchrotron emission is stronger in spiral arms, and therefore
363: we have more
364: synchrotron emission coming from the nearby regions.
365: Second, if synchrotron disk component is sufficiently
366: thin,
367: then lines of sight are not equivalent and effectively nearby
368: disk component contributes more. Indeed,
369: when we observe regions with low Galactic latitude,
370: the effective line-of-sight varies with Galactic latitude.
371:
372: Suppose we observe a region with $b=10^o$.
373: Then emission from $d=10~kpc$ is substantially weaker than
374: that from $d=100~pc$, because the region with $d=10~kpc$ is $10\ kpc~\sin{10^o}
375: \sim 1.7~kpc$ above the Galactic plane and, therefore, has weak emission.
376: To incorporate this effect, we use the weighting function
377: $w(r)=100/max( 100, r \sin{10^o})$, which
378: gives more weight on closer distance.
379: The resulting angular power spectrum (Fig.~\ref{fig_all}e)
380: shows a slope similar to -2.
381:
382: For halo, the simple model predicts that $C_l \propto l^{-11/3}$, but
383: observations provide somewhat less steep spectra.
384: Is this discrepancy very significant?
385: The spectrum of magnetic field is expected to be
386: shallower than $k^{-11/3}$ in the vicinity of the energy injection
387: scale and at the vicinity of the magnetic equipartition scale.
388: The observed spectrum also gets shallower if $d_{max}$ gets larger.
389: For instance
390: Beuermann, Kanbach, \& Berkhuijsen (1985) reported the existence of
391: thick radio halo that extends to more than $\sim 3~kpc$ near the Sun.
392: Finally, filamentary structures and point sources
393: can make the spectrum shallower as well. Further research should establish
394: the true reason for the discrepancy.
395:
396:
397:
398: \section{Galactic Starlight Polarization}
399: Polarized radiation from dust is an important
400: component of Galactic foreground that strongly interferes with
401: intended CMB polarization measurements (see Lazarian \& Prunet 2001).
402: FLPT attempted to predict the spectrum of the polarized
403: foreground from dust and
404: obtained $C_l \sim l^{-1.5}$ for starlight polarization.
405: This spectrum is different from those discussed in the previous sections.
406: To relate this spectrum to the underlying turbulence we should account
407: for the following facts: a) the observations are done for the disk component
408: of the Galaxy, b) the sampled stars are at different distances from
409: the observer with most of the stars close-by.
410:
411: To deal with this problem we use numerical simulations again.
412: We first generate a three (i.e.~{\it x,y}, and {\it z})
413: components of magnetic field on a two-dimensional
414: plane ($4096 \times 4096$ grid points representing $10~kpc \times 10~kpc$),
415: using the following Kolmogorov three-dimensional spectrum:
416: $E_{3D}(k)\propto k^{-11/3}$ if $k>k_0$,
417: where $k_0 \sim 1/100~pc$. Our results show that how we continuously
418: extend the spectrum for $k<k_0$ does not change our results.
419:
420:
421: To simulate the actual distribution of stars within the sample
422: used in FLPT, we scatter our emission sources
423: using the following
424: probability distribution function:
425: \begin{equation}
426: P(r) \propto e^{-r/1.5kpc}. \label{eq_13}
427: \end{equation}
428: The starlight polarization is due to the difference in absorption
429: cross section of non-spherical grains aligned with their longer axes
430: perpendicular to magnetic field (see review by Lazarian 2000). In numerical
431: calculations we approximate the actual turbulent
432: magnetic field by a superposition
433: of the slabs with locally uniform magnetic field in each slap
434: and assume that the difference
435: in grain absorption parallel and perpendicular to magnetic field results
436: in the 10\% difference in the optical
437: depths $\tau_{\|}$ and $\tau_{\bot}$ for a slab.
438: We calculate evolution of Stocks parameters of the starlight
439: within the slab and use the standard
440: transforms of Stocks parameters from one slab to another
441: (Dolginov, Gnedin, \& Silantev 1996; see similar
442: expressions in Martin 1972).
443:
444:
445: We show the result in Fig.~\ref{fig_all}f.
446: For comparison, we also calculate the degree of polarization assuming
447: all stars are at the same distance of $\sim10~kpc$.
448: The result shows that, for a mixture of nearby and faraway stars,
449: the slope steepens and gets very close to the observed one, i.e.
450: $-1.5$.
451:
452: Our conclusions may be tested if stars at particular distance only are
453: correlated. If those stars are nearby, we would expect to have steeper
454: index and it will become shallow if only distant stars are chosen.
455: Choosing only nearby stars we expect to get a steeper index.
456: A systematic study of this change can provide an estimate
457: of the energy injection scale $L$.
458: {}From the point of view of foreground studies, we conclude that a
459: naive use of the
460: polarization template produced with the random sample of stars may
461: be misleading.
462:
463:
464: \section{Summary}
465: In this paper we have addressed the origin of spatial
466: fluctuations of emissivity and polarization
467: of Galactic diffuse emission.
468: We have shown that MHD turbulence can qualitatively explain observed
469: properties of total synchrotron emission and starlight polarization.
470: The variety of measured spatial spectra of synchrotron emission
471: can be explained by the
472: inhomogeneous distribution of emissivity,
473: structure of Galactic disk and halo,
474: and/or various energy injection scales.
475: Similarly, MHD turbulence plus inhomogeneous distribution of stars
476: can explain the reported scaling of starlight polarization
477: statistics.
478:
479: Evidently more systematic studies are required.
480: Those studies will not only give insight into how to
481: separate CMB from foregrounds, but also
482: would provide valuable information on
483: the structure of interstellar medium and the sources/energy
484: injection scales of interstellar turbulence.
485:
486:
487:
488: \acknowledgements
489: We acknowledge the support of NSF Grant AST-0125544.
490:
491:
492:
493:
494: \begin{references}
495: \reference{} Armstrong, J. W., Rickett, B. J., \& Spangler, S. R. 1995, ApJ, 443, 209
496:
497: \reference{} Bond, J.R. \& Efstathiou, G. 1987, MNRAS, 226, 655
498:
499: \reference{} Bouchet, F.R., Gispert, R., \& Puget, J.L. 1996,
500: in {Unveiling the Cosmic Infrared Background},
501: AIP Conf.~Proc.~348, ed.~E.~Dwek (Baltimore: AIP), 225
502: \reference{} Beuermann, K., Kanbach, G., \& Berkhuijsen, E. 1985,
503: A\&A, 153, 17
504: %%%\reference{} Burigana C. \& La Porta, L. 2002, astro-ph/0202439
505:
506: \reference{} Cho, J. \& Lazarian, A. 2002, Phy.~Rev.~Lett., submitted
507: \reference{} Cho, J., Lazarian, A., \& Vishniac, E.~T. 2002,
508: in {\it Simulations of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
509: in astrophysics},
510: eds. by T. Passot \& E.
511: Falgarone (Springer Lecture Notes in Physics; 2002), submitted
512:
513: \reference{} de Oliveira-Costa, A. \& Tegmark, M. 1999,
514: {\it Microwave Foregrounds}, ASP Conf.~Ser.~181,
515: (San Francisco: ASP)
516:
517: \reference{} Deshpande, A.A., Dwarakanath, K.S., Goss, W.M.,
518: 2000, ApJ, 543, 227
519:
520: \reference{} Dolginov, A.~Z., Gnedin, Iu.~N., \& Silantev, N.~A. 1996,
521: {\it Propagation and polarization of radiation in cosmic media},
522: (Gordon \& Breech)
523: \reference{} Fosalba, P., Lazarian, A., Prunet, S., \& Tauber, J.A. 2002
524: ApJ, 564, 762 (FLPT)
525:
526: \reference{} Giardino, G., Banday, A.J., Fosalba, P., G\'{o}rski, K.M.,
527: Jonas, J.L., O'Mullane, W., \& Tauber, J. 2001, A\&A, 371, 708
528:
529: \reference{} Giardino, G., Banday, A.J., G\'{o}rski, K.M., Bennett, K.,
530: Jonas, J.L., \& Tauber, J. 2002, A\&A, astro-ph/0202520
531:
532: \reference{} Goldreich, P. \& Sridhar, H. 1995, ApJ, 438, 763
533:
534: \reference{} Hobson, M.P. \& Magueijo, J. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1133
535:
536:
537: \reference{} Lazarian, A. 1992, Astron.~\& Astrophys.~Trans., 3, 33
538: \reference{} Lazarian, A. 1994, Ph.~D.~Thesis (Univ. of Cambridge, UK)
539: \reference{} Lazarian, A. 1995, A\&A, 293, 507
540: \reference{} Lazarian, A. 2000,
541: in {\it Cosmic Evolution and Galaxy Formation},
542: ASP v.215, ed. by J. Franco,
543: E. Terlevich, O. Lopez-Cruz, I. Aretxaga
544: (Astron.~Soc.~Pacific) p.69
545: (astro-ph/0003414)
546: \reference{} Lazarian, A. \& Pogosyan, D. 2000, ApJ, 537, 720L
547: \reference{} Lazarian, A. \& Prunet, 2001, in
548: {\it Microwave Foregrounds}, ASP Conf.~Ser.~181,
549: (San Francisco: ASP), p32
550: \reference{} Lazarian, A. \& Shutenkov, V.~P. 1990, Sov.~Astron.~Lett., 16, 297
551:
552: \reference{} Lithwick, Y. \& Goldreich, P. 2001, ApJ, 562, 279
553:
554: \reference{} Martin, P.~G. 1972, MNRAS, 159, 179
555:
556: \reference{} Seljak, U. 1997, ApJ, 482, 6
557: \reference{} Smoot, G.~F. 1999, in {\it Microwave Foregrounds},
558: ASP Conf.~Ser.~181,
559: ed. A. de Oliveira-Costa \& M. Tegmark (San Francisco: ASP), 61
560:
561:
562: \reference{} Stanimirovic, S., \& Lazarian, A. 2001, ApJ, 551, L53
563: \reference{} Szapudi, I., Prunet, S., Pogosyan, D., Szalay, A. S., \&
564: Bond, J. R. 2001, ApJ, 548, L115
565:
566:
567: \reference{} Tegmark, M. \& Efstathiou, G. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 1297
568: \reference{} Tegmark, M., Eisenstein, D.~J., Hu, W., de Oliveira-Costa, A.
569: 2000, ApJ, 530, 133
570: \end{references}
571:
572: \end{document}
573:
574:
575:
576:
577:
578:
579: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
580: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
581: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
582: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
583:
584: