1: \documentclass[fleqn,twoside]{article}

2: \usepackage{espcrc2}

3: 

4: % change this to the following line for use with LaTeX2.09

5: % \documentstyle[twoside,fleqn,espcrc2]{article}

6: 

7: % if you want to include PostScript figures

8: \usepackage{graphicx,epsf}

9: % if you have landscape tables

10: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}

11: 

12: % put your own definitions here:

13: \def\lesssim{\mathbin{\;\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}\kern-8pt\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim$}\;}}

14: \def\gtrsim{\mathbin{\;\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}\kern-8pt\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim$}\;}}

15: %

16: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}

17: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2

18:   A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}

19: %

20: \hyphenation{nucleo-synthesis uni-verse in-ter-ac-tions pro-por-tional

21:  pri-mor-dial frac-tion su-per-sym-met-ric in-fla-tion-ary cor-re-spond-ing

22:  rel-a-tivis-tic de-grees in-versely AD-VENT pro-vid-ing par-tic-u-lar

23:  re-nais-sance ob-ser-va-tional cos-mol-ogy de-grees in-versely} 

24: %

25: \title{Measuring the cosmological density perturbation}

26: %

27: \author{S. Sarkar\address{Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical

28:         Physics,\\ University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3NP, UK}

29:         \thanks{Talk at Workshop on {\em The Density

30:         Perturbation in the Universe}, Demokritos Centre, Athens,

31:         25--26 June 2004} }

32: %       

33: \begin{document}

34: 

35: \thispagestyle{empty}

36: %

37: \begin{abstract}

38: 

39: Precision measurements of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave

40: background and of the clustering of large-scale structure have

41: supposedly confirmed that the primordial density perturbation has a

42: (nearly) scale-invariant spectrum. However this conclusion is based on

43: assumptions about the world model and the nature of the dark

44: matter. Physical models of inflation suggest that the spectrum may not

45: in fact be scale-free, which would imply rather different cosmological

46: parameters on the basis of the same observational data.

47: \vspace{1pc} 

48: \end{abstract}

49: % typeset front matter (including abstract)

50: \maketitle

51: 

52: \section{Introduction}

53: 

54: The primordial density perturbation of the universe is the earliest

55: relic we have of the Big Bang, although it is not clear exactly when

56: it was generated. It was certainly before the primordial

57: nucleosynthesis era, when the expansion is known to have been

58: radiation-dominated, and it must have been well below the Planck era,

59: from the absence of a significant imprint of gravitational waves on

60: the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Long before any relevant

61: observations were available, it was argued from general considerations

62: of the formation of large-scale structure (LSS) through gravitational

63: instability that the density perturbation should have a

64: scale-invariant `Harrison-Zeldovich' (H-Z) form:

65: \begin{equation}

66:  P (k) = \langle|\delta_k|^2\rangle = A k^n ,\quad {\rm with}\ n = 1 ,

67: \end{equation}

68: where $\delta_k \equiv \int [\delta\rho(\vec{x})/\bar{\rho}] {\rm

69: e}^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}{\rm d}^3x$ is the Fourier transform of

70: spatial fluctuations in the density field of wavelength

71: $\lambda=2\pi/k$. It was also anticipated that this growth occurs in a

72: sea of dark matter which dominates over baryonic matter, since

73: otherwise structure can form only after the universe becomes neutral

74: which is insufficient time, given the extant upper limits on

75: the amplitude of the `seed fluctuations' from the absence of large

76: anisotropies in the CMB \cite{paddy}.

77: 

78: As is well known, powerful support for both conjectures came from the

79: theory of inflation which can both generate density perturbations on

80: (apparently) super-horizon scales with an approximately

81: scale-invariant spectrum, and also creates a spatially flat universe

82: which would require there to be a large amount of dark matter, since

83: the baryonic component is known to be small: $\Omega_{\rm B} h^2

84: \simeq 0.012-0.025$ from considerations of primordial nucleosynthesis

85: \cite{Fields:2004cb}, where $h \equiv H_0/100$\,Km\,s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$

86: is the Hubble paramter. The detection by COBE of large-angle

87: anisotropies in the CMB generated by the Sachs-Wolfe effect provided

88: the normalization of the amplitude of the primordial perturbations and

89: confirmed that structure does grow through gravitational instability

90: and not e.g. through explosive events (which were constrained

91: additionally by the stringent limits set by COBE on the associated

92: spectral distortions of the CMB). It then became clear that if the

93: primordial density perturbation does have a H-Z form, then the

94: amplitude of matter fluctuations on cluster and galaxy scales is too

95: high relative to observations, if we inhabit a critical density, cold

96: dark matter (CDM) dominated universe \cite{White:1992ri}.

97: 

98: \begin{figure}[tbh]

99: \label{lss}

100: \epsfxsize\hsize\epsffile{lss.eps}

101: \caption{The matter power spectrum inferred from LSS and CMB data

102: ({\em circa} 1995) compared with theoretical models

103: \protect\cite{Scott:1995uj}. As seen top left, the excess small-scale

104: power in the COBE-normalized standard CDM model ($n=1,\ \Omega_{\rm

105: B}=0.03$,\ $h=0.5$) is suppressed in the MDM model which has

106: $\Omega_\nu=0.3$ in $\sim 2$ eV mass neutrinos. Alternatively, this

107: can be done by tilting the spectrum as in the TCDM model with $n=0.9$,

108: $\Omega_{\rm B}=0.1$ and $h=0.45$ shown top right. The middle panels

109: show open universe (OCDM) models and the bottom panels show

110: ($\Lambda$CDM) models of a flat universe with a cosmological

111: constant.}

112: \end{figure}

113: 

114: As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{lss}, several solutions were proposed to

115: address this problem. One could invoke a small admixture of hot dark

116: matter (HDM) in the form of neutrinos with a mass of ${\cal O}$(eV) to

117: damp small-scale power --- this was the ``Mixed Dark Matter Model''

118: (MDM). Alternatively one could appeal to dynamical measurements that

119: suggested a matter content short of the critical value, $\Omega_{\rm

120: m} \sim 0.3$ --- in such an ``Open Cold Dark Matter Model'' (OCDM),

121: the epoch of matter-domination occurs later so there is less time for

122: structure to grow, thus suppressing power on the relevant scales. Of

123: course if one believed that the universe is spatially flat as is

124: generally expected from inflation then it was necessary to invoke a

125: compensating cosmological constant with $\Omega_\Lambda \sim 0.7$. It

126: is this ``Lambda Cold Dark Matter Model'' ($\Lambda$CDM) that

127: subsequently gained credence from observations of the Hubble diagram

128: of SN~Ia which suggested that the expansion is accelerating due to

129: just such a cosmological constant \cite{Bahcall:1999xn}. More recently

130: it has been promoted as the `standard model' of the universe on the

131: basis of accurate measurements of CMB anisotropies and of the

132: properties of LSS \cite{Peebles:2002gy}. However it is important to

133: recall that the data can be fitted without altering the world model

134: --- the small-scale power is naturally suppressed if the primordial

135: spectrum is `tilted' below the scale-invariant form. This ``Tilted

136: Cold Dark Matter Model'' (TCDM) shown in Fig.~\ref{lss} found

137: theoretical motivation in models of slow-roll `new inflation' based on

138: $N=1$ supergravity which predicted just such a spectrum (with

139: logarithmic $k$-dependent corrections)

140: \cite{Ross:1995dq,Adams:1996yd}.

141: 

142: Subsequently it was widely advertised that precision measurements of

143: CMB anisotropy can be used to determine cosmological parameters with

144: unprecedented accuracy \cite{Jungman:1995bz} but it

145: was still the case that this required {\em assumptions} about the

146: spectrum of the primordial density perturbation. An useful analogy is

147: to see the generation of CMB anisotropy and the formation of LSS as a

148: cosmic scattering experiment, in which the primordial density

149: perturbation is the `beam', the universe itself is the `detector' and

150: its matter content is the `target'. In complete contrast to the

151: situation in the laboratory, neither the properties of the beam, nor

152: the parameters of the target or even the detector are known --- only

153: the actual `interaction' is known to be gravity. Clearly the inverse

154: problem of reconstructing the primordial density perturbation from the

155: CMB and LSS data is necessarily uncertain due to our ignorance of the

156: nature of the dark matter and of cosmological parameters.

157: 

158: \section{The present situation}

159: 

160: Nevertheless it was hoped that with sufficiently precise data and the

161: inclusion of external constraints on cosmological parameters such as

162: $h$, these `degeneracies' could be resolved

163: \cite{Efstathiou:1998xx}. WMAP, the successor to COBE, has indeed

164: provided a much more precise measurement of CMB anisotropy, down to

165: sub-degree scales; the angular power spectrum is consistent, for an

166: {\em assumed} scale-free power-law primordial spectrum, with a flat

167: $\Lambda$CDM model having $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.29 \pm 0.07$, $h = 0.72

168: \pm 0.05$, $\Omega_{\rm B} = 0.047 \pm 0.006$, and $n = 0.99 \pm

169: 0.0.04$ \cite{Spergel:2003cb}. Moreover the implied matter power

170: spectrum matches the power spectrum of galaxy clustering from the 2dF

171: redshift survey \cite{Percival:2001hw}, indicating that any `bias'

172: between visible and dark matter is small. This world model is said to

173: be concordant with parameters derived from the SN~Ia Hubble diagram

174: \cite{Perlmutter:1998np}, with the measurement of $h$ by the Hubble

175: Key Project \cite{Freedman:2000cf}, and with a variety of other

176: cosmological probes (e.g. weak gravitational lensing, cluster baryon

177: fraction, peculiar velocity fields, etc). It is indeed tempting to

178: believe that we now have a `standard model' for cosmology.

179: 

180: It is however important to keep in mind that a very different world

181: model can also be made compatible with the CMB and LSS data, for a

182: {\em different} choice of the primordial density perturbation spectrum

183: \cite{Blanchard:2003du}. For example, as illustrated in

184: Fig.~\ref{cmb}, the CMB data can be fitted equally well by a flat

185: world model with $\Omega_{\rm m} = 1$ and $h \simeq 0.5$ if the

186: primordial spectrum has a broken power-law form with $n \simeq 1$ for

187: $k \lesssim 0.01$ Mpc$^{-1}$, tilting to $n \simeq 0.9$ on smaller

188: scales. Such a model would however predict the amplitude of matter

189: fluctuations on the scale of $8 h^{-1}$~Mpc to be $\sigma_8 \simeq

190: 1.1$, which is too high to match the observed abundances of galaxy

191: clusters as well as measurements of weak gravitational lensing in a

192: $\Omega_{\rm CDM} = 1$ universe. However this is easily solved by

193: noting that neutrinos are now known to be massive and thus naturally

194: provide a small component of hot dark matter. The absolute mass scale

195: is unknown but can be upto $1-2$ eV on the basis of both $\beta$-decay

196: and $\beta\beta$ experiments \cite{Feruglio:2002af}. If for example

197: the 3 types of neutrinos have a ($\sim$ common) mass of 0.8 eV

198: corresponding to $\Omega_\nu = 0.12$,\footnote{The reason why other

199: authors (e.g. ref.\cite{Spergel:2003cb}) quote far more restrictive

200: limits on neutrino masses on the basis of the {\em same} data is

201: because they adopt `priors' such as the higher HKP value of $h$ in

202: their analyses \cite{Elgaroy:2003yh}.} then as shown in Fig.~3 we can

203: obtain an acceptable fit to LSS data with $\sigma_8 = 0.64$ which

204: agrees with cluster abundances and weak lensing observations.

205: 

206: 

207: \begin{figure}[tbh]

208: \label{cmb}

209: \epsfxsize\hsize\epsffile{cmb.eps}

210: \caption{The CMB power spectrum for the best-fit $n \simeq 1$

211: $\Lambda$CDM model (dotted black line), and for a broken-power-law

212: flat model with $\Omega_\Lambda = 0$ (solid blue line), compared to

213: data from WMAP and other experiments \protect\cite{Blanchard:2003du}.}

214: \end{figure}

215: 

216: 

217: This model has $\Omega_{\rm B} h^2 = 0.021$ which is consistent with

218: nucleosynthesis \cite{Fields:2004cb}, Because the Hubble parameter is

219: low (which ensures no `age crisis'), the baryon density is high enough

220: to imply a cluster baryon fraction of $\Omega_{\rm B}/\Omega_{\rm CDM}

221: \simeq 11\%$, which is consistent with X-ray observations of clusters

222: \cite{Sadat:2001en}. Although $h \simeq 0.5$ is {\em not} consistent

223: with the HKP measurement $h = 0.72 \pm 0.08$ based on the

224: ``cosmological distance ladder'' \cite{Freedman:2000cf}, such a low

225: value is in fact {\em suggested} by direct (and much deeper)

226: determinations based on the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect in clusters, $h =

227: 0.54 \pm 0.03 \pm 0.18$ \cite{Reese:2003ya}, and time delays in

228: gravitationally lensed images of quasars, $h = 0.48 \pm 0.03$

229: \cite{Kochanek:2003pi}, although the systematic uncertainties here are

230: large.

231: 

232: Clearly the observational situation is not as stable as would be

233: desirable.  In fact even the much touted `concordance' between the

234: different lines of evidence for the $\Lambda$CDM model is begining to

235: unravel, e.g. analysis of the latest SNIa datasets

236: \cite{Tonry:2003zg,Riess:2004nr} clearly indicates a closed universe

237: with $\Omega_{\rm m} + \Omega_\Lambda > 1$, in conflict with the CMB

238: data at $88-97\%$ c.l. \cite{Choudhury:2003tj}.

239: 

240: \begin{figure}[th!]

241: \label{structure}

242: \epsfxsize\hsize\epsffile{galaxy.eps}

243: %\bigskip

244: \epsfxsize\hsize\epsffile{lyalpha.eps}

245: \caption{The LSS power spectrum for the best-fit $n \simeq 1$

246: $\Lambda$CDM model (dotted black line), and for a broken power-law

247: flat MDM model with $\Omega_\Lambda=0$ and $\Omega_\nu=0.12$

248: (dot-dashed blue line), compared to data from APM, 2dF and the

249: Ly-$\alpha$ forest \protect\cite{Blanchard:2003du}. For the latter

250: model a bias parameter of $1/\sigma_8 \simeq 1.6$ has been adopted.}

251: \end{figure}

252: 

253: 

254: \section{Expectations for the primordial spectrum from inflation}

255: 

256: It is often stated that the ``simplest models of inflation'' predict a

257: (nearly) scale-invariant spectrum, thus justifying the adoption of

258: such a spectrum in most analyses of CMB and LSS data. Indeed if

259: inflation is driven by a single scalar field with a potential $V

260: (\phi)$, then the generated scalar density perturbation has a

261: power-law index \cite{Liddle:2000cg}:

262: \begin{equation}

263: \label{nk}

264:  n (k) = 1 - 3 M^2 \left(\frac{V'}{V}\right)^2_\star

265:            + 2 M^2 \left(\frac{V''}{V}\right)_\star

266: \end{equation}

267: where $M \equiv (8\pi\,G_{\rm N})^{-1/2}\simeq2.4\times10^{18}$~GeV is

268: the normalized Planck mass and $\star$ denotes that the derivatives

269: wrt $\phi$ are to be evaluated when a mode of wavenumber $k$ crosses

270: the `Hubble radius' $H^{-1}$. Thus for a sufficiently `flat potential'

271: (as is necessary to achieve sufficient e-folds of inflation to solve

272: the problems of the standard cosmology), the spectrum would be

273: expected to have $n \simeq 1$.

274: 

275: Note however that the number of e-folds required to generate our

276: present Hubble volume is

277: \begin{equation}

278: \label{Nstar}

279:  N_\star(k) \simeq 51 + \ln\left(\frac{k^{-1}}{3000h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}}\right) ,  

280: \end{equation} 

281: for phenomenologically acceptable choices of the inflationary scale

282: and reheat temperature --- the former is restricted to be $< 2.8

283: \times 10^{16}$~GeV \cite{Barger:2003ym} to respect the WMAP bound on

284: tensor fluctuations, and the latter must be $<10^9$~GeV in a

285: supersymmetric theory in order not to overproduce gravitinos

286: \cite{Ellis:1984er}. Thus fluctuations on the scales

287: ($\sim1-3000$~Mpc) probed by LSS and CMB observations are generated

288: just 40--50 e-folds before the end of inflation. It would be natural,

289: especially in field-theoretical models of `new inflation' where $\phi

290: \ll M$, to expect the inflaton potential to begin to curve

291: significantly as the end of inflation is approached. There are indeed

292: attractive models of inflation in which the spectrum is significantly

293: tilted in this region, e.g. in a model where the leading term in the

294: potential is cubic \cite{Ross:1995dq}, the spectral index is $n(k) =

295: (N_\star - 2)/(N_\star + 2) \simeq0.9$ at these scales

296: \cite{Adams:1996yd}.

297: 

298: Moreover the anomalously small values of the low $\ell$ multipoles in

299: the WMAP (and COBE) data suggest that the primordial density

300: perturbation may have a cutoff on the scale of the present Hubble

301: radius

302: \cite{Bridle:2003sa,Mukherjee:2003ag,Contaldi:2003zv,Feng:2003zu,Cline:2003ve,Shafieloo:2003gf},

303: i.e. that inflation lasted just about long enough the produce a

304: homogeneous patch as big as our present Hubble volume. There are also

305: outliers or `glitches' in the WMAP power spectrum suggestive of

306: oscillatory features in the primordial density perturbation

307: \cite{Peiris:2003ff,Tocchini-Valentini:2004ht}. Both of these

308: observations are in fact consistent with the idea of `multiple

309: inflation', which was a first attempt to take into account the effect

310: of `flat direction' scalar fields other than the inflaton on the

311: infllationary density perturbation \cite{Adams:1997de}. It was noted

312: that such fields are likely to undergo symmetry breaking {\em during}

313: inflation and, by virtue of their gravitational coupling to the

314: inflaton, to induce sudden changes in its mass. This will result in a

315: step-like feature in the spectrum with associated

316: oscillations,\footnote{A similar feature arises

317: \cite{Starobinsky:1992ts} if the inflaton evolves through a `kink' ---

318: a discontinuity in its slope --- although no physical model for this

319: was given (see also ref.\cite{Adams:2001vc})} as was shown recently by

320: solution of the governing Klein-Gordon equation \cite{Hunt:2004vt} ---

321: see Fig.\ref{multinfl}. The consequences of such a feature in the

322: primordial spectrum for parameter extraction from CMB and LSS data are

323: presently under study \cite{ddhms}.

324: 

325: 

326: \begin{figure}[tbh]

327: \label{multinfl}

328: \epsfxsize\hsize\epsffile{wkbvsnum.eps}

329: \caption{Comparison of the 1st-order WKB approximation with the

330: numerically calculated exact spectrum of the density perturbation in

331: the multiple inflation model, when the mass of the inflaton undergoes

332: a sudden change of 5-10 \% \protect\cite{Hunt:2004vt}.}

333: \end{figure}

334: 

335: It has been emphasized that the usual expectation for the nearly

336: scale-invariant density perturbation from inflation is based on the

337: assumption of an unchanging equation-of-state during the inflationary

338: era \cite{Wang:1997cw}. Given our ignorance of the actual physics of

339: inflation, it would be overly simplistic to assume that the most

340: trivial possibility was in fact realized in the very early

341: universe. Moreover there are interesting anomalies in the data which

342: seem unlikely to be all statistical flukes and which could well

343: provide our first physical link to the process responsible for

344: generating the primordial density perturbation. It is essential that

345: these issues be studied further before we conclude that the `standard

346: model' of cosmology has indeed been established. What is very

347: encouraging is that the expected increase in precision of forthcoming

348: CMB experiments (especially at high $\ell$s), together with

349: measurements of polarisation, will be able to determine unambiguously

350: if scale-invariance is indeed broken in the primordial spectrum

351: \cite{Bond:2004rt}.

352: 

353: 

354: \section{Acknowledgements}

355: 

356: I wish to thank all my collaborators in the work reported on here, and

357: the organisers of this stimulating meeting for the invitation to

358: present a somewhat unorthodox view.

359: 

360: 

361: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

362: 

363: %\cite{paddy}

364: \bibitem{paddy}

365: see e.g., T. Padmanabhan,

366: {\sl `Structure Formation in the Universe'}

367: (CUP, 1993)

368: 

369: %\cite{Fields:2004cb}

370: \bibitem{Fields:2004cb}

371: B.~Fields and S.~Sarkar,

372: %``Big-bang nucleosynthesis,''

373: in {\sl `Review of Particle Physics'}, 

374: S.~Eidelman {\em et al.} (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B592 (2004) 1

375: [arXiv:astro-ph/0406663].

376: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0406663;%%

377: 

378: %\cite{White:1992ri}

379: \bibitem{White:1992ri}

380: S.D.M.~White, G.~Efstathiou and C.S.~Frenk,

381: %``The Amplitude of mass fluctuations in the universe,''

382: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 262} (1993) 1023.

383: %%CITATION = MNRAA,262,1023;%%

384: 

385: %\cite{Scott:1995uj}

386: \bibitem{Scott:1995uj}

387: D.~Scott, J.~Silk and M.~J.~White,

388: %``From microwave anisotropies to cosmology,''

389: Science {\bf 268} (1995) 829

390: [arXiv:astro-ph/9505015].

391: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9505015;%%

392: 

393: %\cite{Bahcall:1999xn}

394: \bibitem{Bahcall:1999xn}

395: N.A.~Bahcall, J.P.~Ostriker, S.~Perlmutter and P.J.~Steinhardt,

396: %``The Cosmic Triangle: Revealing the State of the Universe,''

397: Science {\bf 284} (1999) 1481

398: [arXiv:astro-ph/9906463].

399: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9906463;%%

400: 

401: %\cite{Peebles:2002gy}

402: \bibitem{Peebles:2002gy}

403: see e.g. P.J.E.~Peebles and B.~Ratra,

404: %``The cosmological constant and dark energy,''

405: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 75} (2003) 559

406: [arXiv:astro-ph/0207347].

407: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0207347;%%

408: 

409: %\cite{Ross:1995dq}

410: \bibitem{Ross:1995dq}

411: G.G.~Ross and S.~Sarkar,

412: %``Successful supersymmetric inflation,''

413: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 461} (1996) 597

414: [arXiv:hep-ph/9506283]

415: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506283;%%

416: 

417: %\cite{Adams:1996yd}

418: \bibitem{Adams:1996yd}

419: J.A.~Adams, G.G.~Ross and S.~Sarkar,

420: %``Natural supergravity inflation,''

421: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 391} (1997) 271

422: [arXiv:hep-ph/9608336].

423: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608336;%%

424: 

425: %\cite{Jungman:1995bz}

426: \bibitem{Jungman:1995bz}

427: G.~Jungman, M.~Kamionkowski, A.~Kosowsky and D.N.~Spergel,

428: %``Cosmological parameter determination with microwave background maps,''

429: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 1332

430: [arXiv:astro-ph/9512139].

431: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9512139;%%

432: 

433: %\cite{Efstathiou:1998xx}

434: \bibitem{Efstathiou:1998xx}

435: G.~Efstathiou and J.R.~Bond,

436: %``Cosmic Confusion: Degeneracies among Cosmological Parameters

437: %Derived from Measurements of Microwave Background Anisotropies,''

438: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 304} (1998) 75

439: [arXiv:astro-ph/9807103].

440: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9807103;%%

441: 

442: %\cite{Spergel:2003cb}

443: \bibitem{Spergel:2003cb}

444: D.N.~Spergel {\it et al.} [WMAP collab],

445: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

446: %Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''

447: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 148} (2003) 175

448: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302209].

449: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%

450: 

451: %\cite{Percival:2001hw}

452: \bibitem{Percival:2001hw}

453: W.J.~Percival {\it et al.} [2dFGRS collab.],

454: %``The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: The power spectrum and the matter 

455: %content of the universe,''

456: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 327} (2001) 1297

457: [arXiv:astro-ph/0105252].

458: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0105252;%%

459: 

460: %\cite{Perlmutter:1998np}

461: \bibitem{Perlmutter:1998np}

462: S.~Perlmutter {\it et al.} [Supernova Cosmology Project collab.],

463: %``Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae,''

464: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 517} (1999) 565

465: [arXiv:astro-ph/9812133].

466: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9812133;%%

467: 

468: %\cite{Freedman:2000cf}

469: \bibitem{Freedman:2000cf}

470: W.~L.~Freedman {\it et al.} [Hubble Key Project collab.],

471: %``Final Results from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project to

472: %Measure the

473: %Hubble Constant,''

474: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 553} (2001) 47

475: [arXiv:astro-ph/0012376].

476: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0012376;%%

477: 

478: %\cite{Blanchard:2003du}

479: \bibitem{Blanchard:2003du}

480: A.~Blanchard, M.~Douspis, M.~Rowan-Robinson and S.~Sarkar,

481: %``An alternative to the cosmological 'concordance model',''

482: Astron.\ Astrophys.\  {\bf 412} (2003) 35

483: [arXiv:astro-ph/0304237].

484: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0304237;%%

485: 

486: %\cite{Feruglio:2002af}

487: \bibitem{Feruglio:2002af}

488: F.~Feruglio, A.~Strumia and F.~Vissani,

489: %``Neutrino oscillations and signals in beta and 0nu 2beta experiments,''

490: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 637} (2002) 345

491: (Addendum-ibid.\ B {\bf 659} (2003) 359)

492: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201291].

493: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201291;%%

494: 

495: %\cite{Elgaroy:2003yh}

496: \bibitem{Elgaroy:2003yh}

497: O.~Elgaroy and O.~Lahav,

498: %``The role of priors in deriving upper limits on neutrino masses from the

499: %2dFGRS and WMAP,''

500: JCAP {\bf 0304} (2003) 004

501: [arXiv:astro-ph/0303089].

502: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0303089;%%

503: 

504: %\cite{Sadat:2001en}

505: \bibitem{Sadat:2001en}

506: R.~Sadat and A.~Blanchard,

507: %``New Light on the Baryon Fraction in Galaxy Clusters,''

508: Astron.\ Astrophys.\  {\bf 371} (2001) 19

509: [arXiv:astro-ph/0102010].

510: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0102010;%%

511: 

512: %\cite{Reese:2003ya}

513: \bibitem{Reese:2003ya}

514: E.D.~Reese,

515: %``Measuring the Hubble constant with the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect,''

516: in {\sl `Measuring and Modeling the Universe'}, ed. W.~Freedman 

517: (CUP, 2004) p.138

518: [arXiv:astro-ph/0306073].

519: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0306073;%%

520: 

521: %\cite{Kochanek:2003pi}

522: \bibitem{Kochanek:2003pi}

523: C.S.~Kochanek and P.L.~Schechter,

524: %``The Hubble constant from gravitational lens time delays,''

525: in {\sl `Measuring and Modeling the Universe'}, ed. W.~Freedman 

526: (CUP, 2004) p.117

527: [arXiv:astro-ph/0306040].

528: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0306040;%%

529: 

530: %\cite{Tonry:2003zg}

531: \bibitem{Tonry:2003zg}

532: J.L.~Tonry {\it et al.} [Supernova Search Team collab.],

533: %``Cosmological Results from High-z Supernovae,''

534: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 594} (2003) 1

535: [arXiv:astro-ph/0305008].

536: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0305008;%%

537: 

538: %\cite{Riess:2004nr}

539: \bibitem{Riess:2004nr}

540: A.G.~Riess {\it et al.} [Supernova Search Team collab.],

541: %``Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z>1 From the Hubble Space Telescope:

542: %Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution,''

543: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 607} (2004) 665

544: [arXiv:astro-ph/0402512].

545: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0402512;%%

546: 

547: %\cite{Choudhury:2003tj}

548: \bibitem{Choudhury:2003tj}

549: T.R.~Choudhury and T.~Padmanabhan,

550: %``A theoretician's analysis of the supernova data and the limitations in

551: %determining the nature of dark energy II: Results for latest data,''

552: Astron.\ Astrophys.\  {\bf 429} (2005) 807

553: [arXiv:astro-ph/0311622].

554: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0311622;%%

555: 

556: %\cite{Liddle:2000cg}

557: \bibitem{Liddle:2000cg}

558: A.R.~Liddle and D.H.~Lyth,

559: {\sl `Cosmological Inflation and Large-scale Structure'} (CUP, 2000).

560: 

561: %\cite{Barger:2003ym}

562: \bibitem{Barger:2003ym}

563: V.~Barger, H.~S.~Lee and D.~Marfatia,

564: %``WMAP and inflation,''

565: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565} (2003) 33

566: [arXiv:hep-ph/0302150].

567: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302150;%%

568: 

569: %\cite{Ellis:1984er}

570: \bibitem{Ellis:1984er}

571: J.~R.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and S.~Sarkar,

572: %``The Cosmology Of Decaying Gravitinos,''

573: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 259} (1985) 175.

574: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B259,175;%%

575: 

576: %\cite{Bridle:2003sa}

577: \bibitem{Bridle:2003sa}

578: S.L.~Bridle, A.M.~Lewis, J.~Weller and G.~Efstathiou,

579: %``Reconstructing the primordial power spectrum,''

580: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\  {\bf 342} (2003) L72

581: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302306].

582: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302306;%%

583: 

584: %\cite{Mukherjee:2003ag}

585: \bibitem{Mukherjee:2003ag}

586: P.~Mukherjee and Y.~Wang,

587: %``Model-Independent Reconstruction of the Primordial Power Spectrum

588: %from WMAP Data,''

589: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 599} (2003) 1

590: [arXiv:astro-ph/0303211].

591: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0303211;%%

592: 

593: %\cite{Contaldi:2003zv}

594: \bibitem{Contaldi:2003zv}

595: C.R.~Contaldi, M.~Peloso, L.~Kofman and A.~Linde,

596: %``Suppressing the lower Multipoles in the CMB Anisotropies,''

597: JCAP {\bf 0307} (2003) 002

598: [arXiv:astro-ph/0303636].

599: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0303636;%%

600: 

601: %\cite{Cline:2003ve}

602: \bibitem{Cline:2003ve}

603: J.M.~Cline, P.~Crotty and J.~Lesgourgues,

604: %``Does the small CMB quadrupole moment suggest new physics?,''

605: JCAP {\bf 0309} (2003) 010

606: [arXiv:astro-ph/0304558].

607: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0304558;%%

608: 

609: %\cite{Feng:2003zu}

610: \bibitem{Feng:2003zu}

611: B.~Feng and X.~Zhang,

612: %``Double inflation and the low CMB quadrupole,''

613: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 570} (2003) 145

614: [arXiv:astro-ph/0305020].

615: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0305020;%%

616: 

617: %\cite{Shafieloo:2003gf}

618: \bibitem{Shafieloo:2003gf}

619: A.~Shafieloo and T.~Souradeep,

620: %``Primordial power spectrum from WMAP,''

621: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 043523

622: [arXiv:astro-ph/0312174].

623: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0312174;%%

624: 

625: %\cite{Peiris:2003ff}

626: \bibitem{Peiris:2003ff}

627: H.V.~Peiris {\it et al.} [WMAP collab.],

628: %``First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations:

629: %Implications for inflation,''

630: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148} (2003) 213

631: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302225].

632: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302225;%%

633: 

634: %\cite{Tocchini-Valentini:2004ht}

635: \bibitem{Tocchini-Valentini:2004ht}

636: D.~Tocchini-Valentini, M.~Douspis and J.~Silk,

637: %``Are there features in the primordial power spectrum?,''

638: arXiv:astro-ph/0402583.

639: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0402583;%%

640: 

641: %\cite{Adams:1997de}

642: \bibitem{Adams:1997de}

643: J.A.~Adams, G.G.~Ross and S.~Sarkar,

644: %``Multiple inflation,''

645: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 503} (1997) 405

646: [arXiv:hep-ph/9704286].

647: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704286;%%

648: 

649: %\cite{Starobinsky:1992ts}

650: \bibitem{Starobinsky:1992ts}

651: A.A.~Starobinsky,

652: %``Spectrum of adiabatic perturbations in the universe when there are

653: %singularities in the inflation potential,''

654: JETP Lett.\ {\bf 55} (1992) 489.

655: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 55} (1992) 477].

656: %%CITATION = JTPLA,55,489;%%

657: 

658: %\cite{Adams:2001vc}

659: \bibitem{Adams:2001vc}

660: J.A.~Adams, B.~Cresswell and R.~Easther,

661: %``Inflationary perturbations from a potential with a step,''

662: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 123514

663: [arXiv:astro-ph/0102236].

664: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0102236;%%

665: 

666: %\cite{Hunt:2004vt}

667: \bibitem{Hunt:2004vt}

668: P.~Hunt and S.~Sarkar,

669: %``Multiple inflation and the WMAP 'glitches',''

670: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 103518

671: [arXiv:astro-ph/0408138].

672: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0408138;%%

673: 

674: %\cite{ddhms}

675: \bibitem{ddhms}

676: M. Douspis, J. Dunkley, P. Hunt, A. Morgan and S. Sarkar,

677: in preparation. 

678: 

679: %\cite{Wang:1997cw}

680: \bibitem{Wang:1997cw}

681: L.M.~Wang, V.F.~Mukhanov and P.J.~Steinhardt,

682: %``On the problem of predicting inflationary perturbations,''

683: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 414} (1997) 18

684: [arXiv:astro-ph/9709032].

685: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9709032;%%

686: 

687: %\cite{Bond:2004rt}

688: \bibitem{Bond:2004rt}

689: J.~R.~Bond, C.~R.~Contaldi, A.~M.~Lewis and D.~Pogosyan,

690: %``The cosmic microwave background and inflation parameters,''

691: Int.\ J.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 43} (2004) 599

692: [arXiv:astro-ph/0406195].

693: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0406195;%%

694: 

695: \end{thebibliography}

696: 

697: \end{document}

698: