1. Third Year WMAP Results Dave Wilkinson

2. NASA/GSFC Bob Hill Gary Hinshaw Al Kogut Michele Limon Nils Odegard Janet Weiland Ed Wollack Princeton Norm Jarosik Lyman Page David Spergel. UBC Mark Halpern Chicago Stephan Meyer Hiranya Peiris Brown Greg Tucker UCLA Ned Wright Science Team: WMAP A partnership between NASA/GSFC and Princeton Johns Hopkins Chuck Bennett (PI) Cornell Rachel Bean Microsoft Chris Barnes CITA Olivier Dore Mike Nolta Penn Licia Verde UT Austin Eiichiro Komatsu

3. What’s New in the Measurement? Three times as much data, sqrt(3) smaller errors in maps: more than 50x reduction in model parameter space. Direct measurement of CMB polarization. Much better understanding of instrument, noise, gain, beams, and mapmaking.

4. One of 20 A-B-A-BB-A-B-A Amplifiers from NRAO, M. Pospieszalski design For temperature: measure difference in power from both sides. CMB: 30 uK rms For polarization: measure the difference between differential temperature measurements with opposite polarity. CMB 0.3 uK rms ** * * = 0 0I/2 ( ( ) ) ) ( + Q/2 -Q/2 U/2 Coherency matrix

5. Stability of instrument is critical Physical temperature of B-side primary over three years. This is the largest change on the instrument. Jarosik et al. Three parameter fit to gain over three years leads to a clean separation of gain and offset drifts.

6. K Band, 22 GHz

7. Ka Band, 33 GHz

8. Q Band, 41 GHz

9. V Band, 61 GHz

10. W Band, 94 GHz

11. Compare Spectra Cosmic variance limited to l=400. First peak Window function dominates difference

13. Reionization Best fit model

14. Maps of Multipoles Too aligned? Too symmetric?

15. Summary of Temperature Maps Data + completely new pipeline consistent with first year. Maximum likelihood for low l (Efstathiou, Seljak et al.) New improved power spectrum. No clear glitches, low-l less anomalous, clear second peak. Calibration error still 0.5%

16. Polarization New measurement of optical depth to the surface of last scattering. First all sky measurement of polarized foreground emission. Direct measurement of low-l E modes.

17. K Band, 22 GHz 50

18. Ka Band, 33 GHz

19. Q Band, 41 GHz

20. V Band, 61 GHz CMB 6 uK

21. W Band, 94 GHz

22. Q&U Maps

23. Blowouts Berkhuijsen et al. Loops

24. Polarized Foreground Emission B-field Synchrotron emission Starlight polarization Dust emission Dust grain

25. 5 GHz Polarization & B field

26. Polarized Foreground Emission B field from K bandB field from model

27. Foreground Model Template fits (not model just shown). Use all available information on polarization directions. Sync: Based on K band directions Dust: Based on directions from starlight polarization. Increase errors in map for subtraction. Examine power spectrum l by l and frequency. Examine results with different bands. Examine the results with different models. Ka 2.14 1.096 Q 1.29 1.02 V 1.05 1.02 W 1.06 1.05 BandPre-CleanedCleaned 4534 DOF Table of

28. Raw vs. Cleaned Maps Galaxy masked in analysis

29. Mask Use 75% of sky for cosmological analysis

30. High l TE Crittenden et al.

31. High l EE All direct polarization measurements to date.

32. Low-l TE New noise, new mapmaking, pixel space foreground subtaction, different sky cut, different band combination. New results consistent with original results. New results also consistent with zero! 4 to model

33. Low l EE/BB “Features” Still, though, even accounting for this, EE W-band l=5,7 is problematic. All others OK.

34. Low-l EE/BB EE (solid) BB (dash) BB model at 60 GHz r=0.3

35. Frequency space “Spikes” from correlated polarized sync and dust.

36. Spectrum of Foreground Subtraction Pre-cleaned error bars do not include 2NF term. Recall, foreground subtraction is done on maps, not spectra. We use QV for analysis, check with other channels.

37. Low-l EE/BB EE Polarization: from reionization of first stars BB Polarization: null check and limit on gravitational waves. r<2.2 (95% CL) from just EE/BB EE BB Just Q and V bands.

38. OpticaL Depth

39. Optical Depth Knowledge of the optical depth affects the determination of the cosmological parameters, especially ns 0.111 +/- 0.022 0.100 +/- 0.029 0.111 +/- 0.021 0.107 +/- 0.018 0.111 +/- 0.022 0.092 +/- 0.029 0.101 +/- 0.023 0.106 +/- 0.019 KaQV QV QVW KaQVW Bands EE only EE +TE only Best overall with 6 parameters =0.088 +/- 0.031

40. BB r=0.3 EE TE TT Approx EE/BB foreground BB Lensing BB inflation

41. New Cosmological Parameters New analysis based primarily on WMAP alone. Knowledge of optical depth breaks the n-tau degeneracy. Take WMAP and project to other experiments to test for consistency.

42. Degeneracy Knowledge of optical depth breaks the degeneracy 1yr WMAP 3yr WMAP

43. Best Fit LCDM Model WMAP-1 WMAP-3 1.037 for 3162 DOF TT+TE+EE Mean = 0.92+-0.1 = 0.29+-0.07 WMAP-1 0.023 0.145 0.68 … 0.10 0.97 0.88 0.32 Max L 0.0222 0.128 0.73 … 0.092 0.958 0.77 0.24 Smaller error bars and better fit that year 1 WMAP-3 Max L WMAP-3 SZ Marg 0.02233 +/-0.0008 0.1268 +/-0.01 0.734 +/- 0.03 … 0.088 +/- 0.03 0.951 +/- 0.017 0.744 +/- 0.055 0.238 +/- 0.035 Max L, sym err

44. Add 2dFGRS, SDSS, CMB,SN,WL The general trend is: drops to 0.945-0.950 +0.015/-0/017 drops when CMB added & rises when galaxies added A “working number” is 0.26 The scalar spectral index is 0.97+/- 0.02 Seljak et al. and 0.98+/-0.03 (Tegmark et al.) for WMAP-1 +SDSS.

45. What Does the Model Need? Model needs, 8 Model needs not unity, 8 Model needs dark matter, 248 Model does not need: running, r, or massive neutrinos, le 3.

46. Gravitational Waves WMAP alone, r<0.55 (95% CL) WMAP+2dF, r<0.30 (95% CL) WMAP+SDSS, r<0.28 (95% CL) In all cases, n_s rises to compensate. WMAP-1+SDSS Tegmark et al WMAP-1+SDSS+Lya Seljak et al Similar behavior:

47. Inflation Parameters, No Running

48. Equation of State & Curvature WMAP+CMB+2dFGRS+SDSS+SN Interpret as amazing consistency between data sets.

49. Final Bits No evidence for non-Gaussanity in any of our tests: Minkowski functionals, bispectrum, trispectrum….. Sum of mass of light neutrinos is <0.68 eV (95% CL). Has not changed significantly.

50. New ILC Now can be used for l=2,3! However, some non-Gaussanity persists!

51. THANK YOU