Glenn Starkman Dept. of Physics/CERCA/ISO Case Western Reserve University June 10-12, 2015 Princeton, NJ IAS Princeton, NJ Collaborators: C. Copi, D. Huterer, D. Schwarz; A. Yoho. Kosowsky Collaborators: C. Copi, D. Huterer, D. Schwarz; A. Yoho; Simone Aiola, A. Kosowsky “On anisotropy anomalies: real and conjectured”

Glenn Starkman Dept. of Physics/CERCA/ISO Case Western Reserve University June 10-12, 2015 Princeton, NJ IAS Princeton, NJ Collaborators: C. Copi, D. Huterer, D. Schwarz; A. Yoho. Kosowsky Collaborators: C. Copi, D. Huterer, D. Schwarz; A. Yoho; Simone Aiola, A. Kosowsky “Anisotropy anomalies: physics, systematics or statistics?”

Anisotropy Anomalies: low-l alignmentlow-l alignment absence of two-point correlationabsence of two-point correlation hemispherical asymmetryhemispherical asymmetry parityparity Many others – (un)related, more/less significant/interestingMany others – (un)related, more/less significant/interesting

I. Low-l Alignments aka “the axis of evil” I prefer “the plane of pain”

Inflationary ΛCDM: GRSI =>All of the physics is in the C l

For each l, find the axis n l for which (  L) 2  ∑ m m 2 |a l m (n l )| 2 is maximized A. de Oliveira-Costa, et al. The significance of the largest scale CMB fluctuations in WMAP Phys.Rev.D69:063516,2004 (astro-ph/ ) Result: octopole is unusually “planar” octopole is unusually “planar” (dominated by |m| = 3 if z  n 3 ). quadrupole and octopole are aligned quadrupole and octopole are aligned (n 2. n 3 =0.9838)

Multipole Vectors Dipole ( l =1) :  m a 1m Y 1m      û x (1,1), û y (1,1), û z (1,1) )  (sin   cos , sin   sin , cos   l >1 What directions are associated with the l th multipole?

(2 l+1) a l m    l )    l û ( l,i)  m a l m Y l m  (l)   û ( l,1)  ê)…  û ( l, l )  ê )–traces] Multipole vectors:  m a l m Y l m     u ( l,1)  )…  u ( l, l )  )r -1 ] r=1 w (l,i,j)  (û (l,i) x û (l,j) ) “area vectors” w (2,2,2) || n 2w (2,2,2) || n 2 If octopole is perfectly planar w (3,1,2) || w (3,2,3) || w (3,3,1) || n 3 If octopole is perfectly planar w (3,1,2) || w (3,2,3) || w (3,3,1) || n 3

l=2 & 3 Area Vectors equinoxequinox dipol e dipole l=2 l=3 l=3 normal ecliptic l=3 l=3 normal

Alignment statistics p-value of quadrupole-octopole plane alignment: ( )%p-value of quadrupole-octopole plane alignment: ( )% Conditional p-value of aligned planes | ecliptic: ( )%Conditional p-value of aligned planes | ecliptic: ( )% Conditional p-value of then pointing at dipole/equinox: few%Conditional p-value of then pointing at dipole/equinox: few% WMA P3: Precise values change, but not much Important to remove the DQ

l=2 & 3: The Map

Important to remove Doppler quadrupole Planck vs. WMAP MPV

II. Lack of large-angle correlations

Angular Correlation Function C(  ) C(  ) =      cos 

Angular Correlation Function C(  ) C(  ) =      cos  One measure (WMAP1): S 1/2 =  -1 1/2 [C(  )] 2 d cos  is unexpectedly small above 60 o

WMAP 3 (ILC) Copi, Huterer, Schwarz, GDS astro-ph/ PRD75 (2007)

Did this change in Planck? Copi, Huterer, Schwarz, GDS arxiv MNRAS (in press)

Planck R1 Copi, Huterer, Schwarz, GDS arxiv MNRAS (in press)

Planck R2 (preliminary) Courtesy of C.J. Copi Small increases in S 1/2 for KQ75y9 mask due to change in Planck normalization

Full sky/cut sky These are cut-sky C(  ), NOT estimators of full-sky C(  )

S 1/2 is NOT small (just) because C 2 is small, nor because C l are small but because C 2, C 3, C 4, C 5 cancel C 6,… S 1/2 vs. C l “The steep, nearly linear rise in the spectrum from l = 2 to 5 translates to a near absence of power in the angular correlation function at separations larger than ~6[0]° (Spergel et al. 2003; Bennett et al. 2003b). This was also seen in the COBE DMR data, but it is now clear that this is not due to Galaxy modeling errors.” WMAP team – Yr 1

Implication A small S 1/2 is NOT preserved by cosmic variance when it is not due to small C l If this is physics, it requires co-variance among the C l !!

III. Parity Land & Magueijo 2005; Kim & Naselsky 2010 Land & Magueijo 2005; Kim & Naselsky 2010 Gruppuso et al. 2011; Aluri & Jain 2012; Naselsky et al Gruppuso et al. 2011; Aluri & Jain 2012; Naselsky et al. 2012

2_images.cfm

Fig. 38, equation (42) from Planck Collaboration, Planck 2013 results. XXIII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB arxiv , A&A, 571, A23 p-value: as low as 0.003

WMAP 3 (ILC) Copi, Huterer, Schwarz, GDS astro-ph/ PRD75 (2007)

IV. Hemispherical Asymmetry “Eriksen et al. (2004) and Hansen et al. (2004) … discovered that the angular power spectrum of …WMAP[1] data, when estimated locally at different positions on the sphere, appears not to be isotropic.” Planck 2013 XXIII. arxiv Expanded/confirmed/… by many:

Power Asymmetry in Cosmic Microwave Background Fluctuations…: Is the Universe Isotropic? F.K. Hansen, A.J. Banday, K.M. Gorski, H.K. Eriksen, P.B. Lilje. Dec Astrophys.J. 704 (2009)

2, 3, 3, and 4-point correlation functions on N & S ecliptic skies All exhibit a “quiet north”

Physics or Statistics? These anomalies are on the sky (not systematics) These anomalies are on the sky (not systematics) Some were there (but not quantified) in COBE-DMR; all were there in WMAP and persist in Planck Some were there (but not quantified) in COBE-DMR; all were there in WMAP and persist in Planck The statistics are not likely to improve The statistics are not likely to improve They may be correlated (statistically) and connected (physically), but tough to demonstrate, even tougher to establish causation (without a model) They may be correlated (statistically) and connected (physically), but tough to demonstrate, even tougher to establish causation (without a model)

Three possible/reasonable(?) approaches: Believe/Argue/Hope(?) that they are flukes while loudly repeating “a posteori, a posteori” Believe/Argue/Hope(?) that they are flukes while loudly repeating “a posteori, a posteori” Work hard to devise a comprehensive (preferably testable) theory of 1 or more of them. Work hard to devise a comprehensive (preferably testable) theory of 1 or more of them. Middle ground: Middle ground: Seek phenomenological consequences for other observables (eg. EE, TE, BB, QQ, UU, Tϕ, ϕϕ, …) Seek phenomenological consequences for other observables (eg. EE, TE, BB, QQ, UU, Tϕ, ϕϕ, …) Seek phenomenological “models” (eg. no 3-d correlations) and pursue their consequences for other observablesSeek phenomenological “models” (eg. no 3-d correlations) and pursue their consequences for other observables

S 1/2 Tϕ distribution altered by knowledge of T map S 1/2 Tϕ distribution altered by knowledge of T map

C QQ (θ), C UU (θ) might be 0 if absence of correlations is 3-d C QQ (θ), C UU (θ) might be 0 if absence of correlations is 3-d

Best of times, best of times Our model succeeds brilliantly,Our model succeeds brilliantly, our model hints at “failure” Old questions are answered,Old questions are answered, old questions remain unanswered unexpected questions demand answers

Conclusions? Alignments are: PersistentPersistent Individually interesting, collectively significantIndividually interesting, collectively significant but hard to explain, or establish “priority”but hard to explain, or establish “priority”

l=2&3 : The (DQc) SMICA Map

P-values of alignment statistics ?

p-values conditioned on Q-O alignment Copi et al, MNRAS, 449, 3458 (2015); arXiv

p-values for Q-O alignment conditioned on …

Quadrupole+Octopole Correlations -- Explanations: more galaxy? Systematics Systematics how do you get such effects? how do you get such effects? esp., how do you get a N-S ecliptic asymmetry? (dipole mis-subtraction?) esp., how do you get a N-S ecliptic asymmetry? (dipole mis-subtraction?) how do you avoid oscillations in the time-ordered data? how do you avoid oscillations in the time-ordered data? how do you get the systematics in both WMAP and Planck how do you get the systematics in both WMAP and Planck The Galaxy: (Systematics/Physical Model) The Galaxy: (Systematics/Physical Model) has the wrong multipole structure (shape) has the wrong multipole structure (shape) is likely to lead to GALACTIC not ECLIPTIC/DIPOLE/EQUINOX correlations is likely to lead to GALACTIC not ECLIPTIC/DIPOLE/EQUINOX correlations Cosmology (“Physical Model”) Cosmology (“Physical Model”) but how to get dipole correlation? but how to get dipole correlation? how to get C 2 < C 3 ? how to get C 2 < C 3 ? Other Foregrounds -- difficult: Other Foregrounds -- difficult: Changing a patch of the sky typically gives you: Y l0Changing a patch of the sky typically gives you: Y l0 Sky has 5x more octopole than quadrupoleSky has 5x more octopole than quadrupole How do you get a physical ring perpendicular to the eclipticHow do you get a physical ring perpendicular to the ecliptic Caution: can add essentially arbitrary dipole, which can entirely distort the ring! (Silk & Inoue)Caution: can add essentially arbitrary dipole, which can entirely distort the ring! (Silk & Inoue) How do you hide the foreground from detection? T≈T CMB How do you hide the foreground from detection? T≈T CMB

SMICA R1