George

The deficiency is real, the question is: is it significant?

Garth

Perhaps we are expecting our data to fit the theoretical curve to perfection. We need to ask ourselves: is such an expectation realistic? Hardly ever in life do things turn out exactly the way we expect. The vast majority of astronomical data is consistent (the Universe is almost certainly 10-15 Gyr old, it’s not too curved, it has more matter and energy than is obviously detectable); hence the name “concordance cosmology.” Should cosmologists be so high and mighty as to expect that there would be no deviations from the theory at all?

Regarding the alignments, see also

Anomalous Alignments in the Cosmic Microwave Background

Sorry for the self-ad

PS: I’ve submitted this comment already twice yesterday, but it never showed up. I hope it works this time…

and now we wait for Plank

The joys of typos!
Of course what I meant to say was

and now we wait for Plonk!

Garth

There are two methods that can be used to subtract foregrounds. One is to attempt to tease out what part of the measured CMB signal is foreground signal, and what part is primary CMB. This can be done for most forms of contamination through multi frequency analysis, and it basically affects your uncertainty in the temperature value for any given pixel.

The second method that can be used is to mask out the contaminated regions of the sky and only do your analysis in those areas where the primary CMB is the strongest signal.

The two methods are best combined, of course: some masking must be done, because many foregrounds are just going to be entirely too bright. But the question remains as to what precisely this does to our data.

The basic effect is that it means the multipoles are no longer uncorrelated. In essence, the spherical harmonic transform is only orthogonal if the integration is performed over the whole sky. So if you calculate the spherical harmonic transform of a masked sky, some of your multipoles will be mixed into one another as a result of the mask. The goal, then, is to properly account for this induced correlation, and hopefully remove it.

One method of doing this is Gibbs sampling. With Gibbs sampling the basic idea is to simulate a bunch of maps with different power spectra and compare them to the CMB that is actually measured. In this way it is possible to marginalize over possible values of the data outside of the region in which the CMB is actually measured. This method is too computationally intensive to take out to very high multipole moment, but works excellently on large scales. You can see this method explained in the following paper:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411737

For smaller scale fluctuations the problem is computationally more difficult, but the induced correlations are also smaller so we can afford to be a bit more sloppy. There are a number of semi-analytic methods for subtracting out the effect of the masking on the data. For example, if you assume statistical isotropy (that is, that the various multipole directions on the primary CMB are truly uncorrelated from one another), then the problem of how to factor in the mask becomes computationally much simpler, and its effect can be integrated directly. Once this is done, and you have a basic mapping from the power spectrum of the masked map to the primary CMB power spectrum, you can iteratively correct the mapping by averaging over many realizations of the same primary CMB power spectrum. This method is highlighted in the MASTER algorithm, which is recommended for smaller area CMB experiments:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0105302

I don’t want to give the impression that these are the only two methods, or that they’re even the best methods available. These are just two that I have been exposed to in my work under Lloyd Knox on the subject.

What has been eliminated from WMAP: the maps available online have the isotropic intensity taken out (which is not even measured since WMAP can only see temperature differences), and have the dipole (which is mostly due to our motion) subtracted. WMAP has “raw” maps available that contain everything else in the sky (including Galactic emission) as well as several maps that have models of the Galaxy subtracted. These models are usually based on emission at other wavelengths, e.g. synchrotron radiation shows up very brightly in the radio; dust is brightest in the infrared; and the plasma that emits free-free radiation also emits spectral lines of hydrogen (6563 angstroms) that have been mapped with optical telescopes. There are also maps (e.g. the one by Tegmark et al) where the angular distribution of foregrounds is inferred entirely from microwave data, i.e. based on the temperature difference between maps at different frequencies.

Some regions of sky are so contaminated that WMAP did not use them to calculate the power spectrum. You can read their papers if you want details, but estimating the power spectrum (C_l) using only part of the sky is a statistics problem and there are many estimators that one could write down that do the job (e.g. maximum likelihood assuming Gaussianity, although there are others). When people discuss alignment of the multipoles, “axis of evil”, etc. then in most cases you are forced to use the whole sky, and then you have to worry a lot more about how good your subtraction of the Galaxy is (particularly in the plane). This is why Amir is looking forward to Planck data, which will cover the millimeter wavelength range and hence get much better measurements of the dust in the plane …

While waiting can we ask what would be the consequence of the deficiency actually being real? i.e. not a statistical fluke or local contamination?

Would it not be a good idea to be more questioning about the robustness of the standard LCDM model and already be actively searching for and evaluating alternatives?

Garth

Microwaves (the CBR) are the most penetrating radio waves there are, but the ionised plasma in stars stops them easily. A local galaxy such as our galaxy the Milky way has a lot of ionised material which will create an asymmetry to the side of us where the centre of the galaxy is located.

I did cosmology over a decade ago, but in the course guide there was quite a bit about the various corrections applied to the COBE data before these fluctuation spectra were extracted. It’s amazing, because the CBM is the most perfect blackbody radiation spectrum ever seen, yet the accuracy is supposedly so good (i.e. most error bars are invisible in the WMAP data analysis above) that you can take the very small angular variations and find a lot of physics in them.

It would be good to know exactly what has been subtracted from the data. Obviously, the Milky Way noise has been deleted, but what has been filled in to replace the parts of the WMAP data which are spoiled by non-CBR “noise” which happens to be at the same microwave frequency?

In regard to the evil of preferred directions, there is a massive istropy for the absolute motion of the Milky Way with respect to the CBR; the galaxy is going toward Andromeda at 400 km/s which causes a whopping +/-3mK istropy in the raw data which is simple Doppler shift:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978SciAm.238…64M

I think your summary is correct, but I haven’t read the paper in detail, I must admit.