Spectral variation of the WMAP 5-year degree scale anisotropy Bi-Zhu Jiang 1,2, Richard Lieu 2, and Shuang-Nan Zhang 1,2,3,4 arxiv:94.2513v1 [astro-ph.co] 16 Apr 29 ABSTRACT The black body nature of the first acoustic peak of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) was tested using foreground reduced WMAP5 data, by producing subtraction maps between pairs of cosmological bands, viz. the Q, V, and W bands, for masked sky areas that avoid the Galactic disk. The resulting maps revealed a non black body signal that has two main properties. (a) It fluctuates on the degree scale preferentially in one half of the sky, producing an extra random noise there of amplitude 3.5 µk, which is 1 σ above the pixel noise even after beam size differences between bands are taken into account. (b) The signal exhibits large scale asymmetry in the form of a dipole ( 3 µk) in the Q-V and Q-W maps; and (c) a quadrupole ( 1.5 µk) in the Q-V, Q-W, and V-W maps. While (b) is due most probably to cross-band calibration residuals of the CMB COBE dipole, the amplitude of (c) is well beyond systematics of the kind, and in any case no a priori quadrupole in the CMB exists to leave behind such a residual. The axes of symmetry of (a), (b), and (c) are tilted in the same general direction w.r.t. the axes of the Galaxy. This tilt prevents the immediate trivialization of (a) and (c) in terms of known effects or anomalies, including and especially those of the foreground. In particular, should future attempts in demonstrating the non-cosmological origin of (a) continue to prove difficult, it would mean that degree scale departures from the acoustic model of perturbations is occurring on the last scattering surface at the 4 5 % level, and moreover the behavior varies significantly from one half of the universe to another. 1 Physics Department and Center for Astrophysics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 184, China. 2 Department of Physics, University of Alabama, Huntsville, AL 35899. 3 Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O.Box 918-3, Beijing 139, China. 4 NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, NSSTC, SD-5, 32 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 3585
2 1. Introduction The cosmic microwave background (CMB, Penzias and Wilson (1965)), the afterglow radiation of the Big Bang, is a phenomenon that underwent observational renaissance after the breakthrough discovery of the COBE mission (Smoot et al (1992)), confirmed with much improved resolution and statistics by WMAP (Hinshaw et al (28)), of the existence of small amplitude angular anisotropy in the temperature of the radiation, which provides the much sought after seed of structure formation. The anisotropy is attributed to frequency shift of CMB light induced by these seed density perturbations, which has the unique property that it leads to changes in the temperature of the black body spectrum and not the shape of it. The CMB has maximum anisotropy power at the 1 scale, or harmonic number l 22, with lower amplitude secondary and tertiary peaks at higher l. The ΛCDM cosmological model (Spergel et al (27)) explains the entire power spectrum remarkably using six parameters, by attributing the peaks to acoustic oscillations, triggered by primordial density perturbation, of baryon and dark matter fluids. CMB light emitted from within an overdense region of the oscillation are redshifted by a constant fractional amount, resulting in a cold spot, or a lowering by δt of the black body temperature T which is frequency independent, i.e. δt/t = δν/ν = constant. The opposite effect of blueshift applies to underdense regions, leading to hot spots. Therefore, if the anisotropy is due genuinely to acoustic oscillations, the inferred change in T at a given spot should be the same for all the clean frequency passbands of the WMAP mission. Since a corresponding variation of the CMB flux B(ν, T) at any given frequency ν is δb = ( B/ T)δT if the cause is solely δt with no accompanying distortion of the functional form of B itself, the expected δb at constant δt is then the dipole spectrum B/ T which is well measured by COBE-FIRAS (Mather et al (1994)). Moreover, the WMAP data are calibrated w.r.t. this dipole response. An noteworthy point about the acoustic anisotropy is that the evidence for it from the power spectrum of any single frequency passband is only suggestive at best. In Figure 1 we show the WMAP5 data of the W band at 94 GHz, where it can be seen that the second acoustic peak at l 55 and the Silk damping tail at higher l are both absent, due to the rapid rise of the pixel noise for sky areas. To suppress this noise and reveal the acoustic oscillations in their full glory, one must compute the all-sky cross power spectrum C ij l = 1 2l + 1 m a i lma j lm, (1) where the indices i and j denote independent data streams with uncorrelated noise that arise from a pair of maps at different frequency bands (or same band but taken at different
3 times), and a i lm = δt lm i is the apparent CMB temperature anisotropy for the spherical harmonics (l, m) as recorded by observation i. Since the role of multiple passbands is crucial in bringing forth the acoustic oscillations, it is important that we do compare and contrast them with extreme care, viz. to within their measurement uncertainties, have we been starting with consistent maps? In one previous attempt to answer this question (see Figure 9 of Bennett et al (23a)) WMAP1 data downgraded to an angular resolution commensurate with COBE were used to produce a difference (subtraction) map between the two missions. When displayed side by side with the map of the expected noise for each resulting pixel, the two maps did appear consistent. Nevertheless, this powerful method of probing the CMB anisotropy does, in the context of the specific datasets used by Bennett et al (23a), suffer from one setback: it is limited by the sensitivity and resolution of COBE. In another test that serves a similar purpose, we observe that each amplitude a i lm can further be factorized as a i lm = a lmb i l, where the array bi l accounts for the smoothing effects of both the beam and the finite sky map pixel size, and a lm = δt lm is the true amplitude of the CMB anisotropy. The results (see Figure 13 of Hinshaw et al (27)) indicate agreement of the variance C ij l, hence δt l, within the margin of a few percent for l 4 among the many cross power spectra formed by the various possible combinations of pairs of all-sky maps. It is encouraging news, but to be definitive the remaining discrepancy needs to be demonstrably attributed to noise or instrumental systematics. The purpose of our investigation is to perform further and (perhaps) more clinching comparisons than the two past ones presented above, initially by focussing upon the angular scale of the first acoustic peak, which is 1. Our analysis will be done in real (angular) space, because most of the effort have hitherto been pursued in harmonic space, leaving behind key outstanding questions that are best answered by working in real space - the domain in which the raw data were acquired and organized. 2. Spectral variations of the first acoustic peak anisotropy We adopted the Healpix 1 pixelization scheme to ensure that all pixels across the sky have the same area (or solid angle). The size of each pixel is downgraded to 1 radius (corresponding to nside of 32 in the parametrization of the WMAP database), which is not only commensurate with the scale of peak δt power, but also large enough to prevent data over-sampling from the use of too high a resolution, as the size is larger than the beam width of all WMAP frequency channels. The resulting δt values for the three cosmological 1 See http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/healpixsoftwarecapabilities.shtml.
4 passbands of Q, V, and W (41, 61, and 94 GHz), among the 1, clean (i.e. extmasked 2 and foreground subtracted 3 ) pixels, are plotted one band against another in Figure 2. As explained in the caption, the data reject the null hypothesis of δt i = δt j by > 8 σ. In order to evaluate the implication of the discrepancy, one must take into account the beam size difference between pairs of passbands. Since the window functions b i l are usually expressed in terms of the l harmonic, we could see the essence of this effect by writing the degree-scale anisotropy for one band as δt i δtl i where l 22. Then, when two bands are compared we have δt i l δt j l = m (a i lm a j lm )Y lm = m (b i l b j l )a lmy lm. (2) Hence graphs like Figure 2 reveal the convolution of the difference of the beam windows b i l bj l with the CMB anisotropy harmonic function a lmy lm. To disentangle the two, we generated using synfast of Healpix 1 simulated WMAP5 realizations with beam resolutions appropriate to each of the three bands, and compared in Figure 3 the results there with those of the real data. From this figure, it would appear that the anomalous frequency variation of δt is not entirely instrumental, i.e. there are genuine excursions of the anisotropy from pure adiabatic perturbations in the black body temperature. CMB spectral distortion during the recombination era, or subsequently from the Sunyaev- Zel dovich (SZ) effect, or from other foreground re-processing that were not properly compensated by the data reduction procedure of WMAP5, could all be responsible for the observed anomaly. Although the first two phenomena ((Sunyaev and Chluba 28; Birkinshaw and Gull 1983)) are much more feeble than one part per million (remember the degree of SZ needs to be averaged over the scale of the whole sky), the foreground (Bennett et al 23b; Gold et al 28) could potentially play a relevant role: as can be seen in Figure 4 the fluctuation power at l 2 is large enough to cause departures from black body fluctuations at the observed level or even beyond. However, the action of the foreground is systematic in that it does not lead purely to random and symmetric temperature fluctuations (about zero) between two frequencies. More precisely, because the sources or sinks involved have a characteristic spectrum that differs from black body in a specific way, any widening in Figure 3 of the data distribution w.r.t. the expected simulated gaussian ought to be highly asymmetric. As will be discussed later in this section when we perform relevant tests, such a signature is not observed. Instead, the widening of the data histogram is symmetric, and furthermore it 2 ext is short for external temperature analysis. 3 For foreground subtracted WMAP5 maps see http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/m products.cfm.
5 takes place in one half of the sky which is divided from the other half by neither the Galactic plane nor any meridian circle. Thus the symptoms do not at all point to the foreground as the responsible cause. Could however the non black body signal be distributed over much larger angular scales (which may in turn be due either to the foreground, or of a cosmological origin)? Several steps are undertaken to study the anisotropy of this signal, and to find out if more than one scale is involved. To begin with, we re-computed the frequency histograms of Figure 3, now dividing the sky into approximately four equal parts, with the direction towards Leo (i.e. the 1/4 sky on the top right of all the Galactic maps in this paper) labeled as the first quadrant, going counter-clockwise to the fourth. Our results are shown in Figures 5, 6 and 7, along as before with the expected behavior of the data as derived from 1 simulations in the form of a solid line. The most noticeable feature of this partial sky analysis is a visible shift of the peak position of the distribution from one quadrant to the next. Specifically for the Q-V and Q-W data the third quadrant is manifestly colder than the first, indicative of a dipole signal. The V-W data, on the other hand, appear to have the pattern of a quadrupole: the first and third quadrants are comparable in temperature, and the same applies to the second and fourth quadrants, but with the former pair being colder than the latter. To substantiate these claims, we fitted individual gaussians to the four datasets of Figures 5, 6 and 7. The results are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3, from which it is evident that the Q-V and Q-W dipole (l = 1), as well as the V-W quadrupole (l = 2), are indicated with high statistical significance, viz. 3 σ for the two dipoles, and 4 σ for the quadrupole. Apart from systematic effects, the gaussian widths for the first and third quadrants are consistently larger than the values expected from simulations, by an amount 3.5 µk which is at the 1 σ level above the uncertainties involved, while the second and fourth quadrants are much less discrepant. Since a wider frequency histogram cannot be represented as the sum of two offset gaussians whilst remaining normally distributed, this represents a random spectral variation of the degree scale anisotropy which cannot owe its origin to large scale temperature configurations. That the effect exists at the 4 5 % level, viz. 3.5 µk versus the first acoustic peak of 75 µk at l 22, is also in reasonable agreement with Hinshaw et al (28), who found that the amplitude excursion at l = 22 among the cross power spectra of independent datasets of WMAP5, including the data of different bands, is at the commensurate level. Lastly, there exists a monopole (l = ), or net zero offset of the gaussian peak position µ among all four quadrants, of 1. ±.7 µk depending on precisely which of the three band combinations in question. This offset is also in agreement with the mean shift µ of
6 each dipole or quadrupole, to within the errors - see Tables 1, 2, and 3 for details. To investigate further the properties of the large scale symmetries, including their more precise orientations, it is necessary to perform a harmonic analysis at the parameter regime of low l which is not affected by the beam complications of WMAP5. In particular, we shall find that the statistical significance of the quadrupole signal improves by a large margin, because the Galactic coordinate axes we currently employed for our sky division scheme are not aligned at all with the quadrupole axes (unlike the dipole, two rotations are involved here, so the distortion is difficult to unravel even with the help of quadrant sky divisions when the axes are not eigenvectors). In any case, the use of shifts in the gaussian mean position µ to infer temperature difference can hardly be expected to yield the best possible results, as the method is not ideal for the purpose and the histograms of the real data are often slightly skewed. 3. All sky maps of passband temperature difference: dipole and quadrupole signals We first plotted at the same 1 resolution the temperature difference between pairs of passbands for every Healpix pixel on the ext-masked WMAP5 sky. The resulting maps are shown in Figure 8 (after which we also included the corresponding noise maps for reference, Figure 9). One could eyeball the dipole asymmetry in Q-V and Q-W, with the first quadrant being slightly warmer than the third quadrant on average, and the quadrupole asymmetry in V-W, with quadrants 2 and 4 being warmer than 1 and 3. The high statistical significance of these two large scale perturbations is apparent in the power spectra of the temperature difference maps, Figure 1, which are computed at the full available resolution of nside= 512 using the PolSpice software 4. More precise numbers are to be found in Table 4, where the errors are the expected fluctuations obtained from the average of (δt) 2 among 1 simulated difference maps (each similar to the noise map shown in Figure 9) for the appropriate passband pair and l-value. Since, as will be clarified below, the dipole is almost certainly a calibration residual, i.e. the phenomenon of astrophysical or cosmological interest is more likely to be the quadrupole, we show in Figure 11 the distribution of simulated quadrupole powers, to demonstrate that it does not possess the long tail of cosmic variance capable of explaining this observational effect as due to random chance coincidence. For further evidence in support of this conclusion, note that each of the three quadrupoles, which is always manifested in the subtraction of a higher 4 Available from http://www.planck.fr/article141.html.
7 frequency map from a lower, could be displayed in isolation: if this is done, one would see that their axes are quite similar, even if distinct. The dipole or quadrupole component in the maps of Figure 8 may indeed be extracted by organizing the data of each subtracted map as a multipole expansion δt(θ, φ) = l,m c lm Y lm (θ, φ), (3) and for the relevant value of l (viz. l = 1 or 2) one may compute the amplitude δt l (θ, φ) = m c lm Y lm (θ, φ), (4) (note δt l (θ, φ) is always a real number if the original data δt(θ, φ) are real) and plot it over the whole sky. The results are shown in Figures 12 and 13, and the orientation of the dipole and quadrupoles in Table 5. From the table, it can be seen that the Q-V and Q-W dipoles are quite closely aligned with the very strong and well investigated CMB dipole of COBE and WMAP1 (Bennett et al 1996, 23a), viz. (l, b) = ( 1.7, 48.2 ). The origin of the Q-V and Q-W dipole could well be a residual spectral (cross band) calibration problem. Indeed, the latest effort by the WMAP team on the temporal dipole residuals that arise from a comparison of the WMAP3 and WMAP5 maps for each band, revealed a difference of.4, 7.3, and 3.5 µk for the Q, V, and W respectively (Table 3 and Figure 5, Hinshaw et al (28)). These discrepancies are on par with the 3 µk reported in our present work. The quadrupole in the Q-V, Q-W, and V-W maps cannot quite as easily be interpreted in the same way, however, for two reasons. Firstly, the quadrupole amplitude of 1.5 µk in the subtracted maps is about 1 % of the 211 µk 2 WMAP5 anisotropy in the unsubtracted maps of the individual bands and for l = 2, this is far larger than the calibration uncertainty of.5 % for each band. Secondly, one needs a pre-existing intrinsic (or COBE) quadrupole in the CMB, which is obviously unavailable, to enable any argument in favor of residuals. So the observed effect does appear to represent the large scale distribution of a non black body signal at the 1.5 µk level of strength, especially since the other scenario of pixel noise underestimation is immediately excluded by the fact that extra small scale random fluctuations cannot form large systematic patterns across the sky. Moreover, one can also rule out foreground contamination by appealing to the substantial misalignment between the symmetry axes of any one of the three quadrupoles (Figure 13 and Table 5) and those of the Milky Way.
8 4. Conclusion We performed a new way of testing the black body nature of the CMB degree scale anisotropy, by comparing the all-sky distribution of temperature difference between pairs of WMAP5 cosmological bands with their expected behavior from simulated data, taking into account pixel noise and beam size effects. In this way a non black body signal is found with the following properties. (a) It has dipole amplitudes 3 µk in the Q-V and Q-W maps which are due most probably to a WMAP calibration offset, and quadrupole amplitudes 1.5 µk in the Q-V, Q-W, and V-W maps which may be of astrophysical relevance as it cannot immediately be attributed to known systematic causes. (b) Apart from large scale temperature shifts, we also demonstrated that the first and third (Leo and Aquarius) quadrants exhibit considerably more random non black body fluctuation power on the degree scale ( σ 3.5 µk, Tables 1, 2, 3) than the other two quadrants. Although as noted in section 2 and Figure 4, improperly subtracted foreground can in principle account for our observations; in practice, not only is the expected asymmetric widening of the distribution of degree scale temperature difference (section 2) missing, the foreground sources have to preferentially populate 5 % of the Galaxy along an axis of symmetry close to those of the quadrupoles before they can explain the phenomena of (a) or (b) above. This is inconceivable, because of the large tilt angles the three quadrupoles have w.r.t. the Galactic axes. Moreover, particular attention should be devoted to (b), as it points to a random non black body signal operating on the degree angular scale of the first acoustic peak with an amplitude 4 5 % of this peak (i.e. 3 4 µk versus 75 µk). The meaning is, if such degree scale oscillations are cosmological in origin, they would also carry information about the significant departure from the sound wave interpretation of perturbations on the last scattering surface. The authors thank Lyman Page and an anonymous referee for very helpful suggestions and criticisms. REFERENCES Bennett C.L. et al., ApJ, 464, L1 (23) Bennett C.L. et al., ApJS, 148, 1 (23) Bennett C.L. et al., ApJS, 148, 97 (23) Birkinshaw M. and Gull S.F., Nature, 32, 315 (1983)
9 Hinshaw G. et al., ApJS, 17, 288 (27) Hinshaw G. et al., 28, preprint(arxiv:83:732 [astro-ph]), Gold B. et al., preprint(arxiv:83:715 [astro-ph]) Komatsu E. et al., 28, preprint(arxiv:83:547 [astro-ph]) Wilkinson Microwave Anoisotropy Probe (WMAP): Five-Year Supplement, editor M. Limon, et al, available in electronic form at http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov Mather J.C. et al., Ap.J., 42, 439 (1994) Penzias A. A. and Wilson R.W., Ap.J., 142, 419 (1965) Spergel D.N. et al., ApJS, 17, 377 (27) Sunyaev R.A. and Chluba J., ASPC 395, 35S (28) Smoot G. et al., Ap.J., 396, L1 (1992) This preprint was prepared with the AAS L A TEX macros v5.2.
1 4 5 7 35 45 6 4 l(l + 1)Cl/2π (µk 2 ); Q band 3 25 2 15 1 l(l + 1)Cl/2π (µk 2 ); V band 35 3 25 2 15 l(l + 1)Cl/2π (µk 2 ); W band 5 4 3 2 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 Multipole Moment l 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 Multipole Moment l 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 Multipole Moment l Fig. 1. Power spectra of individual WMAP5 Q, V, and W bands without cross correlation using PolSpice, which is available on http://www.planck.fr/article141.html. The peak at l = 5 is known (see e.g. Figure 13 of Hinshaw et al (28)) and when fitted against the ΛCDM standard model the effect is actually symptomatic of the lack of power at the lower harmonics of l 3. Note the absence of key features of acoustic oscillations other than just the first peak at l 2, which is also not exactly at the right place of l = 22, nor does it have the right amplitude of 5,6 µk 2. The correct power spectrum for the acoustic range of l values emerges only after cross-correlating two or more passbands.
.2.2.1.1 δ TQ (mk) δ TQ (mk) 11.1.1.2.2.2.1 δ TV (mk).1.2.2.1 δ TW (mk).1.2.2 δ TV (mk).1.1.2.2.1 δ TW (mk).1.2 Fig. 2. Ext-masked and foreground subtracted WMAP5 degree-scale anisotropy (nside= 32) is plotted one frequency band against another for corresponding pixels and among all possible passband combinations. The y = x line, when fitted to the data using the pixel noise of σi / nobs (i = Q, V, W) as errors, resulted in reduced χ2 values of 1.454, 1.585, and 1.167 respectively for Q vs V, Q vs W, and V vs W. The degrees of freedom has the same value of 9,595 in each case. The model is rejected with a statistical significance of > 8 σ.
12 Fig. 3. All sky occurrence frequency distribution of the measured difference in the degreescale anisotropy between pairs of cosmological passbands of WMAP5, as plotted against the average expected distribution from 1 WMAP5 realizations. In each of these, we used cmbfast to produce the original power spectrum for the simulation, with input cosmological parameters from Komatsu et al 28. A mock WMAP5 map is then generated by synfast of HEALPix, with the appropriate beam size and pixel noise for each band included. Moreover, each map was ext-masked in the same way as the WMAP5 data, to ensure that the real and reference histograms as plotted have identical normalization. The errors on the real data are derived from the scatter, among the simulations, in the occurrence frequency for each interval of δt i δt j. The χ 2 goodness-of-fit of the simulation result to the real data were computed for data in the range of -.2 mk to.2 mk, wherein the degree of freedom is 41 per graph. The χ 2 values are respectively 611.1, 325.2 and 151.2, corresponding to rejection probabilities (of an acceptable fit) of > 8σ, > 7σ and > 8σ.
13 2 12 1 18 foreground in Q band foreground in V band 9 foreground in W band 16 1 8 l(l + 1)Cl/2π[(µK) 2 ] 14 12 1 8 6 l(l + 1)Cl/2π[(µK) 2 ] 8 6 4 l(l + 1)Cl/2π[(µK) 2 ] 7 6 5 4 3 4 2 2 2 1 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 Multipole moment l 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 Multipole moment l 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 Multipole moment l Fig. 4. Power spectra of the WMAP5 subtracted foreground, obtained using the PolSpice software. As is evident by comparing this figure with Figure 1 at the l 2 harmonic, the foreground power there is large enough to cause potentially very significant biases in the resulting temperature fluctuation on the degree scale if the foreground is not properly subtracted. Nevertheless it is also clear when comparing the two sets of graphs that the foreground has very different effects on the three bands while the cosmological anisotropy, being a black body temperature perturbation, is insensitive to the choice of band. Hence any foreground anomaly would, on average, be manifested as a systematic (non-random) change in the temperature difference of a degree-scale area between the two bands.
14 Fig. 5. As in Figure 3, except now the frequency distribution of the temperature difference between the Q and V bands of WMAP5 in the four quadrants of the sky, compared with the expected behavior of the same from 1 simulations (solid line). The temperature bin size used here is twice as wide as that in Figure 3, to maintain statistical quality over smaller sky areas. The four graphs here are arranged according to the orientation of the four quadrants of any map in this paper, with e.g. the top right graph applicable to the corresponding first quadrant of our Galactic maps, towards Leo. For the y-axis of each graph we use normalized percentages rather than the actual total occurrence frequency because after the the extmasking of contaminated sky pixels the four quadrants do not have same total number of pixels each. The χ 2 goodness-of-fit of the simulation result to the real data were computed for data in the range of -.2 mk to.2 mk, wherein the degree of freedom is 21 per graph. The χ 2 values are respectively 212.8, 117.3, 1441.6, and 96. for the first through the fourth quadrants. The second number corresponds to a rejection probability (of an acceptable fit) of > 7 σ, while all the other numbers correspond to > 8 σ probabilities.
15 Fig. 6. As in Figure 5, except now the distribution of the temperature difference between the Q and W band in the four parts of the whole sky, compared with the results of simulation. The χ 2 goodness-of-fit (21 degrees of freedom per graph) are 161.8 and 185.9 for the first and third quadrants (the upper right and the lower left graphs), both corresponding to rejection probabilities (of an acceptable fit) of > 8 σ. For the second and fourth quadrants (the upper left and the lower right), the χ 2 values are 41.8668 and 76.3579, implying > 2 and > 5 σ probabilities.
16 Fig. 7. As in Figure 6, except now the distribution of the temperature difference of WMAP V, W band in the four parts of the whole sky, compared with the results of simulation. The χ 2 goodness-of-fit (21 degrees of freedom per graph) are 131.5 and 163.3 for the first and the third quadrants, both corresponding to rejection probabilities (of an acceptable fit) of > 8 σ. For the second and fourth quadrants, the χ 2 values are 28.4 and 58.5, implying > 1 and > 4 σ probabilities.
17 Fig. 8. The ext-masked WMAP5 temperature difference maps between passband pairs among the various combinations of Q, V, and W. All three maps are plotted in Galactic coordinates with the Galactic center (l, b) = (, ) at the origin and Galactic longitude l increasing to the left. The pixels were downgraded to nside= 32 using the foreground-reduced WMAP5 data (see section 2 on the details of such data). The color scale is restricted to a symmetrical and limited range for a better vision: those pixels with values higher than.2 mk are displayed in the same color as.2 mk (same for the ones lower than -.2 mk). Most of such pixels are around the masked regions.
18 Fig. 9. As in Figure 8, except now the simulated temperature difference maps between passband pairs of the various combinations of Q, V, and W. First we ran the Healpix package to produce maps with nside = 512 using the method described in the caption of Figure 3. Then the output data were masked and downgraded in the same way as Figure 8 was produced.
19 8 1 6 7 TQ TV 9 TQ TW TV TW 8 5 6 l(l + 1)Cl/2π (µk 2 ) 5 4 3 l(l + 1)Cl/2π (µk 2 ) 7 6 5 4 3 l(l + 1)Cl/2π (µk 2 ) 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Multipole Moment l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Multipole Moment l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Multipole Moment l Fig. 1. Low harmonic power spectra of the WMAP5 non black body anisotropy, as computed from Q, V, and W band maps at the original resolution of nside= 512 using the PolSpice software. The cut-sky effect and the pixel window functions are estimated by PolSpice and subtracted, but the WMAP5 beam file was not included with PolSpice to remove the beam smearing, because this procedure is non-trivial when the data represent the temperature difference between two passbands of varying beam width. For the same reason, the higher harmonics are not plotted, i.e. the only l values on display here are the sufficiently low ones, as the power spectrum within this range is not distorted by the WMAP5 beam. The errors shown are derived from the average power spectrum among 1 simulated realizations of the difference (or pixel noise) maps. 35 35 25 3 3 2 number of simulations 25 2 15 number of simulations 25 2 15 number of simulations 15 1 1 1 5 5 5.1.1.2.3.4.5.6 quadrupole power in simulated Q minus V maps (µ K 2 ).1.1.2.3.4.5.6 quadrupole power in simulated Q minus W maps (µ K 2 ).1.1.2.3.4.5.6 quadrupole power in simulated V minus W maps (µ K 2 ) Fig. 11. Distribution of the quadrupole power among the 1 simulated temperature difference maps. The x-axis is l(l + 1)C l /2π, in units of µk 2. The method used to obtain the quadrupole power of each simulation was described in the caption of Figure 1.
2 Fig. 12. Q-V and Q-W dipoles of the nside = 512 WMAP5 temperature difference maps, after ext-masking and point source subtraction. The mathematical procedure of extracting each multipole l is given in eqs. (3) and (4) of the text, and the software used to do these computations was from anafast of Healpix. Fig. 13. As in Figure 12, except now the Q-V, Q-W, and V-W quadrupoles.
21 Q - V µ(µk) error (µk) σ(µk) error (µk) WMAP5 1.17.13 6.85.1 Quadrant 1 Simulation.. 6.11.1 Difference 1.17.13 3.1.3 WMAP5-1.1.12 6.13.1 Quadrant 2 Simulation.. 5.97.1 Difference -1.1.12 1.39.59 WMAP5-4.42.12 6.95.1 Quadrant 3 Simulation.. 6.17.1 Difference -4.42.12 3.2.3 WMAP5-1.31.12 6.28.1 Quadrant 4 Simulation.. 6.5.1 Difference -1.31.12 1.68.52 Table 1: Parameters for the gaussian curves that fitted the WMAP5 and simulated data in Figure 5 (for the simulation the mean of the gaussian, µ, was set to zero and not fitted). Each error is set by the χ 2 min +1 criterion, which represents the usual 68 % (or unit standard deviation) confidence interval for one interesting parameter. The difference σ in the width σ between the two models, which gives the distribution width of the additional random signal, is obtained by the quadrature subtraction of the model widths. The smaller simulated gaussian widths for quadrants 2 and 4 (relative to 1 and 3) is due to the higher exposure times there (which contain the heavily scanned ecliptic poles) leading to lower pixel noise. Note the mean bias (QV monopole) of µ = -1.39 ±.6 µk across the sky, and the dipole symmetry manifested as a decrease in µ from the first to the third quadrant, by 5.6 ±.18 µk which is 31 σ significant. The mean offset in µ for the dipole is -1.625 ±.9 µk. The gaussian widths of quadrants 1 and 3 are both 1 σ larger than their expectations from the simulation, while those of quadrants 2 and 4 are much less discrepant. Thus the Q-V sky carries much more information than simply the pixel noise of, and beam size difference between, the two bands.
22 Q - W µ (µk) error (µk) σ (µk) error (µk) WMAP5 1..15 8.17.13 Quadrant 1 Simulation.. 7.11.12 Difference 1..15 4.2.33 WMAP5 -.43.14 6.66.12 Quadrant 2 Simulation.. 6.92.12 Difference -.43.14-1.88.59 WMAP5-4.83.16 8.39.15 Quadrant 3 Simulation.. 7.14.12 Difference -4.83.16 4.41.35 WMAP5 -.9.14 7.34.11 Quadrant 4 Simulation.. 7.4.11 Difference -.9.14 2.8.53 Table 2: Parameters for the gaussian curves that fitted the WMAP5 and simulated data in Figure 6. Asterisked table entries flag an 3.2 σ wider gaussian for the simulation than the real data. For further details see the caption of Figure 1. Note the mean bias (QW monopole) of µ = -1.29 ±.7 µk across the sky, and the dipole symmetry manifested as a decrease in µ from the first to the third quadrant, by 5.83 ±.22 µk which is 26 σ significant. The mean offset in µ for the dipole is -1.92 ±.11 µk. The gaussian widths of quadrants 1 and 3 are both 1 σ larger than their expectations from the simulation, while those of quadrants 2 and 4 are much less discrepant. Thus the Q-V sky carries much more information than simply the pixel noise of, and beam size difference between, the two bands.
23 V - W µ(µk) error (µk) σ(µk) error (µk) WMAP5-1.11.15 7.9.13 Quadrant 1 Simulation.. 7.4.12 Difference -1.11.15 3.58.36 WMAP5 -.4.14 6.53.11 Quadrant 2 Simulation.. 6.83.12 Difference -.4.14-2..53 WMAP5-1.23.16 8.25.13 Quadrant 3 Simulation.. 7.9.12 Difference -1.23.16 4.22.33 WMAP5 -.73.14 6.79.11 Quadrant 4 Simulation.. 6.94.11 Difference -.73.14-1.44.74 Table 3: Parameters for the gaussian curves that fitted the WMAP5 and simulated data in Figures 7. For further details see the captions of Figures 1, and 2. Note the mean bias (VW monopole) of µ = -.868 ±.7 µk across the sky, and the quadrupole symmetry manifested as an increase in the average value of µ from that between quadrants 1 and 3 to that between quadrants 2 and 4 by.65 ±.146 µk which is 4.15 σ significant. The gaussian widths of quadrants 1 and 3 are both 1 σ larger than their expectations from the simulation, while those of quadrants 2 and 4 are actually smaller (though not by as big a margin). Thus the Q-V sky carries much more information than simply the pixel noise of, and beam size difference between, the two bands. Passbands Multipole δt (µk) error (µk) Q-V l = 1 2.7.8 l = 2.87.15 Q-W l = 1 2.95.9 l = 2 2.15.15 V-W l = 2 1.45.19 Table 4: Amplitude and statistical significance of the Q-V and Q-W dipoles, and the Q-V, Q-W, and V-W quadrupoles. The amplitude is defined as δt = l(l + 1)C l /(2π).
24 dipole location (l, b) quadrupole location (l, b) hot cold hot cold Q - V ( 1.7, 53 ) (79.3, 53 ) (82.8, 21.8 ), ( 121.3, 66.3 ), Q - W ( 13.2, 55.1 ) (76.8, 55.1 ) (71.6, 2.5 ), ( 86.9, 68.1 ), V - W - - (49.3, 15.1 ), ( 81.5, 67.6 ), Table 5: Orientation of the dipole and quadrupole in the WMAP5 temperature difference maps of Figure 13.