Coles DEUS


Published on

Talk on "Cosmic Anomalies" by Peter Coles given at the Conference "Current and Future Challenges of the Dark and Early Universes", Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen, 8-12 August 2011.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Coles DEUS

  1. 1. Cosmic Anomalies Peter Coles (Cardiff) DEUS, Copenhagen, Tuesday 9 th August 2011
  2. 2. Part I: Rambling Introduction
  3. 6. “ CONCORDANCE”
  4. 7. Theory (  , n, H 0 …) Observations
  5. 12. There are many ways of being weird <ul><li>Initial Perturbations: </li></ul><ul><li>Non-stationary fluctuations, e.g. statistical anisotropy from a vector field? </li></ul><ul><li>Global inhomogeneity or anisotropy </li></ul><ul><li>Non-trivial topology, etc… </li></ul>
  6. 13. Precision Cosmology “… as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.”
  7. 14. Part II: CMB Anomalies
  8. 15. Weirdness in Phases For a homogeneous and isotropic Gaussian random field (on the sphere) then the phases are independent and uniformly distributed.
  9. 22. Types of CMB Anomalies <ul><li>Type I – obvious problems with data (e.g. foregrounds) </li></ul><ul><li>Type II – anisotropies (North-South, Axis of Evil..) </li></ul><ul><li>Type III – localized features, e.g. “The Cold Spot” </li></ul><ul><li>Type IV – Something else (even/odd multipoles, magnetic fields, ?) </li></ul>
  10. 25. (from Hansen et al. 2004)
  11. 26. (from Copi et al. 2005)
  12. 27. Wise Words from WMAP (7) arXiv:1001.4758 <ul><li>In this paper we examine potential anomalies and present analyses and assessments of their significance. In most cases we find that claimed anomalies depend on posterior selection of some aspect or subset of the data. Compared with sky simulations based on the best fit model, one can select for low probability features of the WMAP data. Low probability features are expected, but it is not usually straightforward to determine whether any particular low probability feature is the result of the a posteriori selection or of non-standard cosmology….. We conclude that there is no compelling evidence for deviations from the LCDM model, which is generally an acceptable statistical fit to WMAP and other cosmological data . </li></ul>
  13. 29. “ If tortured sufficiently, data will confess to almost anything” Fred Menger
  14. 30. Is there an Elephant in the Room?
  15. 31. <ul><li>There’s no problem at all with  CDM… </li></ul><ul><li>There are interesting indications… </li></ul><ul><li>There’s definitely evidence of new physics </li></ul>
  16. 32. Part III: Extreme Objects
  17. 34. Extreme Value Statistics (exact) Given the distribution of X, what is the distribution of X max ?
  18. 35. Extreme Value Statistics (asymptotic) For any distribution of exponential type, in the sense that Then there is a stable asymptotic distribution
  19. 36. Comments <ul><li>There are two other stabe asymptotes </li></ul><ul><li>Some distributions converge very slowly (e.g. Gaussian) </li></ul><ul><li>The X may be correlated. </li></ul><ul><li>Only weak discriminatory power for non-Gaussianity in asymptotic form; better to use “exact” behaviour, see Harrison & Coles (2011) </li></ul>
  20. 37. PDF
  21. 41. Mass Function e.g. Sheth & Thormen: Correction for primordial non-Gaussianity
  22. 42. Waizman, Ettori & Moscardini, 2001 arXiv:1105.4099 See also: Colombi et al. 2011; Davis et al. 2011 These use alternative parametrisation