Concordance (pre-WMAP2++) & discordant notes. The “basic parameters”: LCDM with power law index and no/little GW is concordant. Some discord .. always. Extension to larger parameter lists.

Are current discordant notes statistically significant, systematics, astrophysics, fundamental physics? Add parameters: theory priors – cost function, baroqueness, taste? r_ts (<.72/<.36??), k_BSI, dn_s/dlnk, size_U/chi_U, subdominant (isoc/adiab), z_reh (+VMOs?) {e.g. Vaudrevange, Lewis, McDonald @ CITA/PI focus gp; soon Nolta

WMAP2}

Resolving (or celebrating) discord with planned experiments. break degeneracies of cosmic parameters planned CMB+ext, with ext= z-surveys, cl-gp surveys (Sunyaev-Zeldovich/Opt/X/weaklens), weak lensing LSS surveys, SN

CMB High-L frontier TT: near term, cbipol, boom2Kpol, acbar forecasts. Long term Apex, ACT, SPT, Quiet forecasts.

CMB Polarization EE/BB, High & Low-L: CBI, BOOM2K , DASI, CAPMap, WMAP2, BICEP, QUaD, Polarbear, QUIET, AMiBA, Planck, … CMBpol

Early & Late Inflation Theory

cf. CMB+LSS @ CITA

Anomalies: Systematics, Statistics, AstroPhysics or

Fundamental Physics?“anomalies” @ low L 2,3; ~20-30; check@200, > 600?

ET checkmarks 2, 22, 222, 2222

Issues: L=2,3 how low is the probability? Glitches? non-WMAP data e.g. Acbar/CBI calibration

CBI anomalous power @ L > 2000, Sunyaev Zeldovich

effect in the cosmic web is plausible if 8 if ~ 0.9

(nonlinear gasdynamics)

Statistical isotropy broken on large scales?

Jan04

CMB data

cf.

good-fit CDM

uniform-acceleration

model

Jan04

CMB data

cf.

good-fit CDM

uniform-acceleration

model

String Theory Landscape @ Stanford String Theory Landscape @ Stanford

Perhaps 10 different vacua Perhaps 10 different vacua

100100

single field inflation vs. WMAP1+ext+ext

Monte Carlo simulations using “flow-equations” (Kinney 2002). slow-roll priors are artificial, highly restrictive & misleading about allowed inflationary phase space. Equivalent to a power series expansion of order 5, 6, 8 of histories.

CITA approach: efficiently sampled inflation acceleration histories (trajectories).

Physics priors: NONE - all are allowed (constrain by taste, e.g. allowed bumpiness).

Only data can decide, includes very weak “priors” like “anthropic data” as well as high precision CMB+LSS. Monte Carlo simulation of acceleration histories

Each point is a “viable slow-roll” model, able to sustain inflation for sufficient e-foldings to solve the horizon problem and make the Universe (nearly) flat BUT highly restricted.

WMAP1 Peiris et al. 2003

String Theory Landscape & Inflation++ Phenomenology for CMB+LSS String Theory Landscape & Inflation++ Phenomenology for CMB+LSS

running index as simplest breaking (back to early 80s), radically broken scale invariance, 2+-field inflation, isocurvatures, Cosmic

strings/defects, compactification & topology, & other baroque add-ons.

subdominant

String/Mtheory-motivated, extra dimensions, brane-ology, reflowering of inflaton/isocon models (includes curvaton), modified kinetic energies, k-

essence, Dirac-Born-Infeld [sqrt(1-momentum**2), “DBI in the Sky” Silverstein etal 2004], etc.

14 std inflation parameters

+ many many more e.g.

“blind” search for patterns in the primordial

power spectrum

Potential of the Hybrid D3/D7 Inflation Model

KKLT, KKLMMTany acceleration trajectory will

do??

q (ln Ha)

H(phi,…)

V(phi,…)

Measure??

anti-baroque prior

Running of the Spectral Index : Parameter Fits[Spergel et al. ApJS, 148, 175] [Tegmark et al. astro-ph/0310723]

[Bond, Contaldi & Pogosyan astro-ph/0310735] [CBI VII, Readhead et al. astro-ph/0402359]

CMB data only

[dns/dlnk]

<0 in Jan03,

Mar03 & Mar04

CMB

+ weak

lens 8

PLANCK vs. WMAP4yr + Ground based telescopes

(circa ~ 2008)

• WMAP 4yr

• + Ground-based telescopes pre-Planck ACT/SPT-like (bolometers) ; QUIET (HEMT arrays). Coverage assumed; ~few % of the sky (1000 sq deg); polarization included

•PLANCK (2007+)

END

No running: dn/dlnk~0

Damped Lyman alpha system effect at small scales + increased WMAP errors at large scales of Slosar & Seljak 04

Systematic error budget? .. McDonald etal, Haehnelt etal

acceleration trajectories, “featured” potentials,

expansions about uniform q(T) (aka slow-roll-ology in

the Hamilton-Jacobi/stochastic

inflation formulation –

works OK), … & the nonlocal

WKB++ approximation

(Habib etal 02,04)

acceleration trajectories, “featured” potentials,

expansions about uniform q(T) (aka slow-roll-ology in

the Hamilton-Jacobi/stochastic

inflation formulation –

works OK), … & the nonlocal

WKB++ approximation

(Habib etal 02,04)

B+Contaldi+Kofman+Souradeep+Vaudrevange+B+Contaldi+Kofman+Souradeep+Vaudrevange+