Simons Observatory forward plans - Jo Dunkley for the Simons Observatory Collabora;on - CMB-S4
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Simons Observatory
forward plans
Jo Dunkley
for the Simons Observatory Collabora;on
The Simons Observatory collaboration
States The Simons Observatory collaboration
a StateUnited
University Canada
States
ie Mellon University
• Arizona State University • CITA/TorontoCanada
for Computational University• 10 Countries
Astrophysics
• Carnegie Mellon • Dunlap Institute/Toronto
• CITA/Toronto
University • McGill University
• Dunlap Institute/Toronto
• Center for Computational Astrophysics
State• Cornell University • 40+ • 10 Countries
Institutions • Simon Fraser•University
McGill University
ord College
• Florida State • 40+ Institutions
• 160+ Researchers • University of British
• Simon Columbia
Fraser University
nce Berkeley National Laboratory • 160+ Researchers • University of British Columbia
• Haverford College Chile
GSFC • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory • Pontificia Universidad Catolica
Chile
• University of•Chile
• NASA/GSFC Pontificia Universidad Catolica
on University
• NIST Europe • University of Chile
s University
• Princeton University
rd University/SLAC • APC – FranceEurope
• Rutgers University • Cambridge University
Brook • Stanford University/SLAC • APC – France
• Cardiff University
sity of•California - Berkeley • Cambridge University
• Imperial College
Stony Brook • Cardiff University
sity of•California – San Diego • Manchester University
University of California - Berkeley • Imperial College
• Oxford University
sity of•Michigan
University of California – San Diego • SISSA – Italy • Manchester University
sity of•Pennsylvania
University of Michigan Oxford University
• University of•Sussex
sity of•Pittsburgh • SISSA – Italy
University of Pennsylvania
sity of•Southern California South Africa • University of Sussex
University of Pittsburgh
hester• University
University of Southern California South
• Kwazulu-Natal, SA Africa
niversity
• West Chester University • Kwazulu-Natal, SA
Australia
• Yale University
• Melbourne Australia
Japan • Melbourne
• KEK
Middle East
u • IPMU • Tel Aviv Middle
Israel East
• Tohoku
C) for the Simons Observatory Collaboration, 53rd Rencontres de Moriond, 2018 5 • Tel Aviv
• Tokyo
Josquin Errard (APC) for the Simons Observatory Collaboration, 53rd Rencontres de Moriond, 2018 5
Simons Observatory science goals
1. Primordial perturbations
2. Relativistic species
(r, P(k), fNL)
4. Deviations from Λ
3. Neutrino mass
(σ8 z=1-3, H0)
5. Galaxy evolution 6. Reionization
(feedback in massive halos) (typical duration)
Legacy catalogs: + lots more great science:
clusters, radio galaxies, dusty dark matter, BBN, modified
star-forming galaxies gravity, birefringence…
Common suite of science topics with CMB-S4
Simons Observatory
One 6m Large Aperture Telescope
Three 0.5m Small Aperture Telescopes
Five-year survey planned 2021-26, six frequencies 30-280 GHz
Reminder: why large and small?
Preliminary site design ACT
SA
SO SATs
SO LAT
Cerro Toco, Atacama Desert CLASS
Large telescope: resolution needed for all science goals except tensor-to-scalar ratio
Small telescopes: lower noise at the few-degree-scale B-mode signal, for tensor-to-scalar ratio
The Simons Observatory instruments and technology
large aperture telescope small aperture telescopes
30,000 detectors 30,000 detectors
20m
15m
Three 42 cm diameter refractors,
baseline dichroic pixels:
6 m crossed Dragone fed by
up to 13, 38 cm optics tubes. 30/40 | 90/150 | Three
90/15042 cm| diameter
220/270 GHz
refractors,
baseline=7 tubes for SO, with baseline dichroic pixels:
baseline pixels: 30/40 | 90/150 | 90/150 | 220/270 GHz
• One tube: 30/40 GHz
• Four tubes: 90/150 GHz
• Two tubes: 220/270 GHz
Josquin Errard (APC) for the Simons Observatory Collaboration, 53rd Rencontres de Moriond, 2018 20
Same
oration, concept
53rd as de
Rencontres CMB-S4: mixture
Moriond, 2018 20
of large and small aperture telescopes
https://simonsobservatory.org/
publications.php
An;cipated noise and coverage Table 1
Properties of the planned SO surveysa .
SATs (fsky = 0.1) LAT (fsky = 0.4)
0 0
Freq. [GHz] FWHM ( ) Noise (baseline) Noise (goal) FWHM ( ) Noise (baseline) Noise (goal)
[µK-arcmin] [µK-arcmin] [µK-arcmin] [µK-arcmin]
27 91 35 25 7.4 71 52
LF 39 63 21 17 5.1 36 27
93 30 2.6 2 μK-amin 1.9 2.2 8.0 6 μK-amin 5.8
MF 145 17 3.3 2.1 1.4 10 6.3
225 11 6.3 4.2 1.0 22 15
HF 280 9 16 10 0.9 54 37
The detector passbands are being optimized (see Simons Observatory Collaboration in prep.) and are subject to vari
White noise levels
n fabrication. for 5-yr
For these survey;
reasons also include
we expect atmospheric
the SO noise
band centers modelslightly
to di↵er and combine with
from the Planck
p frequencies presented here. ‘N
olumns give anticipated white noise levels for temperature, with polarization noise 2 higher as both Q and U S
parameters are measured.
SimonsTableObservatory
2 Simons Observatory
QUIET Q-band (43 GHz)
small
and-dependent parameters aperture
for the survey
large-angular-scale noise
odel described in Eq. 1. Parameters that do not vary with
large aperture survey
DESI
frequency are in the text. 2 DESI DESI
LSST Survey
SAT Polarization
SPIDER
LAT Temperature 1
eq. [GHz] `knee a `knee b ↵kneeBICEP/Keck Nred [µK2 s] QUIET W-band (95 GHz)
DES
27 30 15 -2.4 100
39 30 15 -2.4 39
ormalized NℓBB
93 50 25 -2.6 230 2
GAMA
145 50 25 -3.0 1,500
225 70 35 -3.0 17,000 1
280 100 40 -3.0 31,000 BICEP2/Keck @95 GHzCollabora;on 2018
Simons Observatory
With SO noise
Pessimistic case.and
b coverage, dedicated delensing survey not required
Optimistic case.
2
Science Goals 13
Forecast observables +kSZ signal + bispectrum
10 1 10 2
r = 0, 50% delensing 0.5 Primary (lensed) TE power spectrum
r = 0.01, 50% delensing
2
10
0
D`TE [µK2]
D`BB [µK2]
3
10
8 2
-0.5
10
4
10
-1.0
B-mode power spectrum +TT+EE
5
10
30 100 300 30 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Multipole Multipole
38
Figure 7. Forecast SO baseline (blue) and goal (orange) errors on CMB temperatu
This shift preserves the blackbody spectrum of the CMB (T E), and lensing ( ) power spectra, with D` ⌘ `(` + 1)C` /(2⇡). The errors are cosm
Lensing ispower spectrum (φφ) SO Baseline (ffrom
< 2000 in E. The B-mode errors include observations sky = 0.4)
to first order, and therefore independent of frequency `⇠
foreground removal using BFoRe (see Sec. 3.3) Cluster number
for
SO Goalthe optimistic
both SAT and LAT surve
`knee given in Table 2
in thermodynamic
0
units. The optical depth is defined as (⇤CDM+tensor
10 3 modes in the case of BB) are shown with gray solid (dashed) lines.
10
an integral along the line of sight of the electron density
ne ,
107[L(L + 1)]2CL /2
Z ✓q ◆
⌧ (✓) = T ne 2 2 2
l + dA (z)|✓| dl. (26)
102
N(z)
10 1in Eqs. 24–26, both tSZ and kSZ contain infor-
As shown
mation about the thermodynamic properties of the IGM
+Y maps
and ICM since their magnitudes are proportional to the
101
integrated electron pressure (tSZ) and momentum (kSZ)
along the line of sight. For ensemble statistics of clusters
or galaxies
10 2 the tSZ and kSZ e↵ects contain cosmological
information as they depend on the abundance of clusters
or the velocity correlation function. In the following sub- 100
2
103 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
sections we explore some 10of the information that we can z
Multipole L Simons Observatory Collabora;on 2018
extract from the anticipated SO SZ measurements:
Figure 33. The forecast SZ cluster abundances as a function ofBaseline forecasts quoted with
1. Primordial perturba;ons
48 25% infla7on for systema7cs budget
Tensor-to-scalar ra;o, σ(r)=0.003 26
10 1 Scalar perturba;ons, e-2τP[k=0.2]: 0.4% error
9
3 ⇥ 10 2 ⇥ 10 9
2
10
r
1
10 1 2 ⇥ 10
P(k)
3
10 SO Baseline; r=0.01
SO Goal; r=0.01
2
SO Baseline; r=0 9
2 ⇥ 10
SO Goal; r=0
e
Planck+BK14+BAO
4
10
Science Goals0.95
0.94 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.033
ns
imits fsky =0.4
10 Planck
SO Baseline
s be- SO Baseline + LSST gold Figure 42. Summary of current limits on
SO Goal
the neutrino mass
n in SO Baseline + LSST optimistic scale, ⌃m⌫ , and forecast sensitivity, from cosmological probes
(us- 8 SO Goal + LSST gold and laboratory
10 3
searches. The mass 10 2
sum is shown as10a 1function
and SO Goal + LSST optimistic of the mass of the lightest neutrino eigenstate, 1mlight , for the
normal and inverted hierarchy. Wavenumber k [Mpc
Current ]
cosmological bounds
. We Excluded by Planck
(TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing+BAO, Planck Collaboration 2018d)
SO. 6 exclude21.
Figure at 95% confidenceon
Constraints thetheregion above the
primordial e 2⌧ Pbrown
horizontal
power (k) from
(fNL)
n to SO baseline (blue) and goal (orange) configurations,systematic
dashed line. The 1 sensitivity for SO (baseline with no compared to
error or goal)
estimated combined
constraints withPlanck
from large scale structure measurements
temperature and polarization
4 (yellow boxes). The large-scale constraints come from cases,
(LSS, as described in Table 9) is shown for two example the com-
enabling a 3 measurement of ⌃m⌫ for the minimal mass scenario
bined
for the inverted ordering. The expected sensitivity from the sig-
SO+Planck temperature and polarization, with Planck
(20)
nificantly
-decay contributing to the constraint. The largest improvement
cally 2 Non-Gaussianity inindicated
experiment KATRIN
the spectra is seen on small
(KATRIN Collaboration
scales, where the error
2005) is
with a vertical yellow band on the right – the projectionon the pri-
1 improves by an order
from
prove
σ(fNL)=3 mordial power
magnitude
spectrum
thanks
on these
at k = 0.2 Mpc
here is done for NH, IH yields similar results with di↵erences not
of visible scales.to the SO polarization data.
0
dence 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
ipole Lmin, g ,gg
for reference. These include
)=1 The Planck inflation papersmeasuring
(see additional
SimonsPlanck non- 2018
Collaboration
Observatory Collabora;on
= 14,
Gaussian
2016g, 2018gparameters describing
and references the primordial
therein) performs an pertur-
exhaus-
Figure 30. Constraint on local primordial non-Gaussianity ex-abundances assuming standard cosmology and Ne↵ = 3.046 for
the current Planck constraint and the forecast SO constraint on between the dark matter and photon-baryon fluids, damp
!b ⌘ ⌦b h2 , compared to current astrophysical measurements of
2. Rela;vis;c species 3. Neutrino mass
the primordial abundances. the acoustic oscillations, and suppress power on small
scales in the primary CMB, the linear matter power spec-
trum, and the CMB lensing anisotropy.
0.28 SO Baseline CMB measurements
0.35 have been used to search for in-
teractions of dark matter particles with masses down to
Mass sum, 2018;
σ(ΣmBoddy ν)=0.04
SO Goal
0.27 Planck 1 keV (Gluscevic and Boddy and Glusce-
chy
0.30
rchy
vic 2018; Slatyer and Wu 2018; Xu et al. 2018) – far
ierar
beyond the reach of current nuclear-recoil based exper-
l Hiera
0.26
ted H
iments that are optimized to detect weakly interacting
0.25
massive particles (WIMPs) much heavier than the pro-
Norma
Inver
0.25 ton (Cushman et al. 2013). Furthermore, cosmological
Yp
searches for
0.20dark matter are conducted in the context of
m [eV]
Aver et al. (2015)
0.24 a wide variety of interaction theories (including the most
KATRIN
general non-relativistic e↵ective
Current Cosmology (95%theory
c.l.) of dark matter– (90% c.l.)
proton elastic
0.15 scattering) and need not be restricted to
0.23 a particular dark matter model (Sigurdson et al. 2004;
BBN Consistency Boddy and Gluscevic 2018; Xu et al. 2018; Slatyer and
0.22 Wu 2018). 0.10
Finally, they probe large (nuclear-scale) inter-
Number of species, σ(Νeff)=0.07 action cross sections which are inaccessible to traditional
dark-matter0.05
direct searches, due to the extensive SO+LSS shield- (68% c.l.) IH
2.5 3.0 3.5 ing of those experiments (Chen et al. 2002; Dvorkin et al. (68% c.l.) NH
SO+LSS
Neff 2014; Emken and Kouvaris 2018). For these reasons, they
present a0.00
unique avenue for testing dark matter theory,
4. Devia;ons from Λ
Figure 24. Simultaneous CMB constraints, at 68% confidence
level, on the primordial helium abundance and light relic density
from Planck and forecast constraints from SO. We also show the
3
complementary to10laboratory
In Fig. 25, we show the current 95%
searches.10 2
confidence-level
mlight [eV]
10 1
26 predicted by BBN consistency, assuming a constant value
region upper limits on the cross section for elastic scatter-
ucted for Ne↵ after
σ8[z=1-2]: 2% error
0.04neutrino freeze-out. ing of dark 42.
Figure
ter particle
matter Summary
masses:
and protons,
1 GeV
for twolimits
of current
and 1 MeV,
dark on
and
mat-
assum-
the neutrino mass
f the (see, e.g., More et al. 2016; Berezhiani et al. 2017; Ad- scale, ⌃m⌫ , and forecast sensitivity, from cosmological probes
th of hikari et al. 2018), but those scenarios are not directly
Boddy (2018).
Hubble
ing velocity-independent
and laboratory
In the
constant
same
The(ΛCDM),
scattering,
searches.
plot, we
from
also
sum σ(H
massGluscevic
show the 0)=0.4
and
is shown
pro-
as a function
and discussed in this paper. of the mass of the lightest neutrino eigenstate, mlight , for the
nable jected SO upper
normal and limits for two
inverted configurations
hierarchy. Current(baseline
cosmological bounds
( 8(z))/ 8(z)
SOf All ,/given
Baseline
nsing Dark matter–baryon interactions — The dark matter– and goal noise levels), for a range
(TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing+BAO, Planck of sky areas, sky Collaboration 2018d)
SO EE
r this baryon scattering
0 processes sought by traditional direct- a fixed observing
exclude at 95% time. SO is expected
confidence the regionto improve
above
SO
the
TE the horizontal brown
mber detection experiments can also leave imprints on cosmo- sensitivity to dark matter–proton scattering
dashed line. The 1 sensitivity for SOSO cross section
(baseline
TT with no systematic
action logical observables. They transfer momentum and heat by a error ⇠ 8, for
factororofgoal) a surveywith
combined thatlarge
covers 40%structure
scale of the measurements
alaxy (LSS, as described in Table 9) is shown for two example cases,
Planck SH0ES
enabling a 3 measurement of ⌃m⌫ for the minimal mass scenario
ation SO Baseline + LSST gold; fsky = 0.4 for the inverted ordering. The expected sensitivity from the
min- -0.04 SO Goal + LSST gold -decay experiment KATRIN (KATRIN Collaboration 2005) is
ensity SO Goal + LSST optimistic indicated with 66 a vertical 68 yellow 70 band on the 72 right – the 74 projection 76
80% fsky = 0.1 here is done for NH, IH yields similar
H0[km/s/Mpc] results with di↵erences not
ion of visible on these scales.
opti- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Figure 22. Constraints on the Hubble constant in a ⇤CDM
z Simons Observatory Collabora;on 2018
g ker- model from di↵erent SO high-` channels and the full SO baseline
for reference. These
dataset (purple include
and blue bars), measuring additional
compared to the non-
current estimate5.42 Galaxy evolu;on
44 6. Reioniza;on
Baseline
7.4. Growth of structure from kSZ
10.0
10
Goal The kSZ e↵ect has been identified by cross-correlating
CMB surveys with the positions and redshifts of clusters, SO Baseline+Planck
Efficiency of Energy Injection [%]
fsky = 0.40
fsky = 0.20 9.5
using LRGs as tracers for clusters (Hand et al. 2012; SO Goal+Planck
fsky = 0.10 De Bernardis et al. 2017), or by using a photometrically Edges
5 selected9.0 cluster catalog such as redMaPPer (Ryko↵ et al. SPT+Planck
2014). In this analysis we anticipate cross-correlating Planck
with LRG samples obtained from DESI, in nine redshift GP Trough
bins from8.5 0.1 to 1.0.
Forecast cosmological constraints from kSZ have so far
come from8.0 calculating the correlation, across a full clus-
zre
ter sample, between the kSZ signatures of pairs of clus-
ters as 7.5
a function of their redshift and comoving separa-
tion, known as the pairwise velocity statistic, V . ToIGM ex-Opacity
1 tract the pairwise velocity, V , rather than momentum, an
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 7.0
independent measurement or estimate of each cluster’s
z
optical depth must be established. There are a number
of ways6.5 this might happen, for example through calibra-
20 tion with hydrodynamical simulations (Battaglia et al.
2010) or 6.0estimation with complementary datasets, such
as CMB polarization Dura;on, σ(Δz)=0.6
measurements (Sazonov Source Efficiency
and Sun-
Non-thermal Pressure [%]
yaev 1999; Louis et al. 2017). Uncertainties in the deter-
mination 0.0 of the cluster
0.5 optical depth
1.0 are included
1.5 in 2.0
the 2.5 3.0
10 forecasting by marginalizing over a nuisance zreparameter,
independently in each redshift bin, as in Mueller et al.
(2015), that scales the amplitude of the pairwise velocity
Legacy catalogs
Figure 39. Summary of constraints on the redshift and dura-
in each redshift bin, V̂ (z) = b⌧c (z)V (z). In this forecast
tion/width of reionization. The SO forecasts are reported with
we consider two cases: a conservative one in which no
5 68% confidence-level
knowledge contours
of the optical depth from baseline/goal
is assumed, in which we configurations in
combination
fully marginalizewith SZb⌧clusters
Planck
over each c
large-scale
(z), and a casedata (blue/orange).
in which we 20000The solid
navy lines show the redshift and
assume cluster optical depths can be measured to 10%width of reionization at constant
values of
accuracy in the
eachIGM opacity
AGN
redshift byand
bin, galaxies sourcea efficiency.
imposing prior on theThe10000 SO constraints
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 on these
nuisance parameters are shown in Fig. 40. The SO predictions
parameters.
z are compared
In the kSZ Fishertomatrices,
currentweexclusion
marginalizelimits for the time of reioniza-
over ⇤CDM
cosmological
tion from Planck Dusty(green
star-forming
parameters, andband;
include galaxies
nuisance
Planck parame-
Collaboration 10000
2018d), recent
Efficiency
✏, (top) and the of energypressure
non-thermal injec;on, ηf:(bottom)
support, ↵, 3% error
Figure 37. Forecast 1 uncertainties on the feedback efficiency,
using ters, b (z),
measurements
⌧c and the logarithmic growth rate, f (z), as
of the global 21 cm signalg assuming standard ther-
Non-thermal pressure,
and kinematic p nt: 8% error e↵ects.
SO combined with DESI Luminous Red Galaxies, through cross independent parameters
correlating the thermal Sunyaev–Zel’dovich mal properties (i.e., inspin
eachtemperature
of the nine redshift
muchbins.
larger than the CMB
Di↵erent colors distinguish between baseline and goal sensitivities We use the same foreground
temperature) of the IGM (yellow band; cleaning as in Sec. 7.3 for et al. 2017), and
Monsalve
the baseline and goal SO configurations. This Simons Observatory
foreground Collabora;on 2018
and di↵erent line styles show the impact of di↵erent sky coverages. Gunn Peterson trough from fully absorbed Lyman alpha in quasar
cleaning yields a resultant noise level of 9.89 µK-arcmin,The Simons Observatory — summary
Large Aperture
telescope
construction by
VERTEX
scientific
observations
Large
Cryo- ship
Aperture integration
Manufacture genic and
Receiver and test
test testing
Design
1 8 1 9 2 0 21 26
20 20 20 2 0 2 0
First SAT on sky 2020
Small
accep install
Aperture Platorm
Plateform
-tance ship and
Platorm
Plateform Fabrication
test test
Design
scientific
Small
observations
Cryo- ship
Aperture integration
Manufacture genic and
Camera and test
test testing
Design
• site design and construction
• analysis pipeline development
• calibration strategy
• etc.
Josquin Errard (APC) for the Simons Observatory Collaboration, 53rd Rencontres de Moriond, 2018 38You can also read
