Interferometric Imaging & Analysis of the CMB

1IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Interferometric Imaging & Analysis of the CMB

Steven T. Myers

National Radio Astronomy Observatory

Socorro, NM

2IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

dmdlvmuljemlIvuV ..2.),(),(

Interferometers

• Spatial coherence of radiation pattern contains information about source structure– Correlations along wavefronts

• Equivalent to masking parts of a telescope aperture– Sparse arrays = unfilled aperture– Resolution at cost of surface brightness sensitivity

• Correlate pairs of antennas– “visibility” = correlated fraction of total signal

• Fourier transform relationship with sky brightness– Van Cittert – Zernicke theorem

3IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Radio Interferometers

• Connected-element “radio” interferometers:– The Very Large Array (VLA) @ New Mexico– Owens Valley Millimeter-wave Array @ California– BIMA Millimeter-wave Array @ California– Coming:

• CARMA (combined OVRO & BIMA)

• ALMA Millimeter-wave Array @ Chile

• CMB interferometers– Ryle Telescope @ UK– DASI @ South Pole– VSA @ Tenerife– CBI @ Chile

4IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Example: The VLA

• 27 elements– 25m apertures– Maxiumum baseline 36km (A-config)– Y-pattern, 4 configurations (36km,10km,3.6km,1km)

5IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CMB Interferometers

• CMB issues:– Extremely low surface brightness fluctuations < 50 K– Polarization less than 10%– Large monopole signal 3K, dipole 3 mK– No compact features, approximately Gaussian random field– Foregrounds both galactic & extragalactic

• Traditional direct imaging– Differential horns or focal plane arrays

• Interferometry– Inherent differencing (fringe pattern), filtered images– Works in spatial Fourier domain– Element gain effect spread in image plane– Limited by need to correlate pairs of elements– Sensitivity requires compact arrays

IPAM – Jan 30, 2004 6

CMB Interferometers: DASI, VSA

• DASI @ South Pole

• VSA @ Tenerife

IPAM – Jan 30, 2004 7

CMB Interferometers: CBI

• CBI @ Chile

8IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The Cosmic Background Imager

9IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The Instrument

• 13 90-cm Cassegrain antennas– 78 baselines

• 6-meter platform– Baselines 1m – 5.51m

• 10 1 GHz channels 26-36 GHz– HEMT amplifiers (NRAO)

– Cryogenic 6K, Tsys 20 K

• Single polarization (R or L)– Polarizers from U. Chicago

• Analog correlators– 780 complex correlators

• Field-of-view 44 arcmin– Image noise 4 mJy/bm 900s

• Resolution 4.5 – 10 arcmin

10IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

3-Axis mount : rotatable platform

11IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Instrumentation

• Correlator– Multipliers 1 GHz bandwidth– 10 channels to cover total band 26-36 GHz (after filters and

downconversion)– 78 baselines (13 antennas x 12/2)– Real and Imaginary (with phase shift) correlations– 1560 total multipliers

12IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Operations• Observing in Chile since Nov 1999

– NSF proposal 1994, funding in 1995– Assembled and tested at Caltech in 1998– Shipped to Chile in August 1999– Continued NSF funding in 2002, to end of 2004– Chile Operations 2004-2005 pending proposal

• Telescope at high site in Andes– 16000 ft (~5000 m)– Located on Science Preserve, co-located with ALMA– Now also ATSE (Japan) and APEX (Germany), others– Controlled on-site, oxygenated quarters in containers

• Data reduction and archiving at “low” site– San Pedro de Atacama– 1 ½ hour driving time to site

13IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Site – Northern Chilean Andes

14IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

A Theoretical Digression

15IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The Cosmic Microwave Background

• Discovered 1965 (Penzias & Wilson)– 2.7 K blackbody– Isotropic– Relic of hot “big bang”– 3 mK dipole (Doppler)

• COBE 1992– Blackbody 2.725 K– Anisotropies 10-5

16IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Thermal History of the Universe

Courtesy Wayne Hu – http://background.uchicago.edu

17IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CMB Anisotropies

• Primary Anisotropies– Imprinted on photosphere of “last scattering”

• “recombination” of hydrogen z~1100

– Primordial (power-law?) spectrum of potential fluctuations• Collapse of dark matter potential wells inside horizon

• Photons coupled to baryons >> acoustic oscillations!

– Electron scattering density & velocity• Velocity produces quadrupole >> polarization!

– Transfer function maps P(k) >> Cl

• Depends on cosmological parameters >> predictive!

– Gaussian fluctuations + isotropy• Angular power spectrum contains all information

• Secondary Anisotropies– Due to processes after recombination

18IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Primary Anisotropies


19IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Primary Anisotropies


20IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Secondary Anisotropies


21IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Images of the CMB

BOOMERANG

WMAP Satellite

ACBAR

22IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

WMAP Power Spectrum

Courtesy WMAP – http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov

23IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CMB Polarization

• Due to quadrupolar intensity field at scattering• E & B modes

– E (gradient) from scalar density fluctuations predominant!– B (curl) from gravity wave tensor modes, or secondaries

• Detected by DASI and WMAP– EE and TE seen so far, BB null

• Next generation experiments needed for B modes– Science driver for Beyond Einstein mission– Lensing at sub-degree scales likely to detect– Tensor modes hard unless T/S~0.1 (high!)

Hu & Dodelson ARAA 2002

24IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CMB Interferometry

25IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The Fourier Relationship

• An interferometer “visibility” in the sky and Fourier planes:

• The aperture (antenna) size smears out the coherence function response– Like a double-slit experiment with widening slits– Interference plus diffraction pattern– Lose ability to localize wavefront direction = field-of-view– Small apertures = wide field

26IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The uv plane and l space

• The sky can be uniquely described by spherical harmonics– CMB power spectra are described by multipole l ( the angular

scale in the spherical harmonic transform)

• For small (sub-radian) scales the spherical harmonics can be approximated by Fourier modes– The conjugate variables are (u,v) as in radio interferometry– The uv radius is given by l / 2

• The projected length of the interferometer baseline gives the angular scale – Multipole l = 2 B /

• An interferometer naturally measures the transform of the sky intensity in l space

27IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Beam and uv coverage

• 78 baselines and 10 frequency channels = 780 instantaneous visibilities– Frequency channels give radial spread in uv plane

• Pointing platform rotatable to fill in uv coverage– Parallactic angle rotation gives azimuthal spread– Beam nearly circularly symmetric

• Baselines locked to platform in pointing direction– Baselines always perpendicular to source direction– Delay lines not needed– Very low fringe rates (susceptible to cross-talk and ground)

28IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Field of View and Resolution

• An interferometer “visibility” in the sky and Fourier planes:

• The primary beam and aperture are related by:

CBI:

CMB peaks smaller

than this !

29IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Mosaicing in the uv plane

30IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Power Spectrum and Likelihood

• Statistics of CMB (Gaussian) described by power spectrum:

Break into bandpowers Construct covariance matrices and perform maximum Likelihood calculation:

31IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Power Spectrum Estimation

• Method described in Paper IV (Myers et al. 2003)• Large datasets

– > 105 visibilities in 6 x 7 field mosaic– ~ 103 independent

• Gridded “estimators” in uv plane– Convolution with aperture matched filter– Fast! Reduces number of points for likelihood– Not lossless, but information loss insignificant

• Construct covariance matrices for gridded points• Maximum likelihood using BJK method• Output bandpowers• Wiener filtered images constructed from estimators

32IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Covariance of Visibilities

• Write with operators

• Covariance

• Problem– Size of v, P >105 visibilities, 104 distinct per mosaic pointing!

v = P t + e

< v v† > = P < t t † > P† + < e e† >

33IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Gridded Visibilities

• Convolve with “matched filter” kernel

• Kernel

• Normalization– Returns true t for infinite continuous mosaic

= Q v + Q v*

Deal with conjugate visibilities

34IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Covariance of Gridded Visibilities

• Covariance

• Or

• Problem– Reduced to 103 to 104 grid cells– Complicates covariance calculation, loss of information

< † > = Q < v v † > Q† + conjg.

= Q P < t t † > P † Q†

+ Q < e e† > Q†

+ conjg.

< † > = R < t t † > R† + < n n† >

= R t + n R = Q P + Q P n = Q e

35IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The Computational Problem

36IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Tests with mock data

• The CBI pipeline has been extensively tested using mock data– Use real data files for template– Replace visibilties with simulated signal and noise– Run end-to-end through pipeline– Run many trials to build up statistics

37IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Wiener filtered images

• Covariance matrices can be applied as Wiener filter to gridded estimators

• Estimators can be Fourier transformed back into filtered images

• Filters CX can be tailored to pick out specific components– e.g. point sources, CMB, SZE– Just need to know the shape of the power spectrum

38IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Example – Mock deep field

Raw

CMB

Noise removed

Sources

39IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Results

40IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI 2000 Results

• Observations– 3 Deep Fields (8h, 14h, 20h)– 3 Mosaics (14h, 20h, 02h)– Fields on celestial equator (Dec center –2d30’)

• Published in series of 5 papers (ApJ July 2003)– Mason et al. (deep fields)– Pearson et al. (mosaics)– Myers et al. (power spectrum method)– Sievers et al. (cosmological parameters)– Bond et al. (high-l anomaly and SZ) pending

41IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Calibration and Foreground Removal

• Calibration scale ~5%– Jupiter from OVRO 1.5m (Mason et al. 1999)– Agrees with BIMA (Welch) and WMAP

• Ground emission removal– Strong on short baselines, depends on orientation– Differencing between lead/trail field pairs (8m in RA=2deg)– Use scanning for 2002-2003 polarization observations

• Foreground radio sources– Predominant on long baselines – Located in NVSS at 1.4 GHz, VLA 8.4 GHz– Measured at 30 GHz with OVRO 40m– Projected out in power spectrum analysis

42IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Deep Fields 2000

Deep Field Observations: •3 fields totaling 4 deg^2•Fields at ~0 =8h, 14h, 20h

•~115 nights of observing•Data redundancy strong tests for systematics

43IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Mosaic Field Observations• 3 fields totaling 40 deg^2• Fields at ~0 =2h, 14h, 20h

• ~125 nights of observing• ~ 600,000 uv points covariance matrix 5000 x 5000

CBI 2000 Mosaic Power Spectrum

44IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI 2000 Mosaic Power Spectrum

45IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Cosmological Parameters

wk-h: 0.45 < h < 0.9, t > 10 Gyr

HST-h: h = 0.71 ± 0.076

LSS: constraints on8 and from 2dF, SDSS, etc.

SN: constraints from Type 1a SNae

46IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

SZE Angular Power SpectrumSZE Angular Power Spectrum

•Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (5123) [Wadsley et al. 2002]

•Moving Mesh Hydrodynamics (5123) [Pen 1998]

•143 Mpc 8=1.0

•200 Mpc 8=1.0

•200 Mpc 8=0.9

•400 Mpc 8=0.9

[Bond et al. 2002]

Dawson et al. 2002

47IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

• Combine CBI & BIMA (Dawson et al.) 30 GHz with ACBAR 150 GHz (Goldstein et al.)

• Non-Gaussian scatter for SZE– increased sample variance (factor ~3))

• Uncertainty in primary spectrum– due to various parameters, marginalize

• Explained in Goldstein et al. (astro-ph/0212517)• Use updated BIMA (Carlo Contaldi)

Constraints on SZ “density”

Courtesy Carlo Contaldi (CITA)

48IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Flat

HST-h

Priors

LSS parameters from Surveys

Courtesy J.R. Bond

49IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

SZE with CBI: z < 0.1 clusters

50IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

New : Calibration from WMAP Jupiter

• Old uncertainty: 5%• 2.7% high vs. WMAP Jupiter• New uncertainty: 1.3%• Ultimate goal: 0.5%

51IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

49

Future plans

New: CBI 2000+2001 Results

52IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI 2000+2001 Noise Power

53IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI 2000+2001 and WMAP

54IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI 2000+2001, WMAP, ACBAR

55IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The CMB From NRAO HEMTs

56IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Post-WMAP Unification

57IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

weak prior: t > 1010 yr 0.45 < h < 0.9 m > 0.1

LSS prior: constraint on amplitude of 8 andshape of eff (Bond et al. Ap.J. 2003)

CBI + COBECBI + COBE

58IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

weak prior: t > 1010 yr 0.45 < h < 0.9 m > 0.1

59IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Polarization

60IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Polarization

• CBI instrumentation– Use quarter-wave devices for linear to circular conversion– Single amplifier per receiver: either R or L only per element

• 2000 Observations– One antenna cross-polarized in 2000 (Cartwright thesis)– Only 12 cross-polarized baselines (cf. 66 parallel hand)– Original polarizers had 5%-15% leakage– Deep fields, upper limit ~8 K

• 2002 Upgrade– Upgrade in 2002 using DASI polarizers (switchable)– Observing with 7R + 6L starting Sep 2002– Raster scans for mosaicing and efficiency– New TRW InP HEMTs from NRAO

Ka-band Receiver

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

Frequency (GHz)

No

ise

Tem

per

atu

re (

K)

61IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Polarization Sensitivity

CBI is most sensitive at the peak of the polarization power spectrum

Theoretical sensitivity ± of CBI in 450 hours (90 nights) on each of 3 mosaic fields 5 deg sq (no differencing), close-packed configuration.

EETE The compact configuration

62IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Stokes parameters

• CBI receivers can observe either R or L circular polarization

• CBI correlators can cross-correlate R or L from a given pair of antennas

• Mapping of correlations (RR,LL,RL,LR) to Stokes parameters (I,Q,U,V)

• Intensity I plus linear polarization Q,U important– CMB not circularly polarized, ignore V (RR = LL = I)

63IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Polarization Interferometry

“Cross hands” sensitive to linear polarization (Stokes Q and U):

where the baseline parallactic angle is defined as:

64IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

E and B modes

• A useful decomposition of the polarization signal is into gradient and curl modes – E and B:

65IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI-Pol 2000 Cartwright thesis

66IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Pol 2003 – DASI & WMAP


67IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Polarization Issues

• Low signal levels– High sensitivity and long integrations needed– Prone to systematics and foreground contamination– Use B modes a veto at E levels

• Instrumental polarization– Well-calibrated system necessary– Somewhat easier to control in interferometry– Constraint matrix approach possible (e.g. DASI)

• Stray radiation– Sky (atmosphere) unpolarized (good!)– Ground highly polarized (bad!)– Scan differencing or projection necessary

• Computationally intensive!

68IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Current Polarization Data

• Observing since Sep 2002• Four mosaics 02h, 08h, 14h, 20h

– 02h, 08h, 14h 6 x 6 fields, 45’ centers– 20h deep strip 6 fields

• Currently data to Mar 2003 processed– Preliminary data analysis available– Only 02h, 08h (partial), and 20h strip

69IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Polarization Projections

• CBI funded for Chile ops until 2003 Dec 31– Projections using mock data available

• NSF proposal pending for ops through 2005– Projections using mock data available

70IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Conclusions from CBI Data

• Definitive measurement of diffusive damping scale• Measurements of 3rd & 4th Acoustic Peaks• At Low L consistent with other experiments• At High L (>2000) indications of secondary anisotropy?

71IPAM – Jan 30, 2004



Small Scale Power• ~3 sigma above expected intrinsic anisotropy• Not consistent with likely residual radio source populations (more definitive characterization needed)• Suggestive of secondary SZ anisotropy, although this would imply sigma8 ~ 1• Other possible foregrounds not ruled out at this point

72IPAM – Jan 30, 2004



Small Scale Power• ~3 sigma above expected intrinsic anisotropy• Not consistent with likely residual radio source populations (more definitive characterization needed)• Suggestive of secondary SZ anisotropy, although this would imply sigma8 ~ 1• Other possible foregrounds not ruled out at this point

Polarization• Observations commenced Sep 2003• Upper limits so far• Should have sensitivity to measure spectrum (esp. to 2005)

73IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The CBI Collaboration

Caltech Team: Tony Readhead (Principal Investigator), John Cartwright, Alison Farmer, Russ Keeney, Brian Mason, Steve Miller, Steve Padin (Project Scientist), Tim Pearson, Walter Schaal, Martin Shepherd, Jonathan Sievers, Pat Udomprasert, John Yamasaki.Operations in Chile: Pablo Altamirano, Ricardo Bustos, Cristobal Achermann, Tomislav Vucina, Juan Pablo Jacob, José Cortes, Wilson Araya.Collaborators: Dick Bond (CITA), Leonardo Bronfman (University of Chile), John Carlstrom (University of Chicago), Simon Casassus (University of Chile), Carlo Contaldi (CITA), Nils Halverson (University of California, Berkeley), Bill Holzapfel (University of California, Berkeley), Marshall Joy (NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center), John Kovac (University of Chicago), Erik Leitch (University of Chicago), Jorge May (University of Chile), Steven Myers (National Radio Astronomy Observatory), Angel Otarola (European Southern Observatory), Ue-Li Pen (CITA), Dmitry Pogosyan (University of Alberta), Simon Prunet (Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris), Clem Pryke (University of Chicago).

The CBI Project is a collaboration between the California Institute of Technology, the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, the University of Chicago, and the Universidad de Chile. The project has been supported by funds from the National Science Foundation, the California Institute of Technology, Maxine and Ronald Linde, Cecil and Sally Drinkward, Barbara and Stanley Rawn Jr., the Kavli Institute,and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.

74IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Interferometric Imaging & Analysis of the CMB

Documents

Transcript of Interferometric Imaging & Analysis of the CMB