CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,787Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena

FIVE-YEAR WILKINSON MICROWAVE ANISOTROPY PROBE OBSERVATIONS: LIKELIHOODS AND PARAMETERS FROM THE WMAP DATA

Open access
Dunkley, J., Komatsu, E., Nolta, M. R., Spergel, D. N., Larson, D., Hinshaw, G., Page, L., Bennett, C. L. +11 more·2009·The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series
DOI 10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/306
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper focuses on cosmological constraints derived from analysis of WMAP data alone. A simple ΛCDM cosmological model fits the five-year WMAP temperature and polarization data. The basic parameters of the model are consistent with the three-year data and now better constrained: Ω b h 2 = 0.02273 ± 0.00062, Ω c h 2 = 0.1099 ± 0.0062, Ω Λ = 0.742 ± 0.030, n s = 0.963 +0.014 −0.015 , τ = 0.087 ± 0.017, and σ 8 = 0.796 ± 0.036, with h = 0.719 +0.026 −0.027 . With five years of polarization data, we have measured the optical depth to reionization, τ>0, at 5σ significance. The redshift of an instantaneous reionization is constrained to be z reion = 11.0 ± 1.4 with 68% confidence. The 2σ lower limit is z reion > 8.2, and the 3σ limit is z reion > 6.7. This excludes a sudden reionization of the universe at z = 6 at more than 3.5σ significance, suggesting that reionization was an extended process. Using two methods for polarized foreground cleaning we get consistent estimates for the optical depth, indicating an error due to the foreground treatment of τ ∼ 0.01. This cosmological model also fits small-scale cosmic microwave background (CMB) data, and a range of astronomical data measuring the expansion rate and clustering of matter in the universe. We find evidence for the first time in the CMB power spectrum for a nonzero cosmic neutrino background, or a background of relativistic species, with the standard three light neutrino species preferred over the best-fit ΛCDM model with N eff = 0 at >99.5% confidence, and N eff > 2.3(95%confidence limit (CL)) when varied. The five-year WMAP data improve the upper limit on the tensor-to-scalar ratio, r < 0.43(95%CL), for power-law models, and halve the limit on r for models with a running index, r < 0.58(95%CL). With longer integration we find no evidence for a running spectral index, with dn s / d ln k = −0.037 ± 0.028, and find improved limits on isocurvature fluctuations. The current WMAP -only limit on the sum of the neutrino masses is ∑ m ν < 1.3 eV(95%CL), which is robust, to within 10%, to a varying tensor amplitude, running spectral index, or dark energy equation of state.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/306

Cites

334 of 335 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The present universe's matter content is dominantly composed of about 70% dark energy, about 30% cold dark matter and baryonic matter, and a very small fraction of radiation (about 10^-5 in mass density).

    “Modern observations have confirmed that the matter content in the present universe is dominantly composed of about 70% dark energy (with P = -ρc 2 ), about 30% of cold dark matter and baryonic matter (with P ≪ ρc 2 ), and a very small fraction of radiation (about 10 -5 in mass density with P = ρc 2 / 3) [49, 50].”

    From Electrodynamics on cosmological scales (2016) · cites this paper as [49]

    Section 4.2.5 reports a present-day dark-energy density of ΩΛ = 0.742 ± 0.030, consistent with about 70%. Section 2.2 identifies baryons and cold dark matter as the other components of its flat ΛCDM model, consistent with roughly 30% combined. The passages on radiation in Section 4.2.1 discuss the early universe and matter–radiation equality, but do not give the claimed present-day radiation fraction of about 10^-5; the copy also does not state the radiation pressure relation. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • If there exists a cosmological constant as current observations indicated, the κR^b_a A^a term in equation (33) gives rise to a photon mass m_A = (κΛ)^{1/2}, corresponding to λ_A ∼ 10^28 cm (the size of the cosmic horizon).

    “For example, as mentioned in Sec. IV, if there exists a cosmological constant as current observations indicated [49, 50], the κR b a A a term in equation (33) gives rise to a photon mass m A = ( κ Λ) 1 / 2 , corresponding to λ A ∼ 10 28 cm (the size of the cosmic horizon).”

    From Electrodynamics on cosmological scales (2016) · cites this paper as [49]

  • Given the very small value of a possible cosmological constant in the present universe, the effect of so small a photon mass may never be observable, unless the universe has a nonzero net charge.

    “Given the very small value of a possible cosmological constant in the present universe [49, 50], the effect of a so small photon mass may never be observable, unless the universe has a nonzero net charge (Sec. VI).”

    From Electrodynamics on cosmological scales (2016) · cites this paper as [49]

  • The requirement Ω_A < Ω_m provides a first constraint on the value of y.

    “The requirement that ω A ( z = 0) = Ω A &lt; Ω m provides the first constraint on the value of y”

    From Electrodynamics on cosmological scales (2016) · cites this paper as [49]

    Section 3.2.2 discusses measurements involving Ω_m, but does not state Ω_A < Ω_m or connect that inequality to a constraint on y. Searches for the inequality and the proposed constraint found no passage addressing them in our copy; page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Broadhurst, T., & Barkana, R. 2008, arXiv:0801.1875 · arXiv
  2. Bunker, A., Stanway, E., Ellis, R., McMahon, R., Eyles, L., Lacy, M., Stark, D., & Chiu, K. 2007, in ASP Conf. Ser. 380, Deepest Astronomical Surveys, ed.
  3. Dunkley, J., et al. 2008, arXiv:0811.4280 · arXiv
  4. Lewis, A. 2006, arXiv:
  5. Meiksin, A. A. 2007, arXiv:0711.3358 · arXiv
  6. Reichardt, C. L., et al. 2008, arXiv:0801.1491 · arXiv
  7. Ricotti, M., Ostriker, J. P., & Mack, K. J. 2007, arXiv:0709.0524 · arXiv
  8. Rozo, E., et al. 2007, arXiv:astro-ph/0703571 · arXiv
  9. Rykoff, E. S., et al. 2008, arXiv:0802.1069 · arXiv
  10. Sheldon, E. S., et al. 2007, arXiv:0709.1162 · arXiv
  11. Tytler, D., Paschos, P., Kirkman, D., Norman, M. L., & Jena, T. 2007, arXiv:0711.2529 · arXiv
  12. Vikhlinin, A., et al. 2008, arXiv:0805.2207 · arXiv
  13. Wambsganss, J., Ostriker, J. P., & Bode, P. 2007, arXiv:0707.1482 · arXiv
  14. Wyithe, J. S. B., & Loeb, A. 2003, arXiv:astro-ph/0302297 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dunkley, J., Komatsu, E., Nolta, M. R., Spergel, D. N., Larson, D., Hinshaw, G., Page, L., Bennett, C. L., Gold, B., Jarosik, N., Weiland, J. L., Halpern, M., Hill, R. S., Kogut, A., Limon, M., Meyer, S. S., Tucker, G. S., Wollack, E., & Wright, E. L.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Goddard Space Flight Center (US)
  • Adnet Systems (United States) (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
  • Dunkley, J.
  • Weiland, J. L.
ORCID
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series
Publisher
American Astronomical Society
Published
2009-02-01
Volume
180
Issue
2
Pages
306-329
ISSN
  • 0067-0049 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4365
DOI
10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/306
OpenAlex
W2136696603
Cited by
1,787
References
335
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 105 · 2012: 142
FWCI
189.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Keywords
cosmic microwave background, cosmological parameter constraints, cosmic microwave background anisotropies, CMB polarization, reionization optical depth, reionization redshift, effective number of relativistic species, cosmic neutrino background, tensor-to-scalar ratio, dark energy equation of state

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review