- #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 4,446
- 558
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502237
The axis of evil
Kate Land and Jo˜ao Magueijo
Theoretical Physics Group, Imperial College, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, UK
(Dated: Feb 11, 2005)
We examine previous claims for a preferred axis at (b, l) (60,-100) in the cosmic radiation anisotropy, by generalizing the concept of multipole planarity to any shape preference (a concept we define mathematically). Contrary to earlier claims, we find that the amount of power concentrated
in planar modes for l = 2, 3 is not inconsistent with isotropy and Gaussianity. The multipoles’ alignment, however, is indeed anomalous, and extends up to l = 5 rejecting statistical isotropy with a probability in excess of 99.9%. There is also an uncanny correlation of azimuthal phases between
l = 3 and l = 5. We are unable to blame these effects on foreground contamination or large-scale systematic errors. We show how this reappraisal may be crucial in identifying the theoretical model
behind the anomaly
The axis of evil
Kate Land and Jo˜ao Magueijo
Theoretical Physics Group, Imperial College, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, UK
(Dated: Feb 11, 2005)
We examine previous claims for a preferred axis at (b, l) (60,-100) in the cosmic radiation anisotropy, by generalizing the concept of multipole planarity to any shape preference (a concept we define mathematically). Contrary to earlier claims, we find that the amount of power concentrated
in planar modes for l = 2, 3 is not inconsistent with isotropy and Gaussianity. The multipoles’ alignment, however, is indeed anomalous, and extends up to l = 5 rejecting statistical isotropy with a probability in excess of 99.9%. There is also an uncanny correlation of azimuthal phases between
l = 3 and l = 5. We are unable to blame these effects on foreground contamination or large-scale systematic errors. We show how this reappraisal may be crucial in identifying the theoretical model
behind the anomaly
Last edited: