CMB , Spherical Harmonics and Rotational Invariance

AI Thread Summary
Dodelson's "Modern Cosmology" asserts that the coefficients ##a_{lm}## for spherical harmonic expansions of photon-temperature fluctuations share the same probability distribution for a given ##l##. This is justified by the property that the ##Y_l^m## functions can be transformed into one another through rotations, indicating that the orientation represented by ##m## does not affect the statistical properties. The assumption of isotropy implies that since these coefficients are merely rotations of each other, they must follow the same probability distribution. This holds true under the appropriate normalization of the ##Y_l^m## functions. The discussion emphasizes the significance of rotational invariance in cosmological analyses.
center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
In Dodelson's "Modern Cosmology" on p.241 he states that the ##a_{lm}##-s -- for a given ##l##-- corresponding to a spherical harmonic expansion of the photon-temperature fluctuations, are drawn from the same probability distribution regardless of the value of ##m##. Dodelson does not explain this any further, but other authors claim that it is due to the fact that ##m## somehow corresponds to an orientation and this should not matter as the universe is (believed to be) statistically rotational invariant.

Question:
What is the precise property of the spherical harmonic ##Y_l^m## for a given ##l## that justifies this claim?
 
Space news on Phys.org
That Y_l^m \sim e^{i m \phi}?
 
center o bass said:
Question:
What is the precise property of the spherical harmonic ##Y_l^m## for a given ##l## that justifies this claim?
The ##Y_\ell^m## functions for a given ##\ell## can be morphed into one another through rotations in any direction. That is, if you rotate the coordinate system, the resulting ##a_{\ell m}## parameters are a linear combination of the pre-rotated ##a_{\ell m}## parameters. During this rotation, only the ##a_{\ell m}## values with the same ##\ell## are mixed.
 
Chalnoth said:
The ##Y_\ell^m## functions for a given ##\ell## can be morphed into one another through rotations in any direction. That is, if you rotate the coordinate system, the resulting ##a_{\ell m}## parameters are a linear combination of the pre-rotated ##a_{\ell m}## parameters. During this rotation, only the ##a_{\ell m}## values with the same ##\ell## are mixed.
Thanks for the reply! From what you've now said, how would one go on to argue (fairly rigorously) that the ##a_{lm}##-s for a given ##l## must be drawn from the same probability distributions?
 
center o bass said:
Thanks for the reply! From what you've now said, how would one go on to argue (fairly rigorously) that the ##a_{lm}##-s for a given ##l## must be drawn from the same probability distributions?
That's the assumption of isotropy. As the different coefficients for the same ##\ell## are just rotations of one another, assuming isotropy requires that they all have the same probability distribution (provided you make use of the appropriate normalization for the ##Y_l^m## functions).
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top