I Getting the wrong multipole for 1st acoustic peak

AI Thread Summary
The calculation for the multipole of the first acoustic peak in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is yielding a value around 293, while the expected value is approximately 200. The discrepancy arises from the use of the sound horizon value, which may be in comoving coordinates rather than physical distance. The discussion emphasizes the importance of using comoving quantities for accurate results. References to various sources and equations are provided to clarify the calculations, but the core issue remains unresolved for the original poster. The conversation highlights the complexities involved in calculating the first acoustic peak in cosmology.
DoobleD
Messages
259
Reaction score
20
I'm trying to do a simple calculation, but there must be something wrong.

The wavelength ##\lambda_1## corresponding to first acoustic peak of the CMB is related to the sound horizon at last scattering, ##d_{hs}##, by :

## \lambda_1 = 2d_{hs} ## (see for instance slide 14 on Wayne Hu PDF slides).

Now, the multipole ##l## of the first acoustic peak can be related to its wavelength and to the distance to last scattering surface, ##D##, by :

##l_1 = \frac{2 \pi}{\lambda_1} D## (see slide 15)

From that I deduce the following equation :

##l_1 = \frac{\pi}{d_{hs}}D##

I find in the litterature that ##D \approx 14000 Mpc##, and ##d_{hs} \approx 150 Mpc##. I plug those values into the previous equation, and I find ##l_1 \approx 293##, which is quite far from the ##l_1 \approx 200## I should get for the first peak. What's wrong ?
 
Space news on Phys.org
I get the values for distance to last scattering surface and sound horizon here. I wonder however if 150 Mpc for the sound horizon is not in comoving coordinates, while I should use the physical distance instead (which I don't know) ?

EDIT : I just realized that at the very end of that WMAP values document, they basically give the exact same formula, ##l = \frac{\pi}{d_{hs}}D##. And with the values they gives, I get ##l = 299##. Why am I not getting 200 ?
 
Last edited:
I just found the exact same question asked by someone else on physics.stackexchange : https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222993/how-is-the-first-acoustic-peak-calculated-in-cmb

The guy also finds ##l \approx 300## instead of 200.
 
I'm back on this issue.

Same problem with again another source. We know that ##\theta_s = 0.0104## (slide 4), and ## l = \pi / \theta_s## (slide 18), so we get ##l = 302## instead of around 200. Exactly the same issue as in the https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_152494367988315&key=6afc78eea2339e9c047ab6748b0d37e7&libId=jgjovf9v010009we000DLcrw2gf0c&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Fgetting-the-wrong-multipole-for-1st-acoustic-peak.923207%2F&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Fphysics.stackexchange.com%2Fquestions%2F222993%2Fhow-is-the-first-acoustic-peak-calculated-in-cmb&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fsearch%2F81044411%2F&title=Getting%20the%20wrong%20multipole%20for%201st%20acoustic%20peak%20%7C%20Physics%20Forums&txt=https%3A%2F%2Fphysics.stackexchange.com%2Fquestions%2F222993%2Fhow-is-the-first-acoustic-peak-calculated-in-cmb post I linked earlier actually.
 
Nevermind, this very question has been already answered here. Thanks to @George Jones.
 
Back
Top