I computing the CMB Damping Tail

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Quarkly
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cmb Computing Damping
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the computation of the Damping Tail in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) analysis. Participants are exploring the mathematical formulation and challenges associated with integrating the Thompson Opacity in this context, raising questions about the behavior of electron density and scale factor at the lower limit of integration.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the formula for the Damping Tail and expresses confusion regarding the integration due to the indeterminate nature of the Thompson Opacity at the lower limit, where electron density is infinite and the scale factor is zero.
  • Another participant notes that many integrals with divergences can still be evaluated and questions whether the first participant has attempted the integration themselves.
  • A participant mentions that neither they nor Mathematica can evaluate the integral, observing that the function approaches infinity as a power of 2 at the lower limit, while the density behaves as a power of 3 as time approaches the beginning of the universe.
  • Another participant agrees with the previous point and adds that only a small range of scale factors should contribute to the optical depth calculations, suggesting that a reference might provide an alternative approximation involving an extra factor of ##e^{-\tau}##.
  • One participant expresses difficulty reconciling the calculations from two different papers, indicating that they find the Hu calculation potentially feasible but struggle to understand the Jungman calculation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the evaluation of the integral and the interpretations of the calculations from the referenced papers. There is no consensus on how to resolve the issues raised regarding the integration and the behavior of the functions involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the indeterminate nature of the Thompson Opacity at the lower limit of integration and the differing approaches suggested in the referenced papers, which may affect the calculations.

Quarkly
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Trying to perform the actual calculations of D. Hu and M. White that will reproduce their work on analysing the CMB Damping Tail.
The formula for the Damping Tail in the CMB BAO analysis generally has the form:
$$\mathcal{D} (k)=\int_{0}^{\eta_0}\dot\tau e^{-\left[\frac {k}{k_D(\eta)} \right]^2}d\eta $$I can’t make sense of this. ##\dot\tau## is the Thompson (Differential) Opacity; the product of electron density, cross section and scale factor:$$\dot\tau(\eta)=n_e\sigma_Ta$$At η = 0 (t = 0), the electron density is infinite (how are there even electrons at this energy level?) and the scale factor is zero. How are we supposed to perform this integration when the Thompson Opacity is so obviously indeterminate at the lower limit of integration?
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
Quarkly said:
Summary: Trying to perform the actual calculations of D. Hu and M. White that will reproduce their work on analysing the CMB Damping Tail.

The formula for the Damping Tail in the CMB BAO analysis generally has the form:
$$\mathcal{D} (k)=\int_{0}^{\eta_0}\dot\tau e^{-\left[\frac {k}{k_D(\eta)} \right]^2}d\eta $$I can’t make sense of this. ##\dot\tau## is the Thompson (Differential) Opacity; the product of electron density, cross section and scale factor:$$\dot\tau(\eta)=n_e\sigma_Ta$$At η = 0 (t = 0), the electron density is infinite (how are there even electrons at this energy level?) and the scale factor is zero. How are we supposed to perform this integration when the Thompson Opacity is so obviously indeterminate at the lower limit of integration?
Many integrals that have a divergence right at the edge of the integral can be integrated without issue. Have you attempted to evaluate the integral yourself?
 
Yes. Neither me nor Mathematica can evaluate it. If you graph it, you'll see that it goes up as a power of 2 as it approaches ##\eta=0##. Analytically, the density rises as a power of 3 as you move to the start of time and the scale shrinks by a factor of -1.
 
Quarkly said:
Yes. Neither me nor Mathematica can evaluate it. If you graph it, you'll see that it goes up as a power of 2 as it approaches ##\eta=0##. Analytically, the density rises as a power of 3 as you move to the start of time and the scale shrinks by a factor of -1.
That's odd. Thinking of the situation physically, it makes no sense. Only a small range in scale factor should contribute to the optical depth calculations (the period when the universe is transitioning from opaque to transparent). I haven't done this calculation myself, but this reference might help:
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9609079
They suggest an approximation that is slightly different from the equation you posted above (it has an extra factor of ##e^{-\tau}##).
 
Thank you. I'm bouncing back and forth between the Hu paper (#12) and the Jungman paper (# 6). They don't seem to agree. I'm still wrestling with the Hu calculation, which seems like it's possible, but I just don't understand how Jungman's calculation is supposed to work.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K