New Planck mission results, Ferrara December 1-5

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter marcus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Planck
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the recent results from the Planck mission presented at the Ferrara conference, focusing on cosmological parameters, dark matter density, and implications for the Hubble constant. Participants explore the significance of these findings in the context of existing models and previous data.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the density of dark matter is now measured at 31.6 +/- 0.9%, with ordinary matter at 4.92 +/- 0.03%, indicating a slight change from previous reports.
  • One participant discusses a method to estimate the long-term Hubble radius based on the current Hubble radius and the dark matter density, suggesting a value of approximately 17.4 billion light-years.
  • Another participant highlights the detection of galactic dust lanes affecting the BICEP2 experiment's findings on primordial gravitational waves, suggesting a potential area for further investigation.
  • George Efstathiou's presentation indicates that the Hubble constant (H0) estimates range from 67.3 to 67.6 km/s per Mpc, depending on the inclusion of additional data, with a noted preference for zero curvature in cosmological models.
  • Participants discuss preliminary results from Efstathiou's table, indicating a potential adjustment in the long-term Hubble radius to around 17.5 billion light-years, although these results are not yet finalized.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying interpretations of the implications of the new Planck data, with some agreeing on the significance of the updated Hubble constant estimates while others raise concerns about the clarity of the BICEP2 findings. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the impact of these results on existing cosmological models.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations are noted, including the preliminary nature of the data presented and the dependence on specific assumptions regarding cosmological parameters. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainties in the interpretation of the results.

marcus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
24,752
Reaction score
795
So far a lot of the stuff from the December Ferrara conference is in French.
Nice movie! http://videotheque.cnrs.fr/visio=4401
Neutrino news: http://public.planck.fr/resultats/250-ce-que-planck-dit-des-neutrinos
Latest on dark matter: http://public.planck.fr/resultats/251-planck-eclaire-la-matiere-noire-combien-quoi-ouThe 2014 numbers are just slightly different from the March 2013 numbers (first Planck report) which we have been using:
http://public.planck.fr/resultats/2...nck-eclaire-la-matiere-noire-combien-quoi-ou-
==quote==
Combien ?
La mesure de la densité de matière noire aujourd’hui est stable mais encore plus précise avec les résultats de la mission complète : 31.6 +/- 0.9 % de matière don't 4.92 +/- 0.03% de matière ordinaire.

Comme on connait l’évolution de la densité de chaque type de composant (matière, rayonnement, constante cosmologique) en fonction du temps, on a la répartition des densités à différentes époques.

==endquote==
They compare pie charts with WMAP and with their own Planck numbers as of 2013. Only a little change from last year.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Torbjorn_L and Greg Bernhardt
Space news on Phys.org
Notice the 31.6 mentioned above--100 minus that is 68.4,
so we take the square root of .684 and divide today's Hubble radius by that, to get the longterm Hubble radius.
If you say the current Hubble radius is 14.4 billion LY then paste in 14.4/(.684)^.5 and get 17.4 billion LY.
We have been using 17.3 because last year's ".684" number was slightly higher

I have not seen a new Planck mission estimate of the current Hubble percentage expansion rate, or equivalently the Hubble radius.
But it looks like the basic numbers we mostly use are not changing by much.
 
Last edited:
Thank you marcus for that link.

And a short statement about the detection of galactic dust lanes in the area of sky examined by the BICEP2 experiment: The result is that the galactic polarization can not be neglected anywhere on the sky. The situation is far from being as clear as initially hoped the collaboration BICEP2 announcing of probably prematurely, the discovery of primordial gravitational waves in March. (Google translate)

If you look at the dust polarisation on the map on that page you see the black box signifying the area BICEP2 looked at. Just 'above' it (towards the South Galactic Pole) is a dark blue area where there is least dust signal. Could not the BICEP2 experiment be repeated looking this time at that area?

Garth
 
Last edited:
More is available. For example, George Efstathiou's slides from 1 December. Cosmological model parameters.

http://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/387566/387653/Ferrara_Dec1_16h30_Efstathiou_Cosmology.pdf

See for example slide #8:

H0 estimate is either 67.3 or 67.6 depending on whether more data from other studies is included (67.6 ± 0.6 km/s per Mpc with BAO thrown in). This result is highlighted.

The new constraints on curvature seem to narrow it down a lot! Favoring zero curvature, increasingly. (see slide #12 or thereabouts)

Full list of available Ferrara conference slides:
http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/ferrara2014
 
Last edited:
I copied from George Efstathiou's table of new Planck model numbers on slide #8.
The table heading is "Base ΛCDM Model"
The first column is labeled "TT" and the second "TT. TE, EE"

H0 67.3 ±1.0 --------> 67.6 ±0.6
Ωm 0.316 ±0.014 -------> 0.316 ±0.009 (with BAO)

the 67.6 figure corresponds to a Hubble time of "1/(67.6 km/s per Mpc)"
Unrounded, google calculator gives Hubble radius 14.4647... billion lightyears.
Dividing (as before in post #2) by the square root of 1 - 0.316 = 0.684 we get the longterm
Hubble radius 14.4647/.684^.5 = 17.4897 billion lightyears.

Efstathiou tacks on a caution that these numbers are preliminary, they won't publish until sometime next year. But still it looks like when we round off the longterm Hubble radius is going to say 17.5 billion LY.

In Jorrie's outstandingly useful Lightcone calculator the Hubble radii used so far, based on the Planck 2013 numbers, have been 14.4 and 17.3 billion LY. It looks like sometime in early 2015, when Planck data is published, they might have to change, perhaps to 14.5 and 17.5. But that is just a guess.
 
Last edited: