Using Planck Data

  • Thread starter 302021895
  • Start date
11
0
I apologize in advance if this is not the correct place to post this.

I am currently writing a paper in no-scale supergravity inflation, and now that the Planck 2015 results are here, it would be nice to use them to constrain the parameters of the model. I am in particular interested in the scalar tilt and the tensor-to-scalar ratio. However, I have absolutely no idea on how to read and analyze the data from Planck. I have set as my most basic goal to reproduce the 68% and 95% CL TT+lowP+BKP+BAO curves of figure 54 in the "constraints on inflation" paper, 1502.02114, but I don't even know where to start.

I am aware of the existence of the Planck Legacy Archive, but I can't make sense of the 'explanatory supplement'. Any help will be appreciated.
 

Chalnoth

Science Advisor
6,192
442
Most external (to the experimental team) CMB analysis follows in this fashion:
1. Use a software product to generate the expected power spectrum from a set of cosmological parameters.
2. Use likelihood software to estimate the likelihood of a given a power spectrum. This software will include a reduced version of Planck data.
3. Use Markov Chain Monte Carlo to estimate the confidence contours through many executions of the above.

Right now, it looks like Planck has not yet released their likelihood software for their second release, but the first release is available here:
http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/Planck/release_1/software/

For CMB analysis, I've generally found NASA's LAMBDA site to have the most comprehensive set of tools. This link will be good for getting the power spectrum calculation software as well as the MCMC software to produce the confidence contours.
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/
 
11
0
Thanks a lot. What you've written makes a lot of sense, although I have no clue on how to use those tools, but the LAMBDA site looks much more friendly that the Planck web page that I was looking at before. I'll give it a try.

When you refer to the 'second release software', do you mean that I won't be able to reproduce yet their 2015 results, or that I would need to manually feed their results into a different likelihood software?
 

Chalnoth

Science Advisor
6,192
442
It'd be a bad idea to try to analyze the data yourself. Quite a lot of complicated work goes into generating the likelihood functions.

But it will probably take enough time to figure out the other tools and things such that the second release will be available by the time you're ready to use it. In the mean time, learning how it all fits together using the WMAP data or the first release of Planck data is probably the thing to do. Note that eventually you'll have to use the polarization data as well in order to reproduce any of those plots, but you can make your job simpler by only working with temperature data while you're learning.
 
11
0
Oh... I think then that I will cross such analysis from being included in our paper, since my coauthors want it done asap. In any case, it is definitely worth checking the first release, even if it is only as a personal challenge.
 

Chalnoth

Science Advisor
6,192
442
Oh... I think then that I will cross such analysis from being included in our paper, since my coauthors want it done asap. In any case, it is definitely worth checking the first release, even if it is only as a personal challenge.
It's definitely non-trivial if you haven't done it before. It isn't horribly complicated, but especially since you have to learn three different sets of software, it can be a bit daunting. It would be made easier if you have a good understanding of how to analyze MCMC chains.
 

Related Threads for: Using Planck Data

Replies
2
Views
597
Replies
3
Views
474
  • Posted
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top