Source author record

Ali Narimani

Ali Narimani appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

astro-ph.CO hep-th gr-qc

Catalog footprint

What is connected

8works

3topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2016arXiv

Cosmic Microwave Background Acoustic Peak Locations

The Planck collaboration has measured the temperature and polarization of the cosmic microwave background well enough to determine the locations of eight peaks in the temperature (TT) power spectrum, five peaks in the polarization (EE) power spectrum and twelve extrema in the cross (TE) power spectrum. The relative locations of these extrema give a striking, and beautiful, demonstration of what we expect from acoustic oscillations in the plasma; e.g., that EE peaks fall half way between TT peaks. We expect this because the temperature map is predominantly sourced by temperature variations in the last scattering surface, while the polarization map is predominantly sourced by gradients in the velocity field, and the harmonic oscillations have temperature and velocity 90 degrees out of phase. However, there are large differences in expectations for extrema locations from simple analytic models vs. numerical calculations. Here we quantitatively explore the origin of these differences in gravitational potential transients, neutrino free-streaming, the breakdown of tight coupling, the shape of the primordial power spectrum, details of the geometric projection from three to two dimensions, and the thickness of the last scattering surface. We also compare the peak locations determined from Planck measurements to expectations under the $Λ$CDM model. Taking into account how the peak locations were determined, we find them to be in agreement.

preprint2016arXiv

The information content of cosmic microwave background anisotropies

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) contains perturbations that are close to Gaussian and isotropic. This means that its information content, in the sense of the ability to constrain cosmological models, is closely related to the number of modes probed in CMB power spectra. Rather than making forecasts for specific experimental setups, here we take a more pedagogical approach and ask how much information we can extract from the CMB if we are only limited by sample variance. We show that, compared with temperature measurements, the addition of E-mode polarization doubles the number of modes available out to a fixed maximum multipole, provided that all of the TT, TE, and EE power spectra are measured. However, the situation in terms of constraints on particular parameters is more complicated, as we explain and illustrate graphically. We also discuss the enhancements in information that can come from adding B-mode polarization and gravitational lensing. We show how well one could ever determine the basic cosmological parameters from CMB data compared with what has been achieved with Planck, which has already probed a substantial fraction of the TT information. Lastly, we look at constraints on neutrino mass as a specific example of how lensing information improves future prospects beyond the current 6-parameter model.

preprint2015arXiv

A Farewell to Falsifiability

Some of the most obviously correct physical theories - namely string theory and the multiverse - make no testable predictions, leading many to question whether we should accept something as scientific even if it makes no testable predictions and hence is not refutable. However, some far-thinking physicists have proposed instead that we should give up on the notion of Falsifiability itself. We endorse this suggestion but think it does not go nearly far enough. We believe that we should also dispense with other outdated ideas, such as Fidelity, Frugality, Factuality and other "F" words. And we quote a lot of famous people to support this view.

preprint2014arXiv

How does pressure gravitate? Cosmological constant problem confronts observational cosmology

An important and long-standing puzzle in the history of modern physics is the gross inconsistency between theoretical expectations and cosmological observations of the vacuum energy density, by at least 60 orders of magnitude, otherwise known as the \textit{cosmological constant problem}. A characteristic feature of vacuum energy is that it has a pressure with the same amplitude, but opposite sign to its energy density, while all the precision tests of General Relativity are either in vacuum, or for media with negligible pressure. Therefore, one may wonder whether an anomalous coupling to pressure might be responsible for decoupling vacuum from gravity. We test this possibility in the context of the \textit{Gravitational Aether} proposal, using current cosmological observations, which probe the gravity of relativistic pressure in the radiation era. Interestingly, we find that the best fit for anomalous pressure coupling is about half-way between General Relativity (GR), and Gravitational Aether (GA), if we include \textit{Planck} together with \textit{WMAP} and BICEP2 polarization cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations. Taken at face value, this data combination excludes both GR and GA at around the 3-sigma level. However, including higher resolution CMB observations ("highL") or baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAO) pushes the best fit closer to GR, excluding the Gravitational Aether solution to the cosmological constant problem at the 4--5-sigma level. This constraint effectively places a limit on the anomalous coupling to pressure in the parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) expansion, $ζ_4 = 0.105 \pm 0.049$ (+highL CMB), or $ζ_4 = 0.066 \pm 0.039$ (+BAO). These represent the most precise measurement of this parameter to date, indicating a mild tension with GR (for $Λ$CDM including tensors, with $ζ_4=0$), and also among different data sets.

preprint2013arXiv

Cosmic Mnemonics

Our current description of the large-scale Universe is now known with a precision undreamt of a generation ago. Within the simple standard cosmological model only six basic parameters are required. The usual parameter set includes quantities most directly probed by the cosmic microwave background, but the nature of these quantities is somewhat esoteric. However, many more numbers can be derived that quantify various aspects of our Universe. Using constraints from the Planck satellite, in combination with other data sets, we explore several such quantities, highlighting some specific examples.

preprint2013arXiv

Minimal parameterizations for modified gravity

The increasing precision of cosmological data provides us with an opportunity to test general relativity (GR) on the largest accessible scales. Parameterizing modified gravity models facilitates the systematic testing of the predictions of GR, and gives a framework for detecting possible deviations from it. Several different parameterizations have already been suggested, some linked to classifications of theories, and others more empirically motivated. Here we describe a particular new approach which casts modifications to gravity through two free functions of time and scale, which are directly linked to the field equations, but also easy to confront with observational data. We compare our approach with other existing methods of parameterizing modied gravity, specifically the parameterized post-Friedmann approach and the older method using the parameter set $\{μ,γ\}$. We explain the connection between our parameters and the physics that is most important for generating cosmic microwave background anisotropies. Some qualitative features of this new parameterization, and therefore modifications to the gravitational equations of motion, are illustrated in a toy model, where the two functions are simply assumed to be constant parameters.

preprint2012arXiv

Dimensionless cosmology

Although it is well known that any consideration of the variations of fundamental constants should be restricted to their dimensionless combinations, the literature on variations of the gravitational constant $G$ is entirely dimensionful. To illustrate applications of this to cosmology, we explicitly give a dimensionless version of the parameters of the standard cosmological model, and describe the physics of Big Bang Neucleosynthesis and recombination in a dimensionless manner. The issue that appears to have been missed in many studies is that in cosmology the strength of gravity is bound up in the cosmological equations, and the epoch at which we live is a crucial part of the model. We argue that it is useful to consider the hypothetical situation of communicating with another civilization (with entirely different units), comparing only dimensionless constants, in order to decide if we live in a Universe governed by precisely the same physical laws. In this thought experiment, we would also have to compare epochs, which can be defined by giving the value of any {\it one} of the evolving cosmological parameters. By setting things up carefully in this way one can avoid inconsistent results when considering variable constants, caused by effectively fixing more than one parameter today. We show examples of this effect by considering microwave background anisotropies, being careful to maintain dimensionlessness throughout. We present Fisher matrix calculations to estimate how well the fine structure constants for electromagnetism and gravity can be determined with future microwave background experiments. We highlight how one can be misled by simply adding $G$ to the usual cosmological parameter set.

preprint2010arXiv

Let's talk about varying G

It is possible that fundamental constants may not be constant at all. There is a generally accepted view that one can only talk about variations of dimensionless quantities, such as the fine structure constant $α_{\rm e}\equiv e^2/4πε_0\hbar c$. However, constraints on the strength of gravity tend to focus on G itself, which is problematic. We stress that G needs to be multiplied by the square of a mass, and hence, for example, one should be constraining $α_{\rm g}\equiv G m_{\rm p}^2/\hbar c$, where $m_{\rm p}$ is the proton mass. Failure to focus on such dimensionless quantities makes it difficult to interpret the physical dependence of constraints on the variation of G in many published studies. A thought experiment involving talking to observers in another universe about the values of physical constants may be useful for distinguishing what is genuinely measurable from what is merely part of our particular system of units.