Paper detail

Consistency of Planck, ACT and SPT constraints on magnetically assisted recombination and forecasts for future experiments

Primordial magnetic fields can change the recombination history of the universe by inducing clumping in the baryon density at small scales. They were recently proposed as a candidate model to relieve the Hubble tension. We investigate the consistency of the constraints on a clumping factor parameter $b$ in a simplistic model, using the latest CMB data from Planck, ACT DR4 and SPT-3G 2018. For the combined CMB data alone, we find no evidence for clumping being different from zero, though when adding a prior on $H_0$ based on the latest distance-ladder analysis of the SH0ES team, we report a weak detection of $b$. Our analysis of simulated datasets shows that ACT DR4 has more constraining power with respect to SPT-3G 2018 due to the degeneracy breaking power of the TT band powers (not included in SPT). Simulations also suggest that the TE,EE power spectra of the two datasets should have the same constraining power. However, the ACT DR4 TE,EE constraint is tighter than expectations, while the SPT-3G 2018 one is looser. While this is compatible with statistical fluctuations, we explore systematic effects which may account for such deviations. Overall, the ACT results are only marginally consistent with Planck or SPT-3G, at the $2-3σ$ level within $Λ$CDM+$b$ and $Λ$CDM, while Planck and SPT-3G are in good agreement. Combining the CMB data together with BAO and SNIa provides an upper limit of b<0.4 at 95\% c.l. (b<0.5 without ACT). Adding a SH0ES-based prior on the Hubble constant gives $b = 0.31^{+0.11}_{-0.15}$ and $H_0=69.28 \pm 0.56$ km/s/Mpc ($b = 0.41^{+0.14}_{-018}$ and $H_0=69.70 \pm 0.63$ km/s/Mpc without ACT). Finally, we forecast constraints on $b$ for the full SPT-3G survey, Simons Observatory, and CMB-S4, finding improvements by factors of 1.5 (2.7 with Planck), 5.9 and 7.8, respectively, over Planck alone.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.