Paper detail

Evidence for Line-of-Sight Frequency Decorrelation of Polarized Dust Emission in $Planck$ Data

If a single line of sight (LOS) intercepts multiple dust clouds of different spectral energy distributions and magnetic field orientations, the frequency scaling of each of the Stokes $Q$ and $U$ parameters of thermal dust emission may be different ("LOS frequency decorrelation"). We present first evidence for LOS frequency decorrelation in $Planck$ data. We use independent, neutral-hydrogen--measurements of the number of clouds per LOS and the magnetic field orientation in each cloud to select two sets of sightlines: (i) a target sample (pixels likely to exhibit LOS frequency decorrelation); (ii) a control sample (pixels lacking complex LOS structure). We test the null hypothesis that LOS frequency decorrelation is not detectable in $Planck$ 353 and 217~GHz polarization data at high Galactic latitudes. The data reject this hypothesis at high significance. The detection is robust against choice of CMB map and map-making pipeline. The observed change in polarization angle due to LOS frequency decorrelation is detectable above the $Planck$ noise level. The probability that the detected effect is due to noise alone ranges from $5\times 10^{-2}$ to $4\times 10^{-7}$, depending on the CMB subtraction algorithm and treatment of residual systematics; correcting for residual systematics increases the significance of the effect. The LOS decorrelation effect is stronger for sightlines with more misaligned magnetic fields, as expected. We estimate that an intrinsic variation of $\sim15\%$ in the ratio of 353 to 217~GHz polarized emission between clouds is sufficient to reproduce the measured effect. Our finding underlines the importance of ongoing studies to map the 3D structure of the magnetized dusty ISM that could help component separation methods to account for frequency decorrelation effects in CMB polarization studies.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 authors2 topics

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.