Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:01:55.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Degree Scale Anisotropy: Current Status

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2016

P.M. Lubin*
Affiliation:
University of California Santa Barbara, Physics Department, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA Center for Particle Astrophysics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Cosmic Background Radiation gives us one of the few probes into the density perturbations in the early universe that should later lead to the formation of structure we now observe. Recent advances in degree scale anisotropy measurements have allowed us to begin critically testing cosmological models. Combined with the larger scale measurements from COBE we are now able to directly compare data and theory. These measurements promise future progress in understanding structure formation. Because of the extreme sensitivities needed (1-10 ppm) and the difficulties of foreground sources, these measurements require not only technological advances in detector and measurement techniques, but multi spectral measurements and careful attention to low level systematic errors. This field is advancing rapidly and is in a true discovery mode. Our own group has been involved in a series of eleven experiments over the last six years using the ACME (Advanced Cosmic Microwave Explorer) payload which has made measurements at angular scales from 0.3 to 3 degrees and over a wavelength range from 1 to 10 mm. The recent data from these and other measurements will be reviewed as well as some of the challenges and potential involved in these and future measurements.

Type
Part I: Invited Reviews
Copyright
Copyright © Kluwer 1996 

References

Alsop, D.C., et al. 1992, ApJ, 317, 146.Google Scholar
Bond, R. 1993, CMB Workshop, Capri, Italy.Google Scholar
Cheng, E.S., et al. 1993, ApJ Lett, submitted.Google Scholar
Clapp, A., et al. 1994, ApJ Lett, submitted.Google Scholar
Devlin, M., et al. 1994, ApJ Lett, submitted.Google Scholar
Fischer, M., et al. 1992, ApJ, 388, 242.Google Scholar
Fischer, M., et al. 1995, ApJ, submitted.Google Scholar
Gaier, T., et al. 1992, ApJ, 398, L1.Google Scholar
Gaier, T. 1993, , UCSB.Google Scholar
Gundersen, J.O., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, L1.Google Scholar
Gundersen, J.O., et al. 1995, ApJ Letters, submitted.Google Scholar
Lim, M., et al. 1995, ApJ Letters, in preparation.Google Scholar
Lubin, P., et al. 1985, ApJ, 298, L1.Google Scholar
Meinhold, P.R., & Lubin, P.M. 1991, ApJ, 370, L11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinhold, P., et al. 1992, ApJ, 406, 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinhold, P., et al. 1993, ApJ, 409, L1.Google Scholar
Pospieszalski, M.W., et al. 1990, IEEE MTT-S Digest, 1253.Google Scholar
Schuster, J., et al. 1993, ApJ, 412, L47.Google Scholar
Schuster, J., et al. 1994, in preparation.Google Scholar
Smoot, G.F., et al. 1992, ApJ, 396, L1.Google Scholar
Steinhardt, P. 1994, Proc. of 1994 Snowmass Workshop.Google Scholar
Tanaka, S., et al. 1995, ApJ Letters, in preparation.Google Scholar
Wollack, E., et al. 1994, ApJ, 419, L49.Google Scholar