Measurement of the CMB temperature power spectrum and constraints on cosmology from the SPT-3G 2018 
<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math>
, 
<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>
, and 
<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>E

Balkenhol, L.; Dutcher, D.; Mancini, Alessio Spurio; Doussot, Aristide; Benabed, K.; Galli, S.; R., Ade, P. A.; Anderson, A. J.; Ansarinejad, B.; Archipley, Melanie; Bender, A. N.; Benson, B. A.; Bianchini, F.; Bleem, L. E.; Bouchet, F. R.; Bryant, L.; Camphuis, Étienne; Carlstrom, J. E.; Cecil, T. W.; Chang, C. L.; Chaubal, P.; Chichura, Paul; Chou, T-L.; Coerver, A.; Crawford, T. M.; Cukierman, A.; Daley, C.; Haan, T. de; R., Dibert, K.; Dobbs, M. A.; W., Everett,; Feng, Chang; Ferguson, K. R.; Foster, A.; Gambrel, A. E.; Gardner, R. W.; Goeckner-Wald, N.; Gualtieri, R.; Guidi, F.; Guns, S.; Halverson, N. W.; Hivon, E.; Holder, G. P.; Holzapfel, W. L.; Hood, J. C.; Huang, N.; Knox, L.; Korman, M.; Kuo, C.-L.; Lee, A. T.; E., Lowitz, A.; Lu, C.; Millea, M.; J., Montgomery,; Y., Nakato,; Natoli, T.; Noble, G. I.; V., Novosad,; Omori, Y.; Padin, S.; Pan, Z.; P., Paschos,; Prabhu, K.; Quan, Wei; M., Rahimi,; Rahlin, A.; Reichardt, Christian; M., Rouble,; Ruhl, J. E.; Schiappucci, E.; Smecher, G.; Sobrin, J. A.; A., Stark, A.; Stephen, J.; Suzuki, A.; Tandoi, C.; Thompson, K. L.; B., Thorne,; C., Tucker,; Umiltà, Caterina; Vieira, J. D.; Wang, G.; Whitehorn, N.; Wu, W. L. K.; V., Yefremenko,; R., Young, M.; A., Zebrowski, J.

doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.023510

Cited by 58 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We could constrain the TPM model using the ACT primary anisotropy data similar to the EDE fits to ACT both with and without the Planck anisotropy data. Additionally, while completing this work, we became aware of the public likelihood of SPT data that include the TT power spectrum (Balkenhol et al 2023). We did not use these data sets because the tests using SPT TE and EE data already did not prefer higher values of H 0 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, we include the full multipole range Planck TE and EE data to see how adding additional polarization data can tighten constraints on the TPM model. To a good approximation, the covariance between Planck TE or EE and SPT TE or EE is negligible because of noisier Planck polarization measurements, and the fact that SPT sky coverage comprises a small fraction of the total area covered by the Planck measurements (Dutcher et al 2021;Balkenhol et al 2023).…”

Section: Observational Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cosmological Tensions and the Transitional Planck Mass Model

Kable,

Benevento,

Addison

et al. 2023

ApJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this follow-up analysis, we update previous constraints on the transitional Planck mass (TPM) modified gravity model using the latest version of EFTCAMB and provide new constraints using South Pole Telescope (SPT) and Planck anisotropy data along with Planck cosmic microwave background lensing, baryon acoustic oscillations, and Type Ia supernovae data and a Hubble constant, H 0, prior from local measurements. We find that large shifts in the Planck mass lead to large suppression of power on small scales that is disfavored by both the SPT and Planck data. Using only the SPT temperature-polarization–polarization-polarization (TE-EE) data, this suppression of power can be compensated for by an upward shift of the scalar index to n s = 1.003 ± 0.016, resulting in H 0 = 71.94 − 0.85 + 0.86 km m−1 Mpc−1 and a ∼7% shift in the Planck mass. Including the Planck temperature-temperature (TT) ℓ ≤ 650 and Planck TE-EE data restricts the shift to be <5% at 2σ with H 0 = 70.65 ± 0.66 km m−1 Mpc−1. Excluding the H 0 prior, the SPT and Planck data constrain the shift in the Planck mass to be <3% at 2σ with a best-fit value of 0.04%, consistent with the Λ cold dark matter limit. In this case H 0 = 69.09 − 0.68 + 0.69 km s−1 Mpc−1, which is partially elevated by the dynamics of the scalar field in the late Universe. This differs from early dark energy models that prefer higher values of H 0 when the high-ℓ Planck TT data are excluded. We additionally constrain TPM using redshift space distortion data from BOSS DR12 and cosmic shear, galaxy–galaxy lensing, and galaxy clustering data from DES Y1, finding both disfavor transitions close to recombination, but earlier Planck mass transitions are allowed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Observational Datamentioning

confidence: 99%