MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002770518 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.023002

Nonlinear evolution of cosmic magnetic fields and cosmic microwave background anisotropies

2006· article· en· W2002770518 on OpenAlexaff
Hiroyuki Tashiro, Naoshi Sugiyama, Robi Banerjee

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCosmic microwave backgroundAnisotropySpectral indexMagnetic fieldAstrophysicsSpectral linePolarization (electrochemistry)Quantum electrodynamicsComputational physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work we investigate the effects of primordial magnetic fields on cosmic microwave background anisotropies (CMB). Based on cosmological magneto-hydro dynamic (MHD) simulations [R. Banerjee and K. Jedamzik, Phys. Rev. D 70, 123003 (2004).] we calculate the CMB anisotropy spectra and polarization induced by fluid fluctuations (Alfv\'en modes) generated by primordial magnetic fields. The strongest effect on the CMB spectra comes from the transition epoch from a turbulent regime to a viscous regime. The balance between magnetic and kinetic energy until the onset of the viscous regime provides a one to one relation between the comoving coherence length $L$ and the comoving magnetic field strength $B$, such as $L\ensuremath{\sim}30(B/{10}^{\ensuremath{-}9}\mathrm{Gauss}{)}^{3}\mathrm{pc}$. The resulting CMB temperature and polarization anisotropies for the initial power law index of the magnetic fields $n>3/2$ are somewhat different from the ones previously obtained by using linear perturbation theory. In particular, differences can appear on intermediate scales $l<2000$ and small scales $l>20\text{ }000$. On scales $l<2000$ the CMB anisotropy and polarization spectra are flat in the case of our nonlinear calculations whereas the spectra have a blue index calculated with linear perturbation theory if we assume the velocity fields of baryons induced by the magnetic fields achieved Alfv\'en velocity due to the turbulent motions on large scales in the early universe. Our calculation gives a constraint on the magnetic field strength in the intermediate scale of CMB observations. Upper limits are set by WMAP and BOOMERANG results for comoving magnetic field strength of $B<28\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{nGauss}$ with a comoving coherence length of $L>0.7\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{Mpc}$ for the most extreme case, or $B<30\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{nGauss}$ and $L>0.8\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{Mpc}$ for the most conservative case. We may also expect higher signals on large scales of the polarization spectra compared to linear calculations. The signal may even exceed the B-mode polarization from gravitational lensing depending on the strength of the primordial magnetic fields. On very small scales, the diffusion damping scale of nonlinear calculations turns out to be much smaller than the one of linear calculations if the comoving magnetic field strength $B>16\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{nGauss}$. If the magnetic field strength is smaller, the diffusion scales become smaller too. Therefore we expect to have both, temperature and polarization anisotropies, even beyond $l>10\text{ }000$ regardless of the strength of the magnetic fields. The peak values of the temperature anisotropy and the B-mode polarization spectra are approximately $40\ensuremath{\mu}\mathrm{K}$ and a few $\ensuremath{\mu}\mathrm{K}$, respectively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207