APS/123-QED

Cosmology with Rayleigh Scattering of the Cosmic Microwave Background

Benjamin Beringue,1 P. Daniel Meerburg,2 Joel Meyers,3 and Nicholas Battaglia4 1DAMTP, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, UK, CB3 0WA 2Van Swinderen Institute for Particle Physics and Gravity, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands 3Department of Physics, Southern Methodist University, 3215 Daniel Ave, Dallas, Texas 75275, USA 4Department of Astronomy, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA (Dated: August 27, 2020) The cosmic microwave background (CMB) has been a treasure trove for cosmology. Over the next decade, current and planned CMB experiments are expected to exhaust nearly all primary CMB information. To further constrain cosmological models, there is a great benefit to measuring signals beyond the primary modes. Rayleigh scattering of the CMB is one source of additional cosmological information. It is caused by the additional scattering of CMB photons by neutral species formed during recombination and exhibits a strong and unique frequency scaling ( ν4). We will show that with sufficient sensitivity across frequency channels, the Rayleigh scattering∝ signal should not only be detectable but can significantly improve constraining power for cosmological parameters, with limited or no additional modifications to planned experiments. We will provide heuristic explanations for why certain cosmological parameters benefit from measurement of the Rayleigh scattering signal, and confirm these intuitions using the Fisher formalism. In particular, observation of Rayleigh scattering P allows significant improvements on measurements of Neff and mν .

PACS numbers: Valid PACS appear here

I. INTRODUCTION direction of propagation of the (primary) CMB photons. There are various distinguishable ways that cosmic In the current era of precision cosmology, the Cosmic structures can alter the properties of CMB photons [10]. Microwave Background (CMB) has provided the most First, photons can interact with gravitational potentials. stringent constraints on the now standard model of cosmol- Two well-known examples are the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe ogy: ΛCDM. Anisotropies in the temperature of the CMB (ISW) Effect and gravitational lensing of the CMB. The have been extensively studied over the past decades [1–4]. ISW effect [11] arises when CMB photons travel through Their angular power spectrum has been measured with a time-varying gravitational potential and thereby acquire increasing accuracy, reaching cosmic variance limits on a gravitational redshift or blueshift. The gravitational potential will also modify the direction of propagation angular scales larger than ` ∼ 1500 thanks to the Planck satellite [4]. CMB polarization (both curl-free E- and of the photons. This effect, known as gravitational lens- divergence-free B-mode polarization) is another power- ing [12, 13], deflects primary CMB photons into and out ful source of information which will be targeted by the of the line of sight. It changes the statistical properties next generation of ground based CMB experiments [5–7]. of the CMB (introducing correlations between modes of Observationally, two aims of these experiments are to pre- different wavenumber). At the level of the power spec- cisely measure the E-mode polarization to much smaller trum, the acoustic peaks are smoothed out and large scale scales; and second, to search for B modes of primordial power is transferred to small scales. Another effect on origin [8, 9]. the CMB, called the moving-lens effect, is caused by the motion of gravitational potentials transverse to our line With the help of these experiments, we expect nearly of sight, and should soon be detectable [14–16]. all primary CMB temperature and E-mode fluctuations over about half of the sky and for multipoles less than Photons can also interact with cosmic structures via a few thousand to be mapped in the next decade. Even scattering off free electrons. Reionization of the Universe arXiv:2008.11688v1 [astro-ph.CO] 26 Aug 2020 though more information is carried by modes at even by the first stars produces free electrons that are responsi- smaller scales, precise measurement of those modes is ble for a suppression of temperature fluctuations on small hampered by the exponential damping of small scale scales (screening) as well as the generation of E-mode fluctuations and by astrophysical foregrounds. In an polarization on large scales (scattering) [17–19]. Both attempt to continue to develop our cosmological model scattering and screening have a linear component, but and extensions thereof, observations will need to expand can also introduce secondaries due to the patchy nature of beyond the primary CMB fluctuations well-described by reionization [20–23]. At later time, free electrons can also linear perturbation theory. Secondary anisotropies in the be encountered in hot gas in galaxy clusters where they CMB refer to fluctuations generated beyond linear order give rise to the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effects [24–27]. in perturbation theory and broadly describe interactions Improved sensitivity of current and future CMB experi- between (primary) CMB photons and cosmic structures. ments has made these secondaries forefront CMB science. These interactions typically affect the frequency, energy, or Their dual nature, both as an astrophysical nuisance and 2 as a cosmological target, requires exquisite modelling and channels, it should be possible to isolate the Rayleigh and theoretical understanding. primary CMB signals. For the purpose of this paper, In this paper, we will focus on another source of addi- we will focus on the cosmological benefits of measuring tional cosmological information: Rayleigh scattering of Rayleigh scattering, leaving the practical challenges posed the CMB [28]. Rayleigh scattering generically describes by astrophysical foregrounds to future work. the scattering of photons off neutral species, and its role With multiple CMB experiments planned in the near in the context of the CMB has been studied in various future that all will aim to map the sky in bands 50 ∼ − papers [28–31]. It is usually assumed that after recombi- 1000 GHz [5–7, 32], it is timely to both further explore nation, the Universe becomes transparent to CMB pho- the detectability and the potential applications of CMB tons. However, a small fraction of these photons can Rayleigh scattering. In the first part of this paper we scatter off neutral species formed during recombination will review the physics of Rayleigh scattering. We will leaving a characteristic imprint on the observed tempera- then present heuristic arguments for the origin of the ture and polarization power spectra. Unlike the Thomson improvements of parameter constrains that come from scattering-induced primary signal, Rayleigh scattering measuring Rayleigh scattering of the CMB. We will then is strongly frequency dependent. This makes the effect proceed to forecast both the detectability and parameter distinguishable from the primary signal. However, in an constraints for future CMB experiments. expanding Universe, the amplitude of the signal is ex- pected to dilute rapidly over time. The signal scales as 4 S(ν) σR(ν)ρ(ν), where σR(ν) ν (to lowest order) II. RAYLEIGH SCATTERING OF THE COSMIC is the∝ Rayleigh scattering cross∝ section for photons of MICROWAVE BACKGROUND 3 frequency ν, and ρ(ν) a− is the density of neutral species; photon frequencies∝ redshift with the expansion Rayleigh scattering [33] refers to the frequency- 1 of the Universe ν a− , with a the scale factor. It was dependent scattering of long-wavelength electromagnetic shown that at most∝ the Rayleigh signal can reach 3% waves by polarizable particles. The incoming wave ex- of the total intensity on the sky [29]. As a result, the cites the internal dipole of the particle which radiates in Rayleigh signal, while definitely present in the CMB for return, creating an apparent scattering. The strength a standard cosmology, has not yet been detected. of scattering scales as ν4 (to lowest order). This unique In previous studies, it was estimated that in principle frequency scaling is responsible for the sky being blue and Planck could have detected the signal at a few sigma [30], sunsets being red [34]. In this section, we will review the while future missions will definitively detect it if enough cosmological implications of this scattering mechanism frequency channels are available. In another paper [31] around recombination. further studies were performed to explore the potential of the signal for cosmology. In particular, as Rayleigh scattering peaks at a nearby but slightly later time than A. Physics of Rayleigh scattering Thomson scattering of the CMB, parameters that change the recombination history, such as the helium fraction The process of recombination is accurately described YHe, can benefit from measuring the Rayleigh signal. In and modelled by well understood physics, and the rele- addition, the delayed Rayleigh scattering can in princi- vant atomic properties have been extensively studied in ple also provide a better measurement of the expansion laboratory experiments [35–40]. The most basic model history around recombination, allowing for improved mea- is described by only two quantities: the number density surements of the matter densities in the Universe. of free electrons in the plasma ne and the Thomson scat- Together with the improved parameter constraints and tering cross section σT . Before recombination, photons the rising costs of extracting further information from were kept in thermal equilibrium with the plasma through the primary CMB, we argue that there is a very strong Thomson scattering ensuring that their mean free path motivation to detect the Rayleigh scattering spectrum remained much smaller than the Hubble horizon. with future CMB experiments. In principle, no special As the Universe expanded and cooled, the formation instrumentation is required to extract the signal, and of neutral atoms was thermally favored and the number in that sense, an experiment already equipped to mea- density of free electrons dropped significantly. This made sure the primary signal will be suitable to measure the Thomson scattering events less likely and increased the Rayleigh signal as long as multiple frequency channels photon mean free path in the plasma. Photons eventually are available. Among the main obstacles in measuring experienced a last scattering event. We define the visibility τ the Rayleigh signal are galactic and extra-galactic astro- function g(z) τe˙ − , where τ˙ is the comoving opacity physical foregrounds. Unfortunately, these foregrounds and τ the optical≡ depth. The visibility, shown in Fig. 2, also have a strong scaling with frequency, where both the should be interpreted as the probability distribution of Cosmic Infrared Background (CIB) and (polarized) dust the last scattering event. will be the main sources of confusion. On the other hand, Once the Universe became sufficiently neutral, photons we do in principle know how these foreground components free-streamed and were unlikely to experience scattering scale with frequency, and by combining multiple frequency until the Universe became reionized as stars and galaxies 3 formed at much lower redshift (z . 10)[41]. However, Redshift z recombination also produced hydrogen and helium by 3915 2421 1693 1269 994 804 666 546 481 417 366 which photons can also be scattered through Rayleigh Thomson scattering 100 Rayleigh Scattering 750Ghz scattering. This process is governed by the Rayleigh ]

1 Rayleigh Scattering 500Ghz scattering cross section that can be written as [30, 31]: − Rayleigh Scattering 250Ghz

Mpc 2 2 [ 10− ˙ ∞ ν2 τ (1) σR(ν) = σT f1j 2 2 ,  ν ν  4 j=2 1j 10− X −   where ν1j and f1j are the Lyman series frequencies and 6 oscillator strengths and σT is the Thomson scattering 10− cross section. Note that the cross section for Rayleigh Comoving opacity scattering depends on the frequency of the photons while 8 10− Thomson scattering does not. 120 200 300 400 500 600 Around recombination, it is a good approximation to Conformal time η [Mpc] treat typical CMB photons as having frequency much smaller than any of the Lyman series transitions. By 6 FIG. 1. Contributions to the comoving opacity for Thom- defining νeff = 8/9R c 3.102 10 GHz 12.83 eV, ∞ ≈ × ≈ son scattering (black) and Rayleigh scattering for different with R the Rydberg constant, we can expand Eq. (1) 4 ∞ p frequencies at the leading ν order. Dotted lines represent as follows: contributions including both ν4 and ν6 orders. The vertical ν 4 ν 6 ν 8 dashed line shows the last scattering surface. σR(ν) σT + α + β + ... , ≈ ν ν ν " eff   eff   eff  # (2) where RHe 0.1 accounts for Rayleigh scattering by where α 2.626 and β 5.502 (exact values can be Helium atoms≈ being less efficient than Hydrogen [30, 31]. ≈ ≈ 4 found in [30]). We recover the leading ν scaling (which Note that heavier elements as well as ionized species is familiar from scattering of solar photons by our atmo- also scatter photons but their contribution to Rayleigh sphere) with higher-order contributions becoming relevant scattering is suppressed by their low abundance. Fig. 1 at higher frequencies. After recombination, densities of shows the evolution of the comoving opacity τ˙ for 3 the neutral species will evolve as (1 + z) and the fre- both Thomson and Rayleigh scattering as a function quency of CMB photons as (1+z), making the probability of redshift. The Rayleigh scattering opacity increases of Rayleigh scattering (1 + z)7 (at leading order). Con- ∝ around recombination (z ∼ 1100) as neutral hydrogen sequently, Rayleigh scattering events remain localised becomes more abundant and decreases after recombina- around recombination. tion ( (1 + z)7) when the photon frequency redshifts Notice that on average, Rayleigh scattering is as likely and neutral∝ hydrogen becomes more dilute. to scatter photons into our line of sight as it is to scatter photons out of our line of sight. As a result, there is no b. Shift of the visibility function The visibility func- monopolar distortion of the CMB frequency spectrum tion is defined as: due to Rayleigh scattering, just as Thomson scattering by τ free electrons present after reionization does not change g (z) =τe ˙ − . (4) the mean temperature of the CMB. Rayleigh scattering induces two major changes to the Due to Rayleigh scattering, the visibility function recombination history. First, it increases the overall cou- becomes frequency dependent. More importantly, since pling between baryons and photons, and second, it intro- the total coupling between baryons and photons is duces a frequency dependence. We will briefly review the increased, the last scattering event (irrespective of it consequences of these changes in the next section. being Thomson scattering on a free electron or Rayleigh scattering on a neutral species) will be shifted towards later times. This leads to a (frequency-dependent) shift B. Effects of Rayleigh scattering on the of the visibility function towards later times (lower recombination history. redshift), as illustrated in Fig. 2.

a. Increased comoving opacity Including Rayleigh c. Increase of diffusion damping The amplitude scattering in the CMB photons Boltzmann equation in- of diffusion damping [42] is directly controlled by the creases the comoving opacity in a frequency-dependent photon mean free path in the plasma. The shorter the way, i.e. mean free path, the smaller the effect. As described earlier, the photon mean free path is shortened by τ˙ = an σ e T Rayleigh scattering which reduces the diffusion length τ˙(ν) = aneσT + a(nH + R n )σR(ν), (3) → He He and consequently the amplitude of diffusion damping. 4

Redshift z 1693 1269 1088 804 666

1140 Thomson scattering Rayleigh Scattering 750Ghz 1120 Rayleigh Scattering 500Ghz 1100

1080

1060

1040

Visibility 1036

1035

1034 Thomson scattering 1033 Rayleigh scattering 4 Peak of the visibility function [Redshift] 200.0 250.0 280.7 350.0 400.0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Conformal time η [Mpc] Frequency [GHz]

FIG. 2. Left: Changes to the visibility function g(z) = τe˙ −τ due to Rayleigh scattering for two frequencies. Rayleigh scattering tends to move the peak of the visibility function (i.e. the surface of last scattering) towards lower redshift. Dashed lines correspond to the (normalized) contributions of Rayleigh scattering to the total visibility (solid). Right: Location of the peak of the visibility function for the Thomson (dashed black) and Rayleigh (solid red) scattering terms.

While this holds at low frequency, at higher frequency, an increase of diffusion damping. Rayleigh scattering also shifts the visibility function On large angular scales, Rayleigh scattering pri- towards later times where diffusion Damping is stronger • (the mean free path globally increases with time after marily affects the E-mode polarization signal. By recombination) leading to an overall increase in the shifting the last scattering surface towards lower red- amplitude of diffusion Damping. shifts, where the local quadrupole is larger, Rayleigh scattering boosts the large scale E-mode signal. d. Frequency-dependent sound horizon at last scat- Rayleigh scattering introduces frequency depen- tering As mentioned above, the last scattering surface • dence in the size of the sound horizon, leading to a becomes frequency dependent due to Rayleigh scattering. shift in the location of the acoustic peaks, both in Therefore the size of the sound horizon at last scattering temperature and E-mode polarization spectra. also becomes frequency dependent, being larger at higher frequencies. The size of the sound horizon dictates the Fig. 3 shows the fractional differences introduced by location of the acoustic peaks in both the matter and the Rayleigh scattering on the TT , TE, and EE CMB spec- CMB power spectra, a larger sound horizon shifts the tra.1 acoustic peaks towards larger scales.

e. Frequency-dependent amplitude of polarization sig- C. Modeling Rayleigh scattering distortions nal CMB radiation is weakly linearly polarized [43–47]. CMB polarization can be projected onto two orthogonal In the range of frequencies of interest for cosmological modes, the familiar curl-free E and gradient-free B polar- analysis (ν [20, 800] GHz), Refs. [30, 31] showed that ization modes. While primary B modes are not generated the distortions∈ induced by Rayleigh scattering can be at linear order by primordial density perturbations, E accurately captured by an additional random variable modes are sourced by scalar fluctuations as scattering for each term in Eq. (2). In this section, we present the of quadrupole temperature anisotropies present around model we will use throughout this article and leave the recombination produce linear polarization. The shift of discussion on additional choices to Appendix A. the visibility function induced by Rayleigh scattering Power spectra are defined in terms of the angular mul- increases the amplitude of the local temperature tipoles of the signal of interest: quadrupole around the time of recombination, leading to a boost in E modes on large scales as presented in Fig. 3. CXY = aX aY , (5) ` h `m `mi To summarize, Rayleigh scattering is responsible for:

A damping of small scales anisotropies both in tem- 1 All the CMB spectra used in this article have been computed • perature and E-mode polarization. This is due to using the Rayleigh branch of CAMB, http://camb.info [48]. 5

1e 4 50 GHz 500 GHz 3 3 2

] ] 2 % % [ [

1

Y Y 1 Y Y C C

X 0 X X X 0 C C

/ 1 / Y Y

X X 1 C C 2 TT 2 TT EE EE 3 TE 3 TE

101 102 103 101 102 103

 XY p XX YY  FIG. 3. Fractional difference δC` / C` C` induced by Rayleigh spectra in lensed TT , TE, and EE CMB spectra. On small scales, both TT and EE experience additional damping by Rayleigh scattering. On large scales, the auto spectrum of E mode polarization is boosted. Oscillations are due to the shift in the location of the acoustic peaks induced by Rayleigh scattering. Dashed lines include the effects of the ν6 term, which is negligible for the frequencies considered. where X and Y can be T or E (we don’t include B-modes to power spectra that can be written as [30] in this analysis since they are either sourced by gravita- XY X Y tional lensing or tensor fluctuations which are respectively C` (ν1, ν2) = a`m (ν1) a`m (ν2) not impacted by Rayleigh scattering and not yet detected). 4 XY 1 4 X∆Y4 4 ∆X4Y When we include Rayleigh scattering, these quantities be- = C` + ν1 C` + ν2 C` ν0 come frequency dependent. Our first approach consists   h i 1 6 in adding distortions to the primary signals at each fre- 6 X∆Y6 6 ∆X6Y + ν1 C` + ν2 C` quency [30], i.e., ν0   h i 1 8 + ν8CX∆Y8 + ν8C∆X8Y ν 1 ` 2 `  0  h4 i 4 6 ν1ν2 ∆X4∆Y4 X X ν X,4 ν X,6 + 2 C` + ... (7) a`m (ν) ∼ a`m+ ∆a`m + ∆a`m +..., (6) ν0 ν0 ν0   h i     The first term in this expansion is the primary CMB, sourced by Thomson scattering. the following three are cross-correlation spectra between the primary CMB and

X,4 X,6 the Rayleigh scattering signal. The last term gives the where ν0 is a reference frequency and ∆a`m and ∆a`m Rayleigh scattering auto-spectrum from the first term in account for the distortions introduced by Rayleigh scat- Eq. (2). We display each of these contributions in Fig. 4. X tering to the primary signal a`m. At very high frequencies Fig. 4 also shows that the Rayleigh signal lies signifi- (ν & 800GHz), higher order terms will become important cantly below the primary signal, indicating that it will be and so will the frequency dependence of the optical depth challenging to detect. The cross spectra will initially be around recombination. This will break the assumption the most promising way to observe Rayleigh scattering. that Rayleigh scattering acts as a linear perturbation as in In particular, TE cross-spectra would further benefit Eq. (6). However at these frequencies there are very few from limited foreground contamination. We leave a more CMB photons due to the blackbody nature of the CMB detailed discussion of detectability to Section IV. radiation. Furthermore, bright galactic and extra-galactic foregrounds will likely restrict use of such high frequencies to measure the Rayleigh signal, and we do not consider them further in this work. III. RAYLEIGH SCATTERING AND COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETERS For the remainder of this discussion we will therefore assume the effect of Rayleigh scattering on the CMB power The frequency dependence of Rayleigh scattering re- spectra can be accurately modeled by Eq. (6). This leads sults in different CMB power spectra at each observed 6

500 GHz 750 GHz 104 104

103 103 ] ] 2 2 102 102 µK µK [ [ 101 101 TT TT ` ` 100 100 πC πC 2 2

/ 1 / 1 10− 10− + 1) + 1) 2 Primary CMB 2 Primary CMB

` 10− ` 10−

( ν4 Rayleigh cross spectrum ( ν4 Rayleigh cross spectrum ` ` ν6 Rayleigh cross spectrum ν6 Rayleigh cross spectrum 10 3 10 3 − ν4 Rayleigh auto spectrum − ν4 Rayleigh auto spectrum ν8 Rayleigh cross spectrum ν8 Rayleigh cross spectrum 4 4 10− 10− 101 102 103 101 102 103 ` `

FIG. 4. Various terms in the Rayleigh scattering spectra expansion (Eq. (7)) for two frequencies: 500 GHz (left), 750 GHz (right). Shown are TT spectra: primary CMB (black), ν4 Rayleigh cross spectrum (red), ν6 Rayleigh cross-spectrum (orange), ν4 Rayleigh auto spectrum (blue), and ν8 Rayleigh cross-spectrum (yellow). Solid lines in the cross-spectra show negative correlation and dotted lines positive correlation.

scattering on the CMB, and we will provide a heuristic description of where the additional constraining power 100 TT comes from. In Sec. IV, we will provide quantitative EE 75 statements about how much improvement can be derived from observation of Rayleigh scattering with future CMB 50 ] experiments. % [ 25 One possibility provided by observation of Rayleigh n o i scattering is access to a set of independent primordial t 0 a l fluctuations, but making use of these new modes would e

r 25 r require a measurement of the uncorrelated Rayleigh scat- o

C 50 tering component, a task which is extremely difficult to achieve especially in the presence of foregrounds [30]. 75 There is still much to be gained by observation of the 100 correlated component of Rayleigh scattering which was 101 102 103 sourced by the same primordial fluctuations as the pri- mary CMB fluctuations. We will focus here on the benefits provided by measuring the correlated component, since FIG. 5. Correlation coefficient of the primary-Rayleigh cross q that is much more tractable in the presence of foregrounds spectrum (defined as r C∆X4X / CXX C∆X4∆X4 ) for X = and is a goal within reach of near-future experiments. ≡ ` ` ` T (blue) and X = E (red) and for two frequencies, 50 GHz It has previously been shown that measurement of the (dashed) and 500 GHz (solid). In polarization, large scales are effects of Rayleigh scattering on the CMB can significantly boosted because of the larger local temperature quadrupole improve the measurement of the primordial helium abun- near the peak of the Rayleigh scattering visibility function, dance [31]. This is due to the fact that at the relevant hence the positive correlation. Large scales in temperatures are frequencies, the Rayleigh scattering cross section with partly (anti-) correlated at lower frequencies and uncorrelated helium is much lower than that of hydrogen (see Eqs. (1) at higher frequencies where the shift in the visibility function becomes substantial. On small scales, Rayleigh scattering and (3)). As a result, the amplitude of the Rayleigh distortions are anti-correlated with the primary CMB. scattering effects on the CMB scale inversely with the primordial helium abundance. This scaling would allow one to use observations of CMB Rayleigh scattering to constrain YHe even if there were no other effects on the frequency. These changes of the spectra with frequency spectra that resulted from changing YHe. In fact, changes provide some additional information which can be used to the primordial helium abundance alter the damping to constrain cosmological parameters. In this section, we scale of the CMB power spectra [49–51], and as we will will describe which parameters are expected to be more discuss below, this provides another way in which mea- tightly constrained by observing the effects of Rayleigh surements of Rayleigh scattering can better constrain the 7 primordial helium abundance. Furthermore, dark mat- at late times that is usually required to make a good ter which efficiently scatters with baryons in the early neutrino mass measurement with CMB data [7, 32, 57]; Universe (such as milli-charged dark matter) can mimic see Table IV. This allows for the possibility that a high some of the effects of primordial helium in the CMB [52], significance detection of the minimal sum of neutrino but such dark matter would not be expected to exhibit masses ( mν 60 meV) could be made with the data Rayleigh scattering and could therefore be distinguished from a single CMB' experiment, without the need for ex- through the frequency dependence of CMB power spectra. ternal data,P if it is capable of utilizing Rayleigh scattering We can gain another handle on cosmological parameters information. from Rayleigh scattering due to the fact that the peak The diffusion damping length of cosmological fluctua- of the visibility function for Rayleigh scattering occurs tions provides another physical scale whose angular size at a lower (frequency-dependent) redshift than that for can be measured in the CMB and that will differ for Thomson scattering (see Fig. 2 and Sec. II). As a result, pure Thomson scattering and the Rayleigh scattered com- any physics which causes a feature at a particular length ponent. The damping length is determined by the free scale will result in a feature at a different angular scale electron fraction, expansion history, and baryon fraction in the CMB for Thomson scattering than for Rayleigh prior to recombination [51, 58]. Since the energy density scattering. One example is provided by the positions of of relativistic species determines the expansion rate at the acoustic peaks in the CMB spectra. The comoving early times, the damping tail is especially sensitive to the size of the sound horizon at the redshift corresponding parameter Neff , which describes the density of light relics. to the peak of the Thomson scattering visibility func- The positions of acoustic peaks on small angular scales are ? tion is rs . The spacing between acoustic peaks in the also impacted by a phase shift imparted by fluctuations in Thomson scattering spectrum is therefore expected to the density of free-streaming light relics [50, 59], which in ? ? ? ? be ∆` πDA/rs π/θs where DA is the angular diam- principle gives an extra handle on N that can provide ' ≡ eff eter distance to the peak of the visibility function due improved constraints when measuring Rayleigh scatter- to Thomson scattering [53]. The peak positions will be ing. As shown in Sec. IV and Table IV, measurements of different for the Rayleigh scattered photons, for which Rayleigh scattering can provide modest improvements to R R? R? ∆` (ν) πDA (ν)/rs (ν) where the superscript R refers constraints on N . Even small improvements in the error ' eff to the Rayleigh scattered component. Both the size of on Neff are extremely valuable, since the energy scale of the comoving sound horizon and the angular diameter dis- the new physics that can be probed with such measure- tance to a particular redshift depend on the cosmological ments is a very non-linear function of σ(Neff )[60]. The history exponential suppression of small scale CMB fluctuations z means that it will be very challenging to significantly ∞ dz dz r (z) = c (z) ,DA(z) = , (8) improve constraints on cosmological parameters like N s H(z) s H(z) eff Zz Z0 that are best measured with the damping tail by simply adding more detectors to CMB telescopes after the upcom- where cs(z) is the sound speed at redshift z. Measure- ment of both the primary CMB fluctuations and (cross- ing generation of experiments [7, 32]. Measurements of correlation with) the Rayleigh scattered component there- Rayleigh scattering thereby provide an important new av- fore provides additional information about the cosmolog- enue by which to pursue improvements on measurements ical parameters which affect the expansion history and of the light relic density. sound speed. As another example, one of the ways in which we can infer the density of non-relativistic matter in the early IV. FORECASTS FOR FUTURE GENERATION Universe is to measure the difference in amplitude of OF EXPERIMENTS fluctuations which entered the horizon before and after matter-radiation equality [53–56]. The angular multipole at which this transition appears in the primary CMB A. Detectability spectra is ` k D? where k is wavenumber of a cos- eq ∼ eq A eq mological fluctuation which enters the sound horizon at In order to assess the detectability of Rayleigh scatter- matter-radiation equality. For the Rayleigh scattered spec- ing by future experiments, we will present Fisher fore- R R? tra, this transition instead occurs at `eq(ν) keqDA (ν). casts using realistic noise levels of several proposed and R ∼ Identifying both `eq and `eq(ν) can therefore better con- planned CMB experiments. We will ignore astrophysi- strain the parameters which affect the matter-radiation cal foregrounds and instrument systematics for now, but 2 equality scale (like Ωch and Neff ) and help to break de- we do include the effect of the Earth’s atmosphere for generacies that are present with only primary CMB mea- ground-based experiments. In a forthcoming publication, surements. This is particularly beneficial for constraints we will explore component separation techniques to deal on the sum of neutrino masses mν , since the additional with astrophysical foregrounds and systematics mitigation 2 constraining power on Ωch around the time of recombi- to extract the Rayleigh scattering signal. In this section, nation can nearly obviate the needP for low-redshift BAO we will also neglect ν6 and higher order corrections in measurements to infer the non-relativistic matter density Eq. (6), which will have negligible effects on the forecasts. 8

1. Fisher matrix formalism measured. Each entry of these matrices are defined in Eq. (7), truncated to keep only the ν4 auto- and cross- ET TE T Throughout this paper, all the forecasts will be car- spectra. We note that C` = C` , leaving the full ried out using the Fisher matrix formalism [61]. This covariance matrix positive definite. This covariance ma- formalism assumes a Gaussian likelihood and although trix allows us to compute the Fisher information
matrix it may not represent the true likelihood, it provides a defined in Eq. (11), where, in this case, the derivatives fast and accurate method for computing how well future are taken with respect to the cross-spectra experiments can constrain parameters (see e.g. [62] for an example of an implementation). Assuming a likelihood Ccross,T T C∆T4T , ` ≡ ` (θ d) where θ is the vector of (cosmological) parameters, cross,EE ∆E E L | C C 4 , d the data vector, and the theoretical covariance is C(θ), ` ≡ ` the likelihood reads Ccross,T E CT ∆E4 , ` ≡ ` cross,ET E∆T4 (14) 1 1 1 C` C` . (θ d) exp d† (C(θ))− d . (9) ≡ L | ∝ C −2 det( (θ))   The total signal-to-noise ratio of the cross correlation between the primary CMB and the Rayleigh scattering The fisher matrixp is defined as [61]: signal is then given by

2 ∂ log 1/2 Fij L . (10) T ≡ − ∂θiθj SNR = S F S , (15) * θ=θ0 + ` ` ` " · · # ` Combining Eqs. (9) and (10), we can write the Fisher X cross,T T cross,EE cross,T E cross,ET matrix for a CMB experiment as where S` C` C` C` C` and F is defined≡ in Eq. (11). `
1 1 ∂C` 1 ∂C` Fij,` = Tr (C`)− (C`)− . (11) 2 ∂θi ∂θj   3. Next generation CMB experiments Since each value of ` corresponds to fsky(2` + 1) inde- pendent modes (where fsky is the sky coverage of the Despite several experiments targeting CMB experiment), the total fisher information is given by anisotropies both on larger scales from space (Planck satellite [4]) and on smaller scales from the ground Fij = fsky(2` + 1)Fij,`. (12) (SPT [63], ACT [64]), there has not been a detection of ` X cosmological Rayleigh scattering. Planck in principle has the sensitivity to detect the signal [30], but it is likely We will take the θ to be amplitudes of the spectra i astrophysical foregrounds and the limited sensitivity when assessing detectability, and when forecasting pa- in polarization has prevented a significant detection. rameter constraints, the θ will refer to the cosmological i The next generation of CMB experiments, which will parameters. be composed of both ground and space-based surveys, will have much better polarization sensitivity and their 2. Detecting cross-correlation frequency coverage will allow a better treatment of astro- physical foregrounds on small scales. The experiments that we consider in this paper are CCAT-prime [65] and First, we will forecast the detectability of the cross- Simons Observatory (SO) [8] which are two ground-based correlations between the primary and the Rayleigh sig- experiments. We have also included forecasts for a nal using the frequency covariance matrix [30]. As pre- Stage-4 CMB experiment (CMB-S4) [7] as well as sented in Fig. 4, the most likely avenue to detect the faint LiteBIRD [66] and PICO [32] (see Appendix B for Rayleigh scattering signal is through its cross-correlation further details on these experiments). Forecasts for these with the primary CMB. In practice, this would be achieved experiments are summarised in Table I. by looking for a frequency-dependent correlation between First of all, we note that space based telescopes are a low frequency map (with negligible contribution from better suited to look for Rayleigh scattering, especially Rayleigh scattering) and a foreground-cleaned high fre- in temperature. LiteBIRD should improve on Planck by quency map. We write almost an order of magnitude, while PICO would have TT TE the necessary sensitivity and frequency coverage to signifi- C` C` Cνν = , (13) cantly detect all four distinct primary-Rayleigh scattering ` ET EE C` C` ! cross-correlations. Ground-based experiments are heavily impacted by the atmosphere which hampers measurement XY where each C are Nν Nν frequency-covariance ma- of large scale fluctuations, especially in temperature, as ` × trices, where Nν is the number of frequencies that are observed in Fig. 6. To assess what limits observations 9

Primary T x RS T spectrum

0 Primary T x RS E spectrum 0.00

1.5 PLANCK 0.015 5 0.05 CCAT 1.0 SO LAT 0.010 10 0.10

0.5 0.005 PLANCK 0.15 Cross spectra 15 S/N per mode Cross spectra CCAT 0.0 0.000 S/N per mode 0.20 SO LAT 20 0.5 0.005 4 4.7 0.3 0.1 0.3 2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.4 0 Cumulative S/N 0.0 Cumulative S/N 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Primary E x RS T spectrum Primary E x RS E spectrum

0.75 0.06 PLANCK 0.1 PLANCK 0.04 0.50 CCAT CCAT 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.25 SO LAT SO LAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.1

0.25 0.04 0.01 Cross spectra Cross spectra S/N per mode 0.2 S/N per mode 0.50 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.75 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.6

0.0 0.0 Cumulative S/N Cumulative S/N 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

FIG. 6. Detectability of the 4 primary Rayleigh cross power spectra for 3 experiments : Planck (red), CCAT-prime (orange) and SO large aperture telescope (dark red).× Because of the large atmospheric noise on large scales, ground based experiment do not perform well in temperature. However, they provide a significant improvement over Planck in polarization. from the ground, we also present how a change in the num- presents the Fisher forecasts for the four primary-Rayleigh ber of detectors Ndet and a lowering of the so-called `knee cross power spectra for SO and CCAT-prime compared affects the detectability for CCAT-prime. These quanti- with Planck in the absence of foregrounds. The total ties will affect the noise level directly (see Eq. (B1)). The signal-to-noise for Planck, CCAT-prime, and SO are 4.8σ, white noise level Nwhite scales linearly with the number of 0.67σ, and 0.97σ respectively. Combining the three ex- detectors while `knee controls the transition scale between periments and properly accounting for overlapping sky the multipoles where the noise is dominated by the at- coverage, yields a total signal-to-noise of 5.2σ. This mod- mospheric contribution and the instrument contribution. est improvement from including ground based surveys In polarization, Nred = Nwhite which means that a larger could have a large impact as it comes with both some number of detectors in the focal plane (or equivalently a signal in polarization and improved measurements of fore- longer integration time) will improve measurements on ground properties which is substantial in looking for a all scales. `knee is expected to decrease with altitude as first detection of Rayleigh scattering. the atmosphere becomes more dilute. Also, at the south pole, where SPT is located, a lower `knee is observed [67]). The CCAT-prime noise model is currently calibrated on available ACT measurements. However CCAT-prime will be located at a site 500 m above ACT, likely making our B. Parameter forecasts treatment of `knee for CCAT-prime conservative. While ground-based observations will most likely need to be combined with satellite observations to detect In this section we forecast the expected improvements Rayleigh scattering, they will provide useful information to parameter constraints that come from including the in polarization. They will also map foregrounds on small Rayleigh scattering signal for future CMB experiments. scales which will help characterizing them and eventually We start by presenting the methodology used as well as mitigating their impact on cosmological analyses. Fig. 6 the assumed fiducial cosmology. 10

Planck SO LAT CCAT-prime CCAT-prime : `knee/2 CCAT-prime : 2 Ndet CMB-S4 LiteBIRD PICO × TCMB TRS 4.7 0.7 0.3 1.2 0.3 2.0 25 715 × ECMB ERS 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.8 1.4 45 × TCMB ERS 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 1.0 0.9 30 × ECMB TRS 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 10 195 × TABLE I. Forecasted signal-to-noise ratio for detecting Rayleigh scattering for the four cross correlations for a set of CMB experiments. Ground-based experiments, although severely impacted by the effects of the earth’s atmosphere when observing temperature anisotropies on large scales, will outperform Planck in polarization.

1. Forecast design masses mν , and modifications to the primordial helium abundance YHe. Fiducial values are taken from [4] and P Forecasts carried out it this paper closely follow the summarized in Tab. II together with the step size used for methodology described in [62] in particular using the numerical derivatives. Unless otherwise stated, forecasted errors are marginalized over the other parameters of the Fisher formalism defined in Sec. IV A 1 where θi, θj are CDM model. the cosmological parameters of interest and C` is the Λ frequency-covariance matrix that includes auto- and cross- When stated, we will combine our CMB experiment spectra both in temperature and polarization as well as the with baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) constraints from lensing potential spectrum φφ. Since Rayleigh scattering a DESI-like galaxy survey [69]. This is done by simply C` tot BAO CMB is a frequency-dependent effect, all frequency auto- and adding the BAO Fisher matrix, F = F + F , cross-spectra have to be carefully accounted for. Spectra since the observations are independent. This will improve are modified according to Eq. (7) keeping only ν4 terms. constraints on the sum of the neutrino masses as well as Therefore, the total covariance matrix reads: the densities and the Hubble parameter. Details of BAO fisher matrix are given in Appendix B 7. TT TT TE Furthermore, we use lensed CMB spectra (unless speci- C` + N` C` 0 ET EE EE fied otherwise). Regarding the cut-off scale `max, we will C` = C C + N 0 , (16)  ` ` `  first assume it is the same in polarization and temperature 0 0 Cφφ + N φφ  ` `  and take `max = 5000. This will allow a direct compar-   TT TE ET EE ison with results from [62]. Astrophysical foregrounds where C` , C` , C` , and C` are Nν Nν frequency- in temperature are significant at larger scales, and are covariance matrices. Similarly, noise power× spectra NTT ` comparable to the CMB power around ` 3000, so we and NEE are diagonal matrices defining the ` Nν Nν show also forecasts which use `T = 3000∼. In that case, noise in temperature× and polarization at each frequency. max we will also conservatively cut TE spectra at `max = 3000. We will compare forecasts including Rayleigh scattering We finally present forecasts for cosmic variance limited with ones including only the primary CMB. We forecast observations of the primary CMB on the full sky up to the primary-only constraints by creating a single effective ` = 5000 for comparison. channel in temperature and polarization with an inverse max variance weighted noise given by

1 2. Results N − 1 XX XX − N` = N`,i . (17) i=1 ! The only experiment we will consider for parameter X
forecasts is the proposed PICO satellite (see Appendix B 6 XX Where N`,i are the noise spectra at each frequency. The for details of the experiment). Thanks to a broad and φφ error on the reconstructed gravitational potential, N` , dense frequency coverage, PICO provides an example of is estimated following [68] and its public implementation an experiment which would greatly benefit from using in quicklens2. Following guidelines in [62], we will Rayleigh scattering as an additional source of cosmological only use the EB estimator since, for the noise levels information. Results of our forecasts are presented in considered, it provides the lowest noise estimates. Tab. III and IV. a. ΛCDM forecasts As discussed in Sec. III, Rayleigh We consider constraints on the 6 parameters that define scattering can be particularly useful to constrain param- the ΛCDM cosmology. We also show forecasts for three eters that affect a physical distance scale in the early extensions to ΛCDM: changes to the light relic density Universe. Indeed, this distance scale will project to parameterized by Neff , changes to the sum of neutrino different angular scales at last scattering for different frequencies. A first example is the comoving size of the sound horizon which is affected by baryon and dark 2 2 matter densities Ωbh and Ωch . A better measurement 2 https://github.com/dhanson/quicklens of the sound horizon would also provide a better measure- 11

Parameter Fiducial value Step size 2 −4 Ωbh 0.02237 8 10 2 × −3 Ωch 0.120 3 10 9 × 10 As 2.099 0.1

ns 0.9649 0.01

H0 [km/s/Mpc] 67.3 0.5 τ 0.0544 0.02

Neff 3.046 0.08 P mν [meV] 60 10

YHe 0.2477 0.04

TABLE II. Fiducial values of the cosmological parameters considered in this analysis along with step sizes used for numerical derivatives.

2 2 9 Ωbh Ωch H0[km/s/Mpc] 10 As ns τ Volume PICO no Rayleigh 2.30 10−5 2.30 10−4 8.78 10−2 6.48 10−3 1.27 10−3 1.77 10−3 1.0 × × × × × × PICO with Rayleigh 1.91 10−5 2.14 10−4 7.85 10−2 6.07 10−3 1.17 10−3 1.67 10−3 0.73 Reference case × × × × × × Improvement 16.98% 6.92% 10.52% 6.36% 7.61% 5.51% 28% Primary-only CVL 7.94 10−6 1.61 10−4 6.06 10−2 5.21 10−3 7.02 10−4 1.43 10−3 9.5 10−3 × × × × × × × PICO no Rayleigh 2.43 10−5 2.38 10−4 9.09 10−2 6.50 10−3 1.32 10−3 1.77 10−3 1.82 × −5 × −4 × −2 × −3 × −3 × −3 T PICO with Rayleigh 2.00 10 2.22 10 8.10 10 6.08 10 1.21 10 1.68 10 1.29 `max = 3000 × × × × × × Improvement 17.70% 6.99% 10.92% 6.43% 8.23% 5.45% 29% Primary-only CVL 1.10 10−5 1.69 10−4 6.23 10−2 5.28 10−3 9.08 10−4 1.46 10−3 3.1 10−2 × × × × × × × PICO no Rayleigh 2.30 10−5 1.91 10−4 7.29 10−2 5.87 10−3 1.21 10−3 1.56 10−3 0.8 × × × × × × PICO with Rayleigh 1.90 10−5 1.82 10−4 6.66 10−2 5.60 10−3 1.10 10−3 1.50 10−3 0.61 With DESI BAO × × × × × × Improvement 17.51% 4.73% 8.62% 4.64% 8.80% 3.52% 26% Primary-only CVL 7.89 10−6 1.45 10−4 5.45 10−2 4.81 10−3 6.67 10−4 1.31 10−3 8.5 10−3 × × × × × × × PICO no Rayleigh 1.98 10−5 2.31 10−4 8.59 10−2 6.52 10−3 1.23 10−3 1.73 10−3 0.67 × × × × × × PICO with Rayleigh 1.71 10−5 2.15 10−4 7.77 10−2 6.12 10−3 1.12 10−3 1.65 10−3 0.51 With unlensed spectra × × × × × × Improvement 13.76% 6.85% 9.57% 6.15% 8.31% 4.96% 24% Primary-only CVL 6.62 10−6 1.48 10−4 5.38 10−2 5.02 10−3 6.51 10−4 1.35 10−3 3.1 10−3 × × × × × × × PICO no Rayleigh 2.31 10−5 2.30 10−4 8.79 10−2 6.49 10−3 1.26 10−3 1.77 10−3 1.0 × × × × × × PICO with Rayleigh 1.92 10−5 2.14 10−4 7.85 10−2 6.07 10−3 1.17 10−3 1.67 10−3 0.73 Fixing YHe by BBN × × × × × × Improvement 16.84% 7.07% 10.71% 6.45% 7.54% 5.62% 27% Primary-only CVL 8.00 10−6 1.61 10−4 6.07 10−2 5.22 10−3 7.01 10−4 1.44 10−3 0.01 × × × × × × PICO no Rayleigh 2.39 10−5 2.83 10−4 1.08 10−1 6.62 10−3 1.40 10−3 1.77 10−3 1.79 × −5 × −4 × −2 × −3 × −3 × −3 φφ PICO with Rayleigh 1.93 10 2.48 10 9.09 10 6.34 10 1.31 10 1.68 10 1.21 Not including C` × × × × × × Improvement 19.29% 12.28% 16.11% 4.24% 6.69% 5.28% 33% Primary-only CVL 1.02 10−5 1.75 10−4 6.57 10−2 5.35 10−3 9.88 10−4 1.45 10−3 0.06 × × × × × × TABLE III. 1-σ errors on ΛCDM parameters. Errors are quoted as marginalized over the remaining parameters. Parameter volume is normalized to the reference case and computed as the square root of the determinant of the parameter-covariance matrix.

1 1/2 ment of the Hubble parameter H0. Our forecasts show det F− where F is the Fisher matrix defined improved constraints on these parameters in the first 3 in∝ Eq. 12 . Typically, including Rayleigh scattering to columns of Tab. III. The improvement on the last three the reference
 case provides a similar reduction to the parameters is attributed to the breaking of degeneracies addition of BAO information from DESI. made possible by including Rayleigh scattering (for example, we can observe the ns contours changing when including Rayleigh information in Fig. 9). We also b. Forecasts including extensions to ΛCDM We have observe a reduction of the parameter volume, defined as considered three extensions to ΛCDM : Neff , YHe, and mν . As expected from Sec. III, the primordial helium P 12

P Neff mν [meV] YHe PICO no Rayleigh 3.06 10−2 35.9 1.67 10−3 × × PICO with Rayleigh 2.81 10−2 16.7 1.44 10−3 Reference case × × Improvement 8.21% 53.55% 13.75% Primary-only CVL 9.68 10−3 21.0 5.83 10−4 × × PICO no Rayleigh 3.60 10−2 36.6 2.08 10−3 × −2 × −3 T PICO with Rayleigh 3.24 10 16.7 1.73 10 `max = 3000 × × Improvement 9.96% 54.27% 16.76% Primary-only CVL 1.82 10−2 27.7 1.13 10−3 × × PICO no Rayleigh 2.85 10−2 11.5 1.65 10−3 × × PICO with Rayleigh 2.63 10−2 10.1 1.41 10−3 With DESI BAO × × Improvement 7.72% 11.85% 14.56% Primary-only CVL 9.47 10−3 9.70 5.79 10−4 × × PICO no Rayleigh 2.41 10−2 33.8 1.32 10−3 × × PICO with Rayleigh 2.28 10−2 16.4 1.25 10−3 With unlensed spectra × × Improvement 5.15% 51.48% 5.65% Primary-only CVL 8.04 10−3 17.3 4.84 10−4 × × PICO no Rayleigh 2.48 10−2 35.9 .. × PICO with Rayleigh 2.31 10−2 16.1 .. Fixing YHe by BBN × Improvement 6.85% 55.00% .. Primary-only CVL 7.88 10−3 21.0 .. × PICO no Rayleigh 3.50 10−2 37.8 1.91 10−3 × −2 × −3 φφ PICO with Rayleigh 3.04 10 17.4 1.49 10 Not including C` × × Improvement 13.05% 53.84% 22.03% Primary-only CVL 1.46 10−2 26.3 8.50 10−4 × × TABLE IV. 1-σ errors on 3 extensions of ΛCDM. Errors are quoted are marginalized over ΛCDM, keeping the two other parameters fixed at their fiducial value. abundance is directly probed by the amplitude of the the beam size) is limited. In Fig .7, we show that to Rayleigh scattering signal. N constraints are improved reach 10% improvement on σ(N ) without Rayleigh eff ∼ eff in two ways. First, when both YHe and Neff are allowed scattering would require roughly 50 times more detectors to vary, the measurement of Rayleigh scattering mitigates for a PICO-like mission which is unlikely to happen in the degenereacy in the YHe-Neff plane (Fig. 8). However, practice. the two parameters retain a significant correlation due to Finally, CMB measurement of the sum of neutrino their similar effect on the damping scale, and any improve- masses mν benefits greatly from including Rayleigh ment on the measurement of YHe would yield a better scattering. The improvement on mν comes from the measurement of Neff . However, the improvement to the fact thatP Rayleigh scattering allows for a tighter constraint 2 P 2 constraint on Neff persists when the Helium fraction is on Ωch (as seen in Fig. 9). The effects of Ωch and mν fixed to be consistent with the predictions of Big Bang on the CMB lensing power spectrum are similar which Nucleosynthesis (BBN). Similar to the size of the sound causes these parameters to exhibit a degeneracy (thatP is horizon, the damping scale provides a fixed physical length typically assumed to be broken by including external BAO scale which will project onto different angular scales at data), but the degeneracy is also broken when Rayleigh different frequencies thanks to Rayleigh scattering, ex- scattering information is included. This improvement plaining the improved constraints on Neff even when YHe from Rayleigh scattering allows for a high significance is fixed by BBN consistency. Although the improvement measurement of even the minimal sum of neutrino masses of 10% might seem modest, measuring Neff with the which solely relies on CMB data. primary∼ CMB will become more challenging with future experiments as constraints rely on the small scale CMB. Due to the exponential damping of the power spectrum V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS on small scales, new small scale modes are difficult to measure and to disentangle from foregrounds especially from space where the size of the telescope (which controls Rayleigh scattering of the cosmic microwave back- ground is an interesting source of additional cosmological 13

different angular scales at each frequency by Rayleigh

3.3e-02 scattering due to the frequency dependence of the visi- PICO + rayleigh bility function. Interestingly, this can lead to promising PICO improvements on some key parameters. We found that

2 3 10− 3.0e-02× N is improved by 10% for a PICO-like experiment. eff ∼ Most of the constraining power on Neff in primary spectra 2.7e-02 comes from small scales that are exponentially damped

) 13%

eff and obscured by astrophysical foregrounds. Furthermore, N ( space mission quickly run out of accessible small scales σ 2.4e-02 modes because of their beam size. By allowing constraints 59.12 × on Neff to not solely rely on these small scales, Rayleigh 2.2e-02 scattering opens a new window for improvements that would be challenging to match using primary spectra only.

Similarly, the constraint on mν is also improved by 2.0e-02 2475 495 59 2 1 including Rayleigh scattering, and a PICO-like experiment Effort relative to PICO (# detectors or integration time) should be able to measure theP minimal sum of neutrino masses at almost 4σ without relying on external datasets. FIG. 7. Forecasted 1-σ error on Neff as a function of the This would make the understanding and treatment of effort (as measured in detector-years) by a space-based CMB 0 systematics easier since only one experiment will be in- experiment with a 5 beam, normalized such that an effort volved. It is also worth noting that these improvements of 1 provides similar results as PICO, not including Rayleigh come for free, as no modifications to these experiments scattering. These forecasts use lensed CMB spectra and do not include constraints derived from lensing reconstruction. are required to measure the signal as long as enough high frequency channels are available and foregrounds remain YHe is fixed by BBN consistency. To obtain a similar 10% improvement without including constraints from Rayleigh∼ under control. scattering, we would need 60 times more effort. Astrophysical foregrounds have been neglected through- out this paper. While they are likely to be one of the reasons why Planck has not been able to detect Rayleigh scattering, the next generation of ground-based experi- PICO (unlensed) PICO+BAO (unlensed) ments will provide more data that will help understand PICO+Rayleigh (unlensed) CVL (unlensed) foregrounds on small scales and at higher frequencies. These experiments will also produce improved measure- ments of polarization anisotropies which are less prone to foreground contamination. In future work, we plan to 0.253 carefully study the impact of foregrounds on detectabil- He

Y ity forecasts. Especially, it will be important to decide which component separation method is the most suitable 0.243 to detect the Rayleigh scattering signal. Although non- 2.97100 3.12100 0.24270 0.25270 parametric methods such as ILC (or variation of it) are Neff YHe appreciated for their blindness they might not be well suited for this particular case. Indeed, the fact that the FIG. 8. 1-σ contours for the Fisher forecasts in the YHe,Neff φφ largest signal is the primary Rayleigh cross-spectrum plane. We are using unlensed spectra, including C` , with a × cut-off scale of 5000. This corresponds to the fourth line of means that, in practice, two maps will be required: one Tab. IV. that contains only the primary CMB and the other one that contains only the Rayleigh scattering signal. In order to obtain an unbiased estimate of the cross-correlation, information. By increasing the comoving opacity in a the Rayleigh signal and the primary CMB will need to frequency-dependent way around recombination it gener- be deprojected which comes at the price of an increased ates a unique signature and is responsible for distinctive variance in the cleaned maps [70]. Rayleigh scattering distortions to the primary power spectra. On large angu- benefits from the fact it can be completely and accu- lar scales, E-mode polarization anisotropies are boosted rately modelled once the cosmological parameters are whereas on small scales, both temperature and polariza- fixed. Hence, Rayleigh scattering might be better suited tion signals are damped in a frequency-dependent way. to parametric cleaning methods where each component The redshift of last scattering also becomes frequency in the sky would be modelled and fitted for. dependent. We have shown that these two effects pro- In this paper we show the Rayleigh signal has the vide complementary information to the primary CMB potential to become a true cosmological observable in the which can improve cosmological parameter constraints. future. Since the signal itself is guaranteed, this should The heuristic argument for this improvement is that any provide strong motivation to include it as a target in distance scale in the early Universe will be projected onto future cosmological surveys. Although the amplitude of 14

0.120 2 h c

Ω 0.119 PICO (unlensed) 67.860 PICO+BAO (unlensed) 0 H 66.860 PICO+Rayleigh (unlensed) CVL (unlensed)

s 2.109 A 9

10 2.089

0.967 s n 0.963

0.056 τ 0.052

ν 0.092 m

P 0.027

0.02235 0.02240 0.11950 0.12050 66.86000 67.86000 2.08900 2.10900 0.96290 0.96690 0.05240 0.05640 0.02750 0.09250 2 2 9 Ωbh Ωch H0 10 As ns τ mν P P φφ FIG. 9. 1-σ contours for the Fisher forecasts for the ΛCDM+ mν cosmology. We are using unlensed spectra, including C` , with a cut-off scale of 5000. This corresponds to the fourth line of Tab. IV. the induced distortion is small, and the study presented ization primary CMB signals. We will comment on how here does not include foregrounds or systematic effects, this affects the detectability of Rayleigh scattering. lower noise and improved frequency coverage should lead Naively, Rayleigh scattering is modelled as a frequency- to a detection in the relatively near future, opening up a and scale-dependent distortion (Eq. 6). This leads to new window into the early Universe. non-zero cross-correlation between the different terms in Eq. (6), which can be rewritten for the temperature case as:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 4 ν1 1 ν T 0 The authors would like to thank Bradford Benson, a`m   .   a`m = A` T,4 , with A` . , (A1) Jean-François Cardoso, Steve Choi, Will Coulton, Antony ∆a`m ! ≡ 4 Lewis, Mike Niemack and Yijie Zhu for useful discussions.  νN  1 ν  BB is supported by the Science and Technologies Facili-  0      ties Council. JM is supported by the US Department of where a`m is a Nν dimensional vector and Nν the num- Energy under grant no. DE-SC0010129. P.D.M. acknowl- ber of frequencies in the experiment. The frequency- edges support of the Netherlands organization for scientific covariance matrix can also be written as a function of A` research (NWO) VIDI grant (dossier 639.042.730). (we will limit ourselves to temperature spectra):

TT T ∆T4 νν C` C` t C` a`ma† = A` A` Appendix A: Deprojection of the correlated ≡ h `m0 i C∆T4T C∆T4∆T4 Rayleigh scattering signal. ` ` ! C0 Ccross = A ` ` At = A CsAt. (A2) From Fig. 5, we observe the Rayleigh scattering signal ` cross auto ` ` ` ` C` C` ! to be highly correlated with the primary CMB. In this s Appendix we will investigate methods to deproject the Here we have defined C` as the signal-covariance matrix. Rayleigh scattering part of the signal from the primary Detecting the Rayleigh scattering signal can be made in one, following a framework similar to the one presented two different ways: i) detecting its cross correlation with in [71] in the context of temperature and E-mode polar- the primary CMB or ii) detecting its auto-spectra. In 15 the presence of foregrounds we first need to clean the both the auto- and cross-spectra, with the latter being the data. This can be achieved using an Internal Linear largest contribution for the experiments considered. How- Combination (ILC), (see e.g. [70]). ILCs are based on ever, detecting cross-correlations might be challenging, obtaining a set of weights to apply at each frequency since the ILC procedure will leave some residual CMB in map a`m such that the resulting linear combination has the Rayleigh scattering map and vice-versa. The cross- minimum variance while preserving the signal of interest. correlation will then be biased by these residuals. To over- The resulting noise for each signal is given by come this, one can add an additional constraint to the ILC by requiring a specific component to be deprojected 1 t 1 − n` A`N`− A` (A3) [70]. This comes at the cost of an increase in variance but ≡ removes the bias from residual contamination.   where N` is the noise covariance matrix. In this work, Instead of using the physical but correlated signals aT we have neglected foregrounds, meaning that N only `m ` and ∆aT,4, one can look for a different basis spanned captures instrumental noise (and atmospheric noise for `m by orthogonal vectors (ie. uncorrelated signals). This ground-based experiments). will result in a signal-covariance matrix Cr that is diag- The detectability of Rayleigh scattering can be assessed ` onal. This procedure has been explored in the context by introducing a parameter α in front of the Rayleigh term of primary CMB temperature and polarization signals T,4 in Eq. (A1). We equate our ability to detect the ∆a`m and has been described in detail in [71]. We will follow Rayleigh signal to distinguishing α from 1. Following the this framework to de-correlate the primary CMB from Fisher formalism introduced in IV A 1, the signal-to-noise the Rayleigh scattering signal. of detecting Rayleigh scattering is given by: We first define a rotation of the signals basis by s s 2` + 1 s 1 ∂C` s 1 ∂C` F` = fsky Tr (C` + n`)− (C` + n`)− , 2 ∂α ∂α a T   a`m cos θ` sin θ` a`m (A4) b = T,4 (A6) a`m! sin θ` cos θ`! · ∆a`m ! 1 − 2

SNR = F` (A5) a b Imposing the constraint that a`ma`m = 0, yields: cross 0 " ` # 2C` h i X tan 2θ` = 0 auto . The auto and cross-spectra then C` C` The signal-to-noise of Rayleigh scattering is sourced by read −

aa a a 2 0 2 auto cross 1 0 auto 1 0 auto 2 cross 2 λ a a = cos θ`C + sin θ`C + sin 2θ`C = C + C + (C + C ) + 4 (C ) , ` ≡ h `m `m0 i ` ` ` 2 ` ` 2 ` ` `
q (A7) bb b b 2 0 2 auto cross 1 0 auto 1 0 auto 2 cross 2 λ a a = sin θ`C + cos θ`C sin 2θ`C = C + C (C + C ) + 4 (C ) , ` ≡ h `m `m0 i ` ` − ` 2 ` ` − 2 ` ` `
q (A8) ab a b 1 0 1 auto cross λ a a = sin 2θ`C + sin 2θ`C + cos 2θ`C = 0. (A9) ` ≡ h `m `mi −2 ` 2 ` `

aa bb ab As expected, λ` and λ` are the eigenvalues of the have to be careful because while the cross-spectrum λ` s signal covariance matrix C` . The frequency-covariance is vanishing, its derivative has to be taken while keeping matrix is now given by the rotation angle θ` fixed (even though θ` does depend on α). Hence, we compute νν 1 r t C` = A`R`− C` R`A`, (A10) νν r ∂C` 1 ∂C` t where R` = R(θ`) is the rotation matrix defined in = A`R`− R`A`. (A12) ∂α R` fixed ∂α Eq. (A6). The noise contribution to each term is given by

1 The derivative of the cross spectrum with respect to n AtR N 1R 1A − (A11) ` = ` ` `− `− ` . our parameter α is then derived to be In order to assess the detectability of Rayleigh scatter- ing in this framework, we resort to the same formalism as ab ∂λ` auto cross before and introduce a parameter α corresponding to the = sin 2θ`C` + cos 2θ`C` = 0. (A13) θ` amplitude of the Rayleigh scattering signal. However, we ∂α α=1 6

16

(Eq. (A5)) is sourced by both the auto- and cross-spectra.

4 After deprojection the signal-to-noise is sourced by both 10 bb,GS ab,GS λ` and our ability to measure λ` = 0. Indeed, 103 if we would apply the deprojection procedure to maps 102 that do not include Rayleigh scattering, we would have

` ab,GS cross 101 λ = C` . Our ability to detect Rayleigh scatter- Primary CMB ` π C − 2 ing is therefore equivalent to our ability to reject the null 0 Rayleigh cross / 10 Rayleigh auto hypothesis above. bb,GS 1 + 1) 10− λ` ` (

` 2 10− Appendix B: Experimental setups 3 10−

4 10− 1. Noise modelling 101 102 103 ` CMB experiments produce noisy measurements of pix- els in the sky. The noise is sourced by both the photon FIG. 10. Different temperature spectra discussed in this noise of the detector arrays and for ground based experi- appendix: Primary CMB (black), Rayleigh scattering cross ments, by the atmosphere. Assuming a uniform scanning spectrum (orange), Rayleigh scattering auto spectrum (red), Rayleigh scattering auto spectrum with the primary signal strategy, i.e. each pixel is observed for a constant duration, deprojected (blue). the noise power spectra can be modelled as [5] ` αknee N` = Nred + Nwhite. (B1) Rotating the basis has the advantage of producing two `  knee  uncorrelated signals but it does so at the cost of mixing the primary and Rayleigh scattering signals. We could Nwhite is the white noise levels, sourced by photon noise. ask whether it would be possible to find another basis, It is inversely proportional to the number of detectors in also spanned by uncorrelated signals with one of them the focal plane Ndet and the integration time Tobs. When remaining unaltered. Such a basis can be derived using polarization maps are produced, Nwhite is multiplied by the Graham-Schmidt orthogonalization procedure. The two since both the Q and U stokes parameters have to same formalism as before can be used by replacing the be measured. Nred is the red noise level, which captures atmospheric noise, and is absent in space-based missions. rotation matrix R` with `knee and αknee control how different angular scales are impacted by the atmosphere. For polarization, Nred = GS 1 0 R` . (A14) N . ≡ Ccross/C0 1 white − ` ` ! The amount of noise introduced by the atmosphere The auto- and cross-spectra now read is currently mostly based on empirical estimates, which at the SO site are informed by current ACT measure- λaa,GS = C0, (A15) ments. At higher altitudes, such as the CCAT-prime site, ` ` the atmospheric contamination is not completely deter- cross 2 bb,GS auto (C` ) mined. It is expected to be smaller since the atmosphere λ` = C` 0 , (A16) − C` is thinner, but the precise scale dependence and amplitude cross will only become apparent once the experiment becomes ab,GS cross 0 C` λ` = C` C` 0 = 0. (A17) operational. − C`

aa,GS bb,GS As expected, λ` is the primary CMB while λ` is the Rayleigh scattering auto spectra deprojected from 2. Simons Observatory the correlated part of primary CMB. For the same reason as before, although the cross spectrum is vanishing, its The Simons Observatory (SO) is a ground based CMB derivative is not experiment under construction in the Atacama desert in Chile [5]. It consists of a 6 m crossed-Dragone large aper- ∂λab,GS ture telescope (LAT) targeting small scales anisotropies as ` = Ccross = 0. (A18) GS ` well as three 0.5 m small aperture telescopes (SAT) aim- ∂α α=1 6 ing at detecting primordial gravitational waves. Although

Fig. 10 shows the temperature spectra defined above. SO is located at 5200 m above sea level, the atmosphere bb,GS We note that λ` , follows the Rayleigh auto-spectrum still impacts measurement of both temperature and po- on large scale but diverges when the Rayleigh scattering larization anisotropies. signal is correlated with the primary one (Fig. 5). We The use of dichroic detectors also correlates noise spec- noted earlier that the signal-to-noise of Rayleigh scattering tra from different channels. This results in the noise 17

SO SAT (fsky = 0.1) CCAT-prime (fsky = 0.35)

Freq. Beam Nwhite `knee αknee Freq. Beam Nwhite Nred [GHz] [arcmin] [µK2] [GHz] [arcsec] [µK2] [µK2] 27 91 5.3 10−5 15 -2.4 220 57 1.8 10−5 1.6 10−2 × × × 39 63 2.4 10−5 15 -2.49 280 45 6.4 10−5 1.1 10−1 × × × 93 30 3.0 10−7 25 -2.5 350 35 9.3 10−4 2.7 100 × × × 145 17 3.7 10−7 25 -3.0 410 30 1.2 10−2 1.7 101 × × × 225 11 1.5 10−6 35 -3.0 850 14 2.8 104 6.1 106 × × × 280 9 8.5 10−6 40 -3.0 × TABLE VII. Characteristics of CCAT-prime Prime-Cam in- TABLE V. Characteristics of SO Small Aperture Telescope strument. In temperature, both `knee and αknee are fixed (resp. 1000 and -3.5). In polarization, `knee=700 and αknee = 1.4. instruments. SAT will only measure polarization for which − Nred = Nwhite and white noise levels should be multiplied by 2 since both Q and U stokes parameters needs to be measured. resolution ultra-deep survey conducted by a set of SATs at the South Pole, and a dedicated high-resolution ultra- SO LAT (fsky = 0.4) deep delensing survey conducted by a LAT at the South Freq. Beam Nwhite Nred 2 2 Pole. We will focus our attention on the wide survey [GHz] [arcmin] [µK ] [µK ] conducted by the Chile LATs. We use the survey design 27 7.4 2.3 10−4 100 matches the current design listed on the public CMB-S4 × 39 5.1 6.2 10−5 39 web page at the time of writing3. × 93 2.2 2.8 10−6 230 × 145 1.4 3.6 10−6 1500 CMB-S4 Chile LATs (fsky = 0.65) × 225 1.0 1.9 10−5 17000 Freq. Beam Nwhite `knee αknee × 2 280 0.9 1.16 10−4 31000 [GHz] [arcmin] [µK ] × 27 7.4 3.9 10−5 415 -3.5 TABLE VI. Characteristics of SO Large Aperture Telescope × 39 5.1 1.2 10−5 391 -3.5 instruments. LAT will produce both temperature and polar- × 93 2.2 . −7 1932 -3.5 ization maps. In temperature, both `knee and αknee are fixed 3 0 10 × −7 (resp. 1000 and -3.5). In polarization, Nred = Nwhite and 145 1.4 3.7 10 3917 -3.5 × `knee = 700 and αknee = 1.4. 225 0.9 4.0 10−6 6740 -3.5 − × 278 0.7 2.4 10−5 6792 -3.5 × frequency-covariance matrix no longer being diagonal. TABLE VIII. Characteristics of CMB-S4 instruments. The This effect has been neglected in our analysis. noise model for CMB-S4 is slightly different than for Simons Observatory and assumes Nred = Nwhite for both temperature and polarization. In polarization, `knee = 700, αknee = 1.4 − 3. CCAT-prime at all frequencies, and Nwhite for polarization is equal to two times that for temperature. CCAT-prime is a 6 m crossed-Dragone telescope [65] targeting high frequency galactic and extra-galactic sig- nals. One of its instruments, Prime-Cam is designed to measure and characterize CMB polarization and fore- 5. LiteBIRD grounds at high frequencies from a 5600 m altitude site in the Atacama desert in Chile, close to the SO site. Being a LiteBIRD [66] is a satellite mission that will pro- ground-based experiment, CCAT-prime observations will duce maps of large scale temperature and polarization be impacted by the atmosphere (Eq. (B1)). Parameters anisotropies. Primarily targeting a first detection of (pri- are given in [72] and are summarized in Table VII. mordial) B-mode polarization, its dense frequency cover- age, combined with its high sensitivity in polarization, will make it a suitable experiment to detect and characterize 4. CMB-S4 the Rayleigh scattering signal. Sensitivities and beams are taken from [66] and are summarised in Table IX. CMB-S4 is the Stage-4 ground based CMB experiment with telescopes to be sited in the Chilean Atacama Desert and at the South Pole [7, 9]. The current survey design includes a high-resolution wide and deep survey of a large 3 https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/White_noise_levels_ fraction of the sky using two LATs built in Chile, a low- for_high_cadence_scan_at_elevation_of_40_degrees 18

LiteBIRD (fsky = 0.7) 799 GHz), it will also contribute to a better understanding

Freq. Beam Nwhite Freq. Beam Nwhite of foreground contamination, required for the mitigation [GHz] [arcmin] [µK2] [GHz] [arcmin] [µK2] of their effects on cosmological observables. These densely packed frequency channels will be a unique opportunity 40 69 2.38 10−4 140 23 5.89 10−6 × × to observe, characterize, and use Rayleigh scattering as 50 56 9.75 10−5 166 21 7.15 10−6 × × a source of cosmological information. Being a spaced- 60 48 6.70 10−5 195 20 5.69 10−6 based mission, PICO does not suffer from atmospheric × × 68 43 4.44 10−4 235 19 1.00 10−5 contamination and we take its instrumental noise to be × × 78 39 3.08 10−5 280 24 2.95 10−5 white (convolved with a gaussian beam). Sensitivities and × × 89 35 2.32 10−5 337 20 6.44 10−5 beams are taken from the Best Current Estimate in [32] × × and are summarised in Table X. 100 29 1.43 10−5 402 17 2.38 10−4 × × 7. DESI 119 25 9.77 10−6 × TABLE IX. Characteristics of the LiteBIRD experiment. Noise The information from baryon acoustic oscillations levels are quoted for temperature maps, polarization noise is (BAO) is included by adding the information expected a factor two larger at each frequency. from measurements of the the quantity rs/dV(z), where rs is the size of the sound horizon at decoupling, and dV(z) is the volume distance to redshift z. We use the PICO (fsky = 0.7) same procedure as in Ref. [73] and calculate Fisher matrix Freq. Beam Nwhite Freq. Beam Nwhite expected from DESI as [GHz] [arcmin] [µK2] [GHz] [arcmin] [µK2] 21 38.4 1.21 10−5 159 6.2 7.15 10−8 BAO 1 d(rs/dV(zn)) d(rs/dV(zn)) Fij = 2 . × −6 × −7 σ(r /d (z )) dp dp 25 32.0 7.15 10 186 4.3 3.32 10 n s V n i j × × X 30 28.3 3.20 10−6 223 3.6 4.33 10−7 (B2) × −6 × −7 The fractional errors on r /d (z) expected from DESI [69] 36 23.6 1.33 10 268 3.2 2.05 10 s V × × are given in Table XI. 43 22.2 1.33 10−6 321 2.6 3.81 10−7 × −7 × −7 52 18.4 6.77 10 385 2.5 4.33 10 DESI BAO × −7 × −6 62 12.8 6.11 10 462 2.1 1.73 10 Redshift σ(rs/dV(z)) [%] Redshift σ(rs/dV(z)) [%] × × (rs/d (z)) (rs/d (z)) 75 10.7 3.81 10−7 555 1.5 4.44 10−5 V V × × 0.15 1.89 1.05 0.59 90 9.5 1.69 10−7 666 1.3 6.61 10−4 × × 0.25 1.26 1.15 0.60 108 7.9 1.08 10−7 799 1.1 2.32 10−2 × × 0.35 0.98 1.25 0.57 129 7.4 9.52 10−8 × 0.45 0.80 1.35 0.66 TABLE X. Characteristics of the proposed PICO experiment. 0.55 0.68 1.45 0.75 Noise levels are quoted for temperature maps, polarization 0.65 0.60 1.55 0.95 noise is a factor two larger at each frequency. 0.75 0.52 1.65 1.48 0.85 0.51 1.75 2.28 0.95 0.56 1.85 3.03 6. PICO

TABLE XI. Fractional errors on rs/dV(z) as a function of PICO (Probe of Inflation and Cosmic Origin)[32] is a redshift expected from the DESI BAO survey. proposed satellite mission that will produce high resolu- tion maps of temperature and polarization anisotropies All quoted numbers in the main text of this paper are of the CMB. Equipped with 21 frequency channels (21- derived using Table VI-XI.

[1] C. L. Bennett, D. Larson, J. L. Weiland, N. Jarosik, son, L. E. Bleem, J. E. Carlstrom, C. L. Chang, H.-M. Cho, G. Hinshaw, N. Odegard, K. M. Smith, R. S. Hill, B. Gold, R. Chown, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 860, 137 M. Halpern, et al., ApJS 208, 20 (2013), 1212.5225. (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.3847%2F1538-4357% [2] E. Calabrese, R. A. Hložek, J. R. Bond, M. J. De- 2Faac264. vlin, J. Dunkley, M. Halpern, A. D. Hincks, K. D. Ir- [4] Y. Akrami et al. (Planck) (2018), 1807.06205. win, A. Kosowsky, K. Moodley, et al., Phys. Rev. D [5] P. Ade, J. Aguirre, Z. Ahmed, S. Aiola, A. Ali, D. Alonso, 95, 063525 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. M. A. Alvarez, K. Arnold, P. Ashton, J. Austermann, 1103/PhysRevD.95.063525. et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics [3] G. Simard, Y. Omori, K. Aylor, E. J. Baxter, B. A. Ben- 2019, 056 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1088% 19

2F1475-7516%2F2019%2F02%2F056. [33] L. Rayleigh, X. on the electromagnetic theory [6] G. J. Stacey et al. (2018), 1807.04354. of light (1881), URL https://doi.org/10.1080/ [7] K. N. Abazajian et al. (CMB-S4) (2016), 1610.02743. 14786448108627074. [8] T. S. O. Collaboration, M. H. Abitbol, S. Adachi, P. Ade, [34] L. Rayleigh, XXXIV. On the transmission of light through J. Aguirre, Z. Ahmed, S. Aiola, A. Ali, D. Alonso, an atmosphere containing small particles in suspension, M. A. Alvarez, et al., The simons observatory: Astro2020 and on the origin of the blue of the sky (1899), URL decadal project whitepaper (2019), 1907.08284. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449908621276. [9] K. Abazajian et al. (2019), 1907.04473. [35] P. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 153, 1 (1968). [10] N. Aghanim, S. Majumdar, and J. Silk, Reports on [36] Y. Zeldovich, V. Kurt, and R. Sunyaev, Sov. Phys. JETP Progress in Physics 71, 066902 (2008), URL https: 28, 146 (1969). //doi.org/10.1088%2F0034-4885%2F71%2F6%2F066902. [37] S. Seager, D. D. Sasselov, and D. Scott, Astrophys. J. [11] R. K. Sachs and A. M. Wolfe, ApJ 147, 73 (1967). Lett. 523, L1 (1999), astro-ph/9909275. [12] W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D62, 043007 (2000), astro- [38] S. Seager, D. D. Sasselov, and D. Scott, Astrophys. J. ph/0001303. Suppl. 128, 407 (2000), astro-ph/9912182. [13] A. Lewis and A. Challinor, Phys. Rept. 429, 1 (2006), [39] Y. Ali-Haïmoud and C. M. Hirata, Phys. Rev. D astro-ph/0601594. 83, 043513 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. [14] M. Birkinshaw and S. F. Gull, Nature 302, 315 (1983). 1103/PhysRevD.83.043513. [15] A. Cooray, Physical Review D 65 (2002), ISSN 1089- [40] J. Chluba and Y. Ali-Haïmoud, Monthly Notices of the 4918, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.65. Royal Astronomical Society 456, 3494 (2016), ISSN 083518. 0035-8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- [16] S. C. Hotinli, J. Meyers, N. Dalal, A. H. Jaffe, M. C. pdf/456/4/3494/9377862/stv2691.pdf, URL Johnson, J. B. Mertens, M. Münchmeyer, K. M. Smith, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv2691. and A. van Engelen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 061301 (2019), [41] R. Barkana and A. Loeb, Phys. Rept. 349, 125 (2001), 1812.03167. astro-ph/0010468. [17] C. Dvorkin and K. M. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 79, [42] W. Hu, N. Sugiyama, and J. Silk, Nature 386, 37 (1997), 043003 (2009), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/386037a0. 1103/PhysRevD.79.043003. [43] K. L. Ng and K.-W. Ng, Phys. Rev. D 51, [18] K. M. Smith and S. Ferraro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 364 (1995), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ 021301 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. PhysRevD.51.364. 1103/PhysRevLett.119.021301. [44] A. Kosowsky and A. Loeb, The Astrophysical Journal 469, [19] A. Roy, A. Lapi, D. Spergel, and C. Baccigalupi, JCAP 1 (1996), ISSN 1538-4357, URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1805, 014 (2018), 1801.02393. 1086/177751. [20] W. Hu, Astrophys. J. 529, 12 (2000), astro-ph/9907103. [45] M. Zaldarriaga and U. Seljak, Physical Review D 55, [21] M. McQuinn, S. R. Furlanetto, L. Hernquist, O. Zahn, 1830–1840 (1997), ISSN 1089-4918, URL http://dx.doi. and M. Zaldarriaga, Astrophys. J. 630, 643 (2005), astro- org/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.1830. ph/0504189. [46] M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and A. Stebbins, Phys- [22] C. Dvorkin and K. M. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 79, 043003 ical Review D 55, 7368–7388 (1997), ISSN 1089-4918, (2009), 0812.1566. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.7368. [23] C. Dvorkin, W. Hu, and K. M. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 79, [47] W. Hu and M. White, Physical Review D 56, 596–615 107302 (2009), 0902.4413. (1997), ISSN 1089-4918, URL http://dx.doi.org/10. [24] R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, Ap&SS 7, 3 (1970). 1103/PhysRevD.56.596. [25] R. A. Sunyaev and I. B. Zeldovich, ARA&A 18, 537 [48] A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, ApJ 538, 473 (1980). (2000), astro-ph/9911177. [26] J. Bernstein and S. Dodelson, Phys. Rev. D 41, 354 [49] M. Zaldarriaga and D. D. Harari, Phys. Rev. D52, 3276 (1990). (1995), astro-ph/9504085. [27] Y. Rephaeli, ARA&A 33, 541 (1995). [50] S. Bashinsky and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D69, 083002 [28] F. Takahara and S. Sasaki, Progress of The- (2004), astro-ph/0310198. oretical Physics 86, 1021 (1991), ISSN 0033- [51] Z. Hou, R. Keisler, L. Knox, M. Millea, and C. Reichardt, 068X, https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- Phys. Rev. D87, 083008 (2013), 1104.2333. pdf/86/5/1021/5430029/86-5-1021.pdf, URL [52] R. de Putter, O. Doré, J. Gleyzes, D. Green, and J. Mey- https://doi.org/10.1143/ptp/86.5.1021. ers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 041301 (2019), 1805.11616. [29] Q. Yu, D. N. Spergel, and J. P. Ostriker, The Astrophys- [53] W. Hu and S. Dodelson, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. ical Journal 558, 23 (2001), URL https://doi.org/10. 40, 171 (2002), astro-ph/0110414. 1086%2F322482. [54] U. Seljak, Astrophys. J. 435, L87 (1994), astro- [30] A. Lewis, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle ph/9406050. Physics 2013, 053 (2013), URL https://doi.org/10. [55] W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. J. 444, 489 (1995), 1088%2F1475-7516%2F2013%2F08%2F053. astro-ph/9407093. [31] E. Alipour, K. Sigurdson, and C. M. Hirata, Phys. Rev. [56] W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. J. 471, 542 (1996), D 91, 083520 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ astro-ph/9510117. 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.083520. [57] C. Dvorkin et al. (2019), 1903.03689. [32] S. Hanany, M. Alvarez, E. Artis, P. Ashton, J. Aumont, [58] W. Hu and M. J. White, Astrophys. J. 471, 30 (1996), R. Aurlien, R. Banerji, R. B. Barreiro, J. G. Bartlett, astro-ph/9602019. S. Basak, et al., Pico: Probe of inflation and cosmic [59] D. Baumann, D. Green, J. Meyers, and B. Wallisch, JCAP origins (2019), arXiv:1902.10541. 01, 007 (2016), 1508.06342. 20

[60] D. Green et al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 159 (2019), (2020), 2007.07289. 1903.04763. [68] W. Hu and T. Okamoto, The Astrophysical Journal 574, [61] L. Knox, Phys. Rev. D 52, 4307 (1995), URL https: 566 (2002), URL https://doi.org/10.1086/341110. //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.52.4307. [69] A. Font-Ribera, P. McDonald, N. Mostek, B. A. Reid, [62] W. L. K. Wu, J. Errard, C. Dvorkin, C. L. Kuo, A. T. Lee, H.-J. Seo, and A. Slosar, JCAP 05, 023 (2014), 1308.4164. P. McDonald, A. Slosar, and O. Zahn, The Astrophysi- [70] M. Remazeilles, J. Delabrouille, and J.-F. Car- cal Journal 788, 138 (2014), URL https://doi.org/10. doso, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- 1088/0004-637x/788/2/138. nomical Society 410, 2481 (2011), ISSN 0035- [63] J. Austermann et al., Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- 8452, 84521E (2012), 1210.4970. pdf/410/4/2481/18703080/mnras0410-2481.pdf, URL [64] R. Thornton et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 227, 21 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17624. 1605.06569. x. [65] M. Aravena, J. Austermann, K. Basu, N. Battaglia, [71] D. Scott, D. Contreras, A. Narimani, and Y.-Z. Ma, Jour- B. Beringue, F. Bertoldi, J. R. Bond, P. Breysse, R. Bus- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016, 046 tos, S. Chapman, et al., The ccat-prime submillimeter (2016), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1475-7516% observatory (2019), arXiv:1909.02587. 2F2016%2F06%2F046. [66] M. Hazumi, P. A. R. Ade, Y. Akiba, D. Alonso, [72] S. K. Choi, J. Austermann, K. Basu, N. Battaglia, K. Arnold, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, D. Barron, F. Bertoldi, D. T. Chung, N. F. Cothard, S. Duff, S. Basak, S. Beckman, et al., Journal of Low Tempera- C. J. Duell, P. A. Gallardo, et al., Sensitivity of the ture Physics 194, 443 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10. prime-cam instrument on the ccat-prime telescope (2019), 1007/s10909-019-02150-5. arXiv:1908.10451. [67] S. K. Choi, M. Hasselfield, S.-P. P. Ho, B. Koopman, [73] R. Allison, P. Caucal, E. Calabrese, J. Dunkley, and M. Lungu, M. H. Abitbol, G. E. Addison, P. A. R. Ade, T. Louis, Phys. Rev. D 92, 123535 (2015), 1509.07471. S. Aiola, D. Alonso, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2007.07289