Constraining Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background from Weak Lensing of CMB B-Modes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Prepared for submission to JCAP Constraining stochastic gravitational wave background from weak lensing of CMB B-modes Shabbir Shaikh,y Suvodip Mukherjee,y Aditya Rotti,z and Tarun Souradeepy yInter University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Post Bag 4, Ganeshkhind, Pune- 411007, India zDepartment of Physics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32304, USA E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. A stochastic gravitational wave background (SGWB) will affect the CMB anisotropies via weak lensing. Unlike weak lensing due to large scale structure which only deflects pho- ton trajectories, a SGWB has an additional effect of rotating the polarization vector along the trajectory. We study the relative importance of these two effects, deflection & rotation, specifically in the context of E-mode to B-mode power transfer caused by weak lensing due to SGWB. Using weak lensing distortion of the CMB as a probe, we derive constraints on the spectral energy density (ΩGW ) of the SGWB, sourced at different redshifts, without assuming any particular model for its origin. We present these bounds on ΩGW for different power-law models characterizing the SGWB, indicating the threshold above which observable imprints of SGWB must be present in CMB. arXiv:1606.08862v2 [astro-ph.CO] 20 Sep 2016 Contents 1 Introduction1 2 Weak lensing of CMB by gravitational waves2 3 Method 6 4 Results 8 5 Conclusion9 6 Acknowledgements 10 1 Introduction The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is an exquisite tool to study the universe. It is being used to probe the early universe scenarios as well as the physics of processes happening in between the surface of last scattering and the observer. Well studied processes among these include lensing by large scale structure, Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, integrated Sachs- Wolfe effect etc. These effects give rise to secondary anisotropies in the CMB. The stochastic gravitational wave background (SGWB), if present, will affect the CMB via weak lensing [1,2]. The SGWB can be sourced by inflation, astrophysical phenomena like halo mergers and halo formation [3,4], second order density perturbations [5], early universe phase transitions [6], etc. In the new era, post the first direct detection of gravitational wave by LIGO [7] and studies assessing a SGWB for such populations [8], a reassessment of SGWB probed by weak lensing of CMB considered earlier [9] appears to be timely. Effects of lensing by scalar and tensor perturbations on CMB have been calculated in full detail in literature [2, 10{13]. Padmanabhan et al. ([12]) carried out a comparative study of lensing by scalar and tensor perturbations, concluding that tensor perturbations are more efficient than scalar perturbations at converting E-modes of CMB polarization to B-modes. More recently, Dai [13] noted the effect of the rotation of CMB polarization due to tensor perturbations, arguing that the B-mode power generated by lensing deflection due to tensor perturbations is largely canceled by the rotation of polarization induced by these perturbations. In summary, unlike in the case of weak lensing by large scale structure, a SGWB leads to two different effects in CMB: (i) deflection of photon path and (ii) rotation of polarization vector of photon along the direction of propagation. The SGWB results in additional distortions in the CMB sky, over and above those introduced by lensing due to large scale structure. It has been shown that the lensing due to SGWB sourced by inflation is below the cosmic variance and hence not detectable even for cosmic variance limited experiments [2]. However, in light of other conjectured sources of SGWB, weak lensing of CMB by SGWB has been used in previous work [9] to derive upper bounds on ΩGW . Namikawa et al. [14] have studied the detectability of weak lensing of CMB induced by gravitational waves. They do not include the effect of the rotation of CMB polarization in their evaluations. { 1 { In this paper, we carry out a more careful assessment of the efficiency of tensor per- turbations in mediating power transfer between E-mode and B-mode of CMB polarization. Finally, we incorporate rotation effect in the lensing kernels and derive revised constraints on the energy density ΩGW of the SGWB, for different empirical models of SGWB power generated at a number of representative source redshifts. This paper is organized as follows. In section II we carefully assess the relative con- tributions of rotation and deflection associated with weak lensing due to the SGWB. In section III we present the details of the procedure used to derive the revised upper limits on ΩGW . We conclude with the discussion of our results in section IV. We use the best fit Planck+WP+highL+BAO parameters from Planck 2013 [15] to derive all our results. 2 Weak lensing of CMB by gravitational waves Weak lensing of CMB remaps the temperature and polarization anisotropy field on the sky. The lensed temperature anisotropy T~(^n), observed in the directionn ^ corresponds to the temperature anisotropy T (^n + d~), observed in the absence of lensing in the directionn ^ + d~, T~(^n) = T (^n + d~); (2.1) where d~ is the deflection angle and defines a vector field on the sky. CMB photons are linearly polarized because of Thomson scattering. CMB polarization field is expressed using Q and U Stokes parameters, ±X(^n) = Q(^n) ± iU(^n). To consider the complete effect of lensing on polarization anisotropies, we have to consider the rotation of polarization vector of CMB photons about its direction of propagation due to metric perturbations as described by Dai [13]. Including the effect of photon deflection and rotation of polarization, the lensed polarization field is described as: ∓2i (^n) ±X~(^n) = e ±X(^n + d~); (2.2) where is the angle of rotation of polarization. The vector deflection angle is field decomposed into a gradient potential φ(^n) and a curl potential Ω(^n) jk di = riφ(^n) − "i njrkΩ(^n); (2.3) where r~ is the angular gradient on the sphere. For a statistically isotropic lensing field, φφ ΩΩ φ(^n) and Ω(^n) are described by their angular power spectrum Cl and Cl respectively. φφ ΩΩ Methods to reconstruct both Cl and Cl from the observed CMB sky exist in literature, for example, see [16, 17] and references therein. The rotation angle (^n) is related to curl potential Ω(^n) through [13] 1 (^n) = − r2Ω(^n); (2.4) 2 where r2 is angular Laplacian. Eq. (2.4) shows that the source of the curl potential Ω(^n) gives rise to the rotation of polarization vector. Angular power spectrum for rotation Cl is ΩΩ related to Cl through [13] 2 ΩΩ Cl = [l(l + 1)=2] Cl ; (2.5) and the deflection-rotation cross power spectrum is Ω ΩΩ Cl = [l(l + 1)=2]Cl : (2.6) { 2 { 2 Ω Ω Note that Cl is ∼ l Cl , which makes Cl much stronger over Cl at small angular scales (high multipoles l). At the linear order in perturbation, lensing by large scale structure (LSS) in the uni- verse, which corresponds to scalar metric perturbations, induce only gradient type deflections. Gravitational waves, which corresponds to tensor metric perturbations, induce both gradient and curl type deflections even at linear order [10, 11, 18]. Hence, to consider the complete effect of curl deflection sourced by scalar and tensor perturbations at linear order, we include the rotation of polarization in our computation. However, we neglect the scalar deflection caused by the tensor perturbations, because it is an order of magnitude less than the ten- sor deflection [2]. There are several models predicting vector perturbations which can also contribute to curl deflections, for example, vector perturbations caused by cosmic strings [19]. Since the relative amplitude and spectrum of vector perturbations would be model dependent, we choose to neglect the lensing by vector perturbations in our analysis. Effect of lensing on CMB angular power spectrum is computed either using real space correlation function [20] or using spherical harmonic space correlation function method [21]. Here we have provided the expressions obtained using latter method, originally computed in [21] for scalar deflection, in [2] and [12] for scalar and tensor deflection and in [13] for scalar and tensor deflection including the effect of rotation. Lensed TT angular power spectrum is: 1 X C~TT = CTT − l(l + 1)RCTT + CTT [(F φ )2Cφ P + + (F Ω )2CΩP − ]; l l l 2l + 1 l2 ll1l2 l1 ll1l2 ll1l2 l1 ll1l2 (2.7) l1l2 where R is the rms deflection power given by X l(l + 1)(2l + 1) R = (Cφφ + CΩΩ): (2.8) 8π l l l R is measure of rms deflection angle, d2 = R. F φ and F Ω are lensing kernels: rms ll1l2 ll1l2 r Ω φ p Πll1l2 l l1 l2 F = F = − l1(l1 + 1)l2(l2 + 1) ; (2.9) ll1l2 ll1l2 4π 0 −1 1 where Π = (2l + 1)(2l + 1)::: and P ± = (1 ± (−1)l+l1+l2 )=2. It is clear from Eq. (2.7) ll1::: 1 ll1l2 that rotation of polarization has no contribution in the lensing of temperature anisotropy. Polarization E mode and B mode angular power spectra are ~EE EE 2 EE EE Cl = Cl − (l + l − 4)RCl − 4SCl 1 X φφ φ 2 EE + BB − ΩΩ Ω 2 EE − BB + + [C (2F ) (C P + C P ) + C (2F ) (C P + C P )] (2l + 1) l1 ll1l2 l2 ll1l2 l2 ll1l2 l1 ll1l2 l2 ll1l2 l2 ll1l2 l1l2 4 X 2 Ω Ω EE − BB + + [C (2F ) − C 2F 2F ](C P + C P ); (2.10) (2l + 1) l1 ll1l2 l1 ll1l2 ll1l2 l2 ll1l2 l2 ll1l2 l1l2 ~BB BB 2 BB BB Cl = Cl − (l + l − 4)RCl − 4SCl 1 X φφ φ 2 EE − BB + ΩΩ Ω 2 EE + BB − + [C (2F ) (C P + C P ) + C (2F ) (C P + C P )] (2l + 1) l1 ll1l2 l2 ll1l2 l2 ll1l2 l1 ll1l2 l2 ll1l2 l2 ll1l2 l1l2 4 X 2 Ω Ω EE + BB − + [C (2F ) − C 2F 2F ](C P + C P ); (2.11) (2l + 1) l1 ll1l2 l1 ll1l2 ll1l2 l2 ll1l2 l2 ll1l2 l1l2 { 3 { S is the rms rotation power given by X 2l + 1 S = C : (2.12) 4π l l F φ and F Ω are lensing kernels: 2 ll1l2 2 ll1l2 r r r φ/Ω l1(l1 + 1)Πll1l2 h (l2 + 2)(l2 − 1) l l1 l2 (l2 − 2)(l2 + 3) l l1 l2 i 2F = ± ; ll1l2 8π 2 2 −1 −1 2 2 1 −3 (2.13) l l1 l2 φ Ω Here denote Wigner-3j symbols.