English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We examine the internal consistency of the Planck 2015 cosmic microwavebackground (CMB) temperature anisotropy power spectrum. We show that tensionexists between cosmological constant cold dark matter (LCDM) model parametersinferred from multipoles l<1000 (roughly those accessible to WilkinsonMicrowave Anisotropy Probe), and from l>=1000, particularly the CDM density,Omega_ch^2, which is discrepant at 2.5 sigma for a Planck-motivated prior onthe optical depth, tau=0.07+/-0.02. We find some parameter tensions to belarger than previously reported because of inaccuracy in the code used by thePlanck Collaboration to generate model spectra. The Planck l>=1000 constraintsare also in tension with low-redshift data sets, including Planck's ownmeasurement of the CMB lensing power spectrum (2.4 sigma), and the most precisebaryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) scale determination (2.5 sigma). The Hubbleconstant predicted by Planck from l>=1000, H_0=64.1+/-1.7 km/s/Mpc, disagreeswith the most precise local distance ladder measurement of 73.0+/-2.4 km/s/Mpcat the 3.0 sigma level, while the Planck value from l<1000, 69.7+/-1.7km/s/Mpc, is consistent within 1 sigma. A discrepancy between the Planck andSouth Pole Telescope (SPT) high-multipole CMB spectra disfavors interpretingthese tensions as evidence for new physics. We conclude that the parametersfrom the Planck high-multipole spectrum probably differ from the underlyingvalues due to either an unlikely statistical fluctuation or unaccounted-forsystematics persisting in the Planck data.

Quantifying discordance in the 2015 Planck CMB spectrum