Can topological defects mimic the BICEP2 B-mode signal?

Can topological defects mimic the BICEP2 B-mode signal?

Joanes Lizarraga Department of Theoretical Physics, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, 48080 Bilbao, Spain    Jon Urrestilla Department of Theoretical Physics, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, 48080 Bilbao, Spain    David Daverio Département de Physique Théorique & Center for Astroparticle Physics, Université de Genève, Quai Ernest-Ansermet 24, CH-1211 Genève 4, Switzerland    Mark Hindmarsh Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QH, United Kingdom Department of Physics and Helsinki Institute of Physics, PL 64, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland    Martin Kunz Département de Physique Théorique & Center for Astroparticle Physics, Université de Genève, Quai Ernest-Ansermet 24, CH-1211 Genève 4, Switzerland African Institute for Mathematical Sciences, 6 Melrose Road, Muizenberg, 7945, South Africa    Andrew R. Liddle Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ, United Kingdom
July 1, 2019

We show that the B-mode polarization signal detected at low multipoles by BICEP2 cannot be entirely due to topological defects. This would be incompatible with the high-multipole B-mode polarization data and also with existing temperature anisotropy data. Adding cosmic strings to a model with tensors, we find that B-modes on their own provide a comparable limit on the defects to that already coming from Planck satellite temperature data. We note that strings at this limit give a modest improvement to the best-fit of the B-mode data, at a somewhat lower tensor-to-scalar ratio of .

I Introduction

The detection of low-multipole B-mode polarization anisotropies by the BICEP2 project Ade et al. (2014) opens a new observational window on models that generate the primordial perturbations leading to structure formation. The leading candidate to explain such a B-mode signal is primordial gravitational wave (tensor) perturbations generated by the inflationary cosmology. For a tensor-to-scalar ratio of around , these give a good match to the spectral shape in the region , while falling some way short of the observed signal at higher multipoles for reasons yet to be uncovered.

An alternative mechanism of generating primordial B-modes is the presence of an admixture of topological defects (see e.g. Refs. Vilenkin and Shellard (1994); Hindmarsh and Kibble (1995); Durrer et al. (2002); Copeland and Kibble (2010); Hindmarsh (2011) for reviews). Many inflation scenarios, particularly of hybrid inflation type, end with a phase transition. Defect production at such a transition is natural and plausibly a sub-dominant contributor to the total temperature anisotropy. Many papers have used recent data to impose constraints on the fraction of defects, typically obtaining limits of a few percent contribution to the large-angle temperature anisotropies Wyman et al. (2005); Bevis et al. (2008); Battye and Moss (2010); Dunkley et al. (2011); Urrestilla et al. (2011); Avgoustidis et al. (2011); Ade et al. (2013a). The tensor and defect spectra were previously compared in Refs. Urrestilla et al. (2008a); Mukherjee et al. (2011).

An important question then arises: does the observed B-mode polarization confirm the existence of a primordial gravitational wave background due to inflationary dynamics in the early Universe, or could it instead be entirely due to the presence of topological defects? In this Letter we show that topological defects alone cannot explain the BICEP2 data points.

Figure 1: The CMB temperature and polarization power spectra contributions from inflationary scalar modes (black solid), inflationary tensor modes (black dashed), and cosmic strings (blue dot-dashed) Bevis et al. (2007). The inflationary tensors have while the string contribution has .
Figure 2: B-mode polarization power spectra for textures (solid red), semilocal strings (dashed black), and Abelian Higgs strings (dot-dash blue). All the curves are normalized to make the temperature spectra match the Planck  value. We see that all these types of topological defects predict similar shapes in the BICEP2 data range , though they become different for .

Ii B-mode constraints from BICEP2

As with inflationary tensors, a distinctive signature of topological defects lies in the B-mode polarization, where the signal is not masked by a dominant contribution from inflationary scalars. Figure 1 shows a comparison of cosmic microwave background (CMB) spectra predicted from inflation with those of cosmic strings as computed via field theory simulations111Strings can also be studied in the Nambu–Goto approximation, most recently in Ref. Blanco-Pillado et al. (2014). However, the shapes of the cosmic string CMB spectra are reasonably generic and can be understood from simple modelling Pogosian and Vachaspati (1999); Martins et al. (2004); Battye and Moss (2010). There are significant differences in other observational constraints: for a review see Ref. Hindmarsh (2011). by Bevis et al. Bevis et al. (2007, 2010), for a particular value of near the Planck upper limit Ade et al. (2013a) (where is the fractional contribution of defects to the temperature anisotropies at ). The scalar B-mode spectrum is the one inevitably produced by lensing of the scalar E-modes. In the B-mode channel the string spectrum has a quite different shape to the inflationary tensors, peaking towards smaller scales. Figure 2 shows the B-mode polarization spectra for several classes of defects (textures, semilocal strings, and Abelian Higgs strings Urrestilla et al. (2008b)), showing that they share the same general shape in the multipole range of interest. We focus on cosmic strings (using the Abelian Higgs model) as a specific example for the remainder of this work.

We first attempt to match the cosmic string B-mode spectrum to the BICEP2 data, showing the result in the lower panel of Figure 3. It is clear that the defect spectrum has the wrong shape, and could only match the low-multipole data at by substantially over-predicting the high multipole data (). In detail, we see that we need to generate the necessary power at , which in turn leads to a B-mode amplitude which is a factor of about 5 too large at higher .

In addition, matching the low-multipole data requires a fractional contribution to the total TT power spectrum at far larger than the maximum allowed by Planck Ade et al. (2013a), as shown in the upper panel of Figure 3. We show the defect contributions to the temperature spectrum as the blue-dotted curves, with the required contributions to match the B-mode polarization amplitude at as the highest blue-dotted curve (which corresponds to ). The solid back line is the best-fit CDM model, while the grey dashed line shows the sum of the string prediction with the Planck best-fit CDM model Ade et al. (2013b). The model in which strings match the B-mode polarization amplitude at is clearly incompatible with the temperature data. Allowing the parameters of the CDM model to vary does not help: the 95% upper limit from Planck is around 0.03 to 0.055 depending on the type of defect Ade et al. (2013a).

We can therefore immediately conclude that defects do not provide an alternative to inflationary tensors in explaining the observed data.

Figure 3: Temperature (upper panel) and B-mode polarization (lower panel) power spectra compared to the Planck temperature and the BICEP2 B-mode polarization data. The black curve in the upper panel is the best-fit CDM model and the blue dashed lines show the contribution from strings for , , , and . The green-dotted curves in the lower panel show the combined contribution from strings and the lensing of the scalar perturbations, for the same values of as in the upper panel. The lowest dotted curve, for , shows roughly the maximal allowed contribution from strings to the temperature power spectrum, given the Planck data. The highest dotted curve, , matches the BICEP2 B-mode polarization at . The grey dashed line is the sum of the string prediction with the Planck best-fit CDM model. The thin solid red line in the lower panel shows the combined contribution from the lensing of scalar perturbations and textures, normalized to match the BICEP2 data point.

We can also use the B-mode data to constrain the contribution of defects to the total anisotropy in a scenario where both strings and inflationary gravitational waves contribute significantly, as anticipated in Refs. Seljak and Slosar (2006); Pogosian and Wyman (2008). In fact, because the strings contribute more substantially at higher multipoles than inflationary tensors do, a modest admixture of defects improves the fit to the BICEP2 data; as seen in Fig. 4 a string fraction of around 0.04 would explain the excess signal at (as an alternative to the more prosaic possible explanations of a foreground contribution or undiscovered systematic), while a fraction above about 0.06 is disfavoured. It is noteworthy that the first detection of the B-modes already gives a limit on defects which is competitive with that from the temperature spectrum. This conclusion can of course only strengthen if some or all of the BICEP2 signal turns out not to be cosmological.

Figure 4: A contribution from strings (blue dot-dashed) is added to the prediction from plus scalar lensing (solid black) to give a total spectrum shown in grey. The data points are from BICEP2. From bottom to top the string fractions are 0.015, 0.03, 0.04 (highlighted in red), and 0.06. A marginal improvement to the overall data fit is given for a string fraction around 0.04, which is about the maximum permitted by current constraints from Planck .

Iii Conclusions

If this detection of B-mode polarization is confirmed, then primordial gravitational waves appear to be a necessary addition to the standard cosmological model. However, the BICEP2 data points do not agree well with expectations at higher . It is intriguing that an admixture of topological defects appears able to improve the fit, while reducing the tensor-to-scalar ratio to . But precise quantitative statements for such a model, which would simultaneously include primordial tensors, defects, and perhaps also a running of the scalar spectral index, require a more careful numerical analysis.

In conclusion, we have shown that topological defects alone cannot explain the BICEP2 data points, and that B-modes already give a constraint on defects competitive with that from temperature anisotropies.

JL and JU acknowledge support from the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU (EHUA 12/11), the Basque Government (IT-559-10), the Spanish Ministry (FPA2012-34456) and the Consolider-Ingenio Programme CPAN (CSD2007-00042), EPI (CSD2010-00064). DD and MK acknowledge financial support from the Swiss NSF. MH and ARL acknowledge support from the Science and Technology Facilities Council (grant numbers ST/J000477/1 and ST/K006606/1).

Shortly after our article was posted on, a related paper Moss and Pogosian (2014) was posted investigating similar ideas.


  • Ade et al. (2014) P. Ade et al. (BICEP2 Collaboration) (2014), eprint 1403.3985.
  • Vilenkin and Shellard (1994) A. Vilenkin and E. Shellard, Cosmic strings and other topological defects (Cambridge University Press, 1994).
  • Hindmarsh and Kibble (1995) M. Hindmarsh and T. Kibble, Rept.Prog.Phys. 58, 477 (1995), eprint hep-ph/9411342.
  • Durrer et al. (2002) R. Durrer, M. Kunz, and A. Melchiorri, Phys.Rept. 364, 1 (2002), eprint astro-ph/0110348.
  • Copeland and Kibble (2010) E. J. Copeland and T. Kibble, Proc.Roy.Soc.Lond. A466, 623 (2010), eprint 0911.1345.
  • Hindmarsh (2011) M. Hindmarsh, Prog.Theor.Phys.Suppl. 190, 197 (2011), eprint 1106.0391.
  • Wyman et al. (2005) M. Wyman, L. Pogosian, and I. Wasserman, Phys.Rev. D72, 023513 (2005), eprint astro-ph/0503364.
  • Bevis et al. (2008) N. Bevis, M. Hindmarsh, M. Kunz, and J. Urrestilla, Phys.Rev.Lett. 100, 021301 (2008), eprint astro-ph/0702223.
  • Battye and Moss (2010) R. Battye and A. Moss, Phys.Rev. D82, 023521 (2010), eprint 1005.0479.
  • Dunkley et al. (2011) J. Dunkley, R. Hlozek, J. Sievers, V. Acquaviva, P. Ade, et al., Astrophys.J. 739, 52 (2011), eprint 1009.0866.
  • Urrestilla et al. (2011) J. Urrestilla, N. Bevis, M. Hindmarsh, and M. Kunz, JCAP 1112, 021 (2011), eprint 1108.2730.
  • Avgoustidis et al. (2011) A. Avgoustidis, E. Copeland, A. Moss, L. Pogosian, A. Pourtsidou, et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 107, 121301 (2011), eprint 1105.6198.
  • Ade et al. (2013a) P. Ade et al. (Planck Collaboration) (2013a), eprint 1303.5085.
  • Urrestilla et al. (2008a) J. Urrestilla, P. Mukherjee, A. R. Liddle, N. Bevis, M. Hindmarsh, et al., Phys.Rev. D77, 123005 (2008a), eprint 0803.2059.
  • Mukherjee et al. (2011) P. Mukherjee, J. Urrestilla, M. Kunz, A. R. Liddle, N. Bevis, et al., Phys.Rev. D83, 043003 (2011), eprint 1010.5662.
  • Bevis et al. (2007) N. Bevis, M. Hindmarsh, M. Kunz, and J. Urrestilla, Phys.Rev. D76, 043005 (2007), eprint 0704.3800.
  • Blanco-Pillado et al. (2014) J. J. Blanco-Pillado, K. D. Olum, and B. Shlaer, Phys.Rev. D89, 023512 (2014), eprint 1309.6637.
  • Pogosian and Vachaspati (1999) L. Pogosian and T. Vachaspati, Phys.Rev. D60, 083504 (1999), eprint astro-ph/9903361.
  • Martins et al. (2004) C. Martins, J. Moore, and E. Shellard, Phys.Rev.Lett. 92, 251601 (2004), eprint hep-ph/0310255.
  • Bevis et al. (2010) N. Bevis, M. Hindmarsh, M. Kunz, and J. Urrestilla, Phys.Rev. D82, 065004 (2010), eprint 1005.2663.
  • Urrestilla et al. (2008b) J. Urrestilla, N. Bevis, M. Hindmarsh, M. Kunz, and A. R. Liddle, JCAP 0807, 010 (2008b), eprint 0711.1842.
  • Ade et al. (2013b) P. Ade et al. (Planck Collaboration) (2013b), eprint 1303.5062.
  • Seljak and Slosar (2006) U. Seljak and A. Slosar, Phys.Rev. D74, 063523 (2006), eprint astro-ph/0604143.
  • Pogosian and Wyman (2008) L. Pogosian and M. Wyman, Phys.Rev. D77, 083509 (2008), eprint 0711.0747.
  • Moss and Pogosian (2014) A. Moss and L. Pogosian (2014), eprint 1403.6105.
Comments 0
Request Comment
You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
  • Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
  • Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
  • Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters
Add comment
Loading ...
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test description