text:
# A Variant of 𝐾-theory: 𝐾_±

## Introduction

Topological $`K`$-theory  has many variants which have been developed and exploited for geometric purposes. There are real or quaternionic versions, “Real” $`K`$-theory in the sense of , equivariant $`K`$-theory  and combinations of all these.

In recent years $`K`$-theory has found unexpected application in the physics of string theories  and all variants of $`K`$-theory that had previously been developed appear to be needed. There are even variants, needed for the physics, which had previously escaped attention, and it is one such variant that is the subject of this paper.

This variant, denoted by $`K_\pm (X),`$ was introduced by Witten  in relation to “orientifolds”. The geometric situation concerns a manifold $`X`$ with an involution $`\tau `$ leaving a fixed sub-manifold $`Y`$. On $`X`$ one wants to study a pair of complex vector bundles $`(E^+,E^{})`$ with the property that $`\tau `$ interchanges them. If we think of the virtual vector bundle $`E^+E^{}`$, then $`\tau `$ takes this into its negative, and $`K_\pm (X)`$ is meant to be the appropriate $`K`$-theory of this situation.

In physics, $`X`$ is a 10-dimensional Lorentzian manifold and maps $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$ of a surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ describe the world-sheet of strings. The symmetry requirements for the appropriate Feynman integral impose conditions that the putative $`K`$-theory $`K_\pm (X)`$ has to satisfy.

The second author proposed a precise topological definition of $`K_\pm (X)`$ which appears to meet the physics requirements, but it was not entirely clearly how to link the physics with the geometry.

In this paper we elaborate on this definition and also a second (but equivalent) definition of $`K_\pm (X)`$. Hopefully this will bring the geometry and physics closer together, and in particular link it up with the analysis of Dirac operators.

Although $`K_\pm (X)`$ is defined in the context of spaces with involution it is rather different from Real $`K`$-theory or equivariant $`K`$-theory (for $`G=Z_2`$) although it has superficial resemblances to both. The differences will become clear as we proceed but at this stage it may be helpful to consider the analogy with cohomology. Equivariant cohomology can be defined (for any compact Lie group $`G`$), and this has relations with equivariant $`K`$-theory. But there is also “cohomology with local coefficients”, where the fundamental group $`\pi _1(X)`$ acts on the abelian coefficient group. In particular for integer coefficients $`Z`$ the only such action is via a homomorphism $`\pi _1(X)Z_2`$, i.e. by an element of $`H^1(X;Z_2)`$ or equivalently a double-covering $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ of $`X`$.

This is familiar for an unoriented manifold with $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ its oriented double-cover. In this situation, if say $`X`$ is a compact $`n`$-dimensional manifold, then we do not have a fundamental class in $`H^n(X;Z)`$ but in $`H^n(X;\stackrel{~}{Z})`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ is the local coefficient system defined by $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$. This is also called “twisted cohomology”.

Here $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ has a fixed-point-free involution $`\tau `$ and, in such a situation, our group $`K_\pm (\stackrel{~}{X})`$ is the precise $`K`$-theory analogue of twisted cohomology. This will become clear later.

In fact $`K`$-theory has more sophisticated twisted versions. In  Donovan and Karoubi use Wall’s graded Brauer group  to construct twistings from elements of $`H^1(X;Z_2)\times H^3(X;Z)_{\text{torsion}}`$. More general twistings of $`K`$-theory arise from automorphisms of its classifying space, as do twistings of equivariant $`K`$-theory. Among these are twistings involving a general element of $`H^3(X;Z)`$ (i.e., one which is not necessarily of finite order). These are also of interest in physics, and have recently been the subject of much attention . Our $`K_\pm `$ is a twisted version of equivariant $`K`$-theory,111It is the twisting of equivariant $`K`$-theory by the non-trivial element of $`H_{Z_2}^1(\text{pt})=Z_2`$. From the point of view of the equivariant graded Brauer group, $`K_\pm (X)`$ is the $`K`$-theory of the graded cross product algebra $`C(X)MZ_2`$, where $`C(X)`$ is the algebra of continuous functions on $`X`$ and $`M`$ is the graded algebra of $`2\times 2`$-matrices over the complex numbers, graded in such a way that $`(i,j)`$ entry has degree $`i+j`$. The action of $`Z_2`$ is the combination of the geometric action given on $`X`$ and conjugation by the permutation matrix on $`M`$. and this paper can be seen as a preliminary step towards these other more elaborate version.

## 2. The first definition

Given a space $`X`$ with involution we have two natural $`K`$-theories, namely $`K(X)`$ and $`K_{Z_2}(X)`$ — the ordinary and equivariant theories respectively. Moreover we have the obvious homomorphism

(2.1)
$$\varphi :K_{Z_2}(X)K(X)$$

which “forgets” about the $`Z_2`$-action. We can reformulate this by introducing the space $`(X\times Z_2)`$ with the involution $`(x,0)(\tau (x),1)`$. Since this action is free we have

$$K_{Z_2}(X\times Z_2)K(X)$$

and (2.1) can then be viewed as the natural homomorphism for $`K_{Z_2}`$ induced by the projection

(2.2)
$$\pi :X\times Z_2X.$$

Now, whenever we have such a homomorphism, it is part of a long exact sequence (of period 2) which we can write as an exact triangle

(2.3)

| $`K_{Z_2}^{}(X)`$ | $`\stackrel{\varphi }{}`$ | $`K^{}(X)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $``$ |  | $`\delta `$ |
|  | $`K_{Z_2}^{}(\pi )`$ |  |

where $`K^{}=K^0K^1,\delta `$ has degree $`1mod2`$ and the relative group $`K_{Z_2}^{}(\pi )`$ is just the relative group for a pair, when we replace $`\pi `$ by a $`Z_2`$-homotopically equivalent inclusion. In this case a natural way to do this is to replace the $`X`$ factor on the right of (2.2) by $`X\times I`$ where $`I=[0,1]`$ is the unit interval with $`\tau `$ being reflection about the mid-point $`\frac{1}{2}`$. Thus, explicitly,

(2.4)
$$K_{Z_2}^{}(\pi )=K_{Z_2}^{}(X\times I,X\times I)$$

where $`I`$ is the (2-point) boundary of $`I.`$

We now take the group in (2.4) (with the degree shifted by one) as our definition of $`K_\pm ^{}(X).`$ It is then convenient to follow the notation of  where $`R^{p,q}=R^pR^q`$ with the involution changing the sign of the first factor, and we use $`K`$-theory with compact supports (so as to avoid always writing the boundary). Then our definition of $`K_\pm `$ becomes

(2.5)
$$K_\pm ^0(X)=K_{Z_2}^1(X\times R^{1,0})K_{Z_2}^0(X\times R^{1,1})$$

(and similarly for $`K^1).`$

Let us now explain why this definition fits the geometric situation we began with (and which comes from the physics). Given a vector bundle $`E`$ we can form the pair $`(E,\tau ^{}E)`$ or the virtual bundle

$$E\tau ^{}E.$$

Under the involution, $`E`$ and $`\tau ^{}E`$ switch and the virtual bundle goes into its negative. Clearly, if $`E`$ came from an equivariant bundle, then $`E\tau ^{}E`$ and the virtual bundle is zero. Hence the virtual bundle depends only the element defined by $`E`$ in the cokernel of $`\varphi `$, and hence by the image of $`E`$ in the next term of the exact sequence (2.3) i.e. by

$$\delta (E)K_\pm ^0(X).$$

This explains the link with our starting point and it also shows that one cannot always define $`K_\pm (X)`$ in terms of such virtual bundles on $`X.`$In general the exact sequence $`(2.3)`$ does not break up into short exact sequences and $`\delta `$ is not surjective.

At this point a physicist might wonder whether the definition of $`K_\pm (X)`$ that we have given is the right one. Perhaps there is another group which is represented by virtual bundles. We will give two pieces of evidence in favour of our definition, the first pragmatic and the second more philosophical.

First let us consider the case when the involution $`\tau `$ on $`X`$ is trivial. Then

$`K_{Z_2}^{}\left(X\right)=R(Z_2)K^{}(X)`$ and $`R(Z_2)=ZZ`$ is the representation ring of $`Z_2`$ and is generated by the two representations

| 1 | (trivial representation) |
| --- | --- |
| $`\rho `$ | (sign representation). |

The homomorphism $`\varphi `$ is surjective with kernel $`(1\rho )K^{}(X)`$ so $`\delta =0`$ and

(2.6)
$$K_\pm ^0(X)K^1(X).$$

This fits with the requirements of the physics, which involves a switch from type $`\mathrm{II}A`$ to type $`\mathrm{II}B`$ string theory. Note also that it gives an extreme example when $``$ is not surjective.

Our second argument is concerned with the general passage from physical (quantum) theories to topology. If we have a theory with some symmetry then we can consider the quotient theory, on factoring out the symmetry. Invariant states of the original theory become states of the quotient theory but there may also be new states that have to be added. For example if we have a group $`G`$ of geometric symmetries, then closed strings in the quotient theory include strings that begin at a point $`x`$ and end at $`g(x)`$for $`gG.`$ All this is similar to what happens in topology with (generalized) cohomology theories, such as $`K`$-theory. If we have a morphism of theories, such as $`\varphi `$ in (2.1) then the third theory we get fits into a long-exact sequence. The part coming from $`K(X)`$ is only part of the answer – other elements have to be added. In ordinary cohomology where we start with cochain complexes the process of forming a quotient theory involves an ordinary quotient (or short exact sequence) at the level of cochains. But this becomes a long exact sequence at the cohomology level. For $`K`$-theory the analogue is to start with bundles over small open sets and at this level we can form the naive quotients, but the $`K`$-groups arise when we impose the matching conditions to get bundles, and then we end up with long exact sequences.

It is also instructive to consider the special case when the involution is free so that we have a double covering $`\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ and the exact triangle (2.3), with $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ for $`X`$, becomes the exact triangle

(2.7)

| $`K^{}(X)`$ | $`\stackrel{\varphi }{}`$ | $`K^{}(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $``$ |  | $`\delta `$ |
|  | $`K_{Z_2}^{}(L)`$ |  |

Here $`L`$ is the real line bundle over $`X`$ associated to the double covering $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ (or to the corresponding element of $`H^1(X,Z_2)),`$and we again use compact supports. Thus (for $`q=0,1mod2)`$

(2.8)
$$K_\pm ^q(\stackrel{~}{X})=K^{q+1}(L).$$

If we had repeated this argument using equivariant cohomology instead of equivariant $`K`$-theory we would have ended up with the twisted cohomology mentioned earlier, via a twisted suspension isomorphism,

(2.9)
$$H^q(X,\stackrel{~}{Z})=H^{q+1}(L).$$

This shows that, for free involutions, $`K_\pm `$ is precisely the analogue of twisted cohomology, so that, for example, the Chern character of the former take values in the rational extension of the latter.

## 3. Relation to Fredholm operators

In this section we shall given another definition of $`K_\pm `$ which ties in naturally with the analysis of Fredholm operators, and we shall show that this definition is equivalent to the one given in Section 2.

We begin by recalling a few basic facts about Fredholm operators. Let $`H`$ be complex Hilbert space, $``$the space of bounded operators with the norm topology and $``$the open subspace of Fredholm operators, i.e. operators $`A`$ so that $`\mathrm{ker}A`$ and $`\mathrm{coker}A`$ are both finite-dimensional. The index defined by

$$\text{index }A=dim\mathrm{ker}Adim\mathrm{coker}A$$

is then constant on connected components of $`.`$ If we introduce the adjoint $`A^{}`$ of $`A`$ then

$$\mathrm{coker}A=\mathrm{ker}A^{}$$

so that

$$\text{index }A=dim\mathrm{ker}Adim\mathrm{ker}A^{}.$$

More generally if we have a continuous map

$$f:X$$

(i.e. a family of Fredholm operators, parametrized by $`X`$), then one can define

$$\text{index }fK(X)$$

and one can show  that we have an isomorphism

(3.1)
$$\text{index}:[X,]K(X)$$

where $`[,]`$ denotes homotopy classes of maps. Thus $`K(X)`$ has a natural definition as the “home” of indices of Fredholm operators (parametrized by $`X)`$: it gives the complete homotopy invariant.

Different variants of $`K`$-theory can be defined by different variants of (3.1). For example real $`K`$-theory uses real Hilbert space and equivariant $`K`$-theory for $`G`$-spaces uses a suitable $`H`$-space module of $`G`$, namely $`L_2(G)H.`$ It is natural to look for a similar story for our new groups $`K_\pm (X).`$ A first candidate might be to consider $`Z_2`$ -equivariant maps

$$f:X$$

where we endow $``$with the involution $`AA^{}`$ given by taking the adjoint operator. Since this switches the role of kernel and cokernel it acts as $`1`$ on the index, and so is in keeping with our starting point.

As a check we can consider $`X`$ with a trivial involution, then $`f`$ becomes a map

$$f:X\widehat{}$$

where $`\widehat{}`$is the space of self-adjoint Fredholm operators. Now in  it is shown that $`\widehat{}`$has three components

$$\widehat{}_+,\widehat{}_{},\widehat{}_{}$$

where the first consists of $`A`$ which are essentially positive (only finitely many negative eigenvalues), the second is given by essentially negative operators. These two components are trivial, in the sense that they are contractible, but the third one is interesting and in fact

(3.2)
$$\widehat{}_{}\mathrm{\Omega }$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denotes the loop space. Since

$$[X,\mathrm{\Omega }]K^1(X)$$

this is in agreement with (2.6) – though to get this we have to discard the two trivial components of $`\widehat{},`$a technicality to which we now turn.

Lying behind the isomorphism (3.1) is Kuiper’s Theorem  on the contractibility of the unitary group of Hilbert spaces. Hence to establish that our putative definition of $`K_\pm `$ coincides with the definition given in Section 2 we should expect to need a generalization of Kuiper’s Theorem incorporating the involution $`AA^{}`$ on operators. The obvious extension turns out to be false, precisely because $`\widehat{}`$, the fixed-point set of * on $``$, has the additional contractible components. There are various ways we can get round this but the simplest and most natural is to use “stabilization”. Since $`HHH`$ we can always stabilize by adding an additional factor of $`H.`$ In fact Kuiper’s Theorem has two parts in its proof:

1. The inclusion $`U(H)U(HH)`$ defined by $`uu1`$ is homotopic to the constant map.
2. This inclusion is homotopic to the identity map given by the isomorphism $`HHH.`$

The proof of (1) is an older argument (sometimes called the “Eilenberg swindle”), based on a correct use of the fallacious formula

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`1+(1+1)+(1+1)\mathrm{}..`$
$`=`$ $`(1+1)+(1+1)+\mathrm{}..`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
The trickier part, and Kuiper’s contribution, is the proof of (2).

For many purposes, as in $`K`$-theory, the stronger version is a luxury and one can get by with the weaker version (1), which applies rather more generally. In particular (1) is consistent with taking adjoints (i.e. inverses in $`U(H)`$), which is the case we need.

With this background explanation we now introduce formally our second definition, and to distinguish it temporarily from $`K_\pm `$ as defined in Section 2, we put

(3.3)
$$𝒦_\pm (X)=[X,]_{}^s$$

where $``$ means we use $`Z_2`$-maps compatible with $``$ and $`s`$ means that we use stable homotopy equivalence. More precisely the $`Z_2`$-maps

$$f:X(H)g:X(H)$$

are called stably homotopic if the “stabilized” maps

$$f^s:X(HH)g^s:X(HH)$$

given by $`f^s=fJ,g^s=gJ`$ are homotopic, where $`J`$ is a fixed (essentially unique) automorphism of $`H`$ with

(3.4)
$$J=J^{},J^2=1,+1\text{and }1\text{both of infinite multiplicity}$$

Note that under such stabilization the two contractible components $`\widehat{}_+`$ and $`\widehat{}_{}`$ of $`\widehat{}(H)`$ both end up in the interesting component $`\widehat{}_{}`$ of $`\widehat{}(HH).`$

The first thing we need to observe about $`𝒦_\pm (X)`$ is that it is an abelian group. The addition can be defined in the usual way by using direct sums of Hilbert spaces. Moreover we can define the negative degree groups $`𝒦_\pm ^n(X)`$ (for $`n1`$) by suspension (with trivial involution on the extra coordinates), so that

$$𝒦_\pm ^n(X)=𝒦_\pm (X\times S^n,X\times \mathrm{}).$$

However, at this stage we do not have the periodicity theorem for $`𝒦_\pm (X).`$ This will follow in due course after we establish the equivalence with $`K_\pm (X).`$ As we shall see our construction of (4.2) is itself closely tied to the periodicity theorem.

Our aim in the subsequent sections will be to show that there is a natural isomorphism

(3.5)
$$𝒦_\pm (X)K_\pm (X).$$

This isomorphism will connect us up naturally with Dirac operators and so should tie in nicely with the physics.

## 4. Construction of the map

Our first task is to define a natural map

(4.1)
$$K_\pm (X)𝒦_\pm (X).$$

We recall from (2.5) that

$`K_\pm (X)`$ $`=`$ $`K_{Z_2}(X\times R^{1,1})`$
$`=`$ $`K_{Z_2}(X\times S^2,X\times \mathrm{})`$
where $`S^2`$ is the 2-sphere obtained by compactifying $`R^{1,1}`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the added point. Note that $`Z_2`$ now acts on $`S^2`$ by a reflection, so that it reverses its orientation.

Thus to define a map (4.1) it is sufficient to define a map

(4.2)
$$K_{Z_2}(X\times S^2)𝒦_\pm (X).$$

This is where the Dirac operator enters. Recall first that, if we ignore involutions, there is a basic map

(4.3)
$$K(X\times S^2)[X,]K(X)$$

which is the key to the Bott periodicity theorem. It is given as follows. Let $`D`$ be the Dirac operator on $`S^2`$ from positive to negative spinors) and let $`V`$ be a complex vector bundle on $`X\times S^2`$, then we can extend, or couple, $`D`$ to $`V`$ to get a family $`D_V`$ of elliptic operators along the $`S^2`$-fibres. Converting this, in the usual way, to a family of (bounded) Fredholm operators we get the map (4.3).

We now apply the same construction but keeping track of the involutions. The new essential feature is that $`Z_2`$ reverses the orientation of $`S^2`$ and hence takes the Dirac operator $`D`$ into its adjoint $`D^{}.`$ This is precisely what we need to end up in $`𝒦_\pm (X)`$ so defining (4.2).

###### Remark 1.

Strictly speaking the family $`D_V`$ of Fredholm operators does not act in a fixed Hilbert space, but in a bundle of Hilbert spaces. The problem can be dealt with by adding a trivial operator acting on a complmentary bundle $`W`$ (so that $`W+V`$ is trivial).

## 5. Equivalence of definition

Let us sum up what we have so far. We have defined a natural homomorphism

$$K_\pm (X)𝒦_\pm (X)$$

and we know that this is an isomorphism for spaces $`X`$ with trivial involution — both groups coinciding with $`K^1(X)`$. Moreover, if for general $`X`$, we ignore the involutions, or equivalently replace $`X`$ by $`X\times \{0,1\}`$, we also get an isomorphism, both groups now coinciding with $`K^0(X)`$.

General theory then implies that we have an isomorphism for all $`X.`$ We shall review this general argument.

Let $`A,B`$ be representable theories, defined on the category of $`Z_2`$ -spaces, so that

$`A(X)`$ $`=`$ $`[X,𝒜]`$
$`B(X)`$ $`=`$ $`[X,]`$
where $`[,]`$ denotes homotopy classes of $`Z_2`$-maps into the classifying spaces of $`𝒜,`$ of the theories. A natural map $`A(X)B(X)`$ then corresponds to a $`Z_2`$-map $`𝒜`$. Showing that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are isomorphic theories is equivalent to showing that $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are $`Z_2`$-homotopy equivalent.

If we forget about the involutions then isomorphism of theories is the same as ordinary homotopy equivalence. Restricting to spaces $`X`$ with trivial involution corresponds to restricting to the fixed-point sets of the involution on $`𝒜`$and $`.`$

Now there is a general theorem in homotopy theory  which asserts (for reasonable spaces including Banach manifolds such as $``$) that, if a $`Z_2`$-map $`𝒜`$ is both a homotopy equivalence ignoring the involution and for the fixed-point sets, then it is a $`Z_2`$-homotopy equivalence. Translated back into the theories $`A,B`$ it says that the map $`A(X)B(X)`$ is an isomorphism provided it holds for spaces $`X`$ with the trivial $`Z_2`$-action, and for $`Z_2`$-spaces $`X`$ of the form $`Y\times \{0,1\}`$.

This is essentially the situation we have here with

$$A=K_\pm B=𝒦_\pm .$$

Both are representable. The representability of the first

$$K_\pm (X)K_{Z_2}(X\times R^{1,1})$$

arises from the general representability of $`K_{Z_2}`$, the classifying space being essentially the double loop space of $`(HC^2)`$ with an appropriate $`Z_2`$-action. The second is representable because

(5.1)
$$𝒦_\pm (X)=[X,]_{}^s=[X,_s]_{}$$

where $`^s`$ is obtained by stabilizing $`.`$ More precisely

$$^s=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_n$$

where $`_n=(HC^n)`$ and the limit is taken with respect to the natural inclusions, using $`J`$ of (3.4) as a base point. The assertion in (5.1) is easily checked and it simply gives two ways of looking at the stabilization process.

We have thus established the equivalence of our two definitions $`K_\pm `$ and $`𝒦_\pm .`$

## 6. Free involutions

We shall now look in more detail at the case of free involutions and, following the notation of Section 1, we shall denote the free $`Z_2`$-space by $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ and its quotient by $`X.`$

The reason for introducing the stabilization process in Section 3 concerned fixed points. We shall now show that, for free involutions, we can dispense with stabilization. Let

$$^s$$

be the natural inclusion of $``$ in the direct limit space. This inclusion is a $`Z_2`$-map and a homotopy equivalence, though not a $`Z_2`$-homotopy equivalence (because of the fixed points). Now given the double covering $`\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ we can form the associated fibre bundles $`_X`$ and $`_X^s`$ over $`X`$ with fibres $``$and $`^s.`$ Thus

$$_X=\stackrel{~}{X}\times _{Z_2}_X^s=\stackrel{~}{X}\times _{Z_2}^s$$

and we have an inclusion

$$_X_X^s$$

which is fibre-preserving. This map is a homotopy-equivalence on the fibres and hence, by a general theorem  (valid in particular for Banach manifolds) a fibre homotopy equivalence. It follows that the homotopy classes of sections of these two fibrations are isomorphic. But these are the same as

$$[\stackrel{~}{X},]_{}\text{and }[\stackrel{~}{X},]_{}^s=𝒦_\pm (\stackrel{~}{X}).$$

This show that, for a free involution, we can use $``$instead of $`^\text{s}.`$ Moreover it gives the following simple description of $`K_\pm (\stackrel{~}{X}):`$

(6.1)
$$K_\pm (\stackrel{~}{X})=\text{Homotopy classes of sections of }_X.$$

This is the $`K`$-theory analogue of twisted cohomology described in Section 1. A corresponding approach to the higher twist of $`K`$-theory given by an element of $`H^3(X;Z)`$ will be developed in

## 7. The real case

Everything we have done so far extends, with appropriate modifications, to real $`K`$-theory. The important difference is that the periodicity is now 8 rather than 2 and that, correspondingly we have to distinguish carefully between self-adjoint and skew-adjoint Fredholm operators. Over the complex numbers multiplication by $`i`$ converts one into the other, but over the real numbers there are substantial differences.

We denote by $`^1(R)`$ the interesting component of the space of real self-adjoint Fredholm operators $`\widehat{}(R)`$ on a real Hilbert space (discarding two contractible components as before). We also denote by $`^1(R)`$ the space of skew-adjoint Fredholm operators. Then in  it is proved that

(7.1) $`[X,^1(R)]`$ $`KO^1(X)`$
(7.2) $`[X,^1(R)]`$ $`KO^1(X)KO^7(X)`$
showing that these are essentially different groups.

Using (7.1), stabilizing, and arguing precisely as before, we define

$`KO_\pm (X)`$ $`=KO_{Z_2}^1(X\times R^{1,0})KO_{Z_2}(X\times R^{1,7})`$
$`𝒦𝒪_\pm (X)`$ $`=[X,(R)]_{}^s,`$
where (in (2.5)) the mod $`2`$ periodicity of K has been replaced by the mod $`8`$ periodicity of $`KO`$. But we cannot now just use the Dirac operator on $`S^2`$ because this is not real. Instead we have to use the Dirac operator on $`S^8,`$ which then gives us our map

(7.3)
$$KO_\pm (X)[X,(R)]_{}^s.$$

The same proof as before establishes the isomorphism of (7.3), so that

$$KO_\pm (X)𝒦𝒪_\pm (X)$$

and more generally for $`q`$ modulo 8,

(7.4)
$$KO_\pm ^q(X)𝒦𝒪_\pm ^q(X).$$

In  there is a more systematic analysis of Fredholm operators in relation to Clifford algebras and using this it is possible to give more explicit descriptions of $`KO_\pm ^q(X)`$, for all $`q`$, in terms of $`Z_2`$ -mappings into appropriate spaces of Fredholm operators. This would fit in with the different behaviour of the Dirac operator in different dimensions (modulo 8).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Earlier  the charge-exchange breakup of a fast deuteron into two protons

$$d+a(pp)+b$$

was investigated in the framework of the impulse approach. In this process the neutron incorporated in the deuteron is converted into the proton as a result of the charge transfer reaction

$$n+ap+b$$

at the momentum $`𝐩_n=𝐩_d/2`$. In so doing, it was supposed that the target particles $`a`$ and $`b`$ with the unit charge difference are the members of the same isomultiplet. In particular, one can consider the process

$$d+p(pp)+n$$

taking place at a collision of a fast deuteron with a proton target.

In papers  only the case of unpolarized initial particles was considered. In so doing, the interaction between the final protons was not taken into account and thus the spectrum of proton relative momenta was determined incorrectly. In paper , a more detailed analysis of the problem has been carried out, taking into account the polarization parameters of the particles, the identity of the produced protons (Fermi-statistics effect) and the Coulomb and strong interactions in the final state. The latter was however treated in an approximate way with the accuracy of some tens percent. Here we calculate this effect on a percent level based on the exact solution of the Schroedinger equation. We also calculate the influence of the d-wave state in the deuteron wave function on the proton spectrum and polarization effects in the forward charge-exchange deuteron breakup.

## 2 Impulse approach

The impulse approach to the deuteron breakup is applicable, in any case, for relativistic energies guaranteeing validity of the condition

$$v\sqrt{ϵ/m}1/20,$$
(1)
where $`v`$ is the velocity of the projectile deuteron, $`ϵ`$ is the binding energy of the nucleons in the deuteron, $`m`$ is the nucleon mass. The duration of the collision is then much smaller than the characteristic period of the motion of the nucleons in the deuteron and, as a result, the neutron and the proton have practically no time to change their coordinates during the impact.

When the neutron, at the transition into the proton, gets the nonrelativistic momentum transfer q in the rest frame of the deuteron, then the wave function of the two protons immediately after the impact will have the form (we use the unit system with $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$):

$$\psi _{\mathrm{pp}}=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐑})\psi _\mathrm{d}(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}/2),$$
(2)
where $`𝐫=𝐫_\mathrm{p}𝐫_\mathrm{n}`$ is the coordinate of the relative motion, $`𝐑=(𝐫_\mathrm{p}+𝐫_\mathrm{n})/2`$ is the coordinate of the center-of-mass, $`\psi _\mathrm{d}(𝐫)`$ is the deuteron wave function.

The expansion of the function

$$\psi (𝐫)=\psi _\mathrm{d}(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}/2)$$
(3)
over the stationary wave functions of the two protons, taking into account their identity and interaction in final state, gives the continuous spectrum of the relative momenta of the created protons. The magnitude of the differential cross section of the charge-exchange breakup of the deuteron is determined by the transitions from the deuteron spin states to the spin states of the two-proton system. In the impulse approximation, the contributions of these transitions are connected with the spin structure of the amplitude of the charge transfer reaction $`n+ap+b`$.

## 3 Spin structure of the nucleon charge transfer
reaction

The amplitude of the process $`n+ap+b`$ has the structure

$$\widehat{f}(n+ap+b)=[\widehat{C}(t)+\widehat{𝐁}(t)\widehat{𝝈}]P_{\mathrm{exch}},$$
(4)
where $`t`$ is the four-momentum transfer squared; $`P_{\mathrm{exch}}`$ is the exchange operator transforming the neutron into the proton and the target particle $`a`$ into the particle $`b`$; $`\widehat{𝝈}`$ is the Pauli vector operator, acting on the spin states of the neutron and the proton; $`\widehat{C}(t)`$ and $`\widehat{𝐁}(t)`$ are the operators acting on the spin states of the target particles $`a`$ and $`b`$.

The differential cross section of the reaction $`n+ap+b`$ in the case of unpolarized particles has the form

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(n+ap+b)=\frac{d\sigma }{dt}^{(\mathrm{nf})}(n+ap+b)+\frac{d\sigma }{dt}^{(\mathrm{f})}(n+ap+b),$$
(5)
where

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}^{(\mathrm{nf})}(n+ap+b)=\frac{1}{2j+1}\mathrm{tr}[\widehat{C}(t)\widehat{C}(t)]$$
(6)
is the spin-nonflip part of the cross section, which is not connected with the spin quantum numbers of the fast nucleons, and

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}^{(\mathrm{f})}(n+ap+b)=\frac{1}{2j+1}\mathrm{tr}[\widehat{𝐁}(t)\widehat{𝐁}^+(t)]$$
(7)
is the spin-flip (spin-dependent) part of the cross section, conditioned by the presence of the nucleon spin. Here the symbol tr (trace) denotes the sum of the diagonal elements of the operators acting in the spin space of target particles $`a`$ and $`b`$; $`j`$ is the spin of the target.

## 4 Charge-exchange breakup of the unpolarized
deuteron on an unpolarized target

As it is known, the neutron and the proton in the deuteron are in the triplet state (with the unit total spin). When the deuteron is unpolarized, then each of the three spin states, corresponding to the projections of the total spin onto the quantization axis $`z`$ equal to +1,–1 and 0, is realized with the probability of 1/3. These states are the following:

$$\chi _{+1}^{(t)}=+1/2^{(1)}+1/2^{(2)};\chi _1^{(t)}=1/2^{(1)}1/2^{(2)};$$

$$\chi _0^{(t)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(+1/2^{(1)}1/2^{(2)}+1/2^{(1)}+1/2^{(2)}\right).$$
(8)
Here the index 1 is related to the spin function of the neutron, and the index 2 is related to the spin function of the spectator proton. In the process $`d+a(pp)+b`$ the system of two protons can be created in the triplet states (the index 1 in Eqs. (8) then also corresponds to a proton) as well as in the singlet state with the zero total spin:

$$\chi _0^{(s)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(+1/2^{(1)}1/2^{(2)}1/2^{(1)}+1/2^{(2)}\right).$$
(9)
It is easy to see that the operator $`\widehat{C}(t)`$ in Eq. (5), being independent of the nucleon spin, leads to the production of the $`(pp)`$-system only in the triplet states. As for the spin-flip operator $`\widehat{𝐁}\widehat{𝝈}`$, it generates the transitions to both the triplet and singlet states.

In accordance with the Pauli principle for identical fermions, the coordinate wave function of two protons in the singlet (triplet) state is symmetric (antisymmetric) and the orbital angular momenta have only even (odd) values . Taking into account the proton identity and the properties of the Pauli matrices, the differential cross section of the process $`d+a(pp)+b`$ for unpolarized particles is expressed through the spin-nonflip and spin-flip parts of the differential cross section of the reaction $`n+ap+b`$ at the momentum $`𝐩_n=\frac{1}{2}𝐩_d`$ :

$$\frac{d^4\sigma }{dt}(d+a(pp)+b)=\{[\frac{d\sigma }{dt}^{(nf)}(n+ap+b)+\frac{2}{3}\frac{d\sigma }{dt}^{(f)}(n+ap+b)]\times $$

$$\times |\psi _d(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}/2)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi _𝐤^{()}(𝐫)\varphi _𝐤^{()}(𝐫)d^3𝐫|^2+$$

$$+\frac{1}{3}\frac{d\sigma }{dt}^{(f)}(n+ap+b)|\psi _d(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}/2)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi _𝐤^{()}(𝐫)+\varphi _𝐤^{()}(𝐫)d^3𝐫|^2\}\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}.$$
(10)
Here $`𝐤`$ is the three-momentum of the spectator proton in the c.m. frame of the proton pair (it is assumed that the respective momenta $`\pm 𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪`$ of the active and spectator protons in the deuteron rest frame are nonrelativistic, i.e. $`k=𝐤m,𝐪2m`$); $`\varphi _𝐤^{()}(𝐫)`$ is the nonsymmetrized wave function of the relative motion of the two interacting protons corresponding to the scattering problem and having the asymptotics in the form of the superposition of the plane wave and the converging spherical wave. Let us emphasize that in Eq. (10), the antisymmetrization and the symmetrization of the wave function $`\varphi _𝐤^{()}(𝐫)`$ with respect to the substitution $`𝐫𝐫`$ are performed for the transitions to the triplet states and to the singlet state, respectively.

In the case of forward production of the two-proton system, we can put the value $`t𝐪^2=0`$.111) The momentum transfer due to the change of the effective mass of the two nucleons at the transition $`dpp`$ is negligibly small as compared with the inverse radius of the deuteron.) As a result, the contribution of the transitions to the two-proton triplet states vanishes since the integrated function in the first term in Eq. (10) then represents the product of the antisymmetric two-proton coordinate wave function and the symmetric deuteron one. Thus, the differential cross section of the forward charge-exchange breakup of the unpolarized deuteron on an unpolarized target is proportional to the spin-flip part of the differential cross section of the charge transfer reaction $`n+ap+b`$ at zero angle :

$$\frac{d^4\sigma }{dt}(d+a(pp)+b)|_{t=0}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{d\sigma }{dt}^{(f)}(n+ap+b)|_{t=0}|\psi _d(𝐫)\varphi _𝐤^{()}(𝐫)d^3𝐫|^2\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}.$$
(11)
Generally, for any two-proton production angle, one can use the completeness conditions for the two-proton wave functions in continuous spectrum:

$$\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\varphi _𝐤^{()}(𝐫)\varphi _𝐤^{()}(𝐫^{})d^3𝐤=\delta ^3(𝐫\pm 𝐫^{})$$
(12)
and integrate the differential cross section over the proton three-momentum $`𝐤`$ in the two-proton rest frame:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(d+a(pp)+b)=\frac{d\sigma ^{(nf)}}{dt}(n+ap+b)\left(1F(𝐪)\right)+\frac{d\sigma ^{(f)}}{dt}(n+ap+b)\left(1\frac{1}{3}F(𝐪)\right),$$
(13)
where

$$F(𝐪)=\left(\psi _d(𝐫)\right)^2\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫})d^3𝐫$$

is the deuteron form-factor. Particularly, in forward direction ($`t𝐪^2=0,F(0)=1`$) the impulse approximation in Eq. (13) leads to the simple relation :

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(d+a(pp)+b)|_{t=0}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{d\sigma ^{(f)}}{dt}(n+ap+b)|_{t=0}.$$
(14)
In previous formulae we have neglected the contribution of the deuteron $`d`$-state, considering only the $`s`$-wave part of the deuteron wave function (in this case $`\psi _d(𝐫)=\psi _d(r)`$, where $`r=|𝐫|`$). However, we will show later on that Eq. (14) for the cross section integrated over the spectrum of the proton relative momenta is valid also in the general case when the deuteron $`d`$-state is taken into account.

## 5 Forward charge-exchange breakup of the polarized deuteron on the polarized proton target

Following paper , we will account now for the possible projectile and target polarization states in the process $`d+p(pp)+n`$ in forward direction. The amplitude of the charge transfer reaction $`n+pp+n`$ at zero angle can be represented in the following general form:

$$\widehat{f}=\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{exch}}[c+b(\widehat{𝝈}\widehat{𝝈^{(1)}}(\widehat{𝝈}𝐥)(\widehat{𝝈^{(1)}}𝐥))+a(\widehat{𝝈}𝐥)(\widehat{𝝈^{(1)}}𝐥))],$$
(15)
where $`\widehat{𝝈^{(1)}}`$ is the vector Pauli operator acting on the spin states of the target nucleons, $`𝐥`$ is the unit vector parallel to the neutron momentum. In the considered case the operator $`\widehat{𝐁}(0)`$ in the general Eq. (4) has the form

$$\widehat{𝐁}(0)=b\widehat{𝝈^{(1)}}+(ab)𝐥(\widehat{𝝈^{(1)}}𝐥).$$
(16)
In accordance with Eqs. (7), (11), (16), taking into account only the $`s`$-wave state of the deuteron, the differential cross section of the forward charge-exchange breakup of the unpolarized fast deuteron on the unpolarized proton (hydrogen) target takes the form:

$$\frac{d^4\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+n)|_{t=0}=\frac{2}{3}(2|b|^2+|a|^2)|\psi _d(r)\varphi _𝐤^{()}(𝐫)d^3𝐫|^2\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}.$$
(17)
The factor in brackets represents the explicit form of the spin-flip part of the differential cross section of the charge transfer reaction $`n+pp+n`$ at zero angle. The account of the deuteron and target proton polarizations yields :

$$\frac{d^4\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+n)|_{t=0}=\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+n)|_{t=0}G(𝐤)\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3},$$
(18)
where

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+p)|_{t=0}=2[\frac{2|b|^2+|a|^2}{3}+t_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{(d)}(|b|^2|a|^2)|b|^2(P_{}^{(d)}P_{}^{(p)})$$

$$\mathrm{R}e(ba^{})(𝐏_{}^{(d)}𝐏_{}^{(p)})+\mathrm{I}m(ba^{})(𝐭_{}^{(d)}[𝐏^{(p)}𝐥])],$$
(19)
$$G(𝐤)=\left|\psi _d(r)\varphi _𝐤^{()}(𝐫)d^3𝐫\right|^2.$$
(20)
Here $`P_{}^{(p)}=𝐏^{(p)}𝐥`$ and $`𝐏_{}^{(p)}=𝐏^{(p)}𝐥(𝐏^{(p)}𝐥)`$ are the longitudinal and transverse components of the polarization vector of the proton, $`P_{}^{(d)}`$ and $`𝐏_{}^{(d)}`$ are the analogous parameters of the deuteron vector polarization; $`𝐭_{}^{(d)}=𝐭^{(d)}𝐥(𝐭^{(d)}𝐥)`$, $`𝐭^{(d)}`$ is the average value of the operator

$$\widehat{𝐭}=\widehat{𝐬}(\widehat{𝐬}𝐥)+(\widehat{𝐬}𝐥)\widehat{𝐬},$$
(21)
where $`\widehat{𝐬}=\{\widehat{s}_x,\widehat{s}_y,\widehat{s}_z\}`$ is the operator of the deuteron spin, $`t_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}=(\mathrm{𝐭𝐥})/22/3`$. It should be stressed that the operator $`\widehat{𝐭}`$ corresponds to the tensor polarization of the deuteron.

In the coordinate system $`\{x,y,z\}`$ with the quantization axis $`z`$ parallel to the direction $`𝐥`$ of the deuteron momentum, the deuteron polarization parameters are expressed through the elements of the spin density matrix $`\rho _{\mu ,\nu }^{(d)}`$ in the following form:

$$P_{}^{(d)}P_z^{(d)}=\rho _{+1,+1}^{(d)}\rho _{1,1}^{(d)},P_x^{(d)}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{R}e\left(\rho _{+1,0}^{(d)}+\rho _{1,0}^{(d)}\right),P_y^{(d)}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{I}m\left(\rho _{+1,0}^{(d)}\rho _{1,0}^{(d)}\right);$$

$$t_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}=\frac{1}{3}\rho _{0,0}^{(d)},t_z^{(d)}=2\left(1\rho _{0,0}^{(d)}\right),$$

$$t_x^{(d)}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{R}e\left(\rho _{+1,0}^{(d)}\rho _{1,0}^{(d)}\right),t_y^{(d)}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{I}m\left(\rho _{+1,0}^{(d)}+\rho _{1,0}^{(d)}\right).$$
(22)
Particularly, Eqs. (18)-(20) yield at $`a=b`$:

$$\frac{d^4\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+n)|_{t=0}=2|b|^2(1(𝐏^{(p)}𝐏^{(d)}))G(𝐤)\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}$$
(23)
and, in the case of the unpolarized proton target:

$$\frac{d^4\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+n)|_{t=0}=2[\frac{2|b|^2+|a|^2}{3}+t_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{(d)}(|b|^2|a|^2)]G(𝐤)\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}.$$
(24)
Thus the forward charge-exchange deuteron breakup is sensitive to the longitudinal tensor polarization of the deuteron if only $`ab`$.

We may conclude that the study of the forward breakup process $`d+p(pp)+n`$ in a beam of polarized (aligned) deuterons on the unpolarized hydrogen target allows one, in principle, to separate the two spin-dependent terms $`a`$ and $`b`$ in the amplitude of the charge transfer reaction $`n+pp+n`$ at zero angle, one of them ($`b`$) not conserving the projection of the nucleon spin onto the momentum direction at the transition of the neutron into the proton. When both the deuteron and the proton are transversely polarized, it is possible to determine the phase difference between the amplitudes $`b`$ and $`a`$.

## 6 Spectrum of proton momenta in the forward charge-exchange deuteron breakup

In accordance with Eq. (18), when taking into account only the $`s`$-wave part of the deuteron wave function, the proton momentum spectrum in the forward charge-exchange deuteron breakup is factorized in the function $`G(𝐤)`$, defined in Eq. (20), independently of the polarization parameters of the deuteron and the proton. The function $`G(𝐤)`$ determines the proton spectrum in the two-proton rest frame which, in the considered case of the forward deuteron breakup, coincides with the deuteron rest frame. This function satisfies the completeness condition

$$G(𝐤)\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}=\left|\psi _d(𝐫)\varphi _𝐤^{()}(𝐫)d^3𝐫\right|^2\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}=1.$$
(25)
Since here we consider only the $`s`$-wave state of the deuteron, we can write $`\psi _d(𝐫)=\psi _d(r),G(𝐤)=G(k)`$, where $`r=|𝐫|,k=|𝐤|`$.

In paper , the analytical expression for the function $`G(k)`$ was obtained based on the approximate formula for the two-proton wave function at the distances $`ra_B=57.5`$ fm, $`r<1/k`$. This expression violates the completeness condition (25) and its accuracy is on the level of tens percent. Here we will calculate the function $`G(k)`$ based on the exact solution of the Schroedinger equation describing correctly the parameters of the low-energy $`pp`$-scattering.

Let us represent the normalized wave function of the deuteron $`s`$-wave state in the form

$$\psi _d(r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\frac{u(r)}{r},\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(u(r)\right)^2𝑑r=1$$
(26)
and expand the two-proton wave function over the partial waves :

$$\varphi _𝐤^{()}(𝐫)=4\pi \underset{l}{}i^l\mathrm{exp}\left(i\delta _l(k)\right)\frac{R_{kl}(r)}{kr}\underset{m}{}Y_{lm}^{}\left(\frac{𝐤}{k}\right)Y_{lm}\left(\frac{𝐫}{r}\right),$$
(27)
where $`\delta _l(k)`$ is the partial phase of the elastic scattering, $`Y_{lm}(𝐤/k)`$ and $`Y_{lm}(𝐫/r)`$ are the spherical functions, $`R_{kl}(r)`$ are the real radial functions satisfying the completeness condition

$$\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}R_{kl}(r)R_{kl}(r^{})𝑑k=\frac{\pi }{2}\delta (rr^{}).$$

Substituting Eqs. (26) and (27) into Eq. (20), we get

$$G(k)=\frac{4\pi }{k^2}\left(\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}u(r)R_{k0}(r)𝑑r\right)^2.$$
(28)
Thus, only the $`s`$-wave part of the two-proton wave function contributes into the factor $`G(k)`$. Taking further into account the isotropy of the momentum distribution, we can rewrite Eq. (18) in the form

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+n)|_{t=0}=\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+n)|_{t=0}(\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}u(r)R_{k0}(r)dr)^2\frac{2}{\pi }dk.$$
(29)
In the numerical calculations, we will use for the normalized deuteron $`s`$-wave function $`u(r)`$ the Hulthen expression as well as the analytical solution corresponding to the simple square-well potential. The strong square-well potential will be also used to calculate the two-proton $`s`$-wave radial function $`R_{k0}(r)`$.

The normalized Hulthen wave function with the correct asymptotic behavior has the form

$$u(r)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\rho d}}\left(e^{r/\rho }e^{\alpha r/\rho }\right),$$
(30)
where $`\rho =1/\sqrt{mϵ}`$ = 4.3 fm is the deuteron radius, $`d`$ = 1.7 fm is the effective radius, $`\alpha 6.25`$ (see, for example, ).

In the case of the square-well potential $`V`$ of a width $`b`$, corresponding to the deuteron binding energy $`ϵ`$ = 2.3 MeV of the triplet $`s`$-wave proton-neutron state, we have

$$u(r)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\rho d}}e^{r/\rho },r>b;u(r)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\rho d}}e^{b/\rho }\frac{\mathrm{sin}\kappa r}{\mathrm{sin}\kappa b},r<b.$$
(31)
Here $`b`$ = 2.06 fm, $`\kappa =\sqrt{m(Vϵ)}`$ = 0.883 fm-1, $`V`$ = 34 MeV.

The $`s`$-wave radial function of two protons in singlet state in the potential being the sum of the Coulomb potential and the strong square-well potential $`V`$ of a width $`b`$ is the following :

$$R_{k0}(r)=F_0(k,r)\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_0(k)+G_0(k,r)\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_0(k),r>b;$$

$$R_{k0}(r)=\frac{F_0(\stackrel{~}{\kappa },r)}{F_0(\stackrel{~}{\kappa },b)}\left[F_0(k,b)\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_0(k)+G_0(k,b)\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_0(k)\right],r<b.$$

Here $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_0`$ is the $`s`$-wave phase connected with the short-range potential, $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=\sqrt{mV+k^2}`$, $`F_0`$ and $`G_0`$ are the regular and irregular Coulomb functions, respectively . In so doing,

$$\mathrm{cot}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_0(k)\frac{1}{kA_c}\left(\frac{1}{f_0}+\frac{1}{2}d_0k^2\frac{2}{a_B}h(ka_B)\right),$$
(32)
where

$$A_c=\frac{2\pi }{ka_B}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi }{ka_B}\right)1\right]^1$$
(33)
is the Coulomb (Gamov) factor describing the Coulomb repulsion of the protons at zero separation, $`a_B=(e^2m/2)^1`$ =57.5 fm is the Bohr radius of the two-proton system, $`f_0`$ is the scattering length, $`d_0`$ is the effective radius; the function $`h(y)`$ is given by the formula

$$h(y)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n(n^2y^2+1)}C+\mathrm{ln}y$$

($`C`$ = 0.577… is the Euler constant). The following values of the parameters correspond to the experimental data on the low-energy proton-proton scattering: $`V`$ = 11.7 MeV, $`b`$ = 2.78 fm, $`f_0`$ = 7.8 fm, $`d_0`$ = 2.8 fm.

It is convenient to introduce the dimensionless variable $`x=k\rho `$ ($`k=45.8x`$MeV/$`c`$) and rewrite Eq. (29) for the differential cross section of the forward charge-exchange deuteron breakup in the form:

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+n)|_{t=0}=\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+n)|_{t=0}Q(x)x^2dx,$$
(34)
where

$$Q(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\rho ^3}G(k).$$
(35)
The functions $`Q(x)`$ and $`x^2Q(x)`$ calculated with the $`s`$-wave deuteron wave function according to Hulthen expression (dotted curves) and the square-well potential (solid curves) are shown in Fig. 1. Their difference does not exceed a few percent and can be taken as a measure of the theoretical uncertainty. For comparison, the dash curves in Fig. 1 show the functions $`Q_0(x)`$ and $`x^2Q_0(x)`$ calculated for the case of the absent final state interaction:

$$Q_0(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\rho ^3}\left|\psi _d(r)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐤𝐫})d^3𝐫\right|^2=\frac{2}{\pi k^2\rho ^3}\left(\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}u(r)\mathrm{sin}krdr\right)^2.$$
(36)
The calculation was done with the Hulthen wave function allowing to express the function $`Q_0(x)`$ in the following analytical form:

$$Q_0(y)=\frac{4}{\pi }\frac{\rho }{\rho d}\left(\frac{1}{1+x^2}\frac{1}{\alpha ^2+x^2}\right)^2.$$
(37)
## 7  Contribution of the deuteron $`d`$-wave state

Since the proton-neutron system in the deuteron has the total angular momentum $`J=1`$ and positive parity, its total spin $`S=1`$ and the orbital angular momentum $`L=0`$ and $`2`$. The normalized wave function of the deuteron, taking into account both the $`s`$\- and $`d`$-wave contributions, has the form :

$$\psi _m^{(d)}=\frac{\beta }{\sqrt{4}\pi }\frac{u(r)}{r}\chi _m+\gamma \frac{\omega (r)}{r}\underset{\mu =0,\pm 1}{}C_{2m\mu ;1\mu }^{1m}Y_{2m\mu }\left(\frac{𝐫}{r}\right)\chi _\mu ,$$
(38)
where $`C_{2m\mu ;1\mu }^{1m}`$ are the Clebsh-Gordan coefficients. In so doing, $`\beta 0.98`$, $`\gamma 0.2`$,

$$\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}u^2(r)𝑑r=1,\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\omega ^2(r)𝑑r=1,\beta ^2+\gamma ^2=1.$$

The differential cross section of the forward breakup process $`d+p(pp)+n`$ becomes:

$$\frac{d^4\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+n)|_{t=0}=2\mathrm{tr}\left(\widehat{\rho }^{(p)}\underset{m}{}\underset{m^{}}{}\widehat{M}_m^+\widehat{M}_m^{}\rho _{m,m^{}}^{(d)}\right)\frac{k^2dk}{(2\pi )^3}d\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐤.$$
(39)
In Eq. (39), $`\widehat{\rho }^{(p)}`$ is the two-row spin density matrix of the target proton, $`\widehat{\rho }^{(d)}`$ is the three-row spin density matrix of the projectile deuteron, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐤`$ is the element of the solid angle along the direction $`𝐤`$; the transition amplitudes $`\widehat{M}_m`$ ($`m=+1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1`$) are the two-row matrices:

$$\widehat{M}_m=\frac{4\pi }{k}\left[\frac{\beta }{\sqrt{4\pi }}g_0(k)\mathrm{exp}(i\delta _0(k))\widehat{R}_m+\gamma g_2(k)\mathrm{exp}(i\delta _2(k))\underset{\mu =0,\pm 1}{}C_{2m\mu ;1\mu }^{1m}Y_{2m\mu }(\theta ,\varphi )\widehat{R}_\mu \right],$$
(40)
where

$$\widehat{R}_{+1}=b\frac{\widehat{\sigma }_x+i\widehat{\sigma }_y}{\sqrt{2}},\widehat{R}_0=a\widehat{\sigma }_z,\widehat{R}_1=b\frac{\widehat{\sigma }_xi\widehat{\sigma }_y}{\sqrt{2}};$$

$$g_0(k)=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}u(r)R_{k0}(r)𝑑r,g_2(k)=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\omega (r)R_{k2}(r)𝑑r,$$
(41)
$`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the polar and azimuthal angles determining the direction of the proton momentum in the two-proton rest frame (coinciding here with the deuteron rest frame), the phases $`\delta _L(k)`$ of the singlet $`pp`$-scattering for $`L=0`$ and 2 and the corresponding radial wave functions $`R_{kL}(r)`$ are defined in Eq. (27). Note that, according to Eq. (28), $`g_0^2(k)=(k^2/4\pi )G(k)`$.

For unpolarized initial particles, we get:

$$\frac{d^4\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+n)|_{t=0}=\frac{2}{3}\{[\beta ^2g_0^2(k)+\gamma ^2g_2^2(k)]\frac{2|b|^2+|a|^2}{4\pi }+[\gamma ^2g_2^2(k)+$$

$$+2\sqrt{2}\beta \gamma g_0(k)g_2(k)\mathrm{cos}(\delta _0(k)\delta _2(k))](|a|^2|b|^2)\frac{3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 1}{8\pi }\}\frac{2}{\pi }dkd\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐤,$$
(42)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the momentum of one of the protons in the two-proton (deuteron) rest frame and the deuteron beam momentum ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\mathrm{𝐤𝐥}/k`$).

We see that at $`ab`$ the contribution of the $`d`$-wave state leads to the anisotropy of the angular distribution of the relative momenta of the two protons. Besides, this contribution violates the factorization of the differential cross section. The factorization is however recovered after the integration over the solid angle:

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+n)|_{t=0}=\frac{2}{3}(2|b|^2+|a|^2)(\beta ^2g_0^2(k)+\gamma ^2g_2^2(k))\frac{2}{\pi }dk.$$
(43)
Moreover, integrating over the momentum spectrum, using the normalization conditions

$$\frac{2}{\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_0^2(k)𝑑k=_0^{\mathrm{}}u^2(r)𝑑r=1,\frac{2}{\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_2^2(k)𝑑k=_0^{\mathrm{}}\omega ^2(r)𝑑r=1,\beta ^2+\gamma ^2=1,$$

we recover Eq. (14), originally obtained for the $`s`$-wave deuteron state:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+n)|_{t=0}=\frac{2}{3}(2|b|^2+|a|^2)=\frac{2}{3}\frac{d\sigma ^{(f)}}{dt}(n+pp+n)|_{t=0}.$$

For polarized initial particles the spectrum of the proton momenta integrated over the solid angle depends on the same deuteron and proton polarization as in Eq. (19):

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dt}(d+p(pp)+n)|_{t=0}=2\{\frac{2|b|^2+|a|^2}{3}(\beta ^2g_0^2(k)+\gamma ^2g_2^2(k))$$

$$[|b|^2(P_{}^{(d)}P_{}^{(p)}+\mathrm{R}e(ba^{})(𝐏_{}^{(𝐝)}𝐏_{}^{(𝐩)})](\beta ^2g_0^2(k)\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^2g_2^2(k))+$$

$$+[(|b|^2|a|^2)t_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{(d)}+\mathrm{I}m(ba^{})(𝐭_{}^{(𝐝)}[𝐏^{(𝐩)}𝐥])](\beta ^2g_0^2(k)+\frac{1}{10}\gamma ^2g_2^2(k))\}\frac{2}{\pi }dk.$$
(44)
Integrating further over the spectrum of proton momenta, we recover Eq. (19) with the deuteron polarization parameters: $`P_{}^{(d)}`$, $`𝐏_{}^{(d)}`$, $`t_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{(d)}`$, $`𝐭_{}^{(d)}`$ substituted by the polarization parameters of the neutron-proton triplet state in the deuteron: $`P_{}^{(np)}`$, $`𝐏_{}^{(np)}`$, $`t_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{(np)}`$, $`𝐭_{}^{(np)}`$. The elements of the spin density matrix of this state are connected with the elements of the spin density matrix of the deuteron by the following simple relations:

$$\rho _{\mu ,\mu ^{}}^{(np)}=\beta ^2\rho _{\mu ,\mu ^{}}^{(d)}+\gamma ^2\underset{M}{}C_{2M;1\mu }^{1M+\mu }C_{2m;1\mu ^{}}^{1M+\mu ^{}}\rho _{M+\mu ,M+\mu ^{}}^{(d)}.$$
(45)
Accordingly, the polarization parameters are connected by the relations:

$$𝐏^{(np)}=\left(\beta ^2\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^2\right)𝐏^{(d)};t_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{(np)}=\left(\beta ^2+\frac{1}{10}\gamma ^2\right)t_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{(d)};𝐭_{}^{(np)}=\left(\beta ^2+\frac{1}{10}\gamma ^2\right)𝐭_{}^{(d)}.$$
(46)
It should be noted that we have not considered the Glauber corrections due to the rescattering. The estimates with the Hulthen wave function of the deuteron show that at small relative proton momenta ($`k<50`$ MeV/$`c`$) these corrections do not exceed several percent. However, they can be essential ($`20\%`$) and should be taken into account for an upper part of the momentum spectrum ($`k>100`$ MeV/$`c`$).

## 8 Summary

1. In the impulse approach, the relation between the differential cross section of the charge-exchange breakup of a fast deuteron with the production of two protons and the differential cross section of the neutron-proton charge transfer reaction has been established.

2. The role of the effects of the proton identity (Fermi-statistics) and the proton interaction in the final state has been clarified. Particularly, the identity effect forces the two-proton system to be produced in the forward charge-exchange deuteron breakup process $`d+p(pp)+n`$ only in the singlet state. As a result, the differential cross section of this process is determined only by the spin-dependent part of the amplitude of the reaction $`n+pp+n`$ at zero angle.

3. The study of the charge-exchange deuteron breakup with a beam of polarized (aligned) deuterons on the polarized hydrogen target allows one to separate two spin-dependent terms in the amplitude of the charge transfer reaction $`n+pp+n`$ and to determine the phase difference between them.

4. The spectrum of the proton relative momenta in the forward charge-exchange deuteron breakup process $`d+p(pp)+n`$ has been calculated with the account of the Coulomb and strong interactions of the protons in the final state. The accuracy of the calculation of the soft part of the spectrum ($`k<50`$ MeV/$`c`$) is estimated on the level of several percent.

5. The influence of the $`d`$-wave state of the deuteron on both the proton momentum spectrum and the polarization effects has been analyzed.

This work was supported by GA Czech Republic, Grant. No. 292/01/0779, by Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Grant No. 01-02-16230, and within the Agreements IN2P3-ASCR No. 00-16 and IN2P3-Dubna No. 00-46.


text:
# First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAPWMAP is the result of a partnership between Princeton University and the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Scientific guidance is provided by the WMAP Science Team. ) Observations: Interpretation of the TT and TE Angular Power Spectrum Peaks

## 1 Introduction

WMAP has mapped the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature anisotropy over the full sky with unprecedented accuracy (Bennett et al., 2003b). The temperature angular power spectrum (TT, Hinshaw et al., 2003) and the temperature-polarization cross-power spectrum (TE, Kogut et al., 2003) derived from those maps have a number of characteristic features. It is these features, and our ability to predict them, that make the anisotropy such a powerful tool for cosmology. Computer programs like CMBFAST (Seljak & Zaldarriaga, 1996) efficiently compute the TT and TE power spectra for a wide variety of cosmological parameters. The model spectra are then compared to the data to deduce the best fit parameters (Spergel et al., 2003). The distinctiveness and accuracy of the measured spectrum determines the degree to which the parameters may be distinguished.

While the parameters of cosmological models are ultimately found by maximizing the likelihood of the data given a model, and the validity of a model is assessed by the goodness of fit (Spergel et al., 2003), this analysis by itself provides no model independent assessment of the features of the angular power spectrum. Both intuition and calculational simplicity fall by the wayside. In this paper we focus on the peaks of the TT and TE spectra. There are four reasons to consider just these particular characteristics. The first is that through an examination of the peaks, one can gain an intuition for how the cosmological parameters are encoded in the TT and TE spectra. The second is that by determining how the peaks depend on cosmological parameters, one may quickly assess how potential systematic errors in the angular power spectra affect some of the cosmological parameters. The third is that alternative models, or additions to the best fit model, may be easily compared to the data simply by checking to see if the alternative reproduces the peak positions and amplitudes. Finally, the peaks serve as a simple check for the sophisticated parameter fitting described in Spergel et al. (2003) and Verde et al. (2003).

The paper is organized as follows. In §2 we give a brief overview of the CMB. In §3 we give WMAP’s best fit values for the positions in $`\mathrm{}`$-space and amplitudes of the peaks. We then consider, in §4, the cosmological information that comes from the positions and amplitudes of the TT and TE peaks. We interpret the peaks in terms of the best fit model to the full WMAP data set (Spergel et al., 2003) and make direct connections to the decoupling epoch. We conclude in §5.

## 2 Overview

The CMB TT spectrum may be divided into three regions depending on the characteristic angular scale of its features. In each region, a different physical process dominates. The regions correspond to: (a) Angular scales larger than the horizon size at decoupling as observed today. These correspond to $`\theta >2\mathrm{°}`$ or, equivalently $`\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}_{dec}90`$. The low $`\mathrm{}`$ portion is termed the Sachs-Wolfe plateau (Sachs & Wolfe, 1967). In this region one observes the relatively unprocessed primordial fluctuation spectrum because patches of sky with larger separations could not have been in causal contact at decoupling. (b) The acoustic peak region, $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2<\theta <2\mathrm{°}`$ or $`90<\mathrm{}<900`$, which is described by the physics of a 3000 K plasma of number density $`n_e300\mathrm{cm}^3`$ responding to fluctuations in the gravitational potential produced by the dark matter. (c) The Silk damping tail (Silk, 1968), $`\theta <0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$ or $`\mathrm{}>900`$, which is produced by diffusion of the photons from the potential fluctuations and the washing out of the net observed fluctuations by the relatively large number of hot and cold regions along the line of sight. The basic framework in which to interpret the temperature anisotropy has been known for over thirty years (Peebles & Yu, 1970; Sunyaev & Zel’dovich, 1970).

It has long been recognized that the positions and amplitudes of the peaks in the $`90<\mathrm{}<900`$ region could be used to constrain the cosmological parameters in a particular model (Doroshkevich et al., 1978; Kamionkowski et al., 1994; Jungman et al., 1996b, a). Previous studies (Scott et al., 1995; Hancock & Rocha, 1997; Knox & Page, 2000; Weinberg, 2000; Cornish, 2001; Podariu et al., 2001; Miller et al., 2002; Ödman et al., 2002; Douspis & Ferreira, 2002; de Bernardis et al., 2002; Durrer et al., 2003) have steadily increased our understanding of the peaks and their significance.

A summary of pre-WMAP determinations of the position and amplitude of the first peak is given in Table 1.

## 3 Determination of Peak Characteristics

We determine the peaks and troughs with fits of Gaussian and parabolic functions to the data. Through this process, we compress a large data set to eight numbers. Such a compression is similar to specifying the cosmological parameters; though, it is considerably easier to compute and directed more toward the intrinsic characteristics of the data as opposed to a cosmological model.

For the TT spectrum, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{}}^2\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}/(2\pi )`$, we model the spectrum for $`100<\mathrm{}<700`$ as composed of a Gaussian peak, a parabolic trough, and a second parabolic peak independent of any particular cosmological model. Using a parabola to fit the first peak results in a higher $`\chi ^2`$ and systematically underestimates the amplitude. Parabolas are adequate for the other features. The independent parameters are the amplitude and position of each peak and trough, the width of the first peak, and a continuity parameter. The latera recta111 The latus rectum of a conic section is the length of the chord parallel to the directix that passes through the focus. For the parabolic curve $`y=y_0+(xx_0)^2/w`$ the value of the latus rectum is $`|w|`$.  of the trough and second peak are derived by constraining the model spectrum to be continuous. The junction between the first peak and the first trough (first trough and second peak) is fixed to be where the first peak (first trough) equals the continuity parameter. In other words, the continuity parameter is the value of the angular power spectrum where the curves meet. There are a total of eight parameters. We denote the positions of the first peak, first trough, and second peak as $`\mathrm{}_1^{TT}`$, $`\mathrm{}_{1.5}^{TT}`$, $`\mathrm{}_2^{TT}`$ respectively. The amplitudes of the first and second peak are $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{1,TT}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{2,TT}^2`$.

The peak parameters are found in three ways: (a) with a direct non-linear fit based on the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm (Press et al., 1992); (b) with a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) (Christensen et al., 2001) of the peak parameters (not the cosmological parameters); and (c) with peak-by-peak fits with a Gaussian fitting function. We have also separately fit the first peak with a Gaussian with additional parameters for kurtosis and skewness. All methods yield consistent results. The values we quote are from the MCMC. All fitting is done with the unbinned angular spectra using the full covariance matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}`$ (Verde et al., 2003). The year one WMAP calibration uncertainty is 0.5% which is added in quadruture to the fitted peak amplitude uncertainty. The fit to the TT peak models yields a minimum $`\chi ^2/\nu =702/593=1.18`$. While not as good a fit to the data as a CMBFAST-derived spectrum, the determinations of the peaks are the same for all three methods and are consistent with those of the best fit CMBFAST model.

For the TE spectrum the data between $`40<l<450`$ are modeled as a piecewise-continous composite of a parabolic antipeak and parabolic peak. (We do not fit the reionization region, $`\mathrm{}<20`$). Each parabola has a latus rectum, height, and position; however, the latus rectum of the antipeak is constrained by the requirement that the antipeak and peak are continuously joined at the zero-crossing. Thus there are just five free parameters. We impose a prior on the latus rectum of the peak to be $`<150`$. The TE Fisher matrix depends on $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$, $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$, and $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{EE}`$. The TT spectrum is fixed to be a best-fit model, and the small EE contribution is neglected. The best fit model spectrum has $`\chi ^2/\nu =504/466=1.08`$.

The parameters are summarized in Table 2 along with the peak positions determined directly from the MCMC method. These two completely distinct methods yield consistent results. Figure 1 shows the binned TT and TE angular spectrum with the best fit peaks model and the $`1\sigma `$ and $`2\sigma `$ contours for the peak and trough positions. The amplitude of the TT trough and second peak are separated by $`>5\sigma `$, leaving no doubt of the existence of the second peak.

Also shown in Table 2 are the peak determinations from the full analysis using just the WMAP data (Spergel et al., 2003). The agreement between the two is generally good, most of the values are within $`1\sigma `$, all are within $`1.6\sigma `$. This level of discrepancy is expected because the peak fitting and the full analysis weight the data in very different ways.

## 4 Interpretation of Peaks and Troughs

We now interpret the peak characteristics in terms of a flat adiabatic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmological model. We focus on the baryon density, $`\omega _b=\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$, the matter density, $`\omega _m=\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2`$ ($`\omega _m=\omega _b+\omega _c`$, where $`\omega _c`$ is the cold dark matter component), and the the slope of the primordial power spectrum, $`n_s`$. The comparison of the peaks and troughs to the model is made at two levels. At the more general level, we use CMBFAST to derive simple scaling relations and show how the cosmological parameters are encoded in the peak characteristics. The aim is to build an intuition for the connection between the raw data and the deduced parameters. This approach has been championed by Hu et al. (2001); this paper forms the basis for our presentation. The scaling relations hold for a wide range of parameters and may be derived without considering WMAP data. However, we optimize them for the best fit WMAP parameters (Table 3), so they are as accurate as possible. At a more detailed level, we show that by using the peak values and uncertainties with the scaling relations, one obtains constraints and uncertainties on $`\omega _b`$, $`\omega _m`$, $`n_s`$, and the age of the universe that are consistent with the full analysis (Spergel et al., 2003).

Seljak (1994) and Hu & Sugiyama (1995) showed that the physics of the acoustic peaks may be understood in terms $`\omega _b`$, $`\omega _m`$, $`n_s`$, $`\tau `$ (the optical depth to when the universe was reionized), and $`\theta _A`$ (the angular scale of the sound horizon at decoupling). Our approach follows that of Hu et al. (2001) in that we consider just the positions of the peaks and the ratios of the peak amplitudes. For $`\mathrm{}>40`$, the peak ratios are insensitive to the intrinsic amplitude of the CMB spectrum and to $`\tau `$. The free electrons from reionization at $`z20`$ (Kogut et al., 2003) scatter CMB photons, thereby reducing the CMB fluctuations by nearly a constant factor for multipoles $`\mathrm{}>40`$. (The reionization also increases the TT spectrum at $`\mathrm{}<20`$ due to Doppler shifts of the scatterers.) We therefore consider just $`\omega _b`$, $`\omega _m`$, $`n_s`$, and $`\theta _A`$, in the context of a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model.

### 4.1 The Position of the First Peak

The acoustic peaks arise from adiabatic compression of the photon-baryon fluid as it falls into preexisting wells in the gravitational potential. These potential wells are initially the result of fluctuations in some primordial field (e.g., the inflaton field in inflationary cosmology). The wells are enhanced by the dark matter ($`\omega _c`$), which is able to cluster following matter-radiation equality ($`z_{eq}`$, Table 3) because the dark matter, for our purposes, does not scatter off the photons or baryons.

The first peak corresponds to the scale of the mode that has compressed once in the age of the universe at the time that the photons decoupled from the electrons at $`z_{dec}`$, some $`379_7^{+8}\text{ kyr}`$ after the Big Bang (Spergel et al., 2003). The characteristic angular scale of the peaks is set by

$$\theta _A\frac{r_s(z_{dec})}{d_A(z_{dec})},$$
(1)
where $`r_s`$ is the comoving size of the sound horizon at decoupling and $`d_A`$ is the comoving angular size distance to the decoupling surface.

The size of the sound horizon may be computed from the properties of a photon-baryon fluid in an expanding universe. At decoupling it is given by (Hu & Sugiyama, 1995, B6):

$$r_s(z_{dec})=3997\sqrt{\frac{\omega _\gamma }{\omega _m\omega _b}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\sqrt{1+R_{dec}}+\sqrt{R_{dec}+R_{eq}}}{1+\sqrt{R_{eq}}}$$
(2)
in Mpc, where $`R(z)=3\rho _b(z)/4\rho _\gamma (z)`$ with $`\rho _b`$ the baryon density and $`\rho _\gamma `$ the photon density. The redshift at matter-radiation equality is

$$1+z_{eq}=\frac{5464(\omega _m/0.135)}{(T_{\mathrm{CMB}}/2.725)^4(1+\rho _\nu /\rho _\gamma )}.$$
(3)
The ratio of neutrinos to photons is $`\rho _\nu /\rho _\gamma =0.6851`$ (Hannestad & Madsen, 1995). Note that $`r_s(z_{dec})`$ depends only on the physical densities, $`\omega _m`$ and $`\omega _b`$, and not on $`h`$. (We assume $`T_{\mathrm{CMB}}=2.725\mathrm{K}`$ (Mather et al., 1999) and the number of neutrino species, $`N_\nu =3`$.) Also, $`r_s`$ is independent of the curvature and cosmological constant densities, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, because these are both late acting: at high $`z`$ the universe evolves as though it is geometrically flat.

The comoving angular size distance222We follow the naming convention of Peebles (1993, 13.29) for $`d_A`$. Common alternative names include “proper motion distance” (e.g., Weinberg, 1972, 14.4.21), “angular diameter distance” (e.g., Efstathiou & Bond, 1999), and “transverse comoving distance” (e.g., Hogg, 1999). to the decoupling surface, $`d_A`$, for a flat geometry is

$$d_A=_0^{z_{dec}}\frac{H_0^1dz}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_r(1+z)^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ is the current radiation density and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ (Peebles, 1993). Neither $`r_s`$ nor $`d_A`$ depend on $`n_s`$. The picture one has is that of measuring the angular size $`\theta _A`$ of a physical meter stick of size $`r_s`$ near the edge of the observable universe with geodesics of the intervening geometry as encoded in $`d_A`$.

The position in $`\mathrm{}`$-space of the first peak is intimately linked to $`\theta _A`$. In fact, in the full analysis (Spergel et al., 2003), $`\theta _A`$ is one of the best determined fit parameters because of its association with the first peak. To make the connection, one defines a characteristic acoustic index, $`\mathrm{}_A\pi /\theta _A`$. However, $`\mathrm{}_A`$ is not $`\mathrm{}_1^{TT}`$ because the potential wells that drive the compression, leading to the large variance at $`\mathrm{}_1^{TT}`$, are dynamic: they respond to the matter and radiation that falls into them. Additionally, there is no precise physical relation between an angular scale and an associated $`\mathrm{}`$. One calibrates the relation with cosmological models, such as those from CMBFAST, to find a phase factor $`\varphi _1`$ that relates the two (Hu et al., 2001). The general relation for all peaks and troughs is

$$\mathrm{}_m^{TT}=\mathrm{}_A(m\varphi _m),$$
(5)
where $`m`$ labels the peak number ($`m=1`$ for the first peak, $`m=1.5`$ for the first trough, etc.). For a particular curvature density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$, the $`\varphi _m`$ depend weakly on $`\omega _b`$, and $`\omega _m`$. For example, near the WMAP values, changing $`n_s`$, $`\omega _b`$, and $`\omega _m`$ by 10% changes $`\varphi _1`$ by 4.6%, 0.5%, and 1.1%, respectively. Because the $`\varphi _m`$ differ by only $`25`$% between peaks, $`\mathrm{}_A`$ may be thought of as the characteristic scale of the peaks in $`\mathrm{}`$-space. Effectively, the full analysis solves for the phase factors simultaneously with the other parameters.

The considerations above are quite general and involve a good fraction of the quantities that are of interest to cosmologists. We now show how the WMAP peak positions are related to, and in some cases determine, these quantities.

The position of the first peak is an essential ingredient of the mixture of properties that make the CMB such a powerful probe of the geometry of the universe (Kamionkowski et al., 1994; Jungman et al., 1996b). However, the position alone does not determine the geometry. With the full TT spectrum, the quantities that WMAP measures particularly well, independent of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$, are $`\omega _m`$ and $`\omega _b`$ because both these quantities affect the spectrum at early times, before geometric effects shift the spectrum. Even if $`\omega _m`$ and $`\omega _b`$ are known, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ (through $`h`$) may be traded off one another to give the same $`\theta _A`$. This is called the “geometric degeneracy” (Bond et al., 1997; Zaldarriaga et al., 1997). The degeneracy is broken with either prior knowledge of $`h`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ (e.g., Freedman et al., 2001; Bahcall et al., 1999). For WMAP if we impose a prior constraint of $`h>0.5`$ then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0.03\pm 0.03`$; without the prior, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0.050_{0.039}^{+0.036}`$ (Spergel et al., 2003). In the following, we take the geometry to be flat and therefore consider the peak positions as a function of $`\omega _b`$, $`n_s`$, and $`\omega _m`$ only.

With known $`\omega _b`$ and $`\omega _m`$, the acoustic horizon size $`r_s`$ is particularly well determined. From equation 2 we find $`r_s=143\pm 4`$Mpc. When $`n_s`$ is included, we may in addition determine the phases. From the fits in Doran & Lilley (2002) we obtain $`\varphi _1=0.265\pm 0.006`$. The uncertainty is derived from the uncertainties of $`n_s`$, $`\omega _b`$, $`\omega _m`$, and the quoted accuracy of the fitting function. This combined with the measured position of the first peak at $`\mathrm{}_1^{TT}=220.1\pm 0.8`$ gives us an acoustic horizon scale of $`\mathrm{}_A=300\pm 3`$. And, from $`\mathrm{}_A`$ we find that $`\theta _A=0.601\pm 0.005\mathrm{°}`$. In other words, we know the angular and physical sizes of structures on the decouping surface very well. From equation 1, we solve for the angular size distance and find that $`d_A=13.7\pm 0.4\text{Gpc}`$. If we had naively tried to compute $`d_A`$ from $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and their uncertainties directly from equation 4, the resulting uncertainty would have been larger. This, though, is not the correct procedure because the $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ deduced from the CMB are correlated as shown in Figure 2.

The interplay between measuring the peak position, and thus $`d_A`$, and measuring $`\omega _m`$ is at the root of WMAP’s ability to determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`h`$ separately (Bond et al., 1994; Efstathiou & Bond, 1999). In particular, Percival et al. (2002) show that $`\theta _A`$, which depends primarily on the first peak position, is the same along a line of constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^{3.4}`$. In other words, this is how $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`h`$ scale to keep $`\theta _A`$ constant. In Figure 2 we show the constraint from the measured first peak position. For each coordinate pair in the plane, we compute $`\mathrm{}_1^{TT}`$ from equations 1, 2, 4, and 5 and then assign the pair a likelihood derived from the measured distribution of $`\mathrm{}_1^{TT}=220.1\pm 0.8`$. (We set $`\omega _b=0.023`$ for the calculation as discussed below.) The figure also shows the constraints from $`\omega _m`$ and the likelihood contours from the full WMAP likelihood analysis. It is evident that the departure from a fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2`$ dependence in $`\theta _A`$ enables separating $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`h`$. The separation is by no means complete and constitutes one of the largest parameter degeneracy for WMAP; it precludes determining $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ to high precision with CMB data alone. The independent determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`h`$ will improve with time as the uncertainty on $`\omega _m`$ decreases. Fortunately, galaxy surveys are sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$ which breaks the degeneracy when the data sets are combined (Spergel et al., 2003).

It is fortuitous that in a flat geometry the position of the first peak is directly correlated with the age of the universe (Knox et al., 2001; Hu et al., 2001). This is seen most easily in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$ plane in Figure 2. With $`w=1`$, the age depends only on the expansion time scale $`h^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and is given by

$$t_0=6.52h^1(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)^{1/2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_m}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}}\right)[\mathrm{Gyr}]$$
(6)
(Carroll et al., 1992). We show the isochrons for 12 Gyr through 16 Gyr. One observes that they overlap considerably with the position constraint and the degeneracy lines from equation 4. For reasonable values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, the age is seen to be in the neighborhood of 13.6 Gyr. The full analysis (Spergel et al., 2003) gives $`t_0=13.6\pm 0.2\text{ Gyr}`$ for $`w=1`$. Changing $`\omega _b`$ changes the position constraint through changes in $`r_s`$ and $`\varphi _1`$. If $`\omega _b`$ is increased from 0.024 to 0.025 ($`1\sigma `$), the position constraint line shifts by $`<\sigma /2`$, indicating that the plot is not particularly sensitive to changes in $`\omega _b`$.

To summarize this section, we have shown how the position of the first peak is related to the cosmological parameters. Traditionally, one has used equation 5, the weak dependence of $`\varphi `$ on $`\omega _b`$ and $`\omega _m`$, $`n_s1`$ and the measured position of the first peak to deduce flatness. Instead, we assumed flatness and use WMAP’s values of $`n_s`$, $`\omega _b`$ and $`\omega _m`$, to deduce a precise relation for the acoustic scale, $`\mathrm{}_A`$. We then showed how one of the largest parameter degeneracy in the CMB data could be understood in terms trading off $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ in $`\theta _A`$. Finally, we showed that WMAP’s measure of the age of the universe is largely a function of WMAP’s identification of the position of the first peak.

### 4.2 The Amplitude of the First Peak

The scaling of the amplitude of the first peak with $`\omega _b`$ and $`\omega _m`$ has a straightforward interpretation. However, unlike the position, the amplitude itself has a complicated dependence on the cosmological parameters (Efstathiou & Bond, 1999; Hu et al., 2001). We defer discussing the $`\omega _b`$ scaling until after §4.3 and consider here just the $`\omega _m`$ scaling.

Increasing $`\omega _m`$ decreases the first peak height. When the universe is radiation dominated at $`z>z_{eq}`$ and the photon-baryon fluid compresses in a gravitational potential well, the depth of the well is decreased due to the additional mass loading of the fluid. As a result, the compressed fluid can expand more easily because it sees a shallower potential. The process is termed “radiation driving” (Hu & Sugiyama, 1995; Hu & Dodelson, 2002) and enhances the oscillations. (In addition, a shallower potential well means that the photons are redshifted less as they climb out enhancing the effect further.) The effect remains important through recombination. Increasing $`\omega _m`$, while holding all else but $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ constant, moves the epoch of matter-radiation equality to higher redshifts without significantly affecting $`z_{dec}`$. This gives the dark matter more time to develop the potential wells into which the photon-baryon fluid falls. With better defined potential wells, the compressed photon-baryon fluid has less of an effect on them, thereby reducing the effects of radiation driving. As a consequence, increasing $`\omega _m`$ decreases the amplitude of the fluctuations for all the acoustic peaks.

### 4.3 Additional TT Peaks and Troughs

There is a pronounced second peak in the WMAP TT spectrum at a height $`>5\sigma `$ above the first trough. The peak arises from the rarefaction phase of an acoustic wave. In broad terms (Hu & Dodelson, 2002), in the same conformal time that it takes the plasma to compress over the acoustic horizon, an acoustic wave with half the wavelength (twice the $`\mathrm{}`$) of the first peak can compress and rarify. Likewise, a compressional third peak is expected at the second harmonic of the first peak and a rarefaction fourth peak is expected at the third harmonic of the first peak. This set of peaks, the first two of which WMAP clearly sees, shows that the photon-baryon fluid underwent acoustic oscillations.

The position of the first trough, and the second and subsequent peaks is predicted from the acoustic scale and phase shifts. From equation (5) and the values in Table 3, one predicts $`\mathrm{}_{1.5}^{TT}=409\pm 4`$, $`\mathrm{}_2^{TT}=533\pm 5`$, and $`\mathrm{}_3^{TT}=809\pm 7`$. The first two of these values agree with those found from the peak fits to within the measurement uncertainty as shown in Table 2.

The amplitude of the second peak depends on many of the same parameters as the amplitude of the first. Its most distinctive feature, though, is that increasing $`\omega _b`$ decreases its height. The reason is that as one increases the baryon density one increases the inertia in the photon-baryon fluid. When compared to the lower $`\omega _b`$ case, the compressions are deeper and the rarefactions not as pronounced. Thus, the compressional peaks are hotter (first and third) and the rarefaction peaks (second and fourth) are cooler.

Following Hu et al. (2001) we characterize the amplitude of second peak as a ratio to the amplitude of the first peak, $`H_2^{TT}`$. The ratio is insensitive to the reionization optical depth and to the overall amplitude of the spectrum since they simply scale the amplitudes of both peaks. It depends on just $`\omega _b`$, $`\omega _m`$, and $`n_s`$. The dependence on $`\omega _m`$ is relatively weak, since to a first approximation it too just scales the peak amplitudes as discussed above. The dependence on $`n_s`$ simply comes from the overall slope of the CMB angular spectrum. Increasing $`n_s`$ increases the height of the second peak relative to the first. The following function is derived from fitting to a grid of CMBFAST spectra. It gives the ratio of the peak amplitudes to $`2`$% accuracy for 50% variations in the parameters:

$`H_2^{TT}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_2^{\mathrm{TT}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }T_1^{\mathrm{TT}}}}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.0264\omega _b^{0.762}(2.42)^{n_s1}`$ (7)
$`\times e^{0.476\mathrm{ln}(25.5\omega _b+1.84\omega _m)^2}`$
the parameter dependences are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }H_2^{TT}}{H_2^{TT}}}=0.88\mathrm{\Delta }n_s0.67{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _b}{\omega _b}}+0.039{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _m}{\omega _m}}.`$ (8)
Thus a 1% increase in both $`\omega _b`$ and $`\omega _m`$ with $`n_s`$ fixed reduces the height of the second peak relative to the first by 0.63%.

For the WMAP data, $`H_2^{TT}=0.426\pm 0.015`$. In Figure 3 we show the constraints from $`H_2^{TT}`$ for $`\omega _m=0.14`$. The contour lines correspond to the full analysis (Spergel et al., 2003). One sees that the two analyses are consistent, though the error from just considering $`H_2^{TT}`$ is larger. However, it is clear that the uncertainty in $`H_2^{TT}`$ for $`\omega _b`$ at fixed $`n_s`$ and $`\omega _m`$ leads to nearly the same uncertainty as deduced from the full analysis. Thus, we may interpret WMAP’s ability to determine $`\omega _b`$ as coming primarily from the precise measurement of the ratio of the first two peaks. The first two terms on the right side of the above equation, as shown in Figure 3, also quantify the $`\omega _bn_s`$ degeneracy (Spergel et al., 2003).

The height of the third peak increases as $`\omega _b`$ increases, as discussed above, and increasing $`\omega _m`$ decreases its height. Thus the ratio to the first peak is not as distinctive as for the second peak in terms of $`\omega _b`$ and $`\omega _m`$ but the long $`\mathrm{}`$ baseline makes the ratio more sensitive to $`n_s`$. Hu et al. (2001) give:

$`H_3^{TT}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_3^{\mathrm{TT}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }T_1^{\mathrm{TT}}}}\right)^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2.17\omega _m^{0.59}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.6}^{n_s1}}{[1+(\omega _b/0.044)^2][1+1.63(1\omega _b/0.071)\omega _m]}}`$
with parameter dependencies

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }H_3^{TT}}{H_3^{TT}}}=1.28\mathrm{\Delta }n_s0.39{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _b}{\omega _b}}+0.46{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _m}{\omega _m}}.`$ (10)
With $`n_s`$ fixed, increasing $`\omega _b`$ and $`\omega _m`$ by 1% increases the height of the third peak relative to the first by only 0.07%. Measuring the third peak helps mostly in measuring $`n_s`$, thereby breaking the $`\omega _bn_s`$ degeneracy shown in the left side of Figure 3. For WMAP parameters, equation 4.3 is accurate to 1%.

WMAP does not yet clearly measure the third peak. For its height, we use the value of the Wang et al. (2002) compilation because it is the most recent and includes calibration error. At $`l=801`$, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{TT}})^2=2322\pm 440\mu \mathrm{K}^2`$. Though not quite at the peak, the value is sufficient. With WMAP’s first peak, $`H_3^{TT}=0.42\pm 0.08`$.

### 4.4 The Temperature-Polarization peaks

The E-mode polarization in the CMB arises from Thompson scattering of a quadrupolar radiation pattern at the surface of last scattering. At decoupling, the quadrupolar pattern is produced by velocity gradients in the plasma and is correlated with the temperature anisotropy (Bond & Efstathiou, 1984; Coulson et al., 1994). In rough terms, because it is velocity dependent, the temperature-polarization correlation traces the derivative of the temperature spectrum. For a given TT spectrum, the (non-reionized) TE and EE spectra are predicted. Thus, their observation confirms that the cosmological model is correct but in so far as they are predicted for $`\mathrm{}>40`$, they contain little additional information about the parameters. By contrast, the TE polarization signal at $`\mathrm{}<20`$ (Kogut et al., 2003), produced by reionized electrons scattering the local $`z_r20`$ CMB quadrupole, breaks a number of parameter degeneracies and considerably enhances the ability to extract the cosmic parameters.

From parameterizing the output of CMBFAST, we find that the ratio of the first TE antipeak to the second TE peak is given by

$`H_2^{\mathrm{TE}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_1^{\mathrm{TE}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }T_2^{\mathrm{TE}}}}\right)^2=0.706\omega _m^{0.349}(0.518)^{n_s1}`$
$`\times e^{0.195\mathrm{ln}(33.6\omega _b+5.94\omega _m)^2}.`$ (11)
The parameter dependencies are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }H_2^{TE}}{H_2^{TE}}}=0.66\mathrm{\Delta }n_s+0.095{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _b}{\omega _b}}+0.45{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _m}{\omega _m}}.`$ (12)
The sign preceding $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_s`$ is opposite to that in the case of the TT peaks since we are considering the ratio of the first antipeak (low $`\mathrm{}`$) to the second peak (high $`\mathrm{}`$), whereas in the case of the TT peaks we were considering the second peak (high $`\mathrm{}`$) to the first peak (low $`\mathrm{}`$). Here, increasing $`\omega _m`$ increases the contrast between the TE peak and antipeak. This occurs because increasing $`\omega _m`$ leads to deeper potential wells at decoupling. In turn, this produces higher velocities and thus an enhanced polarization signal. From the data we find $`H_2^{\mathrm{TE}}=0.33\pm 0.10`$.

### 4.5 Combined Peak Constraints

We now use the scaling relations just presented in a flat model with the scalar index limited to $`n_s=0.99`$. This simplified minimal model leads to a greater intuition for assessing the peaks’ role in determining the cosmological parameters. The constraints from $`H_2^{TT}`$ and $`H_3^{TT}`$ are shown in Figure 3. We see that $`H_2^{TT}`$ determines $`\omega _b`$ for most values of the dark matter and that $`\omega _b<0.029`$ (2$`\sigma `$) regardless of the amount of dark matter. The width of the swath is about twice that of the formal error, again indicating that more in the spectrum than just $`H_2^{TT}`$ constrains $`\omega _b`$.

The constraints from $`H_2^{TE}`$ and $`H_3^{TT}`$ are almost orthogonal to the $`H_2^{TT}`$ constraint but their uncertainty bands are wide. This shows us that the WMAP value for $`\omega _c`$ (or $`\omega _m`$) is not being driven specifically by the peak ratios. Rather, the constraint comes from the amplitude of the whole spectrum. The degeneracy with $`\tau `$ is broken by the TE detection of reionization and the degeneracy with the overall amplitude is broken because $`\omega _m`$ affects primarily the acoustic peak region more than the low $`\mathrm{}`$ part of the spectrum.

## 5 Discussion

We have focused on the dominant acoustic features in the WMAP spectrum, but there are other features as well. Notable by its absence is a trough in the TT spectrum at $`\mathrm{}10`$ due to the increase in fluctuation power near $`\mathrm{}=2`$ from the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated universe. This feature is largely obscured by cosmic variance. For WMAP though, there is very little power at low $`\mathrm{}`$ and the correlations with $`\theta >60^{}`$ are unusually small (Bennett et al., 2003a). The lack of even a hint of an upturn at low $`\mathrm{}`$, in the context of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models, is surprising. (However, COBE also found no evidence for such an upturn). This departure from the model constitutes a small (though possibly important) fraction of the total fluctuation power and does not cast doubt on the interpretation of the $`\mathrm{}>40`$ spectrum.

At $`\mathrm{}40`$ and $`\mathrm{}210`$, for example, there are excursions from a smooth spectrum that are somewhat larger than expected statistically. While intriguing, they may result from a combination of cosmic variance, subdominant astrophysical processes, and small effects from approximations made for the year one data analysis (Hinshaw et al., 2003). At present, we consider them interesting but do not attach cosmological significance to them (e.g., Peiris et al., 2003; Bose & Grishchuk, 2002). More integration time and more detailed analyses are needed to understand how they should be interpreted.

In summary, the characteristics of the peaks of the WMAP angular power spectra may be robustly extracted from the data. The second TT peak is seen with high accuracy; the TE antipeak and peak have been observed for the first time. In the context of a flat adiabatic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, which fits the WMAP data well, we report the characteristics of the decoupling surface. By considering a reduced parameter space, we show how the position of the first peak leads to WMAP’s tight determination of the age of the universe and how $`\omega _b`$ is determined primarily from the amplitude ratio of the first to second TT peak. The determination of $`\omega _m`$ comes from considering the full data set and is not attributable to any particular peak ratio.

LP is grateful to Viatcheslav Mukhanov for helpful discussions on the parameter dependences of the peaks during his year at Princeton and to Alessandro Melchiorri for discussing his work on peaks prior to publication. LP especially thanks Toby Marriage for many enlightening discussions on the first peak. We also thank Eiichiro Komatsu, Licia Verde, Will Sutherland, and an anonymous reviewer for comments that improved this paper. The WMAP mission is made possible by the support of the Office of Space Sciences at NASA Headquarters and by the hard and capable work of scores of scientists, engineers, technicians, machinists, data analysts, budget analysts, managers, administrative staff, and reviewers.