Advertisement

Journal of Low Temperature Physics

, Volume 194, Issue 5–6, pp 377–385 | Cite as

Simulating Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Measurements for Microwave Kinetic Inductance Devices

  • R. Basu ThakurEmail author
  • J. Henning
  • P. S. Barry
  • E. Shirokoff
  • Q. Y. Tang
Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Microwave Kinetic Inductance Devices (MKIDs) are poised to allow for massively and natively multiplexed photon detectors arrays and are a natural choice for the next-generation CMB Stage 4 experiment which will require \(10^5\) detectors. In this article, we discuss what noise performance of present generation MKIDs implies for CMB measurements. We consider MKID noise spectra and simulate a telescope scan strategy which projects the detector noise onto the CMB sky. We then analyze the simulated CMB + MKID noise to understand particularly low-frequency noise affects the various features of the CMB, and thusly set up a framework connecting MKID characteristics with scan strategies, to the type of CMB signals we may probe with such detectors.

Keywords

MKID Detector noise CMB Cosmology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

RBT and JH are supported by the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics through Grant NSF PHY-1125897 and an endowment from the Kavli Foundation and its founder Fred Kavli. JH is supported by the NSF under Award No. AST-1402161. This work was also supported in part by the US DOE under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515. We thank B. Benson and C. Chang for their feedback.

References

  1. 1.
    M.H. Abitbol et al., CMB-S4 Technology Book, 1st edn, CMB-S4 Collaboration FERMILAB-FN-1034-AE, e-Print: arXiv:1706.02464 (2017)
  2. 2.
    S. Hailey-Dunsheath, E. Shirokoff, P.S. Barry et al., J. Low Temp. Phys. 184, 180 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-015-1375-x ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Hailey-Dunsheath, E. Shirokoff, P.S. Barry, C.M. Bradford, G. Chattopadhyay, P. Day, J. Zmuidzinas, Status of SuperSpec: a broadband, on-chip millimeter-wave spectrometer, in Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering, vol. 9153 (SPIE, 2014), p. 91530M.  https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2057229
  4. 4.
    A. Monfardini et al., ApJS 194, 24 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/24 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Gordon et al., J. Astron. Inst. 05(04), 1641003 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1142/S2251171716410038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S.J.C. Yates, J.J.A. Baselmans, A. Endo, R.M.J. Janssen, L. Ferrari, P. Diener, A .M. Baryshev, Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 073505 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3624846 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Dobbs, E. Bissonnette, H. Spieler, Digital frequency domain multiplexer for millimeter-wavelength telescopes. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 55(1), 21–26 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3624846 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Crawford, Phys. Rev. D 76, 6 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.063008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Kavli Institute for Cosmological PhysicsUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations