I love working on projects that involve cool questions, great stateoftheart data and powerful physical/mathematical/computational tools.
During my first quartercentury as a physics researcher, this criterion has lead me to work mainly on
cosmology and
quantum information.
Although I'm continuing my cosmology work with the
HERA collaboration,
the main focus of my current research is on
the physics of cognitive systems: using physicsbased techniques to understand
how brains works and to build better AI (artificial intelligence) systems.
If you're interested in working with me on these topics, please let me know, as I'm potentially
looking for new students and
postdocs (
see requirements).
I'm fortunate to have collaborators who generously share amazing neuroscience data with my group, including Ed Boyden, Emery Brown and Tomaso Poggio at MIT and Gabriel Kreimann at Harvard, and to have such inspiring colleagues here in our MIT Physics Department in our new division studying
the physics of living systems.
I've been pleasantly surprised by how many data analysis techniques I've developed for cosmology can be adapted to neuroscience data as well.
There's clearly no shortage of fascinating questions surrounding the physics of intelligence, and there's no shortage of powerful theoretical tools either, ranging from
neural network physics and nonequlibrium statistical mechanics to information theory, the renormalization group and deep learning. Intriguingly and surprisingly,
there's a duality between the last two.
I recently helped organize conferences on
the physics of information
and
artificial intelligence.
I'm very interested in the question of
how to model an observer in physics,
and if simple necessary conditions for a physical system being a conscious observer can help
explain how the familiar object hiararchy of the classical world emerges from the raw mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics.
Here's a taxonomy of proposed
consciousness measures.
Here's a TEDxtalk of mine about
the physics of consciousness.
Here's an intriguing connection between
critical behavior in magnets, language, music and DNA.
In older work of mine on the physics of the brain, I showed that neuron decoherence is way too fast for the brain to be a quantum computer. However, it's nonetheless interesting to study our brains as quantum systems, to better understand why they perceives the sort of classical world that they do.
For example, why do we feel that we live in real space rather than Fourier space, even though both are equally valid quantum descriptions related by a unitary transformation?
Quantum information
My work on the physics of cognitive systems is a natural outgrowth of
my longstanding interest in quantum information, both for enabling new technologies such as quantum computing and for shedding new light on how the world fundamentally works.
For example, I'm intested in how
the second law of thermodynamics can be generalized
to explain how the entropy of a system typically decreases while you observe a system and increases while you don't,
and how this can help explain how inflation causes the
emergence of an arrow of time.
When you don't observe an interacting system, you can get decoherence, which I had the joy of
rediscovering as a grad student
 if you'd like to know more about what this is,
check out my article in with John Archibald Wheeler
in Scientific American
here.
I'm interested in decoherence both
for its quantitative implications for quantum computing etc
and for its philosophical implications for the
interpretation
of quantum mechanics.
For much more on this wackier side of mine, click the banana icon above.
Since macroscopic systems are virtually impossible
to isolate from their surroundings, a number of quantitative predictions
can be made for how their wavefunction will
appear
to collapse, in good agreement with what we in fact observe. Similar
quantitative predictions can be made for models of
heat
baths, showing how the effects of the environment cause the familiar
entropy increase and apparent directionality of time. Intriguingly, decoherence
can also be shown to produce generalized
coherent
states, indicating that these are not merely a useful approximation,
but indeed a type of quantum states that we should expect nature to be
full of. All these changes in the quantum density matrix can in principle
be
measured experimentally, with phases and all.
Cosmology
My cosmology research has been focused on
precision cosmology, e.g., combining theoretical
work with new measurements to place
sharp constraints on cosmological models and their free
parameters.
(Skip to
here if you already know all this.)
Spectacular new measurements are providing powerful tools for this:
So far, I've worked mainly on
CMB,
LSS and
21 cm tomography,
with some papers involving
lensing,
SN Ia
and
LyAF
as well.
Why do I find cosmology exciting?
(Even if you
don't find cosmology exciting, there are
good reasons
why you should support physics research.)

There are some very basic questions that still haven't been answered. For
instance,

Is really only 5% of our universe made of atoms?
So it seems, but what precisely is the weird "dark matter" and "dark energy" that make up the rest?

Will the Universe expand forever or end in a cataclysmic crunch or big rip?
The smart money is now on the first option, but the jury is still out.
 How did it all begin, or did it? This is linked to particle phyiscs and unifying gravity with quantum theory.

Are there infinitely many other stars, or does space connect back on itself?
Most of my colleagues assume it is infinite and the data supports this, but we don't know yet.

Thanks to an avalanche of great new data, driven by advances in satellite,
detector and computer technology, we may be only years away from answering
some of these questions.
Since our atmosphere messes up most electromagnetic waves coming from space
(the main exceptions being radio waves and visible light), the advent of
satellites has revolutionized our ability to photograph the Universe in
microwaves, infrared light, ultraviolet light, Xrays and gamma rays. New
lowtemperature detectors have greatly improved what can be done from the
ground as well, and the the computer revolution has enabled us to gather
and process huge data quantities, doing research that would have been unthinkable
twenty years ago. This data avalanche has transformed cosmology from being
a mainly theoretical field, occasionally ridiculed as speculative and flaky,
into a datadriven quantitative field where competing theories can be tested
with everincreasing precision. I find CMB, LSS, lensing, SN Ia, LyAF, clusters and BBN
to be very exciting
areas, since they are all being transformed by new highprecision measurements
as described below. Since each of them measures different but related aspects
of the Universe, they both complement each other and allow lots of crosschecks.
What are these cosmological parameters?
In our standard cosmological model, the Universe was once in an extremely
dense and hot state, where things were essentially the same everywhere
in space, with only tiny fluctuations (at the level of
0.00001)
in the density. As the Universe expanded and cooled, gravitational instability
caused these these fluctuations to grow into the galaxies and the largescale
structure that we observe in the Universe today. To calculate the details
of this, we need to know about a dozen numbers, socalled
cosmological
parameters. Most of these parameters specify the cosmic matter budget, i.e.,
what the density of the Universe is made up of  the amounts of the following ingredients:

Baryons  the kind of particles that you and I and all the chemical elements we learned about
in school are made of: protons & neutrons. Baryons appear to make up only about 5% of all stuff
in the Universe.

Photons  the particles that make up light. Their density is the
best measured one on this list.

Massive neutrinos  neutrinos are very shy particles. They are known
to exist, and now at least two of the three or more kinds are known to have mass.

Cold dark matter  unseen mystery particles widely believed to exist.
There seems to be about five times more of this strange stuff than baryons, making us
a minority in the Universe.

Curvature  if the total density differs from a certain critical
value, space will be curved. Sufficiently high density would make space be finite,
curving back on itself like the 3D surface of a 4D hypersphere.

Dark energy  little more than a fancy name our ignorance of what seems to make up about
two thirds of the matter budget.
One popular candidates is a "Cosmological constant", a.k.a. Lambda, which Einstein
invented and then later called his greatest blunder.
Other candidates are more complicated modifications to Einsteins theory of Gravity
as well as energy fields known as "quintessence".
Dark energy causes gravitational repulsion in place of attraction. Einstein invented it and
called it his greatest mistake, but combining new SN Ia and CMB data indicates
that we might be living with Lambda after all.
Then there are a few parameters describing those tiny fluctuations in the early
Universe; exactly how tiny they were, the ratio of fluctuations on small
and large scales, the relative phase of fluctuations in the different types
of matter, etc. Accurately measuring these parameters would test the most
popular theory for the origin of these wiggles, known as
inflation,
and teach us about physics at much higher energies than are accessible
with particle accelerator experiments. Finally, there are a some parameters
that
Dick Bond, would
refer to as "gastrophysics", since they involve gas and other ghastly
stuff. One example is the extent to which feedback from the first galaxies
have affected the CMB fluctuations via
reionization.
Another example is
bias, the relation between
fluctuations in the matter density and the number of galaxies.
One of my main current interests is
using the avalanche of new data to raise the ambition level
beyond cosmological parameters,
testing rather than assuming the underlying physics.
My battle cry is published
here with nuts and bolts
details here
and here.
The cosmic toolbox
Here is a brief summary of some key cosmological observables and what
they can teach us about cosmological parameters.
Photos of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation like the one to the left
show us the most distant object we can see: a hot, opaque wall of glowing hydrogen plasma about
14 billion light years away.
Why is it there? Well, as we look further away, we're seeing things that happened longer ago, since
it's taken the light a long time to get here. We see the Sun as it was eight minutes ago,
the Andromeda galaxy the way it was a few million years ago and this glowing surface as
it was just 400,000 years after the Big Bang. We can see that far back since the hydrogen gas that
fills intergalactic space is transparent, but we can't see further, since earlier the
hydrogen was so hot that it was an ionized plasma, opaque to light, looking like
a hot glowing wall just like the surface of the Sun.
The detailed patterns of hotter and colder spots on this wall constitute a goldmine of
information about the cosmological parameters mentioned above.
If you are a newcomer and want an introduction to CMB
fluctuations and what we can learn from them, I've written a review
here. If you don't have a physics background,
I recommend the online tutorials by
Wayne Hu and
Ned Wright.
Two new promising CMB fronts are opening up
 CMB polarization and arcminute scale CMB, and are likely to keep the CMB field
lively for at leastr another decade.
Hydrogen tomography
Mapping our universe in 3D by imaging the redshifted 21 cm line from neutral hydrogen has the potential to overtake the cosmic microwave background as our most powerful cosmological probe, because it can map a much larger volume of our Universe, shedding new light on the epoch of reionization, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, and neutrino masses.
For this reason, my group built
MITEoR,
a pathfinder lowfrequency radio interferometer whose goal was to test technologies that greatly reduce the cost of such 3D mapping for a given sensitivity.
MITEoR
accomplished this by using massive baseline redundancy both to enable automated precision calibration and to cut the correlator cost scaling from N^{2} to N log N, where N is the number of antennas. The success of
MITEoR
with its 64 dualpolarization elements bodes well for the more ambitious HERA project, which incorporates many of the technologies
MITEoR
tested using dramatically larger collecting area.
Largescale structure:
3D mapping of the Universe with galaxy redshift surveys offers another window on
dark matter properties, through its gravitational effects on galaxy clustering.
This field is currently being transformed by everr larger Galaxy Redshift Survey.
I've had lots of fun working with my colleagues on the
Sloan Digital Sky Survey
(SDSS) to carefully analyze the gargantuan galaxy maps and work out what they tell us about
our cosmic composition, origins and ultimate fate.
The abundance of galaxy clusters, the largest gravitationally bound and equilibrated
blobs of stuff in the Universe, is a very sensitive probe of both the cosmic expansion history
and the growth of matter clustering. Many powerful cluster finding techniques are contributing
to rapid growth in the number of known clusters and our knowledge of their properties: identifying
them in 3D galaxy surveys, seeing their hot gas as hot spots in Xray maps or cold spots
in microwave maps (the socalled SZeffect) or spotting their gravitational effects with
gravitational lensing.
Yet another probe of dark matter is offered by gravitational lensing, whereby
its gravitational pull bends light rays and distorts images of distant objects.
The first largescale detections of this effect were reported
by four groups
(astroph/0002500,
0003008,
0003014,
0003338)
in the year 2000, and
I anticipate making heavy use of such measurements as they continue to improve,
partly in collaboration with
Bhuvnesh Jain at Penn.
Lensing is ultimately
as promising as CMB
and is free from the murky bias issues
plaguing LSS and LyAF measurements, since it probes the matter density directly via
its gravitational pull. I've also
dabbled some
in the stronger lensing effects caused by galaxy cores,
which offer additional insights into the detailed nature of the
dark matter.
Supernovae Ia:
If a white dwarf (the corpse of a burnedout lowmass star like our Sun) orbits another dying
star, it may gradually steal its gas and exceed the maximum mass with which it can be stable.
This makes it collapse under its own weight and blow up in a cataclysmic explosion called
a supernova of type Ia. Since all of these cosmic bombs weigh the same when they go off
(about 1.4 solar masses, the socalled Chandrasekhar mass), they all release roughly
the same amount of energy  and a more detailed calibration of this energy is possible by measuring
how fast it dims, making it the best "standard candle" visible at cosmological distances.
The supernova cosmology project
and the
high z
SN search team
mapped out how bright SN Ia looked at different redshifts found the first evidence in 1998 that
the expansion of the Universe was accelerating.
This approach can ultimately provide a direct
measurement of the
density of the Universe as a function of time,
helping unravel the nature of dark energy  I hope the
SNAP project or one of its competitores gets funded.
The image to the left resulted from a different
type of supernova, but I couldn't resist showing it anyway...
The socalled Lyman Alpha Forest, cosmic gas clouds backlit by quasars, offers yet
another new and exciting probe of how dark has clumped ordinary matter together, and is sensitive
to an epoch when the Universe was merely 1020% of
its present age. Although relating the measured absorption to the densities of
gas and dark matter involves
some complications,
it completely circumvents the Pandora's of galaxy biasing.
Cosmic observations are rapidly advancing on many other fronts as well,
e.g., with direct measurements of the cosmic expansion rate and the cosmic baryon fraction.
I used to have a description of each of my papers on this page, but
it got very boring to read as the numbers grew, so I moved most of
it to here.
After graduate work on the role of atomic and molecular chemistry
in cosmic reionization, I have mainly focused my research on
issues related to constraining cosmological models.
A suite of papers developed methods for analyzing cosmological data sets
and applied them to various CMB experiments and galaxy redshift surveys,
often in collaboration with the experimentalists who had taken the data.
Another series of papers tackled various "dirty laundry" issues such
as microwave foregrounds and masstolight bias.
Other papers like this one
develop and apply techniques for clarifying the big picture in cosmology:
comparing and combining diverse cosmological probes, crosschecking for
consistency and constraining cosmological models and their free parameters.
(The difference between cosmology and ice hockey is that I don't get
penalized for crosschecking...)
My main current research interest is cosmology theory and phenomenology.
I'm particularly enthusiastic about the prospects of comparing and combining
current and upcoming data on CMB, LSS, galaxy clusters, lensing,
LyA forest clustering, SN 1, 21 cm tomography, etc. to raise the ambition level beyond the
current cosmological parameter game, testing rather than assuming the
underlying physics. This paper contains my battle cry.
I also retain a strong interest in lowlevel nutsandbolts analysis and interpretation
of data, firmly believing that the devil is in the details,
and am actively working on neutral hydrogen tomography theory, experiment and data analysis
for our Omniscope project, which you can read all about
here.
Early galaxy formation and the end of the cosmic dark ages
One of the main
challenges in modern cosmology is to quantify how small density fluctuations
at the recombination epoch at redshift around z=1000 evolved into the galaxies
and the largescale structure we observe in the universe today. My Ph.D.
thesis with Joe Silk focused on ways of probing the interesting intermediate
epoch. The emphasis was on the role played by nonlinear feedback, where
a small fraction of matter forming luminous objects such as stars or QSO's
can inject enough energy into their surrounding to radically alter subsequent
events. We know that the intergalactic medium (IGM)
was reionized at some point, but the details of when and how this occurred
remain open. The absence of a GunnPeterson trough in the spectra of highredshift
quasars suggests that it happened before z=5, which could be achieved through
supernova driven winds from early galaxies.
Photoionization was thought to be able to
partially reionize the IGM much earlier, perhaps early enough to
affect the cosmic microwave background (CMB) fluctuations, especially in
an open universe. However, extremely early
reionization is ruled out by the COBE FIRAS constraints on the Compton
ydistortion. To make predictions for when the first objects formed and how big they were,
you need to worry about something I hate: molecules.
Although I was so fed up with rate discrepancies in the molecule literature
that I verged on making myself a Ghostbusterstyle
Tshirt reading "MOLECULES  JUST SAY NO", the
irony is that my
molecule paper that I hated so much ended up being one of my most
cited ones. Whereas others that I had lots of fun with went largely unnoticed...
Math problems
I'm also interested in physicsrelated mathematics problems in general.
For instance, if you don't believe that part of a constrained elliptic
metal sheet may bend towards you if you try to push it away, you are making
the same mistake that the famous mathematician Hadamard
once did.
Crazy stuff
I also have a wild side, which is why my friends call me Mad Max.
Your can read about my more farout research here. Ironically, the cosmology stuff described above also
used to be considered flaky not to long ago, but times have changed!
Here's my group in July 2016: Luis Seoane, David Theurel, Esther Goldberger, John Peurifoi, Michelle Xu, Emily Mu, Henry Lin, Leon Shen & Hannah Field.
One of the things I love most is working with inspiring people, so if this sounds like
you and you share my interests, please email me! (I'm potentially looking for new students and postdocs.)
My current research is mainly focused on
the physics of cognitive systems,
but you don't need to have a background in neuroscience or AI to work with me as long as you're eager to
learn and share my interests:
 You love big questions such as how the brain processes information and why some but not all quark blobs are conscious.
 You're interested in learning and using advanced tools from condensed matter physics, field theory and information theory.
 You enjoy working with computers and stateoftheart data to put theories to the test.
I'm also continuing my cosmology research, mainly by doing 21cm tomography with the HERA experiment.
I feel fortunate to have had many awesome people in my research group over the years, and I'm proud
of them for what they've gone on to accomplish. Most of them went on to do grad school or postdocs at
Berkeley, Stanford, Harvard or Princeton, and three are now physics professors.
Before joining MIT, I gave birth to three PhDs at Penn 20002004: from left to right, they are
David Rusin (left for postdoc at Harvard), Yongzhong Xu (left for postdoc at Los Alamos)
and Xiaomin Wang (left for postdoc at Chicago).
I still haven't extorted photos from Penn postdocs Havard Sandvik and JoseMaria "Chema" Diego, who went on to
the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Munich and to UNICAN in Santander, respectively.
Here's my research group at MIT in April 2008, in my office. In the order you'd read a book, you're looking at
Yi Mao (now a physics professor at Tsinghua), Courtney Peterson (went on to become a professor of nutrition science in
Univ. Alabama at Birmingham), Leslie Rogers (now a physics professor at Univ. Chicago
Robert Moffat (went on to do physics PhD at Stanford), Alexandra Rahlin (went on to do physics PhD in Princeton),
Molly Swanson (went on to postdocs and UCL and Harvard),
Adrian Liu (now a Hubble Fellow at Berkeley),
Colin Hill (went on to do physics PhD at Princeton), yours truly, and Mark Hertzberg (went on to postdoc at Stanford,
now a physics professor at Tufts).
MIT isn't all grad students: I've been fortunate to get to work with some superb undergrads at MIT who went on to grad school in physics,
including Robert Moffatt, Ashley Perko, Daniel Whalen, Hrant Gharibyan & Eric Yang (who all went to Stanford),
Alexandra Rahlin & James Hill (who both went to Princeton),
Katelin Schutz (who went to Berkeley),
Victor Li (who went to MIT)
and Victor Buza & Ioana Zelko (who both went to Harvard).
Many of these awesome undergrads played crucial role in the success of our
Omniscope project, developing technology for making the largestever 3D map of our universe:
(O=Shana Tribiano, M=Bob Penna, N=Hrant Gharibyan, I=I, S=Sruthi Narayanan, C=Ioana Zelko, O=Abraham Neben, P=Qinxuan Pan, E=Victor Buza, period=Jeff Zheng).
After assembling our radio telescope, half of our team analyzed data while the other half cooled off; the next day we swapped, with the survivors analyzing data.
Many of my group former group members aren't in these pics, for example
Tom Faulkner (now a physics professor at UIUC),
Nevada Sanchez (undergrad, admitted to Stanford for grad school but did starup and made
Forbes' 30under30) and
Josh Dillon (grad student, now postdoc at Berkeley). You'll find more group pics
here.
Here are my astro colleagues at
MIT.
Please click on any paper that you want more information about.
Most of these papers are rather technical, so if you're not too into
equations and science jargon, you might find these
popular articles
more fun. There's a brief overview of all these articles and how they fit together
at the
bottom of this page.
If you, in the Google spirit, care about what other people care about, here's my
citation summary.
Cosmology publications

Late reionization by supernovadriven winds
M Tegmark, J Silk & A Evrard 1993, ApJ, 417, 5462

On the inevitability of reionization: implications
for cosmic microwave background fluctuations
M Tegmark, J Silk & A Blanchard 1994, ApJ, 420, 484496

Did the universe recombine? New spectral constraints on
reheating
M Tegmark & J Silk 1994, ApJ, 423, 529533

Power spectrum independent constraints on cosmological
models
M Tegmark, E Bunn & W Hu 1994, ApJ, 434, 111

New Constraints on Reionization from the Compton yparameter
M Tegmark & J Silk 1994, In Present and Future of the cosmic
microwave background radiation, In Present and Future of the cosmic
microwave background radiation, Eds. L. Cayon, E. MartinezGonzales
& J. Sanz, Springer Verlag Gonzales & J. Sanz, Springer Verlag

Probes of the early universe
M Tegmark, Ph.D. thesis, U. C. Berkeley, Dept. of Physics, May 1994

Reconstructing cosmic fields from redshift data  an explicit solution
for the linear regime
M Tegmark 1995, Nucl. Phys. B, S43, 295298

Reionization in an open CDM universe: implications
for cosmic microwave background fluctuations
M Tegmark & J Silk 1995, ApJ, 441, 458464

Estimating microwave power spectra
M Tegmark 1995, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 759, 684687

Realspace cosmic fields from redshiftspace distributions:
a Green function approach
M Tegmark & B Bromley 1995, ApJ, 453, 533540

A bruteforce analysis of the COBE data
M Tegmark & E Bunn 1995, ApJ, 455, 16

A method for extracting maximum resolution power
spectra from microwave sky maps
M Tegmark 1996, MNRAS, 280, 299308

A method for extracting maximum resolution power spectra
from galaxy surveys
M Tegmark 1995, ApJ, 455, 429438

Making the most of galaxy surveys: an optimal method for power spectrum
estimation
M Tegmark 1995, in proceedings of MaxPlanckGesellschaft 1996 Ringberg
Workshop

Estimating power spectra from 3D galaxy surveys
M Tegmark 1995, in `Proceedings of the XXXth Rencontres de Moriond:
Clustering in the universe, Eds. S Maurogordato et al, p49

Using the kinematic SunyaevZeldovich effect to determine
the peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies
M Haehnelt & M Tegmark 1996, MNRAS, 279, 545556

A method for subtracting foregrounds from multifrequency
CMB sky maps
M Tegmark & G P Efstathiou 1996, MNRAS, 281, 12971314

Spherical harmonic analysis of the angular distribution of GRBs
M. Tegmark, D. H. Hartmann, M. S. Briggs & C. A. Meegan 1996, in
Proc. 3rd Huntsville workshop on Gamma Ray Bursts.

The angular power spectrum of BATSE 3B gammaray
bursts
M Tegmark, D H Hartmann, M S Briggs & C A Meegan 1996, ApJ,
468, 214224

Improved limits on gamma ray burst repetition
M Tegmark, D H Hartmann, M S Briggs, Jon Hakkila & C A Meegan 1996,
ApJ, 466, 757763

Doppler peaks and all that: CMB anisotropies and
what they can tell us
M Tegmark 1996, lecture notes in Proc. Enrico Fermi, Course
CXXXII, Varenna

The angular power spectrum of the 4 year COBE data
M Tegmark 1996, ApJ Lett, 464, L35L38

How small were the first cosmological objects?
M Tegmark, J Silk, M J Rees, A Blanchard, T Abel & F Palla 1997,
ApJ, 474, 112

KarhunenLoeve eigenvalue problems in cosmology:
how to tackle large data sets?
M Tegmark, A N Taylor, & A F Heavens 1997, ApJ, 480,
2235

An improved method for pixelizing CMB sky maps
M Tegmark 1997, in Microwave Background Anisotropies, Eds. F
Bouchet et al (Editions Frontieres), 475480

An icosahedronbased method for pixelizing the
celestial sphere
M Tegmark 1996, ApJ Lett, 470, L81L84

A highresolution map of the cosmic microwave background
around the north celestial pole
M Tegmark, A de OliveiraCosta, M J Devlin, C B Netterfield, L Page
& E J Wollack 1997, ApJ Lett, 474, L77L80

Is lensing of point sources a problem for future
CMB experiments?
M Tegmark & J V Villumsen 1997, MNRAS, 289, 169174

Studies
of CMB structure at Dec=+40. II: Analysis and cosmological interpretation
S. Hancock, C. M. Gutierrez, R. D. Davies, A. N. Lasenby, G. Rocha,
R. Rebolo, R. A. Watson & M. Tegmark 1997, MNRAS, 289,
505514

How to make CMB maps without losing information
M Tegmark 1997, ApJ Lett, 480, L87L90

How to measure CMB power spectra without losing information
M Tegmark 1997, Phys. Rev. D, 55, 58955907

Uncorrelated measurements of the CMB power spectrum
M Tegmark & A J S Hamilton 1998, astroph/9702019, in proccedings
of the 18th Texas Symposium on Relativistics Astrophysics & Cosmology,
eds A V Olinto, J A Frieman & D N Schramm, p270272 (World Scientific)

Forecasting cosmic parameter errors from microwave
background anisotropy experiments
J R Bond, G Efstathiou & M Tegmark 1997, MNRAS, 291,
L33L41

Analyzing redshift surveys to measure the power spectrum on large scales
M Tegmark 1998, in Ringberg Workshop on LargeScale Structure,
ed. D. Hamilton (Kluwer, Amsterdam), preprint astroph/9708021

CMB mapping experiments: a designer's guide
M Tegmark 1997, Phys. Rev. D, 56, 45144529

Cosmological parameter estimation from the CMB
A Taylor, A Heavens, B Ballinger & M Tegmark 1997, in Proceedings
of PPEUC97, Ed A Lasenby (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge)

Measuring cosmological parameters with galaxy
surveys
M Tegmark 1997, Phys. Rev. Lett., 79, 38069

Measuring the galaxy power spectrum with future
redshift surveys
M Tegmark, A Hamilton, M Strauss, M Vogeley & A Szalay 1998, ApJ,
499, 555576

Why is the CMB fluctuation level 10^{5}?
M Tegmark & M Rees 1998, ApJ, 499, 526532

Cosmic microwave background maps from the HACME
experiment
M Tegmark, A de OliveiraCosta, J Staren, P Meinhold, P Lubin, J Childers,
N Figueiredo, T Gaier, M Lim, M Seiffert, T Villela & C A Wuensche 2000,
ApJ, 541, 535541

Removing realworld foregrounds from CMB maps
M Tegmark 1998, ApJ, 502, 16

Weighing
neutrinos with galaxy surveys
W Hu, D J Eisenstein & M Tegmark 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80,
52555258

Removing point sources from CMB maps
M Tegmark & A de OliveiraCosta 1998, ApJL, 500, 8386

The timeevolution of bias
M Tegmark & P J E Peebles 1998, ApJL, 500, 7982

Cosmic complementarity: combining
CMB and supernova observations
M Tegmark, D J Eisenstein & W Hu 1998, in "Fundamental
parameters in Cosmology", Rencontres de Moriond

Cosmic complementarity: probing the acceleration
of the Universe
M Tegmark, D J Eisenstein,W Hu & R Kron 1998, astroph/9805117

Cosmic complementarity: H_0 and Omega_m from combining CMB experiments
and redshift surveys
D J Eisenstein,W Hu & M Tegmark 1998, astroph/9805239,
ApJL, 504, L5760

Observationally Determining the Properties of Dark Matter
W Hu, D J Eisenstein, M Tegmark & M White 1999, astroph/9806362,
Phys. Rev. D, 59, 023512

Cosmic Complementarity: Joint Parameter Estimation from CMB Experiments
and Redshift Surveys
D J Eisenstein,W Hu & M Tegmark 1999, astroph/9807130,
ApJ, 518, 223

Galactic
emission at 19 GHz
A de OliveiraCosta, M Tegmark, L Page & S Boughn 1998, astroph/9807329,
ApJL, 509, L912

Mapping
the CMB I: the first flight of the QMAP experiment
M Devlin, A de OliveiraCosta, T Herbig, A Miller, C B Netterfield,
L Page & M Tegmark 1998, astroph/9808043,
ApJL, 509, L6568

Mapping
the CMB II: the second flight of the QMAP experiment
M Devlin, A de OliveiraCosta, T Herbig, A Miller, L Page & M Tegmark 1998,
astroph/9808044,
ApJL, 509 L6972

Mapping
the CMB III: combined analysis of QMAP flights
A de OliveiraCosta, M Devlin, T Herbig, A Miller, C B Netterfield,
L Page & M Tegmark 1998, astroph/9808045,
ApJL, 509, L7376

Cosmological constraints on neutrino masses
M Tegmark, W Hu & D J Eisenstein 1998, in proceedings of
1998 Ringberg Euroconference, Ed. Bernd Kniehl

Comparing and combining CMB datasets
M Tegmark 1999, astroph/9809001,
ApJL, 519, 513517

Bias and beyond
M Tegmark, astroph/9809185,
in ``Wide Field Surveys in Cosmology'', S. Colombi and Y. Mellier
(eds), Editions Frontieres (1998), p4346
 New techniques for making CMB maps
A de OliveiraCosta & M Tegmark,
in ``Wide Field Surveys in Cosmology'', S. Colombi and Y. Mellier
(eds), Editions Frontieres (1998), p311314

Cosmological constraints from current CMB and SN Ia
data: a brute force 8 parameter analysis
M Tegmark 1999, astroph/9809201,
ApJL, 514, L6972

Observational evidence for stochastic biasing
M Tegmark & B Bromley 1999, astroph/9809324,
ApJL, 518, L6972

Weak lensing: prospects for measuring cosmological parameters
W Hu & M Tegmark 1999, astroph/9811168
, ApJL, 514, L6568

Bias is Complicated
M Tegmark & B Bromley 2000,
Physica Scripta, T85, L5962

Time evolution of galaxy formation and bias in cosmological simulations
M Blanton, R Cen, J P Ostriker, M A Strauss, M Tegmark 2000,
astroph/9903165,
ApJ, 531, 116

Is the cosmic microwave background really
nonGaussian?
B Bromley & M Tegmark 1999, astroph/9904254,
ApJL, 524, L7982

Crosscorrelation of Tenerife data with Galactic templates  evidence
for spinning dust?
A de OliveiraCosta, M Tegmark, C M Gutierrez, A W Jones, R D Davies,
A N Lasenby, R Rebolo & R A Watson 1999, astroph/9904296,
ApJL, 527, L912

Decorrelating the power spectrum of galaxies
A J S Hamilton & M Tegmark 2000, astroph/9905192,
MNRAS, 312, 285294

Foregrounds and forecasts for the cosmic microwave background
M Tegmark, D J Eisenstein, W Hu, A de OliveiraCosta 2000,
astroph/9905257,
ApJ, 530, 133165

The power spectrum of the CfA/SSRS UZC galaxy redshift survey
N Padmanabhan, M Tegmark & A J S Hamilton 2001,
astroph/9911421,
ApJ, 520, 5264

A spin modulated telescope to make two dimensional CMB maps
J Staren, P Meinhold, J Childers, M Lim, A Levy, P Lubin,
M Seiffert, T Gaier, N Figueiredo, T Villela, C A Wuensche,
M Tegmark, A de OliveiraCosta 2000, astroph/9912212,
ApJ, 539, 52

Current cosmological constraints from a 10 parameter CMB analysis
M Tegmark & M Zaldarriaga 2000, astroph/0002091,
ApJ, 541, 535541

LargeScale SunyaevZel'dovich Effect:
Measuring Statistical Properties with Multifrequency Maps
A Cooray, W Hu, M Tegmark 2000,
astroph/0002238, ApJ, 540, 1

Galactic contamination in the QMAP experiment
A de OliveiraCosta, M Tegmark, M J Devlin, L M Haffner, T Herbig,
A D Miller, L A Page, R J Reynolds, S L Tufte 2000,
astroph/0003090, ApJL, 542, L58

Linear Redshift Distortions and Power in the PSCz Survey
A J S Hamilton, M Tegmark, N Padmanabhan 2000,
astroph/0004334, MNRAS, 317, L23

New CMB constraints on the cosmic matter budget:
trouble for nucleosynthesis?
M Tegmark & M Zaldarriaga 2000,
Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 2240

The dark side of distortion
M Tegmark 2000, Nature, 405, 133

CMB Observables and their cosmological implications
W Hu, M Fukugita, M Zaldarriaga & M Tegmark 2001,
astroph/0006436, ApJ, 549, 669680

Towards a refined cosmic concordance model: joint 11parameter constraints
from CMB and largescale structure
M Tegmark, M Zaldarriaga, A J S Hamilton 2001, astroph/0008165,
Phys. Rev. D, 63, 043007043020

Latest cosmological constraints on the densities of hot and cold dark matter
M Tegmark, M Zaldarriaga & A J S Hamilton 2001,
hepph/0008145, in Sources and Detection of Dark Matter/Energy in the Universe,
ed. D. B. Cline (Springer, Berlin, 2000)

Weighing neutrinos with microwave background and galaxy data
M Tegmark, M Zaldarriaga & A J S Hamilton 2000,
Nucl. Phys. B 91, 387392,
in proceedings of
XIX International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics,
Sudbury, Canada, June 2000

The Initial Conditions of Galaxy Formation
M Tegmark, M Zaldarriaga & A J S Hamilton 2001,
in The Physics of Galaxy Formation, ed. M. Umemura & H. Susa
(ASP Conf. Ser.)

Why is the fraction of fourimage radio lens systems so high?
D Rusin & M Tegmark 2001, astroph/0008329, ApJ, 553, 709721

The Real Space Power Spectrum of the PSCz Survey from 0.01 to 300 h/Mpc
A J S Hamilton & M Tegmark 2002, astroph/0008392,
MNRAS, 330, 506530

A New Spin on Galactic Dust
A de OliveiraCosta, M Tegmark, D P Finkbeiner, C M Gutierrez, L M Haffner, A W Jones,
A N Lasenby, R Rebolo, R J Reynolds, S L Tufte & R A Watson 2002,
astroph/0010527, ApJ, 567, 363369

Comparing and combining the Saskatoon, QMAP and COBE CMB maps
Y Xu, M Tegmark, A de OliveiraCosta, M J Devlin, T Herbig, A D Miller,
C B Netterfield & L Page 2001,
astroph/0010552, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 103002103012

Constraints from the Lyman alpha forest power spectrum
M Zaldarriaga, L Hui & M Tegmark 2001,
astroph/0011559, ApJ, 557, 519526

How to measure CMB polarization power spectra without losing information
M Tegmark & A de OliveiraCosta 2001,
astroph/0012120, Phys. Rev. D, 64;, 063001063015

Measuring the metric:
a parametrized postFriedmanian approach
to the cosmic dark energy problem
M Tegmark 2002,
astroph/0101354, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 103508110

Gaussianity of degreescale cosmic microwave background anisotropy observations
ChanGyung Park, Changbom Park, Bharat Ratra & Max Tegmark 2001,
astroph/0102406, ApJ, 556, 582589

The CMB power spectrum at l=30200 from QMASK
Yongzhong Xu, Max Tegmark, Angelica de OliveiraCosta 2002,
astroph/0104419, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 08300216

Is cosmology consistent?
Xiaomin Wang, Max Tegmark, Matias Zaldarriaga 2002,
astroph/0105091, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 123001114

Galaxy clustering in early SDSS redshift data
Idit Zehavi, Michael Blanton, Joshua Frieman, David Weinberg,
Houjun Mo, Michael Strauss + 60 alphabetized authors
(I'm the 53rd...:)
2002, astroph/0102476, ApJ, 571, 172

A limit on the large angular scale polarization of the cosmic
microwave background
Brian Keating, Chris O'Dell, Angelica de OliveiraCosta,
Slade Klawikowski, Nate Stebor, Lucio Piccirillo, Max Tegmark
& Peter Timbie 2001,
astroph/0107013, ApJL, 560, L14

Analysis of systematic effects and statistical uncertainties in
angular clustering of galaxies from early SDSS data
Ryan Scranton, David Johnston, Scott Dodelson, Joshua Frieman
et al (I'm 21 out of 47 :) 2002,
astroph/0107416, ApJ, 579, 48

The angular correlation function of galaxies from early SDSS data
Andrew Connolly, Ryan Scranton, David Johnston et al
(I'm 21 out of 49) 2002,
astroph/0107417, ApJ, 579, 42

The angular power spectrum of galaxies from early SDSS data
Max Tegmark, Scott Dodelson, Daniel Eisenstein, Vijay Narayanan,
Roman Scoccimarro, Ryan Scranton, Michael Strauss et al
(41 others) 2002,
astroph/0107418, ApJ, 571, 191

KL estimation of the power spectrum parameters from the angular distribution of
galaxies in early SDSS data
Alexander Szalay, Bhuvnesh Jain, Takahiko Matsubara, Ryan Scranton,
Michael S. Vogeley, et al (I'm 26 out of 49) 2003,
astroph/0107419, ApJ, 591, 1

The 3D power spectrum from angular clustering of galaxies in early SDSS data
Scott Dodelson, Vijay K. Narayanan, Max Tegmark, Ryan Scranton et al
(42 others) 2002,
astroph/0107421, ApJ, 572, 140

Gaussianity of the QMASK Map (Morphological Measures of nonGaussianity in CMB Maps)
Sergei Shandarin, Hume Feldman, Yongzhong Xu & Max Tegmark 2002,
astroph/0107136, ApJS, 141, 111

The power spectrum of galaxies in the 2dF 100k redshift survey
Max Tegmark, Andrew Hamilton & Yongzhong Xu 2002,
astroph/0111575, MNRAS, 335, 887908

Cosmic censorship
M Tegmark 2002, Nature, 415, 374

Measuring Spacetime: from the Big Bang to Black Holes
M Tegmark 2002, Science, 296, 14271433

First attempt at measuring the CMB crosspolarization
Angelica de OliveiraCosta, Max Tegmark, Matias Zaldarriaga,
Denis Barkats, Josh O Gundersen, Matt M Hedman, Suzanne T Staggs,
Bruce Winstein 2003, astroph/0204021, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 023003

TwoDimensional Topology of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
Fiona Hoyle, Michael S. Vogeley, J. Richard Gott III, Michael Blanton,
Max Tegmark, David H. Weinberg, J. Brinkmann, N. Bahcall 2002,
astroph/0206146, ApJ, 580, 663671

Separating the Early Universe from the Late Universe:
cosmological parameter estimation beyond the black box
M Tegmark & M Zaldarriaga 2002, astroph/0207047,
Phys. Rev. D, 66, 103508118

E/B decomposition of finite pixelized CMB maps
Emory Bunn, Matias Zaldarriaga, Max Tegmark & Angelica de OliveiraCosta 2003,
astroph/0207338, PRD, 67, 023501

The Galaxy Luminosity Function and Luminosity Density at Redshift z=0.1
Michael R. Blanton, David W. Hogg, J. Brinkmann, Andrew J. Connolly, Istvan Csabai, Neta A. Bahcall, Masataka Fukugita,
Jon Loveday, Avery Meiksin, Jeffrey A. Munn, R. C. Nichol, Sadanori Okamura, Thomas Quinn, Donald P. Schneider,
Kazuhiro Shimasaku, Michael A. Strauss, Max Tegmark, Michael S. Vogeley & David H. Weinberg 2003,
astroph/0210215, ApJ, 592, 819

The end of unified dark matter?
Havard Sandvik, Max Tegmark, Matias Zaldarriaga & Ioav Waga 2004,
astroph/0212114, PRD, 69, 123524

The last stand before WMAP: cosmological parameters from lensing, CMB and
galaxy clustering
Xiaomin Wang, Max Tegmark, Bhuvnesh Jain & Matias Zaldarriaga 2003, astroph/0212417,
PRD, 68, 123001112

The LargeScale Polarization of the Microwave Background and Foreground
Angelica de OliveiraCosta,
Max Tegmark, Christopher O'Dell, Brian Keating, Peter
Timbie, George Efstathiou & George Smoot 2003,
astroph/0212419, PRD, 68, 083003111

CMB Polarization at Large Angular Scales:
Data Analysis of the POLAR Experiment
Christopher W. O'Dell, Brian G. Keating, Angelica de OliveiraCosta,
Max Tegmark & Peter T. Timbie 2003,
astroph/0212419, PRD, 68, 42002

Beyond Cosmological Parameters, M Tegmark 2003,
in The Emergence of Cosmic Structure,
proc. 13th Annual Astrophysics Conference in Maryland,
S. S. Holt & C. Reynolds eds., AIP

Cosmology from Large Scale Structure,
Andrew Hamilton, Nick Gnedin, Max Tegmark, Yongzhong Xu 2003,
astroph/0212552,
in Particle Physics,
H.V. KlapdorKleingrothaus \& R. Viollier eds., Springer

On Departures From a Power Law in the Galaxy Correlation Function,
Idit Zehavi, David H. Weinberg, Zheng Zheng, Andreas A. Berlind,
Joshua A. Frieman, Roman Scoccimarro, Ravi K. Sheth, Michael R. Blanton,
Max Tegmark, Houjun J. Mo, et al. 2004,
astroph/0301280,
ApJ, 608, 16

A high resolution foreground cleaned CMB map from WMAP
Max Tegmark, Angelica de OliveiraCosta & Andrew Hamilton 2003, astroph/0302496,
PRD, 68, 123523

Anthropic predictions for neutrino masses
Max Tegmark & Alexander Vilenkin 2005, astroph/0304536, PRD, 71, 103523

The First Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey,
Kev Abazajian et al 2003 (I'm out of 162nd out of 189 alphabetized authors :),
astroph/0305492,
Astron. J., 126, 2081

Angular Clustering with Photometric Redshifts in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey:
Bimodality in the Clustering Properties of Galaxies,
Tamas Budavari, Andrew J. Connolly, Alexander S. Szalay, Istvan Szapudi, Istvan Csabai,
Ryan Scranton, Neta A. Bahcall, Jon Brinkmann, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Joshua A. Frieman,
Masataka Fukugita, James E. Gunn, David Johnston, Stephen Kent, Jon N. Loveday,
Robert H. Lupton, Max Tegmark, Aniruddha R. Thakar, Brian Yanny, Donald G. York,
Idit Zehavi 2003,
astroph/0305603,
ApJ, 595, 59

The LargeScale Polarization of the Microwave Foreground,
Angelica de OliveiraCosta,
Max Tegmark, Christopher O'Dell, Brian Keating, Peter
Timbie, George Efstathiou \& George Smoot 2003,
astroph/0305590,
in proceedings of
"The Cosmic Microwave Background and its Polarization", New Astronomy Reviews
(eds. S. Hanany & K. A. Olive)

Measuring CMB Polarization with BOOMERANG,
T. Montroy, P.A.R. Ade, A. Balbi, J.J. Bock, J.R. Bond, J. Borrill,
A. Boscaleri, P. Cabella, C.R. Contaldi, B.P. Crill, P. de Bernardis,
G. De Gasperis, A. de OliveiraCosta, G. De Troia, G. di Stefano, K. Ganga,
E. Hivon, V.V. Hristov, A. Iacoangeli, A.H. Jaffe, T.S. Kisner, W.C. Jones,
A.E. Lange, S. Masi, P.D. Mauskopf, C. Mactavish, A. Melchiorri, F. Nati,
P. Natoli, C.B. Netterfield, E. Pascale, F. Piacentini, D. Pogosyan, G. Polenta,
S. Prunet, S. Ricciardi, G. Romeo, J.E. Ruhl, E. Torbet, M. Tegmark, N. Vittorio 2003,
astroph/0305593,
in proceedings of
"The Cosmic Microwave Background and its Polarization", New Astronomy Reviews
(eds. S. Hanany & K. A. Olive)

A scheme to deal accurately and efficiently with
complex angular masks in galaxy surveys,
Andrew J. S. Hamilton & Max Tegmark 2004,
astroph/0306324, MNRAS, 349, 115

The ThreeDimensional Power Spectrum of Galaxies from
the Sloan Digital Sky Survey,
Max Tegmark,
Michael Blanton,
Michael A. Strauss,
Fiona S. Hoyle,
David Schlegel,
Roman Scoccimarro,
Michael S. Vogeley,
David H. Weinberg,
Idit Zehavi,
Andreas Berlind,
Tamas Budavari,
Andrew Connolly,
Daniel J. Eisenstein,
Douglas Finkbeiner,
Joshua A. Frieman,
Andrew J. S. Hamilton,
James E. Gunn,
Lam Hui,
Bhuvnesh Jain,
David Johnston,
Stephen Kent,
Huan Lin,
Reiko Nakajima,
Robert C. Nichol,
Adrian Pope,
Ryan Scranton,
Uros Seljak,
Ravi K. Sheth,
Albert Stebbins,
Alexander S. Szalay,
Istvan Szapudi,
Licia Verde,
Yongzhong Xu et al
(64 authors in total) 2004,
astroph/0310725,
ApJ, 606, 702740

The significance of the largest scale CMB fluctuations in WMAP,
Angelica de OliveiraCosta, Max Tegmark, Matias Zaldarriaga & Andrew Hamilton 2004,
astroph/0307282, PRD, 69, 063516

Physical evidence for dark energy,
R. Scranton, A. J. Connolly, R. C. Nichol, A. Stebbins,
I. Szapudi, D. J. Eisenstein, N. Afshordi, T. Budavari, I. Csabai,
J. A. Frieman, J. E. Gunn, D. Johnson, Y. Loh, R. H. Lupton,
C. J. Miller, E. S. Sheldon, R. S. Sheth, A. S. Szalay,
M. Tegmark, Y. Xu, et al 2003,
astroph/0307335

A Map of the Universe,
J. Richard Gott III, Mario Juric, David Schlegel, Fiona Hoyle, Michael Vogeley,
Max Tegmark, Neta Bahcall, Jon Brinkmann 2005, astroph/0310571, ApJ, 624, 463

Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP,
Max Tegmark, Michael Strauss, Michael R. Blanton, Kev Abazajian, Scott Dodelson, Havard Sandvik, Xiaomin
Wang, David H. Weinberg, Idit Zehavi, Neta A. Bahcall, Fiona Hoyle, David Schlegel, Roman Scoccimarro,
Michael S. Vogeley, Andreas Berlind, Tamas Budavari, Andrew Connolly Daniel J. Eisenstein, Douglas
Finkbeiner, Joshua A. Frieman, James E. Gunn, Lam Hui, Bhuvnesh Jain, David Johnston,
Stephen Kent, Huan Lin, Reiko Nakajima, Robert C. Nichol, Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Adrian Pope, Ryan Scranton, Uros Seljak, Ravi K.
Sheth, Albert Stebbins, Alexander S. Szalay, Istvan Szapudi, Yongzhong Xu, James Annis, J. Brinkmann, Scott
Burles, Francisco J. Castander, Istvan Csabai, Jon Loveday, Mamoru Doi, Masataka Fukugita, Greg Hennessy,
David W. Hogg, Zeljko Ivezic, Gillian R. Knapp, Don Q. Lamb, Brian C. Lee, Robert H. Lupton, Timothy A.
McKay, Peter Kunszt, Jeffrey A. Munn, Liam O'Connell, John Peoples, Jeffrey R. Pier,
Michael Richmond, Constance Rockosi, Donald P. Schneider, Christopher Stoughton, Douglas L. Tucker, Daniel E.
Vanden Berk, Brian Yanny and Donald G. York 2004,
astroph/0310571, PRD, 69, 103501

Maps of the millimetre sky from the BOOMERanG experiment,
P. de Bernardis et al 2003,
astroph/0311396

CMBfit: Rapid WMAP likelihood calculations with normal parameters,
Havard Sandvik, Max Tegmark, Xiaomin Wang & Matias Zaldarriaga 2004,
astroph/0311544, PRD, 69, 063005

The Quest for Microwave Foreground X,
Angelica de OliveiraCosta, Max Tegmark, R.D. Davies, Carlos M. Gutierrez,
A.N. Lasenby, R. Rebolo & R.A. Watson 2004,
astroph/0312039, ApJL, 606, L89

Cosmological Parameters from Eigenmode Analysis of Sloan Digital Sky Survey Galaxy Redshifts,
A. Pope et al 2004,
astroph/0401249, ApJ, 607, 655660

New dark energy constraints from supernovae, microwave background and galaxy clustering,
Yun Wang & Max Tegmark 2004,
astroph/0403292, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 241302

The Second Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey,
Kev Abazajian et al 2004 (144 authors :) 2004,
astroph/0403325,
Astron. J., 128, 50212

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Commissioning Data: Orion,
Douglas Finkbeiner et al 2004,
Astron. J., 128, 2577

Anthropic predictions for vacuum energy and neutrino masses,
Levon Pogosian, Alexander Vilenkin & Max Tegmark 2004,
astroph/0404497,
JCAP, 20047, 5

How accurately can suborbital experiments measure the CMB?,
Angelica de OliveiraCosta, Max Tegmark, Mark Devlin, Lyman Page, Amber Miller,
Barth Netterfield, Yongzhong Xu 2005,
astroph/0406375,
PRD, 71, 043004

SDSS galaxy bias from halo massbias relation and its cosmological implications,
U Seljak, A Makarov, R Mandelbaum, C Hirata, N Padmanabhan, P McDonald, M Blanton, M Tegmark,
N Bahcall & J Brinkmann 2005, astroph/0406594, PRD, 71, 043511

Cosmological parameter analysis including SDSS Lyalpha forest and galaxy bias:
constraints on the primordial spectrum of fluctuations, neutrino mass, and dark energy,
U Seljak, A Makarov, P McDonald, S Anderson, N Bahcall, J Brinkmann, S Burles, R Cen, M Doi,
J Gunn, Z Ivezic, S Kent, R Lupton, J Munn, R Nichol, J Ostriker, D Schlegel,
M Tegmark, D Van den Berk, D Weinberg & D York 2005,
astroph/0407372, PRD, 71, 103515

Cosmology and the Halo Occupation Distribution from SmallScale Galaxy
Clustering in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey,
Kevork Abazajian, Zheng Zheng, Idit Zehavi, David H. Weinberg, Joshua A. Frieman, Andreas A. Berlind,
Michael R. Blanton, Neta A. Bahcall, J. Brinkmann, Donald P. Schneider & Max Tegmark 2005,
astroph/0408003, ApJ, 625, 613

Nonparametric inversion of strong lensing systems,
J M Diego, P Protopapas, H B Sandvik & M Tegmark 2005,
astroph/0408418,
MNRAS, 360, 477

The Luminosity and Color Dependence of the Galaxy Correlation Function,
I Zehavi, Z Zheng, DH Weinberg, JA Frieman, AA Berlind, MR Blanton, R Scoccimarro, RK
Sheth, MA Strauss, I Kayo, Y Suto, M Fukugita, O Nakamura, NA Bahcall, J Brinkmann, JE
Gunn, GS Hennessy, Z Ivezic, GR Knapp, J Loveday, A Meiksin, DJ Schlegel, DP Schneider, I
Szapudi, M Tegmark, MS Vogeley & DG York 2005,
astroph/0408569, ApJ, 630, 127

Multiple universes, cosmic coincidences, and other dark matters,
Anthony Aguirre & Max Tegmark 2005,
hepth/0409072, JCAP, 20051, 3

NYUVAGC: a galaxy catalog based on new public surveys,
Michael R. Blanton, David J. Schlegel, Michael A. Strauss, J. Brinkmann, Douglas Finkbeiner, Masataka Fukugita, James E. Gunn,
David W. Hogg, Zeljko Ivezic, G. R. Knapp, Robert H. Lupton, Jeffrey A. Munn, Donald P. Schneider, Max Tegmark \& Idit Zehavi 2005,
astroph/0410166, Astron. J, 129, 25622578

The Third Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey,
K. Abazajian et al. (SDSS collaboration; I'm one of 154 alphabetized authors) 2005,
astroph/0410239, Astron. J, 129, 1755

What does inflation really predict?,
Max Tegmark 2005, astroph/0410281, JCAP, 20054, 1

The IntermediateScale Clustering of Luminous Red Galaxies,
Idit Zehavi, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Robert C. Nichol, Michael R. Blanton, David W. Hogg,
Jon Brinkmann, Jon Loveday, Avery Meiksin, Donald P. Schneider, Max Tegmark 2005,
astroph/0411557, ApJ, 621, 2231

Nonparametric mass reconstruction of A1689 from strong lensing data with SLAP,
J. M. Diego, H. B. Sandvik, P. Protopapas, M. Tegmark, N. Benitez & T. Broadhurst 2005,
astroph/0412191, MNRAS, 362, 12471258

Twentyone Centimeter Tomography with Foregrounds,
Xiaomin Wang, Max Tegmark, Mario Santos & Lloyd Knox 2006,
astroph/0501081, ApJ, 650, 529

Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the LargeScale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red
Galaxies,
D. J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi, D. W. Hogg, R. Scoccimarro, M. R. Blanton, R. C. Nichol,
R. Scranton, H. Seo, M. Tegmark, Z. Zheng, S. Anderson, J. Annis, N. Bahcall, J. Brinkmann,
S. Burles, F. J. Castander, A. Connolly, I. Csabai, M. Doi, M. Fukugita, J. A. Frieman,
K. Glazebrook, J. E. Gunn, J. S. Hendry, G. Hennessy, Z. Ivezic, S. Kent, G. R. Knapp, H.
Lin, Y. Loh, R. H. Lupton, B. Margon, T. McKay, A. Meiksin,
J. A. Munn, A. Pope, M. Richmond, D. Schlegel, D. Schneider, K. Shimasaku, C. Stoughton, M. Strauss,
M. SubbaRao, A. S. Szalay, I. Szapudi, D. Tucker, B. Yanny \& D. York 2005,
astroph/0501171, ApJ, 633, 560574

Uncorrelated Measurements
of the Cosmic Expansion History and Dark Energy from Supernovae,
Yun Wang & Max Tegmark 2005,
astroph/0501351, PRD, 71, 103513

Cosmological
neutrino bounds for noncosmologists,
Max Tegmark 2005,
hepph/0503257,
in "Neutrino Physics", Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 129, eds.,
L Bergstrom, O. Botner, P. Carlson, P. O. Hulth, and T. Ohlsson

Joint Efficient Darkenergy Investigation (JEDI): a Candidate Implementation of the NASADOE Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM),Wang, Y. et al (I'm one of 12 alphabetized authors), astroph/0507043

How did it all begin?,
Max Tegmark, for 2005 Young Scholars Competition in honor of Charles Townes, astroph/0508429

Instrument, Method, Brightness and Polarization Maps from the 2003 flight of BOOMERanG, Masi, S. et al (I'm one of 44 alphabetized authors), astroph/0507509, AA, 458, 687716

A Measurement of the Angular Power Spectrum of the CMB Temperature Anisotropy from the 2003 Flight of Boomerang, Jones, W.C., et al (I'm one of 37 alphabetized authors) 2006, astroph/0507494, ApJ, 647, 823832

A measurement of the polarizationtemperature angular cross power spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background from the 2003 flight of BOOMERANG,
Piacentini, F., et al (I'm one of 37 alphabetized authors) 2006, astroph/0507507, ApJ, 647, 833839

A Measurement of the CMB EE Spectrum from the 2003 Flight of BOOMERANG, Montroy, T.E., et al (I'm one of 37 alphabetized authors) 2006, astroph/0507514, ApJ, 647, 813822

Cosmological Parameters from the 2003 flight of BOOMERANG,
MacTavish, C.J., et al (I'm one of 38 alphabetized authors) 2006, astroph/0507503, ApJ, 647, 799812

The Fourth Data Release of the Sloan Digitial Sky Survey,
AdelmanMcCarthy, JK, et al 2006, astroph/0507711, ApJS, 162, 3848

Limits on nonGaussianities from WMAP data,P Creminelli, A Nicholis, L Senatore, M Tegmark & M Zaldarriaga 2006, astroph/0509029, JCAP, 0605, 004

Combined reconstruction of weak and strong lensing data with WSLAP,
J.M. Diego, M. Tegmark, P. Protopapas, H.B. Sandvik, astroph/0509103, MNRAS, 375, 958970

How Unlikely is a Doomsday Catastrophe?,
M Tegmark & N Bostrom 2005, astroph/0512204, Nature, 438, 754

On Math, Matter and Mind,
P Hut, M Alford, M Tegmark 2006, physics/0510188, Found. Physics, 36, 765794

Dimensionless constants, cosmology and other dark matters,
M Tegmark, A Aguirre, M J Rees, F Wilczek 2006, astroph/0511774, PRD, 73, 023505

CMB multipole measurements in the presence of foregrounds,
A de OliveiraCosta, M Tegmark 2006, astroph/0603369, PRD, 74, 023005

Task Force on Cosmic Microwave Background Research,
J Bock et al (I'm one of 14 alphabetized authors), 2006, astroph/0604101. Final Report of the DoE/NASA/NSF Interagency Task Force on CMB Research.

The Clustering of Luminous Red Galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Imaging Data,
N Padmanabhan et al (I'm one of 20 alphabetized authors), 2006, astroph/0605302, MNRAS, 378, 852872

Constraining Torsion with Gravity Probe B,
Y Mao, M Tegmark, A Guth & S Cabi, 2006, grqc/0608121, PRD, 76, 104029

Cosmological Constraints from the SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies, M Tegmark et al 2006, astroph/0608632, PRD, 74, 123507

The shape of the SDSS DR5 galaxy power spectrum,
W J Percival et al (I'm one of 17 alphabetized authors), 2007, astroph/0608636, ApJ, 657, 645663

Limits on f_NL parameters from WMAP 3yr data,
P Creminell, L Senatore, M Zaldarriaga, M Tegmark, 2006, astroph/0610600, JCAP, 03, 005

Constraining f(R) Gravity as a Scalar Tensor Theory, T Faulkner, M Tegmark, E Bunn, Y Mao, 2007, astroph/0612569, PRD, 76, 063505

SDSS Galaxy Clustering: Luminosity & Color Dependence and Stochasticity, Molly E.C. Swanson, Max Tegmark, Michael Blanton, Idit Zehavi, astroph/0702584, MNRAS, 385, 1635

CMB Polarization with Boomerang 2003, F. Piacentini et al (I'm one of 40 alphabetized authors), 2007, New Astronomy Reviews, 51, pp. 244249.

Searching for non Gaussian signals in the BOOMERanG 2003 CMB maps, G. De Troia et al (I'm one of 41 alphabetized authors), 2007, arxiv:0705.1615 [astroph], ApJ, 670, L7376

Searching for non Gaussian signals in the BOOMERanG 2003 CMB maps: Preliminary Results, G. De Troia et al (I'm one of 41 alphabetized authors), 2007, New Astronomy Reviews, 51, 250255

The millimeter sky as seen with BOOMERanG, S. Masi et al (I'm one of 44 alphabetized authors), 20047, New Astronomy Reviews, 51, 236243

Observations of the temperature and polarization anisotropies with BOOMERANG 2003, WC Jones et al (I'm one of 38 alphabetized authors), 2007, New Astronomy Reviews, 50, 945950

The Sixth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, JK AdelmanMcCarthy et al (I'm one of 100 alphabetized authors), 2007, arxiv:0707.3413 [astroph], ApJS, 172, 634

Searching for Inflation in Simple String Theory Models: An Astrophysical Perspective, MP Hertzberg, M. Tegmark, S. Kachru, J. Shelton, and O. Ozcan, 2007, arxiv:0709.0002 [astroph], PRD, 76, 103521

Inflationary Constraints on Type IIA String Theory, M. P. Hertzberg, S. Kachru, W. Taylor, M Tegmark, arxiv:0711.2512 [hepth], JHEP, 12, 95

Methods for Rapidly Processing Angular Masks of NextGeneration Galaxy Surveys, M.
Swanson, M. Tegmark, A. J. S. Hamilton, J. C. Hill, arxiv:0711.4352 [astroph], MNRAS, 387, 1391

A model of diffuse Galactic Radio Emission from 10 MHz to 100 GHz, A. de OliveiraCosta, M. Tegmark, B. M. Gaensler, J. Jonas, T. L. Landecker and P. Reich, arxiv:0802.1525 [astroph], MNRAS, 388, 247

How accurately can 21 cm tomography constrain cosmology?, Y. Mao, M. Tegmark, M. McQuinn, M. Zaldarriaga and O. Zahn, arxiv:0802.1710 [astroph], PRD, 78, 023529

The Fast Fourier Transform Telescope, M Tegmark & M Zaldarriaga 2008, arxiv:0805.4414 [astroph], PRD, 79, 083530

Axion cosmology and the energy scale of inflation, M P Hertzberg, M Tegmark & F Wilczek 2008, arxiv:0807.1726 [astroph], PRD, 78, 083507

Will point sources spoil 21 cm tomography?, A. Liu, M. Tegmark and M. Zaldarriaga 2009, arxiv:0807.3952 [astroph], MNRAS, 394, 1575

The Seventh Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, J. K. AdelmanMcCarthy et al (I'm one of about 10^{2} alphabetized authors), arxiv:0812.0649 [astroph], ApJS, 182, 543

Astrophysics from the HighlyRedshifted 21 cm Line, S Furlanetto et al (I'm one of 29 authors), arxiv:0902.3011 [astroph], science white paper submitted to the US Astro2010 Decadal Survey "Galaxies across Cosmic Time" Science Frontier Panel

Cosmology from the HighlyRedshifted 21 cm Line, S Furlanetto et al (I'm one of 29 authors), arxiv:0902.3259 [astroph], science white paper submitted to the US Astro2010 Decadal Survey "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics" Science Frontier Panel

NonGaussianity as a Probe of the Physics of the Primordial Universe and the Astrophysics of the Low Redshift Universe, E Komatsu et al (I'm one of 61 authors), arxiv:0902.4759 [astroph], science white paper submitted to the US Astro2010 Decadal Survey "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics" Science Frontier Panel

Observing the Evolution of the Universe, J Aguirre et al (I'm one of 177 alphabetized authors), arxiv:0903.0902 [astroph], science white paper submitted to the US Astro2010 Decadal Survey "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics" Science Frontier Panel

Likely values of the Higgs vacuum expectation value, '', J F Donoghue, K Dutta, A Ross & M Tegmark 2009, arxiv:0903.1024 [astroph], PRD, 81, 073003

An Improved Method for 21cm Foreground Removal, A Liu, M Tegmark, J Bowman, J Hewitt & M Zaldarriaga 2009, arxiv:0903.4890 [astroph], MNRAS, 398, 401

The Second Law and Cosmology, M Tegmark 2009, arxiv:0904.3931 [popph], in Meeting the Entropy Challenge, eds. G P Beretta, A F Ghoneim & G N Hatsopoulos, AIP, New York

Subdegree SunyaevZel'dovich Signal from Multifrequency BOOMERanG observations, M Veneziani et al 2009 (I'm one of 38 authors),
arxiv:0904.4313 [astroph], ApJL, 702, L61

BOOMERanG Constraints on Primordial NonGaussianity from Analytical Minkowski Functionals, P Natoli et al 2009 (I'm one of 35 authors),
arxiv:0905.4301 [astroph], MNRAS, 408, 1658

Cosmological Constraints from the Clustering of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR7 Luminous Red Galaxies, B Reid et al 2009 (I'm one of 28 authors),
arxiv:0907.1659 [astroph], MNRAS, 404, 60

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 Galaxy Sample, W J Percival et al 2009 (I'm one of 26 authors),
arxiv:0907.1660 [astroph], MNRAS, 401, 2148

Omniscopes: Large Area Telescope Arrays with only N log N Computational Cost, M Tegmark & M Zaldarriaga 2009,
arxiv:0909.0001 [astroph], PRD, 82, 103501

Solving the CornerTurning Problem for Large Interferometers, A Lutomirski, M Tegmark, N Sanchez, L Stein & M Zaldarriaga 2011,
arxiv:0910.1351 [astroph], MNRAS, 410, 2075

Precision Calibration of Radio Interferometers Using Redundant Baselines, A Liu, M Tegmark, S Morrison, A Lutomirski & M Zaldarriaga 2009,
arxiv:1001.5268 [astroph], MNRAS, 408, 1029

Galaxy Clustering in the Completed SDSS Redshift Survey: The Dependence on Color and Luminosity, Idit Zehavi et al (I'm one of 18 authors) 2011,
arxiv:1005.2413 [astroph], ApJ, 736, 59

Testing TwoField Inflation, Courtney Peterson & Max Tegmark 2011,
arxiv:1005.4056 [astroph], PRD, 83, 023522

Born in an Infinite Universe: a Cosmological Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Anthony Aguirre & Max Tegmark 2011,
arxiv:1008.1066 [quantph], PRD, 84, 105002

NonGaussianity in TwoField Inflation, Courtney Peterson & Max Tegmark 2011,
arxiv:1011.6675 [astroph], PRD, 84, 023520

A method for 21 cm power spectrum estimation in the presence of foregrounds, Adrian Liu & Max Tegmark 2011, arxiv:1103.0281 [astroph], PRD, 83, 103006

How well can we measure and understand foregrounds with 21cm experiments?, Adrian Liu & Max Tegmark 2012, arxiv:1106.0007 [astroph], MNRAS, 419, 3491

How unitary cosmology generalizes thermodynamics and solves the inflationary entropy problem, Max Tegmark 2012, PRD, 85, 123517

Testing MultiField Inflation: A Geometric Approach, Courtney Peterson & Max Tegmark 2013,
arxiv:1111.0927 [astroph], PRD, 87, 103507

A Fast Method for Power Spectrum and Foreground Analysis for 21 cm Cosmology, Josh Dillon, Adrian Liu & Max Tegmark 2012,
arxiv:1211.2232 [astroph], PRD, 87, 043005

Global 21cm Signal Experiments: A Designer's Guide, Adrian Liu, Jonathan Pritchard, Max Tegmark & Abraham Loeb 2012, arxiv:1211.3743 [astroph], PRD,
87, 043002

MITEoR: A Scalable Interferometer for Precision 21 cm Cosmology,
Haoxuan Zheng et al 2014, arxiv:1309.2639 [astroph], in proceedings of 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Phased Array Systems & Technology

What NextGeneration 21 cm Power Spectrum Measurements Can Teach Us About the Epoch of Reionization,
Jonathan C. Pober, Adrian Liu, Joshua S. Dillon, James E. Aguirre, Judd D. Bowman, Richard F. Bradley, Chris L. Carilli, David R. DeBoer, Jacqueline N. Hewitt, Daniel C. Jacobs, Matthew McQuinn, Miguel F. Morales, Aaron R. Parsons, Max Tegmark & Dan J. Werthimer 2012,
arxiv:1309.2639 [astroph]

MITEoR: A Scalable Interferometer for Precision 21 cm Cosmology,
Haoxuan Zheng et al 2014, arxiv:1405.5527 [astroph], MNRAS, 445, 1084

Mapmaking for precision 21 cm cosmology, Joshua Dillon, Max Tegmark, Adrian Liu, Aaron EwallWice, Jacqueline Hewitt, Miguel Morales, Abraham Neben, Aaron Parsons & Haoxuan Zheng 2015, arxiv:1410.0963 [astroph], PRD,
91, 023002
Noncosmology publications

Apparent wavefunction collapse caused by scattering
M Tegmark 1993, Found. Phys. Lett., 6, 571590

Steady states of harmonic oscillator chains and shortcomings
of harmonic heat baths
M Tegmark & L Yeh 1994, Physica A, 202, 342362

An elementary proof that the biharmonic Green function
of an eccentric ellipse changes sign
H Shapiro & M Tegmark 1994, Soc. Ind. App. Math. Rev., 36,
99101

Decoherence produces coherent states: an explicit
proof for harmonic chains
M Tegmark & H Shapiro 1994, Phys. Rev. E, 50, 25382547

Does the universe in fact contain almost no information?
M Tegmark 1996, Found. Phys. Lett., 9, 2542

The economics of Lake Kariba
J Oldhoff & M Tegmark 1989, Swedish International Development Agency

Particlelike solutions of the SU(2) EinsteinYangMills equations
M Tegmark 1990, B. Sc. thesis, Royal Inst. of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden

Measuring quantum states:
an experimental setup for measuring the spatial
density matrix
M Tegmark 1996, Phys. Rev. A., 54, 27032706

Is ``the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate
ensemble theory?
M Tegmark 1998, Annals of Physics, 270, 151

On the dimensionality of spacetime
M Tegmark 1997, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 14, L69L75

The interpretation of quantum mechanics: many worlds
or many words?
M Tegmark 1998, Fortschr. Phys. 46, 855862

The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes
M Tegmark 2000, quantph/9907009,
Phys. Rev. E 61, 41944206

Why the brain is probably not a quantum computer
M Tegmark 2000,
Information Sciences 128, 155179

100 Years of quantum mysteries
M Tegmark & John Archibald Wheeler 2001, quantph/0101063,
Scientific American Feb. 2001, 6875

Parallel Universes
M Tegmark 2003, astroph/0302131,
Scientific American May 2003, 4051 (cover story)

The Mathematical Universe, M Tegmark 2007, 0704.0646/grqc, Founds. Phys. November 2007, 116

Many lives in many worlds, M Tegmark 2007, Nature 448, 23

Shut up and calculate, M Tegmark 2007, New Scientist September 15, (cover story)

Relativity Revisited, F. Lopis & M. Tegmark 2008, arxiv:0804.0016 [astroph] (April Fool's joke)

The Multiverse Hierarchy, M Tegmark 2009, arxiv:0905.1283 [popph], in Universe or Multiverse?, B Carr ed., Cambridge University Press

Many Worlds in Context, M Tegmark 2009,
arxiv:0905.2182 [quantph], in Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory and Reality, S Saunders, J Barrett, A Kent & D Wallace (eds)

The MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins: the Belief Gap,
Eugena Lee, Max Tegmark & Meia ChitaTegmark 2013
(interactive graphic here)

Sharpening the Second Law of Thermodynamics with the Quantum Bayes' Theorem, H Gharibyan & M Tegmark 2014,
arxiv:1309.7349 [quantph], PRE 90, 032125

Consciousness as a State of Matter, M Tegmark 2014,
arxiv:1401.1219 [quantph], Chaos, Solitons and Fractals: the interdisciplinary journal of Nonlinear Science, and Nonequilibrium and Complex Phenomena, 76, 238270

Consciousness as a State of Matter, M Tegmark 2014,
arxiv:1405.0493 [popph], New Scientist April 12 2014, 2831

Friendly Artificial Intelligence: the Physics Challenge, M Tegmark 2015,
arxiv:1409.0813 [cs], in AAAI15 Workshop on AI and Ethics
Books
After graduate work on the role of atomic and molecular chemistry
in cosmic reionization, I have mainly focused my research on
issues related to constraining cosmological models.
A suite of papers developed methods for analyzing cosmological data sets
using information theory
and applied them to various CMB experiments and galaxy redshift surveys,
often in collaboration with the experimentalists who had taken the data.
Another series of papers tackled various ``dirty laundry'' issues such
as microwave foregrounds and masstolight bias.
Other papers, most recently these,
develop and apply techniques for clarifying the big picture in cosmology:
comparing and combining diverse cosmological probes, crosschecking for
consistency and constraining cosmological models and their free parameters.
My main current research interest is cosmology theory and phenomenology.
I'm particularly enthusiastic about the prospects of combining
current and upcoming data on CMB, LSS, galaxy clusters, lensing,
LyA forest clustering, SN 1, etc. to raise the ambition level beyond the
current cosmological parameter game, testing rather than assuming the
underlying physics.
This paper and
this one
contain my battle cry.
A series of papers used information theory to estimate how accurately
different cosmological observables could constrain cosmological parameters, to
aid survey design etc:
CMB,
LSS,
weak lensing,
SN Ia and
CMB+LSS for the
neutrino mass,
the Hubble parameter,
mystery matter,
and in gory detail.
Another series used the latest data to constrain
cosmological parameters in practice:
1998,
2000 (incl. new fast C_l method),
after Boomerang 2000,
after 2001 Boom + DASI+Maxima,
and
with WMAP+SDSS 2003.
Are different observations consistent? Here are tests
1994,
2001
and
2003.
I also have a strong interest in lowlevel nutsandbolts analysis and interpretation
of data, firmly believing that the devil is in the details. Indeed, most of my papers are in
this more grueling technical category.
Although CMB is exciting and promising,
there are some skeletons in the closet. Three realworld issues have worried
me a lot: foregrounds, numerical problems and systematic errors. Dozens
of my papers have tackled these realworld issues related to doing
precision cosmology in practice, not merely in principle. These papers all relate to different
parts of this schematic analysis pipeline.
Wellknown microwave
foregrounds are synchrotron, freefree and dust emission from our
own Galaxy as well as extragalactic point sources. One of my most
referenced papers discussed how they differed from CMB not only in
their frequency dependence, but also in their spatial clustering properties,
and how this could be used to remove them more efficiently. I've since
generalized this method for realworld foregrounds whose frequency
dependence varies across the sky and to the nonGaussian case of removing
point sources. In the latter case, weak gravitational
lensing effects also enter.
By crosscorrelating different maps, I've helped
quantify the contamination at in the QMAP, Tenefife, COBE and 19 GHz experiments,
detecting synchrotron, dust, freefree and a mystery foreground, all described on
Angelica's foreground page.
My theoretical
work on reionization and the resulting spectral
and spatial distortions can also be thought of
as a foreground messing up the primordial CMB signal, especially when it
is patchy. But one person's noise is somebody else's signal: the kinematic
SZeffect will allow measurements of cluster bulk flows on 100500
Mpc scales with error bars of the order of 100 km/s, and Planck may produce
a useful catalog of 40,000 far infrared point
sources.
Everything I knew about foregrounds as of year 2000 is in our 30page
monster paper.
By
numerical issues, I mean the challenge of building a dataanalysis
pipeline that extracts the information from CMB data in practice, in a
reasonable amount of CPU time, which is easier said than done given the
huge size of upcoming data sets. You'll find my ideas for how do this on
my pipeline page  here's a brief summary
of what I've done. I'm interested in all steps of the pipeline, from experimental
design to pixelization, mapmaking,
map merging, foreground removal, power
spectrum estimation with incomplete sky coverage and parameter
estimation. I think it is useful to think of the entire pipeline in
terms of information theory and data compression, as described in more
detail here and here.
Mapmaking is an important step in the
pipeline whereby huge data sets can be reduced to a more manageable size
without losing any cosmological information. We used such lossless techniques
when making the Saskatoon, HACME,
QMAP
and QMASK
maps, and I'm currently working on other data sets. For maps with less
than about 10^{4} pixels, the bruteforce
approach to parameter estimation that I introduced for the 2 year COBE
data and applied to the combined COBE
and Tenerife data sets is feasible and gives minimal error bars, which
is why it was subsequently adopted by the COBE team in their 4 year data
analysis. Linear data compression techniques
constitute a powerful tool for getting the same answer orders of magnitudes
faster. They are also a great tool for spotting systematic
errors,
as we showed with the first
and second
flights of QMAP.
For future megapixel maps, however, another data compression
step will probably have to be added to make the pipeline computationally
feasible: power spectrum estimation. This is complicated by incomplete
sky coverage, but I have shown that the angular power spectrum C_{l}
can be measured with minimal error bars with a simple quadratic
method. I have applied it to the COBE and
QMASK data,
and extensions of this method have now been successfully applied
to, e.g, the Boomerang and Maxima data sets and to
a fullblown simulation of the megapixel MAP data set by Oh,
Spergel & Hinshaw. This method works for arbitrary incomplete sky
coverage, and good news for experimental design
is that it gives window functions narrow enough to avoid blurring out features
in the power spectrum as long as the sky patch covered is a few degrees
wide in the narrowest direction.
Just like the CMB, galaxy redshift surveys are a potential powerful probe
of cosmological parameters, and with a set of skeletons in the closet. Three of them
have worried me a lot: bias, numerical problems and extinction.
Many of my papers have tackled these realworld issues related to doing
precision cosmology in practice, not merely in principle. The problem of
bias refers to the fact that that the underlying matter distribution
(which we would like to measure) can be different from the galaxy distribution
(which we do measure). It has become increasingly clear that bias is (just
like CMB foregrounds!) more complicated than some had assumed. The
simplest assumption  that the galaxy fluctuations are simply proportional
to the density fluctuations  is no longer tenable. This proportionality
constant (called b) depends on scale and time. Moreover, at least on small scales,
the relation is probably nonlinear
stochastic, with a scatter due to gas physics etc
 I've helped model this both analytically
and with
simulations
and demonstrated it
observationally
with the LCRS survey.
Good news is that you can still measure cosmological parameters
by incorporating all these complications into a single unknown function
r(k), the correlation between galaxies and mass, and measure this
using redshift distortions, so all is not lost.
Just as for the
CMB, there are serious numerical problems associated with analyzing
these huge upcoming redhift surveys. Since the observational efforts going
into largescale structure data collection are so large, both for to galaxy
surveys and CMB experiments, I feel that it is our duty as theorists to
develop fairly optimal tools for the data analysis step, thereby making
the most of the data. In this spirit, I've helped develop new
techniques for estimating the power spectrum P(k) from galaxy surveys
that include the complications of survey geometry,
integral
constraints and extinction errors
and produce
uncorrelated error bars.
I've helped apply this to the
UZC,
PSCz (1
+ 2) and
2dF redshift surveys and
to the
SDSS.
I'm currently having fun working on several further SDSS projects.
I have side interests in
early galaxy formation,
gammaray bursts,
quantum decoherence,
math problems
and
crazy stuff,
all described above  click on the above links to
read about the corresponding papers.