UCSB South Pole 1994 CMB Anisotropy Measurement Constraints On Open And Flat-Lambda CDM Cosmogonies

We analyze the 1994 UCSB South Pole CMB anisotropy data in the context of realistic open and flat-lambda CDM cosmogonies. Ignoring calibration and beamwidth uncertainties, we repeat the nominal beamwidth, flat bandpower, likelihood analyses of Gundersen (1995) for the SP94 combined Ka, Q, and (full) Ka + Q data subsets. Our results are consistent with those of G95 to within the expected numerical uncertainty. Accounting for calibration and beamwidth uncertainties, the Ka + Q data set is most consistent with the CMB anisotropy shape in $\Omega_0 \sim 0.1-0.2$ open models (amongst all the models we consider here), and is not as consistent with those in old ($t_0 \gap$ 15 $-$ 16 Gyr), high baryon density ($\Omega_B \gap$ 0.0175$h^{-2}$), low density ($\Omega_0 \sim$ 0.2 $-$ 0.4), flat-$\Lambda$ models. Conclusions regarding model compatibility drawn from the SP94 Ka and Q data subsets are consistent with these results. For the Ka, Q, and Ka + Q data subsets the CMB anisotropy shape in open CDM models with $\Omega_0 =$ 0.1 -- 0.3 and 0.4 (with a larger $h$ and lower $\Omega_B$), and in the flat bandpower model, ensures that these models are always within $1\sigma$ of the most likely low-density open model. Open models with $\Omega_0 = 0.5$ (with a smaller $h$ and a larger $\Omega_B$), fiducial CDM, and all flat-$\Lambda$ models we consider, are always more than $1\sigma$ away from the most likely low-density open model. For the Ka, Q, and Ka + Q data subsets analyzed at the nominal beamwidths, the least likely model CMB anisotropy shape is always within $\sim 1.4 - 1.6\sigma$ of the most likely low-density open model, so the SP94 data do not rule out any of the models we consider here at the $2\sigma$ level.