text:
# Branching processes and Koenigs function

## 1 Introduction

Branching processes are widely used in high energy physics . For example, the well known Furry-Yule and negative binomial distributions occur in simple branching processes with allowed transition $`12`$. The use of processes with higher order transitions $`1n`$ with $`n>2`$ is rare due to the absence of explicit solutions in terms of elementary functions. In this paper we describe the solution for processes with higher order transitions using a recently found recursive procedure for the pure birth branching process. The solution is based on the use of the Koenigs function and the functional Schröder equation, sometimes called the Schröder-Koenigs equation (for a detailed description and extensive bibliography see ). In section 2 we describe the solution for the pure birth branching process. In sections 3 and 4, respectively, the procedures for non-critical branching processes and branching processes with immigration are outlined. The results are summarized in the last section.

## 2 Solution for the general pure birth branching process

A branching process with continuous evolution parameter $`t`$ is determined by the rates $`\alpha _n`$ for the transition (“splitting”) of one particle into $`n`$ particles with all particles subsequently evolving independently. For a pure birth branching process $`\alpha _0=0`$. The probability distribution $`p_n(t)`$ for the process having one particle at $`t=0`$ with $`p_n(0)=\delta _{1n}`$ is a solution of the forward Kolmogorov equation

$$\frac{m}{t}=f(x)\frac{m}{x}$$
(1)
for the probability generating function

$$m(x,t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_n(t)x^n$$
(2)
with

$$f(x)=\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _nx^n\alpha x$$
(3)
and with $`\alpha =\alpha _n`$. The Taylor expansion of equation (1) leads to the following system of equations for the probabilities $`p_n`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_1}{dt}}=\alpha p_1,`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_2}{dt}}=\alpha _2p_12\alpha p_2,`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_3}{dt}}=\alpha _3p_1+2\alpha _2p_23\alpha p_3`$ (6)
and for arbitrary $`n`$

$$\frac{dp_n}{dt}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}j\alpha _{nj+1}p_jn\alpha p_n.$$
(7)
A simple interpretation of the equation (7) is as follows: let us consider the state with $`n`$ particles at the moment t. The change in this state is due to the arrival from states with multiplicity lower than $`n`$ and to the departure to states with higher multiplicity. The arrival rate from the state with $`j`$ particles is proportional to the number of particles $`j`$, to the transition rate (for one particle) to produce $`nj`$ new particles, i.e. $`\alpha _{nj+1}`$, and to the population density in the state $`j`$, the sum in the equation (7) goes over all states below $`n`$. The departure rate is proportional to the total transition rate (for one particle) $`\alpha `$, to the number of particles $`n`$ in this state and to the population density, this explains second term in the equation (7). Formally this system of equations is valid for any initial condition.

Let us recall the recursive solution of the equations (4)-(7) given in : the probability $`p_1(t)`$ is $`p_1=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha t)`$ and

$$p_n=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\pi _{jn}p_1^j$$
(8)
with the following recursion for the coefficients $`\pi _{jn}`$

$$(nj)\pi _{jn}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{nj}{}}(nl)b_l\pi _{j(nl)}.$$
(9)
Here $`b_l=\alpha _{l+1}/\alpha `$ is the relative probability to produce $`l`$ new particles. The recursion starts from $`\pi _{11}=1`$ and the coefficient $`\pi _{nn}`$ can be found from the initial condition

$$\pi _{nn}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\pi _{jn}.$$
(10)
For the case with N initial particles with $`p_n^{(N)}(0)=\delta _{Nn}`$, the first N-1 equations are automatically valid since

$$p_1^{(N)}=p_2^{(N)}=\mathrm{}=p_{N1}^{(N)}=0$$
(11)
and the solution in this case has the following form: $`p_N^{(N)}=\mathrm{exp}(N\alpha t)=p_1^N`$ and

$$p_n^{(N)}=\underset{j=N}{\overset{n}{}}\pi _{jn}^{(N)}p_1^j$$
(12)
with the same recursion as (9) for the coefficients $`\pi _{jn}^{(N)}`$

$$(nj)\pi _{jn}^{(N)}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{nj}{}}(nl)b_l\pi _{j(nl)}^{(N)}.$$
(13)
This recursion starts from $`\pi _{NN}^{(N)}=1`$ and the coefficient $`\pi _{nn}^{(N)}`$ can be found from the relation

$$\pi _{nn}^{(N)}=\underset{j=N}{\overset{n1}{}}\pi _{jn}^{(N)}.$$
(14)
One can calculate the coefficients $`\pi _{jn}^{(N)}`$ using the concept of the Koenigs function . For the branching process starting from one particle at $`t=0`$ this function is defined as the limit

$$K(x)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{m(x,nt)}{p_1^n}.$$
(15)
$`K(x)`$ has the following Taylor expansion:

$$K(x)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\kappa _jx^j=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\pi _{1j}x^j.$$
(16)
For the branching process starting from N particles the Koenigs function is defined analogously:

$$K^{(N)}(x)=K^N(x)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{m^N(x,nt)}{(p_1^N)^n}=\underset{j=N}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\kappa _j^{(N)}x^j=\underset{j=N}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\pi _{Nj}^{(N)}x^j.$$
(17)
The recursion (13) leads to the following recurrence for the coefficients $`\kappa _j^{(N)},N=1,2,\mathrm{};j=N+1,N+2,\mathrm{}`$ :

$$(jN)\kappa _j^{(N)}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{jN}{}}(jl)b_l\kappa _{(jl)}^{(N)}.$$
(18)
Let us denote $`\kappa _{x+n}^{(x)}=t_n(x)`$ , then $`t_0(x)=1`$ and $`t_n(x)`$ is given by the following recursion

$$nt_n(x)=\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}(x+nl)b_lt_{nl}(x).$$
(19)
It is evident from the equation (19) that the $`t_n(x)`$ is a polynomial of order $`n`$ in $`x`$. The $`\kappa _j^{(N)}`$ in terms of $`t_n(x)`$ is equal to $`t_{jN}(N)`$.

The remarkable property of the Koenigs function is that it satisfies the functional Schröder equation:

$$K(m)=p_1K(x).$$
(20)
It is convenient to introduce the function $`Q(x)`$ the inverse of the Koenigs function. Then the equation (20) gives the functional relations $`m(x,t)=Q(p_1K(x))`$ and $`m^N(x,t)=Q^N(p_1K(x))`$ . The coefficients of the Taylor expansion for $`Q^N(x)=Q_j^{(N)}x^j`$ can be found using the following relation (see Appendix B in  and references therein):

$$Q_j^{(N)}=\frac{N}{j}\kappa _N^{(j)}.$$
(21)
In terms of $`t_n(x)`$ it gives

$$Q_j^{(N)}=\frac{N}{j}t_{jN}(j).$$
(22)
Finally, comparison of equation (12) with the Taylor expansion in $`x`$ of the $`Q^N(p_1(K(x))`$ leads to the following expression for the coefficients $`\pi _{jn}^{(N)}`$:

$$\pi _{jn}^{(N)}=Q_j^{(N)}\kappa _n^{(j)}=\frac{N}{j}t_{jN}(j)t_{nj}(j).$$
(23)
## 3 Solution for non-critical branching processes

In this case the absorption coefficient $`\alpha _0`$ is not equal to zero and the function $`f(x)`$ (3) has an additional term $`\alpha _0(1x)`$. Let us denote by $`\beta `$ the smallest positive, different from unity root of the equation $`f(x)=0`$. Branching processes with $`0<\beta <1`$ are called supercritical branching processes and processes with $`1<\beta `$ are called subcritical ones.

The solution for the supercritical branching processes is obtained in the following way. Let us transform $`m`$ and $`x`$ to $`m^{}`$ and $`x^{}`$ by the linear transform

$$x^{}=\frac{x\beta }{1\beta },m^{}=\frac{m\beta }{1\beta },$$
(24)
this transform moves the root $`\beta `$ to zero. Then the forward Kolmogorov equation (1) for the process with absorption transforms to the form for the pure birth branching process. Therefore one can introduce the Koenigs function with

$$K\left(\frac{m\beta }{1\beta }\right)=q_1K\left(\frac{x\beta }{1\beta }\right),$$
(25)
where $`q_1=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha ^{}t)`$ . This leads to the expression for the $`m(x,t)`$

$$m(x,t)=\beta +(1\beta )Q\left(q_1K\left(\frac{x\beta }{1\beta }\right)\right)$$
(26)
and to the infinite series in $`q_1`$ for the probabilities $`p_n`$

$$p_n=\beta \delta _{0n}+(1\beta )\underset{l=n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\beta )^{ln}}{(1\beta )^l}\frac{l!}{n!(nl)!}\underset{j=n}{\overset{l}{}}Q_jq_1^j\kappa _l^{(j)}.$$
(27)
The solution for the subcritical branching processes ($`\beta >1`$) can be obtained in a similar way. In this case the linear transform should move 1 to zero and $`\beta `$ to 1, i.e. $`x^{}=(x1)/(\beta 1)`$. This leads to the similar expressions

$$m(x,t)=1+(\beta 1)Q\left(q_1K\left(\frac{x1}{\beta 1}\right)\right)$$
(28)
and

$$p_n=\delta _{0n}+(\beta 1)\underset{l=n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^{ln}}{(\beta 1)^l}\frac{l!}{n!(nl)!}\underset{j=n}{\overset{l}{}}Q_jq_1^j\kappa _l^{(j)}.$$
(29)
The procedures described above are not suitable for critical branching processes with $`\beta =1`$. In simplest case without higher order transitions the probability generating function $`m(x,t)`$ is a linear fraction with coefficients having linear dependence on $`t`$ (instead of $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha t)`$ dependence for non-critical processes). In general case with higher order transitions the interplay between $`t`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha t)`$ dependences leads to more complex equations.

## 4 Solution for branching processes with immigration

For the branching processes with immigration there is an additional external source of particles appearing in clusters of $`j`$ particles with the differential rates $`\beta _j`$ ( $`\beta _j=b`$ ). The generating function for the process starting with zero particles at $`t=0`$ can be written  as

$$M(x,t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^tg(m(x,\tau ))𝑑\tau \right)$$
(30)
with

$$g(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta _ix^ib,$$
(31)
where $`m(x,\tau )`$ is the solution for the underlying branching process without immigration. For the underlying pure birth branching process, equation (30) leads to the following expression

$$M(x,t)=\mathrm{exp}(bt)\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}v_n(t)x^n\right)$$
(32)
with

$$v_n(t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=i}{\overset{n}{}}\pi _{jn}^{(i)}\frac{1p_1^j(t)}{j\alpha }.$$
(33)
Let us denote

$$\mathrm{exp}(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}v_nx^n)=1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_nx^n,$$
(34)
then the final probability $`P_n(t)=\mathrm{exp}(bt)V_n(t)`$. The coefficients $`V_n(t)`$ can be calculated using the recursive relation:

$$nV_n=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}jv_jV_{nj}.$$
(35)
This relation is known in combinatorics and is used, for example, in the study of combinants.

## 5 Summary

In this paper we have derived explicit expressions for the probability distributions in various branching processes. Although we have not derived closed expressions for the polynomials $`t_n(x)`$, the given recursions can serve as a calculational tool both in theoretical and experimental studies.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There has recently been a great deal of interest in the structure function of the photon. This is obtained from the scattering cross-section between a highly virtual photon with large square momentum $`Q^2`$ used as a probe and a nearly on-shell target photon with square momentum $`P^2,(P^2Q^2)`$. If the target square momentum is also large (whilst maintaining the inequality $`P^2Q^2`$), the entire structure function can be calculated using renormalization group improved perturbation theory, whereas for low $`P^2`$ one is limited to a determination of the $`Q^2`$ dependence and, as in the case of deep-inelastic electron-proton scattering, one needs input information on the structure functions at some (low) value of $`Q^2`$, which cannot be determined by perturbation theory. A study of the photon structure function as a function of $`P^2`$ therefore provides information on the extrapolation between the perturbative and non-perturbative regimes of QCD.

Heuristically, one talks about separating the structure function into “direct” and “resolved” contributions. The former being exactly calculable in perturbation theory and the latter involving the uncalculable probability that the photon splits into other fundamental particles before being probed. Whereas such a picture is useful at the leading order level, higher order corrections mix these contributions. A formal and more precise analysis was first proposed by Witten  who pointed out that in an operator product expansion for photon-photon scattering the set of operators used in the case of photon-proton scattering must be augmented by a tower of photonic operators, whose matrix elements with the target photon are of order unity. In the (more intuitive) DGLAP approach one argues that since the probability of finding a particle other than a photon inside a photon is of order $`\alpha _{em}`$, the probability of finding a “photon inside a photon” is unity plus corrections of order $`\alpha _{em}`$. The DGLAP analysis must then be augmented by further off-diagonal splitting functions $`K_q`$ and $`K_G`$ which are interpreted as the perturbative probability for a photon to emit quark or gluon with a given fraction of its longitudinal momentum.

Interest in photon structure functions has recently been rekindled by the prospect of a future high-energy electron-positron collider with centre-of-mass energy of up to 1 TeV. Such a machine would enable an investigation of the photon structure function over a sufficiently wide range of $`Q^2`$ and $`P^2`$ to provide a stringent test of the evolution of these structure functions. Moreover, if the postulated existence of Supersymmetry (SUSY) turns out to be vindicated, these structure functions will reflect the existence of supersymmetric partners within photons. The contribution to the structure function due to the crossing of the threshold for the production of squarks, was first calculated by Reya . However, a consistent analysis of the effect of supersymmetry on the photon structure function requires a full analysis of the enlarged DGLAP formalism in which above the SUSY threshold the standard splitting functions are augmented with splitting functions involving squarks and gluinos. This paper reports on such an analysis and displays results in which it can be seen that SUSY gives rise to a measurable increase in the $`Q^2`$ evolution of the structure photon structure function above threshold. Care must be taken to ensure a consistent treatment of the threshold behaviour for squark production as one passes through the threshold and this is discussed in detail.

The outline of the paper is as follows: In Section 2 we discuss the formalism, outlining the extension of the evolution equations to the regime in which squarks and gluinos are excited. We also give a description of the threshold treatment. Section 3 displays our results obtained from numerical solution of the enlarged evolution equations. We show the dependences on the SUSY threshold and on the square momentum $`P^2`$ of the target photon as well as on the usual variables $`Q^2`$ and Bjorken-$`x`$. In Section 5 we discuss our conclusions.

## 2 Formalism

We follow the formalism of Glück and Reya . We will initially be concerned with quark and gluon distributions up to the SUSY threshold.

The nonsinglet ($`T`$) and singlet ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) sectors are treated separately,

$`T3`$ $`=`$ $`2(ud)`$
$`T8`$ $`=`$ $`2(u+d2s)`$
$`T15`$ $`=`$ $`2(u+d+s3c)`$
$`T24`$ $`=`$ $`2(u+d+s+c4b)`$
$`T35`$ $`=`$ $`2(u+d+s+c+b5t)`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{f}{}}}q_i`$
where $`u,d,s,c,b,t`$ refer to the relevant quark distributions. The factor of $`2`$ accounts for the anti-quark distribution since for a photon $`q_i=\overline{q}_i`$. $`f`$ runs over all relevant quark flavours. Each quark distribution is zero at and below its threshold hence each new non-singlet ($`T`$) is equal to the singlet ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) at threshold.

The evolution is controlled by the following inhomogeneous DGLAP differential equations,

$$\frac{dT}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=P_{TT}T+K_T$$
(2.1)
for each singlet ($`T`$) and the coupled equations,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=P_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }+P_{\mathrm{\Sigma }G}G+K_\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

$$\frac{dG}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=P_{G\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }+P_{GG}G+K_G$$
(2.2)
for the singlet ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) and gluon ($`G`$) sector.

For each distribution $`F(x,Q^2)`$ above, the convolution $``$ is defined as,

$$P_{ij}F_j_x^1\frac{dy}{y}P_{ij}(\frac{x}{y},Q^2)F_j(y,Q^2)$$
(2.3)
where $`P_{ij}(x,Q^2)`$ consists of the splitting functions $`p_{ij}^{(0)}`$ in Leading Order (LO) and $`p_{ij}^{(1)}`$ in next to leading order (NLO),

$$P_{ij}=\left[\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\right]p_{ij}^{(0)}+\left[\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\right]^2p_{ij}^{(1)}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.4)
The main difference between the evolution of the photon structure function and that of the proton structure function is the presence of the inhomogeneous $`K_i`$ terms in the evolution equations. Essentially these consist of $`\gamma `$ quark and $`\gamma `$ gluon splitting functions. They appear in the evolution equations without any convolution with a parton distribution since the “photon density” inside a photon is taken to be $`\delta (1x)`$ up to corrections of order $`\alpha _{em}`$.

$$K_i=\left[\frac{\alpha _{em}}{2\pi }\right]k_i^{(0)}+\left[\frac{\alpha _{em}}{2\pi }\right]\left[\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\right]k_i^{(1)}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.5)
$`F_2^\gamma `$ in LO is given by,

$$\frac{1}{x}F_2^\gamma =\left\{q_{\text{NS}}+e^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right\}$$
(2.6)
where

$$q_{\text{NS}}=\underset{f}{}(e_q^2e^2)(q_i+\overline{q}_i),e^k=\frac{1}{f}\underset{f}{}e_q^k$$

$`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$ evolves according to

$$\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{4\pi }=\frac{1}{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^3}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{(\mathrm{ln}Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)^2}$$
(2.7)
where $`\beta _0=112f/3`$ and $`\beta _1=10238f/3`$. All expressions refer to the $`\overline{MS}`$ renormalization scheme hence we use $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$ which depends $`f`$. We evolve in NLO to the t-quark threshold and then we evolve in LO thereafter. This is because we can only evolve in LO above the SUSY threshold so in order to compare $`F_2^\gamma `$ for different values of the squark mass $`M_s`$ we must evolve in the same way from the t-quark threshold. Quark masses are taken as $`M(c)=1.5GeV,M(b)=4.5GeV,M(t)=174GeV`$.

Our input data were parameterizations  of virtual photon parton densities taken at the c-quark threshold. A c-quark mass of $`1.5GeV`$ limits $`P^2`$ to less than $`1.8GeV`$ which gives a small ratio $`r=P^2/Q^210^6`$ at high $`Q^2`$. We could not find reliable parameterizations at higher $`Q^2`$ that were dependent on $`P^2`$.

In order to evolve to the SUSY threshold we use LO and NLO splitting functions  in (Eq. 2.4) and inhomogeneous terms  in (Eq. 2.5).

Above the SUSY threshold $`M_s`$ we are also concerned with squark and gluino distributions. As before we have a nonsinglet (S) and singlet ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) sector,

$`S3`$ $`=`$ $`4(SuSd)`$
$`S8`$ $`=`$ $`4(Su+Sd2Ss)`$
$`S15`$ $`=`$ $`4(Su+Sd+Ss3Sc)`$
$`S24`$ $`=`$ $`4(Su+Sd+Ss+Sc4Sb)`$
$`S35`$ $`=`$ $`4(Su+Sd+Ss+Sc+Sb5St)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{f}{}}}S\overline{q}_i`$
where $`Su,Su,Ss,Sc,Sb,St`$ refer to the squark distributions. The factor of $`4`$ arises because $`Sq_i^R=Sq_i^L=S\overline{q}_i^R=S\overline{q}_i^L`$. For simplicity all squark distributions start at zero at the SUSY threshold $`M_s`$, although we could introduce them in steps as before with the quarks. The gluino distribution starts at zero at the gluino threshold $`M_g`$.

The evolution is controlled by the following inhomogeneous DGLAP differential equations. Each set of nonsinglets are coupled ie. T3 with S3, T8 with S8, etc…

$$\frac{dT}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=P_{TT}T+P_{TS}S+K_T$$

$$\frac{dS}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=P_{ST}T+P_{SS}S+K_S$$
(2.8)
Given that in general the gluino mass $`M_g`$ is greater than the squark mass $`M_s`$ the nonsinglet sector evolution is given in the region $`M_g^2Q^2M_s^2`$ by,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=P_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }+P_{\mathrm{\Sigma }G}G+P_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }+K_\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

$$\frac{dG}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=P_{G\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }+P_{GG}G+P_{G\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }+K_G$$

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }+P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }G}G+P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }+K_\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(2.9)
and in the region $`Q^2M_g^2`$ by,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=P_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }+P_{\mathrm{\Sigma }G}G+P_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }+P_{\mathrm{\Sigma }L}L+K_\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

$$\frac{dG}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=P_{G\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }+P_{GG}G+P_{G\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }+P_{GL}L+K_G$$

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }+P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }G}G+P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }+P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }L}L+K_\mathrm{\Gamma }$$

$$\frac{dL}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=P_{L\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }+P_{LG}G+P_{L\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }+P_{LL}L+K_L$$
(2.10)
where $`L`$ is the gluino distribution. In analogy with the $`K_i`$ used below the SUSY threshold, $`K_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`K_L`$ are the splitting functions of a photon to a squark and gluino respectively. In the limit where the gluino mass $`M_g`$ is taken to be equal to the squark mass $`M_s`$ we do not need (Eqs. 2.9).

The $`P_{ij}(x,Q^2)`$ are now a different SUSY set of LO splitting functions . However in order to reproduce the squark threshold condition,

$$Q^2\frac{(1xrx)}{x}4M_s^2$$
(2.11)
we use the SUSY set if this applies or the standard set if it does not. Importantly this now means that the threshold depends both on $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$. This is possible because a convolution (Eq. 2.3) only feeds each distribution in the region $`yx`$. Hence for a particular $`Q^2`$, SUSY splitting functions are used below a certain value of $`x`$ and standard splitting functions are used above this $`x`$ during each convolution.

Our choice of LO inhomogeneous terms (Eq. 2.5) is made in order to treat the squark threshold in a meaningful way.

The tree level squark contribution to $`F_2^\gamma `$ (Appendix A) is important in determining the $`\gamma `$ squark splitting function i.e., the squark inhomogeneous term in (Eqs. 2.82.92.10). The choice is dependent on the squark threshold condition (Eq. 2.11), which is function of both $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$. At a particular $`Q^2`$ there will be a region $`x>x_s`$ where squarks cannot be produced.

The contribution to $`F_2^\gamma `$ from squark production ( Eq. A.1 ) is obtained from ordinary perturbation theory and includes a term proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/4M_s^2)`$, which is already accounted for as $`K_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, by the use of the full SUSY set of splitting functions discussed above. In order to reproduce the correct renormalization group improved evolution far above the threshold we subtract this term (apart from terms proportional to $`M_s^2/Q^2`$ which are negligible far above the threshold) from ( Eq. A.1 ) and introduce the contribution as $`SB_\gamma `$ in ( Eq. 2.12 ).

Above the SUSY threshold $`F_2^\gamma `$ is then obtained from

$$\frac{1}{x}F_2^\gamma =\left\{q_{\text{NS}}+e^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right\}+\left\{Sq_{\text{NS}}+e^2S\mathrm{\Sigma }\right\}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\times 3fe^4\left[\frac{\alpha _{em}}{4\pi }\right]SB_\gamma $$
(2.12)
(the factor of $`2`$ accounts for right- and left-handed squarks).

The $`SB_\gamma `$ term is (up to an overall constant) the contribution to $`F_2^\gamma `$ from squark production, with the removal of the above-mentioned term proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/M_s^2)`$. i.e.

$$SB_\gamma F_{2,squark}^\gamma 2x(1x)\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/4M_s^2),$$
(2.13)
We note that the difference between using (Eq. A.1) and (Eq. A.2) is negligible in our case because we are limited to $`P^2<1.8GeV^2`$ at the c-quark threshold, giving an $`r10^6`$ above the SUSY threshold.

However this is a different way of treating the threshold behaviour from that in . At $`Q^24M_s^2`$ it satisfies the Renormalization Group equations since the dominant part is in the inhomogeneous term. In the region $`Q^24M_s^2`$ this approach will reproduce the perturbative calculation with the correct threshold behaviour up to $`(\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/4M_s^2))^2`$. There should of course be a small mismatch at large $`Q^2`$ and large $`x`$. However we have eradicated this by coding the threshold behaviour into each convolution as a choice of SUSY or non-SUSY splitting functions. The problem left is that of the discontinuity at the threshold $`x`$ boundary. An equivalent problem is discussed in  involving the $`DIS_\gamma `$ factorization scheme. Perturbative instabilities mean we would have to go to NLO and eliminate the $`SB_\gamma `$ term by altering what would be our NLO inhomogeneous terms (Eq. 2.5). However NLO SUSY splitting functions are beyond the scope of the present work.

Finally it should be noted how quickly $`F_2^\gamma `$ changes away from the threshold with decreasing $`x`$. In (Eq. A.1), the term

$$v=[14M_s^2x/Q^2(1x)]^{1/2}$$

moves rapidly away from zero in decreasing x meaning that the coefficients of

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+v}{1v}\right)\mathrm{and}v$$

in (Eq. A.1) give rise to a real threshold contained in the term $`SB_\gamma `$ in the perturbatively stable $`x`$ region.

To summarize, we take parameterizations of quark and gluon distributions inside a virtual photon at the c-threshold. Using DGLAP inhomogeneous differential equations we evolve the relevant non-singlet, singlet and gluon distributions up to the SUSY threshold. From here we run the distributions separately, including or not, the effects of squarks and gluinos. At some $`\sqrt{Q^2}`$ we form $`F_2^\gamma `$ for the virtual photon in such a way as to take account of the SUSY threshold condition.

## 3 Results

The variable parameters of the evolution are the $`P^2`$ (target virtuality), $`M_s`$ (squark mass), $`M_g`$ (gluino mass), $`Q^2`$ (incident virtuality) and Bjorken $`x`$. We took these in the ranges,

$$0\sqrt{P^2}1300MeV$$

$$175GeVM_s300GeV$$

$$200GeVM_g300GeV$$

$$700GeV\sqrt{Q^2}1500GeV$$

and in all cases $`F_2^\gamma /\alpha _{em}`$ is actually plotted.

Figure 1 shows a generalised evolution to $`1000GeV`$.

The base reference is at $`175GeV`$. There is a considerable difference with the SUSY mixing. Note that allowing the gluino mass to be greater than the squark mass produces a negligible effect. Note also that the evolution graphs coincide above the squark threshold condition (Eq. 2.11), this being due to it being encoded into each convolution.

The discontinuity at the threshold can be seen. This results in a sudden drop in $`F_2^\gamma `$ below the control non-SUSY graph, this being due to the perturbative instabilities already discussed.

It is important to note the rapidity with which $`F_2^\gamma `$ increases as $`x`$ decreases away from the threshold. This effect due to the $`SB_\gamma `$ term in the perturbatively stable region is discussed in section 2.

Figure 2 shows $`P^2`$ dependence up to $`1300MeV`$. From here on we plot $`M_g=M_s`$ since we have shown the $`M_g>M_s`$ difference to be negligible.

We are limited by our parameterizations in that they are restricted in $`P^2`$ at the c-quark threshold. However non-negligible differences can be noted in low $`x`$ even at $`\sqrt{P^2}=1300MeV`$.

Figure 3 shows $`M_s`$ dependence between $`175GeV`$ and $`300GeV`$.

The base graph is without the SUSY contributions. As expected, as the squark mass $`M_s`$ increases the distribution’s approach to the non-SUSY limit. Also the thresholds move to lower x as the threshold condition (Eq. 2.11) requires higher $`Q^2`$ to produce squarks of higher mass.

Figures 4 and 5 show how $`F_2^\gamma `$ varies with $`\sqrt{Q^2}`$ at two fixed values of $`x`$. All graphs show how the distributions must approach the non-SUSY distribution for high $`M_s`$. However for $`x=0.66`$ we can see the gradual approach to a threshold in increasing $`M_s`$. For $`M_s=275GeV`$ it is evident that for low $`Q^2`$ squarks cannot be produced and the distribution coincides with the non-SUSY distribution. Then apart from the perturbative instability the distribution rises in higher $`Q^2`$.

## 4 Conclusions

We see from Figs. 1-5 that if one can build a machine for which values of $`Q^2`$ approach $`1\mathrm{TeV}^2`$ (about twice the squark production threshold) there is a substantial increase in the value of $`F_2^\gamma `$ for the photon. Indeed, the evolution between the SUSY threshold and 1 TeV is more than doubled if SUSY particles, taken to have a mass of 175 GeV, are present. The difference between the structure functions with and without SUSY in the middle range of Bjorken-$`x`$ is over 30%, which should be easily detectable.

The effect at $`Q^2=1\mathrm{TeV}^2`$ is, of course, diminished if the SUSY threshold is increased. However, we note that taking the squark masses to 300 GeV only has a small effect on $`F_2^\gamma `$. Conversely, if the squark masses turn out to be substantially lighter than 175 GeV 111The lowest value we take for the squark mass is 175 GeV since this is above the threshold for t-quark and we find it useful to make comparisons of the evolution of the structure function in the presence of SUSY with that without SUSY but with six active flavours. , (which is not currently ruled out), there would be a significant effect on the structure functions at values of $`Q^2`$ significantly below $`1\mathrm{TeV}^2`$.

The effect also diminishes if the target photon is off-shell, as will usually be the case. However, we see from Figure 2 that this effect is modest.

The results are fairly insensitive to the mass of the gluino. This is not surprising as the gluino contributes very indirectly - it can only be produced by a secondary emission from the target photon and then only probed through a further interaction with squarks. Taking the mass of the gluino below that of the squark, would have had a negligible effect as it is clear that it is the squark threshold and not the gluino threshold that must be crossed before there is any effect on the photon structure function.

In summary, we see that the effect of SUSY on the photon structure function provides a further good reason for designing a large electron-positron collider that would be capable of reaching values of $`Q^2`$ above the SUSY threshold for the middle range of Bjorken-$`x`$.

## Appendix A

The contribution to $`F_2^\gamma `$ of a left or right handed squark in deep inelastic scattering on a photon has been calculated ,

$`F_{2,q}^\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}e_q^4{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}x\{[2x(1x)+\tau x(3x1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\tau ^2x^2]\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v}{1v}}\right)`$ (A.1)
$`+`$ $`[18x(1x)+\tau x(1x)]v\}`$
where,

$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`4M_s^2/Q^2`$
$`v`$ $`=`$ $`[1\tau x/(1x)]^{1/2}`$
We calculated this expression for the case $`P^20`$, where $`r=P^2/Q^2`$. The above relation is recovered on $`r0`$ with,

$`F_{2,q}^\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}e_q^4{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}x\{B(M_s^2/Q^2)^2(1/FG)(16x^2)`$ (A.2)
$`+`$ $`B(M_s^2/Q^2)(1/FG)(48x^4r^2+48x^3r+4x^2r8x^2)`$
$`+`$ $`B(1/FG)(12x^4r^3+12x^3r^22x^2r)`$
$`+`$ $`B(16x^2r+6x^26x)`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(F/G)(M_s^2/Q^2)^2(B/\eta )(8x^2/b)`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(F/G)(M_s^2/Q^2)(B/\eta )(24x^4r^2/b+2x^2r/b+12x^22x/b2x)`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(F/G)(B/\eta )({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+6x^4r^3/b+12x^4r^2/b12x^3r^2/b`$
$`12x^3r/b+11x^2r/b3x^2r+4x^2/b6x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}xr/b`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}xr3x/b+5x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2b}})\}`$
where,

$`b`$ $`=`$ $`12xr`$
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`1+\eta (12xr)`$
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`1\eta (12xr)`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4M_s^2x}{Q^2(1xxr)}}}`$
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{b}}\sqrt{14x^2r}`$
These equations are important in determining the $`\gamma `$ squark splitting function i.e., the squark inhomogeneous $`K_S`$ and $`K_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . Also in determining the extra $`SB_\gamma `$ term in (Eq. 2.12). The choice is dependent on the squark threshold condition (Eq. 2.11), which is function of both $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$. At a particular $`Q^2`$ there will be a region $`x>x_t`$ where squarks cannot be produced.


text:
# Gravitational Time Delay Effects on CMB Anisotropies

## I Introduction

In order that the full potential of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature and polarization fields be realized, effects that have been previously dismissed as negligible in their own right must now be reconsidered as potential sources of systematic error. Projections as to the ability of CMB experiments to measure fundamental cosmological quantities  precisely and reveal information about the structure formation process from secondary effects  rely on the fact that statistical errors from the sampling of a finite sky rapidly decrease toward smaller angular scales. Statistical errors in the power spectra decline from $`1\%`$ at degree scales to $`0.1\%`$ at the several arcminute scale. To achieve this precision in practice, all physical, astrophysical and instrumental effects at this level must be included in the analysis to avoid generating systematic errors that are comparable to the statistical errors.

A host of physical effects contribute to the anisotropies at second order in perturbation theory . Since primary anisotropies are formed at recombination when the cosmological density perturbations are at the $`10^5`$ level, most second order effects are entirely negligible. There are two general ways in which higher order effects can be important. Firstly, the primordial perturbations responsible for the primary anisotropies grow into non-linear structures today by gravitational instability. Effects that take advantage of this fact mainly involve scattering of CMB photons at low redshifts in large-scale structure and non-linear objects . Secondly, since recombination, CMB photons propagate across essentially the whole horizon volume. Intrinsically small effects can accumulate along the path. Indeed it is well known that the gravitational lensing of CMB photons has a substantial effect on the power spectrum of the anisotropies .

In addition to the lensing effect, gravitational potentials of large-scale structure contributes a time-delay  that accumulates along the path – an effect familiar from studies of the light-curves of lensed quasars (e.g. ). In the case of the CMB, the time-delay warps the spatial surface at recombination from which the primary anisotropies arise . Because the lensing depends on the angular gradient of the projected potentials whereas the delay depends on the projected potential itself, the fractional delay is generically smaller than lensing and has not been explicitly calculated in the literature. We shall see however that because of the angular smoothness (or coherence) of the lensing, the reduction in amplitude is not in and of itself large. Furthermore, gravitational time delays are strongly correlated with lensing, leading to additional effects in the power spectrum. Indeed, the typical perturbation in comoving units is on the order of $`1`$ Mpc. The effect of gravitational time-delay on the spectra of temperature and polarization anisotropies therefore merits further study.

In §II we present the formalism required to understand these gravitational effects on the temperature and polarization fields. We proceed in §III and IV to evaluate the delay and lensing-delay correlation effects on the power spectra of temperature and polarization anisotropies respectively. In §V, we consider their effects on the bispectra (three point correlations). We conclude in §VI with a discussion of our results.

To illustrate our calculations, we assume a cold dark matter model (CDM) with a cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) with parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=0.30`$ for the CDM density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.05`$ for the baryon density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.65`$ for the vacuum density, $`h=0.65`$ for the dimensionless Hubble constant and a scale invariant spectrum of primordial fluctuations, normalized to COBE .

## II Formalism

As the CMB photons propagate to the observer from the recombination epoch ($`z10^3`$) through large-scale structure in the universe, they suffer the effects of gravitational lensing and time delay. These effects are both formally second order in perturbation theory because they would leave a homogeneous and isotropic CMB unperturbed (c.f. ). There are a host of other second order effects . To the extent that they are uncorrelated with each other, they may be viewed as independent effects. The lensing and time delay effects are strongly correlated because both arise from the gravitational potentials of large scale structure and must be considered together. We therefore begin with a review of lensing effects.

### A Lensing

Lensing involves a deflection that remaps the temperature and polarization fields according to the angular gradient of the lensing-weighted projected potential $`\widehat{𝐧}\widehat{𝐧}+\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})`$ (see Fig. 1)

$$\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})=2𝑑\eta g_\varphi (\eta )\mathrm{\Phi }(r\widehat{𝐧},\eta ),$$
(1)
where

$$g_\varphi (\eta )=\frac{1}{r}_0^\eta 𝑑\eta ^{}\dot{\tau }e^\tau \frac{r^{}r}{r^{}}.$$
(2)
Here overdots represent derivatives with respect to conformal time $`\eta =𝑑t/a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱,\eta )`$ is the gravitational potential. In an open universe, the conformal distance traveled by a photon $`r(\eta )=\eta _0\eta `$ should be replaced by angular diameter distances. We take comoving units where $`c=1`$ throughout. The projected potential itself is a field on the sky and may be decomposed into multipole moments

$`\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m}{}}\varphi _\mathrm{}mY_{\mathrm{}}^m(\widehat{𝐧}),`$ (3)
and described by its power spectrum

$`\varphi _\mathrm{}m^{}\varphi _\mathrm{}^{}m^{}=\delta _\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{}\delta _{m,m^{}}C_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi \varphi }.`$ (4)
This power spectrum is shown in Fig. 2.

A useful measure of the amplitude of the lensing effects is the rms deflection angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{rms}}^2`$ as defined by

$$\theta _{\mathrm{rms}}^2=\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{2\mathrm{}+1}{4\pi }\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi \varphi }.$$
(5)
The factor $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)`$ reflects the angular gradient in the definition of the deflection. Note that the $`\mathrm{}=0`$ monopole does not contribute since its angular gradient vanishes. In the fiducial $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model $`\theta _{\mathrm{rms}}=7.5\times 10^4`$ or $`2.6^{}`$. Note that this is in sharp contrast with the angular coherence of the deflection angle. The variance $`\theta _{\mathrm{rms}}^2`$ reaches half its total value by $`\mathrm{}_{1/2}=30`$ in the fiducial model or an angle of $`\theta _{1/2}2\pi /\mathrm{}_{1/2}0.02`$ ($`1^{}`$). The smaller scale potential fluctuations tend to produce deflections that cancel out along the line of sight.

### B Time Delay

Now consider the time-delay effect. Photons follow null geodesics in the perturbed metric so that in the fixed time interval since last scattering, the distance traveled by the photons is perturbed as $`rr[1+d(\widehat{𝐧})]`$ (see Fig. 1) where

$$d(\widehat{𝐧})=\frac{2}{\eta _0}𝑑\eta e^\tau \mathrm{\Phi }(r\widehat{𝐧},\eta ).$$
(6)
This is referred to in the literature as the potential or Shapiro time delay. The geometric time delay is of order the deflection angle squared and is hence substantially smaller for time-delays across angular scales much larger than $`\theta _{\mathrm{rms}}`$.

The delay field may also be expanded in spherical harmonics

$`d(\widehat{𝐧})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m}{}}d_\mathrm{}mY_{\mathrm{}}^m(\widehat{𝐧}),`$ (7)
and characterized by a power spectrum

$`d_\mathrm{}m^{}d_\mathrm{}^{}m^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{}\delta _{m,m^{}}C_{\mathrm{}}^{dd}.`$ (8)
Although both the lensing and time-delay effects are based on the gravitational potential projected along the line of sight, there is an important difference between the two. Lensing depends on the angular gradient of the potential and hence its observable consequences are weighted by $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)`$. This has the effect of increasing the magnitude of the effects and weighting it to higher multipoles.

We can see these effects in the rms delay

$$d_{\mathrm{rms}}^2=\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{2\mathrm{}+1}{4\pi }C_{\mathrm{}}^{dd}.$$
(9)
For the power spectrum of the fiducial $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model (see Fig. 2) $`d_{\mathrm{rms}}=5.4\times 10^5`$ or $`0.5h^1`$ Mpc. Although this is a relatively large shift, we shall see that its observable consequences are reduced due to the large coherence scale of the delay, $`\mathrm{}_{1/2}=2`$.

Given these considerations as to the magnitude and coherence scale of the effects, delay effects can be enhanced through their cross-correlation with lensing

$`\varphi _\mathrm{}m^{}d_\mathrm{}^{}m^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{}\delta _{m,m^{}}C_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi d}.`$ (10)
The two fields tend to be well correlated as can be seen by the rms

$$c_{\mathrm{rms}}^2=\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{2\mathrm{}+1}{4\pi }\sqrt{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}C_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi d},$$
(11)
where $`c_{\mathrm{rms}}=1.2\times 10^4`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{1/2}=5`$ in the fiducial $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model (see Fig. 2). To evaluate the observable consequences, we now turn to the angular and spatial structure of the temperature and polarization fields.

### C Temperature Field

The CMB temperature field on the sky may be written implicitly as the projection of sources $`S`$ which contribute in the optically thin regime and are so weighted by $`e^\tau `$ where $`\tau `$ is the optical depth (see Fig. 1). In general, these sources have intrinsic angular structure of their own and are characterized by the spherical harmonic moments of their Fourier amplitude $`S_\mathrm{}_\mathrm{i}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(k)`$. Explicit forms for the sources are given in .

The contribution from a given wavenumber $`k`$ to the temperature field on the sky today may be formally expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{𝐧};𝐤)=_0^{\eta _0}𝑑\eta e^\tau \underset{\mathrm{}_\mathrm{i}m_\mathrm{i}}{}S_\mathrm{}_\mathrm{i}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\eta ;k)G_\mathrm{}_\mathrm{i}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(r\widehat{𝐧};𝐤),$$
(12)
where $`r\eta _0\eta `$,

$$G_{\mathrm{}}^m(𝐱;𝐤)=(i)^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{2\mathrm{}+1}}Y_{\mathrm{}}^m(\widehat{𝐧})\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐱).$$
(13)
In an open universe, the plane waves must be replaced with eigenfunctions of the Laplacian in a curved space. Note that we will often omit the $`k`$-index where no confusion will arise.

The angular structure of these relations can be simplified by considering a specific frame where $`𝐳𝐤`$ and

$$\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐱)=(i)^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{4\pi (2\mathrm{}+1)}j_{\mathrm{}}(kr)Y_{\mathrm{}}^0(\widehat{𝐧}).$$
(14)
Provided that the angular basis does not change in transit, one can then sum up the orbital angular momentum from the plane wave with the intrinsic angular momentum of the source. This assumption is the angular equivalent of the “Born approximation” where the lensing is evaluated on unperturbed trajectories; we shall see in the next section that it is a good approximation for the lensing and time-delay effects on sources with low order intrinsic angular structure.

In this special basis, the product of the intrinsic ($`Y_\mathrm{}_\mathrm{i}^{m_\mathrm{i}}`$) and plane wave ($`Y_{\mathrm{}}^0`$) angular momentum may be reexpressed through the addition of angular momentum. The temperature field then becomes

$`\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{𝐧};𝐤)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m(k)Y_{\mathrm{}}^m(\widehat{𝐧})`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m_\mathrm{i}}{}}I_{m_\mathrm{i}}[j_{\mathrm{}}]Y_{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\widehat{𝐧}).`$ (16)
Here, the operator

$`I_{m_\mathrm{i}}[j_{\mathrm{}}]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\eta _0}}𝑑\eta e^\tau \sqrt{4\pi (2\mathrm{}+1)}`$ (18)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_\mathrm{i}}{}}S_\mathrm{}_\mathrm{i}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\eta ;k)j_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}_\mathrm{i}m_\mathrm{i}}(kr),`$
and $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}_\mathrm{i}m_\mathrm{i}}`$ are linear combinations of $`j_{\mathrm{}}`$ with weights given by the Clebsch-Gordon coefficients of the coupling. The fundamental functions are $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{00}=j_{\mathrm{}}`$ (for isotropic perturbations, e.g. gravitational potentials) and

$`j_{\mathrm{}}^{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}+2)!}{(\mathrm{}2)!}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}+1}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{j_\mathrm{}2+j_{\mathrm{}}}{(2\mathrm{}1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{j_{\mathrm{}}+j_{\mathrm{}+2}}{(2\mathrm{}+3)}}\right],`$ (19)
(for transverse quadrupole sources, e.g. gravitational waves). Note $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{22}j_{\mathrm{}}(x)/x^2`$; we have written it out here to emphasize linearity. Others are given in , but can be written in terms of these fundamental functions through integration by parts .

Since the basis for the expansion is linked to the direction of $`𝐤`$, integrating over modes to obtain the final power spectrum in principle requires a series of rotations into a fixed basis. In practice, the statistical homogeneity of the source and isotropy of the angular distribution requires that the $`k`$-modes add in quadrature and the angular power spectrum is independent of $`m`$ so that we may replace individual multipoles with an average over $`m`$

$`C_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{m}{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m^{}(k)\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m(k)}.`$ (20)
For the primary anisotropies, the power spectrum is simply $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}=T_{\mathrm{}}^{00}`$, where

$`T_{\mathrm{}}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}\frac{(k\eta _0)^{a+b}}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{m_\mathrm{i}}{}I_{m_\mathrm{i}}^{}[j_{\mathrm{}}^{(a)}]I_{m_\mathrm{i}}[j_{\mathrm{}}^{(b)}]}.`$ (21)
Here we have used the short hand convention that $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}j_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}j_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ and $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}j_{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }`$ with primes denoting derivatives with respect to the argument.

For the higher order lensing and delay effects, we expand equation (16) for the temperature field to second order in the relevant quantities

$`\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{𝐧})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^0(\widehat{𝐧})+\mathrm{\Theta }^\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})+\mathrm{\Theta }^d(\widehat{𝐧})`$ (23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\varphi ^2}(\widehat{𝐧})+\mathrm{\Theta }^{\varphi d}(\widehat{𝐧})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{d^2}(\widehat{𝐧}),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }^0(\widehat{𝐧})`$ is the zeroth order contribution from the primary anisotropies,

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m_\mathrm{i}}{}}I_{m_\mathrm{i}}[j_{\mathrm{}}]_i\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})^iY_{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\widehat{𝐧}),`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }^d(\widehat{𝐧})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m_\mathrm{i}}{}}I_{m_\mathrm{i}}[j_{\mathrm{}}^{}](k\eta _0)d(\widehat{𝐧})Y_{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\widehat{𝐧}),`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\varphi ^2}(\widehat{𝐧})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m_\mathrm{i}}{}}I_{m_\mathrm{i}}[j_{\mathrm{}}]_i\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})_j\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})^i^jY_{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\widehat{𝐧}),`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\varphi d}(\widehat{𝐧})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m_\mathrm{i}}{}}I_{m_\mathrm{i}}[j_{\mathrm{}}^{}](k\eta _0)d(\widehat{𝐧})_i\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})^iY_{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\widehat{𝐧}),`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{d^2}(\widehat{𝐧})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m_\mathrm{i}}{}}I_{m_\mathrm{i}}[j_{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }](k\eta _0)^2d(\widehat{𝐧})d(\widehat{𝐧})Y_{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\widehat{𝐧}).`$ (28)
We shall see that the evaluation of these effects reduces to the computation of the higher order derivative power spectra in equation (21). These power spectra are easily evaluated with minimal modifications to the publically available CMBFAST code: we simply replace $`j_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ and $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }`$ and leave the evolution and integration over the sources unchanged. To the extent that the underlying sources themselves are smooth, integration by parts on equation (21) shows that $`T_{\mathrm{}}^{(a\pm 1)(b1)}T_{\mathrm{}}^{ab}`$, e.g. $`T_{\mathrm{}}^{11}T_{\mathrm{}}^{02}=T_{\mathrm{}}^{20}`$. This also implies that terms such as $`T_{\mathrm{}}^{01}=T_{\mathrm{}}^{10}`$ are suppressed; mathematically this is due to the lack of correlation between $`j_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ (see Fig. 3). These spectra are compared in Fig. 4.

There is an additional effect from lensing due to the fact that sources are in general anisotropic and gravitational lensing changes the angle at which they are viewed. This formally violates the assumption that the orbital and intrinsic angular momentum of sources can simply be added without additional remapping. The anisotropy in the actual sources, however, are confined to $`\mathrm{}2`$. To obtain an order unity effect, the deflections must change the viewing angle by order unity in radians. To obtain an order unity effect for lensing, the deflections need change the viewing direction by only a wavelength of the angular perturbation $`\mathrm{}^1`$. Thus at sufficiently high observed $`\mathrm{}`$, deflections always win.

### D Polarization Field

The complex Stokes parameter $`P_\pm =Q\pm iU`$ of the polarization on the sky can be expressed implicitly as the projection of the quadrupole moments of the photon temperature and polarization distributions at last scattering

$`P_\pm (\widehat{𝐧};𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\eta _0}}𝑑\eta e^\tau {\displaystyle \underset{m_\mathrm{i}}{}}Q^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\eta ;k){}_{\pm 2}{}^{}G_{2}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(r\widehat{𝐧};𝐤),`$ (29)
where $`Q^{m_i}=\dot{\tau }(\sqrt{6}\mathrm{\Theta }_{2m}6E_{2m})/10`$ (see , for an explicit definition) and

$`{}_{\pm 2}{}^{}G_{2}^{m}(𝐱;𝐤)=(i)^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{2\mathrm{}+1}}}{}_{\pm 2}{}^{}Y_{2}^{m}(\widehat{𝐧})\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐱).`$ (30)
Here, $`{}_{\pm 2}{}^{}Y_{\mathrm{}}^{m}`$ are the spin-2 spherical harmonics . A recoupling of the spin spherical harmonics as in equation (14) yields

$`P_\pm (\widehat{𝐧};𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m}{}}[E_\mathrm{}m(k)\pm iB_\mathrm{}m(k)]{}_{\pm 2}{}^{}Y_{\mathrm{}}^{m}(\widehat{𝐧})`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m_\mathrm{i}}{}}P_{m_\mathrm{i}}[{}_{\pm }{}^{}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}]{}_{\pm 2}{}^{}Y_{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\widehat{𝐧}),`$ (32)
where the operator

$`P_{m_\mathrm{i}}[{}_{\pm }{}^{}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\eta _0}}𝑑\eta e^\tau \sqrt{4\pi (2\mathrm{}+1)}`$ (34)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_\mathrm{i}}{}}Q^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\eta ;k){}_{\pm }{}^{}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(kr).`$
Here, $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}=ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}\pm i\beta _{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}`$ where the latter are combinations of $`j_{\mathrm{}}`$ given in  that define the projection of the source onto the $`E`$ and $`B`$ polarization modes. For quadrupole sources related to density $`(m_\mathrm{i}=0)`$ fluctuations, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^0=j_{\mathrm{}}^{22}`$ (see eqn. ) and $`\beta _{\mathrm{}}^0=0`$ so that there are no contributions to $`B`$-parity polarization.

The power spectra for the polarization and temperature-polarization cross correlation are defined as

$`C_{\mathrm{}}^{FF^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{m}{}F_\mathrm{}m^{}(k)F_\mathrm{}m^{}(k)}.`$ (35)
where $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ take on the values $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$,$`E`$ and $`B`$. For the primary polarization, we define $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{EE}=E_{\mathrm{}}^{00}`$, $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{BB}=B_{\mathrm{}}^{00}`$, $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{\Theta }E}=X_{\mathrm{}}^{00}`$, where

$`E_{\mathrm{}}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}\frac{(k\eta _0)^{a+b}}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{m_\mathrm{i}}{}P_{m_\mathrm{i}}^{}[ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^{(a)}]P_{m_\mathrm{i}}[ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^{(b)}]},`$ (36)
$`B_{\mathrm{}}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}\frac{(k\eta _0)^{a+b}}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{m_\mathrm{i}}{}P_{m_\mathrm{i}}^{}[\beta _{\mathrm{}}^{(a)}]P_{m_\mathrm{i}}[\beta _{\mathrm{}}^{(b)}]},`$ (37)
$`X_{\mathrm{}}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}\frac{(k\eta _0)^{a+b}}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{m_\mathrm{i}}{}I_{m_\mathrm{i}}^{}[j_{\mathrm{}}^{(a)}]P_{m_\mathrm{i}}[ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^{(b)}]}.`$ (38)
Other combinations vanish due to parity considerations. As in equation (21) the indices $`a`$ and $`b`$ refer to derivatives of the underlying Bessel functions. The higher order gravitational effects on the polarization field may be evaluated through a second order expansion of the polarization field

$`P_\pm (\widehat{𝐧})`$ $`=`$ $`P_\pm ^0(\widehat{𝐧})+P_\pm ^\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})+P_\pm ^d(\widehat{𝐧})`$ (40)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_\pm ^{\varphi ^2}(\widehat{𝐧})+P_\pm ^{\varphi d}(\widehat{𝐧})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_\pm ^{d^2}(\widehat{𝐧}),`$
where $`P_\pm ^0(\widehat{𝐧})`$ is the zeroth order contribution from the primary anisotropies,

$`P_\pm ^\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m_\mathrm{i}}{}}P_{m_\mathrm{i}}[{}_{\pm }{}^{}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}]_i\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})^i{}_{\pm 2}{}^{}Y_{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\widehat{𝐧}),`$ (41)
$`P_\pm ^d(\widehat{𝐧})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m_\mathrm{i}}{}}P_{m_\mathrm{i}}[{}_{\pm }{}^{}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}](k\eta _0)d(\widehat{𝐧}){}_{\pm 2}{}^{}Y_{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\widehat{𝐧}),`$ (42)
$`P_\pm ^{\varphi ^2}(\widehat{𝐧})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m_\mathrm{i}}{}}P_{m_\mathrm{i}}[{}_{\pm }{}^{}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}]_i\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})_j\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})^i^j{}_{\pm 2}{}^{}Y_{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\widehat{𝐧}),`$ (43)
$`P_\pm ^{\varphi d}(\widehat{𝐧})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m_\mathrm{i}}{}}P_{m_\mathrm{i}}[{}_{\pm }{}^{}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}](k\eta _0)d(\widehat{𝐧})_i\varphi (\widehat{𝐧})^i{}_{\pm 2}{}^{}Y_{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\widehat{𝐧}).`$ (44)
$`P_\pm ^{d^2}(\widehat{𝐧})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}m_\mathrm{i}}{}}P_{m_\mathrm{i}}[{}_{\pm }{}^{}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }](k\eta _0)^2d(\widehat{𝐧})d(\widehat{𝐧}){}_{\pm 2}{}^{}Y_{\mathrm{}}^{m_\mathrm{i}}(\widehat{𝐧}).`$ (45)
The evaluation of the effects will involve the higher order derivative power spectra of equation (38). Again we modify CMBFAST to calculate these spectra. Just as for the temperature power spectra $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{(a\pm 1)(b1)}E_{\mathrm{}}^{ab}`$ and similarly for $`B`$ and $`X`$. This also implies that terms such as $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{01}=E_{\mathrm{}}^{10}`$ are suppressed.

## III Temperature Power Spectrum

The perturbations to the power spectrum due to the lensing and time-delay effects follow by considering the second order terms in the two-point correlation of the temperature field in equation (23). We can express the contributions schematically as

$$C_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}=T_{\mathrm{}}^{00}+(T_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi \varphi }+T_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi ^2})+(T_{\mathrm{}}^{dd}+T_{\mathrm{}}^{d^2})+T_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi d}.$$
(46)
We will now define and consider each term in turn.

### A Lensing Spectra

The pure lensing contributions can be defined as

$`T_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi \varphi }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{m}{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m^{\varphi _1}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m^{\varphi _1}},`$ (47)
$`T_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi ^2}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m^p\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m^{\varphi ^2}+\mathrm{cc}.).`$ (48)
Following Ref. , we expand the perturbations to the temperature field from equation (24) and the projected potential $`\varphi `$ in spherical harmonics to obtain

$`T_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi \varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}{}}C_\mathrm{}_1^{\varphi \varphi }T_\mathrm{}_2^{00}W_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^2L_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^2,`$ (49)
$`T_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi ^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{\mathrm{rms}}^2\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)T_{\mathrm{}}^{00},`$ (50)
where

$`W_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(2\mathrm{}_1+1)(2\mathrm{}_2+1)}{4\pi }}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l_1& l_2\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (53)
$`L_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{}_1(\mathrm{}_1+1)+\mathrm{}_2(\mathrm{}_2+1)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)].`$ (54)
The $`W_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}`$ term comes from the integral over the product of three spherical harmonics; the $`L_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}`$ term comes from the conversion of angular gradients into angular Laplacians through integration by parts. On scales where there is power in the primary power spectrum, the two terms in equation (50) nearly cancel. The reason is that the large-angle modulation produced by lensing simply smoothes the features in the power spectrum across $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{1/2}30`$ . The result of combining the two terms in the fiducial $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model is displayed in Fig. 5.

### B Delay Spectra

The time-delay modifications to the power spectra can be defined as

$`T_{\mathrm{}}^{dd}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{m}{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m^{d_1}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m^{d_1}},`$ (55)
$`T_{\mathrm{}}^{d^2}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{m}{}\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m^p\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m^{d^2}+\mathrm{cc}\right)},`$ (56)
and their evaluation follows closely that of lensing except for the simplification that no derivatives of spherical harmonics are involved. The result is

$`T_{\mathrm{}}^{dd}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}{}}C_\mathrm{}_1^{dd}T_\mathrm{}_2^{11}W_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^2,`$ (57)
$`T_{\mathrm{}}^{d^2}`$ $`=`$ $`d_{\mathrm{rms}}^2T_{\mathrm{}}^{02},`$ (58)
where we have used the identity

$$\underset{m_1}{}Y_\mathrm{}_1^{m_1}Y_\mathrm{}_1^{m_1}=\frac{2\mathrm{}_1+1}{4\pi },$$
(59)
to evaluate

$$\underset{m_1}{}𝑑\widehat{𝐧}Y_{\mathrm{}}^mY_\mathrm{}_1^{m_1}Y_\mathrm{}_1^{m_1}Y_\mathrm{}_2^{m_2}=\frac{2\mathrm{}_1+1}{4\pi }\delta _{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_2}\delta _{m,m_2}.$$
(60)
The main difference between the lensing and time delay contributions is that the power spectra of the angular gradients of the projected potential $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi \varphi }`$ and primary temperature anisotropies $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)T_{\mathrm{}}^{00}`$ are replaced by the power spectra of the delay $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{dd}`$ and that of the radial derivatives of the temperature field $`T_{\mathrm{}}^{11}T_{\mathrm{}}^{02}`$.

As in the case of lensing, the time-delay effect represents a smoothing of the gradient power spectrum $`T_{\mathrm{}}^{11}`$ across a width of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{1/2}2`$. The effect is strongly suppressed by the small width of the smoothing and the nearly featureless underlying spectrum $`T_{\mathrm{}}^{11}`$ (see Fig. 4). Contrast this with lensing which has a smoothing width of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}30`$ and an angular gradient power spectrum that shows peaks from the acoustic oscillations. Acoustic features in the power spectrum arise from features in the source power spectrum when the source wavevector is oriented perpendicular to the line of sight. The source then projects with a one-to-one correspondence between angular and physical scale ($`\mathrm{}=kr`$ see Fig. 1). Other alignments contribute to a broad tail to lower multipole moments (see Fig. 3). In the perpendicular orientation, however, a perturbation to the radial distance simply moves the last scattering surface along the crests and troughs of the source leaving no net effect. Mathematically, this effect can be seen in the fact that $`j_{\mathrm{}}(kr)`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{}`$ possesses a strong peak at $`\mathrm{}=kr`$, whereas $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{}(kr)`$ does not (see Fig. 3).

The net effect is therefore much smaller than the naive scaling of the lensing rms (5) and delay rms (9) would imply. It is shown in Fig. 5 for the fiducial model.

### C Cross Spectra

The cross correlation between the lensing and delay cause modifications defined by

$`T_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi d}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m^{d_1}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m^{\varphi _1}`$ (62)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m^p\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m^{\varphi d}+\mathrm{cc}.),`$
The $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\varphi d}`$ terms are identically zero since

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}[(_iY_{\mathrm{}}^m)Y_{\mathrm{}}^m+Y_{\mathrm{}}^m(_iY_{\mathrm{}}^m)]`$ $`=`$ $`_i{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(Y_{\mathrm{}}^mY_{\mathrm{}}^m)`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`0,`$ (64)
by virtue of the addition theorem of spherical harmonics. The first term reduces to

$`T_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi d}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}{}}C_\mathrm{}_1^{\varphi d}T_\mathrm{}_2^{01}W_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^2L_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}.`$ (65)
Unlike the pure lensing and time delay contributions, there is no second canceling term. However as discussed in §II C, $`T_{\mathrm{}}^{01}`$ is intrinsically small reflecting the lack of correlation between $`j_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ (see Fig. 3). Nonetheless, its net contribution to temperature anisotropy power spectrum is still larger than the pure delay contribution, as a result of the larger amplitude and smaller coherence of the lensing-delay power spectrum $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi d}`$ (see Fig. 5).

## IV Polarization Power Spectra

Evaluation of the lensing and delay effects on the polarization and temperature-polarization cross power spectra follows precisely the same steps as that of the temperature power spectrum considered above. We can express the contributions schematically as

$`C_{\mathrm{}}^{EE}`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{00}+(E_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi \varphi }+E_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi ^2})+(E_{\mathrm{}}^{dd}+E_{\mathrm{}}^{d^2})+E_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi d},`$ (66)
$`C_{\mathrm{}}^{BB}`$ $`=`$ $`B_{\mathrm{}}^{00}+(B_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi \varphi }+B_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi ^2})+(B_{\mathrm{}}^{dd}+B_{\mathrm{}}^{d^2})+B_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi d},`$ (67)
$`C_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{\Theta }E}`$ $`=`$ $`X_{\mathrm{}}^{00}+(X_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi \varphi }+X_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi ^2})+(X_{\mathrm{}}^{dd}+X_{\mathrm{}}^{d^2})+X_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi d}.`$ (68)
We will now consider each term in turn.

### A Lensing Spectra

Following , the lensing contributions to the polarization power spectra can be evaluated as

$`E_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi \varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}{}}C_\mathrm{}_1^{\varphi \varphi }{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}_2}^{00}(\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2)V_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^2L_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^2,`$ (69)
$`E_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi ^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{\mathrm{rms}}^2(\mathrm{}^2+\mathrm{}4)E_{\mathrm{}}^{00},`$ (70)
$`B_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi \varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}{}}C_\mathrm{}_1^{\varphi \varphi }{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}_2}^{00}(\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2)V_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^2L_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2},`$ (72)
$`B_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi ^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{\mathrm{rms}}^2(\mathrm{}^2+\mathrm{}4)B_{\mathrm{}},`$ (73)
$`X_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi \varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}{}}C_\mathrm{}_1^{\varphi \varphi }X_\mathrm{}_2^{00}W_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}V_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}L_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^2,`$ (75)
$`X_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi ^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _{\mathrm{rms}}^2(\mathrm{}^2+\mathrm{}2)X_{\mathrm{}},`$ (76)
where

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}^{ab}(L)={\displaystyle \frac{[1+(1)^L]}{2}}E_{\mathrm{}}^{ab}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{[1(1)^L]}{2}}B_{\mathrm{}}^{ab}.`$ (77)
Here

$$V_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}=\sqrt{\frac{(2\mathrm{}_1+1)(2\mathrm{}_2+1)}{4\pi }}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}& \mathrm{}_1& \mathrm{}_2\\ 2& 0& 2\end{array}\right),$$
(78)
comes from the integral over the product of a spherical harmonic with 2 spin-$`2`$ spherical harmonics. As in the case of the temperature power spectra, the main effect on the $`\mathrm{\Theta }E`$ and $`EE`$ power spectra is a smoothing by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{1/2}`$. If there were an intrinsic $`BB`$ power spectrum, the smoothing would also apply. However, since scalar perturbations do not generate $`BB`$ modes in the primary polarization ($`B_{\mathrm{}}^{00}=0`$), the generation of $`B`$-polarization from the lensing modulation of the primary $`E`$-polarization dominates . The amount of generation is again related to the coherence scale $`\mathrm{}_{1/2}\mathrm{}_1`$ of the effect as reflected in the difference between even and odd $`L`$ terms in $`V_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}`$. Considering the triplet as forming a triangle, even terms are associated with the cosine of twice the opening angle between $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_2`$; odd terms are associated with the sine of that angle (, Eqns. (B8) and (B10)). These polarization contributions are shown in Fig. 6 for the fiducial model.

### B Delay Spectra

The derivation of the delay power spectra follows the same steps as those involved in the lensing derivation yielding

$`E_{\mathrm{}}^{dd}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}{}}C_\mathrm{}_1^{dd}{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}_2}^{11}(\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2)V_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^2,`$ (79)
$`E_{\mathrm{}}^{d^2}`$ $`=`$ $`d_{\mathrm{rms}}^2E_{\mathrm{}}^{02},`$ (80)
$`B_{\mathrm{}}^{dd}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}{}}C_\mathrm{}_1^{dd}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}_2}^{11}(\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2)V_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^2,`$ (82)
$`B_{\mathrm{}}^{d^2}`$ $`=`$ $`d_{\mathrm{rms}}^2B_{\mathrm{}}^{02},`$ (83)
$`X_{\mathrm{}}^{dd}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}{}}C_\mathrm{}_1^{dd}X_\mathrm{}_2^{11}W_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}V_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2},`$ (85)
$`X_{\mathrm{}}^{d^2}`$ $`=`$ $`d_{\mathrm{rms}}^2X_{\mathrm{}}^{02}.`$ (86)
The results of summing these nearly canceling pairs for the fiducial model are shown in Fig. 6. A $`BB`$-spectrum is generated out of the primary $`EE`$-spectrum but at an efficiency that is substantially below that of gravitational lensing. The underlying reason again is that the coherence of the effect $`\mathrm{}_{1/2}2`$.

### C Cross Spectra

The cross spectra contributions are defined as

$`E_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi d}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}{}}C_\mathrm{}_1^{\varphi d}{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}_2}^{01}(\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2)V_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^2L_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2},`$ (87)
$`B_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi d}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}{}}C_\mathrm{}_1^{\varphi d}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}_2}^{01}(\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2)V_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^2L_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2},`$ (88)
$`X_{\mathrm{}}^{\varphi d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}{}}C_\mathrm{}_1^{\varphi d}(X_\mathrm{}_2^{01}+X_\mathrm{}_2^{10})W_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}V_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}L_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}.`$ (89)
Figure 6 shows that the cross spectra dominate over the pure delay spectra for the $`\mathrm{\Theta }E`$ and $`EE`$ power spectra. In particular, since the lensing effects themselves approach order unity at $`\mathrm{}1000`$, the lensing-delay cross effects reach $`10^3`$ of the primary $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{\Theta }E}`$ power spectrum. While still small, the contribution is of order the cosmic variance out to comparable multipoles.

## V Delay Bispectrum

Second order effects generally produce non-Gaussianity in the CMB temperature and polarization fields. Effects that provide a negligible change to the power spectrum can in principle produce observable effects due to the expected Gaussianity of the primary anisotropies. Here we consider the three-point correlations induced by time-delay in angular harmonic space, i.e. the bispectrum.

The angle averaged bispectrum is defined as

$$B_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }}^{FF^{}F^{\prime \prime }}=\underset{mm^{}m^{\prime \prime }}{}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}& \mathrm{}^{}& \mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }\\ m& m^{}& m^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right)F_\mathrm{}mF_\mathrm{}^{}m^{}F_{\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }},$$
(90)
where the $`F`$’s can take on the values $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, $`E`$, $`B`$ for the temperature and polarization components respectively. Since the derivation follows closely that of the lensing bispectra terms, we refer the reader to  for detailed derivations.

### A Temperature

The temperature bispectrum produced by time delays follows immediately from the decomposition in equation (24)

$$B_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}=\sqrt{2\mathrm{}_1+1}W_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}C_\mathrm{}_2^{\mathrm{\Theta }d}T_\mathrm{}_3^{01}+5\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{m}.,$$
(91)
where the permutations are with respect to the $`\mathrm{}`$-indices and

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{}m^{}d_\mathrm{}^{}m^{}=\delta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}C_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{\Theta }d}.$$
(92)
Unlike lensing however, $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{\Theta }d}`$ is not solely the result of correlations with secondary anisotropies but includes relatively large contributions from the primary anisotropies themselves. The delay field arises from potential fluctuations of sufficiently large scale that it is correlated with the Sachs-Wolfe effect  in the primary anisotropies. To see this, let us approximate the primary anisotropies at large angles as the sum of Sachs-Wolfe (SW) and integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) contributions

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{𝐧})\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }(r_{}\widehat{𝐧},\eta _{})𝑑\eta ^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}(r^{}\widehat{𝐧},\eta ^{}),$$
(93)
where the asterisk denotes evaluation at recombination. This temperature field may be directly correlated with the delay field in equation (6). The resulting power spectrum is shown in Fig. 7. Note that the SW and ISW contributions cancel at the lowest multipoles. Unlike the lensing-ISW correlation , the delay effects on the bispectrum do not vanish and indeed increase as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$.

To determine whether the contributions are detectable, we evaluate the signal-to-noise ratio for an ideal cosmic variance limited experiment

$$\left(\frac{S}{N}\right)_{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^2=\underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}{}\frac{(B_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }})^2}{6C_\mathrm{}_1^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}C_\mathrm{}_2^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}C_\mathrm{}_3^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}}.$$
(94)
We show the cumulative signal-to-noise out to a given maximum $`\mathrm{}`$ in Fig. 8. The time-delay temperature bispectrum is not detectable even for an ideal experiment. This should be compared with the lensing-temperature bispectrum, where the cross-correlation between lensing and effects such as SZ can be detected with upcoming experiments, such as Planck.

### B Polarization

Bispectrum terms involving the polarization follow similarly. The non-vanishing contributions are

$`B_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^{E\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2\mathrm{}_1+1}V_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}C_\mathrm{}_2^{\mathrm{\Theta }d}X_\mathrm{}_3^{01}`$ (96)
$`+\sqrt{2\mathrm{}_2+1}W_{\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_3}X_\mathrm{}_1^{10}C_\mathrm{}_3^{\mathrm{\Theta }d}+(\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3),`$
$`B_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^{EE\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2\mathrm{}_1+1}V_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_3\mathrm{}_2}E_\mathrm{}_2^{10}C_\mathrm{}_3^{\mathrm{\Theta }d}+(\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2),`$ (97)
for $`\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2+\mathrm{}_3=`$ even and

$`B_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^{B\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2\mathrm{}_1+1}V_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}C_\mathrm{}_2^{\mathrm{\Theta }d}X_\mathrm{}_3^{01}+(\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3),`$ (98)
$`B_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2}^{BE\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2\mathrm{}_1+1}V_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}E_\mathrm{}_2^{10}C_\mathrm{}_3^{\mathrm{\Theta }d},`$ (99)
for $`\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2+\mathrm{}_3=`$ odd. The signal-to-noise ratio in an ideal, cosmic variance limited experiment is

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{N}}\right)_{E\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(B_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}^{E\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }})^2}{6C_\mathrm{}_1^{EE}C_\mathrm{}_2^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}C_\mathrm{}_3^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}}},`$ (100)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{N}}\right)_{EE\mathrm{\Theta }}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(B_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}^{EE\mathrm{\Theta }})^2}{6C_\mathrm{}_1^{EE}C_\mathrm{}_2^{EE}C_\mathrm{}_3^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}}},`$ (101)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{N}}\right)_{B\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(B_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}^{B\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }})^2}{2C_\mathrm{}_1^{BB}C_\mathrm{}_2^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}C_\mathrm{}_3^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}}},`$ (102)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{N}}\right)_{BE\mathrm{\Theta }}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(B_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_3}^{BE\mathrm{\Theta }})^2}{2C_\mathrm{}_1^{BB}C_\mathrm{}_2^{EE}C_\mathrm{}_3^{\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }}}}.`$ (103)
In Fig. 8, we show the cumulative signal-to-noise ratio as a function of the maximum $`\mathrm{}`$. The signal-to-noise ratio for the $`B\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }`$ term is larger than the others since we have assumed that $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{BB}`$ vanishes for the primary anisotropies and is only generated by the lensing and delay effects. Nonetheless, the signal-to-noise is substantially less than unity and so the time-delay effects are unlikely to be detectable in the bispectrum or affect the extraction of other effects from the bispectrum.

## VI Discussion

Gravitational time delays introduce a radial perturbation in the mapping of the CMB temperature field at recombination onto temperature and polarization anisotropies today. The effect is closely related to gravitational lensing which introduces angular perturbations in the same mapping. Despite the fact that radial perturbations are only one order of magnitude smaller than angular perturbations, and moreover highly correlated with the angular perturbations, their effect on the power spectra and bispectra of the temperature and polarization fields is approximately 3 orders of magnitudes smaller. The underlying reason is that on the angular scales of the acoustic peaks neither effect actually generates new anisotropies; both induce a large scale modulation of the primary field. Angular modulations produce a substantial effect due to angular structure in the acoustic peaks by smoothing the power spectrum on the coherence scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}30`$. Radial modulations produce much smaller effects due to the lack of radial structure in the perturbations that form the acoustic peaks. They also suffer from the fact that the angular coherence or smoothing scale of the radial modulation is typically one order of magnitude larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}2`$.

As a result, at $`\mathrm{}1000`$, the delay and lensing-delay correlation effects are $`10^4`$ of the temperature, $`E`$-polarization and lensing-induced $`B`$-polarization power spectrum generated by lensing. For the temperature-polarization cross correlation, the lensing-delay correlation effect approaches $`10^3`$ and so is comparable to the cosmic variance on these scales. This enhancement reflects the same efficiency with which lensing modulations affect the temperature-polarization correlation. It is therefore relevant in principle for the Planck satellite or any future experiment that expects to be cosmic variance limited at $`\mathrm{}1000`$. In practice, there may well be other more limiting sources of systematic errors such as galactic and extragalactic foregrounds.

For the bispectra, the time delay couples mainly with the Sachs-Wolfe effect in the primary anisotropies. For a cosmic variance limited experiment, the signal-to-noise is highest in the $`B`$-temperature-temperature bispectrum since the $`B`$-polarization vanishes for primary anisotropies from scalar perturbations. In a realistic experiment, the low level of the signal will make the cosmic variance limit difficult to achieve. In any case, the signal-to-noise ratios in the bispectra never exceed the $`10^1`$ level for $`\mathrm{}1000`$ and hence are unlikely to interfere with the extraction of signals in the bispectrum from secondary anisotropies by the next generation of satellites .

The potential of cosmic microwave background anisotropies for studying cosmology is considered vast primarily because of the physical processes underlying their formation are thought to be understood to extraordinary precision relative to other astrophysical systems. Though unlikely to affect the next generation of experiments, small effects such as the gravitational time delay considered here must be calculated and included to ensure that this potential is realized.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Sean Carroll and Matias Zaldarriaga for useful discussions. WH is supported by the Keck Foundation, a Sloan Fellowship, and NSF-9513835. ARC acknowledges financial support from Don York and computational support from John Carlstrom. We acknowledge the use of CMBFAST  and the routine to generate spherical Bessel functions from Arthur Kosowsky.