Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The ISW imprint of superstructuresA problem for ΛCDM?
Seshadri Nadathur
Universitat Bielefeld
Kosmologietag3 May 2012
SN, Hotchkiss, Sarkar, arXiv:1109.4126
Key Points
• Observations of the ISW effect of only extreme density fluctuationscan give new insight about cosmological model, complementary tousual cross-correlation method
• Particularly sensitive to primordial non-gaussianities (also perhapsmodified gravity ...)
• Observation that has already been performed is > 3σ discrepantwith standard model - large density fluctuations are more abundantthan expected
• We need better designed observational method to learn more
2 of 24
Outline
The late ISW effect
The ISW signal of extreme regions
ΛCDM predictionPrevious estimatesStructuresTemperature signal
Results
Conclusions
3 of 24
The late ISW effect
If CMB photons traverse decaying large-scale potential fluctuations,secondary anisotropies are introduced → the late ISW effect
∆T (n)
T0=
2
c3
∫ rL
0Φ(r , z , n)a dr
Potentials decay in presence of dark energy (ΩΛ > 0) or in an openuniverse, but not for Ωm = 1
Φ ←→ matter fluctuations δ (through Poisson equation)
δ ←→ observed source density fluctuations δg (through bias)
So CgT (θ) = 〈δg (n) ∆T (n′)T0〉 6= 0
4 of 24
The late ISW effect
If CMB photons traverse decaying large-scale potential fluctuations,secondary anisotropies are introduced → the late ISW effect
∆T (n)
T0=
2
c3
∫ rL
0Φ(r , z , n)a dr
Potentials decay in presence of dark energy (ΩΛ > 0) or in an openuniverse, but not for Ωm = 1
Φ ←→ matter fluctuations δ (through Poisson equation)
δ ←→ observed source density fluctuations δg (through bias)
So CgT (θ) = 〈δg (n) ∆T (n′)T0〉 6= 0
4 of 24
The late ISW effect
Detection of ISW cross-correlation is an independent test of Λ
Form of cross-correlation tests primordial distribution PΦ(k), growthof structure, bias relation between δ and δg
5 of 24
Usual detection method
Sawangwit et al., MNRAS 2010
(Cai et al., MNRAS 2010)
6 of 24
Usual detection method
Sawangwit et al., MNRAS 2010
(Cai et al., MNRAS 2010)
6 of 24
Usual detection method
Signal is small and hard to detect
Errors are large and hard to estimate
Some groups claim 2− 3σ detections using various tracers of δ, orup to 4σ on combining datasets
Padmanabhan et al., PRD 2005; Cabre et al., MNRAS 2006; Giannantonio et al., 2008 and many others
Other groups claim no rejection of null hypothesis
Sawangwit et al., MNRAS 2010; Hernandez-Monteagudo A&A 2010; Lopez-Corredoira et al., A&A 2010 etc.
Can a different approach tell us something new?
7 of 24
Usual detection method
Signal is small and hard to detect
Errors are large and hard to estimate
Some groups claim 2− 3σ detections using various tracers of δ, orup to 4σ on combining datasets
Padmanabhan et al., PRD 2005; Cabre et al., MNRAS 2006; Giannantonio et al., 2008 and many others
Other groups claim no rejection of null hypothesis
Sawangwit et al., MNRAS 2010; Hernandez-Monteagudo A&A 2010; Lopez-Corredoira et al., A&A 2010 etc.
Can a different approach tell us something new?
7 of 24
ISW signal of extreme regions
We can try to isolate the contribution to the cross-correlation fromthe N most extreme density fluctuations only
• Only need to know relative values of δg - reduces errors,potentially increases signal?
• Probes extreme tails of pdf, so more sensitive to deviations fromgaussianity etc.
Such a study has already been done with SDSS DR6 LRGs - a > 4σdetection of the correlation
Granett, Neyrinck, Szapudi, ApJL 2008
But is the detected signal consistent with ΛCDM?
8 of 24
ISW signal of extreme regions
We can try to isolate the contribution to the cross-correlation fromthe N most extreme density fluctuations only
• Only need to know relative values of δg - reduces errors,potentially increases signal?
• Probes extreme tails of pdf, so more sensitive to deviations fromgaussianity etc.
Such a study has already been done with SDSS DR6 LRGs - a > 4σdetection of the correlation
Granett, Neyrinck, Szapudi, ApJL 2008
But is the detected signal consistent with ΛCDM?
8 of 24
The Granett et al observation
• First step - identify most extreme large-scale structures in theSDSS photometric LRG sample (0.4 < z < 0.75 with medianz = 0.52)Done using structure-finding algorithms VOBOZ (for clusters) andZOBOV (for voids)
• Now averaged CMB temperature in direction of each objectidentified, and stacked the images
• Used a compensated top-hat filter of radius 4 for the averaging toremove CMB fluctuations on larger scales
9 of 24
The Granett et al observation
∆T = −11.3± 3.1 µK for voids,
∆T = 7.9± 3.0 µK for clusters, and
∆T = 9.6± 2.2 µK for both together (clusters minus voids)Granett, Neyrinck, Szapudi, ApJL 2008
10 of 24
ΛCDM prediction: previous estimates
• Hunt and Sarkar 2008:Obtain ∆T ∼ 0.1 µK assuming top-hat density profile - orders ofmagnitude too small!
• Inoue, Sakai, Tomita 2010:Assume a different but similar density profile〈∆T 〉 ∼ 0.5 µK - still orders of magnitude too small!
• Papai, Granett, Szapudi 2010:Use a radial profile motivated by Gaussian statistics
Claim only 2σ discrepancy with ΛCDM ...
... but interpretation relies on template used outside range ofvalidity
11 of 24
ΛCDM prediction
Model to be tested is ΛCDM + Gaussian primordial perturbations• Assume linear growth (large scales) + Poisson equation:
Φ(k, t) =3
2
(H0
k
)2 H(z)
aΩm (1− β(z))D(z)δ(k, z = 0)
• Assume gaussian distribution → predict abundance of extremesof δ
• Gaussian statistics → also predict profiles of δ about extremalpoints
Need only matter power spectrum for given cosmology
Bond, Bardeen, Kaiser, Szalay 1986 (BBKS)
12 of 24
ΛCDM prediction: structures
Example profiles:
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160−0.5
−0.4
−0.3
−0.2
−0.1
0
r (h−1Mpc)
δ(r)
δ(r)
δrandom(r)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160−0.5
−0.4
−0.3
−0.2
−0.1
0
0.1
r (h−1Mpc)
δ(r)
δ(r), δ0 = −0.2, Rf = 20 h−1Mpc
δg(r), δ0 = −0.2, Rf = 20 h−1Mpc
δ(r), δ0 = −0.3, Rf = 20 h−1Mpc
δ(r), δ0 = −0.2, Rf = 30 h−1Mpc
Profiles slightly, but not significantly, different to those used by Papai,
Granett, Szapudi 2010
13 of 24
ΛCDM prediction: temperature signal
Assume the following:
• Linear treatment of ISW (ok on relevant scales ∼ 100 h−1Mpc)
• Structures centred at z = 0.52 (SDSS median redshift)
• LRGs trace matter density with simple linear bias, δg = bδ,b ≈ 2.25 for SDSS LRGs
• Number of structures N 1 so can use the mean profile tocalculate expectation values
• Sample of structures matches that seen by structure-findingalgorithms (condition on δ0)
• Ignore overdensities (sample biased towards non-linear collapsedstructures)
14 of 24
ΛCDM prediction: temperature signal
〈∆T 〉 = expectation value of signal= weighted average value of ∆T for voids passing cut
So
〈∆T 〉 =
∫ δc0−1
∫ θout0 W (θ)∆T (θ)Nminσ
−10 d2θdδ0
πθ2c
∫Nminσ
−10 dδ0
where
• Nminσ−10 is weighting factor,
• δc0 is cutoff imposed by significance selection,
• W (θ) is a compensating top-hat filter, θc = 4 to matchobservation
15 of 24
ΛCDM prediction: temperature signal
〈∆T 〉 clearly depends on smoothing scale Rf
Mean void size and distribution of void sizes also depends on Rf
Bias towards large voids:• Larger voids have larger ∆T• Maybe only voids with radius Rv > Rmin
v are found by ZOBOV
Bias towards deep voids:
• Deeper voids have larger ∆T• Maybe only voids with δ0 < δmin
0 are found by ZOBOV
16 of 24
Results
Model bias towards larger voids by increasing Rf (increasing Rminv )
17 of 24
Results
Model bias towards larger voids by increasing Rf (increasing Rminv )
18 of 24
Results
Model bias towards deeper voids by decreasing δmin0 (at different Rmin
v )
green: Rminv = 70 h−1Mpc, blue: Rmin
v = 100 h−1Mpc
19 of 24
Results
Model bias towards deeper voids by decreasing δmin0 (at different Rmin
v )
green: Rminv = 70 h−1Mpc, blue: Rmin
v = 100 h−1Mpc
20 of 24
Theoretical simplifications
Non-linear effects of gravity:• evolution leads to colder centre, hotter edges
• overall unclear, but linear treatment might even overestimate thesignal
• in any case non-linear effects small at low z (. 10%) Cai, Cole, Jenkins,
Frenk, MNRAS 2010
21 of 24
Theoretical simplifications
Varying cosmological parameters:
• σ8 alters profile about extremes and number of extremes ...... but effects on 〈∆T 〉 are tiny within σ8 ∈ (WMAP + SDSSallowed range)
• Ωm affects photon geodesics and pre-factor in ISW integral ...... but for Ωm ∈ (0.25, 0.32) effects are negligible
Varying parameters of ΛCDM model does not resolve discrepancy
22 of 24
Conclusions
Observed late ISW signal discrepant with linear theory predictionsfor Gaussian perturbations in ΛCDM
Discrepancy > 3σ even with conservative assumptions
Large, deep voids in matter density more numerous than expected
Perhaps initial perturbations to the density field are not completelyGaussian?
massive structures more abundant in f (R) theories?
growth rate of perturbations different in scalar-tensor gravity?
large inhomogeneites themselves alter growth rate of structure?
23 of 24
Conclusions
Observed late ISW signal discrepant with linear theory predictionsfor Gaussian perturbations in ΛCDM
Discrepancy > 3σ even with conservative assumptions
Large, deep voids in matter density more numerous than expected
Perhaps initial perturbations to the density field are not completelyGaussian?
massive structures more abundant in f (R) theories?
growth rate of perturbations different in scalar-tensor gravity?
large inhomogeneites themselves alter growth rate of structure?
23 of 24
Work in progress
Study most appropriate method of observation with future surveys(2D projected fields)
Detailed predictions about expected size and form of signal instandard cosmology
Effects of adding primordial non-gaussianity
24 of 24