Observational Cosmology Tom Shanks Durham University.
-
Upload
curtis-montgomery -
Category
Documents
-
view
229 -
download
2
Transcript of Observational Cosmology Tom Shanks Durham University.
Observational Cosmology
Tom Shanks
Durham University
Summary
• Review observational evidence for standard cosmological model - CDM
• Then review its outstanding problems - astrophysical + fundamental
• Briefly look at difficulties in finding an alternative model
• Conclude - whether CDM is right or wrong - its an interesting time for cosmology!
Observational cosmology supports CDM!
• Boomerang + WMAP CMB experiments detect acoustic peak at l=220(≈1deg)
• Spatially flat, CDM Universe (de Bernardis et al. 2000, Spergel et al 2003, 2006)
• SNIa Hubble Diagram requires an accelerating Universe with a cosmological constant,
• CDM also fits galaxy and QSO clustering results (e.g. Cole et al 2005)
WMAP 3-Year CMB Map
WMAP 3-Year Power Spectrum
Spatially flat, (k=0) universe comprising:
~72% Dark Energy
~24% CDM
~4% Baryons
(Hinshaw et al. 2003, 2006, Spergel et al. 2003, 2006)
• SNIa 0.5mag fainter than expected at z~1 if m=1
• Universe flat (k=0) + accelerating with ~0.7
• Vacuum/ Dark energy eqn of state
Supernova Cosmology
Credits: ESSENCE+ Supernova Legacy Survey + HST Gold Sample
€
→ p = wρ
dist
ance
mod
ulus
AAT 2dF Redshift Surveys
• 2dF ~400 fibres over 3deg2 -50 x bigger field than VLT vs 4x smaller mirror
• 2dF galaxy and QSO z survey clustering also supports CDM
2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey
2dFGRS Power Spectrum
60h-1Mpc
300h-1Mpc15h-1Mpc
• 2dFGRS power spectrum from ~250000 galaxies (Cole et al 2005)
• Results fitCDM
The 2dF QSO Redshift Survey
23340 QSOs observed
2dF QSO Power Spectrum
• Observed QSO P(k) also agrees with CDM Mock QSO Catalogue from Hubble Volume simulation
• Outram et al 2003
500h-1Mpc 50h-1Mpc
CDM Input Spectrum
Hubble Volume 1
SDSS
DR5:Million Spectra, 8000 sq degs
Extension (2005-2008): Legacy, SNe, Galaxy
Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) as a standard ruler
• Detections of BAOs in the galaxy power spectrum at low redshift (e.g. Cole et al.,2004, Tegmark et al.,2006) and the Luminous Red Galaxy Correlation Function (Eisenstein et al., 2005) at 2-3σ
• Many large projects and studies propose to use BAOs in survey volume of ~Gpc3 as a standard ruler (DES, WFMOS, WiggleZ) to study Dark Energy Equation of State . (w= -1 for cosmological constant)
€
p = wρ
2SLAQ LRG Wedge Plot
SDSS LRG correlation function
• Correlation function from 45000 SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies - LRGs (Eisenstein et al 2005 - see also Cole et al 2005)
• Detects Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) at s~100h-1
Mpc from z~0.35 LRGs
First Baryon Wiggles in 1985
• (s) from ~500 Durham/AAT Z Survey B<17 galaxies (Shanks et al 1985)
• First “detection” of baryon wiggles
• But not detected in Durham/UKST or 2QZ surveys
Photometric redshifts• Today - photo-z available from imaging surveys such as SDSS
• Redshift accuracy typically z~0.05 or ~150Mpc for Luminous Red Galaxies even from colour cuts
• Use photo-z to detect BAO and also Integrated Sachs Wolfe Effect
In a flat matter-dominated universe, photon blueshift and redshift on entering and leaving cluster cancels but not if DE acceleration. Results in net higher temperature near
overdensity
Physical detection of Dark Energy: Influencing the growth of structure
Integrated Sachs Wolfe (ISW)
WMAP W band
Luminous Red Galaxies (LRGs)
No ISW signal in a flat, matter dominated Universe
WMAP-SDSS cross-correlation
ISW: SDSS LRGs-WMAP• Cross-correlation of
SDSS LRGs and WMAP CMB suggests direct evidence of Dark Energy (Scranton et al 2005)
• Many caveats but various surveys now aimed at BAO and ISW using spectroscopic and photo-z LRG samples
And yet…….
Astrophysical Problems for CDM
• Too much small scale power in mass distribution?
• Mass profile of LSB galaxies less sharply peaked than predicted by CDM (Moore et al, 1999a)
• Instability of spiral disks to disruption by CDM sub-haloes (Moore et al, 1999b)
• Observed galaxy LF is much flatter than predicted by CDM - even with feedback (eg Bower et al, 2006).
• CDMMassive galaxies form late vs. “downsizing”
• Slope of galaxy correlation function is flatter than predicted by CDM mass anti-bias simple high peaks bias disallowed (eg Cole et al, 1998)
• LX-T relation galaxy clusters not scale-free?
Joe Silk’s CDM issues(~2005)
CDM Mass Function v Galaxy LF
• CDM halo mass function is steeper than faint galaxy LF
• Various forms of feedback are invoked to try and explain this issue away
• Gravitational galaxy formation theory becomes a feedback theory!
(from Benson et al 2003)
CDM haloes
CDM Mergers vs Observation
• CDM requires large amount of hierarchical merging at z<1 due to flat slope of power spectrum
• CDM E/S0 (d~10kpc) at z=0 scattered over ~1Mpc at z~1
• But latest observations show little evidence of strong dynamical evolution
No evolution seen for z<1 early-types
Brown et al (2007)
CDM predicts big galaxies form late but observe the reverse - “downsizing”!
Wake et al (2007)
QSO Luminosity Evolution
• 2dF QSO Luminosity Function (Croom et al 2003)
• Brighter QSOs at higher z
• Again not immediately suggestive of “bottom up” CDM
Fundamental Problems for CDM CDM requires 2 pieces of undiscovered physics!!!
• makes model complicated+fine-tuned • is small - after inflation, /rad ~ 1 in 10102
• Also, today ~ Matter - Why?• To start with one fine tuning (flatness) problem and end
up with several - seems circular!• anthropic principle ?!?
• CDM Particle - No Laboratory Detection• Optimists like search for neutrino!• Pessimists like search for E-M ether!
Dark Energy - bad for Astronomy?
• Simon White arguing against devoting too many resources to chasing DE
• Argues on basis of general utility of telescopes
• But not a ringing vote of confidence in DE!!!
astro-ph/0704.2291
Ed Witten -“Strings 2001”
http://theory.tifr.res.in/strings/Proceedings/witten/22.html
String theory prefers a negative (anti-de Sitter!) rather than the observed positive
Fundamental Problems for CDM CDM requires 2 pieces of undiscovered physics!!!
• makes model complicated+fine-tuned • is small - after inflation, /rad ~ 1 in 10102
• Also, today ~ Matter - Why?• To start with one fine tuning (flatness) problem and end
up with several - seems circular!• anthropic principle ?!?
• CDM Particle - No Laboratory Detection• Optimists like search for neutrino!• Pessimists like search for E-M ether!
XENON10 + CDMS2 Limits
• Best previous upper limits on mass of CDM particle from direct detection - CDMS2 in Soudan Underground lab (Akerib et al 2004)
• Now further improved by 3 months data from XENON10 experiment - (Angle et al astro-ph/0706.0039)
MSSM Neutralino Excluded?
m0, m1/2 related to masses of particles which mix to become neutralino(Ellis et al 2007 hep-ph/0706.0977)
allowed by WMAPCDMS2 direct detection upper limit
XENON10 direct detection upper limit
Fundamental Problems for CDM
• Even without , CDM model has fine tuning since CDM ~ baryon (Peebles 1985)
• Baryonic Dark Matter needed anyway!• Nucleosynthesis baryon ~ 10 x star
• Also Coma DM has significant baryon component
Coma cluster dark matter
Coma galaxy cluster gas
• Coma contains hot X-ray gas (~20%)
• X-ray map of Coma from XMM-Newton (Briel et al 2001)
• If M/L=5 then less plausible to invoke cosmological density of exotic particles than if M/L=60-600!
H0 route to a simpler model - or Shanks’ road to ruin!
• X-Ray gas becomes Missing Mass in Coma. In central r<1h-1Mpc:-
Virial Mass 61014h-1Mo
Mvir/MX =15h1.5
X-ray Gas Mass 41013h-
2.5Mo
• Thus Mvir/MX=15 if h=1.0, 5 if h=0.5, 1.9 if h=0.25
3 Advantages of low H0
Shanks (1985) - if Ho<30kms-1Mpc-1 then:
• X-ray gas becomes Dark Matter in Coma
• Inflationary baryon=1 model in better agreement with nucleosynthesis
• Light element abundances baryonh2<0.06• baryon 1 starts to be allowed if h0.3
• Inflation+EdS => =1 => Globular Cluster Ages of 13-16Gyr require Ho<40kms-1Mpc-1
• But the first acoustic peak is at l=330, not l=220
Escape routes from CDM?
• SNIa Hubble Diagram - Evolution?
• Galaxy/QSO P(k) - scale dependent bias - abandon the assumption that galaxies trace the mass!
• WMAP - cosmic foregrounds?• Galaxy Clusters - SZ inverse Compton
scattering of CMB• Galaxy Clusters - lensing of CMB
Cluster-strong lensing+shear
• HST Advanced Camera for Surveys image of A1689 at z=0.18 (Broadhurst et al 2006)
• Effects of lensing recognised to be widespread since advent of HST high resolution images 10 years ago
The 2dF QSO Redshift Survey
23340 QSOs observed
SDSS Galaxy Groups in 2QZ NGC area
2dF QSO Lensing
• Cross-correlate z~2 QSOs with foreground z~0.1 galaxy groups
• At faint QSO limit of 2dF lensinganti-correlation
• measure group masses
2dF QSO-group lensing
• Strong anti-correlation between 2dF QSOs and foreground galaxy groups
• high group masses
• M≈1 and/or mass clusters more strongly than galaxies
Myers et al 2003, 2005, Guimaraes et al, 2005, Mountrichas & Shanks 2007
Can lensing move 1st peak? • WMAP z~10
Reionisation +
• QSO lensing effects of galaxies and groups from Myers et al (2003, 2005)
• l=330 l=220
• Still need SZ for 2nd peak!?!
• other models can be fine-tuned to fit WMAP first peak?
Shanks, 2007, MNRAS, 376, 173
Conclusions
• CDM gains strong support from observational cosmology - WMAP, SNIa, P(k)
• But assumes “undiscovered physics” + very finely-tuned + problems in many other areas eg “downsizing”
• QSO lensing galaxy groups have more mass than expected from virial theorem
• Could smoothing of CMB by lensing give escape route to simpler models than CDM??
• But excitement guaranteed either via exotic dark matter+energy or by new models
Implications for CMB Lensing
• CMB lensing smoothing functions, ()/
• Only one that improves WMAP fit is ()=constant (black line)
• Requires massr-3 or steeper
• Also requires anti-bias at b~0.2 level