1 / 18

What can we learn from Gravitational Magnification with BigBOSS? Alexie Leauthaud LBNL & BCCP

What can we learn from Gravitational Magnification with BigBOSS? Alexie Leauthaud LBNL & BCCP. Kung Fu?. Cross-correlation between Background Population &. Foreground Population. Gravitational Magnification. Image credit: Joerg Colberg, Ryan Scranton, Robert Lupton, SDSS.

efrem
Télécharger la présentation

What can we learn from Gravitational Magnification with BigBOSS? Alexie Leauthaud LBNL & BCCP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What can we learn from Gravitational Magnification with BigBOSS? Alexie Leauthaud LBNL & BCCP

  2. Kung Fu?

  3. Cross-correlation between Background Population & Foreground Population Gravitational Magnification Image credit: Joerg Colberg, Ryan Scranton, Robert Lupton, SDSS

  4. Science with magnification? • David Schlegel this morning: multiple tracers of the mass distribution. Lensing tells us about the expansion history and the growth. • Measure the galaxy-mass cross-correlation function (halo properties, mass & concentration, bias). Sensitive to  instead of . • Combine magnification & clustering to constrain m and 8 (Seljak et al. 2005, Yoo et al. 2006, Cacciato et al. 2009). • Constrain dust properties via wavelength dependant extinction (Menard et al. 2009). • Cosmic magnification? In the literature, this actually refers to the measurement of the galaxy-mass cross-correlation function (van Waerbeke 2009), so this is the equivalent of ‘galaxy-galaxy lensing’ • Cosmic magnification tomography? • Magnification compared to shear: different systematics.

  5. Gravitational Magnification • (incomplete list)Seldner & Peebles 1979, Fugmann 1990, Bartelmann & Schneider 1993, Bartsch et al. 1997, Cooray 1999, Rodrigues-Williams & Hogan 1994, Seitz 7 Schneider 1995, Wu & Han 1995, Norman & Impey 1999, Croom & Shanks 1999, Myers et al. 2003, Gaztanga 2003, Scranton et al. 2005, Menard et al. 2009, Hildebrant et al. 2009. • Historically controversial subject: results range from significant positive correlations to null and negative correlations and have disagreed with theoretical predictions. • Many early results were probably contaminated by systematic errors. Cosmological magnification has been robustly detection since 2005 in a few studies only.

  6. Systematics effects • Accuracy of the photometry • Redshift accuracy of the background sources(physical cross-correlations between close pairs will swamp the signal if the sources are not cleanly separated from the lenses) • Redshift accuracy of foreground sources (study signal as a function of physical transverse distance, r, rather than an angular separation, ) • QSO/star separation (stars will lead to a dilation of the signal)

  7. Magnification in SDSS Scranton et al. 2005

  8. <1 =1 >1 Dependence on the slope of the number counts Scranton et al. 2005

  9. Dilation of sky solid angle Magnification Dependence on the slope of the number counts >1 =1 log( number_density(mag) ) mag limit  Positive galaxy-QSO cross-correlation magnitude

  10. Dependence on the slope of the number counts =1 Dilation of sky solid angle <1 log( number_density(mag) ) Magnification mag limit  Negative galaxy-QSO cross-correlation magnitude

  11. Magnification in CFHTLS Deep Hildebrant et al. 2005

  12. The numbers • Scranton et al. 20051.3x107 galaxies, 200,000 QSOs • Menard et al. 20092.107 galaxies at <z>=0.36, 17<i<2, 85,000 QSOs, Photometry in 5 different bands to measure dust extinction • Hildebrandt et al. 2009foreground? , 80,000 LBGs at 2.5<z<5 from CFHTLS Deep • BOSS 1.5x106 LRGs at z<0.7, 160,000 QSOs at 2.2<z<3 • BigBOSSEmission Line Galaxies, 0.7<z<1.5, 2.8x107Emission Line Galaxies, 1.5<z<2.0, 1.3x107LRGs, z<0.7, 7x106QSO, 1<z<2,1.5x106 ~ 5x107 background objects

  13. ?  8 4-8

  14. From SDSS to BOSS ≈ • Accuracy of the photometry • Redshift accuracy of the background sources(physical cross-correlations will swamp the signal if the sources are not cleanly separated from the lenses) • Redshift accuracy of foreground sources • QSO/star separation (stars will lead to a dilation of the signal) • Statistics    ≈

  15. From BOSS to BigBOSS ≈  • Accuracy of the photometry • Redshift accuracy of the background sources(physical cross-correlations will swamp the signal if the sources are not cleanly separated from the lenses) • Redshift accuracy of foreground sources • QSO/star separation (stars will lead to a dilation of the signal) • Statistics     

  16. Shear versus magnification • MAGNIFICATION • Can be used for small galaxies • Magnitudes are not difficult to measure • Precise calibration of the number counts is required • Dust extinction • Scales with m • SHEAR • Shear calibration • PSF correction • Intrinsic alignment • Statistics (see van Waerbeke 2009) • Scales with m2

  17. Magnification is like galaxy-galaxy lensing about 5 years ago …. Yet to be investigated …. • Use sophisticated HOD analysis to model the magnification signal. • Optimal weighting of the signal (for example, incorporate a weighting with ∑crit). • Calculate the signal as a function of physical transverse distance as opposed to an angular scales. • Calculate the signal around various galaxy types.

  18. Thank you If you are interested in thinking about magnification with BigBoss, please let me know! BigBOSS

More Related