1 / 13

XXIII Colloquium IAP July 2007

Extended quintessence by cosmic shear. Carlo Schimd DAPNIA/SPP, CEA Saclay  LAM Marseille. XXIII Colloquium IAP July 2007. . in any case: L has to be replaced by an additional degree of freedom. Beyond L CDM: do we need it?.  JP Uzan’s talk. .

silver
Télécharger la présentation

XXIII Colloquium IAP July 2007

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. Extended quintessence by cosmic shear Carlo Schimd DAPNIA/SPP, CEA Saclay  LAM Marseille XXIII Colloquium IAP July 2007

  2. in any case: L has to be replaced by an additional degree of freedom Beyond LCDM: do we need it?  JP Uzan’s talk  Dark energy  H(z) - Hr+m+GR(z) Cosmological constant  Copernican principle + GR/Friedmann eqs + {baryons, g, n} + DM ok w.r.t. CMB + SnIa + LSS + gravitational clustering + Ly-alpha ... ( 106 GeV4 )EWor ( 10-3 GeV4 )QCDor ( 1076 GeV4 )Planck ...but dufficult to explain on these basis 1. naturalness pb: rL = WL rcr,0  10-47 GeV4  rvac @ EW – QCD - Planck 2. coincidence pb: WL  Wm,0  Alternative : Other (effective) “matter” fields violating SEC? quintessence, K-essence, Chaplygin gas / Dirac-Born-Infeld action, ...  GR : not valid anymore? f(R) /scalar-tensor theories, higher dimensions (DGP-like,...), TeVeS, ...  ? backreaction of inhomogeneities, local Hubble bubble, LTB, ...  Beyond LCDM 1

  3. Scalar-tensor theories – Extended Quintessence ~ quintessence Standard Model F(j) = const: GR F(j)  const: scalar-tensor hyp:   dynamically equivalent to f(R) theories, provided f’’(j)  0 e.g. Wands 1994  space-time variation of G and post-Newtonian parameters gPPN and bPPN : Gcav  const  modified background evolution:F(j) const distances, linear growth factor: anisotropy stress-energy tensor:  2

  4. Aim  Sanders’s & Jain’s talks deviations from LCDM by Local (= Solar-System + Galactic) – cosmic-shear joint analysis Outline: • Three runaway models: Gcav, g_PPN, cosmology • Weak-lensing/cosmic-shear: geometric approach, non-linear regime • 2pt statistics: which survey ? very prelilminary results • Concluding remarks 3

  5. Three EQ benchmark models idea: models assuring the attraction mechanism toward GR (Damour & Nordvedt 1993) and stronger deviation from GR in the past Non-minimal couplings: • exp coupling in Jordan/string frame : • generalization of quadratic coupling in JF : • exp coupling in Einstein frame: (...dilaton) (runaway dilaton) Gasperini, Piazza & Veneziano 2001 Bartolo & Pietroni 2001 + inverse power-law potential: WL + 2 parameters well-defined theory 4

  6. Local constraints: Gcav and gPPN Cassini : gPPN-1=(2.12.3)10-4 Gcav gPPN ok • = 10, a = 1 B=0.008 ok x = 10-4,a = 0.1 Range of structure formation cosmic-shear x = 10-4,a = 0.1

  7. Cosmology: DA & D+ deviation w.r.t. concordance LCDM DDA/DA DD+/D+ b = 10 • = 10-3 b = 510-4 • = 0.1 b = 510-4 • = 0.1 b = 10-3 • = 0.5 B = 510-3 • = 1.0 B = 510-3 • = 1.0 B = 10-2 • = 10-3 b = 0.1 • = 0.1 b = 0.1 • = 0.1 b = 0.2 Remarks:  The interesting redshift range is around 0.1-10, where structure formation occurs and cosmic shear is mostly sensitive  For the linear growth factor, only the differential variation matters, because of normalization  Pick and for tomography-like exploitation? 6

  8. 0th 1st C.S. & Tereno, 2006 Weak lensing: geometrical approach k(l), g1(l), g2(l): geodesic deviation equation Sachs, 1962 Solution: gmn= gmn+ hmn order-by-order Hyp: K = 0 7

  9. hor hor ...gauge pb Non-linear regime no vector & tensor ptbs • modified Poisson eq. allowing for j fluctuations EQ  GR extended Newtonian limit (N-body): x: F x Perrotta, Matarrese, Pietroni, C.S. 2004 matter fluctuations grow non-linearly, while EQ fluctuations grow linearly (Klein-Gordon equation)   C.S., Uzan & Riazuelo 2004 matter perturbations: ... 8

  10. ...normalized to high-z (CMB): late growth a  LCDM ...and using the correct linear growth factor : the modes k enter in non-linear regime ( s(k)1 ) at different time   different effective spectral index 3 + n_eff = - d ln s2(R) / d ln R WQ = Wm -1 different effective curvature C_eff = - d2 ln s2(R) / d ln R2  Onset of the non-linear regime Let use a Linear-NonLinear mapping... e.g. Peacock & Dodds 1996 Smith et al. 2003 NLPm(k,z) = f[LPm(k,z)] • Ansatz:dc, bias, c, etc. not so much dependent on cosmology  at every z we can use it, but... 9

  11. Map2 : which survey? deviation from LCDM work in progress JF EF z_mean = 0.8, z_max = 0.6 z_mean = 1.0, z_max = 0.6 z_mean = 1.2, z_max = 1.1 • = 10-3x = 510-4 • = 0.1 x = 510-4 • = 0.1 x = 10-3 • = 0.5 B = 510-3 • = 1.0 B = 510-3 • = 1.0 B = 10-2  To exploit the differential deviation, a wide range of scales should be covered For a given model, a deep survey globally enhances the relative deviation  Remark: exp(x j2)  exp(x j) 10

  12. b = 10 DDA/DA DD+/D+ “Focused” tomography: deviation from LCDM work in progress top-hat var. @ n>(z): z_mean = 1.2, z_max = 1.1 top-hat var. @ n<(z): z_mean = 0.8, z_max = 0.6 R = R / R_LCDM >20% 2%

  13. Concluding remarks geometric approach to weak-lensing / cosmic shear allows to deal with generic metric theories of gravity (e.g. GR, scalar-tensor)  three classes of Extended Quintessence theories showing attraction toward GR  no parameterization, but well-defined theories  astro-ph/0611xxx including vector and tensor perturbations (GWs) in non-flat RW spacetime  consistent pipeline allowing for joint analysis of high-z (CMB) and low-z (cosmic shear, Sne, PPN, ...) observables  no stress between datasets  NL regime: adapted L-NL mapping (caveat), but N-body / some perturbation theory / analytic model (e.g. Halo model) are required  Measuring deviation from LCDM: it seems to be viable if looking over a wide range of scales, from arcmin to > 2deg ( + mildly non-linear / linear regime)  “Focused” tomography: it seems (too?!) promising  To e done: Fisher matrix analysis (parameters)  Bayes factor analysis @ Heavens, Kitching & Verde (2007) (models) “Focused” tomography: error estimation Look at CMB, ...  Thank you

More Related