Tracking quintessence by cosmic shear constraints from VIRMOS-Descart and CFHTLS and future prospects May 2006 workshop PNC – IPNL Lyon In collaboration.

Tracking quintessence by cosmic shearTracking quintessence by cosmic shear

constraints from VIRMOS-Descart and constraints from VIRMOS-Descart and CFHTLS and future prospectsCFHTLS and future prospects

May 2006 workshop PNC – IPNL Lyon

In collaboration with: I.Tereno, J.-P.Uzan, Y.Mellier, (IAP), L.vanWaerbeke (British Columbia U.), ...

Carlo SchimdCarlo Schimd

DAPNIA / CEA Saclay & IAPDAPNIA / CEA Saclay & IAP

Based on: astro-ph/0603158astro-ph/0603158

Dark energy:Dark energy: parametrization .vs. field theory inspired parametrization .vs. field theory inspired

{baryons,{baryons,,,}} + DM + GR + DM + GR alone cannot account for the cosmological dynamics seen by CMB + LSS + SNe + ...

GR : not valid anymore?

Other “matter” fields? Cosmological constant?

Dark energyDark energy H(z)-Hr+m+GR(z)

1/0 approach:1/0 approach: parameterization of w(z) departures from CDM

limitation in redshift ?pivot redshift zp : observable/dataset dependent

Not adapted for combining low-z and high-z observables and/or several datasets

parameters physics# p.: limitation to likelihood computation

perturbations: how ? Fitted T(k)

Which class ?Which class ?

Physics-inspired approach:Physics-inspired approach:

high-energy physics ?!

w : full redshift range

small # p.

perturbations: consistently accounted for

Uzan, Aghanim, Mellier (2004); Uzan, astro-ph/0605313

scalar field quintessence:scalar field quintessence: models models

CMB

SNe, WL, n(z)

4( ) /V M 4 21

2( ) / exp( )V M

Inverse power law (Ratra-Peebles):

» + SUGRA corr. :

1 p. 1 p.

SU

GR

A

by-product: w(z) and w’(z) at whatever pivot redshift (zp)

zp = 0 zp = 0.5

w

w’

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

= 6

= 11

= 6

= 11

z = 3.43

z = 4.75

QC

DM

/ C

DM

redshift

RP SUGRA

quintessence by cosmic shearquintessence by cosmic shear

angular distanceangular distance q(z); 3D2D projection growth factor growth factor amplitude of 3D L/NL power spectrum

amplitude + shape of 2D spectra

with respect to , quintessence modifies

2pts statistics 2( ) ( ) ,( )

m

K

P dz q z P k zS z

z=1

10%

20%

K = 0

cosmic shear = cosmic shear =

weak lensing by LSSweak lensing by LSS

obs

gal

statistics, e.g.

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 10000.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

= 6 = 11

d ln

D+

/ d ln

a

redshift

CDM SUGRA RP

non-linear regime non-linear regime

N-body:N-body: ... mappings:mappings: stable clustering, halo model, etc.:

NLPm(k,z) = f[LPm(k,z)]

2

2

( )( , ) ( , )

( )

LIN LINm m lss

lss

D zP k z P k z

D z

...normalization to high-z (CMB):normalization to high-z (CMB):

the modes k enter in non-linear regime ( (k)1 ) at different time 3D non-linear power spectrum is modified 2D shear power spectrum is modified by k = / SK (z)

no more ,but incertitude on TT-CMB Cl’s

e.g. Peacock & Dodds (1996) Smith et al. (2003)

Ansatz:Ansatz: c, bias, c, etc. not so much dependent on cosmology at every z we can use them, provided we use the correct linear growth factor (defining the onset of the NL regime)...

calibrated with CDM N-body sim, 5-10% agreementHuterer & Takada (2005)

Q:Q: dependence of 3D NL power spectrum on wQ ? McDonald, Trac, Contaldi (2005)

pipelinepipeline

**

Ria

zuelo

& U

zan (

2002

)C

.S., U

z an &

Ria

zuelo

(2

004)

* They include larger framework: scalar-tensor theories of gravitation / extended Q models

* CMB can be taken into account at no cost

Q models:Q models: inverse power law with/without SUGRA corrections

(restricted) parameter space:(restricted) parameter space:Q, , ns, zsource; marginalization over zsource

* *

*

*

*

datasetdataset

CMB:CMB: TT anisotropy spectrum @ WMAP-1yr initial conditions/

SNe:SNe: “goldset”

cosmic shear:cosmic shear: VIRMOS-Descart +

CFHTLS deep

VanWaerbeke, Mellier, Hoekstra (2004)

Semboloni et al. (2005)

+ CFHTLS wide/22deg2 & 170deg2 (synth)

<z> 0.92, 1.0, 0.76 ngal 15, 22, 20 /arcmin2

area 8.5, 2.2, 22(170) deg2

IAB 24.5, 26, 26

0 1 2 3 4 50.0

0.5

1.0

z

p(z)

VIRMOS deep wide

wl observables:wl observables: top-hat variance; aperture mass variance

Riess et al. (2004)

cosmic shear:cosmic shear: by wide-field imager/DUNE-like satellite mission

Hoekstra et al. (2005)

normalization

cosmic shear data*:cosmic shear data*: effects of effects of L-NLL-NL mapping mappingR

atr

a-P

eeble

sSU

GR

A

** Joint VIRMOS-Descart + CFHTLS deep + CFHTLS wide/22deg2 analysis

Peacock & Dodds (1996)

Smith et al. (2003)

Top-hat shear variance

Peacock & Dodds

Smith et al.

wide survey :wide survey : Q - geometrical effects (RP) Q - geometrical effects (RP)R

atr

a-P

eeble

s


CFHTLS wide/22deg2 (real datareal data)

CFHTLS wide/170deg2 (synthsynth)


top-hattop-hat variance


aperture mass aperture mass variancevariance

only scales > 20 arcmin> 20 arcmin



wide survey :wide survey : Q - geometrical effects (SUGRA) Q - geometrical effects (SUGRA)SU

GR

A


CFHTLS wide/22deg2 (real datareal data)





aperture mass aperture mass variancevariance

only scales > 20 arcmin> 20 arcmin



cosmic shear alone :cosmic shear alone : summary summary

Two classes of cosmological parameters:Two classes of cosmological parameters:

other parameters:other parameters: sensible to L-NL mapping

Q parameters:Q parameters: not sensible to linear-to-nonlinear mapping

This conclusions holds for both Ratra-Peebles and SUGRA modelsThis conclusions holds for both Ratra-Peebles and SUGRA models

real data (VIRMOS-Descart + CFHTLS deep + CFHTLS wide/22deg2)

synthetic data (CFHTLS wide/170deg2)

Confirmation of results based on real data joint Confirmation of results based on real data joint analysisanalysis

Based on top-hat shear variance measurementsBased on top-hat shear variance measurements

Agreement top-hat shear variance – aperture mass varianceAgreement top-hat shear variance – aperture mass variance

Compatible with CDM (=0), towards ns=0.95 (like WMAP3!)

Analysis of wide scale Analysis of wide scale reducing the non-linear contamination reducing the non-linear contamination

confirming Simpson & Bridle (2005)

cosmic shear + SNe cosmic shear + SNe + CMB+ CMB:: Q equation of state Q equation of state

Ratra-Peebles SUGRA

(ns,zs): marginalized ; all other parameters: fixed

SNe: confirmed literature

TT-CMB: rejection from first peak (analytical (Doran et al. 2000) & numerical)

Mass scale M: indicative

Cosmic shearCosmic shear (real data only):

• RP: RP: strong degeneracy with SNe

• SUGRA:SUGRA:

1) beware of systematics! (wl: calibration when combining datasets)

2) limit case: prefectly known/excluded Q model (weakly -dependece)

Van Waerbeke et al. (2006)

cosmic shear & CMB:cosmic shear & CMB: variance on 8 variance on 8hh-1-1 Mpc ( Mpc (88) )

contours follow 8 degeneracy

WMAP3 – weak lensing:WMAP3 – weak lensing: stress{h,reion,normalization,q}

Ratr

a-P

eeble

sSU

GR

A

Spergel et al. 2006

Check normalization procedure

Check calibration of datasets

Deviations from CDM ?

-1.75 -1.5 -1.25 -1 -0.75 -0.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

a remark on constant a remark on constant ww

zde

zacc

de/m = 0.6/0.4

Spergel et al. 2006Hoekstra et al. 2006 Astier et al. 2005

( ) ( )de demde z z

( ) 0accza

,03

,0

,03

,0

(1 )

1(1 )

1 3

dew

m

dew

macc

de

zw

z

w = const

Q by cosmic shear:Q by cosmic shear: Fisher matrix analysis Fisher matrix analysis

CFHTLSCFHTLSwide/170wide/170

SNAPSNAP

Like previous data analysis:Like previous data analysis: all but (,q,ns) fixed, zs marginalized

SNAPSNAP

DUNEDUNE

CFHTLSCFHTLSwide/170wide/170

DUNEDUNE

Adding a parameter:Adding a parameter: Like upper plots but reion marginalized size, orientation

conclusions & prospects conclusions & prospects

quintessence at low-z quintessence at low-z by SNe + cosmic shear, using high-z informations (TT-CMB/Cl normalization)

dynamical models of DE (not parameterization): CDMCDM

wide field surveyswide field surveys are needed DUNE, LSST

for the first time cosmic shear datadata to this task improvement:improvement: bigger parameter space 1.1. combining also CMB data (high-z effects of DE) + ... ;

2.2. MCMC analysis;

3.3. deviation from GR, e.g. EQ wQ < -1

NL regime:NL regime: L-NL mappings (caveatcaveat)

Martin, C.S., Uzan (2005)

some parameters (nS) are sensible to L-NL mappings ( integrated effect ?), Q parameters feel only geometry

Tereno et al. (2005)

deep surveysdeep surveys help to exploit the linear regime SKASchneider (1999);Chang, Réfrégier, Helfand

(2004)

consistent joint analysis of high-z (CMB) and low-z (cosmic shear, Sne,...) observables no stress between datasets; no pivot redshift

analysisanalysis of realistic (=dynamical) models of DE using severalseveral parametersparameters

other techniquesother techniques: cross-correlations (ISW), 3pts functions, tomography

Work in progress:Work in progress:

pipeline: pipeline: Boltzmann code + lensing code + data analysis by grid method:

in collaboration with: I.Tereno, Y.Mellier , J.-P. Uzan, R. Lehoucq, A. Réfrégier & DUNE team

Thank youThank you

Q by cosmic shear:Q by cosmic shear: Fisher matrix analysis Fisher matrix analysis

All but (,q) parameters: fixed

SNeSNe“goldset”

CFHTLS wide:CFHTLS wide:

TT @ CMBTT @ CMBWMAP 1yr

•A = 170 deg2

Ratra-Peebles SUGRA

•ngal = 20/arcmin2

DUNE-like:DUNE-like:

• A= 20000 deg2

• ngal = 35/arcmin2

Tracking quintessence by cosmic shear constraints from VIRMOS-Descart and CFHTLS and future prospects May 2006 workshop PNC – IPNL Lyon In collaboration.

Documents