DOCSLIB.ORG

Cosmological Structure Formation I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cosmological Structure Formation I Cosmological Structure Formation I Michael L. Norman Laboratory for Computational Astrophysics [email protected] References • T. Padmanabhan, “Structure Formation in the Universe”, Cambridge (1994) • S. D. M. White, “The Formation and Evolution of Galaxies”, Les Houches Lectures, August 1993, astro-ph/9410043 Outline • Examples of cosmic structure • Gravity: origin of cosmic structure • Linear theory of perturbation growth • Nonlinear simulations I. dark matter – hierarchical clustering • Nonlinear theory of hierarchical clustering • Nonlinear simulations II. baryons – hydrodynamic cosmology – the Enzo code What is cosmic structure? • Inhomogeneities in the distribution of matter in the universe at any epoch δ=(ρ/<ρ>)−1 Regime Example 0 homogeneous CMB O(ε) linear CMB anisotropies O(0.1) quasi-linear galaxy LSS O(1-10) nonlinear Lyman alpha forest O(>100) virialized galaxies, groups, clusters Cosmic Microwave Background Penzias & Wilson (1965) back Τ=2.73 Κ Cosmic Microwave Background WMAP Year 1 -4 back ∆T/T ~ δ ~ 10 Galaxy Large Scale Structure: 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey back <∆ng/ng> =b<∆ρ/ρ>~0.1 Lyman Alpha Forest: HI absorption lines in quasar spectra Physical Origin of the Lyman Alpha Forest Zhang, Anninos, Norman (1995) • intergalactic medium exhibits cosmic web structure at high z • models explain observed hydrogen absorption spectra N=1283 δ=10 5 Mpc/h back Galaxies, Groups & δ(dynamical) ~ 103 Clusters δ(disk) ~ 106 The Universe Exhibits a Hierarchy of Structures galaxy dwarf galaxies galaxy groups superclusters star clusters galaxies galaxy clusters 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 Light years Structure Formation: Goals • Understand – origin and evolution of cosmic structure from the Big Bang onward across all physical length, mass & time scales – Interplay between different mass constituents (dark matter, baryons, radiation), self-gravity, and cosmic expansion – Dependence on cosmological parameters • Predict – Earliest generation of cosmic structures which have not yet been observed History of the Universe phase transitions gravitational instability Recombination Nucleosynthesis linear perturbation theory nonlinear simulations Our universe then and now Recombination (~380,000 yr) δρ/<ρ> ~ 10-4 Wilkinson MAP (NASA) Present (~14x109 yr) δρ/<ρ> ~ 106 Gravitational Instability: Origin of Cosmic Structure very small fluctuations ρ A C <ρ> x B gravity amplifies fluctuations ρ A C <ρ> x B Gravitational Instability in 3-D: Origin of the “Cosmic Web” 1 billion light years Bryan & Norman (1998) N=5123 Evolution of Cosmic Structure: Key Issues • origin and character of primordial density fluctuations – Inflation: scale-free, gaussian random field • linear evolution of the power spectrum P(k) α |δ∗(k)|2 with time (redshift) for each mass component before recombination • nonlinear evolution of density fluctuations due to gravitational and internal forces after recombination • above in an expanding universe with known cosmological parameters (ΛCDM) Matter Power Spectrum • Fourier transform of linear density field (ρ(x) − ρ ) δ (x) = ρ 1 δ = d 3 xδ (x)eik⋅x k V ∫ • Power spectrum is defined as: 2 P(k) = δk for all k between k and k + dk ΛCDM Matter Power Spectrum http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max Mass-Energy Budget of the Universe (WMAP) ΩΛ Ωb Ωcdm Ωcdm+ Ωb+ ΩΛ=1 Linear Theory Linear Perturbations 2 define H (τ ) ≡ a& / a, Ω ≡ 3H /8πGρ then, pressure - free perturbation obeys 2 a 3 a δ&&+ & δ& − Ω & δ = 0 a 2 a for EdS universe (Ω =1), above becomes δ&&+ 2δ& /τ − 62δ /τ 2 = 0 2 2/3 growing mode : δ = D(τ )δ0 ∝τ ∝ t ∝ a decaying mode :δ ∝τ −3 ∝1/ t ∝ a−3/ 2 Saturated Growth in Low Ωm Universe −Ωis the driving term in growth of δ - Makes a sudden transition in Λ model - Growth like EdS for a<ac, saturates thereafter 8πGρ κ Λ H 2 = − + . κ = 0,±1; Λ cosmological constant 3 a2 3 2 −1 3 3 2 → H 0 Ω0 (Ω −1)a0 / a = −κ / a + Λ / 3 open universe: (κ < 0, Λ = 0) −1 Ω −1∝ a → Ω =1/(1+ a / ac ) flat universe : (κ = 0, Λ > 0) −1 3 3 3 Ω −1∝ a → Ω =1/(1+ a / ac ) ac = value of expansion factor when Ω = 0.5 Mass Fluctuations in Spheres • Approximate P(k) locally with power-law 2 2 n δ k ∝ D (τ )k • Mean square mass fluctuation (variance) (δM / M )2 = d 3k W 2 (kR)δ 2 ∝ D2 R−(3+n) ∝ D2M −(3+n)/3 ∫ T k WT (kR) is Fourier transform of top - hat window function 3/ 4πR3 , x < R W(x) = 0, x ≥ R 2 →WT (kR) = 3[]sin(kR) / kR − cos(kR) /(kR) CDM Power Spectrum LSS n=0 super horizon n=-1 galaxy clusters n=1 P(k) n=-2 galaxies n=-3 first objects k Mass Fluctuations, cont’d • RMS mass fluctuations 1/ 2 σ (M ) ≡ (δM / M )2 ∝ DM −(3+n)/ 6 For n>-3, RMS fluctuations a decreasing function of M • Nonlinear mass scale setting σ (Mnl ) =1 6/(3+n) −6/(3+n) get M nl (τ ) ∝ D(τ ) (∝ (1+ z) for EdS) For n>-3, smallest mass scales become nonlinear first Evolution of nonlinear mass scale with redshift in ΛCDM Log(1+znl) Structure formation is a multiscale problem 100 0.01 Gyr first structures Rare fluctuations 10 galaxies Ly α forest 1 Gyr Typical fluctuations 1 galaxy clusters 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Log(Mnl) Numerical Cosmology Goals • Simulate the processes governing the formation and evolution of the observable structures in the universe – galaxies, quasars, clusters, superclusters • Find the “best fit” cosmological model through detailed observational comparison • Make quantitative predictions for new era of high redshift observations Nonlinear Simulations I: Cold Dark Matter Cold Dark Matter • Dominant mass constituent: Ωcdm~0.23 •Only interacts gravitationally with ordinary matter (baryons) • Collisionless dynamics governed by Vlasov- Poisson equation r r r ∂t f (x,υ,t) +υ ⋅∇ x f − ∇φ ⋅∇υ f = 0 ∇2φ = 4πG∫ d 3υr f (xr,υr,t) • Solved numerically using N-body methods The Universe is an IVP suitable for computation • Globally, the universe evolves according to the Friedmann equation 2 a 8πG k Λ H (t)2 ≡ & = ρ − + a 3 a2 3 cosmological constant Hubble parameter mass-energy spacetime scale factor a(t) density curvature Friedmann Models: The Omega Factor Ω=<ρ>/ρcrit Ω+Λ=1 Ω<1 “Flat” universe “Open” universe Ω=1 which accelerates expands forever a(t) “Flat” universe expands forever Ω>1 The Universe is an IVP... • Locally, its contents obey: – Newton’s laws of gravitational N-body dynamics for stars and collisionless dark matter (CDM) – Euler or MHD equations for baryonic gas/plasma – Atomic, molecular, and radiative processes important for the condensation of stars and galaxies from diffuse gas Gridding the Universe • Transformation to • Triply-periodic comoving boundary conditions coordinates x=r/a(t) a(t1) a(t2) a(t3) Dark Matter Dynamics in an Expanding Universe dx dm = v dt dm Newton’s laws dv a 1 dm = −2 & v − ∇φ dt a dm a 2 2 2 ∇ φ = 4πGa ( ρ − ρ ) Poisson equation 1/ 2 da 1 2 = H 0 Ω m − 1 + Ω Λ (a − 1) + 1 dt a Friedmann equation Hierarchical Clustering of Cold Dark Matter Hierarchical Structure Formation: Like a River • large galaxies form from mergers of sub-galactic units • Galaxy groups form from merger of galaxies • Galaxy clusters form from merger of groups • Where did it begin, and where will it end? Lacey & Cole (1993) Billion Particle Simulation of Large Scale Structure P. Bode & J. Ostriker Nonlinear Theory Dark Matter Halo Mass Function • Principal quantity of interest is the globally averaged number density of collapsed objects of mass M as a function of redshift=z < n(M , z) > • Dark matter halos define the gravitational potential wells galaxies, galaxy groups, and clusters of galaxies form in • Sensitive function of cosmological parameters Spherical Top-Hat Model • Simplest analytic model of nonlinear evolution of a discrete perturbation consider spherical region with uniform overdensity δ and radius R by Birkhoff's theorem (GR), EOM is : d 2 R GM 4πG = − = − ρ (1+δ )R R dt 2 R2 3 whereas the Friedmann equation is : δ d 2a 4πG = − ρa dt 2 3 ∴ perturbation evolves like a universe of different density, but the same initial time and expansion rate Spherical Top-Hat, cont’d E>0 E=0 R Rm first integral of motion : t + m 2 1 dR GM (Ri, ti) E<0 − = E 2 dt R t if E < 0, perturbation is bound, and obeys 1 R = (1− cosΘ), t = (Θ − sin Θ) /π R m 2 t m where Rm and tm are radius and time at "turnaround" Turnaround and Collapse mean linear overdensity with respect to EdS universe: 3 δ = (6πt / t )2/3 ∝ a (δ <<1) lin 20 m EdS δlin (tm ) =1.063 nonlinear overdensity at turnaround : δ nl (tm ) = 4.6 Collapse: R → 0 as t → 2t m 3 ∴δ = δ (2t ) = (12π )2/3 =1.686 collapse lin m 20 Virialization collapse halted when virial equilibrium established : U = 2K assume total energy E = K-U is conserved 3 GM 2 at turnaround : K = 0, E = -U = − (homogeneous sphere) 5 Rm at virialization : E = K-2K = -K 1 1 3 GM 2 ∴K = −E = U = ⋅ 2 2 5 Rvir equating 1 3 GM 2 3 GM 2 1 ⋅ = → Rvir = Rm 2 5 Rvir 5 Rm 2 Evolution of Top-hat Perturbation Padmanabhan (1994) Statistics of Hierarchical Clustering • Press & Schechter (1974) derived a simple, yet accurate formula for estimating the number of virialized objects of mass M as a function of τ (or equivalently, z) • Basic idea is to smooth density field on a scale R at such that mass scale of interest satisfies 4π M = ρ (τ )R3 3 Press-Schechter Theory • Because the density field (both smoothed and unsmoothed) is a Gaussian random field, probability that mean overdensity in spheres of radius R exceeds a critical value δc is ∞ 1 δ 2 p(R,τ ) = dδ exp− c ∫ 2πσ (R,τ ) 2σ 2 (R,τ ) δc where σ 2(R,τ) = d 3k W 2(kR)P(k,τ) ∫ T P-S Theory, cont’d • P-S suggested this fraction be identified with the fraction of particles which are part of a nonlinear lump with mass exceeding M if we take δc=1.686 ρ ∞ dn i.e.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fine-Tuning, Complexity, and Life in the Multiverse*
    Fine-Tuning, Complexity, and Life in the Multiverse* Mario Livio Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA E-mail: [email protected] and Martin J. Rees Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The physical processes that determine the properties of our everyday world, and of the wider cosmos, are determined by some key numbers: the ‘constants’ of micro-physics and the parameters that describe the expanding universe in which we have emerged. We identify various steps in the emergence of stars, planets and life that are dependent on these fundamental numbers, and explore how these steps might have been changed — or completely prevented — if the numbers were different. We then outline some cosmological models where physical reality is vastly more extensive than the ‘universe’ that astronomers observe (perhaps even involving many ‘big bangs’) — which could perhaps encompass domains governed by different physics. Although the concept of a multiverse is still speculative, we argue that attempts to determine whether it exists constitute a genuinely scientific endeavor. If we indeed inhabit a multiverse, then we may have to accept that there can be no explanation other than anthropic reasoning for some features our world. _______________________ *Chapter for the book Consolidation of Fine Tuning 1 Introduction At their fundamental level, phenomena in our universe can be described by certain laws—the so-called “laws of nature” — and by the values of some three dozen parameters (e.g., [1]). Those parameters specify such physical quantities as the coupling constants of the weak and strong interactions in the Standard Model of particle physics, and the dark energy density, the baryon mass per photon, and the spatial curvature in cosmology.
    [Show full text]
  • Cosmology Slides
    Inhomogeneous cosmologies George Ellis, University of Cape Town 27th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophyiscs Dallas, Texas Thursday 12th December 9h00-9h45 • The universe is inhomogeneous on all scales except the largest • This conclusion has often been resisted by theorists who have said it could not be so (e.g. walls and large scale motions) • Most of the universe is almost empty space, punctuated by very small very high density objects (e.g. solar system) • Very non-linear: / = 1030 in this room. Models in cosmology • Static: Einstein (1917), de Sitter (1917) • Spatially homogeneous and isotropic, evolving: - Friedmann (1922), Lemaitre (1927), Robertson-Walker, Tolman, Guth • Spatially homogeneous anisotropic (Bianchi/ Kantowski-Sachs) models: - Gödel, Schücking, Thorne, Misner, Collins and Hawking,Wainwright, … • Perturbed FLRW: Lifschitz, Hawking, Sachs and Wolfe, Peebles, Bardeen, Ellis and Bruni: structure formation (linear), CMB anisotropies, lensing Spherically symmetric inhomogeneous: • LTB: Lemaître, Tolman, Bondi, Silk, Krasinski, Celerier , Bolejko,…, • Szekeres (no symmetries): Sussman, Hellaby, Ishak, … • Swiss cheese: Einstein and Strauss, Schücking, Kantowski, Dyer,… • Lindquist and Wheeler: Perreira, Clifton, … • Black holes: Schwarzschild, Kerr The key observational point is that we can only observe on the past light cone (Hoyle, Schücking, Sachs) See the diagrams of our past light cone by Mark Whittle (Virginia) 5 Expand the spatial distances to see the causal structure: light cones at ±45o. Observable Geo Data Start of universe Particle Horizon (Rindler) Spacelike singularity (Penrose). 6 The cosmological principle The CP is the foundational assumption that the Universe obeys a cosmological law: It is necessarily spatially homogeneous and isotropic (Milne 1935, Bondi 1960) Thus a priori: geometry is Robertson-Walker Weaker form: the Copernican Principle: We do not live in a special place (Weinberg 1973).
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1707.01004V1 [Astro-Ph.CO] 4 Jul 2017
    July 5, 2017 0:15 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE coc2ijmpe International Journal of Modern Physics E c World Scientific Publishing Company Primordial Nucleosynthesis Alain Coc Centre de Sciences Nucl´eaires et de Sciences de la Mati`ere (CSNSM), CNRS/IN2P3, Univ. Paris-Sud, Universit´eParis–Saclay, Bˆatiment 104, F–91405 Orsay Campus, France [email protected] Elisabeth Vangioni Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, UMR-7095 du CNRS, Universit´ePierre et Marie Curie, 98 bis bd Arago, 75014 Paris (France), Sorbonne Universit´es, Institut Lagrange de Paris, 98 bis bd Arago, 75014 Paris (France) [email protected] Received July 5, 2017 Revised Day Month Year Primordial nucleosynthesis, or big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), is one of the three evi- dences for the big bang model, together with the expansion of the universe and the Cos- mic Microwave Background. There is a good global agreement over a range of nine orders of magnitude between abundances of 4He, D, 3He and 7Li deduced from observations, and calculated in primordial nucleosynthesis. However, there remains a yet–unexplained discrepancy of a factor ≈3, between the calculated and observed lithium primordial abundances, that has not been reduced, neither by recent nuclear physics experiments, nor by new observations. The precision in deuterium observations in cosmological clouds has recently improved dramatically, so that nuclear cross sections involved in deuterium BBN need to be known with similar precision. We will shortly discuss nuclear aspects re- lated to BBN of Li and D, BBN with non-standard neutron sources, and finally, improved sensitivity studies using Monte Carlo that can be used in other sites of nucleosynthesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure Formation in a CDM Universe
    Structure formation in a CDM Universe Thomas Quinn, University of Washington Greg Stinson, Charlotte Christensen, Alyson Brooks Ferah Munshi Fabio Governato, Andrew Pontzen, Chris Brook, James Wadsley Microwave Background Fluctuations Image courtesy NASA/WMAP Large Scale Clustering A well constrained cosmology ` Contents of the Universe Can it make one of these? Structure formation issues ● The substructure problem ● The angular momentum problem ● The cusp problem Light vs CDM structure Stars Gas Dark Matter The CDM Substructure Problem Moore et al 1998 Substructure down to 100 pc Stadel et al, 2009 Consequences for direct detection Afshordi etal 2010 Warm Dark Matter cold warm hot Constant Core Mass Strigari et al 2008 Light vs Mass Number density log(halo or galaxy mass) Simulations of Galaxy formation Guo e tal, 2010 Origin of Galaxy Spins ● Torques on the collapsing galaxy (Peebles, 1969; Ryden, 1988) λ ≡ L E1/2/GM5/2 ≈ 0.09 for galaxies Distribution of Halo Spins f(λ) Λ = LE1/2/GM5/2 Gardner, 2001 Angular momentum Problem Too few low-J baryons Van den Bosch 01 Bullock 01 Core/Cusps in Dwarfs Moore 1994 Warm DM doesn't help Moore et al 1999 Dwarf simulated to z=0 Stellar mass = 5e8 M sun` M = -16.8 i g - r = 0.53 V = 55 km/s rot R = 1 kpc d M /M = 2.5 HI * f = .3 f cosmic b b i band image Dwarf Light Profile Rotation Curve Resolution effects Low resolution: bad Low resolution star formation: worse Inner Profile Slopes vs Mass Governato, Zolotov etal 2012 Constant Core Masses Angular Momentum Outflows preferential remove low J baryons Simulation Results: Resolution and H2 Munshi, in prep.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Redshift Universe: Galaxies and the Intergalactic Medium
    The High Redshift Universe: Galaxies and the Intergalactic Medium Koki Kakiichi M¨unchen2016 The High Redshift Universe: Galaxies and the Intergalactic Medium Koki Kakiichi Dissertation an der Fakult¨atf¨urPhysik der Ludwig{Maximilians{Universit¨at M¨unchen vorgelegt von Koki Kakiichi aus Komono, Mie, Japan M¨unchen, den 15 Juni 2016 Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Simon White Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Jochen Weller Tag der m¨undlichen Pr¨ufung:Juli 2016 Contents Summary xiii 1 Extragalactic Astrophysics and Cosmology 1 1.1 Prologue . 1 1.2 Briefly Story about Reionization . 3 1.3 Foundation of Observational Cosmology . 3 1.4 Hierarchical Structure Formation . 5 1.5 Cosmological probes . 8 1.5.1 H0 measurement and the extragalactic distance scale . 8 1.5.2 Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) . 10 1.5.3 Large-Scale Structure: galaxy surveys and Lyα forests . 11 1.6 Astrophysics of Galaxies and the IGM . 13 1.6.1 Physical processes in galaxies . 14 1.6.2 Physical processes in the IGM . 17 1.6.3 Radiation Hydrodynamics of Galaxies and the IGM . 20 1.7 Bridging theory and observations . 23 1.8 Observations of the High-Redshift Universe . 23 1.8.1 General demographics of galaxies . 23 1.8.2 Lyman-break galaxies, Lyα emitters, Lyα emitting galaxies . 26 1.8.3 Luminosity functions of LBGs and LAEs . 26 1.8.4 Lyα emission and absorption in LBGs: the physical state of high-z star forming galaxies . 27 1.8.5 Clustering properties of LBGs and LAEs: host dark matter haloes and galaxy environment . 30 1.8.6 Circum-/intergalactic gas environment of LBGs and LAEs .
    [Show full text]
  • Week 5: More on Structure Formation
    Week 5: More on Structure Formation Cosmology, Ay127, Spring 2008 April 23, 2008 1 Mass function (Press-Schechter theory) In CDM models, the power spectrum determines everything about structure in the Universe. In particular, it leads to what people refer to as “bottom-up” and/or “hierarchical clustering.” To begin, note that the power spectrum P (k), which decreases at large k (small wavelength) is psy- chologically inferior to the scaled power spectrum ∆2(k) = (1/2π2)k3P (k). This latter quantity is monotonically increasing with k, or with smaller wavelength, and thus represents what is going on physically a bit more intuitively. Equivalently, the variance σ2(M) of the mass distribution on scales of mean mass M is a monotonically decreasing function of M; the variance in the mass distribution is largest at the smallest scales and smallest at the largest scales. Either way, the density-perturbation amplitude is larger at smaller scales. It is therefore smaller structures that go nonlinear and undergo gravitational collapse earliest in the Universe. With time, larger and larger structures undergo gravitational collapse. Thus, the first objects to undergo gravitational collapse after recombination are probably globular-cluster–sized halos (although the halos won’t produce stars. As we will see in Week 8, the first dark-matter halos to undergo gravitational collapse and produce stars are probably 106 M halos at redshifts z 20. A typical L galaxy probably forms ∼ ⊙ ∼ ∗ at redshifts z 1, and at the current epoch, it is galaxy groups or poor clusters that are the largest ∼ mass scales currently undergoing gravitational collapse.
    [Show full text]
  • Cosmic Microwave Background
    1 29. Cosmic Microwave Background 29. Cosmic Microwave Background Revised August 2019 by D. Scott (U. of British Columbia) and G.F. Smoot (HKUST; Paris U.; UC Berkeley; LBNL). 29.1 Introduction The energy content in electromagnetic radiation from beyond our Galaxy is dominated by the cosmic microwave background (CMB), discovered in 1965 [1]. The spectrum of the CMB is well described by a blackbody function with T = 2.7255 K. This spectral form is a main supporting pillar of the hot Big Bang model for the Universe. The lack of any observed deviations from a 7 blackbody spectrum constrains physical processes over cosmic history at redshifts z ∼< 10 (see earlier versions of this review). Currently the key CMB observable is the angular variation in temperature (or intensity) corre- lations, and to a growing extent polarization [2–4]. Since the first detection of these anisotropies by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite [5], there has been intense activity to map the sky at increasing levels of sensitivity and angular resolution by ground-based and balloon-borne measurements. These were joined in 2003 by the first results from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)[6], which were improved upon by analyses of data added every 2 years, culminating in the 9-year results [7]. In 2013 we had the first results [8] from the third generation CMB satellite, ESA’s Planck mission [9,10], which were enhanced by results from the 2015 Planck data release [11, 12], and then the final 2018 Planck data release [13, 14]. Additionally, CMB an- isotropies have been extended to smaller angular scales by ground-based experiments, particularly the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) [15] and the South Pole Telescope (SPT) [16].
    [Show full text]
  • Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Multi-Probe Modeling Strategy and Validation
    DES-2020-0554 FERMILAB-PUB-21-240-AE Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Multi-Probe Modeling Strategy and Validation E. Krause,1, ∗ X. Fang,1 S. Pandey,2 L. F. Secco,2, 3 O. Alves,4, 5, 6 H. Huang,7 J. Blazek,8, 9 J. Prat,10, 3 J. Zuntz,11 T. F. Eifler,1 N. MacCrann,12 J. DeRose,13 M. Crocce,14, 15 A. Porredon,16, 17 B. Jain,2 M. A. Troxel,18 S. Dodelson,19, 20 D. Huterer,4 A. R. Liddle,11, 21, 22 C. D. Leonard,23 A. Amon,24 A. Chen,4 J. Elvin-Poole,16, 17 A. Fert´e,25 J. Muir,24 Y. Park,26 S. Samuroff,19 A. Brandao-Souza,27, 6 N. Weaverdyck,4 G. Zacharegkas,3 R. Rosenfeld,28, 6 A. Campos,19 P. Chintalapati,29 A. Choi,16 E. Di Valentino,30 C. Doux,2 K. Herner,29 P. Lemos,31, 32 J. Mena-Fern´andez,33 Y. Omori,10, 3, 24 M. Paterno,29 M. Rodriguez-Monroy,33 P. Rogozenski,7 R. P. Rollins,30 A. Troja,28, 6 I. Tutusaus,14, 15 R. H. Wechsler,34, 24, 35 T. M. C. Abbott,36 M. Aguena,6 S. Allam,29 F. Andrade-Oliveira,5, 6 J. Annis,29 D. Bacon,37 E. Baxter,38 K. Bechtol,39 G. M. Bernstein,2 D. Brooks,31 E. Buckley-Geer,10, 29 D. L. Burke,24, 35 A. Carnero Rosell,40, 6, 41 M. Carrasco Kind,42, 43 J. Carretero,44 F. J. Castander,14, 15 R.
    [Show full text]
  • Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Galaxy Clustering and Weak Lensing
    University of North Dakota UND Scholarly Commons Physics Faculty Publications Department of Physics & Astrophysics 8-27-2018 Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing T. M. C. Abbott F. B. Abdalla A. Alarcon J. Aleksic S. Allam See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/pa-fac Part of the Astrophysics and Astronomy Commons, and the Physics Commons Recommended Citation Abbott, T. M. C.; Abdalla, F. B.; Alarcon, A.; Aleksic, J.; Allam, S.; Allen, S.; Amara, A.; Annis, J.; Asorey, J.; Avila, S.; Bacon, D.; Balbinot, E.; Banerji, M.; Banik, N.; and Barkhouse, Wayne, "Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing" (2018). Physics Faculty Publications. 13. https://commons.und.edu/pa-fac/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Physics & Astrophysics at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Physics Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors T. M. C. Abbott, F. B. Abdalla, A. Alarcon, J. Aleksic, S. Allam, S. Allen, A. Amara, J. Annis, J. Asorey, S. Avila, D. Bacon, E. Balbinot, M. Banerji, N. Banik, and Wayne Barkhouse This article is available at UND Scholarly Commons: https://commons.und.edu/pa-fac/13 DES-2017-0226 FERMILAB-PUB-17-294-PPD Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Galaxy Clustering and Weak Lensing T. M. C. Abbott,1 F.
    [Show full text]
  • 19. Big-Bang Cosmology 1 19
    19. Big-Bang cosmology 1 19. BIG-BANG COSMOLOGY Revised September 2009 by K.A. Olive (University of Minnesota) and J.A. Peacock (University of Edinburgh). 19.1. Introduction to Standard Big-Bang Model The observed expansion of the Universe [1,2,3] is a natural (almost inevitable) result of any homogeneous and isotropic cosmological model based on general relativity. However, by itself, the Hubble expansion does not provide sufficient evidence for what we generally refer to as the Big-Bang model of cosmology. While general relativity is in principle capable of describing the cosmology of any given distribution of matter, it is extremely fortunate that our Universe appears to be homogeneous and isotropic on large scales. Together, homogeneity and isotropy allow us to extend the Copernican Principle to the Cosmological Principle, stating that all spatial positions in the Universe are essentially equivalent. The formulation of the Big-Bang model began in the 1940s with the work of George Gamow and his collaborators, Alpher and Herman. In order to account for the possibility that the abundances of the elements had a cosmological origin, they proposed that the early Universe which was once very hot and dense (enough so as to allow for the nucleosynthetic processing of hydrogen), and has expanded and cooled to its present state [4,5]. In 1948, Alpher and Herman predicted that a direct consequence of this model is the presence of a relic background radiation with a temperature of order a few K [6,7]. Of course this radiation was observed 16 years later as the microwave background radiation [8].
    [Show full text]
  • Large Scale Structure, Its Formation and Evolution 15.1 Large Structure:
    Ay1 – Lecture 15 Large Scale Structure, its Formation and Evolution 15.1 Large Structure:" Basic Observations and Redshift Surveys Large-Scale Structure • Density fluctuations in the early universe evolve into structures we observe: galaxies, clusters, etc. • On scales > galaxies, we talk about the Large Scale Structure (LSS); groups, clusters, filaments, walls, voids, superclusters are the elements of it • To map and quantify the LSS (and compare with the theoretical predictions), we need redshift surveys: mapping the 3-D distribution of galaxies in the space – Redshifts are a measure of distance in cosmology – We now have redshifts measured for ~ 2 million galaxies • The existence of clusters was recognized early on, but it took a while to recognize that galaxies are not distributed in space uniformly randomly, but in coherent structures 6000 Brightest Galaxies on the Sky How would the picture of the 6000 brightest stars on the sky look? A View From Our Galaxy in the Near-IR The Local Group Our immediate extragalactic neighborhood; extent ~ 2 Mpc The Local Supercluster • A ~ 60 Mpc flattened structure, centered on the Virgo cluster; the Local Group is at the outskirts • Many other superclusters are known; these are the largest (~ 100 Mpc) structures known to exist The Nearby Superclusters The CfA2 Redshift Survey Slices on the sky: long in Right Ascension, thin in Declination Coma cluster: Note the “finger of God” effect, due to the velocity disp. in the cluster The “Great Wall”: ~ 100 Mpc structure Redshift Space vs. Real Space “Fingers of God” Thin filaments Real space distribution The effect of cluster velocity dispersion The effect of infall Redshift space apparent distrib.
    [Show full text]
  • Planck 'Toolkit' Introduction
    Planck ‘toolkit’ introduction Welcome to the Planck ‘toolkit’ – a series of short questions and answers designed to equip you with background information on key cosmological topics addressed by the Planck science releases. The questions are arranged in thematic blocks; click the header to visit that section. Planck and the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) What is Planck and what is it studying? What is the Cosmic Microwave Background? Why is it so important to study the CMB? When was the CMB first detected? How many space missions have studied the CMB? What does the CMB look like? What is ‘the standard model of cosmology’ and how does it relate to the CMB? Behind the CMB: inflation and the meaning of temperature fluctuations How did the temperature fluctuations get there? How exactly do the temperature fluctuations relate to density fluctuations? The CMB and the distribution of matter in the Universe How is matter distributed in the Universe? Has the Universe always had such a rich variety of structure? How did the Universe evolve from very smooth to highly structured? How can we study the evolution of cosmic structure? Tools to study the distribution of matter in the Universe How is the distribution of matter in the Universe described mathematically? What is the power spectrum? What is the power spectrum of the distribution of matter in the Universe? Why are cosmologists interested in the power spectrum of cosmic structure? What was the distribution of the primordial fluctuations? How does this relate to the fluctuations in the CMB?
    [Show full text]