Cosmography of the Local Universe SDSS-III map of the universe
Color = density (red=high)
Tools of the Future: robotic/piezo fiber positioners
Astrobot Fiber Positioners
Collision-avoidance testing
Echidna (for Subaru FMOS) Las Campanas Redshift Survey
The first survey to reach the quasi-homogeneous regime Large-scale structure within z<0.05, sliced in Galactic plane declination “Zone of Avoidance”
6dF Galaxy Survey, Jones et al. 2009 Large-scale structure within z<0.1, sliced in Galactic plane declination “Zone of Avoidance”
6dF Galaxy Survey, Jones et al. 2009 Southern Hemisphere, colored by redshift
6dF Galaxy Survey, Jones et al. 2009 SDSS-BOSS map of the universe
Image credit: Jeremy Tinker and the SDSS-III collaboration SDSS-III map of the universe
Color = density (red=high)
Millenium Simulation (2005) vs Galaxy Redshift Surveys Image Credit: Nina McCurdy and Joel Primack/University of California, Santa Cruz; Ralf Kaehler and Risa Wechsler/Stanford University; Klypin et al. 2011 Sloan Digital Sky Survey; Michael Busha/University of Zurich Trujillo-Gomez et al. 2011 Redshift-space distortion in the 2D correlation function of 6dFGS along line of sight
on the sky Beutler et al. 2012 Matter power spectrum observed by SDSS (Tegmark et al. 2006) k-3 Solid red lines: linear theory (WMAP) Dashed red lines: nonlinear corrections
Note we can push linear approx to a bit further than k~0.02 h/Mpc
Baryon acoustic peaks (analogous to CMB acoustic peaks; standard rulers)
keq SDSS-BOSS map of the universe
Color = distance (purple=far) Image credit: Daniel Eisenstein and the SDSS-III collaboration Cosmological Analysis of BOSS galaxies 13 Correlation function Power spectrum P(k)-Psmooth(k) / Psmooth(k) BOSS DR12 - 0.5 100 0.1 0.1 50 ] ] 1 1 Mpc] 1 0 0.0 0.0 Mpc Mpc h h h [ [ [ s 50 k k 0.1 0.1 100 along line of sight 150 0.2 0.2 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 1 1 1 s [h Mpc] k [h Mpc ] k [h Mpc ] 80 40 0 40 80 120 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 2 2 2 3 3 s (s ,s )[h Mpc ] log10 [P (k ,k )/(h Mpc )] [P (k ,k ) Psmooth(k ,k )]/Psmooth(k) Figure 5. The measured pre-reconstruction correlation function (left)on the sky and power spectrum (middle) in the directions perpendicular and parallel to the line of sight, shown for the NGC only in the redshift range 0.50 Table 4. Summary table of pre-reconstruction full-shape constraints on the parameter combinations D r /r , H r /r , and f 8(z) derived M ⇥ d,fid d ⇥ d d,fid in the supporting papers for each of our three overlapping redshift bins Measurement redshift Satpathy et al. Beutler et al. (b) Grieb et al. Sanchez´ et al. ⇠(s) multipoles P (k) multipoles P (k) wedges ⇠(s) wedges D r /r [Mpc] z =0.38 1476 33 1549 41 1525 25 1501 27 M ⇥ d,fid d ± ± ± ± D r /r [Mpc] z =0.51 1985 41 2015 53 1990 32 2010 30 M ⇥ d,fid d ± ± ± ± D r /r [Mpc] z =0.61 2287 54 2270 57 2281 43 2286 37 M ⇥ d,fid d ± ± ± ± H r /r [km s 1Mpc 1] z =0.38 79.3 3.382.5 3.281.2 2.382.5 2.4 ⇥ d d, fid ± ± ± ± H r /r [km s 1Mpc 1] z =0.51 88.3 4.188.4 4.187.0 2.490.2 2.5 ⇥ d d,fid ± ± ± ± H r /r [km s 1Mpc 1] z =0.61 99.5 4.497.0 4.094.9 2.597.3 2.7 ⇥ d d,fid ± ± ± ± f 8 z =0.38 0.430 0.054 0.479 0.054 0.498 0.045 0.468 0.053 ± ± ± ± f 8 z =0.51 0.452 0.058 0.454 0.051 0.448 0.038 0.470 0.042 ± ± ± ± f 8 z =0.61 0.456 0.052 0.409 0.044 0.409 0.041 0.440 0.039 ± ± ± ± ods is consistent with what we observe in mocks (see Section 7.2 and Fig. 10). In all cases the µ-wedges analyses give significantly tighter constraints than the multipole analyses, in both configura- tion space and Fourier space. The consensus constraints, described in 8.2 below, are slightly tighter than those of the individual wedge § analyses. At all three redshifts and for all three quantities, mapping distance, expansion rate, and the growth of structure, the 68% con- fidence contour for the consensus results overlaps the 68% confi- dence contour derived from Planck 2015 data assuming a ⇤CDM cosmology. We illustrate the combination of these full shape results with the post-reconstruction BAO results in Fig. 11 below. c 2016 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–38 Results from BOSS galaxy clustering analysis Alam et al. 2016, arXiv:1607.03155 1987ApJ...313...59D Tully-Fisher relation Fundamental Plane Absolute magnitude Djorgovski & Davis 1987 Tully & Fisher 1977 Effective radius Combination of velocity dispersion and surface brightness Width of HI line profile in velocity units Velocity power spectrum Dashed line: Planck prediction Black solid lines: binned scaled angular power spectrum Johnson et al 2014 (6dGFS-v) Cosmological constraints from peculiar velocities + redshift-space distortions LCDM parameters Scale-dependent modifications to GR Johnson et al 2016 Johnson et al 2014 (6dGFS-v) Cosmic Flows CMBR Dipole: The One Peculiar Velocity We Know Very Well We are moving wrt. to the CMB at ~ 620 km/s towards b=27°, l=268° This gives us an idea of the probable magnitude of peculiar velocities in the local universe. Note that at the distance to Virgo (LSC), this corresponds to a ~ 50% error in Hubble velocity, and a ~ 10% error at the distance to Coma cluster. Real and Simulated Galaxies Scale sensitivity of various cosmological probes Dynamical measurements (temporal potential) Light propagation measurements (spatial potential) Johnson et al 2014 (6dGFS-v)