1. 1 What can we learn about dark energy? Andreas Albrecht UC Davis December 17 2008 NTU-Davis meeting National Taiwan University

2. 2 Background

3. 3 Supernova Preferred by data c. 2003  Amount of “ordinary” gravitating matter   Amount of w=-1 matter (“Dark energy”)  “Ordinary” non accelerating matter Cosmic acceleration Accelerating matter is required to fit current data

4. 4 Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon which most directly demonstrates that our fundamental theories of particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics* will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible. From the Dark Energy Task Force report (2006) www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/detf.jspwww.nsf.gov/mps/ast/detf.jsp, astro-ph/0690591 *My emphasis

5. 5 How we think about the cosmic acceleration: Solve GR for the scale factor a of the Universe (a=1 today): Positive acceleration clearly requires (unlike any known constituent of the Universe) or a non-zero cosmological constant or an alteration to General Relativity.

6. 6 Some general issues: Properties: Solve GR for the scale factor a of the Universe (a=1 today): Positive acceleration clearly requires (unlike any known constituent of the Universe) or a non-zero cosmological constant or an alteration to General Relativity. Two “familiar” ways to achieve acceleration: 1) Einstein’s cosmological constant and relatives 2) Whatever drove inflation: Dynamical, Scalar field?

7. 7 How we think about the cosmic acceleration: Solve GR for the scale factor a of the Universe (a=1 today): Positive acceleration clearly requires (unlike any known constituent of the Universe) or a non-zero cosmological constant or an alteration to General Relativity.

8. 8 How we think about the cosmic acceleration: Solve GR for the scale factor a of the Universe (a=1 today): Positive acceleration clearly requires (unlike any known constituent of the Universe) or a non-zero cosmological constant or an alteration to General Relativity. Theory allows a multitude of possible function w(a). How should we model measurements of w?

9. 9 Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon which most directly demonstrates that our fundamental theories of particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics* will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible. From the Dark Energy Task Force report (2006) www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/detf.jspwww.nsf.gov/mps/ast/detf.jsp, astro-ph/0690591 *My emphasis DETF = a HEPAP/AAAC subpanel to guide planning of future dark energy experiments More info here

10. 10 The Dark Energy Task Force (DETF)  Created specific simulated data sets (Stage 2, Stage 3, Stage 4)  Assessed their impact on our knowledge of dark energy as modeled with the w0-wa parameters

11. 11 Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters biased the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions? The Dark Energy Task Force (DETF)  Created specific simulated data sets (Stage 2, Stage 3, Stage 4)  Assessed their impact on our knowledge of dark energy as modeled with the w0-wa parameters

12. 12 Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters biased the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions? New work, relevant to setting a concrete threshold for Stage 4 The Dark Energy Task Force (DETF)  Created specific simulated data sets (Stage 2, Stage 3, Stage 4)  Assessed their impact on our knowledge of dark energy as modeled with the w0-wa parameters

13. 13 The Dark Energy Task Force (DETF)  Created specific simulated data sets (Stage 2, Stage 3, Stage 4)  Assessed their impact on our knowledge of dark energy as modeled with the w0-wa parameters Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters biased the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions? NB: To make concrete comparisons this work ignores various possible improvements to the DETF data models. (see for example J Newman, H Zhan et al & Schneider et al) DETF

14. 14 The Dark Energy Task Force (DETF)  Created specific simulated data sets (Stage 2, Stage 3, Stage 4)  Assessed their impact on our knowledge of dark energy as modeled with the w0-wa parameters Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters biased the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions?

15. 15 DETF Review

16. 16 ww wawa   w(a) = w 0 + w a (1-a) DETF figure of merit:  Area 95% CL contour (DETF parameterization… Linder)

17. 17 The DETF stages (data models constructed for each one) Stage 2: Underway Stage 3: Medium size/term projects Stage 4: Large longer term projects (ie JDEM, LST) DETF modeled SN Weak Lensing Baryon Oscillation Cluster data

18. 18 DETF Projections Stage 3 Figure of merit Improvement over Stage 2 

19. 19 DETF Projections Ground Figure of merit Improvement over Stage 2 

20. 20 DETF Projections Space Figure of merit Improvement over Stage 2 

21. 21 DETF Projections Ground + Space Figure of merit Improvement over Stage 2 

22. 22 A technical point: The role of correlations

23. 23 From the DETF Executive Summary One of our main findings is that no single technique can answer the outstanding questions about dark energy: combinations of at least two of these techniques must be used to fully realize the promise of future observations. Already there are proposals for major, long-term (Stage IV) projects incorporating these techniques that have the promise of increasing our figure of merit by a factor of ten beyond the level it will reach with the conclusion of current experiments. What is urgently needed is a commitment to fund a program comprised of a selection of these projects. The selection should be made on the basis of critical evaluations of their costs, benefits, and risks.

24. 24 Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions?

25. 25 Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions?

26. 26 w0-wa can only do these DE models can do this (and much more) w z How good is the w(a) ansatz?

27. 27 w0-wa can only do these DE models can do this (and much more) w z How good is the w(a) ansatz? NB: Better than & flat

28. 28 Try N-D stepwise constant w(a) AA & G Bernstein 2006 (astro-ph/0608269 ). More detailed info can be found at http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/Cosmology/albrecht/MoreInfo0608269/astro-ph/0608269 http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/Cosmology/albrecht/MoreInfo0608269/ 9 parameters are coefficients of the “top hat functions”

29. 29 Try N-D stepwise constant w(a) AA & G Bernstein 2006 (astro-ph/0608269 ). More detailed info can be found at http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/Cosmology/albrecht/MoreInfo0608269/astro-ph/0608269 http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/Cosmology/albrecht/MoreInfo0608269/ 9 parameters are coefficients of the “top hat functions” Used by Huterer & Turner; Huterer & Starkman; Knox et al; Crittenden & Pogosian Linder; Reiss et al; Krauss et al de Putter & Linder; Sullivan et al

30. 30 Try N-D stepwise constant w(a) AA & G Bernstein 2006 9 parameters are coefficients of the “top hat functions”  Allows greater variety of w(a) behavior  Allows each experiment to “put its best foot forward”  Any signal rejects Λ

31. 31 Try N-D stepwise constant w(a) AA & G Bernstein 2006 9 parameters are coefficients of the “top hat functions”  Allows greater variety of w(a) behavior  Allows each experiment to “put its best foot forward”  Any signal rejects Λ “Convergence”

32. 32 Q: How do you describe error ellipsis in 9D space? A: In terms of 9 principle axes and corresponding 9 errors : 2D illustration: Axis 1 Axis 2

33. 33 Q: How do you describe error ellipsis in 9D space? A: In terms of 9 principle axes and corresponding 9 errors : 2D illustration: Axis 1 Axis 2 Principle component analysis

34. 34 Q: How do you describe error ellipsis in 9D space? A: In terms of 9 principle axes and corresponding 9 errors : 2D illustration: Axis 1 Axis 2 NB: in general the s form a complete basis: The are independently measured qualities with errors

35. 35 Q: How do you describe error ellipsis in 9D space? A: In terms of 9 principle axes and corresponding 9 errors : 2D illustration: Axis 1 Axis 2 NB: in general the s form a complete basis: The are independently measured qualities with errors

36. 36 Principle Axes Characterizing 9D ellipses by principle axes and corresponding errors DETF stage 2 z-=4z =1.5z =0.25z =0

37. 37 Principle Axes Characterizing 9D ellipses by principle axes and corresponding errors WL Stage 4 Opt z-=4z =1.5z =0.25z =0

38. 38 Principle Axes Characterizing 9D ellipses by principle axes and corresponding errors WL Stage 4 Opt “Convergence” z-=4z =1.5z =0.25z =0

39. 39 DETF(-CL) 9D (-CL)

40. 40 DETF(-CL) 9D (-CL) Stage 2  Stage 4 = 3 orders of magnitude (vs 1 for DETF) Stage 2  Stage 3 = 1 order of magnitude (vs 0.5 for DETF)

41. 41 Upshot of 9D FoM: 1)DETF underestimates impact of expts 2)DETF underestimates relative value of Stage 4 vs Stage 3 3)The above can be understood approximately in terms of a simple rescaling (related to higher dimensional parameter space). 4)DETF FoM is fine for most purposes (ranking, value of combinations etc).

42. 42 Upshot of 9D FoM: 1)DETF underestimates impact of expts 2)DETF underestimates relative value of Stage 4 vs Stage 3 3)The above can be understood approximately in terms of a simple rescaling (related to higher dimensional parameter space). 4)DETF FoM is fine for most purposes (ranking, value of combinations etc).

43. 43 Upshot of 9D FoM: 1)DETF underestimates impact of expts 2)DETF underestimates relative value of Stage 4 vs Stage 3 3)The above can be understood approximately in terms of a simple rescaling (related to higher dimensional parameter space). 4)DETF FoM is fine for most purposes (ranking, value of combinations etc).

44. 44 Upshot of 9D FoM: 1)DETF underestimates impact of expts 2)DETF underestimates relative value of Stage 4 vs Stage 3 3)The above can be understood approximately in terms of a simple rescaling (related to higher dimensional parameter space). 4)DETF FoM is fine for most purposes (ranking, value of combinations etc).

45. 45 Upshot of 9D FoM: 1)DETF underestimates impact of expts 2)DETF underestimates relative value of Stage 4 vs Stage 3 3)The above can be understood approximately in terms of a simple rescaling 4)DETF FoM is fine for most purposes (ranking, value of combinations etc). Inverts cost/FoM Estimates S3 vs S4

46. 46 Upshot of 9D FoM: 1)DETF underestimates impact of expts 2)DETF underestimates relative value of Stage 4 vs Stage 3 3)The above can be understood approximately in terms of a simple rescaling 4)DETF FoM is fine for most purposes (ranking, value of combinations etc).  A nice way to gain insights into data (real or imagined)

47. 47 Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions?

48. 48 A: Only by an overall (possibly important) rescaling Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions?

49. 49 Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions?

50. 50 How well do Dark Energy Task Force simulated data sets constrain specific scalar field quintessence models? Augusta Abrahamse Brandon Bozek Michael Barnard Mark Yashar +AA + DETF Simulated data + Quintessence potentials + MCMC See also Dutta & Sorbo 2006, Huterer and Turner 1999 & especially Huterer and Peiris 2006

51. 51 The potentials Exponential (Wetterich, Peebles & Ratra) PNGB aka Axion (Frieman et al) Exponential with prefactor (AA & Skordis) Inverse Power Law (Ratra & Peebles, Steinhardt et al)

52. 52 The potentials Exponential (Wetterich, Peebles & Ratra) PNGB aka Axion (Frieman et al) Exponential with prefactor (AA & Skordis) Inverse Power Law (Ratra & Peebles, Steinhardt et al)

53. 53 The potentials Exponential (Wetterich, Peebles & Ratra) PNGB aka Axion (Frieman et al) Exponential with prefactor (AA & Skordis) Inverse Power Law (Ratra & Peebles, Steinhardt et al) Stronger than average motivations & interest

54. 54 The potentials Exponential (Wetterich, Peebles & Ratra) PNGB aka Axion (Frieman et al) Exponential with prefactor (AA & Skordis) ArXiv Dec 08, PRD in press In prep. Inverse Tracker (Ratra & Peebles, Steinhardt et al)

55. 55 …they cover a variety of behavior.

56. 56 Challenges: Potential parameters can have very complicated (degenerate) relationships to observables Resolved with good parameter choices (functional form and value range)

57. 57 DETF stage 2 DETF stage 3 DETF stage 4

58. 58 DETF stage 2 DETF stage 3 DETF stage 4 (S2/3) (S2/10) Upshot: Story in scalar field parameter space very similar to DETF story in w0-wa space.

59. 59 Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions?

60. 60 A: Very similar to DETF results in w0-wa space Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions?

61. 61 Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions?

62. 62 Michael Barnard et al arXiv:0804.0413 Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions?

63. 63 Problem: Each scalar field model is defined in its own parameter space. How should one quantify discriminating power among models? Our answer:  Form each set of scalar field model parameter values, map the solution into w(a) eigenmode space, the space of uncorrelated observables.  Make the comparison in the space of uncorrelated observables.

64. 64 Principle Axes Characterizing 9D ellipses by principle axes and corresponding errors WL Stage 4 Opt z-=4z =1.5z =0.25z =0 Axis 1 Axis 2

65. 65 ●●●● ● ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■ ● Data ■ Theory 1 ■ Theory 2 Concept: Uncorrelated data points (expressed in w(a) space) 0 1 2 0 51015 X Y

66. 66 Starting point: MCMC chains giving distributions for each model at Stage 2.

67. 67 DETF Stage 3 photo [Opt]

68. 68 DETF Stage 3 photo [Opt]

69. 69 DETF Stage 3 photo [Opt]  Distinct model locations  mode amplitude/σ i “physical”  Modes (and σ i ’s) reflect specific expts.

70. 70 DETF Stage 3 photo [Opt]

71. 71 DETF Stage 3 photo [Opt]

72. 72 Eigenmodes: Stage 3 Stage 4 g Stage 4 s z=4z=2z=1z=0.5z=0

73. 73 Eigenmodes: Stage 3 Stage 4 g Stage 4 s z=4z=2z=1z=0.5z=0 N.B. σ i change too

74. 74 DETF Stage 4 ground [Opt]

75. 75 DETF Stage 4 ground [Opt]

76. 76 DETF Stage 4 space [Opt]

77. 77 DETF Stage 4 space [Opt]

78. 78 The different kinds of curves correspond to different “trajectories” in mode space (similar to FT’s)

79. 79 DETF Stage 4 ground  Data that reveals a universe with dark energy given by “ “ will have finite minimum “distances” to other quintessence models  powerful discrimination is possible.

80. 80 Consider discriminating power of each experiment (  look at units on axes)

81. 81 DETF Stage 3 photo [Opt]

82. 82 DETF Stage 3 photo [Opt]

83. 83 DETF Stage 4 ground [Opt]

84. 84 DETF Stage 4 ground [Opt]

85. 85 DETF Stage 4 space [Opt]

86. 86 DETF Stage 4 space [Opt]

87. 87 Quantify discriminating power:

88. 88 Stage 4 space Test Points Characterize each model distribution by four “test points”

89. 89 Stage 4 space Test Points Characterize each model distribution by four “test points” (Priors: Type 1 optimized for conservative results re discriminating power.)

90. 90 Stage 4 space Test Points

91. 91 Measured the χ 2 from each one of the test points (from the “test model”) to all other chain points (in the “comparison model”). Only the first three modes were used in the calculation. Ordered said χ 2 ‘s by value, which allows us to plot them as a function of what fraction of the points have a given value or lower. Looked for the smallest values for a given model to model comparison.

92. 92 Model Separation in Mode Space Fraction of compared model within given χ 2 of test model’s test point Test point 4 Test point 1 Where the curve meets the axis, the compared model is ruled out by that χ 2 by an observation of the test point. This is the separation seen in the mode plots. 99% confidence at 11.36

93. 93 Model Separation in Mode Space Fraction of compared model within given χ 2 of test model’s test point Test point 4 Test point 1 Where the curve meets the axis, the compared model is ruled out by that χ 2 by an observation of the test point. This is the separation seen in the mode plots. 99% confidence at 11.36 …is this gap This gap…

94. 94 DETF Stage 3 photo Test Point Model Comparison Model [4 models] X [4 models] X [4 test points]

95. 95 DETF Stage 3 photo Test Point Model Comparison Model

96. 96 DETF Stage 4 ground Test Point Model Comparison Model

97. 97 DETF Stage 4 space Test Point Model Comparison Model

98. 98 PNGB ExpITAS Point 10.001 0.10.2 Point 20.0020.010.51.8 Point 30.0040.041.26.2 Point 40.010.041.610.0 Exp Point 10.0040.0010.10.4 Point 20.010.0010.41.8 Point 30.030.0010.74.3 Point 40.10.011.19.1 IT Point 10.20.10.0010.2 Point 20.50.40.00040.7 Point 31.00.70.0013.3 Point 42.71.80.0116.4 AS Point 10.1 0.0001 Point 20.20.1 0.0001 Point 30.2 0.10.0002 Point 40.60.50.20.001 DETF Stage 3 photo A tabulation of χ 2 for each graph where the curve crosses the x-axis (= gap) For the three parameters used here, 95% confidence  χ 2 = 7.82, 99%  χ 2 = 11.36. Light orange > 95% rejection Dark orange > 99% rejection Blue: Ignore these because PNGB & Exp hopelessly similar, plus self-comparisons

99. 99 PNGB ExpITAS Point 10.0010.0050.30.9 Point 20.0020.042.47.6 Point 30.0040.26.018.8 Point 40.010.28.026.5 Exp Point 10.010.0010.41.6 Point 20.040.0022.17.8 Point 30.010.0033.814.5 Point 40.030.016.024.4 IT Point 11.10.90.0021.2 Point 23.22.60.0013.6 Point 36.75.20.0028.3 Point 418.713.60.0430.1 AS Point 12.41.40.50.001 Point 22.32.10.80.001 Point 33.33.11.20.001 Point 47.47.02.60.001 DETF Stage 4 ground A tabulation of χ 2 for each graph where the curve crosses the x-axis (= gap). For the three parameters used here, 95% confidence  χ 2 = 7.82, 99%  χ 2 = 11.36. Light orange > 95% rejection Dark orange > 99% rejection Blue: Ignore these because PNGB & Exp hopelessly similar, plus self-comparisons

100. 100 PNGB ExpITAS Point 10.01 0.41.6 Point 20.010.053.213.0 Point 30.020.28.230.0 Point 40.040.210.937.4 Exp Point 10.020.0020.62.8 Point 20.050.0032.913.6 Point 30.10.015.224.5 Point 40.30.028.433.2 IT Point 11.51.30.0052.2 Point 24.63.80.0028.2 Point 39.77.70.0039.4 Point 427.820.80.157.3 AS Point 13.23.01.10.002 Point 24.94.61.80.003 Point 310.910.44.30.01 Point 426.525.110.60.01 DETF Stage 4 space A tabulation of χ 2 for each graph where the curve crosses the x-axis (= gap) For the three parameters used here, 95% confidence  χ 2 = 7.82, 99%  χ 2 = 11.36. Light orange > 95% rejection Dark orange > 99% rejection Blue: Ignore these because PNGB & Exp hopelessly similar, plus self-comparisons

101. 101 PNGB ExpITAS Point 10.01.093.6 Point 20.010.17.329.1 Point 30.040.418.467.5 Point 40.090.424.184.1 Exp Point 10.040.011.46.4 Point 20.10.016.630.7 Point 30.30.0111.855.1 Point 40.70.0518.874.6 IT Point 13.52.80.014.9 Point 210.48.50.0118.4 Point 321.917.40.0121.1 Point 462.446.90.2129.0 AS Point 17.26.82.50.004 Point 210.910.34.00.01 Point 324.623.39.80.01 Point 459.756.623.90.01 DETF Stage 4 space 2/3 Error/mode Many believe it is realistic for Stage 4 ground and/or space to do this well or even considerably better. (see slide 5) A tabulation of χ 2 for each graph where the curve crosses the x-axis (= gap). For the three parameters used here, 95% confidence  χ 2 = 7.82, 99%  χ 2 = 11.36. Light orange > 95% rejection Dark orange > 99% rejection

102. 102 Comments on model discrimination Principle component w(a) “modes” offer a space in which straightforward tests of discriminating power can be made. The DETF Stage 4 data is approaching the threshold of resolving the structure that our scalar field models form in the mode space.

103. 103 Comments on model discrimination Principle component w(a) “modes” offer a space in which straightforward tests of discriminating power can be made. The DETF Stage 4 data is approaching the threshold of resolving the structure that our scalar field models form in the mode space.

104. 104 Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions? A: DETF Stage 3: Poor DETF Stage 4: Marginal… Excellent within reach

105. 105 Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions? A: DETF Stage 3: Poor DETF Stage 4: Marginal… Excellent within reach Structure in mode space

106. 106 Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions? A: DETF Stage 3: Poor DETF Stage 4: Marginal… Excellent within reach

107. 107 Followup questions:  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results?  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)?  To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions?

108. 108 DoE/ESA/NASA JDEM Science Working Group  Update agencies on figures of merit issues  formed Summer 08  finished ~now (moving on to SCG)  Use w-eigenmodes to get more complete picture  also quantify deviations from Einstein gravity  For today: Something we learned about normalizing modes

109. 109 NB: in general the s form a complete basis: The are independently measured qualities with errors Define which obey continuum normalization: then where

110. 110 Define which obey continuum normalization: then where Q: Why? A: For lower modes, has typical grid independent “height” O(1), so one can more directly relate values of to one’s thinking (priors) on

111. 111 Principle Axes

112. 112 Principle Axes

113. 113 Upshot: More modes are interesting (“well measured” in a grid invariant sense) than previously thought.

114. 114 A: DETF Stage 3: Poor DETF Stage 4: Marginal… Excellent within reach (AA)  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results? A: Only by an overall (possibly important) rescaling  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)? A: Very similar to DETF results in w0-wa space Summary To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?

115. 115 A: DETF Stage 3: Poor DETF Stage 4: Marginal… Excellent within reach (AA)  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results? A: Only by an overall (possibly important) rescaling  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)? A: Very similar to DETF results in w0-wa space Summary To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?

116. 116 A: DETF Stage 3: Poor DETF Stage 4: Marginal… Excellent within reach (AA)  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results? A: Only by an overall (possibly important) rescaling  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)? A: Very similar to DETF results in w0-wa space Summary To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?

117. 117 A: DETF Stage 3: Poor DETF Stage 4: Marginal… Excellent within reach (AA)  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results? A: Only by an overall (possibly important) rescaling  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)? A: Very similar to DETF results in w0-wa space Summary To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?

118. 118 A: DETF Stage 3: Poor DETF Stage 4: Marginal… Excellent within reach (AA)  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results? A: Only by an overall (possibly important) rescaling  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)? A: Very similar to DETF results in w0-wa space Summary To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?

119. 119 A: DETF Stage 3: Poor DETF Stage 4: Marginal… Excellent within reach (AA)  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results? A: Only by an overall (possibly important) rescaling  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)? A: Very similar to DETF results in w0-wa space Summary To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models?

120. 120 A: DETF Stage 3: Poor DETF Stage 4: Marginal… Excellent within reach (AA)  In what ways might the choice of DE parameters have skewed the DETF results? A: Only by an overall (possibly important) rescaling  What impact can these data sets have on specific DE models (vs abstract parameters)? A: Very similar to DETF results in w0-wa space Summary To what extent can these data sets deliver discriminating power between specific DE models? Interesting contribution to discussion of Stage 4 (if you believe scalar field modes)

121. 121  How is the DoE/ESA/NASA Science Working Group looking at these questions? i)Using w(a) eigenmodes ii)Revealing value of higher modes

122. 122 Principle Axes

123. 123 END

124. 124 Additional Slides

125. 125

126. 126

127. 127 An example of the power of the principle component analysis: Q: I’ve heard the claim that the DETF FoM is unfair to BAO, because w0-wa does not describe the high-z behavior to which BAO is particularly sensitive. Why does this not show up in the 9D analysis?

128. 128 DETF(-CL) 9D (-CL) Specific Case:

129. 129 BAO z-=4z =1.5z =0.25z =0

130. 130 SN z-=4z =1.5z =0.25z =0

131. 131 BAO DETF z-=4z =1.5z =0.25z =0

132. 132 SN DETF z-=4z =1.5z =0.25z =0

133. 133 z-=4z =1.5z =0.25z =0 SN w0-wa analysis shows two parameters measured on average as well as 3.5 of these DETF 9D

134. 134 Stage 2

135. 135 Stage 2

136. 136 Stage 2

137. 137 Stage 2

138. 138 Stage 2

139. 139 Stage 2

140. 140 Stage 2