Complementarity of Dark Energy Probes

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Prospects for the Planck Satellite: limiting the Hubble Parameter by SZE/X-ray Distance Technique R. Holanda & J. A. S. Lima (IAG-USP) I Workshop “Challenges.
Advertisements

Current Observational Constraints on Dark Energy Chicago, December 2001 Wendy Freedman Carnegie Observatories, Pasadena CA.
Optimization of large-scale surveys to probe the DE David Parkinson University of Sussex Prospects and Principles for Probing the Problematic Propulsion.
Observational Cosmology - a laboratory for fundamental physics MPI-K, Heidelberg Marek Kowalski.
Observational Cosmology - a unique laboratory for fundamental physics Marek Kowalski Physikalisches Institut Universität Bonn.
The National Science Foundation The Dark Energy Survey J. Frieman, M. Becker, J. Carlstrom, M. Gladders, W. Hu, R. Kessler, B. Koester, A. Kravtsov, for.
Lecture 2: Observational constraints on dark energy Shinji Tsujikawa (Tokyo University of Science)
Nikolaos Nikoloudakis Friday lunch talk 12/6/09 Supported by a Marie Curie Early Stage Training Fellowship.
1 Dark energy paramters Andreas Albrecht (UC Davis) U Chicago Physics 411 guest lecture October
R. Pain9/18/2008 LSST-SNAP complementarity Reynald Pain IN2P3/LPNHE Paris, France Page 1.
July 7, 2008SLAC Annual Program ReviewPage 1 Future Dark Energy Surveys R. Wechsler Assistant Professor KIPAC.
K.S. Dawson, W.L. Holzapfel, E.D. Reese University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA J.E. Carlstrom, S.J. LaRoque, D. Nagai University of Chicago,
Falsifying Paradigms for Cosmic Acceleration Michael Mortonson Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago January 22, 2009.
Complementary Probes ofDark Energy Complementary Probes of Dark Energy Eric Linder Berkeley Lab.
Dark Energy J. Frieman: Overview 30 A. Kim: Supernovae 30 B. Jain: Weak Lensing 30 M. White: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations 30 P5, SLAC, Feb. 22, 2008.
Relating Mass and Light in the COSMOS Field J.E. Taylor, R.J. Massey ( California Institute of Technology), J. Rhodes ( Jet Propulsion Laboratory) & the.
1 What is the Dark Energy? David Spergel Princeton University.
Statistics of the Weak-lensing Convergence Field Sheng Wang Brookhaven National Laboratory Columbia University Collaborators: Zoltán Haiman, Morgan May,
Weak Gravitational Lensing by Large-Scale Structure Alexandre Refregier (Cambridge) Collaborators: Richard Ellis (Caltech) David Bacon (Cambridge) Richard.
Progress on Cosmology Sarah Bridle University College London.
Title people CHIME: the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment. Mark Halpern Kris Sigurdson Sigi Stiemer Tom Landecker Jeff Peterson Dick Bond.
The Science Case for the Dark Energy Survey James Annis For the DES Collaboration.
Eric V. Linder (arXiv: v1). Contents I. Introduction II. Measuring time delay distances III. Optimizing Spectroscopic followup IV. Influence.
Polarization-assisted WMAP-NVSS Cross Correlation Collaborators: K-W Ng(IoP, AS) Ue-Li Pen (CITA) Guo Chin Liu (ASIAA)
SEP KIASKIAS WORKSHOP1 Dark Energy Effects on CMB & LSS The 2 nd KIAS Workshop on Cosmology and Structure Formation Seokcheon ( 碩天 large sky)
Dark energy I : Observational constraints Shinji Tsujikawa (Tokyo University of Science)
Observational test of modified gravity models with future imaging surveys Kazuhiro Yamamoto (Hiroshima U.) Edinburgh Oct K.Y. , Bassett, Nichol,
Dark Energy Probes with DES (focus on cosmology) Seokcheon Lee (KIAS) Feb Section : Survey Science III.
1 System wide optimization for dark energy science: DESC-LSST collaborations Tony Tyson LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration meeting June 12-13, 2012.
Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy DETF Recommendations I 2.1Science (Charge questions 1, 2, 7) Andy Albrecht & Nicholas Suntzeff 2.1.2Comments.
SUNYAEV-ZELDOVICH EFFECT. OUTLINE  What is SZE  What Can we learn from SZE  SZE Cluster Surveys  Experimental Issues  SZ Surveys are coming: What.
CMB as a dark energy probe Carlo Baccigalupi. Outline  Fighting against a cosmological constant  Parametrizing cosmic acceleration  The CMB role in.
Michael Doran Institute for Theoretical Physics Universität Heidelberg Time Evolution of Dark Energy (if any …)
INFRARED-BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE MILLENNIUM SIMULATION AND CMB CONTAMINATION DANIEL CHRIS OPOLOT DR. CATHERINE CRESS UWC.
BAOs SDSS, DES, WFMOS teams (Bob Nichol, ICG Portsmouth)
LSST and Dark Energy Dark Energy - STScI May 7, 2008 Tony Tyson, UC Davis Outline: 1.LSST Project 2.Dark Energy Measurements 3.Controlling Systematic Errors.
23 Sep The Feasibility of Constraining Dark Energy Using LAMOST Redshift Survey L.Sun Peking Univ./ CPPM.
The Feasibility of Constraining Dark Energy Using LAMOST Redshift Survey L.Sun.
Complementary Probes of Dark Energy Josh Frieman Snowmass 2001.
Jochen Weller XLI Recontres de Moriond March, 18-25, 2006 Constraining Inverse Curvature Gravity with Supernovae O. Mena, J. Santiago and JW PRL, 96, ,
Dark Energy and baryon oscillations Domenico Sapone Université de Genève, Département de Physique théorique In collaboration with: Luca Amendola (INAF,
Gravitational Lensing
1 1 Dark Energy with SNAP and other Next Generation Probes Eric Linder Berkeley Lab.
Future observational prospects for dark energy Roberto Trotta Oxford Astrophysics & Royal Astronomical Society.
Uncorrelated bins, two-population Supernovae, and Modified Gravity Asantha Cooray STScI - Dark Energy, May 08 Dark energy: Devdeep Sarkar (UCI) Alex Amblard.
Two useful methods for the supernova cosmologist: (1) Including CMB constraints by using the CMB shift parameters (2) A model-independent photometric redshift.
Brenna Flaugher for the DES Collaboration; DPF Meeting August 27, 2004 Riverside,CA Fermilab, U Illinois, U Chicago, LBNL, CTIO/NOAO 1 Dark Energy and.
Probing Dark Energy with Cosmological Observations Fan, Zuhui ( 范祖辉 ) Dept. of Astronomy Peking University.
Investigating dark energy with CMB lensing Viviana Acquaviva, SISSA, Trieste Lensing collaborators in SISSA: C. Baccigalupi, S. Leach, F. Perrotta, F.
CTIO Camera Mtg - Dec ‘03 Studies of Dark Energy with Galaxy Clusters Joe Mohr Department of Astronomy Department of Physics University of Illinois.
Jochen Weller Decrypting the Universe Edinburgh, October, 2007 未来 の 暗 黒 エネルギー 実 験 の 相補性.
TR33 in the Light of the US- Dark Energy Task Force Report Thomas Reiprich Danny Hudson Oxana Nenestyan Holger Israel Emmy Noether Research Group Argelander-Institut.
Cosmological constraints on neutrino mass Francesco De Bernardis University of Rome “Sapienza” Incontro Nazionale Iniziative di Fisica Astroparticellare.
Constraining Dark Energy with Double Source Plane Strong Lenses Thomas Collett With: Matt Auger, Vasily Belokurov, Phil Marshall and Alex Hall ArXiv:
Constraints on cosmological parameters from the 6dF Galaxy Survey
The Dark Energy Survey Probe origin of Cosmic Acceleration:
The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey : cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample arXiv:
The influence of Dark Energy on the Large Scale Structure Formation
Princeton University & APC
Carlo Baccigalupi, SISSA
Weak lensing tomography: the good, the bad and the ugly
Some issues in cluster cosmology
Parameterizing dark energy: a field space approach
Detection of integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect by cross-correlation of the
The impact of non-linear evolution of the cosmological matter power spectrum on the measurement of neutrino masses ROE-JSPS workshop Edinburgh.
Cosmology with Photometric redsfhits
KDUST暗能量研究 詹虎 及张新民、范祖辉、赵公博等人 KDUST 宇宙学研讨会 国台,
6-band Survey: ugrizy 320–1050 nm
Cosmology with Galaxy Correlations from Photometric Redshift Surveys
Constraining Dark Energy with the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope
Presentation transcript:

Complementarity of Dark Energy Probes Jiayu Tang, Filipe Abdalla and JW

Parameterizations of Dark Energy Background evolution w = w0 w = w0+w1z w = w0+ ln(a) (Efstathiou 1999) w = w0+wa(1-a) (Chevalier 2001, Linder 2003) binned w(z) (‘parameter free’) Perturbations: cs2,, ...

Binning of w(z) use 50 bins zmax given by particular survey effectively parameter free continuous binning required for including CMB (Crittenden & Pogosian 2005) Fiducial model: w = -0.9 constant

Principal Component Analysis Calculate Fisher matrix for leading order approximation of Likelihood Diagonalize Fisher matrix do establish independent modes Decompose w(z) in Eigenmodes Inverse of eigenvalue is measure of uncertainty in Eigenmode (j = j-1/2), Eigenmode reflects redshift sensitivity (Huterer and Starkman 2003; Crittenden & Pogosian 2005)

Analysis with Principal Components Establish leading components via Fisher matrix (fixed vs. non-fixed cosmological parameters, below) Estimate coefficients with MCMC or full likelihood (may need to iterate fiducial model)(Huterer and Peiris, 2007) How about priors on Eigenmodes? How to establish number of modes to take along (risk, likelihood ratio, F-test, evidence)?

Future Observations South Pole Telescope: 1000 element Bolometer Array; 4,000 deg2; 150,250 and 270 GHz; 10m telescope; 1’ beam; deployed begining of 2007. PanStarrs: photo-z; z=0-1; >30,000 deg2; 23.8 mag; griz and y filter and wide band (g+r+i); 4 cameras at PS4 on 1.8m mirror (1.4 billion pixels). Dark Energy Survey: Imaging Survey on 4m Blanco; 5,000 deg2 sky coverage; 24mag in griz+VISTA IR; photo-z; z=0.35-1.39 WFMOS: Spectrograph on Gemini (Subaru) telescope, limiting m=24, wide survey: 2000 deg2, z = 0.5-1.3; deep survey: 300 deg2, z = 2.3 - 3.3. DUNE: Satellite; Imaging survey, photo-z; z=0.1-1.1, half sky, one wide (r+i+z) band and NIR; mag limit 24.5; ground based complement SNAP: Satellite; 6 optical + 3 NIR filters; z=0-1.7, 300 deg2 WL For WFMOS take VVDS DEEP as distribution DUNE in conjunction with ground based observation Get more from DUNE webpage about SNAP from Refregier paper

Supernovae Probes Measure of redshift - distance relation SNAP: 3000 SNe Most weight at redshift z=0.2 (DE domination) Modes above 3rd are very weakly constrained (1 = 0.14; 2 = 0.30; 3 = 0.55) Mode becomes negative here Is statement about DE domination correct

Comparison of SNe probes DES: 1,900 SNe (1 = 1.26; 2 = 3.46) PanStarrs: 6,000 SNe (1 = 0.13; 1 = 0.28) SNAP, DUNE and PanStarrs very similar

Weak Lensing Probes Probing expansion and growth of structure DES: zmax = 2.0; = 0.34 Leading Principal Components reflect redshift bins Strong constraints at z=0.3 and z=1.0 1 = 0.25; 2 = 2.95; 3= 3.93

Comparison of WL probes Use simulated galaxy redshift distributions (DES: Huan Lin, DUNE: Peter Capak) SNAP 2-bins: zmax = 3.0; =0.31 (1 = 1.67; 2 = 5.91) SNAP 3-bins: (1 = 0.39; 2 = 2.37) DES 1-bin: (1 = 50.0; 2 = 78.0) DES 3-bins: (1 = 0.25; 2 = 2.95) DUNE 1-bin: zmax = 3.0; =0.40 (1 = 24.9; 2 = 33.7) DUNE 5-bins: (1 = 0.0053; 2 = 0.031)

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations Measure of angular diameter distance Combination of wide and deep WFMOS survey. kmax = 0.15 cut-off Peak constraint above z=0.5! 1 = 0.17; 2 = 0.53; 3= 0.66 used bias b=1, probably an underestimate

Sunayev-Zel’dovich Galaxy Cluster Counts Measure of growth and volume zmax = 1.5 Peak below z=0.5 1 = 0.39; 2 = 0.96; 3= 1.55

Effects of Other Cosmological Parameters Include other cosmological parameters (m, H0,M,...) Marginalize Fisher matrix over extra parameters and then calculate principal components sign of mode changes above z=0.5 peak of modes shifts to lower redshift

Comparing Different Surveys We compare the best example of each type of surveys. Clearly WL from DUNE is best constraint for z<1, while BAO is most promising for larger redshifts, however these are Stage IV (DETF) missions Galaxy cluster number counts almost as good as SNe and deliver information to higher redshift (these are forthcoming data sets) and are at Stage II-III. More to come ...