1. Henk Hoekstra Ludo van Waerbeke Catherine Heymans Mike Hudson Laura Parker Yannick Mellier Liping Fu Elisabetta Semboloni Martin Kilbinger Andisheh Mahdavi Arif Babul Cosmic shear Current status and prospects

2. The large scale mass distribution causes a distortion in the shapes of background galaxies. This can lead to spectacular lensing examples… Gravitational lensing

4. A measurement of the ellipticity of a galaxy provides an unbiased but noisy measurement of the shear Weak gravitational lensing

5. Cosmic shear is the lensing of distant galaxies by the overall distribution of matter in the universe: it is the most “common” lensing phenomenon. Cosmic shear

6. In the absence of noise we would be able to map the matter distribution in the universe (even “dark” clusters). We can see dark matter! Courtesy B. Jain

7. We can see dark matter! Where expected: in the “Bullet Cluster” Clowe et al. (2006)

8. We can see dark matter! Or where we don’t expect it! Dark matter/X-ray peak, without galaxies?! (Mahdavi et al. 2007) Abell 520

9. Why weak lensing?  Weak lensing provides a direct measurement of the projected (dark) matter distribution, which can be used for cosmological parameter estimation.  The physics is well understood: General Relativity.  The applications are numerous.  statistical properties of the matter (cosmological parameters).  relation between galaxies and dark matter (galaxy biasing).  properties of dark matter halos (test of CDM and law of gravity).

10. Mahdavi et al (2008): gas not in hydrostatic equilibrium at large radii. X-ray vs lensing mass comparison

11. What do we measure? Underlying assumption: the galaxy position angles are uncorrelated in the absence of lensing 1.Measure the galaxy shapes from the images 2.Correct for observational distortions 3.Select a sample of background galaxies Lensing signal The conversion of the lensing signal into a mass requires knowledge of the source redshift distribution

12. What do we need? The weak lensing signal is small:  We need to measure the shapes of many galaxies.  We need to remove systematic signals at a high level of accuracy. Only recently we have been able to overcome both obstacles, although we still need various improvements to deal with the next generation of surveys

13.  1 square degree field of view  ~350 megapixels Megacam: Build a big camera…

14. Put it on a good telescope… Such as the CFHT or VST, LSST, SNAP, etc

15. … and take a lot of data! That’s when the “fun” starts… CFHTLS RCS2 KIDS

16. Dealing with systematics: the PSF Weak lensing is rather unique in the sense that we can study (PSF-related) systematics very well. Several diagnostic tools can be used. However, knowing systematics are present doesn’t mean we know how to deal with them… E-mode (curl-free) B-mode (curl)

17. Dealing with systematics: tests It is relatively easy to create simulated data to test the measurement techniques. The Shear TEsting Programme is an international collaboration to provide a means to benchmark the various methods. So far two papers have been published (Heymans et al., 2006 and Massey et al., 2007). These results provide a snapshot of the current accuracy that can be reached (~1-2%).

18. The Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey is a five year project, with three major components. The Wide Survey’s focus is weak lensing. ~140 square degrees 4 fields 5 filters (u,g,r,i,z’) i<24.5 CFHT Legacy Survey

19. CFHTLS: current status Since the publication of the first results (Hoekstra et al. 2006) a number of things have improved: Reduced systematics Larger area observed (we can probe larger scales) Improve estimates of cosmological parameters using photo-z’s The latest results, based on the analysis of 57 sq. deg. spread over 3 fields have recently been published in Fu et al. (2008)

20. CFHTLS: the measurement Measurements out to 4 degree scales!

21. What does the signal mean? The cosmic shear signal is mainly a measurement of the variance in the density fluctuations. Little bit of matter, large fluctuations Lot of matter, small fluctuations Same “lensing” signal To first order lensing measures a combination of the amount of matter  m and the normalisation of the power spectrum   

22. Cosmology is “scale independent”: non-linear corrections sufficient so far. CFHTLS: recent results

23. Results agree well with WMAP3 (and WMAP5…)

24. What to do next? Currently ~35 sq. deg. of data have the full ugriz coverage and photometric redshift are being determined. With photometric redshift information for the sources we can study the growth of structure, which significantly improves the sensitivity to cosmological parameters.

25. Details, details, details… The devil is in the details. The accuracy of first cosmic shear surveys is mostly limited by statistical noise (small areas). For the next generation many subtle effect need to be taken into account. We are discovering these (or correcting these) as we go along…

26. Further ahead… The study of dark energy is an important application of cosmic shear. The CFHTLS will provide the first constraints from a ground based survey. But a useful measurement of the dark energy parameters requires much better precision. The several hundred million dollar question is: Can we reach the 1% precision from the ground or should we go to space?

27. Advantages of space SuperNova Acceleration Probe  much smaller PSF  optical + NIR bands  higher source density  higher source redshift  better photo-z’s  large reduction in systematics

28. The CFHTLS lensing project is progressing well and is producing competitive cosmological results, but it is work in progress: To achieve the full potential of the survey a number of remaining hurdles need to be jumped over! Conclusions

29. Intrinsic alignments Intrinsic alignments complicate the cosmological interpretation of the lensing signal. CFHTLS and other surveys will allow us to measure the amplitude of the intrinsic alignments. Dealing with intrinsic alignments will benefit greatly from these photometric redshift data and we can eliminate the “classical” alignments. However, Hirata et al. and Heymans et al. have pointed out more subtle effects, namely the alignment between shear (LSS) and intrinstic alignments.

30. Current problems… The measurements show a correlation between PSF anisotropy and the galaxy shape after correction for observational effects: some residual remains, but we have not been able to identify the cause. The current measurement method shows a magnitude/size dependent bias which needs to be improved before we can do tomography.

31. Hopefully better luck next year? The survey will finish collecting data within a year. It is still the leading survey. (no competing projects, even after five years…) The collaboration is growing. We are working on many more lensing projects. The future for cosmic shear is still bright!