1 / 24

CMB and cluster lensing

CMB and cluster lensing. Antony Lewis Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge http://cosmologist.info/. Lewis & Challinor, Phys. Rept. 2006 : astro-ph/0601594. Lewis & King, PRD 2006 : astro-ph/0512104. Weak lensing of the CMB. Last scattering surface. Inhomogeneous universe

linus
Download Presentation

CMB and cluster lensing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CMB and cluster lensing Antony Lewis Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge http://cosmologist.info/ Lewis & Challinor, Phys. Rept. 2006 : astro-ph/0601594 Lewis & King, PRD 2006 : astro-ph/0512104

  2. Weak lensing of the CMB Last scattering surface Inhomogeneous universe - photons deflected Observer

  3. Lensing order of magnitudes Ψ β Newtonian argument: β = 2 Ψ General Relativity: β = 4 Ψ (β << 1) Potentials linear and approx Gaussian: Ψ~ 2 x 10-5 β ~ 10-4 Characteristic size from peak of matter power spectrum ~ 300Mpc Comoving distance to last scattering surface ~ 14000 MPc total deflection ~ 501/2 x 10-4 pass through ~50 lumps ~ 2 arcminutes assume uncorrelated (neglects angular factors, correlation, etc.)

  4. So why does it matter? • 2arcmin: ell ~ 3000- on small scales CMB is very smooth so lensing dominates the linear signal • Deflection angles coherent over 300/(14000/2) ~ 2°- comparable to CMB scales- expect 2arcmin/60arcmin ~ 3% effect on main CMB acoustic peaks

  5. Full calculation: deflection angle on sky given in terms of lensing potential Lensed temperature given by Lewis 2005,astro-ph/0502469 LensPix sky simulation code:http://cosmologist.info/lenspix

  6. Lensed temperature Cl and linear in lensing potential power spectrum Analogous results for CMB polarization. Essentially exact to order of weak lensing – very well understood effect on power spectra.Non-linear Pk 0.2% on TT, ~5% on BB Lewis, Challinor Phys. Rept. 2006 : astro-ph/0601594 Full-sky fully non-perturbative generalization of method by Seljak 1996

  7. Lensing effect on CMB temperature power spectrum: smoothing of acoustic peaks; small scale power Full-sky calculation accurate to 0.1%: Fortran code CAMB (http://camb.info)

  8. Polarization lensing: Cx and CE Important ~ 10% smoothing effect

  9. Polarization lensing: CB Nearly white BB spectrum on large scales Lensing effect can be largely subtracted if only scalar modes + lensing present, but approximate and complicated (especially posterior statistics).Hirata, Seljak: astro-ph/0306354, Okamoto, Hu: astro-ph/0301031 Lewis, Challinor : astro-ph/0601594

  10. Polarization power spectra Current 95% indirect limits for LCDM given WMAP+2dF+HST Lewis, Challinor : astro-ph/0601594; Lewis Moriond 2006

  11. Non-Gaussianity • Unlensed CMB expected to be close to Gaussian • With lensing: … • For a FIXED lensing field, lensed field also Gaussian • For VARYING lensing field, lensed field is non-Gaussian Three point function: Bispectrum < T T T > - Zero unless correlation <T Ψ> • Large scale signal from ISW-induced T- Ψ correlation • Small scale signal from non-linear SZ – Ψ correlation Zaldarriaga astro-ph/9910498, Goldberg&Spergel, etc…

  12. Trispectrum: Connected four-point < T T T T>c • Depends on deflection angle and temperature power spectra • ‘Easily’ measurable for accurate ell > 1000 observations Zaldarriaga astro-ph/9910498; Hu astro-ph/0105117 Other signatures • correlated hot-spot ellipticities • Higher n-point functions • Polarization non-Gaussianity

  13. Confusion with primordial non-Gaussianity? • 1-point function • lensing only moves points around, so distribution at a point Gaussian • But complicated by beam effects Kesden, Cooray, Kamionkowski: astro-ph/0208325 • Bispectrum - ISW-lensing correlation only significant on very large scales - SZ-lensing correlation can dominate on very small scales - On larger scales oscillatory primordial signal should be easily distinguishable with Planck if large enough Komatsu: astro-ph/0005036

  14. Trispectrum (4-point) Basic inflation:- most signalin long thin quadrilaterals Lensing:- broader distribution, lesssignal in thin shapes Komatsu: astro-ph/0602099 Hu: astro-ph/0105117 Can only detect inflation signal from cosmic variance if fNL >~ 20 Lensing probably not main problem for flat quadrilaterals if single-field non-Gaussianity No analysis of relative shape-dependence from e.g. curvaton??

  15. Cluster CMB lensinge.g. to constrain cosmology via number counts Lewis & King, astro-ph/0512104 Following: Seljak, Zaldarriaga, Dodelson, Vale, Holder, etc. CMB very smooth on small scales: approximately a gradient What we see Last scattering surface GALAXYCLUSTER 0.1 degrees Need sensitive ~ arcminute resolution observations

  16. RMS gradient ~ 13 μK / arcmindeflection from cluster ~ 1 arcmin Lensing signal ~ 10 μK BUT: depends on CMB gradient behind a given cluster Unlensed Lensed Difference Unlensed CMB unknown, but statistics well understood (background CMB Gaussian) : can compute likelihood of given lens (e.g. NFW parameters) essentially exactly

  17. Add polarization observations? Difference after cluster lensing Unlensed T+Q+U Less sample variance – but signal ~10x smaller: need 10x lower noise Note: E and B equally useful on these scales; gradient could be either

  18. Complications • Temperature- Thermal SZ, dust, etc. (frequency subtractable) - Kinetic SZ (big problem?) - Moving lens effect (velocity Rees-Sciama, dipole-like) - Background Doppler signals - Other lenses • Polarization- Quadrupole scattering (< 0.1μK)- Re-scattered thermal SZ (freq)- Kinetic SZ (higher order)- Other lensesGenerally much cleaner

  19. Is CMB lensing better than galaxy lensing? • Assume background galaxy shapes random before lensing • Measure ellipticity after lensing by cluster Lensing • On average ellipticity measures reduced shear • Shear is γab = ∂<a αb> • Constrain cluster parameters from predicted shear • Assume numerous systematics negligible…

  20. Optimistic Futuristic CMB polarization lensing vs galaxy lensingLess massive case: M = 2 x 1014 h-1 Msun, c=5 CMB polarization only (0.07 μK arcmin noise) Galaxies (500 gal/arcmin2)

  21. Summary • Weak lensing of the CMB very important for precision cosmology- changes power spectra- potential confusion with primordial gravitational waves for r <~ 10-3- Non-Gaussian signal, but well known and probably not main problem • Cluster lensing of CMB- Temperature lensing difficult because of confusions- CMB polarisation lensing needs high sensitivity but potentially useful at high redshift- galaxy lensing expected to be much better for low redshift clusters- CMB lensing has quite different systematics to galaxy lensing

  22. Planck (2007+) parameter constraint simulation(neglect non-Gaussianity of lensed field) Lewis 2005,astro-ph/0502469 Important effect, but using lensed CMB power spectrum gets ‘right’ answer Parameters can be improved using BB/lensing reconstruction; non-Gaussianity important in the future; c.f. Wayne Hu’s talk

  23. Full calculation: Lensed temperature depends on deflection angle: Lensing Potential Deflection angle on sky given in terms of lensing potential

  24. Toy model: spherically symmetric NFW cluster 2 M200 ~ 1015 h-1 Msun Deflection ~ 0.7 arcmin c ~ 5, z ~ 1 (rv ~ 1.6Mpc) (approximate lens as thin, constrain projected density profile) assume we know where centre is

More Related