Scalar field quintessence by cosmic shear

1. Scalar field quintessence by cosmic shear constraints from VIRMOS-Descart and CFHTLS and future prospects Carlo Schimd DAPNIA / CEA Saclay @ DUNE Team & Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris I.Tereno, J.-P.Uzan, Y.Mellier, (IAP), L.vanWaerbeke (British Columbia U.), ... In collaboration with: Based on: astro-ph/0603158 July 2006, Barcelona IRGAC 2006

2. Dark energy: parametrization .vs. “physics” inspired  {baryons,g,n} + DM + GRalonecannot account for the cosmological dynamics seen by CMB + LSS + SNe + ... Dark energy H(z)-Hr+m+GR(z)  1/0 approach:parameterization of w(z) departures from LCDM  limitation in redshift ? Not adapted for combining low-z and high-z observables and/or several datasets  pivot redshift zp : observable/dataset dependent  perturbations: how ? Fitted T(k)  parameters  physics  # p.: limitation to likelihood computation  Physics-inspired approach: classes  experimental/observational tests  Other “matter” fields?  cosmological constant, quintessence, K-essence, etc.  GR : not valid anymore?  scalar-tensor theories, braneworld, etc.  Validity of Copernican principle?  effect of inhomogeneities?  w : full redshift range   high-energy physics ?!  perturbations: consistently accounted for  small # p. Uzan, Aghanim, Mellier (2004); Uzan, astro-ph/0605313

3. Quintessence by cosmic shear. I gal obs convergence k shear (g1, g2) v i k(l), g1(l), g2(l): geodesic deviation equation LSS:  N-pts  2-pts correlation functions in real space: Map2 (q) ,, ... Remark: just geometry, valid also for ST gravity C.S., J.-P.Uzan, A.Riazuelo (2004)

4. Quintessence by cosmic shear. II • ...normalization to high-z (CMB):  the modes k enter in non-linear regime ( s(k)1 ) at different time  3D non-linear power spectrum is modified  2D shear power spectrum is modified by k = / SK (z) QCDM  GR  Poisson eq. with respect to L , quintessence modifies  angular distance q(z); 3D2D projection growth factor  amplitude of 3D L/NL power spectrum  amplitude + shape of 2D spectra  NON-LINEAR regime: • N-body: ... • mappings: stable clustering, halo model, etc.: e.g. Peacock & Dodds (1996) Smith et al. (2003) NLPm(k,z) = f[LPm(k,z)] • Ansatz:dc, bias, c, etc. not so much dependent on cosmology  at every z we can use them, provided we use the correct linear growth factor (defining the onset of the NL regime)... calibrated with LCDM N-body sim, 5-10% agreement Huterer & Takada (2005)

5. pipeline * * C.S., Uzan & Riazuelo (2004) * * * Riazuelo & Uzan (2002) * • Q models: self-interacting scalar field minimally/non-minimally couled to gmn • no fit for power spectra • (restricted) parameter space: {WQ, a, ns, zsource}; marginalization over zsource * CMB can be taken into account at no cost

6. wide survey: Q - geometrical effects (IPL) Peacock & Dodds (1996)  CFHTLS wide/22deg2 (real data) top-hat variance  CFHTLS wide/170deg2 (synth) top-hat variance inverse power law  CFHTLS wide/170deg2 (synth) aperture mass variance  CFHTLS wide/170deg2 (synth) top-hat variance  only scales > 20 arcmin

7. wide survey : Q - geometrical effects (SUGRA) Peacock & Dodds (1996)  CFHTLS wide/22deg2 (real data) top-hat variance  CFHTLS wide/170deg2 (synth) top-hat variance SUGRA  CFHTLS wide/170deg2 (synth) aperture mass variance  CFHTLS wide/170deg2 (synth) top-hat variance  only scales > 20 arcmin

8. cosmic shear + SNe+ CMB: Q equation of state VIRMOS-Descart + CFHTLS deep + CFHTLS wide/22deg2 + “goldset”@SNe inverse power law SUGRA  (ns,zs): marginalized ; all other parameters: fixed  Mass scale M: indicative  SNe: confirmed literature TT-CMB: rejection from first peak (analytical (Doran et al. 2000) & numerical)   Cosmic shear (real data only): • IPL: strong degeneracy with SNe • SUGRA: • 1) beware of systematics! (wl: calibration when combining datasets) • 2) limit case: prefectly known/excluded Q model (weakly a-dependence) Van Waerbeke et al. (2006)

9. Q by cosmic shear : Fisher matrix analysis present setup: DUNE (pi: A.Réfrégier): wide, shallow survey optimized for WL + SNe SNe “goldset” • A= 20000 deg2 • ngal = 35/arcmin2 TT @ CMB WMAP 1yr CFHTLS wide/170 • A = 170 deg2 • ngal = 20/arcmin2 All but (a,Wq) fixed  inverse-power law SUGRA = real data analysis +treion: all but (a,Wq,ns) fixed, (treion,zs) marginalized  CFHTLS wide/170  DUNE inverse-power law

10. conclusions & prospects quintessence at low-zby SNe + cosmic shear,using high-z informations (TT-CMB/Cl normalization)  for the first timecosmic shear data to this task  astro-ph/0603158  pipeline: Boltzmann code + lensing code + data analysis by grid method: dynamical models of DE (not parameterization): fCDM  consistent joint analysis of high-z (CMB) and low-z (cosmic shear, Sne,...) observables  no stress between datasets; no pivot redshift  NL regime: (two) L-NL mappings (caveat)  Q parameters (seem to) feel only geometry   wide, shallow cosmic shear surveys are suitable   Work in progress:  analysis of realistic (=dynamical) models of DE using severalparameters  1. + CMB data; 2. MCMC analysis (Tereno et al. 2005) other techniques: cross-correlations (ISW), 3pts functions, tomography  in collaboration with: I.Tereno, Y.Mellier , J.-P. Uzan, R. Lehoucq, A. Réfrégier & DUNE team

11. Thank you

12. Q models, datasets & likelihood analysis Q models: ; • CMB: TT anisotropy spectrum @ WMAP-1yr  initial conditions/ normalization • SNe: “goldset” Riess et al. (2004) • cosmic shear: VIRMOS-Descart VanWaerbeke, Mellier, Hoekstra (2004) CFHTLS deep Semboloni et al. (2005) CFHTLS wide/22deg2 & 170deg2 (synth) Hoekstra et al. (2005)  wl observables:top-hat variance; aperture mass variance U  cosmic shear: by wide-field imager/DUNE-like satellite mission (restricted) parameter space: {WQ, a, ns, zsource}; marginalization over zsource