4.7 Article

Can we neglect relativistic temperature corrections in the Planck thermal SZ analysis?

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 483, Issue 3, Pages 3459-3464

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty3352

Keywords

cosmic background radiation; cosmology: observations; cosmology: theory

Funding

  1. ERC Consolidator Grant CMBSPEC [725456]
  2. Royal Society
  3. ESA Member States
  4. NASA
  5. Canada
  6. European Research Council (ERC) [725456] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)
  7. STFC [ST/P000649/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Measurements of the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (tSZ) effect have long been recognized as a powerful cosmological probe. Here we assess the importance of relativistic temperature corrections to the tSZ signal on the power spectrum analysis of the Planck Compton-y map, developing a novel formalism to account for the associated effects. The amplitude of the tSZ power spectrum is found to be sensitive to the effective electron temperature, (T) over bar (e), of the cluster sample. Omitting the corresponding modifications leads to an underestimation of the yy power spectrum amplitude. Relativistic corrections thus add to the error budget of tSZ power spectrum observables such as sigma(8). This could help alleviate the tension between various cosmological probes, with the correction scaling as Delta sigma(8)/sigma(8) similar or equal to 0.019 [k (T) over bar (e)/5 keV] for Planck. At the current level of precision, this implies a systematic shift by similar or equal to 1 sigma, which can also be interpreted as an overestimation of the hydrostatic mass bias by Delta b similar or equal to 0.046 (1 - b) [k (T) over bar (e)/5 keV], bringing it into better agreement with hydrodynamical simulations. It is thus time to consider relativistic temperature corrections in the processing of current and future tSZ data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available