4.7 Article

The effects of lensing by local structures on the dipole of radio source counts

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 510, Issue 2, Pages 3098-3101

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stab3652

Keywords

Large-scale structure of Universe; Cosmology: observations; Cosmology

Funding

  1. Labex Eniemass

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our peculiar motion in the Universe leaves dipole effects in the cosmic microwave background and the distribution of extragalactic radio sources. The inclusion of lensing dipole effects does not reduce the tension between CMB and radio source dipole measurements, which provide different results for our velocity of motion through the Universe. Additionally, the size of the lensing dipole can be constrained to be kappa< 3 . 10(-2) at the 2 sigma level.
Our peculiar motion in a homogeneous and isotropic universe imprints a dipole in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature field and similarly imprints a dipole in the distribution of extragalactic radio sources on the sky. Each of these effects have been measured; however, each of these measurements give different results for the velocity of our motion through the Universe: the radio dipole measurements finds the speed of our motion to be around three times larger than that of the CMB. Here we show the effects of the previously unconstrained lensing dipole, whereby necessarily local structures (required for large angular lensing scales) will distort the distribution of radio sources on the sky. We find that the inclusion of these effects does not reduce the tension between the CMB and radio source dipole measurements; however, without their inclusion future extragalactic number counts could lead to incorrect inferences of our peculiar motion. In addition we can constrain the size of the lensing dipole to be kappa< 3 . 10(-2) at the 2 sigma level.

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