4.6 Article

High-redshift post-reionization cosmology with 21cm intensity mapping

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/05/004

关键词

cosmological parameters from LSS; galaxy clustering; neutrino masses from cosmology; power spectrum

资金

  1. INFN grant [PD 51 INDARK]
  2. Simons Foundation
  3. ERC StG cosmoIGM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate the possibility of performing cosmological studies in the redshift range 2.5 < z < 5 through suitable extensions of existing and upcoming radio-telescopes like CHIME, HIRAX and FAST. We use the Fisher matrix technique to forecast the bounds that those instruments can place on the growth rate, the BAO distance scale parameters, the sum of the neutrino masses and the number of relativistic degrees of freedom at decoupling, N-eff. We point out that quantities that depend on the amplitude of the 21cm power spectrum, like f sigma(8), are completely degenerate with Omega(HI) and km and propose several strategies to independently constrain them through cross-correlations with other probes. Assuming 5% priors on Omega(HI) and b(HI), k(max) = 0.2 hMpc(-1) and the primary beam wedge, we find that a HIRAX extension can constrain, within bins of Delta z = 0.1: 1) the value of f sigma(8) at similar or equal to 4%, 2) the value of D-A and H at similar or equal to 1%. In combination with data from Euclid-like galaxy surveys and CMB S4, the sum of the neutrino masses can be constrained with an error equal to 23 meV (1 sigma), while N-eff can be constrained within 0.02 (1 sigma). We derive similar constraints for the extensions of the other instruments. We study in detail the dependence of our results on the instrument, amplitude of the HI bias, the foreground wedge coverage, the nonlinear scale used in the analysis, uncertainties in the theoretical modeling and the priors on b(HI) and Omega(HI). We conclude that 21cm intensity mapping surveys operating in this redshift range can provide extremely competitive constraints on key cosmological parameters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据