4.7 Article

Have baryonic acoustic oscillations in the galaxy distribution really been measured?

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01012.x

关键词

galaxies: statistics; cosmology: theory; large-scale structure of Universe

资金

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (MICINN) [AYA2009-13936]
  2. Consolider-Ingenio [CSD2007-00060]
  3. Generalitat de Catalunya [2009-SGR-1398]
  4. [AECT-2006-2-0011]
  5. [AECT-2010-1-0007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent publications claim that there is no convincing evidence for measurements of the baryonic acoustic oscillation (BAO) feature in galaxy samples using either monopole or radial information. Different claims seem contradictory: data are either not consistent with the BAO model or data are consistent with both the BAO model and featureless models without BAO. We investigate this point with a set of 216 realistic mock galaxy catalogues extracted from MICE 7680, one of the largest volume dark matter simulation run to date, with a volume of 1300 cubical gigaparsecs. Our mocks cover similar volume, densities and bias as the real galaxies and provide 216 realizations of the lambda or omega = -1 cold dark matter (omega CDM) BAO model. We find that only 20 per cent of the mocks show a statistically significant (3 sigma) preference for the true (input) omega CDM BAO model as compared to a featureless (non-physical) model without BAO. Thus the volume of current galaxy samples is not yet large enough to claim that the BAO feature has been detected. Does this mean that we cannot locate the BAO position? Using a simple (non-optimal) algorithm we show that in 50 per cent (100 per cent) of the mocks, we can find the BAO position within 5 per cent (20 per cent) of the true value. These two findings are not in contradiction: the former is about model selection and the later is about parameter fitting within a model. We conclude that current monopole and radial BAO measurements can be used as standard rulers if we assume omega CDM type of models.

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

4.7
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