4.7 Article

Testing homogeneity on large scales in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release One

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09578.x

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The assumption that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales is one of the fundamental postulates of cosmology. We have tested the large-scale homogeneity of the galaxy distribution in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release One (SDSS-DR1) using volume-limited subsamples extracted from the two equatorial strips that are nearly two-dimensional. The galaxy distribution was projected on the equatorial plane and we carried out a 2D multifractal analysis by counting the number of galaxies inside circles of different radii, r, in the range 5-150 h(-1) Mpc centred on galaxies. Different moments of the count-in-cells were analysed to identify a range of length-scales (60-70 h(-1) Mpc to 150 h(-1) Mpc), where the moments show a power-law scaling behaviour, and to determine the scaling exponent that gives the spectrum of generalized dimension D-q. If the galaxy distribution is homogeneous, D-q does not vary with q and is equal to the Euclidean dimension, which in our case is 2. We find that D-q varies in the range 1.7-2.2. We also constructed mock data from random, homogeneous point distributions and from lambda cold dark matter (Lambda CDM) N-body simulations with bias b = 1, 1.6 and 2, and analysed these in exactly the same way. The values of D-q in the random distribution and the unbiased simulations show much smaller variations and these are not consistent with the actual data. The biased simulations, however, show larger variations in D-q and these are consistent with both the random and the actual data. Interpreting the actual data as a realization of a biased Lambda CDM universe, we conclude that the galaxy distribution is homogeneous on scales larger than 60-70 h(-1) Mpc.

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