4.6 Article

TESTING HOMOGENEITY WITH GALAXY STAR FORMATION HISTORIES

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 762, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/762/1/L9

关键词

cosmology: theory; early universe; large-scale structure of universe

资金

  1. South African NRF
  2. UK Royal Society/NRF exchange grant
  3. SA SKA Project
  4. UK STFC [ST/H002774/1]
  5. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  6. National Science Foundation
  7. US Department of Energy
  8. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  9. Japanese Monbukagakusho
  10. Max Planck Society
  11. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  12. [FP7-PEOPLE-2007-4-3-IRG n 20218]
  13. STFC [ST/H002774/1, ST/K001051/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  14. ICREA Funding Source: Custom
  15. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H002774/1, ST/K001051/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Observationally confirming spatial homogeneity on sufficiently large cosmological scales is of importance to test one of the underpinning assumptions of cosmology, and is also imperative for correctly interpreting dark energy. A challenging aspect of this is that homogeneity must be probed inside our past light cone, while observations take place on the light cone. The star formation history (SFH) in the galaxy fossil record provides a novel way to do this. We calculate the SFH of stacked luminous red galaxy (LRG) spectra obtained from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We divide the LRG sample into 12 equal-area contiguous sky patches and 10 redshift slices (0.2 < z < 0.5), which correspond to 120 blocks of volume similar to 0.04 Gpc(3). Using the SFH in a time period that samples the history of the universe between look-back times 11.5 and 13.4 Gyr as a proxy for homogeneity, we calculate the posterior distribution for the excess large-scale variance due to inhomogeneity, and find that the most likely solution is no extra variance at all. At 95% credibility, there is no evidence of deviations larger than 5.8%.

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