Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Photometric redshift — where it appears

A redshift estimated from broad-band colours rather than from a spectrum, by fitting a template. It is cheap enough to apply to a hundred million galaxies and accurate to a few per cent, and a small error in a sample's mean redshift biases every lensing amplitude derived from it.

Named by 5 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A coherent one-per-cent distortion, invisible on every galaxy in the picture. 150 background galaxies behind a lens of Einstein radius 14″, each drawn at its own ellipticity: an intrinsic shape with a dispersion of 0.3 per component, plus the reduced shear the lens adds. The strongest shear on any galaxy here is 0.035, one part in 8 of the intrinsic scatter, so no object in this field is measurably distorted and the tangential alignment cannot be seen by eye at all. Averaged over these 150, the mean tangential ellipticity is 0.0088 ± 0.0245 against the 0.0130 the lens model predicts — consistent with the lens and equally consistent with nothing, because 150 galaxies buy a precision of 0.024 and the signal is 0.013. Detecting it at five sigma takes about 13,275 of them, which is not a picture anybody can draw. The cross component — every shape rotated by 45°, which gravitational lensing cannot produce — averages −0.0016 ± 0.0245, consistent with nothing, and that null is what separates a mass from a badly figured optic. The signal is not in any galaxy. It is in the sum, and the whole design of a lensing survey follows from that.

A one-per-cent distortion, and a million galaxies to see it

A galaxy's own shape is unknown and scatters with a dispersion of about 0.3, so a coherent one-per-cent shear is thirty times smaller than the noise on any single measurement. Nothing is ever measured about one object; the estimator is an average, and the whole design of a survey follows from 0.3 over the square root of N.

galaxies · Weak lensing Two bands 2.1 standard deviations apart, and neither is a point. The plane of the matter density against the amplitude of matter fluctuations, with the constraints from a weak-lensing survey and from the microwave background drawn as bands. Lensing measures the shear produced by structure along the line of sight, and that shear depends on how much matter there is and on how clumpy it is in a fixed combination — more matter arranged less clumpily gives the same signal. The locus is a power law of exponent one half, and the combination it fixes is written S₈. The two bands are separated by 2.1 standard deviations, and whatever that separation is, it is a statement about the growth of structure between recombination and now rather than about either measurement's precision. Neither band alone determines either quantity, which is why the disagreement is quoted in the combination rather than in the parameters.

Two parameters that lensing measures as one

A weak-lensing survey measures how much the shapes of distant galaxies are distorted by the matter in front of them, and that distortion depends on how much matter there is and on how clumpily it is arranged. The two enter as a product. What the survey determines is one number, and the disagreement between surveys and the microwave background is stated in that number because neither measures either quantity alone.

galaxies · Weak lensing Stretched towards the mass, sheared across it. Two rings of galaxies around the same concentration of mass. Left, galaxies physically beside it: its tidal field stretches each one along the line to the centre, so their long axes point radially and their mean tangential ellipticity is −0.30. Right, galaxies far behind it: their light is deflected past the mass and each image is sheared tangentially, with mean tangential ellipticity +0.30. The two patterns are perpendicular. A weak-lensing survey correlates the shapes of foreground and background galaxies to measure the shear, and when a foreground galaxy was aligned by the very structure that lenses the background one, their product is negative — −0.090 here — and subtracts from the signal rather than adding noise to it. What the picture exaggerates is the size: real intrinsic alignments are a per cent or two in the mean, buried under a random shape scatter of about 0.3, and are found only statistically.

The shape a galaxy was given before it was lensed

Weak lensing assumes that galaxies point in random directions, so that a coherent stretch can only have been put there by the light's journey. The tidal field that set every galaxy's spin also stretched its shape — towards the very mass that lenses the galaxies behind it — and the resulting error is not noise but a signal of the opposite sign.

cosmology · Tidal torque theory Photometric against true redshift for a simulated sample. The redshift fitted from broad-band magnitudes against the true redshift, for 300 simulated galaxies — half old, half young — measured to a signal-to-noise of 10 in their brightest band in six optical bands, and fitted with the same two templates they were made from. 217 fall within 15 per cent in 1 + z of the diagonal, with a scatter of 0.053 in (the fitted z − z)/(1 + z) among them. 83 are catastrophic failures, more than 15 per cent off, and they are not scattered at random: they sit in clumps far from the diagonal, where a galaxy's break was mistaken for the other kind of break. The scatter can be improved by measuring better; the outliers are a different kind of error, and averaging does not remove them.

A redshift that is wrong by three

Most galaxies in the largest surveys will never have a spectrum. Their distances are read from five or six magnitudes, and the reading usually lands close. When it fails it does not fail by a little — a nearby galaxy is placed ten billion years away, because two different breaks in two different spectra fell into the same filter.

starlight · Magnitudes One cluster weighed two ways, and the redshift where the two swap places. The fractional error on the mass of a single cluster of 3·10¹⁴ solar masses, on a logarithmic axis, against the cluster's redshift. Weighed by the shapes of the galaxies behind it (rising curves), the error is 50 per cent at redshift 0.3 and 750 per cent at 1.5 for a survey of today's depth, 10 galaxies per arcmin²; 26 per cent at redshift 0.3 and 187 per cent at 1.5 for a survey of the next depth, 30 galaxies per arcmin²: the galaxies far enough behind the cluster to be lensed by it run out. Weighed by the dipole it draws on the microwave background (nearly flat curves), the error is 461 per cent at 0.3 and 337 per cent at 1.5 for a map with 10 μK-arcmin of noise; 224 per cent at 0.3 and 153 per cent at 1.5 for a map with 3 μK-arcmin of noise — never good for one cluster, and almost the same at every distance, because the source is at redshift 1090. The curves cross at z = 1.22 (10 galaxies per arcmin², 10 μK-arcmin), z = 0.89 (10 galaxies per arcmin², 3 μK-arcmin), z = 1.77 (30 galaxies per arcmin², 10 μK-arcmin), z = 1.41 (30 galaxies per arcmin², 3 μK-arcmin). Below the crossing a galaxy survey weighs each cluster better; above it, only the background weighs it at all.

A mass scale checked near and carried far

A cluster can be weighed by the galaxies behind it or by the microwave background behind it, and the two share no systematic error. They do not share a redshift range either: the galaxies run out at about one, the background never does, and a comparison can only be made where both still work.

cosmology · Sunyaev zeldovich

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Cosmic shearShape noiseCritical surface densityExcess surface densityIntrinsic alignmentBalmer breakBroad-band photometryCatastrophic outlierCluster mass functionConvergenceCorrelation functionThe cross component

All concepts