Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Shape noise — where it appears

The scatter of galaxies' intrinsic shapes, about 0.25 per component, against which a weak-lensing shear of about one per cent has to be measured. It averages down only as the square root of the number of galaxies, which is why lensing surveys count them in millions.

Named by 5 essays across 2 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 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 The fraction of a spin alignment a disc can show. The ratio of a disc population's shape alignment — its mean ellipticity along the projected tidal template — to the Lee–Pen alignment of its spins, against the discs' thickness as a fraction of their diameter, each point from 30,000 discs in a field of shape 0.2. The thinnest disc drawn, 0.05 of its diameter, passes 0.204 per unit of spin alignment; a disc a fifth as thick, typical of a spiral's stellar disc, 0.171; a body as thick as it is wide passes nothing, because a sphere has no shape to align. The ratio is the conversion between what a spin survey measures and what a lensing survey fits, and it is small for two reasons that multiply: a spin alignment is a weak preference among directions, and a disc shows its direction only in proportion to how far it is tipped towards edge-on.

An alignment a disc shows only when it is tipped

A disc galaxy's outline on the sky is its spin seen in projection, so the torque alignment of spins has to appear in shapes too. It does, multiplied by a factor near a sixth and carried almost entirely by the discs seen close to edge-on — which is how a lensing survey can fit the term and find nothing while a survey of spins finds it.

cosmology · Tidal torque theory 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 A conversion read galaxy by galaxy, with or without an alignment. The mean ellipticity of disc galaxies along a tidal template, in bins of each galaxy's own spin estimator — the quantity whose population average is the Lee–Pen alignment — for 60,000 discs a fifth as thick as they are wide, in three samples: spins set by the torque (net alignment 0.36), 85% of them randomised (0.054), and all of them random (0.002). The points trace the same curve through the origin in every sample — not quite straight, flattening at both ends, because a disc's shape saturates when its spin lies in the sky's plane — and a straight line fitted through each sample (dashed) has slope 0.279, 0.290, 0.292. That slope is the projection factor, what a disc's shape shows of its spin, and it does not care whether the population is aligned. A sample with no alignment at all measures the conversion as well as one with a strong one; only the population's mean, where all its galaxies pile up, moves.

A conversion measured without an alignment

The factor that turns a disc galaxy's spin alignment into the shape alignment a lensing survey fits looked like something only a sample with a detected alignment could test. It is not. It is a relation each galaxy obeys on its own, so it can be read off a few hundred discs with velocity maps whether or not their spins point anywhere in particular — and what is left for the hard measurement to test is only whether a disc's shape is anything more than its projected spin.

cosmology · Tidal torque theory

Named alongside it

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

Cosmic shearIntrinsic alignmentPhotometric redshiftSpin alignmentTidal tensorTidal torque theoryCritical surface densityEllipticityExcess surface densityInclinationIntegral-field spectroscopyCluster mass function

All concepts