Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Sigma eight — where it appears

The root-mean-square fluctuation of the matter density in spheres eight megaparsecs across, per Hubble-constant unit, today. It sets the normalisation of structure and is measured by cluster counts, weak lensing and galaxy velocities.

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

Fingers 3.1 times long, a large scale squashed to 0.92, and a test of gravity. Left: a 360-megaparsec slice of a clustered universe, as the galaxies actually sit. Right: the same galaxies as a redshift survey records them, with the line of sight up the page. Nothing has moved sideways, because an angle is an angle; every displacement is along the line of sight, because that coordinate came from a redshift and a redshift is the expansion plus whatever the galaxy is doing on its own. Two effects, opposite in sign and separated by scale. Inside a cluster the motions are virial and random, 720 kilometres a second of them, which at H₀ = 67.36 is 11 megaparsecs of smearing on an object a few across: the clusters become fingers 3.1 times longer than they are wide, all pointing at the observer, which is the one structure in cosmology that is definitely not real. On the scale of a supercluster the motions are coherent — everything is falling in, so the far side is approaching and the near side receding — and the structure is compressed rather than stretched, to 0.92 of its true extent here, measured on cluster centroids so the fingers have already averaged away. Below: why that compression is worth having. Its amplitude is the rate at which structure is currently growing, and the growth rate is Ωₘ(z) raised to a power that general relativity fixes at about 0.55. A theory of gravity that differs from general relativity on cosmological scales while matching every solar-system test changes that exponent and nothing else, and the two curves drawn — γ = 0.55 and γ = 0.68 — differ by only 4 per cent at redshift a half, against error bars of 12 per cent on the points beside them. The worst systematic in a redshift survey is the measurement — and it is a hard one, because a quarter of a change in the exponent that governs how gravity assembles structure moves the observable by less than the width of the curve it is drawn on. What the picture cannot show is the degeneracy that limits it: what is measured is fσ₈, a product, and separating the growth rate from the amplitude of clustering needs something else entirely.

A map that is not of positions

One axis of every redshift survey is not a distance but a velocity, and the difference is not noise. Inside a cluster it smears the galaxies into a finger pointing at the observer; on the scale of a supercluster it compresses the structure — and the amount of that compression is a test of gravity.

cosmology · Large-scale structure A velocity error that grows with distance. The uncertainty in one galaxy's peculiar velocity, v = cz − H₀d, against its distance in Mpc/h, when the distance comes from an indicator with a fractional error of 5 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent (type Ia supernovae, 5%; Tully–Fisher, 20%; fundamental plane, 25%). The redshift is exact to a few kilometres a second, so the whole error is the distance error times H₀, and it grows in proportion to the distance. The horizontal line is the rms velocity of a galaxy along one direction in linear theory for the model drawn, 302 km/s. Each galaxy's own velocity is measured to better than its own size only inside 60 Mpc/h for 5 per cent, 15 Mpc/h for 20 per cent, 12 Mpc/h for 25 per cent; beyond that a single velocity is mostly noise, and a velocity survey is useful only as an average over many galaxies.

Velocities that see past the edge of the map

A redshift survey infers the motions of galaxies from the distortions of its own map. A peculiar-velocity survey measures them directly, one galaxy at a time, by subtracting a distance from a redshift — and every one of those measurements is dominated by its own error beyond a few tens of megaparsecs. What makes the survey worth doing is that a velocity answers for structure far larger than the volume it is measured in.

cosmology · Large-scale structure How much each change moves the growth rate. The percentage difference in fσ₈ from growth in relativity inside a cosmological constant's expansion, against redshift, for three alternatives started from the same early amplitude. Changing the expansion to the evolving fit with DES-SN5YR and keeping relativity moves it by −1.2 per cent at redshift 0.5, and by at most 2.1 per cent anywhere below redshift 2. Keeping the constant's expansion and changing gravity to γ = 0.68 moves it by −8.6 per cent; doing both, −10.3. The shaded band is ±8 per cent, about the error of one of the better redshift-space measurements so far. The difference between a constant and the evolving fit is several times smaller than any single measurement; the difference between two laws of gravity is comparable to one. Growth is a weak test of whether the dark energy is changing and a strong test of whether it is gravity.

The growth that tells a substance from a law

In relativity an expansion history leaves no freedom in how fast structure grows inside it, so every fitted history predicts its own growth. The evolving dark energy the surveys prefer changes that growth by one or two per cent; a change in the law of gravity, with the expansion held fixed, changes it by nine. Growth is a weak test of whether the dark energy is changing and a strong test of whether it is there at all.

cosmology · Dark energy

Named alongside it

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

Growth rateGalaxy biasGrowth indexModified-gravityPeculiar velocityRedshift-space distortionBulk flowCorrelation functionCosmic varianceDark energyDistance indicatorEquation of state

All concepts