
CosmoCoffee

[1003.4282]
Modelling redshift space distortions in hierarchical cosmologies

Authors:  Elise Jennings, Carlton M. Baugh, Silvia Pascoli 
Abstract:  The anisotropy of clustering in redshift space provides a direct measure of
the growth rate of large scale structure in the Universe. Future galaxy
redshift surveys will make high precision measurements of these distortions,
and will potentially allow us to distinguish between different scenarios for
the accelerating expansion of the Universe. Accurate predictions are needed in
order to distinguish between competing cosmological models. We study the
distortions in the redshift space power spectrum in $\Lambda$CDM and
quintessence dark energy models, using large volume Nbody simulations, and
test predictions for the form of the redshift space distortions. We find that
the linear perturbation theory prediction by \citet{Kaiser:1987qv} is a poor
fit to the measured distortions, even on surprisingly large scales $k \sim 0.03
h$Mpc$^{1}$. An improved model for the redshift space power spectrum,
including the nonlinear velocity divergence power spectrum, is presented and
agrees with the power spectra measured from the simulations up to $k \sim 0.2
h$Mpc$^{1}$. We have found a densityvelocity relation which is cosmology
independent and which relates the nonlinear velocity divergence spectrum to
the nonlinear matter power spectrum. We provide a formula which generates the
nonlinear velocity divergence $P(k)$ at any redshift, using only the
nonlinear matter power spectrum and the linear growth factor at the desired
redshift. This formula is accurate to better than 10% on scales $k<0.2 h
$Mpc$^{1}$ for all the cosmological models discussed in this paper. Our
results will extend the statistical power of future galaxy surveys. 

[PDF]
[PS] [BibTex] [Bookmark]

View previous topic :: View next topic 
Author 
Message 
Fergus Simpson
Joined: 25 Sep 2004 Posts: 27 Affiliation: University of Barcelona

Posted: March 25 2010 


This interesting work looks at redshift space distortions on large scales, using results from Nbody simulations. The central result is an improved prescription for modelling the influence of nonlinearities. It's been anticipated for a while that as more precise measures of the growth rate are sought after, we'd have to improve on the standard linear form
P(k,μ) = (1 + βμ^{2})^{2}P(k)
though most theorists have been reluctant to leave this behind as it's nice and easy to work with.
The prescription here is based on the fitting function presented in eq (15). Given the nonlinear matter power spectrum, this generates the velocityvelocity and velocitydensity power spectra at z = 0 , which may then be scaled to higher redshifts using (17) and (18). Finally, the model by Scoccimarro (10) may be used to generate the full P(k,μ).
Just a few questions:
 When applying (15), is "z=0" effectively meaning "σ_{8} = 0.8, b=1"? In other words, are the alpha coefficients not dependent on σ_{8} or the bias? Though if so, presumably a rescaling argument similar to (18) could be applied.
 Could we reach the point where these departures from linearity provide extra information, and improve constraints on the growth of structure?
 Looking at (15), don't some of the alpha coefficients require dimensions?
My only worry is Figure 4, which looks at how the estimated power spectrum is sensitive to the chosen gridding of the density/velocity fields. At first glance the lines seem to converge for increasing N, however the rate of increase in N is also diminishing! The fractional increments between the four lines are 100%, 37%, and 4%. So it looks like the line could still move a reasonable distance (~10%?) from the N=350 line, before we close in on the true N>∞ value. 

Back to top 


Elise Jennings
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 Posts: 1 Affiliation: Durham University

Posted: March 26 2010 


Hi Fergus,
Thank you for your interest in our paper. The answers to your questions are below.
1. Equation (15) is for b = 1 and σ_{8} = 0.8. So far we have only checked the densityvelocity relation for dark matter and in all cosmologies the P(k) have been normalised to the same σ_{8} today. Although previous work, which we discuss in our paper, has shown this relation is independent of cosmological parameters so the dependence on σ_{8} might not be very strong. The quintessence simulations have different Ω_{m}, Ω_{b} and H_{0} compared to ΛCDM as in 0908.1394
2. Yes, some of these constants are dimensionful, this will be corrected when I replace the arxiv version with the published version.
3. We discuss the convergence seen in Fig. 4 in the text on page 9. Pueblas & Scoccimarro 2009 (0809.4606) compared tessellation and CIC assignment schemes in their work and using their results as a guide we can be sure our results have converged on scales up to k˜0.2h / Mpc. Including the velocity divergence power spectra on these scales in the model of the redshift space P(k,μ) is an improvement over the Kaiser 1987 linear perturbation theory. 

Back to top 




You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum

