CosmoCoffee Forum Index CosmoCoffee

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistSmartFeed   MemberlistMemberlist    RegisterRegister 
   ProfileProfile   Log inLog in 
Arxiv New Filter | Bookmarks & clubs | Arxiv ref/author:

[1006.1950] Probability of the most massive cluster under non-Gaussian initial conditions
 
Authors:Laura Cayón, Christopher Gordon, Joseph Silk
Abstract:Very massive high redshift clusters can be used to constrain and test the Lambda-CDM model. Taking into account the observational constraints of Jee et al. (2009) we have calculated the probability for the most massive cluster to be found in the range (5.2 - 7.6) x10^14M\odot, between redshifts 1.4<=z<=2.2 and under non-Gaussian initial conditions. Clusters constrain the non-Gaussianity on much smaller scales than current cosmic microwave background or halo bias data and so can be used to test for running of the non-Gaussianity parameter fNL. Combining with WMAP7 data, we find that on cluster scales there is a 92% probability for fNL > 0. If we assume that fNL > 0 we disfavor a scale invariant fNL at the 2 sigma level.
[PDF] [PS] [BibTex] [Bookmark]

Post new topic   Reply to topic    CosmoCoffee Forum Index -> arXiv papers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Michael Schneider



Joined: 19 Nov 2006
Posts: 9
Affiliation: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

PostPosted: June 28 2010  Reply with quote

This is a very nice calculation demonstrating how the level of primordial non-Gaussianity can be constrained by evaluating the probability that the most massive cluster in a surveyed cosmological volume has a mass in a given range. The paper is closely related to the recent work by Holz & Perlmutter (2010), but extends the calculation to non-Gaussian initial conditions.

The authors show how the local primordial non-Gaussianity parameter, fNL, is degenerate with σ8 and use the cluster XMM2235 discovered by Jee et al. (2009) to constrain these 2 parameters. The marginal constraint on fNL thus obtained is 449 +/- 286, although the posterior distribution is highly skewed towards positive fNL (their fig. 4).

The authors make the interesting point that constraints on fNL from massive cluster abundances probe much smaller scales than fNL constraints from the CMB or large-scale halo bias. Combining fNL constraints from these different measurements therefore allows a test of the scale-dependence of fNL.

It would be interesting to know what constraints on fNL could be achieved from observing the most massive cluster in a full-sky survey. From Holz & Perlmutter (2010), the most massive cluster for LCDM in an all-sky survey should have a mass 2×1015 < M < 1016 M_{\odot} and would be found at z ~ 0.2. XMM2235 on the other hand has a mass of 6.4×1014 M_{\odot} and is at z = 1.4. From fig. 4 of LoVerde et al. (2007) it looks like the mass functions at these two scales and redshifts (for a nonzero fNL) would differ by < 10%. That is, it looks like the redshift evolution of the mass function for nonzero fNL models partially compensates for probing a higher mass object (which will be found at lower redshift in LCDM). But, maybe the larger survey volume would help increase the sensitivity to fNL?
Back to top
View user's profile [ Hidden ] Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CosmoCoffee Forum Index -> arXiv papers All times are GMT + 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group. Sponsored by WordWeb online dictionary and dictionary software.