from “precision cosmology” to cosmology under revision”...1 from “precision cosmology” to...
TRANSCRIPT
1
From “Precision Cosmology” to “Cosmology under revision”
Carlos Hernández-MonteagudoCentro de Estudios de Física del Cosmos de Aragón
[CEFCA]Spain, July 14th 2020
HITO y RETOS
K. Mack
2
Once upon a time … not so long ago (from 1997 upto ~2018), there was, amongst cosmologists, a so-calledConcordance cosmological model upon which low redshiftand high redshift cosmological observations agreed ...
3WMAPmission
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) provided an image of our universe at its childhood thatwas consistent with a flat LCDM scenario, and which wasalso consistent with cosmological observations at recentepochs …
4
K. Mack
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) provided an image of our universe at its childhood thatwas consistent with a flat LCDM scenario, and which wasalso consistent with cosmological observations at recentepochs …
5
Silde from A. Riess (July 2019)
6
Kowalski 2008
Cosmological“concordance” Model
7
WMAP,2010
Planck 2018
However, when observations at either side of thehistory of the universe increased their precision,
8
WMAP,2010
Planck 2018
However, when observations at either side of thehistory of the universe increased their precision,
9
However, when observations at either side of thehistory of the universe increased their precision, tensions(and maybe more than tensions) have arosen:
Di Valentino+20
10
11
The most significant sources of tensionare:
H0 measurements at low and high redshifts:
(3 – 5 σ, tension → problem, crisis?)
The amplitude of CMB lensing The amplitude of density perturbations at low redshifts (σ
8 )
(3 σ tension)
The non-flat curvature of the universe (Ωk = -0.04)
(3 σ tension)
12
Measuring the universe expansion rate H0
Indirectly, using the angleprojected by the soundhorizon at recombination atz~1100 via CMBobservations, and at z~0.5via clustering measurementsof the Large Scale Structure(LSS)
Directly, by (1) usingstandard candles (SNIa),and calibrating their distancewith Cepheids in LMC,Detached Eclipsing Binaries(DEB) in LMC, galacticparallaxes, the tip of the RedGiant Branch (TRGB), or (2)gravitational lensing atintermediate redshifts (z~0.5)
V. Bonvin, for Verde, Tommaso, & Riess 2019
13
Measuring the universe expansion rate H0
Pros:
Weak dependence of sound horizonon (well known) cosmologicalparameters,
Measurements based upon a modelthat is relatively simple (linear orderin perturbation theory) for CMB,mildly-non linear for LSSmeasurements
Different probes (CMB and LSS)having very different (potential)systematics yield H
0 estimates in
excellent agreement
Cons:
They are all indirect measurementsof the expansion rate that are modeldependent
Indirectly, using the angleprojected by the soundhorizon at recombination atz~1100 via CMBobservations, and at z~0.5via clustering measurementsof the Large Scale Structure(LSS)
Directly, by (1) usingstandard candles (SNIa),and calibrating their distancewith Cepheids in LMC,Detached Eclipsing Binaries(DEB) in LMC, galacticparallaxes, the tip of the RedGiant Branch (TRGB), or (2)gravitational lensing atintermediate redshifts (z~0.5)
14
Measuring the universe expansion rate H0
Pros:
These are, for SNIa and SurfaceBrightness Fluctuation-basedestimates, direct measurements ofH
0 that are model independent
Lensing measurements, maser-basedH
0 measurements,, and SNIa-based
estimates, are all un-correlated,independent measurements of H
0 .
Cons: Measurements based on complex,
highly non-linear systems (Cepheids,SNIa, clusters of galaxies) whosecalibration are obtained empirically (more room for systematics)
Results from the CCHP collaborationon the TRGB significantly off fromthose of SH0ES: evidence forhidden systematics?
Indirectly, using the angleprojected by the soundhorizon at recombination atz~1100 via CMBobservations, and at z~0.5via clustering measurementsof the Large Scale Structure(LSS)
Directly, by (1) usingstandard candles (SNIa),and calibrating their distancewith Cepheids in LMC,Detached Eclipsing Binaries(DEB) in LMC, galacticparallaxes, the tip of the RedGiant Branch (TRGB), or (2)gravitational lensing atintermediate redshifts (z~0.5)
15
Measuring the universe expansion rate H0
Possible solutions to this puzzle:
Systematics in CMB observations:unlikely, provided different CMBexperiments beyond Planck (like SPT,ACT) are providing very similarmeasurements of H
0
New physics! : Emerging Dark Energy(EDE), Interacting Dark Energy,Übergravity, decaying Dark Matter, Rock'n Roll models (RnR), Vacuum Dynamics, what not! – yet to be seen whether theycan satisfy, some of them (EDE, RnR)already discarded …
Systematics in the direct H0
measurements …
V. Bonvin, for Verde, Tommaso, & Riess 2019
16
Measuring the universe expansion rate H0
V. Bonvin, for Verde, Tommaso, & Riess 2019
17
Measuring the universe expansion rate H0
Breaking news from last
week !!
V. Bonvin, for Verde, Tommaso, & Riess 2019
18
Measuring the universe expansion rate H0
V. Bonvin, for Verde, Tommaso, & Riess 2019
19
Measuring the universe expansion rate H0
Birrer+ 2020, 2007.02941: TDCOSMO collaboration re-analyses cluster lensesaccounting for uncertainties in mass distribution in clusters
20
Measuring the universe expansion rate H0
Birrer+ 2020, 2007.02941: TDCOSMO collaboration re-analyses cluster lensesaccounting for uncertainties in mass distribution in clusters
21
Measuring the universe expansion rate H0
But even if wedrop clusterlensing …
V. Bonvin, for Verde, Tommaso, & Riess 2019
22
Measuring the universe expansion rate H0
But even if wedrop clusterlensing …
V. Bonvin, for Verde, Tommaso, & Riess 2019
x
23
Other (weaker) sources of tension … (at 2 – 3 σ)
24
CMB gravitational lensing
CMB photons are deflected in their journey to the observer. This effect can beaccessed in two ways:
(Approach 1) Looking at non-Gaussianities induced by lensing on the smallestscales, using a 4-point function <T(n
1)T(n
2)T(n
3)T(n
4)>
(Approach 2) Looking at the 2-point function (<T(n1)T(n
2)> or angular power
spectra Cl = <a
l,m (a
l,m)* >): the impact of lensing-induced ray deflection
smears/softens the acousting peaks
25
AL = 1 is what our theory predicts …
CMB 2-point function <al,m
al,m
* > = Cl (angular
power spectrum)
26
CMB gravitational lensing
Problem: The amplitude of lensing inferred fromApproach 2 is about 15% higher than for Approach 1, at~3σ level) – It's like if lensing was more efficient atsmearing CMB acoustic peaks than predicted
CMB photons are deflected in their journey to the observer. This effect can beaccessed in two ways:
(Approach 1) Looking at non-Gaussianities induced by lensing on the smallestscales, using a 4-point function <T(n
1)T(n
2)T(n
3)T(n
4)>
(Approach 2) Looking at the 2-point function (<T(n1)T(n
2)> or angular power
spectra Cl = <a
l,m (a
l,m)* >): the impact of lensing-induced ray deflection
smears/softens the acousting peaks
27
CMB gravitational lensing
Planck 2018
Problem: The amplitude of lensing inferred fromApproach 2 is about 15% higher than for Approach 1, at~3σ level) – It's like if lensing was more efficient atsmearing CMB acoustic peaks than predicted
28
CMB gravitational lensing + lensing shear from KiDs & CFHTLenS
If CMB lensing were more efficient than what we predict, the 3σ tensionwith galaxy lensing shear would bealleviated
Di Valentino & Bridle 19
Problem: The amplitude of lensing inferred fromApproach 2 is about 15% higher than for Approach 1, at~3σ level) – It's like if lensing was more efficient atsmearing CMB acoustic peaks than predicted
29
And finally, if we look at Planck 2018 only ...
30
The universe does not seem flat, but hasstrong preference (~2σ) for being closed
instead of flat !
Di Valentino+20
Planck 2018
31
The universe does not seem flat, but hasstrong preference (~2σ) for being closed
instead of flat !
This would solve the problem with the lensing amplitude/efficiencyand other internal anomalies in Planck data (low quadrupole,alignment of low l multipoles, etc)
Di Valentino+ 20
32
The universe does not seem flat, but hasstrong preference (~2σ) for being closed
instead of flat !
But it falls apart with all other cosmologicalobservations at lower redshifts!
Di Valentino+20
33
The universe does not seem flat, but hasstrong preference (~2σ) for being closed
instead of flat !
Can this be a fluke/result of chance??
Di Valentino+20
34
35
The most significant sources of tensionare:
H0 measurements at low and high redshifts:
(3 – 5 σ, tension → problem, crisis ?)
The amplitude of CMB lensing The amplitude of density perturbations at low redshifts (σ
8 )
(3 σ tension)
The non-flat curvature of the universe (Ωk = -0.04)
(3 σ tension)
36
Looking at the future …
CMB:
ACTPolSPTPolLiteBirdFuture ESA space CMB mission (?)
LSS:
EuclidDESIVera Rubin J-PASSphereXSKA
GWs
37
Looking at the future …
CMB:
ACTPolSPTPolLiteBirdFuture ESA space CMB mission (?)
LSS:
EuclidDESIVera RubinJ-PASSphereXSKA
GWs
¡MUCHAS GRACIAS!