Paper detail

Cosmological model dependence of the galaxy luminosity function: far-infrared results in the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi model

This is the first paper of a series aiming at investigating galaxy formation and evolution in the giant-void class of the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) models that best fits current cosmological observations. Here we investigate the Luminosity Function (LF) methodology, and how its estimates would be affected by a change on the cosmological model assumed in its computation. Are the current observational constraints on the allowed Cosmology enough to yield robust LF results? We use the far-infrared source catalogues built on the observations performed with the Herschel/PACS instrument, and selected as part of the PACS evolutionary probe (PEP) survey. Schechter profiles are obtained in redshift bins up to z approximately 4, assuming comoving volumes in both the standard model, that is, Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric with a perfect fluid energy-momentum tensor, and non-homogeneous LTB dust models, parametrized to fit the current combination of results stemming from the observations of supernovae Ia, the cosmic microwave background, and baryonic acoustic oscillations. We find that the luminosity functions computed assuming both the standard model and LTB void models show in general good agreement. However, the faint-end slope in the void models shows a significant departure from the standard model up to redshift 0.4. We demonstrate that this result is not artificially caused by the used LF estimator which turns out to be robust under the differences in matter-energy density profiles of the models. The differences found in the LF slopes at the faint end are due to variation in the luminosities of the sources, which depend on the geometrical part of the model. It follows that either the standard model is over-estimating the number density of faint sources or the void models are under-estimating it.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.