Paper detail

Geometric and growth rate tests of General Relativity with recovered linear cosmological perturbations

I investigate the consistency of the VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey v7 galaxy sample with the expansion history and linear growth rate predicted by General Relativity (GR) and a Planck (2015) cosmology. To do so, I measure the redshift-space power spectrum, which is anisotropic due to both redshift-space distortions (RSD) and the Alcock-Paczynski (AP) effect. In Chapter 6, I place constraints of $f σ_8(0.76) = 0.44 \pm 0.04$ and $f σ_8(1.05) = 0.28 \pm 0.08$, which remain consistent with GR at 95% confidence. Marginalising over the anisotropic AP effect degrades the constraints by a factor of three but allows $F_{AP} \equiv (1+z) D_A H/c$ to be simultaneously constrained. The VIPERS v7 joint-posterior on $(f σ_8, F_{AP})$ shows no compelling deviation from GR. Chapter 7 investigates the inclusion of a simple density transform: `clipping' prior to the RSD analysis. This tackles the root-cause of non-linearity and may extend the validity of perturbation theory. Moreover, this marked statistic would amplify signatures of shielded modified gravity models and includes information not available to the power spectrum. I show that a linear real-space power spectrum with a Kaiser factor and a Lorentzian damping yields a significant bias without clipping, but that this may be removed with a strict threshold; similar behaviour is observed for the data. Estimates of $f σ_8$ for different thresholds are highly correlated, but this may be obtained using mocks. A maximum likelihood estimate from a combination of thresholds is shown to achieve a 16% decrease in statistical error relative to a single-threshold estimate. The results are encouraging to date but represent a work in progress; the final analysis will be submitted to Astronomy & Astrophysics as Wilson et al. (2016).

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

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.

Institutions

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 map preview

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.