Paper detail

Weighing Cosmic Structures with Clusters of Galaxies and the Intergalactic Medium

We present an analysis aimed at combining cosmological constraints from number counts of galaxy clusters identified through the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, obtained with the South Pole Telescope (SPT), and from Lyman-$α$ spectra obtained with the MIKE/HIRES and X-shooter spectrographs. The SPT cluster analysis relies on mass calibration based on weak lensing measurements, while the Lyman-$α$ analysis is built over a suite of hydrodynamical simulations for the extraction of mock spectra. The resulting constraints exhibit a tension ($\sim 3.3σ$) between the low $σ_8$ values preferred by the low-redshift cluster data, $σ_8=0.74 ^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$, and the higher one preferred by the high-redshift Lyman-$α$ data, $σ_8=0.91 ^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$. We present a detailed analysis in order to understand the origin of this tension and, in particular, to establish whether it arises from systematic uncertainties related to the assumptions underlying the analyses of cluster counts and/or Lyman-$α$ forest. We found this tension to be robust with respect to the choice of modeling of the IGM, even when including possible systematics from unaccounted sub-Damped Lyman-$α$ (DLA) and Lyman-limit systems (LLS) in the Lyman-$α$ data. We conclude that to solve this tension from the SPT side would require a large bias on the cluster mass estimate, or from the Lyman-$α$ side large unaccounted errors on the Lyman-$α$ mean fluxes, respectively. Our results have important implications for future analyses based on cluster number counts from future large photometric surveys (e.g. Euclid and LSST) and on larger samples of high-redshift quasar spectra (e.g. DESI and WEAVE surveys). If confirmed at the much higher statistical significance reachable by such surveys, this tension could represent a significant challenge for the standard $Λ$CDM paradigm.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.

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 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.