Cosmology with Gravitaional Lensing Bhuvnesh Jain University of Pennsylvania Current measurements in weak lensing New techniques for probing dark energy Dark matter/dark energy with cluster arcs What advances are needed?

Collaborators Gary Bernstein Masahiro Takada Mike Jarvis Andy Taylor (Edinburgh) Wayne Hu (Chicago)

Cosmological Surveys CMB Gravitational Lensing Galaxy Redshift Survey Measure correlation statistics  Constraints on cosmological models

Cosmology: Length and time scales CMB: z ~ 1100 d > 50 Mpc Galaxy Surveys: z < 0.3 d < 200 Mpc Lyman-alpha: z ~ 2 d < 40 Mpc Galaxy clusters: z < 1 d ~ 10 Mpc Weak lensing: z < 0.4 d < 20 Mpc Lensing 2006: z < 0.6 d < 100 Mpc Lensing 2013: z < 1 0.02 < d < 500 Mpc

Convergence & Shear due to Lensing Image distortion can be linearly decomposed into convergence  and shear .  and  are given by the projected gravitational potential: is the geometric factor 1 and 2 give the ellipticity induced on a galaxy image. ,  ～ O (1%) for typical line of sight!

Simulated Lensing Maps Convergence Shear Field size: 3 x 3 deg, RMS amplitude: 2% Jain, Seljak & White 2000

2-Point Correlation Function Lensing correlations given by projection of the mass power spectrum:

Measurement of cosmic shear Intrinsic ellipticity of source galaxies  > 10 x lensing signal ().  Smooth over patches of sky to measure mean shear. θ Average its square over patches  shear variance Same argument applies to shear 2-point correlations. Noise contribution to is plus sample variance.

Lensing measurements Weak lensing in “blank fields” detected in 2000 Shear correlations measured over 1 arcmin - 1 deg Constrain mass power spectrum and mean mass density Errors on measured parameters: ~10% currently. Prospects: effective survey size will increase 10-fold in 3 years, and about 1000-fold in 10 years. Goal: Better than 1% accuracy in lensing measurements.

Shear Variance Measurements Aperture Mass Shear Variance Jarvis et al 2002 Reanalysis of psf fitting (M. Jarvis): lower B-mode. New result: 8=0.85 +/- 0.1. Other groups have new analyses as well.

E/B mode decomposition E mode B mode Gravitational lensing due to scalar potential field: no B-mode

Cosmological Mass Power Spectrum “Vanilla” Lambda-CDM model (Tegmark & Zaldarriaga 2002)

Wide field lensing surveys Ongoing surveys Deep Lens Survey, s=30 deg2, ng=50 arcmin-2, 4 filters CFH Legacy Survey s=200 deg2, ng=30 arcmin-2, 5 filters LSST (Large Synoptic Survey Telescope) 8.2 m, Field of view: 7 deg2 s=4000 deg2, ng=50 arcmin-2, 5 filters SNAP (Supernova/Acceleration Probe) 2m, Field of view: 1 deg2 s=1000 ? deg2, ng=100 arcmin-2, 9 filters PANSTARRS, VST… Future surveys

Tomography, cosmography, power, bispectra.. Mean tangential shear inside aperture compared for source galaxies at different z. measured at different z.

Lensing tomography zl1 zl2 z1 lensing mass z2 Shear at z1 and z2 given by integral of growth function & distances over lensing mass distribution.

Sensitivity to dark energy Lensing fields depend on: Distances affect W , since Growth rate affects  Both depend on integrals of expansion rate: Lensing tomography probes dark energy equation of state. Empirical approach: de = de/critical : dark energy density P = w(a) de : equation of state w(a) = w0 + wa(1-a) a = 1/(1+z) - expansion scale factor w0 is constant term, wa the time evolution term

Tomography: power spectrum and bispectrum : a function of separation l : a function of triangles

Lensing power spectrum The theorists version of a future lensing measurement

Parameter forecasts with tomography Takada & Jain 03 All triangle configurations, auto- and cross-spectra used. l < 3000 or  > 5’. Using CMB priors improves constraints on w0 and wa by over a factor of 2. (2-point: Hu 99,02; Huterer 02; Heavens 03; Linder,Jenkins 03; Song,Knox 03)

Lensing tomography: Take II zl1 zl2 z1 lensing mass z2 What good are the foreground galaxies?

Cross-correlation cosmography Galaxy-shear cross correlation, or mean tangential shear: Ratio with 2 background redshift slices: Relative shear amplitude is a pure geometric quantity! Stack groups and clusters: compare shear amplitudes in apertures ~ arcminute with varying background redshift. (Jain & Taylor 03) (Bernstein, Jain 03; Song, Knox 03; Zhang, Hui, Stebbins 03; Hu, Jain 03)

Shear in apertures Estimate geometric factor for each aperture Combine estimates to probe dark energy evolution

Joint galaxy-lensing analysis Ongoing/future surveys: joint measurement of galaxy clustering and lensing 1st step: use all 2-point correlations and cross-correlations (Hu & Jain 03). Multiple probes of dark energy from single unified analysis fsky =0.1; ng=70 survey

HST and weak lensing - Dark energy with lensing: Small effects, sensitive to biases in photo-z’s or PSF anisotropy - Open questions: strategy for future space and ground surveys? - HST: Deep multicolor images, with ~0.1 arcsec resolution - Can make galaxy samples, as a function of type and z, up to z~2-3  Multi-color COSMOS would be great (for both ground and space plans)! - ACS TNO deep field (Bernstein et al) valuable sample for SNAP planning - Ongoing work on relating galaxy properties with ambient mass structures - 3D mass mapping needs deep multicolor, high-res imaging! - Using size magnification as an entirely independent lensing measure

Cosmography with cluster arcs Simulated cluster with arcs at z=1,2,3 (Meneghetti et al 2004) See: Soucail, Kneib, Golse 04 for observational attempt!

Cosmography with cluster arcs Critical curves for z=1,2 Average critical curve size vs. z Sample of ~20 simulated lens clusters in 5 models. Results preliminary!

Constraints on w and Cluster Mass No external info. Arc zs=1,2 Vel. Dispersion + Arc zs=1,2,3 With a Golden Lens can get mass and w from a single cluster. Helpful factors: Velocity Dispersions, SZ, X-ray, Luck… Statistical alternative: compare ~100 observed/simulated clusters

Gravitational Telescopes Arcs at z~7 and z~10! Magnification: x20 to x50.

Cluster arcs and dark matter Radial and tangential arcs probe inner mass profiles With vel dispersions, attempt robust measurement of mass profile Compare to NFW predictions  constrain dark matter properties Sand et al 2002, 2003 Sensitivity to ellipticity and substructure in the mass distribution? Bartelmann & Meneghetti; Dalal & Keeton Gravitational telescopes: galaxy samples approaching z~10 Arcs at multiple redshifts  probe of dark energy  Questions about techniques remain, but real potential for discovery!  Observe tens of clusters at high resolution, with X-ray and spectroscopy

Summary Lensing tomography probes dark energy using the evolution of clustering and distances factors Lensing cosmography: a geometric probe of dark energy Arcs in galaxy clusters: dark matter/dark energy HST: cluster arcs, and planning weak lensing surveys.