Which is a better cosmological probe: number counts or cosmic magnification?

ABSTRACT The next generation of cosmological surveys will have unprecedented measurement precision, hence they hold the power to put theoretical ideas to the most stringent tests yet. However, in order to realize the full potential of these measurements, we need to ensure that we apply the most effe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 2023-05, Vol.522 (3), p.3308-3317
Hauptverfasser: Duniya, Didam G A, Kumwenda, Mazuba
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 3317
container_issue 3
container_start_page 3308
container_title Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
container_volume 522
creator Duniya, Didam G A
Kumwenda, Mazuba
description ABSTRACT The next generation of cosmological surveys will have unprecedented measurement precision, hence they hold the power to put theoretical ideas to the most stringent tests yet. However, in order to realize the full potential of these measurements, we need to ensure that we apply the most effective analytical tools. We need to identify which cosmological observables are the best cosmological probes. Two commonly used cosmological observables are galaxy redshift number counts and cosmic magnification. Both of these observables have been investigated extensively in cosmological analyses, but only separately. In the light of interacting dark energy (IDE) emerging as a plausible means of alleviating current cosmological tensions, we investigate both observables on large scales in a universe with IDE, using the angular power spectrum, taking into account all known terms, including relativistic corrections, in the observed overdensity. Our results suggest that (given multitracer analysis) measuring relativistic effects with cosmic magnification will be relatively better than with galaxy redshift number counts, at all redshifts z . Conversely, without relativistic effects, galaxy redshift number counts will be relatively better in probing the imprint of IDE, at all z . At low z (up to around $z \, {=}\, 0.1$ ), relativistic effects enable cosmic magnification to be a relatively better probe of the IDE imprint, while at higher z (up to $z \, {\lt }\, 3$ ) galaxy redshift number counts become the better probe of IDE imprint. However, at $z \, {=}\, 3$ and higher, our results suggest that either of the observables will suffice.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/mnras/stad1231
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>oup_TOX</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_mnras_stad1231</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/mnras/stad1231</oup_id><sourcerecordid>10.1093/mnras/stad1231</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-8dad3dc53158717b8b12428ab5a76ed52352fee2d8c822e9c814996563cc76eb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkD1PwzAURS0EEqGwMntlSOtnx47DglDFlxSJBcQY2Y7TGiVxZDsD_57Qwsz0hnvu1dNB6BrIGkjFNsMYVNzEpFqgDE5QBkzwnFZCnKKMEMZzWQKco4sYPwkhBaMiQ_XH3pk9dhErrG1KNmDj4-B7v3NG9XgKXttbPM6DPkTzmCL2R8gZPKjd6LqFTM6Pd5forFN9tFe_d4XeHx_ets95_fr0sr2vc8OApVy2qmWt4Qz48lGppQZaUKk0V6WwLaeM085a2kojKbWVkVBUleCCGbMAmq3Q-rhrgo8x2K6ZghtU-GqAND8umoOL5s_FUrg5Fvw8_cd-A-1UYxg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Which is a better cosmological probe: number counts or cosmic magnification?</title><source>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</source><creator>Duniya, Didam G A ; Kumwenda, Mazuba</creator><creatorcontrib>Duniya, Didam G A ; Kumwenda, Mazuba</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT The next generation of cosmological surveys will have unprecedented measurement precision, hence they hold the power to put theoretical ideas to the most stringent tests yet. However, in order to realize the full potential of these measurements, we need to ensure that we apply the most effective analytical tools. We need to identify which cosmological observables are the best cosmological probes. Two commonly used cosmological observables are galaxy redshift number counts and cosmic magnification. Both of these observables have been investigated extensively in cosmological analyses, but only separately. In the light of interacting dark energy (IDE) emerging as a plausible means of alleviating current cosmological tensions, we investigate both observables on large scales in a universe with IDE, using the angular power spectrum, taking into account all known terms, including relativistic corrections, in the observed overdensity. Our results suggest that (given multitracer analysis) measuring relativistic effects with cosmic magnification will be relatively better than with galaxy redshift number counts, at all redshifts z . Conversely, without relativistic effects, galaxy redshift number counts will be relatively better in probing the imprint of IDE, at all z . At low z (up to around $z \, {=}\, 0.1$ ), relativistic effects enable cosmic magnification to be a relatively better probe of the IDE imprint, while at higher z (up to $z \, {\lt }\, 3$ ) galaxy redshift number counts become the better probe of IDE imprint. However, at $z \, {=}\, 3$ and higher, our results suggest that either of the observables will suffice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0035-8711</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2966</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stad1231</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><ispartof>Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2023-05, Vol.522 (3), p.3308-3317</ispartof><rights>2023 The Author(s) Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Astronomical Society 2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-8dad3dc53158717b8b12428ab5a76ed52352fee2d8c822e9c814996563cc76eb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-8dad3dc53158717b8b12428ab5a76ed52352fee2d8c822e9c814996563cc76eb3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4203-6960</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1598,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1231$$EView_record_in_Oxford_University_Press$$FView_record_in_$$GOxford_University_Press</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Duniya, Didam G A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumwenda, Mazuba</creatorcontrib><title>Which is a better cosmological probe: number counts or cosmic magnification?</title><title>Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society</title><description>ABSTRACT The next generation of cosmological surveys will have unprecedented measurement precision, hence they hold the power to put theoretical ideas to the most stringent tests yet. However, in order to realize the full potential of these measurements, we need to ensure that we apply the most effective analytical tools. We need to identify which cosmological observables are the best cosmological probes. Two commonly used cosmological observables are galaxy redshift number counts and cosmic magnification. Both of these observables have been investigated extensively in cosmological analyses, but only separately. In the light of interacting dark energy (IDE) emerging as a plausible means of alleviating current cosmological tensions, we investigate both observables on large scales in a universe with IDE, using the angular power spectrum, taking into account all known terms, including relativistic corrections, in the observed overdensity. Our results suggest that (given multitracer analysis) measuring relativistic effects with cosmic magnification will be relatively better than with galaxy redshift number counts, at all redshifts z . Conversely, without relativistic effects, galaxy redshift number counts will be relatively better in probing the imprint of IDE, at all z . At low z (up to around $z \, {=}\, 0.1$ ), relativistic effects enable cosmic magnification to be a relatively better probe of the IDE imprint, while at higher z (up to $z \, {\lt }\, 3$ ) galaxy redshift number counts become the better probe of IDE imprint. However, at $z \, {=}\, 3$ and higher, our results suggest that either of the observables will suffice.</description><issn>0035-8711</issn><issn>1365-2966</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkD1PwzAURS0EEqGwMntlSOtnx47DglDFlxSJBcQY2Y7TGiVxZDsD_57Qwsz0hnvu1dNB6BrIGkjFNsMYVNzEpFqgDE5QBkzwnFZCnKKMEMZzWQKco4sYPwkhBaMiQ_XH3pk9dhErrG1KNmDj4-B7v3NG9XgKXttbPM6DPkTzmCL2R8gZPKjd6LqFTM6Pd5forFN9tFe_d4XeHx_ets95_fr0sr2vc8OApVy2qmWt4Qz48lGppQZaUKk0V6WwLaeM085a2kojKbWVkVBUleCCGbMAmq3Q-rhrgo8x2K6ZghtU-GqAND8umoOL5s_FUrg5Fvw8_cd-A-1UYxg</recordid><startdate>20230502</startdate><enddate>20230502</enddate><creator>Duniya, Didam G A</creator><creator>Kumwenda, Mazuba</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4203-6960</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230502</creationdate><title>Which is a better cosmological probe: number counts or cosmic magnification?</title><author>Duniya, Didam G A ; Kumwenda, Mazuba</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-8dad3dc53158717b8b12428ab5a76ed52352fee2d8c822e9c814996563cc76eb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Duniya, Didam G A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumwenda, Mazuba</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Duniya, Didam G A</au><au>Kumwenda, Mazuba</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Which is a better cosmological probe: number counts or cosmic magnification?</atitle><jtitle>Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society</jtitle><date>2023-05-02</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>522</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>3308</spage><epage>3317</epage><pages>3308-3317</pages><issn>0035-8711</issn><eissn>1365-2966</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT The next generation of cosmological surveys will have unprecedented measurement precision, hence they hold the power to put theoretical ideas to the most stringent tests yet. However, in order to realize the full potential of these measurements, we need to ensure that we apply the most effective analytical tools. We need to identify which cosmological observables are the best cosmological probes. Two commonly used cosmological observables are galaxy redshift number counts and cosmic magnification. Both of these observables have been investigated extensively in cosmological analyses, but only separately. In the light of interacting dark energy (IDE) emerging as a plausible means of alleviating current cosmological tensions, we investigate both observables on large scales in a universe with IDE, using the angular power spectrum, taking into account all known terms, including relativistic corrections, in the observed overdensity. Our results suggest that (given multitracer analysis) measuring relativistic effects with cosmic magnification will be relatively better than with galaxy redshift number counts, at all redshifts z . Conversely, without relativistic effects, galaxy redshift number counts will be relatively better in probing the imprint of IDE, at all z . At low z (up to around $z \, {=}\, 0.1$ ), relativistic effects enable cosmic magnification to be a relatively better probe of the IDE imprint, while at higher z (up to $z \, {\lt }\, 3$ ) galaxy redshift number counts become the better probe of IDE imprint. However, at $z \, {=}\, 3$ and higher, our results suggest that either of the observables will suffice.</abstract><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/mnras/stad1231</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4203-6960</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 0035-8711
ispartof Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2023-05, Vol.522 (3), p.3308-3317
issn 0035-8711
1365-2966
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_mnras_stad1231
source Oxford Journals Open Access Collection
title Which is a better cosmological probe: number counts or cosmic magnification?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T18%3A57%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-oup_TOX&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Which%20is%20a%20better%20cosmological%20probe:%20number%20counts%20or%20cosmic%20magnification?&rft.jtitle=Monthly%20notices%20of%20the%20Royal%20Astronomical%20Society&rft.au=Duniya,%20Didam%20G%20A&rft.date=2023-05-02&rft.volume=522&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=3308&rft.epage=3317&rft.pages=3308-3317&rft.issn=0035-8711&rft.eissn=1365-2966&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/mnras/stad1231&rft_dat=%3Coup_TOX%3E10.1093/mnras/stad1231%3C/oup_TOX%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.1093/mnras/stad1231&rfr_iscdi=true