scholarly journals Measuring the distance–redshift relation with the baryon acoustic oscillations of galaxy clusters

2016 ◽  
Vol 458 (2) ◽  
pp. 1909-1920 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Veropalumbo ◽  
F. Marulli ◽  
L. Moscardini ◽  
M. Moresco ◽  
A. Cimatti
Keyword(s):  
Galaxy Clusters ◽  
Acoustic Oscillations ◽  
Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

scholarly journals New constraints on H 0 and Ω m from SZE/X-ray data and baryon acoustic oscillations

2011 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 501-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. F. L. Holanda ◽  
J. V. Cunha ◽  
J. A. S. Lima
Keyword(s):  
Acoustic Oscillations ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

Baryon acoustic oscillations in a cosmic void

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean February ◽  
Chris Clarkson ◽  
Roy Maartens
Keyword(s):  
Acoustic Oscillations ◽  
Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

scholarly journals FORECASTS OF DARK ENERGY CONSTRAINTS FROM BARYON ACOUSTIC OSCILLATIONS

2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (37) ◽  
pp. 3093-3113 ◽  
Author(s):  
YUN WANG
Keyword(s):  
Dark Energy ◽  
Figure Of Merit ◽  
Real Space ◽  
Number Density ◽  
Acoustic Oscillations ◽  
Energy Constraints ◽  
Redshift Survey ◽  
Galaxy Redshift ◽  
Baryon Acoustic Oscillations ◽  
Systematic Noise

The measurement of baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) from a galaxy redshift survey provides one of the most promising methods for probing dark energy. In this paper, we clarify the assumptions that go into the forecasts of dark energy constraints from BAO. We show that assuming a constant nP0.2/G2(z) (where P0.2 is the real space galaxy power spectrum at k = 0.2 h/ Mpc and redshift z) gives a good approximation of the observed galaxy number density expected from a realistic flux-limited galaxy redshift survey. We find that assuming nP0.2/G2(z) = 10 gives very similar dark energy constraints to assuming nP0.2 = 3, but the latter corresponds to a galaxy number density larger than ~70% at z = 2. We show how the Figure-of-Merit (FoM) for constraining dark energy depends on the assumed galaxy number density, redshift accuracy, redshift range, survey area, and the systematic errors due to calibration and uncertainties in the theory of nonlinear evolution and galaxy biasing. We find that an additive systematic noise of up to 0.4–0.5% per Δz = 0.1 redshift slice does not lead to significant decrease in the BAO FoM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document