Skip to Main Content

Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Access by Xinjiang University

Kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect as a test of general radial inhomogeneity in Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi cosmology

Philip Bull^*, Timothy Clifton^†, and Pedro G. Ferreira^‡

Department of Astrophysics, University of Oxford, OX1 3RH, United Kingdom

^*Phil.Bull@astro.ox.ac.uk
^†Tim.Clifton@astro.ox.ac.uk
^‡P.Ferreira1@physics.ox.ac.uk

Phys. Rev. D 85, 024002 – Published 3 January, 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024002

Abstract

The apparent accelerating expansion of the Universe, determined from observations of distant supernovae, and often taken to imply the existence of dark energy, may alternatively be explained by the effects of a giant underdense void if we relax the assumption of homogeneity on large scales. Recent studies have made use of the spherically symmetric, radially inhomogeneous Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) models to derive strong constraints on this scenario, particularly from observations of the kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect which is sensitive to large-scale inhomogeneity. However, most of these previous studies explicitly set the LTB “bang time” function to be constant, neglecting an important freedom of the general solutions. Here we examine these models in full generality by relaxing this assumption. We find that although the extra freedom allowed by varying the bang time is sufficient to account for some observables individually, it is not enough to simultaneously explain the supernovae observations, the small-angle CMB, the local Hubble rate, and the kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect. This set of observables is strongly constraining, and effectively rules out simple LTB models as an explanation of dark energy.

Article Text

References (68)

S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999).
A. Riess et al., Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998).
S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989).
G. Lemaître, Ann. Soc. Sci. Bruxelles, Ser. 1 A53, 51 (1933); [reprinted in Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 29, 641 (1997)].
R. C. Tolman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 20, 169 (1934); [reprinted in C. TolmanGen. Relativ. Gravit. 29, 935 (1997)].
H. Bondi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 107, 410 (1947).
M-N. Célérier and J. Schneider, Phys. Lett. A 249, 37 (1998).
M-N. Célérier, K. Bolejko, and A. Krasiński, Astron. Astrophys. 518, A21 (2010).
T. Biswas, A. Notari, and W. Valkenburg, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2010) 030.
K. Bolejko, M-N. Célérier, and A. Krasiński, Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 164002 (2011).
K. Bolejko and J. Wyithe, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2009) 020.
T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, and K. Land, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 131302 (2008).
J. García-Bellido and T. Haugbølle, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2008) 003.
C-M. Yoo, K. Nakao, and M. Sasaki, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2010) 012.
P. Zhang and A. Stebbins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 041301 (2011).
J. P. Zibin and A. Moss, Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 164005 (2011).
A. Moss, J. P. Zibin, and D. Scott, Phys. Rev. D 83, 103515 (2011).
C-M. Yoo, K. Nakao, and M. Sasaki, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2010) 011.
H. Alnes and M. Amarzguioui, Phys. Rev. D 74, 103520 (2006).
T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, and J. Zuntz, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2009) 029.
J. P. Zibin, A. Moss, and D. Scott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 251303 (2008).
R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 190, 413 (1980).
A detection of the kSZ effect is claimed in [24, 25], but see also [26, 27, 28].
A. Kashlinsky et al., Astrophys. J. 712, L81 (2010).
A. Kashlinsky et al., Astrophys. J. 732, 1 (2011).
F. Atrio-Barandela et al., Astrophys. J. 719, 77 (2010).
S. J. Osborne et al., Astrophys. J. 737, 98 (2011).
Y-S. Song et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2010) 025.
W. L. Holzapfel et al., Astrophys. J. 481, 35 (1997).
B. A. Benson et al., Astrophys. J. 592, 674 (2003).
T. Kitayama et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn. 56, 17 (2004).
D. Sudeep et al., Astrophys. J. 729, 62 (2011); J. Dunkley et al., 739, 52 (2011).
N. R. Hall et al., Astrophys. J. 718, 632 (2010); E. Shirokoff et al., 736, 61 (2011).
J. Goodman, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1821 (1995).
J. García-Bellido and T. Haugbølle, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2008) 016.
C. Clarkson, T. Clifton, and S. February, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2009) 025.
J. P. Zibin, Phys. Rev. D 78, 043504 (2008).
C. Clarkson and M. Regis, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2011) 013.
S. Nadathur and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 83, 063506 (2011).
A. Zecca, Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. B 106, 413 (1991).
I. M. H. Etherington, Philos. Mag. 15, 761 (1933); [reprinted in Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 39, 1047 (2006)].
J. Silk, Astron. Astrophys. 59, 53 (1977).
C. Hellaby and K. Lake, Astrophys. J. 290, 381 (1985).
R. A. Sussman, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 175001 (2010).
There are some subtleties with the sign of $a_{2}$ when $k > 0$ . For details of this see [44].
C. Hellaby and K. Lake, Astrophys. J. 282, 1 (1984).
V. Marra and M. Pääkkönen, arXiv:1105.6099.
A. Linde, D. Linde, and A. Mezhlumian, Phys. Lett. B 345, 203 (1995).
N. Afshordi, A. Slosar, and Y. Wang, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2011) 019.
N. Mustapha, C. Hellaby, and G. F. R. Ellis, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 292, 817 (1997).
S. February, J. Larena, M. Smith, and C. Clarkson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 405, 2231 (2010).
A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. 730, 119 (2011).
T. Clifton and J. Zuntz, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 400, 2185 (2009).
Our MCMC code is available at http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/users/bullp.
E. Komatsu et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 192, 18 (2011).
R. Amanullah et al., Astrophys. J. 716, 712 (2010).
At least five pieces of information are required for a full, relatively model-independent specification of the CMB power spectrum [58], but in what follows we will choose to marginalize over (or fix) the overall normalization of the power spectrum and the spectral index of the initial scalar power spectrum, as these quantities are not important for constraining the large-scale structure that we are interested in here.
M. Vonlanthen, S. Räsänen, and R. Durrer, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2010) 023.
Y. Wang and P. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D 76, 103533 (2007).
W. Hu, M. Fukugita, M. Zaldarriaga, and M. Tegmark, Astrophys. J. 549, 669 (2001).
Allowing $z_{*}$ to be free would add an extra nuisance parameter to be fitted for in our MCMC runs, which would inevitably loosen the resulting constraints. As such, the CMB constraints we derive here should be considered to be conservative.
A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D 66, 103511 (2002).
N. Jarosik et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 192, 14 (2011).
Modifying the form of the initial power spectrum can significantly weaken CMB constraints on void models [39].
While the model in Fig. 5 can be seen to fit current kSZ data, these data only extend out to $z \sim 0.6$ . Even this model will have a large $β (z)$ for some $z > 0.6$ .
S. Foreman, A. Moss, J. P. Zibin, and D. Scott, Phys. Rev. D 82, 103532 (2010).
M-N. Célérier, arXiv:1108.1373.
J. P. Zibin, arXiv:1108.3068 [Phys. Rev. D (to be published)].