Baryon oscillation peak a cosmological standard ruler

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the potential of the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) peak as a cosmological standard ruler, referencing a paper that suggests its effectiveness is compromised by spatial inhomogeneities due to gravitational collapse and structure formation. The authors found significant evidence that the BAO peak location is influenced by the surrounding large-scale environment, particularly superclusters, which challenges its reliability for cosmological measurements. While the BAO peak is viewed as a potential natural scale for describing cosmic structures, it does not maintain a constant size over time or across different locations in the universe. The conclusion emphasizes the need for further analytical, numerical, and observational work to refine the understanding of the BAO peak's variability. Overall, the concept requires additional investigation to establish its viability as a standard ruler in cosmology.
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
555
This came up in the arxivs and had me thinking can this be true? arXiv:1506.05478 [pdf, ps, other]
Is the baryon acoustic oscillation peak a cosmological standard ruler?
Boudewijn F. Roukema, Thomas Buchert, Hirokazu Fujii, Jan J. Ostrowski
Comments: 4 pages, 2 figures
Subjects: Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)

In the standard model of cosmology, the Universe is static in comoving coordinates; expansion occurs homogeneously and is represented by a global scale factor. The baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) peak location is a statistical tracer that represents, in the standard model, a fixed comoving-length standard ruler. Recent gravitational collapse should modify the metric, rendering the effective scale factor, and thus the BAO standard ruler, spatially inhomogeneous. Using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, we show to high significance (P < 0.001) that the spatial compression of the BAO peak location increases as the spatial paths' overlap with superclusters increases. Detailed observational and theoretical calibration of this BAO peak location environment dependence will be needed when interpreting the next decade's cosmological surveys.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Hi Wooly, it has been said (I forget by whom) that when you have a title ending in a question mark the implied answer, or default, is NOT.
That seems to be the answer here, at least for the time being, if you go by the article's conclusions paragraph at the end:

==quote http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.05478 ==
5 CONCLUSION

No matter which approach is chosen, analytical, numerical and observational work will be required if the BAO peak location is to correctly function as a standard ruler for cosmological geometrical measurements, since the evidence is strong (P < 0.001) that it is strongly affected by structure formation. Moreover, the formation of superclusters—in reality, filamentary and spiderlike distributions of galaxies (Einasto et al. 2014) rather than the spherically symmetric objects assumed here for calculational speed—can now be tied directly to a sharp statistical feature of the primordial pattern of density perturbations.
==endquote==In other words the BAO peak location is not a constant it is strongly affected by the static large-scale environment.

An interesting thing to notice, though, is that when you describe the universe in comoving coordinates there is no expansion. On a large enough scale the coordinate locations of major matter concentrations stay the same. You have a static universe, if you use comoving coordinates, at least in the large, ignoring little local curdlings and swirlings around. The authors mention that.

What seems to interest people about the BAO peak location is they see it as a possible natural scale to use in describing the frozen ripples and other structure in this static picture. It strikes me as a worthwhile endeavor.

It would not carry over as a fixed-length ruler to describe the expanding universe. Because it wouldn't stay the same size but would vary widely over time. But they are pointing out something more serious. It even varies from place to place in the comoving coordinates universe (even after the expansion has been factored out of the picture).
So their basic conclusion seems to be that the idea "needs work."
 
Last edited:
I've only skimmed the paper but this idea that the BAO peak is affected by non-linear evolution isn't particularly new. A lot of simulation work goes into determining these sorts of biases and finding the best estimators and reconstruction methods which are insensitive to it. It's one of the challenges with DESI and Euclid.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top