Changeset 4011 in Sophya for trunk/Cosmo
- Timestamp:
- Jul 8, 2011, 2:02:13 PM (14 years ago)
- File:
-
- 1 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
trunk/Cosmo/RadioBeam/sensfgnd21cm.tex
r3977 r4011 39 39 \newcommand{\dang}{d_A} 40 40 \newcommand{\hub}{ h_{70} } 41 \newcommand{\hubb}{ h _{100} }42 43 \newcommand{\etaHI}{ \eta_{\tiny HI} }41 \newcommand{\hubb}{ h } % h_100 42 43 \newcommand{\etaHI}{ n_{\tiny HI} } 44 44 \newcommand{\fHI}{ f_{H_I}(z)} 45 45 \newcommand{\gHI}{ g_{H_I}} … … 52 52 \newcommand{\citep}[1]{ (\cite{#1}) } 53 53 %% \newcommand{\citep}[1]{ { (\tt{#1}) } } 54 55 %%% Definition pour la section sur les param DE par C.Y 56 \def\Mpc{\mathrm{Mpc}} 57 \def\hMpcm{\,h \,\Mpc^{-1}} 58 \def\hmMpc{\,h^{-1}\Mpc} 59 \def\kperp{k_\perp} 60 \def\kpar{k_\parallel} 61 \def\koperp{k_{BAO\perp }} 62 \def\kopar{k_{BAO\parallel}} 54 63 55 64 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% … … 100 109 } 101 110 102 \date{Received Ju ne15, 2011; accepted xxxx, 2011}111 \date{Received July 15, 2011; accepted xxxx, 2011} 103 112 104 113 % \abstract{}{}{}{}{} … … 116 125 instruments for the observation of large scale structures and BAO oscillations in 21 cm and we discuss the problem of foreground removal. } 117 126 % methods heading (mandatory) 118 { For each configuration, we determine instrument response by computing the (u,v) plane (Fourier angular frequency plane)119 coverage using visibilities. The (u,v) plane response is then used to compute the three dimensional noise power spectrum,127 { For each configuration, we determine instrument response by computing the (u,v) or Fourier angular frequency 128 plane coverage using visibilities. The (u,v) plane response is then used to compute the three dimensional noise power spectrum, 120 129 hence the instrument sensitivity for LSS P(k) measurement. We describe also a simple foreground subtraction method to 121 130 separate LSS 21 cm signal from the foreground due to the galactic synchrotron and radio sources emission. } 122 131 % results heading (mandatory) 123 132 { We have computed the noise power spectrum for different instrument configuration as well as the extracted 124 LSS power spectrum, after separation of 21cm-LSS signal from the foregrounds. } 133 LSS power spectrum, after separation of 21cm-LSS signal from the foregrounds. We have also obtained 134 the uncertainties on the Dark Energy parameters for an optimized 21 cm BAO survey.} 125 135 % conclusions heading (optional), leave it empty if necessary 126 { We show that a radio instrument with few hundred simultaneous beamns and a surface coverage of 127 $\lesssim 10000 \mathrm{m^2}$ will be able to detect BAO signal at redshift z $\sim 1$ } 136 { We show that a radio instrument with few hundred simultaneous beams and a collecting area of 137 $\lesssim 10000 \mathrm{m^2}$ will be able to detect BAO signal at redshift z $\sim 1$ and will be 138 competitive with optical surveys. } 128 139 129 140 \keywords{ Cosmology:LSS -- 130 Cosmology:Dark energy 141 Cosmology:Dark energy -- Radio interferometer -- 21 cm 131 142 } 132 143 … … 171 182 The BAO modulation has been subsequently observed in the distribution of galaxies 172 183 at low redshift ( $z < 1$) in the galaxy-galaxy correlation function by the SDSS 173 \citep{eisenstein.05} \citep{percival.07} and 2dGFRS \citep{cole.05} optical galaxy surveys. 174 175 Ongoing or future surveys plan to measure precisely the BAO scale in the redshift range 176 $0 \lesssim z \lesssim 3$, using either optical observation of galaxies \citep{baorss} % CHECK/FIND baorss baolya references 177 or through 3D mapping Lyman $\alpha$ absorption lines toward distant quasars \cite{baolya}. 184 \citep{eisenstein.05} \citep{percival.07} \citep{percival.10} and 2dGFRS \citep{cole.05} optical galaxy surveys. 185 186 Ongoing \citep{eisenstein.11} or future surveys \citep{lsst.science} 187 plan to measure precisely the BAO scale in the redshift range 188 $0 \lesssim z \lesssim 3$, using either optical observation of galaxies % CHECK/FIND baorss baolya references 189 or through 3D mapping Lyman $\alpha$ absorption lines toward distant quasars \citep{baolya},\citep{baolya2}. 178 190 Mapping matter distribution using 21 cm emission of neutral hydrogen appears as 179 191 a very promising technique to map matter distribution up to redshift $z \sim 3$, … … 186 198 We show also the results for the 3D noise power spectrum for several instrument configurations. 187 199 The contribution of foreground emissions due to the galactic synchrotron and radio sources 188 is described in section 4, as well as a simple component separation method 189 method using sky model or known radio sources arealso presented in section 4.200 is described in section 4, as well as a simple component separation method. The performance of this 201 method using two different sky models is also presented in section 4. 190 202 The constraints which can be obtained on the Dark Energy parameters and DETF figure 191 of merit for typical 21 cm intensity mapping survey are shown in section 5. 192 193 \citep{ansari.08} 203 of merit for typical 21 cm intensity mapping survey are discussed in section 5. 194 204 195 205 … … 207 217 The BAO features in particular are at the degree angular scale on the sky 208 218 and thus can be resolved easily with a rather modest size radio instrument 209 ($D \lesssim 100 \ mathrm{m}$). The specific BAO clustering scale ($k_{\mathrm{BAO}}$210 can be measured both in the transverse plane (angular correlation function, $k_{\mathrm{BAO}}^\perp$)211 or along the longitudinal (line of sight or redshift , $k_{\mathrm{BAO}}^\parallel$) direction. A direct measurement of219 ($D \lesssim 100 \, \mathrm{m}$). The specific BAO clustering scale ($k_{\mathrm{BAO}}$) 220 can be measured both in the transverse plane (angular correlation function, ($k_{\mathrm{BAO}}^\perp$) 221 or along the longitudinal (line of sight or redshift ($k_{\mathrm{BAO}}^\parallel$) direction. A direct measurement of 212 222 the Hubble parameter $H(z)$ can be obtained by comparing the longitudinal and transverse 213 BAO scale . A reasonably good redshift resolution $\delta z \lesssim 0.01$ is needed to resolve223 BAO scales. A reasonably good redshift resolution $\delta z \lesssim 0.01$ is needed to resolve 214 224 longitudinal BAO clustering, which is a challenge for photometric optical surveys. 215 225 216 226 In order to obtain a measurement of the LSS power spectrum with small enough statistical 217 227 uncertainties (sample or cosmic variance), a large volume of the universe should be observed, 218 typically few $ Gpc^3$. Moreover, stringent constrain on DE parameters can be obtained when228 typically few $\mathrm{Gpc^3}$. Moreover, stringent constrain on DE parameters can be obtained when 219 229 comparing the distance or Hubble parameter measurements as a function of redshift with 220 230 DE models, which translates into a survey depth $\Delta z \gtrsim 1$. 221 231 222 232 Radio instruments intended for BAO surveys must thus have large instantaneous field 223 of view (FOV $\gtrsim 10 \ mathrm{deg^2}$) and large bandwidth ($\Delta \nu \gtrsim 100 \, \mathrm{MHz}$).233 of view (FOV $\gtrsim 10 \, \mathrm{deg^2}$) and large bandwidth ($\Delta \nu \gtrsim 100 \, \mathrm{MHz}$). 224 234 225 235 Although the application of 21 cm radio survey to cosmology, in particular LSS mapping has been … … 230 240 of a radio instrument characterized by an effective collecting area $A$, and system temperature $\Tsys$ can be written as 231 241 \begin{equation} 232 S_{lim} = \frac{ \sqrt{2} \ kb \, \Tsys }{ A \, \sqrt{t_{int} \delta \nu} }242 S_{lim} = \frac{ \sqrt{2} \, \kb \, \Tsys }{ A \, \sqrt{t_{int} \delta \nu} } 233 243 \end{equation} 234 where $t_{int}$ is the total integration time $\delta \nu$ is the detection frequency band. In table235 \ref{slims21} (left) we have computed the sensitivity for 4different set of instrument effective area and system244 where $t_{int}$ is the total integration time and $\delta \nu$ is the detection frequency band. In table 245 \ref{slims21} (left) we have computed the sensitivity for 6 different set of instrument effective area and system 236 246 temperature, with a total integration time of 86400 seconds (1 day) over a frequency band of 1 MHz. 237 247 The width of this frequency band is well adapted to detection of \HI source with an intrinsic velocity 238 248 dispersion of few 100 km/s. Theses detection limits should be compared with the expected 21 cm brightness 239 $S_{21}$ of compact sources which can be computed using the expression below :249 $S_{21}$ of compact sources which can be computed using the expression below (e.g.\cite{binney.98}) : 240 250 \begin{equation} 241 251 S_{21} \simeq 0.021 \mathrm{\mu Jy} \, \frac{M_{H_I} }{M_\odot} \times … … 244 254 where $ M_{H_I} $ is the neutral hydrogen mass, $\dlum$ is the luminosity distance and $\sigma_v$ 245 255 is the source velocity dispersion. 246 {\color{red} Faut-il developper le calcul en annexe ? }256 % {\color{red} Faut-il developper le calcul en annexe ? } 247 257 248 258 In table \ref{slims21} (right), we show the 21 cm brightness for 249 259 compact objects with a total \HI \, mass of $10^{10} M_\odot$ and an intrinsic velocity dispersion of 250 $200 \ mathrm{km/s}$. The luminosity distance is computed for the standard260 $200 \, \mathrm{km/s}$. The luminosity distance is computed for the standard 251 261 WMAP \LCDM universe. $10^9 - 10^{10} M_\odot$ of neutral gas mass 252 262 is typical for large galaxies \citep{lah.09}. It is clear that detection of \HI sources at cosmological distances … … 254 264 255 265 Intensity mapping has been suggested as an alternative and economic method to map the 256 3D distribution of neutral hydrogen \citep{chang.08} \citep{ansari.08} . In this approach,257 sky brightness map with angular resolution $\sim 10-30\mathrm{arc.min}$ is made for a266 3D distribution of neutral hydrogen \citep{chang.08} \citep{ansari.08} \citep{seo.10}. 267 In this approach, sky brightness map with angular resolution $\sim 10-30 \, \mathrm{arc.min}$ is made for a 258 268 wide range of frequencies. Each 3D pixel (2 angles $\vec{\Theta}$, frequency $\nu$ or wavelength $\lambda$) 259 269 would correspond to a cell with a volume of $\sim 10 \mathrm{Mpc^3}$, containing hundreds of galaxies and a total … … 272 282 can then be observed without the detection of individual compact \HI sources, using the set of sky brightness 273 283 map as a function frequency (3D-brightness map) $B_{21}(\vec{\Theta},\lambda)$. The sky brightness $B_{21}$ 274 (radiation power/unit solid angle/unit surface/unit frequency) .284 (radiation power/unit solid angle/unit surface/unit frequency) 275 285 can be converted to brightness temperature using the well known black body Rayleigh-Jeans approximation: 276 286 $$ B(T,\lambda) = \frac{ 2 \kb T }{\lambda^2} $$ … … 326 336 can be expressed as: 327 337 \begin{equation} 328 H(z) \simeq \hub \, \left[ \Omega_m (1+z)^3 + \Omega_\Lambda \right]^{\frac{1}{2}} 329 \times 70 \, \, \mathrm{km/s/Mpc} 338 H(z) \simeq \hubb \, \left[ \Omega_m (1+z)^3 + \Omega_\Lambda \right]^{\frac{1}{2}} 339 \times 100 \, \, \mathrm{km/s/Mpc} 340 \label{eq:expHz} 330 341 \end{equation} 331 342 Introducing the \HI mass fraction relative to the total baryon mass $\gHI$, the 332 neutral hydrogen number density can be written as: 333 \begin{equation} 334 \etaHI (\vec{\Theta}, z(\lambda) ) = \gHIz \times \Omega_B \frac{\rho_{crit}}{m_{H}} \times 335 \frac{\delta \rho_{H_I}}{\bar{\rho}_{H_I}} (\vec{\Theta},z) 336 \end{equation} 343 neutral hydrogen number density relative fluctuations can be written as, and the corresponding 344 21 cm emission temperature can be written as: 345 \begin{eqnarray} 346 \frac{ \delta \etaHI}{\etaHI} (\vec{\Theta}, z(\lambda) ) & = & \gHIz \times \Omega_B \frac{\rho_{crit}}{m_{H}} \times 347 \frac{\delta \rho_{H_I}}{\bar{\rho}_{H_I}} (\vec{\Theta},z) \\ 348 \TTlamz & = & \bar{T}_{21}(z) \times \frac{\delta \rho_{H_I}}{\bar{\rho}_{H_I}} (\vec{\Theta},z) 349 \end{eqnarray} 337 350 where $\Omega_B, \rho_{crit}$ are respectively the present day mean baryon cosmological 338 351 and critical densities, $m_{H}$ is the hydrogen atom mass, and 339 352 $\frac{\delta \rho_{H_I}}{\bar{\rho}_{H_I}}$ is the \HI density fluctuations. 340 353 341 The present day neutral hydrogen fraction $\gHI(0)$ has been measured to be342 $\sim 1\%$ of the baryon density \citep{zwann.05}:354 The present day neutral hydrogen fraction $\gHI(0)$ present in local galaxies has been 355 measured to be $\sim 1\%$ of the baryon density \citep{zwann.05}: 343 356 $$ \Omega_{H_I} \simeq 3.5 \, 10^{-4} \sim 0.008 \times \Omega_B $$ 344 357 The neutral hydrogen fraction is expected to increase with redshift. Study 345 of Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption indicate a factor 3 increase in the neutral hydrogen 346 fraction at $z=1.5$ , compared to the its present day value $\gHI(z=1.5) \sim 0.025$347 \citep{wolf.05}.358 of Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption indicate a factor 3 increase in the neutral hydrogen 359 fraction at $z=1.5$ in the intergalactic medium \citep{wolf.05}, 360 compared to the its present day value $\gHI(z=1.5) \sim 0.025$. 348 361 The 21 cm brightness temperature and the corresponding power spectrum can be written as \citep{wyithe.07} : 349 362 \begin{eqnarray} 350 \TTlamz & = & \bar{T}_{21}(z) \times \frac{\delta \rho_{H_I}}{\bar{\rho}_{H_I}} (\vec{\Theta},z) \\ 351 P_{T_{21}}(k) & = & \left( \bar{T}_{21}(z) \right)^2 \, P(k) \\ 352 \bar{T}_{21}(z) & \simeq & 0.054 \, \mathrm{mK} 353 \frac{ (1+z)^2 \, \hub }{\sqrt{ \Omega_m (1+z)^3 + \Omega_\Lambda } } 363 P_{T_{21}}(k) & = & \left( \bar{T}_{21}(z) \right)^2 \, P(k) \label{eq:pk21z} \\ 364 \bar{T}_{21}(z) & \simeq & 0.077 \, \mathrm{mK} 365 \frac{ (1+z)^2 \, \hubb }{\sqrt{ \Omega_m (1+z)^3 + \Omega_\Lambda } } 354 366 \dfrac{\Omega_B}{0.044} \, \frac{\gHIz}{0.01} 367 \label{eq:tbar21z} 355 368 \end{eqnarray} 356 369 … … 363 376 shown for the standard WMAP \LCDM cosmology, according to the relation: 364 377 \begin{equation} 365 \ mathrm{ang.sc}= \frac{2 \pi}{k^{comov} \, \dang(z) \, (1+z) }378 \theta_k = \frac{2 \pi}{k^{comov} \, \dang(z) \, (1+z) } 366 379 \hspace{3mm} 367 k^{comov} = \frac{2 \pi}{ \ mathrm{ang.sc} \, \dang(z) \, (1+z) }380 k^{comov} = \frac{2 \pi}{ \theta_\mathrm{scale} \, \dang(z) \, (1+z) } 368 381 \end{equation} 369 382 where $k^{comov}$ is the comoving wave vector and $ \dang(z) $ is the angular diameter distance. 370 383 It should be noted that the maximum transverse $k^{comov} $ sensitivity range 371 384 for an instrument corresponds approximately to half of its angular resolution. 372 {\color{red} Faut-il developper completement le calcul en annexe ? }385 % {\color{red} Faut-il developper completement le calcul en annexe ? } 373 386 374 387 \begin{table} … … 393 406 394 407 \begin{figure} 395 \centering 396 \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figs/pk21cmz12.pdf} 408 \vspace*{-15mm} 409 \hspace{-5mm} 410 \includegraphics[width=0.57\textwidth]{Figs/pk21cmz12.pdf} 411 \vspace*{-10mm} 397 412 \caption{\HI 21 cm emission power spectrum at redshifts z=1 (blue) and z=2 (red), with 398 413 neutral gas fraction $\gHI=2\%$} … … 402 417 403 418 \section{interferometric observations and P(k) measurement sensitivity } 404 419 \label{pkmessens} 405 420 \subsection{Instrument response} 421 \label{instrumresp} 422 We introduce briefly here the principles of interferometric observations and the definition of 423 quantities useful for our calculations. Interested reader may refer to \citep{radastron} for a detailed 424 and complete presentation of observation methods and signal processing in radio astronomy. 406 425 In astronomy we are usually interested in measuring the sky emission intensity, 407 $I(\vec{\Theta},\lambda)$ in a given wave band, as a function thedirection. In radio astronomy426 $I(\vec{\Theta},\lambda)$ in a given wave band, as a function of the sky direction. In radio astronomy 408 427 and interferometry in particular, receivers are sensitive to the sky emission complex 409 428 amplitudes. However, for most sources, the phases vary randomly and bear no information: … … 425 444 corresponds to the receiver intensity response: 426 445 \begin{equation} 427 L(\vec{\Theta}), \lambda = B(\vec{\Theta},\lambda) \, B^*(\vec{\Theta},\lambda)446 L(\vec{\Theta}), \lambda) = B(\vec{\Theta},\lambda) \, B^*(\vec{\Theta},\lambda) 428 447 \end{equation} 429 The visibility signal betweentwo receivers corresponds to the time averaged correlation between448 The visibility signal of two receivers corresponds to the time averaged correlation between 430 449 signals from two receivers. If we assume a sky signal with random uncorrelated phase, the 431 450 visibility $\vis$ signal from two identical receivers, located at the position $\vec{r_1}$ and … … 471 490 origin in the $(u,v)$ or the angular wave mode plane. The shape of the spot depends on the receiver 472 491 beam pattern, but its extent would be $\sim 2 \pi D / \lambda$, where $D$ is the receiver physical 473 size. The correlation signal from a pair of receivers would measure the integrated signal on a similar 492 size. 493 494 The correlation signal from a pair of receivers would measure the integrated signal on a similar 474 495 spot, located around the central angular wave mode $(u, v)_{12}$ determined by the relative 475 496 position of the two receivers (see figure \ref{figuvplane}). 476 497 In an interferometer with multiple receivers, the area covered by different receiver pairs in the 477 498 $(u,v)$ plane might overlap and some pairs might measure the same area (same base lines). 478 Several beam can be formed using different combination of the correlation from different499 Several beams can be formed using different combination of the correlations from a set of 479 500 antenna pairs. 480 501 … … 490 511 Obviously, different weighting schemes can be used, changing 491 512 the effective beam shape and thus the response ${\cal R}_{w}(u,v,\lambda)$ 492 and the noise behaviour. 513 and the noise behaviour. If the same Fourier angular frequency mode is measured 514 by several receiver pairs, the raw instrument response might then be larger 515 that unity. This non normalized instrument response is used to compute the projected 516 noise power spectrum in the following section (\ref{instrumnoise}). 517 We can also define a normalized instrument response, ${\cal R}_{norm}(u,v,\lambda) \lesssim 1$ as: 518 \begin{equation} 519 {\cal R}_{norm}(u,v,\lambda) = {\cal R}(u,v,\lambda) / \mathrm{Max_{(u,v)}} \left[ {\cal R}(u,v,\lambda) \right] 520 \end{equation} 521 This normalized instrument response can be used to compute the effective instrument beam, 522 in particular in section \ref{recsec}. 493 523 494 524 \begin{figure} … … 504 534 505 535 \subsection{Noise power spectrum} 536 \label{instrumnoise} 506 537 Let's consider a total power measurement using a receiver at wavelength $\lambda$, over a frequency 507 538 bandwidth $\delta \nu$, with an integration time $t_{int}$, characterized by a system temperature … … 510 541 corresponds also to the noise for the visibility $\vis$ measured from two identical receivers, with uncorrelated 511 542 noise. If the receiver has an effective area $A \simeq \pi D^2/4$ or $A \simeq D_x D_y$, the measurement 512 corresponds to the integration of power over a spot in the angular frequency plane with an area $\sim A/\lambda^2$. 543 corresponds to the integration of power over a spot in the angular frequency plane with an area $\sim A/\lambda^2$. The noise spectral density, in the angular frequencies plane (per unit area of angular frequencies $\frac{\delta u}{ 2 \pi} \times \frac{\delta v}{2 \pi}$), corresponding to a visibility 544 measurement from a pair of receivers can be written as: 545 \begin{eqnarray} 546 P_{noise}^{\mathrm{pair}} & = & \frac{\sigma_{noise}^2}{ A / \lambda^2 } \\ 547 P_{noise}^{\mathrm{pair}} & \simeq & \frac{2 \, \Tsys^2 }{t_{int} \, \delta \nu} \, \frac{ \lambda^2 }{ D^2 } 548 \hspace{5mm} \mathrm{units:} \, \mathrm{K^2 \times rad^2} 549 \label{eq:pnoisepairD} 550 \end{eqnarray} 551 513 552 The sky temperature measurement can thus be characterized by the noise spectral power density in 514 553 the angular frequencies plane $P_{noise}^{(u,v)} \simeq \frac{\sigma_{noise}^2}{A / \lambda^2}$, in $\mathrm{Kelvin^2}$ 515 554 per unit area of angular frequencies $\frac{\delta u}{ 2 \pi} \times \frac{\delta v}{2 \pi}$: 516 \begin{eqnarray} 517 P_{noise}^{(u,v)} & = & \frac{\sigma_{noise}^2}{ A / \lambda^2 } \\ 518 P_{noise}^{(u,v)} & \simeq & \frac{2 \, \Tsys^2 }{t_{int} \, \delta \nu} \, \frac{ \lambda^2 }{ D^2 } 519 \hspace{5mm} \mathrm{units:} \, \mathrm{K^2 \times rad^2} \\ 520 \end{eqnarray} 521 522 In a given instrument configuration, if several ($n$) receiver pairs have the same baseline, 523 the noise power density in the corresponding $(u,v)$ plane area is reduced by a factor $1/n$. 524 When the intensity maps are projected in a 3D box in the universe and the 3D power spectrum 525 $P(k)$ is computed, angles are translated into comoving transverse distance scale, 555 We can characterize the sky temperature measurement by a radio instrument by the noise 556 spectral power density in the angular frequencies plane $P_{noise}(u,v)$ in units of $\mathrm{Kelvin^2}$ 557 per unit area of angular frequencies $\frac{\delta u}{ 2 \pi} \times \frac{\delta v}{2 \pi}$. 558 For an interferometer made of identical receiver elements, several ($n$) receiver pairs 559 might have the same baseline. The noise power density in the corresponding $(u,v)$ plane area 560 is then reduced by a factor $1/n$. More generally, we cam write the instrument noise 561 spectral power density using the instrument response defined in section \ref{instrumresp} : 562 \begin{equation} 563 P_{noise}(u,v) = \frac{ P_{noise}^{\mathrm{pair}} } { {\cal R}_{raw}(u,v,\lambda) } 564 \end{equation} 565 566 When the intensity maps are projected in a three dimensional box in the universe and the 3D power spectrum 567 $P(k)$ is computed, angles are translated into comoving transverse distances, 526 568 and frequencies or wavelengths into comoving radial distance, using the following relations: 527 569 \begin{eqnarray} … … 529 571 \delta \nu & \rightarrow & \delta \ell_\parallel = (1+z) \frac{c}{H(z)} \frac{\delta \nu}{\nu} 530 572 = (1+z) \frac{\lambda}{H(z)} \delta \nu \\ 531 \delta u , v & \rightarrow & \delta k_\perp = \frac{ \delta u ,v }{ (1+z) \, \dang(z) } \\573 \delta u , \delta v & \rightarrow & \delta k_\perp = \frac{ \delta u \, , \, \delta v }{ (1+z) \, \dang(z) } \\ 532 574 \frac{1}{\delta \nu} & \rightarrow & \delta k_\parallel = \frac{H(z)}{c} \frac{1}{(1+z)} \, \frac{\nu}{\delta \nu} 533 575 = \frac{H(z)}{c} \frac{1}{(1+z)^2} \, \frac{\nu_{21}}{\delta \nu} 534 576 \end{eqnarray} 535 577 536 The three dimensional projected noise spectral density can then be written as: 578 If we consider a uniform noise spectral density in the $(u,v)$ plane corresponding to the 579 equation \ref{eq:pnoisepairD} above, the three dimensional projected noise spectral density 580 can then be written as: 537 581 \begin{equation} 538 582 P_{noise}(k) = 2 \, \frac{\Tsys^2}{t_{int} \, \nu_{21} } \, \frac{\lambda^2}{D^2} \, \dang^2(z) \frac{c}{H(z)} \, (1+z)^4 583 \label{ctepnoisek} 539 584 \end{equation} 540 585 … … 542 587 $t_{int}$ in second, $\nu_{21}$ in $\mathrm{Hz}$, $c$ in $\mathrm{km/s}$, $\dang$ in $\mathrm{Mpc}$ and 543 588 $H(z)$ in $\mathrm{km/s/Mpc}$. 589 544 590 The matter or \HI distribution power spectrum determination statistical errors vary as the number of 545 591 observed Fourier modes, which is inversely proportional to volume of the universe 546 which is observed (sample variance). 547 548 In the following, we will consider the survey of a fixed 549 fraction of the sky, defined by total solid angle $\Omega_{tot}$, performed during a fixed total550 observation time $t_{obs}$. We will consider several instrument configurations, having551 comparable instantaneous bandwidth, and comparable system receiver noise $\Tsys$:552 \begin{enumerate} 553 \item Single dish instrument, diameter $D$ with one or several independent feeds (beams) in the focal plane 554 \item Filled square shaped arrays, made of $n = q \times q$ dishes of diameter $D_{dish}$ 555 \item Packed or unpacked cylinder arrays 556 \item Semi-filled array of $n$ dishes 557 \ end{enumerate}558 559 We compute below a simple expression for the noise spectral power density for radio 560 sky 3D mapping surveys. 561 It is important to not ice that the instruments we are consideringdo not have a flat592 which is observed (sample variance). As the observed volume is proportional to the 593 surveyed solid angle, we consider the survey of a fixed 594 fraction of the sky, defined by total solid angle $\Omega_{tot}$, performed during a determined 595 total observation time $t_{obs}$. 596 A single dish instrument with diameter $D$ would have an instantaneous field of view 597 $\Omega_{FOV} \sim \left( \frac{\lambda}{D} \right)^2$, and would require 598 a number of pointing $N_{point} = \frac{\Omega_{tot}}{\Omega_{FOV}}$ to cover the survey area. 599 Each sky direction or pixel of size $\Omega_{FOV}$ will be observed during an integration 600 time $t_{int} = t_{obs}/N_{point} $. Using equation \ref{ctepnoisek} and the previous expression 601 for the integration time, we can compute a simple expression 602 for the noise spectral power density by a single dish instrument of diameter $D$: 603 \begin{equation} 604 P_{noise}^{survey}(k) = 2 \, \frac{\Tsys^2 \, \Omega_{tot} }{t_{obs} \, \nu_{21} } \, \dang^2(z) \frac{c}{H(z)} \, (1+z)^4 605 \end{equation} 606 607 It is important to note that any real instrument do not have a flat 562 608 response in the $(u,v)$ plane, and the observations provide no information above 563 $u_{max},v_{max}$. One has to take into account either a damping of the 564 observed sky power spectrum or an increase of the noise spectral power if 609 a maximum angular frequency $u_{max},v_{max}$. 610 One has to take into account either a damping of the observed sky power 611 spectrum or an increase of the noise spectral power if 565 612 the observed power spectrum is corrected for damping. The white noise 566 613 expressions given below should thus be considered as a lower limit or floor of the 567 614 instrument noise spectral density. 568 569 % \noindent {\bf Single dish instrument} \\ 570 A single dish instrument with diameter $D$ would have an instantaneous field of view 571 (or 2D pixel size) $\Omega_{FOV} \sim \left( \frac{\lambda}{D} \right)^2$, and would require 572 a number of pointing $N_{point} = \frac{\Omega_{tot}}{\Omega_{FOV}}$ to cover the survey area. 573 The noise power spectral density could then be written as: 574 \begin{equation} 575 P_{noise}^{survey}(k) = 2 \, \frac{\Tsys^2 \, \Omega_{tot} }{t_{obs} \, \nu_{21} } \, \dang^2(z) \frac{c}{H(z)} \, (1+z)^4 615 616 For a single dish instrument of diameter $D$ equipped with a multi-feed or 617 phase array receiver system, with $N$ independent beams on sky, 618 the noise spectral density decreases by a factor $N$, 619 thanks to the increase of per pointing integration time. 620 621 \begin{equation} 622 P_{noise}^{survey}(k) = \frac{2}{N} \, \frac{\Tsys^2 \, \Omega_{tot} }{t_{obs} \, \nu_{21} } \, \dang^2(z) \frac{c}{H(z)} \, (1+z)^4 623 \label{eq:pnoiseNbeam} 576 624 \end{equation} 577 For a single dish instrument equipped with a multi-feed or phase array receiver system, 578 with $n$ independent beam on sky, the noise spectral density decreases by a factor $n$, 579 thanks to the an increase of per pointing integration time. 625 626 The expression above (eq. \ref{eq:pnoiseNbeam}) can also be used for a filled interferometric array of $N$ 627 identical receivers with a total collection area $\sim D^2$. Such an array could be made for example 628 of $N=q \times q$ {\it small dishes}, each with diameter $D/q$, arranged as $q \times q$ square. 580 629 581 630 For a single dish of diameter $D$, or an interferometric instrument with maximal extent $D$, 582 observations provide information up to $u ,v_{max} \lesssim 2 \pi D / \lambda $. This value of583 $u ,v_{max}$ would be mapped to a maximum transverse cosmological wave number631 observations provide information up to $u_{max},v_{max} \lesssim 2 \pi D / \lambda $. This value of 632 $u_{max},v_{max}$ would be mapped to a maximum transverse cosmological wave number 584 633 $k^{comov}_{\perp \, max}$: 585 \begin{eqnarray} 586 k^{comov}_{\perp} & = & \frac{(u,v)}{(1+z) \dang} \\ 587 k^{comov}_{\perp \, max} & \lesssim & \frac{2 \pi}{\dang \, (1+z)^2} \frac{D}{\lambda_{21}} 588 \end{eqnarray} 589 590 Figure \ref{pnkmaxfz} shows the evolution of a radio 3D temperature mapping 591 $P_{noise}^{survey}(k)$ as a function of survey redshift. 592 The survey is supposed to cover a quarter of sky $\Omega_{tot} = \pi \mathrm{srad}$, in one 634 \begin{equation} 635 k^{comov}_{\perp} = \frac{(u,v)}{(1+z) \dang} \hspace{8mm} 636 k^{comov}_{\perp \, max} \lesssim \frac{2 \pi}{\dang \, (1+z)^2} \frac{D}{\lambda_{21}} 637 \label{kperpmax} 638 \end{equation} 639 640 Figure \ref{pnkmaxfz} shows the evolution of the noise spectral density $P_{noise}^{survey}(k)$ 641 as a function of redshift, for a radio survey of the sky, using an instrument with $N=100$ 642 beams and a system noise temperature $\Tsys = 50 \mathrm{K}$. 643 The survey is supposed to cover a quarter of sky $\Omega_{tot} = \pi \, \mathrm{srad}$, in one 593 644 year. The maximum comoving wave number $k^{comov}$ is also shown as a function 594 of redshift, for an instrument with $D=100 \ mathrm{m}$ maximum extent. In order645 of redshift, for an instrument with $D=100 \, \mathrm{m}$ maximum extent. In order 595 646 to take into account the radial component of $\vec{k^{comov}}$ and the increase of 596 the instrument noise level with $k^{comov}_{\perp}$, we have taken: 647 the instrument noise level with $k^{comov}_{\perp}$, we have taken the effective $k^{comov}_{ max} $ 648 as half of the maximum transverse $k^{comov}_{\perp \, max} $ of \mbox{eq. \ref{kperpmax}}: 597 649 \begin{equation} 598 650 k^{comov}_{ max} (z) = \frac{\pi}{\dang \, (1+z)^2} \frac{D=100 \mathrm{m}}{\lambda_{21}} … … 607 659 } 608 660 \vspace*{-40mm} 609 \caption{Minimal noise level for a 100 beam instrument as a function of redshift (top).610 Maximum $k$ value for a 100 meter diameter primary antenna (bottom) }661 \caption{Minimal noise level for a 100 beams instrument with \mbox{$\Tsys=50 \mathrm{K}$} 662 as a function of redshift (top). Maximum $k$ value for a 100 meter diameter primary antenna (bottom) } 611 663 \label{pnkmaxfz} 612 664 \end{figure} … … 614 666 615 667 \subsection{Instrument configurations and noise power spectrum} 616 668 \label{instrumnoise} 617 669 We have numerically computed the instrument response ${\cal R}(u,v,\lambda)$ 618 670 with uniform weights in the $(u,v)$ plane for several instrument configurations: 619 671 \begin{itemize} 620 \item[{\bf a} :] A packed array of $n=121 \, D_{dish}=5 \ mathrm{m}$ dishes, arranged in672 \item[{\bf a} :] A packed array of $n=121 \, D_{dish}=5 \, \mathrm{m}$ dishes, arranged in 621 673 a square $11 \times 11$ configuration ($q=11$). This array covers an area of 622 674 $55 \times 55 \, \mathrm{m^2}$ 623 \item [{\bf b} :] An array of $n=128 \, D_{dish}=5 \ mathrm{m}$ dishes, arranged675 \item [{\bf b} :] An array of $n=128 \, D_{dish}=5 \, \mathrm{m}$ dishes, arranged 624 676 in 8 rows, each with 16 dishes. These 128 dishes are spread over an area 625 $80 \times 80 \, \mathrm{m^2}$ 626 \item [{\bf c} :] An array of $n=129 \, D_{dish}=5 \mathrm{m}$ dishes, arranged 677 $80 \times 80 \, \mathrm{m^2}$. The array layout for this configuration is 678 shown in figure \ref{figconfab}. 679 \item [{\bf c} :] An array of $n=129 \, D_{dish}=5 \, \mathrm{m}$ dishes, arranged 627 680 over an area $80 \times 80 \, \mathrm{m^2}$. This configuration has in 628 681 particular 4 sub-arrays of packed 16 dishes ($4\times4$), located in the 629 four array corners. 630 \item [{\bf d} :] A single dish instrument, with diameter $D=75 \ mathrm{m}$,631 equipped with a 100 beam focal plane instrument.632 \item[{\bf e} :] A packed array of $n=400 \, D_{dish}=5 \ mathrm{m}$ dishes, arranged in682 four array corners. This array layout is also shown figure \ref{figconfab}. 683 \item [{\bf d} :] A single dish instrument, with diameter $D=75 \, \mathrm{m}$, 684 equipped with a 100 beam focal plane receiver array. 685 \item[{\bf e} :] A packed array of $n=400 \, D_{dish}=5 \, \mathrm{m}$ dishes, arranged in 633 686 a square $20 \times 20$ configuration ($q=20$). This array covers an area of 634 687 $100 \times 100 \, \mathrm{m^2}$ 635 688 \item[{\bf f} :] A packed array of 4 cylindrical reflectors, each 85 meter long and 12 meter 636 wide. The focal line of each cylinder is equipped with 100 receivers, each with length637 $2 \lambda$ , which corresponds to $\sim 0.85\mathrm{m}$ at $z=1$.689 wide. The focal line of each cylinder is equipped with 100 receivers, each 690 $2 \lambda$ long, corresponding to $\sim 0.85 \, \mathrm{m}$ at $z=1$. 638 691 This array covers an area of $48 \times 85 \, \mathrm{m^2}$, and have 639 692 a total of $400$ receivers per polarisation, as in the (e) configuration. … … 643 696 from different cylinders are used. 644 697 \item[{\bf g} :] A packed array of 8 cylindrical reflectors, each 102 meter long and 12 meter 645 wide. The focal line of each cylinder is equipped with 1 00 receivers, each with length646 $2 \lambda$ , which corresponds to $\sim 0.85\mathrm{m}$ at $z=1$.698 wide. The focal line of each cylinder is equipped with 120 receivers, each 699 $2 \lambda$ long, corresponding to $\sim 0.85 \, \mathrm{m}$ at $z=1$. 647 700 This array covers an area of $96 \times 102 \, \mathrm{m^2}$ and has 648 701 a total of 960 receivers per polarisation. As for the (f) configuration, … … 652 705 from different cylinders are used. 653 706 \end{itemize} 654 The array layout for configurations (b) and (c) are shown in figure \ref{figconfab}. 707 655 708 \begin{figure} 656 709 \centering … … 667 720 668 721 We have used simple triangular shaped dish response in the $(u,v)$ plane. 669 However, we have introduced a fill factor or illumination efficiency722 However, we have introduced a filling factor or illumination efficiency 670 723 $\eta$, relating the effective dish diameter $D_{ill}$ to the 671 mechanical dish size $D^{ill} = \eta \, D_{dish}$. 724 mechanical dish size $D^{ill} = \eta \, D_{dish}$. The effective area $A_e \propto \eta^2$ scales 725 as $\eta^2$ or $eta_x \eta_y$. 672 726 \begin{eqnarray} 673 727 {\cal L}_\circ (u,v,\lambda) & = & \bigwedge_{[\pm 2 \pi D^{ill}/ \lambda]}(\sqrt{u^2+v^2}) \\ … … 685 739 used here for the expression of visibilities is not valid for the receivers along 686 740 the cylinder axis. However, some preliminary numerical checks indicate that 687 the results obtained here for the noise power would not be significantly changed. 741 the results obtained here for the noise spectral power density would not change significantly. 742 The instrument responses shown here correspond to fixed pointing toward the zenith, which 743 is the case for a transit type telescope. 744 688 745 \begin{equation} 689 746 {\cal L}_\Box(u,v,\lambda) = … … 705 762 \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{Figs/uvcovabcd.pdf} 706 763 } 707 \caption{(u,v) plane coverage for four configurations. 708 (a) 121 D=5 meter diameter dishes arranged in a compact, square array 764 \caption{(u,v) plane coverage (non normalized instrument response ${\cal R}(u,v,\lambda)$ 765 for four configurations. 766 (a) 121 $D_{dish}=5$ meter diameter dishes arranged in a compact, square array 709 767 of $11 \times 11$, (b) 128 dishes arranged in 8 row of 16 dishes each, 710 768 (c) 129 dishes arranged as above, single D=65 meter diameter, with 100 beams. … … 714 772 715 773 \begin{figure*} 716 \vspace*{- 10mm}774 \vspace*{-25mm} 717 775 \centering 718 776 \mbox{ 719 \hspace*{- 10mm}720 \includegraphics[width= \textwidth]{Figs/pkna2h.pdf}777 \hspace*{-20mm} 778 \includegraphics[width=1.15\textwidth]{Figs/pkna2h.pdf} 721 779 } 722 \vspace*{- 10mm}780 \vspace*{-40mm} 723 781 \caption{P(k) LSS power and noise power spectrum for several interferometer 724 782 configurations ((a),(b),(c),(d),(e),(f),(g)) with 121, 128, 129, 400 and 960 receivers.} … … 728 786 729 787 \section{ Foregrounds and Component separation } 788 \label{foregroundcompsep} 730 789 Reaching the required sensitivities is not the only difficulty of observing the large 731 790 scale structures in 21 cm. Indeed, the synchrotron emission of the … … 736 795 it has been suggested that the smooth frequency dependence of the synchrotron 737 796 emissions can be used to separate the faint LSS signal from the Galactic and radio source 738 emissions. However, any real radio instrument has a beam shape which changes with 797 emissions. 798 However, any real radio instrument has a beam shape which changes with 739 799 frequency: this instrumental effect significantly increases the difficulty and complexity of this component separation 740 technique. The effect of frequency dependent beam shape is oftenreferred to as {\em741 mode mixing} \citep{morales.09}.800 technique. The effect of frequency dependent beam shape is some time referred to as {\em 801 mode mixing}. See for example \citep{morales.06}, \citep{bowman.07}. 742 802 743 803 In this section, we present a short description of the foreground emissions and … … 745 805 range. We present also a simple component separation method to extract the LSS signal and 746 806 its performance. We show in particular the effect of the instrument response on the recovered 747 power spectrum , and possible way of getting around this difficulty. The results presented in this section concern the807 power spectrum. The results presented in this section concern the 748 808 total sky emission and the LSS 21 cm signal extraction in the $z \sim 0.6$ redshift range, 749 809 corresponding to the central frequency $\nu \sim 884$ MHz. … … 753 813 brightness $T(\alpha, \delta, \nu)$ as a function of two equatorial angular coordinates $(\alpha, \delta)$ 754 814 and the frequency $\nu$. Unless otherwise specified, the results presented here are based on simulations of 755 $90 \times 30 \simeq 2500 \ mathrm{deg^2}$ of the sky, centered on $\alpha= 10:00 \mathrm{h} , \delta=+10\mathrm{deg.}$,815 $90 \times 30 \simeq 2500 \, \mathrm{deg^2}$ of the sky, centered on $\alpha= 10:00 \, \mathrm{h} , \delta=+10 \, \mathrm{deg.}$, 756 816 and covering 128 MHz in frequency. The sky cube characteristics (coordinate range, size, resolution) 757 used in the simulations is given in the table below: 817 used in the simulations is given in the table \ref{skycubechars}. 818 \begin{table} 758 819 \begin{center} 759 820 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} … … 775 836 \hline 776 837 \end{tabular} \\[1mm] 777 Cube size : $ 90 \, \mathrm{deg.} \times 30 \, \mathrm{deg.} \times 128 \, \mathrm{MHz}$ \\ 838 \end{center} 839 \caption{ 840 Sky cube characteristics for the simulation performed in this paper. 841 Cube size : $ 90 \, \mathrm{deg.} \times 30 \, \mathrm{deg.} \times 128 \, \mathrm{MHz}$ 778 842 $ 1800 \times 600 \times 256 \simeq 123 \, 10^6$ cells 779 \end{center} 780 843 } 844 \label{skycubechars} 845 \end{table} 846 %%%% 847 \par 781 848 Two different methods have been used to compute the sky temperature data cubes. 782 849 We have used the Global Sky Model (GSM) \citep{gsm.08} tools to generate full sky … … 788 855 LSS power spectrum. 789 856 790 We have thus also createda simple sky model using the Haslam Galactic synchrotron map791 at 408 M hz \citep{haslam.82} and the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) 1.4 GHz radio source792 catalog \cite {nvss.98}. The sky temperature cube in this model (Model-II/Haslam+NVSS)857 We have thus made also a simple sky model using the Haslam Galactic synchrotron map 858 at 408 MHz \citep{haslam.82} and the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) 1.4 GHz radio source 859 catalog \citep{nvss.98}. The sky temperature cube in this model (Model-II/Haslam+NVSS) 793 860 has been computed through the following steps: 794 861 795 862 \begin{enumerate} 796 \item The Galactic synchrotron emission is modeled power law with spatially863 \item The Galactic synchrotron emission is modeled as a power law with spatially 797 864 varying spectral index. We assign a power law index $\beta = -2.8 \pm 0.15$ to each sky direction. 798 865 $\beta$ has a gaussian distribution centered at -2.8 and with standard … … 802 869 $$ T_{sync}(\alpha, \delta, \nu) = T_{haslam} \times \left(\frac{\nu}{408 MHz}\right)^\beta $$ 803 870 %% 804 \item A two dimensional $T_{nvss}(\alpha,\delta)$ sky brightness temperature at 1.4 GHz is computed871 \item A two dimensional $T_{nvss}(\alpha,\delta)$ sky brightness temperature at 1.4 GHz is computed 805 872 by projecting the radio sources in the NVSS catalog to a grid with the same angular resolution as 806 873 the sky cubes. The source brightness in Jansky is converted to temperature taking the … … 813 880 \item The sky brightness temperature data cube is obtained through the sum of 814 881 the two contributions, Galactic synchrotron and resolved radio sources: 815 $$ T_{fgnd}(\alpha, \delta, \nu) = T_{sync}(\alpha, \delta, \nu) + T_{ sync}(\alpha, \delta, \nu) $$882 $$ T_{fgnd}(\alpha, \delta, \nu) = T_{sync}(\alpha, \delta, \nu) + T_{radsrc}(\alpha, \delta, \nu) $$ 816 883 \end{enumerate} 817 884 … … 823 890 $1.9 \times 1.9 \times 2.8 \, \mathrm{Mpc^3}$, which correspond approximately to the 824 891 sky cube angular and frequency resolution defined above. The mass fluctuations has been 825 converted into temperature through a factor $0.13 \mathrm{mK}$, corresponding to a hydrogen 826 fraction $0.008 \times (1+0.6)$. The total sky brightness temperature is then computed as the sum 892 converted into temperature through a factor $0.13 \, \mathrm{mK}$, corresponding to a hydrogen 893 fraction $0.008 \times (1+0.6)$, using equation \ref{eq:tbar21z}. 894 The total sky brightness temperature is then computed as the sum 827 895 of foregrounds and the LSS 21 cm emission: 828 896 $$ T_{sky} = T_{sync}+T_{radsrc}+T_{lss} \hspace{5mm} OR \hspace{5mm} … … 831 899 Table \ref{sigtsky} summarizes the mean and standard deviation of the sky brightness 832 900 temperature $T(\alpha, \delta, \nu)$ for the different components computed in this study. 901 It should be noted that the standard deviation depends on the map resolution and the values given 902 in table \ref{sigtsky} correspond to sky cubes computed here, with $\sim 3$ arc minute 903 angular and 500 kHz frequency resolutions (see table \ref{skycubechars}). 833 904 Figure \ref{compgsmmap} shows the comparison of the GSM temperature map at 884 MHz 834 905 with Haslam+NVSS map, smoothed with a 35 arcmin gaussian beam. … … 838 909 839 910 \begin{table} 911 \centering 840 912 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} 841 913 \hline … … 850 922 \end{tabular} 851 923 \caption{ Mean temperature and standard deviation for the different sky brightness 852 data cubes computed for this study }924 data cubes computed for this study (see table \ref{skycubechars} for sky cube resolution and size).} 853 925 \label{sigtsky} 854 926 \end{table} 855 927 856 928 we have computed the power spectrum for the 21cm-LSS sky temperature cube, as well 857 as for the radio foreground temperature cubes computed using our two foreground929 as for the radio foreground temperature cubes obtained from the two 858 930 models. We have also computed the power spectrum on sky brightness temperature 859 cubes, as measured by a perfect instrument having a 25 arcmin gaussian beam.931 cubes, as measured by a perfect instrument having a 25 arcmin (FWHM) gaussian beam. 860 932 The resulting computed power spectra are shown on figure \ref{pkgsmlss}. 861 The GSM model has more large scale power compared to our simple model, while862 it lacks power at higher spatial frequencies. The mode mixing due to933 The GSM model has more large scale power compared to our simple Haslam+NVSS model, 934 while it lacks power at higher spatial frequencies. The mode mixing due to 863 935 frequency dependent response will thus be stronger in Model-II (Haslam+NVSS) 864 936 case. It can also be seen that the radio foreground power spectrum is more than … … 872 944 increases at high k values (small scales). In practice, clean deconvolution is difficult to 873 945 implement for real data and the power spectra presented in this section are NOT corrected 874 for the instrumental response. 946 for the instrumental response. The observed structures have thus a scale dependent damping 947 according to the instrument response, while the instrument noise is flat (white noise or scale independent). 875 948 876 949 \begin{figure} … … 891 964 \centering 892 965 \mbox{ 893 \hspace*{-10mm}966 % \hspace*{-10mm} 894 967 \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Figs/compmapgsm.pdf} 895 968 } 896 969 \caption{Comparison of GSM map (top) and Model-II sky map at 884 MHz (bottom). 897 The Model-II (Haslam+NVSS) has been smoothed with a 35 arcmin gaussian beam.}970 The Model-II (Haslam+NVSS) has been smoothed with a 35 arcmin (FWHM) gaussian beam.} 898 971 \label{compgsmmap} 899 972 \end{figure*} … … 901 974 \begin{figure} 902 975 \centering 903 \vspace*{-2 0mm}976 \vspace*{-25mm} 904 977 \mbox{ 905 \hspace*{- 20mm}906 \includegraphics[width=0. 7\textwidth]{Figs/pk_gsm_lss.pdf}978 \hspace*{-15mm} 979 \includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{Figs/pk_gsm_lss.pdf} 907 980 } 908 981 \vspace*{-40mm} … … 910 983 The radio sky power spectrum is shown for the GSM (Model-I) sky model (dark blue), as well as for our simple 911 984 model based on Haslam+NVSS (Model-II, black). The curves with circle markers show the power spectrum 912 as observed by a perfect instrument with a 25 arcmin beam.}985 as observed by a perfect instrument with a 25 arcmin (FWHM) gaussian beam.} 913 986 \label{pkgsmlss} 914 987 \end{figure} … … 917 990 918 991 \subsection{ Instrument response and LSS signal extraction } 919 920 The observeddata cube is obtained from the sky brightness temperature 3D map921 $T_{sky}(\alpha, \delta, \nu)$ by applying the frequency dependent instrument response992 \label{recsec} 993 The {\it observed} data cube is obtained from the sky brightness temperature 3D map 994 $T_{sky}(\alpha, \delta, \nu)$ by applying the frequency or wavelength dependent instrument response 922 995 ${\cal R}(u,v,\lambda)$. 923 As a simplification, we have considered that the instrument response isindependent996 we have considered the simple case where the instrument response constant throughout the survey area, or independent 924 997 of the sky direction. 925 998 For each frequency $\nu_k$ or wavelength $\lambda_k=c/\nu_k$ : … … 927 1000 \item Apply a 2D Fourier transform to compute sky angular Fourier amplitudes 928 1001 $$ T_{sky}(\alpha, \delta, \lambda_k) \rightarrow \mathrm{2D-FFT} \rightarrow {\cal T}_{sky}(u, v, \lambda_k)$$ 929 \item Apply instrument response in the angular wave mode plane 930 $$ {\cal T}_{sky}(u, v, \lambda_k) \longrightarrow {\cal T}_{sky}(u, v, \lambda_k) \times {\cal R}(u,v,\lambda) $$ 1002 \item Apply instrument response in the angular wave mode plane. We use here the normalized instrument response 1003 $ {\cal R}(u,v,\lambda_k) \lesssim 1$. 1004 $$ {\cal T}_{sky}(u, v, \lambda_k) \longrightarrow {\cal T}_{sky}(u, v, \lambda_k) \times {\cal R}(u,v,\lambda_k) $$ 931 1005 \item Apply inverse 2D Fourier transform to compute the measured sky brightness temperature map, 932 1006 without instrumental (electronic/$\Tsys$) white noise: 933 1007 $$ {\cal T}_{sky}(u, v, \lambda_k) \times {\cal R}(u,v,\lambda) 934 1008 \rightarrow \mathrm{Inv-2D-FFT} \rightarrow T_{mes1}(\alpha, \delta, \lambda_k) $$ 935 \item Add white noise (gaussian fluctuations) to obtain the measured sky brightness temperature 936 $T_{mes}(\alpha, \delta, \nu_k)$. We have also considered that the system temperature and thus the 1009 \item Add white noise (gaussian fluctuations) to the pixel map temperatures to obtain 1010 the measured sky brightness temperature $T_{mes}(\alpha, \delta, \nu_k)$. 1011 We have also considered that the system temperature and thus the 937 1012 additive white noise level was independent of the frequency or wavelength. 938 1013 \end{enumerate} … … 940 1015 The results shown here correspond to the (a) instrument configuration, a packed array of 941 1016 $11 \times 11 = 121$ 5 meter diameter dishes, with a white noise level corresponding 942 to $\sigma_{noise} = 0.25 \mathrm{mK}$ per $3 \times 3 \mathrm{arcmin^2} \times 500 kHz$1017 to $\sigma_{noise} = 0.25 \mathrm{mK}$ per $3 \times 3 \mathrm{arcmin^2} \times 500$ kHz 943 1018 cell. 944 1019 945 Our simple component separation procedure is described below:1020 A brief description of the simple component separation procedure that we have applied is given here: 946 1021 \begin{enumerate} 947 \item The measured sky brightness temperature is first corrected for the frequency dependent 948 beam effects through a convolution by a virtual, frequency independent beam. We assume 949 that we have a perfect knowledge of the intrinsic instrument response. 1022 \item The measured sky brightness temperature is first {\em corrected} for the frequency dependent 1023 beam effects through a convolution by a virtual, frequency independent beam. This {\em correction} 1024 corresponds to a smearing or degradation of the angular resolution. We assume 1025 that we have a perfect knowledge of the intrinsic instrument response, up to a threshold numerical level 1026 of about $ \gtrsim 1 \%$ for ${\cal R}(u,v,\lambda)$. We recall that this is the normalized instrument response, 1027 ${\cal R}(u,v,\lambda) \lesssim 1$. 950 1028 $$ T_{mes}(\alpha, \delta, \nu) \longrightarrow T_{mes}^{bcor}(\alpha,\delta,\nu) $$ 951 The virtual target instrument has a beam width larger t othe worst real instrument beam,1029 The virtual target instrument has a beam width larger than the worst real instrument beam, 952 1030 i.e at the lowest observed frequency. 953 1031 \item For each sky direction $(\alpha, \delta)$, a power law $T = T_0 \left( \frac{\nu}{\nu_0} \right)^b$ 954 is fitted to the beam-corrected brightness temperature. $b$ is the power law index and $10^a$ 955 is the brightness temperature at the reference frequency $\nu_0$: 1032 is fitted to the beam-corrected brightness temperature. The fit is done through a linear $\chi^2$ fit in 1033 the $\log10 ( T ) , \log10 (\nu)$ plane and we show here the results for a pure power law (P1) 1034 or modified power law (P2): 956 1035 \begin{eqnarray*} 957 1036 P1 & : & \log10 ( T_{mes}^{bcor}(\nu) ) = a + b \log10 ( \nu / \nu_0 ) \\ 958 1037 P2 & : & \log10 ( T_{mes}^{bcor}(\nu) ) = a + b \log10 ( \nu / \nu_0 ) + c \log10 ( \nu/\nu_0 ) ^2 959 1038 \end{eqnarray*} 1039 where $b$ is the power law index and $T_0 = 10^a$ is the brightness temperature at the 1040 reference frequency $\nu_0$: 960 1041 \item The difference between the beam-corrected sky temperature and the fitted power law 961 1042 $(T_0(\alpha, \delta), b(\alpha, \delta))$ is our extracted 21 cm LSS signal. … … 964 1045 Figure \ref{extlsspk} shows the performance of this procedure at a redshift $\sim 0.6$, 965 1046 for the two radio sky models used here: GSM/Model-I and Haslam+NVSS/Model-II. The 966 21 cm LSS power spectrum, as seen by a perfect instrument with a gaussian frequency independent 967 beam is shown in orange (solid line), and the extracted power spectrum, after beam correction 1047 21 cm LSS power spectrum, as seen by a perfect instrument with a 25 arcmin (FWHM) 1048 gaussian frequency independent beam is shown in orange (solid line), 1049 and the extracted power spectrum, after beam {\em correction} 968 1050 and foreground separation with second order polynomial fit (P2) is shown in red (circle markers). 969 1051 We have also represented the obtained power spectrum without applying the beam correction (step 1 above), 970 1052 or with the first order polynomial fit (P1). 971 1053 972 It can be seen that a precise knowledge of the instrument beam and the beam correction 973 is a key ingredient for recovering the 21 cm LSS power spectrum. It is also worthwhile to 974 note that while it is enough to correct the beam to the lowest resolution instrument beam 975 ($\sim 30'$ or $D \sim 50$ meter @ 820 MHz) for the GSM model, a stronger beam correction 1054 Figure \ref{extlssmap} shows a comparison of the original 21 cm brightness temperature map at 884 MHz 1055 with the recovered 21 cm map, after subtraction of the radio continuum component. It can be seen that structures 1056 present in the original map have been correctly recovered, although the amplitude of the temperature 1057 fluctuations on the recovered map is significantly smaller (factor $sim 5$) than in the original map. This is mostly 1058 due to the damping of the large scale ($k \lesssim 0.04 h \mathrm{Mpc^{-1}} $) due the poor interferometer 1059 response at large angle ($\theta \gtrsim 4^\circ $). 1060 1061 We have shown that it should be possible to measure the red shifted 21 cm emission fluctuations in the 1062 presence of the strong radio continuum signal, provided that this latter has a smooth frequency dependence. 1063 However, a rather precise knowledge of the instrument beam and the beam {\em correction} 1064 or smearing procedure described here are key ingredient for recovering the 21 cm LSS power spectrum. 1065 It is also important to note that while it is enough to correct the beam to the lowest resolution instrument beam 1066 ($\sim 30'$ or $D \sim 50$ meter @ 820 MHz) for the GSM sky model, a stronger beam correction 976 1067 has to be applied (($\sim 36'$ or $D \sim 40$ meter @ 820 MHz) for the Model-II to reduce 977 significantly the ripples from bright radio sources. The effect of mode mixing is reduced for 978 an instrument with smooth (gaussian) beam, compared to the instrument response 979 ${\cal R}(u,v,\lambda)$ used here. 980 981 Figure \ref{extlssratio} shows the overall {\em transfer function} for 21 cm LSS power 982 spectrum measurement. We have shown (solid line, orange) the ratio of measured LSS power spectrum 983 by a perfect instrument $P_{perf-obs}(k)$, with a gaussian beam of $\sim$ 36 arcmin, respectively $\sim$ 30 arcmin, 984 in the absence of any foregrounds or instrument noise, to the original 21 cm power spectrum $P_{21cm}(k)$. 985 The ratio of the recovered LSS power spectrum $P_{ext}(k)$ to $P_{perf-obs}(k)$ is shown in red, and the 986 ratio of the recovered spectrum to $P_{21cm}(k)$ is shown in black (thin line). 1068 significantly the ripples from bright radio sources. 1069 We have also applied the same procedure to simulate observations and LSS signal extraction for an instrument 1070 with a frequency dependent gaussian beam shape. The mode mixing effect is greatly reduced for 1071 such a smooth beam, compared to the more complex instrument response 1072 ${\cal R}(u,v,\lambda)$ used for the results shown in figure \ref{extlsspk}. 1073 1074 \begin{figure*} 1075 \centering 1076 \vspace*{-25mm} 1077 \mbox{ 1078 \hspace*{-20mm} 1079 \includegraphics[width=1.15\textwidth]{Figs/extlsspk.pdf} 1080 } 1081 \vspace*{-35mm} 1082 \caption{Recovered power spectrum of the 21cm LSS temperature fluctuations, separated from the 1083 continuum radio emissions at $z \sim 0.6$, for the instrument configuration (a), $11\times11$ 1084 packed array interferometer. 1085 Left: GSM/Model-I , right: Haslam+NVSS/Model-II. black curve shows the residual after foreground subtraction, 1086 corresponding to the 21 cm signal, WITHOUT applying the beam correction. Red curve shows the recovered 21 cm 1087 signal power spectrum, for P2 type fit of the frequency dependence of the radio continuum, and violet curve is the P1 fit (see text). The orange/yellow curve shows the original 21 cm signal power spectrum, smoothed with a perfect, frequency independent gaussian beam. } 1088 \label{extlsspk} 1089 \end{figure*} 1090 987 1091 988 1092 \begin{figure*} … … 990 1094 \vspace*{-20mm} 991 1095 \mbox{ 992 \hspace*{-2 0mm}993 \includegraphics[width=1. 1\textwidth]{Figs/extlsspk.pdf}1096 \hspace*{-25mm} 1097 \includegraphics[width=1.20\textwidth]{Figs/extlssmap.pdf} 994 1098 } 995 \vspace*{- 30mm}996 \caption{ Power spectrum of the 21cm LSS temperature fluctuations, separated from the997 continuum radio emissions at $z \sim 0.6$. 998 Left: GSM/Model-I , right: Haslam+NVSS/Model-II.}999 \label{extlss pk}1099 \vspace*{-25mm} 1100 \caption{Comparison of the original 21 cm LSS temperature map @ 884 MHz ($z \sim 0.6$), smoothed 1101 with 25 arc.min (FWHM) beam (top), and the recovered LSS map, after foreground subtraction for Model-I (GSM) (bottom), for the instrument configuration (a), $11\times11$ packed array interferometer. 1102 Notice the difference between the temperature color scales (mK) for the top and bottom maps. } 1103 \label{extlssmap} 1000 1104 \end{figure*} 1001 1105 1106 \subsection{$P_{21}(k)$ measurement transfer function} 1107 \label{tfpkdef} 1108 The recovered red shifted 21 cm emission power spectrum $P_{21}^{rec}(k)$ suffers a number of distortions, mostly damping, 1109 compared to the original $P_{21}(k)$ due to the instrument response and the component separation procedure. 1110 We expect damping at small scales, or larges $k$, due to the finite instrument size, but also at large scales, small $k$, 1111 if total power measurements (auto-correlations) are not used in the case of interferometers. 1112 The sky reconstruction and the component separation introduce additional filtering and distortions. 1113 Ideally, one has to define a power spectrum measurement response or {\it transfer function} in the 1114 radial direction, ($\lambda$ or redshift, $TF(k_\parallel)$) and in the transverse plane ( $TF(k_\perp)$ ). 1115 The real transverse plane transfer function might even be anisotropic. 1116 1117 However, in the scope of the present study, we define an overall transfer function $TF(k)$ as the ratio of the 1118 recovered 3D power spectrum $P_{21}^{rec}(k)$ to the original $P_{21}(k)$: 1119 \begin{equation} 1120 TF(k) = P_{21}^{rec}(k) / P_{21}(k) 1121 \end{equation} 1122 1123 Figure \ref{extlssratio} shows this overall transfer function for the simulations and component 1124 separation performed here, around $z \sim 0.6$, for the instrumental setup (a), a filled array of 121 $D_{dish}=5$ m dishes. 1125 The orange/yellow curve shows the ratio $P_{21}^{smoothed}(k)/P_{21}(k)$ of the computed to the original 1126 power spectrum, if the original LSS temperature cube is smoothed by the frequency independent target beam 1127 FWHM=30' for the GSM simulations (left), 36' for Model-II (right). This orange/yellow 1128 curve shows the damping effect due to the finite instrument size at small scales ($k \gtrsim 0.1 \, h \, \mathrm{Mpc^{-1}}, \theta \lesssim 1^\circ$). 1129 The recovered power spectrum suffers also significant damping at large scales $k \lesssim 0.05 \, h \, \mathrm{Mpc^{-1}}, $ due to poor interferometer 1130 response at large angles ($ \theta \gtrsim 4^\circ-5^\circ$), as well as to the filtering of radial or longitudinal Fourier modes along 1131 the frequency or redshift direction ($k_\parallel$) by the component separation algorithm. 1132 The red curve shows the ratio of $P(k)$ computed on the recovered or extracted 21 cm LSS signal, to the original 1133 LSS temperature cube $P_{21}^{rec}(k)/P_{21}(k)$ and corresponds to the transfer function $TF(k)$ defined above, 1134 for $z=0.6$ and instrument setup (a). 1135 The black (thin line) curve shows the ratio of recovered to the smoothed 1136 power spectrum $P_{21}^{rec}(k)/P_{21}^{smoothed}(k)$. This latter ratio (black curve) exceeds one for $k \gtrsim 0.2$, which is 1137 due to the noise or system temperature. It should stressed that the simulations presented in this section were 1138 focused on the study of the radio foreground effects and have been carried intently with a very low instrumental noise level of 1139 $0.25$ mK per pixel, corresponding to several years of continuous observations ($\sim 10$ hours per $3' \times 3'$ pixel). 1140 1141 This transfer function is well represented a the analytical form: 1142 \begin{equation} 1143 TF(k) = \sqrt{ \frac{ k-k_A}{ k_B} } \times \exp \left( - \frac{k}{k_C} \right) 1144 \label{eq:tfanalytique} 1145 \end{equation} 1146 1147 We have performed simulation of observations and radio foreground subtraction using 1148 the procedure described here for different redshifts and instrument configurations, in particular 1149 for the (e) configuration with 400 five-meter dishes. As the synchrotron and radio source strength 1150 increases quickly with decreasing frequency, we have seen that recovering the 21 cm LSS signal 1151 becomes difficult for larger redshifts, in particular for $z \gtrsim 2$. 1152 1153 We have determined the transfer function parameters of eq. \ref{eq:tfanalytique} $k_A, k_B, k_C$ 1154 for setup (e) for three redshifts, $z=0.5, 1 , 1.5$, and then extrapolated the value of the parameters 1155 for redshift $z=2, 2.5$. The value of the parameters are grouped in table \ref{tab:paramtfk} 1156 and the smoothed transfer functions are shown on figure \ref{tfpkz0525}. 1157 1158 \begin{table}[hbt] 1159 \begin{tabular}{|c|ccccc|} 1160 \hline 1161 \hspace{2mm} z \hspace{2mm} & \hspace{2mm} 0.5 \hspace{2mm} & \hspace{2mm} 1.0 \hspace{2mm} & 1162 \hspace{2mm} 1.5 \hspace{2mm} & \hspace{2mm} 2.0 \hspace{2mm} & \hspace{2mm} 2.5 \hspace{2mm} \\ 1163 \hline 1164 $k_A$ & 0.006 & 0.005 & 0.004 & 0.0035 & 0.003 \\ 1165 $k_B$ & 0.038 & 0.019 & 0.012 & 0.0093 & 0.008 \\ 1166 $k_C$ & 0.16 & 0.08 & 0.05 & 0.038 & 0.032 \\ 1167 \hline 1168 \end{tabular} 1169 \caption{Value of the parameters for the transfer function (eq. \ref{eq:tfanalytique}) at different redshift 1170 for instrumental setup (e), $20\times20$ packed array interferometer. } 1171 \label{tab:paramtfk} 1172 \end{table} 1002 1173 1003 1174 \begin{figure*} 1004 1175 \centering 1005 \vspace*{- 20mm}1176 \vspace*{-30mm} 1006 1177 \mbox{ 1007 1178 \hspace*{-20mm} 1008 \includegraphics[width=1.1 \textwidth]{Figs/extlssratio.pdf}1179 \includegraphics[width=1.15\textwidth]{Figs/extlssratio.pdf} 1009 1180 } 1010 \vspace*{-30mm} 1011 \caption{Power spectrum of the 21cm LSS temperature fluctuations, separated from the 1012 continuum radio emissions at $z \sim 0.6$. 1181 \vspace*{-35mm} 1182 \caption{Ratio of the reconstructed or extracted 21cm power spectrum, after foreground removal, to the initial 21 cm power spectrum, $TF(k) = P_{21}^{rec}(k) / P_{21}(k) $, at $z \sim 0.6$, for the instrument configuration (a), $11\times11$ packed array interferometer. 1013 1183 Left: GSM/Model-I , right: Haslam+NVSS/Model-II. } 1014 1184 \label{extlssratio} 1015 1185 \end{figure*} 1016 1186 1017 \section{ BAO scale determination and constrain on dark energy parameters} 1187 1188 \begin{figure} 1189 \centering 1190 \vspace*{-25mm} 1191 \mbox{ 1192 \hspace*{-10mm} 1193 \includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{Figs/tfpkz0525.pdf} 1194 } 1195 \vspace*{-30mm} 1196 \caption{Fitted/smoothed transfer function obtained for the recovered 21 cm power spectrum at different redshifts, 1197 $z=0.5 , 1.0 , 1.5 , 2.0 , 2.5$ for the instrument configuration (e), $20\times20$ packed array interferometer. } 1198 \label{tfpkz0525} 1199 \end{figure} 1200 1201 1202 1203 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 1204 %% \section{ BAO scale determination and constrain on dark energy parameters} 1018 1205 % {\color{red} \large \it CY ( + JR ) } \\[1mm] 1019 We compute reconstructed LSS-P(k) (after component separation) at different z's 1020 and determine BAO scale as a function of redshifts. 1021 Method: 1206 %% We compute reconstructed LSS-P(k) (after component separation) at different z's 1207 %% and determine BAO scale as a function of redshifts. 1208 %% Method: 1209 %% \begin{itemize} 1210 %% \item Compute/guess the overall transfer function for several redshifts (0.5 , 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ) \\ 1211 %% \item Compute / guess the instrument noise level for the same redshit values 1212 %% \item Compute the observed P(k) and extract $k_{BAO}$ , and the corresponding error 1213 %% \item Compute the DETF ellipse with different priors 1214 %% \end{itemize} 1215 1216 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 1217 %%%%%% Figures et texte fournis par C. Yeche - 10 Juin 2011 %%%%%%% 1218 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 1219 1220 \section{Sensitivity to cosmological parameters} 1221 \label{cosmosec} 1222 1223 In section \ref{pkmessens}, 1224 The impact of the various telescope configurations on the sensitivity for 21 cm 1225 power spectrum measurement has been discussed in section \ref{pkmessens}. 1226 Fig.~\ref{powerfig} shows the noise power spectra, and allows us to rank visually the configurations 1227 in terms of instrument noise contribution to P(k) measurement. 1228 The differences in $P_{noise}$ will translate into differing precisions 1229 in the reconstruction of the BAO peak positions and in 1230 the estimation of cosmological parameters. In addition, we have seen (sec. \ref{recsec}) 1231 that subtraction of continuum radio emissions, Galactic synchrotron and radio sources, 1232 has also an effect on the measured 21 cm power spectrum. 1233 In this paragraph, we present our method and the results for the precisions on the estimation 1234 of Dark Energy parameters, through a radio survey of the redshifted 21 cm emission of LSS, 1235 with an instrumental setup similar to the (e) configuration (sec. \ref{instrumnoise}), 400 five-meter diameter 1236 dishes, arranged into a filled $20 \times 20$ array. 1237 1238 1239 \subsection{BAO peak precision} 1240 1241 In order to estimate the precision with which BAO peak positions can be 1242 measured, we used a method similar to the one established in \citep{blake.03}. 1243 1244 1245 1246 To this end, we generated reconstructed power spectra $P^{rec}(k)$ for 1247 slices of Universe with a quarter-sky coverage and a redshift depth, 1248 $\Delta z=0.5$ for $0.25<z<2.75$. 1249 The peaks in the generated spectra were then determined by a 1250 fitting procedure and the reconstructed peak positions compared with the 1251 generated peak positions. 1252 The reconstructed power spectrum used in the simulation is 1253 the sum of the expected \HI signal term, corresponding to equations \ref{eq:pk21z} and \ref{eq:tbar21z}, 1254 damped by the transfer function $TF(k)$ (Eq. \ref{eq:tfanalytique} , table \ref{tab:paramtfk}) 1255 and a white noise component $P_{noise}$ calculated according to the equation \ref{eq:pnoiseNbeam}, 1256 established in section \ref{instrumnoise} with $N=400$: 1257 \begin{equation} 1258 P^{rec}(k) = P_{21}(k) \times TF(k) + P_{noise} 1259 \end{equation} 1260 where the different terms ($P_{21}(k) , TF(k), P_{noise}$depend on the slice redshift. 1261 The expected 21 cm power spectrum $P_{21}(k)$ has been generated according to the formula: 1262 %\begin{equation} 1263 \begin{eqnarray} 1264 \label{eq:signal} 1265 \frac{P_{21}(\kperp,\kpar)}{P_{ref}(\kperp,\kpar)} = 1266 1\; + 1267 \hspace*{40mm} 1268 \nonumber 1269 \\ \hspace*{20mm} 1270 A\, k \exp \bigl( -(k/\tau)^\alpha\bigr) 1271 \sin\left( 2\pi\sqrt{\frac{\kperp^2}{\koperp^2} + 1272 \frac{\kpar^2}{\kopar^2}}\;\right) 1273 \end{eqnarray} 1274 %\end{equation} 1275 where $k=\sqrt{\kperp^2 + \kpar^2}$, the parameters $A$, $\alpha$ and $\tau$ 1276 are adjusted to the formula presented in 1277 \citep{eisenhu.98}. $P_{ref}(\kperp,\kpar)$ is the 1278 envelop curve of the HI power spectrum without baryonic oscillations. 1279 The parameters $\koperp$ and $\kopar$ 1280 are the inverses of the oscillation periods in k-space. 1281 The following values have been used for these 1282 parameters for the results presented here: $A=1.0$, $\tau=0.1 \, \hMpcm$, 1283 $\alpha=1.4$ and $\koperp=\kopar=0.060 \, \hMpcm$. 1284 1285 Each simulation is performed for a given set of parameters 1286 which are: the system temperature,$\Tsys$, an observation time, 1287 $t_{obs}$, an average redshift and a redshift depth, $\Delta z=0.5$. 1288 Then, each simulated power spectrum is fitted with a two dimensional 1289 normalized function $P_{tot}(\kperp,\kpar)/P_{ref}(\kperp,\kpar)$ which is 1290 the sum of the signal power spectrum damped by the transfer function and the 1291 noise power spectrum multiplied by a 1292 linear term, $a_0+a_1k$. The upper limit $k_{max}$ in $k$ of the fit 1293 corresponds to the approximate position of the linear/non-linear transition. 1294 This limit is established on the basis of the criterion discussed in 1295 \citep{blake.03}. 1296 In practice, we used for the redshifts 1297 $z=0.5,\,\, 1.0$ and $1.5$ respectively $k_{max}= 0.145 \hMpcm,\,\, 0.18\hMpcm$ 1298 and $0.23 \hMpcm$. 1299 1300 Figure \ref{fig:fitOscill} shows the result of the fit for 1301 one of theses simulations. 1302 Figure \ref{fig:McV2} histograms the recovered values of $\koperp$ and $\kopar$ 1303 for 100 simulations. 1304 The widths of the two distributions give an estimate 1305 the statistical errors. 1306 1307 In addition, in the fitting procedure, both the parameters modeling the 1308 signal $A$, $\tau$, $\alpha$ and the parameter correcting the noise power 1309 spectrum $(a_0,a_1)$ are floated to take into account the possible 1310 ignorance of the signal shape and the uncertainties in the 1311 computation of the noise power spectrum. 1312 In this way, we can correct possible imperfections and the 1313 systematic uncertainties are directly propagated to statistical errors 1314 on the relevant parameters $\koperp$ and $\kopar$. By subtracting the 1315 fitted noise contribution to each simulation, the baryonic oscillations 1316 are clearly observed, for instance, on Fig.~\ref{fig:AverPk}. 1317 1318 1319 \begin{figure}[htbp] 1320 \begin{center} 1321 \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figs/FitPk.pdf} 1322 \caption{1D projection of the power spectrum for one simulation. 1323 The \HI power spectrum is divided by an envelop curve $P(k)_{ref}$ 1324 corresponding to the power spectrum without baryonic oscillations. 1325 The dots represents one simulation for a "packed" array of cylinders 1326 with a system temperature,$T_{sys}=50$K, an observation time, 1327 $T_{obs}=$ 1 year, 1328 a solid angle of $1\pi sr$, 1329 an average redshift, $z=1.5$ and a redshift depth, $\Delta z=0.5$. 1330 The solid line is the result of the fit to the data.} 1331 \label{fig:fitOscill} 1332 \end{center} 1333 \end{figure} 1334 1335 \begin{figure}[htbp] 1336 \begin{center} 1337 %\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{McV2.eps} 1338 \includegraphics[width=9.0cm]{Figs/McV2.pdf} 1339 \caption{ Distributions of the reconstructed 1340 wavelength $\koperp$ and $\kopar$ 1341 respectively, perpendicular and parallel to the line of sight 1342 for simulations as in Fig. \ref{fig:fitOscill}. 1343 The fit by a Gaussian of the distribution (solid line) gives the 1344 width of the distribution which represents the statistical error 1345 expected on these parameters.} 1346 \label{fig:McV2} 1347 \end{center} 1348 \end{figure} 1349 1350 1351 \begin{figure}[htbp] 1352 \begin{center} 1353 \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figs/AveragedPk.pdf} 1354 \caption{1D projection of the power spectrum averaged over 100 simulations 1355 of the packed cylinder array $b$. 1356 The simulations are performed for the following conditions: a system 1357 temperature, $T_{sys}=50$K, an observation time, $T_{obs}=1$ year, 1358 a solid angle of $1 \pi sr$, 1359 an average redshift, $z=1.5$ and a redshift depth, $\Delta z=0.5$. 1360 The \HI power spectrum is divided by an envelop curve $P(k)_{ref}$ 1361 corresponding to the power spectrum without baryonic oscillations 1362 and the background estimated by a fit is subtracted. The errors are 1363 the RMS of the 100 distributions for each $k$ bin and the dots are 1364 the mean of the distribution for each $k$ bin. } 1365 \label{fig:AverPk} 1366 \end{center} 1367 \end{figure} 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 %\subsection{Results} 1373 1374 In our comparison of the various configurations, we have considered 1375 the following cases for $\Delta z=0.5$ slices with $0.25<z<2.75$. 1022 1376 \begin{itemize} 1023 \item Compute/guess the overall transfer function for several redshifts (0.5 , 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ) \\ 1024 \item Compute / guess the instrument noise level for the same redshit values 1025 \item Compute the observed P(k) and extract $k_{BAO}$ , and the corresponding error 1026 \item Compute the DETF ellipse with different priors 1377 \item {\it Simulation without electronics noise}: the statistical errors on the power 1378 spectrum are directly related to the number of modes in the surveyed volume $V$ corresponding to 1379 $\Delta z=0.5$ slice with the solid angle $\Omega_{tot}$ = 1 $\pi$ sr. 1380 The number of mode $N_{\delta k}$ in the wave number interval $\delta k$ can be written as: 1381 \begin{equation} 1382 V = \frac{c}{H(z)} \Delta z \times (1+z)^2 \dang^2 \Omega_{tot} \hspace{10mm} 1383 N_{\delta k} = \frac{ V }{4 \pi^2} k^2 \delta k 1384 \end{equation} 1385 \item {\it Noise}: we add the instrument noise as a constant term $P_{noise}$ as described in Eq. 1386 \ref {eq:pnoiseNbeam}. Table \ref{tab:pnoiselevel} gives the white noise level for 1387 $\Tsys = 50 \mathrm{K}$ and one year total observation time to survey $\Omega_{tot}$ = 1 $\pi$ sr. 1388 \item {\it Noise with transfer function}: we take into account of the interferometer and radio foreground 1389 subtraction represented as the measured P(k) transfer function $T(k)$ (section \ref{tfpkdef}), as 1390 well as instrument noise $P_{noise}$. 1027 1391 \end{itemize} 1028 1392 1393 \begin{table} 1394 \begin{tabular}{|l|ccccc|} 1395 \hline 1396 z & \hspace{1mm} 0.5 \hspace{1mm} & \hspace{1mm} 1.0 \hspace{1mm} & 1397 \hspace{1mm} 1.5 \hspace{1mm} & \hspace{1mm} 2.0 \hspace{1mm} & \hspace{1mm} 2.5 \hspace{1mm} \\ 1398 \hline 1399 $P_{noise} \, \mathrm{mK^2 \, (Mpc/h)^3}$ & 8.5 & 35 & 75 & 120 & 170 \\ 1400 \hline 1401 \end{tabular} 1402 \caption{Instrument or electronic noise spectral power $P_{noise}$ for a $N=400$ dish interferometer with $\Tsys=50$ K and $t_{obs} =$ 1 year to survey $\Omega_{tot} = \pi$ sr } 1403 \label{tab:pnoiselevel} 1404 \end{table} 1405 1406 Table \ref{tab:ErrorOnK} summarizes the result. The errors both on $\koperp$ and $\kopar$ 1407 decrease as a function of redshift for simulations without electronic noise because the volume of the universe probed is larger. Once we apply the electronics noise, each slice in redshift give comparable results. Finally, after applying the full reconstruction of the interferometer, the best accuracy is obtained for the first slices in redshift around 0.5 and 1.0 for an identical time of observation. We can optimize the survey by using a different observation time for each slice in redshift. Finally, for a 3 year survey we can split in five observation periods with durations which are 3 months, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 1 year respectively for redshift 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. 1408 1409 \begin{table*}[ht] 1410 \begin{center} 1411 \begin{tabular}{lc|c c c c c } 1412 \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\mathbf z$ }& \bf 0.5 & \bf 1.0 & \bf 1.5 & \bf 2.0 & \bf 2.5 \\ 1413 \hline\hline 1414 \bf No Noise & $\sigma(\koperp)/\koperp$ (\%) & 1.8 & 0.8 & 0.6 & 0.5 &0.5\\ 1415 & $\sigma(\kopar)/\kopar$ (\%) & 3.0 & 1.3 & 0.9 & 0.8 & 0.8\\ 1416 \hline 1417 \bf Noise without Transfer Function & $\sigma(\koperp)/\koperp$ (\%) & 2.3 & 1.8 & 2.2 & 2.4 & 2.8\\ 1418 (3-months/redshift)& $\sigma(\kopar)/\kopar$ (\%) & 4.1 & 3.1 & 3.6 & 4.3 & 4.4\\ 1419 \hline 1420 \bf Noise with Transfer Function & $\sigma(\koperp)/\koperp$ (\%) & 3.0 & 2.5 & 3.5 & 5.2 & 6.5 \\ 1421 (3-months/redshift)& $\sigma(\kopar)/\kopar$ (\%) & 4.8 & 4.0 & 6.2 & 9.3 & 10.3\\ 1422 \hline 1423 \bf Optimized survey & $\sigma(\koperp)/\koperp$ (\%) & 3.0 & 2.5 & 2.3 & 2.0 & 2.7\\ 1424 (Observation time : 3 years)& $\sigma(\kopar)/\kopar$ (\%) & 4.8 & 4.0 & 4.1 & 3.6 & 4.3 \\ 1425 \hline 1426 \end{tabular} 1427 \end{center} 1428 \caption{Sensitivity on the measurement of $\koperp$ and $\kopar$ as a 1429 function of the redshift $z$ for various simulation configuration. 1430 $1^{\rm st}$ row: simulations without noise with pure cosmic variance; 1431 $2^{\rm nd}$ 1432 row: simulations with electronics noise for a telescope with dishes; 1433 $3^{\rm th}$ row: simulations 1434 with same electronics noise and with correction with the transfer function ; 1435 $4^{\rm th}$ row: optimized survey with a total observation time of 3 years (3 months, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 1 year respectively for redshift 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 ).} 1436 \label{tab:ErrorOnK} 1437 \end{table*}% 1438 1439 1440 1441 \subsection{Expected sensitivity on $w_0$ and $w_a$} 1442 1443 \begin{figure} 1444 \begin{center} 1445 \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figs/dist.pdf} 1446 \caption{ 1447 The two ``Hubble diagrams'' for BAO experiments. 1448 The four falling curves give the angular size of the acoustic horizon 1449 (left scale) and the four 1450 rising curves give the redshift interval of the acoustic horizon (right scale). 1451 The solid lines are for 1452 $(\Omega_M,\Omega_\Lambda,w)=(0.27,0.73,-1)$, 1453 the dashed for 1454 $(1,0,-1)$ 1455 the dotted for 1456 $(0.27,0,-1)$, and 1457 the dash-dotted for 1458 $(0.27,0.73,-0.9)$, 1459 The error bars on the solid curve correspond to the four-month run 1460 (packed array) 1461 of Table \ref{tab:ErrorOnK}. 1462 } 1463 \label{fig:hubble} 1464 \end{center} 1465 \end{figure} 1466 1467 1468 The observations give the \HI power spectrum in 1469 angle-angle-redshift space rather than in real space. 1470 The inverse of the peak positions in the observed power spectrum therefore 1471 gives the angular and redshift intervals corresponding to the 1472 sonic horizon. 1473 The peaks in the angular spectrum are proportional to 1474 $d_T(z)/a_s$ and those in the redshift spectrum to $d_H(z)/a_s$. 1475 $a_s \sim 105 h^{-1} \mathrm{Mpc}$ is the acoustic horizon comoving size at recombination, 1476 $d_T(z) = (1+z) \dang$ is the comoving angular distance and $d_H=c/H(z)$ is the Hubble distance 1477 (see Eq. \ref{eq:expHz}): 1478 \begin{equation} 1479 d_H = \frac{c}{H(z)} = \frac{c/H_0}{\sqrt{\Omega_\Lambda+\Omega_m (1+z)^3} } \hspace{5mm} 1480 d_T = \int_0^z d_H(z) dz 1481 \label{eq:dTdH} 1482 \end{equation} 1483 The quantities $d_T$, $d_H$ and $a_s$ all depend on 1484 the cosmological parameters. 1485 Figure \ref{fig:hubble} gives the angular and redshift intervals 1486 as a function of redshift for four cosmological models. 1487 The error bars on the lines for 1488 $(\Omega_M,\Omega_\Lambda)=(0.27,0.73)$ 1489 correspond to the expected errors 1490 on the peak positions 1491 taken from Table \ref{tab:ErrorOnK} 1492 for the four-month runs with the packed array. 1493 We see that with these uncertainties, the data would be able to 1494 measure $w$ at better than the 10\% level. 1495 1496 1497 To estimate the sensitivity 1498 to parameters describing dark energy equation of 1499 state, we follow the procedure explained in 1500 \citep{blake.03}. We can introduce the equation of 1501 state of dark energy, $w(z)=w_0 + w_a\cdot z/(1+z)$ by 1502 replacing $\Omega_\Lambda$ in the definition of $d_T (z)$ and $d_H (z)$, 1503 (Eq. \ref{eq:dTdH}) by: 1504 \begin{equation} 1505 \Omega_\Lambda = \Omega_{\Lambda}^0 \exp \left[ 3 \int_0^z 1506 \frac{1+w(z^\prime)}{1+z^\prime } dz^\prime \right] 1507 \end{equation} 1508 where $\Omega_{\Lambda}^0$ is the present-day dark energy fraction with 1509 respect to the critical density. 1510 Using the relative errors on $\koperp$ and $\kopar$ given in 1511 Tab.~\ref{tab:ErrorOnK}, we can compute the Fisher matrix for 1512 five cosmological parameter: $(\Omega_m, \Omega_b, h, w_0, w_a)$. 1513 Then, the combination of this BAO Fisher 1514 matrix with the Fisher matrix obtained for Planck mission, allows us to 1515 compute the errors on dark energy parameters. 1516 The Planck Fisher matrix is 1517 obtained for the 8 parameters (assuming a flat universe): 1518 $\Omega_m$, $\Omega_b$, $h$, $w_0$, $w_a$, 1519 $\sigma_8$, $n_s$ (spectral index of the primordial power spectrum) and 1520 $\tau$ (optical depth to the last-scatter surface). 1521 1522 1523 For an optimized project over a redshift range, $0.25<z<2.75$, with a total 1524 observation time of 3 years, the packed 400-dish interferometer array has a 1525 precision of 12\% on $w_0$ and 48\% on $w_a$. 1526 The Figure of Merit, the inverse of the area in the 95\% confidence level 1527 contours is 38. 1528 Finally, Fig.~\ref{fig:Compw0wa} 1529 shows a comparison of different BAO projects, with a set of priors on 1530 $(\Omega_m, \Omega_b, h)$ corresponding to the expected precision on 1531 these parameters in early 2010's. This BAO project based on \HI intensity 1532 mapping is clearly competitive with the current generation of optical 1533 surveys such as SDSS-III \citep{sdss3}. 1534 1535 1536 \begin{figure}[htbp] 1537 \begin{center} 1538 \includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{Figs/Ellipse21cm.pdf} 1539 \caption{$1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ confidence level contours in the 1540 parameter plane $(w_0,w_a)$ for two BAO projects: SDSS-III (LRG) project 1541 (blue dotted line), 21 cm project with HI intensity mapping (black solid line).} 1542 \label{fig:Compw0wa} 1543 \end{center} 1544 \end{figure} 1029 1545 1030 1546 \section{Conclusions} 1031 1547 The 3D mapping of redshifted 21 cm emission though {\it Intensity Mapping} is a novel and complementary 1548 approach to optical surveys to study the statistical properties of the large scale structures in the universe 1549 up to redshifts $z \lesssim 3$. A radio instrument with large instantaneous field of view 1550 (10-100 deg$^2$) and large bandwidth ($\gtrsim 100$ MHz) with $\sim 10$ arcmin resolution is needed 1551 to perform a cosmological neutral hydrogen survey over a significant fraction of the sky. We have shown that 1552 a nearly packed interferometer array with few hundred receiver elements spread over an hectare or a hundred beam 1553 focal plane array with a $\sim 100$ meter primary reflector will have the required sensitivity to measure 1554 the 21 cm power spectrum. A method to compute the instrument response for interferometers 1555 has been developed and we have computed the noise power spectrum for various telescope configurations. 1556 The Galactic synchrotron and radio sources are a thousand time brighter than the redshifted 21 cm signal, 1557 making the measurement of this latter signal a major scientific and technical challenge. We have also studied the performance of a simple foreground subtraction method through realistic models of the sky 1558 emissions in the GHz domain and simulation of interferometric observations. 1559 We have been able to show that the cosmological 21 cm signal from the LSS should be observable, but 1560 requires a very good knowledge of the instrument response. Our method has allowed to define and 1561 compute the overall {\it transfer function} or {\it response function} for the measurement of the 21 cm 1562 power spectrum. 1563 Finally, we have used the computed noise power spectrum and P(k) 1564 measurement response function to estimate 1565 the precision on the determination of Dark Energy parameters, for a 21 cm BAO survey. Such a radio survey 1566 could be carried using the current technology and would be comptetitive with the ongoing or planned 1567 optical surveys for dark energy, with a fraction of their cost. 1568 1032 1569 % \begin{acknowledgements} 1033 1570 % \end{acknowledgements} 1034 1571 1035 %%% Quelques figures pour illustrer les resultats attendus1036 1037 1038 1039 % \caption{Comparison of the original simulated LSS (frequency plane) and the recovered LSS.1040 % Color scale in mK } \label{figcompexlss}1041 1042 % \caption{Comparison of the original simulated foreground (frequency plane) and1043 % the recovered foreground map. Color scale in Kelvin } \label{figcompexfg}1044 1045 % \caption{Comparison of the LSS power spectrum at 21 cm at 900 MHz ($z \sim 0.6$)1046 % and the synchrotron/radio sources - GSM (Global Sky Model) foreground sky cube}1047 % \label{figcompexfg}1048 1049 1050 % \caption{Recovered LSS power spectrum, after component separation - - GSM (Global Sky Model) foreground sky cube}1051 % \label{figexlsspk}1052 1053 1572 \bibliographystyle{aa} 1054 1573 … … 1057 1576 %%% 1058 1577 \bibitem[Ansari et al. (2008)]{ansari.08} Ansari R., J.-M. Le Goff, C. Magneville, M. Moniez, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, J. Rich, 1059 V. Ruhlmann-Kleider, \& C. Y\`eche , 2008 , ArXiv:0807.3614 1060 1578 V. Ruhlmann-Kleider, \& C. Y\`eche , 2008 , arXiv:0807.3614 1579 1580 %%%% References extraites de la section fournie par C. Yeche 1581 \bibitem[Abdala \& Rawlings(2005)]{SKA} Abdalla, F.B. \& Rawlings, S. 2005, \mnras, 360, 27 1582 1583 \bibitem[Albrecht et al.(2006)]{DETF} Albrecht, A., Bernstein, G., Cahn, R. {\it et al.} (Dark Energy Task Force) 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0609591 1584 1585 \bibitem[Barkana \& Loeb(2007)]{h1temp} Barkana, R., and Loeb, A. 2007, Rep. Prog. Phys, 70 627 1586 1587 \bibitem[Binney \& Merrifield(1998)]{binneymerrifield} Binney, J. \& Merrifield, M. 1998, Galactic Astronomy. 1588 (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton) 1589 1590 \bibitem[Blake and Glazebrook(2003)]{blake.03} Blake, C. \& Glazebrook, K. 2003, \apj, 594, 665; 1591 Glazebrook, K. \& Blake, C. 2005 \apj, 631, 1 1592 1593 % Galactic astronomy, emission HI d'une galaxie 1594 \bibitem[Binney \& Merrifield (1998)]{binney.98} Binney J. \& Merrifield M. , 1998 {\it Galactic Astronomy} Princeton University Press 1061 1595 % MWA description 1062 1596 \bibitem[Bowman et al. (2007)]{bowman.07} Bowman, J. D., Barnes, D.G., Briggs, F.H. et al 2007, \aj, 133, 1505-1518 1597 1598 %% Soustraction avant plans ds MWA 1599 \bibitem[Bowman et al. (2009)]{bowman.07} Bowman, J. D., Morales, M., Hewitt, J.N., 2009, \apj, 695, 183-199 1063 1600 1064 1601 % Intensity mapping/HSHS … … 1078 1615 \bibitem[Eisentein et al. (2005)]{eisenstein.05} Eisenstein D. J., Zehavi, I., Hogg, D.W. {\it et al.}, (the SDSS Collaboration) 2005, \apj, 633, 560 1079 1616 1617 % SDSS-III description 1618 \bibitem[Eisentein et al. (2011)]{eisenstein.11} Eisenstein D. J., Weinberg, D.H., Agol, E. {\it et al.}, 2011, arXiv:1101.1529 1619 1080 1620 % 21 cm emission for mapping matter distribution 1081 1621 \bibitem[Furlanetto et al. (2006)]{furlanetto.06} Furlanetto, S., Peng Oh, S. \& Briggs, F. 2006, \physrep, 433, 181-301 … … 1088 1628 \bibitem[Hinshaw et al. (2008)]{hinshaw.08} Hinshaw, G., Weiland, J.L., Hill, R.S. {\it et al.} 2008, arXiv:0803.0732) 1089 1629 1630 % Distribution des radio sources 1631 \bibitem[Jackson(2004)]{jackson.04} Jackson, C.A. 2004, \na, 48, 1187 1632 1090 1633 % HI mass in galaxies 1091 1634 \bibitem[Lah et al. (2009)]{lah.09} Philip Lah, Michael B. Pracy, Jayaram N. Chengalur et al. 2009, \mnras 1092 1635 ( astro-ph/0907.1416) 1093 1636 1637 % LSST Science book 1638 \bibitem[LSST.Science]{lsst.science} 1639 {\it LSST Science book}, LSST Science Collaborations, 2009, arXiv:0912.0201 1640 1641 % Foret Ly alpha - 1 1642 \bibitem[McDonald et al. (2006)]{baolya} McDonald P., Seljak, U. and Burles, S. {\it et al.} 2006, \apjs, 163, 80 1643 1644 % Foret Ly alpha - 2 , BAO from Ly-a 1645 \bibitem[McDonald \& Eisenstein (2007)]{baolya2} McDonald P., Eisenstein, D.J. 2007, Phys Rev D 76, 6, 063009 1646 1094 1647 % Boomerang 2000, Acoustic pics 1095 1648 \bibitem[Mauskopf et al. (2000)]{mauskopf.00} Mauskopf, P. D., Ade, P. A. R., de Bernardis, P. {\it et al.} 2000, \apjl, 536,59 1096 1649 1097 % Papier sur le traitement des obser avtions radio / mode mixing - REFERENCE A CHERCHER1098 \bibitem[Morales et al. (200 9)]{morales.09} Morales, M and other 2009, arXiv:0999.XXXX1650 % Papier sur le traitement des observations radio / mode mixing 1651 \bibitem[Morales et al. (2006)]{morales.06} Morales, M., Bowman, J.D., Hewitt, J.N., 2006, \apj, 648, 767-773 1099 1652 1100 1653 % Global Sky Model Paper … … 1108 1661 \bibitem[Percival et al. (2007)]{percival.07} Percival, W.J., Nichol, R.C., Eisenstein, D.J. {\it et al.}, (the SDSS Collaboration) 2007, \apj, 657, 645 1109 1662 1663 % SDSS BAO 2010 - arXiv:0907.1660 1664 \bibitem[Percival et al. (2010)]{percival.10} Percival, W.J., Reid, B.A., Eisenstein, D.J. {\it et al.}, 2010, \mnras 401, 2148-2168 1665 1110 1666 %% LOFAR description 1111 1667 \bibitem[Rottering et a,. (2006)]{rottgering.06} Rottgering H.J.A., Braun, r., Barthel, P.D. {\it et al.} 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0610596 1112 1668 %%%% 1669 1670 %% SDSS-3 1671 \bibitem[SDSS-III(2008)]{sdss3} SDSS-III 2008, http://www.sdss3.org/collaboration/description.pdf 1113 1672 1114 1673 % Frank H. Briggs, Matthew Colless, Roberto De Propris, Shaun Ferris, Brian P. Schmidt, Bradley E. Tucker … … 1119 1678 { \tt http://www.skatelescope.org/pages/page\_sciencegen.htm } 1120 1679 1680 % Papier 21cm-BAO Fermilab ( arXiv:0910.5007) 1681 \bibitem[Seo et al (2010)]{seo.10} Seo, H.J. Dodelson, S., Marriner, J. et al, 2010, \apj, 721, 164-173 1682 1121 1683 % FFT telescope 1122 1684 \bibitem[Tegmark \& Zaldarriaga (2008)]{tegmark.08} Tegmark, M. \& Zaldarriaga, M. 2008, arXiv:0802.1710 1685 1686 % Thomson-Morane livre interferometry 1687 \bibitem[Radio Astronomy (1998)]{radastron} Thompson, A.R., Moran, J.M., Swenson, G.W, {\it Interferometry and 1688 Synthesis in Radio Astronomy}, John Wiley \& sons, 2nd Edition 2001 1123 1689 1124 1690 % Lyman-alpha, HI fraction
Note:
See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.