This week’s entry features a futuristic way for obtaining a direct geometrical measurement of the Hubble constant using the so-called cosmic secular parallax, a study on the possibility of cross-correlating ultra-high energy cosmic rays and large-scale structure and what we would learn from this cross-correlation, and the second-best constraint on the tidal charge of brane-world black holes from the shadow of M87* detected by the Event Horizon Telescope. Enjoy!
#1 2005.00070: Direct geometrical measurement of the Hubble constant from galaxy parallax: predictions for LSST/VRO and WFIRST by Rupert Croft
In this blog, I have written quite a bit about the Hubble tension and possible solutions thereof (you can click on the “Hubble tension” tag at the bottom of this page to see all related entries), but never really discussed one important question: are there newer/better/cleaner ways of measuring H0 that we haven’t thought about? There are many ways for measuring H0 - from supernovae and Cepheids, BAO, gravitational waves, strong lensing, the CMB - but none of these is at the same time purely “geometrical”, direct, and not requiring complex modelling. Is there perhaps a smarter way we haven’t thought about? You probably know about what parallaxes are in the context of stellar parallaxes - the motion of the Earth around the Sun creates apparent shifts in the positions of stars, which in turn can be used to measure distances to stars since the baseline distance between two or more observations (due to the motion of the Earth) is known. This method works well for objects close to us but ultimately the limited Earth-Sun baseline poses a limitation to how far this can work. Ideally, if we could measure the parallax distance to objects in the Hubble flow, i.e. to objects in the expanding Universe, we could hope to measure H0. In this case, the parallax distance is precisely the angular diameter distance, which depends on H0 and a bunch of other parameters (including the matter density). But for that we need a huge baseline.
In this week’s paper, Croft studies a way to achieve such a baseline. The proposed method is based on the concept of “cosmic secular parallax”, already studied earlier in a similar context by Ding and Croft in 0903.3402, and works as following: the Earth is constantly in motion with respect to the CMB frame, and over a 10 year period it travels about 800 AU, with a continually increasing baseline. Compare this to the ~AU baseline we are talking about for stellar parallaxes, and you see that we are gaining about 3 orders of magnitude by focusing on cosmic secular parallax. Croft examines whether upcoming surveys such as WFIRST or the Vera Rubin Observatory (VRO - formerly LSST) will be able to do this by using nearby galaxies at redshifts z<0.06. The answer is “In principle yes, with a 2.8%/0.8% precision for VRO/WFIRST”, although reaching such a target precision, in practice, will be extremely hard. Several challenges will have to be addressed, including an extremely accurate modelling of proper motions from peculiar velocities, spectroscopic redshifts down to a limiting magnitude of r=18 or so, and possibly new analyses techniques. This is not to say it cannot be done, but the challenges are significant. It is probably the case that, by the time this measurement will be possible, independent measurements of H0 will be well below 1% precision and thus a measurement which in the best case scenario has a 0.8% precision will mostly be useful as a valuable cross-check. However, should such a measurement ever be realized, it would in some way be the first direct measurement of the scale of the Universe, following the footsteps of people like Hypparcus who in 130 BC used parallaxes to determine the distance to the Moon. In this sense, a measurement of H0 from cosmic secular parallax would be a tremendous milestone, which is why this paper is on the top of my list this week.
#2 2005.00244: Detecting ultra-high energy cosmic ray anisotropies through cross-correlations by Federico Urban, Stefano Camera, and David Alonso
The use of cross-correlations (XCs) between different fields is very widespread in cosmology (I wrote about it in the context of CMB lensing-galaxy cross-correlations in my Week 14 post), but a bit less so in high-energy astrophysics. The reason why XCs are useful is that they are less prone to systematics, since systematics in either of the two (or more) fields one is cross-correlating usually don’t correlate with the other field and its systematics. Putting it heuristically, if I am cross-correlating field A which suffers from systematic sysA, and similarly for field B with systematic sysB, then the cross-correlation gives (A+sysA)×(B+sysB)~A×B if the previous conditions are met. Even less common are cross-correlations between “astrophysical” and “cosmological” fields (the two adjectives are used in a very loose way), though this less explored avenue holds, in my opinion, enormous promise in the sense of shedding light on questions concerning the dark side of the Universe (especially dark matter) and the origin of the most energetic events we see. One of the authors of this week’s paper, Camera, is in fact one of those pioneering the exploration of novel “hybrid” cross-correlations of this type (for many years in fact, with papers going back at least to 1212.5018) - his Rita Levi Montalcini Rientro dei Cervelli (a program intended to bring Italian researchers back to Italy) project title “Prometheus - Probing and Relating Observables with Multiwavelength Experiments To Help Enlightening the Universe’s Structure” is pretty clear on this. Since 1961, we have been observing ultra-high energy cosmic rays (UHECRs), with energies of up to the EeV order (E=10^18!). Yet many of their properties, including origin, injection spectra, chemical composition, and redshift distribution, remain largely unknown. Can we do something about that using XCs?
This is the question Urban and collaborators address in this week’s paper. The idea is simple: to cross-correlate maps of (arrival directions of) UHECRs with maps of the large-scale structure (LSS), or more precisely tracers thereof. It is quite reasonable to believe that UHECR sources should trace the LSS, and therefore this XC should be non-zero. Urban et al. perform a very careful study characterizing the expected form of the UHECR-LSS cross-correlation, focusing on galaxies as tracers. This XC is a bit more complicated than what one naively would expect, due to the very small scales probed, which requires a non-perturbative modelling (which means for instance that one cannot simply use a linear bias model). The overall conclusions appear to be positive, in that the UHECR XC with the LSS should be detectable. It could in principle be easier to detect than the UHECR auto-correlation, and would probe scales smaller than those the probed by the latter. If detected, it can help shedding light on the sources of UHECRs, the chemical composition thereof, and possibly also their injection model (this would require some degree of reverse-engineering at the level of redshift-dependent weights used to optimize the XC signal - an interesting idea, but not explored in this week’s paper though).
In my opinion, some interesting things one could do beyond what was explored in this week’s paper would be to study the XC of UHECRs with different tracers of the LSS (including the ultimate LSS tracer, which doesn’t care about visible vs dark matter - cosmic shear) and compare the resulting strengths of these XCs, to understand whether the sources of UHECRs preferentially trace massive or low-mass halos (something along the lines of what was done in 1809.03528 to help shed light on the progenitors of binary black hole mergers). And, as Urban and collaborators hint to at the end of the paper, the same can of course be done with the very high-energy neutrinos detected e.g. by IceCube. As we get more and better data both in high-energy astrophysics and cosmology, combining and cross-correlating these can certainly help address lots of interesting questions and open new discovery channels, and that is why I really enjoyed reading this week’s paper. In closing, I also note the funny comment in the acknowledgements : “We would like to acknowledge SARS-Cov-2 for the peace of spirit our quarantines in three different countries have given us to finish this work.” In a provocative sense, I certainly couldn’t agree more :)
#3 2005.00483: Constraining the tidal charge of brane black holes using their shadows by Juliano Neves
This paper combines two topics I have been extremely interested in over the past year: extra dimensions and black hole (BH) shadows. Therefore, there was no doubt it was ending up in my top 3 this week. I wrote this many times in my past posts, but since repetita iuvant, let me recall that a BH shadow is the apparent (i.e. gravitationally lensed) image of the photon sphere (the region of space-time where gravity is so strong that photons travel in unstable, not necessarily circular, orbits). In other words, the BH shadow is the closed curve on the sky separating capture from scattering orbits, and is not a direct image of the event horizon. As for extra dimensions, it is a particular type of extra dimensions we are talking about here, namely the brane-world type. For a popular-level post on how brane-world models work, you can read this post I wrote on the OKC blog 2 years ago, or the Wikipedia page - the RS2 model is the one that will be relevant for this week’s paper. Long story short is that our 4D spacetime is restricted to a brane living in a higher-dimensional spacetime known as bulk. Neves was one of the first (if not the first altogether?) to study rotating BHs in brane-world gravity with a cosmological constant in 1211.2848, whose shadows were later computed in 1711.08380. One generic feature of brane-world BHs is the so-called tidal charge Q. Heuristically speaking, the tidal charge is the result of non-local effects from the bulk being projected onto the brane, thus recording information on the extra dimensions. If you have been following me from the start, you might recall I wrote about tidal charges in my Week 2 post in the context of echos from brane-world BHs. In that case, the paper I was writing about (2001.01301) had set a rough limit of Q<M^2 (with M the BH mass) using LIGO/VIRGO data. It is worth noting one of those authors also authored 1909.09385, where constraints on the tidal charge of brane-world BHs (though in the case without a cosmological constant) from the shadow of M87* were studied.
In this week’s paper, Neves revisits the issue of constraining the brane-world BH tidal charge from the shadow of M87* detected by the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), focusing on the case where a cosmological constant is present as well (since we know from cosmological observations that some form of dark energy - well described by a cosmological constant as far as data is concerned - is present). Neves studies in detail the shadow of the resulting BH and in particular the so-called deviation from circularity Delta C. Delta C is a measure of how oblate the shadow is, see Eqs.(28-30). Of course, if the shadow of M87* were a perfect circle, Delta C=0. The EHT collaboration reported in their first detection paper that the Delta C<10%. Therefore, if within your favorite model of gravity you can compute for each point in parameter space the resulting shadow (and hence Delta C), you can set a rough limit by requiring that Delta C be below 10%. In fact, as far as I can tell, with Cosimo Bambi, Katie Freese, and Luca Visinelli, we were the first to do such an analysis 2 weeks after the EHT discovery, in 1904.12983 (reference [3] in this week’s paper), and many (at least 20-25) other papers followed in our somewhat simplistic but otherwise quite accessible steps to constrain several models of gravity. Neves uses Delta C to set an upper limit on the brane-world BH tidal charge, finding Q<0.004 M^2. This is a very tight upper limit, about 3 orders of magnitude stronger than the one I quoted previously from BH echos. It is worth noting that this constraint comes just short of the strongest upper limit on the tidal charge, of 0.003 M^2, coming from precision tests of light deflection from the Sun in 0801.1375. This is a pretty strong message to those who say (and I’ve heard many say so) that the shadow of M87* only allows for lousy tests of gravity - in this case, it came very close to setting the best limit ever on new physics from brane-world gravity.