Joan Najita (NOIRLab)
One of the current tantalizing mysteries of cosmology is the “Sigma-8 tension,” or the persistent disagreement between the predicted and observed amounts of “clumpiness” of matter in the Universe. Briefly, the small density fluctuations in the early Universe (as recorded in the cosmic microwave background or CMB) can be used to predict the expected matter density fluctuations at later times, up to the present day. While the observed clumpiness of the matter density distribution at later times agrees well with expectations from our current cosmological model, observations consistently find less clumpiness than predicted by the CMB. The difference may indicate exciting new physics, or more prosaically, systematic effects.
A new paper led by Tanveer Karim explores the Sigma-8 tension using data from the DESI Legacy Imaging Survey. Similar to previous studies, the new paper also finds significantly less clumpiness in the galaxy distribution than predicted by the CMB (i.e., the red and blue shapes are below the green shape in the lower left panel of the figure). However (and interestingly), the results also depend on how the effect of intervening dust in our own galaxy is taken into account. In other words, our view of the Universe from within a galaxy means that dust in the Milky Way can block light from fainter distant galaxies, altering the apparent clumpiness of the galaxy distribution. Much like explorers of old, astronomers need to “brush away” this surface dust to reveal the cosmological relics of interest beneath. Here the authors make this correction using a new map of Milky Way dust, derived from DESI data itself. The correction reduces the tension (blue shape), but the clumpiness of the galaxy distribution still differs from the CMB prediction (by 3-sigma). We sat down with Tanveer to learn more about the results.
Questions for Tanveer:
Q: How do you interpret these results? Is your measurement of Sigma-8 significantly different from the CMB value? And should we be concerned? (Or maybe excited about the prospect of new physics?)
A: As a bit of background, our results add to the “sigma-8 tension” story in two ways. Firstly, we find that the tension is already present quite a long time ago, at a redshift of z ~ 1.1, when the Universe was not yet affected by dark energy (in LCDM cosmology). Secondly, our study examines the clustering of lower-mass blue galaxies rather than massive red ones. That is, we study emission-line galaxies (ELGs), which are similar to the mass of the Milky Way. Previous studies have used luminous red galaxies (LRG) (Sailer 2407.04607, Kim 2407.04606, White 2111.09898, Kitanidis 2010.04698) or unWISE galaxies (Farren 2309.05659, Krolewski 2105.0342) that are typically 100-1000 times more massive than ELGs.
So, what do our results mean? The more exciting interpretation is that we are perhaps seeing hints of something new (not the traditional constant dark energy) happening at z ~ 1.1. But if we consider the LRG and unWISE galaxies as well, then our result is the outlier. What could explain this? The key could be that the previous studies studied massive red galaxies while we are probing the clustering of lower-mass blue galaxies, like our Milky Way. Why does this matter? While the CMB traces the clustering of dark matter, galaxy clustering studies are observing normal matter. To compare these, we need to understand how galaxies form in dark matter clumps and how well different galaxy populations trace the dark matter. So naturally, galaxy formation and other processes can come into play. Our understanding of Milky-Way-mass galaxies is limited at such high redshift, so perhaps our results not only point to the impact of systematics but also signatures of unknown ELG galaxy physics!
Q: How do your results relate to other studies of clumpiness? The Sigma-8 tension is also reported by studies that use completely different measures of the clumpiness of the Universe (e.g., weak lensing, galaxy cluster counting). Does the Milky Way dust distribution also affect these studies? Or are these other studies affected by different systematic effects?
A: That’s an interesting question that has not been explored at length yet, although there may be a possible connection. Papers such as (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.03294) and (https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03926) have shown that certain extinction maps actually retain imprints of the large-scale structure of galaxies, because they use far-infrared light to map dust. While most of the far-infrared light is produced by dust in the Milky Way, distant star-forming galaxies also contribute. If their emission is incorrectly attributed to Milky Way dust, the process of correcting for Milky Way dust will incorrectly imprint a signature of distant star-forming galaxies on images of the sky, which may affect these other measures to some extent.
In any case, and as far as I am aware, our paper is the first to show exactly how much these effects change the effect of Milky Way dust changes our cosmological interpretations. As for the other galaxy clustering measurements, I think one could argue that since the earlier studies were using more massive galaxies, they were less prone to extinction systematics. But a reanalysis of such works will be important to definitively rule out the role of Milk Way dust. After all, Milky Way dust has impacted cosmological results in the past, such as the false detection of the primordial B mode in the CMB by the BICEP telescope!
Q: Does dynamic dark energy play a role here? As you say in your paper, the negative pressure of dark energy inhibits the growth of large-scale structures over time, countering the effect of gravity. Earlier in 2024 DESI reported that dark energy may be dynamic and weakening. Does this effect matter in your study? If it does, do you take this development into account?
A: I am puzzled by the recent DESI Key Paper results—in a very positive way—as I am sure many of the DESI collaborators are! While I do not have a clear answer on how dynamic dark energy relates to a detection of Sigma-8 disagreement at z ~ 1.1, it is a line of questioning we should consider seriously in interpreting the upcoming Y3 dataset (next major dataset for DESI). The Y3 dataset will be much cleaner than the Y1 data in our current paper, and I expect it will show a more robust detection of the ELG-CMB lensing cross-correlation. We should consider the impact of dynamic dark energy in this context, where the simplest extension of our current study would be to measure not only Sigma-8 and Omega_matter but also the parameters describing the dark energy equations of state (w0, and wa).
Speaking of these earlier reports, it’s interesting that an echo of our current results is also found there. While the November 2024 Full-Shape and Redshift Space Distortion (RSD) results measure Sigma-8 with many tracers and find it to be consistent with the CMB, if you look at Figure 1 of the full-shape paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.12022), you will see that the ELGs on their own are also consistent with a lower Sigma-8! The two studies are done in different ways — the full shape result derives from the 3D clustering of ELGs, while our analysis is carried out in 2D using ELGs selected in a different way — it is interesting that our two independent methods yield similarly low Sigma-8s. This naturally links back to the first question and leads me to wonder, if not a signature of dark energy, could we be on the verge of understanding how these early star-forming galaxies were interacting with their dark matter haloes?
Q: How did you decide to work on this project? Were you surprised by the results?
A: After I finished my initial work on the ELG target selection as a first and second-year graduate student, I was interested in exploring how to use the DESI ELG sample to study cosmology. Extensive discussions with my thesis advisor, Daniel Eisenstein, and collaborators of this project, Sukhdeep Singh and Mehdi Rezaie, helped me understand that the high-redshift star-forming galaxies could be the key to unlocking the early large-scale structures. I never thought that I would have to learn so much about “local” structures, such as the Milky Way dust mapmaking and the Sagittarius Stream, to learn about the very distant cosmos, so it was both shocking and exciting to see how the science of the distant Universe and that of our local neighborhood is becoming more and more intertwined.
Q: What’s next for you?
A: As an Arts & Sciences Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Toronto, I am currently finishing up a similar analysis using the same ELGs, but this time cross-correlating with the cosmic infrared background, to quantify the star-formation rate of these galaxies and their galaxy-dark matter halo connection. I am excited to see what more we can learn about the ELGs and whether a better understanding of their physics can help us better interpret the CMB lensing cross-correlation results. My ELG work also made me fall in love with these early star-forming galaxies, and so I am currently co-leading the Lyman-Break Galaxies (LBGs) Topical Team in the Dark Energy Science Collaboration (DESC). The hope is that with the upcoming Rubin Observatory, we will explore all the up to z ~ 5.5 using LBGs. The coming years of wide-field high-redshift surveys will be the era of ELGs and LBGs, and I am thrilled to see what these galaxies will teach us about the infancy of our Universe.