1: \documentstyle[astrobib,psfig,epsfig]{mn-ab}
2:
3: \def\prref{\par\noindent\hangindent=0.3cm\hangafter=1}
4: \def\kms{km \, sec^{-1}}
5: \def\Mpc{\ifmmode {\, h^{-1} \, {\rm Mpc}}
6: \else {$h^{-1}\,$ Mpc}\fi}
7: \def\bfx{{\bf x}}
8: \def\iras{{\sl IRAS}}
9: \def\vev#1{\langle #1 \rangle} %[MAS]
10: \def\bfv{{\bf v}}
11: \def\s8{{\sigma_8}}
12: \def\h{{h}}
13: \def\ns{{n_{\rm s}}}
14: \def\deg{^\circ}
15: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
16: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
17: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
18: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
19: \def\gsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
20:
21:
22:
23: \overfullrule=0pt%[MAS]
24:
25:
26:
27: \begin{document}
28: \title[]{Constraints on Cosmological Anisotropy out to $z=1$ from
29: Supernovae Ia}
30: \author[Kolatt \& Lahav ]
31: {Tsafrir S. Kolatt$^{1}$ and Ofer Lahav$^{2,1}$\\
32: $^1$ Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel\\
33: $^2$ Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Rd., CB3 0HA, Cambridge, UK \\
34: }
35:
36: \maketitle
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39: A combined sample of 79 high and low redshift supernovae Ia (SNe) is used to
40: set constraints on the degree of anisotropy in the Universe out to $z\simeq1$.
41: First we derive the global most probable values of matter density $\Omega_M $,
42: the cosmological constant $\Omega_\Lambda $, and the Hubble constant $H_0$, and
43: find them to be consistent with the published results from the two data sets of
44: Riess et al. 1998 (R98) and Perlmutter et al. 1999 (P99). We then examine the
45: Hubble diagram (HD, i.e., the luminosity-redshift relation) in different
46: directions on the sky by utilising spherical harmonic expansion. In
47: particular, via the analysis of the dipole anisotropy, we divide the sky into
48: the two hemispheres that yield the most discrepant of the three cosmological
49: parameters, and the scatter $\chi^2_{\rm HD}$ in each case. The most
50: discrepant values roughly move along the locus $-4\Omega_M +3 \Omega_{\Lambda}
51: = 1$ (cf. P99), but by no more than $\Delta \approx 2.5$ along this line.
52: For a
53: perfect FRW universe, Monte Carlo realizations that mimic the current set of
54: SNe yield values higher than the measured $\Delta$ in $\sim 1/5$ of the cases.
55: We discuss implications for the validity of the Cosmological
56: Principle, and
57: possible calibration problems in the SNe data sets.
58:
59:
60:
61: \end{abstract}
62: \begin{keywords}
63: cosmology: miscellaneous -- cosmology: observations -- cosmology: theory
64: -- supernovae:general
65: \end{keywords}
66:
67: \section{Introduction}
68: \label{sec:intro}
69:
70: The validity of the Cosmological Principle and the isotropy it implies gained
71: much credibility in recent years. The small fluctuations in the CMB ($\Delta
72: T/T \sim 10^{-5}$
73: on angular scale $\sim 10^\circ$) provide the strongest evidence that the
74: universe can be well approximated by the FRW metric on scales larger than $\sim
75: 1000 \Mpc $ (e.g., Peebles 1993; Wu, Lahav, \& Rees 1999)
76:
77: On smaller scales
78: ($\sim 100 \Mpc$) bulk flows of the order $v/c \sim 10^{-3}$ indicate that this
79: isotropy breaks down. This is also manifested by
80: significant correlation functions of
81: galaxies and clusters on large scales,
82: and structures like the
83: Supergalactic Plane and the Great Attractor. The transition scale to isotropy
84: and homogeneity is still poorly known, and so is the convergence of the
85: acceleration vector of the Local Group with respect to the CMB. It is
86: therefore important to quantify the degree of homogeneity and isotropy as
87: function of scale. Traditionally this was done by searching for anisotropy in
88: the distribution of radio sources and background radiations
89: \cite{nan-cai:96,evans:92,webster:76}.
90: Several
91: new methods have been suggested to test isotropy and homogeneity on redshift
92: scales of $z \approx 0.1-5$,
93: such as
94: measurements of {\it in situ} CMB temperature \cite{songaila:94},
95: the derivation of an
96: independent rest frame from multiple image lens systems
97: \cite{kochanek-kolatt-msb}, and Faraday rotation signature due to anisotropic magnetic
98: field
99: \cite{kronberg:76,vallee:90,nodland-ralston:97}.
100:
101:
102: The recent use of SNe as distance indicators
103: \cite{phillips:93,perlmutter:95,RPK:96}
104: opened a new opportunity for
105: accurate measurements of anisotropy on cosmological scales that
106: previously have not been accessible. So far the SNe have been used
107: in order to constrain the Hubble constant $H_0$
108: from a nearby sample and
109: combinations of the matter density $\Omega_M$
110: and the cosmological constant $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ utilizing
111: SNe at moderate ($\ga0.3$) and high ($\sim1$) redshifts.
112: In the future, SNe samples over a wider redshift range
113: will provide separate estimates for the two parameters.
114: It is important to establish the `universality' of the
115: measurements of cosmological parameters from SN, as
116: they are commonly used in joint analysis with other probes
117: such as the CMB, cluster abundance and peculiar velocities
118: \cite{efsth:99,efst-bridle:99,bridle:99,bridle:00,tegmark:99}.
119:
120: Assuming a FRW cosmology,
121: a forth measure can be deduced from the `Hubble diagram'
122: (HD; i.e., the luminosity -- redshift relation),
123: the $\chi^2_{HD}$ measure for the best fit model.
124: For a perfect distance indicator
125: this measure indicates
126: deviations of the local potential (i.e., at the location
127: of the SN) from a pure FRW geometry.
128: However, in the real universe
129: the deviations can also be due to other sources:
130:
131: \begin{itemize}
132: \item Intrinsic (astrophysical) scatter in the SN luminosity-light curve
133: relation.
134:
135: \item
136: Scatter due to the location of the SN
137: within the host galaxy \& the
138: galaxy type.
139:
140: \item
141: Scatter due to dust absorption in the host galaxy,
142: in the intergalactic medium and in our Galaxy.
143:
144:
145: \item
146: Gravitational lensing along the l.o.s. to the SN
147: (e.g., an overdensity along the l.o.s. will enhance the apparent
148: luminosity of a SN).
149:
150:
151: \end{itemize}
152:
153: Here we explicitly assume that there is no
154: evolution with redshift in the luminosity-light curve relation.
155: Fortunately, most of the abovementioned effects are on the scale
156: of the host galaxy, so with large enough sample they would be averaged
157: out in the calculation of large scale anisotropies.
158: On the other hand,
159: one should worry about `anisotropies' which are
160: simply due to poor matching of different data sets
161: that sample different portions of the sky,
162: or large angular effects due to Galactic extinction.
163:
164: We also note that
165: some of these effects above might be correlated with other measurements,
166: e.g. if the scatter $\chi^2_{HD}$ detected in
167: SN Hubble diagram is affected
168: by fluctuations in the potential, then it would be correlated with
169: Integrated SW (or Rees-Schiama) effect in the CMB fluctuations.
170:
171:
172: The outline of this paper is as follows, in \S\ref{sec:data} we present
173: the unified data set we will be using for the isotropy analysis. The
174: results for cosmological parameters from the entire sample are presented
175: in \S\ref{sec:unified}, the anisotropy measurement is discussed in
176: \S\ref{sec:anisotropy}, and put in a probabilistic context in
177: \S\ref{sec:degree}. We conclude our results in \S\ref{sec:discuss}.
178:
179:
180: \section{The Unified Data set}
181: \label{sec:data}
182:
183: An ideal data set of SNe for the goals we have put forward in the
184: introduction would be a whole-sky homogeneous coverage at various
185: redshifts of SNe. Since such an optimal set does not exist, the closest
186: data set would be the amalgamation of the two existing, published data
187: sets.
188:
189: We unify the samples of the Supernova Cosmology Project
190: (SCP) \cite{perlmutter:99}
191: and that of the High-z Supernova search team (HZS) \cite{riess:98}.
192: These include also the data from low redshift of the Cal\'an-Tololo
193: survey \cite{hamuy:96}.
194: The two groups have different strategy and different nomenclature for
195: the minimization problem by which the cosmological parameters are
196: derived.
197: We have brought the SCP data to comply with the language of the HZS
198: team
199:
200: For each SNe we list its (i) $cz$ in the CMB frame,
201: (ii) the distance modulus $\mu = m_B^{eff}-M_B^{fiducial}$,
202: (iii) errors for these two quantities, (iv) Galactic $l$ and $b$.
203: For the SCP data the fiducial magnitude, $M_B^{fiducial}$ (cf. P99),
204: is obtained by comparison of the 18
205: overlapping low redshift SNe
206: as analysed by the two groups, and
207: equating the distance modulus of R98 (table 10) to $m_B^{\rm corr} $
208: of P99 (table 2).
209: This procedure is repeated twice, since Riess et al. provide two ways to
210: calculate the distance moduli, ``Multi Light Curve Shapes'' (LCS) and
211: ``Template". Errors are taken from the tables and a least square
212: minimization is performed in order to obtain the two best fit values of
213: $M_B^{fiducial}$ of P99
214: (and to recover the Hubble constant dependence they omitted
215: in their calculation).
216: The two values are $M_B^{fiducial}+5\log H_0=-19.322, -19.453$ with
217: $\chi^2/d.o.f$ of 0.952 and 0.763
218: for the LCS method and the TEMPLATE method respectively.
219: The value of $M_B^{fiducial}$ is degenerated with $H_0$,
220: so different $H_0$ calibrations in the two samples get ``absorbed" in
221: the value for $M_B^{fiducial}$.
222: The unified sample consists of 79 SNe altogether, after the exclusion of
223: 6 SNe from P99 (taking their ``model C" version) and including the
224: snap-shot survey from R98 along with 1997ck.
225: Figure \ref{fig:SN_sample} shows the SNe distribution in Galactic
226: coordinates.
227:
228: The sky coverage is clearly inhomogeneous: the SNe deficiency near the
229: Galactic plane is evident and the clustering of a few of the
230: observed SNe due to the detection procedure is clear.
231:
232: \begin{figure}
233: \special{psfile="fig1.ps"
234: angle= 270.0
235: hscale=35 vscale=35
236: hoffset=-10. voffset=50}
237: \vskip5.5truecm
238: \caption{
239: The sky distribution in Galactic coordinates of the 79 SNe composing the
240: unified sample. The point size is proportional to $(1+z)^{-1}$ of the SNe.
241: Also shown are the (positive) directions that maximize the
242: $\Omega_M$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ dipoles using the two methods (cf.
243: \S\ref{sec:anisotropy}),
244: and the CMB dipole direction in the Local Group rest-frame
245: as measured by COBE.}
246: \label{fig:SN_sample}
247: \end{figure}
248:
249:
250: \section{Cosmological parameters from the unified sample}
251: \label{sec:unified}
252:
253: We follow the statistical analysis as described in R98 and obtain best
254: values for $H_0$ and probability contours in the ($\Omega_M,
255: \Omega_\Lambda$) plane after integration (i.e.
256: marginalization) over all $H_0$ values and taking
257: into account only physical regions in that plane.
258:
259:
260: P99 include the error due to redshift measurements and peculiar
261: velocities in their magnitude errors, for R98 we followed their
262: procedure, set $\sigma_v=200$ km s$^{-1}$ for SNe of $z<0.5$ and
263: $\sigma_v=2500$ km s$^{-1}$ for SNe with $z\ge0.5$, and translated to the
264: distance modulus, $\mu$, units
265: according to the assumed cosmological model in the likelihood function.
266: Figure \ref{fig:xlikeA} show the results of the likelihood analysis.
267: The maxima of the likelihood functions are obtained for
268: ($\Omega_M, \Omega_\Lambda$) values of ($0.40,0.82$) and ($0.66,1.36$)
269: for the LCS and TEMPLATE method respectively. The contour lines
270: correspond to the $68.3\%$, $95.4\%$, and $99.7\%$ confidence levels.
271:
272: \begin{figure*}
273: {\epsfxsize=2.7 in \epsfbox{fig2a.ps}}
274: {\epsfxsize=2.7 in \epsfbox{fig2b.ps}}
275: %\vskip-0.5truecm
276: \caption{
277: Confidence regions drawn from 79 SNe of the unified sample (see text),
278: using the LCS method (left) and the TEMPLATE method (right).
279: The best-fit parameters are marked by a star and the quoted best-fit line
280: from P99 ($0.8\Omega_M-0.6\Omega_\Lambda = -0.2$) is shown for reference
281: as the diagonal line across the figure. Non-physical regions in the
282: $(\Omega_M,\Omega_\Lambda)$ plane are excluded.
283: }
284: \label{fig:xlikeA}
285: \end{figure*}
286:
287:
288: \section{Anisotropy measurement}
289: \label{sec:anisotropy}
290:
291: The natural expansion for anisotropy detection is in spherical
292: harmonics. The current data are too sparse to
293: allow analysis in redshift shells.
294:
295: We expand the four two-dimensional parameter `fields'
296: (for $\Omega_M$, $\Omega_\Lambda$, $H_0$, and
297: $\chi^2_{HD}$)
298: in spherical harmonics.
299: If the isotropy assumption is valid we expect deviations from
300: the average value to be due to noise, and the angular power
301: spectrum should likewise reflect it. This is unless foreground effects
302: alter the signal significantly.
303:
304: The operational way to calculate the expansion coefficients $a_{lm}$ is as
305: follows.
306:
307: \begin{itemize}
308: \item
309: Build a random distribution of points (``mask") on the sphere.
310:
311: \item
312: Assign four best-fit parameters to every point
313: based on minimization over all SNe within angular radius $\gamma_{min}$
314: about this grid point.
315:
316: \item
317: Construct the four residual fields about the global mean, i.e.,
318: $\delta_F=(F-\langle F\rangle)/\langle F \rangle$, where $F$ is
319: $\Omega_M$, $\Omega_\Lambda$, $H_0$, or $\chi^2_{\rm HD}$.
320:
321: \item
322: Expand the $\delta_F$ values as obtained at each grid point in Spherical
323: Harmonics up to $l_{max} = \pi/\gamma_{min}$, i.e.
324: \begin{equation}
325: \delta_F(\theta,\phi) = \sum_{l=0}^{l=l_{\max}}
326: \sum_{m=-l}^{m=+l}a_l^mY_l^m \,.
327: \end{equation}
328:
329:
330: \end{itemize}
331: In order to include more than $2$
332: SNe in each smoothing bin (at least two-parameter fit) we obtain
333: $\gamma\simeq 25\deg$, however the SNe are not distributed uniformly (cf.
334: Fig. \ref{fig:SN_sample}) and
335: thus a minimum angular resolution of $\sim 60\deg$ is imposed.
336: That means that
337: for a whole sky coverage
338: the highest significant multipole, $l$, is $l=3$.
339: There are, though regions that are more densely covered by SNe
340: data and therefore higher multipoles can be assessed as well but at a lower
341: signal-to-noise level.
342:
343:
344: In order to account for the Poisson noise contribution (and thus
345: to the angular power spectrum in quadrature), we run a set of $50$ random
346: ``masks" and repeat the $a_{lm}$ calculation each time.
347: For each set of $a_{lm}$ the power spectrum coefficients,
348: $C_l=(2l+1)^{-1}\sum_{m=-l}^{l}\vert a_{lm} \vert ^2$ are computed.
349:
350:
351: \begin{figure*}
352: {\epsfxsize=2.7 in \epsfbox{fig3a.ps}}
353: {\epsfxsize=2.7 in \epsfbox{fig3b.ps}}
354: \caption{
355: Angular power spectrum coefficients for the two dimensional fields:
356: $\delta_{\Omega_M}$, $\delta_{\Omega_\Lambda}$, and
357: $\delta_{\chi^2_{\rm HD}}$ along with the noise level of each field
358: (straight weak lines). Shown are results from the
359: LCS method (right) and the TEMPLATE method (left).
360: }
361: \label{fig:c_ls}
362: \end{figure*}
363:
364:
365:
366: %\section{Dipole confidence levels}
367: The angular power spectrum of the $\delta_{H_0}$ is an order of
368: magnitude and more smaller than the noise level ($C_l/(2\pi) \simeq
369: 5\times 10^{-5}$), in both methods.
370: Figure \ref{fig:c_ls} shows the angular power spectrum,
371: $l(l+1)C_l/(2\pi)$, for the other three
372: fields as calculated from 50 runs with different random mask points.
373: The straight weaker lines show the noise level in each field.
374: The $\delta_\Omega$ fields in both methods show signals that
375: exceed the noise level for the dipole ($l=1$) and the quadrupole
376: ($l=2$). Two factors contribute to the noise level, the discrete number
377: of SNe, and the scatter in the luminosity --- redshift relation.
378: The former is common to both methods (LCS and TEMPLATE) and therefore
379: the order of magnitude higher noise level for the $\delta_\Omega$ fields
380: in the LCS method must be due to the latter.
381: The TEMPLATE method seems to provide smaller errors and a better match
382: between the two data sets, as indicated by the lower $\chi^2$ level
383: of the fiducial magnitude calibration (cf. \S\ref{sec:data}).
384: The $\delta_{\chi^2_{\rm HD}}$ angular power spectrum is similar in shape
385: and magnitude in both methods, and lies an order of magnitude to a
386: factor $\sim5$ above its noise level. This may indicate there exists a
387: true dipole (or quadrupole) in this field.
388: From the first multipole of angular power spectrum alone,
389: one cannot deduce what is the
390: dipole {\em direction}. We therefore turn to look for the direction by
391: other means.
392:
393: We search for largest dipole in $\Omega_M$, $\Omega_\Lambda$, $H_0$, and
394: $\chi^2_{HD}$. This has been done in two ways : an actual search over the
395: sky, dividing the SN population in between two hemispheres, and
396: equivalently,
397: by solving a maximization problem of the dipole term with respect to
398: $(\theta,\phi)$ using the computed $a_{lm}$ coefficients.
399: Both methods yield similar results.
400: We then calculate the confidence regions for each hemisphere
401: separately, and look for statistical consistency (overlapping contours).
402: Each test can be applied to each one of the four parameters.
403:
404: \begin{figure*}
405: {\epsfxsize=2.7 in \epsfbox{fig4a.ps}}
406: {\epsfxsize=2.7 in \epsfbox{fig4b.ps}}
407: \vskip1truecm
408: {\epsfxsize=2.7 in \epsfbox{fig4c.ps}}
409: {\epsfxsize=2.7 in \epsfbox{fig4d.ps}}
410: \caption{
411: Confidence regions (same as Fig. \ref{fig:xlikeA}
412: drawn from 79 SNe of the unified sample in two
413: hemispheres that maximize the $\Omega_M$ dipole (up) and
414: $\Omega_\Lambda$ dipole (bottom) using the
415: LCS method (left) and the TEMPLATE method (right).
416: Marked are the number of SNe in each hemisphere, the best-fit $H_0$,
417: and the distance between peak probabilities ($\Delta$).
418: }
419: \label{fig:sn_2con}
420: \end{figure*}
421:
422: Figure \ref{fig:sn_2con} verify the fact that the current SNe data
423: best constrain a linear combination of the cosmological parameters
424: $\Omega_M$, $\Omega_\Lambda$. In all four panels the likelihood maxima
425: move along the line (P99) $-4\Omega_M +3 \Omega_{\Lambda} = 1$,
426: sometimes with a large distance $\Delta$ between the two maxima for the
427: two disjoint hemispheres (quoted on the plots).
428: In three cases the contour levels overlap significantly (see next
429: section for quantitative evaluation). In the case of the
430: $\Omega_\Lambda$ dipole, using the LCS method, there is no overlap between
431: the $99.7\%$ confidence levels of the two hemispheres.
432: The discrepancy stems from the very assymetric distribution of SNe
433: between the two hemispheres (59 on one versus 20 on the other) and only
434: one SN (1995at) with $z>0.5$ in the 20 SNe sample. A small error in the
435: distance measurement of this SN, or a systematic deviation of it from
436: the average LCS relation may cause such a discrepancy as we demonstrate
437: in the next section.
438: Elimination of this SN yields a dipole which points $\sim20\deg$ away
439: from the original direction, reduced $\Delta$ value of $2.39$, and
440: almost full inclusion of the $99.7\%$ confidence contour for the larger
441: sample ($56$ SNe)
442: within the $95.4\%$ confidence level of the remaining $22$ SNe.
443:
444: Note that a different ``mixture'' of redshift
445: distribution to different directions may cause some directions to become
446: more sensitive to one parameter. E.g, SNe at $z\simeq0.4-0.5$ are mostly
447: sensitive to the $\Omega_M - \Omega_\Lambda$ combination, as opposed to
448: higher weight on $\Omega_M$ as redshift increases
449: ($\vert \partial\Delta/\partial \Omega_M\vert
450: > \vert \partial \Delta / \partial \Omega_\Lambda\vert $).
451: Figure \ref{fig:SN_sample} includes the dipole directions (positive)
452: of $\Omega$ in both methods. We observe no coincidence with any Galactic
453: or CMB direction, moreover not all dipoles point to the same direction.
454:
455: The dipole of the $\delta_{\chi^2_{\rm HD}}$ field points in both
456: methods toward $(l=80\deg,b=-20\deg)$ with $\langle \chi^2_{\rm HD} \rangle
457: = 1.00\, (1.01)$ and largest difference of $0.60\,(0.63)$ for the LCS
458: (TEMPLATE) method. This dipole direction is suspiciously close to the
459: Galactic plane.
460:
461: One worry is that the detected signal is due to the (mis)match
462: between the two data sets. We therefore repeated the computation for
463: each
464: data set separately and verified that though the noise level increases,
465: the results as drawn from each one of the data sets are
466: consistent with the results from the unified set both in magnitude and
467: direction.
468:
469:
470: \section{Degree of anisotropy}
471: \label{sec:degree}
472:
473: The results of the last section, regarding the spherical harmonic
474: expansion and the various dipole magnitudes, should now be put in an
475: expected distribution in order to draw conclusions about the degree of
476: anisotropy.
477:
478: The hypothesis we are trying to address is that the SN data do
479: not falsify the FRW geometry as a reliable description of the $z\simeq1$
480: Universe. This strategy is more efficient than addressing specific
481: anisotropic cosmological models \cite{celerier:00,celerier:00a}.
482: We therefore compute the probability distribution of the dipole
483: magnitudes within a FRW universe and confront it with the values
484: obtained for the real Universe.
485:
486: A simple two dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to falsify the
487: hypothesis that the two contour maps come from the same underlying
488: distribution of cosmological parameters is inadequate here. Since we have
489: used the maximum discrepant values in order to obtain the dipole, the
490: two sub-samples are not randomly selected and therefore can not be
491: confronted in a KS test.
492:
493: The probability distribution depends on the actual cosmological values
494: and to a lesser extent on the power spectrum (via the scatter due
495: to potential fluctuations). For a self consistency check, the underlying
496: cosmology is taken to be the "best fit"
497: cosmological model (\S\ref{sec:unified}), which we then sample by Monte-Carlo simulations.
498:
499: To mimic accurately the SN sample, we use the same angular locations and
500: redshift values as of the observed sample. Luminosity distances,
501: magnitude scatter and peculiar velocities are drawn from Gaussian
502: distributions with the appropriate observed standard deviation.
503:
504: The dipole analysis is repeated for $200$ mock catalogs of the SN and the
505: maximal dipole magnitude is calculated to obtain its distribution for
506: {\it the current sampled} SNe.
507:
508:
509: Table 1
510: shows the rejection levels of
511: the hypothesis that the Universe up to $z\simeq1$ can be described by
512: a FRW metric. E.g., using the LCS method and the current sample of SNIa
513: we expect in $19\%$ of all cases to detect a higher $\Delta$ value
514: for $\Omega_M$ dipole, than the observed one.
515:
516: \vskip0.5truecm
517:
518:
519: %\hskip-2truecm
520: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|}
521: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Table 1} \\
522: \hline
523: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Isotropy rejection levels using $\Delta$} \\
524: \hline\hline
525: %first line
526: \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{Cosmological}
527: &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{Method} \\ \cline{2-3}
528: %second line
529: \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{parameter}
530: &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{LCS}
531: &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{TEMPLATE} \\ \hline\hline
532: %%%
533: \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{$H_0$}
534: &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{33\%}
535: &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{70\%} \\ \cline{1-3}
536: %%%
537: \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{$\Omega_M$}
538: &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{81\%}
539: &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{79\%} \\ \cline{1-3}
540: %%%
541: \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{$\Omega_\Lambda$}
542: &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{88\%}
543: &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{64\%} \\ \cline{1-3}
544: \end{tabular}
545:
546: \section {Discussion}
547: \label{sec:discuss}
548:
549: By the exploitation of the current available SNe data we have put
550: constraints on the rejection level of the cosmological principle
551: validity up to $z\simeq 1$. A FRW metric is found to be an adequate
552: description of the Universe. In $\sim 20\%$ of all
553: realizations of such
554: universes, the dipole signature for anisotropy in the cosmological
555: parameters $H_0$, $\Omega_M$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ exceeds the
556: observed one.
557:
558: Even though such dipole magnitudes are reasonable in the framework of the
559: FRW model, they may be indicative of non-cosmological contributions to
560: the angular power spectrum.
561: In \S\ref{sec:intro} we listed possible such contributions.
562: If indeed the Universe up to $z\simeq 1$ is well represented by a FRW
563: metric then we can exclude large coherent structures at $z \gsim
564: 0.3$. Such are the structures that may lead to dipole and quadrupole
565: signatures due to coherent gravitational lensing
566: magnification/de-magnification and therefore the latter can be excluded
567: as anisotropy contributors.
568:
569: That leaves small scale (Galactic) foreground effects to be the most
570: likely power contributors.
571: The Galactic disk geometry makes the
572: quadrupole the most significant multipole to be considered, though the
573: solar system offset from the Galactic center may bring about a dipole
574: contribution as well.
575: In the current sample the quadrupole term is only slightly larger
576: than the noise level and does not allow any conclusive results.
577: None of the dipole directions for $\Omega$ coincides with the Galactic
578: plane and thus they are probably not correlated with it.
579: Multipoles due to dust extinction may be affirmed by multiple expansion
580: of the residual colors after extinction correction (i.e., R98 and P99
581: appendices).
582:
583: The one case where two significantly non-overlapping confidence regions
584: are found for two hemispheres that maximize the
585: $\Omega_\Lambda$ dipole (LCS), is probably due to a single SN (1995at)
586: for which the individual errors have been underestimated. This case is
587: an exception since the overall $\chi^2$ values for the HD fits
588: are statistically acceptable.
589: Nevertheless, this case demonstrates the hazard in the draw of conclusions
590: based on a handful of SNe, for which the error in the error estimate is
591: uncertain.
592:
593: In general, the TEMPLATE method provides a better statistical agreement
594: of the data with an FRW model and the current SNe data. This is seen
595: from the magnitude match (cf. \S\ref{sec:data}), tighter
596: constraints from the combined set, smaller noise levels for all
597: multipoles, and smaller $\Delta$ values for the $\Omega$ dipoles.
598:
599: We conclude that an isotropic $z\sim1$ universe cannot be rejected by
600: more than a $1\sigma$ level based on the current SNe data.
601:
602:
603: \section*{Acknowledgments:}
604: This work was supported by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation,
605: by the Israel Science Foundation, and by grants from NASA and NSF at UCSC.
606:
607: \bibliographystyle{mnras}
608: \bibliography{mnrasmnemonic,refs}
609: \end{document}
610: