Cited by 80Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena

RCSLenS: testing gravitational physics through the cross-correlation of weak lensing and large-scale structure

Open access
Blake, Chris, Joudaki, Shahab, Heymans, Catherine, Choi, Ami, Erben, Thomas, Harnois-Deraps, Joachim, Hildebrandt, Hendrik, Joachimi, Benjamin +3 more·2016·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

The unknown nature of ‘dark energy’ motivates continued cosmological tests of large-scale gravitational physics. We present a new consistency check based on the relative amplitude of non-relativistic galaxy peculiar motions, measured via redshift-space distortion, and the relativistic deflection of light by those same galaxies traced by galaxy–galaxy lensing. We take advantage of the latest generation of deep, overlapping imaging and spectroscopic data sets, combining the Red Cluster Sequence Lensing Survey, the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey, the WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey and the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey. We quantify the results using the ‘gravitational slip’ statistic EG, which we estimate as 0.48 ± 0.10 at z = 0.32 and 0.30 ± 0.07 at z = 0.57, the latter constituting the highest redshift at which this quantity has been determined. These measurements are consistent with the predictions of General Relativity, for a perturbed Friedmann–Robertson–Walker metric in a Universe dominated by a cosmological constant, which are EG = 0.41 and 0.36 at these respective redshifts. The combination of redshift-space distortion and gravitational lensing data from current and future galaxy surveys will offer increasingly stringent tests of fundamental cosmology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stv2875

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Blake et al. (2016b) results confirm GR but uncertainties are still wide enough to allow other MG theories.

    “This confirms again GR but the uncertainties are still wide enough to allow for other MG theories.”

    From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Blake et al. (2016b)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blake, C., Joudaki, S., Heymans, C., Choi, A., Erben, T., Harnois-Deraps, J., Hildebrandt, H., Joachimi, B., Nakajima, R., van Waerbeke, L., & Viola, M.
Affiliations
  • Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
  • Royal Observatory (GB)
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Leiden University (NL)
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2015-12-31
Volume
456
Issue
3
Pages
2806-2828
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W894690415
Cited by
80
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 1
FWCI
6.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1066293)
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Yale University
  • Vanderbilt University
  • Princeton University
  • Ohio State University
  • Harvard University
  • Aspen Center for Physics (1066293)
  • University of Washington
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • University of Arizona
  • Carnegie Mellon University
  • University of Canterbury
  • University of Portsmouth
  • New Mexico State University
  • Compute Canada
  • Government of Ontario
  • York University
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Hi 1495/2-1)
  • Swinburne University of Technology
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (614.001.103)
  • University of Toronto
  • Office of Science
  • College of Engineering, Michigan State University
  • Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (1495/2-1)
  • Science and Technology Facilities Council (ST/L00285X/1, ST/J004421/1, ST/M001229/1, ST/J004421/2)
  • Australian Research Council (Hi 1495/2-1)
  • Australian Astronomical Optics-Macquarie
  • Brookhaven National Laboratory
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (279396, 240185)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Keywords
gravitational slip, galaxy peculiar motion, redshift-space distortions, galaxy-galaxy lensing, weak gravitational lensing, large-scale structure, dark energy, tests of general relativity, cosmological constant, WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey, BOSS, cross correlation function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review