On the bias of the distance–redshift relation from gravitational lensing

• Published in: Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Vol. 455; no. 4; pp. 4518 - 4547
• Main Authors: Kaiser, Nick, Peacock, John A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Oxford University Press 01.02.2016
• Subjects: Astronomy; Bias; Constants; Convergence; Cosmic microwave background; Cosmology; Flux; Flux density; Gravitational lenses; Gravity; Nonlinearity; Red shift; cosmology: observations; cosmic background radiation; distance scale; cosmology: theory
• ISSN: 0035-8711; 1365-2966
• DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stv2585

A long-standing question in cosmology is whether gravitational lensing changes the distance–redshift relation D (z) or the mean flux density of sources. Interest in this has been rekindled by recent studies in non-linear relativistic perturbation theory that find biases in both the area of a surface of constant redshift and in the mean distance to this surface, with a fractional bias in both cases of the order of the mean squared convergence 〈κ2〉. Any such area bias could alter cosmic microwave background (CMB) cosmology, and the corresponding bias in mean flux density could affect supernova cosmology. We show that the perturbation to the area of a surface of constant redshift is in reality much smaller, being of the order of the cumulative bending angle squared, or roughly a part-in-a-million effect. This validates the arguments of Weinberg that the mean magnification of sources is unity and of Kibble & Lieu that the mean direction-averaged inverse magnification is unity. It also validates the conventional treatment of CMB lensing. But the existence of a scatter in magnification will cause any non-linear function of these conserved quantities to be statistically biased. The fractional bias in such quantities is generally of order 〈κ2〉, which is orders of magnitude larger than the area perturbation. Claims for large bias in area or flux density of sources appear to have resulted from misinterpretation of such effects: they do not represent a new non-Newtonian effect, nor do they invalidate standard cosmological analyses.