- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Investigating the imprint of quintessence in cosmic magnification

Enas Mohamed1,*, Didam G. A. Duniya1,†, Hassan Abdalla2,3,4,‡, and Bishop Mongwane5,§

  • *Contact author: enasibrahim258@gmail.com
  • †Contact author: duniyaa@biust.ac.bw
  • ‡Contact author: hassanahh@gmail.com
  • §Contact author: bishop.mongwane@uct.ac.za
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 112, 063505 – Published 5 September, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ffxl-n58x

Abstract

We study cosmic magnification beyond lensing in a late-time universe dominated by quintessence and cold dark matter. The cosmic magnification angular power spectrum, especially going beyond the well-known lensing effect, provides an independent avenue for investigating the properties of quintessence, and hence, dark energy. By analyzing the magnification power spectrum at different redshifts, it is possible to extract new information about the large-scale imprint of dark energy, including whether we are able to disentangle different models from one another. Using three well-known quintessence models, we analyze the cosmic magnification angular power spectrum while taking relativistic corrections into account. We found that it will be difficult to distinguish between quintessence models, and quintessence from the cosmological constant, in lensing magnification angular power spectrum on large scales, at redshifts z≤1; whereas, when relativistic corrections are incorporated, the total magnification angular power spectrum holds the potential to distinguish between the models, at the given z. At z≥3, the lensing magnification angular power spectrum can be a reasonable approximation of the total magnification angular power spectrum. We also found that both the total relativistic and the Doppler magnification signals, respectively, surpass cosmic variance at z≤0.5; hence, the effect may be detectable at the given z. On the other hand, the ISW and the time-delay magnification signals, respectively, are surpassed by cosmic variance on all scales, at epochs up to z=4.5, with the gravitational-potential magnification signal being zero.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (61)

  1. K. Lundmark, The motions and the distances of spiral nebulæ, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 85, 865 (1925).
  2. G. Lemaitre, A homogeneous universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae, Ann. Soc. Sci. Bruxelles A 47, 49 (1927).
  3. E. Hubble, A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15, 168 (1929).
  4. I. Steer, Who discorvered Universe expnsion?, Nature (London) 490, 176 (2012).
  5. A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team Collaboration), Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating Universe and a cosmological constant, Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998).
  6. S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration), Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high redshift supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999).
  7. E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Dynamics of dark energy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006).
  8. K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Dark energy cosmology: The equivalent description via different theoretical models and cosmography tests, Astrophys. Space Sci. 342, 155 (2012).
  9. S. Tsujikawa, Dark energy: Investigation and modeling, in Dark Matter and Dark Energy: A Challenge for Modern Cosmology, edited by S. Matarrese, M. Colpi, V. Gorini, and U. Moschella (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2011), pp. 331–402.
  10. S. Tsujikawa, Quintessence: A review, Classical Quantum Gravity 30, 214003 (2013).
  11. D. Duniya, D. Bertacca, and R. Maartens, Clustering of quintessence on horizon scales and its imprint on HI intensity mapping, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2013) 015.
  12. B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Cosmological consequences of a rolling homogeneous scalar field, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406 (1988).
  13. P. Brax and J. Martin, Quintessence and supergravity, Phys. Lett. B 468, 40 (1999).
  14. T. Barreiro, E. J. Copeland, and N. J. Nunes, Quintessence arising from exponential potentials, Phys. Rev. D 61, 127301 (2000).
  15. D. G. A. Duniya, D. Bertacca, and R. Maartens, Probing the imprint of interacting dark energy on very large scales, Phys. Rev. D 91, 063530 (2015).
  16. H. Zhan and J. A. Tyson, Cosmology with the large synoptic survey telescope: An overview, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 066901 (2018).
  17. C. Bonvin, Effect of peculiar motion in weak lensing, Phys. Rev. D 78, 123530 (2008).
  18. P. Schneider, C. Kochanek, and J. Wambsganss, Gravitational Lensing: Strong, Weak and Micro (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006).
  19. A. Refregier, Weak gravitational lensing by large scale structure, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 41, 645 (2003).
  20. P. Schneider, C. S. Kochanek, and J. Wambsganss, Gravitational Lensing: Strong, Weak and Micro (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006).
  21. D. Duniya, Understanding the relativistic overdensity of galaxy surveys, arXiv:1606.00712.
  22. D. Duniya, Large-scale imprint of relativistic effects in the cosmic magnification, Phys. Rev. D 93, 103538 (2016); 93, 129902(A) (2016).
  23. D. G. A. Duniya, A. Abebe, A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, and P. K. S. Dunsby, Imprint of f(R) gravity in the cosmic magnification, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 518, 6102 (2022).
  24. D. Duniya and B. Mongwane, Cosmic magnification in beyond-Horndeski gravity, arXiv:2311.04169.
  25. D. J. Bacon, S. Andrianomena, C. Clarkson, K. Bolejko, and R. Maartens, Cosmology with Doppler lensing, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 443, 1900 (2014).
  26. A. Raccanelli, D. Bertacca, D. Jeong, M. C. Neyrinck, and A. S. Szalay, Doppler term in the galaxy two-point correlation function: Wide-angle, velocity, Doppler lensing and cosmic acceleration effects, Phys. Dark Universe 19, 109 (2018).
  27. C. Bonvin, S. Andrianomena, D. Bacon, C. Clarkson, R. Maartens, T. Moloi, and P. Bull, Dipolar modulation in the size of galaxies: The effect of Doppler magnification, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 472, 3936 (2017).
  28. S. Chen, Doppler magnification in flux-limited galaxy number counts with finite redshift bin width, arXiv:1801.06829.
  29. S. Andrianomena, C. Bonvin, D. Bacon, P. Bull, C. Clarkson, R. Maartens, and T. Moloi, Testing general relativity with the Doppler magnification effect, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 488, 3759 (2019).
  30. L. Coates, J. Adamek, P. Bull, C. Guandalin, and C. Clarkson, Observing relativistic features in large-scale structure surveys—II. Doppler magnification in an ensemble of relativistic simulations, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 504, 3534 (2021).
  31. D. G. A. Duniya and M. Kumwenda, Which is a better cosmological probe: Number counts or cosmic magnification?, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 522, 3308 (2023).
  32. D. Jeong, F. Schmidt, and C. M. Hirata, Large-scale clustering of galaxies in general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 85, 023504 (2012).
  33. H. Hildebrandt, Observational biases in flux magnification measurements, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 455, 3943 (2016).
  34. A. W. Blain, Exploiting magnification bias in ultradeep submillimetre-wave surveys using alma, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 330, 219 (2002).
  35. R. Ziour and L. Hui, Magnification bias corrections to galaxy-lensing cross-correlations, Phys. Rev. D 78, 123517 (2008).
  36. F. Schmidt, E. Rozo, S. Dodelson, L. Hui, and E. Sheldon, Size bias in galaxy surveys, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 051301 (2009).
  37. F. Schmidt and E. Rozo, Weak lensing peak finding: Estimators, filters, and biases, Astrophys. J. 735, 119 (2011).
  38. J. Liu, Z. Haiman, L. Hui, J. M. Kratochvil, and M. May, The impact of magnification and size bias on weak lensing power spectrum and peak statistics, Phys. Rev. D 89, 023515 (2014).
  39. S. Camera, C. Fedeli, and L. Moscardini, Magnification bias as a novel probe for primordial magnetic fields, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2014) 027.
  40. M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Weak gravitational lensing, Phys. Rep. 340, 291 (2001).
  41. L. Hui, E. Gaztanaga, and M. LoVerde, Anisotropic magnification distortion of the 3D galaxy correlation. 1. Real space, Phys. Rev. D 76, 103502 (2007).
  42. L. Hui, E. Gaztanaga, and M. LoVerde, Anisotropic magnification distortion of the 3D galaxy correlation: II. Fourier and redshift space, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063526 (2008).
  43. L. Van Waerbeke, Shear and magnification: Cosmic complementarity, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 401, 2093 (2010).
  44. C. Duncan, B. Joachimi, A. Heavens, C. Heymans, and H. Hildebrandt, On the complementarity of galaxy clustering with cosmic shear and flux magnification, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 437, 2471 (2014).
  45. B. Gillis and A. Taylor, A generalized method for measuring weak lensing magnification with weighted number counts, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 456, 2518 (2016).
  46. K. Umetsu, A. Zitrin, D. Gruen, J. Merten, M. Donahue, and M. Postman, CLASH: Joint analysis of strong-lensing, weak-lensing shear and magnification data for 20 galaxy clusters, Astrophys. J. 821, 116 (2016).
  47. M. LoVerde, L. Hui, and E. Gaztanaga, Magnification-temperature correlation: The dark side of ISW measurements, Phys. Rev. D 75, 043519 (2007).
  48. A. Raccanelli, G.-B. Zhao, D. J. Bacon, M. J. Jarvis, W. J. Percival, R. P. Norris, H. Röttgering, F. B. Abdalla, C. M. Cress, J.-C. Kubwimana, S. Lindsay, R. C. Nichol, M. G. Santos, and D. J. Schwarz, Cosmological measurements with forthcoming radio continuum surveys, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 424, 801 (2012).
  49. M. Ballardini and R. Maartens, Measuring ISW with next-generation radio surveys, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 485, 1339 (2019).
  50. A. Raccanelli, D. Bertacca, R. Maartens, C. Clarkson, and O. Doré, Lensing and time-delay contributions to galaxy correlations, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 48, 84 (2016).
  51. P. Baklanov, N. Lyskova, S. Blinnikov, and K. Ichi Nomoto, Strongly lensed SN Refsdal: Refining time delays based on the supernova explosion models, Astrophys. J. 907, 35 (2021).
  52. K. Liao, Impact of Microlensing on observational strategies for gravitational time delay measurements, Astrophys. J. 906, 26 (2021).
  53. J. H. H. Chan, K. Rojas, M. Millon, F. Courbin, V. Bonvin, and G. Jauffret, Measuring accretion disk sizes of lensed quasars with microlensing time delay in multi-band light curves, Astron. Astrophys. 647, A115 (2021).
  54. J. Bayer, S. Huber, C. Vogl, S. H. Suyu, S. Taubenberger, D. Sluse, J. H. H. Chan, and W. E. Kerzendorf, HOLISMOKES—V. Microlensing of type II supernovae and time-delay inference through spectroscopic phase retrieval, Astron. Astrophys. 653, A29 (2021).
  55. D. Baldwin and P. L. Schechter, A Malmquist-like bias in the inferred areas of diamond caustics and the resulting bias in inferred time delays for gravitationally lensed quasars, Astrophys. J. 962, 108 (2024).
  56. X. Er and S. Mao, The effects of plasma on the magnification and time delay of strongly lensed fast radio bursts, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 516, 2218 (2022).
  57. J. M. Bardeen, Gauge invariant cosmological perturbations, Phys. Rev. D 22, 1882 (1980).
  58. R. Durrer, Gauge invariant cosmological perturbation theory: A general study and its application to the texture scenario of structure formation, Fundam. Cosm. Phys. 15, 209 (1994).
  59. S. Dodelson, Modern Cosmology (Academic Press, New York, 2003).
  60. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020); 652, C4(E) (2021).
  61. L. R. Abramo and K. E. Leonard, Why multi-tracer surveys beat cosmic variance, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 432, 318 (2013).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 112, 063505– Published 5 September, 2025
  • Received 10 July 2025
  • Accepted 18 August 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation