All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{4640fig1.ps}\end{figure}$ Figure 1: The correlation function in physical space for the best-fit power-law $\Lambda$ CDM model (dotted, black line) from Spergel et al. (2003), and for the best-fit Einstein-de Sitter models $\Omega _\Lambda = 0$ ) from Blanchard et al. (2003) having a neutrino component $\Omega _\nu = 0.12$ (solid, green line) and a pressureless (w = 0) quintessence component $\Omega _Q=0.12$ (dot-dashed, blue line). An acoustic peak is seen for all models, having a similar amplitude and on a similar physical scale, as can be anticipated from the physical origin of this peak.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{4640fig2.ps}\end{figure}$ Figure 2: The correlation function in observed (redshift) space for the same models as in Fig. 1, but with amplitude adjusted to the best fitting value. For Einstein-de Sitter models, the spatial scales are shifted for the geometrical factor (according to Eq. (2) of Eisenstein et al. 2005) relative to a $\Lambda$ dominated cosmology. The position of the acoustic peak (in h^-1 Mpc) for E-deS models does not match the observations, unlike the $\Lambda$ CDM model, because a lower value of the Hubble constant is needed to fit the CMB data. In addition, E-deS models exhibit a lack of power on large scales (30-100 h^-1 Mpc) when normalized optimally to the observations.
Open with DEXTER

In the text