Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byMadison Delane Modified over 2 years ago

1
Large-Scale Flows: A historical overview Manolis Plionis Bernard’s 60 birthday, Valencia, 2006

2
Large-Scale Flows predicted Stewart & Sciama (Nat., 216, 748) in 1967 predicted the dipole anisotropy of the CMB due to motion of Sun with respect to cosmic rest frame and attempt for the first time to estimate this motion with respect to galaxy distribution (that of the Local Supercluster). Conklin 1969, Nat., 222, 971, measured for the first time the CMB dipole anisotropy which provided a LG velocity of 590 km/sec towards l=282 o, b=18 o, very close to today’s value ! The 60’s

3
Large-Scale Flows de Vaucouleurs & Peters in 1968 attempt for the first time a very systematic study of the motion of the Sun with respect to the galaxy distribution (Nat, 220, 868) and its effect on the estimates of the Hubble constant. Wolfe in 1969 (ApJ, 156, 803) attempts to connect an inhomogeneity in the distribution of high-z QSO’s with the anisotropy in the CMB.

4
Large-Scale Flows In the ’70s Rubin & Ford and Tammann, Sandage & Yahil, as well as Peebles start investigating deviations from Hubble flow and the Local Group motion with respect to the galaxy distribution. The 70’s Detection of Virgo-centric infall by Peebles (1976) and of flows (VLG ~ 450 km/sec, within 3500

5
Large-Scale Velocity Fields From continuity, Euler’s and Poisson equations, in comoving coordinates and after linearizing, we have that: v and the relation between velocity and acceleration: v = g From continuity, Euler’s and Poisson equations, in comoving coordinates and after linearizing, we have that: v and the relation between velocity and acceleration: v = β g First attempts to derive Cosmological Density Parameter: Peebles (1976) find that Virgo-centric infall of LG is consistent with both open and flat Cosmological models. Tammann, Yahil, Sandage (1979), from motion of LG relative to Virgo Cluster using RSA catalog derived: v Virgo ~60 km/sec, / =1900 q o. Yahil, Sandage & Tammann (1980), calculated acceleration of LG due to Virgo which induces a v LG ~3700 q o, from which the derived q o <<0.5. Clutton-Brock & Peebles (1981), found that the Rubin-Ford flow was consistent with Ω m ~1 for the observed level of density (galaxy-number) fluctuations. Davis & Huchra (1982) found from estimating the LG acceleration that 0.3<Ω m <0.5

6
Large-Scale Velocity Fields Contradicting results: Aaronson et al. (1986) from IR TF 4000

7
Large-Scale Velocity Fields End ’80s: “The Great Attractor” Saga continues….. Attempts to verify or refute the GA model provide contradicting results: Lucey & Carter (1988) do not support GA Staveley-Smith & Davies (1989) point in Hydra-Centaurus as the GA. Dressler & Faber (1990) confirm GA (outflow of Hydra-Centaurus) Willick (1990) find strong flow of PP galaxies towards the LG (-450 km/sec) Huge numbers of publications appear estimating velocity fields using TF, FJ, D n -σ relations, etc (……) Theoretical modelling intense: Vittorio, Juszkiewicz, Davis 1986; Bertschinger & Juszkiewicz 1988; Bertschinger & Dekel 1989; Juszkiewicz & Yahil 1989; Juszkiewicz, Vittorio & Wyse 1990, Kaiser 1991; etc etc IRAS whole sky survey

8
Large-Scale Dipole (Acceleration field) IRAS flux-weighted dipole (Yahil, Walker & Rowan-Robinson (1986), Meiksin & Davis 1986, Harmon, Lahav & Meurs 1987; Villumsen & Strauss 1987) or using redshift samples (1.94Jy, QDOT-0.6Jy, 1.2Jy):, Strauss & Davis 1988; Rowan- Robinson et al. 1990 [2100 z’s], Strauss et al. 1992 [5300 gals]). Simultaneously, optical whole-sky galaxy catalogues have been constructed (ESO,UGC,MCG, zCAT) and their dipole analysed: Lahav 1987, Lahav, Lynden- Bell & Rowan-Robinson 1988; Lynden-Bell, Lahav & Burstein 1988, Pellegrini & da Costa 1990; Hudson 1993. DIPOLES: DIPOLES: First whole sky dipole studies appear to support that the LG motion with respect to the CMB is determined by joint gravitational influence of matter fluctuations within ~4000 – 5000 km/sec ! mid ’80s and early ’90s….. Main Results: 1.Galaxy & CMB dipole misalignment angles < 20 o. 2.Galaxy dipole seems to converge at ~5000 km/sec 3.β g ~ 0.4-0.7 consistent with Ω m ~1

9
Large-Scale Dipole We are still in the end of the ’80s and early ’90s….. and there are some indications for much deeper contributions to the LG acceleration (depths ~15000 – 18000 km/sec) Melnick & Moles (1987) identify a huge concentration of galaxies in Shapley and discuss possible influence on LG motion Plionis (1988) find Lick dipole aligned (within ~35 deg. with CMB) that could only be produced by mass fluctuations on depths comparable to ~D* (200 Mpc) Scaramella et al. (1989) discuss the possibility for the Shapley concentration to be a major contributor to the LG motion. Plionis & Valdarnini (1991), Scaramella, Vettolani & Zamorani (1991) analyse Abell cluster dipole and find significant contributions from ~16000 km/sec to LG motion! Main Results: 1.Cluster & CMB dipole misalignment angles < 20 o. 2.Cluster dipole has significant contributions from ~16000 km/sec 3.β c ~ 0.2 (±0.1) consistent with Ω m ~1

10
Large-Scale Dipole ISSUE No 1: ISSUE No 1: There seems to be a dichotomy between Galaxy and Cluster results: Although both are aligned with CMB there is a difference in the dipole amplitude build-up, while if linear biasing was valid, on the corresponding scales, there should have been a constant difference in their respective dipole amplitudes. Analyses of the QDOT and PSCz dipoles also indicate deeper contributions (eg. Rowan-Robinson et al. 1999; Schmoldt et al. 1999; Branchini et al. 1999; Basilakos & Plionis 1997, 2006) while recent whole sky X-ray cluster samples verify previous cluster results: Plionis & Kolokotronis 1998; Kocevski, Mullis & Ebeling 2004; Kocevski & Ebeling 2006 However, 2MASS dipole also verified previous (optical) galaxy results of shallow convergence (Erdogdu et al. 2006). However N(z) is dominated by lower-z’s with respect to PSCz.

11
Large-Scale Velocity Fields The 90’s : Major development POTENT Bertschinger & Dekel (1989; 1990 ….) Basic idea: In the linear regime we can assume that the velocity field is irrotational, i.e., the peculiar velocities can be considered as resulting from a potential field: v = - Then the Potential field can be recovered from the peculiar velocity along the line of sight. (r) - v(r,θ,φ) dr Then the three components of the velocities can be found by differentiation: v(r) = - (r) From l.p.t. in comoving coordinates we have: δ v (r) =β -1 v (r) β~ 1.28

12
Large-Scale Velocity Fields The 90’s : Reconstruction algorithms Yahil 1988; Strauss & Davis 1988 Basic idea: In the linear regime we can use iterative procedure to recover real- space from z-space distribution of galaxies solving in closed loop: cz=H o |r|+ [u(r)-u(0)] ·r/|r| and u(r) = g(r) cz=H o |r|+ [u(r)-u(0)] ·r/|r| and u(r) = β g(r) BP96 Abell/ACO cluster velocity field in supergalactic plane (BPS 1996) Peebles 1989; 1990; Shaya, Peebles, Tully 1995 Based on least action principle: Galaxy orbits that correspond to the minimum of the action can be recovered by fixing present day coordinates and requiring the three Cartesian peculiar velocity components to vanish at early times. Local Group galaxy orbits

13
Large-Scale Velocity Fields Meanwhile in the ’90s more observations of velocity fields with yet contradicting results… Bothun et al (1992) attempt to find back-infall to GA with inconclusive results Mathewson, Ford & Buchhorn (1992), Mathewson & Ford (1994) analysing 1355 and 2400 spirals respectively, find no back-infall in GA but bulk flow of 600 km/sec on scales >60 h -1 Mpc. They conclude that GA does not exist (fail to point out that it could exist and participate in bulk flow). Han & Mould (1992) using TF in PP region find that local infall is as good as a bulk flow model. Courteau et al. (1993) using 3000 gals find streaming motion of 360 km/sec (0- 6000 km/sec volume) that extends beyond the GA in the direction l=273, b=0 ! Lauer & Postman (1994) using BCG and volume ~15000 km/sec find 690 km/sec bulk flow of whole volume but towards l=343, b=52 !! Wegner et al. 1996, Colless et al. 2001 EFAR, (736 ellipticals in 84 clusters to 9000 km/sec), find no bulk flow (but restricted sky coverage in 2 superclusters). Giovanelli et al. 1997, 1998, 1999… SCI (782 spirals in 24 clusters), SC2 (522 spirals in 52 clusters out to 20000 km/sec) and SFI (1631 field galaxies ~9000 km/sec) and find very small bulk flow (100-200 km/sec).

14
Large-Scale Velocity Fields

15
Meanwhile in late ’90s and early 2000 more observations of velocity fields with yet contradicting results… Hudson et al. (1999) SMAC … 699 early-type gals in 56 clusters (3000-14000 km/sec) find bulk-flow 630 km/sec towards l=260, b=-1 (effective radius~8000 km/sec) Willick (1999) LP10K survey analysing spirals and elliptical in an effective volume of 15000 km/sec, find bulk flow of ~700 km/sec towards l=272, b=10 (in agreement with SMAC). Courteau et al. (2000) Shellflow using TF of 274 Sb/Sc gals between 4500-7000 km/sec find bulk flow ~70±70 km/sec… in disagreement with SMAC & LP10K but in agreement with SCI, SC2, SFI Tonry et al. (2000) using the SBF method of 300 early types within 3000 km/sec find the local volume at rest with respect to CMB. Hudson (1999) using Tonry et al. (2003) 65 SNIa 6000

16
Large-Scale Velocity Fields ISSUE No 2: There is a dichotomy between different bulk flow measurements ! What is going on ? Has the L&P result been explained ?.

17
Cosmological Density parameter from v-v, δ-δ and v-g comparisons ISSUE No 3: ISSUE No 3: Is there a consistent estimation of β from different data sets and methods ?

18
OPEN ISSUES ISSUE No 3: ISSUE No 3: There is a consistent estimation of β from different data’seta and methods ? ISSUE No 2: There is a dichotomy between different bulk flow measurements ! Has the L&P result been explained ?. ISSUE No 1: ISSUE No 1: There seems to be a dichotomy between Galaxy and Cluster results: Although both are aligned with CMB there is a difference in the dipole amplitude build-up, while if linear biasing was valid, on the corresponding scales, there should have been a constant difference in their respective dipole amplitudes.

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google