The structure of the Universe in the last 1Gyr Adi Nusser Physics - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
the structure of the universe in the last 1gyr
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

The structure of the Universe in the last 1Gyr Adi Nusser Physics - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 20, 2023 1.12k likes •1.66k views

The structure of the Universe in the last 1Gyr Adi Nusser Physics Department Technion, Haifa Collaborators: Enzo Branchini, Helen Courtois, Marc Davis, Martin Feix (postdoc at Technion), Ziv Mikulizky (Student at Technion), Jim

slide-1
SLIDE 1

The structure of the Universe in the last 1Gyr

Adi Nusser Physics Department Technion, Haifa

❖ Collaborators: Enzo Branchini, Helen Courtois, Marc Davis, Martin Feix (postdoc at Technion),

Ziv Mikulizky (Student at Technion), Jim Peebles, Steven Phelps, Brent Tully

slide-2
SLIDE 2

–Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

  • J. Diamond, The Anna Karenina Principle

“Happy families are all alike, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”

The LCDM is a ``Happy model”… but a little ``moody” Therapy maybe required, perhaps by Dark sector physics: not f(R)

  • ``Happy Community”:
  • All reliable data tell the same story.
  • Very low level (but important) systematics.
  • Focus here: LSS from Local Group to ~150Mpc
  • traditional and New probes
slide-3
SLIDE 3

The observed Large Scale Structure

The XY Super-galactic plane MW disk Basics: observations: redshift surveys

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Distance measurements: Tully-Fisher Relation Basics: observations: peculiar motions

  • Fig. 5.— An image of the galaxy PGC42510=NGC4603 and an

HI profile of the galaxy obtained with GBT.

33Mpc

36 Zero Point Calibrators 26 Virgo 15 Fornax 34 UMa 14 Antlia 11 Centaurus 17 Pegasus 19 Hydra 58 Pisces 11 Cancer 23 Coma 19 Abell 1367 7 Abell 400 13 Abell 2634

Tully, Courtois, Dolphin et al 13

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Cosmic Flows 2: Tully et al Basics: observations: peculiar motions 1700km/s

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Recommendation: ignore these data beyond 100 Mpc

  • r

go back and check data- good luck

  • rush to write papers killing LCDM

Basics: observations: peculiar motions

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Observations are related through Gravity

Basics: gravitational instability

Euler: dV dt + HV = rΦ a Poisson: r2Φ a2 = 4πG ¯ ρmδ(x, t)

The driver of structure formation is the gravity of the dark matter density fluctuations δ(x, t) but the rate is dictated by the cosmological background via H(t).

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Hence, it is good to do a combined analysis the two independent datasets:

  • bservations

theory

very long arrow

matching z-surveys & Vpec

slide-9
SLIDE 9

z-surveys velocity catalogs

  • ⇠
  • 1. radial component only - not a big deal
  • 2. sparseness with

<

⇠ 104 galaxies

  • limits us to scales

>

⇠ 20 30Mpc

  • 3. large velocity errors

<

⇠ 0.15H0r

  • spatial Malmquist bias if galaxies are placed at rset
  • 1. from δ(x

x x) to V (x x x) - OK

  • linear theory is enough for current LSS data
  • Peebles’ action method for future data and LG
  • 2. biasing: δgalaxies 6= δdark but we know how to model that - OK
  • 3. redshift distortions: cz = Hr + V - OK & NOK
  • F.o.G: in general a bad effect
  • Large scale compression in the radial direction: good effect
  • Kaiser’s rocket effect: hopless at r >

⇠ 150Mpc

matching z-surveys & Vpec: challenges

slide-10
SLIDE 10

unsmoothed smoothed 5TH

scale motions “Snapshot”

  • Density relation at a

δ = 1 f (Ω)r · V f (Ω) = d ln D

d ln t ⇡ Ωγ

Linear theory

v = Ωγ 4π Z

all space

d3x0δ(x0) x0 − x |x0 − x|3 = Z

survey

(·) + Z

external

(·)

Solution

⇣ ⌘ = 1 f r · V [r · V]radial

δs

s ≡ Hr + V

radial

In redshift space

slide-11
SLIDE 11

z-surveys velocity catalogs

  • ⇠
  • 1. radial component only - not a big deal
  • 2. sparseness with

<

⇠ 104 galaxies

  • limits us to scales

>

⇠ 20 30Mpc

  • 3. large velocity errors

<

⇠ 0.15H0r

  • spatial Malmquist bias if galaxies are placed at rset
  • 1. from δ(x

x x) to V (x x x) - OK

  • linear theory is enough for current LSS data
  • Peebles’ action method for future data and LG
  • 2. biasing: δgalaxies 6= δdark but we know how to model that - OK
  • 3. redshift distortions: cz = Hr + V - OK & NOK
  • F.o.G: in general a bad effect
  • Large scale compression in the radial direction: good effect
  • Kaiser’s rocket effect: hopless at r >

⇠ 150Mpc

matching z-surveys & Vpec: challenges

slide-12
SLIDE 12

0.2 0.4 1 2 4 8 0.2 0.4 1 2 4 8

1+δdm 1+δg

10Mpc/h b=1.23

0.2 0.4 1 2 4 8

1+δdm

5Mpc/h b=1.27

AN, Davis & Branchini

Based on Millennium 2MRS mocks (De Lucia & Blaizot)

Scatter is mostly shot-noise

slide-13
SLIDE 13

z-surveys velocity catalogs

  • ⇠
  • 1. radial component only - not a big deal
  • 2. sparseness with

<

⇠ 104 galaxies

  • limits us to scales

>

⇠ 20 30Mpc

  • 3. large velocity errors

<

⇠ 0.15H0r

  • spatial Malmquist bias if galaxies are placed at rset
  • 1. from δ(x

x x) to V (x x x) - OK

  • linear theory is enough for current LSS data
  • Peebles’ action method for future data and LG
  • 2. biasing: δgalaxies 6= δdark but we know how to model that - OK
  • 3. redshift distortions: cz = Hr + V - OK & NOK
  • F.o.G: in general a bad effect
  • Large scale compression in the radial direction: good effect
  • Kaiser’s rocket effect: hopless at r >

⇠ 150Mpc

matching z-surveys & Vpec: challenges

slide-14
SLIDE 14

50 100 150 200 250 300 y (Mpc) "slice_wcen.ssv" matrix 300 y (Mpc) 50 100 150 200 250 300 y (Mpc) "slice045.ssv" matrix 300

Bos & van de Weygaert

slide-15
SLIDE 15

z-surveys velocity catalogs

  • ⇠
  • 1. radial component only - not a big deal
  • 2. sparseness with

<

⇠ 104 galaxies

  • limits us to scales

>

⇠ 20 30Mpc

  • 3. large velocity errors

<

⇠ 0.15H0r

  • spatial Malmquist bias if galaxies are placed at rset
  • 1. from δ(x

x x) to V (x x x) - OK

  • linear theory is enough for current LSS data
  • Peebles’ action method for future data and LG
  • 2. biasing: δgalaxies 6= δdark but we know how to model that - OK
  • 3. redshift distortions: cz = Hr + V - OK & NOK
  • F.o.G: in general a bad effect
  • Large scale compression in the radial direction: good effect
  • Kaiser’s rocket effect: hopless at r >

⇠ 150Mpc

matching z-surveys & Vpec: challenges

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Peculiar motions derived (using linear theory) from the distribution of galaxies in the Two Mass Redshift Survey (2MRS) and The observed peculiar motions from the SFI++

I will show next an excellent agreement between:

V2mrs vs VTF

slide-17
SLIDE 17

β = Ωγ b

δgalaxies ≈ bδmass

Marc Davis,1⋆ Adi Nusser,2 Karen L. Masters,3 Christopher Springob,4 John P. Huchra5 and Gerard Lemson6

V2mrs vs VTF: visual

slide-18
SLIDE 18

correlation of SFI (not to be compared with models) correlation of SFI-2MRS

V2mrs vs VTF: quantitative

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Implications:

  • finally, we have an excellent match.
  • no cosmic variance uncertainty
  • Great job by the observers.
  • GI is confirmed with no indication for deviations on 30-70 Mpc scales.
  • no scale dependence of
  • likely to constraint alternative models
  • Ωγ/b

V2mrs vs VTF: why do we care

slide-20
SLIDE 20

0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 fσ8 z

2dFGRS 2SLAQ VVDS SDSS LRG WiggleZ BOSS 6dFGS VIPERS

de la Torre et al (VIPERS) WMAP9 Planck f = Ωγ

β = f/b

δgalaxies ≈ bδmass

βσgalaxies

8

= fσmass

8

The value of Ωγ/b

V2mrs vs VTF

slide-21
SLIDE 21

The most accurate peculiar velocity measurement i.e. the motion of the Local Group

Nearby: LG

slide-22
SLIDE 22

The LG

  • The LG= MW & M31 + a dozen galaxies within d~1.4Mpc
  • Gravitationally bound, detached from the expansion
  • Average density environment
  • Nearby: LG
slide-23
SLIDE 23

The Curious Case of the Local Neighborhood

Note the impressive Local Void revealed by B. Tully and puzzled J. Peebles

Nearby LSS

172 SDSS galaxies 53 HIPASS galaxies 337 galaxies with good distances

Peebles & AN

slide-24
SLIDE 24

R d e n s i t y

s>2

empty

background density

s<2

R initial profile: d e n s i t y

background density

Nearby: void

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Nearby LSS: kinematics

From Brent Tully 185km/s pull by Virgo (Brent’s estimate) push by other stuff including LV

Leo Spur!

Virgo

Kinematics

slide-26
SLIDE 26

LG motion: most accurate peculiar velocity measurement

Step II I + II Step I COBE

Nearby LSS: LG motion

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Can the gravitational field of the observed structures account for the motion of the LG?

  • Q: Is linear theory sufficient?

A: Yes! Because the nearest 5Mpc is so special

  • Q: Is an agreement within 200km/s OK?

A: Yes! Currently, we cannot even do better.

  • Q: What is the origin of the 200km/s?

A: a little surprise.

LG motion: origin

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Mock 2MRS catalogs from Millennium:

  • observer at an ``MW+M31” system
  • Vlg ~ 600km/s
  • quiet flow within 5Mpc
  • a ``Virgo” at ~20Mpc
  • flux limited with 45K galaxies

150 200 [Mpc/h]

− Vlg

tru−Vlg rec [km/s]

300

−100

100 R [Mpc/h] 50 R

100 150 [Mpc/h]

50 100 150 200 Rout [Mpc/h]

300 200 100 100 200 300 para Vtru

lg

Vrec

lg [km/s]

R 74km s 1 S 105 DM 53

450 500 550 600 650 300 200 100 100 200 300

Vtru

lg [km/s]

para Vtru

lg

Vrec

lg [km/s]

R 123km s 1 S 167 DM 103

vlg = H0β 4π ¯ n

  • Rout>ri>Rlg

ri ϕir3

i

Rout=250Mpc/h Rout=100Mpc/h

LG motion: origin

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Therefore,

  • 150-200km/s error
  • limiting factor is survey depth
  • don’t expect convergence at <300Mpc/h (c.f. Bilicki et al)
  • shot-noise ~100km/s
  • galaxy biasing is under control
  • beware of weighting galaxies at d>100Mpc/h, i.e. Kaiser rocket effect

LG motion: origin

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Motions as a probe of LG mass

LG: mass

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Internal Kinematics of LG

LG: internal motions

  • Not a fully virialized system: most

tracers are currently on first approach

  • Two dominant members MW and M31
  • All tracers started at r=0 near t=0

Mikulizky+AN

slide-32
SLIDE 32

LG: mass: TA

time s e p a r a t i

  • 0.79Mpc

119km/s now

Keep MW and M31 Ignore everything else Mass of the LG: The Timing Argument (Kahn & Woltjer 59)

slide-33
SLIDE 33

The general problem

Its is basically a transport problem! e.g. Monge-Kantorovich problem boundary value problem forward: N-body simulation c.f. Frisch, Matarese, Mohayaee & Sobolovski 02

LG: mass: action

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Peebles’ action method

LG: mass: action

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Practical application

  • 1. write the action S for participles in cosmology
  • 2. pick trial orbits, q(t), satisfying the BC
  • 3. Minimize S with respect to q(t_i)

LG: mass: action

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Multiple solutions expected

Consider a harmonic motion ¨ x + x = 0. Find solutions, x(t), satisfying x(0) = x(2π) = 0. Solutions: x(t) = 0, x(t) = sin(t), x(t) = 2 sin(t)... When are the conditions for a unique solution?

No idea!

LG: mass: action

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Very hard to reconstruct orbits on small scales!

  • Halo vs dark matter
  • Halo merging
  • tidal field
  • LG: mass: action: missing ingredients
slide-38
SLIDE 38

What do we do exactly?

  • apply LAP with redshifts as input
  • get distances from orbits
  • compare LAP distances with observed ones
  • tune masses to get a good match
  • IMPORTANT: must allow for multiple solutions by locating saddle points

LG: mass: action: missing ingredients

slide-39
SLIDE 39

How well can we recover masses in mock LG (Millennium simulation)?

LG: mass: action: tests

slide-40
SLIDE 40

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 mass of M31 (1012 Msun) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 mass of MW (1012 Msun) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 mass of M31 (1012 Msun) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 mass of MW (1012 Msun)

Note: a) M31 + MMW is consistent with van der Marel et al 12. b) radial V31 − VMW = 109 ± 4kms−1. c) tangential V31 − VMW < 34kms−1(1σ).

Phelps, AN & Desjacques

If Leo I (300kpc) is bound to MW then mass of MW~(3)10^12 (Li & White)

also Shaya & Tully

LG: mass: action: real data

(Sangmo, Anderson & van der Marel)

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Proper motions are badly needed!

A factor of 2 from 200kpc to 400kps is a little uncomfortable!

LG: mass: action: end

P.s. Diaz et al 14 get much lower masses using Mw- M32 center of mass and virial theorem.

slide-42
SLIDE 42

The Gaia prospect

Lunched Dec 2013 & doing well

Alternative V: Gaia

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Problem I:

Alternative V: Gaia

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Problem II:

Gaia’s onboard thresholding is optimized for point sources.

But, a large number of galaxies have stellar light concentrated in compact regions, making them appear as point sources.

For example, the nuclei of M87 and N5121 (both d=17.8Mpc) should be detectable by Gaia with an end of mission accuracy of 600km/s in V⊥. Visual inspection of SB profiles of the Carnegie-Irvine Galaxy Survey (Ho et al 2011) shows that 70% of galaxies in this survey could be detected by Gaia. The majority of those nearby galaxies will be detected if placed at

>

∼ 500Mpc (early types) and

>

∼ 250Mpc (late type).

Alternative V: Gaia

slide-45
SLIDE 45

End-of-mission (2018) expectations

New probes: Gaia

100 200 300 400 500 600 700

σ⊥ [km/s]

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 50 100 150 200 250 300

cz [1000km/s] σB [km/s]

G<16 G<15 G<14 SFI++ G<16 G<15 G<14 ΛCDM

  • v∥ = −
  • lm

dΦlm ds Ylm

v v v⊥ = −

  • lm

Φlm s lm,

Pros: free of biases, allows

tests of potential flow ansatz

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Final remarks

★Standard paradigm is great, but a broader scope for DM would be fruitful

  • Direct detection: Should we be bother by a null result?
  • not really! Solar system could live in a locally DM deprived region.
  • massive DMP
  • very large cross section with baryons: DM does not even reach detectors
  • LHC: at 13-14 TeV (through missing energy). March 2015
  • Indirect detection: Fermi Large Area Telescope (a few more years)

★What data will be most useful?

  • High hopes for Gaia
  • low photometric mis-calibration (mmag) is almost a must for LSS on large scales