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

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

“Happy families are all alike, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way” –Tolstoy, Anna Karenina � - J. Diamond, The Anna Karenina Principle ``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 The LCDM is a ``Happy model”… but a little ``moody” � Therapy maybe required, perhaps by Dark sector physics: not f(R) � � � �

The observed Large Scale Structure MW disk Basics: observations: � The XY Super-galactic plane redshift surveys

Distance measurements: Tully-Fisher Relation 36 Zero Point Calibrators 26 Virgo 15 Fornax 34 UMa 14 Antlia 11 Centaurus 17 Pegasus 19 Hydra 58 Pisces 11 Cancer 23 Coma 7 Abell 400 19 Abell 1367 13 Abell 2634 33Mpc Tully, Courtois, Dolphin et al 13 Fig. 5.— An image of the galaxy PGC42510=NGC4603 and an HI profile of the galaxy obtained with GBT. Basics: observations: � peculiar motions

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

Recommendation: ignore these data beyond 100 Mpc or go back and check data- good luck � � rush to write papers killing LCDM Basics: observations: � peculiar motions

Observations are related through Gravity Euler: d V dt + H V = �r Φ a Poisson: r 2 Φ = 4 π G ¯ ρ m δ ( x , t ) a 2 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 ). Basics: gravitational instability

Hence, it is good to do a combined analysis the two independent datasets: observations very long arrow theory matching z-surveys & Vpec

z-surveys 1. from δ ( x x ) to V ( x x ) - OK x x • linear theory is enough for current LSS data • Peebles’ action method for future data and LG 2. biasing: δ galaxies 6 = δ dark but we know how to model that - OK 3. redshift distortions: cz = Hr + V - OK & NOK • F.o.G: in general a bad e ff ect • Large scale compression in the radial direction: good e ff ect • Kaiser’s rocket e ff ect: hopless at r > ⇠ 150 Mpc velocity catalogs ⇠ • 1. radial component only - not a big deal ⇠ 10 4 galaxies 2. sparseness with < • limits us to scales ⇠ 20 � 30 Mpc > 3. large velocity errors ⇠ 0 . 15 H 0 r < • spatial Malmquist bias if galaxies are placed at r set matching z-surveys & Vpec: challenges

unsmoothed Linear theory “Snapshot” scale motions 1 δ = � f ( Ω ) r · V -Density relation at a f ( Ω ) = d ln D d ln t ⇡ Ω γ Solution d 3 x 0 δ ( x 0 ) x 0 − x Ω γ Z = v | x 0 − x | 3 4 π all space Z Z = ( · ) + ( · ) survey external In redshift space ⇣ ⌘ radial s ≡ Hr + V = � 1 δ s f r · V � [ r · V ] radial smoothed � 5TH

z-surveys 1. from δ ( x x ) to V ( x x ) - OK x x • linear theory is enough for current LSS data • Peebles’ action method for future data and LG 2. biasing: δ galaxies 6 = δ dark but we know how to model that - OK 3. redshift distortions: cz = Hr + V - OK & NOK • F.o.G: in general a bad e ff ect • Large scale compression in the radial direction: good e ff ect • Kaiser’s rocket e ff ect: hopless at r > ⇠ 150 Mpc velocity catalogs ⇠ • 1. radial component only - not a big deal ⇠ 10 4 galaxies 2. sparseness with < • limits us to scales ⇠ 20 � 30 Mpc > 3. large velocity errors ⇠ 0 . 15 H 0 r < • spatial Malmquist bias if galaxies are placed at r set matching z-surveys & Vpec: challenges

Based on Millennium 2MRS mocks (De Lucia & Blaizot) 8 10Mpc/h 5Mpc/h 4 b=1.23 b=1.27 2 1+ δ g 1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 1 2 4 8 0.2 0.4 1 2 4 8 1+ δ dm 1+ δ dm Scatter is mostly shot-noise AN, Davis & Branchini

z-surveys 1. from δ ( x x ) to V ( x x ) - OK x x • linear theory is enough for current LSS data • Peebles’ action method for future data and LG 2. biasing: δ galaxies 6 = δ dark but we know how to model that - OK 3. redshift distortions: cz = Hr + V - OK & NOK • F.o.G: in general a bad e ff ect • Large scale compression in the radial direction: good e ff ect • Kaiser’s rocket e ff ect: hopless at r > ⇠ 150 Mpc velocity catalogs ⇠ • 1. radial component only - not a big deal ⇠ 10 4 galaxies 2. sparseness with < • limits us to scales ⇠ 20 � 30 Mpc > 3. large velocity errors ⇠ 0 . 15 H 0 r < • spatial Malmquist bias if galaxies are placed at r set matching z-surveys & Vpec: challenges

300 "slice_wcen.ssv" matrix 250 200 y (Mpc) 150 100 50 300 300 0 "slice045.ssv" matrix 250 200 y (Mpc) 150 100 50 Bos & � van de Weygaert y (Mpc) 300 0

z-surveys 1. from δ ( x x ) to V ( x x ) - OK x x • linear theory is enough for current LSS data • Peebles’ action method for future data and LG 2. biasing: δ galaxies 6 = δ dark but we know how to model that - OK 3. redshift distortions: cz = Hr + V - OK & NOK • F.o.G: in general a bad e ff ect • Large scale compression in the radial direction: good e ff ect • Kaiser’s rocket e ff ect: hopless at r > ⇠ 150 Mpc velocity catalogs ⇠ • 1. radial component only - not a big deal ⇠ 10 4 galaxies 2. sparseness with < • limits us to scales ⇠ 20 � 30 Mpc > 3. large velocity errors ⇠ 0 . 15 H 0 r < • spatial Malmquist bias if galaxies are placed at r set matching z-surveys & Vpec: challenges

I will show next an excellent agreement between: � 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++ V 2mrs vs V TF

Marc Davis, 1 ⋆ Adi Nusser, 2 Karen L. Masters, 3 Christopher Springob, 4 John P. Huchra 5 and Gerard Lemson 6 β = Ω γ b δ galaxies ≈ b δ mass V 2mrs vs V TF : visual

correlation of SFI-2MRS correlation of SFI ( not to be compared with models ) V 2mrs vs V TF : quantitative

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 Ω γ /b - likely to constraint alternative models � � V 2mrs vs V TF : why do we care

The value of Ω γ /b f = Ω γ βσ galaxies = f σ mass β = f/b 8 8 δ galaxies ≈ b δ mass Planck 0.7 2dFGRS 2SLAQ 0.65 VVDS SDSS LRG WiggleZ 0.6 BOSS 6dFGS 0.55 VIPERS 0.5 f σ 8 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 z de la Torre et al (VIPERS) V 2mrs vs V TF WMAP9

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

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

The Curious Case of the Local Neighborhood Peebles & AN Note the impressive Local Void revealed by B. Tully and puzzled J. Peebles 337 galaxies with good distances 172 SDSS galaxies 53 HIPASS galaxies Nearby LSS

s<2 y s>2 y t i t s i n s n e e d d background � background � density density empty R R initial profile: Nearby: void

Kinematics From Brent Tully Virgo Leo Spur ! 185km/s pull by Virgo (Brent’s estimate) push by other stuff including LV Nearby LSS: kinematics

LG motion: most accurate peculiar velocity measurement Step I COBE Step II I + II Nearby LSS: LG motion

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

Mock 2MRS catalogs from Millennium: R 74km s 1 300 S 105 •observer at an ``MW+M31” system � R out=250Mpc/h DM 53 200 •Vlg ~ 600km/s � •quiet flow within 5Mpc � lg [km/s] 100 •a ``Virgo” at ~20Mpc � V rec •flux limited with 45K galaxies 0 para V tru lg 100 200 v lg = H 0 β r i � ϕ i r 3 4 π ¯ n i 300 R out >r i >R lg R 123km s 1 300 300 S 167 rec [km/s] DM 103 200 R out=100Mpc/h lg [km/s] tru − V lg 100 V rec V lg 0 − 0 para V tru lg − 100 100 100 50 100 150 150 200 50 100 150 200 200 R [Mpc/h] R [Mpc/h] [Mpc/h] R out [Mpc/h] 300 450 500 550 600 650 LG motion: origin V tru lg [km/s]

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

Motions as a probe of LG mass LG: mass