1: %% RCS $Id: ms.tex,v 1.1 2007/04/10 22:49:14 neill Exp $
2:
3: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
4: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
5: %% any data that comes before this command.
6:
7: %% The command below calls the preprint style
8: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
9: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
10: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
11:
12: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
13:
14: \documentclass{emulateapj}
15:
16: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
17:
18: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
19:
20: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
21:
22: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
23: %\usepackage{epstopdf}
24:
25: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
26: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
27: %% the \begin{document} command.
28: %%
29: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
30: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
31: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
32: %% for information.
33:
34: %\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
35: \def\kms{km~s$^{-1}$}
36: \def\degpnt{^{\circ}\kern-1.7mm.\kern+.35mm}
37: \def\arcpnt{"\kern-1.7mm.\kern+.35mm}
38: \def\minpnt{'\kern-1.0mm.\kern+.30mm}
39: \def\deg{^{\circ}}
40: \def\lsun{L$_\odot$}
41: \newcommand{\gp}{\ensuremath{g^{\prime}}}
42: \newcommand{\rp}{\ensuremath{r^{\prime}}}
43: \newcommand{\ip}{\ensuremath{i^{\prime}}}
44: \newcommand{\zp}{\ensuremath{z^{\prime}}}
45: \newcommand{\avab}{\ensuremath{\langle A_B \rangle}}
46: \newcommand{\avav}{\ensuremath{\langle A_V \rangle}}
47: \newcommand{\bvec}[1]{\mathbf #1}
48: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command
49: %below.
50:
51: %\slugcomment{Submitted to ApJLett}
52:
53: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
54: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
55: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
56: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
57: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters. Running heads
58: %% will not print in the manuscript style.
59:
60: \shorttitle{Peculiar Velocities of SNe}
61: \shortauthors{Neill, Hudson, \& Conley}
62:
63: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
64: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
65:
66: \begin{document}
67:
68: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
69: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
70: %% you desire.
71:
72: \title{The Peculiar Velocities of Local Type I\lowercase{a} Supernovae and
73: their Impact on Cosmology}
74:
75: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
76: %% author and affiliation information.
77: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
78: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
79: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
80: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
81:
82: \author{James~D.~Neill}
83: \affil{California Institute of Technology, 1200 E. California Blvd.,
84: Pasadena, CA 91125}
85: \email{neill@srl.caltech.edu}
86:
87: \author{Michael~J.~Hudson}
88: \affil{University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON,
89: N2L 3G1, CANADA}
90: \email{mjhudson@uwaterloo.ca}
91:
92: \and
93:
94: \author{Alex~Conley}
95: \affil{University of Toronto, 60 Saint George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3H8,
96: CANADA}
97: \email{conley@astro.utoronto.ca}
98:
99: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
100: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
101: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
102: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
103: %% editorial office after submission.
104:
105: \begin{abstract}
106:
107: We quantify the effect of supernova Type Ia peculiar velocities on the
108: derivation of cosmological parameters. The published distant and local
109: Ia SNe used for the Supernova Legacy Survey first-year cosmology report
110: form the sample for this study. While previous work has assumed that the
111: local SNe are at rest in the CMB frame (the No Flow assumption), we test
112: this assumption by applying peculiar velocity corrections to the local
113: SNe using three different flow models. The models are based on the IRAS
114: PSCz galaxy redshift survey, have varying $\beta = \Omega_m^{0.6}/b$, and
115: reproduce the Local Group motion in the CMB frame. These datasets are
116: then fit for $w$, $\Omega_m$, and $\Omega_\Lambda$ using flatness or
117: $\Lambda$CDM and a BAO prior. The $\chi^2$ statistic is used to
118: examine the effect of the velocity corrections on the quality of the
119: fits. The most favored model is the $\beta=0.5$ model, which produces a
120: fit significantly better than the No Flow assumption, consistent with
121: previous peculiar velocity studies. By comparing the No Flow assumption
122: with the favored models we derive the largest potential systematic error
123: in $w$ caused by ignoring peculiar velocities to be $\Delta w = +0.04$.
124: For $\Omega_\Lambda$, the potential error is $\Delta \Omega_\Lambda =
125: -0.04$ and for $\Omega_m$, the potential error is $\Delta \Omega_m <
126: +0.01$. The favored flow model ($\beta=0.5$) produces the following
127: cosmological parameters: $w = -1.08^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$, $\Omega_m =
128: 0.27^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ assuming a flat cosmology, and $\Omega_\Lambda =
129: 0.80^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ and $\Omega_m = 0.27^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ for a
130: $w = -1$ ($\Lambda$CDM) cosmology.
131:
132: \end{abstract}
133:
134: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
135: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
136: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
137: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
138:
139: \keywords{cosmology: large-scale structure of the universe --
140: galaxies: distances and redshifts -- supernovae: general}
141:
142: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
143: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
144: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
145: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
146: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
147: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
148: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
149: %% each reference.
150:
151: \section{Introduction}
152: \label{sec_intro}
153:
154: Dark Energy has challenged our knowledge of fundamental physics since the
155: direct evidence for its existence was discovered using Type Ia supernovae
156: \citep{Riess98AJ, Perlmutter99ApJ}. Because there are currently no
157: compelling theoretical explanations for Dark Energy, the correct emphasis,
158: as pointed out by the Dark Energy Task Force \citep[DETF,][]{Albrecht06},
159: is on refining our observations of the accelerated expansion of the
160: universe. Recommendation V from the DETF Report \citep{Albrecht06} calls
161: for an exploration of the systematic effects that could impair the needed
162: observational refinements.
163:
164: A couple of recent studies \citep{Hui06PhRvD, Cooray06PhRvD} point out
165: that the redshift lever arm needed to accurately measure the universal
166: expansion requires the use of a local sample, but that coherent
167: large-scale local ($z < 0.2$) peculiar velocities add additional
168: uncertainty to the Hubble diagram and hence to the derived
169: cosmological parameters.
170:
171: Current analyses
172: \citep[e.g.,][]{Astier06A&A,Riess07ApJ,Wood-Vasey07astroph} of the
173: cosmological parameters do not attempt to correct for the effect of local
174: peculiar velocities. As briefly noted by \citet{Hui06PhRvD} and
175: \citet{Cooray06PhRvD}, it is possible to use local data to measure the
176: local velocity field and hence limit the impact on the derived cosmological
177: parameters. Measurements of the local velocity field have improved to the
178: point where there is consistency among surveys and methods \citep{Hud03,
179: HudSmiLuc04, Radburn04MNRAS, PikHud05, Sarkar06}. Type Ia supernova
180: peculiar velocities have been studied recently by \cite{Radburn04MNRAS,
181: PikHud05, JhaRieKir06, HauHanTho06,Watkins07astroph} and others. Their
182: results demonstrate that the local flows derived from SNe are in agreement
183: with those derived from other distance indicators, such as the Tully-Fisher
184: relation and the Fundamental Plane. Our aim is to use the current
185: knowledge of the local peculiar motions to correct local SNe and, together with
186: a homogeneous set of distant SNe, fit for cosmological parameters and
187: measure the effect of the corrections on the cosmological fits.
188:
189: To produce this measurement, we analyze the local and distant SN~Ia sample
190: used in the first-year cosmology results from the Supernova Legacy Survey
191: \citep[SNLS,][hence A06]{Astier06A&A}. This sample is composed of 44 local
192: SNe \citep[A06, Table~8:][]{Hamuy96AJ, Riess99AJ, Krisciunas01AJ,
193: Jha02PhDT, Strolger02AJ, Altavilla04MNRAS, Krisciunas04AJa,
194: Krisciunas04AJb} and 71 distant SNe (A06, Table~9). The distant SNe are
195: the largest homogeneous set currently in the literature. The local sample
196: span the redshift range $0.015 < z < 0.125$ and were selected to have good
197: lightcurve sampling (A06, \S~5.2). Using three different models
198: encompassing the range of plausible local large-scale flow, we assign and
199: correct for the peculiar velocity of each local SN. We then re-fit the
200: entire sample for $w$, $\Omega_m$, and $\Omega_\Lambda$ to assess the
201: systematics due to the peculiar velocity field, and to asses the change in
202: the quality of the resulting fits.
203:
204: \section{Peculiar Velocity Models}
205: \label{pecvel}
206:
207: Peculiar velocities, $\bvec{v}$, arise due to inhomogeneities in the
208: mass density and hence in the expansion. Their effect is to perturb
209: the observed redshifts from their cosmological values: $cz_{\mathrm
210: CMB} = cz + \bvec{v} \cdot \hat{\bvec{r}}$, where $cz$ is the
211: cosmological redshift the SN would have in the absence of peculiar
212: velocities. With the advent of all-sky galaxy redshift surveys, it is
213: possible to predict peculiar velocities from the galaxy distribution
214: provided one knows $\beta = f(\Omega)/b$, where $b$ is a linear
215: biasing parameter relating fluctuations in the galaxy density,
216: $\delta$, to fluctuations in the mass density. The peculiar velocity
217: in the CMB frame is then given by linear perturbation theory
218: \citep{Peebles80book} applied to the density field \citep[see,
219: e.g.][]{YahStrDav91,Hud93}:
220: \begin{equation}
221: \label{eq_pvel}
222: \bvec{v} = \frac{\beta}{4\pi} \int^{R_{max}} \delta(\bvec{r}')
223: \frac{(\bvec{r}'-\bvec{r})}{|\bvec{r}'-\bvec{r}|^3} d^3 \bvec{r'} +
224: \bvec{V}.
225: \end{equation}
226:
227: In this Letter, we use the density field of IRAS PSCz galaxies
228: \citep{BraTeoFre99}, which extends to a depth $R_{max}=20000$ \kms.
229: Contributions to the peculiar velocity arising from masses on scales
230: larger than $R_{max}$ are modeled by a simple residual dipole,
231: $\bvec{V}$. Thus, given a density field, the parameters $\beta$ and
232: $\bvec{V}$ describe the velocity field within $R_{max}$. For galaxies
233: with distances greater than $R_{max}$, the first term above is set to
234: zero.
235:
236: The predicted peculiar velocities from the PSCz density field are subject
237: to two sources of uncertainty: the noisiness of the predictions due to the
238: sparsely-sampled density field, and the inapplicability of linear
239: perturbation theory on small scales. Typically these uncertainties are
240: accounted for by adding an additional ``thermal'' dispersion, which is
241: assumed to be Gaussian. From a careful analysis of predicted and observed
242: peculiar velocities, \citet{Willick98ApJ} estimated these uncertainties to
243: be $\sim 100$ \kms, albeit with a dependence on density.
244: \citet{Radburn04MNRAS} found reasonable $\chi^2$ values if 150 \kms\ was
245: assumed in the field, with an extra contribution to the small-scale
246: dispersion added in quadrature for SNe in clusters. Here we adopt a thermal
247: dispersion of 150 \kms.
248:
249: For this study, we explore the results of three different models of
250: large-scale flows and compare them to a case where no flow model is used.
251: These models have been chosen to span the range of flow models permitted by
252: peculiar velocity data, and all of these models reproduce the observed
253: $\sim$ 600 km s$^{-1}$ motion of the Local Group with respect to the CMB.
254: The first model assumes a pure bulk flow (model PBF, hence $\beta=0$) with
255: $\bvec{V}$ having vector components $(57,-540,314)$ km s$^{-1}$ in Galactic
256: Cartesian coordinates. The second model assumes $\beta=0.5$ (model B05),
257: with a dipole vector of $(70,-194,0)$ km s$^{-1}$. The third model adopts
258: $\beta=0.7$ (model B07) which requires no residual dipole. We compare
259: these models to the no-correction scenario adopted by A06 and others with
260: $\beta=0$, $V=0$ which we call the ``No Flow'' or NF scenario. Note that a
261: recent comparison \citep{PikHud05} of results from IRAS predictions versus
262: peculiar velocity data yields a mean value fit with $\beta=0.50\pm0.02$
263: (stat), so the B05 model is strongly favored over the NF scenario by
264: independent peculiar velocity analyses.
265:
266: \section{Cosmological Fits}
267: \label{sec_cosmo}
268:
269: Prior to the fitting procedure, the peculiar velocities for each model are
270: used to correct the local SNe \citep[using a variation of][equations 11 and
271: 13]{Hui06PhRvD}. We then fit our corrected SN data in two ways using a
272: $\chi^2$-gridding cosmology fitter\footnote{\tt
273: http://qold.astro.utoronto.ca/conley/simple\_cosfitter/} \citep[also used
274: by][]{Wood-Vasey07astroph}. The first fit uses a flat cosmology
275: ($\Omega=1$) with the equation of state parameter $w$ and $\Omega_m$ as
276: free parameters. The second fit assumes a $\Lambda CDM$ ($w=-1$) cosmology
277: with $\Omega_\Lambda$ and $\Omega_m$ as free parameters. We used the same
278: intrinsic SN photometric scatter ($\sigma_{int} = 0.13$ mag, A06) for every
279: fit. The resulting $\chi^2$ probability surfaces for both fits are then
280: further constrained using the BAO result from \citet{Eisenstein05ApJ}. The
281: final derived cosmological parameters are then used to calculate the
282: $\chi^2$ for each fit (see A06, \S~5.4).
283:
284: The fitting procedure employed here differs in implementation from that
285: used in A06. Three additional parameters, often called nuisance
286: parameters, must be fit along with the two cosmological parameters. These
287: parameters are the constant of proportionality for the SN lightcurve shape,
288: $\alpha_s$, the correction for the SN observed color, $\beta_c$, and a SN
289: brightness normalization, $\mathcal{M}$. We distinguish $\beta_c$ from the
290: $\beta$ used to describe the flow models above. A06 used analytic
291: marginalization of the nuisance parameters $\alpha_s$ and $\beta_c$ in
292: their fits. Here these parameters are fully gridded like the cosmological
293: parameters. This avoids a bias in the nuisance parameters that results
294: because, in the analytic method, their values must be held fixed to compute
295: the errors. The result is that our fits using the NF scenario produces
296: slightly different cosmological parameters than quoted in A06.
297:
298: \section{Results}
299:
300: %\def\arraystretch{1.5}
301: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccccc}
302: \tablecaption{Peculiar Velocity Model Parameters and Results\label{tab_models}}
303: \tablewidth{0pt}
304: \tablehead{
305: & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\Omega = 1$ + BAO prior} & &
306: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$w = -1$ + BAO prior} \\
307: \cline{4-6} \cline{8-10} \\
308: \colhead{Model} & \colhead{$\beta$} & \colhead{$\bvec{V}$ (\kms )} &
309: \colhead{$w$} & \colhead{$\Omega_m$} &
310: \colhead{$\chi^2_{w,\Omega_m}$} & &
311: \colhead{$\Omega_\Lambda$} & \colhead{$\Omega_m$} &
312: \colhead{$\chi^2_{\Omega_\Lambda,\Omega_m}$} \\
313: }
314:
315: \startdata
316: A06\tablenotemark{a} & 0.0 & \nodata &
317: $-1.023\pm0.090$ & $0.271\pm0.021$ & \nodata & &
318: $0.751\pm0.082$ & $0.271\pm0.020$ & \nodata \\[2pt]
319: NF & 0.0 & \nodata &
320: $-1.054^{+0.086}_{-0.084}$ & $0.270^{+0.024}_{-0.018}$ & 115.5 & &
321: $0.770^{+0.083}_{-0.071}$ & $0.269^{+0.033}_{-0.017}$ & 115.4 \\[2pt]
322: PBF & 0.0 & 57,-540,314 &
323: $-1.026^{+0.085}_{-0.083}$ & $0.273^{+0.024}_{-0.019}$ & 129.4 & &
324: $0.741^{+0.084}_{-0.073}$ & $0.273^{+0.034}_{-0.017}$ & 129.2 \\[2pt]
325: B05 & 0.5\tablenotemark{b} & 70,-194,0 &
326: $-1.081^{+0.087}_{-0.085}$ & $0.268^{+0.024}_{-0.018}$ & 110.3 & &
327: $0.796^{+0.081}_{-0.070}$ & $0.267^{+0.032}_{-0.017}$ & 110.1 \\[2pt]
328: B07 & 0.7 & \nodata &
329: $-1.094^{+0.087}_{-0.085}$ & $0.267^{+0.024}_{-0.018}$ & 111.2 & &
330: $0.809^{+0.082}_{-0.069}$ & $0.265^{+0.032}_{-0.017}$ & 111.1 \\
331: \enddata
332: \tablenotetext{a}{results quoted in A06 marginalizing
333: analytically over $\alpha_s$ and $\beta_c$ (see \S~\ref{sec_cosmo})}
334: \tablenotetext{b}{best fit value from \citet{PikHud05}}
335: \end{deluxetable*}
336:
337:
338: The results of the cosmological fits for each model are listed in
339: Table~\ref{tab_models} and plotted in Figure~\ref{fig_wom_fit} and
340: Figure~\ref{fig_omol_fit}. They demonstrate two effects of the
341: peculiar velocity corrections: a change in the values of the
342: cosmological parameters, and a change in the quality of the fits as
343: measured by the $\chi^2$ statistic.
344:
345: \begin{figure}
346: \includegraphics[scale=0.35,angle=90.,viewport=0 0 500 700]{f1.ps}
347: \caption{Parameter values for the $w$, $\Omega_m$ fit ($\Omega=1$
348: + BAO prior) for each of the four peculiar velocity models in
349: Table~\ref{tab_models}. The values for the NF scenario are indicted by the
350: dashed lines. The largest systematic error in $w$ compared
351: with the NF fit is $+0.040$ for the B07 model, which
352: demonstrates the amplitude of the systematic error if peculiar velocity is
353: not accounted for. The offsets for $\Omega_m$ are all within $\pm 0.003$
354: showing that this parameter is not sensitive to the peculiar velocity
355: corrections due to the BAO prior. The $\chi^2$ of the fits improve when
356: using the two $\beta$ models (B05, B07), while the PBF model provides a
357: significantly worse fit.
358: }
359: \label{fig_wom_fit}
360: \end{figure}
361:
362: \begin{figure}
363: \includegraphics[scale=0.35,angle=90.,viewport=0 0 500 700]{f2.ps}
364: \caption{Parameter values for the $\Omega_\Lambda$, $\Omega_m$ fit ($w =
365: -1$ + BAO prior) for each of the four peculiar velocity models as in
366: Figure~\ref{fig_wom_fit}. Again, comparing the NF fits to the B07
367: model produces the largest systematic in $\Omega_\Lambda$ of $-0.039$.
368: We also find $\Omega_m$ insensitive to the corrections, having
369: all offsets within $\pm 0.004$. The $\chi^2$ values show the same pattern
370: as in Figure~\ref{fig_wom_fit}, favoring the $\beta$ models over no
371: correction (NF), and over pure bulk flow.
372: }
373: \label{fig_omol_fit}
374: \end{figure}
375:
376: We expect, if a given model is correct, to improve the fitting since our
377: corrected data should more closely resemble the homogeneous universe
378: described by a few cosmological parameters. The $\chi^2$ of the fits for
379: each flow model can be compared to the $\chi^2$ for the NF scenario (shown
380: by the dashed line in the figures) as a test of this hypothesis. Using
381: $\Delta \chi^2 = -2 \ln L/L_{NF}$, where $L$ is the likelihood, we find
382: that the pure bulk flow is over 10$^3$ times less likely than the NF
383: scenario, while the B05 and B07 models are 13.5 and 8.6 times more likely,
384: respectively.
385:
386: We also use these data to assess the systematic errors made in the
387: parameters if no peculiar velocities are accounted for. The largest of
388: these are obtained by comparing the B07 model with the NF scenario. This
389: comparison yields $\Delta w_{B07} = +0.040$ and $\Delta\Omega_{\Lambda,B07}
390: = -0.039$. The same comparison for the B05 model, which is only slightly
391: preferred by the $\chi^2$ statistic over model B07, produces $\Delta
392: w_{B05} = +0.027$ and $\Delta\Omega_{\Lambda,B05} = -0.026$. The
393: systematic offsets for $\Omega_m$ are all $0.004$ or less, demonstrating
394: the insensitivity of this parameter to peculiar velocities. This is due to
395: the BAO prior which is insensitive to local flow and provides a much
396: stronger constraint for $\Omega_m$ than for $w$ or $\Omega_\Lambda$
397: (see A06, Figures~5 and 6).
398:
399: \section{Discussion and Summary}
400:
401: The systematic effect of different flow models is at the level of $\pm0.04$
402: in $w$. This is smaller than the \emph{present} level of random error in
403: $w$, which is largely due to the small numbers of high- and low-redshift
404: SNe. However, compared to other systematics discussed in A06, which total
405: $\Delta w = \pm0.054$, the systematic effect of large-scale flows is
406: important. \citet[Table 5]{Wood-Vasey07astroph} list 16 sources of
407: systematic error which total $\Delta w = \pm 0.13$. Aside from three
408: method-dependent systematics and the photometric zero-point error, they
409: are all smaller than the flow systematic. As the number of SNe continues
410: to increase, and understanding of other systematics (e.g. photometric
411: zero-points) improves, it is possible that large-scale flows will become
412: one of the dominant sources of systematic uncertainty.
413:
414: The peculiar velocities of SN host galaxies arise from large-scale
415: structures over a range of scales. The component arising from
416: small-scale, local structure is the least important: it is essentially
417: a random variable which is reduced by $\sqrt{N}$. More problematic is
418: the large-scale coherent component. Such a large-scale component can
419: take several forms: an overdensity or underdensity; a large-scale
420: dipole, or ``bulk'' flow.
421:
422: The existence of a large-scale, but local ($<7400$ \kms) underdensity, or
423: ``Hubble Bubble'' was first discussed by \cite{ZehRieKir98}. Recently
424: \cite{JhaRieKir06} have re-enforced this claim with a larger SN data set:
425: they find that the difference in the Hubble constant inside the Bubble and
426: outside is $\Delta H/H = 6.5\pm1.8\%$. If correct, this could have a
427: dramatic effect on the derived cosmological parameters \citep[Fig
428: 17]{JhaRieKir06}, especially for those studies that extend their local
429: sample down below $z<0.015$. However, the ``Hubble Bubble'' was not
430: confirmed by \cite{GioDalHay99} who found $\Delta H/H = 1.0\pm2.2$\% using
431: the Tully-Fisher (TF) peculiar velocities, nor by \cite{HudSmiLuc04} who
432: found $\Delta H/H = 2.3\pm1.9\%$ using the Fundamental Plane (FP)
433: distances.
434:
435: According to equation~\ref{eq_pvel}, a mean underdensity of IRAS galaxies
436: of order $\sim$ 40\% within 7400 \kms\ would be needed to generate the
437: ``Hubble Bubble'' quoted by \cite{JhaRieKir06}. However, we find that the
438: IRAS PSCz density field of \cite{BraTeoFre99} is not underdense in this
439: distance range; instead it is mildly overdense (by a few percent) within
440: 7400 \kms\ \citep[see also][Figure 2]{BraTeoFre99}. As a further
441: cross-check, when we refit the \cite{JhaRieKir06} data after having
442: subtracted the predictions of the B05 flow model, the ``Bubble'' remains in
443: the \cite{JhaRieKir06} data. Thus, the Jha et al ``Bubble'' cannot be
444: explained by local structure, unless that structure is not traced by IRAS
445: galaxies. Moreover, when we analyze the 99 SNe within 15000 \kms\ from
446: \cite{Tonry03ApJ} in the same way, we find no evidence of a significant
447: ``Hubble Bubble'' ($\Delta H/H = 1.5\pm2.0$\%), in agreement with the results
448: from TF and FP surveys. The \citet{Tonry03ApJ} sample and that of
449: \cite{JhaRieKir06} have 67 SNe in common. The high degree of overlap
450: suggests that the difference lies in the different methods for converting
451: the photometry into SN distance moduli.
452:
453: A local large-scale flow can also introduce systematic errors if the
454: low-z sample is biased in its sky coverage: in this case, an
455: uncorrected dipole term can corrupt the monopole term, which then
456: biases the cosmological parameters. For the large-scale flow directions
457: considered here, this does not appear to affect the A06 sample: we
458: note that the PBF-corrected case has similar cosmological parameters
459: to the ``No Flow'' case. However, if coherent flows exist on
460: large scales, this may affect surveys with unbalanced sky coverage,
461: such as the SN Factory \citep{Aldering02SPIE} or the SDSS SN
462: survey\footnote{\tt http://sdssdp47.fnal.gov/sdsssn/sdsssn.html}.
463:
464: The most promising approach to treating the effect of large-scale flows is
465: a more sophisticated version of the analysis presented here: combine
466: low-redshift SNe with other low-redshift peculiar velocity tracers, such as
467: Tully-Fisher SFI++ survey \citep{MasSprHay06} and the NOAO Fundamental
468: Plane Survey \citep{SmiHudNel04}, and use these data to constrain the
469: parameters of the flow model ($\beta$ and the residual large-scale flow
470: $\bvec{V}$) directly. One can then marginalize over the parameters of the
471: flow model while fitting the cosmological parameters to the low- and
472: high-$z$ SNe.
473:
474: %% If you wish to include an acknowledgments section in your paper,
475: %% separate it off from the body of the text using the \acknowledgments
476: %% command.
477:
478: %% Included in this acknowledgments section are examples of the
479: %% AASTeX hypertext markup commands. Use \url without the optional [HREF]
480: %% argument when you want to print the url directly in the text. Otherwise,
481: %% use either \url or \anchor, with the HREF as the first argument and the
482: %% text to be printed in the second.
483:
484:
485: \acknowledgments
486:
487: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
488: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
489: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
490: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
491: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
492: %%
493: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
494: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
495: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
496: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
497: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
498: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
499: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
500: %% place of the \cite commands.
501:
502: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
503: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
504: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
505:
506: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
507: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
508: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
509: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
510: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
511:
512: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
513: %\bibliography{myrefs}
514:
515: \begin{thebibliography}{36}
516: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
517:
518: \bibitem[{{Albrecht} {et~al.}(2006){Albrecht}, {Bernstein}, {Cahn}, {Freedman},
519: {Hewitt}, {Hu}, {Huth}, {Kamionkowski}, {Kolb}, {Knox}, {Mather}, {Staggs},
520: \& {Suntzeff}}]{Albrecht06}
521: {Albrecht}, A., {Bernstein}, G., {Cahn}, R., {Freedman}, W.~L., {Hewitt}, J.,
522: {Hu}, W., {Huth}, J., {Kamionkowski}, M., et al. 2006, preprint
523: (astro-ph/0609591)
524:
525: \bibitem[{{Aldering} {et~al.}(2002){Aldering}, {Adam}, {Antilogus}, {Astier},
526: {Bacon}, {Bongard}, {Bonnaud}, {Copin}, {Hardin}, {Henault}, {Howell},
527: {Lemonnier}, {Levy}, {Loken}, {Nugent}, {Pain}, {Pecontal}, {Pecontal},
528: {Perlmutter}, {Quimby}, {Schahmaneche}, {Smadja}, \&
529: {Wood-Vasey}}]{Aldering02SPIE}
530: {Aldering}, G., {Adam}, G., {Antilogus}, P., {Astier}, P., {Bacon}, R.,
531: {Bongard}, S., {Bonnaud}, C., {Copin}, Y., et al.
532: 2002, in Survey and Other Telescope Technologies and Discoveries. Edited by
533: Tyson, J. Anthony; Wolff, Sidney. Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 4836, pp.
534: 61-72 (2002), ed. J.~A. {Tyson} \& S.~{Wolff}, 61--72
535:
536: \bibitem[{{Altavilla} {et~al.}(2004){Altavilla}, {Fiorentino}, {Marconi},
537: {Musella}, {Cappellaro}, {Barbon}, {Benetti}, {Pastorello}, {Riello},
538: {Turatto}, \& {Zampieri}}]{Altavilla04MNRAS}
539: {Altavilla}, G., {Fiorentino}, G., {Marconi}, M., {Musella}, I.,
540: {Cappellaro}, E., {Barbon}, R., {Benetti}, S., {Pastorello}, A., et al.
541: 2004, \mnras, 349, 1344
542:
543: \bibitem[{{Astier} {et~al.}(2006){Astier}, {Guy}, {Regnault}, {Pain},
544: {Aubourg}, {Balam}, {Basa}, {Carlberg}, {Fabbro}, {Fouchez}, {Hook},
545: {Howell}, {Lafoux}, {Neill}, {Palanque-Delabrouille}, {Perrett}, {Pritchet},
546: {Rich}, {Sullivan}, {Taillet}, {Aldering}, {Antilogus}, {Arsenijevic},
547: {Balland}, {Baumont}, {Bronder}, {Courtois}, {Ellis}, {Filiol}, {Gon{\c
548: c}alves}, {Goobar}, {Guide}, {Hardin}, {Lusset}, {Lidman}, {McMahon},
549: {Mouchet}, {Mourao}, {Perlmutter}, {Ripoche}, {Tao}, \&
550: {Walton}}]{Astier06A&A}
551: {Astier}, P., {Guy}, J., {Regnault}, N., {Pain}, R., {Aubourg}, E., {Balam},
552: D., {Basa}, S., {Carlberg}, R.~G., et al. 2006, \aap, 447, 31, A06
553:
554: \bibitem[{{Branchini} {et~al.}(1999){Branchini}, {Teodoro}, {Frenk},
555: {Schmoldt}, {Efstathiou}, {White}, {Saunders}, {Sutherland},
556: {Rowan-Robinson}, {Keeble}, {Tadros}, {Maddox}, \& {Oliver}}]{BraTeoFre99}
557: {Branchini}, E., {Teodoro}, L., {Frenk}, C.~S., {Schmoldt}, I., {Efstathiou},
558: G., {White}, S.~D.~M., {Saunders}, W., {Sutherland}, W., et al. 1999,
559: \mnras, 308, 1
560:
561: \bibitem[{{Cooray} \& {Caldwell}(2006)}]{Cooray06PhRvD}
562: {Cooray}, A. \& {Caldwell}, R.~R. 2006, \prd, 73, 103002
563:
564: \bibitem[{{Eisenstein} {et~al.}(2005){Eisenstein}, {Zehavi}, {Hogg},
565: {Scoccimarro}, {Blanton}, {Nichol}, {Scranton}, {Seo}, {Tegmark}, {Zheng},
566: {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Bahcall}, {Brinkmann}, {Burles}, {Castander},
567: {Connolly}, {Csabai}, {Doi}, {Fukugita}, {Frieman}, {Glazebrook}, {Gunn},
568: {Hendry}, {Hennessy}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Kent}, {Knapp}, {Lin}, {Loh}, {Lupton},
569: {Margon}, {McKay}, {Meiksin}, {Munn}, {Pope}, {Richmond}, {Schlegel},
570: {Schneider}, {Shimasaku}, {Stoughton}, {Strauss}, {SubbaRao}, {Szalay},
571: {Szapudi}, {Tucker}, {Yanny}, \& {York}}]{Eisenstein05ApJ}
572: {Eisenstein}, D.~J., {Zehavi}, I., {Hogg}, D.~W., {Scoccimarro}, R., {Blanton},
573: M.~R., {Nichol}, R.~C., {Scranton}, R., {Seo}, H.-J., et al.
574: 2005, \apj, 633, 560
575:
576: \bibitem[{{Giovanelli} {et~al.}(1999){Giovanelli}, {Dale}, {Haynes}, {Hardy},
577: \& {Campusano}}]{GioDalHay99}
578: {Giovanelli}, R., {Dale}, D.~A., {Haynes}, M.~P., {Hardy}, E., \& {Campusano},
579: L.~E. 1999, \apj, 525, 25
580:
581: \bibitem[{{Hamuy} {et~al.}(1996){Hamuy}, {Phillips}, {Suntzeff}, {Schommer},
582: {Maza}, \& {Aviles}}]{Hamuy96AJ}
583: {Hamuy}, M., {Phillips}, M.~M., {Suntzeff}, N.~B., {Schommer}, R.~A.,
584: {Maza}, J., \& {Aviles}, R. 1996, \aj, 112, 2391
585:
586: \bibitem[{{Haugboelle} {et~al.}(2006){Haugboelle}, {Hannestad}, {Thomsen},
587: {Fynbo}, {Sollerman}, \& {Jha}}]{HauHanTho06}
588: {Haugboelle}, T., {Hannestad}, S., {Thomsen}, B., {Fynbo}, J., {Sollerman}, J.,
589: \& {Jha}, S. 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0612137)
590:
591: \bibitem[{{Hudson}(1993)}]{Hud93}
592: {Hudson}, M.~J. 1993, \mnras, 265, 43
593:
594: \bibitem[{Hudson(2003)}]{Hud03}
595: Hudson, M.~J. 2003, in Proceedings of the 15th Rencontres De Blois: Physical
596: Cosmology: New Results In Cosmology And The Coherence Of The Standard Model,
597: ed. J.~Bartlett, in press, preprint (astro-ph/0311072)
598:
599: \bibitem[{{Hudson} {et~al.}(2004){Hudson}, {Smith}, {Lucey}, \&
600: {Branchini}}]{HudSmiLuc04}
601: {Hudson}, M.~J., {Smith}, R.~J., {Lucey}, J.~R., \& {Branchini}, E. 2004,
602: \mnras, 352, 61
603:
604: \bibitem[{{Hui} \& {Greene}(2006)}]{Hui06PhRvD}
605: {Hui}, L. \& {Greene}, P.~B. 2006, \prd, 73, 123526
606:
607: \bibitem[{{ Jha}(2002)}]{Jha02PhDT}
608: {Jha}, S. 2002, PhD thesis, Harvard University
609:
610: \bibitem[{{Jha} {et~al.}(2006){Jha}, {Riess}, \& {Kirshner}}]{JhaRieKir06}
611: {Jha}, S., {Riess}, A.~G., \& {Kirshner}, R.~P. 2006, preprint
612: (astro-ph/0612666)
613:
614: \bibitem[{{ Krisciunas} {et~al.}(2001){Krisciunas}, {Phillips}, {Stubbs},
615: {Rest}, {Miknaitis}, {Riess}, {Suntzeff}, {Roth}, {Persson}, \&
616: {Freedman}}]{Krisciunas01AJ}
617: {Krisciunas}, K., {Phillips}, M.~M., {Stubbs}, C., {Rest}, A.,
618: {Miknaitis}, G., {Riess}, A.~G., {Suntzeff}, N.~B., {Roth}, M., et al.
619: 2001, \aj, 122, 1616
620:
621: \bibitem[{{ Krisciunas} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{a}}){Krisciunas}, {Phillips},
622: {Suntzeff}, {Persson}, {Hamuy}, {Antezana}, {Candia}, {Clocchiatti}, {DePoy},
623: {Germany}, {Gonzalez}, {Gonzalez}, {Krzeminski}, {Maza}, {Nugent}, {Qiu},
624: {Rest}, {Roth}, {Stritzinger}, {Strolger}, {Thompson}, {Williams}, \&
625: {Wischnjewsky}}]{Krisciunas04AJa}
626: {Krisciunas}, K., {Phillips}, M.~M., {Suntzeff}, N.~B., {Persson}, S.~E.,
627: {Hamuy}, M., {Antezana}, R., {Candia}, P., {Clocchiatti}, A., et al.
628: 2004{\natexlab{a}}, \aj, 127, 1664
629:
630: \bibitem[{{ Krisciunas} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{b}}){Krisciunas}, {Suntzeff},
631: {Phillips}, {Candia}, {Prieto}, {Antezana}, {Chassagne}, {Chen}, {Dickinson},
632: {Eisenhardt}, {Espinoza}, {Garnavich}, {Gonz{\'a}lez}, {Harrison}, {Hamuy},
633: {Ivanov}, {Krzemi{\'n}ski}, {Kulesa}, {McCarthy}, {Moro-Mart{\'{\i}}n},
634: {Muena}, {Noriega-Crespo}, {Persson}, {Pinto}, {Roth}, {Rubenstein},
635: {Stanford}, {Stringfellow}, {Zapata}, {Porter}, \&
636: {Wischnjewsky}}]{Krisciunas04AJb}
637: {Krisciunas}, K., {Suntzeff}, N.~B., {Phillips}, M.~M., {Candia}, P.,
638: {Prieto}, J.~L., {Antezana}, R., {Chassagne}, R., {Chen}, H.-W., et al.
639: 2004{\natexlab{b}}, \aj, 128, 3034
640:
641: \bibitem[{{Masters} {et~al.}(2006){Masters}, {Springob}, {Haynes}, \&
642: {Giovanelli}}]{MasSprHay06}
643: {Masters}, K.~L., {Springob}, C.~M., {Haynes}, M.~P., \& {Giovanelli}, R. 2006,
644: \apj, 653, 861
645:
646: \bibitem[{{Peebles}(1980)}]{Peebles80book}
647: {Peebles}, P.~J.~E. 1980, {The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe}
648: (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press)
649:
650: \bibitem[{{Perlmutter} {et~al.}(1999){Perlmutter}, {Aldering},
651: {Goldhaber}, {Knop}, {Nugent}, {Castro}, {Deustua}, {Fabbro}, {Goobar},
652: {Groom}, {Hook}, {Kim}, {Kim}, {Lee}, {Nunes}, {Pain}, {Pennypacker},
653: {Quimby}, {Lidman}, {Ellis}, {Irwin}, {McMahon}, {Ruiz-Lapuente}, {Walton},
654: {Schaefer}, {Boyle}, {Filippenko}, {Matheson}, {Fruchter}, {Panagia},
655: {Newberg}, {Couch}, \& {The Supernova Cosmology Project}}]{Perlmutter99ApJ}
656: {Perlmutter}, S., {Aldering}, G., {Goldhaber}, G., {Knop}, R.~A., {Nugent}, P.,
657: {Castro}, P.~G., {Deustua}, S., {Fabbro}, S., et al. \& {The Supernova
658: Cosmology Project}. 1999, \apj, 517, 565
659:
660: \bibitem[{{Pike} \& {Hudson}(2005)}]{PikHud05}
661: {Pike}, R.~W. \& {Hudson}, M.~J. 2005, \apj, 635, 11
662:
663: \bibitem[{{Radburn-Smith} {et~al.}(2004){Radburn-Smith}, {Lucey}, \&
664: {Hudson}}]{Radburn04MNRAS}
665: {Radburn-Smith}, D.~J., {Lucey}, J.~R., \& {Hudson}, M.~J. 2004, \mnras, 355,
666: 1378
667:
668: \bibitem[{{Riess} {et~al.}(1998){Riess}, {Filippenko}, {Challis},
669: {Clocchiatti}, {Diercks}, {Garnavich}, {Gilliland}, {Hogan}, {Jha},
670: {Kirshner}, {Leibundgut}, {Phillips}, {Reiss}, {Schmidt}, {Schommer},
671: {Smith}, {Spyromilio}, {Stubbs}, {Suntzeff}, \& {Tonry}}]{Riess98AJ}
672: {Riess}, A.~G., {Filippenko}, A.~V., {Challis}, P., {Clocchiatti}, A.,
673: {Diercks}, A., {Garnavich}, P.~M., {Gilliland}, R.~L., {Hogan}, C.~J.,
674: et al. 1998, \aj, 116, 1009
675:
676: \bibitem[{{ Riess} {et~al.}(1999){Riess}, {Kirshner}, {Schmidt}, {Jha},
677: {Challis}, {Garnavich}, {Esin}, {Carpenter}, {Grashius}, {Schild}, {Berlind},
678: {Huchra}, {Prosser}, {Falco}, {Benson}, {Brice{\~n}o}, {Brown}, {Caldwell},
679: {dell'Antonio}, {Filippenko}, {Goodman}, {Grogin}, {Groner}, {Hughes},
680: {Green}, {Jansen}, {Kleyna}, {Luu}, {Macri}, {McLeod}, {McLeod}, {McNamara},
681: {McLean}, {Milone}, {Mohr}, {Moraru}, {Peng}, {Peters}, {Prestwich},
682: {Stanek}, {Szentgyorgyi}, \& {Zhao}}]{Riess99AJ}
683: {Riess}, A.~G., {Kirshner}, R.~P., {Schmidt}, B.~P., {Jha}, S.,
684: {Challis}, P., {Garnavich}, P.~M., {Esin}, A.~A., {Carpenter}, C., et al.
685: 1999, \aj, 117, 707
686:
687: \bibitem[Riess et al.(2007)]{Riess07ApJ} Riess, A.~G., Strolger, L.-G.,
688: Casertano, S., Ferguson, H.~C., Mobasher, B., Gold, B., Challis,
689: P.~J., Filippenko, A.~V., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 659, 98
690:
691: \bibitem[{{Sarkar} {et~al.}(2006){Sarkar}, {Feldman}, \& {Watkins}}]{Sarkar06}
692: {Sarkar}, D., {Feldman}, H.~A., \& {Watkins}, R. 2006, preprint
693: (astro-ph/0607426)
694:
695: \bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2004){Smith}, {Hudson}, {Nelan}, {Moore}, {Quinney},
696: {Wegner}, {Lucey}, {Davies}, {Malecki}, {Schade}, \&
697: {Suntzeff}}]{SmiHudNel04}
698: {Smith}, R.~J., {Hudson}, M.~J., {Nelan}, J.~E., {Moore}, S.~A.~W., {Quinney},
699: S.~J., {Wegner}, G.~A., {Lucey}, J.~R., {Davies}, R.~L., et al.
700: 2004, \aj, 128, 1558
701:
702: \bibitem[{{ Strolger} {et~al.}(2002){Strolger}, {Smith}, {Suntzeff}, {Phillips},
703: {Aldering}, {Nugent}, {Knop}, {Perlmutter}, {Schommer}, {Ho}, {Hamuy},
704: {Krisciunas}, {Germany}, {Covarrubias}, {Candia}, {Athey}, {Blanc},
705: {Bonacic}, {Bowers}, {Conley}, {Dahl{\'e}n}, {Freedman}, {Galaz}, {Gates},
706: {Goldhaber}, {Goobar}, {Groom}, {Hook}, {Marzke}, {Mateo}, {McCarthy},
707: {M{\'e}ndez}, {Muena}, {Persson}, {Quimby}, {Roth}, {Ruiz-Lapuente},
708: {Seguel}, {Szentgyorgyi}, {von Braun}, {Wood-Vasey}, \&
709: {York}}]{Strolger02AJ}
710: {Strolger}, L.-G., {Smith}, R.~C., {Suntzeff}, N.~B., {Phillips}, M.~M.,
711: {Aldering}, G., {Nugent}, P., {Knop}, R., {Perlmutter}, S., et al.
712: 2002, \aj, 124, 2905
713:
714: \bibitem[{{Tonry} {et~al.}(2003){Tonry}, {Schmidt}, {Barris}, {Candia},
715: {Challis}, {Clocchiatti}, {Coil}, {Filippenko}, {Garnavich}, {Hogan},
716: {Holland}, {Jha}, {Kirshner}, {Krisciunas}, {Leibundgut}, {Li}, {Matheson},
717: {Phillips}, {Riess}, {Schommer}, {Smith}, {Sollerman}, {Spyromilio},
718: {Stubbs}, \& {Suntzeff}}]{Tonry03ApJ}
719: {Tonry}, J.~L., {Schmidt}, B.~P., {Barris}, B., {Candia}, P., {Challis}, P.,
720: {Clocchiatti}, A., {Coil}, A.~L., {Filippenko}, A.~V., et al.
721: 2003, \apj, 594, 1
722:
723: \bibitem[Watkins \& Feldman(2007)]{Watkins07astroph} Watkins, R., \&
724: Feldman, H.~A.\ 2007, preprint, (astro-ph/0702751)
725:
726: \bibitem[Willick \& Strauss(1998)]{Willick98ApJ} Willick, J.~A., \& Strauss,
727: M.~A.\ 1998, \apj, 507, 64
728:
729: \bibitem[{{Wood-Vasey} {et~al.}(2007){Wood-Vasey}, {Miknaitis}, {Stubbs},
730: {Jha}, {Riess}, {Garnavich}, {Kirshner}, {Aguilera}, {Becker}, {Blackman},
731: {Blondin}, {Challis}, {Clocchiatti}, {Conley}, {Covarrubias}, {Davis},
732: {Filippenko}, {Foley}, {Garg}, {Hicken}, {Krisciunas}, {Leibundgut}, {Li},
733: {Matheson}, {Miceli}, {Narayan}, {Pignata}, {Prieto}, {Rest}, {Salvo},
734: {Schmidt}, {Smith}, {Sollerman}, {Spyromilio}, {Tonry}, {Suntzeff}, \&
735: {Zenteno}}]{Wood-Vasey07astroph}
736: {Wood-Vasey}, W.~M., {Miknaitis}, G., {Stubbs}, C.~W., {Jha}, S., {Riess},
737: A.~G., {Garnavich}, P.~M., {Kirshner}, R.~P., {Aguilera}, C., et al.
738: 2007, preprint (astro-ph/0701041)
739:
740: \bibitem[{{Yahil} {et~al.}(1991){Yahil}, {Strauss}, {Davis}, \&
741: {Huchra}}]{YahStrDav91}
742: {Yahil}, A., {Strauss}, M.~A., {Davis}, M., \& {Huchra}, J.~P. 1991, \apj, 372,
743: 380
744:
745: \bibitem[{{Zehavi} {et~al.}(1998){Zehavi}, {Riess}, {Kirshner}, \&
746: {Dekel}}]{ZehRieKir98}
747: {Zehavi}, I., {Riess}, A.~G., {Kirshner}, R.~P., \& {Dekel}, A. 1998, \apj,
748: 503, 483
749:
750: \end{thebibliography}
751:
752: \end{document}
753:
754: