1: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}

2: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}

3: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: \usepackage{amsmath}

6: %\usepackage{mn}

7: %\usepackage{mn-nat}

8: 

9: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

10: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

11: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}

12: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

13: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

14: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}

15: \newcommand{\msun}{$M_{\odot}\hspace{1mm}$}

16: \newcommand{\wmap}{{\it WMAP }}

17: \newcommand{\kel}{$^{\circ} K\hspace{1mm}$}

18: \newcommand{\hs}{\hspace{1mm}}

19: \newcommand{\vs}{\vspace{2mm}}

20: \newcommand{\lya}{Ly$\alpha \hspace{1mm}$}

21: \newcommand{\ha}{H$\alpha \hspace{1mm}$}

22: \newcommand{\Mpc}{{\rm Mpc}}

23: \newcommand{\dPsidL}{$\partial \log \Psi/\partial \log L_B$}

24: \newcommand{\apj}{ApJ}

25: \newcommand{\apjl}{ApJL}

26: \newcommand{\mnras}{MNRAS}

27: \newcommand{\aj}{AJ}

28: \newcommand{\apjs}{ApJS}

29: \newcommand{\nat}{{\it Nature}}

30: \newcommand{\pasj}{PASJ}

31: \newcommand{\kms}{{\rm ~km\,s^{-1}}}

32: \newcommand{\GC}{{\rm GC}}

33: \newcommand{\LG}{{\rm LG}}

34: \newcommand{\ZoA}{{\rm ZoA}}

35: \newcommand{\CMB}{{\rm CMB}}

36: 

37: 

38: % definition to produce a "less than or similar to" symbol

39: \def\lsim{~\rlap{$<$}{\lower 1.0ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

40: 

41: % definition to produce a "greater than or similar to" symbol

42: \def\gsim{~\rlap{$>$}{\lower 1.0ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

43: %

44: 

45: \voffset = -5mm

46: 

47: \title[Local Group Dynamics]{Dynamical Constraints on the Local Group

48: from the CMB and 2MRS Dipoles}

49: 

50: \author[Loeb \& Narayan]{Abraham Loeb and Ramesh Narayan\\ Astronomy

51: Department, Harvard University, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138\\Email:

52: aloeb@cfa.harvard.edu, rnarayan@cfa.harvard.edu}

53: 

54: 

55: \begin{document}

56: 

57: %\date{\today}

58: %\pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2006}

59: 

60: \maketitle

61: 

62: \label{firstpage}

63: \begin{abstract}

64: 

65: We place constraints on the dynamics of the Local Group (LG) by

66: comparing the dipole of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) with the

67: peculiar velocity induced by the 2MRS galaxy sample. The analysis is

68: limited by the lack of surveyed galaxies behind the Zone of Avoidance

69: (ZoA). We therefore allow for a component of the LG velocity due to

70: unknown mass concentrations behind the ZoA, as well as for an unknown

71: transverse velocity of the Milky Way relative to the Andromeda galaxy.

72: We infer extra motion along the direction of the Galactic center

73: (where Galactic confusion and dust obscuration peaks) at the $95\%$

74: significance level.  With a future survey of the ZoA it might be

75: possible to constrain the transverse velocity of the Milky Way

76: relative to Andromeda.

77: 

78: \end{abstract}

79: 

80: \begin{keywords}

81: cosmology: large scale structure

82: \end{keywords}

83: 

84: \section{Introduction}

85: 

86: The amplitude of the dipole of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is two

87: orders of magnitude larger than the characteristic amplitude of the

88: higher-order multipoles of its anisotropies \citep{Kogut}.  It is therefore

89: widely believed that the CMB dipole originates from the Doppler effect of

90: our peculiar velocity, which is induced by inhomogeneities in the local

91: universe \citep{Huchra,Conklin,Henry} rather than by a primordial origin

92: \citep{Gunn,Piran}. Indeed, 21cm surveys employing the Tully-Fisher

93: relation for distance calibration have inferred that the peculiar velocity

94: of the Local Group (LG) relative to distant galaxies converges within a

95: distance of $\sim 5,000~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ or $\sim 70$Mpc

96: \citep{Giovanelli,DG}

97: \footnote{We note that the distance at which dipole

98: convergence is achieved is still controversial. Surveys of galaxy clusters

99: imply large convergence distances (Plionis et al 2000; Basilakos \& Plionis

100: 2006; Ebeling et al. 2002, 2005; Kocevski 2005) but are affected by the

101: strong bias and Poisson fluctuations of clusters relative to the underlying

102: matter distribution. In this paper we assume that convergence is

103: reached within the maximum 2MRS distance of 280Mpc or $\sim 20,000

104: \kms$ (see \S 4.2 for the justification of this assumption).}.  This

105: important result confirms the notion that the peculiar velocity is induced

106: within that distance, since otherwise the distant galaxies would also be

107: moving relative to the CMB together with the LG.

108: 

109: Surveys of galaxies in the local universe have attempted over the past two

110: decades to explain the amplitude and direction of the CMB dipole within a

111: distance of $\gsim 100$Mpc \citep{LB,Strauss,conf1,conf2,conf3,conf4} The

112: adopted method assumes that: {\it (i)} the LG peculiar motion is induced by

113: gravity; and {\it (ii)} the amplitude of inhomogeneities in the

114: distribution of the observed light from galaxies traces the underlying mass

115: distribution on large spatial scales with a constant bias factor $b$. The

116: latest results, based on the 2 Micron All-Sky Redshift Survey (2MRS,

117: Erdo{\u g}du et al. 2006), show convergence of the flux-weighted dipole in

118: the galaxy survey out to $\sim 150~{\rm Mpc}$ but still indicate a

119: discrepancy of $24^\circ \pm 8^\circ$ with the direction of the CMB dipole.

120: 

121: The main limitation of the 2MRS sample results from the lack of sample

122: galaxies behind the Zone of Avoidance (ZoA), a strip around the Milky Way

123: disk where confusion and dust obscuration compromise the survey

124: efficiency. For lack of better information, the 2MRS analysis is also based

125: on the assumption that the Milky-Way galaxy is moving radially towards the

126: Andromeda galaxy (M31) with no transverse motion \citep{Vanden}. Our goal

127: in this paper is to constrain the unknown peculiar velocity of the

128: LG within the ZoA as well the unknown transverse speed of the Milky-Way

129: relative to Andromeda, by requiring a match between the 2MRS and CMB

130: dipoles.  The contribution of mass concentrations outside the survey volume

131: of 2MRS can be ignored based on the success of Tully-Fisher surveys in

132: converging to the CMB dipole within the same volume \citep{Giovanelli,DG}.

133: 

134: The outline of this paper is as follows. We first summarize the

135: existing data on the LG velocity from the CMB and Galactic measurements (\S

136: 2) as well as from the 2MRS analysis (\S 3). We then compare the results

137: from the CMB and 2MRS data sets and interpret our results in the context of

138: transverse motion of the Milky Way relative to the LG (\S 4.1), structure

139: beyond the extent of 2MRS (\S 4.2), and

140: nearby structure within the ZoA (\S 4.3).  We conclude that the last

141: effect is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between the CMB

142: and 2MRS dipoles.  We also derive the

143: likelihood function for the bias parameter $b$ of the 2MRS galaxies.

144: Finally, we discuss the implications of our results in \S 5. Throughout our

145: analysis, we use Galactic Cartesian coordinates in which the $x$-axis is

146: oriented towards the Galactic Center, i.e., towards longitude $l=0$ and

147: latitude $b=0$, $y$ is in the direction $l=90^\circ,b=0$, and $z$ is in the

148: direction $b=90^\circ$.

149: 

150: \section{CMB Dipole and Galactic Measurements}

151: 

152: The velocity of the Sun with respect to the CMB is $369.5\pm3.0 \kms$

153: towards $l=264.4^\circ\pm0.3^\circ$, $b=48.4^\circ\pm0.5^\circ$ (Kogut

154: et al. 1993).  In the Cartesian Galactic coordinate system,

155: \begin{equation}

156: \vec{v}_{\odot-\CMB} = (-23.9\pm1.3,-244.1\pm3.1,276.3\pm3.1) \kms.

157: \label{vSunCMB}

158: \end{equation}

159: Here and elsewhere, we add errors in quadrature and ignore possible

160: correlations between errors.

161: 

162: Courteau \& van den Bergh (1999) estimate the velocity of the Sun with

163: respect to the center of mass of the Local Group (LG) to be $306\pm18

164: \kms$ towards $l=99^\circ\pm5^\circ, b=-4^\circ\pm4^\circ$:

165: \begin{equation}

166: \vec{v}_{\odot-\LG} = (-47.8\pm26.5,301.5\pm18.3,-21.3\pm21.3) \kms.

167: \label{CvdB}

168: \end{equation}

169: The model used for this derivation assumed statistical isotropy of the

170: velocity distribution of the LG galaxies, which may not be satisfied

171: since most LG members are low-mass galaxies concentrated around the

172: Milky Way or Andromeda.  Therefore, instead of using this estimate we

173: will sum the best estimates for the velocity of the Sun with respect

174: to the Galactic Center (GC), $\vec{v}_{\odot-\GC}$, and the velocity

175: of the GC with respect to the LG, $\vec{v}_{\GC-\LG}$.

176: 

177: Reid \& Brunthaler (2004) have measured the proper motion of Sgr A$^*$

178: to be $-6.379\pm0.026 ~{\rm mas\,yr^{-1}}$ in longitude and

179: $-0.202\pm0.019 ~{\rm mas\,yr^{-1}}$ in latitude.  Since Sgr A$^*$ is

180: almost certainly at rest with respect to the GC, its proper motion is

181: entirely due to the component of the Sun's motion in the $y$ and $z$

182: directions.  To get these velocity components it is necessary to

183: specify the distance to the GC, for which we adopt the estimate of

184: Eisenhauer et al. (2003): $R_0 = 7.94\pm0.42 ~{\rm kpc}$.  For the $x$

185: component of the Sun's velocity we take the estimate of Dehnen \&

186: Binney (1999): $10.0\pm0.36 \kms$.  Thus,

187: \begin{equation}

188: \vec{v}_{\odot-\GC} = (10.0\pm0.36,240.1\pm12.7,7.6\pm0.8) \kms.

189: \label{vSunGC}

190: \end{equation}

191: 

192: The radial velocity of the Sun towards M31 is $-297 \kms$ according to

193: Mateo (1998), which is slightly different from the value given by

194: Courteau \& van den Bergh (1999), namely $301 \kms$.  We 

195: adopt Mateo's value and include a generous error estimate: $-297\pm5

196: \kms$.  The direction to M31 is $l=121.2^\circ, b=-21.6^\circ$. The

197: unit vector in this direction is

198: \begin{equation}

199: \hat{n}_{{\rm M31}} = (-0.4816,0.7953,-0.3681).

200: \end{equation}

201: The component of the Sun-GC velocity parallel to this unit vector is

202: $183.3\pm10.1 \kms$.  The remainder of the line-of-sight velocity

203: between the Sun and M31, $297\pm5\kms$, must be due to the relative

204: motion between the GC and M31.  Thus, we find

205: \begin{equation}

206: v_{||,\GC-{\rm M31}} \equiv \vec{v}_{\GC-{\rm M31}}\cdot\hat{n}_{{\rm M31}}

207: =113.7\pm11.3 \kms.

208: \end{equation}

209: Various estimates of the total mass of M31 place it between 4/3 (Mateo

210: 1998) and 3/2 (Courteau \& van den Bergh 1999) of the mass of the

211: Milky Way.  Thus, we estimate the parallel component of the Galaxy's

212: velocity with respect to the center of mass of the LG to be

213: \begin{equation}

214: v_{||,\GC-\LG} = 66.6 \pm 6.7 \kms.

215: \label{vparGCLG}

216: \end{equation}

217: 

218: Combining equations (\ref{vSunGC}) and (\ref{vparGCLG}), and assuming

219: that the Milky Way has no transverse velocity with respect to the LG,

220: we calculate the velocity of the Sun with respect to the LG to be

221: \begin{equation}

222: \vec{v}_{\odot-\LG}=(-22.1\pm3.2,293.1\pm13.8,-16.9\pm2.6) 

223: ~\kms.

224: \end{equation}

225: We note that this estimate agrees with that given by Courteau \& van

226: den Bergh (1999) in equation (\ref{CvdB}), to within the errors.  

227: %This

228: %agreement suggests that there is indeed very little transverse motion

229: %of the Galaxy around the LG center of mass, which is not surprising.

230: 

231: Combining our estimate of $\vec{v}_{\odot-\LG}$ with the measured

232: velocity of the Sun with respect to the CMB, $\vec{v}_{\odot-\CMB}$

233: (eq. \ref{vSunCMB}), we obtain

234: \begin{equation}

235: \vec{v}_{\LG-\CMB}=(-1.8\pm3.5,-537.2\pm14.1,293.2\pm4.0)

236: ~\kms . 

237: \label{vLGCMB1}

238: \end{equation}

239: 

240: \section{Local Group Motion from 2MRS}

241: 

242: The 2 Micron All-Sky Redshift Survey (2MRS) includes a sample of

243: infrared-selected galaxies out to an expansion velocity of $\sim

244: 20,000 \kms$.  By assuming a constant mass-to-light ratio per

245: unit volume, the light distribution of these galaxies has been used to

246: derive the gravitational acceleration of the LG due to structure in

247: the local universe (Erdo{\u g}du et al. 2006).  From the {\it

248: flux-weighted} results in the {\it CMB frame} reported by Erdo{\u g}du

249: et al. (2006) in their Table 1, the expected velocity of the LG with

250: respect to the CMB is $(1620\pm327)f(\Omega_m)/b \kms$ towards the

251: direction $l=247^\circ\pm11^\circ, b=37^\circ\pm10^\circ$.  Here,

252: $f(\Omega_m) \approx \Omega_m^{0.6}$, where $\Omega_m$ is the matter

253: density of the universe, and $b$ is the mean bias factor of the

254: galaxies contributing to the acceleration of the LG.

255: 

256: Tegmark et al. (2006) have combined WMAP and SDSS data to estimate

257: $\Omega_m = 0.24 \pm 0.02$, which gives $\Omega_m^{0.6} =

258: 0.425\pm0.021$.  The 2MRS data then yield the following prediction for

259: the velocity of the LG with respect to the CMB,

260: \begin{equation}

261: b\vec{v}_{\LG-\CMB}=(-214.8\pm110.6, -506.1

262: \pm131.1,414.4\pm128.9) \kms . 

263: \label{vLGCMB2}

264: \end{equation}

265: The error estimates include shot noise but not the effect of the

266: missing information in the ZoA.  The latter is discussed in \S~4.3.

267: 

268: A comparison of the velocity estimates given in (\ref{vLGCMB1}) and

269: (\ref{vLGCMB2}) suggests that, regardless of the value of the bias

270: factor $b$, there is a substantial discrepancy.  Let us adjust $b$ so

271: as to minimize the magnitude of the discrepancy.  The minimum occurs

272: at $b=1.056$.  The corresponding velocity discrepancy between

273: (\ref{vLGCMB1}) and (\ref{vLGCMB2}) is then

274: \begin{equation}

275: \Delta\vec{v} = (201.6\pm104.8, -57.9

276: \pm124.9,-99.2\pm122.1) \kms .

277: \label{vLGCMB3}

278: \end{equation}

279: The deviation is most significant in the $x$-components of the two

280: velocities.  Erdo{\u g}du et al. (2006), who noted this discrepancy,

281: offered a number of possible

282: explanations for the misalignment between the CMB and 2MRS dipoles.  

283: We discuss three possibilities.

284: 

285: \section{Explanations for the Discrepancy Between the CMB and 

286: 2MRS Dipoles}

287: 

288: \subsection{Transverse Motion of the Milky Way}

289: 

290: The velocity estimate given in equation (\ref{vLGCMB1}) assumes that

291: the Milky Way has no transverse motion around the LG center of mass.

292: We investigate if such motion might explain the velocity discrepancy.

293: 

294: We begin by considering the component of $\vec{v}_{\LG-\CMB}$ towards

295: M31 (i.e., parallel to $\hat{n}_{{\rm M31}}$) 

296: since this component is independent of

297: the transverse velocity.  Equating the components of the velocities

298: (\ref{vLGCMB1}) and (\ref{vLGCMB2}) along this direction, we solve for

299: the bias factor to obtain $b=0.845\pm0.237$.  The central value is not

300: very likely since it is less than unity.  Nevertheless, we substitute

301: this estimate of the bias back into the two expressions for

302: $\vec{v}_{\LG-\CMB}$ to infer the transverse velocity of the Galaxy

303: around the LG center of mass:

304: \begin{equation}

305: \vec{v}_{\perp,\GC-\LG} =  (252.4\pm130.9, 61.7\pm155.8, -197.2\pm152.6) \kms.

306: \end{equation}

307: Including the reflex motion of M31, this estimate predicts the

308: following proper motion of M31,

309: \begin{equation}

310: \vec{v}_{\rm M31-MW} = (-429\pm223, -105\pm265, 335\pm259) \kms.

311: \end{equation}

312: If instead we use the estimate $b=1.056$ which we obtained in \S~3,

313: then

314: \begin{equation}

315: \vec{v}_{\rm M31-MW} = (-343\pm178, 98\pm212, 169\pm208) \kms.

316: \end{equation}

317: In either case, we see that we require a large transverse velocity of

318: M31 with respect to the Milky Way, whose most significant component is

319: a large velocity towards the Galactic Anticenter.

320: 

321: Loeb et al. (2005) constrained the proper motion of Andromeda to be $\sim

322: 100\pm 20 \kms$ based on the measured proper motion of its satellite M33

323: and the requirement that M33 should not be tidally disrupted in the past.

324: Van der Marel \& Guhathakurta (2007) assumed that M31's satellites on

325: average follow Andromeda's motion relative to the Local Group; they

326: accordingly used the line-of-sight velocities of 17 satellites of Andromeda

327: and 5 galaxies at the outskirts of the Local Group, as well as the proper

328: motions of M33 and IC10, to infer $\vec{v}_{\rm M31-LG} = (97\pm35, -67\pm26,

329: 80\pm32) \kms$. The transverse speed of Andromeda inferred by these studies

330: is well below the central value needed to explain the discrepancy between

331: the 2MRS and the CMB dipoles. Moreover, the $x$-component of the velocity

332: inferred by Van der Marel \& Guhathakurta (2007) is positive whereas the

333: CMB-LG discrepancy requires a large negative value.

334: 

335: As a side note, we use the Courteau \& van den Bergh (1999) estimate

336: of the Sun's motion relative to the LG to obtain the velocity of the

337: Galaxy with respect to the LG:

338: \begin{equation}

339: \vec{v}_{\GC-\LG} = (-57.8\pm26.5,59.6\pm18.3,-29.0\pm21.3) \kms.

340: \end{equation}

341: This gives a speed along the GC-LG direction of $85.9\pm20.9 \kms$,

342: which is statistically consistent with our previous more accurate

343: estimate of $66.6\pm6.7 \kms$.  For the transverse speed, the estimate

344: of Courteau \& van den Bergh (1999) gives $18.6\pm32.4 \kms$, which is

345: again much smaller than the velocity discrepancy we seek to explain.

346: 

347: In the next two subsections we assume that the Milky Way has

348: negligible velocity transverse to the LG center of mass and consider

349: whether incompleteness in the 2MRS might explain the misalignment

350: between the CMB and 2MRS dipoles.

351: 

352: \subsection{Structure Beyond the Maximum Distance of 2MRS}

353: 

354: The 2MRS sample of Erdo{\u g}du et al. (2006) extends out to a velocity of

355: $20,000 \kms$.  Figure 6 of their paper shows that the flux-weighted dipole

356: in the CMB frame receives most of its contribution from inside about $4,000

357: \kms$, which is much shorter than the limiting distance of the survey.

358: This suggests that any contribution from beyond the survey volume is likely

359: to be quite small.

360: 

361: To verify this, we considered two logarithmically spaced velocity bins in

362: the 2MRS sample: Bin I, $5,000$--$10,000\kms$, and Bin 2,

363: $10,000$--$20,000\kms$.  From the data given in Table 1 of Erdo{\u g}du

364: et al. (2006), we computed the mean square contribution to the quantity

365: $(b/f(\Omega_m)) v_{\LG-\CMB}$ from each of the two bins.  We obtained

366: $(162\kms)^2$ and $(64\kms)^2$ from Bins 1 and 2, respectively.  The

367: numerical estimates are consistent with a scale-invariant Cold Dark Matter

368: (LCDM) power spectrum in the linear regime, for which the mean square

369: velocity should vary roughly as the inverse square of the distance (Peacock

370: 1998).  We then estimate the root mean square contribution from the rest of

371: the universe beyond $20,000\kms$ to be $(b/f(\Omega_m))

372: v_{\LG-\CMB}\sim 80\kms$.  For $f(\Omega_m)/b \approx 0.4$ (Erdo{\u g}du et

373: al. 2006), this gives $v_{\LG-\CMB}(>20,000\kms)\sim 30\kms$, which is

374: very much smaller than the $\sim 200\kms$ we need to eliminate the

375: misalignment between the CMB and 2MRS dipoles (eq. \ref{vLGCMB3}).

376: 

377: Peacock (1992) analysed the expected convergence of the dipole velocity

378: with distance based on the large-scale power spectrum. He finds that the

379: misalignment angle between the true CMB dipole and the dipole measured

380: within a finite survey volume is expected to be negligible beyond a

381: distance of $20,000\kms$ ($\sim 280$Mpc). Hence, distant structure beyond

382: the limit of 2MRS is very unlikely to be the source of the inferred

383: discrepancy between the CMB and 2MRS dipoles.

384: 

385: \subsection{Nearby Structure in the ZOA}

386: 

387: Finally, we consider the possibility that nearby galaxies inside the

388: ZoA may be responsible for the discrepancy between the CMB and 2MRS

389: dipoles.  Erdo{\u g}du et al. (2006) state that the ZoA for their

390: survey corresponded to the area $|b|<5^\circ$ for $|l|>30^\circ$ and

391: $|b|<10^\circ$ for $|l|<30^\circ$.  Given this information plus their

392: estimate of the contribution to $\vec{v}_{\LG-\CMB}$ from the region

393: of the sky covered by their survey, we estimate the {\it

394: root-mean-square} contribution of the ZoA to each of the components of

395: the LG velocity to be,

396: \begin{eqnarray}

397: \sigma_{\ZoA,x} &=& 168.7/b \kms, \label{ZoAx} \\

398: \sigma_{\ZoA,y} &=& 150.2/b \kms, \label{ZoAy} \\ 

399: \sigma_{\ZoA,z} &=& 15.5/b \kms. \label{ZoAz}

400: \end{eqnarray}

401: As expected, the contribution in the $z$ direction is small.

402: 

403: Multiplying equation (\ref{vLGCMB1}) by $b$ and subtracting from

404: equation (\ref{vLGCMB2}), we obtain the following estimates for the

405: contribution of the ZoA to the velocity of the LG,

406: \begin{eqnarray}

407: bv_{\ZoA,x}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!214.8-1.8b;

408: \ \sigma=\left(110.6^2+3.5^2b^2\right)^{1/2}, \\

409: bv_{\ZoA,y}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!506.1-537.2b; 

410: \ \sigma=\left(131.1^2+14.1^2b^2\right)^{1/2}, \\

411: bv_{\ZoA,z}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!-414.4+293.2 b;  

412: \ \sigma=\left(128.9^2+4.0^2b^2\right)^{1/2},

413: \end{eqnarray}

414: where the {\it root-mean-square} uncertainty in each expression is

415: given by the $\sigma$ value on the right, and all quantities are in

416: $\kms$.  These three equations can be used to derive an expression for

417: the likelihood of the three velocity components.  Before writing this

418: likelihood function we note that we have calculated in equations

419: (\ref{ZoAx})--(\ref{ZoAz}) the {\it root-mean-square} expectation

420: values of $bv_{\ZoA,x}$, $bv_{\ZoA,y}$ and $bv_{\ZoA,z}$, which supply

421: us with the prior distributions of these three velocities.  In

422: addition, we have a fourth unknown quantity, namely the bias factor

423: $b$, for which we adopt a flat prior.

424: 

425: We thus obtain the following likelihood function for the four

426: unknowns,

427: \begin{eqnarray}

428: & &P(bv_{\ZoA,x},b v_{\ZoA,y},bv_{\ZoA,z},b)

429: %d(bv_{\ZoA,x}) d(b v_{\ZoA,y})d(bv_{\ZoA,z})db 

430: \nonumber \\ 

431: & &\propto \exp\left[-{(b v_{\ZoA,x})^2\over 2(168.7)^2}-

432: {(bv_{\ZoA,x}-214.8+1.8b)^2\over2(110.6^2+3.5^2b^2)}\right] \times

433: \nonumber \\ &~& \exp\left[-{(b v_{\ZoA,y})^2\over 2(150.2)^2}-

434: {(bv_{\ZoA,y}-506.1+537.2b)^2\over2(131.1^2+14.1^2b^2)}\right] \times

435: \nonumber \\ &~& \exp\left[-{(b v_{\ZoA,z})^2\over 2(15.5)^2}-

436: {(bv_{\ZoA,z}+414.4-293.2b)^2\over2(128.9^2+4.0^2b^2)}\right] 

437: %\times

438: %\nonumber \\ &~&~~~d(b v_{\ZoA,x}) d(b v_{\ZoA,y}) d(bv_{\ZoA,z})

439: %db

440: . 

441: \label{likelihood}

442: \end{eqnarray}

443: By marginalizing this likelihood over any three of the four unknown

444: quantities, we obtain the probability distribution for the fourth.

445: 

446: The results are shown by the solid lines in Fig. 1.  We find that the

447: bias factor has a fairly broad distribution with a $1\sigma$ range

448: from $\sim0.85$ to $\sim1.4$.  Since it is most unlikely that the

449: galaxies detected by 2MASS would have a bias less than unity, we have

450: repeated the calculations with a prior for $b$ truncated below unity.

451: The corresponding results are shown by the dotted lines.

452: 

453: \begin{figure}

454: \begin{center}

455: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{bvpanels.eps}

456: \caption{Marginalized probability distributions of $bv_{\ZoA,x}$,

457: $bv_{\ZoA,y}$, $bv_{\ZoA,z}$ and $b$.  The distributions have been

458: normalized such that their maxima are equal to unity.  The solid lines

459: correspond to a flat prior for $b$ extending from 0 to infinity, while

460: the dotted lines correspond to a prior in which $b$ is restricted to

461: be $\geq1$}

462: \end{center}

463: \end{figure}

464: 

465: Figure 1 indicates that $bv_{\ZoA,x}$ has a $95\%$ probability of

466: being positive (a strong $2\sigma$ result), while $bv_{\ZoA,y}$ has a

467: $68\%$ probability of being negative (a weaker $1\sigma$ result).  The

468: most likely values of these two components are $bv_{\ZoA,x}\sim 150

469: ~\kms$ and $bv_{\ZoA,y}\sim -60 ~\kms$, though each has a broad

470: probability distribution.  When we restrict the bias factor to $b \geq

471: 1$ (dotted lines in Fig. 1), the corresponding numerical results are

472: $95\%$, $82\%$, $150 ~\kms$ and $-100 ~\kms$, respectively.  The

473: velocity component $bv_{\ZoA,z}$ is consistent with zero, as expected.

474: 

475: In contrast to our analysis in \S\S~4.1

476: and 4.2, where the particular explanations considered there 

477: were easily ruled out,

478: now we see that acceleration from galaxies in the ZoA may well explain

479: the misalignment between the CMB and 2MRS dipoles.  The magnitude of the

480: velocity discrepancy is consistent with the expected contribution from

481: the ZoA (described by our estimates of $\sigma_{\ZoA,x-z}$).

482: Moreover, the additional acceleration from the ZoA is expected to be

483: in the $x$--$y$ plane, and most likely in the $x$ direction, i.e.,

484: towards the Galactic Center where obscuration is maximum.  This is

485: exactly the sense of the velocity discrepancy.  

486: Given this encouraging agreement, we predict that a

487: survey of the ZoA would find additional structure in the nearby

488: universe, especially behind the Galactic Center region.

489: 

490: \begin{figure}

491: \begin{center}

492: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{vpanels.eps}

493: \caption{Marginalized probability distributions of $v_{\ZoA,x}$,

494: $v_{\ZoA,y}$, $v_{\ZoA,z}$ and $b$.  The distributions have been

495: normalized such that their maxima are equal to unity.  The solid and

496: dotted lines are as in Fig. 1.  The distribution of $b$ is identical

497: to the one shown in Fig. 1.}

498: \end{center}

499: \end{figure}

500: 

501: Figure 1 corresponds to the probability distributions of the

502: components of the {\it bias-multiplied} velocity $b\vec{v}_{\ZoA}$

503: since these quantities are most directly related to the 2MRS survey.

504: For completeness we show in Fig. 2 the distributions of the velocity

505: components themselves.  These were calculated in the same way, except

506: that we considered the likelihood function $P(v_{\ZoA,x}, v_{\ZoA,y},

507: v_{\ZoA,z}, b)$.  This quantity is almost the same as the likelihood

508: given in equation (\ref{likelihood}) except that it differs by the

509: following Jacobian,

510: \begin{equation}

511: J \equiv {\partial(bv_{\ZoA,x}, bv_{\ZoA,y}, bv_{\ZoA,z}, b) \over

512: \partial(v_{\ZoA,x}, v_{\ZoA,y}, v_{\ZoA,z}, b)} = b^3.

513: \end{equation}

514: 

515: Figure 2 is generally consistent with the results in Fig. 1.  For

516: completeness we note the following numerical results: The probability

517: of $v_{\ZoA,x}$ being positive is $95\%$ and the most likely value

518: of this velocity component is $120 ~\kms$ (solid line) and $110 ~\kms$

519: (dotted line).  The probability of $v_{\ZoA,y}$ being negative is

520: $68\%/82\%$ (solid/dotted line) and the most likely value is $-80/-90

521: ~\kms$ (solid/dotted line).

522: 

523: The 2MRS results that we have used from Erdo{\u g}du et al. (2006)

524: correspond to their ``second method'' of treating the ZoA, in which

525: they fill the ZoA with structure consistent with that found in

526: neighboring latitude strips.  We do not know how effective this method

527: is at predicting the missing information.  If it were perfect, there

528: should be no discrepancy between 2MRS and the direction of the CMB

529: dipole.  In our analysis, we have assumed that 2MRS has no information

530: at all inside the ZoA.  To be consistent with this assumption, we

531: should ideally use the results corresponding to Erdo{\u g}du et al.'s

532: ``first method,'' in which the authors simply fill the ZoA with random

533: galaxies.  Unfortunately, their paper does not give a table of results

534: corresponding to this method.

535: 

536: \section{Discussion}

537: 

538: We have obtained new constraints on the dynamics of the Local Group by

539: comparing the CMB and the 2MRS dipoles. The analysis is limited by the

540: lack of surveyed galaxies behind the Zone of Avoidance (ZoA).  In

541: order to match the CMB and 2MRS dipoles, we have inferred excess

542: motion (that is not acounted for by 2MRS) along the direction of the

543: Galactic center (\S 4.2). This happens to be the most natural

544: direction for hiding mass concentrations because it is associated with

545: enhanced confusion and dust obscuration by the Galaxy.

546: 

547: The implications of our findings have a simple interpretation.  To acquire

548: an excess peculiar velocity $\Delta v$ towards the ZoA over the age of the

549: Universe, $\Delta t=1.4\times 10^{10}~{\rm yr}$, requires an average

550: acceleration of order $g \sim \Delta v/\Delta t$.  Assuming that this

551: acceleration is induced gravitationally (i.e. $g\sim GM/d^2$) by a hidden

552: object of mass $M$ at a characteristic distance $d$, we get the simple

553: scaling relation for the required mass: $M_{12} \sim 1.7 v_7 d_0^2$,

554: where $M_{12}=(M/10^{12}M_\odot)$, $v_7=(\Delta v/100~{\rm km~s^{-1}})$ and

555: $d_0=(d/1~{\rm Mpc})$.  According to Fig. 2, the most likely value of the

556: excess velocity towards the GC is $\Delta v\equiv v_{\rm ZOA,x}\sim

557: 120~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$, which requires a hidden galaxy comparable in mass to

558: Andromeda ($M\sim 2\times 10^{12}M_\odot$) at a distance of $\sim 1$ Mpc,

559: or a hidden galaxy cluster comparable in mass to the Coma cluster ($M\sim

560: 10^{15}M_\odot$) at a distance of $\sim 20$ Mpc. At these distances, the

561: inner 10 kpc diameter of a hidden galaxy would occupy an angle of $\sim

562: 0.6^\circ$, and the inner 1Mpc diameter of a hidden cluster would occupy

563: $\sim 2.5^\circ$.  An extended supercluster might not be fully hidden

564: behind the ZoA.  As argued in \S 4.2, it is very unlikely that structure

565: beyond the maximum distance of 2MRS of $\sim 280$ Mpc ($\sim 20,000

566: \kms$) accounts for the discrepancy. The LCDM power spectrum would

567: typically account for a velocity offset that is an order of magnitude

568: smaller than the central value we infer.

569: 

570: The above possible objects are already constrained by existing data. In

571: particular, a new galaxy cluster must have escaped detection by dedicated

572: ZoA searches in the X-ray band (Ebeling et al 2002, 2005; Kocevski 2005),

573: optical galaxy searches (Roman et al 1998; Wakamatsu et al. 2005; Hasegawa

574: et al. 2000) and 21cm surveys (Meyer et al 2004; Henning et al.2005;

575: Kraan-Korteweg et al. 2007). Similarly, a nearby galaxy must have escaped

576: detection by 2MRS as well as existing 21cm surveys.  We are not in a 

577: position to evaluate how likely this is.

578: 

579: We note that the excess mass we predict behind the GC will have an 

580: associated infrared flux which is independent of the

581: attractor's mass and is linearly proprtional to $\Delta v$, since it scales

582: as $\propto M/d^2$ for a fixed mass-to-light ratio. Erdo{\u g}du et

583: al. (2006) infer a net luminosity density of $(7.67\pm 1.02)\times 10^8 h

584: L_\odot~{\rm Mpc^{-3}}$ for the 2MRS galaxies. When compared to the average

585: matter density of the Universe for $\Omega_m=0.24$ and $h=0.7$, this

586: results in a predicted excess radiation flux of $\sim 2.4\times 10^{9} v_7

587: L_\odot{\rm ~Mpc^{-2}}$ behind the GC.

588: 

589: Unfortunately, the current error budget is too large to provide a

590: useful constraint on the transverse velocity of the Milky Way relative

591: to the Andromeda galaxy (\S 4.1).  A future survey of the ZoA might

592: allow to determine this transverse velocity by requiring a match

593: between the peculiar velocity inferred for the local group and the CMB

594: dipole.  The bias parameter of the surveyed galaxies, $b$, could be

595: determined by requiring that the inferred radial velocity of Andromeda

596: relative to the Milky-Way will match its observed value. It would then

597: be possible set a lower limit on the local group mass so that the two

598: galaxies will be gravitationally bound.

599: 

600: Measuring the relative transverse velocity of the Milky-Way and Andromeda

601: is of great interest, since it would affect the future trajectory of the

602: two galaxies (Cox \& Loeb 2007) and will determine whether the LG is likely

603: to be gravitationally bound (Binney \& Tremaine 1986). Current methods for

604: inferring the transverse speed (Loeb et al. 2005; van der Marel \&

605: Guhathakurta 2007) are indirect and highly uncertain.  A future ZoA survey

606: for infrared or 21cm galaxies (Henning et al. 2005) would provide a new

607: elegant path for constraining this unknown velocity component, which is

608: difficult to measure otherwise.

609: 

610: 

611: \bigskip

612: 

613: {\bf Acknowledgments} The authors thank John Huchra and Mark Reid for

614: useful discussions. We also thank an anonymous referee for a number of

615: very valuable comments and for pointing out the existing constraints

616: on nearby objects behind the ZoA.

617: 

618: \newcommand{\noopsort}[1]{}

619: \begin{thebibliography}{}

620: 

621: \bibitem[Balkowski \& Kraan-Korteweg(1994)]{conf1} Balkowski,

622: C., \& Kraan-Korteweg, R.~C.\ 1994, Unveiling Large-Scale Structures Behind

623: the Milky Way, 67,

624: 

625: \bibitem[Basilakos \& Plionis(2006)]{Basi} Basilakos, S., \&

626: Plionis, M.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, 1112

627: 

628: \bibitem[Binney \& Tremaine(1987)]{BT} Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S.

629: Galactic Dynamics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986, p.747

630: 

631: \bibitem[Conklin(1969)]{Conklin} Conklin, E.~K.\ 1969, \nat, 222, 971

632: 

633: \bibitem[Courteau \& van den Bergh(1999)]{Vanden} Courteau, 

634: S., \& van den Bergh, S.\ 1999, \aj, 118, 337 

635: 

636: \bibitem[Cox \& Loeb(2007)]{Cox} Cox, T.~J., \& Loeb, A.\

637: 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 705, arXiv:0705.1170

638: 

639: \bibitem[Dale \& Giovanelli(2000)]{DG} Dale, D.~A., \& 

640: Giovanelli, R.\ 2000, Cosmic Flows Workshop, 201, 25 

641: 

642: \bibitem[Dehnen \& Binney(1998)]{Dehnen}

643: Dehnen, W., \& Binney, J. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 387

644: 

645: \bibitem[Ebeling et al.(2002)]{Ebeling} Ebeling, H., Mullis,

646: C.~R., \& Tully, R.~B.\ 2002, \apj, 580, 774

647: 

648: \bibitem[Ebeling et al.(2005)]{Ebeling05} Ebeling, H., Kocevski, D., Tully,

649: R.~B., \& Mullis, C.~R.\ 2005, Nearby Large-Scale Structures and the Zone

650: of Avoidance, 329, 83

651: 

652: \bibitem[Eisenhauer et al.(2003)]{Einsen}

653: Eisenhauer, F., et al. 2003, ApJ, 597, L121

654: 

655: \bibitem[Erdo{\u g}du et al.(2006)]{Huchra} Erdo{\u g}du, P., 

656: et al.\ 2006, \mnras, 368, 1515 

657: 

658: \bibitem[Giovanelli et al.(1998)]{Giovanelli} Giovanelli, R., Haynes,

659: M.~P., Freudling, W., da Costa, L.~N., Salzer, J.~J., \& Wegner, G.\ 1998,

660: \apjl, 505, L91

661: 

662: \bibitem[Gunn(1988)]{Gunn} Gunn, J.~E.\ 1988, The 

663: Extragalactic Distance Scale, 4, 344 

664: 

665: \bibitem[Hasegawa et al.(2000)]{Hase} Hasegawa, T., et al.\ 2000, \mnras,

666: 316, 326

667: 

668: \bibitem[Henning et al.(2005)]{2005ASPC..329..199H} Henning, P.~A., 

669: Kraan-Korteweg, R.~C., \& Stavely-Smith, L.\ 2005, Nearby Large-Scale 

670: Structures and the Zone of Avoidance, 329, 199 

671: 

672: \bibitem[Henry(1971)]{Henry} Henry, P.~S.\ 1971, \nat, 231, 516

673: 

674: \bibitem[Kocevski et al.(2005)]{Koc} Kocevski, D.~D., Ebeling, H., Mullis,

675: C.~R., \& Tully, R.~B.\ 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints,

676: arXiv:astro-ph/0512321

677: 

678: \bibitem[Kogut et al.(1993)]{Kogut} Kogut, A., et al.\ 1993, 

679: \apj, 419, 1 

680: 

681: \bibitem[Kraan-Korteweg et al.(2000)]{conf2} Kraan-Korteweg,

682: R.~C., Henning, P.~A., \& Andernach, H.\ 2000, Mapping the Hidden Universe:

683: The Universe behind the Mily Way - The Universe in HI, 218,

684: 

685: \bibitem[Kraan-Korteweg \& Lahav(2000)]{conf3} Kraan-Korteweg, R.~C., \&

686: Lahav, O.\ 2000, Astron. \& Astrophys. Rev., 10, 211

687: 

688: \bibitem[Kraan-Korteweg(2005)]{conf4} Kraan-Korteweg, R.~C.\ 2005, Reviews

689: in Modern Astronomy, 18, 48

690: 

691: \bibitem[Kraan-Korteweg et al.(2007)]{K07} Kraan-Korteweg, R.~C., Shafi,

692: N., Koribalski, B., Staveley-Smith, L., Buckland, P., Henning, P.~A., \&

693: Fairall, A.~P.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 710, arXiv:0710.1795

694: 

695: \bibitem[Loeb et al.(2005)]{Loeb} Loeb, A., Reid, M.~J., 

696: Brunthaler, A., \& Falcke, H.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 894 

697: 

698: \bibitem[Lynden-Bell, Lahav, \& Burstein(1989)]{LB} Lynden-Bell, D., Lahav,

699: O., Burstein, D. 1989, \mnras, 241, 325

700: 

701: \bibitem[Mateo(1998)]{Mateo}

702: Mateo, M. L. 1998, ARAA, 36, 435

703: 

704: \bibitem[Meyer et al.(2004)]{Meyer} Meyer, M.~J., et al.\ 2004, \mnras,

705: 350, 1195

706: 

707: \bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2006)]{Tegmark}

708: Tegmark, M., et al. 2006, Phys. Rev. D74, 123507

709: 

710: \bibitem[Paczynski \& Piran(1990)]{Piran} Paczynski, B., \& Piran, T.\

711: 1990, \apj, 364, 341

712: 

713: %\bibitem[Padmanabhan et al.(2007)]{Padi} Padmanabhan, N., et al.\ 2007,

714: %\mnras, 378, 852

715: 

716: \bibitem[Peacock(1998)]{Peac_book} Peacock, J. 1998, Cosmological

717: Physics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 545-547 

718: 

719: \bibitem[Peacock(1992)]{Peac} Peacock, J.~A.\ 1992, \mnras, 

720: 258, 581 

721: 

722: \bibitem[Plionis et al.(2000)]{Plio} Plionis, M., et al.

723: 2000, \mnras, 313, 8

724: 

725: \bibitem[Reid \& Brunthaler(2004)]{Reid} Reid, M.~J., \& Brunthaler, A.\

726: 2004, \apj, 616, 872

727: 

728: \bibitem[Roman et al.(1998)]{Roman98} Roman, A.~T., Takeuchi, 

729: T.~T., Nakanishi, K., \& Saito, M.\ 1998, \pasj, 50, 47 

730: 

731: \bibitem[Strauss et al.(1992)]{Strauss} Strauss, M.A., et al. 1992, \apj,

732: 397, 395

733: 

734: \bibitem[van der Marel \& Guhathakurta(2007)]{Raja} van der 

735: Marel, R.~P., \& Guhathakurta, P.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 709, 

736: arXiv:0709.3747 

737: 

738: \bibitem[Wakamatsu et al.(2005)]{Waka} Wakamatsu, K., Malkan, M.~A.,

739: Nishida, M.~T., Parker, Q.~A., Saunders, W., \& Watson, F.~G.\ 2005, Nearby

740: Large-Scale Structures and the Zone of Avoidance, 329, 189

741: 

742: \end{thebibliography}

743: 

744: \label{lastpage}

745: \end{document}

746: 

747: 

748: 

749: 

750: 

751: 

752: The additional terms, $bv_{\ZoA,x}$, $bv_{\ZoA,y}$ and $bv_{\ZoA,z}$,

753: allow for the fact that 2MRS was not a full-sky survey as it missed a

754: narrow slice of the sky in the zone of avoidance (ZoA) because of

755: confusion from the Galaxy.  The acceleration due to structure in the

756: ZoA will contribute mostly to the velocity of the LG parallel to the

757: plane of the Galaxy, i.e., in the $x$--$y$ plane.  However, for

758: completeness we keep all three components of the velocity.

759: 

760: Erdo{\u g}du et al. (2006) state that the ZoA for their

761: survey corresponded to the area $|b|<5^\circ$ for $|l|>30^\circ$ and

762: $|b|<10^\circ$ for $|l|<30^\circ$.  Given this information plus their

763: estimate of the contribution to $\vec{v}_{\LG-\CMB}$ from the region

764: of the sky covered by their survey, we estimate the {\it

765: root-mean-square} contribution of the ZoA to each of the components of

766: the velocity to be,

767: \begin{eqnarray}

768: \sigma_{\ZoA,x} &=& 168.7/b \kms, \label{ZoAx} \\

769: \sigma_{\ZoA,y} &=& 150.2/b \kms, \label{ZoAy} \\ 

770: \sigma_{\ZoA,z} &=& 15.5/b \kms. \label{ZoAz}

771: \end{eqnarray}

772: As expected, the contribution in the $z$ direction is small.

773: 

774: