1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %\input epsf
4:
5: %\tighten
6: %\received{2007 September 25}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: %\def\plotone#1{\centering \leavevmode
11: %\epsfxsize=\columnwidth \epsfbox{#1}}
12:
13: \def\wisk#1{\ifmmode{#1}\else{$#1$}\fi}
14:
15: \def\lt {\wisk{<}}
16: \def\gt {\wisk{>}}
17: \def\le {\wisk{_<\atop^=}}
18: \def\ge {\wisk{_>\atop^=}}
19: \def\lsim {\wisk{_<\atop^{\sim}}}
20: \def\gsim {\wisk{_>\atop^{\sim}}}
21: \def\kms {\wisk{{\rm ~km~s^{-1}}}}
22: \def\Lsun {\wisk{{\rm L_\odot}}}
23: \def\Zsun {\wisk{{\rm Z_\odot}}}
24: \def\Msun {\wisk{{\rm M_\odot}}}
25: \def\um {$\mu$m}
26: \def\mic {\mu{\rm m}}
27: \def\sig {\wisk{\sigma}}
28: \def\etal {{\sl et~al.\ }}
29: \def\eg {{\it e.g.\ }}
30: \def\ie {{\it i.e.\ }}
31: \def\bsl {\wisk{\backslash}}
32: \def\by {\wisk{\times}}
33: \def\half {\wisk{\frac{1}{2}}}
34: \def\third {\wisk{\frac{1}{3}}}
35: \def\nwm2sr {\wisk{\rm nW/m^2/sr\ }}
36: \def\nw2m4sr {\wisk{\rm nW^2/m^4/sr\ }}
37:
38: \title{A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: technical details}
39:
40: \author{A. Kashlinsky\altaffilmark{1,5}, F. Atrio-Barandela\altaffilmark{2},
41: D. Kocevski\altaffilmark{3}, H. Ebeling\altaffilmark{4}}
42: \altaffiltext{1}{SSAI and Observational Cosmology Laboratory, Code
43: 665, Goddard
44: Space Flight Center, Greenbelt MD 20771} \altaffiltext{2}{Fisica Teorica,
45: University of Salamanca, 37008 Salamanca, Spain} \altaffiltext{3}{Department
46: of Physics, University of California at Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA
47: 95616} \altaffiltext{4}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, 2680
48: Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822} \altaffiltext{5}{e--mail:
49: alexander.kashlinsky@nasa.gov}
50: \begin{abstract}
51: This paper presents detailed analysis of large-scale peculiar
52: motions derived from a sample of $\sim 700$ X-ray clusters and
53: cosmic microwave background (CMB) data obtained with WMAP. We use
54: the kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich (KSZ) effect combining it into a
55: cumulative statistic which preserves the bulk motion component
56: with the noise integrated down. Such statistic is the dipole of
57: CMB temperature fluctuations evaluated over the pixels of the
58: cluster catalog (Kashlinsky \& Atrio-Barandela 2000). To remove
59: the cosmological CMB fluctuations the maps are filtered with a
60: Wiener-type filter in each of the eight WMAP channels (Q, V, W)
61: which have negligible foreground component. Our findings are as
62: follows: The thermal SZ (TSZ) component of the clusters is
63: described well by the Navarro-Frenk-White profile expected if the
64: hot gas traces the dark matter in the cluster potential wells.
65: Such gas has X-ray temperature decreasing rapidly towards the
66: cluster outskirts, which we demonstrate results in the decrease of
67: the TSZ component as the aperture is increased to encompass the
68: cluster outskirts. We then detect a statistically significant
69: dipole in the CMB pixels at cluster positions. Arising exclusively
70: at the cluster pixels this dipole cannot originate from the
71: foreground or instrument noise emissions and must be produced by
72: the CMB photons which interacted with the hot intracluster gas via
73: the SZ effect. The dipole remains as the monopole component, due
74: to the TSZ effect, vanishes within the small statistical noise out
75: to the maximal aperture where we still detect the TSZ component.
76: We demonstrate with simulations that the mask and cross-talk
77: effects are small for our catalog and contribute negligibly to the
78: measurements. The measured dipole thus arises from the KSZ effect
79: produced by the coherent large scale bulk flow motion. The
80: cosmological implications of the measurements are discussed by us
81: in Kashlinsky et al (2008).
82: \end{abstract}
83: \keywords{cosmology: observations - cosmic microwave background -
84: early Universe - large-scale structure of universe - methods:
85: numerical - methods: statistical }
86:
87: \section{Introduction}
88:
89: In the popular gravitational instability picture for growth of the
90: large scale structure in the Universe, peculiar velocities on
91: large cosmological scales probe directly the peculiar
92: gravitational potential and provide important information on the
93: underlying mass distribution in the Universe [e.g. see review by
94: Kashlinsky \& Jones 1991]. Previous attempts to measure the
95: peculiar flows in the local Universe mostly used empirically
96: established (but not well understood theoretically) galaxy
97: distance indicators. While very important, such methods are
98: subject to many systematic uncertainties [e.g. see reviews by
99: \cite{strauss-willick,willick}] and lead to widely different
100: results.
101:
102: Early measurements by \cite{rubin-ford} indicated large peculiar
103: flows of $\sim$700 km/sec. A major advance was made using the
104: ``Fundamental Plane" (FP) relation for elliptical galaxies
105: \cite{7s-di,djorgovski} with the implication that elliptical
106: galaxies within $\sim 60h^{-1}$Mpc were streaming at $\sim 600$
107: km/sec with respect to the rest frame defined by the cosmic
108: microwave background (CMB) \cite{7s-motion}. Mathewson et al
109: (1992) used the Tully-Fisher (TF) relation for a large sample of
110: spiral galaxies suggesting that the flow of amplitude 600 km/sec
111: does not converge until scales much larger than $\sim 60 h^{-1}$
112: Mpc. This finding was in agreement with a later analysis by
113: \cite{willick99}. Employing brightest cluster galaxies as distance
114: indicators \cite{lauer-postman} measured a bulk flow of $\sim$700
115: km/sec for a sample 119 rich clusters of galaxies on scale of
116: $\sim$150$h^{-1}$Mpc suggesting significantly larger amount of
117: power than expected in the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model.
118: However, a re-analysis of these data \cite{hudson-ebeling} taking
119: into account the correlation between the luminosities of
120: brightest-cluster galaxies and that of their host cluster found a
121: bulk flow in a greatly different direction and at a smaller
122: amplitude. Using the FP relation for early type galaxies in 56
123: clusters \cite{hudson} find a bulk flow of a similarly large
124: amplitude of $\sim 630$ km/sec to \cite{lauer-postman} on a
125: comparable scale, but in a different direction. On the other hand,
126: a sample of 24 SNIa shows no evidence of significant bulk flows
127: out to $\sim 100 h^{-1}$ Mpc \cite{riess} and similar conclusion
128: is reached with the TF based survey of spiral galaxies by
129: \cite{courteau}. The directions associated with each bulk-flow
130: measurement are equally discrepant.
131:
132: The current situation with measurements based on the various
133: distance indicators is confusing and it is important to find
134: alternative ways to measure the large scale peculiar flows. One
135: way to achieve this is via the kinematic component of the Sunyaev
136: Zeldovich (SZ) effect produced on the CMB photons from the hot
137: X-ray emitting gas in clusters of galaxies ([see review by
138: \cite{birkinshaw}]. The kinematic SZ (KSZ) effect is independent
139: of redshift and measures the line-of-sight peculiar velocity of a
140: cluster in its own frame of reference. For each individual cluster
141: the KSZ temperature distortion will be small and difficult to
142: measure. Attempts at measuring the peculiar velocities of
143: individual clusters from the KSZ effect using the current
144: generation of instruments lead to uncertainties of $\gsim 1000$
145: km/sec per cluster [see review by \cite{carlstrom}]. On the other
146: hand, as proposed by \cite{kab} (hereafter KA-B) for many clusters
147: moving at a coherent bulk flow one can construct a measurable
148: quantity using data on CMB temperature anisotropies which will be
149: dominated by the bulk flow KSZ component, whereas the various
150: other contributions will integrate down. This quantity, {\it the
151: dipole of the cumulative CMB temperature field evaluated at
152: cluster positions}, is used in this investigation on the 3-year
153: WMAP data in conjunction with a large sample of X-ray clusters of
154: galaxies to set the strongest to-date limits on bulk flows out to
155: scales $\sim 300 h^{-1}$Mpc.
156:
157: In the accompanying Letter (Kashlinsky et al 2008) we summed the
158: results and their cosmological implications. These are obtained
159: using the KA-B method applied to 3-year WMAP CMB data and the
160: largest all-sky X-ray cluster catalog to date. This paper provides
161: the details relevant for the measurement and is structured as
162: follows: Sec \ref{steps} summarizes the KA-B method and the steps
163: leading to the measurement. Sec. \ref{catalog} describes the
164: cluster X-ray catalog used in this study and Sec. \ref{cmb}
165: outlines the CMB data processing. Sec. \ref{errors} discusses the
166: methods to estimate the errors followed by Sec \ref{results} with
167: the results on the dipole measurement. Sec. \ref{tsz} shows why
168: the measured dipole arises from the KSZ component due to the
169: cluster motion and Sec. \ref{calibration} dicusses the translation
170: of the measured dipole in $\mu$K into velocity in km/sec and its
171: uncertainty. Future prospects foreseeable at this time to improve
172: this measurement are discussed in Sec. \ref{future}. We summarize
173: our results in Sec. \ref{summary}.
174:
175: \section{KA-B method and steps to the measurement}
176: \label{steps}
177:
178:
179: If a cluster at angular position $\vec{y}$ has the line-of-sight
180: velocity $v$ with respect to the CMB, the SZ CMB fluctuation at
181: frequency $\nu$ at this position will be $\delta_\nu(\vec
182: y)=\delta_{\rm TSZ}(\vec y)G(\nu)+ \delta_{\rm KSZ}(\vec
183: y)H(\nu)$, with $ \delta_{\rm TSZ}$=$\tau T_{\rm X}/T_{\rm e,ann}$
184: and $\delta_{\rm KSZ}$=$\tau v/c$. Here $G(\nu)\simeq-1.85$ to
185: $-1.35$ and $H(\nu)\simeq 1$ over the range of frequencies probed
186: by the WMAP data, $\tau$ is the projected optical depth due to
187: Compton scattering, $T_{\rm X}$ is the cluster electron
188: temperature and $k_{\rm B}T_{\rm e,ann}$=511 KeV. If averaged over
189: many isotropically distributed clusters moving at a significant
190: bulk flow with respect to the CMB, the kinematic term may dominate
191: enabling a measurement of $V_{\rm bulk}$. Thus KA-B suggested
192: measuring the dipole component of $\delta_\nu(\vec y)$. Below we
193: use the notation for $C_{1,{\rm kin}}$ normalized so that a
194: coherent motion at velocity $V_{\rm bulk}$ would lead to
195: $C_{1,{\rm kin}}= T_{\rm CMB}^2 \langle \tau \rangle^2 V_{\rm
196: bulk}^2/c^2$, where $T_{\rm CMB} =2.725$K is the present-day CMB
197: temperature. For reference, $\sqrt{C_{1,{\rm kin}}}\simeq 1
198: (\langle \tau \rangle/10^{-3}) (V_{\rm bulk}/100{\rm km/sec}) \;
199: \mu$K. When computed from the total of $N_{\rm cl}$ positions the
200: dipole also will have positive contributions from 1) the
201: instrument noise, 2) the thermal SZ (TSZ) component, 3) the
202: cosmological CMB fluctuation component arising from the
203: last-scattering surface, and 4) the various foreground components
204: at the WMAP frequency range. The latter contribution can be
205: significant at the two lowest frequency WMAP channels (K \& Ka)
206: and, hence, we restrict this analysis to the WMAP Channels Q, V \&
207: W which have negligible foreground contributions.
208:
209: For $N_{\rm cl}\gg1$ the dipole of the observed $\delta_\nu$
210: becomes:
211: \begin{equation}
212: a_{1m} \simeq a_{1m}^{\rm KSZ} +a_{1m}^{\rm TSZ} + a_{1m}^{\rm
213: CMB} + \frac{\sigma_{\rm noise}}{\sqrt{N_{\rm cl}}}
214: \label{eq:dipole}
215: \end{equation}
216: Here $a_{1m}^{\rm CMB}$ is the residual dipole produced at the
217: cluster pixels by the primordial CMB anisotropies. The amplitude
218: of the dipole power is $C_1= \sum_{m=-1}^{m=1} |a_{1m}|^2$.
219:
220: Additional contributions to eq. \ref{eq:dipole} come from
221: non-linear evolution/collapse of clusters (Rees \& Sciama 1968),
222: gravitational lensing by clusters (Kashlinsky 1988), unresolved
223: strong radio sources (present, for instance, in WMAP 5 year data,
224: Nolta et al 2008) and the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect from the
225: cluster pixels. All these effects have a dipole signal only when
226: clusters are inhomogenously distributed on the sky and is in turn
227: bounded from above by the amplitude of the monopole. The magnitude
228: of these contributions is at most $\sim 10\mu$K$^2$ in power (see
229: Aghanim, Majumdar \& Silk 2008 for a review on secondary
230: anisotropies) a factor of 10 smaller than the Thermal
231: Sunyaev-Zeldovich monopole amplitude. Furthermore, as we discuss
232: below, we find a dipole signal when the monopole vanishes, so our
233: measurements can not be significantly affected by all these
234: effects.
235:
236:
237: In the following sections we detail out the process that enabled
238: us to isolate the KSZ term in eq. \ref{eq:dipole}. The steps
239: leading to this measurement were:
240:
241: $\bullet$ An all-sky catalog of X-ray selected galaxy clusters was
242: constructed using available X-ray data extending to $z\simeq 0.3$.
243:
244: $\bullet$ The cosmological CMB component was removed from the WMAP
245: data using the Wiener-type filter with the best-fit cosmological
246: model.
247:
248: $\bullet$ The filter is constructed (and is different) for each DA
249: channel because the beam and the noise levels are different. This
250: then prevents inconsistencies and systematic errors that could
251: have been generated if a common filter was applied to the eight
252: channels of different noise and resolution.
253:
254: $\bullet$ The filtered CMB maps were used to compute the dipole
255: component at the cluster positions simultaneously as the TSZ
256: monopole vanishes because of the X-ray temperature decrease with
257: radius (Atrio-Barandela et al 2008 and below).
258:
259:
260: $\bullet$ Simulations showed that the measured dipole arises from
261: the cluster pixels at a high confidence level. Since the TSZ
262: component from the clusters vanishes, only a contribution from the
263: KSZ component, due to large-scale bulk motion of the cluster
264: sample, remains.
265:
266: The following sections present the technical details related to
267: this analysis.
268:
269: \section{X-ray data and catalogue}
270: \label{catalog}
271:
272: The creation of the all-sky cluster catalogue used here from three
273: independent X-ray selected cluster samples is described in detail
274: by Kocevski \& Ebeling (2006); for clarity we briefly reiterate
275: the procedure in the following.
276:
277: The REFLEX catalog consists of 447 clusters with X-ray fluxes
278: greater than $3\times 10^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the
279: [0.1--2.4] KeV band. The survey is limited to declinations of
280: $\delta < 2.5^{\circ}$, redshifts of $z\leq 0.3$ and Galactic
281: latitudes away from the Galactic plane ($|b|>20^{\circ}$). The
282: eBCS catalog comprises 290 clusters in the Northern hemisphere
283: with X-ray fluxes greater than $3\times 10^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$
284: s$^{-1}$ [0.1--2.4] KeV at Galactic latitude $|b| > 20^\circ$. The
285: sample is limited to declinations of $\delta > 0^{\circ}$ and
286: redshifts of $z\leq 0.3$ and, like REFLEX, the survey avoids the
287: Galactic plane ($|b|>20^{\circ}$). The CIZA sample is the product
288: of the first systematic search for X-ray luminous clusters behind
289: the plane of the Galaxy. The sample contains 165 clusters with
290: X-ray fluxes greater than $3\times 10^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$
291: s$^{-1}$ [0.1--2.4] KeV and redshifts of $z\leq 0.3$.
292:
293: To obtain a single homogeneous sample the physical properties of
294: all clusters were recalculated in a consistent manner using
295: publicly available RASS data. Cluster positions were redetermined
296: from the centroid of each system's X-ray emission and point
297: sources within the detection aperture are removed. Total X-ray
298: count rates within an aperture of 1.5 $h_{50}^{-1}$Mpc radius were
299: calculated taking into account the local RASS exposure time and
300: background, and converted into unabsorbed X-ray fluxes in the
301: ROSAT broad band [0.1--2.4] KeV. Total rest-frame luminosities
302: were determined from the fluxes using the cosmological luminosity
303: distance and a temperature-dependent \emph{K}-correction. Finally
304: clusters whose X-ray emission appeared to be dominated by a point
305: source were removed and a flux cut was applied at $3\times
306: 10^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, leaving 349 REFLEX, 268 eBCS,
307: and 165 CIZA clusters at $z\leq 0.3$. The resulting sample is the
308: largest homogeneous, all-sky, X-ray selected cluster catalog
309: compiled to date, containing 782 clusters over the entire sky. Of
310: these, 468 fall within $z\le0.1$. Further details concerning the
311: statistical properties of the catalog, including its completeness,
312: can be found in Kocevski \& Ebeling (2006). Figure 1 shows the sky
313: distribution of the clusters used in this analysis.
314:
315: Our analysis requires knowledge of several parameters describing
316: the properties of the intra-cluster gas. We determine the X-ray
317: extent of each cluster directly from the RASS imaging data using a
318: growth-curve analysis. The cumulative profile of the net count
319: rate is constructed for each system by measuring the counts in
320: successively larger circular apertures centered on the X-ray
321: emission and subtracting an appropriately scaled X-ray background.
322: The latter is determined in an annulus from 2 to 3 $h_{\rm
323: 50}^{-1}$ Mpc around the cluster centroid. The extent of each
324: system is then defined as the radius at which the increase in the
325: source signal is less than the $1\sigma$ Poissonian noise of the
326: net count rate. This is essentially the distance from the cluster
327: center at which the X-ray emission is no longer detectable with
328: any statistically significance.
329:
330: \clearpage
331: \begin{figure}[h]
332: \plotone{f1.eps}
333: \caption{X-ray catalogue used in the paper with the KP0 mask applied.
334: Note that at the lowest $z$ clusters have significant N:S asymmetry (for $z\leq 0.02,
335: 0.025,0.03, 0.04$ there are 11:6, 16:11, 24:19, 44:42 N:S
336: clusters), which goes away at $z\gsim 0.03$.\label{fig:xcat}}
337: \end{figure}
338: \clearpage
339:
340: Unabsorbed cluster fluxes were determined from our recalculated
341: count rates by folding the ROSAT instrument response against the
342: predicted X-ray emission from a Raymond-Smith (Raymond \& Smith
343: 1977) thermal plasma spectrum with 0.3 solar metallicity and by
344: taking into account Galactic absorption in the direction of the
345: source. The temperature used in the spectral model is determined
346: iteratively using the cluster redshift, a first-order
347: approximation on the cluster luminosity using $k_{\rm B} T_{\rm
348: X}=4$ KeV and the $L_{\rm X}-T_{\rm X}$ relation of White et al
349: (1997). Total rest-frame $[0.1-2.4]$ KeV band cluster luminosities
350: were subsequently determined from our recalculated fluxes using
351: the standard conversion with the cosmological luminosity distance
352: and a temperature dependent $K$-correction.
353:
354: To obtain an analytic parametrization of the spatial profile of
355: the X-ray emitting gas and, ultimately, the central electron
356: density we fit a $\beta$ model (Cavaliere \& Fusco-Femiano 1976)
357: convolved with the RASS point-spread function to the RASS data for
358: each cluster in our sample: $S(r) = S_0
359: \left[1+(r/r_c)^2\right]^{-3\beta+1/2}$ where $S(r)$ is the
360: projected surface-brightness distribution and $S_0$, $r_c$, and
361: $\beta$ are the central surface brightness, the core radius, and
362: the $\beta$ parameter characterizing the profile at large radii.
363: Using the results from this model fit to determine the gas-density
364: profile assumes the gas to be isothermal and spherically
365: symmetric. In practice, additional uncertainties are introduced
366: by the correlation between $r_c$ and $\beta$ which makes the
367: results for both parameters sensitive to the choice of radius over
368: which the model is fit, and the fact that for all but the most
369: nearby clusters the angular resolution of the RASS allows only a
370: very poor sampling of the surface-brightness profile (at $z> 0.2$
371: the X-ray signal from a typical cluster is only detected in
372: perhaps a dozen RASS image pixels). In recognition of these
373: limitations, we hold $\beta$ fixed at the canonical value of $2/3$
374: and only allow $r_c$ to vary (Jones \& Forman 1984). As a
375: consistency check, we also calculate $r_c$ values from each
376: cluster's X-ray luminosity using the $r_{c} \propto L_{\rm
377: X}^{1/3.6}$ empirical relationship determined by Reiprich \&
378: B\"{o}hringer (1999). Our best-fit values for $r_c$ are
379: reassuringly robust in the sense that we find broad agreement with
380: the empirically derived values.
381:
382: Our best-fit parameters, the cluster luminosity and electron
383: temperature, are used to determine central electron densities for
384: each cluster using Equation 6 of Henry \& Henriksen (1986) with
385: the temperature of the ICM being estimated from the $L_{\rm X} -
386: T_{\rm X}$ relationship of White, Jones, \& Forman (1997). The
387: electron densities are in turn used to translate the CMB dipole in
388: $\mu$K into an amplitude in km/sec as described below. We also
389: calculated electron densities using our empirically derived
390: cluster parameters and find good agreement between the resulting
391: dipole amplitude and the amplitude obtained using our best-fit
392: values.
393:
394: \clearpage
395: \begin{figure}[h]
396: \plotone{f2.eps}
397: \caption{Distribution of cluster
398: X-ray extent in various $z$-bins using the KP0 maps. Coma is the
399: only cluster with X-ray radial extent larger than 0.5 deg.\label{fig:theta_x}}
400: \end{figure}
401: \clearpage
402:
403: The distribution of the cluster radial extents determined by the
404: X-ray emission, $\theta_{\rm X-ray}$, for our catalog is shown in
405: Fig. \ref{fig:theta_x}. Coma at $z\simeq 0.02$ has the largest
406: extent $\theta_{\rm X-ray} \simeq 35^\prime$. In order to avoid
407: the few large clusters, such as Coma, bias the determination of
408: the dipole, we introduce a cutoff of $30^\prime$ in the net extent
409: when increasing the size to account for the extent of the
410: SZ-producing gas. The final analysis was made increasing cluster
411: X-ray extent to $6\theta_{\rm X-ray}$ and then cutting them at
412: 30$^\prime$ to ensure robust dipole computation. In the process
413: the variations in the cluster size across the sky become greatly
414: reduced: e.g. for the entire sample of 674 clusters which survive
415: the KP0 CMB mask, the final mean radial extent of the clusters is
416: $28.4^\prime$, standard deviation is $3.2^\prime$ and only 16
417: clusters have radii below $20^\prime$. Thus in our final
418: measurements all clusters are effectively 30 arcmin in radius
419: independently of the cluster position.
420:
421: Conversions between angular extents and the physical dimensions of
422: clusters are made using the concordance cosmology
423: ($\Omega_\Lambda=0.7, \Omega_{\rm total}=1, h=0.7$).
424:
425: \section{CMB data processing and filtering}
426: \label{cmb}
427:
428: Our starting point are the 3-year WMAP ``foreground-cleaned" maps
429: available from
430: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/m\_products.cfm in
431: two Q channels (Q1, Q2), two V channels (V1 and V2), and four W
432: channels (W1 through W4). Channels K and Ka contain fairly
433: significant foreground emission and are not considered in this
434: study. Each channel has its own noise of variance $\sigma_n^2$
435: with the Q channels having the lowest noise and the W channels the
436: highest. The beam transfer functions for each channel, $B_\ell$,
437: were obtained from the same URL. The beam is also different in
438: each channel with Q1 having the poorest resolution and W4 the
439: highest. Examples of the beam profile are shown in Fig.
440: \ref{fig:filters}. The maps were masked of foreground emitters
441: using the KP2 and KP0 masks.
442:
443: The resolution of the input maps is set by choosing $N_{\rm
444: side}=512$ in HEALpix (Gorski et al 2005). This corresponds to
445: pixels of $4\times 10^{-6}$ sr (47.2 arcmin$^2$) in area or
446: $\theta_p \simeq 6.87^\prime$ on the side. This resolution is much
447: coarser than that of the X-ray maps used for constructing our
448: cluster catalog.
449:
450: \clearpage
451: \begin{figure}[h]
452: \plotone{f3.eps}
453: \caption{Filters used in removing the cosmological CMB fluctuations
454: are shown with light-shaded lines. Dashed lines show the beam profiles for the marked WMAP channels.
455: Solid lines show the product of the two: $B_\ell F_\ell$.\label{fig:filters}}
456: \end{figure}
457: \clearpage
458:
459: Because cosmological CMB fluctuations are correlated, they could
460: leave a significant variance in the noise component of our
461: measurement (eq. \ref{eq:dipole}) over the relatively few pixels
462: occupied by the clusters. Of course, this noise component will be
463: the same, within its standard deviation, for any other pixels in
464: the maps, rather than being peculiar to the cluster pixels.
465: Because the power spectrum of this component, $C_\ell^{\rm \Lambda
466: CDM}$, is accurately known from WMAP studies (Hinshaw et al 2007),
467: it can be effectively filtered out of the CMB maps, substantially
468: reducing its contribution to the noise budget in eq.
469: \ref{eq:dipole}. This can be achieved with the Wiener filter,
470: which minimizes the mean square deviation from the noise $\langle
471: (\delta T - \delta_{\rm noise})^2\rangle$ (e.g. Press et al 1986).
472: The Fourier transform of this filter is:
473: \begin{equation}
474: F_\ell = \frac{C_\ell({\rm sky}) - C_\ell^{\rm \Lambda CDM}
475: B_\ell^2}{C_\ell({\rm sky})}
476: \label{eq:filter}
477: \end{equation}
478: where $C_\ell({\rm sky})$ is the Fourier transform of the sky
479: which contains both the $\Lambda$CDM component and the instrument
480: noise.
481:
482: \clearpage
483: \begin{figure}[h]
484: \begin{tabular}{cc}
485: \includegraphics[width=1.625in,angle=90]{f4a.ps} & \includegraphics[width=1.625in,angle=90]{f4b.ps} \\
486: \includegraphics[width=1.625in,angle=90]{f4c.ps} & \includegraphics[width=1.625in,angle=90]{f4d.ps} \\
487: \includegraphics[width=1.625in,angle=90]{f4e.ps} & \includegraphics[width=1.625in,angle=90]{f4f.ps} \\
488: % \includegraphics[width=1.75in,angle=90]{map_q1.ps} & \includegraphics[width=1.75in,angle=90]{map_q1_filtered.ps} \\
489: % \includegraphics[width=1.75in,angle=90]{map_v1.ps} & \includegraphics[width=1.75in,angle=90]{map_v1_filtered.ps} \\
490: % \includegraphics[width=1.75in,angle=90]{map_w1.ps} & \includegraphics[width=1.75in,angle=90]{map_w1_filtered.ps} \\
491: \end{tabular}
492: \caption{Maps before (left column) and after filtering for
493: the Q1, V1, W1 channels. The maps are drawn on the same scale. The
494: KP0 mask is shown with dark blue.\label{fig:maps}}
495: \end{figure}
496: \clearpage
497:
498: The resulting filters are shown for selected channels in Fig.
499: \ref{fig:filters} for the best-fit $\Lambda$CDM model of the WMAP
500: team (http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov). The filter function is
501: negative at some of the low $\ell$-multipoles because the true CMB
502: power spectrum differs from the theoretical input due to cosmic
503: variance effects. The filter could, in principle, amplify the
504: noise at low $\ell$, but this effect is very small. We checked
505: that the filter does not introduce extra variance or correlations.
506: In any case, larger noise levels in the filtered maps would simply
507: increase the errors which are measured directly from the same
508: maps.
509:
510: %\begin{figure}[h]
511: %\begin{tabular}{ccc}
512: %\includegraphics[width=2.15in]{map_q1.ps} &
513: %\includegraphics[width=2.15in]{map_v1.ps} &
514: %\includegraphics[width=2.15in]{map_w1.ps}\\
515: %\includegraphics[width=2.15in]{map_q1_filtered.ps} &
516: %\includegraphics[width=2.15in]{map_v1_filtered.ps} &
517: %\includegraphics[width=2.15in]{map_w1_filtered.ps}\\
518: %\end{tabular}
519: %\caption{...} \label{fig:maps}
520: %\end{figure}
521:
522: Fig. \ref{fig:maps} shows examples of the original and filtered
523: maps used in our study, and demonstrates that the cosmological CMB
524: component is removed reliably by the adopted filter.
525:
526: The SZ components too will be affected by the filter. In
527: particular, the intrinsic optical depth of the clusters,
528: determined from X-ray data that have much higher resolution than
529: WMAP, should be convolved with the filter in any estimate of the
530: remaining SZ components when using the data from our cluster
531: catalog. Because the X-ray pixels are much smaller, the input
532: $\tau$ should also be convolved with the WMAP beams. Black lines
533: in Fig.~\ref{fig:filters} show the result product, $B_\ell
534: F_\ell$, which determines the final effective $\tau$. The
535: filtering attenuates the $\tau$ profile outside $\sim$10 arcmin.
536: More power in $\tau$ gets removed in the $\beta$-model, but
537: filtering will not remove as much power in the more steeply
538: distributed $\tau$ such as we find in the data.
539:
540: We demonstrated in a separate study that the extent of the cluster
541: SZ emission significantly exceeds the one of the X-ray emission
542: (Atrio-Barandela et al 2008; hereafter AKKE). This is not
543: surprising because the SZ effect is $\propto n_e$, whereas the
544: X-ray luminosity $L_X \propto n_e^2$, but, because of the
545: corresponding decrease in the gas temperature with radius required
546: by this distribution, it does allow us to integrate down the TSZ
547: component by selecting pixels within a larger radius, $\alpha
548: \theta_{\rm X-ray}$ with $\alpha \geq 1$, of the cluster center.
549: We used $\alpha =[1,2,4,6]$ with a cut at $30^\prime$; at the
550: largest extent - when we measure the dipole - the angular extents
551: of clusters become effectively $30^\prime$ across the entire sky.
552: The reasons for TSZ component washing out sooner than the KSZ one
553: are that, as measured by us (AKKE) for the same catalog and CMB
554: data, the cluster X-ray emitting gas is well described by the
555: density profile expected in the $\Lambda$CDM model (Navarro, Frenk
556: \& White 1996, hereafter NFW) and the NFW-distributed gas has
557: X-ray temperature dropping off with radius (e.g. Komatsu \& Seljak
558: 2001); this is discussed in some detail later in the paper. When
559: extra pixels (not necessarily belonging to the cluster) are added
560: in the process it would lead to {\it decrease} in the accuracy of
561: the dipole determination. Our choice of the maximal extent at
562: $\alpha=6$ is motivated by the measurement that this roughly
563: corresponds to the maximal extent where the SZ producing gas is
564: detected on average in the WMAP data (AKKE). Of course, if we were
565: to increase the total extent further, we should expect that the
566: dipole component due to KSZ should also start decreasing. We
567: verified this by computing the CMB dipole from clusters with the
568: net extent of 1, 2 and 3 degrees. (With this catalog, we cannot go
569: further since the clusters' overlap starts getting in the way;
570: e.g. at $3^\circ$ the clusters already occupy $\sim 35\%$ os the
571: available sky). The decrease in the dipole component is shown in
572: Fig. \ref{fig:extent} and discussed in detail in Sec.
573: \ref{results}.
574:
575: Wiener filtering reduces the TSZ temperature decrement and optical
576: depth for each cluster. When extending the analysis up to the
577: largest extent (practically $\simeq 30^\prime$ radius) we find
578: that the TSZ is diluted by noise and reduced to zero. Since
579: clusters are not randomly distributed on the sky the TSZ signal
580: will give rise to a non-trivial dipole signature that, in
581: principle, may confuse the KSZ dipole. Nevertheless, the dipole
582: generated by the cross talk with the monopole cannot exceed the
583: former, i.e. it must be $a_0^{\rm TSZ}>a_{1m}^{\rm TSZ}$, for all
584: $m$; it is shown below (Table 3) that this component is small. The
585: following section describes the results of the various simulations
586: which support this statement.
587:
588: \section{Error estimation}
589: \label{errors}
590:
591: Each of the eight CMB channel maps is processed separately. In the
592: final maps, we set all pixels to zero that fall outside of both
593: the cluster areas and the mask and then compute the dipole for
594: each band using the remove\_dipole procedure in the standard
595: HEALPix package. Errors are computed from the pixels not
596: associated with clusters as described below. The results from each
597: channel are added after weighting with their respective
598: uncertainties.
599:
600: We have estimated the errors with two different methods in order
601: to account for both the effects of the KP0 mask and the intrinsic
602: distribution of the cluster samples in different redshift bins: 1)
603: At each $z$-bin we select new random pixels equal to the number of
604: clusters in each of the eight WMAP channel maps. These new
605: pseudo-cluster centers are iteratively selected to lie outside the
606: KP0 mask and away from any of the true cluster pixels. They are
607: then assigned the cluster radii from the cluster catalog and the
608: WMAP pixels are selected within these new pseudo-clusters to
609: compute the new dipole. We then ran 1,000 realizations computing
610: the errors to within a few percent accuracy. This method accounts
611: for the effects induced by the geometry of the KP0 mask. 2) In the
612: second method, we keep the clusters fixed at their celestial
613: coordinates. The CMB maps for each of the eight channels are then
614: Fourier transformed and their power spectrum $C_\ell$ computed and
615: corrected for the fraction of the sky occupied by the KP0 mask. We
616: use this power spectrum to generate new random phases in the
617: corresponding $a_{\ell m}$'s, which are then transformed back into
618: the new CMB sky maps, $T_{\rm new}(\theta,\phi)$. In the new sky
619: maps we select pixels occupied by the real clusters and compute
620: the resulting dipole. This method accounts for the effects induced
621: by the possible leakage from noise and residual CMB due to the
622: intrinsic distribution of the cluster sample in each $z$-bin.
623:
624: The two methods give mean zero dipoles with errors that coincide
625: to within a few percent of each other, which is consistent with
626: the cluster distribution not confusing the final measurement.
627:
628: \clearpage
629: \begin{figure}[h]
630: \plotone{f5.eps}
631: \caption{Histograms for
632: simulations for Q1, V1, W1 channels using as input clusters at
633: $z\leq 0.05$. Solid lines show the distribution of $a_{1x}$,
634: dotted for $a_{1y}$ and dashes for $a_{1z}$ from Method 1 (top
635: panels) and 2. As expected, since the KP0 mask affects most
636: strongly the $x$-component of the dipole, and least strongly the
637: $z$-component, the errors on $a_{1x}$ are the largest and on
638: $a_{1z}$ are the smallest. The largest difference between the
639: errors from the two methods is for the $x$-component, but even
640: there the differences are $\lsim 10-15\%$.}
641: \label{fig:sims}
642: \end{figure}
643: \clearpage
644:
645: Fig. \ref{fig:sims} shows an example of the distribution of the
646: dipole components from 1,000 simulations using random pixel
647: locations in the maps. The figure shows that, as expected, the
648: distribution of $a_{1m}$ is Gaussian with zero mean, and that the
649: cosmological CMB component is removed efficiently. The effects of
650: the CMB mask are such that the largest uncertainty is for the
651: $a_{1x}$ component of the dipole and the smallest is for $a_{1z}$.
652: From these simulations we find that the noise terms for $a_{1m}$
653: integrate down approximately as $\propto N_{\rm cl}^{-1/2}
654: \alpha^{-1}$, as expected if the CMB component is indeed filtered
655: out efficiently. Furthermore, we have established that, compared
656: to the first-year WMAP data, the uncertainties in $a_{1m}$ have
657: decreased by the expected factor of $\sqrt{3}$. Since the noise
658: terms are proportional to $t^{-1/2}$, the final 8-year WMAP data
659: should further improve the measurement.
660:
661: \clearpage
662: \begin{figure}[h]
663: \plotone{f6.eps}
664: \caption{The dipole coefficients for simulated cluster distribution
665: (random and, on average, isotropic) are compared to that from the
666: true catalog. (See text for details). Each cluster in each catalog
667: is given bulk flow of $V_{\rm bulk}$ from 0 to 3,000 km/sec in
668: increments of 100 km/sec towards the apex of the motion from Table
669: 2. The results from 1,000 simulated catalog realizations were
670: averaged and their standard deviation is shown in the vertical
671: axis. Dotted lines mark the zero dipole axis of the panels. Dashed
672: vertical lines show the dipole due to the modelled TSZ
673: component.\label{fig:systematics}}
674: \end{figure}
675: \clearpage
676:
677: In order to assess that there is no cross-talk between the
678: remaining monopole and dipole which may confuse the measured KSZ
679: dipole, we conducted the following experiment: 1) The TSZ and KSZ
680: components from the catalog clusters were modelled as described
681: below in Sec. 6. To exaggerate the effect of the cross-talk from
682: the TSZ component, the latter was normalized to the {\it maximal}
683: measured monopole given in Table 3 for the bins where a
684: statistically significant dipole is detected ($-1.3 \mu$K after
685: filtering; for comparison Fig. \ref{fig:systematics} shows the
686: results for the entire catalog, where the measured monopole is
687: $0\pm 0.2 \mu$K). For the KSZ component each cluster was given a
688: bulk velocity, $V_{\rm bulk}$, in the direction specified in Table
689: 2, whose amplitude varied from 0 to 3,000 km/sec in 31 increments
690: of 100 km/sec. The resultant CMB map was then filtered and the CMB
691: dipole, $a_{1m}({\rm cat})$, over the cluster pixels computed for
692: each value of $V_{\rm bulk}$. 2) At the second stage we randomized
693: cluster positions with $(l,b)$ uniformly distributed on celestial
694: sphere over the {\it full} sky for a net of 1,000 realizations for
695: each value of $V_{\rm bulk}$ (31,000 in total). This random
696: catalog keeps the same cluster parameters, but the cluster
697: distribution now occupies the full sky (there is now no mask) and
698: on average does not have the same levels of anisotropy as the
699: original catalog. We then assigned each cluster the same bulk flow
700: and computed the resultant CMB dipole, $a_{1m}({\rm sim})$, for
701: each realization. The final $a_{1m}({\rm sim})$ were averaged and
702: their standard deviation evaluated. Fig. \ref{fig:systematics}
703: shows the comparison between the two dipoles for each value of
704: $V_{\rm bulk}$. One can see that there is no significant offset in
705: the CMB dipole produced by either the mask or the cluster true sky
706: distribution. The two sets of dipole coefficients are both
707: linearly proportional to $V_{\rm bulk}$ and to each other; in the
708: absence of any bulk motion we recover to a good accuracy the small
709: value of the TSZ dipole. The most noticeable offset is for the
710: $x$-component of the dipole which is most affected by the mask,
711: but even here the absolute value of that offset is negligible. In
712: principle, since the bulk flow motion is fixed in direction and
713: the cluster distribution is random, one expects the calibration
714: factor defined below in Sec. \ref{calibration}, $C_{1,100}$ which
715: translates the dipole in $\mu$K into velocity in km/sec, to be
716: different from one realization to the next, e.g. in some
717: realizations certain clusters may be more heavily concentrated in
718: a plane perpendicular to the bulk flow motion and the measured
719: $C_{1,100}$ would be smaller. In our case, the mean $C_{1,100}$
720: differs by $\lsim 10\%$ suggesting that our catalog cluster
721: distribution is close to the mean cluster distribution in the
722: simulations. This difference in the overall normalization would
723: only affect our translation of the dipole in $\mu$K into $V_{\rm
724: bulk}$ in km/sec.
725:
726: Finally, we note that the errors computed this way are largely
727: uncorrelated. For each subsequent $z$-bin we add significantly
728: more new cluster pixels, but the computed dipole, of course,
729: includes the clusters in the preceding bins. On the other hand,
730: the errors are computed from random positions on the maps and
731: every realization contains, on average, a completely new set of
732: pixels. There may be some correlations between the various dipole
733: component errors produced by the mask, but as Figs.
734: \ref{fig:sims},\ref{fig:systematics} show these correlated
735: components of the errors are small.
736:
737: \section{Results}
738: \label{results}
739:
740: \subsection{Results by frequency band}
741:
742: Table 1 shows the measured dipole in the various redshift bins and
743: shells for each of the three frequency channels (Q, V, W),
744: combining the numbers from each of the differential assemblies
745: (DA) with weights obtained from the simulations. One can see that
746: the dipole amplitude is such that the measurement becomes
747: statistically significant for $N_{\rm cl}\gsim 300$ for the WMAP
748: data noise levels. The dipole appears at the negligible monopole
749: component when computed from the clusters WMAP pixels. By itself
750: this shows that it cannot originate from the TSZ component.
751: Nevertheless we also briefly discuss its spectral energy
752: distribution in as far as it relates to the KSZ origin of the
753: measured dipole.
754:
755: The KSZ and TSZ components have different frequency dependence
756: potentially allowing to distinguish the two origins of the
757: measured dipole. When CMB photons are scattered by the hot X-ray
758: gas, the evolution of their occupation number, $n$, is described
759: by the Kompaneets equation: $ \frac{\partial n}{\partial
760: y}=\frac{1}{x^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}[x^4
761: \large(\frac{\partial n}{\partial x}+n+n^2\large)]$. Here $x\equiv
762: h_{\rm P}\nu/k_{\rm B}T_{\rm CMB}$ and $y$ is the comptonization
763: parameter. In the limit of $y\ll 1$ and for the initially
764: black-body radiation, $n=1/[\exp(x)-1]$, this equation specifies
765: the change in the photon spectrum as (e.g. Stebbins 1997):
766: \begin{equation}
767: \Delta n \simeq y
768: \frac{x\exp(x)}{[\exp(x)-1]^2}[x {\rm coth}\frac{x}{2}-4]
769: \end{equation}
770: As expected the distortion, $\Delta n$, vanishes at high
771: frequency limit ($x\rightarrow \infty$). The WMAP measurement
772: data are in thermodynamic temperature units, so the TSZ spectrum
773: is given by $\Delta T_{\rm TSZ}/T_{\rm CMB} = y G(x)$ with:
774: \begin{equation}
775: G(x) = x {\rm coth} \frac{x}{2}-4
776: \label{eq:tsz_spectrum}
777: \end{equation}
778: The expression gives $G(x)$ which is close to $-2$ for low
779: frequencies, vanishes near 217 GHz, goes positive at higher
780: frequencies decreasing to zero again at the highest frequencies.
781: Additionally, there may be non-thermal components and relativistic
782: corrections (Birkinshaw 1999).
783:
784: Similarly, the KSZ spectrum can be shown to be given by $\Delta
785: T_{\rm KSZ}/T_{\rm CMB} = \tau \frac{v}{c} H(x)$ with:
786: \begin{equation}
787: H(x) = 1
788: \label{eq:ksz_spectrum}
789: \end{equation}
790: Note that the form of the SZ terms, eqs.(4)-(5), changes if CMB
791: properties are expressed via the antenna, rather than
792: thermodynamic, temperature.
793:
794: The dipole values in Table 1 are flat across the WMAP frequencies,
795: from 40 to 94 GHz and and are consistent with the spectrum
796: expected from the KSZ component, although the present data also
797: give acceptable $\chi^2$ for the TSZ spectrum. Decreasing the
798: noise by $\sim 2$ expected from the future WMAP measurements may
799: help distinguish the two components.
800:
801: \clearpage
802: \begin{deluxetable}{cc|cccc|ccc}
803: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
804: \tablewidth{0pt}
805: \tablecaption{Results from Q, V, W filtered maps.}
806: \tablehead{
807: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Multipoles} &
808: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Shells: $0.05 < z \leq $ \& $0.12 < z \leq 0.3$ }\\
809: \cline{3-6}
810: \cline{7-9}
811: %\multicolumn{8}{c}{TSZ estimate using catalogs: (a) $|$ (b)} \\
812: \colhead{$z\leq$} &
813: \colhead{Band} &
814: \colhead{$\langle \Delta T\rangle$} &
815: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm x}}$} &
816: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm y}}$} &
817: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm z}}$} &
818: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm x}}$} &
819: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm y}}$} &
820: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm z}}$}
821: }
822: \startdata
823: & & $\mu$K & $\mu$K & $\mu$K & $\mu$K & $\mu$K & $\mu$K & $\mu$K
824: \\
825: \hline
826: 0.05 & Q & $-0.1 \pm 0.9$ & $-1.0 \pm 1.7$ & $-3.6 \pm 1.6$ & $0.0 \pm 1.5$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
827: \nodata & V & $0.8\pm 1.0$ & $-1.3 \pm 1.8$ & $-2.9 \pm 1.6$ & $-0.2\pm 1.5$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
828: \nodata & W & $-0.4\pm 0.9$ & $-0.3\pm 1.7$ & $-3.2 \pm 1.5$ & $0.1\pm 1.4$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
829: 0.06 & Q & $-1.0\pm 0.8$ & $-0.4 \pm 1.5$ & $-2.6 \pm 1.3$ & $-0.7 \pm 1.3$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
830: \nodata & V & $-0.0 \pm 0.8$ & $-1.1 \pm 1.5$ & $-2.2 \pm 1.4$ & $-0.9 \pm 1.3$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
831: \nodata & W & $-1.6 \pm 0.7$ & $-1.5 \pm 1.4$ & $-2.2 \pm 1.3$ & $0.1 \pm 1.2$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
832: 0.08 & Q & $-1.1 \pm 0.7$ & $ 1.8 \pm 1.2$ & $-1.4\pm 1.1$ & $-1.6 \pm 1.0$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
833: \nodata & V & $-0.5 \pm 0.7$ & $1.5 \pm 1.2$ & $-1.6\pm 1.1$ & $-1.2 \pm 1.0$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
834: \nodata & W & $-2.1 \pm0.6$ & $0.5 \pm 1.1$ & $-1.5 \pm 1.0$ & $-0.5 \pm 0.9$ & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
835:
836: 0.12 & Q & $-0.8 \pm 0.5$ & $1.4 \pm 1.0$ & $-1.8 \pm0.9$ & $-0.6 \pm 0.8$ & $2.8 \pm 1.2$ & $-0.9 \pm 1.1$ & $-0.9 \pm 1.0$ \\
837: \nodata & V & $-0.3\pm 0.5$ & $1.7 \pm 1.0$ & $-2.2 \pm 0.9$ & $-0.4 \pm 0.9$ & $3.7 \pm 1.2$ & $-1.8 \pm 1.1$ & $-0.4 \pm 1.0$ \\
838: \nodata & W & $-1.1 \pm 0.5$ & $1.4\pm 0.9$ & $-2.5 \pm 0.8$ & $-0.2 \pm 0.8$ & $2.7 \pm 1.1$ & $-2.2 \pm 1.0$ & $-0.5 \pm 0.9$ \\
839:
840: 0.16 & Q & $-0.1 \pm 0.5$ & $0.8 \pm 0.9$ & $-2.6 \pm 0.8$ & $-0.1 \pm 0.8$ & $1.6 \pm 1.0$ & $-2.2 \pm 0.9$ & $-0.2 \pm 0.9$ \\
841: \nodata & V & $0.4 \pm 0.5$ & $1.1 \pm 0.9$ & $-2.6 \pm 0.8$ & $0.4 \pm 0.8$ & $2.3 \pm 1.1$ & $-2.6 \pm 0.9$ & $0.6 \pm 0.9$ \\
842: \nodata & W & $-0.4 \pm 0.4$ & $0.1 \pm 0.9$ & $-3.5 \pm 0.8$ & $0.2 \pm 0.7$ & $0.5 \pm 1.0$ & $-3.7 \pm 0.9$ & $0.1 \pm 0.8$ \\
843:
844: 0.20 & Q & $-0.0\pm 0.5$ & $1.0 \pm 0.9$ & $-2.9 \pm 0.8$ & $0.3 \pm 0.7$ & $1.8 \pm 1.0$ & $-2.7 \pm 0.9$ & $0.5 \pm 0.8$ \\
845: \nodata & V & $0.5 \pm 0.5$ & $1.1 \pm 0.9$ & $-2.8 \pm 0.8$ & $0.7 \pm 0.7$ & $2.2 \pm 1.0$ & $-2.9 \pm 0.9$ & $1.0 \pm 0.8$ \\
846: \nodata & W & $-0.2 \pm 0.4$ & $0.2 \pm 0.8$ & $-4.1 \pm 0.7$ & $0.6 \pm 0.7$ & $0.6 \pm 0.9$ & $-4.4 \pm 0.9$ & $0.6 \pm 0.8$ \\
847:
848: 0.30 & Q & $-0.1 \pm 0.4$ & $0.9 \pm 0.8$ & $-2.2 \pm 0.7$ & $0.4 \pm 0.7$ & $1.6 \pm 0.9$ & $-1.9 \pm 0.8$ & $0.5 \pm 0.8$ \\
849: \nodata & V & $0.4 \pm 0.4$ & $1.2 \pm 0.9$ & $-2.2 \pm 0.8$ & $0.7 \pm 0.7$ & $2.2 \pm 0.9$ & $-2.2 \pm 0.8$ & $1.0 \pm 0.8$ \\
850: \nodata & W & $-0.3 \pm 0.4$ & $-0.2 \pm 0.8$ & $-3.5 \pm 0.7$ & $0.5 \pm 0.6$ & $0.1 \pm 0.9$ & $-3.7 \pm 0.8$ & $0.5 \pm 0.7$ \\
851: \hline
852: 0.12--0.3 & Q & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $0.8 \pm
853: 1.4$ & $-2.9 \pm 1.3$ & $2.3 \pm 1.2$ \\
854: \nodata & V & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $0.9 \pm
855: 1.5$ & $-2.2 \pm 1.3$ & $3.1 \pm 1.2$ \\
856: \nodata & W & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $-2.2 \pm
857: 1.4$ & $-5.2 \pm 1.3$ & $1.9 \pm 1.2$ \\
858: \enddata
859: \tablecomments{Intermediate results are shown for each of the WMAP
860: bands in the the redshift bins specified in the first column.
861: Columns 3-6 give the numbers for the standard cluster
862: configuration used in the paper. The last three columns show the
863: dipole in the shell configuration excluding the clusters at $z\leq
864: 0.05$. In the latter case we restricted the runs to when we are
865: left with at least 300 clusters in the shell in order to get
866: statistically meaningful results.}
867: \end{deluxetable}
868: \clearpage
869:
870: As a further consistency check and to estimate how much of the
871: signal is contributed by the farthest clusters, we have also
872: computed the numbers in a shell configuration excluding clusters
873: with $z\leq 0.05$ and for the 274 clusters with $0.12 \leq z \leq
874: 0.3$. Interpretation of such numbers can be cumbersome because of
875: the complicated window involved, but nevertheless they can provide
876: a useful diagnostic of the consistency of the results and the
877: contribution to the dipole by the farthest clusters. Our results
878: show that we start getting statistically meaningful results with
879: at least $\sim 300$ clusters, so the runs were done for the bins
880: where the outer $z$ exceeded 0.012. The dipole coefficients for
881: each band are shown in the last three columns of Table 1. They are
882: overall consistent with the main results and provide further
883: support that the dipole is generated by cluster motions on the
884: largest scales.
885:
886: \clearpage
887: \begin{figure}[h]
888: \plotone{f7.eps}
889: \caption{Spectral energy distribution of the measured dipole amplitude vs the frequency of
890: each of the WMAP Q, V, W bands. The measured amplitudes are shown with circles and 1-$\sigma$
891: uncertainties. Solid lines show the spectrum of any KSZ component, given by eq.
892: \ref{eq:ksz_spectrum} obtained by minimizing the corresponding
893: $\chi^2$; dashed lines show the same for the TSZ component given
894: by eq. \ref{eq:tsz_spectrum}. The corresponding $\chi^2$ per two
895: degrees of freedom are also shown in the panels.\label{fig:sed}}
896: \end{figure}
897: \clearpage
898:
899: Fig. \ref{fig:sed} plots the dipole amplitude for four farthest
900: redshift bins vs the frequency of each channel juxtaposed against
901: the TSZ energy spectrum normalized to the measured dipole at 40
902: GHz. The TSZ spectrum (eq. \ref{eq:tsz_spectrum} below) would
903: predict a smaller dipole value in the W band. On the other hand,
904: the spectrum of the dipole arising from the KSZ should be flat
905: across the frequencies consistent with the plotted numbers (as
906: mentioned above and shown in the figure the TSZ spectrum also
907: gives acceptable $\chi^2$ given the noise in the present WMAP
908: data).
909:
910: \subsection{Results averaged over all frequency channels.}
911:
912: Table 2 shows the results after weight-averaging over all of the
913: eight DA's. The table also gives additional information on the
914: cluster samples used in each measurement. In order to assess the
915: potential impact of cooling flows on the results, we have also
916: made the computations omitting cluster central pixels in WMAP
917: data. The results were essentially unchanged compared to those
918: presented in the table. There is a clear statistically-significant
919: dipole at the level of $\sim 2-3 \mu$K once we reach $\sim 300$
920: clusters and the aperture ($\simeq 30^\prime$) encompassing most
921: of the hot gas producing the SZ effect. {\it The dipole remains as
922: the monopole representing the mean TSZ component from hot gas
923: within the selected aperture vanishes}.
924:
925: \clearpage
926: \begin{deluxetable}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c}
927: \tablewidth{0pt} \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \rotate
928: %\tablehead{SUMMARY OF DIRBE MEASUREMENTS (\nwm2sr )}
929: \tablecaption{Cluster and map parameters with results from
930: averaging over all channels.
931: \label{table} }
932: \tablehead{
933: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} &
934: \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} &
935: \colhead{(8)} &
936: \colhead{(9)} & \colhead{(10)} & \colhead{(11)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(12)} \\
937: \colhead{$z\leq$} &
938: \colhead{$\langle z\rangle$} & \colhead{$z_{\rm median}$} & \colhead{$N_{\rm cl}$} &
939: \colhead{$N_{\rm pixels}$} & \colhead{$\langle T \rangle$} &
940: \colhead{$a_{1,x}$} & \colhead{$a_{1,y}$} & \colhead{$a_{1,z}$} &
941: \colhead{$\sqrt{C_1}$} & \colhead{(l,b)} &
942: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\sqrt{C_{1,100}}$: $\mu$K per 100 km/sec} \\
943: \cline{12-13}
944: \colhead{}& \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} &
945: \colhead{$\mu$K} &
946: \colhead{$\mu$K} & \colhead{$\mu$K} & \colhead{$\mu$K} & \colhead{$\mu$K} & \colhead{deg}
947: & \colhead{(a)} & \colhead{(b)} }
948: \startdata
949: 0.02 & 0.016 & 0.016 & 17 & 941 & $-2.6\pm 1.5$ & $-4.4 \pm 3.2$ & $2.0 \pm 2.9$ & $7.5 \pm
950: 2.5$ & $8.9 \pm 5.0$ & n/a & 0.18 (0.70) & 0.20 (0.84) \\
951: 0.025 & 0.018 & 0.019 & 27 & 1,497 & $-5.2 \pm 1.2$ & $-5.5 \pm 2.4$ & $-2.9 \pm 2.1$ & $0.1 \pm
952: 2.0$ & $6.2 \pm 3.8$ & n/a & 0.18 (0.70) & 0.20 (0.78) \\
953: 0.03 & 0.022 & 0.023 & 43 & 2,417 & $-5.9 \pm 1.0$ & $0.3 \pm 1.9$ & $2.9 \pm 1.6$ & $0.5 \pm
954: 1.6$ & $3.0 \pm 2.9$ & n/a & 0.18 (0.73) & 0.20 (0.82) \\
955: 0.04 & 0.029 & 0.030 & 86 & 4,872 & $0.5 \pm 0.7$ & $-1.6 \pm 1.3$ & $0.8 \pm 1.1$ & $-2.6 \pm
956: 1.1$ & $3.1 \pm 2.0$ & n/a & 0.20 (0.73) & 0.24 (0.89) \\
957: 0.05 & 0.035 & 0.036 & 135 & 7,575 & $0.1 \pm 0.5$ & $-0.8 \pm 1.0$ & $-3.3 \pm 0.9$ & $-0.0 \pm
958: 0.9$ & $3.4 \pm 1.6$ & $(256,-0)\pm 24$ & 0.22 (0.76) & 0.24 (0.82) \\
959: 0.06 & 0.041 & 0.042 & 188 & 10,474 & $-1.0 \pm 0.4$ & $-1.0 \pm 0.9$ & $-2.4 \pm 0.8$ & $-0.5 \pm
960: 0.7$ & $2.6\pm 1.4$ & $(247,-10)\pm 26$ & 0.22 (0.80) & 0.22 (0.79) \\
961: 0.08 & 0.051 & 0.053 & 292 & 16,064 & $-1.3 \pm 0.4$ & $1.3 \pm 0.7$ & $-1.5 \pm 0.6$ & $-1.1 \pm
962: 0.6$ & $2.2 \pm 1.1$ & $(310,-29)\pm 24$ & 0.24 (0.76) & 0.26 (0.83) \\
963: 0.12 & 0.067 & 0.067 & 444 & 24,189 & $-0.7 \pm 0.3$ & $1.5 \pm 0.6$ & $-2.2 \pm 0.5$ & $-0.4 \pm
964: 0.5$ & $2.7 \pm 0.9$ & $(305, -9)\pm 17$ & 0.26 (0.79) & 0.28 (0.88) \\
965: 0.16 & 0.080 & 0.076 & 541 & 29,127 & $-0.1 \pm 0.3$ & $0.7 \pm 0.5$ & $-2.9 \pm 0.5$ & $0.1 \pm
966: 0.4$ & $3.0 \pm 0.8$ & $(283, 3)\pm 13$ & 0.25 (0.75) & 0.27 (0.83) \\
967: 0.20 & 0.090 & 0.082 & 603 & 32,146 & $0.1 \pm 0.3$ & $0.7 \pm 0.5$ & $-3.3 \pm 0.4$ & $0.5 \pm
968: 0.4$ & $3.4 \pm 0.8$ & $(282, 9)\pm 11$ & 0.28 (0.84) & 0.29 (0.90) \\
969: All $z$ & 0.106 & 0.089 & 674 & 35,409 & $0.0 \pm 0.2$ & $0.6 \pm 0.5$ & $-2.7 \pm 0.4$ & $0.6 \pm
970: 0.4$ & $2.8 \pm 0.7$ & $(283,11)\pm 14 $ & 0.29 (0.965) & 0.32 (1.01) \\
971: \hline
972: 0.05-0.3 & 0.12 & 0.11 & 540 & 29,896 & $-0.1 \pm 0.3$ & $1.2
973: \pm 0.5$ & $-2.6 \pm 0.5$ & $0.7 \pm 0.4$ & $2.9 \pm 0.8$ &
974: $(295,14)\pm 13$
975: & 0.31 (0.84) & 0.33 (0.92) \\
976: 0.12-0.3 & 0.18 & 0.17 & 230 & 11,920 & $1.7 \pm 0.4$ & $-0.2
977: \pm 0.8$ & $-3.5 \pm 0.7$ & $2.4 \pm 0.7$ & $4.2 \pm 1.3$ &
978: $(267,34)\pm 15$
979: & 0.36 (0.89) & 0.40 (1.0) \\
980: \enddata
981: \tablecomments{Results are shown for the KP0 mask only with the SZ
982: cluster extent taken to be $\min[6\theta_{\rm X-ray},30^\prime]$.
983: All uncertainties correspond to 1$\sigma$ from Method 1 in Sec.
984: \ref{errors}; the errors are from 1,000 realizations, so the error
985: uncertainty is $\simeq 4\%$. Method 2 gives identical errors
986: within $\lsim 10\%$. E.g.: at $z\leq 0.05$, where we first recover
987: a statistically significant dipole, the errors from Method 2 are
988: $(1.16, 1.09, 0.94)\mu$K for the $(x,y,z)$ dipole; at $z\leq 0.3$
989: they become $(0.62,0.56,0.46)\mu$K. By the time the results are
990: rounded to one significant digit in the table the two sets have
991: little difference and for brevity only one set of errors is shown.
992: Of course, the monopole errors are the same for the two methods.
993: The columns are: (1)-(3) the upper, mean and median redshift of
994: the cluster bins. (4),(5) The number of clusters and the number of
995: pixels used in evaluating the dipole in each redshift bin. (6) The
996: mean CMB temperature evaluated over the cluster pixels in each
997: bin. (7)-(10) Three dipole components, $a_{1m}$, and the dipole
998: amplitude, $\sqrt{C_1}$, evaluated over the cluster pixels in each
999: bin. (11) Direction and its uncertainty associated with the CMB
1000: dipole shown for the redshift bins where there is a statistically
1001: significant (at least $2\sigma$) measurement of $\sqrt{C_1}$. (12)
1002: The total dipole amplitude for $V_{\rm bulk}$=100 km/sec for
1003: filtered and unfiltered (in parentheses) maps determined using
1004: $r_c$ and $n_e$ values for each cluster obtained via (a) our
1005: best-fit $\beta$-model to the RASS data and (b) from the empirical
1006: relationship as described below The top 11 rows correspond to
1007: sphere configurations; the last two rows correspond to clusters in
1008: shells. Of the latter, the last shell has median dipole of $\simeq
1009: 0.18$ showing that the measured dipole is produced by the
1010: outermost clusters at median depth of $\gsim 600h^{-1}$Mpc.
1011: Previously claimed peculiar flows had directions: i) CMB dipole is
1012: in the direction of
1013: $(l,b)=(264.26^\circ\pm0.33^\circ,48.22^\circ\pm0.13^\circ)$ and
1014: after correction for the Local Group motion becomes towards
1015: $(l,b)=(276^\circ \pm 3^\circ, 30^\circ\pm 3^\circ)$ (see
1016: \cite{strauss-willick} and references therein); ii) the Great
1017: Attractor motion based on the Fundamental Plane distance indicator
1018: \cite{7s-di,djorgovski} is towards $(l,b)=(307,9)^\circ$
1019: \cite{7s-motion}; iii) using brightest cluster galaxies as
1020: distance indicators by \cite{lauer-postman} gave motion toward
1021: $(l,b)=(220,-28)^\circ$ with uncertainty of $\pm27^\circ$; iv)
1022: Analysis of a sample of spiral galaxies using the Tully-Fisher
1023: relation as distance indicator by \cite{willick99} suggested
1024: motion to $(l,b)=(342,52)^\circ$ with $\pm 23^\circ$ uncertainty;
1025: v) ref. \cite{hudson} use early galaxy sample for 56 clusters and
1026: find motion to $(l,b)=(260 \pm 15,-1\pm 12)^\circ$.}
1027: \end{deluxetable}
1028: \clearpage
1029:
1030: The direction of the dipole and its uncertainty in Table 2 were
1031: computed as follows: each dipole component is assumed
1032: Gaussian-distributed, with the given mean and errors. At each $z$
1033: we generate $10^4$ dipoles from a normal distribution with the
1034: standard deviation equal to each component error bar and compute
1035: the angle of these dipoles with respect to the direction of the
1036: mean dipole. For small angles, this angle follows a $\chi^2$
1037: distribution with 3 degrees of freedom; the uncertainty in the
1038: table corresponds to the 68 \% confidence contour of this
1039: distribution. The directions from previous measurements of
1040: peculiar flows based on galaxy distance indicators and those of
1041: the acceleration dipoles of the various cluster studies are
1042: summarized in the note to Table 2. The direction of the bulk flow
1043: deduced here is $\sim20^{\circ}$ from the ``global CMB dipole"
1044: direction, with a 1-$\sigma$ error of $\sim 10^\circ$-$25^\circ$
1045: over the range of $z$ probed in this study, and does not vary
1046: significantly within the range covered by our data.
1047:
1048:
1049: \clearpage
1050: \begin{figure}[h]
1051: \plotone{f8.eps}
1052: \caption{CMB temperature (light shaded plus signs) for each of 674 clusters out to $z\leq 0.3$ is plotted
1053: vs $X$, the cosine of the angle between the dipole apex and each
1054: cluster. The plots are shown for one DA channel at each frequency.
1055: The linear fit to the data is shown with thick solid line; its
1056: parameters and their uncertainties are displayed at the top of
1057: each panel. The uncertainties in the displayed fits were computed
1058: using uniform weighting. Filled circles with errors show the mean
1059: and standard deviation over all clusters binned in ten equally
1060: spaced bins in $X$. The correlation coefficient of the binned data
1061: shown with circles, $r={\rm cor}(X,\Delta T)$, is 0.5 in Q1, V1
1062: bands and 0.6 in W1 band. For the unbinned data the correlation
1063: coefficient is $\simeq 0.1$ in each of the channels, whereas the
1064: random uncorrelated data would give $r=0$ to within
1065: $1/\sqrt{N_{\rm cl}}=0.038$; this is another way of saying that we
1066: detect the dipole at $\sim 2.5\sigma$ level at each channel.}
1067:
1068: \label{fig:2apex}
1069: \end{figure}
1070: \clearpage
1071:
1072: The reality of the measured dipole can also be seen in from the
1073: following: In Fig. \ref{fig:2apex} we present the measured signal
1074: of the entire cluster sample ($z\leq 0.3$) plotted against $X$,
1075: the cosine of the angle between the detected dipole and the
1076: cluster itself for three channels at three different frequencies
1077: (Q1, V1, W1). For each cluster the CMB temperature was averaged
1078: over the cluster pixels out to $\min[6\theta_{\rm X},30^\prime]$.
1079: Results from linear fits (thick solid lines) to the data and their
1080: uncertainties are displayed in each panel. As expected there is a
1081: statistically significant dipole component in the cluster CMB
1082: temperatures. In each of the eight channels the significance is $>
1083: 2 \sigma$ leading to the overall result in the main text. The
1084: signal is consistent with the spectrum expected from the KSZ
1085: component.
1086:
1087: \section{TSZ monopole vs KSZ dipole and related issues}
1088: \label{tsz}
1089:
1090: We demonstrate in AKKE that our cluster catalog applied to the
1091: {\it unfiltered} CMB data indicates that the gas in X-ray clusters
1092: is well described by the Navarro-Frenk-White (1996, NFW) density
1093: profile theoretically expected from the non-linear evolution of
1094: the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model. In addition to using
1095: unfiltered maps, the analysis of that paper was done without
1096: imposing the 30$^\prime$ cut on the maximal cluster extent,
1097: defined a different effective cluster angular scale and the table
1098: there shows the monopole averaged over all the DA's with very
1099: different angular resolution diluting the underlying true TSZ
1100: signal. Hence, here we revisit their conclusions for the dataset
1101: used throughout this measurement. In the left panel of Fig.
1102: \ref{fig:tsz} we show the mean TSZ decrement at the cluster
1103: positions evaluated from the WMAP maps for the various total
1104: cluster extent limits described in Sec. 1 (as discussed, the
1105: maximal extent here is truncated at 30$^\prime$). The errors are
1106: standard deviations of the CMB temperature evaluated with 1,000
1107: random realizations of pseudo-clusters over the CMB map pixels
1108: outside the mask and away from the catalog clusters. The mean
1109: temperature decrement from each of the eight DA's were
1110: weight-averaged with their corresponding uncertainties to give the
1111: final $\langle \delta T \rangle$ shown in the figure. The strong
1112: decrease in the mean TSZ decrement with the increasing angular
1113: size is apparent from the figure.
1114: \clearpage
1115: \begin{figure}[h]
1116: \plotone{f9.eps}
1117: \caption[]{\small{{\bf Left}: The mean CMB temperature decrement
1118: averaged over the Q, V, W channels. The results are for unfiltered
1119: maps with 0.5$^\circ$ cut in cluster extent shown for the outer
1120: $z$-bins for progressively increasing $\alpha=\theta_{\rm
1121: SZ}/\theta_{\rm X-ray}$. Filled circles from bottom to top
1122: correspond to $\alpha=1,2,3,4,5,6$. {\bf Middle}: Solid circles
1123: show the mean TSZ decrement profile in the unfiltered CMB data vs
1124: $\alpha$ for three farthest $z$-bins. Open circles correspond to
1125: the isothermal $\beta=2/3$ model evaluated as described in Sec. 6.
1126: The two solid lines correspond to the NFW profile with
1127: concentration parameter $c=6,10$ normalized to the mean cluster
1128: parameters (see AKKE for details). The measured decrease in the
1129: filtered TSZ monopole is shown in Fig. 1 of Kashlinsky et al
1130: (2008). {\bf Right}: the X-ray temperature profile in units of the
1131: temperature at the center for the NFW profiles shown in the middle
1132: panel. The angular scale $\theta$ in arcmin corresponds to the
1133: average X-ray extent of our cluster sample. I.e. the NFW profile
1134: corresponds to a single cluster of virial radius $2h^{-1}$Mpc
1135: located at an angular distance $d_A=250 h^{-1}$Mpc. }}
1136: \label{fig:tsz}
1137: \end{figure}
1138: \clearpage
1139:
1140: The middle panel of the figure shows the mean CMB temperature
1141: profile of the TSZ decrement in the unfiltered maps for three
1142: outer redshift bins. (The decrease of the filtered TSZ decrement
1143: profile is shown in Fig. 1 of Kashlinsky et al, 2008). The
1144: expectation from the isothermal $\beta$-model for these bins was
1145: evaluated as described in Sec. 6 and is shown with the open
1146: circles. It fits well the data at the cluster inner parts, but
1147: deviates strongly from the measurements at larger radii. The fits
1148: from the NFW profiles using a method similar to Komatsu \& Seljak
1149: (2001) are shown with solid lines for two concentration parameters
1150: (see AKKE for details). These profiles provide a good fit to the
1151: data.
1152:
1153: It is important to emphasize in this context that the gas with the
1154: NFW profile which is in hydrostatic equilibrium with the cluster
1155: gravitational field must have the X-ray temperature decreasing
1156: with radius (Komatsu \& Seljak 2001). This is confirmed by
1157: numerical simulations of the cluster formation within the
1158: $\Lambda$CDM model (Borgani et al 2004) as well as by the
1159: available observations of a few nearby clusters (Pratt et al
1160: 2007). The latter cannot yet probe the $T_{\rm X}$ profile all the
1161: way to the virial radius, but do show a decrease by a factor of
1162: $\sim 2$ out to about half of it (see e.g. Fig. 5 of Pratt et al
1163: 2007). In the NFW profile the gas density profile in the outer
1164: parts goes as $n_e \propto r^{-3}$ with the polytropic index which
1165: is approximately constant for all clusters at $\gamma \simeq 1.2$
1166: (Komatsu \& Seljak 2001). Thus the X-ray temperature must drop at
1167: least as $T_{\rm X} \propto r^{-0.6}$ at the outer parts and for
1168: larger values of $\gamma$ the drop will be correspondingly more
1169: rapid. The temperature profile implied by the NFW density profile
1170: normalized to the data in the middle panel is shown in the right
1171: panel of Fig. \ref{fig:tsz}.
1172:
1173: \clearpage
1174: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
1175: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1176: \tablewidth{0pt}
1177: \tablecaption{TSZ monopole vs KSZ dipole contributions from rings.} \tablehead{
1178: \colhead{Ring} & \colhead{$N_{\rm pixels}$} &
1179: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Monopole} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Dipole components (filtered)} \\
1180: \cline{3-3}
1181: \cline{4-6}
1182: \colhead{} &
1183: \\
1184:
1185: \colhead{ } & \colhead{ } &
1186: \colhead{(unfiltered)} &
1187: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm x}}$} &
1188: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm y}}$} &
1189: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm z}}$}
1190:
1191: }
1192: \startdata
1193: & & $\mu$K & $\mu$K & $\mu$K & $\mu$K \\
1194: \hline
1195: $0^\prime-5^\prime$ & 1,183 & $-24.5\pm 9.2$ & $3.5 \pm 4.4$ & $-0.9 \pm 3.7$ & $-6.2 \pm 3.5$ \\
1196: $5^\prime-10^\prime$ & 3,283 & $-18.0 \pm 5.5$ & $1.2 \pm 2.6$ & $-4.4 \pm 2.2$ & $-5.2 \pm 2.1$ \\
1197: $10^\prime-15^\prime$ & 5,546 & $-12.6 \pm 4.3$ & $2.2 \pm 2.0$ & $-5.2 \pm 1.7$ & $2.9 \pm 1.6$ \\
1198: $15^\prime-20^\prime$ & 7,673 & $-6.8 \pm 3.6$ & $0.6 \pm 1.7$ & $-4.8 \pm 1.5$ & $2.0 \pm 1.4$ \\
1199: $20^\prime-25^\prime$ & 9,744 & $-6.0 \pm 3.2$ & $-0.3 \pm 1.5$ & $-2.8 \pm 1.3$ & $0.5 \pm 1.2$ \\
1200: $25^\prime-30^\prime$ & 11,845 & $-5.8 \pm 2.9$ & $0.9 \pm 1.4$ & $-1.0 \pm 1.2$ & $-0.3 \pm 1.1$ \\
1201: $30^\prime-45^\prime$ & 47,064 & $-4.6 \pm 1.5$ & $2.7 \pm 0.7$ & $-2.0 \pm 0.6$ & $1.4 \pm 0.6$ \\
1202: $45^\prime-60^\prime$ & 63,987 & $-4.3 \pm 1.3$ & $0.5 \pm 0.6$ & $-0.7 \pm 0.5$ & $-0.9 \pm 0.5$ \\
1203: \enddata
1204: \tablecomments{Differential contributions to the TSZ monopole (for
1205: original maps) and to the KSZ dipole using the lowest resolution
1206: W-band (FWHM $\simeq 0.2^\circ$) and the entire cluster catalog
1207: with $z\leq 0.3$ and KP0 mask; the ring width is smaller than the
1208: resolution of the Q, V WMAP bands. Negative monopole values in the
1209: original maps are expected from the TSZ component. The
1210: measurements show the existence of the hot intracluster gas out
1211: $\gsim 30^\prime$ confirming that the dipole is traced by the KSZ
1212: component from the cluster gas.}
1213: \end{deluxetable}
1214: \clearpage
1215:
1216: The implications of the above are that in the outer parts of
1217: clusters the TSZ monopole component must decrease faster than the
1218: KSZ dipole as we increase the aperture to probe the cluster outer
1219: regions. This is what we observe in the data and allowed us to
1220: isolate the KSZ dipole component as the TSZ monopole vanishes. The
1221: reason we present the results out to $\min[6\theta_{\rm
1222: X-ray},30^\prime]$ is that this is roughly the scale where we
1223: still detect statistically significant TSZ signal in the
1224: unfiltered data (AKKE and Table 3 below).
1225:
1226: Table 3 shows the differential distribution of the TSZ and dipole
1227: components in rings of the specified radius and width around the
1228: clusters in our catalog. The data from the W-band were selected
1229: for the table because this channel has the finest angular
1230: resolution making it the most adequate to probe the differential
1231: contribution to the final signal. The table clearly shows that in
1232: the unfiltered data the X-ray emitting gas producing the TSZ
1233: signal exists out to at least $25^\prime-30^\prime$, the effective
1234: final radius of our cluster catalog. The measurements in the table
1235: confirm explicitly that, due to the X-ray temperature decrease, in
1236: the filtered maps the dipole KSZ component can be isolated as the
1237: TSZ monopole vanishes. Mathematically, discounting the additional
1238: $T_{\rm X}$ factor with $\gamma\simeq 1.2-1.3$ in the TSZ terms
1239: makes the KSZ term for the NFW-like clusters lie close to the TSZ
1240: profile of the isothermal $\beta\sim2/3$ model and, hence, its KSZ
1241: decrease with increasing aperture radius should roughly mimic the
1242: open circles in the middle panel of Fig. \ref{fig:tsz}. Of course,
1243: the true cluster properties, such as the electron density and
1244: X-ray temperature profiles, can be mathematically constrained (and
1245: perhaps even recovered) from the measurements of both the KSZ
1246: dipole and TSZ monopole profiles; this, however, lies outside the
1247: scope of this investigation. \clearpage
1248: \begin{figure}[h]
1249: \plotone{f10.eps}
1250: \caption{Shows the dipole variation with increasing cluster extent.
1251: The cluster electron density profile is such that within the
1252: statistical uncertainties the dipole does not change significantly
1253: out to the cluster virial radius, where we still detect
1254: statistically significant TSZ component as shown in Fig.
1255: \ref{fig:tsz}. At larger radii it starts decreasing as expected,
1256: although if there was some hot gas around the clusters the
1257: decrease would be slower. The last three sets of points show the
1258: dipole as all clusters are set to extend to 1, 2 and 3 degree
1259: radii; the first three correspond to $\alpha = 2,4,6$ and the
1260: maximal extent set at 0.5 degrees as shown in Fig. 1 of Kashlinsky
1261: et al (2008). Pluses correspond to the two Q channel DA's,
1262: asterisks to the two V channel DA's and diamonds to the four W
1263: channel DA's. Filled circle shows the mean over all eight DA's.
1264: The horizontal error bar shows the standard deviation of the
1265: cluster radial extent with increasing $\alpha$. Left panel
1266: corresponds to $a_{1x}$ ($m=0)$, middle to $a_{1y}$ ($m=1)$ and
1267: right to $a_{1z}$. \label{fig:extent}}
1268: \end{figure}
1269: \clearpage
1270:
1271: Of course, as the the mean cluster extent gets increased further
1272: and we reach passed the cluster gas extent radii we should also
1273: observe a decrease in the measured dipole. To check this we have
1274: run our pipeline with the net cluster angular extent increased to
1275: 1, 2 and 3 degree radii. At the $3^\circ$ radii the cluster
1276: catalog occupies a significant fraction of the available sky,
1277: $\simeq 35\%$, so at larger radii the clusters overlapping would
1278: become significant. We observe that the dipole, in all $z$-bins
1279: where we have a statistically significant measurement, indeed
1280: decreases with the increasing mean extent for the apertures with
1281: $\alpha \gsim 6$. This is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:extent}. It is
1282: interesting to note that as we increase the extent further we may
1283: be detecting signs of the two other components of the dipole
1284: ($x,z)$, as testified by the small scatter among the mean dipole
1285: from all the eight DA's. This is because the noise, reflected in
1286: the scatter among the eight DA's, decreases faster than the
1287: dilution factor in the measured dipole. However, it would be
1288: difficult to interpret these results with the current version of
1289: our X-ray catalog.
1290:
1291: \section{Calibration: translating $\mu$K into km/sec}
1292: \label{calibration}
1293:
1294: In order to translate the CMB dipole in $\mu$K into the amplitude
1295: of $V_{\rm bulk}$ in km/sec, we proceed as follows. First, we
1296: verified that our catalog reproduces accurately the measured TSZ
1297: properties of the measured CMB parameters (see also Sec.
1298: \ref{tsz}). Table 4 compares the directly determined TSZ
1299: contributions in the redshift bins where we have a statistically
1300: significant detection of the dipole with those determined from the
1301: parameters in the catalog. The latter is determined as follows:
1302: for each cluster we construct a TSZ map in each WMAP channel using
1303: the catalog values for the electron density, core radius, X-ray
1304: temperature and total extent, and assuming $\beta=2/3$. These maps
1305: are then filtered using the filters shown in Fig.
1306: \ref{fig:filters} and coadded using the weights used in the main
1307: pipeline. As a consistency check we determine the gas profile
1308: using two independent methods: (a) fitting a $\beta$-profile
1309: directly to the RASS X-ray data, and (b) using an empirical
1310: relationship between the core radius and X-ray luminosity. The
1311: quantities derived from the catalog should have the same
1312: uncertainties (generated by the CMB maps noise etc) as those
1313: measured directly and for brevity are not shown. The table shows
1314: that there is good agreement between the directly measured TSZ
1315: component and that derived using the X-ray cluster catalog for
1316: $\theta_{\rm
1317: SZ}=\theta_{\rm X-ray}$. The two sets of numbers mostly overlap at 1-$\sigma$
1318: level and always overlap at 2-$\sigma$. To further check that the
1319: agreement is not accidental, we have generated a test catalog
1320: randomly assigning the various cluster parameters from different
1321: clusters. The agreement completely disappears and the two sets of
1322: numbers become different by factors of $\sim 2-3$.
1323:
1324: \clearpage
1325: \begin{deluxetable}{cc|cccc|cccc}
1326: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1327: \tablewidth{0pt}
1328: \tablecaption{TSZ component in filtered maps: observed and modelled.} \tablehead{
1329: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{(3)} \\
1330: \cline{3-10}
1331: \colhead{} &
1332: \colhead{CMB maps} &
1333: \multicolumn{8}{c}{TSZ estimate using catalogs: (a) $|$ (b)} \\
1334:
1335: \colhead{$z\leq$} &
1336: \colhead{$\langle \Delta T\rangle$} &
1337: \colhead{$\langle \Delta T\rangle$} &
1338: \colhead{$\frac{a_{1,{\rm x}}}{\langle \Delta T\rangle}$} &
1339: \colhead{$\frac{a_{1,{\rm y}}}{\langle \Delta T\rangle}$} &
1340: \colhead{$\frac{a_{1,{\rm z}}}{\langle \Delta T\rangle}$} &
1341: \colhead{$\langle \Delta T\rangle$} &
1342: \colhead{$\frac{a_{1,{\rm x}}}{\langle \Delta T\rangle}$} &
1343: \colhead{$\frac{a_{1,{\rm y}}}{\langle \Delta T\rangle}$} &
1344: \colhead{$\frac{a_{1,{\rm z}}}{\langle \Delta T\rangle}$} \\
1345:
1346: }
1347: \startdata
1348: & $\mu$K & $\mu$K & & & & $\mu$K & & & \\
1349: \hline
1350: 0.05 & $-4.5 \pm 1.3$ & $-5.3$ & 0.3 & $-0.2$ & $-0.2$ & $-5.6$ & 0.2 & $-0.2$ & $-0.2$ \\
1351: 0.06 & $-6.8 \pm 1.1$ & $-5.7$ & 0.3 & $-0.3$ & $-0.2$ & $-6.1$ & 0.3 & $-0.2$ & $-0.2$ \\
1352: 0.08 & $-7.5 \pm 1.0$ & $-6.2$ & 0.2 & $-0.0$ & $-0.1$ & $-6.7$ & 0.2 & $-0.1$ & $-0.1$ \\
1353: 0.12 & $-7.6 \pm 0.9$ & $-7.5$ & 0.1 & $0.0$ & $-0.2$ & $-7.8$ & 0.1 & 0.1 & $-0.2$ \\
1354: 0.16 & $-7.3 \pm 0.8$ & $-7.9$ & 0.2 & $-0.1$ & $-0.1$ & $-8.6$ & 0.2 & $-0.0$ & $-0.1$ \\
1355: 0.20 & $-7.4 \pm 0.8$ & $-8.8$ & 0.1 & $-0.0$ & $-0.1$ & $-9.75$ & 0.1 & $-0.0$ & $-0.1$ \\
1356: 0.30 & $-7.9 \pm 0.8$ & $-11.$ & 0.2 & $-0.0$ & $-0.0$ & $-11.9$ & 0.2 & $-0.1$ & $-0.0$ \\
1357: \enddata
1358: \tablecomments{Column (1) is the redshift bin of the clusters and
1359: (2) shows the observed temperature decrement in the WMAP data for
1360: $\theta_{\rm SZ}=\theta_{\rm X-ray}$ in each of the bins. Columns
1361: (3) correspond to the TSZ temperature decrement and its relative
1362: dipole calculated from the X-ray catalog data. In columns (a) and
1363: (b) the TSZ temperature decrement is calculated using cluster
1364: parameters derived from our best-fit $\beta$-model to the RASS
1365: data and the empirical relationship of Reiprich \& B\"{o}hringer
1366: (1999), respectively. CMB temperature decrements are in $\mu$K.}
1367: \end{deluxetable}
1368: \clearpage
1369:
1370: Thus the cluster properties in the catalog are determined
1371: reasonably well to estimate the translation factor between the CMB
1372: dipole amplitude and the bulk flow velocity. To account for the
1373: attenuation of the clusters' $\tau$ values by both the beam and
1374: the filter, we convolve the gas profile of each cluster with the
1375: beam and the filter shown in Fig. \ref{fig:filters} over the WMAP
1376: pixels associated with it. Each cluster is given a bulk flow
1377: motion of 100 km/sec in the direction listed in Table 2, so that
1378: each pixel of the $i$-th cluster has $\delta T=T_{\rm
1379: CMB}\tau_i(\theta) V_{\rm bulk}/c$, with $\theta$ being the
1380: angular distance to the cluster center. We then compute the CMB
1381: dipole of the resulting cluster map and average the results for
1382: each channel map with the same weights as used in the dipole
1383: computation. This allows us to estimate the dipole amplitude,
1384: $C_{1,100}$, contributed by each 100 km/sec of bulk-flow. We
1385: restrict our calculation to the central $1\theta_{\rm X-ray}$
1386: where the $\beta$-model and NFW profiles differ by 10-30\% and
1387: where the central values of the measured dipole are similar to the
1388: values measured at the final aperture extent. In other words, we
1389: assume that for each cluster all pixels measure the same velocity
1390: (in modulus) across the sky, so the calibration constant, measured
1391: from any subset of pixels is the same, irrespective of the signal
1392: (in $\mu$K) measured at their location.
1393:
1394: The results are shown in the last column of Table 2 for the
1395: central values of the direction of the measured flow; varying the
1396: direction within the uncertainties of $(l,b)$ shown in Table~2
1397: changes the numbers by at most a few percent. A bulk flow of 100
1398: km/sec thus leads to $\sqrt{C_1}\simeq 0.8\mu$K for unfiltered
1399: clusters; this corresponds to an average optical depth of our
1400: cluster sample of $\langle \tau \rangle \simeq 10^{-3}$ consistent
1401: with what is expected for a typical galaxy cluster. Filtering
1402: reduces the effective $\tau$ by a factor of $\simeq 3$. As
1403: mentioned above, since a $\beta$-model provides a poor fit to the
1404: measured TSZ component outside the estimated values of
1405: $\theta_{\rm X-ray}$ \cite{paper2}, we compute $C_{1,100}$ with
1406: the total extent assumed to be $\theta_{\rm X-ray}$ where the
1407: central value of the bulk-flow dipole has approximately the same
1408: value as at the final aperture of $\min[6\theta_{\rm
1409: X-ray},30^\prime]$. Owing to the large size of our cluster sample ($N_{\rm cl}
1410: \sim$130-675), the random uncertainties in the estimated values of
1411: $C_{1,100}$ should be small, but we cannot exclude a systematic
1412: offset related to selection biases affecting our cluster catalog
1413: at high redshift. Any such offset, if present, will become
1414: quantifiable with the next version of our X-ray cluster catalog
1415: (in preparation) which will use the empirically established SZ
1416: profile \cite{paper2} rather than the currently used $\beta$-model
1417: to parameterize the cluster gas profile. The good agreement
1418: between the various TSZ-related quantities shown in Table 4 for
1419: $\theta_{\rm SZ}=\theta_{\rm X-ray}$ and the observed values for
1420: both unfiltered \cite{paper2} and filtered maps suggests, however,
1421: that these systematic uncertainties are not likely to be high. We
1422: also note that they only affect the accuracy of the determination
1423: of the amplitude of the bulk flow, but cannot put its existence
1424: into doubt which is established from the CMB dipole detected at
1425: the cluster locations. Since the filtering effectively removes the
1426: profile outside, approximately, a few arcmin (see Fig.
1427: \ref{fig:filters}), it removes a more substantial amount of power
1428: in the $\beta$-model when the cluster SZ extent is increased
1429: beyond $\theta_{\rm X-ray}$, than in the steeper profile measured
1430: by us \cite{paper2}. Therefore, the effective $\tau$ is possibly
1431: underestimated by using a $\beta$-model. Nevertheless, the
1432: calibration factor {\it cannot exceed} $\sqrt{C_{1,100}}\simeq 0.8
1433: \mu$K given by that of the unfiltered clusters, so the measured
1434: flow has bulk velocity of at least a few hundred km/sec
1435: independently of scale out to at least $\gsim 300 h^{-1}$Mpc. The
1436: above number for the calibration is {\it lowered} by filtering.
1437: Filtering removes somewhat more power in the NFW clusters than in
1438: the $\beta$-model, so the value of $\sqrt{C_{1,100}}=0.3 \mu$K for
1439: filtered clusters in Table 2, is a firm lower limit. At the same
1440: time, the central dipole value there is more-or-less the same as
1441: for larger apertures. Fig. \ref{fig:systematics} shows that
1442: geometrical considerations do not introduce more that a few
1443: percent in the calibration constant.
1444:
1445: While the above already limits calibration to a relatively narrow
1446: range, a more accurate determination of $C_{1,100}$ would require
1447: an adequate knowledge, not yet available, of the NFW profile of
1448: each individual cluster. It is not sufficient to know the average
1449: profile of the cluster population (AKKE). Filtering acts
1450: differently on the NFW-type clusters depending on their angular
1451: extent and concentration parameter, i.e., the filtered mean
1452: profile is not the same as the mean of all filtered profiles.
1453: However, since $C_{1,100}$ was computed using the central pixels,
1454: the region where the filter preserves the signal most and where
1455: both profiles differ less, we believe that our estimate of
1456: $C_{1,100}\simeq 0.3\mu$K is fairly accurate, at least in the
1457: sense that our overall cosmological interpretation holds within
1458: the remaining uncertainties and it is fairly independent of the
1459: cluster sub-samples in Table 2.
1460:
1461: \section{Future prospects}
1462: \label{future}
1463:
1464: The noise of our measurement of the dipole at $1.8 (N_{\rm
1465: cl}/100)^{-1/2}\mu$K with three-year WMAP data is in good
1466: agreement with the expectations of \cite{kab}. The uncertainties
1467: in our measurement are dominated by the instrument noise and
1468: should thus decrease toward the end of the 8-year WMAP mission by
1469: a factor of $\sqrt{8/3}\simeq 1.6$. This should enable us to
1470: measure the flows with an accuracy for individual $a_{1m}$ values
1471: of $\simeq 1$ to $\simeq 0.25 \mu$K for $z\leq 0.03$ and $z\leq
1472: 0.3$, improving the accuracy of the measurement and perhaps
1473: uncovering the flows at lower $z$ and the currently undetermined
1474: components of the dipole. Particularly useful in the future would
1475: be to make such measurement at around 217 GHz, where the TSZ
1476: component vanishes, and at larger frequencies where it changes
1477: sign. This could be achievable with the planned ESA-led Planck CMB
1478: mission (http://www.rssd.esa.int/planck).
1479:
1480: After this project was completed, the WMAP mission has released
1481: its 5-year integration data. The data ave lower noise than the
1482: 3-year integrations used here. We will report the full results
1483: from the 5-year data analysis (and extended X-ray cluster catalog
1484: - see next paragraph) in separate publications after the full work
1485: is completed. Suffice is to say here that our preliminary analysis
1486: of the 5-year CMB maps gives results in full agreement with this
1487: paper. However, because the new CMB mask of the 5-year data
1488: release, KQ75, is somewhat different and larger than the KP0 mask
1489: of the 3-year data, fewer clusters can enter the final analysis
1490: and the reduction in errors seems less than $\sqrt{5/3}=1.3$. This
1491: will be improved with a new expanded cluster catalog we are
1492: developing now as described in the following paragraph.
1493:
1494: Another obvious avenue toward improving this measurement goes
1495: through an increased cluster sample. Since X-ray selection is
1496: critical to ensure that all systems selected are indeed
1497: gravitationally bound, and since all-sky (or near-all-sky)
1498: coverage is crucial to ensure unbiased sampling of the dipole
1499: field, the database of choice for this purpose remains the ROSAT
1500: All-Sky Survey (RASS). The cluster sample used in our present work
1501: can be straightforwardly extended by adopting a lower X-ray flux
1502: limit. While this will not result in a noticeable increase of our
1503: sample at low redshift (at much lower X-ray fluxes than used by us
1504: here we would begin to select very poor galaxy groups and even
1505: individual galaxies), tremendous statistical gains can still be
1506: made at redshifts greater than, say, 0.15 where our present flux
1507: limit excludes all but the most X-ray luminous systems. We
1508: therefore are working to extend to the whole sky the approach
1509: successfully taken by the MACS project (Ebeling et al. 2001,
1510: 2007), i.e. to identify clusters in the RASS data down to detect
1511: fluxes of $1\times 10^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (0.1--2.4
1512: keV), thereby extending our study to redshifts approaching 0.7. We
1513: note that the poor photon statistics of the RASS (a detection at
1514: such low fluxes consists often of no more than 20 X-ray photons)
1515: are irrelevant for our purposes as long as the cluster nature of
1516: the X-ray source can be unambiguously confirmed. MACS has
1517: demonstrated that this is possible, specifically at high redshift,
1518: by means of imaging follow-up observations at optical wavelengths.
1519: (Since we recover the CMB dipole which exists at high significance
1520: level only at the CMB pixels associated with X-ray clusters even
1521: adding a small fraction of CMB pixels not associated with true
1522: clusters can only decrease the statistical significance of the
1523: results, rather than introduce bias). Clusters at $z>0.1$ are
1524: essentially unresolved in the RASS, and are most definitely
1525: unresolved in the WMAP data, meaning that both surveys are
1526: sensitive only to the integrated cluster signal which is
1527: independent of the exact shape of the X-ray emission (radial
1528: surface-brightness profile, general morphology). The compilation
1529: of a well defined, RASS-selected, all-sky cluster sample following
1530: the MACS selection criteria is currently done by us for this
1531: project in conjunction with longer integration WMAP data.
1532:
1533: We are currently developing ways to improve our calibration of
1534: $C_{1,100}$ using a directly fit NFW profile for our catalog
1535: clusters. In AKKE we have measured the average NFW of our cluster
1536: sample. The poor resolution of WMAP data, the amplitude of the
1537: intrinsic CMB signal compared with the TSZ contribution and the
1538: limited frequency range of WMAP radiometers may limit the ability
1539: to estimate the NFW for each individual cluster in our sample
1540: using the available CMB data. The PLANCK mission, with its large
1541: frequency coverage will permit to estimate those parameters with
1542: enough precision for the purposes of this project. Although our
1543: calibration uncertainty is unlikely to exceed $\sim 20-30\%$, the
1544: newly constructed catalog should narrow down these systematic
1545: effects even more.
1546:
1547:
1548: Further improvements can be done by specifically designing more
1549: optimal filtering schemes to isolate specifically the
1550: contributions from the clusters of galaxies to CMB anisotropies.
1551: Here care is required. Our filter is based on the data and the
1552: actual realization of the noise. It, eq. \ref{eq:filter}, is
1553: specifically designed to eliminate the cosmological fluctuations
1554: in a given (random and channel-specific) noise realization, which
1555: is done efficiently enough as our results show, because the power
1556: spectrum of the largest contributor to the dipole, the
1557: cosmological CMB fluctuations, is known with high accuracy. If one
1558: uses more theoretical filters, e.g. to isolate the SZ component of
1559: the power spectrum, the latter must be known with high accuracy
1560: (say, at least as high as the $\Lambda$CDM CMB power spectrum) and
1561: it must be known with high accuracy for our catalog clusters.
1562: Furthermore, Wiener-type filters do not preserve power and
1563: different filters remove different amounts of it. Thus the
1564: additional filter-specific issues would be the different
1565: calibration procedures and the different monopole (from TSZ) in
1566: the residual maps.
1567:
1568: \section{Summary}
1569: \label{summary}
1570:
1571: We now summarize the main conclusions from this study:
1572:
1573: $\bullet$ Our measurements indicate the existence of the residual
1574: CMB dipole evaluated over the CMB pixels associated with the hot
1575: SZ producing gas in clusters of galaxies. The dipole is measured
1576: at high-signifance level ($\sim 8\sigma$ in the outer bins) and
1577: persists out the limit of our cluster catalog $z_{\rm
1578: median}\simeq 0.1$. Its direction is not far off the direction of
1579: the "global CMB dipole" measured from the entire unprocessed maps.
1580:
1581: $\bullet$ We show with detailed simulation that the CMB mask
1582: and/or cluster sample discreteness induced cross-talk effects are
1583: negligible and cannot mimic the measured dipole.
1584:
1585: $\bullet$ The dipole originates exclusively at the cluster pixels
1586: and, hence, cannot be produced by foregrounds or instrument noise.
1587: It must originate from the CMB photons that have passed through
1588: the hot gas in the catalog clusters.
1589:
1590: $\bullet$ We prove that the signal arises from the hot SZ
1591: producing cluster gas because we demonstrate that in the
1592: unfiltered CMB maps there remains statistically significant
1593: temperature {\it decrement} as expected from the TSZ effect. Its
1594: profile is consistent with the NFW profile out the largest
1595: aperture where we still detect hot gas ($\sim 30^\prime$). At
1596: larger radii the dipole begins to decrease as expected.
1597:
1598: $\bullet$ In the filtered maps, designed to reduce the
1599: cosmological CMB fluctuations, the dipole is isolated
1600: simultaneously as the monopole component vanishes. This proves
1601: that its origin lies in the KSZ component. The monopole vanishes
1602: (within the noise) because for the NFW profile the gas in
1603: hydrostatic equilibrium must have a strong decrease in the X-ray
1604: temperature in the outer parts. This decrease is consistent with
1605: the available direct X-ray measurements, but more importantly is
1606: demonstrated empirically in AKKE.
1607:
1608: $\bullet$ With the current cluster catalog we determine that the
1609: amplitude of the dipole corresponds to bulk flow of 600-1000
1610: km/sec. This conversion factor, $C_{\rm 1,100}$, may however have
1611: some systematic offset related to our current cluster modelling.
1612: However, this possible uncertainty only affect the amplitude of
1613: the motion, not its coherence scale or existence.
1614:
1615: $\bullet$ The cosmological implications are discussed in
1616: Kashlinsky et al (2008). We show there that the concordance
1617: $\Lambda$CDM model cannot account for this motion at many standard
1618: deviations. Instead, it is possible that this motion extends all
1619: the way to the current cosmological horizon and may originate from
1620: the tilt across the observable Universe from far away
1621: pre-inflationary inhomogeneities \cite{ktf,turner}.
1622:
1623: This work is supported by the NASA ADP grant NNG04G089G in the USA
1624: (PI - A. Kashlinsky) and by the Ministerio de Educaci\'on y
1625: Ciencia and the ''Junta de Castilla y Le\'on'' in Spain
1626: (FIS2006-05319, PR2005-0359 and SA010C05, PI - F.
1627: Atrio-Barandela). We thank Gary Hinshaw for useful information
1628: regarding the WMAP data specifics. FAB thanks the University of
1629: Pennsylvania for its hospitality when part of this work was
1630: carried out. We thank Carlos Hernandez-Monteagudo for spotting a
1631: technical correction in the SZ energy distribution, eq. 4 and Fig.
1632: 7.
1633:
1634: {\it NOTE ADDED IN PROOF}: Our results have received recently
1635: additional support from an independent study by Watkins, Feldman
1636: and Hudson (arXiv:0809.4041; 2009, MNRAS, 392, 743) . The Watkins
1637: et al. study compiled all major peculiar velocity surveys to date
1638: to determine bulk flows within a 100 $h^{-1}$Mpc sphere. Although
1639: the scales involved are much smaller than, and the method
1640: completely different from ours, Watson et al find that the
1641: galaxies within a $\sim 50-100 h^{-1}$Mpc sphere are moving at a
1642: significant velocity in the same direction as found in our work.
1643: The amplitude of their motion, at $\sim400-500$ km/sec, appears
1644: somewhat smaller, but still overlaps within $<$ 2 standard
1645: deviations with our velocity assuming the calibration above. We
1646: anticipate that recalibrating the cluster sample as described in
1647: Sec. 8 will further decrease the difference between the measured
1648: velocity amplitudes.
1649:
1650: %\clearpage
1651:
1652: \begin{thebibliography}{3}
1653: \bibitem [Aghanim et al 2008]{aghanim}{Aghanim, N., Majumdar, S. \& Silk, J. 2008, Rep. Prog. Phys., 71,
1654: 066902}
1655: \bibitem [Atrio-Barandela et al 2008]{paper2}{Atrio-Barandela, F., Kashlinsky, A.,
1656: Kocevski, D. \& Ebeling, H. 2008, Ap.J. (Letters), 675, L57.
1657: (AKKE)}
1658: \bibitem [Birkinshaw 1999]{birkinshaw}{Birkinshaw, M. 1999,
1659: Ph.Rep., 310, 97}
1660: \bibitem [Bohringer et al 2004]{bohringer}{B\"{o}hringer, et al. 2004, A\&A, 425,
1661: 367}
1662: \bibitem [Borgani et al 2004]{borgani}{Borgani, S. et al 2004, MNRAS, 348,
1663: 1078}
1664: \bibitem [Cavaliere \& Fusco-Femiano 1976]{beta-model}{Cavaliere, A. \& Fusco-Femiano, R. 1976, A\&A, 49,
1665: 137}
1666: \bibitem [Carlstrom et al 2002]{carlstrom}{Carlstrom, J.E.,
1667: Holder, G.P. \& Reese, E.D. 2002, ARA\&A, 40, 643}
1668: \bibitem [Courteau et al 2000]{courteau}{Courteau, S. et al 2000, Ap.J., 544, 636}
1669: \bibitem [Djorgovski \& Davis 1987]{djorgovski}{Djorgovski, S. \&
1670: Davis, M. 1987, Ap.J., 313, 59}
1671: \bibitem [Dressler et al 1987]{7s-di}{ Dressler et al 1987, Ap.J., 313,
1672: 42}
1673: \bibitem [Ebeling et al 1998]{ebeling1}{Ebeling, H., Edge, A.C., B\"{o}hringer, H., Allen, S.W., Crawford,
1674: C.S., Fabian, A.C., Voges, W., \& Huchra, J.P. 1998, MNRAS, 301,
1675: 881}
1676: \bibitem [Ebeling et al 2000]{ebeling2}{Ebeling, H., Edge A.C., Allen S.W., Crawford C.S., Fabian A.C., \&
1677: Huchra J.P. 2000, MNRAS, 318 333}
1678: \bibitem [Ebeling et al 2001]{ebeling2001}{Ebeling, H. et al 2001, TBD}
1679: \bibitem [Ebeling et al 2002]{ebeling3}{Ebeling, H., Mullis, C.R., \& Tully R.B. 2002, ApJ, 580,
1680: 774}
1681: \bibitem [Ebeling et al 2007]{ebeling2001}{Ebeling, H. et al 2007, TBD}
1682: \bibitem [Gorski et al 2005]{healpix}{Gorski, K. et al 2005, Ap.J., 622,
1683: 759}
1684: \bibitem [Jones \& Forman 1984]{jones-forman}{Jones, C. \& Forman, W. 1984, ApJ, 276,
1685: 38}
1686: \bibitem [Henry \& Hendriksen 1986]{henry}{Henry, J.P. \& Henriksen, M.J. 1986, Ap.J., 301,
1687: 689}
1688: \bibitem [Hinshaw et al 2007]{hinshaw}{Hinshaw, G. et al 2007, Ap.J., 170, 288}
1689: \bibitem [Holzapfel et al 1997]{holzapfel}{Holzapfel, W.L. et al
1690: 1997, Ap.J., 479, 17}
1691: \bibitem [Hudson \& Ebeling 1997]{hudson-ebeling}{Hudson, M.J. \& Ebeling, H.
1692: 1997, Ap.J., 479, 621}
1693: \bibitem [Hudson et al 1999]{hudson}{Hudson, M.J. et al 1999
1694: Ap.J., 512, L79}
1695: \bibitem [Kashlinsky 1988]{k88}{Kashlinsky, A. 1988, Ap.J., 331,
1696: L1}
1697: \bibitem [Kashlinsky \& Atrio-Barandela 2000]{kab}{Kashlinsky, A. \& Atrio-Barandela, F. 2000, Ap.J., 536,
1698: L67}
1699: \bibitem [Kashlinsky \& Jones 1991]{kashlinsky-jones}{Kashlinsky,
1700: A. \& Jones, B.J.T. 1991, Nature, 349, 753}
1701: \bibitem [Kashlinsky et al 1994]{ktf}{Kashlinsky, A., Tkachev,
1702: I., Frieman, J. 1994, Phys. Rev. Lett., 73, 1582}
1703: \bibitem [Kashlinsky et al 2008]{longpaper}{Kashlinsky, A.,
1704: Atrio-Barandela, F., Kocevski, D. \& Ebeling, H. 2008,
1705: Ap.J.(Letters), 686, L49.}
1706: \bibitem [Kocevski \& Ebeling 2006]{kocevski2}{Kocevski, D.D. \& Ebeling, H. 2006, ApJ, 645,
1707: 1043}
1708: \bibitem [Kocevski et al 2007]{kocevski1}{Kocevski, D.D., Ebeling, H., Mullis, C.R., \& R.B. Tully, 2007, ApJ,
1709: \emph{in press}}
1710: \bibitem [Kocevski et al 2004]{kocevski3}{Kocevski, D.D., Mullis, C.R., \& Ebeling, H. 2004, ApJ, 608,
1711: 721}
1712: \bibitem [Komatsu \& Seljak 2001]{komatsu}{Komatsu, E. \& Seljak, U. 2001, MNRAS,
1713: 1353}
1714: \bibitem [Lauer \& Postman 1994]{lauer-postman}{Lauer, T. R. \&
1715: Postman, M. 1994, Ap.J., 425, 418}
1716: \bibitem [Lynden-Bell et al 1988]{7s-motion}{Lynden-Bell, D. et al
1717: 1988, Ap.J., 326, 19}
1718: \bibitem [Mathewson et al 1992]{mathewson}{Mathewson, D.S., Ford,
1719: V.L. \& Buchhorn, M. 1992, Ap.J., 389, L5}
1720: \bibitem [Navarro et al 1996]{nfw}{Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S. \& White, S.D.M. 1996, ApJ, 462,
1721: 563}
1722: \bibitem [Nolta et al 2008]{nolta}{Nolta, M.R. et al 2008, ApJS,
1723: in press}
1724: \bibitem [Phillips 1995]{phillips}{Phillips, P.R. 1995, Ap.J., 455, 419}
1725: \bibitem [Pratt et al 2007]{pratt}{Pratt, G.W. et al 2007, Astron. Astrophys. 461,
1726: 71}
1727: \bibitem [Press et al 1986]{recipes}{Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky, S.A. \& Vetterling, W.T.
1728: 1986, {\it Numerical Recipes}, Cambridge University Press}
1729: \bibitem [Raymond \& Smith 1977]{raymond-smith}{Raymond, J.C. \& Smith, B.W. 1977, Ap. J. Suppl., 35,
1730: 419}
1731: \bibitem [Rees \& Sciama 1968]{rees-sciama}{Rees, M.J., \& Sciama, D. 1968, Nature, 511,
1732: 611}
1733: \bibitem [Reiprich \& Boehringer 1999]{reiprich}{Reiprich, T. H., \& Boehringer, H. 1999, Astron. Nachr., 320,
1734: 296}
1735: \bibitem [Riess et al 1997]{riess}{Riess, A., Davis, M., Baker, J. \& Kirshner, R.P. 1997, Ap.J., 488, L1}
1736: \bibitem [Rubin et al 1976]{rubin-ford}{Rubin, V., Roberts, M., Thonnard \& Ford, W.K. 1976, A.J., 81,719}
1737: \bibitem [Scaramella et al 1991]{scaramella}{Scaramella, R., Vettolani, G., \& Zamorani, G. 1991, ApJ, 376,
1738: L1}
1739: \bibitem [Stebbins 1997]{stebbins}{Stebbins, A. 1997,
1740: astro-ph/9705178}
1741: \bibitem [Strauss \& Willick 1995]{strauss-willick}{Strauss, M. \&
1742: Willick, J.A. 1995, Phys. Rep., 261, 271}
1743: \bibitem [Turner 1991]{turner}{Turner, M. S. 1991, Phys.Rev., D44,
1744: 3737}
1745: \bibitem [Voges et al 1999]{voges}{Voges, W., et al. 1999, A\&AS, 349,
1746: 389}
1747: % Dickey, J.M., \& Lokman, F.J. 1990, ARA\&A, 28, 215
1748: \bibitem [White et al 1997]{white}{ White D.A., Jones C., Forman W. 1997, MNRAS, 292,
1749: 419}
1750: \bibitem [Willick 1999]{willick99}{Willick, J.A. 1999, Ap.J., 522,
1751: 647}
1752: \bibitem [Willick 2000]{willick}{Willick, J.A. 2000,
1753: astro-ph/0003232, in Proceedings of the XXXVth Rencontres de
1754: Moriond: Energy Densities in the Universe}
1755:
1756: \end{thebibliography}
1757:
1758:
1759: %\section*{Bulk flows within the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model}
1760:
1761: %In the gravitational-instability paradigm the expected rms bulk bulk flow can be
1762: %estimated using an underlying power spectrum of the mass
1763: %distribution. Fig. \ref{fig:vofr} shows the rms bulk flow for the concordance
1764: %$\Lambda$CDM model. The right vertical axis shows the CMB dipole amplitude,
1765: %$\sqrt{C_1}$, that this motion would cause in $\mu$K assuming
1766: %$\sqrt{C_{1,100}}=0.3$. The numbers are shown using two models for the window
1767: %function: the solid line corresponds to a top-hat window and the dashed to a
1768: %Gaussian window. The figure shows that in the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model one
1769: %expects significantly smaller bulk flows than what we measure on scales from
1770: %$\simeq 50$ to $\simeq 300 h^{-1}$Mpc.
1771:
1772: \end{document}
1773: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
1774: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\arabic{table}}
1775: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1776: \tablewidth{0pt}
1777: \tablecaption{TSZ monopole vs KSZ dipole contributions from rings.} \tablehead{
1778: \colhead{Ring} & \colhead{$N_{\rm pixels}$} &
1779: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Monopole} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Dipole components} \\
1780: \cline{3-4}
1781: \cline{5-7}
1782: \colhead{} &
1783: \\
1784:
1785: \colhead{ } & \colhead{ } &
1786: \colhead{Unfiltered} &
1787: \colhead{Filtered} &
1788: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm x}}$} &
1789: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm y}}$} &
1790: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm z}}$}
1791:
1792: }
1793: \startdata
1794: & & $\mu$K & $\mu$K & $\mu$K & $\mu$K & $\mu$K \\
1795: \hline
1796: $0^\prime-5^\prime$ & 1,183 & $-24.5\pm 9.2$ & $-12.7 \pm 2.1$ & $3.5 \pm 4.4$ & $-0.9 \pm 3.7$ & $-6.2 \pm 3.5$ \\
1797: $5^\prime-10^\prime$ & 3,283 & $-18.0 \pm 5.5$ & $-8.8 \pm 1.3$ & $1.2 \pm 2.6$ & $-4.4 \pm 2.2$ & $-5.2 \pm 2.1$ \\
1798: $10^\prime-15^\prime$ & 5,546 & $-12.6 \pm 4.3$ & $-3.2 \pm 1.0$ & $2.2 \pm 2.0$ & $-5.2 \pm 1.7$ & $2.9 \pm 1.6$ \\
1799: $15^\prime-20^\prime$ & 7,673 & $-6.8 \pm 3.6$ & $0.9 \pm 0.8$ & $0.6 \pm 1.7$ & $-4.8 \pm 1.5$ & $2.0 \pm 1.4$ \\
1800: $20^\prime-30^\prime$ & 21,536 & $-5.9 \pm 2.2$ & $2.5 \pm 0.5$ & $0.4 \pm 1.0$ & $-1.8 \pm 0.9$ & $0.1 \pm 0.8$ \\
1801: $20^\prime-30^\prime$ & 21,536 & $-5.9 \pm 2.2$ & $2.5 \pm 0.5$ & $0.4 \pm 1.0$ & $-1.8 \pm 0.9$ & $0.1 \pm 0.8$ \\
1802: $30^\prime-45^\prime$ & 47,064 & $-4.6 \pm 1.5$ & $1.1 \pm 0.3$ & $2.7 \pm 0.7$ & $-2.0 \pm 0.6$ & $1.4 \pm 0.6$ \\
1803: $45^\prime-60^\prime$ & 63,987 & $-4.3 \pm 1.3$ & $0.4 \pm 0.3$ & $0.5 \pm 0.6$ & $-0.7 \pm 0.5$ & $-0.9 \pm 0.5$ \\
1804: \enddata
1805: \tablecomments{Shows the differential contributions to the TSZ
1806: monopole (for filtered and unfiltered maps) and to the KSZ dipole
1807: using the lowest resolution W-band and the entire cluster catalog
1808: with $z\leq 0.3$ and KP0 mask. CMB temperature decrements are in
1809: $\mu$K. }
1810: \end{deluxetable}
1811:
1812:
1813: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
1814: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\arabic{table}}
1815: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1816: \tablewidth{0pt}
1817: \tablecaption{TSZ monopole vs KSZ dipole contributions from rings.} \tablehead{
1818: \colhead{Ring} & \colhead{$N_{\rm pixels}$} &
1819: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Monopole} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Dipole components} \\
1820: \cline{3-4}
1821: \cline{5-7}
1822: \colhead{} &
1823: \\
1824:
1825: \colhead{ } & \colhead{ } &
1826: \colhead{Unfiltered} &
1827: \colhead{Filtered} &
1828: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm x}}$} &
1829: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm y}}$} &
1830: \colhead{$a_{1,{\rm z}}$}
1831:
1832: }
1833: \startdata
1834: & & $\mu$K & $\mu$K & $\mu$K & $\mu$K & $\mu$K \\
1835: \hline
1836: $0^\prime-5^\prime$ & 1,183 & $-24.5\pm 9.2$ & $-12.7 \pm 2.1$ & $3.5 \pm 4.4$ & $-0.9 \pm 3.7$ & $-6.2 \pm 3.5$ \\
1837: $5^\prime-10^\prime$ & 3,283 & $-18.0 \pm 5.5$ & $-8.8 \pm 1.3$ & $1.2 \pm 2.6$ & $-4.4 \pm 2.2$ & $-5.2 \pm 2.1$ \\
1838: $10^\prime-15^\prime$ & 5,546 & $-12.6 \pm 4.3$ & $-3.2 \pm 1.0$ & $2.2 \pm 2.0$ & $-5.2 \pm 1.7$ & $2.9 \pm 1.6$ \\
1839: $15^\prime-20^\prime$ & 7,673 & $-6.8 \pm 3.6$ & $0.9 \pm 0.8$ & $0.6 \pm 1.7$ & $-4.8 \pm 1.5$ & $2.0 \pm 1.4$ \\
1840: $20^\prime-25^\prime$ & 9,744 & $-6.0 \pm 3.2$ & $2.8 \pm 0.7$ & $-0.3 \pm 1.5$ & $-2.8 \pm 1.3$ & $0.5 \pm 1.2$ \\
1841: $25^\prime-30^\prime$ & 11,845 & $-5.8 \pm 2.9$ & $2.2 \pm 0.7$ & $0.9 \pm 1.4$ & $-1.0 \pm 1.2$ & $-0.3 \pm 1.1$ \\
1842: $30^\prime-45^\prime$ & 47,064 & $-4.6 \pm 1.5$ & $1.1 \pm 0.3$ & $2.7 \pm 0.7$ & $-2.0 \pm 0.6$ & $1.4 \pm 0.6$ \\
1843: $45^\prime-60^\prime$ & 63,987 & $-4.3 \pm 1.3$ & $0.4 \pm 0.3$ & $0.5 \pm 0.6$ & $-0.7 \pm 0.5$ & $-0.9 \pm 0.5$ \\
1844: \enddata
1845: \tablecomments{Shows the differential contributions to the TSZ
1846: monopole (for filtered and unfiltered maps) and to the KSZ dipole
1847: using the lowest resolution W-band and the entire cluster catalog
1848: with $z\leq 0.3$ and KP0 mask. Note that after filtering the TSZ
1849: component may not remain negative at outer radii depending on the
1850: details of the original profile. CMB temperature decrements are in
1851: $\mu$K.}
1852: \end{deluxetable}
1853:
1854: Additional contributions to eq. \ref{eq:dipole} come from
1855: non-linear evolution/collapse of clusters (Rees \& Sciama 1968),
1856: gravitational lensing by clusters (Kashlinsky 1988), and
1857: unresolved strong radio sources (see review by Aghanim et al
1858: 2008). These contributions are, however, small. The order of
1859: magnitude of these contributions is (few)$\mu$K, about an order of
1860: magnitude smaller than the the Thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect,
1861: which also contributes to the monopole. Unresolved point sources
1862: have been found to contribute to the Q and V bands (Nolta et al
1863: 2008), but the contamination from point sources is $\sim 10
1864: \mu$K$^2$ (in power). The other effects never rise above $\sim 10
1865: \mu$K$^2$ in power (see Aghanim, Majumdar \& Silk, 2008, for a
1866: review on secondary anisotropies), and are always negligible
1867: compared with the TSZ monopole. All these effects have a dipole
1868: signal only when clusters are inhomogeneously distributed on the
1869: sky and it is bounded from above by the amplitude of the monopole.
1870: However, as we discuss below, we find a dipole signal when the
1871: monopole goes to zero, so our measurements can not be
1872: significantly affected by these effects.
1873:
1874: Hence, we believe that the calibration constant of
1875: $\sqrt{C_{1,100}}\simeq 0.3 \mu$K is a fairly accurate estimate at
1876: least in the sense that our overall cosmological interpretation
1877: holds within the remaining uncertainties and it is fairly
1878: independent of the cluster sub-samples in Table 2.
1879: