1: %\documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: %\input epsf
5: %\doublespace
6:
7: %\tighten
8: %\received{2007 September 25}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: %\def\plotone#1{\centering \leavevmode
13: %\epsfxsize=\columnwidth \epsfbox{#1}}
14:
15: \def\wisk#1{\ifmmode{#1}\else{$#1$}\fi}
16:
17: \def\lt {\wisk{<}}
18: \def\gt {\wisk{>}}
19: \def\le {\wisk{_<\atop^=}}
20: \def\ge {\wisk{_>\atop^=}}
21: \def\lsim {\wisk{_<\atop^{\sim}}}
22: \def\gsim {\wisk{_>\atop^{\sim}}}
23: \def\kms {\wisk{{\rm ~km~s^{-1}}}}
24: \def\Lsun {\wisk{{\rm L_\odot}}}
25: \def\Zsun {\wisk{{\rm Z_\odot}}}
26: \def\Msun {\wisk{{\rm M_\odot}}}
27: \def\um {$\mu$m}
28: \def\mic {\mu{\rm m}}
29: \def\sig {\wisk{\sigma}}
30: \def\etal {{\sl et~al.\ }}
31: \def\eg {{\it e.g.\ }}
32: \def\ie {{\it i.e.\ }}
33: \def\bsl {\wisk{\backslash}}
34: \def\by {\wisk{\times}}
35: \def\half {\wisk{\frac{1}{2}}}
36: \def\third {\wisk{\frac{1}{3}}}
37: \def\nwm2sr {\wisk{\rm nW/m^2/sr\ }}
38: \def\nw2m4sr {\wisk{\rm nW^2/m^4/sr\ }}
39:
40: \title{A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: results and cosmological implications.}
41:
42: \author{A. Kashlinsky\altaffilmark{1}, F. Atrio-Barandela\altaffilmark{2},
43: D. Kocevski\altaffilmark{3}, H. Ebeling\altaffilmark{4}}
44: \altaffiltext{1}{SSAI and Observational Cosmology Laboratory, Code 665, Goddard
45: Space Flight Center, Greenbelt MD 20771; e--mail:
46: alexander.kashlinsky@nasa.gov} \altaffiltext{2}{Fisica Teorica,
47: University of Salamanca, 37008 Salamanca, Spain} \altaffiltext{3}{Department
48: of Physics, University of California at Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA
49: 95616} \altaffiltext{4}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, 2680
50: Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822 }
51:
52: \begin{abstract}
53: {Peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies can be measured by
54: studying the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB)
55: generated by the scattering of the microwave photons by the hot
56: X-ray emitting gas inside clusters. While for individual clusters
57: such measurements result in large errors, a large statistical
58: sample of clusters allows one to study cumulative quantities
59: dominated by the overall bulk flow of the sample with the
60: statistical errors integrating down. We present results from such
61: a measurement using the largest all-sky X-ray cluster catalog
62: combined to date and the 3-year WMAP CMB data. We find a strong
63: and coherent bulk flow on scales out to at least $\gsim 300
64: h^{-1}$Mpc, the limit of our catalog. This flow is difficult to
65: explain by gravitational evolution within the framework of the
66: concordance $\Lambda$CDM model and may be indicative of the tilt
67: exerted across the entire current horizon by far-away
68: pre-inflationary inhomogeneities.}
69: \end{abstract}
70: \keywords{cosmology: observations - cosmic microwave background -
71: early Universe - large-scale structure of universe}
72:
73: In the gravitational-instability picture peculiar velocities probe
74: directly the peculiar gravitational potential [e.g. Kashlinsky \&
75: Jones 1991, Strauss \& Willick 1995]. Inflation-based theories,
76: such as the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model, predict that, on
77: scales outside the horizon during the radiation-dominated era, the
78: peculiar density field remained in the Harrison-Zeldovich regime
79: set during inflationary epoch and on these scales, the peculiar
80: bulk velocity due to gravitational instability should decrease as
81: $V_{\rm rms} \propto r^{-1}$ and be quite small. Peculiar
82: velocities can be obtained from the kinematic SZ (KSZ) effect on
83: the CMB photons by the hot gas in clusters of galaxies [e.g.
84: Birkinshaw 1999]. For each cluster the KSZ term is small, but
85: measuring a quantity derived from CMB data for a sizeable ensemble
86: of many clusters moving at a coherent bulk flow can, however,
87: overcome this limitation. As proposed by Kashlinsky \&
88: Atrio-Barandela (2000, KA-B), such a measurement will be dominated
89: by the bulk-flow KSZ component with other contributions
90: integrating down. This quantity, {\it the dipole of the cumulative
91: CMB temperature field evaluated at cluster positions}, is used in
92: this investigation of the 3-year WMAP data together with the
93: largest X-ray selected sample of clusters to date to obtain the
94: best measurement yet of bulk flows out to scales of $\gsim 300
95: h^{-1}$Mpc. Technical details of the analysis are given in the
96: companion paper (Kashlinsky et al 2008 - KA-BKE). Our findings
97: imply that the Universe has a surprisingly coherent bulk motion
98: out to at least $\simeq 300h^{-1}$Mpc and with a fairly high
99: amplitude of $\gsim$600-1000 km/sec, necessary to produce the
100: measured amplitude of the dipole signal of $\simeq$2-3$\mu$K. Such
101: a motion is difficult to account for by gravitational instability
102: within the framework of the standard concordance $\Lambda$CDM
103: cosmology but could be explained by the gravitational pull of
104: pre-inflationary remnants located well outside the present-day
105: horizon.
106:
107: \section{Method and data preparation}
108:
109: If a cluster at angular position $\vec{y}$ has the line-of-sight
110: velocity $v$ with respect to the CMB, the CMB fluctuation caused
111: by the SZ effect at frequency $\nu$ at this position will be
112: $\delta_\nu(\vec y)=\delta_{\rm TSZ}(\vec y)G(\nu)+ \delta_{\rm
113: KSZ}(\vec y)H(\nu)$, with $ \delta_{\rm TSZ}$=$\tau T_{\rm
114: X}/T_{\rm e,ann}$ and $\delta_{\rm KSZ}$=$\tau v/c$. Here
115: $G(\nu)\simeq-1.85$ to $-1.25$ and $H(\nu)\simeq 1$ over the WMAP
116: frequencies, $\tau$ is the projected optical depth due to Compton
117: scattering, $T_{\rm X}$ is the temperature of the intra-cluster
118: gas, and $k_{\rm B}T_{\rm e,ann}$=511 keV. Averaged over many
119: isotropically distributed clusters moving at a significant bulk
120: velocity with respect to the CMB, the dipole from the kinematic
121: term will dominate, allowing a measurement of $V_{\rm bulk}$. Thus
122: KA-B suggested measuring the dipole component of $\delta_\nu(\vec
123: y)$.
124:
125: We use a normalized notation for the dipole power $C_{1}$, such
126: that a coherent motion at velocity $V_{\rm bulk}$ leads to
127: $C_{1,{\rm kin}}= T_{\rm CMB}^2 \langle \tau \rangle^2 V_{\rm
128: bulk}^2/c^2$, where $T_{\rm CMB} =2.725$K. For reference,
129: $\sqrt{C_{1,{\rm kin}}}\simeq 1 (\langle \tau \rangle/10^{-3})
130: (V_{\rm bulk}/100{\rm km/sec}) \; \mu$K. When computed from the
131: total of $N_{\rm cl}$ positions, the dipole will also have
132: positive contributions from 1) instrument noise, 2) the thermal SZ
133: (TSZ) component, 3) the cosmological CMB fluctuation component
134: arising from the last-scattering surface, and 4) the various
135: foreground components within the WMAP frequency range. The last of
136: these contributions can be significant at the lowest WMAP
137: frequencies (channels K \& Ka) and, hence, we restrict this
138: analysis to the WMAP Channels Q, V \& W which have negligible
139: foreground contributions. The contributions to the dipole from the
140: above terms can be estimated as
141: $\langle\delta_\nu(\vec{y})\cos\theta\rangle$ at the $N_{\rm cl}$
142: different cluster locations with polar angle $\theta$. For $N_{\rm
143: cl}\gg1$ the dipole of $\delta_\nu$ becomes $a_{1m} \simeq
144: a_{1m}^{\rm kin} +a_{1m}^{\rm TSZ} + a_{1m}^{\rm CMB} +
145: \frac{\sigma_{\rm noise}}{\sqrt{N_{\rm cl}}}$. Here $a_{1m}^{\rm
146: CMB}$ is the residual dipole produced at the cluster locations by
147: the primordial CMB anisotropies. The dipole power is $C_1=
148: \sum_{m=-1}^{m=1} |a_{1m}|^2$. The notation for $a_{1m}$ is such
149: that $m$=$0,1,-1$ correspond to the $(x,y,z)$ components, with $z$
150: running perpendicular to the Galactic plane towards the NGP, and
151: $(x,y)$ being the Galactic plane with the $x$-axis passing through
152: the Galactic center. This dipole signal should not be confused
153: with the "global CMB dipole" that arises from our {\it local}
154: motion relative to the CMB. The kinematic signal investigated here
155: does not contribute significantly to the ``global CMB dipole"
156: arising from only a small number of pixels. When the latter is
157: subtracted from the original CMB maps, only a small fraction,
158: $\sim (N_{\rm cl}/N_{\rm total})\lsim 10^{-3}$, of the kinematic
159: signal $C_{1,{\rm kin}}$ is removed.
160:
161: The TSZ dipole for a random cluster distribution is $a_{1m}^{\rm
162: TSZ}\sim(\langle \tau T_{\rm X}\rangle/T_{\rm e,ann}) N_{\rm
163: cl}^{-1/2}$ decreasing with increasing $N_{\rm cl}$. This decrease
164: could be altered if clusters are not distributed randomly and
165: there may be some cross-talk between the monopole and dipole terms
166: especially for small/sparse samples \cite{watkins-feldman}, but
167: the value of the TSZ dipole will be estimated directly from the
168: maps as discussed below and in greater detail in Kashlinsky et al
169: (2008 - KA-BKE). The residual CMB dipole, $C_{1,{\rm CMB}}$, will
170: exceed $\sigma_{\rm CMB}^2/N_{\rm cl}$ because the intrinsic
171: cosmological CMB anisotropies are correlated. On the smallest
172: angular scales in the WMAP data $\sigma_{\rm CMB}\simeq 80\mu$K,
173: so these anisotropies could be seen as the largest dipole noise
174: source. However, because the power spectrum of the underlying CMB
175: anisotropies is accurately known, this component can be removed
176: with a filter described next.
177:
178: To remove the cosmological CMB anisotropies we filtered each
179: channel maps separately with the Wiener filter as follows. With
180: the known power spectrum of the cosmological CMB fluctuations,
181: $C_\ell^{\Lambda{\rm CDM}}$, a filter $F_\ell$ in $\ell$-space
182: which minimizes $\langle (\delta T - \delta_{\rm instrument \;
183: noise})^2\rangle$ in the presence of instrument noise is given by
184: $F_\ell = (C_\ell - C_\ell^{\Lambda{\rm CDM}})/C_\ell$, with
185: $C_\ell$ being the measured power spectrum of each map. Convolving
186: the maps with $F_\ell$ minimizes the contribution of the
187: cosmological CMB to the dipole. The maps for {\it each} of the
188: eight WMAP channels were thus processed as follows: 1) for
189: $C_\ell^{\Lambda {\rm CDM}}$ we adopted the best-fit cosmological
190: model for the WMAP data \cite{hinshaw} available from
191: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov; 2) each map was decomposed into
192: multipoles, $a_{\ell m}$, using HEALPix \cite{healpix}; 3) the
193: power spectrum of each map, $C_\ell$, was then computed and
194: $F_\ell$ constructed; 4) the $a_{\ell m}$ maps were multiplied by
195: $F_\ell$ and Fourier-transformed back into the angular space
196: $(\theta,\phi)$. We then removed the intrinsic dipole, quadrupole
197: and octupole. The filtering affects the effective value of $\tau$
198: for each cluster and we calculate this amount later.
199:
200: Here we use an all-sky cluster sample created by combining the
201: ROSAT-ESO Flux Limited X-ray catalog (REFLEX) \cite{bohringer} in
202: the southern hemisphere, the extended Brightest Cluster Sample
203: (eBCS) \cite{ebeling1,ebeling2} in the north, and the Clusters in
204: the Zone of Avoidance (CIZA) \cite{ebeling3,kocevski1} sample
205: along the Galactic plane. These are the most statistically
206: complete X-ray selected cluster catalogs ever compiled in their
207: respective regions of the sky. All three surveys are X-ray
208: selected and X-ray flux limited using RASS data. The creation of
209: the combined all-sky catalogue of 782 clusters is described in
210: detail by \cite{kocevski2} and KA-BKE.
211:
212: We started with 3-year ``foreground-cleaned" WMAP data
213: (http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov) in each differencing assembly (DA)
214: of the Q, V, and W bands. Each DA is analyzed separately giving us
215: eight independent maps to process: Q1, Q2, V1, V2, W1,..., W4. The
216: CMB maps are pixelized with the HEALPix parameter $N_{\rm
217: side}$=512 corresponding to pixels $\simeq 7^\prime$ on the side
218: or pixel area $4\times 10^{-6}$ sr. This resolution is much
219: coarser than that of the X-ray data, which makes our analysis
220: below insensitive to the specifics of the spatial distribution of
221: the cluster gas, such as cooling flows, deviations from spherical
222: symmetry, etc. In the filtered maps for each DA we select all WMAP
223: pixels within the total area defined by the cluster X-ray
224: emission, repeating this exercise for cluster subsamples
225: populating cumulative redshift bins up to a fixed $z$. In order to
226: eliminate the influence of Galactic emission and non-CMB radio
227: sources, the CMB maps are subjected to standard WMAP masking. The
228: results for the different masks are similar and agree well within
229: their statistical uncertainties.
230:
231: The SZ effect ($\propto n_e$, the electron density) has larger
232: extent than probed by X-rays (X-ray luminosity $\propto n_e^2$),
233: which is confirmed by our TSZ study using the same cluster
234: catalogue (AKKE). As shown in AKKE, KA-BKE contributions to the
235: TSZ signal are detected out to $\gsim 30^\prime$. What is
236: important in the present context, is that the X-ray emitting gas
237: is distributed as expected from the $\Lambda$CDM profile
238: \cite{nfw} scaling as $n_e\propto r^{-3}$ in outer parts. In order
239: to be in hydrostatic equilibrium such gas must have temperature
240: decreasing with radius \cite{komatsu}. Indeed, the typical
241: polytropic index for such gas would be $\gamma \simeq$1.2, leading
242: to the X-ray temperature decreasing as $T_{\rm X} \propto
243: n_e^{\gamma-1} \propto r^{-0.6}$ at outer radii. This $T_{\rm X}$
244: decrease agrees with simulations of cluster formation within the
245: $\Lambda$CDM model \cite{simulations_temp} and with the available
246: data on the X-ray temperature profile \cite{pratt}. For such gas,
247: the TSZ monopole ($\propto T_{\rm X} \tau$) decreases faster than
248: the KSZ component ($\propto \tau$) when averaged over a
249: progressively increasing cluster area. To account for this, we
250: compute the dipole component of the final maps for a range of
251: effective cluster sizes, namely $[1,2,4,6] \theta_{\rm X-ray}$ and
252: then the maximal cluster extent is set at $30^\prime$ to avoid a
253: few large clusters (eg. Coma) bias the dipole determination. We
254: note that at the final extent our clusters effectively have the
255: same angular radius of 0.5$^\circ$. Our choice of the maximal
256: extent is determined by the fact that the SZ signal is detectable
257: in our sample out to that scale (AKKE), which is $\sim$(3-4)Mpc at
258: the mean redshift of the sample. Increasing the cluster radius
259: further to 1$^\circ-3^\circ$, causes the dipole to start
260: decreasing with the increasing radius, as expected if the pixels
261: outside the clusters are included diluting the KSZ signal
262: (KA-BKE).
263:
264: To estimate uncertainties in the signal only from the clusters, we
265: use the rest of the map for the distribution and variance of the
266: noise in the measured signal. We use two methods to preserve the
267: geometry defined by the mask and the cluster distribution: 1)
268: $N_{\rm cl}$ central random pixels are selected outside the mask
269: away from the cluster pixels adding pixels within each cluster's
270: angular extent around these central random pixels, iteratively
271: verifying that the selected areas do not fall within either the
272: mask or any of the known clusters. 2) We also use a slightly
273: modified version of the above procedure in order to test the
274: effects of the anisotropy of the cluster catalog. There the
275: cluster catalog is rotated randomly, ensuring that the overall
276: geometry of the cluster catalog is accurately preserved. Both
277: methods yield very similar uncertainties; for brevity, we present
278: results obtained with the first method.
279:
280: \section{Results}
281:
282: Fig. \ref{fig:c1} summarizes our results averaged over all eight
283: DA's. We find a statistically significant dipole component
284: produced by the cluster pixels for the spheres and shells
285: extending beyond $z\simeq 0.05$. It persists {\it as the monopole
286: component vanishes} and its statistical significance gets
287: particularly high for the $y$-component. The signal appears only
288: at the cluster positions and, hence, cannot originate from
289: instrument noise, the CMB or the remaining Galactic foreground
290: components, the contributions from which are given by the
291: uncertainties evaluated from the rest of the CMB map pixels. The
292: signal is restricted to the cluster pixels and thus must arise
293: from the two components of the SZ effect, thermal and/or
294: kinematic.
295:
296: The TSZ component, however, is given by the monopole term at the
297: cluster positions and cannot be responsible for the detected
298: signal. For the largest apertures it vanishes within the small,
299: compared to the measured dipole, statistical uncertainty, and yet
300: the dipole term remains large and statistically significant. This
301: is the opposite of what one should expect if the dipole is
302: produced by the TSZ component. Any random distribution, such as
303: TSZ emissions, would generate dipole $\propto \langle \tau T_{\rm
304: X}\cos \theta\rangle$ which can never exceed (and must be much
305: less than) the monopole component of that distribution, $\propto
306: \langle \tau T_{\rm X} \rangle$. On the other hand, any coherent
307: bulk flow would produce dipole $\propto V_{\rm bulk}\langle \tau
308: \cos^2 \theta\rangle$, which is bounded from below by the
309: amplitude of the motion. Furthermore, we find significant dipole
310: from (at least) $z_{\rm mean}$=0.035 (135 clusters) all the way to
311: $z_{\rm mean}$=0.11 (674 clusters); its parameters do not depend
312: on the numbers of clusters, pixels used etc. Any dipole component
313: arising from the TSZ term would depend on these parameters as it
314: reflects the (random) dipole of the cluster sample and should thus
315: decrease as more clusters are added in spheres out to
316: progressively larger $z$. To verify this, we compute the expected
317: monopole and dipole terms produced by the TSZ effect using the
318: parameters of our cluster catalog as discussed in KA-BKE and
319: recover the monopole term fairly accurately when the
320: $\beta$-profile assumption is reasonable. The TSZ dipole component
321: is then a small fraction of the monopole term. When normalized to
322: the remaining monopole term in Fig.~\ref{fig:c1}a it is completely
323: negligible compared to the measured dipole. Further, the TSZ
324: dipole becomes progressively more negligible as more clusters are
325: added in at higher $z$, and its direction varies randomly
326: reflecting the random nature of the intrinsic cluster sample
327: dipole on these large scales. All this is contrary to what we
328: measure.
329:
330: We thus conclude that the dipole originates from the KSZ effect
331: due to the bulk flow of the cluster sample. Our results indicate a
332: statistically significant bulk-flow component in the final
333: filtered maps for cluster samples in the $z$-bins from $z\leq$0.05
334: to $\leq$0.3 corresponding to median depth to $z\simeq$0.1, and it
335: also persists when the dipole in shells is computed selecting only
336: clusters at $z\geq$0.12 (the median redshift for this sub-sample
337: is $\simeq$0.18). Fig.~\ref{fig:c1}e shows that the bulk flow
338: results in a CMB dipole with little variation - within the
339: statistical uncertainties - between $z_{\rm median}\simeq 0.03$
340: and $\gsim$0.12. The monopole component reflects the residual TSZ
341: contribution which is very small for the maximal cluster aperture
342: as Fig.~\ref{fig:c1}a shows. (At lower $z$ there may still be some
343: residual TSZ component, which would be consistent with the more
344: nearby clusters having a larger {\it angular} SZ extent than the
345: more distant ones).
346:
347: To translate the CMB dipole in $\mu$K into $V_{\rm bulk}$ in
348: km/sec, we generated CMB temperatures produced by the KSZ effect
349: for each cluster and estimate the dipole amplitude, $C_{1,100}$,
350: contributed by each 100 km/sec of bulk-flow (KA-BKE). The results
351: are shown in the last column of Table 1 of KA-BKE for the central
352: values of the direction of the measured flow; within the
353: uncertainties of $(l,b)$ they change by at most a few percent. A
354: bulk flow of 100 km/sec leads to $\sqrt{C_{1,100}}\simeq 1\mu$K
355: for unfiltered clusters assuming the $\beta$-model; this
356: corresponds to an average optical depth of our cluster sample of
357: $\langle \tau \rangle \simeq 10^{-3}$ expected for a typical
358: galaxy cluster. For NFW clusters the value of $C_{1,100}$ would be
359: {\it smaller}. Filtering reduces the effective $\tau$ by a factor
360: of $\simeq 3$. Since a $\beta$-model provides a poor fit to the
361: measured TSZ component outside the estimated values of
362: $\theta_{\rm X-ray}$, we compute $C_{1,100}$ within that aperture
363: where the central value of the bulk-flow dipole has approximately
364: the same value as at the final apertures. Due to the large size of
365: our cluster sample ($N_{\rm cl} \sim$130-675), the random
366: uncertainties in the estimated values of $C_{1,100}$ should be
367: small, but we cannot exclude a systematic offset related to
368: selection biases affecting our cluster catalog at high $z$. Such
369: offset, if present, will become quantifiable with the next version
370: of our X-ray cluster catalog (in preparation) using the
371: empirically established SZ profile rather than the current
372: $\beta$-model to parameterize the cluster TSZ. The good agreement
373: between the various TSZ-related quantities shown in KA-BKE for
374: $\theta_{\rm SZ}$=$\theta_{\rm X-ray}$ and the observed values for
375: both unfiltered and filtered maps suggests, however, that these
376: systematic uncertainties are likely to be small. They only affect
377: the accuracy of the determination of the amplitude of the bulk
378: flow, but not its existence established by the CMB dipole at the
379: cluster locations. Since the filtering removes $\tau$ in the
380: outskirts of clusters more effectively, a larger amount of power
381: is removed in the $\beta$-model when the cluster SZ extent is
382: increased beyond $\theta_{\rm X-ray}$, than in the steeper profile
383: measured by AKKE. Thus the effective $\tau$ is possibly
384: underestimated by using a $\beta$-model, but it cannot exceed (and
385: must be much less than) the calibration obtained from the
386: unfiltered $\beta$-model.
387:
388: \section{Cosmological implications}
389:
390: Conventionally, the entire peculiar velocity field is assumed to
391: be driven by the peculiar gravitational potential. For a given
392: cosmological model, the details of the velocity field also depend
393: on the window function of the dataset. Constructing the precise
394: window function is beyond the scope of this paper, but the overall
395: conclusions would be insensitive to its details because the
396: amplitude and coherence length of the measured flows are quite
397: unexpected within the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model.
398: Fig.~\ref{fig:c1}f shows the rms prediction, $\sigma_V$, of the
399: concordance $\Lambda$CDM model. If produced by gravitational
400: instability within the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model, the motion
401: would require the local Universe out to $\sim 300 h^{-1}$Mpc to be
402: atypical at the level of many standard deviations of the model.
403: Indeed a value of $\sqrt{C_{1,100}}\sim 3\mu$K is required to
404: reach peculiar velocities of order 100 km/sec on the relevant
405: scales. This is much greater than $C_{1,100}$ deduced from the
406: {\it unfiltered} X-ray data and even then it would be difficult to
407: explain the approximate constancy of the measured dipole with
408: depth.
409:
410: Cosmic variance does not change these conclusions significantly.
411: For a Gaussian density field the peculiar velocity distribution on
412: linear scales is Maxwellian, with the probability density of
413: measuring a 1-D bulk velocity $p(V) dV\! \propto\!
414: V^2\exp(-1.5V^2/\sigma_V^2)dV$. The probability of finding a
415: region with $V\!<\!V_0$ is then
416: $P(V_0)$=$\Gamma(\frac{3}{2},\frac{3V_0^2}{2\sigma_V^2})$ where
417: $\Gamma$ is the incomplete gamma-function normalized to
418: $\Gamma(n,\infty)$=1. The (68\%, 95\%) c.l. require
419: $V_0$=(1.08,1.6)$\sigma_V$; the shaded area in Fig. \ref{fig:c1}f
420: shows the 95\% c.l. region. In the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model
421: $\sigma_V$=(150,109) km/sec at $(200,300)h^{-1}$Mpc, so 95\% of
422: cosmic observers should measure bulk flow velocities less than
423: (240,180) km/sec at these scales. To make these numbers
424: consistent with our measurements - at these scales alone - would
425: require $\sqrt{C_{1,100}}\gsim 2\mu$K. This is much higher than
426: even the calibration values for unfiltered data (computed for the
427: $\beta$-model which leads to a {\it larger} $C_{1,100}$ value than
428: the NFW-profile clusters) and cannot be accounted for by any
429: systematic uncertainties in our calibration procedure. Indeed, the
430: distribution of errors is approximately Gaussian (see Fig. 5 of
431: KA-BKE), so the probability of measuring velocity
432: $V_i\pm\epsilon_i$ at scale $r_i$ is ${\cal P}_i \propto
433: \int_0^\infty P(V) \exp[-\frac{(V-V_i)^2}{2\epsilon_i^2}] dV$
434: (e.g. Gorski 1991). The probability of several such independent
435: measurements is the product of ${\cal P}_i$'s; for the numbers
436: plotted in Fig. 1f this probability is completely negligible. (The
437: measurements in Fig. 1f are not strictly independent since each
438: subsequent $z$-bin also contains the clusters from the previous
439: bin; nevertheless each ${\cal P}_i$ is so small that the overall
440: probability is still negligible).
441:
442: The coherence length of the measured bulk flow shows no signs of
443: convergence out to $\gsim 300 h^{-1}$Mpc, and it is quite possible
444: that it extends to much larger scales, possibly all the way across
445: our horizon. An interesting, if exotic, explanation for such a
446: ``dark flow" would come naturally within certain inflationary
447: models. In general, within these models the observable Universe
448: represents part of a homogeneous inflated region embedded in an
449: inhomogeneous space-time. On scales much larger than the Hubble
450: radius, pre-inflationary remnants can induce tilt including CMB
451: anisotropies generated by the Grischuk-Zeldovich \cite{gz} effect
452: \cite{turner,ktf}. These can arise from the parts of space-time
453: that inflated at different times and rates and would manifest
454: themselves mainly in the quadrupole component, $Q$: an
455: inhomogeneity of amplitude $\delta_L\sim 1$ at a distance $L\gg
456: cH_0^{-1}$ generates a quadrupole $Q\sim \delta_L
457: (cH_0^{-1}/L)^2$. Consistency with the observed low value of $Q$
458: would require a sufficiently large number of the inflation's
459: e-foldings, making the Universe flat to within $|1-\Omega_{\rm
460: total}| \leq Q$ and causing the scale of inhomogeneity $L$ to
461: become comparable to the curvature radius ($> 500 cH_0^{-1}$)
462: \cite{ktf}. Such a tilted universe would lead to a uniform flow
463: across the observed horizon due to the density gradient produced
464: by this superhorizon mode. The bulk motion would have an amplitude
465: of $v \sim c \delta_L (cH_0^{-1}/L)$ and would not generate a
466: primordial dipole CMB component \cite{turner}. Since the
467: quadrupole produced by such a pre-inflationary remnant is $Q \sim
468: (v/c) (cH_0^{-1}/L)$, it is possible for such inhomogeneities to
469: generate the required motions and be consistent with the observed
470: value of $Q$ and flatness. Although it would require accidental
471: alignment, the contribution from such an inhomogeneity to CMB
472: anisotropies via the GZ effect might, interestingly, also explain
473: the observed low value of the CMB quadrupole (and possibly also
474: octupole) compared to the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model. This
475: explanation for the measured bulk flow would, however, still
476: require peculiar velocities generated by gravitational instability
477: acting on the $\Lambda$CDM density field, which would provide a
478: random component around the uniform bulk flow. On sufficiently
479: large scales, such a flow would be ``cold" in the sense that it
480: would be characterized by a large Mach number \cite{mach1}, which
481: may be measurable in future cluster surveys \cite{mach2}; the Mach
482: number then should increase linearly with scale on scales $\gsim
483: 100 h^{-1}$Mpc. On smaller scales, there may be non-negligible
484: contributions to the flow from peculiar motions generated by the
485: gravitational instability caused by local matter inhomogeneities.
486: This can lead to a non-alignment with the flow at lower $z$ in
487: general agreement with the trends in Fig. 1.
488:
489: \acknowledgments This work is supported by NASA ADP grant
490: NNG04G089G and the Ministerio de Educaci\'on y Ciencia/''Junta de
491: Castilla y Le\'on'' in Spain (FIS2006-05319, PR2005-0359 and
492: SA010C05). We thank Gary Hinshaw for useful information on the
493: WMAP data specifics.
494: %\texttt{\{thebibliography\}}%
495: \begin{thebibliography}{3}
496:
497: \bibitem [Atrio-Barandela et al 2008]{paper2}{Atrio-Barandela, F., Kashlinsky, A., Kocevski, D. \&
498: Ebeling, H. 2008, Ap.J. (Letters), 675, L57. (AKKE)}
499: \bibitem [Atrio-Barandela et al 2004]{mach2}{Atrio-Barandela, F., Kashlinsky, A. \&
500: Mucket, J. 2004, Astrophys. J., 601, L111}
501: \bibitem [Birkinshaw 1999]{birkinshaw}{Birkinshaw, M. 1999, Phys. Rep., 310, 97-195}
502: \bibitem [Bohringer et al 2004]{bohringer}{B\"{o}hringer, et al. 2004, Astron.
503: Astrophys., 425, 367}
504: \bibitem [Borgani et al 2004]{simulations_temp}{Borgani, S. et al 2004, Mon. Not. R.
505: Astron. Soc., 348, 1078}
506: %\bibitem [Carlstrom et al 2002]{carlstrom}{ Carlstrom, J.E.,
507: %Holder, G.P. \& Reese, E.D. 2002, ARA\&A, 40, 643}
508: %\bibitem [Courteau et al 2000]{courteau}{Courteau, S. et al 2000, Astrophys. J., 544, 636}
509: %\bibitem [Djorgovski \& Davis 1987]{djorgovski}{Djorgovski, S. \& Davis, M. 1987, Astrophys. J., 313, 59-68}
510: %\bibitem [Dressler et al 1987]{7s-di}{Dressler, A. et al 1987, Astrophys. J., 313, 42}
511: \bibitem [Ebeling et al 1998]{ebeling1}{Ebeling, H., Edge, A.C., B\"{o}hringer, H., Allen, S.W., Crawford,
512: C.S., Fabian, A.C., Voges, W., \& Huchra, J.P. 1998, Mon. Not. R.
513: Astron. Soc., 301, 881}
514: \bibitem [Ebeling et al 2000]{ebeling2}{Ebeling, H., Edge A.C., Allen S.W., Crawford C.S., Fabian A.C., \&
515: Huchra J.P. 2000, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 318, 333}
516: \bibitem [Ebeling et al 2002]{ebeling3}{Ebeling, H., Mullis, C.R., \& Tully R.B. 2002, Astrophys.
517: J, 580, 774}
518: \bibitem [Gorski et al 2005]{healpix}{Gorski, K. et al 2005,
519: Astrophys. J., 622, 759}
520: \bibitem [Gorski 1991]{gorski}{Gorski, K. 1991, Ap.J., 370, L5}
521: \bibitem [Grischuk \& Zeldovich 1978]{gz}{Grishchuk, L. \& Zeldovich, Ya.B. 1978, Sov.
522: Astron., 22, 125}
523: \bibitem [Hinshaw et al 2007]{hinshaw}{Hinshaw, G. et al 2007, Astrophys. J.,
524: 170, 288}
525: %\bibitem [Holzapfel et al 1997]{holzapfel}{Holzapfel, W.L. et al 1997, Astrophys. J., 479, 17}
526: %\bibitem [Hudson \& Ebeling 1997]{hudson-ebeling}{Hudson, M.J. \& Ebeling, H.
527: % 1997, Astrophys. J., 479, 621}
528: %\bibitem [Hudson et al 1999]{hudson}{Hudson, M.J. et al 1999, Astrophys. J., 512, L79}
529: \bibitem [Kashlinsky et al 1994]{ktf}{Kashlinsky, A., Tkachev, I., Frieman, J. 1994, Phys. Rev. Lett., 73, 1582}
530: \bibitem [Kashlinsky \& Atrio-Barandela 2000]{kab}{Kashlinsky, A. \& Atrio-Barandela, F. 2000, Astrophys. J., 536, L67 (KA-B)}
531: \bibitem [Kashlinsky et al 2008]{longpaper}{Kashlinsky, A.,
532: Atrio-Barandela, F., Kocevski, D. \& Ebeling, H. 2008, Ap.J.,
533: submitted. (KA-BKE}
534: \bibitem [Kashlinsky \& Jones 1991]{kashlinsky-jones}{Kashlinsky,
535: A. \& Jones, B.J.T. 1991, Nature, 349, 753}
536: \bibitem [Kocevski et al 2004]{kocevski3}{Kocevski, D.D., Mullis, C.R., \& Ebeling, H. 2004, Astrophys. J.,
537: 608, 721}
538: \bibitem [Kocevski et al 2006]{kocevski2}{Kocevski, D.D. \& Ebeling, H. 2006, Astrophys. J., 645, 1043}
539: \bibitem [Kocevski et al 2007]{kocevski1}{Kocevski, D.D., Ebeling, H., Mullis, C.R., \& Tully, R.B. 2007, Astrophys. J., \emph{in press}}
540: \bibitem [Komatsu \& Seljak 2001]{komatsu}{Komatsu, E. \& Seljak, U. 2001, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 327, 1353}
541: %\bibitem [Lauer \& Postman 1994]{lauer-postman}{Lauer, T. R. \&
542: %Postman, M. 1994, Astrophys. J., 425, 418}
543: %\bibitem [Lynden-Bell et al 1987]{7s-motion}{Lynden-Bell, D. et al 1988,
544: %Astrophys. J., 326, 19}
545: %\bibitem [Mathewson et al 1992]{mathewson}{Mathewson, D.S., Ford,
546: %V.L. \& Buchhorn, M. 1992, Astrophys. J., 389, L5}
547: \bibitem [Navarro et al 1996]{nfw}{Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S. \& White, S.D.M. 1996, Astrophys. J., 462, 563}
548: \bibitem [Ostriker \& Suto 1990]{mach1}{Ostriker, J. \& Suto, Y. 1990, Astrophys. J., 348, 378}
549: \bibitem [Pratt et al 2007]{pratt}{Pratt, G. et al 2007, Astron. Astrophys. 461, 71}
550: %\bibitem [Riess et al 1997]{riess}{Riess, A., Davis, M., Baker, J. \& Kirshner, R.P. 1997, Astrophys. J., 488, L1}
551: %\bibitem [Scaramella et al 1991]{scaramella}{Scaramella, R., Vettolani, G., \& Zamorani, G. 1991, Astrophys. J., 376, L1}
552: \bibitem [Strauss \& Willick 1995]{strauss-willick}{Strauss, M. \&
553: Willick, J.A. 1995, Phys. Rep., 261, 271}
554: \bibitem [Turner 1991]{turner}{Turner, M. S. 1991, Phys.Rev., 44, 3737}
555: \bibitem [Watkins \& Feldman 1995]{watkins-feldman}{Watkins, R. \& Feldman, H. A. 1995, Astrophys. J., 453, L73}
556: %\bibitem [Willick 2000]{willick}{ Willick, J.A. 2000,
557: %astro-ph/0003232, in Proceedings of the XXXVth Rencontres de
558: %Moriond: Energy Densities in the Universe}
559: %\bibitem [Willick et al 1999]{willick99}{Willick, J.A. 1999, Astrophys. J., 522, 647}
560: \end{thebibliography}
561:
562: \clearpage
563:
564: \begin{figure}
565: \plotone{f1.eps} \caption{{\bf Upper panels}: (a)-(d) Monopole and
566: dipole terms for $\theta_{\rm SZ}=\min[(1,2,4, 6)\times
567: \theta_{\rm X-ray},30^\prime]$ with 1-$\sigma$ standard
568: deviations. Values at the maximal aperture, which have the lowest
569: monopole term, are marked with filled circles. The averaged
570: monopole and dipole components are weighted with statistical
571: uncertainties. The statistical significance of the KSZ component
572: improves as more of the cluster pixels producing the signal are
573: included at higher $z$. The noise of our measurement of the dipole
574: at $1.8 (N_{\rm cl}/100)^{-1/2}\mu$K with three-year WMAP data is
575: in good agreement with the expectations of KA-B. {\bf Lower
576: panel}. (e) - Outer $z$-bins with signal measured at $\gsim
577: 2\sigma$. Filled circles show the values from Table 1 of KA-BKE at
578: the maximal aperture vs the median $z$; open symbols show the same
579: vs the mean $z$. The two symbols are connected to show the
580: uncertainty in the scale on which the flow is probed. Signal
581: recovered at $\theta_{\rm SZ} = \min[(1,2,4) \times \theta_{\rm
582: X-ray},30^\prime]$ is shown with $1\sigma$ error bars; from left
583: to right in order of increasing aperture. The values are slightly
584: displaced around the true $z_{\rm median}$ for clearer display.
585: (f) - Comparison between theoretically expected bulk flow and the
586: measurements. The rms bulk velocity for the concordance
587: $\Lambda$CDM model which best fits the WMAP 3-year data for
588: top-hat (solid line) and Gaussian (dashes) windows; shaded region
589: marks the 95\% cl from cosmic variance. The results of this study,
590: translated into km/sec using $\sqrt{C_{1,100}}=0.3\mu$K, are shown
591: with 1-$\sigma$ errors vs the mean/median redshift of the clusters
592: in each cumulative $z$-bin. The horizontal bars connect $z_{\rm
593: mean}$ with $z_{\rm median}$. The results in shells from Table 1
594: in KA-BKE are omitted in this comparison because of the
595: theoretical windows plotted, but they show that the motion extends
596: to mean redshift $\gsim 0.18$ well beyond the horizontal range of
597: the figure. } \label{fig:c1}
598: \end{figure}
599:
600:
601: \end{document}
602: