1: \documentstyle [12pt,aaspp4]{article}
2: %\documentstyle [12pt,aasms4]{article}
3: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
4: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
5: \def\bey{\begin{eqnarray}}
6: \def\eey{\end{eqnarray}}
7: \def\pppm{\rm P^3M}
8: \def\mpc{\,h^{-1}{\rm {Mpc}}}
9: \def\mpci{\,h {\rm {Mpc}}^{-1}}
10: \def\kms{\,{\rm {km\, s^{-1}}}}
11: \def\msun{{M_\odot}}
12: \def\br#1{{\bf r}_{#1}}
13: \def\bs#1{{\bf s}_{#1}}
14: \def\zetarr{\zeta(r_{12},r_{23},r_{31})}
15: \def\zetass{\zeta(s_{12},s_{23},s_{31})}
16: \def\scycl{(s_{12},s_{23},s_{31})}
17: \def\rpcycl{(r_{p12},r_{p23},r_{p31})}
18: \def\rppicycl{(r_{p12},r_{p23},r_{p31},\pi_{12},\pi_{13})}
19: \def\zetazrprp{\zeta_z(r_{p12},r_{p23},r_{p31},\pi_{12},\pi_{13})}
20: \def\zetaru{\zeta(r,u,v)}
21: \def\zetasu{\zeta(s,u,v)}
22: \def\zetazrpu{\zeta_z(r_{p12},u,v,\pi_{12},\pi_{13})}
23: \def\Qru{Q(r,u,v)}
24: \def\Qsu{Q_{red}(s,u,v)}
25: \def\Qzrpu{Q_z(r_{p12},u,v,\pi_{12},\pi_{13})}
26: \def\Qrpu{Q_{proj}(r_{p},u,v)}
27: \def\qtu{q(\theta,u,v)}
28: \def\Pirpu{\Pi(r_p,u,v)}
29: \def\nbar#1{{\bar n}({\bf r}_{#1})}
30: \def\nbas#1{{\bar n}({\bf s}_{#1})}
31: \def\xiz#1{\xi_z(r_{p#1},\pi_{#1})}
32: \def\xir#1{\xi(r_{#1})}
33: \def\xis#1{\xi(s_{#1})}
34: \def\wrp#1{w(r_{p#1})}
35: %
36: % JAP macros
37: %
38: \def\gs{\mathrel{\raise1.16pt\hbox{$>$}\kern-7.0pt
39: \lower3.06pt\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}
40: \def\ls{\mathrel{\raise1.16pt\hbox{$<$}\kern-7.0pt
41: \lower3.06pt\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}
42: % Symbols that drive mathematicians crazy: "greater than or on the order of"
43: % and its counterpart.
44: % To use, type "\simgt" or "\simlt".
45: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
46: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
47: \def\prosima{$\; \buildrel \propto \over \sim \;$}
48: \def\gsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
49: \def\lsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
50: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
51: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
52: \def\simpr{\lower.5ex\hbox{\prosima}}
53: \def\la{\lsim}
54: \def\ga{\gsim}
55:
56: \begin{document}
57: \title {
58: Scaling properties of the redshift power spectrum: theoretical models}
59: \author {Y.P. Jing$^{1,2,3,4}$, G. B\"orner$^{1,4,5}$}
60: \affil{$ ^1$
61: Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, the Partner Group of MPI f\"ur
62: Astrophysik, Nandan Road 80, Shanghai 200030, China}
63: \affil {$^2$ National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of
64: Sciences, Beijing 100012, China}
65: \affil{$ ^3$ National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka,
66: Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}
67: \affil{$ ^4$
68: Research Center for the Early Universe, School of Science, University
69: of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113, Japan}
70: \affil {$ ^5$
71: Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 1,
72: 85748 Garching, Germany}
73: \affil {e-mail: ypjing@center.shao.ac.cn, ~grb@mpa-garching.mpg.de}
74: \received{---------------}
75: \accepted{---------------}
76:
77: \begin{abstract}
78:
79: We report the results of an analysis of the redshift power spectrum
80: $P^S(k,\mu)$ in three typical Cold Dark Matter (CDM) cosmological
81: models, where $\mu$ is the cosine of the angle between the wave vector
82: and the line--of--sight. Two distinct biased tracers derived from the
83: primordial density peaks of Bardeen et al. and the
84: cluster--underweight model of Jing, Mo, \& B\"orner are considered in
85: addition to the pure dark matter models. Based on a large set of high
86: resolution simulations, we have measured the redshift power spectrum
87: for the three tracers from the linear to the nonlinear regime. We
88: investigate the validity of the relation --guessed from linear
89: theory--in the nonlinear regime
90: \beq
91: P^S(k,\mu)=P^R(k)[1+\beta\mu^2]^2D(k,\mu,\sigma_{12}(k))\,,
92: \eeq
93: where $P^R(k)$ is the real space power spectrum, and $\beta$ equals
94: $\Omega_0^{0.6}/b_l$. The damping function $D$ which should generally
95: depend on $k$, $\mu$, and $\sigma_{12}(k)$, is found to be a function
96: of only one variable $k\mu\sigma_{12}(k)$. This scaling behavior
97: extends into the nonlinear regime, while $D$ can be accurately
98: expressed as a Lorentz function-- well known from linear theory-- for
99: values $D > 0.1$. The difference between $\sigma_{12}(k)$ and the
100: pairwise velocity dispersion defined by the 3--D peculiar velocity of
101: the simulations (taking $r=1/k$) is about $15\%$. Therefore
102: $\sigma_{12}(k)$ is a good indicator of the pairwise velocity
103: dispersion. The exact functional form of $D$ depends on the
104: cosmological model and on the bias scheme. We have given an accurate
105: fitting formula for the functional form of $D$ for the models studied.
106:
107: \end{abstract}
108:
109: \keywords {galaxies: clustering - galaxies: distances and redshifts -
110: large-scale structure of Universe - cosmology: theory - dark matter}
111:
112: \section {Introduction}
113:
114: In general the redshift of a galaxy gives a reasonable measure of its
115: distance. It is, however, exact only when the galaxy follows the
116: linear Hubble flow, and there are two distinct deviations from that:
117: observations of high redshift objects require an assumption about the
118: cosmic geometry, and choosing, e.g., a wrong cosmological model may
119: create for an intrinsically isotropic spatial distribution of objects
120: anisotropies along the line of sight and along the line projected
121: perpendicularly
122: (\cite{1979Natur.281..358A}; \cite{1996ApJ...470L...1M};
123: \cite{1996MNRAS.282..877B}).
124: The peculiar motions of galaxies induced by the gravitational field of
125: clumpy structures also change the true distribution
126: (\cite{1973ApJ...184..329G}; \cite{1976ApJ...208...20T};
127: \cite{1983ApJ...267..465D}; \cite{1987MNRAS.227....1K}).
128: Therefore in redshift space we find a distorted picture of the spatial
129: distribution. This may seem unfortunate, but, on the other hand,
130: it allows to estimate the statistics of the clustering process.
131: A careful modeling of these effects can yield valuable
132: determinations of the cosmological model parameters, the power
133: spectrum, and the bias of these objects.
134:
135:
136: The statistic widely used for measuring the redshift distortion is the
137: redshift two-point correlation function or equivalently its Fourier
138: counterpart, the redshift power spectrum. In this paper we will focus
139: our discussion on the redshift power spectrum. The models for the
140: cosmological geometry effect on these statistics have been well
141: established (\cite{1996ApJ...470L...1M}; \cite{1996MNRAS.282..877B}),
142: since there exists a simple mathematical mapping of a redshift spatial
143: distribution from one cosmological model to another. More
144: uncertainties however exist in the theoretical modeling of the effects
145: of the peculiar motion. These uncertainties will affect the modeling
146: of the redshift distortion not only at low redshift but also at high
147: redshift, since the peculiar motion is likely to be also important for
148: redshift surveys of quasars and galaxies
149: (e.g. \cite{adelbergeretal1998}; \cite{steideletal1997}) at high
150: redshift (\cite{1999PThPS.133..183S}; \cite{2000ApJ...528...30M}).
151: Therefore it is highly desirable to have an accurate model for the
152: peculiar motion effect.
153:
154: In the limits of a linear density perturbation and of a linear galaxy
155: bias, the redshift power spectrum $P^S_{\rm l}(k,\mu)$ can be
156: accurately derived (\cite{1987MNRAS.227....1K}),
157: \beq
158: P^S_{\rm l}(k,\mu) = P^R_{\rm l}(k)[1+\beta \mu^2]^2\,.
159: \eeq
160: In the above equation, $\mu$ is the cosine of the angle between the
161: wavevector $\bf k$ and the line-of-sight; $P^R_{\rm l}$ is the linear
162: power spectrum in real space; $\beta$ equals $\Omega_0^{0.6}/b_l$, where
163: $b_l$ is the linear bias parameter and $\Omega_0$ is the density
164: parameter of the universe. Throughout the paper, we will use
165: superscripts $S$ and $R$ to denote quantities in redshift space and
166: in real space respectively. In another extreme limit of collapsed
167: objects (the finger-of-God effect), the redshift distortion was found
168: {\it observationally} to be described by an exponential
169: distribution function (DF) for the pairwise velocity
170: (\cite{1976Ap&SS..45....3P}; \cite{1983ApJ...267..465D}), though significant
171: uncertainties must be allowed for these observations. Subsequent
172: theoretical studies based on numerical simulations
173: (\cite{1988MNRAS.235..715E}), the \cite{1974ApJ...187..425P} theory
174: (\cite{1996ApJ...467...19D}; \cite{1996MNRAS.279.1310S}) and the Zeldovich
175: approximations (\cite{1998ApJ...492..421S}) have confirmed that the
176: distribution function of the pairwise velocity can be well
177: approximated by an exponential form for the {\it dark matter} in
178: currently favored CDM models and in some scale-free hierarchical
179: clustering models. Based on the assumptions that a) the DF of the
180: pairwise velocity has an exponential form, b) the linear
181: (\cite{1987MNRAS.227....1K}) and the nonlinear (Finger-of-God) effects are
182: separable, and c) there is only weak coupling between the density and
183: the non-linear motion, it is not difficult to derive an {\it ansatz}
184: for the redshift distortion of the power spectrum on {\it all} scales
185: (\cite{1994MNRAS.267.1020P}; \cite{1995MNRAS.275..515C}):
186: \beq
187: P^S(k,\mu)=P^R(k)[1+\beta
188: \mu^2]^2{1\over 1+{1\over 2}(k\mu\sigma_v)^2}\,.
189: \label{lorentz}
190: \eeq
191: This formula has been compared to N-body simulations
192: (\cite{1994MNRAS.267..785C}; \cite{1995MNRAS.275..515C};
193: \cite{1997ApJ...475..414B};
194: \cite{2000ApJ...528...30M}), and it has turned out that
195: equation (\ref{lorentz}) describes the
196: redshift power spectrum of dark matter accurately on large scales
197: ($k\ls 0.2 \mpci$, i.e. in the linear and quasi-linear regime) with
198: $\sigma_v$ equal to the pairwise velocity dispersion at large
199: separation (\cite{2000ApJ...528...30M}).
200:
201: Equation (\ref{lorentz}) can at best be an approximation for
202: describing the redshift power spectrum for several reasons. For the
203: clustering on large scales, the coupling between the non-linear motion
204: and the structures is weak and the DF of the pairwise velocity is
205: described well by the exponential form (at least in many hierarchical
206: clustering models). This might be the reason why equation
207: (\ref{lorentz}) has been found to be in good agreement with numerical
208: simulations on large enough scales. However, at smaller and smaller
209: scales, the coupling between the non-linear motions and the structures
210: becomes stronger and stronger. It is also probably not a valid
211: procedure to extrapolate the model of linear motion
212: (\cite{1987MNRAS.227....1K}) to the non-linear regime to model the
213: infall on small scales. Furthermore it has been found in simulations
214: that the DF of the pairwise velocity is significantly skewed in the
215: quasi-linear regime to the approaching velocity of particle pairs
216: (\cite{1998ApJ...504L...1J}; \cite{2000ApJ...528...30M}). For all these
217: reasons, we may expect that equation (\ref{lorentz}) breaks down on
218: non-linear scales. Some deviation of this model from simulation
219: data could already be seen in previous studies
220: (\cite{1995MNRAS.275..515C}; \cite{1997ApJ...475..414B};
221: \cite{2000ApJ...528...30M}) even in the quasi-linear regime ($k\gs
222: 0.5\mpci$), though the focus of those studies is on the agreement of
223: the equation with the simulation data in the linear regime.
224:
225: We devote this paper to studying the redshift power spectrum in the
226: non-linear and quasi-linear regimes. With the help of a large set of
227: high resolution simulations, we measure the redshift power spectrum
228: for dark matter from linear to strongly non-linear regimes. We find
229: that while equation (\ref{lorentz}) starts to break down in the
230: quasi-linear regime, there exists a scaling relation of the variable
231: $k\mu\sigma_v$ for the non-linear effects (motion and coupling between
232: density and velocity). The existence of this scaling relation is not
233: trivial, since there is a strong coupling between the velocity and the
234: density on non-linear scales. But such a scaling relation would be
235: very useful for studying and quantifying the redshift power spectrum
236: on small scales in observational catalogs (\S 4). Since the galaxies
237: in the universe do not generally trace the distribution of the
238: underlying matter, we will also study the redshift power spectrum for
239: two plausible bias models: the primordial peaks
240: (\cite{1986ApJ...304...15B}) and the cluster-under-weight bias
241: (\cite{1998ApJ...494....1J}; hereafter JMB98). We find that scaling
242: relations of the variable $k\mu\sigma_v$ exist in both bias
243: models. The scaling form as a function of the variable $k\mu\sigma_v$
244: depends on the bias model. Therefore a determination of this scaling
245: function from observations may be used to discriminate between
246: different models of galaxy formation.
247:
248: The paper is arranged as follows: in the next section, we will
249: describe the simulation samples and the bias models used. The
250: techniques for measuring the redshift power spectrum are outlined, and
251: the results are presented in section 3. The final section, \S 4, is
252: devoted to discussion and conclusions.
253:
254: \section{Simulation sample and simple bias models}
255:
256: We study the redshift distortion of the power spectrum for three Cold
257: Dark Matter (CDM) models, i.e. the standard CDM (SCDM), a flat
258: low-density CDM (LCDM), and an open CDM (OCDM). The model parameters
259: are given in Table 1, with $\Omega_0$ for the density parameter, with
260: $\lambda_0$ for the cosmological constant, and with $\Gamma=\Omega_0
261: h$ and $\sigma_8$ respectively for the shape parameter and the
262: normalization of the linear power spectrum. These models constitute a
263: typical set of CDM models. Our N-body simulations are those of
264: \cite{1998ApJ...494L...5J} and \cite{jing1998}, with box sizes of $100
265: \mpc$ and $300 \mpc$. Each model has three to four statistical
266: realizations for one box size. All the simulations employ $256^3$
267: ($\approx 17 $ million) particles and were generated with our $\pppm$
268: code on the Fujitsu vector machines at the National Astronomical
269: Observatory of Japan. The simulations have been used for studying a
270: number of cosmological problems. A summary of these applications and
271: the simulation details can be found in \cite{jing2000}.
272:
273: While we can extract valuable information on the dark matter
274: distribution from N-body simulations, galaxies observed in the
275: Universe most likely do not exactly trace the underlying dark matter
276: distribution. The so-called ``bias'' of the galaxy distribution with
277: respect to the underlying matter distribution remains one of the
278: unsolved outstanding problems in cosmology. To study the effect of the
279: bias on the redshift distortion, we take two simple bias models: the
280: primordial peak model of Bardeen et al. (1986) and the
281: cluster-under-weighted (CLW) model of JMB98. Because of the
282: long-wavelength modulation of the primordial density perturbation, the
283: peak model ascribes more weight to the high density (cluster) regions
284: in the spatial distribution than the pure dark matter model, while the
285: CLW model, by its construction, gives less weight to the cluster
286: regions than the dark matter model. The redshift distortion in the
287: non-linear regime is known to be sensitive to the weighting of the
288: cluster regions. These bias models cover many facets of the bias
289: effect on the redshift distortion.
290:
291: In our peak model, peaks are defined as fluctuations with more than 2
292: times the rms fluctuation of the primordial density field smoothed
293: with a Gaussian window $\exp(-r^2/2r_s^2)$. The window width is taken
294: to be $r_s=0.54\mpc$ so that the peaks are relevant for galactic-sized
295: objects. We follow the prescription of
296: \cite{1987ApJ...313..505W} to assign an expectation number of
297: peaks to each simulation particle in Lagrangian space (see
298: \cite{1994A&A...284..703J} for a detailed description of our
299: algorithm). During the dynamical evolution, these peaks stay with
300: the particles to which they are assigned. Because our simulations have
301: a high mass resolution, the expectation number of peaks per particle
302: is always less than 1.
303:
304: Our cluster weighting bias model is the same as that of
305: JMB98. Specifically, the number of galaxies per unit dark matter mass
306: $N/M$ is proportional to $M^{-0.08}$ within a massive halo of mass
307: $M$, i.e. the cluster regions are under-weighted. We identify
308: clusters in the N-body simulations using the friends-of-friends method
309: with a linkage parameter equal to 0.2 times the mean separation of
310: particles. We randomly throw away particles in clusters according to
311: the above bias model. Typically 10 percent of the total number of
312: simulation particles, mostly in cluster regions, have been left out.
313: This phenomenological model was proposed by JMB98 to reconcile the CDM
314: models with their measurement for the two-point correlation function
315: and the pairwise velocity dispersion in the Las Campanas Redshift
316: Survey. This empirical model has also received support from the
317: observation of the CNOC clusters (\cite{1996ApJ...462...32C}) where a
318: similar trend of $N/M$ has shown up, though the scatter in the
319: observation is still large. There is evidence that this empirical
320: model is also consistent with semi-analytical models of galaxy
321: formation which incorporate star formation (\cite{bensonetal1999}),
322: since these semi-analytical models have produced predictions for the
323: two-point correlation function and the velocity dispersion quite
324: similar to the empirical model.
325:
326: The bias factors $b(k)$ of these biased models, which are measured
327: from the square root of the ratio of the real space power spectrum of
328: the biased tracer to that of the underlying dark matter, are presented
329: in Figure~\ref{fig1}. The bias function is a constant $b_l$ on large
330: scales ($k<0.08 \mpci$). It rises on small scales in the peak models,
331: but slightly falls with $k$ in the cluster-weight models (though it
332: does not rise or fall monotonically at the smallest scales). The
333: effects of the non-linear bias functions on the linear Kaiser effect
334: are examined by looking at the ratio
335: $[1+\mu^2\Omega_0^{0.6}/b(k)]^2/[1+\mu^2\Omega_0^{0.6}/b_l]^2$. For
336: each $k$, the ratio reaches the maximum deviation from $1$ at
337: $\mu=1$. Figure~\ref{fig2} shows that replacing $b(k)$ with $b_l$ in
338: modeling the linear Kaiser effect could result in an error of $\ls
339: 20\%$ in the damping factor (\S 3) in the non-linear regime. Since the
340: linear bias can be analytically calculated for the bias models
341: (e.g. \cite{matsubara_bias}) and an error of $\sim 20\%$
342: in $D$ is tolerable in this study (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig4}
343: and Fig.~\ref{fig5}), we will use the
344: linear bias factor to model the linear Kaiser effect throughout this
345: paper.
346:
347: \section{Redshift power spectrum}
348:
349: \subsection{Measurement method}
350: We choose the third axis as the line-of-sight direction, and map the
351: coordinate positions of the simulation particles from real space to
352: redshift space by taking into account each particle's peculiar
353: velocity. Periodic boundary conditions are used to place back into the
354: simulation box those particles which are outside of the box in
355: redshift space. A grid of $640^3$ uniformly spaced points is placed
356: within the simulation box. The Nearest-Grid-Point (NGP) method is used
357: to get the density of dark matter or peaks on the grid. This grid of
358: density is transformed to the density distribution in Fourier space
359: $\delta({\bf k})$ using the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) method. The
360: Nyquist wavenumber $k_N$ is about $6.7\mpci$ for a box size of
361: $300\mpc$ and $20 \mpci$ for a box size of $100\mpc$. We take linear
362: bins for $\mu$ with $\Delta \mu =0.1$, with an additional bin at
363: $\mu=0$. For the wavenumber $k$, equal logarithmic bins $\Delta
364: \lg(k)=0.1$ are taken from $0.05k_N$ to $k_N/4$. The lower limit for
365: $k$ is chosen such that there are sufficient modes and the
366: sample-to-sample fluctuation in $\delta({\bf k})$ is small. The upper
367: limit is taken such that the biases introduced by the FFT method are
368: negligible.
369:
370: The assignment of mass and peaks to a grid for FFT brings about
371: artificial smearing as well as artificial anisotropy to the density
372: field $\delta({\bf k})$ near the Nyquist wavenumber. These artificial
373: effects on the power spectrum measurement have been discussed in
374: detail by \cite{jing1992}. Although these effects might be corrected
375: with an iterative procedure(cf Jing 2000), we adopt a simpler approach
376: here. We limit our discussion to small wavenumbers, where these
377: effects become negligible. Indeed, for the NGP assignment scheme
378: adopted here, these effects are seen to diminish for wavenumbers $k
379: \le k_N/4$, according to Jing (1992, 2000). To show this point
380: quantitatively, we measure the redshift power spectrum for one LCDM
381: simulation of box size $100\mpc$ with $320^3$ and $640^3$ grid points
382: respectively. The ratio of these redshift power spectra at $k=2.3
383: \mpci$, about one fourth of the Nyquist wavenumber for the grid points
384: of $320^3$, is 0.98 and nearly independent of $\mu$. Thus the redshift power
385: spectrum is underestimated by only 2 percent in the case of
386: $320^3$. This accuracy is good enough for this study. In the
387: following, our results will be presented for $k\le k_N/4$.
388:
389: \subsection{Results}
390:
391: The redshift power spectrum $P^S(k,\mu)$ which we have measured for
392: the dark matter is presented in the top panels of Figure 3. Different
393: symbols are used for $P^S(k,\mu)$ at different $k$, with $k$
394: increasing from the symbols at the top to those at the bottom. The
395: smallest and the largest values of $k$ are $0.35\mpci$ and $3.4\mpci$
396: respectively, and the increment of $k$ between two successive sets of
397: symbols is $\Delta
398: \log_{10}k=0.2$ approximately. Thus we obtain a sequence for
399: the redshift power spectrum from the quasi-linear to the highly
400: non-linear regimes. The non-linear peculiar motion suppresses the
401: clustering along the line-of-sight, with the effect manifested more
402: prominently at larger $k$ and larger $\mu$. The power spectrum is
403: suppressed by 3 magnitudes along the line-of-sight at the largest $k$ values,
404: indicating that we have approached the highly non-linear
405: regime. In all three dark matter models, we find these same
406: qualitative features for $P^S(k,\mu)$ .
407:
408: The curves for each $k$, which always start from the data points at
409: $\mu=0$, are the model prediction of Equation (\ref{lorentz}) with
410: $\beta=\Omega_0^{0.6}$ for each simulation. For $\sigma_v(k)$, we have
411: used the pairwise velocity dispersion at the separation $r=1/k$
412: \footnote{When $\sigma_v(k)$ and the pairwise velocity dispersion
413: $v_{PVD}(r)$ are compared, we use $r=1/k$ in this paper instead of the
414: {\it correct} relation $r=2\pi/k$. The reason is purely because
415: $\sigma_v(k)$ and $v_{PVD}(r)$ are better matched when $r=1/k$ is used
416: (see Figure~\ref{fig6}).}. The model agrees well with the simulation
417: data for large scales $k\ls 0.5\mpci$. But at large $k$ where the
418: non-linearity is strong, the model predicts a significantly slower
419: decrease with $\mu$ than the simulation data. Adjusting the value for
420: $\sigma_v(k)$ could not produce a better match between the model and
421: the simulation data.
422:
423: The redshift power spectra for the peaks and the cluster-weighted
424: particles are shown in the middle and bottom panels of Figure 3
425: respectively. The qualitative features of these biased models are very
426: similar to those of the dark matter. But with a closer look at the
427: figures, we can easily find that among the three models, the peak
428: model has the strongest dependence on $\mu$ and the cluster weighted
429: model has the weakest. The results are expected, since the cluster
430: regions are over-- weighted in the peak model and under-- weighted in
431: the CLW model relative to the pure dark matter model. When calculating
432: predictions for these biased models, we use the bias parameter $b_l$
433: determined on the linear scale. The simulation results of the biased
434: models, like those of the pure dark matter models, show a faster
435: decrease with $\mu$ for high $k$, indicating that equation
436: (\ref{lorentz}) is not adequate for describing the redshift distortion
437: in the highly non-linear regime even if we let $\sigma_v$ be a
438: function of $k$.
439:
440: It is not unexpected that equation (\ref{lorentz}) breaks down in the
441: non-linear regime for the reasons outlined in Section 1. In order to
442: study the non-linear behavior of the redshift power spectrum, we
443: examine the relation
444: \beq D(k,\mu) \equiv
445: {P^S(k,\mu)\over P^R(k)(1+\beta \mu^2)^2}\,,
446: \label{dd}
447: \eeq
448: where we take the damping function now to be an unknown quantity
449: $D(k,\mu)$ which should be determined from the known expressions on
450: the right hand side. The factor $(1+\beta \mu^2)^2$ accounts for the
451: linear distortion of the power spectrum. The power spectrum $P^R(k)$
452: in real space is measured as in Jing (2000). This will be used for the
453: denominator of equation (\ref{dd}). In equation(\ref{lorentz}), the
454: damping function has the Lorentz form ,i.e. it is a function of
455: $k\mu\sigma_v$ only. Despite the fact that the Lorentz form is
456: inadequate in the non-linear regime, we find that the damping function
457: is approximately a function of $k\mu\sigma_v$. We take $800\kms$ for
458: the value of $\sigma_v$ which is close to the simulation value. The
459: results are plotted in Figure 4 for the CDM and different bias models,
460: with different symbols for different wavenumbers $k$ (as in Figure 3).
461: The points for different values of $k$ fall on top of each other, and
462: this demonstrates that the damping function is indeed approximately a
463: function of $k\mu\sigma_v$. Furthermore the damping function in all
464: the different models falls more steeply than the Lorentz form when
465: $D(k,\mu)< 0.1$, which is consistent with Figure 3.
466:
467: Although the damping function at different $k$ and $\mu$ is {\it
468: approximately} a scaling function of $k\mu\sigma_v$, there exist
469: small but significant systematic scatters of $D(k,\mu)$ for different
470: $k$ along the horizontal axis $k\mu\sigma_v$. The shifts amount
471: typically to a few tens percent in $k\mu\sigma_v$. The reason could be
472: that the velocity dispersion is not a constant. In fact, it is well
473: known that the pairwise velocity dispersion in coordinate space is a
474: function of the pairwise separation $r$ and in the CDM models the
475: pairwise velocity dispersion peaks at $r\approx 2\mpc$
476: (e.g. JMB98). Therefore, we relax the assumption of $\sigma_v={\rm
477: constant}$ and let $\sigma_v$ vary with $k$.
478:
479: Figure 5 shows the damping function in the different models as a
480: function of $k\mu\sigma_v$, where $\sigma_v$ is allowed to vary with
481: $k$. We have taken values for $\sigma_v(k)$ such that the damping
482: function $D(k\mu\sigma_v)$ of two neighboring $k$ bins matches
483: best. This determines the relative values of $\sigma_v(k)$. In order
484: to fix the absolute values, we fit the damping function with the
485: Lorentz form for $D(k,\mu) > 0.1$. The Lorentz form for $D(k,\mu) >
486: 0.1$ describes well the simulation data of all the models (see more
487: discussion below). The values of $\sigma_v (k)$ determined in this way
488: are plotted in Figure 6.
489:
490: The damping function $D(k,\mu)$, plotted as a function of
491: $k\mu\sigma_v$, has a much smaller scatter with a variable $\sigma_v$
492: than with a constant one. Although it is not surprising that taking a
493: variable $\sigma_v(k)$ improves the scaling relation of $D(k,\mu)$
494: (since it gives more freedom than a constant $\sigma_v$), it is far
495: from trivial to have such a good scaling relation with a variable
496: $\sigma_v(k)$, since $k\mu\sigma_v$ can vary by an order of magnitude
497: even for a single $k$ and we do not adjust $D(k,\mu)$.
498:
499:
500: Moreover, the qualitative behavior of $\sigma_v(k)$ is very similar to
501: that of the pairwise velocity dispersion (PVD) $\sigma_{PVD}(r)$ which
502: is measured directly from the 3-dimensional peculiar velocity in the
503: simulation. $\sigma_v(k)$ peaks at $k\approx 1\mpc$ and gently falls
504: when $k$ increases or decreases. This compares well with the pairwise
505: velocity dispersion $\sigma_{PVD}(r)$ (curves in Figure 6), where we
506: have arbitrarily assumed $k=1/r$ for the horizontal axis. In fact, we
507: can use $\sigma_{PVD}$ from the simulation data for the variable
508: $\sigma(k)$ and obtain damping functions very similar to the graphs
509: shown in Figure 5. Small differences between the use of
510: $\sigma_{PVD}(r)$ and of $\sigma_v(k)$ are expected, since there is no
511: reason that they should be exactly the same. But the fact that the
512: difference between $\sigma_{PVD}(r)$ and $\sigma_v(k)$ is less than
513: 20\% (if $k\propto 1/r$ is used) is very encouraging: $\sigma_v(k)$ is
514: a good indicator of the pairwise velocity dispersion
515: $\sigma_{PVD}(r)$, and can be measured in a redshift catalog (see
516: Section 4).
517:
518: We have fitted the scaled damping function of our simulation with the
519: following form
520: \beq
521: D(k,\mu)={1\over 1+{1\over 2}(k\mu\sigma_v(k))^2+
522: \eta (k\mu\sigma_v(k))^4 }\,.
523: \label{fitting}
524: \eeq
525: The fitting values for the parameter $\eta$ are given in Table~2 for
526: each model. The above fitting formula describes our simulation results
527: very well, as shown by Figure 5. The formula can also be used to
528: compare the theoretical models with the statistic in future large
529: redshift surveys of galaxies.
530:
531: It is quite useful to present a simple method for predicting
532: $P^S(k,\mu)$ in the theoretical models. One way is to combine
533: Eq.(\ref{fitting}) and Fig.~6. One could interpolate the data points
534: in Fig.~6 to get $\sigma_v(k)$ and use Eq.(\ref{fitting}) to predict
535: the damping function for the models. An alternative way is to replace
536: $\sigma_v(k)$ with the PVD of the {\it dark matter}
537: $\sigma^{dm}_{PVD}(1/k)$, since the dark matter PVD can be predicted
538: with the fitting formula given by \cite{mjb97}(1997). Figure~\ref{fig7}
539: shows the damping function when $\sigma^{dm}_{PVD}(1/k)$ is used for
540: $\sigma_v(k)$. The scatters in this figure are slightly larger than
541: those in Figure~\ref{fig5} as expected, but the scaling relation of
542: $D(k,\mu)$ still reasonably holds. The damping function could still
543: be described by the fitting formula (\ref{fitting}) with the fitting
544: values of $\eta$ listed in Table~3. One can use these results to
545: predict the redshift power spectrum $P^S(k,\mu)$.
546:
547: We note that the fitting formula of this paper is valid only for the
548: models studied here. It is however possible to work out an analytical
549: model for the redshift power spectrum which is generally applicable to
550: CDM models and to the peak and cluster-weight bias schemes, based on
551: the known physical properties of dark matter halos (cf. \cite{mjb97} 1997;
552: \cite{ma2000}; \cite{mjw97}). We will study such an analytical model
553: in a subsequent paper.
554:
555: \section{Discussion and Conclusion}
556:
557: As we have shown, there exist good scaling relations for the damping
558: function $D(k,\mu)$ when the scaling variable $k\mu\sigma_v(k)$ is
559: used. The conclusion is valid for all the galaxy formation models
560: examined in the paper (i.e. 3 CDM models and 2 bias models), although
561: the scaling form depends both on the dark matter models and the bias
562: models. $D(k\mu\sigma_v(k))$ falls with $k\mu\sigma_v(k)$ slightly
563: faster in the SCDM model than in the two low-density models. It also
564: falls faster in the cluster-over-weighted models (Peak models) than in
565: the CLW models. For all the models, the damping function $D(k,\mu)$
566: is approximately described by the Lorentz form for large scales where
567: $D>0.1$, but the simulation result is below the analytical form for
568: smaller scales. The detailed form of the scaling relation is expected
569: to reflect the distribution function of the pairwise velocity as well
570: as the coupling between the velocity and density. Thus it depends on
571: the details of the galaxy formation model and the bias model. We have
572: presented an accurate fitting formula for the damping functions for
573: the models studied.
574:
575: Our results have several important implications for observation.
576: Because the models studied cover a wide range of parameters, we
577: conjecture that a scaling relation of $D(k,\mu)$ also holds for the
578: galaxies in our Universe. This scaling relation can be measured by the
579: method used in this paper, by analyzing the redshift power spectrum
580: for a redshift catalog of galaxies. The resulting velocity dispersion,
581: though slightly different from the PVD defined by the 3-D peculiar
582: velocity, is a good indicator for it. The fact that both the scaling
583: form of $D(k\mu\sigma_v(k))$ and the velocity dispersion depend on the
584: dark matter model as well as on the bias model implies that these
585: quantities can become effective observational tests for theoretical
586: models. The determination for the scaling relation is also important
587: for determining the $\beta$ value when the redshift power spectrum can
588: be precisely measured only up to the scale $2\pi/k\approx 60 \mpc$. On
589: this scale or smaller, the nonlinear motion still has appreciable
590: effects and can be corrected by scaling the damping function.
591:
592: In the traditional analysis of the two-point redshift correlation
593: function (TPRCF, \cite{1983ApJ...267..465D}), a functional form must
594: first be assumed for the DF of the pairwise velocity. The validity of
595: the functional form is checked by matching the model TPRCF, which is a
596: convolution of the the real-space two-point correlation with the DF of
597: the pairwise velocity, with the observational data. This method has
598: been applied to various redshift surveys (
599: \cite{1993MNRAS.264..825M}; \cite{1995AJ....110..477M};
600: \cite{1994MNRAS.267..927F}; \cite{ratcliffeetal1998};
601: \cite{postmanetal1998}; \cite{1999AJ....118.2561G};
602: \cite{1999ApJ...524...31S}). However, searching for the
603: functional form of the DF of the pairwise velocity in parameter space
604: is much more difficult than determining its Fourier counterpart, the
605: damping function, from an analysis of the redshift power spectrum.
606: Moreover, in modeling the TPRCF, an infall velocity as a function of
607: $r$ must be assumed (\cite{1983ApJ...267..465D}). The functional form of
608: the infall velocity is less well understood (\cite{1995AJ....110..477M};
609: \cite{jingboerner1998}) and much more difficult to
610: determine in observations than the the single parameter $\beta$ in the
611: power spectrum analysis. The velocity dispersions measured in both
612: analyses are shown to have similar accuracy (difference $\ls 20\%$)
613: compared to the 3-D peculiar velocity dispersion (e.g. JMB98;
614: \cite{jingboerner1998}). Through this comparison, it is clear that
615: the two types of the redshift clustering analysis complement each
616: other, but an analysis of the redshift power spectrum has the above
617: mentioned advantages over the analysis of TPRCF.
618:
619:
620: In previous studies of the redshift power spectrum in CDM models
621: (e.g. \cite{1994MNRAS.267..785C}, 1995; \cite{2000ApJ...528...30M};
622: \cite{1997ApJ...475..414B}; \cite{1996MNRAS.279L...1F}; \cite{taylor};
623: \cite{1999MNRAS.310.1137H}), the authors
624: studied the behavior of
625: $P^S(k,\mu)$ mainly in the quasi-linear regime, with emphasis on the
626: agreement of Equation (\ref{lorentz}) with the simulation data. Their
627: results were presented usually for the monopole and quadrupole of
628: $P^S(k,\mu)$ only, instead of the full dependence on $\mu$ as in this
629: paper. With the exception of Bromley et al. (1997) who considered dark
630: matter halos, most previous work was concerned with the redshift power
631: spectrum for the dark matter only. In comparison, our present work
632: has focused on the full dependence of $P^S(k,\mu)$ on $\mu$ from the
633: quasilinear to the highly non-linear regime. To achieve this goal, we
634: have used a large set of high-resolution N-body simulations. We have
635: also paid close attention to the artificial biases introduced by the
636: FFT method, and we have included two distinctive bias models in order
637: to study the dependence of $P^S(k,\mu)$ on the galaxy bias. Moreover,
638: we have given an accurate fitting formula for $P^S(k,\mu)$ for all the
639: models studied here. Thus we present here a very thorough study of
640: the redshift power spectrum.
641:
642: In summary, we have carried out a very systematic, detailed analysis
643: for the redshift distortion of the power spectrum in currently popular
644: models of galaxy formation, paying special attention to the strongly
645: non-linear regime. Three CDM models and two distinct bias models for
646: each CDM model are considered, with a total of nine models. A large
647: set of high-resolution simulations of $256^3$ particles are used to
648: trace the linear and nonlinear clustering in these models. We have
649: carefully checked the FFT method and avoided those systematic biases
650: inherent to the method on small scale (or large $k$). Our main results
651: are:
652: \begin{enumerate}
653:
654: \item The redshift power spectrum $P^S(k,\mu)$ can be accurately
655: expressed by Equation (1) with the damping function $D(k,\mu)$ being
656: a scaling function of the variable $k\mu \sigma_v(k)$ in all the
657: models studied here. An accurate fitting formula has been given for
658: these scaling functions.
659: \item A mild variation of $\sigma_v(k)$ with the scale $k$ is required
660: to improve the scaling relation of $D(k,\mu)$ among different
661: scales. The behavior of $\sigma_v(k)$ with the scale is
662: qualitatively similar to that seen in the PVD defined by the 3D
663: peculiar velocity. Therefore, the variation of $\sigma_v(k)$ with
664: the scale in fact reflects the separation dependence of the PVD,
665: although there is about $20\%$ systematic difference between these
666: two quantities.
667: \item The damping function is described well by the Lorentz form for
668: $D(k\mu \sigma_v)>0.1$ but falls faster than the Lorentz form on
669: smaller scales ($D(k\mu \sigma_v)<0.1$). The most likely cause for
670: the deviation is the strong coupling between the nonlinear motion
671: and the small scale structures.
672: \item The functional form of $D(k\mu \sigma_v)$ as well
673: as the quantity $\sigma_v(k)$ depends on the dark matter models and
674: the bias recipes. An observational measurement of these two quantities
675: can serve as an interesting test for models of galaxy formation.
676:
677: \end{enumerate}
678:
679: Because of these interesting features of $P^S(k,\mu)$, an
680: observational analysis of the redshift power spectrum, though it is
681: largely complementary to, has several obvious advantages over the
682: traditional analysis of the two-point correlation function. In a
683: subsequent paper, we (\cite{jingboerner2000}) will apply the results
684: of this paper to measure the damping function and the velocity
685: dispersion for the currently largest redshift survey- the Las Campanas
686: Redshift Survey (\cite{shectmanetal1996}).
687:
688: All the data presented in the figures are available to the interested
689: readers in electronic form upon request.
690:
691: \acknowledgments
692:
693: We are grateful to Yasushi Suto for the hospitality extended to us at
694: the physics department of Tokyo university where most of the
695: computation was completed. We thank the referee for helpful comments
696: which improve the presentation of this paper. J.Y.P. gratefully
697: acknowledges the receipt of a NAO COE foreign research fellowship. The
698: work is supported by the One-Hundred-Talent Program and by The Major
699: State Basic Research Development Program to Y.P.J., and by SFB375 to
700: G.B.. The simulations were carried out on VPP/16R and VX/4R at the
701: Astronomical Data Analysis Center of the National Astronomical
702: Observatory, Japan.
703:
704:
705: \begin{thebibliography}{}
706:
707: \bibitem[Adelberger, et al. 1998]{adelbergeretal1998} Adelberger, K. L., Steidel, C. C., Giavalisco, M. , Dickinson, M. , Pettini, M. \& Kellogg, M. 1998, \apj, 505, 18
708: \bibitem[Alcock \& Paczynski 1979]{1979Natur.281..358A} Alcock, C. \& Paczynski, B. 1979, \nat, 281, 358
709: \bibitem[Ballinger, Peacock \& Heavens 1996]{1996MNRAS.282..877B} Ballinger, W. E., Peacock, J. A. \& Heavens, A. F. 1996, \mnras, 282,877
710: \bibitem[Bardeen, et al. 1986]{1986ApJ...304...15B} Bardeen, J. M., Bond, J. R., Kaiser, N. \& Szalay, A. S. 1986, \apj, 304, 15
711: \bibitem[Benson, et al. 1999]{bensonetal1999} Benson, A. J., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., \& Lacey, C. G. 1999, astro-ph/9911179
712: \bibitem[Bromley, Warren \& Zurek 1997]{1997ApJ...475..414B} Bromley, B. C., Warren, M. S. \& Zurek, W. H. 1997, \apj, 475, 414
713: \bibitem[Carlberg, et al. 1996]{1996ApJ...462...32C} Carlberg, R. G., Yee, H. K. C., Ellingson, E., Abraham, R., Gravel, P., Morris, S. \& Pritchet, C. J. 1996, \apj, 462, 32
714: \bibitem[Cole, Fisher \& Weinberg 1994]{1994MNRAS.267..785C} Cole, S., Fisher, K. B. \& Weinberg, D. H. 1994, \mnras, 267, 785
715: \bibitem[Cole, Fisher \& Weinberg 1995]{1995MNRAS.275..515C} Cole, S. , Fisher, K. B. \& Weinberg, D. H. 1995, \mnras, 275, 515
716: \bibitem[Davis \& Peebles 1983]{1983ApJ...267..465D} Davis, M. \& Peebles, P. J. E. 1983, \apj, 267, 465
717: \bibitem[Diaferio \& Geller 1996]{1996ApJ...467...19D} Diaferio, A. \& Geller, M. J. 1996, \apj, 467, 19
718: \bibitem[Efstathiou, et al. 1988]{1988MNRAS.235..715E} Efstathiou, G. , Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M. \& Davis, M. 1988, \mnras,
719: \bibitem[Fisher \& Nusser 1996]{1996MNRAS.279L...1F} Fisher, K. B. \& Nusser, A. 1996, \mnras, 279, L1
720: \bibitem[Fisher, et al. 1994]{1994MNRAS.267..927F} Fisher, K. B., Davis, M., Strauss, M. A., Yahil, A. \& Huchra, J. P. 1994, \mnras, 267, 927
721: \bibitem[Geller \& Peebles 1973]{1973ApJ...184..329G} Geller, M. J. \& Peebles, P. J. E. 1973, \apj, 184, 329
722: \bibitem[Grogin \& Geller 1999]{1999AJ....118.2561G} Grogin, N. A. \& Geller, M. J. 1999, \aj, 118, 2561
723: \bibitem[Hatton \& Cole 1999]{1999MNRAS.310.1137H} Hatton, S. \& Cole, S. 1999, \mnras, 310, 1137
724: \bibitem[Jing (1992)]{jing1992} Jing, Y. P. 1992, ph.D.thesis, SISSA, Trieste
725: \bibitem[Jing (1998)]{jing1998} Jing, Y.P., 1998, ApJ, 503, L9
726: \bibitem[Jing (2000)]{jing2000} Jing, Y.P. 2000, in preparation
727: \bibitem[Jing \& B\"orner 1998]{jingboerner1998} Jing, Y. P. \& B\"orner, G. 1998, \apj, 503, 37
728: \bibitem[Jing \& B\"orner 2000]{jingboerner2000}Jing, Y. P. \& B\"orner, G. 2000,
729: \apj, (submitted)
730: \bibitem[Jing \& Suto (1998)]{1998ApJ...494L...5J} Jing, Y. P. \& Suto, Y. 1998, \apjl, 494, L5
731: \bibitem[Jing, Mo \& B\"orner 1998]{1998ApJ...494....1J} Jing, Y. P., Mo, H. J. \& B\"orner, G. 1998, \apj, 494, 1
732: \bibitem[Jing, et al. 1994]{1994A&A...284..703J} Jing, Y. P., Mo, H. J., B\"orner, G. \& Fang, L. Z. 1994, \aap, 284, 703
733: \bibitem[Juszkiewicz, Fisher \& Szapudi 1998]{1998ApJ...504L...1J} Juszkiewicz, R. , Fisher, K. B. \& Szapudi, I. 1998, \apjl, 504, L1
734: \bibitem[Kaiser 1987]{1987MNRAS.227....1K} Kaiser, N. 1987, \mnras, 227, 1
735: \bibitem[Ma \& Fry 2000]{ma2000} Ma, C.\ and Fry, J.\ N.\
736: 2000, \apjl, 531, L87
737: \bibitem[Magira, Jing \& Suto 2000]{2000ApJ...528...30M} Magira, H. , Jing, Y. P. \& Suto, Y. 2000, \apj, 528, 30
738: \bibitem[Marzke, et al. 1995]{1995AJ....110..477M} Marzke, R. O., Geller, M. J., da Costa, L. N. \& Huchra, J. P. 1995, \aj, 110, 477
739: \bibitem[Matsubara 1999]{matsubara_bias} Matsubara, T.\ 1999, \apj,
740: 525, 543
741: \bibitem[Matsubara \& Suto 1996]{1996ApJ...470L...1M} Matsubara, T. \& Suto, Y. 1996, \apjl, 470, L1
742: \bibitem[Matsubara, Szalay and Landy (2000)]{matsubaraetal2000}
743: Matsubara, T., Szalay, A. S. and Landy, S. D. 2000, \apjl, 535, L1
744: \bibitem[Mo, Jing \& B\"orner 1993]{1993MNRAS.264..825M} Mo, H. J., Jing, Y. P. \& B\"orner, G. 1993, \mnras, 264, 825
745: \bibitem[Mo, Jing \& White 1997]{mjw97} Mo, H.\ J., Jing,
746: Y.\ P.\ and White, S.\ D.\ M.\ 1997, \mnras, 284, 189
747: \bibitem[Mo, Jing \& B\"orner]{mjb97} Mo, H.\ J., Jing,
748: Y.\ P.\ and B\"orner, G.\ 1997, \mnras, 286, 979
749: \bibitem[Peacock \& Dodds 1994]{1994MNRAS.267.1020P} Peacock, J. A. \& Dodds, S. J. 1994, \mnras, 267, 1020
750: \bibitem[Peebles 1976]{1976Ap&SS..45....3P} Peebles, P. J. E. 1976, \apss, 45, 3
751: \bibitem[Press \& Schechter (1974)]{1974ApJ...187..425P} Press, W. H. \& Schechter, P. 1974, \apj, 187, 425
752: \bibitem[Postman et al. 1998]{postmanetal1998}
753: Postman, M., Lauer, T. R., Szapudi, I. ;. and Oegerle, W. 1998, \apj, 506,
754: 33
755: \bibitem[Seto \& Yokoyama 1998]{1998ApJ...492..421S} Seto, N. \& Yokoyama, J. 'i. 1998, \apj, 492, 421
756: \bibitem[Shectman et al. 1996] {shectmanetal1996} Shectman S. A., Landy, S.D.,
757: Oemler A., Tucker D.L., Lin H., Kirshner R.P., Schechter P.L., 1996,
758: ApJ, 470, 172
759: \bibitem[Sheth 1996]{1996MNRAS.279.1310S} Sheth, R. K. 1996, \mnras, 279, 1310
760: \bibitem[Small, et al. 1999]{1999ApJ...524...31S} Small, T. A., Ma, C. -P. , Sargent, W. L. W. \& Hamilton, D. 1999, \apj, 524,31
761: \bibitem[Suto, et al. 1999]{1999PThPS.133..183S} Suto, Y., Magira, H., Jing, Y. P., Matsubara, T. \& Yamamoto, K. 1999, Progress in Theoretical Physics Supplement, 133, 183
762: \bibitem[Steidel et al. 1998]{steideletal1997} Steidel, C.C., Adelberger, K.L., Dickinson,
763: M., Giavalisco, M., Pettini, M., Kellogg, M., 1998, ApJ, 492, 428
764: \bibitem[Ratcliffe et al. 1998]{ratcliffeetal1998}
765: Ratcliffe, A., Shanks, T., Parker, Q. A. and Fong, R. 1998, \mnras, 296,
766: 191
767: \bibitem[Taylor and Hamilton 1996]{taylor} Taylor, A. N. and
768: Hamilton, A. J. S. 1996, \mnras, 282, 767
769: \bibitem[Turner 1976]{1976ApJ...208...20T} Turner, E. L. 1976, \apj, 208, 20
770: \bibitem[White, et al. (1987)]{1987ApJ...313..505W} White, S. D. M., Frenk, C. S., Davis, M. \& Efstathiou, G. 1987, \apj, 313, 505
771:
772: \end{thebibliography}
773:
774:
775: \newpage
776: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
777: \begin{table}[\begin{table}[h]
778: \begin{center}
779: Table~1.\hspace{4pt} Model parameters \\
780: \end{center}
781: \vspace{6pt}
782: \begin{center}
783: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
784: \hline\hline\\[-6pt]
785: Model & $\Omega_0$ & $\lambda_0$
786: & $\Gamma$ & $\sigma_8$ \\
787: [4pt]\hline \\[-6pt]
788: SCDM & 1.0 & 0.0 & 0.5 & 0.6 \\
789: OCDM & 0.3 & 0.0 & 0.25 & 1.0\\
790: LCDM & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.21 & 1.0\\
791: \hline
792: \end{tabular}
793: \end{center}
794: \end{table}
795: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
796: \begin{table}[\begin{table}[h]
797: \begin{center}
798: Table~2.\hspace{4pt} The fitting values of $\eta$ \\
799: \end{center}
800: \vspace{6pt}
801: \begin{center}
802: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
803: \hline\hline\\[-6pt]
804: & DM & Peaks
805: & CLW \\
806: [4pt]\hline \\[-6pt]
807: SCDM & 0.00965& 0.0204& 0.00792 \\
808: OCDM & 0.00330& 0.0168&0.00171 \\
809: LCDM & 0.00309& 0.0168& 0.00145\\
810: \hline
811: \end{tabular}
812: \end{center}
813: \end{table}
814: \newpage
815: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
816: \begin{table}[\begin{table}[h]
817: \begin{center}
818: Table~3.\hspace{4pt} The fitting values of $\eta$ when $\sigma_v(k)$ is replaced with $\sigma_{PVD}(1/k)$ \\
819: \end{center}
820: \vspace{6pt}
821: \begin{center}
822: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
823: \hline\hline\\[-6pt]
824: & DM & Peaks
825: & CLW \\
826: [4pt]\hline \\[-6pt]
827: SCDM & 0.01118& 0.0401 & 0.00327 \\
828: LCDM & 0.00759& 0.0481 & 0.00089 \\
829: OCDM & 0.00566& 0.0429 & 0.00021 \\
830: \hline
831: \end{tabular}
832: \end{center}
833: \end{table}
834: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
835: \newpage
836: %\begin{figure}
837: %\epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig1.ps}
838: %\caption{The ratio of the two measurements for $P^S(k,\mu)$
839: %at $k=2.3\mpci$ when $320^3$ and $640^3$ grid points are used for the
840: %FFT. }\label{fig1}\end{figure}
841:
842: \begin{figure}
843: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig1.ps}
844: \caption{The bias factor $b(k)$ measured as the square root of the
845: ratio of the power spectrum of the biased tracer to that of the
846: dark matter.}\label{fig1}\end{figure}
847:
848: \begin{figure}
849: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig2.ps}
850: \caption{The
851: ratio of $[1+\Omega_0^{0.6}/b(k)]^2$ to $[1+\Omega_0^{0.6}/b_{l}]^2$,
852: where $b_{l}$ is the bias on the linear scale. The curves represent
853: the maximum effect that the non-linear bias has on the linear Kaiser
854: effect at $\mu=1$. }\label{fig2}\end{figure}
855:
856: \begin{figure}
857: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig3.cps}
858: \caption{
859: The redshift power spectrum $P^S(k,\mu)$ determined for the
860: different tracers of the three CDM models. The top panels are for
861: the dark matter (DM), the middle for the peaks (PK), and the bottom
862: for the cluster under weighted population (CLW). In each panel,
863: $P^S(k,\mu)$ at different $k$ are plotted with different
864: symbols. From the top (crosses) to the bottom (stars), the values of
865: $k$ are 0.35, 0.56, 0.90, 1.1, 1.7, 2.7, 3.4 $\mpc$ respectively,
866: and the $P^S(k,\mu)$ are multiplied by $1$, $10^{-1}$, $10^{-2}$,
867: ..., $10^{-6}$ respectively for clarity. The lines are the model
868: prediction of Equation (\ref{lorentz}) where the Lorentz form is
869: used for the damping function. }\label{fig3}\end{figure}
870:
871: \begin{figure}
872: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig4.cps}
873: \caption{
874: The damping function $D(k,\mu)$ determined according to Equation
875: (\ref{dd}) is plotted as a function of $k\mu\sigma_v$ with
876: $\sigma_v$ fixed to $800 \kms$. The curves are the prediction of the
877: Lorentz form. The symbols and the labels are the same as in Fig.~2
878: }\label{fig4}\end{figure}
879:
880: \begin{figure}
881: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig5.cps}
882: \caption{
883: The same as Fig.~4, but the velocity dispersion $\sigma_v$ is
884: allowed to vary with the wavenumber $k$. The dashed curves are the
885: prediction of the Lorentz form and the solid ones are given by the
886: fitting formula Eq.(\ref{fitting}) with the
887: $\eta$ given in Table 2. The values of $\sigma_v(k)$ used
888: for this plot are given in Fig.~6. }
889: \label{fig5}\end{figure}
890:
891: \begin{figure}
892: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig6.ps}
893: \caption{The velocity dispersion $\sigma_v (k)$ (symbols)
894: required to make the
895: damping function a scaling function of $k\mu\sigma_v$, compared to the
896: pairwise velocity dispersions measured from the true peculiar
897: velocity(curves). The open symbols and the dotted lines are for the
898: simulations of $300\mpc$, and the solid symbols and the solid lines
899: for those of $100\mpc$. The systematic difference of the velocity
900: dispersion at $k\sim 1\mpci$ between the two box sizes, which is small
901: (5\% only), is due to the different long wavelength cutoff in the
902: simulation. }\label{fig6}\end{figure}
903:
904: \begin{figure}
905: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{fig7.cps}
906: \caption{
907: The same as Fig.~5, but the velocity dispersion $\sigma_v(k)$ is
908: taken from the pairwise velocity dispersion $\sigma_{PVD}(r)$ at $r=1/k$. The
909: dashed curves are the prediction of the Lorentz form and the solid
910: ones are given by the fitting formula Eq.(\ref{fitting}) with the
911: $\eta$ given in Table 3.}
912: \label{fig7}\end{figure}
913:
914: \end{document}
915:
916:
917:
918:
919:
920:
921:
922:
923:
924:
925:
926:
927:
928:
929: