4.7 Article

The 6dF Galaxy Survey: peculiar velocity field and cosmography

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 445, Issue 3, Pages 2677-2697

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu1743

Keywords

surveys; galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies: fundamental parameters; cosmology: distance scale; cosmology: large-scale structure of Universe

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council [DP-0208876, DP-1092666]
  2. AAO
  3. U.K. Science and Technology Facility Council (STFC) [ST/I001573/I]
  4. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO) [CE110001020]
  5. STFC [ST/L00075X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/L00075X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We derive peculiar velocities for the 6dF Galaxy Survey (6dFGS) and describe the velocity field of the nearby (z < 0.055) Southern hemisphere. The survey comprises 8885 galaxies for which we have previously reported Fundamental Plane data. We obtain peculiar velocity probability distributions for the redshift-space positions of each of these galaxies using a Bayesian approach. Accounting for selection bias, we find that the logarithmic distance uncertainty is 0.11 dex, corresponding to 26 per cent in linear distance. We use adaptive kernel smoothing to map the observed 6dFGS velocity field out to cz similar to 16 000 km s(-1), and compare this to the predicted velocity fields from the PSCz Survey and the 2MASS Redshift Survey. We find a better fit to the PSCz prediction, although the reduced chi(2) for the whole sample is approximately unity for both comparisons. This means that, within the observational uncertainties due to redshift-independent distance errors, observed galaxy velocities and those predicted by the linear approximation from the density field agree. However, we find peculiar velocities that are systematically more positive than model predictions in the direction of the Shapley and Vela superclusters, and systematically more negative than model predictions in the direction of the Pisces-Cetus Supercluster, suggesting contributions from volumes not covered by the models.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available