4.7 Article

Cosmic Flow Measurement and Mock Sampling Algorithm of Cosmicflows-4 Tully-Fisher Catalog

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 922, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac249d

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. project Understanding Dark Universe Using Large Scale Structure of the Universe - Ministry of Science
  2. Australian Government through the Australian Research Councils Laureate Fellowship funding scheme [FL180100168]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Measurements of cosmic flows were used in this study to test cosmological models, with results showing unbiased measurements and consistency with predictions of the concordance Cold Dark Matter cosmological model.
Measurements of cosmic flows enable us to test whether cosmological models can accurately describe the evolution of the density field in the nearby universe. In this paper, we measure the low-order kinematic moments of the cosmic flow field, namely bulk flow and shear moments, using the Cosmicflows-4 Tully-Fisher catalog (CF4TF). To make accurate cosmological inferences with the CF4TF sample, it is important to make realistic mock catalogs. We present the mock sampling algorithm of CF4TF. These mocks can accurately realize the survey geometry and luminosity selection function, enabling researchers to explore how these systematics affect the measurements. These mocks can also be further used to estimate the covariance matrix and errors of the power spectrum and two-point correlation function in future work. In this paper, we use the mocks to test the cosmic flow estimator and find that the measurements are unbiased. The measured bulk flow in the local universe is 376 +/- 23 (error) +/- 183 (cosmic variance) km s(-1) at depth d (MLE) = 35 Mpc h (-1), to the Galactic direction of (l, b) = (298 degrees +/- 3 degrees, -6 degrees +/- 3 degrees). Both the measured bulk and shear moments are consistent with the concordance ? Cold Dark Matter cosmological model predictions.

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