MNRAS 000,1–16 (2019) Preprint 5 October 2020 Compiled using MNRAS LATEX style file v3.0 Cosmic flows in the nearby Universe: new peculiar velocities from SNe and cosmological constraints Supranta S. Boruah1,2¢, Michael J. Hudson1,3,4y, Guilhem Lavaux5z 1Waterloo Centre for Astrophysics, University of Waterloo, 200, University Ave W, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1 2Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Waterloo, 200, University Ave W, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1 3Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada 4Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 31 Caroline St N, Waterloo, ON N2L 2Y5 5CNRS & Sorbonne Université, UMR7095, Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, F-75014, Paris, France Last updated XXXX; in original form YYYY ABSTRACT The peculiar velocity field offers a unique way to probe dark matter density field on large scales at low redshifts. In this work, we have compiled a new sample of 465 peculiar velocities from low redshift ¹I < 0.067º Type Ia supernovae. We compare the reconstructed velocity field derived from the 2M++ galaxy redshift compilation to the supernovae, the SFI++ and the 2MTF Tully-Fisher distance catalogues. We used a forward method to jointly infer the distances and the velocities of distance indicators by comparing the observations to the reconstruction. Comparison of the reconstructed peculiar velocity fields to observations allows us to infer the cosmological parameter combination 5 f8, and the bulk flow velocity arising from outside the survey volume. The residual bulk flow arising from outside the 2M++ volume is inferred to be ¸11 −1 = ◦ ± ◦ = ◦ ± ◦ = ± 171−11 km s in the direction ; 301 4 and 1 0 3 . We obtain 5 f8 0.400 0.017, 0.55 equivalent to (8 ≈ f8 ¹Ω</0.3º = 0.776 ± 0.033, which corresponds to an approximately 4% statistical uncertainty on the value of 5 f8. Our inferred value is consistent with other low redshift results in the literature. Key words: Galaxy: kinematics and dynamics – galaxies: statistics – large-scale structure of Universe – cosmology: observations 1 INTRODUCTION Dupuy et al. 2019), where f8 is the root mean squared fluctuation in the matter overdensity in a sphere of radius 8 ℎ−1 Mpc. In the Peculiar velocities, the deviation from the regular Hubble flow of the ΛCDM cosmological model, 5 ≈ Ω0.55 (Wang & Steinhardt 1998). galaxies, are sourced by inhomogeneities in the universe, making < However, in modified theories of gravity, the growth rate could be them an excellent probe of its large-scale structure. In fact, the W different, i.e. 5 = Ω with W < 0.55. Therefore, peculiar velocities peculiar velocity field is the only probe of very large-scale structures < can also be used to constrain theories of gravity (Abate & Lahav in the low-redshift universe. 2008; Nusser & Davis 2011; Hudson & Turnbull 2012; Huterer et al. In linear perturbation theory, the relationship between peculiar 2017). velocity, v, and the dark matter overdensity, X, is given as ¹ 0 However, analysing peculiar velocities poses several chal- 퐻0 5 3 0 0 r − r arXiv:1912.09383v2 [astro-ph.CO] 2 Oct 2020 v¹rº = d r X¹r º . (1) lenges. The measured redshift, 2I, of a galaxy gets a contribution 4c jr0 − rj3 from both the recessional velocity due to Hubble flow, 퐻A, and where X = d/d¯ −1, with d being the density and d¯ the mean density the peculiar velocity, v. Therefore, to analyse peculiar velocities, of the Universe. As can be seen from the above equation, the ve- one needs to determine the distances to these galaxies in order to = d ln 퐷 locity field is sensitive to the dimensionless growth rate, 5 d ln 0 separate these two contributions. There are several ways to mea- and the typical amplitude of density fluctuations. Here, 퐷 is the sure distances directly. The most popular of these use empirical growth function of linear perturbations, and 0 is the scale factor. galaxy scaling relations. For example, SFI++ (Masters et al. 2006) Consequently, the peculiar velocity field has been used to con- and the 2MTF (Masters et al. 2008) catalogues use the Tully-Fisher strain the degenerate cosmological parameter 5 f8 (Pike & Hudson (TF) relation (Tully & Fisher 1977), and the 6dF velocity survey 2005; Davis et al. 2011; Carrick et al. 2015; Adams & Blake 2017; (Springob et al. 2014) uses the Fundamental Plane (hereafter FP) relation (Dressler et al. 1987; Djorgovski & Davis 1987). Another ¢ Contact e-mail: [email protected] distance indicator relies on Type Ia supernovae (Riess et al. 1997; y Contact e-mail: [email protected] Radburn-Smith et al. 2004; Turnbull et al. 2012; Huterer et al. z Contact e-mail: [email protected] 2017; Mathews et al. 2016). Since the distance errors from Type © 2019 The Authors 2 S. S. Boruah, M. J. Hudson and G. Lavaux Ia supernovae (O»5-10%¼) are much lower than those obtained us- ing galaxy scaling relationships (O»20-25%¼), a smaller sample of A2 Supernovae 25 SFI++ Field Galaxies Type Ia supernovae can give comparable results to that of a larger SFI++ Groups catalogue based on the TF or FP relations. In this work, we combine 2MTF low redshift supernovae from various surveys to produce the largest 20 peculiar velocity catalogue based on Type Ia supernovae to date. ) The different approaches to analysing peculiar velocities can 15 D/D be separated into two categories: i) those which use only the distance (∆ P indicator data for peculiar velocity analysis, and ii) those which ‘re- 10 construct’ the cosmic density field from a redshift survey and then compare the velocity field predictions with the observed peculiar velocity data. Some examples of the first category are the POTENT 5 (Bertschinger & Dekel 1989) and the forward-modelled VIRBIUS (Lavaux 2016) method. Our approach falls into the second cate- 0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 gory, where we compare the reconstructed velocity field to distance Relative Distance Error, ∆D/D observations. In particular, we use the distribution of galaxies ¹X6º as a tracer of the mass density field, X. We can then use a mod- Figure 1. The normalised distribution of the relative distance errors of the ified version of Equation (1) to predict the peculiar velocities. In different peculiar velocity datasets. The distribution of the relative errors of this approach, we can constrain the degenerate parameter combina- the A2 compilation is shown in orange, that of the SFI++ groups is shown tion V = 5 /1, where 1 is the linear galaxy bias. The cosmological in red, the SFI++ field galaxies are shown in blue and the 2MTF galaxies 5 f V 5 f = Vf6 are shown in green. The typical errors on the distances of the supernovae is parameter combination 8 is then related to as 8 8 , f6 much lower than that of the other datasets. where, 8 is the typical fluctuation in the galaxy overdensity field at a radius of 8 ℎ−1 Mpc. Specifically, we compare the observed data from the peculiar velocity surveys to the reconstructed velocity field from the 2M++ redshift compilation. In doing so we use an inverse best in terms of distance errors (see Figure1). The peak luminosity reconstruction scheme which was used in Carrick et al.(2015). of a Type Ia supernova is correlated with the rate of decline of its More examples of reconstruction-based peculiar velocity analyses light curve, making these ‘standardisable candles’ (Phillips 1993). are given in Lavaux et al.(2010) and Erdo gduˇ et al.(2006). Type Ia supernovae have been previously used in many works to This paper is structured as follows: Section2 describes the probe the velocity field of the nearby universe (Riess et al. 1997; peculiar velocity catalogue we use in this work, primarily, the new Radburn-Smith et al. 2004; Turnbull et al. 2012; Huterer et al. 2017). compilation of type Ia supernovae. Section3 describes the 2M++ Turnbull et al.(2012) previously presented the ‘First Amend- galaxy catalogue and the reconstruction scheme used in this work. ment’ (A1) compilation of Type Ia supernovae in the local universe. In Section4, we elaborate on the methods used to compare the re- This was based on the addition of 26 SNe from the first data re- constructed velocity field to the observations of the peculiar velocity lease (DR1) of the Carnegie Supernovae Project (CSP, Folatelli catalogue. The results are presented in section5. We compare our et al. 2010) to the low-I set of ‘Constitution’ supernovae (Hicken results to other results in the literature and discuss future prospects et al. 2009). In this work, we add to the First amendment catalogue of peculiar velocity analysis in section6 before we summarise our additional supernovae from the third data release (DR3) of CSP results in section7. We show that the modified forward likeli- (Krisciunas et al. 2017), the Lick Observatory Supernova Search hood method gives unbiased results on simulations in Appendix (LOSS, Li et al. 2000) and the Foundation Supernova Survey data −1 −1 A. Throughout this work, ℎ = 퐻0/¹100 km s Mpc ), where 퐻0 release 1 (DR1) (Foley et al. 2018; Jones et al. 2019), resulting in is the local Hubble constant. Unless otherwise mentioned, through- the ‘Second Amendment’ (A2) compilation of SNe peculiar veloc- out this work, we adopt a flat ΛCDM cosmological model with ities. For each of these sub-catalogues, we only use the supernovae Ω< = 0.3. that are within the 2M++ volume and remove the duplicates from different catalogues. We also do a simple j2 fit (described in sec- tion 4.1) to determine the ‘flow model’, which refers to the set of 2 PECULIAR VELOCITY CATALOGUE four parameters consisting of the rescaling factor, V and the three components of the residual bulk flow velocities.