The Dipole Repeller

An interesting bit of local cosmology news has been hitting the headlines over the last few days. The story relates to a paper by Yehuda Hoffman et al. published in Nature Astronomy on 30th January. The abstract reads:

Our Local Group of galaxies is moving with respect to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) with a velocity 1 of VCMB = 631 ± 20 km s−1and participates in a bulk flow that extends out to distances of ~20,000 km s−1 or more 2,3,4 . There has been an implicit assumption that overabundances of galaxies induce the Local Group motion 5,6,7 . Yet underdense regions push as much as overdensities attract 8 , but they are deficient in light and consequently difficult to chart. It was suggested a decade ago that an underdensity in the northern hemisphere roughly 15,000 km s−1 away contributes significantly to the observed flow 9 . We show here that repulsion from an underdensity is important and that the dominant influences causing the observed flow are a single attractor — associated with the Shapley concentration — and a single previously unidentified repeller, which contribute roughly equally to the CMB dipole. The bulk flow is closely anti-aligned with the repeller out to 16,000 ± 4,500 km s−1. This ‘dipole repeller’ is predicted to be associated with a void in the distribution of galaxies.

The effect of this “void in the distribution of galaxies” has been described in rather lurid terms as “Milky Way being pushed through space by cosmic dead zone” in a Guardian piece on this research.

If you’re confused by this into thinking that some sort of anti-gravity is at play, then it isn’t really anything so exotic. If the Universe were completely homogeneous and isotropic – as our simplest models assume – then it would be expanding at the same rate in all directions.  This would be a pure “Hubble flow“, with galaxies appearing to recede from an observer with a speed proportional to their distance:

slide7

But the Universe isn’t exactly smooth. As well as the galaxies themselves, there are clusters, filaments and sheets of galaxies and a corresponding collection of void regions, together forming a huge and complex “cosmic web” of large-scale structure. This distorts the Hubble flow by inducing peculiar motions (i.e. departures from the pure expansion). A part of the Universe which is denser than average (e.g. a cluster or supercluster) expands less  quickly than average, a part which is less dense (i.e. a void) expands more quickly than average. Relative to the global expansion rate, clusters represent a “pull” and voids represent a “push”. That’s really all there is to it.

The difficult part about this kind of study is measuring a sufficient number of peculiar motions of galaxies around our own to make a detailed map of what’s going on in the local velocity field. That’s particularly hard for galaxies near the plane of the Milky Way disk as they tend to be obscured by dust. Nevertheless, after plugging away at this for many years, the authors of the Nature paper have generated some fascinating results. It seems that our Galaxy and other members of the Local Group lie between a dense supercluster (often called the Shapley concentration) and an underdense region, so the peculiar velocity field around us has an approximately dipole structure.

They’ve even made a nice video to show you what’s going on, so I don’t have to explain any further!

 

 

12 Responses to “The Dipole Repeller”

  1. telescoper Says:

    I saw that comment. I don’t really agree with it. The point is that the selection function for IRAS galaxies falls very rapidly with distance, so large-scale structure around the Local Group is not well traced by them. There’s circumstantial evidence that structures lurking beyond the depth of the IRAS sample may be much more important than that study suggests. That is probably the reason, for example, that the IRAS dipole measurement significantly overestimated Omega….

  2. ..distances of ~20,000 km s−1 or more

    first year students would lose marks for that…

    • telescoper Says:

      I think the point Albert was making is that it’s dimensionally incorrect. To make an actual distance you need to put in a value for the Hubble constant. It is actually very convenient to use the implied velocity instead of doing this, especially if your goal is to estimate Omega.

    • Indeed, I was commenting on the units. Students need to be shown how to use -and balance- units. It is an essential skill right from the beginning. Of course we all know what this ‘distance’ means. But it is a short-cut and to students it is confusing. It may be better to be more precise in the phrasing (or more pedantic). And GeV is not a unit of mass – that is GeV/c^2. We spend a fair amount of effort drilling that into the students. Perhaps not enough though..

  3. I have a few layman’s questions…(1) why does the density of the universe in any particular area affect its expansion rate?

    It’s intuitive to me why density might affect expansion in 3D space (ie, heavier would be slower), but I was under the impression that the expansion of the universe wasn’t merely the expansion of space itself in 3 dimensions (spreading out and getting bigger), but the expansion of space-time.

    (2) I can’t really visualize what “space-time” means, but there is the popular conception of a fabric that is warped by concentrations of mass, so that a mass like a star causes a sink (metaphorically) that pulls other objects towards it. If this conception is at all accurate, what might the expansion of that fabric be like?

    (3) If this conception is accurate, is the dipole repeller akin to a hill rather than a sink?

    (4) Finally, does dark matter and/or dark energy have anything to do with this?

    Thank you!

  4. During one of the first lectures I ever gave on cosmology, a student remarked that she couldn’t make sense of the equation v = hd; was hubble suggesting in 1929 that a galaxy was accelerating?
    After class, I realised she had a point; I guess we should really say v1/v2 = h(d1/d2 ) !

    • telescoper Says:

      The other day I pointed out to my students that if d is the proper distance and v is the proper velocity (ie the rate of change of proper distance with cosmological proper time) then v=hd is exact for any d, even when v>>c.

      They were surprised.

    • telescoper Says:

      It may because of the apparent implication that as D increases V must increase…

  5. I think it’s a good example of the manner in which we often use foreknowledge to interpret an equation, and fail to realise that the equation could be read quite differently. The student, unversed in cosmology, read ‘v’ and ‘d’ as variables for a particular galaxy (as in y = mx). Perfectly understandable, to my mind, and an illustration that equations in physics aren’t always as explicit as we think.

  6. Here is how the so-called Dipole Repeller functions:

    Click to access DipoleRepellerExplained.pdf

Leave a comment