English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

It has been argued recently that the galaxy peculiar velocity field providesevidence of excessive power on scales of $50\hmpc$, which seems to beinconsistent with the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model. We discussseveral assumptions and conventions used in studies of the large-scale bulkflow to check whether this claim is robust under a variety of conditions.Rather than using a composite catalogue we select samples from the SN, ENEAR,SFI++ and A1SN catalogues, and correct for Malmquist bias in each according tothe IRAS PSCz density field. We also use slightly different assumptions aboutthe small-scale velocity dispersion and the parameterisation of the matterpower spectrum when calculating the variance of the bulk flow. By combining thelikelihood of individual catalogues using a Bayesian hyper-parameter method, wefind that the joint likelihood of the amplitude parameter gives$\sigma_8=0.65^{+0.47}_{-0.35}(\pm 1 \sigma)$, which is entirely consistentwith the $\Lambda$CDM model. In addition, the bulk flow magnitude ($v \sim 310\kms$) and direction, $(l,b)\sim (280^{\circ} \pm 8^{\circ}, 5.1^{\circ} \pm6^{\circ})$, found by each of the catalogues are all consistent with eachother, and with the bulk flow results from most previous studies. Furthermore,the bulk flow velocities in different shells of the surveys constrain$\sigma_{8}$--$\Omega_{\rm{m}}$ to be($1.01^{+0.26}_{-0.20},0.31^{+0.28}_{-0.14}$, SFI++) and($1.04^{+0.32}_{-0.24},0.28^{+0.30}_{-0.14}$, ENEAR), which is consistent with{\it WMAP} 7-year best-fit values. We finally discuss the differences betweenour conclusions and those of the studies claiming the largest bulk flows.

Cosmic bulk flows on 50 {h}^{-1}Mpc scales: A Bayesian hyper-parameter method and multishells likelihood analysis