text:
# References

It is argued in Ref.  that gravitons moving in the $`S^n`$ portion of the AdS$`\times S^n`$ spacetime blow up into spherical $`(n2)`$-brane of increasing size with increasing angular momentum through the Myers effect . Later, it is further argued that gravitons can expand into a sphere also in the AdS portion  of the AdS$`\times S^n`$ background and even in the background spacetime other than the AdS$`\times S^n`$ spacetime provided certain conditions on the bulk fields are satisfied . Their argument is based on the fact that the spherical probe $`p`$-brane with the stable radius and nonzero angular momentum wrapping the $`S^p`$ portion of a certain background spacetime has the same energy as that of a graviton with the same angular momentum. The giant graviton moving in the near horizon background of the dilatonic D-brane is shown  to be described by the expanding closed universe in mirage cosmology 222The term ‘mirage’ was coined to signify that the expansion of the brane universe is not due to energy density and pressure of real matter on the brane, but due to something else, namely, the geodesic motion of the universe brane in the curved background of other brane(s). . Recently, there has been growing interest in various holographic bounds  in cosmology. It is the purpose of this note to apply such conjectured holographic bounds to the mirage cosmology on the moving giant graviton to infer thermodynamic properties of the moving giant graviton and its holographic dual theory.

We begin by briefly summarizing the result of our previous work. The nontrivial fields for the near-horizon background of the source D$`(6p)`$-brane, magnetically charged under the RR $`(p+1)`$-form potential $`A^{(p+1)}`$, have the forms:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{tt}dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6p}{}}}g_{ii}dx_i^2+g_{rr}dr^2+h(r)r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+2}^2,`$ (1)
$`e^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\frac{L_p}{r}\right)^{\frac{(p3)(p+1)}{4}},A_{\varphi \theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _p}^{p+1}=L_p^{p+1}\rho ^{p+1}ϵ_{\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _p},`$ (2)
$`g_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\frac{r}{L_p}\right)^{\frac{p+1}{2}},g_{ii}=\left(\frac{r}{L_p}\right)^{\frac{p+1}{2}},g_{rr}=\left(\frac{L_p}{r}\right)^{\frac{p+1}{2}},h(r)=\left(\frac{L_p}{r}\right)^{\frac{p+1}{2}},`$ (3)
where $`ϵ_{\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _p}`$ is the volume form of a unit $`S^p`$ and the metric $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+2}^2`$ is parametrized as

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+2}^2=\frac{1}{1\rho ^2}d\rho ^2+(1\rho ^2)d\varphi ^2+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2.$$
(4)
When the spherical probe $`p`$-brane with the tension $`T_p`$ and the angular momentum $`𝒫_\varphi `$ has the stable (coordinate) radius $`\rho _0=(𝒫_\varphi /N)^{1/(p1)}`$, its energy $``$ is the same as that of a graviton with the same angular momentum $`𝒫_\varphi `$ and thereby the probe brane can be identified as a graviton blown up into a sphere, i.e., the giant graviton. Here, $`NT_pV_pL_p^{p+1}`$ is the number of D$`(6p)`$-branes, where $`V_p2\pi ^{\frac{p+1}{2}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{p+1}{2}\right)`$ is the volume of the unit $`S^p`$. The induced metric on the spherical probe $`p`$-brane can be put into the following standard comoving frame form for the Robertson-Walker metric for the expanding closed universe:

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=d\eta ^2+a^2(\eta )d\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2=d\eta ^2+a^2(\eta )\left[d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p1}^2\right],$$
(5)
where $`\eta `$ is the cosmic time, $`\theta `$ is the azimuthal angle, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p1}^2`$ is the line element on the unit polar $`(p1)`$-sphere, and $`a(\eta )\sqrt{h(r)}r\rho _0=L_p^{(p+1)/4}\rho _0r^{(3p)/4}`$ is the cosmic scale factor. Note, for the dilatonic D-brane case (i.e., the $`p3`$ case), the volume of the spherical probe $`p`$-brane or the giant graviton varies while the giant graviton moves along the $`r`$-direction of the background spacetime (3), although its coordinate radius $`\rho _0`$ remains constant. When $`p<3`$ \[$`p>3`$\], the volume ($`a^p`$) of the giant graviton increases \[decreases\] while the giant graviton moves away from the source D$`(p6)`$-brane. The time evolution of $`a`$, while the giant graviton moves along the $`r`$-direction, is described by the following Friedmann-like equations:

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{(p3)^2}{16}\left[\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{2\frac{p1}{p3}}a^{2\frac{p+1}{p3}}\frac{1}{a^2}\right],$$
(6)
$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{(p1)(p3)}{8}\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{2\frac{p1}{p3}}a^{2\frac{p+1}{p3}},$$
(7)
where $`\overline{}/N`$, $`\overline{𝒫}_\varphi 𝒫_\varphi /N`$ and the overdots stand for derivatives w.r.t. $`\eta `$. From Eq. (7), we see that $`\ddot{a}<0`$ \[$`\ddot{a}>0`$\] for $`p=2`$ \[$`p>3`$\], for any values of $`a`$. Since $`ar^{(3p)/4}`$, this implies that the giant graviton is always attracted to the dilatonic ($`p3`$) source D$`(6p)`$-brane. For $`p>3`$ the volume of the giant graviton approaches infinity, whereas for $`p=2`$ its volume approaches zero, as it approaches the source D$`(6p)`$-brane.

Spherical D-branes can be regarded as bound states of D0-branes. (See Refs.  for the spherical D2-brane case.) So, spherical D-branes, regarded as gas of D0-branes, are thermodynamic system described by thermodynamic quantities such as entropy, pressure and temperature. Also, thermodynamics of the giant graviton can be regarded as being originated microscopically from the vibrating excitations arising from motion of the giant graviton in spacetime . Since the motion of the giant graviton is described by the Friedmann equations (6,7) for an expanding closed universe, we would expect that thermodynamics on the giant graviton moving along the $`r`$-direction of the source brane emulates thermodynamics of the expanding closed universe.

First of all, the energy density and the pressure on the moving giant graviton are expected to be given by the effective energy density and pressure determined from the effective Friedmann equations (6,7). The Friedmann equations for an expanding $`(p+1)`$-dimensional closed universe are generally expressed in terms of the energy density $`\varrho `$ and the pressure $`\mathrm{}`$ of the perfect fluid matter in the universe as

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{16\pi G}{p(p1)}\varrho \frac{1}{a^2},$$
(8)
$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{8\pi G}{p(p1)}\left[(p2)\varrho +p\mathrm{}\right],$$
(9)
where $`G`$ is the $`(p+1)`$-dimensional Newton’s constant. So, the energy density and the pressure on the moving giant graviton are inferred to be given by

$$\varrho =\frac{p(p1)}{256\pi G}\left[(p3)^2\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{2\frac{p1}{p3}}a^{2\frac{p+1}{p3}}(p+1)(p7)\frac{1}{a^2}\right],$$
(10)
$$\mathrm{}=\frac{p1}{256\pi G}\left[(p3)(p^2p+2)\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{2\frac{p1}{p3}}a^{2\frac{p+1}{p3}}(p2)(p7)(p+1)\frac{1}{a^2}\right].$$
(11)
From this we see that the gas of D0-branes or the giant graviton is made up of noninteracting two species of perfect fluids satisfying the equations of state $`\mathrm{}_i=w_i\varrho _i`$ with $`w_1=\frac{p^2p+2}{p(p3)}`$ and $`w_2=\frac{p2}{p}`$. For the $`p=2`$ case, the gas of D0-branes is made up of perfect fluids with $`w_1=2`$ and $`w_2=0`$, namely the acausal fluid and the (pressureless) dust. For the $`p>3`$ case, $`w_1<0`$ and $`w_2<0`$, so the pressure on the giant graviton is always negative, implying instability of the gas of D0-branes. As a result, the brane universe on the giant graviton always accelerates ($`\ddot{a}>0`$), i.e., inflates, when $`p>3`$. (Cf. It was previously shown  that a gas of strings also has negative pressure, satisfying the equation of state $`\mathrm{}=\varrho /(D1)`$.)

From the Friedmann equations (8,9), we obtain the following conservation equation:

$$\dot{\varrho }+p(\varrho +\mathrm{})\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=0.$$
(12)
The second law of thermodynamics, applied to a comoving volume element of unit coordinate volume and physical volume $`V=a^p`$, implies the following entropy change for the giant graviton:

$$TdS=d(\varrho a^p)+\mathrm{}d(a^p).$$
(13)
From Eqs. (12,13), we see that the entropy of the gas of D0-branes per comoving volume stays constant in time, i.e., $`dS/d\eta =0`$. By substituting the following thermodynamic relation, obtained from the integrability condition $`^2S/(TV)=^2S/(VT)`$:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{}}{dT}=\frac{\mathrm{}+\varrho }{T},$$
(14)
into Eq. (13), we obtain the following expression for the entropy of the gas of D0-branes per comoving volume:

$$S=\frac{a^p}{T}(\mathrm{}+\varrho )+S_0,$$
(15)
where $`S_0`$ is an integration constant, which will be shown to be related to a Casimir entropy or energy. So, substituting Eqs. (10,11) into Eq. (15), we obtain the temperature of the giant graviton as a function of the cosmic scale factor $`a`$:

$$T=\frac{p^21}{128\pi G(S_0S)}\left[(p3)\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{2\frac{p1}{p3}}a^{\frac{p^2p+2}{p3}}+(p7)a^{p2}\right].$$
(16)
For $`p=2`$, $`T`$ scales as $`a^4`$ for small $`a`$ and asymptotes to a constant as $`a\mathrm{}`$. For $`p>3`$, $`T`$ scales as $`a^{p2}`$ for small $`a`$, whereas it scales as $`a^{(p^2p+2)/(p3)}`$ for large $`a`$.

The holographic principle of cosmology generally states  that the total entropy $`S_{tot}=S𝒱`$ inside a spherical region of coordinate volume $`𝒱`$ should not exceed the area $`A`$ of the bounding surface in Planck units, i.e., $`S_{tot}/A<1`$. Note, we showed in the above that the homogeneous comoving entropy density $`S`$ is constant in $`\eta `$. Fischler and Susskind (FS)  proposed that the holographic bound applies only to the part of the entropy contained within the particle horizon $`L_H`$, which is the product of $`a`$ and the comoving distance $`r_H`$ to the horizon. In the case of the closed universe, the comoving distance is given by the extent of the azimuthal angle traveled by light:

$$\theta _H=\frac{L_H}{a}=_0^\eta \frac{d\eta ^{}}{a(\eta ^{})}.$$
(17)
Since the coordinate volume surrounded by the comoving horizon is

$$𝒱=_0^{\theta _H}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{p1}𝑑\theta \mathrm{sin}^{p1}\theta =V_{p1}_0^{\theta _H}𝑑\theta \mathrm{sin}^{p1}\theta ,$$
(18)
and the area of the particle horizon is

$$A=V_{p1}a^{p1}(\eta )\mathrm{sin}^{p1}\theta _H,$$
(19)
the ratio of the total entropy to the surface area is

$$\frac{S_{tot}}{A}=S\frac{_0^{\theta _H}𝑑\theta \mathrm{sin}^{p1}\theta }{a^{p1}(\eta )\mathrm{sin}^{p1}\theta _H}.$$
(20)
For example, for the $`p=2`$ and $`p=4`$ cases, the ratios are respectively given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_{tot}}{A}}|_{p=2}`$ $`=`$ $`S{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta _H}{a(\eta )\mathrm{sin}\theta _H}},`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_{tot}}{A}}|_{p=4}`$ $`=`$ $`S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}3\theta _H9\mathrm{cos}\theta _H+8}{12a^3(\eta )\mathrm{sin}^3\theta _H}}.`$ (22)
We can solve Eq. (17) along with the first Friedmann equation (6) to express $`a`$ as a function of $`\theta _H`$ in the following way:

$$a^2(\theta _H)=\overline{}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta _H}{2},$$
(23)
for $`p=2`$, and

$$a^{2\frac{p1}{p3}}(\theta _H)=\overline{}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{\frac{p1}{p3}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{p1}{2}\theta _H\right),$$
(24)
for $`p>3`$. In performing integration in Eq. (17), we made use of the fact that the closed universe on the giant graviton was initially of zero size ($`a_0=0`$) and finite size ($`a_0=\overline{}^{\frac{p3}{2(p1)}}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$) for $`p=2`$ and $`p>3`$, respectively. The minus sign in front of the $`\theta _H`$ term inside of the sin-function in Eq. (24) was fixed by using the fact that $`\dot{a}0`$ all the time for $`p>3`$. First, we consider the $`p=2`$ case. Eq. (23) states that the brane universe starts from zero size ($`a=0`$) when $`\theta _H=0`$, then expands until it reaches the maximum radius $`a_{max}=\sqrt{\overline{}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi }`$ when $`\theta _H=\pi `$. When the brane universe or the giant graviton reaches its maximum size (at $`\theta _H=\pi `$), the area $`A=2\pi a\mathrm{sin}\theta _H`$ of the comoving horizon vanishes. So, the FS holographic bound on $`S_{tot}/A`$ is violated. Namely, the gas of D0-branes forming the 2-sphere giant graviton does not obey the FS holographic principle. Next, we consider the $`p>3`$ case. Eq. (24) states that the brane universe starts from finite size with radius $`a_{min}=\overline{}^{\frac{p3}{2(p1)}}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ when $`\theta _H=0`$, then expands indefinitely, approaching infinite size ($`a\mathrm{}`$) as $`\theta _H\pi /(p1)`$. Note, the comoving distance $`\theta _H`$ takes values within the interval $`0\theta _H<\pi /(p1)`$, only, while the brane universe expands. So, the surface area $`A=V_{p1}a^{p1}\mathrm{sin}^{p1}\theta _H`$ never vanishes for $`\eta >0`$, implying that the FS holographic bound $`S_{tot}/A<1`$ can be satisfied by the $`(p1)`$-sphere giant graviton with $`p>3`$. (Note, although $`A`$ is zero initially (at $`\theta _H=0`$), $`S_{tot}/A`$ approaches a finite value as $`\theta _H0`$, as can be seen from the specific explicit expressions for $`S_{tot}/A`$ in Eq. (22).) This is related to the fact that the giant graviton has negative pressure (Cf. see also Ref.  for this point).

There are different types of cosmological entropy bounds, depending on the strength of gravitation of the system. When the self-gravity of the system is small compared to the total energy $`E`$, for which the Hubble radius $`H^1=a/\dot{a}`$ is larger than the radius $`a`$ of the universe (i.e., $`Ha1`$), the total entropy $`S_{tot}`$ is bounded from above by the Bekenstein entropy $`S_B`$ :

$$S_{tot}S_B\frac{2\pi }{p}Ea\mathrm{for}Ha1.$$
(25)
Here, the total energy $`E`$ is given by the product of the energy density $`\varrho `$ and the volume $`V_{tot}=V_pa^p`$ of the universe. So, when the following condition is satisfied:

$$a^{4\frac{p1}{p3}}\frac{(p3)^2+16}{(p3)^2}\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{2\frac{p1}{p3}},$$
(26)
the total entropy of the giant graviton cannot be bigger than the following Bekenstein entropy of the moving giant graviton:

$$S_B=\frac{(p1)V_p}{128G}\left[(p3)^2\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{2\frac{p1}{p3}}a^{\frac{p^21}{p3}}(p+1)(p7)a^{p1}\right].$$
(27)
Since the closed universe on the giant graviton is not radiation dominated, the above Bekenstein entropy is not constant while the brane universe evolves, unlike the case considered in Ref. . For a strongly self-gravitating universe, satisfying $`Ha1`$, $`S_{tot}`$ is conjectured  to be bounded from above by the Hubble entropy $`S_H`$:

$$S_{tot}S_H(p1)\frac{HV_{tot}}{4G}\mathrm{for}Ha1.$$
(28)
So, when the following condition is satisfied:

$$a^{4\frac{p1}{p3}}\frac{(p3)^2+16}{(p3)^2}\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{2\frac{p1}{p3}},$$
(29)
the total entropy of the giant graviton cannot be bigger than the Hubble entropy:

$$S_H=\frac{(p1)|p3|V_p}{16G}\sqrt{\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{2\frac{p1}{p3}}a^{2\frac{(p1)^2}{p3}}a^{2(p1)}}.$$
(30)
When $`Ha=1`$ or

$$a=a_{crit}=\left[\frac{(p3)^2+16}{(p3)^2}\right]^{\frac{p3}{4(p1)}}\overline{}^{\frac{p3}{2(p1)}}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(31)
the Bekenstein entropy (27) and the Hubble entropy (30) of the moving giant graviton coincide. First, for the $`p=2`$ case, such critical value is given by $`a_{crit}^4=(\overline{}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi )^2/17`$. Note, $`a=L_2^{3/4}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi r^{1/4}`$ for $`p=2`$. So, as the giant graviton moves away from the source D4-brane starting from $`r=0`$, the giant graviton initially has strong self-gravity and its total entropy is bounded from above by the Hubble entropy

$$S_H=\frac{\pi }{4G}\sqrt{\frac{\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^2}{a^2}a^2},$$
(32)
until it reaches the critical distance $`r_{crit}=L_2^3\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^2/17`$ (corresponding to $`a_{crit}`$) from the source brane, and after the giant graviton passes through the critical distance $`r_{crit}`$ its self-gravity becomes weak and its total entropy becomes bounded from above by the Bekenstein entropy

$$S_B=\frac{\pi }{32G}\left[\frac{\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^2}{a^3}+15a\right].$$
(33)
Second, for the $`p>3`$ case, $`a`$ is inversely related to $`r`$ as $`a=L_p^{\frac{p+1}{4}}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{\frac{1}{p1}}r^{\frac{p3}{4}}`$. So, as the giant graviton approaches the source D$`(6p)`$-brane from its maximum distance $`r_{max}=L_p^{\frac{p1}{p3}}\overline{}^{\frac{2}{p1}}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{\frac{2}{p1}}`$ (corresponding to the minimum radius $`a_{min}=\overline{}^{\frac{p3}{2(p1)}}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ of the brane universe), the giant graviton initially has weak self-gravity with its total entropy bounded from above by the Bekenstein entropy (27) until it reaches the critical distance (corresponding to the critical cosmic scale factor Eq. (31))

$$r_{crit}=\left[\frac{(p3)^2}{(p3)^2+16}\right]^{\frac{1}{p1}}L_p^{\frac{p+1}{p3}}\overline{}^{\frac{2}{p1}}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{\frac{2}{p1}},$$
(34)
from the source brane, and after the giant graviton passes through $`r_{crit}`$ its self-gravity becomes strong and its total entropy becomes bounded from above by the Hubble entropy (30). To sum up, when the distance $`r`$ between the giant graviton and the source brane is less \[greater\] than the critical distance (34), the self-gravity of the giant graviton is strong \[weak\] and its total entropy $`S_{tot}`$ is bounded from above by the Hubble entropy $`S_H`$ \[the Bekenstein entropy $`S_B`$\].

Verlinde proposed  a new purely holographic cosmological bound which remains valid throughout the cosmological evolution. We briefly summarize the Verlinde’s proposal in the following. It is proposed that, just like a CFT in a finite volume, the total energy $`E`$ of the closed universe contains a non-extensive Casimir contribution $`E_C`$. The Casimir energy $`E_C`$ is defined as the violation of the Euler identity, which follows from the second law of thermodynamics along with an assumption that $`E`$ is extensive, in the following way:

$$E_Cp(E+\mathrm{}V_{tot}TS_{tot}).$$
(35)
The new cosmological bound puts constraint on the sub-extensive entropy, called a Casimir entropy $`S_C`$, associated with $`E_C`$, defined as

$$S_C\frac{2\pi }{p}E_Ca.$$
(36)
Since it is usually assumed that $`E_CE`$, we have $`S_CS_B`$. The new cosmological bound for a closed universe states that

$$E_CE_{BH},$$
(37)
where $`E_{BH}`$ is the Bekenstein-Hawking energy, interpreted as the energy required to form a universe-size black hole and defined as the energy $`E`$ for which the Bekenstein entropy $`S_B`$ and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $`S_{BH}(p1)\frac{V_{tot}}{4Ga}`$ are equal, namely,

$$\frac{2\pi }{p}E_{BH}a(p1)\frac{V_{tot}}{4Ga}\mathrm{or}E_{BH}p(p1)\frac{V_pa^{p2}}{8\pi G}.$$
(38)
The bound (37) states that the Casimir energy is not by itself sufficient for forming a universe-size black hole. The new cosmological bound (37) is equivalent to

$$S_CS_{BH}.$$
(39)
$`S_C`$ can be interpreted as a generalization of the central charge to $`p+1`$ dimensions, with an identification $`S_C\frac{\pi \stackrel{~}{c}}{6}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ is a $`(p+1)`$-dimensional analogue of the central charge $`c`$ in $`1+1`$ dimensions. So, the bound (39) is interpreted as a holographic upper limit on the degrees of freedom of the holographic dual theory. From the definition of $`E_{BH}`$, we have the following criterion for a weakly and strongly self-gravitating universe:

$`EE_{BH}`$ $`\mathrm{for}`$ $`Ha1`$ (40)
$`EE_{BH}`$ $`\mathrm{for}`$ $`Ha1.`$ (41)
The first Friedmann equation (8) can be put into the following form of the cosmological Cardy formula:

$$S_H=\frac{2\pi a}{p}\sqrt{E_{BH}(2EE_{BH})},$$
(42)
which resembles the following conjectured Cardy formula, called the Cardy-Verlinde formula, for the holographic dual theory:

$$S_{tot}=\frac{2\pi a}{p}\sqrt{E_C(2EE_C)}.$$
(43)
Eqs. (42,43) imply that the new bound $`E_CE_{BH}`$ is equivalent to the Hubble bound $`S_{tot}S_H`$ when $`Ha1`$. The Hubble bound is saturated when $`E_C=E_{BH}`$ 333This follows from the fact that $`E_CE_{BH}E`$ for $`Ha1`$ and $`S_{tot}`$ in Eq. (43), as a function of $`E_C`$, takes the maximum value when $`E_C=E`$., for which the cosmological Cardy formula (42) and the Cardy formula (43) for the holographic dual theory coincide. Making use of the identification $`S_C=\pi \stackrel{~}{c}/6`$, the generalized central charge of the holographic dual theory is therefore inferred to be

$$\stackrel{~}{c}=\frac{12}{p}E_{BH}a_{crit}=\frac{3(p1)V_pa_{crit}^{p1}}{2\pi G},$$
(44)
where $`E_{BH}`$ is evaluated at $`a=a_{crit}`$, for which $`Ha=1`$ is satisfied. For the weakly gravitating case, for which $`Ha1`$ and therefore $`E_CEE_{BH}`$, $`S_{tot}`$ in Eq. (43) is bounded from above by $`S_B`$ (which is just the Bekenstein bound (25)) and the bound is saturated when $`E_C=E`$. The second Friedmann equation (9) can be put into the form

$$E_{BH}=p(E+\mathrm{}V_{tot}\pm T_HS_H),T_H\pm \frac{\dot{H}}{2\pi H},$$
(45)
which resembles the defining relation (35) for the Casimir energy. The signs $`\pm `$ in Eq. (45) are chosen to make $`T_H`$ positive, namely, plus \[minus\] signs for an accelerating \[a decelerating\] universe. Since $`E_CE_{BH}`$ and $`S_{tot}S_H`$ are equivalent for a strongly gravitating universe, Eqs. (35,45) imply the following bound on $`T`$ for a decelerating universe:

$$TT_H\mathrm{for}Ha1.$$
(46)
For an accelerating universe, we have $`TT_H`$, which is trivially satisfied by any $`T`$ and therefore is not a bound on $`T`$. The temperature bound (46) is saturated when $`E_C=E_{BH}`$.

The above argument leading to new cosmological bounds by Verlinde does not depend on a specific form of the equation of state of the perfect fluid matter. So, we can apply the result of Ref.  to infer thermodynamic properties of the moving giant graviton and its holographic dual theory. When the giant graviton has strong self-gravity, i.e., $`rr_{crit}`$, its total entropy $`S_{tot}`$ is bounded from above by $`S_H`$. This bound is saturated when $`r=r_{crit}`$, at which the Hubble entropy (30) of the giant graviton takes the form:

$$S_{tot}=S_H=\frac{(p1)V_p}{4G}\left[\frac{(p3)^2+16}{(p3)^2}\right]^{\frac{p3}{4}}\overline{}^{\frac{p3}{2}}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{\frac{p1}{2}}.$$
(47)
Since the total entropy $`S_{tot}`$ is constant during the cosmological evolution, this entropy expression is expected to hold for any $`a`$. Substituting Eq. (31) into Eq. (44), we obtain the following generalized central charge of the holographic dual theory of the moving giant graviton:

$$\stackrel{~}{c}=\frac{3(p1)V_p}{2\pi G}\left[\frac{(p3)^2+16}{(p3)^2}\right]^{\frac{p3}{4}}\overline{}^{\frac{p3}{2}}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{\frac{p1}{2}},$$
(48)
which is proportional to $`S_{tot}`$ as expected from the holographic principle. So, we infer that the (bosonic) degrees of freedom in the holographic dual theory would scale as $`\overline{}^{\frac{p3}{2}}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{\frac{p1}{2}}`$. Note, the brane universe on the moving giant graviton decelerates \[accelerates\] when $`p=2`$ \[$`p>3`$\]. So, for the $`p=2`$ case, the temperature $`T`$ of the moving giant graviton at a distance $`rr_{crit}`$ from the source D4-brane is bounded from below by

$$T_H=\frac{3\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^2a^4}{8\pi a^3\sqrt{\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^2a^4}}.$$
(49)
This bound on $`T`$ is saturated when $`r=r_{crit}`$:

$$T=T_H=\frac{25}{16\pi }\frac{17^{1/4}}{\sqrt{\overline{}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi }}.$$
(50)
At that point, the giant graviton has the total entropy saturated by the Hubble entropy

$$S_{tot}=S_H=\frac{\pi }{17^{1/4}G}\sqrt{\overline{}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi },$$
(51)
and the energy density and the pressure given by

$$\varrho =\frac{17^{1/2}}{4\pi G}\frac{1}{\overline{}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi },\mathrm{}=\frac{17^{3/2}}{64\pi G}\frac{1}{\overline{}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi }.$$
(52)
So, the Casimir energy of the moving giant graviton at $`r=r_{crit}`$ is $`E_C=1/G`$, which coincides with $`E_{BH}`$ in Eq. (38) with $`p=2`$, as expected. Comparing Eq. (15) with the defining relation (35) of the Casimir energy, we see that the constant $`S_0`$ is related to the Casimir energy as $`E_C=pS_0V_pT`$. For the $`p=2`$ case, by evaluating this relation at $`r=r_{crit}`$, we obtain $`S_0=\frac{2}{25G}\frac{\sqrt{\overline{}\overline{P}_\varphi }}{17^{1/4}}`$. The temperature (16) of the giant graviton, valid for any $`a`$, therefore takes the form:

$$T=\frac{2517^{1/4}}{352\pi \sqrt{\overline{}\overline{𝒫}}}\left[\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^2a^4+5\right].$$
(53)
The holographic dual theory has the generalized central charge given by Eq. (48) with $`p=2`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{c}=\frac{6}{17^{1/4}G}\sqrt{\overline{}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi }.$$
(54)
For the $`p>3`$ case, since the brane universe on the moving giant graviton inflates, the temperature $`T`$ on the moving giant graviton at a distance $`rr_{crit}`$ from the source D$`(6p)`$-brane is bounded from below by the negative temperature $`T_H`$. So, it appears that the temperature bound (46) is trivially satisfied and cannot be saturated when $`Ha=1`$. However, we find that $`T`$ is not always positive in the course of cosmic evolution on the moving giant graviton, unlike the case of the conventional cosmologies. To determine integration constant $`S_0`$ in Eq. (16), we obtain the expression for $`T|_{r=r_{crit}}`$ by evaluating Eq. (35) at $`r=r_{crit}`$, at which $`E_C=E_{BH}`$. Plugging the resulting $`S_0`$ back into Eq. (16), we obtain the following temperature of the giant graviton, valid for any $`a`$:

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^37p^2+23p1}{32(p^28p+23)\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(p3)^2+16}{(p3)^2}}\right]^{\frac{3p}{4}}\overline{}^{\frac{p3}{2}}\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{\frac{1p}{2}}`$ (56)
$`\times \left[(p3)\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{2\frac{p1}{p3}}a^{\frac{p^2p+2}{p3}}+(p7)a^{p2}\right].`$
This temperature expression indeed saturates the bound (46) when $`r=r_{crit}`$, i.e., $`Ha=1`$. For $`3<p<7`$, $`T<0`$ when $`a^{4\frac{p1}{p3}}>\frac{7p}{p3}\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{2\frac{p1}{p3}}`$. For $`p7`$, $`T<0`$ for any $`a`$. Since $`a_{min}^{4\frac{p1}{p3}}=\overline{}^2\overline{𝒫}_\varphi ^{2\frac{p1}{p3}}`$, actually $`T<0`$ always in the course of the cosmic evolution for $`p5`$.

In conclusion, we studied thermodynamic properties of a moving giant graviton in the near-horizon background of the dilatonic D-brane. Explicit expressions for thermodynamic quantities of the moving giant graviton are obtained by applying thermodynamics of cosmology and the recently conjectured holographic principles of cosmologies. This nontrivial thermodynamics is expected from the fact that the giant gravitons are extended objects having excitation spectrum arising from vibrations about their equilibrium configuration .


format: text

text:
# Spatial correlation functions and the pairwise peculiar velocity dispersion of galaxies in the PSCz survey: implications for the galaxy biasing in cold dark matter models

## 1 Introduction

Large catalogs of galaxies with their redshift and angular positions are the major astronomical data sets which provide quantitative information on the distribution and formation of the universe. To properly decipher this information requires the use of statistical tools, and to assess their importance heavily relies on a quantitative comparison with theoretical models.

In a recent series of papers (Jing, Mo, & Börner, 1998; Jing & Börner, 1998, 2001), various statistical quantities from the Las Campanas Redshift Survey (LCRS) have been determined including the two-point correlation function (2PCF), $`\xi (r)`$, the power spectrum, $`P(k)`$, the pairwise peculiar velocity dispersion (PVD), $`\sigma _{12}(r)`$, and the three-point correlation function (3PCF), $`\zeta (r_{12},r_{23},r_{31})`$. In addition, a detailed comparison between these observational results and the predictions of current cold dark matter (CDM) models has been carried out. Jing, Mo, & Börner (1998; JMB98 hereafter) have constructed 60 mock samples for each theoretical model from a large set of high-resolution N-body simulations.The observational selection effects can then be taken into account in the analyses of the theoretical models exactly as for the real observational data. JMB98 have demonstrated at length that such a procedure is essential for the proper comparison between models and observations.

JMB98 found that both the real-space 2PCF and the PVD can be measured reliably from the LCRS, and that the observed 2PCF for LCRS is significantly flatter than the mass 2PCF in CDM models on scales $`<1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. The observed PVD also turned out to be lower than that of the dark matter particles in these models. JMB98 introduced a cluster-underweight (CLW) biasing model to account for these discrepancies; CLW essentially assumes that the number of galaxies per unit dark matter mass in a massive halo of mass $`M`$ decreases as $`M^\alpha `$. If $`\alpha =0.08`$, the 2PCF and the PVD of the LCRS are well reproduced in a spatially-flat CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{0.6}\sigma _80.4`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is the density parameter of the model and $`\sigma _8`$ is the current rms linear density fluctuation within a sphere of radius $`8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. In fact, Carlberg et al. (1996) argue that this anti-bias is at the level observed for rich clusters of galaxies. We note here that this CLW has been applied also in recent analytic modeling of the galaxy distribution (Seljak, 2000; Peacock & Smith, 2000; Sheth et al., 2000).

In the present paper, we report on the measurements of the 2PCF and PVD of galaxies in another large redshift survey, the PSCz catalog, which has become publicly available recently (Saunders et al., 2000). Since galaxies in the PSCz survey are selected from the IRAS point source catalog, they are supposed to be preferentially dominated by late types in contrast to the LCRS galaxies. Thus the difference of those clustering statistics between LRCS and PSCz should be interpreted as an indication for the morphology-dependent biasing of galaxies.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows; we briefly describe the PSCz sample and the corresponding mock samples from simulations in §2. Then we present the results for the 2PCF of the PSCz in §3 which are compared with various model predictions in §4. Also shown there are the results for spiral galaxies predicted by the GIF simulation (Kauffmann et al., 1999a, b). Similarly we present in §5 and §6 the observational determination of PVD and its theoretical implications, respectively. Finally §7 contains a summary and further discussion.

## 2 The PSCz galaxy sample and our mock catalogs

The PSCz survey (Saunders et al., 2000) contains the redshifts for galaxies selected from the IRAS Point Source Catalog (PSC; Beichman et al. 1988). In total the PSCz catalogue contains 15411 galaxies with their flux at $`60\mu \mathrm{m}`$ exceeding $`0.6\mathrm{Jy}`$ across $`84\%`$ of the entire sky. The high sky coverage and the uniformity make this publicly available survey an ideal data set for the statistical studies of galaxy clustering. Both those parts of the sky excluded from the survey and the selection function are well documented in Saunders et al. (2000). In the analysis below, we use a volume-limited sample of galaxies with redshifts less than $`6000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ according to the flux at $`60\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and also all the galaxies with redshifts between $`6000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`20000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, resulting in a final semi-volume limited sample of $`9425`$ galaxies. The volume-limited sample within $`6000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ should reduce the influence of the local supercluster on the statistics on small scales, thus minimizing possible bias from the local supercluster. The redshift selection function is the same as that given by Saunders et al. (2000) for $`6000z20000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, is a constant for $`z<6000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and zero for $`z>20000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

We construct a large set of mock samples, which have the same survey geometry, selection function and sampling rate as the real PSCz galaxies, from high-resolution cosmological N-body simulations. We emphasize that this is a very important aspect of our analysis in asserting the statistical significance of the results. For this purpose, we mainly consider a spatially-flat model with ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, $`\lambda _0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\sigma _8`$)= (0.3, 0.7, 0.2, 1.0) simulated in a comoving boxsize of $`300h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, where $`\lambda _0`$ is the cosmological constant and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0h`$ is the shape parameter of the CDM power spectrum (Bardeen et al., 1986). We use three different realizations for each model employing $`256^3`$ 17 million particles (Jing & Suto, 1998; Jing, 1998). This set of parameters is now considered as the standard low-density CDM model. JMB98 have found that this model reproduces the 2PCF and the PVD of the LCRS reasonably well. An even better fit to the LCRS data was obtained for a model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.2`$. The changes for this model can be roughly seen by a simple scaling of the term $`\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{0.6}`$ which is proportional to the amplitude of the PVD. For reference, we also consider a $`\lambda _0=0`$ Standard CDM model simulated in a $`300h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ box as well as additional LCDM models in $`100h^1`$Mpc and $`800h^1`$Mpc to make sure that our conclusions are free from the numerical artifacts. The parameters for those simulation models are summarized in Table 1.

The mock samples are generated in the same way as described in JMB98, using the selection function from the PSCz (Saunders et al., 2000). We construct 20 mock samples for each realization, and thus altogether 60 mock samples for the LCDM model in a $`300h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ box . For each mock sample we apply the CLW bias (JMB98). The CLW model, by construction, gives less weight to the denser clusters than the dark matter model, and thus is especially appropriate for the PSCz which is supposed to be dominated by spiral galaxies preferentially avoiding the high-density cluster regions. To be more specific, we randomly select galaxies from the dark matter particles so that the number of galaxies per unit dark matter mass, $`N/M`$, becomes proportional to $`M^\alpha `$ within a halo of mass $`M`$. We apply this anti-biasing scheme for all dark halos with $`M>7\times 10^{11}h^1M_{}`$. While the model with $`\alpha =0.08`$ reproduces the 2PCF and the PVD for the LCRS data, we find (see below) that the PSCz data require $`\alpha =0.25`$, indicating stronger anti-biasing than the optically selected galaxies. We also apply this same bias model to the SCDM when we compare the predictions of this model to the observations.

In addition, we also construct 20 mock catalogs from the GIF data base (Kauffmann et al., 1999a, b) for comparison to our models and to the data. The GIF simulation adopts the same cosmological model, but with a slightly lower normalization of the linear power spectrum $`\sigma _8=0.9`$. The simulation box size is $`141h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. The most important feature of the GIF data is that a semi-analytic galaxy formation model is implemented in contrast to our biasing scheme entirely on the basis of the gravitational clustering. We select “spiral galaxies” from the GIF mock samples according to their bulge-to-total luminosity ratio $`B/T`$. About 80% of those mock galaxies at the low end of $`B/T`$ are retained for our analysis, taking into consideration the fact that the population of ellipticals is about $`1/4`$ that of spirals in the local Universe.

It might be more appropriate to select “galaxies” according to their infrared fluxes for the present purpose. Fortunately, however, the clustering properties of IRAS galaxies do not sensitively depend on the infrared luminosity (Szapudi et al., 2000), nor do those of the GIF spirals seem to depend sensitively on the ratio $`B/T`$. Thus our results below are fairly robust with respect to small changes in the population of galaxies.

## 3 The two-point correlation functions for the PSCz galaxies

Quite a number of large galaxy catalogs, both two-dimensional (angular), and three-dimensional (redshift) catalogs, have been used to determine the 2PCF, and this statistic has now been established quite well. This statistic has produced constraints on theoretical models which are sensitive to the cosmological parameters, the initial power spectrum of the mass density fluctuations, and the biasing of specific galaxy types with respect to the dark matter, among others.

We use the following estimator to measure the 2PCF $`\xi _z`$ in redshift space;

$`\xi _z(r_p,\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{RR(r_p,\pi )\times DD(r_p,\pi )}{DR(r_p,\pi )^2}}1,`$ (1)
where DD is the count of galaxy-galaxy pairs in the projected separation $`r_p`$ and radial separation $`\pi `$ bins, RR and DR are similar counts of pairs formed by two random points and by one galaxy and one random point, respectively.

We first display the redshift correlation function $`\xi (s)`$ in Figure 1, which is the circular average of $`\xi _z(r_p,\pi )`$ for a radius $`s=\sqrt{r_p^2+\pi ^2}`$. The error bars have been estimated by the bootstrap resampling technique using the formula of Mo, Jing, & Börner (1992). The resulting 2PCF is well fitted by $`\xi (s)=(5h^1\mathrm{Mpc}/s)^{1.2}`$ for $`s8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, but falls faster than the power-law on larger separations in good agreement with previous results (Seaborne et al., 1999). Here we focus our discussion on the projected 2PCF and the PVD (Davis & Peebles, 1983), not only because these two statistics have not been determined for the PSCz galaxies before as of the writing of this paper but also because they provide very useful independent information about the spatial and velocity distribution of IRAS galaxies which can be used to understand and test galaxy formation models.

We estimate the projected 2PCF $`w(r_p)`$ from the integrated redshift 2PCF as111Note that our current definition of $`w(r_p)`$ is a factor of two smaller than that of Davis & Peebles (1983), for example.

$$w(r_p)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\xi _z(r_p,\pi )𝑑\pi =\underset{i}{}\xi _z(r_p,\pi _i)\mathrm{\Delta }\pi _i,$$
(2)
where the summation runs from $`\pi _1=0.5h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ to $`\pi _{50}=49.5h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi _i=1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. JMB98 have shown that this method yields an unbiased estimate of $`w(r_p)`$ which is also related to the real space 2PCF simply as

$$w(r_p)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\xi (\sqrt{r_p^2+y^2})𝑑y.$$
(3)
Figure 2 plot the projected 2PCF for the PSCz with error bars estimated again with the bootstrap resampling technique. Our tests with the mock samples indicated that a standard scatter among different mock samples is actually comparable to these bootstrap errors. So we will use the bootstrap error for the observational estimates and the mock sample scatter for the comparison of the models with the observations.

If the real space 2PCF $`\xi (r)`$ is approximated as a power-law of the form:

$$\xi (r)=(r_0/r)^\gamma ,$$
(4)
then the projected 2PCF $`w(r_p)`$ reduces to

$$w(r_p)=\sqrt{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma /21/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma /2)}(r_0/r_p)^\gamma r_p,$$
(5)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ being the Gamma function. As Figure 2 indicates, the observed $`w(r_p)`$ of the PCSz galaxies for $`r_p<20h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ is fitted to the above form reasonably well with

$$r_0=3.70h^1\mathrm{Mpc},\gamma =1.69.$$
(6)
The slope is shallower and the amplitude is lower than those for the LCRS (JMB98). The error-bars are, however, substantially larger than for the LCRS, indicating that this catalog is somewhat noisier. The reason might be that the intrinsic clustering is weaker in this catalog and also that the volume surveyed by the catalog is smaller and in fact sparsely sampled. There is some indication for a deviation from the power-law between $`0.2h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ and $`0.8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, but it is not highly significant when considering the error-bars. The above best-fit parameters are in very good agreement with the result of the $`1.2\mathrm{Jy}`$ sample, $`\gamma =1.66`$ and $`r_0=3.76h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ (Fisher et al., 1994a).

## 4 Comparison to the two-point correlation functions from the mock samples

Figure 3 compares the projected 2PCF $`w(r_p)`$ for the PSCz galaxies with those for the mock samples. The CLW bias model with $`\alpha =0.25`$ reproduces the PSCz data quite well within the $`1\sigma `$ error (dotted lines); even the wiggly structure of the PSCz $`w(r_p)`$ below $`0.8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ is recovered. The value of $`\alpha `$ larger than for the optically selected galaxies (e.g., $`\alpha =0.08`$ for the LCRS) is consistent with the observational density-morphology relation; spiral galaxies preferentially selected by the IRAS PSCz do not concentrate in dense cluster regions. Moreover it is interesting that our CLW bias model can account for this behavior in a quantitative manner, purely by an appropriate adjustment of the parameter $`\alpha `$. The SCDM model, when the CLW bias is applied, appears to underpredict clustering on scales of about $`10h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, as many previous studies have already found.

To follow up this point a bit more, we have also constructed mock catalogs from the GIF simulation data (Kauffmann et al., 1999a, b). From the simulated catalogue, we select those galaxies with $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{bg}V_bV_g1`$, where $`V_b`$ and $`V_g`$ denote the V-band magnitudes of the bulge and the whole galaxy. This encompasses about 80 percent of the galaxies in the GIF catalog. The resulting $`w(r_p)`$ again fits the observations quite well (Fig.3) for $`r_p\stackrel{>}{}1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. While the amplitude of $`w(r_p)`$ for the GIF simulation is a bit larger than the PSCz data for $`r_p\stackrel{<}{}1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, it still lies close to the $`+1\sigma `$ error line of our CLW mock samples. So these semi-analytic models of galaxy formation which incorporate physical processes like star formation and supernova explosions in some global way have a similar effect of reducing the number of galaxies per unit dark matter mass as our simple bias prescription.

Figure 4 plots the 2PCFs in real space, $`\xi (r)`$, of the GIF mock samples with different selection criteria, all of which follow a power-law $`r^{1.69}`$ quite nicely. While selecting galaxies on the basis of their $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{bg}`$ reduces the 2PCF at $`r\stackrel{<}{}1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ compared with those for all galaxies, the two different criteria, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{bg}1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{bg}1.5`$, result in almost identical 2PCFs despite the fact that the latter case selects only $`60\%`$ of the entire GIF galaxies.

In Figure 5 we display several 2PCFs for dark matter from our simulations, the CLW mock samples with $`\alpha =0.08`$ and $`\alpha =0.25`$, and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{bg}1.0`$ sample from the GIF data set. Clearly, as has been noted many times already (see e.g. JMB98), the dark matter particles from the full simulation produce a $`\xi (r)`$ which is too large and too steep for $`r<1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. As for the LCRS galaxies, a scale-dependent bias is required for the LCDM model to be reconciled with the observed 2PCF of the PSCz galaxies, which is consistent with the result obtained by Hamilton & Tegmark (2001) from an analysis of the real space power spectrum for the PSCz galaxies. The CLW bias model with $`\alpha =0.08`$ that fits the LCRS data well still predicts a much higher amplitude of $`\xi (r)`$ than the PSCz data which are in good agreement with $`\alpha =0.25`$ model. The GIF spiral result lies between these two CLW bias models, and is closer to that of $`\alpha =0.25`$ at $`r\stackrel{>}{}1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. We also note that the result of all GIF galaxies is quite close to the CLW model with $`\alpha =0.08`$.

In summary, we may conclude that one can reproduce the 2PCFs both for the PSCz galaxies and for the optically selected LCRS galaxies in an LCDM model adopting a simple biasing prescription dependent on the type of galaxies in the sample, as long as the bias underweights galaxies in dense clusters. The semi-analytic GIF models may be a step on the way to provide a physical interpretation to the phenomenological CLW bias model.

## 5 The pairwise peculiar velocity dispersion for the PSCz galaxies

The Pairwise Velocity Dispersion (PVD) of galaxies is a well-defined statistical quantity which contains interesting information in principle on the cosmic matter distribution. The peculiar velocities of galaxies are determined by the action of the local gravitational fields, and thus they directly mirror the gravitational potentials caused by dark and luminous matter (Juszkiewicz et al. 2000 and references therein). The PVD is measured by modeling the distortions in the observed redshift-space correlation function $`\xi _z(r_p,\pi )`$. The basic step in modeling is to write $`\xi _z(r_p,\pi )`$ as a convolution of the real-space 2PCF function $`\xi (r)`$ and the distribution function $`f(v_{12})`$ of the relative peculiar velocity $`v_{12}`$ of galaxy pairs along the line of sight (Davis & Peebles, 1983):

$$1+\xi _z(r_p,\pi )=f(v_{12})\left[1+\xi (\sqrt{r_p^2+(\pi v_{12})^2})\right]𝑑v_{12}.$$
(7)
While the real-space 2PCF $`\xi (r)`$ can be directly estimated by inverting equation (3), we use the power-law fit (6) as in most previous work. For the velocity distribution function, we use the following exponential form which is supported from observations (Davis & Peebles, 1983; Fisher et al., 1994b), theoretical models (Diaferio & Geller, 1996; Sheth, 1996; Seto & Yokoyama, 1998), and direct simulations (Efstathiou et al., 1988; Magira, Jing, & Suto, 1999):

$$f(v_{12})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\sigma _{12}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sigma _{12}}\left|v_{12}\overline{v_{12}}\right|\right),$$
(8)
where $`\overline{v_{12}}`$ is the mean infall velocity and $`\sigma _{12}`$ is the dispersion of the 1-D pairwise peculiar velocities along the line of sight.

It is worth pointing out that the above modeling (eqs.  and ) is an approximation and the infall velocity $`\overline{v_{12}}`$ is not known a priori, either. JMB98 demonstrated with the LCRS mock samples that the above procedure provides an accurate estimate of $`\sigma _{12}`$ (within 20% accuracy) if $`\overline{v_{12}}`$ is known separately. In other words, $`\overline{v_{12}}`$ must be modeled carefully to allow a precise measurement of the dispersion $`\sigma _{12}(r)`$. In reality, however, $`\overline{v_{12}}`$ in the real Universe is not fairly certain at the present. One might think that on small scales $`\overline{v_{12}}`$ is negligible, but this is true only for very small scales indeed. The function $`\overline{v_{12}}`$ rises quite sharply around $`1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ (Mo, Jing, & Börner, 1997), reaching twice the Hubble velocity just beyond $`1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. Therefore the proper modeling of the infall velocity is crucial in an accurate measurement of the PVD $`\sigma _{12}(r)`$.

Here we adopt the approach of JMB98 to determine the PVD for the PSCz catalogue. Figure 6 displays the result of this modeling both for the case of a self-similar infall and for zero infall. The self-similar infall model has the same parameters as those used in JMB98, and is quite close to the mean pair velocity in CDM models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{0.6}\sigma _8=0.4`$ for the relevant scales $`r<5h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. As emphasized in JMB98, only the use of some reasonable infall model (although the result is not very sensitive to the specific model used) gives a reliable reconstruction of the PVD, whereas the zero infall case does not even qualitatively reproduce the true value. We therefore consider the result of the self-similar infall as a reasonable estimate for the pairwise velocity dispersion of the PSCz galaxies.

The procedure yields much lower PVD for the PSCz than that for the LCRS: $`\sigma _{12}`$ just reaches $`300\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at $`r_p=1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, whereas $`\sigma _{12}(1h^1\mathrm{Mpc})=570\pm 80\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for the LCRS (JMB98). This is again qualitatively consistent with the fact that spirals have smaller random motions than the galaxies that reside in big clusters. Our result at $`r_p1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ is in good agreement with the value, $`317\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, of Fisher et al. (1994b) for the $`1.2\mathrm{Jy}`$ sample, although they did not show the scale-dependence of the PVD.

Very remarkable in Figure 6 is the decrease of the PVD for small separations. The bootstrap errors in Figure 6 are quite substantial. Again we find that the errors are much larger than for the LCRS. Nevertheless it seems significant that the PVD decreases down to about $`200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ near $`r_p=0.2h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. In contrast the LCRS data did not exhibit such a fall-off, but rather the PVD stayed almost constant near $`400\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. If we further take into account the observational error of redshifts (typically $`120\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) and add it to the PVD measurement in quadrature, the real value becomes even smaller, $`150\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at $`r_p=0.2h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. The galaxy pairs in the PSCz catalog are seemingly “very cold”; they show very little random motion.

## 6  Comparison with the pairwise velocity dispersion from the mock samples

Figure 7 compares the PVD for the CLW and GIF mock samples with that for the PSCz galaxies. In all cases, the model predictions significantly exceed the estimate for the PSCz. Only around $`r_p3h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ the disagreement is not serious, especially if the large error bars are taken into account. In fact, we may speculate that a CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.2`$ may even produce quite a good fit to the data at larger $`r_p`$, since the amplitude of the PVD scales with $`\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{0.6}`$. Reducing the values of $`\sigma _{12}`$ accordingly, brings agreement on scales larger than $`3h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. There is, however, no way to reproduce the steep decrease towards small values ($`150\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) at $`r_p=0.2h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ of the PSCz data. The pairwise velocity dispersions are rather similar in the SCDM and in the LCDM models.

This is really puzzling, because the LCRS galaxies do not show a signature like this. Even taking into account the large error bars at small scales, we have to concede a formal $`3\sigma `$ deviation from the model results. This is consistent with previous findings of Ostriker & Suto (1990), Schlegel et al. (1994) and Strauss, Ostriker, & Cen (1998), who found that the galaxies in the local neighborhood are very quiet and that the dispersion of galaxies in mild density regions are small compared with the CDM predictions (also see Peebles 1995; Nolthenius, Klypin, & Primack 1997; Baker, Davis, & Lin 2000). It may also be that the measurements as well as the models become somewhat unreliable on such small scales. The finite sizes of galaxies may also reduce the PVD somewhat. As shown in Suto & Jing (1997) this can amount to up to 10 percent, if $`0.1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ is taken as a fiducial size, but the effect can be more pronounced for large and interacting spiral galaxies.

Nonetheless our results present a new constraint on the well-defined PVD statistic that any successful galaxy formation theory should explain. At the moment, we may speculate that perhaps the spiral galaxies obey a very special velocity bias, or that the CDM models are way off in the description of small scale clustering as recently discussed in a different context (Spergel & Steinhardt, 2000; Yoshida et al., 2000).

To separate clearly the effect of introducing the CLW bias and of constructing the mock catalogs, we present in Figures 8 and 9 the PVD from our full simulation for the CDM model and for the GIF simulation. The CDM models adopting the CLW bias with $`\alpha =0.08`$ and $`\alpha =0.25`$ have a significantly lower PVD than the dark matter. We can also see that the shape of the PVD is quite similar among the dark matter, the CLW, and the GIF samples, while the amplitude of the dark matter particle PVD is typically higher by a few $`100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Again the GIF galaxies with $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{bg}1.0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{bg}1.5`$ do not show any significant difference. The maximum in the PVD near $`1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ present in the full simulation and the GIF sample is much reduced by the construction of the mock catalogs, and also for the $`\alpha =0.25`$ CLW models.

So far we have used the $`300h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ simulations alone in the comparison. Since the boxsize is roughly the same with the PSCz survey itself once the outer boundary of the survey is concerned (in fact the weight of the most distant galaxies is small for our statistics and therefore the effective volume of the survey is much smaller than as the outer boundary indicates), our results may not faithfully reproduce the real cosmic variance even though we have three independent realizations. On the other hand, the small-scale peculiar velocity dispersions are supposed to be sensitive to the numerical resolution, and the $`300h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ boxsize may be too large in this sense. To show that our $`300h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ simulations are not statistically biased, we compute the projected 2PCF and the pairwise peculiar velocity dispersions for mock samples from $`100h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ and $`800h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ LCDM simulations also (again three realizations for each). The upper two panels of Figure 10 show the mean values of these two statistics. The agreement among the mock samples from different simulation boxes is satisfactory; the small difference between different simulations can be easily accounted for by the simulation parameters like the large softening length in the $`800h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. More important is the question if the error measurements from the $`300h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ simulations are underestimated. We show the ratio of the $`1\sigma `$ error from the $`800h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ ($`100h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$) simulations to that from the $`300h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ simulations in the lower panels. The error ratios for both statistics and for both boxsizes are very close to 1 for the scales $`<10h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. This comparison clearly illustrates that the expected values and their sample-to-sample variations for $`w(r_p)`$ and $`\sigma _{12}`$ are well represented in the three realizations in the $`300h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ simulations and in the GIF mock samples.

## 7 Discussion

We have analyzed the data set of the IRAS PSCz galaxies (Saunders et al., 2000), and computed the two-point correlation functions and the pairwise peculiar velocity dispersion for these galaxies. A power-law fit to the real-space 2PCF $`\xi (r)=(r_0/r)^\gamma `$ gives an exponent $`\gamma =1.69`$, and a lower amplitude $`r_0=3.70h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ than the value obtained for the Las Campanas Redshift Survey ($`r_0=5h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$). We show that these results can be very well reproduced from mock samples constructed for a high resolution CDM simulation with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ and $`\lambda _0=0.7`$ if we apply a biasing model which strongly underweights galaxies in the dense cluster regions. While this CLW bias was originally introduced by JMB98 to fit the LCRS galaxies, the bias needed for the PSCz galaxies is much stronger. More specifically, we find that the number of galaxies per unit dark matter in massive halos of mass $`M`$ should be proportional to $`M^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =0.25`$ for the PCSz, as compared to $`\alpha =0.08`$ for the LCRS. The change of $`\alpha `$ from the LCRS to the PSCz is not unexpected, since IRAS galaxies tend to avoid high-density cluster regions. The biased mock catalogs fit the 2PCF of the PSCz galaxies extremely accurately. We also have selected samples from the GIF simulation and shown that appropriate data sets can be drawn from that numerical catalog which give similar 2PCF.

The pairwise peculiar velocity dispersion measured from the PSCz has a much lower value, about $`300\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at $`r_p=1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, than the LCRS result at that separation of $`570\pm 80\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. All the simulation models which are consistent with the 2PCF of the PSCz predict significantly larger values for PVD, although the CLW bias reduces the PVD to within the $`1\sigma `$ limit of this value, at least near $`3h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ (if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.2`$). As discussed in the last section, the decrease of $`\sigma _{12}(r_p)`$ for $`r_p<1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ for the PSCz data is significant, and cannot be reproduced by the models. To test the robustness of this important result, we applied another phenomenological biasing prescription to our simulations which mimics the observed density-morphology relation of galaxies in clusters. More specifically, we have selected particles within halos with the probability equal to the fraction of spiral galaxies in rich clusters (Dressler 1980). The fraction is set to be independent of the halo mass for simplicity. This biasing model does reduce both the 2PCF and PVD slightly, but the effect is much smaller than the difference between the CLW models and the PCSZ result. This strengthens our conclusion that the steep decline of PVD on small scales cannot be explained with the existing CDM model.

In conclusion, we find that the infrared selected galaxies in the PSCz have a lower and less steep two-point correlation function than the optically selected sample of the LCRS. The PVD of the PSCz galaxies is also lower, and has a different $`r_p`$ dependence than the corresponding quantity measured from the LCRS. Spatially-flat CDM models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_00.3`$ can give a good fit to the data, except for the small-scale behavior of the PVD, if a strong cluster antibias is imposed. The infrared selected galaxies require a much stronger CLW bias than the optically selected ones.

We would like to thank G. Kauffmann for her advice on using the GIF data, and an anonymous referee for comments. Y.P.J. and G.B. are grateful for the hospitality extended toward them at Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, and for support during their stay at RESCEU. Y.P.J. is supported in part by the One-Hundred-Talent Program, by NKBRSF(G19990754) and by NSFC(No.10043004), and G.B. by SFB375.