The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Surface Brightness Fluctuation Survey of Galaxy Distances. II. Local and Large‐Scale Flows
Open accessAbstract
We present results from the Surface Brightness Fluctuation (SBF) Survey for the distances to 300 early-type galaxies, of which approximately half are ellipticals. A modest change in the zero point of the SBF relation, derived by using Cepheid distances to spirals with SBF measurements, yields a Hubble constant H 0 = 77 ± 4 ± 7 km s -1 Mpc -1 , somewhat larger than the HST Key Project result. We discuss how this difference arises from a different choice of zero point, a larger sample of galaxies, and a different model for large-scale flows. Our result is 4% larger than found in a recent comparison of the SBF Survey peculiar velocities with predictions derived from the galaxy density field measured by redshift surveys (Blakeslee et al. 1999b). The zero point of the SBF relation is the largest source of uncertainty, and our value for H 0 is subject to all the systematic uncertainties of the Key Project zero point, including a 5% decrease if a metallicity correction for the Cepheids is adopted. To analyze local and large-scale flows—departures from smooth Hubble flow—we use a parametric model for the distribution function of mean velocity and velocity dispersion at each point in space. These models include a uniform thermal velocity dispersion and spherical attractors whose position, amplitude, and radial shape are free to vary. Our modeling procedure performs a maximum likelihood fit of the model to the observations. Our models rule out a uniform Hubble flow as an acceptable fit to the data. Inclusion of two attractors, one of which having a best-fit location coincident with the Virgo cluster and the other having a fit location slightly beyond the Centaurus clusters (which we refer to by convention as the Great Attractor), reduces χ 2 / N from 2.1 to 1.1. The fits to these attractors both have radial profiles such that v ≈ r -1 (i.e., isothermal) over a range of overdensity between about 10 and 1, but fall off more steeply at larger radius. The best-fit value for the small-scale, cosmic thermal velocity is 180 ± 14 km s -1 . The quality of the fit can be further improved by the addition of a quadrupole correction to the Hubble flow. The dipole velocity offset from the CMB frame for the volume we survey (amplitude ~150 km s -1 ) and the quadrupole may be genuine (though weak) manifestations of more distant density fluctuations, but we find evidence that they are more likely due to the inadequacy of spherical models to describe the density profile of the attractors. The residual dipole we find is comparable to the systematic error in these simple, parametrized models; in other words, our survey volume of R < 3000 km s -1 is, in a mass averaged sense, essentially at rest with respect to the CMB. This contradicts claims of large amplitude flows in much larger volumes that include our sample. Our best-fitting model, which uses attenuated power-law mass distributions for the two attractors, has enclosed mass overdensities at the Local Group of 7 × 10 14 M ☉ for the Virgo Attractor and 9 × 10 15 M ☉ for the Great Attractor. Without recourse to information about the overdensities of these attractors with respect to the cosmic mean we cannot provide a good constraint on Ω M , but our data do give us accurate measurements in terms of δ, the overdensities of the enclosed masses with respect to the background: δ Ω = 0.33 for the Virgo Attractor and δ Ω = 0.27 for the Great Attractor.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. (1998) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/305772 · Cited by 15,126
A Universal Density Profile from Hierarchical Clustering
Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. (1997) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/304888 · Cited by 9,917
The Structure of Cold Dark Matter Halos
Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. (1996) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/177173 · Cited by 8,544
Contraction of dark matter galactic halos due to baryonic infall
Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Flores, R., & Primack, J. R. (1986) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/163867 · Cited by 1,213 · cited 1×
“…of isothermal cluster mass distributions in these early Ñow studies was motivated largely by analogy to the Milky Way and the evidence that cluster mass-tolight ratios increase outward from the core (e.g., Faber & Gallagher 1979), as well as by theoretical modeling (e.g., Blumenthal et al. 1986).”
Background
Cited by
UniverseMachine: The correlation between galaxy growth and dark matter halo assembly from z = 0−10
Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. (2019) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 · Cited by 1,243
Mei, S., Blakeslee, J. P., Cote, P., Tonry, J. L., West, M. J., Ferrarese, L., Jordan, A., Peng, E. W., Anthony, A., & Merritt, D. (2007) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/509598 · Cited by 722
Self-citationEuclid: I. Overview of the Euclid mission
Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, Acevedo Barroso, J. A., Achúcarro, A., Adamek, J., Adam, R., Addison, G. E., Aghanim, N., Aguena, M., et al. (2025) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450810 · Cited by 616
Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. (2010) · Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101829 · Cited by 390
SN 2002cx: The Most Peculiar Known Type Ia Supernova
Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., Chornock, R., Berger, E., Berlind, P., Calkins, M. L., Challis, P., Fassnacht, C., Jha, S., Kirshner, R. P., et al. (2003) · Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific · doi:10.1086/374200 · Cited by 361
Metadata
- Authors
- Tonry, J. L., Blakeslee, J. P., Ajhar, E. A., & Dressler, A.
- Venue
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 2000-02-20
- Volume
- 530
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 625-651
- ISSN
- 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4357
- OpenAlex
- W2052235912
- Cited by
- 296
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 16.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Surface Brightness Fluctuation Survey of Galaxy Distances. II. Local and Large‐Scale Flows. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/308409
- The paper
- Tonry, J. L., Blakeslee, J. P., Ajhar, E. A., & Dressler, A. (2000). The Surface Brightness Fluctuation Survey of Galaxy Distances. II. Local and Large‐Scale Flows. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1086/308409
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.