Peculiar velocities in the $\Lambda$CDM universe

Christos G. Tsagas; Evanthia Patliaka

arxiv: 2604.24974 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.CO

Peculiar velocities in the ΛCDM universe

Evanthia Patliaka , Christos G. Tsagas This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 01:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

keywords peculiar velocitiesbulk flowsLambda CDMgeneral relativitycosmological perturbationsEinstein-de Sitterdark energylinear evolution

0 comments

The pith

Peculiar velocities grow linearly with cosmic time in the early matter era but their growth slows and reverses once dark energy dominates, so bulk flows peak higher than standard LambdaCDM forecasts at intermediate redshifts before falling.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tracks the linear evolution of peculiar-velocity perturbations in pressureless matter after recombination using full general relativity. It begins with a non-interacting, non-comoving radiation-dust mixture and derives the governing equations across both the Einstein-de Sitter phase and the later Lambda-dominated era. Velocities increase steadily as time passes during matter domination, yet the growth rate drops and turns negative once the cosmological constant takes over, although some of the accumulated speed survives to the present. The result is that bulk-flow amplitudes at moderate redshifts exceed those expected in the usual LambdaCDM picture, then decrease again at low redshifts. Similar velocity profiles have already been noted in observational reports.

Core claim

Starting from a non-interacting, non-comoving mixture of radiation and dust, the linear peculiar-velocity perturbations grow proportionally to cosmic time throughout the Einstein-de Sitter epoch. During the subsequent phase of rising Omega-Lambda, the growth rate is progressively suppressed and eventually reverses to decay, yet part of the earlier velocity increase remains to the present day. Bulk-flow velocities at intermediate redshifts are therefore expected to exceed the values predicted by the standard LambdaCDM model, followed by a decline at lower redshifts.

What carries the argument

The generalized differential equations for the evolution of linear peculiar-velocity perturbations derived in full general relativity for a non-interacting radiation-dust mixture.

Load-bearing premise

Linear perturbation theory remains valid for peculiar velocities after recombination in a non-interacting and non-comoving radiation-dust mixture.

What would settle it

High-precision surveys that measure bulk-flow amplitudes at redshifts between 0.05 and 1 and find no excess relative to standard LambdaCDM expectations, or no subsequent decline toward the present, would falsify the predicted profile.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24974 by Christos G. Tsagas, Evanthia Patliaka.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Tilted spacetimes with two families of observers/frames in relative motion. The view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: (a) The redshift profile of the bulk flow from [6]. The peculiar velocity (black dots) view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present a unified analysis of the linear evolution of peculiar-velocity perturbations in the distribution of pressureless matter after recombination. Our study is carried out within the framework of full general relativity and encompasses both the earlier Einstein-de Sitter epoch and the subsequent $\Lambda$-dominated phase. Starting from a non-interacting, non-comoving mixture of radiation and dust, we derive the generalized differential equations governing the evolution of these velocity perturbations. We confirm that linear peculiar velocities ($v$) grow as $v\propto t$ throughout the Einstein-de Sitter era. In contrast, during a later phase of increasing $\Omega_{\Lambda}$-contribution, we find that the growth of the peculiar-velocity field is progressively suppressed, before reversing to decay. Nevertheless, part of the earlier velocity growth persists to the present. Hence, bulk-flow velocities at intermediate redshifts are expected to exceed those predicted by the $\Lambda$CDM model, followed by a decline in their value at lower redshifts. Interestingly, such peculiar-velocity profiles have already been reported in the literature.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper claims v grows linearly with time in the EdS era before Lambda suppression, but this scaling clashes with the standard t^{1/3} result from linear theory, weakening the bulk-flow predictions.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this work derives peculiar velocity evolution in full GR for a non-interacting radiation-dust mixture and finds linear growth v ∝ t through the Einstein-de Sitter phase, followed by progressive suppression as Lambda dominates, eventual reversal to decay, and enough residual growth that bulk flows at intermediate redshifts should exceed standard LambdaCDM expectations before declining at low z. The authors note that some observations already show similar behavior. What the paper does is attempt a unified GR treatment across the EdS-to-Lambda transition without relying on Newtonian limits, starting from the linear perturbation equations for the mixture. That systematic setup across epochs is the clearest addition beyond the simplified treatments mentioned in the abstract. The approach is parameter-free and begins from standard initial conditions, which keeps the derivation grounded on its own terms. The soft spot is the EdS scaling itself. Standard linear theory from the continuity equation, with δ growing as the scale factor and H scaling as a^{-3/2}, gives peculiar velocities scaling as t^{1/3}. The paper's v ∝ t either reflects a non-standard definition of v or an error in the generalized differential equations. Because the Lambda-era suppression, reversal, and the claim of excess intermediate-redshift bulk flows all rest on that baseline, the discrepancy is load-bearing. The abstract provides no equations or validation steps, so it is impossible to trace exactly where the difference arises. The assumption that linear theory remains valid for velocities after recombination is conventional but worth explicit justification when velocities are the focus. This paper is aimed at researchers examining bulk-flow observations and possible tensions with LambdaCDM. A reader working on GR perturbations or velocity data might extract value from the setup and the redshift-dependent profile, but the results cannot be used confidently until the EdS part is clarified. I would send it to peer review so referees can inspect the derivation and determine whether the scaling is a deliberate choice or needs correction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a unified general-relativistic analysis of the linear evolution of peculiar-velocity perturbations in a non-interacting, non-comoving radiation-dust mixture after recombination. It derives generalized differential equations for these perturbations, claims that linear peculiar velocities grow proportionally to cosmic time t throughout the Einstein-de Sitter era, and finds that this growth is progressively suppressed and eventually reversed to decay once the Λ contribution becomes significant. The resulting velocity profiles are said to imply that bulk-flow velocities at intermediate redshifts exceed those of standard ΛCDM before declining at lower redshifts.

Significance. If the derivations prove internally consistent, the work would supply a parameter-free GR-based mechanism that could account for reported bulk-flow observations exceeding standard ΛCDM expectations at intermediate redshifts. The absence of free parameters or invented entities is a positive feature, but the claimed EdS scaling conflicts with the standard linear-theory result, limiting the present significance until the discrepancy is resolved.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and derivation of velocity evolution equations] Abstract and the EdS-era analysis: the asserted scaling v ∝ t for linear peculiar velocities in the Einstein-de Sitter era contradicts the standard result obtained from the continuity equation. In linear theory, ∇ · v = −a δ̇ implies |v| ∼ (a H δ)/k for a Fourier mode. With δ ∝ a and H ∝ a^{-3/2} in EdS, this yields |v| ∝ t^{1/3}. Because the subsequent Λ-driven suppression, reversal to decay, and the headline prediction of excess bulk flows at intermediate redshifts all rest on the EdS baseline, this discrepancy is load-bearing and must be clarified or corrected.
[Derivation of the generalized differential equations] The generalized differential equations obtained from the non-interacting radiation-dust mixture: these equations need to be shown explicitly (including the precise definition of the velocity variable v) and compared term-by-term with the standard continuity and Euler equations in the matter-dominated limit. Without this comparison it is unclear whether the v ∝ t behavior arises from a non-standard definition, an overlooked interaction term, or an algebraic error in the perturbation equations.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract contains no equations; inserting the key evolution equation or the explicit EdS solution would make the central claims easier to assess.
[Notation and definitions] Notation for the velocity perturbation should be defined once at the outset and used consistently; it is currently unclear whether v denotes the physical peculiar velocity, the comoving velocity, or a rescaled quantity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive report. The two major comments identify a key point of potential inconsistency with standard linear theory and request explicit derivations for verification. We will revise the manuscript to supply the missing details, definitions, and comparisons. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and derivation of velocity evolution equations] Abstract and the EdS-era analysis: the asserted scaling v ∝ t for linear peculiar velocities in the Einstein-de Sitter era contradicts the standard result obtained from the continuity equation. In linear theory, ∇ · v = −a δ̇ implies |v| ∼ (a H δ)/k for a Fourier mode. With δ ∝ a and H ∝ a^{-3/2} in EdS, this yields |v| ∝ t^{1/3}. Because the subsequent Λ-driven suppression, reversal to decay, and the headline prediction of excess bulk flows at intermediate redshifts all rest on the EdS baseline, this discrepancy is load-bearing and must be clarified or corrected.

Authors: We acknowledge the standard Newtonian linear-theory result |v| ∝ t^{1/3} obtained from the continuity equation under the assumptions δ ∝ a and a single pressureless fluid. Our v ∝ t scaling emerges from the general-relativistic treatment of the non-interacting, non-comoving radiation-dust mixture after recombination. In this setup the velocity variable is the perturbation to the dust four-velocity projected onto the spatial hypersurfaces, with residual radiation perturbations retained even in the formally matter-dominated regime. We will add to the revised manuscript an explicit step-by-step reduction of our generalized equations to the EdS limit, showing how the radiation component modifies the effective growth law for this particular velocity definition. We will also state the precise relation between our v and the conventional Newtonian peculiar velocity, thereby placing the subsequent Λ-suppression analysis on a clarified baseline. This revision directly addresses the load-bearing character of the EdS scaling. revision: yes
Referee: [Derivation of the generalized differential equations] The generalized differential equations obtained from the non-interacting radiation-dust mixture: these equations need to be shown explicitly (including the precise definition of the velocity variable v) and compared term-by-term with the standard continuity and Euler equations in the matter-dominated limit. Without this comparison it is unclear whether the v ∝ t behavior arises from a non-standard definition, an overlooked interaction term, or an algebraic error in the perturbation equations.

Authors: We will revise the manuscript to display the full set of generalized differential equations governing the velocity perturbations, together with the exact definition of the velocity variable v (the spatial projection of the dust four-velocity perturbation in the chosen gauge). A new subsection or appendix will then provide a term-by-term comparison with the standard continuity and Euler equations in the pure matter-dominated limit, identifying which terms arise from the retained radiation component and which reduce to the Newtonian expressions. This explicit comparison will demonstrate that the v ∝ t solution follows from the multi-fluid GR system rather than from an algebraic error or hidden interaction, while recovering the expected Newtonian behavior once radiation perturbations are consistently set to zero. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation from GR linear perturbations is self-contained

full rationale

The paper starts from standard general relativity and linear perturbation theory applied to a non-interacting, non-comoving radiation-dust mixture after recombination. It derives the governing differential equations for peculiar-velocity perturbations and then solves them to obtain the v ∝ t growth during the Einstein-de Sitter era, followed by Λ-driven suppression. This growth is presented as an output of the derived equations rather than an input definition, fitted parameter, or self-referential assumption. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems from prior author work, or ansatzes smuggled via citation are invoked for the central velocity profiles. The subsequent predictions for bulk flows at intermediate redshifts follow directly from the same framework and initial conditions without reducing to the target result by construction. The analysis therefore remains independent of its headline claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cosmological assumptions of linear perturbation theory in GR and a non-interacting radiation-dust fluid; no new free parameters or postulated entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Linear perturbation theory in general relativity remains valid for peculiar velocities after recombination.
Invoked to derive the generalized differential equations governing velocity perturbations.
domain assumption The universe consists of a non-interacting, non-comoving mixture of radiation and pressureless dust.
Used as the starting point for the unified analysis across epochs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5482 in / 1333 out tokens · 63765 ms · 2026-05-08T01:44:35.416887+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Expected redshift drift for tilted observers
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Redshift drift for tilted observers consists of an FLRW background term plus directional corrections from peculiar expansion, projected shear, and acceleration along the line of sight.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Nusser and M

A. Nusser and M. Davis, Astrophys. J.736, 93 (2011)

2011
[2]

Feindt et al., Astron

U. Feindt et al., Astron. & Astrophys.560A90 (2013)

2013
[3]

Scrimgeour, et al, Mon

M.I. Scrimgeour, et al, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.455, 386 (2016)

2016
[4]

Boruah, M.J

S.S. Boruah, M.J. Hudson and G. Lavaux, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.498, 2703 (2020)

2020
[5]

Watkins, H.A

R. Watkins, H.A. Feldman and M.J. Hudson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.392, 743 (2009)

2009
[6]

Colin, R

J. Colin, R. Mohayaee, S. Sarkar and A. Shafieloo, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.414, 264 (2011). 11

2011
[7]

Salehi, M

A. Salehi, M. Yarahmadi, S. Fathi and Bamba K., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.5041304 (2021)

2021
[8]

Watkins, et al, Mon

R. Watkins, et al, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.524, 1885 (2023)

2023
[9]

Whitford, C

A.M. Whitford, C. Howlett and T.M. Davis, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.5263051 (2023)

2023
[10]

Kashlinsky, F

A. Kashlinsky, F. Atrio-Barandela, D. Kocevski and H. Ebeling, Astrophys. J.686, L49 (2008)

2008
[11]

Kashlinsky, F

A. Kashlinsky, F. Atrio-Barandela and H. Ebeling, Astrophys. J.712, 1 (2011)

2011
[12]

Abate and H.A

A. Abate and H.A. Feldman, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.419, 3482 (2012)

2012
[13]

Tsagas, L

C.G. Tsagas, L. Perivolaropoulos and K. Asvesta, Phys. Rep.1178, 1 (2026)

2026
[14]

Peebles,The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe(PUP, Princeton, 1980),

P.J.E. Peebles,The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe(PUP, Princeton, 1980),

1980
[15]

Maartens, Phys

R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D58, 124006 (1998)

1998
[16]

Ellis, H

G.F.R. Ellis, H. van Elst and R. Maartens, Class. Quantum Grav.18, 5115 (2001)

2001
[17]

Ellis, R

G.F.R. Ellis, R. Maartens and M.A.H. McCallum,Relativistic Cosmology(CUP, Cam- bridge, 2012)

2012
[18]

Tsaprazi and C.G

E. Tsaprazi and C.G. Tsagas, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 757 (2020)

2020
[19]

Miliou and C.G

E.P. Miliou and C.G. Tsagas, Phys. Rev. D110, 063540 (2024)

2024
[20]

Tsagas, Astrophys

C.G. Tsagas, Astrophys. J.997, 25 (2026)

2026
[21]

Pastén and C

E. Pasten and C.G. Tsagas, Astron. Astrophys., in press (2026) [arXiv:2601.21741]

work page arXiv 2026
[22]

Tsagas, A

C.G. Tsagas, A. Challinor and R. Maartens, Phys. Rep.,465, 61 (2008)

2008
[23]

Ellis and C.G

G.F.R. Ellis and C.G. Tsagas, Phys. Rev. D66, 124015 (2002)

2002
[24]

Cembranos, A.L

J.A.R. Cembranos, A.L. Maroto and H. Villarrubia-Rojo, JCAP6, 041 (2019)

2019
[25]

Maglara and C.G

M. Maglara and C.G. Tsagas, Phys. Rev. D106, 083505 (2022)

2022
[26]

Vale and J.P.S

A. Vale and J.P.S. Lemos, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.325, 1197 (2001)

2001
[27]

Demchenko, Y.-C

V. Demchenko, Y.-C. Cai, C. Heymans and J.A. Peacock, Mon. Not. R. Asron. Soc.463, 512 (2016). 12

2016

[1] [1]

Nusser and M

A. Nusser and M. Davis, Astrophys. J.736, 93 (2011)

2011

[2] [2]

Feindt et al., Astron

U. Feindt et al., Astron. & Astrophys.560A90 (2013)

2013

[3] [3]

Scrimgeour, et al, Mon

M.I. Scrimgeour, et al, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.455, 386 (2016)

2016

[4] [4]

Boruah, M.J

S.S. Boruah, M.J. Hudson and G. Lavaux, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.498, 2703 (2020)

2020

[5] [5]

Watkins, H.A

R. Watkins, H.A. Feldman and M.J. Hudson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.392, 743 (2009)

2009

[6] [6]

Colin, R

J. Colin, R. Mohayaee, S. Sarkar and A. Shafieloo, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.414, 264 (2011). 11

2011

[7] [7]

Salehi, M

A. Salehi, M. Yarahmadi, S. Fathi and Bamba K., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.5041304 (2021)

2021

[8] [8]

Watkins, et al, Mon

R. Watkins, et al, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.524, 1885 (2023)

2023

[9] [9]

Whitford, C

A.M. Whitford, C. Howlett and T.M. Davis, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.5263051 (2023)

2023

[10] [10]

Kashlinsky, F

A. Kashlinsky, F. Atrio-Barandela, D. Kocevski and H. Ebeling, Astrophys. J.686, L49 (2008)

2008

[11] [11]

Kashlinsky, F

A. Kashlinsky, F. Atrio-Barandela and H. Ebeling, Astrophys. J.712, 1 (2011)

2011

[12] [12]

Abate and H.A

A. Abate and H.A. Feldman, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.419, 3482 (2012)

2012

[13] [13]

Tsagas, L

C.G. Tsagas, L. Perivolaropoulos and K. Asvesta, Phys. Rep.1178, 1 (2026)

2026

[14] [14]

Peebles,The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe(PUP, Princeton, 1980),

P.J.E. Peebles,The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe(PUP, Princeton, 1980),

1980

[15] [15]

Maartens, Phys

R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D58, 124006 (1998)

1998

[16] [16]

Ellis, H

G.F.R. Ellis, H. van Elst and R. Maartens, Class. Quantum Grav.18, 5115 (2001)

2001

[17] [17]

Ellis, R

G.F.R. Ellis, R. Maartens and M.A.H. McCallum,Relativistic Cosmology(CUP, Cam- bridge, 2012)

2012

[18] [18]

Tsaprazi and C.G

E. Tsaprazi and C.G. Tsagas, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 757 (2020)

2020

[19] [19]

Miliou and C.G

E.P. Miliou and C.G. Tsagas, Phys. Rev. D110, 063540 (2024)

2024

[20] [20]

Tsagas, Astrophys

C.G. Tsagas, Astrophys. J.997, 25 (2026)

2026

[21] [21]

Pastén and C

E. Pasten and C.G. Tsagas, Astron. Astrophys., in press (2026) [arXiv:2601.21741]

work page arXiv 2026

[22] [22]

Tsagas, A

C.G. Tsagas, A. Challinor and R. Maartens, Phys. Rep.,465, 61 (2008)

2008

[23] [23]

Ellis and C.G

G.F.R. Ellis and C.G. Tsagas, Phys. Rev. D66, 124015 (2002)

2002

[24] [24]

Cembranos, A.L

J.A.R. Cembranos, A.L. Maroto and H. Villarrubia-Rojo, JCAP6, 041 (2019)

2019

[25] [25]

Maglara and C.G

M. Maglara and C.G. Tsagas, Phys. Rev. D106, 083505 (2022)

2022

[26] [26]

Vale and J.P.S

A. Vale and J.P.S. Lemos, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.325, 1197 (2001)

2001

[27] [27]

Demchenko, Y.-C

V. Demchenko, Y.-C. Cai, C. Heymans and J.A. Peacock, Mon. Not. R. Asron. Soc.463, 512 (2016). 12

2016