Paper detail

Slipher, galaxies, and cosmological velocity fields

By 1917, V.M. Slipher had singlehandedly established a tendency for 'spiral nebulae' to be redshifted (21 out of 25 cases). From a modern perspective, it could seem surprising that the expansion of the universe was not announced at this point. Examination of Slipher's papers shows that he reached a more subtle conclusion: the identification of cosmological peculiar velocities, including the bulk motion of the Milky Way, leading to a beautiful argument in favour of nebulae as distant stellar systems. Nevertheless, Slipher's data actually contain evidence at >8sigma for a positive mean velocity, even after subtracting the dipole owing to the motion of the observer. In 1929, Hubble estimated distances for a sample of no greater depth, using redshifts due almost entirely to Slipher. Hubble's distances were flawed in two distinct ways: in addition to an incorrect absolute calibration, the largest distances were systematically under-estimated. Nevertheless, he claimed the detection of a linear distance-redshift relation. Statistically, the evidence for such a correlation is less strong than the simple evidence for a positive mean velocity in Hubble's sample. Comparison with modern data shows that a sample of more than twice Hubble's depth would generally be required in order to reveal clearly the global linear expansion in the face of the 'noise' from peculiar velocities. When the theoretical context of the time is examined, the role of the de Sitter model and its prediction of a linear distance-redshift relation looms large. A number of searches for this relation were performed prior to Hubble over the period 1924-1928, with a similar degree of success. All were based on the velocities measured by Slipher, whose work from a Century ago stands out both for the precision of his measurements and for the subtle clarity of the arguments he employed to draw correct conclusions from them.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.