4.7 Article

An updated gamma-ray bursts Hubble diagram

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15456.x

关键词

cosmology: cosmological parameters; cosmology: distance scale; gamma-rays: bursts

资金

  1. Regione Piemonte
  2. Universit di Torino
  3. INFN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) have recently attracted much attention as a possible way to extend the Hubble diagram (HD) to very high redshift. To this aim, the luminosity (or isotropic-emitted energy) of a GRB at redshift z must be evaluated from a correlation with a distance-independent quantity so that one can then solve for the luminosity distance d(L)(z) and hence the distance modulus mu(z). Averaging over five different two-parameter correlations and using a fiducial cosmological model to calibrate them, Schaefer has compiled a sample of 69 GRBs with measured mu(z) which has since then been widely used to constrain cosmological parameters. Here, we update this sample through many aspects. First, we add a recently found correlation to the X-ray afterglow and use a Bayesian-inspired fitting method to calibrate the different GRB correlations known so far by assuming a fiducial Lambda cold dark matter model in agreement with the recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe5 data. Averaging over six correlations, we end up with a new GRB HD comprising 83 objects. We also extensively explore the impact of varying the fiducial cosmological model considering how the estimated mu(z) change as a function of the ((M), w(0), w(a)) parameters of the Chevallier- Polarski-Linder phenomenological dark energy equation of state. In order to avoid the need of assuming an a priori cosmological model, we present a new calibration procedure based on a model-independent local regression estimate of mu(z) using the Union Type Ia Supernovae sample to calibrate the GRBs correlations. This finally gives us a GRB HD made out of 69 GRBs whose estimated distance modulus mu(z) is almost independent of the underlying cosmological model.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据