4.7 Article

THE CALIBRATION OF THE WISE W1 AND W2 TULLY-FISHER RELATION

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 792, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/129

关键词

cosmological parameters; distance scale; galaxies: clusters: general; galaxies: distances and redshifts; galaxies: photometry; radio lines: galaxies

资金

  1. NASA Astrophysical Data Analysis Program [NNX12AE19G]
  2. Lyon Institute of Origins [ANR-10-LABX-66]
  3. CNRS [PICS-06233]
  4. US National Science Foundation award [AST09-08846]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to explore local large-scale structures and velocity fields, accurate galaxy distance measures are needed. We now extend the well-tested recipe for calibrating the correlation between galaxy rotation rates and luminosities-capable of providing such distance measures-to the all-sky, space-based imaging data from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) W1 (3.4 mu m) and W2 (4.6 mu m) filters. We find a correlation of line width to absolute magnitude (known as the Tully-Fisher relation, TFR) of M-W1(b,i,k,a) = -20.35 - 9.56(log W-mx(i) - 2.5) (0.54 mag rms) and M-W2(b,i,k,a) = -19.76 - 9.74(log W-mx(i) - 2.5) (0.56 mag rms) from 310 galaxies in 13 clusters. We update the I-band TFR using a sample 9% larger than in Tully & Courtois. We derive M-I(b,i,k) = -21.34 - 8.95(log W-mx(i) - 2.5) (0.46 mag rms). The WISE TFRs show evidence of curvature. Quadratic fits give M-W1(b,i,k,a) = -20.48 - 8.36(log W-mx(i) - 2.5) + 3.60(log W-mx(i) - 2.5)(2) (0.52 mag rms) and M-W2(b,i,k,a) = -19.91 -8.40(log W-mx(i) - 2.5)+4.32(log W-mx(i) -2.5)(2) (0.55 mag rms). We apply an I-band-WISE color correction to lower the scatter and derive M-CW1 = -20.22-9.12(log W-mx(i) -2.5) and M-CW2 = -19.63-9.11(log W-mx(i) -2.5) (both 0.46 mag rms). Using our three independent TFRs (W1 curved, W2 curved, and I band), we calibrate the UNION2 Type Ia supernova sample distance scale and derive H-0 = 74.4 +/- 1.4(stat) +/- 2.4(sys) km s(-1) Mpc(-1) with 4% total error.

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