4.7 Article

THE ARAUCARIA PROJECT. THE DISTANCE TO THE SMALL MAGELLANIC CLOUD FROM LATE-TYPE ECLIPSING BINARIES

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 780, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/59

关键词

binaries: eclipsing; galaxies: individual (SMC); stars: late-type

资金

  1. Polish National Science Center grant MAESTRO [2012/06/A/ST9/00269]
  2. Foundation for Polish Science (FNP)
  3. BASAL Centro de Astrofisica y Tecnologias Afines (CATA) [PFB-06/2007]
  4. NTT telescopes in La Silla [074.D-0318, 074.D-0505, 082.D-0499, 083.D-0549, 084.D-0591, 086.D-0078, 091, D-0469(A)]
  5. CNTAC programme [CN2010B-060]
  6. European Research Council under the European Community [246678]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a distance determination to the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) based on an analysis of four detached, long-period, late-type eclipsing binaries discovered by the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE) survey. The components of the binaries show negligible intrinsic variability. A consistent set of stellar parameters was derived with low statistical and systematic uncertainty. The absolute dimensions of the stars are calculated with a precision of better than 3%. The surface brightness-infrared color relation was used to derive the distance to each binary. The four systems clump around a distance modulus of (m - M) = 18.99 with a dispersion of only 0.05 mag. Combining these results with the distance published by Graczyk et al. for the eclipsing binary OGLE SMC113.3 4007, we obtain a mean distance modulus to the SMC of 18.965 +/- 0.025 (stat.) +/- 0.048 (syst.) mag. This corresponds to a distance of 62.1 +/- 1.9 kpc, where the error includes both uncertainties. Taking into account other recent published determinations of the SMC distance we calculated the distance modulus difference between the SMC and the Large Magellanic Cloud equal to 0.458 +/- 0.068 mag. Finally, we advocate mu(SMC) = 18.95 +/- 0.07 as a new canonical value of the distance modulus to this galaxy.

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