4.7 Article

Reconciliation of the surface brightness fluctuation and type Ia supernova distance scales

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 559, 期 2, 页码 584-591

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/322342

关键词

cosmological parameters; distance scale; galaxies : distances and redshifts; supernovae : general

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present Hubble Space Telescope measurements of surface brightness fluctuation (SBF) distances to early-type galaxies that have hosted Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia). The agreement in the relative SBF and SN Ia multicolor light-curve shape and distances is excellent. There is no systematic scale delta-m(15) error with distance, and previous work has shown that SBFs and SNe Ia give consistent ties to the Hubble flow. However, we confirm a systematic offset of similar to0.25 mag in the distance zero points of the two methods, and we trace this offset to their respective Cepheid calibrations. SBFs have in the past been calibrated with Cepheid distances from the H-0 Key Project team, while SNe Ia have been calibrated with Cepheid distances from the team composed of Sandage, Saha, and collaborators. When the two methods are calibrated in a consistent way, their distances are in superb agreement. Until the conflict over the long and short extragalactic Cepheid distances among many galaxies is resolved, we cannot definitively constrain the Hubble constant to better than similar to 10%, even leaving aside the additional uncertainty in the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud, common to both Cepheid scales. However, recent theoretical SBF predictions from stellar population models favor the Key Project Cepheid scale, while the theoretical SN Ia calibration lies between the long and short scales. In addition, while the current SBF distance to M31/M32 is in good agreement with the RR Lyrae and red giant branch distances, calibrating SBFs with the longer Cepheid scale would introduce a 0.3 mag offset with respect to the RR Lyrae scale.

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