Attempts to fit/understand models: 1920-1995 Number counts of Galaxies – Hubble,Yoshii/Peterson...
-
date post
22-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Attempts to fit/understand models: 1920-1995 Number counts of Galaxies – Hubble,Yoshii/Peterson...
Attempts to fit/understand models: 1920-1995
•Number counts of Galaxies – Hubble,Yoshii/Peterson
•Angular Size Distances - distant radio cores Kellerman
•Loitering Universes with z=2 Quasars
•Luminosity Distance with Brightest Cluster Galaxies
Volume Effects
At low z, N z3, for any non-diverging luminosity function, Hubble observed this to be true, demonstrating that Galaxies uniformly fill the local Universe. He and Humason were unable to reach conclusions on Geometry.
{ }
( )case 0k
)1(
21
3
4
)1(3
4)(
1
)1(1
)]1([1)1/()2()(
3
302
0
3
012
003
0
=
⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
+
⎥⎦
⎤⎢⎣
⎡+⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛ −
+
≈⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛+
=
Ω−=Ω
⎥⎥⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎣
⎡Ω+
Ω−+Ω++Ω=
∑
−−
z
zq
zzHc
z
ddV
zdHSzdHzdHHdV
LL
iiK
KL
K
LkLKL
Oππ ⎪
⎩
⎪⎨
⎧
⎪⎭
⎪⎬
⎫=
-1=k
0=k
1=k
)sinh(
...
)sin(
)(
x
x
xS
Mic r os of t Excel W orksheet
Do Galaxies Evolve? Are Galaxies created or Destroyed?
Count ObjectsAs a function ofBrightness.
Euclidean-V proportional toLuminosity DistanceCubed. Not so inOther Universes
Brightest Cluster Galaxies
Sandage, Humason &Mayhall 1956Baum 1957Peach 1970
Deceleration q0>1
But Tinsley 1976 showed Evolution dominates Cosmology
Methods for Measuring Extra-Galactic Distances
• Brightest Cluster Galaxies • Cepheids• Fundamental Plane (Dn-/Faber Jackson)• Lensing Delay • Planetary Nebulae • Tully-Fisher• Sunyaev-Zeldovich • Surface Brightness Fluctuations• Supernovae Ia• Supernovae II
Relative versus Absolute Distances
• Most Astronomical Distance methods are relative. Object A is X times further than object B. They need to be calibrated with a different method in the nearby Universe – A process we call the Astronomical Distance Ladder.
• A few distance methods provide Absolute physical distances, independent of the Distance Ladder.
The Distance Ladder
• Parallax Distance to nearest Stars• Spectroscopic Parallax of these stars to
clusters of stars• Main Sequence Fitting of Clusters to Other
Clusters which contain Cepheid Variable Stars• Comparison Cepheid Variable Stars to
Cepheids in the Large Magellanic Cloud.• Large Magellanic Cloud is the Anchor of the
Extra Galactic Distance Scale
Freedman et al 2001
Eclipsing Binaries (Fitzpatrick et al.)
Recently Published Values of the Distance to the LMC.
Brightest Cluster GalaxiesSandage et al. (1956) Lauer & Postman 1992
Concentration
Advantages: Easy, high-Z possible;Disadvantages: Poor Physical Basis, unexplained results, Evolution
Cepheids
Advantages:
• Can be calibrated within Galaxy
•Precise (0.1 mag)
•Good Physical BasisDisadvantages:
•Observationally Expensive
•Limit is Z < 0.01
•Metallicity and Extinction
Fundamental PlaneElliptical Galaxies, Surface Brightess (I) within ½ light radius (R), and velocity dispersion () are correlated
L related to R and I
Advantages:•Observationally cheap. •Works to z>0.5
Disadvantages: •Imprecise•Evolution•Physical Understanding not great •Environmental Effects?
7.07.2 −∝ eIL Ie surface Brightness with in
½ light radius
Spiral Galaxies
Spiral Galaxies supported By Rotation, not by Random Motions. Have recent Star formation, dustAnd tend to be less massive than elliptical Galaxies
Elliptical Galaxies
Supported by random motions of stars, Biggest Galaxies in the Universe. No Dust, No Star formationNo Gas, Old Stars
Fundamental Plane Prescription:Measure Flux within an ellipse which contains ½ the light – I=Flux/Area Take Spectrum to measure the velocity dispersion () of the stars.
7.07.2 −∝ eIL
Lensing Delay
input z of lensing galaxy and QSO, positions of lensing galaxy and images of source QSOGet time delay
from QSO variabilityModel galaxy to recover observables And recover distance to lensing galaxy
Advantages: Physical Method, works at 0.1>z>1Disadvantages: Observationally Very Expensive, Model of Galaxy (isothermal) is not yet agreed upon