SpringerLink
Forum Springer Astron. Astrophys.
Forum Whats New Search Orders


Astron. Astrophys. 339, 647-657 (1998)

Previous Section Next Section Title Page Table of Contents

4. Calculation of [FORMULA] at [FORMULA]

When one looks at the Hubble diagram as [FORMULA] against m, and tries to compare the observed distribution of data points with some theoretical scheme, the basic task is calculation of the average value of [FORMULA] at constant value of m. Already the classical Malmquist bias makes one anticipate that [FORMULA] at m is not the same as [FORMULA], where [FORMULA] has been solved from the Mattig equation (corresponding to an ideal standard candle with a zero-dispersion LF).

4.1. Basic formula

In this section we study the case of bolometric magnitude, ignoring any complications due to K-effect. It is simply assumed that in the observed sample, the galaxies at constant m, are found in space distributed according to z as expected on the basis of the co-moving volumes corresponding to dz and the space density of galaxies having absolute magnitude [FORMULA]. It is useful to emphasize that a completeness in m is not required. It is, of course, not necessary that the sample contains all the existing standard candles in the sky having apparent magnitude [FORMULA]. However, one must assume that the available sample galaxies at m faithfully follow the underlying z-distribution so that no selection effect distorts the distribution of z.

Denoting [FORMULA] by µ, the average value of [FORMULA] for a fixed m can be calculated as:

[EQUATION]

In this expression, [FORMULA], and the derivative [FORMULA] was given by Eq. (9).

4.2. Examples

In the displayed examples, we use two values of the dispersion [FORMULA] for a standard candle: 0.3 mag and 0.5 mag. Of these, 0.3 mag may be regarded in practice as a very good one. It is assumed that [FORMULA] and [FORMULA] km s-1 Mpc-1, and some results of calculation have been given for Friedmann models (of zero cosmological constant) with [FORMULA] 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75.

Figs. 4-5 show the difference between the actual [FORMULA] and the [FORMULA] predicted by the Mattig [FORMULA] vs. m relation which implicitly presupposes that the dispersion [FORMULA] is zero. At zero redshift the difference is normalized to be zero by adding to the Mattig curve the classical Malmquist term [FORMULA]: at small z the calculation correctly reproduces the classical Malmquist bias. Note that in practice, when one is not interested in the volume-limited average absolute magnitude of the standard candle, this adjustment has been left for Nature to do.

[FIGURE] Fig. 4a and b. The difference [FORMULA], given as dots, between the true [FORMULA] and the zero-dispersion (Mattig) prediction [FORMULA] for a standard candle class with [FORMULA] and [FORMULA] mag (a ) and [FORMULA] (b ). It is assumed that the true parameters of the Friedmann universe are [FORMULA] and [FORMULA]km s-1 Mpc-1, and to the Mattig prediction has been added a constant term equal to the classical Malmquist bias. Note how the true [FORMULA] drops below the usual prediction at faint magnitudes. The open triangles show the corresponding difference for an erroneous value of [FORMULA] which predicts the observed [FORMULA] at brighter magnitudes. For such standard candles [FORMULA] around [FORMULA]. As explained in the text, these corrections are valid for any standard candle and distance scale for which [FORMULA] constant [FORMULA]. If [FORMULA] is kept constant, while [FORMULA] is changed, one moves accordingly on the m-axis.

[FIGURE] Fig. 5a and b. As Fig. 4, but now for the [FORMULA] universe.

Conversely, one may read from Figs. 4-5 (by changing the sign) the correction which must be added to [FORMULA] at a given m if one wishes to compare a Hubble diagram for bolometric magnitudes with the predictions made by the Mattig curves. The correction depends on the correct Friedmann model itself ([FORMULA], [FORMULA], and more generally, [FORMULA]) and on the correct parameters of the standard candle ([FORMULA], [FORMULA]). In fact, because [FORMULA] and [FORMULA] does not appear in the volume ratios, the correction at m is the same for any such choice of [FORMULA] and [FORMULA] giving [FORMULA] fixed constant.

Let us consider only the case where standard candles may be observed in sufficient numbers already at small redshifts. There [FORMULA], and the zero point [FORMULA] is obtained without a separate determination of the distance scale ([FORMULA]) and the [FORMULA] parameter. At small redshifts also the dispersion [FORMULA] may be determined. Hence, in such a case an important feature of the standard classical Hubble diagram test is preserved: one does not need to know the value of [FORMULA].

If one takes another value of [FORMULA], e.g. another standard candle class (keeping [FORMULA] and [FORMULA] fixed) which is one magnitude brighter, then the corrections from Figs. 4-5 are valid for this class when one reads them at [FORMULA] instead of m (the intrinsically brighter class extends as deep into the redshift space at brighter apparent magnitude). Because the Malmquist correction to [FORMULA] depends on the Friedmann model, one needs a procedure where the corrections are calculated for a range of [FORMULA] if one wishes to derive the value of [FORMULA] from a high-z Hubble diagram.

It is illuminating to show in Figs. 4-5 also the curve for the apparent, erroneous value of [FORMULA] which roughly "predicts" the run of [FORMULA] at brighter magnitudes, again on the basis of the zero-dispersion Mattig curve.

The results are such that the apparent value of [FORMULA] goes down from the true one, and this effect is stronger for larger dispersion [FORMULA]. With a very good standard candle with [FORMULA], one would derive by the normal procedure from the Hubble diagram up to about [FORMULA], that [FORMULA] when it is actually 0.75. With [FORMULA], the inferred value would drop down to 0.45 - 0.5, while [FORMULA] would give [FORMULA] 0.2 - 0.3 (not displayed). If we are actually living in the Eistein-de Sitter universe ([FORMULA]), then [FORMULA] would give that apparently [FORMULA], while [FORMULA] would perhaps make one believe that [FORMULA]. If [FORMULA], then [FORMULA] would produce an apparent [FORMULA] (not displayed).

We emphasize that these results are concerned with observations below bolometric [FORMULA] (where [FORMULA] or [FORMULA] with the adopted [FORMULA] and [FORMULA]). At fainter magnitudes (for such a standard candle) the behaviour of [FORMULA] may not be described by a unique apparent [FORMULA]. In the next section it is shown that an improper treatment of the K-effect may substantially still enhance this source of error.

Previous Section Next Section Title Page Table of Contents

© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1998

Online publication: October 22, 1998
helpdesk.link@springer.de