1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{natbib,graphicx}
3: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
4: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
5: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
6: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
7:
8: %\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
9: %\newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
10: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle #1|}
11: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{|#1\rangle}
12:
13: \shorttitle{Cosmological Studies with Radio Galaxies and Supernovae}
14: \shortauthors{Daly et al.}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \title{Cosmological Studies with Radio Galaxies and Supernovae}
19: \author{Ruth A. Daly, Matthew P. Mory,\altaffilmark{~}}
20: %\affil{Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802}
21: \email{rdaly@psu.edu}
22:
23: %\author{Matthew P. Mory\altaffilmark{~}}
24: \affil{Department of Physics, Penn State University, Berks Campus, P. O.
25: Box 7009, Reading, PA 19610}
26: \author{C. P. O'Dea, P. Kharb, S. Baum,\altaffilmark{~}}
27: %\affil{Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623}
28: %\author{P. Kharb\altaffilmark{~}}
29: %\affil{Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623}
30: %\author{S. Baum\altaffilmark{~}}
31: \affil{Rochester Institute of Technology, 54 Lomb Memorial Drive,
32: Rochester, NY 14623}
33: \author{E. J. Guerra\altaffilmark{~}}
34: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
35: Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill Rd. Glassboro, NJ 08028}
36: \and
37: \author{S. G. Djorgovski\altaffilmark{~}}
38: \affil{Division of Physics, Mathematics, and Astronomy,
39: California Institute of Technology, MS 105-24,
40: Pasadena, CA 91125}
41:
42: %\altaffiltext{1}{Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623}
43: %\altaffiltext{2}{Penn State University}
44: %\altaffiltext{3}{Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218}
45: %\altaffiltext{4}{Rowan University}
46:
47: \vfill\eject
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50: Physical sizes of extended radio galaxies can be employed as
51: a cosmological ``standard ruler'', using a previously developed method.
52: Eleven new radio galaxies are added to our previous sample of nineteen
53: sources, forming a sample of thirty objects with redshifts between
54: 0 and 1.8. This sample of radio galaxies are used to obtain the best fit
55: cosmological parameters in a quintessence model in a spatially flat
56: universe, a cosmological constant model that allows for
57: non-zero space curvature,
58: and a rolling scalar field model in a spatially flat
59: universe. Results obtained with radio galaxies are
60: compared with those obtained with different
61: supernova samples, and with combined radio galaxy
62: and supernova samples. Results obtained with different
63: samples are consistent, suggesting
64: that neither method is seriously affected by systematic errors.
65: Best fit radio galaxy and supernovae
66: model parameters determined in the different
67: cosmological models are nearly identical, and
68: are used to determine dimensionless coordinate
69: distances to supernovae and radio galaxies, and
70: distance moduli to the radio galaxies. The distance
71: moduli to the radio galaxies can be combined
72: with supernovae samples to increase the number of sources,
73: particularly high-redshift sources, in the samples.
74:
75: The constraints obtained here with the combined
76: radio galaxy plus supernovae data set in the rolling scalar field model
77: are quite strong. The best fit parameter values suggest that
78: $\Omega_m$ is less than about 0.35, and
79: the model parameter $\alpha$ is close to zero;
80: that is, a cosmological constant provides a good
81: description of the data.
82:
83: We also obtain new constraints on the physics of engines that
84: power the large-scale radio emission.
85: The equation that describe the predicted size of
86: each radio source is controlled by one
87: model parameter, $\beta$, which parameterizes
88: the extraction of energy from the black hole.
89: Joint fits of radio galaxy
90: and supernova samples indicate a best
91: fit value of $\beta$ that is very close to a special value for which the
92: relationship between the braking magnetic field strength and the
93: properties of the spinning black hole is greatly simplified, and
94: the braking magnetic field strength depends only upon the spin
95: angular momentum per unit mass and the gravitational radius
96: of the black hole. The best fit value of $\beta$ of 1.5 indicates that
97: the beam power $L_j$ and the initial spin energy of the
98: black hole $E$ are related by $L_j \propto E^2$, and
99: that the relationship that might naively be
100: expected for an Eddington limited
101: system, $L_j \propto E$, is quite clearly
102: ruled out for the jets in these systems.
103:
104: \end{abstract}
105:
106: \keywords{cosmological parameters --
107: cosmology: observations --
108: cosmology: theory --
109: dark matter --
110: equation of state}
111:
112: \vfill\eject
113:
114: \section{Introduction}
115:
116: Recent cosmological studies using CMBR, supernovae, and other types of
117: astronomical sources and phenomena have greatly improved our understanding
118: of the recent expansion and acceleration history of the universe. Whereas
119: a consistent picture has emerged (the ``concordance cosmology''), in which
120: the dynamics of the universe is currently dominated by a mysterious dark
121: energy, its physical nature remains one of the key outstanding problems
122: of physical science today. For a summary of developments in this field
123: see Ratra \& Vogeley (2007).
124:
125: Aside from the CMBR, most experimental methods to study the expansion
126: history of the universe, and thus its matter-energy contents, require samples
127: of standardisable sources whose distances can be determined in a consistent
128: way, e.g., the supernovae of type Ia.
129: It is clear that both low and high redshift sources play an important role
130: in these studies. Low to moderate redshift sources allow us to define and probe
131: the acceleration of the universe and the properties of the dark
132: energy at the current epoch, whereas higher
133: redshift sources allow us to probe the
134: properties of the dark energy at earlier epochs and
135: possible changes in its properties, which is perhaps
136: the best path towards understanding its physical nature.
137: Confidence in luminosity and coordinate distance
138: determinations, which are the foundation of the studies discussed here, is
139: bolstered when more than one method yields the same results.
140:
141: Like supernovae, powerful radio galaxies are observed out
142: to redshifts greater than one, and their observable properties
143: can be used to determine
144: the coordinate distances to them,
145: or equivalently the luminosity distances or distance moduli (Daly 1994).
146: It is thus interesting to study these sources
147: and to determine whether cosmological results obtained with radio
148: galaxies agree with those obtained with supernovae and other methods.
149: In addition,
150: the radio galaxy and supernova samples may be analyzed jointly
151: to improve the determinations of the radio galaxy model parameters.
152:
153: In this paper, eleven new radio galaxies are combined with a previously studied
154: sample of nineteen sources, to yield a sample of thirty radio galaxies
155: suitable for cosmological studies.
156: This sample is analyzed here in three cosmological models.
157: The first model
158: allows for quintessence and
159: non-relativistic matter in a spatially flat universe;
160: the second model allows for
161: non-relativistic matter, a cosmological constant, and
162: space curvature; and
163: the third model allows for a rolling scalar field in a spatially flat
164: universe (Peebles \& Ratra 1988). All of these
165: models are based on the equations of
166: General Relativity, and rely upon this as the correct theory
167: of gravity.
168:
169: The primary objectives are to obtain and compare constraints on model
170: and cosmological parameters using different samples
171: of type Ia supernovae, extended radio galaxies, and a combined sample
172: of supernovae and radio galaxies. Similar results obtained with the
173: radio galaxy and supernovae methods, which determine similar quantities
174: over similar redshifts, will bolster our confidence in each method.
175: This is because the methods rely upon measurements of entirely different
176: quantities that are then applied using completely different
177: astrophysical arguments, and thus provide independent measures
178: of coordinate distances and cosmological parameters.
179: Results obtained from the combined sample allow strong constraints
180: to be placed on the radio galaxy model parameter, which provides a direct
181: link to and diagnostic of the physics of the energy extraction that
182: produces the large-scale jets in these systems. Finally, if very similar
183: best fit
184: model parameters are obtained in different cosmological scenarios,
185: tben these parameters can be used to determine the dimensionless
186: coordinate distance to each source. The dimensionless coordinate
187: distances thus obtained are then used for a separate study. In addition,
188: the dimensionless coordinate distances to the radio galaxies can be
189: used to define the distance modulus to each radio galaxy, which can
190: be combined with those of supernovae to increase the sample sizes.
191:
192: The use of powerful extended radio galaxies as a cosmological tool
193: is reviewed in section 2. Results obtained with radio galaxies,
194: supernovae, and combined samples of radio galaxies and supernovae
195: are presented in section 3. Determinations of distance moduli to
196: radio galaxies are presented in section 4. The main results and
197: conclusions of the paper are summarized in section 5.
198:
199: \section{Radio Galaxies and Cosmology}
200:
201: Powerful radio sources are a cosmological population which can be observed
202: out to very high redshifts, reaching beyond the practical limits of supernova
203: studies. This makes them in principle a very interesting cosmological probe,
204: provided that some distance-dependent quantity such as physical size can
205: be standardized. In section 2, we describe how the maximum size that
206: a radio source will reach during its lifetime, $2D_*$, can be determined
207: from radio observations.
208:
209: There are many different types of radio sources such as compact and extended
210: radio sources, and radio galaxies and radio loud quasars.
211: The use of radio sources for cosmological studies has a long
212: and distinguished history including the works of
213: Rowan-Robinson (1967), Longair \& Pooley (1969),
214: Hoyle \& Burbidge (1970), Kellerman (1972, 1993), Fanaroff \& Longair (1972),
215: Kapahi (1972, 1985), Rees (1972),
216: Readhead \& Longair (1975), Longair (1976),
217: Wall, Pearson, \& Longair (1980),
218: Laing, Riley, \& Longair (1983),
219: Condon (1984a,b), Gopal-Krishna \& Wiita (1987),
220: Pelletier \& Roland (1989),
221: Dunlop \& Peacock (1990), Singal (1993),
222: Daly (1994), Kayser (1995), Buchalter et al. (1998),
223: Guerra \& Daly (1998),
224: Kaiser \& Alexander (1999), Gurvits, Kellerman, \& Frey (1999),
225: Guerra, Daly, \& Wan (2000), Rawlings (2002), Daly \& Guerra (2002),
226: Chen \& Ratra (2003), Podariu et al. (2003),
227: Jamrozy (2004), Jackson (2004),
228: Barai \& Wiita (2006, 2007), and Jackson \& Jammetta (2006).
229:
230: Here, very powerful radio galaxies are used as a modified standard
231: yardstick for cosmological studies. Radio galaxies rather than
232: radio loud quasars are selected for study so as to minimize
233: projection effects; in the standard unified model for radio
234: galaxies and radio loud quasars, the sources are intrinsically
235: the same, but radio galaxies lie close to the plane of the
236: sky, and radio loud quasars are oriented along the line of sight
237: to the observer.
238:
239: The subset of classical double radio galaxies that are very powerful
240: form a very homogeneous population. The source properties and structure
241: are well described by the standard ``twin jet'' model (e.g.
242: Blandford and Rees 1974;
243: Scheuer 1974; Begelman, Blandford, and Rees 1984; Begelman
244: \& Cioffi 1989; Daly 1990; Leahy 1991).
245: Particles are accelerated and
246: material is channeled away from the vicinity of a massive black
247: hole along relatively narrow, oppositely directed jets, and is deposited
248: in the radio hot spot. Here particles are re-accelerated to relativistic
249: energies and produce synchrotron radiation in the presence of a local
250: magnetic field. Relativistic plasma flows from the
251: radio hot spots, and, as time goes on, the location of the radio hot spot
252: moves further from the central black hole leaving behind a ``radio bridge''
253: or ``radio lobe'' of relativistic material.
254:
255: \subsection{Overview of the Extended Radio Galaxy (ERG) Method}
256:
257: The ERG method considered here was proposed by Daly (1994),
258: and explored and applied
259: by Guerra \& Daly (1998), Guerra, Daly, \& Wan (2000),
260: Daly \& Guerra (2002), and Podariu et al. (2003).
261: It is described
262: in detail in these papers, and is summarized briefly here.
263:
264:
265: The method is based upon the following observations.
266: (1) The most powerful extended classical double radio galaxies,
267: those with
268: 178 MHz radio powers greater than about
269: $(3 \times 10^{26})~h^{-2} \hbox{ W Hz}^{-1} \hbox{ sr}^{-1}$,
270: have very regular radio bridge
271: structure and shape (e.g. Leahy, Muxlow, \& Stephens 1989).
272: This indicates that the sources are growing at a rate
273: that is well into the supersonic regime, and that there is
274: minimal backflow of material within the radio bridge
275: (Leahy \& Williams 1984; Alexander 1987; Alexander \&
276: Leahy 1987; Leahy, Muxlow, \& Stephens 1989). Thus,
277: strong shock physics, which is clean and simple,
278: can be applied to these systems. It also
279: indicates that the velocity
280: deduced by studying a source represents the average
281: rate of growth of the source, that is, corrections for backflow
282: of material within the bridge are negligible.
283: (2) The average size of this special class of
284: powerful classical double radio galaxies
285: at a given redshift $\langle D \rangle$ has a small dispersion
286: independent of the cosmological model,
287: as illustrated in Figure 8 of Guerra, Daly, \& Wan (2000).
288: This means that $2\langle D \rangle$ provides a measure of the maximum size
289: that a given source at that redshift will reach during its lifetime.
290:
291: The parent population of radio galaxies considered for this
292: study are from the complete sample of 3CRR radio galaxies with
293: 178 MHz radio powers greater than about
294: $(3 \times 10^{26})~h^{-2} \hbox{ W Hz}^{-1} \hbox{ sr}^{-1}$.
295: This leads to a sample of 70 radio galaxies (Guerra \& Daly 1998).
296: This parent population is used to
297: define $\langle D \rangle$ in several redshift bins, as described by
298: GD98. This measure of the mean or maximum size of a given
299: source at similar redshift depends upon the cosmological
300: model through the coordinate distance $(a_or)$, since
301: the size of a given source is $D \propto (a_or)$.
302:
303: Individual sources from this parent population are studied in
304: detail to arrive at an independent measure of the average size of an
305: individual
306: source, $D_*$. It turns out that $D_* \propto (a_or)^{4/7-2\beta/3}$,
307: where $\beta$ is a model parameter to be determined. The ratio
308: $R_* \equiv \langle D \rangle/D_*$ is approximately given by
309: $R_* \propto (a_or)^{3/7+2\beta/3}$, so requiring that this
310: ratio remain constant allows a determination of both $\beta$ and
311: the cosmological parameters that determine $(a_or)$ to a particular
312: source at redshift z. When the
313: fits are run, the full dependence of each factor that enters
314: into the ratio $R_*$ is, of course, included. The full equation
315: for $D_*$ and the way that it was derived is described below
316: (see also Daly 1990, 1994; GD98; GDW00; DG02).
317:
318: Each side of a source grows with an average velocity $v$ for a total
319: time $t_*$, so a particular
320: source will have an average size $D_*$ at the end of it's
321: lifetime: $D_* \propto v~t_*$.
322: (Note that the source velocities are independent of source size,
323: suggesting that the velocity of a given source is roughly constant
324: over the lifetime of that source, as described in detail by
325: O'Dea et al. 2007.)
326: The fact that the source sizes have a
327: small dispersion at a given redshift suggests a cancelation
328: between that factors that determine $v$ and those that determine
329: $t_*$. The equations of strong shock physics indicate that
330: the overall velocity $v$ with
331: which the source lengthens is $v \propto [L_j/(n_a~a_L^2)]^{1/3}$
332: (e.g. Rawlings \& Saunders 1991;
333: Daly 1990), where $n_a$ is the ambient gas density
334: and $a_L$ is the radius of the cross sectional area
335: perpendicular to the direction of growth of the source.
336: Thus, the average source size
337: depends both of the intrinsic properties, $L_j$ and $t_*$,
338: of the AGN that
339: powers the outflow, and those that are extrinsic
340: to the AGN, $n_a$ and $a_L^2$. Separating the intrinsic from
341: the extrinsic factors we have
342: $D_* \propto (L_j^{1/3}t_*)~(n_a a_L^2)^{-1/3}$.
343: As shown by Daly (1994), the extrinsic factors
344: described by the second term have a very weak dependence
345: on the coordinate distance $(a_or)$ to the source,
346: and go approximately as $k_g \propto (n_a~a_L^2)^{-1/3} \propto (a_or)^{-0.1}$.
347: This parameter can be determined from observations by noting
348: that $n_a \propto P/v^2$ (e.g. De Young 2002),
349: so $k_g \equiv (Pa_L^2/v^2)^{-1/3}$;
350: here $P$ is the postshock
351: pressure in the radio bridge
352: $P=((4/3)b^{-1.5}+b^2)(B_{min}/24\pi)$ and the
353: parameter $b$ allows for offsets of the magnetic field
354: strength $B$ from minimum energy conditions $B = b~B_{min}$.
355:
356: Re-arranging terms, we have
357: \begin{equation}
358: D_* \propto vt_* \propto (L_j^{1/3}t_*)k_g~.
359: \end{equation}
360: To maintain
361: the observed small dispersion
362: in average source size $\langle D \rangle$, there must be a cancelation between the
363: factors intrinsic to the AGN that affect the source size,
364: $L_j$ and $t_*$. Thus, it is proposed that the total lifetime
365: of the outflow $t_*$ be written as a power-law in the beam
366: power
367: \begin{equation}
368: t_* \propto L_j^{-\beta/3}~.
369: \end{equation}
370: Then, the average size
371: a given source would have if it were observed over its entire lifetime
372: is $D_* \propto L_j^{(1-\beta)/3}~(Pa_L^2/v^2)^{-1/3}$,
373: or $D_* \propto L_j^{(1-\beta)/3}~k_g$.
374: Thus, $D_*$ can be determined for an individual source;
375: it has one model parameter, $\beta$, and depends upon the cosmological
376: model through its depedence on $(a_or)$.
377:
378: This parameterization of the total time
379: the AGN produces jets $t_* \propto L_j^{-\beta/3}$
380: includes as a special case the
381: relationship expected if the outflow
382: is Eddington limited. For an Eddington limited
383: system, the lifetime is independent of the beam
384: power, so a value of $\beta = 0$
385: is expected, and
386: we will be able to test whether the outflows are Eddington limited.
387:
388: The implications of the value of $\beta$ for physics quite
389: close to the AGN are described by Daly \& Guerra (2002),
390: and are discussed in more detail here in section 3.1.
391: The relationship $t_* \propto L_j^{-\beta/3}$
392: fits quite nicely in standard magnetic braking models
393: to power the outflows from AGN (e.g. Blandford 1990; see
394: section 3.1).
395:
396: To write $D_*$ in terms of empirically determined quantities
397: $a_L$, $v$, and $P$, we note that
398: $D_* \propto v~t_* \propto v~L_j^{-\beta/3}$ and
399: $L_j \propto (v/k_g)^3$, so
400: \begin{equation}
401: D_* \propto k_g^{\beta}~v^{1-\beta}
402: \propto (a_L^2P)^{-\beta/3}~v^{1-\beta/3}.
403: \end{equation}
404: The dependence of $D_*$ on cosmological parameters enters
405: through the dependence of each of the empirically determined
406: quantities, $a_L$, $P$, and $v$, on the coordinate distance, and
407: is approximately given by $D_* \propto (a_or)^{4/7-2\beta/3}$ Daly (1994).
408: Of course, when the full computation requiring that the
409: ratio $\langle D \rangle/D_*$ remain constant is carried out,
410: the full dependence of each quantity $a_L$, $P$, and $v$ on
411: the coordinate distance is included.
412:
413:
414:
415: \section{Results}
416:
417: Here,
418: we consider three standard models:
419: a quintessence model in a spatially flat universe;
420: a lambda model that allows for non-zero
421: space curvature, non-relativistic matter, and a cosmological constant;
422: and a
423: rolling scalar field model in a spatially flat universe.
424: The supernovae samples considered here are
425: the 192 supernovae from Davis et al. (2007), the 182 supernovae sample
426: of Riess et al. (2007), and the 115 supernovae sample of Astier et al.
427: (2006). There is significant overlap between these samples;
428: for example, the Davis et al. (2007) sample includes the Essence data of
429: Wood-Vasey (2007) and the high redshift data of Riess et al. (2007).
430: Different samples are studied to be able to compare results obtained
431: with each. In addition, the model parameters determined for each
432: sample can be applied to that sample to solve for the dimensionless
433: coordinate distances to the supernovae in that sample.
434: The 30 radio galaxies studied here include the eleven new
435: radio galaxies presented by Kharb et al. (2008), with details on
436: individual source properties given by O'Dea et al. (2007), and
437: the nineteen radio galaxies previously studied by Guerra, Daly,
438: \& Wan (2000) and Guerra \& Daly (2002) with the source 3C427.1
439: removed, as discussed by Podariu et al. (2003).
440:
441: The best fit parameters obtained in these models are listed
442: shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
443: The fits are done in the standard way for radio galaxies
444: and supernovae separately.
445: For the radio galaxies, we use the relationship
446: \begin{equation}
447: R_* = \langle D \rangle/D_* =
448: k_0y^{(6\beta-1)/7}(k_1y^{-4/7}+k_2)^{\beta/3-1}~,
449: \end{equation}
450: where the cosmological model enters through the determination
451: of
452: the dimensionless coordinate distance $y$ to each source,
453: which is simply related to
454: the coordinate distance $(a_or)$, $y=(H_0/c)(a_or)$, and
455: we have the standard equations
456: $y=\int dz/E(z)$, $E(z) = H(z)/H_0$, $H(z) = (1/a)(da/dt)$
457: is the expansion rate of the universe at a given redshift,
458: and $k_0$, $k_1$, and $k_2$ are observed quantities
459: (see Daly \& Djorgovski 2003 and the appendix of Guerra \& Daly 2002).
460: We minimize
461: the difference between $ ln(\langle D \rangle/D_*)$ and
462: a constant, $\kappa_{RG}$,
463: as described in detail by Guerra \& Daly (1998),
464: to obtain the best fit values of $\beta$,
465: $\kappa_{RG}$, and cosmological parameters.
466: The ratio $\langle D \rangle/D_*$ obtained for the best fit values of
467: cosmological parameters and $\beta$, and normalized to unity using
468: the best fit value of $\kappa_{RG}$ is shown in Figure 1
469: for the quintessence model. As in Daly \& Guerra (2002),
470: an offset from minimum energy conditions
471: of $b=0.25$ has been adopted, and the results are insensitive
472: to the value of $b$ assumed; similar results are obtained for
473: $b=1$.
474: For the supernovae, we use the relationship
475: \begin{equation}
476: \mu = \kappa_{SN} + 5log10[y(1+z)],
477: \end{equation}
478: where $\kappa_{SN}$ is a constant to be fitted for each
479: of the supernvae samples, and,
480: as above, $y$ is the dimensionless coordinate distance,
481: $y=(H_0/c)(a_or)$. We
482: minimize the difference between the observed and predicted
483: values of $\mu$ to obtain the best fit values for cosmological
484: parameters and the constant $\kappa_{SN}$.
485: The parameter $\kappa_{SN}$ can be related to
486: the effective Hubble constant adopted by the supernovae
487: group to obtain their values of $\mu$,
488: $\kappa_{SN}=25-5log10(H_0/c)$, where $H_0$ is in units
489: of km/s/Mpc, and c is in units of km/s. For example,
490: a value of $H_0 = 70 \hbox{ km s}^{-1} \hbox{ Mpc}^{-1}$
491: translates to a value of $\kappa_{SN}$ of about 43.15.
492: This approach is convenient since effective values of
493: $H_0$ adopted and used in supernovae studies
494: are often not included in publications and
495: are often otherwise unavailable for the supernovae
496: samples; the approach used here by-passes the need to know the
497: specific value of $H_0$ adopted and applied to a particular supernovae
498: sample. The exception is the supernovae sample of
499: Astier et al. (2006) who adopted a value of
500: $H_0 = 70 \hbox{ km s}^{-1} \hbox{ Mpc}^{-1}$,
501: corresponding to a value of $\kappa_{SN}=43.15$;
502: the values we recover here (see Tables 1, 2, and 3)
503: are consistent with the input value of Astier et al. (2006).
504: Once the best fit value of $\kappa_{SN}$ has been determined for a
505: particular data set, this value and the observed value
506: of $\mu$ can be substituted into equation (5) to solve for the
507: dimensionless coordinate distance to the sources in that sample; the values
508: thus obtained are listed in Daly et al. (2008).
509: Similarly, once the best fit values of the constants
510: $\kappa_{RG}$ and $\beta$ have been obtained, equation (4) can
511: be used to solve for the dimensionless coordinate distance y to
512: each radio galaxy. Then, equation (5) can be used to define an
513: effective distance modulus $\mu$ to each radio galaxy so that
514: the radio galaxies can be added to and analyzed with the
515: supernovae samples. Of course, in doing this, the best fit
516: value of $\kappa_{SN}$ obtained for a particular supernovae sample
517: is used to obtain values of $\mu$ for the radio galaxies that are
518: to be added to that sample.
519:
520:
521: To obtain the best fit parameters
522: for the joint fits, the chi-square for each set of cosmological parameter
523: and model parameter values is obtained by adding the chi-square obtained
524: for the radio galaxies and
525: supernovae, and finding the minimum chi-square of the joint fit.
526: That is, we require that a single set of cosmological parameters
527: and model parameters $\beta$, $\kappa_{RG}$, and $\kappa_{SN}$
528: describe both the
529: radio galaxy and supernovae data sets simultaneously, and
530: find the best fit values of parameters that minimizes this
531: total chi-square. This is quite helpful in constraining the
532: model parameter $\beta$, as discussed below.
533:
534: Each of
535: the radio galaxy fits involve four parameters,
536: two cosmological parameters and two model parameters
537: ($\kappa_{RG}$ and $\beta$),
538: or 26 degrees of freedom for 30 radio galaxies.
539: The supernovae fits involve three parameters,
540: two cosmological parameters and one model parameter ($\kappa_{SN}$), since
541: the supernovae model parameter that relates the rate of decline
542: of the light curve to the peak supernovae brightness is obtained separately.
543: The joint supernovae
544: and radio galaxy fits involve five parameters, two cosmological
545: parameters and three
546: model parameters ($\kappa_{SN}$, $\kappa_{RG}$, and $\beta$).
547: The reduced $\chi^2$ for the best fit parameters
548: is of order unity for radio galaxy sample alone, for most of the
549: supernovae samples alone, and for the joint supernovae and radio
550: galaxy fits, indicating
551: that the model provides a good description of the data for the
552: best fit parameters listed, though the reduced $\chi^2$ obtained for the
553: 182 supernovae is a bit low. Values of cosmological
554: parameters obtained here are consistent with those obtained
555: and published by each of the supernovae groups. In addition
556: to the best fit values of cosmological parameters, we also list the
557: best fit values of the model parameters,
558: $\kappa_{SN}$, $\kappa_{RG}$, and $\beta$,
559: which are needed to solve for the dimensionless coordinate distance
560: to each source. It is also interesting to compare best fit parameter
561: values obtained with radio galaxies alone, supernovae alone,
562: and the combined radio galaxy and supernovae samples.
563:
564: Values of $D_*$ and the ratio $\langle D \rangle/D_*$ are shown
565: in Fig. \ref{dstar} for the best
566: fit parameters obtained with the 30 radio galaxies alone in the
567: quintessence model (see Table 2), normalized using the
568: best fit value of $\kappa_{RG}$ to have a value of unity.
569: The values of $D_*$
570: clearly change with redshift as expected; they should
571: change with redshift in the same way as $\langle D \rangle$, which is
572: shown in Fig. 8 of Guerra, Daly, \& Wan (2000). The ratio
573: $\langle D \rangle/D_*$ is independent of redshift, as predicted in the model.
574:
575: Results obtained in a quintessence model assuming a spatially flat
576: universe are shown in Figures \ref{Q30rgommw} to \ref{Q192snp30rgbw}.
577: Results obtained with radio galaxies alone are overlayed on those
578: obtained with the combined sample of supernovae and radio
579: galaxies, which are quite similar to those obtained with
580: supernovae alone. The radio galaxy results
581: are consistent with but weaker than those
582: obtained with supernovae alone; radio galaxies alone
583: indicate that the universe is accelerating today
584: with about 90\% confidence.
585: The fact that consistent
586: results are obtained with two completely independent methods
587: applied to sources with similar redshifts suggests that
588: systematic errors are not a major problem for either method.
589: The value of $w$ obtained with radio galaxies alone is slightly larger
590: than $-1$, the best fit values for the supernovae samples are slightly
591: less than $-1$, and the best fit values for the combined samples
592: are slightly larger than $-1$; apparently the radio galaxies tend to pull the
593: supernovae samples to slightly larger values of $w$.
594: Again, the radio galaxy parameter $\beta$
595: has no covariance with cosmological parameters.
596:
597:
598: Results obtained in a lambda model with space curvature are shown
599: in Figures \ref{KrgsnPrgommomL} to \ref{K192snp30rgbomk}. Radio galaxies
600: alone constrain $\Omega_m$ to be less than about 0.5 at
601: 90\% confidence (see Figure \ref{KrgsnPrgommomL}).
602: The combined radio galaxy and Davis et al. (2007)
603: supernovae sample provide interesting constraints in the
604: $\beta$ as shown in Figures
605: \ref{KrgsnPrgbomm}, \ref{K192snp30rgbomL}, and
606: \ref{K192snp30rgbomk}. Negative $\Omega_k$ indicates
607: positive space curvature, and the results are
608: consistent with zero space curvature.
609: As stressed by Tegmark et al. (2006), Wright (2006), and
610: Wang \& Mukherjee (2007),
611: it is only by combining
612: constraints obtained with different methods that tight constraints
613: can be placed on space curvature; as seen here, supernovae alone
614: and radio galaxies plus supernovae, do not place tight constraints
615: on space curvature. Constraints on
616: the radio galaxy model parameter $\beta$ obtained with with radio
617: galaxies alone are overlayed on these figures,
618: and are consistent with, though weaker than, those obtained with
619: the full sample or with supernovae alone,
620: suggesting that neither method is plagued by
621: systematic errors at this level of accuracy.
622: There is no covariance between the model parameter $\beta$ and
623: cosmological parameters, confirming the results of Daly \&
624: Guerra (2002). The implications of these constraints on $\beta$
625: are discussed in Section 2.2.
626:
627:
628: Results obtained in the rolling scalar field model of Peebles \&
629: Ratra (1988)
630: are shown in Figure \ref{A30rgp192SNommalpha}. These results
631: are significantly tighter than those reported by Samushia, Chen, \&
632: Ratra (2007).
633: The results obtained with the
634: joint sample are strong, and suggest that $\alpha$ is close to zero,
635: that is, a cosmological constant provides a good description of
636: the data.
637:
638: \subsection{Implications of $\beta = 1.5$}
639:
640: Constraints on the radio galaxy model parameter $\beta$ indicate
641: that there is little covariance between $\beta$ and
642: cosmological parameters, and
643: the value of $\beta$ is insensitive to the
644: cosmological model.
645: By combining the radio galaxy and supernovae data, $\beta$ can be
646: more tightly constrained. It is very interesting indeed that
647: for the joint fits $\beta = 1.5 \pm 0.15$. This is a very special
648: value of $\beta$, as discussed by Daly \& Guerra (2002), and
649: may explain why these sources provide such an accurate cosmology tool.
650:
651: The equations of Blandford (1990), $L_j \propto
652: (a/m)^2~B^2~M^2$ for the beam power and
653: $E_* \propto (a/m)^2 M$, where $B$ is the magnetic field strength,
654: $a$ is the spin angular momentum per unit mass, m is the
655: gravitational radius, and M is the mass of the black hole
656: that powers the outflow with beam power $L_j$ and total energy $E_*$.
657: These are combined with
658: the empirically derived relationship $E_* = L_jt_* \propto L_j^{1-\beta/3}$
659: suggested by Daly (1994) to obtain the magnetic field strength
660: $B \propto M^{(2\beta-3)/2(3-\beta)}~(a/m)^{\beta/(3-\beta)}$
661: (Daly \& Guerra 2002). When $\beta = 1.5$, this simplifies to
662: $B \propto (a/m)$, so the magnetic field strength depends only upon
663: the spin angular momentum per unit mass and the gravitational radius
664: of the black hole, and is independent of the black hole mass $M$.
665: The fact that our empirically determined value
666: of $\beta$ is very close to this special value is intriguing,
667: and may suggest that some physical process is driving the
668: magnetic field strength to some maximum or limiting value set by
669: $(a/m)$. When the field strength reaches this value, the energy is released
670: in the form of the jets with beam power $L_j$ that remains roughly constant
671: over the outflow lifetime $t_*$ releasing a total energy $E_*$ through
672: the directed jets.
673:
674: A value of $\beta$ of 1.5 not only implies that $B \propto (a/m)$;
675: this, in turn, implies that, $L_j \propto E_*^2$,
676: and $t_* \propto L_j^{-1/2}$, or $t_* \propto E_*^{-1}$.
677: The last three relationships follow directly from the
678: definition of $\beta$, $t_* \propto L_j^{-\beta/3}$
679: and the relationship $E_* = L_jt_*$. A value of $\beta$ of 1.5
680: also implies that
681: $L_j \propto (a/m)^4 M^2$ or $L_j \propto B^4M^2$.
682: The relationship naively expected for an Eddington limited
683: system is $L_j \propto M$, so $t_* \propto E_*/M$, which
684: only depends upon an efficiency factor when $E_* \propto M$.
685: Thus, for an Eddington limited system, $t_*$ is
686: does not depend explicitly on $L_j$, and would require a value
687: of $\beta$ of zero, which is quite clearly ruled out
688: for these systems.
689: Given that the most likely source of energy for these
690: systems is spin energy of a rapidly rotating black hole,
691: which could originate from the orbital energy of
692: two black holes that merge, perhaps it is not surprising that
693: the outflows have little to do with the Eddington luminosity
694: (e.g. Blandford 1990).
695:
696: Studies have shown a close relationship between the radio luminosity
697: (jet power) and optical emission line luminosity (AGN ionizing luminosity)
698: (Baum \& Heckman 1989; Rawlings \& Saunders 1991; Xu, Livio \& Baum 1999;
699: Willott et al 1999).
700: This may suggest a relationship between the jet lifetime of the
701: source and the lifetime of the optically bright AGN. It is
702: possible that
703: both the jet lifetime and the lifetime of the optically bright AGN
704: are not Eddington-limited, but have a power-law relationship
705: to the total energy and beam power.
706:
707:
708: \section{Distances and Distance Moduli to Radio Galaxies}
709:
710: There are several ways to obtain the dimensionless coordinate
711: distance $y$ to each source. For supernovae, one way to is apply
712: the best fit value of the constant
713: $\kappa_{SN}$ obtained for the sample,
714: and apply it to the relation
715: $y=(1+z)^{-1}~10^{(\mu - \kappa_{SN})/5}$, with the
716: uncertainty of $y$ given by
717: $\sigma_y = [\sigma_{\mu}~y ~ln(10)]/5$, where $\sigma_{\mu}$ is the
718: uncertainty in the distance modulus $\mu$ to the source, which
719: follows from equation (5).
720: Similarly,
721: one way to obtain the dimensionless coordinate distance $y$
722: to each radio galaxy
723: is by applying the best fit
724: values of $\kappa_{RG} = ln (R_*)$ and $\beta$, and solving
725: for the value of y for which $\langle D \rangle/D_* = R_*$ for that source
726: using equation (4).
727: The values of y listed in
728: Table 4 for 30 radio galaxies are obtained using the
729: best fit values of $\kappa_{RG}$ and $\beta$ from
730: the joint fits of 192 supernovae and 30 radio galaxies, where
731: the average of the best fit values
732: from Tables 1, 2, and
733: 3 for the relevant samples
734: were used. These dimensionless coordinate distances
735: are then converted to distance moduli and their uncertainties
736: using the best fit value of $\kappa_{SN}$ for
737: the Davis et al. (2007) sample
738: of 192 supernovae (labeled $\mu_D$ and $\sigma_{\mu(D)}$)
739: using equation (5).
740: Values of $y$ were also obtained (but are not listed) using the
741: the best fit values of $\kappa_{RG}$ and $\beta$ for the joint
742: 182 supernovae and 30 radio galaxy fits and converted to a
743: distance modulus and its uncertainty using the best fit value
744: of $\kappa_{SN}$ for the Riess et al. (2007)
745: sample; these are listed in Table 4
746: and are labeled $\mu_R$ and $\sigma_{\mu(R)}$.
747: The distance moduli $\mu_D$ for the radio
748: galaxies can be combined with those for supernovae lisetd by
749: Davis et al. (2007),
750: and the distance moduli $\mu_R$ for the radio galaxies can be
751: combined with those for the supernovae listed by Riess et al. (2007).
752:
753: The values of the constants that are used to obtain the dimensionless
754: coordinate distances are rather insensitive to the model used to obtain
755: them; similar results are obtained in the lambda model with space space
756: curvature, the quintessence model, and the rolling scalar field
757: model, and average values of the constants obtained in the
758: context of these cosmological models
759: relevant to each sample was used
760: to obtain the values listed in Table 4.
761: There are two alternate
762: ways to obtain the dimensionless coordinate distances to the supernovae
763: and radio galaxies that do not require the use of the best fit
764: model parameters $\kappa_{SN}$, $\kappa_{RG}$, and $\beta$. These methods
765: yield results very similar to those obtained using the best fit parameters.
766: The alternate methods start with the values of $\mu$ for supernovae
767: and $\langle D \rangle/D_*$ for radio galaxies, obtain the
768: luminosity distance or the coordinate distance $(a_0r)$ to each source,
769: which is in units of Mpc, and then solve for the dimensionless
770: coordinate distance using the equation $y = (H_0/c)(a_0r)$ by
771: finding a way to determine $H_0$ that is appropriate for that sample,
772: which often is
773: not stated in the data papers. This value of $H_0$ that was input
774: needs to be removed, and can be obtained by
775: fitting the low redshift data to the Hubble law, or by requiring that
776: at zero redshift the function $E(z) = H(z)/H_0$,
777: described by Daly \& Djorgovski
778: (2003)
779: (see also Daly et al. 2008), is equal to one. It turns out that the
780: values of $y$ obtained with any of these three methods are very similar.
781:
782: The dimensionless coordinate distances to the 30 radio galaxies
783: and 192 supernovae of Davis et al. (2007) are shown in
784: Figure \ref{yofz}; The supernovae data set includes the essence
785: supernovae presented by Wood-Vasey (2007), the legacy supernovae
786: presented by Astier et al. (2006), and
787: the high redshift HST supernovae presented by Riess et al. (2007).
788:
789: Although the radio galaxy and supernovae methods are very different,
790: there is good agreement
791: between the dimensionless coordinate distances to sources at
792: similar redshift. The supernovae distances rely on optical
793: observations for rather short lived events, whereas the
794: the radio galaxy distances rely on radio observations for
795: sources that have lifetimes on the order of millions of years.
796: The methods rely upon measurements of entirely different
797: quantities that are then applied using completely different
798: astrophysical arguments.
799: Thus, any systematic effects are likely to be quite different
800: for the two types of sources. The fact that they yield quite
801: similar results is encouraging.
802:
803: \section{Summary}
804:
805: A sample of thiry radio galaxies was used to determine
806: cosmological parameters and the radio galaxy model
807: parameters $\kappa_{RG}$ and $\beta$
808: in three standard cosmological models. Nearly
809: identical values of $\kappa_{RG}$ and $\beta$ are obtained
810: in each cosmological model indicating that they are not
811: strongly affected by the context in which they are determined
812: (see Tables 1, 2, and 3), thus they can be used to determine
813: the dimensionless coordinate distance to each source.
814:
815: Three supernovae samples are considered both separately and jointly
816: with the radio galaxy sample and are analyzed in the context
817: of three standard cosmological models (see Tables 1, 2, and 3)
818: to determine cosmological parameters and the model parameter
819: $\kappa_{SN}$. Nearly identical values of $\kappa_{SN}$ are
820: obtained for each supernovae sample in the context of
821: each cosmological model, thus they can be used to
822: determine the dimensionless coordinate distance to
823: each source. They can also be used to determine the
824: effective distance modulus
825: to each of the radio galaxies, which can then be combined
826: with those of the supernovae to increase the sample sizes,
827: particularly at high redshift.
828:
829: Constraints on cosmological parameters obtained with radio galaxies
830: are consistent with, though weaker than, those obtained with supernovae
831: alone. There are no inconsistencies between results obtained with
832: radio galaxies and supernovae. For example, in the context of
833: a standard quintessence model,
834: radio galaxies alone indicate
835: that the universe is accelerating today with about 90 \% confidence
836: (see Figure 6). The consistency between results obtained with radio
837: galaxies alone, supernovae alone, and the combined supernovae and
838: radio galaxy samples suggests that neither method is plagued by
839: unknown systematic errors; both methods seem to be working well.
840: The radio galaxy and supernovae methods are completely independent,
841: based on a completely different physics and observations,
842: and provide independent measures of distances to sources at similar redshift.
843: The facts that the cosmological parameters obtained in specific models
844: are consistent, and that the coordinate distances to sources at similar
845: redshift are consistent suggests that systematic errors are not
846: playing a major role in either method.
847:
848:
849: Since nearly identical values of $\kappa_{SN}$, $\kappa_{RG}$, and $\beta$
850: are obtained in each cosmological model, they can be used to solve for
851: the dimensionless coordinate distance to each source, $y$. Values
852: of $y$ to each radio galaxy, obtained using the
853: best fit values of $\kappa_{RG}$
854: and $\beta$ indicated by fits to the joint sample of 192 supernovae and
855: 30 radio galaxies, are listed in Table 4. The best fit
856: values of $y$ listed in Table 4 are combined with the best fit
857: value of $\kappa_{SN}$ obtained for the Davis et al. (2007) sample
858: to obtain the distance modulus to each of the radio galaxies,
859: $\mu_D$, which are listed in Table 4 and which can be added to
860: those already listed in Davis et al. (2007). Similarly, the
861: values of $y$ to the radio galaxies obtained using the best
862: fit values of $\kappa_{RG}$ and $\beta$ indicated by fits to the joint
863: sample of 182 supernovae and 30 radio galaxies were obtained
864: (but are not listed), and were combined with the best fit value of
865: $\kappa_{SN}$ obtained for the Riess et al. (2007) sample to
866: obtain values of $\mu_R$ for the radio galaxies that can be combined
867: with those already listed by Riess et al. (2007).
868: Since nearly identical values of $\kappa_{SN}$, $\kappa_{RG}$,
869: and $\beta$ and their uncertainties are obtained in each cosmological model,
870: the average of the values obtained in the different cosmological models
871: and their uncertainties were used.
872:
873: New constraints were obtained on the model parameter $\alpha$
874: in the rolling scalar field model of Peebles \& Ratra (1988).
875: These constraints are rather strong and indicate that
876: $\alpha$ is close to zero for reasonable values of $\Omega_m$.
877: Thus, a cosmological constant provides a good description of the
878: data, and there is no indication that the energy density of the
879: dark energy is changing with redshift.
880:
881: New constraints were obtained on the radio galaxy model parameter
882: $\beta$, suggesting values of $\beta$ close to 1.5.
883: This is interpreted in the context of a standard magnetic
884: braking model of energy extraction from a rotating black hole
885: (e.g. Blandford 1990). This is a very
886: special value of $\beta$ for which the braking magnetic field
887: strength depends only upon the spin angular momentum per unit
888: mass and the gravitational radius of the black hole. This
889: suggests that when the magnetic field strength reaches this
890: maximum or limiting value,
891: the relativistic outflow is triggered. The fact that the magnetic field
892: strength does not depend explicitly on the black hole mass for
893: this special value of $\beta$ may explain why it is that this
894: paricular type of radio source is able to provide a modified
895: standard yardstick for cosmological studies.
896:
897: We have provided further evidence that radio galaxies can be used to
898: determine coordinate distances to sources, and thus cosmological parameters
899: through a standard angular diameter test.
900: Our comparative study shows that values of cosmological parameters obtained
901: with radio galaxies are consistent with those obtained with supernovae.
902: Supernovae alone and radio galaxies alone both indicate that the
903: universe is accelerating at the current epoch when these data
904: are analyzed in specific models such as a
905: a quintessence
906: model in spatially flat universe, a
907: lambda model in
908: universe that allows for non-zero space curvature, and a rolling scalar field model
909: in a spatially flat universe. All of these models rely upon
910: the equations of General Relativity, and the results obtained in
911: these models would not be correct if General Relativity is not
912: the correct theory of gravity. These data are analyzed in a
913: model-independent way that does not rely upon General Relativity
914: by Daly et al. (2008), who show that the supernovae data alone
915: and the radio galaxy data alone indicate that the universe is
916: accelerating at the current epoch independent of whether
917: General Relativity is the correct theory of gravity.
918: When expressed as coordinate distances, both radio galaxy and supernova
919: samples can be combined, and used in a joint cosmological analysis,
920: as it was done, e.g., by Daly \& Djorgovski (2003, 2004). We use these
921: expanded and combined samples in a separate paper (Daly et al. 2008).
922:
923: \acknowledgements
924: We would like to thank the observers for their tireless efforts in
925: obtaining the data used for this study. We would also like to thank
926: the referee for providing very helpful suggestions on this work.
927: This work was supported in part by U. S. National Science
928: Foundation grants AST-0507465 (R.A.D.) and AST-0407448 (S.G.D.),
929: and the Ajax Foundation (S.G.D.).
930:
931:
932: \begin{references}
933:
934: \reference{} Alexander, P., \& Leahy, J. P., 1987, \mnras, 225, 1
935:
936: \reference{} Alexander, P., 1987, MNRAS, 225, 27
937:
938: \reference{} Antonucci, R., 1993, ARA\&A, 31, 473
939:
940: \reference{} Astier, P., Guy, J., Regnault, N., Pain, R., Aubourg, E.,
941: Balam, D., Basa, S., Carlberg, R. G., Fabbro, S., Fouchez, D., and 32
942: coauthors, 2006, A\&A, 447, 31
943:
944: \reference{} Barai, P., \& Wiita, P. J. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 381
945:
946: \reference{} Barai, P., \& Wiita, P. J. 2007, ApJ, 658, 217
947:
948: \reference{} Barthel, P. D., 1989, ApJ, 336, 606
949:
950: \reference{} Baum, S. A., \& Heckman, T., 1989, \apj, 336, 702
951:
952: \reference{} Begelman, M.C., Blandford, R. D., \& Rees, M. J., 1984,
953: Rev.Mod.Ph., 56, 255
954:
955: \reference{} Begelman, M.C. \& Cioffi, D. F., 1989, ApJ, 345, L21
956:
957: \reference{} Blandford, R. D. 1990, in Active Galactic Nuclei,
958: ed. T. J. L. Courvoisier \& M. Mayor (Berlin: Springer), 161
959:
960: \reference{ } Blandford, R. D., \& Rees, M. J., 1974, MNRAS, 169, 395
961:
962: \reference{ } Blundell, K. M., Rawlings, S., \& Willott, C. J.,
963: 1999, AJ, 117, 677
964:
965: \reference{} Buchalter, A., Helfand, D. J., Becker, R. H., \& White, R. L.
966: 1998, ApJ, 494, 503
967:
968: \reference{} Condon, J. J. 1984a, ApJ, 284, 44
969:
970: \reference{} Condon, J. J. 1984b, ApJ, 287, 461
971:
972: \reference{} Daly, R. A. 1990, ApJ, 355, 416
973:
974: \reference{ } Daly, R. A., 1994, ApJ, 426, 38
975:
976: \reference{} Daly, R. A., \& Djorgovski, S. G. 2003, ApJ, 597, 9
977:
978: \reference{} Daly, R. A., \& Djorgovski, S. G. 2004, ApJ, 612, 652
979:
980: \reference{} Daly, R. A., Djorgovski, S. G., Freeman, K. A., Mory, M. P.,
981: O'Dea, C. P., Kharb, P., \& Baum, S. 2008, ApJ,677, 1
982:
983: \reference{} Daly, R. A., \& Guerra, E. J. 2002, AJ, 124, 1831
984:
985: \reference{} De Young, D. S. 2002, ``The Physics of Extragalactic Radio
986: Sources,'' Chicago: University of Chicago Press
987:
988: \reference{} Dunlop, J. S., \& Peacock, J. A. 1990, MNRAS, 247, 19
989:
990: \reference{} Davis, T. M., Mortsell, E., Sollerman, J.,
991: Becker, A. C., Blondin, S., Challis, P., Clocchiatti, A.,
992: Filippenko, A. V., Foley, R. J., Garnavich, P. M., and 17
993: coauthors, submitted to ApJ, (astro-ph/0701510)
994:
995: \reference{ } Fanaroff, B. L., \& Longair, M. D. 1972, MNRAS, 159, 119
996:
997: \reference{} Gopal-Krishna, \& Wiita, P. J. 1987, MNRAS, 226, 531
998:
999: \reference{} Guerra, E. J., Daly, R. A., \& Wan, L. 2000, ApJ, 544, 659
1000:
1001: \reference{} Gurvits, L. I., Kellerman, K. I., \& Frey, S. 1999, A\&A, 342, 378
1002:
1003: \reference{} Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., Maza, J.,
1004: Suntzeff, N. B., Schommer, R. A., \& Aviles, R.
1005: 1995, AJ, 109, 1
1006:
1007: \reference{} Hoyle, F., \& Burbidge, G. R. 1970, Nature, 227, 359
1008:
1009: \reference{} Jackson, J. C. 2004, JCAP, 11, 7
1010:
1011: \reference{} Jackson, J. C., \& Jannetta, A. L. 2006, JCAP, 11, 2
1012:
1013: \reference{} Jamrozy, M. 2004, A\&A, 419, 63
1014:
1015: \reference{ } Kaiser, C. R., 2000, A\&A, 362, 447
1016:
1017: \reference{} Kaiser, C. R., \& Alexander, P. 1999, MNRAS, 302, 515
1018:
1019: \reference{ } Kapahi, V. K. 1975, MNRAS, 172, 513
1020:
1021: \reference{ } Kapahi, V. K. 1985, MNRAS, 214, 19
1022:
1023:
1024: \reference{} Kayser, R. 1995, A\&A, 294, 21
1025:
1026: \reference{ } Kellerman, K. I. 1972, AJ, 77, 531
1027:
1028: \reference{} Kellerman, K. I. 1993, Nature, 361, 134
1029:
1030: \reference{ } Kharb, P., O'Dea, C. P., Baum, S. A., Daly, R.,
1031: Mory, M., Donahue,
1032: M., \& Guerra, E., 2008, ApJ, in press
1033:
1034: \reference{ } Laing, R. A., Riley, J. M., \& Longair, M. S. 1983,
1035: MNRAS, 204, 151
1036:
1037: \reference{ } Leahy, J. P., Muxlow, T. W. B., \& Stephens, P. W., 1989, MNRAS,
1038: 239, 401
1039:
1040: \reference{ } Leahy, J. P., 1991, in Beams and Jets in Astrophysics, ed. P. A.
1041: Hughes (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge)
1042:
1043: \reference{} Longair, M. S. 1976, Nature, 263, 372
1044:
1045: \reference{} Longair, M. S., \& Pooley, G. G. 1969, MNRAS, 145, 121
1046:
1047: \reference{ } O'Dea, C. P., Daly, R., Kharb, P., Freeman, K. A.,
1048: Baum, S. A., 2007, A\&A, in press
1049:
1050: \reference{} Pelletier, G., \& Roland, J. 1989, A\&A, 224, 24
1051:
1052: \reference{} Perlmutter, S., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
1053:
1054: \reference{} Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJ, 413, L105
1055:
1056: \reference{} Podariu, S., Daly, R. A., Mory, M. P., \& Ratra, B. 2003, ApJ,
1057: 584, 577
1058:
1059: \reference{} Rawlings, S. 2002, in The Universe at Low Radio Frequencies,
1060: Proceedings of IAU Symposium 199
1061: (eds. Rao, Swarup, \& Gopal-Krishna), p. 34
1062:
1063: \reference{} Rawlings, S., \& Saunders, R., 1991, Nature, 349, 138
1064:
1065: \reference{} Ratra, B. \& Peebles, P. J. E. 1988, Phys. Rev. D, 37, 3406
1066:
1067: \reference{} Ratra, B. \& Vogeley, M. S. 2007, astro-ph/0706.1565
1068:
1069: \reference{} Readhead, A. C. S., \& Longair, M. S. 1975, MNRAS, 170, 393
1070:
1071: \reference{} Rees, M. J. 1972, in External Galaxies and Quasi-Stellar
1072: Objects, IAU no. 44 (eds. D. S. Evans, D.Wills, and B. J. Wills), p. 407
1073:
1074: \reference{} Riess, A. G., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
1075:
1076: \reference{} Riess, A. G., Strolger, L. G., Casertano, S., Ferguson, H. C.,
1077: Mobasher, B., Gold, B., Challis, P. J., Filippenko, A. V., Jha, S., Li, W.,
1078: and 11 co-authors, 2007, ApJ, 659, 98
1079:
1080: \reference{} Rowan-Robinson, M. 1967, Nature, 216, 1289
1081:
1082: \reference{} Samushia, L., Chen, G., \& Ratra, B. 2007, astro-ph/0706.1963
1083:
1084: \reference{} Singal, A. K. 1993, MNRAS, 263, 139
1085:
1086: \reference{} Scheuer, P. A. G., 1974, MNRAS, 166, 513
1087:
1088: \reference{} Tegmark, M., Eisenstein, D. J., Strauss, M. A.,
1089: Weinberg, D. H., Blanton, M. R., Frieman, J. A., Fukugita, M.,
1090: Gunn, J. E., Hamilton, A. J. S., Knapp, G. R., et al.
1091: 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 123507
1092:
1093: \reference{} Wall, J. V., Pearson, T. J., \& Longair, M. S. 1980,
1094: MNRAS, 193, 683
1095:
1096: \reference{} Wang, Y., \& Mukherjee, 2007, astro-ph/0703780
1097:
1098: \reference{} Willott, C., Rawlings, S., Blundell, K. M., \& Lacy, M.,
1099: 1999, MNRAS, 309, 1017
1100:
1101: \reference{} Wood-Vasey, W. M., Miknaitis, G., Stubbs, C. W.,
1102: Jha, S., Riess, A. G., Garnavich, P. M., Kirshner, R. P.,
1103: Aguilera, C., Becker, A. C., Blackman, J. W., and 27 co-authors,
1104: submitted (astro-ph/0701041)
1105:
1106: \reference{} Wright, E. L. 2006, astro-ph/0603750
1107:
1108: \reference{} Xu, C., Livio, M., \& Baum, S. A., 1999, AJ, 118, 1169
1109:
1110: \end{references}
1111:
1112: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllll}
1113: \tablewidth{0pt}
1114: \tablecaption{Cosmological Results in a Quintessence Model\label{cosmo}}
1115: \tablehead{
1116: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$w$} & \colhead{$\Omega_m$} & \colhead{$\beta$} &
1117: \colhead{$\kappa_{SN}$} & \colhead{$\kappa_{RG}$}&
1118: \colhead{$\chi^2$/dof}}
1119: \startdata
1120: 30 RG& $-0.87 {}^{+0.3}_{-1.1}$&0-0.25& $1.35 \pm 0.2$&&$9.101 \pm
1121: 0.035$&28.9/26\\
1122: 192SN+30RG&$ -1.08 {}^{+.28}_{-.39}$& $0.29 {}^{+0.08}_{-0.11}$&$1.52 \pm
1123: 0.15$&$43.296 \pm 0.015$&$9.035 \pm 0.035$
1124: &224.4/217\\
1125: 192SN&$-1.14 {}^{+0.29}_{-0.4}$&$0.31 {}^{+0.8}_{-0.1}$&&$43.295 \pm
1126: 0.015$&&194.2/189\\
1127: 182SN+30RG& $-1.66 \pm 0.66$ &$0.45 {}^{+ 0.05}_{-0.08} $&
1128: $1.55 {}^{+.15}_{-0.1}$&$43.356 \pm 0.016$&$9.029 \pm 0.035$
1129: &186.8/207\\
1130: 182SN&$-1.74 \pm 0.74$&$0.46 \pm 0.06$&&$43.354 \pm 0.016$&&155.7/179\\
1131: 115SN+30RG&
1132: $-0.91 {}^{+0.33}_{-0.53}$&$0.22 {}^{+0.16}_{-0.22}$&$1.50 \pm 0.15$&$43.158 \pm
1133: 0.015$&$9.038 \pm 0.035$
1134: &142.6/140\\
1135: 115SN&$-1.08 {}^{+0.44}_{-0.57}$&$0.29 {}^{+0.13}_{-0.26}$&&$43.154 \pm
1136: 0.015$&&112.5/112\\
1137: \enddata
1138: \label{QTable}
1139: \end{deluxetable}
1140:
1141:
1142: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllll}
1143: \tablewidth{0pt}
1144:
1145: \tablecaption{Cosmological Results in a Lambda Model with Space
1146: Curvature\label{cosmo}}
1147: \tablehead{
1148: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$\Omega_{\Lambda}$} & \colhead{$\Omega_m$} &
1149: \colhead{$\beta$} &
1150: \colhead{$\kappa_{SN}$} & \colhead{$\kappa_{RG}$}&
1151: \colhead{$\chi^2$/dof} }
1152: \startdata
1153: 30 RG& $0.85 {}^{+0.4}_{-1.3}$&0-0.24& $1.35 \pm 0.2$&&$9.112 \pm
1154: 0.035$&28.9/26\\
1155: 192SN+30RG&$0.8 \pm 0.18$& $0.30 \pm 0.09$&$1.52 \pm 0.15$&$43.296 \pm
1156: 0.015$&$9.034 \pm 0.035$
1157: &224.4/217\\
1158: 192SN&$0.85 {}^{+0.16}_{-0.19}$&$0.33 {}^{+0.08}_{-0.1}$&&$43.293 \pm
1159: 0.015$&&194.0/189\\
1160: 182SN+30RG& $0.91 {}^{+ 0.16}_{-0.2}$&$0.45 \pm 0.09$&
1161: $1.60 {}^{+.1}_{-0.15}$&$43.365 \pm 0.016$&$9.046 \pm 0.035$
1162: &186.9/207\\
1163: 182SN&$0.96 {}^{+0.16}_{-0.19}$&$0.48 {}^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$&&$43.362 \pm
1164: 0.016$&&155.6/179\\
1165: 115SN+30RG&
1166: $0.69 {}^{+ 0.25}_{-0.32}$&$0.22 {}^{+0.17}_{-0.22}$&$1.50 \pm 0.15$&$43.157 \pm 0.015$&$9.039
1167: \pm 0.035$
1168: &142.6/140\\
1169: 115SN&$0.81 {}^{+0.28}_{-0.32}$&$0.31 {}^{+0.19}_{-0.22}$&&$43.153 \pm
1170: 0.015$&&112.5/112\\
1171:
1172:
1173: \enddata
1174: \label{KTable}
1175: \end{deluxetable}
1176:
1177:
1178: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllll}
1179: \tablewidth{0pt}
1180: \tablecaption{Cosmological Results in a Rolling Scalar Field Model\label{cosmo}}
1181: \tablehead{
1182: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$\alpha$} & \colhead{$\Omega_m$} &
1183: \colhead{$\beta$} &
1184: \colhead{$\kappa_{SN}$} & \colhead{$\kappa_{RG}$}&
1185: \colhead{$\chi^2$/dof}}
1186: \startdata
1187: 30 RG& $0-6.2$&0-0.25& $1.35 {}^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$&&$9.12 \pm 0.035$&29.1/26\\
1188: 192SN+30RG&$ 0 {}^{+1.25}_{-0}$& $0.27 {}^{+0.03}_{-0.12}$&$1.50
1189: {}^{+0.15}_{-0.1}$&$43.301 \pm 0.015$&$9.032 \pm 0.035$
1190: &224.5/217\\
1191: 192SN&$0 {}^{+0.95}_{-0}$&$0.27 {}^{+0.03}_{-0.1}$&&$43.304 \pm
1192: 0.015$&&194.3/189\\
1193: 182SN+30RG& $0 {}^{+0.5}_{-0}$&$0.34 {}^{+0.04}_{-0.07}$&
1194: $1.55 {}^{+0.15}_{-0.1}$&$43.394 \pm 0.016$&$9.009 \pm 0.035$
1195: &188.5/207\\
1196: 182SN&$0 {}^{+0.45}_{-0}$&$0.34 {}^{+0.04}_{-0.06}$&&$43.394 \pm
1197: 0.016$&&157.9/179\\
1198: 115SN+30RG&$ 0.35 {}^{+3.7}_{-0.35}$& $0.21 {}^{+0.08}_{-0.15}$&$1.50 \pm
1199: 0.15$&$43.158 \pm 0.015$&$9.039 \pm 0.035$
1200: &142.6/140\\
1201: 115SN&$0 {}^{+3.85}_{-0}$&$0.26 {}^{+0.04}_{-0.21}$&&$43.156 \pm
1202: 0.015$&&112.6/112\\
1203: \enddata
1204: \label{RTable}
1205: \end{deluxetable}
1206:
1207: \begin{deluxetable}{llllllll}
1208: \tablewidth{0pt}
1209: \tablecaption{Distances and Distance Moduli to 30 Radio Galaxies}
1210: \tablehead{
1211: \colhead{Source} & \colhead{z} & \colhead{$y$} & \colhead{$\sigma_y$} &
1212: \colhead{$\mu_D$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\mu(D)}$}&
1213: \colhead{$\mu_R$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\mu(R)}$} }
1214: \startdata
1215: 3C 239 &1.790 &1.37 &0.34 &46.20 & 0.54 & 46.12 &0.52 \\
1216: 3C 322 &1.681 &1.31 &0.34 &46.02 & 0.56 & 45.95 &0.54 \\
1217: 3C 68.2 &1.575 &1.57 &0.49 &46.34 & 0.67 & 46.26 &0.65 \\
1218: 3C 437 &1.480 &0.93 &0.27 &45.11 & 0.63 & 45.05 &0.61 \\
1219: 3C469.1 &1.336 &1.14 &0.33 &45.42 & 0.62 & 45.41 &0.60 \\
1220: 3C 324 &1.210 &1.02 &0.31 &45.06 & 0.66 & 45.07 &0.64 \\
1221: 3C 194 &1.190 &1.01 &0.20 &45.01 & 0.44 & 45.07 &0.43 \\
1222: 3C 267 &1.144 &0.71 &0.14 &44.22 & 0.42 & 44.22 &0.41 \\
1223: 3C 356 &1.079 &0.87 &0.18 &44.59 & 0.46 & 44.57 &0.44 \\
1224: 3C 280 &0.996 &0.65 &0.12 &43.85 & 0.41 & 43.89 &0.40 \\
1225: 3C 268.1&0.974 &0.75 &0.14 &44.14 & 0.42 & 44.14 &0.40 \\
1226: 3C 289 &0.967 &0.59 &0.11 &43.64 & 0.40 & 43.67 &0.39 \\
1227: 3C 325 &0.860 &0.71 &0.13 &43.89 & 0.40 & 43.92 &0.39 \\
1228: 3C6.1 &0.840 &0.74 &0.09 &43.97 & 0.25 & 43.99 &0.24 \\
1229: 3C54 &0.827 &0.76 &0.08 &44.00 & 0.24 & 44.02 &0.23 \\
1230: 3C114 &0.815 &0.64 &0.07 &43.61 & 0.24 & 43.62 &0.23 \\
1231: 3C 265 &0.811 &0.59 &0.08 &43.44 & 0.29 & 43.48 &0.28 \\
1232: 3C41 &0.794 &0.63 &0.07 &43.57 & 0.25 & 43.63 &0.24 \\
1233: 3C 247 &0.749 &0.54 &0.07 &43.18 & 0.27 & 43.24 &0.27 \\
1234: 3C 55 &0.720 &0.59 &0.08 &43.31 & 0.29 & 43.30 &0.28 \\
1235: 3C441 &0.707 &0.53 &0.07 &43.10 & 0.27 & 43.12 &0.26 \\
1236: 3C34 &0.690 &0.59 &0.06 &43.30 & 0.24 & 43.31 &0.23 \\
1237: 3C44 &0.660 &0.76 &0.08 &43.81 & 0.24 & 43.80 &0.23 \\
1238: 3C169.1 &0.633 &0.62 &0.07 &43.33 & 0.25 & 43.36 &0.24 \\
1239: 3C 337 &0.630 &0.51 &0.07 &42.88 & 0.30 & 42.94 &0.29 \\
1240: 3C 330 &0.549 &0.34 &0.07 &41.92 & 0.41 & 41.96 &0.40 \\
1241: 3C172 &0.519 &0.66 &0.14 &43.31 & 0.45 & 43.30 &0.43 \\
1242: 3C 244.1&0.430 &0.36 &0.07 &41.87 & 0.40 & 41.95 &0.39 \\
1243: 3C142.1 &0.406 &0.33 &0.06 &41.65 & 0.40 & 41.69 &0.38 \\
1244: 3C 405 &0.056 &0.05 &0.01 &36.97 & 0.44 & 37.02 &0.43 \\
1245: \enddata
1246: \tablecomments{Values of $\mu_D$ were obtained for the radio galaxies using
1247: the best fit values of $\kappa_{SN}$, $\kappa_{RG}$, and $\beta$ obtained from
1248: the joint 192 supernovae and 30 radio
1249: galaxy fits, using the average of the values of these
1250: parameters listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
1251: Similarly,
1252: values of $\mu_R$ were obtained using the best fit values
1253: of $\kappa_{SN}$, $\kappa_{RG}$, and $\beta$
1254: obtained from the
1255: joint fits to 182 supernovae and 30 radio galaxies, using the
1256: average of the values listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3. }
1257: \label{yTable}
1258: \end{deluxetable}
1259:
1260:
1261:
1262: \begin{figure}
1263: \plotone{f1.eps}
1264: \caption{Values of $D_*$ and the ratio
1265: $\langle D \rangle/D_*$ for the 30 radio galaxies obtained using the
1266: the best fit parameters of the quintessence model for
1267: radio galaxies alone and normalized using the best fit value
1268: of $\kappa_{RG}$. }
1269: \label{dstar}
1270: \end{figure}
1271: \clearpage
1272:
1273:
1274: \begin{figure}
1275: \plotone{f2.eps}
1276: \caption{Constraints on the equation of state parameter w and $\Omega_m$
1277: obtained in a spatially flat
1278: quintessence model with 30 radio galaxies alone (dashed lines)
1279: overlayed
1280: with those obtained with
1281: the combined sample of 192 supernovae and 30 radio galaxies
1282: (solid contours). The solid line
1283: separates an accelerating from a decelerating universe; points below
1284: the line are parameter values for which the universe is accelerating
1285: at the current epoch in this model. }
1286: \label{Q30rgommw}
1287: \end{figure}
1288: \clearpage
1289:
1290: \begin{figure}
1291: \plotone{f3.eps}
1292: \caption{As in Figure \ref{Q30rgommw} for the parameters
1293: $\beta$ and $\Omega_m$. }
1294: \label{Q192snp30rgbomm}
1295: \end{figure}
1296: \clearpage
1297:
1298:
1299: \begin{figure}
1300: \plotone{f4.eps}
1301: \caption{As in Figure \ref{Q30rgommw} for the parameters
1302: $\beta$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$.}
1303: \label{Q192snp30rgbomL}
1304: \end{figure}
1305: \clearpage
1306:
1307:
1308: \begin{figure}
1309: \plotone{f5.eps}
1310: \caption{As in Figure \ref{Q30rgommw} for the parameters
1311: $\beta$ and $w$.}
1312: \label{Q192snp30rgbw}
1313: \end{figure}
1314: \clearpage
1315:
1316: \begin{figure}
1317: \plotone{f6.eps}
1318: \caption{Constraints obtained with 30 radio galaxies alone
1319: (indicated by dashed lines) overlayed
1320: with those obtained with
1321: the combined sample of 192 supernovae and 30 radio galaxies
1322: (indicated by solid contours)
1323: in a model
1324: that allows for space curvature, non-relativistic matter, and a cosmological
1325: constant.}
1326: \label{KrgsnPrgommomL}
1327: \end{figure}
1328: \clearpage
1329:
1330: \begin{figure}
1331: \plotone{f7.eps}
1332: \caption{As in Figure \ref{KrgsnPrgommomL} for the parameters
1333: $\beta$ and $\Omega_m$.}
1334: \label{KrgsnPrgbomm}
1335: \end{figure}
1336: \clearpage
1337:
1338: \begin{figure}
1339: \plotone{f8.eps}
1340: \caption{As in Figure \ref{KrgsnPrgommomL} for the parameters $\beta$ and
1341: $\Omega_{\Lambda}$.}
1342: \label{K192snp30rgbomL}
1343: \end{figure}
1344:
1345: \begin{figure}
1346: \plotone{f9.eps}
1347: \caption{As in Figure \ref{KrgsnPrgommomL} for
1348: the parameters
1349: $\beta$ and $\Omega_{k}$.}
1350: \label{K192snp30rgbomk}
1351: \end{figure}
1352:
1353:
1354: \begin{figure}
1355: \plotone{f10.eps}
1356: \caption{Constraints
1357: obtained in a spatially flat rolling scalar field model
1358: with 30 radio galaxies alone (dashed lines)
1359: overlayed
1360: with those obtained with
1361: the combined sample of 192 supernovae and 30 radio galaxies
1362: (solid contours) on the
1363: model parameter $\alpha$ and
1364: $\Omega_m$.}
1365: \label{A30rgp192SNommalpha}
1366: \end{figure}
1367: \clearpage
1368:
1369: \begin{figure}
1370: \plotone{f11.eps}
1371: \caption{Dimensionless coordinate distances to 30 radio galaxies compared with
1372: those to the 192 supernovae of Davis et al. (2007). The dashed curve indicates
1373: y(z) expected in a flat matter dominated universe with $\Omega_m=1$, and the
1374: solid curve indicates that expected in a flat lambda dominated universe
1375: with $\Omega_m = 0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$; note that $y(z)$ is
1376: independent of $H_0$. Clearly, the data are
1377: well described by a cosmological constant with $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$. }
1378: \label{yofz}
1379: \end{figure}
1380: \clearpage
1381:
1382:
1383: \end{document}
1384:
1385: