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{Acceleration History of the Universe}
14: \shortauthors{Daly et al.}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \title{Improved Constraints on the Acceleration History of the Universe and the Properties of the Dark Energy}
19: \author{Ruth A. Daly\altaffilmark{~}}
20: \affil{Department of Physics, Penn State University, Berks Campus, P. O.
21: Box 7009, Reading, PA 19610}
22: \email{rdaly@psu.edu}
23: \author{S. G. Djorgovski\altaffilmark{~}}
24: \affil{Division of Physics, Mathematics, and Astronomy,
25: California Institute of Technology, MS 105-24,
26: Pasadena, CA 91125}
27: \author{Kenneth A. Freeman, Matthew P. Mory}
28: \affil{Department of Physics, Penn State University, Berks Campus, P. O.
29: Box 7009, Reading, PA 19610}
30: \author{C. P. O'Dea, P. Kharb, \& S. Baum\altaffilmark{~}}
31: \affil{Rochester Institute of Technology, 54 Lomb Memorial Drive,
32: Rochester, NY 14623}
33:
34:
35: %\altaffiltext{1}{Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623}
36: %\altaffiltext{2}{Penn State University}
37: %\altaffiltext{3}{Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218}
38: %\altaffiltext{4}{Rowan University}
39:
40: \eject
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43: We extend and apply a model-independent analysis method developed earlier by
44: Daly \& Djorgovski to new samples of supernova standard candles,
45: radio galaxy and cluster standard rulers, and use it to constrain physical
46: properties of the dark energy as functions of redshift.
47: Similar results are obtained for the radio galaxy and supernova
48: data sets, which rely upon completely independent methods,
49: suggesting that systematic errors are relatively small for
50: both types of distances; distances to SZ clusters show a scatter
51: which cannot be explained by the quoted measurement errors.
52: The first and second derivatives of the distance are
53: compared directly with predictions in a standard model
54: based on General Relativity. The good agreement indicates
55: that General Relativity provides an accurate description of
56: the data on look-back time scales of about
57: ten billion years.
58: The first and second derivatives are combined to
59: obtain the acceleration parameter $q(z)$, assuming only
60: the validity of the Robertson-Walker metric,
61: independent of a theory of gravity and of the physical nature of the dark energy.
62: The data are analyzed using a sliding window fit and
63: using fits in independent redshift bins.
64: The acceleration of the universe at the
65: current epoch is indicated by the sliding window fit
66: analysis.
67: The effect of non-zero space
68: curvature on $q(z)$ is explored; for a plausible range of values of $\Omega_k$
69: the effect is small and
70: causes a to shift to the redshift at which the universe
71: transitions from deceleration to acceleration.
72: We solve for the pressure, energy density, equation
73: of state, and potential and kinetic energy of the dark energy
74: as functions of redshift assuming that General Relativity is
75: the correct theory of gravity. Results obtained
76: using a sliding window fit indicate that a cosmological constant in
77: a spatially flat universe provides a good description of
78: each of these quantities over the redshift range from zero to about
79: one. We define a new function, the dark energy indicator, in terms
80: of the first and second derivatives of the coordinate distance
81: and show how this can be used
82: to measure deviations of $w$ from $-1$ and to
83: obtain a new and independent measure of $\Omega_m$.
84:
85:
86: \end{abstract}
87:
88: \keywords{cosmological parameters - cosmology: observations - cosmology: theory - dark matter -equation of state}
89:
90: \eject
91:
92: \section{INTRODUCTION}
93:
94: Understanding of the physical nature of the dark energy which appears to be
95: driving the accelerated expansion of the universe is
96: among the most pressing and important topics
97: in cosmology today. Studies of the
98: expansion history of the universe allow us to
99: constrain the physical nature of its matter and energy constituents.
100: One way that the expansion and acceleration history of the
101: universe can be studied is through the use of a set of
102: coordinate distances and redshifts for some standard set of objects.
103: Type Ia supernovae provide a modified standard candle
104: (e.g. Phillips 1993, Hamuy et al. 1995)
105: that allow the
106: distance modulus, luminosity distance, and
107: coordinate distance to each source to be determined.
108: The recent data sets presented by Astier et al. (2006),
109: Riess et al. (2007), Wood-Vasey et al. (2007), and
110: Davis et al. (2007) have been analyzed by these groups
111: and compared with numerous models by other researchers.
112:
113: In a novel, largely model-independent approach to this problem, it
114: was shown by Daly \& Djorgovski (2003) that the first and
115: second derivatives of the coordinate distance with respect
116: to redshift could be obtained from the coordinate distances
117: and combined to solve for the expansion rate $H(z)/H_0$ and
118: acceleration rate $q(z)$ of the universe. The
119: functions $H(y^{\prime})$ and $q(y^{\prime},y^{\prime \prime})$
120: are exact, that is, they are not obtained by expansions in
121: terms of derivatives about some point.
122: The only assumptions are that the universe is described by
123: a Robertson-Walker metric and has zero space curvature.
124: The results are independent of the contents of the
125: universe and their physical properties,
126: and even independent of whether General Relativity
127: provides an accurate description of the universe.
128: Here, we drop the assumption of
129: zero space curvature; it turns out that the deceleration parameter
130: at a redshift of zero, $q_0$, remains the same, independent
131: of whether space curvature is zero or not.
132:
133: In this paper we expand on the previous analysis done by
134: Daly \& Djorgovski (2003, 2004). First, we use updated and expanded
135: data sets, as described in section 2.1. Second, we introduce
136: a more direct way to compare the model-independent results
137: obtained from the data with predictions; this is done
138: by directly comparing
139: the first and second derivatives of the coordinate distance
140: with respect to redshift
141: to predicted values in various models, as described in
142: section 2.2. Third, we analyze the data using both a
143: sliding window fit and fits in independent redshift bins.
144: To solve for the physical properties of the dark energy as functions
145: of redshift, a theory of gravity must be specified.
146: To determine the properties of the dark energy, General
147: Relativity is taken to be the correct theory of gravity, allowing
148: us to solve for the pressure, energy density, and equation of
149: state of the
150: dark energy as a function of
151: redshift in section 2.4. Fourth, in section 2.4, we introduce a way
152: to solve for the potential and kinetic energy densities of the dark energy
153: as functions of redshift. In addition, we define a new function,
154: the dark energy indicator, which provides a measure of deviations
155: of $w$ from $-1$ and a new and independent measure of $\Omega_m$.
156: Fifth, in section 2.3, these derivatives are combined
157: to solve for the expansion and acceleration rates of the
158: universe as functions of redshift for both zero and non-zero
159: space curvature; in our previous work we have not considered
160: the effects of non-zero space curvature.
161: The only assumption that must be made to
162: obtain the functions $H(z)/H_0$ and $q(z)$ from the data are
163: that the Robertson-Walker metric is valid in our universe.
164: A discussion and conclusions follow
165: in section 3.
166:
167:
168: \section{DATA AND ANALYSIS}
169:
170: \subsection{Data sets used}
171:
172: We consider three types of distances: those determined from luminosity
173: distances to supernova standard candles (SN), those determined from
174: the angular diameter distances to radio galaxies (RG), and those
175: determined to clusters of galaxies with SZ measurements of angular
176: diameter distances (CL).
177:
178: The SN samples include those of Davis et al. (2007),
179: Riess et al. (2007), and Astier et al. (2006); these authors provide
180: the pertinent details about their measurements.
181: There is some overlap between these supernovae samples, and
182: this comparison allows the effects of different samples
183: and sub-samples to be seen.
184: In addition,
185: a comparison between the values of $y(z)$, $y^{\prime}(z)$,
186: and $y^{\prime \prime}(z)$ for the different samples goes hand in
187: hand with a comparison of the best fit parameter values obtained
188: in different models for these same samples,
189: described by Daly et al. (2007).
190: The 71 new supernovae presented by Astier et al. (2006) are
191: included in both the Riess et al. (2007) and Davis et al. (2007) samples,
192: and the high-redshift HST supernovae of Riess et al. (2007) are
193: included in Davis et al. (2007) sample which, otherwise, includes
194: only ESSENCE supernovae and low-redshift supernovae. These
195: comparisons can be quite helpful, as illustrated by the
196: work on Nesseris \& Perivolaropoulos (2006).
197:
198: The dimensionless coordinate distances $y$ to supernovae
199: can be
200: obtained from the published distance moduli $\mu$ using the best
201: fit value of $\kappa_{SN}$ and the relations
202: $\mu = \kappa_{SN}+5log10[y(1+z)]$
203: and $\sigma_y =y \sigma_{\mu} (ln(10)/5)$. There are several
204: ways to determine $\kappa_{SN}=25-5log10(H_0/c)$ for
205: published data sets that do not indicate the effective value of
206: $H_0$ adopted to obtain $\mu$; the different
207: methods provide values of $\kappa_{SN}$ that are in good
208: agreement.
209: Here, we use the best fit value
210: of $\kappa_{SN}$ obtained by Daly et al. (2007).
211: In the cases where a value of $H_0$ is included in
212: the publication of the values of $\mu$ (e.g. Astier et al.
213: 2006) the value of $H_0$ adopted by Astier et al. (2006)
214: is recovered to very high accuracy.
215:
216: We use the new RG sample of Daly et al. (2007); eleven new
217: radio galaxies were observed and analyzed, which increases the
218: sample size to 30 radio galaxies with redshifts between zero
219: and about 1.8.
220:
221: Finally, we also use the angular diameter distances to a sample of
222: 38 clusters determined with the SZ measurements by
223: Bonamente et al. (2006). The angular diameter distances $d_A$
224: obtained by Bonamente et al. (2006) for the hydrostatic equilibrium
225: model were used. To convert from the angular
226: diameter distance to the dimensionless coordinate distance
227: we need to remove the value of $H_0$ that was adopted
228: by Bonamente et al. (2006), so we use
229: their best fit value of $H_0$ of
230: $76.9 {}^{+3.9}_{-3.4}$ to obtain the dimensionless coordinate
231: distance $y$ to each of their clusters using the well-known relations
232: $d_A = (a_0r)/(1+z)$ and $y = (H_0/c)(a_0r)$.
233:
234: After a detailed comparison between the SN and RG samples, we
235: combine the Davis et al. (2007) supernovae sample with the
236: Daly et al. (2007) radio galaxy sample, and study the combined
237: sample of 222 sources.
238: Dimensionless
239: coordinate distances $y$ and their uncertainties $\sigma(y)$
240: are obtained for these samples as described by Daly et al. (2007),
241: and are listed here in Table 1.
242: We also study results obtained by adding the cluster
243: sample of Bonamente et al. (2006) to obtain a sample of 260
244: sources, and these distances are also included in Table 1.
245: Figure 1 shows a comparison of the distances for these three data sets
246: relative to the standard Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) model
247: with $\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$.
248: A comparison of each data set with the standard LCDM model
249: indicates
250: that both the SN and RG data sets provide reliable cosmology probes,
251: while the SZ Cluster method perhaps need some refinement; the reduced
252: chi-square for the SN and RG is about one, as expected from the quoted
253: measurement errors, whereas that for the
254: SZ Clusters is greater than two, suggesting that the quoted errors
255: substantially underestimate the true uncertainties of these
256: distance measurements. However, to illustrate how our
257: method can be applied to coordinate distances obtained using
258: different methods, we consider the analysis of the full sample of
259: 260 sources as well as the analysis of the sample of 222 SN and RG.
260:
261: \subsection{Determinations of $y^{\prime}$ and $y^{\prime \prime}$}
262:
263: The distances $y$ to each source
264: are used to obtain the distance $y(z)$ to any redshift within the
265: redshift range of the sample, and first
266: and second derivatives of the distance with respect to redshift,
267: $y^{\prime}(z)$ and $y^{\prime \prime}(z)$ and their uncertainties
268: using the method of Daly \& Djorgovski (2003, 2004).
269:
270: In previous work, we have used $y^{\prime}$ and $y^{\prime \prime}$
271: to obtain $E(z) = H(z)/H_0$ and $q(z)$. We then compared our
272: empirically determined functions $E(z)$ and $q(z)$ with predictions
273: in different models. However, it is also possible to compare our
274: empirically determined functions
275: $y^{\prime}(z)$ and $y^{\prime \prime}(z)$
276: directly with model predictions for these quantities.
277: The predicted values of these quantities are labeled
278: $y_p^{\prime}$ and $y_p^{\prime \prime}$.
279:
280: For a universe with non-relativistic matter
281: with mean mass energy density
282: $\Omega_m(1+z)^3$, mean dark energy density $\Omega_{DE}f(z)$, and
283: space curvature $k$
284: in which Einstein's Equations apply, we have, in full generality,
285: the predicted values of $y^{\prime}$,
286: $y_p^{\prime}$,
287: and $y^{\prime \prime}$, $y_p^{\prime \prime}$ are given by
288: \begin{equation}y_p^{\prime} = \left({1+\Omega_k~y_p^2 \over \Omega_m(1+z)^3 +\Omega_{DE}f(z)+
289: \Omega_k(1+z)^2}\right)^{1/2}
290: \end{equation}
291: and
292: \begin{equation}y_p^{\prime \prime} = {y_p^{\prime} \over (1+z)} \left({\Omega_k~y_p~y_p^{\prime}~(1+z) \over (1+\Omega_ky_p^2)}-1.5{[\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{DE}(1+w)f(z)+(2/3)\Omega_k(1+z)^2] \over [\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{DE}f(z)+\Omega_k(1+z)^2]}
293: \right)
294: \end{equation}
295: where $\Omega_k = -k/(H_0a_0)^2$, $\Omega_m=\rho_{0m}/\rho_{0c}$
296: is the zero redshift value of the mean mass density of non-relativistic
297: matter relative to the critical density,
298: $\Omega_m+\Omega_{DE}+\Omega_k =1$, and
299: $y_p = \int_0^z y_p^{\prime} dz$ is obtained by numerically
300: integrating eq. (1). This derivation does not assume
301: that $w=P_{DE}/\rho_{DE}$, is constant, and allows for variable $w(z)$.
302: The function $f(z)$ describes the
303: redshift evolution of the energy density of the dark energy;
304: in a
305: quintessence model with constant equation of state $w = P_{DE}/\rho_{DE}$,
306: $f(z) = (1+z)^{3(1+w)}$,
307: and for a cosmological constant $f(z) = 1 $.
308:
309: The data were analyzed using a sliding window fit, described
310: in section 2.2.1, and using fits in independent redshift bins, described
311: in section 2.2.2.
312:
313: \subsubsection{Results Obtained with a Sliding Window Fit}
314:
315: Fits are done using the window $\Delta z = 0.6$ throughout
316: for the SN data, $\Delta z = 0.8$ for the RG data, when considered
317: individually, and $\Delta z = 0.6$ for the joint samples using
318: the method described by Daly \& Djorgovski (2003, 2004).
319: The width of the fitting window is driven by the need to obtain
320: useful confidence intervals for the fits by including a sufficient number
321: of data points. As the size of the available data sets increases in
322: the future, this width could be correspondingly narrowed.
323: In decreasing the window function width from 0.6 to 0.5 and 0.4,
324: the trends and overall results remain the same, the uncertainties
325: increase (because there are fewer data points in the window),
326: and the trends become more noisy (due to sparser sampling).
327: In addition, to test whether the window function has an effect
328: on the trends extracted from the data we created a mock data set
329: with the same number and redshift distribution of points as in each
330: data set and the same fractional error per point, but with $y$ values
331: obtained from a standard LCDM cosmology with $\Omega_m = 0.3$ and
332: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ and ran it through the programs to extract
333: $y(z)$, $y^{\prime}(z)$, and $y^{\prime \prime}(z)$. As expected,
334: the uncertainties increase as the window width decreases due to the
335: smaller number of data points in the window. For a window widths
336: of 0.3 and 0.4 in redshift, $y(z)$, $y^{\prime}(z)$,
337: $y^{\prime \prime}(z)$, and $q(z)$ match the input cosmology to
338: very high precision. For widths of 0.5 and 0.6, there is a very slight
339: offset of $y^{\prime \prime}(z)$ and $q(z)$ from the input cosmology
340: that sets in above redshifts of about one, at
341: a level that is very small compared with the uncertainties.
342: Thus, the values of $y(z)$, $y^{\prime}(z)$, $y^{\prime \prime}(z)$,
343: and $q(z)$, and quantities obtained by combining these quantities,
344: provide reliable determinations to redshifts well above one.
345:
346: Our completely model-independent determinations of $y(z)$,
347: $y^{\prime}(z)$, and $y^{\prime \prime}(z)$ are shown
348: in Figures \ref{yofz} through \ref{d2ydz2192}. In Figures
349: \ref{yofz}, \ref{dydz}, and \ref{d2ydz2}, they are compared
350: with the predicted value in a spatially flat universe, described by
351: General Relativity with
352: a cosmological constant $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, and non-relativistic
353: matter $\Omega_m = 0.3$. This provides a reasonable description
354: of the data to redshift of about one or so for the supernovae
355: and 1.5 or so for the radio galaxies. (We note that this is not a
356: model fit, but simply an illustration of its compatibility with the data.)
357:
358: The values of $y^{\prime}(z)$ and $y^{\prime \prime}(z)$
359: obtained for the Davis et al. (2007) supernova sample are compared with
360: the best fit model parameters obtained in a
361: spatially flat quintessence model, a lambda model that allows for
362: non-zero space curvature, and the standard LCDM model in Figures
363: \ref{dydz192} and \ref{d2ydz2192}
364: using the best fit model parameters listed by Daly et al. (2007).
365: The best fit model parameters are obtained by fitting the data
366: to a model, and each model is based upon General Relativity.
367: A comparison of the first and second derivatives of $y$ with
368: those predicted in each of the models provides another way
369: to see whether the model predictions provide a good description of
370: the data. The models and best fit model parameters are shown for
371: a lambda model that allows for non-zero space curvature, and
372: a quintessence model.
373:
374:
375: Fig. \ref{d2ydz2} shows $y^{\prime \prime}$ for each of the samples.
376: The canonical LCDM model provides a good description of the radio
377: galaxy data over the redshift range from zero to 1.5.
378:
379: The comparison between the values of $y^{\prime}$ and $y^{\prime \prime}$
380: determined directly from the data with those predicted in a
381: standard LCDM model that relies upon the equations of General
382: Relativity provides effectively a large-scale test of General Relativity.
383: The good agreement obtained indicates that General Relativity
384: provides a good description of the data on time scales (and the corresponding
385: length scales) of about ten billion years.
386:
387: For the Davis et al. (2007) sample of 192 supernovae, the best fit
388: models track $y^{\prime}$ and $y^{\prime \prime}$ to a redshift of
389: about 1.2 or so, beyond which the data drops away from the model
390: prediction (see Figs. \ref{dydz192} and \ref{d2ydz2192}).
391: Curves expected for the
392: best fit parameters obtained in a quintessence model
393: and
394: cosmological constant model with space curvature
395: by fitting $y(z)$,
396: obtained by Daly et al. (2007), are shown as well as
397: a standard LCDM model. For $y^{\prime}$ all three curves
398: fit well, and some differences emerge for $y^{\prime \prime}$;
399: in particular, the curve with non-zero space curvature does
400: not fit the data well at low redshift.
401:
402:
403: \subsubsection{Results Obtained With Fits in Independent Redshift Bins}
404:
405: Our sliding window fit method produces fit values which are strongly
406: correlated over the redshift range corresponding to the fitting window,
407: and are thus indicative of trends, but cannot be used simply to evaluate
408: a statistical significance of any particular model. For that, we would need
409: independent values at different redshifts. To this effect, we divided the
410: data sample in a number of independent redshift bins (note: the data are
411: $not$ binned or averaged, the sample is divided in groups of points
412: belonging to non-overlaping redshift bins). One drawback of this approach
413: is that the numbers of data points in each bin are smaller, and thus the
414: fit values are noisier. Another drawback is that the boundary values of
415: the fits are not constrained, allowing for discontinuities in the values of
416: $y(z)$, $y^\prime(z)$, and $y^{\prime\prime}(z)$ at the bin boundaries, which
417: physically makes no sense. This is the price of the statistical independence.
418:
419: The dimensionless coordinate distances to the
420: 192 supernovae of Davis et al. (2007) were combined with those
421: to the 30 radio galaxies of Daly et al. (2007) to obtain a sample
422: of 222 sources with redshift between 0.016 and 1.79.
423: These data were divided into bins based on the redshifts of the points
424: to be able to obtain independent
425: determinations of $y^{\prime}$ and $y^{\prime \prime}$ and their uncertainties.
426: The data were divided into redshift bins with roughly equal numbers of points
427: per bin. We considered 2 bins with 111 points each;
428: 3 bins with 74 points each; 4 bins with 55 points in the first three
429: bins and 57 points in the highest redshift bin;
430: and 6 bins with 37 points each. The bin, number of points per bin,
431: median redshift of the points in the bin, and the minimum and maximum
432: redshift of points within the bin are listed in Table \ref{binresults}.
433: Points in each bin were
434: used to determine the values of $y^{\prime}$ and $y^{\prime \prime}$
435: and their uncertainties at the median redshift of the bin.
436:
437: The results for $y^{\prime}$ are shown in Figure \ref{yprimebin}
438: for 3, 4, and 6 bins; the redshift range of the points that went into
439: the determination of $y^{\prime}$ at the median redshift $z_{med}$ are
440: indicated by the horizontal lines. Three theoretical curves are included
441: on the figure. The dotted line is the curve predicted by the standard
442: LCDM model with $\Omega_m = 0.3$, and the other two curves, which are
443: nearly identical are those predicted in the Cardassian model
444: (Freese \& Lewis 2002) and the generalized Chaplygin gas model
445: (Kamenshchik, Moschella, \& Pasquier 2001; Bilic, Tupper, \& Viollier 2002;
446: and Bento, Bertolami, \& Sen 2002) are shown for the best fit parameters
447: obtained by Bento et al. (2005) assuming a spatially flat universe.
448:
449: The results obtained
450: for $y^{\prime \prime}$
451: are shown in Figure \ref{yprimeprimebin} for 2 and 3 bins.
452: The full set of results are listed in Table \ref{binresults}.
453: Given the noise inherent in the data that is presently available,
454: it is not possible to obtain
455: meaningful results for $y^{\prime \prime}$
456: with a larger number of independent bins. With more data,
457: we will be able to obtain this quantity in a larger number of
458: independent redshift bins.
459:
460: \subsection{Determinations of $H(z)/H_0$ and $q(z)$ for Zero Space Curvature}
461:
462: The dimensionless expansion rate $E(z) \equiv
463: H(z)/H_0$ and the deceleration parameter
464: $q(z)$ can be constructed directly from the fist and second derivatives
465: of the coordinate distance $y^{\prime}$ and $y^{\prime \prime}$,
466: as discussed in detail by Daly \& Djorgovski (2003).
467: The relationship between $E(z)$ and $y^{\prime}$, and that
468: between $q(z)$ and $y^{\prime}$ and $y^{\prime \prime}$ are
469: exact; they do not represent expansions about some point.
470: The only
471: requirement to derive these exact relationships
472: is that the most the Robertson-Walker line
473: element applies in our universe. With this assumption alone,
474: it can be shown that
475: \begin{equation}
476: H(z)/H_0 = (y^{\prime})^{-1}~(1+\Omega_k y^2)^{1/2}
477: \label{H}
478: \end{equation}
479: (e.g. Weinberg 1972), and
480: \begin{equation}
481: q(z) = -1-(1+z)~y^{\prime \prime} ~(y^{\prime})^{-1} + \Omega_k y y^{\prime}
482: (1+z)/(1+\Omega_k ~y^2)
483: \label{q}
484: \end{equation} (Daly \& Djorgovski 2003), where
485: $H(z)/H_0 \equiv (\dot{a}/a)^2$, $q(z) \equiv - (\ddot{a}a)/(\dot{a})^2$,
486: $\Omega_k \equiv -k/(H_0a_0)^2$, and $k$ is positive
487: and $\Omega_k$ is negative when space
488: curvature is positive.
489: Thus, the zero redshift value of
490: $q(z=0)= -1-(y^{\prime \prime}/y^{\prime})\mid_{z=0}$ is
491: independent of space curvature, as is $E_0 = (1/y^{\prime})\mid_{z=0}$
492: since $y=0$ at $z=0$. Thus, the zero redshift values of $E(z)$ and
493: $q(z)$ obtained from $y^{\prime}$ and $y^{\prime \prime}$
494: are independent of space curvature. And, the zero redshift
495: value of $q$ indicates whether the universe is accelerating
496: at the current epoch and can be determined independent of $\Omega_k$.
497:
498: \subsubsection{Results Obtained with a Sliding Window Fit}
499:
500: The data and analysis described in section 2.2.1 were used
501: to obtain
502: $H(z)/H_0$ and $q(z)$ using equations \ref{H}
503: and \ref{q}. The resuls are shown in Figures
504: \ref{yEsnprg} and \ref{qsnprg} for the
505: combined sample of 222 sources described above.
506: The results confirm that the universe
507: is accelerating at the current epoch.
508: For the Davis et al. (2007) sample of 192 supernovae,
509: we find a zero redshift value of $q$ are
510: $q_0(192SN)= -0.48 \pm 0.11$. For the
511: radio galaxies, we find $q_0(30RG)= -0.65 \pm 0.5$,
512: consistent with the results obtained using supernovae.
513: Again, these results depend only upon the
514: form of the Robertson-Walker line element and are independent of
515: space curvature, whether General Relativity is the correct theory
516: of gravity, and the content or evolution of the contents of the universe.
517: For $k=0$, the redshift at which the universe transitions from
518: acceleration to deceleration for the Davis et al. (2007)
519: sample of 192 SN $z_T = 0.77 \pm 0.1$.
520:
521:
522: We investigated the effect of the size of the window function of
523: the value of $q_0$ and the transition redshift for the combined
524: sample of 192 supernovae and 30
525: radio galaxies. For a window function of width
526: 0.6 in redshift, we obtain $q_0 = -0.48 \pm 0.11$, and a transition
527: redshift $z_T = 0.78 {}^{+0.08}_{-0.27}$; for a window function
528: of width 0.5 in redshift, we obtain $q_0 = -0.37 \pm 0.13$, and
529: a transition redshift $z_T = 0.79 \pm 0.15$; and for a window function
530: of width 0.4, we obtain $q_0 = -0.30 \pm 0.18$, and $z_T = 0.71 \pm 0.37$.
531: These numbers are all consistent, though the uncertainties increase
532: as the size of the window function decreases since then fewer points
533: are used to determine each quantity.
534: It is important to increase the number of data points at all redshifts
535: to that the size of the window function can be decreased.
536: These transition redshifts are consistent with those obtained
537: by Melchiorri, Pagano, \& Pandolfi (2007).
538:
539: \subsubsection{Results Obtained With Fits in Independent Redshift Bins}
540:
541: The data and analysis described in section 2.2.2 were used
542: to obtain
543: $H(z)/H_0$ and $q(z)$ using equations \ref{H}
544: and \ref{q}. The results are shown in Figures
545: \ref{binH} and \ref{binq}, and are listed in Table
546: \ref{binresults}.
547:
548: The values of $H(z_{med})$ are
549: consistent with predictions in the standard LCDM model at about
550: one sigma or better. For comparison, predictions obtained in
551: a Cardassian model and generalized Chaplygin gas model, described
552: in section 2.2.2. are also displayed.
553: The value of the deceleration parameter at the
554: median redshift of the bin, $q(z_{med})$, does not definitely
555: show that the universe is accelerating today, using this approach.
556: That is, we do not
557: see that $q$ must be less than zero. If we consider the data split
558: into two bins, each with 111 data points, and review the results for
559: the lower redshift bin, we find that at a redshift of 0.02 the
560: value of $q$ is $-0.28 \pm 0.14$.
561: If we consider the data split into three bins, each with 74 data
562: points, and review the results for the lowest redshift bin,
563: we find that the value $q$ is consistent with zero for all of the
564: data points in this bin. Evidently, we do not yet have a sufficient
565: density of data points even at a redshift less than about 0.5 to
566: be able to definitely state at three sigma or better
567: that the universe is accelerating today, using this method (fits in independent
568: redshift bins).
569: It is only when we increase the number of data points that
570: go into the determination of $q(z)$ by using the sliding window
571: function, that we can conclude that the universe is accelerating today
572: using our model-independent analysis.
573:
574: Of course, when it is concluded that the universe is accelerating
575: today in the context of a quintessence model or other models,
576: all of the data are being used in the context of that particular
577: model. The quintessence and most other models
578: implicitly assume that our
579: universe is described by the Robertson-Walker line element,
580: the equations of General Relativity apply,
581: and that a specific function
582: for the redshift evolution of the dark
583: energy is valid over the redshift interval under study.
584: Much more data are needed in order to test independently these
585: (perfectly reasonable) assumptions.
586:
587: \subsection{Determinations of the Properties of the Dark Energy}
588:
589: We can solve for the properties of the dark energy as functions
590: of redshift if a theory of gravity is specified, as shown
591: by Daly \& Djorgovski (2004).
592: Einstein's equations of General Relativity
593: are used to relate the pressure, $P_{DE}$, energy density,
594: $\rho_{DE}$, equation of state $w = P_{DE}/\rho_{DE}$, and
595: potential, $V_{DE}$ and kinetic $K_{DE}$ energy densities
596: as functions of redshift to the cosmic scale factor
597: $a$, and the first and second derivatives of $a$ with respect
598: to time. Since the Robertson-Walker line element has been used to relate
599: the first and second derivatives of $a$ with respect to time
600: to the first and second derivatives of the coordinate distance
601: with respect to redshift, $y^{\prime}$
602: and $y^{\prime \prime}$, the equations of General Relativity can be used
603: to solve for the pressure,
604: energy density, equation of state, and potential and kinetic
605: energy density of the dark energy in terms of $y^{\prime}$
606: and $y^{\prime \prime}$, which are obtained directly from
607: the data. Here a value of $k=0$ is assumed, and the
608: equations of Daly \& Djorgovski (2004) are
609: used to solve for the properties of the dark energy
610: as functions of redshift. To obtain the pressure,
611: we only need to specify that Einstein's equations apply.
612:
613: \begin{equation}
614: {P_{DE}(z) \over \rho_{0c}} =
615: -(y^{\prime})^{-2}[1+(2/3)(1+z)~y^{\prime \prime}~(y^{\prime})^{-1}]~.
616: \label{P}
617: \end{equation}
618:
619: As pointed out by Daly \& Djorgovski (2004), the zero redshift
620: value of $P$ translates into a value of $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ is a
621: standard LCDM model since in this model $w=-1$, so
622: $\Omega_{\Lambda} = \rho_{DE}/\rho_{0c} = -P_{0}/\rho_{0c}$.
623: Here, this implies that $\Omega_{\Lambda}= 0.64 \pm 0.1$ if
624: the dark energy is due to a cosmological constant in a universe
625: with zero space curvature. This value of $\Omega_{\Lambda}$,
626: which is obtained from the first and second derivatives of the coordinate
627: distance, is consistent with other measures.
628:
629:
630: To obtain
631: the energy density $\rho_{DE}$ of
632: the dark energy, $\Omega_m$ must be specified, and
633: a value of $\Omega_m=0.3$ is adopted here.
634: \begin{equation}
635: {\rho_{DE}(z) \over \rho_{0c}} = (y^{\prime})^{-2}-\Omega_m(1+z)^3~.
636: \label{f}
637: \end{equation}
638:
639: The equation of state $w$ is obtained by taking the ratio
640: $P_{DE}/\rho_{DE}$ and is given by
641: \begin{equation}
642: w(z) = {-[1+(2/3)(1+z)~y^{\prime \prime}~(y^{\prime})^{-1}] \over
643: 1-\Omega_m(1+z)^3~(y^{\prime})^{2}}~.
644: \label{w}
645: \end{equation}
646:
647: The potential energy density of a dark energy scalar field is
648: given by $V = 0.5 (\rho - P)$ so
649: \begin{equation}
650: {V_{DE}(z) \over \rho_{0c}} = (y^{\prime})^{-2}[1+(1+z)y^{\prime \prime}/(3y^{\prime})]-0.5 \Omega_m(1+z)^3
651: \label{V}
652: \end{equation}
653: and the kinetic energy density is given by $K = 0.5(\rho+P)$ so
654: \begin{equation}{K_{DE} \over \rho_{0c}} =
655: -y^{\prime \prime}(1+z)/[3(y^{\prime})^{3}]-0.5
656: \Omega_m(1+z)^3~,
657: \label{K}
658: \end{equation}
659: since $V = 0.5 (\rho-P)$ and $K=0.5(\rho +P)$.
660:
661: We define a new function, the dark energy indicator $s$, which is given
662: by
663: \begin{equation}
664: s={y^{\prime \prime} \over (y^{\prime})^3 (1+z)^2}~.
665: \label{s}
666: \end{equation}
667: This is motivated by the fact that, for
668: zero space curvature,
669: the predicted value of $s$ is
670: \begin{equation}
671: s_p = -1.5 \Omega_m \left(1+[1+w]{\Omega_{DE}f(z) \over \Omega_m[1+z]^3}\right)
672: = -1.5 \Omega_m \left(1+[1+w]{\rho_{DE}\over \rho_m} \right)
673: ~\label{sp}
674: \end{equation}
675: as indicated by equations (1) and (2); this occurs because
676: $y_p^{\prime \prime} \propto (y_p^{\prime})^3(1+z)^2$ when
677: $\Omega_k=0$. Equation \ref{sp}
678: is derived assuming only that General Relativity is valid,
679: space curvature is zero, and there are two mass-energy components
680: controlling the expansion of the universe, dark energy and
681: non-relativistic matter including dark matter and baryons.
682: It is not assumed that the equation of state of the dark energy, $w$,
683: is constant, and no functional form for the evolution of the
684: energy density of the dark energy, $f(z)$, is assumed.
685: If $w=-1$, then $s_p = -1.5 \Omega_m$,
686: and the value of $s$ provides a new and independent measure of $\Omega_m$.
687: Deviations of $s$ from a constant provide
688: a measure of the deviations of $w$ from -1; the amount
689: of the deviation also depends upon the ratio of the energy density
690: of the dark energy $\rho_{DE}(z)$
691: to that of the mass density of non-relativistic matter $\rho_m(z)$,
692: including dark matter and baryons,
693: at a given redshift as discussed in more detail below.
694:
695:
696: \subsubsection{Results Obtained with a sliding window fit}
697:
698: The analysis described in section 2.2.1
699: was
700: applied to the combined sample of 192 supernovae from Davis et al. (2007)
701: and 30 radio galaxies from Daly et al. (2007).
702: The values of $y^{\prime}$ and $y^{\prime \prime}$
703: were substituted into equations \ref{P}, \ref{f}, \ref{w},
704: \ref{V}, \ref{K}, \ref{s}, and \ref{S} and the results are shown
705: in Figures \ref{Pfw}, \ref{KV}, \ref{s}, and \ref{S}.
706: The
707: zero redshift values of these parameters are
708: $P_0/\rho_{0c} = -0.64 \pm 0.10$, $\rho_{DE}(z=0)/\rho_{0c} = 0.67 \pm 0.05$,
709: $w_0 = -0.95 \pm 0.08$,
710: $V_0/\rho_{0c} = 0.65 \pm 0.05$, $K_0/\rho_{0c} = 0.01 \pm 0.03$, and
711: $s_0 = -0.50 \pm 0.08$. The zero redshift value of $s$ indicates a value
712: of $\Omega_m = 0.33 \pm 0.05$ if $w=-1$, and
713: the zero redshift value of $P$ indicates
714: a value of $\Omega_{\Lambda} =
715: 0.64 \pm 0.10$ if $w=-1$.
716: Overall, the results
717: are consistent with predictions in a standard LCDM model.
718:
719: As noted above, the dark energy indicator $s$ provides a measure of
720: whether $w=-1$ over the redshift range shown in Figure \ref{S}.
721: To illustrate the signature of a value of $w$ that differs from
722: $-1$, three curves are overlayed on the figure. Each curve
723: is obtained using equation \ref{sp} assuming $\Omega_m = 0.3$,
724: $\Omega_{DE} = 0.7$, $f(z)=1$ and $w$ is constant
725: over the redshift range shown, with values of $w$ of
726: $-1.2$ (short dashed curve), $w = -1$ (solid line), and
727: $w=-0.8$ (long dashed curve). Clearly, the curves with
728: $w=-0.8$ and $w=-1.2$ do not provide a good description of the data.
729: Another way to look at this is that equation \ref{s} and \ref{sp}
730: indicate that $w=-1-(\rho_m/\rho_{DE})[2s/(3\Omega_m)+1]$ so the
731: second part of this is a measure of the deviation of $w$ from
732: -1, and at zero redshift the ratio $\rho_m/\rho_{DE} \sim 0.3/0.7$
733: and $\Omega_m = 0.3$, so $s$ places rather strong constraints on
734: deviations of $w_0$ from -1.
735:
736: Since most of these functions involve combinations of the first
737: and second derivatives of the coordinate distance, results obtained
738: with independent redshift bins are quite noisy, so only values
739: obtained in two independent redshift bins are listed in Table 3.
740:
741:
742: \subsection{Effect of Space Curvature on $H(z)/H_0$ and $q(z)$}
743:
744: Space curvature, parameterized by $\Omega_k$, has only a modest effect on
745: $q(z)$, as
746: illustrated in Figure \ref{kqofz192}. Positive space curvature,
747: with negative $\Omega_k$ flattens the $q(z)$ curve and pushes
748: the redshift at which the universe transitions from
749: an accelerating state to a decelerating state to higher redshift.
750: This follows since $y^{\prime}$ is known to be positive in our
751: universe since the universe is expanding. Similarly, negative
752: space curvature moves the redshift at which $q=0$ to lower redshift
753: causing the universe the transition from an accelerating to a
754: decelerating state at lower redshift.
755: For $k=0$, the redshift at which the universe transitions from
756: acceleration to deceleration for the Davis et al. (2007)
757: sample is $z_T = 0.77 {}^{+0.11}_{-0.24}$.
758: For negative space curvature with
759: $\Omega_k = 0.1$ this transition redshift is shifted to about 0.6,
760: and for positive space curvature with
761: $\Omega_k = -0.1$ it shifts to about 0.8.
762:
763: Space curvature also affects the shape of
764: $H(z)/H_0$ as illustrated in Figure \ref{kEofz192}.
765: Positive values of $\Omega_k$ cause $H(z)$ to
766: increase more steeply with redshift than negative values
767: of $\Omega_k$, which tend to flatten out the $H(z)$ curve.
768:
769: Thus, the effect of space curvature on $H(z)$ and $q(z)$ is small relative to
770: the overall uncertainties of their measurements, within a plausible range of
771: the curvature parameter $\Omega_k$.
772:
773: \subsection{Determinations of $y^{\prime}$ and $y^{\prime \prime}$ for other samples}
774:
775: We also consider the full sample of 260 sources including the
776: 38 SZ clusters of Bonamente et al. (2006), the 192 supernovae
777: of Davis et al. (2007), and the 30 radio galaxies of Daly et al.
778: (2007). These results are shown in Figure \ref{yetal260}; a window
779: function of width 0.6 was used to analyze the data.
780: This analysis illustrates how this method can be applied to
781: diverse data sets. However, while the SZ cluster distances currently
782: provide a useful tool for measurements of the far-field Hubble parameter,
783: it is probably premature to use them as standard rulers to probe the
784: global geometry and kinematics of the universe at this time.
785:
786: Gamma-ray bursts as standard candles
787: have been analyzed in detail by Schaefer (2007),
788: who gives other pertinent references.
789: The values of $\mu$ listed by Schaefer (2007) can be used to
790: determine the dimensionless coordinate distance to each source
791: if the value of $H_0$ relevant for the sample is known,
792: as described in section 2.1,
793: and a value of $H_0 = 70 \hbox{km s}^{-1} \hbox{ Mpc}^{-1}$
794: was used (Schaefer, private communication).
795: The dimensionless coordinate distances were analyzed
796: to determine the functions $y(z)$, $y^{\prime}(z)$,
797: and $y^{\prime \prime}(z)$ using a window function of
798: width 2.0 in redshift.
799: A first look at results for the gamma-ray bursts are
800: shown in Fig.
801: \ref{GRB}, which
802: suggest that these are a potentially promising
803: tool to study cosmology at very large distances, and are
804: broadly consistent with predictions in the canonical LCDM
805: model, but the quality and the sparsity of the data are still not
806: sufficient for the model-independent analysis as shown above for the
807: SN+RG sample.
808:
809: \section{SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS}
810:
811: The work presented here improves and extends our previous results.
812: First, expanded and improved data sets are considered:
813: three supernova samples and one radio galaxy sample.
814: The radio galaxy
815: data set has 11 new sources, increasing its size to 30 sources,
816: and the supernovae data sets have increased substantially in
817: size and quality. In addition, SZ cluster distances and gamma-ray
818: burst distances are considered. The dimensionless coordinate distances
819: (obtained directly from the data), and first and second
820: derivatives of the
821: distance are obtained as functions of redshift using a sliding
822: window fit. The good agreement obtained using
823: supernovae and radio galaxies, two completely independent methods,
824: with sources that cover similar redshift ranges, suggests that neither
825: method is strongly affected by systematic effects, and that
826: each method provides a reliable cosmological tool.
827:
828: The first and second derivatives of the distance are combined to
829: obtain the acceleration parameter $q(z)$, allowing for non-zero
830: space curvature. It is shown that the zero redshift
831: value of $q(z)$, $q_o$, is independent of space curvature, and can
832: be obtained from the first and second derivatives of the
833: coordinate distance. Thus, $q_0$, which indicates whether the universe
834: is accelerating at the current epoch, can be obtained directly from the
835: supernova and radio galaxy data; our determinations of $q(z)$
836: only relies upon
837: the validity of the Robertson-Walker line element, and is
838: independent of a theory of gravity, and the contents of the universe.
839: Each of the supernova samples, analyzed using a sliding window fit,
840: indicate
841: that the universe is accelerating today independent of space curvature,
842: independent of whether General Relativity is the correct theory of gravity,
843: and of the contents of the universe. The effect of non-zero space
844: curvature on $q(z)$ is to shift the redshift at which the universe
845: transitions from acceleration to deceleration, moving this to lower
846: redshift for negative space curvature and to higher redshift for
847: positive space. The zero redshift values of $q$ obtained
848: using a sliding window fit.
849: for
850: the Davis et al. (2007) supernova sample is
851: $q_0(192SN)= -0.48 \pm 0.11$
852: and that obtained for the radio galaxy sample of
853: Daly et al. (2007) is $q_0(30RG)= -0.65 \pm 0.53$ indicating
854: that the universe is accelerating at the current epoch.
855: The data were also binned so that only certain subsets of the
856: data were used to solve for $y^{\prime}$, $y^{\prime \prime}$,
857: $H(z)/H_0$, and $q(z)$. The results for $y^{\prime}$ and
858: $H(z)/H_0$ indicate that the standard LCDM model provides a
859: good description of the data. The results for $y^{\prime \prime}$
860: and $q(z)$ are consistent with the standard LCDM model, but
861: do not independently confirm the model or the acceleration
862: of the universe.
863:
864: In addition to the evaluation of the standard cosmological parameters,
865: in an even more direct approach, we compared $y^{\prime}$
866: and $y^{\prime \prime}$ obtained from the fits to the data to model predictions.
867: Comparisons of $y^{\prime}$
868: and $y^{\prime \prime}$ with predictions based on General Relativity
869: indicate that General Relativity provides an accurate description of
870: the data on look-back time scales of about ten billion years, thus providing
871: a very large scale test of General Relativity.
872:
873: Another new approach is that the data were analyzed using both a sliding window fit
874: and fits in independent redshift bins. The fits in statistically
875: independent redshift bins are broadly consistent with the sliding window fits,
876: but are generally noisier (as expected).
877:
878: We also explored the effects of non-zero space curvature
879: on determinations of $H(z)$ and $q(z)$. It is shown that
880: the zero redshift value of $q$, obtained by applying equation (4)
881: to $y^{\prime}$ and $y^{\prime \prime}$, is independent of space curvature.
882: This means that our method can be used to determine $q_0$, and thus
883: the degree to which the universe is accelerating at the current epoch, with
884: only one assumption, that the Robertson-Walker
885: line element is valid. In addition, it is found that
886: the effect of space curvature on
887: the shape of $H(z)$ and $q(z)$ is small, relative to the uncertainties
888: arising from the measurement errors.
889:
890: After determining the expansion and acceleration rates of the
891: universe as functions of redshift independent of a theory
892: of gravity, we solve for the pressure, energy density, equation
893: of state, and potential and kinetic energy of the dark energy
894: as functions of redshift assuming that General Relativity is
895: the correct theory of gravity. We also define a new function,
896: the dark energy indicator $s$, which provides a measure of
897: deviations of the equation of state of the dark energy
898: $w$ from $-1$, and provides a new and independent measure of
899: $\Omega_m$ if $w=-1$.
900: The results obtained using a sliding window fit indicate
901: that a cosmological constant in
902: a spatially flat universe provides a good description of
903: each of these quantities over the redshift range from zero to
904: one. The zero redshift values of these quantities
905: obtained with the Davis et al. (2007) supernovae sample
906: are
907: $P_{DE,0}/\rho_{0c} = -0.64 \pm 0.10$, $\rho_{DE,0}/\rho_{0c}
908: = 0.67 \pm 0.05$,
909: $w_{DE,0} = -0.95 \pm 0.08$,
910: $V_{DE,0}/\rho_{0c} = 0.65 \pm 0.05$,
911: $K_{DE,0}/\rho_{0c} = 0.01 \pm 0.03$, and
912: $s_0 = -0.50 \pm 0.08$.
913: In the standard Lambda-Cold Dark Matter Model,
914: $\Omega_{\Lambda} = - P_0/\rho_{0c} = 0.64 \pm 0.1$,
915: obtained using the first and second derivatives of the coordinate distance,
916: provides an independent measure
917: of $\Omega_{\Lambda}$. In addition, in this model,
918: $w=-1$, so $s$ provides a measure of $\Omega_m$, and
919: the value obtained here using the first and second derivatives
920: of the coordinate distance, is $\Omega_m = 0.33 \pm 0.05$.
921: Overall, the shapes of the pressure, energy density,
922: equation of state, and other parameters as functions
923: are redshift are consistent
924: with those predicted in a standard LCDM model. There is a tantalizing
925: hint that there may be divations from the standard model at high
926: redshift; more observations at high redshift will be needed to investigate
927: this further. The results obtained using fits in independent redshift bins
928: are consistent with the standard LCDM model, but
929: do not independently confirm the model.
930:
931:
932:
933: \acknowledgements
934: We would like to thank the observers for their tireless efforts in
935: obtaining the data used for this study. We would also like to thank
936: the referee for helpful comments and suggesitons.
937: This work was supported in part by U. S. National Science
938: Foundation grants AST-0507465 (R.A.D.) and AST-0407448 (S.G.D.),
939: and the Ajax Foundation (S.G.D.).
940:
941:
942: \begin{references}
943:
944: \reference{} Astier, P., Guy, J., Regnault, N., Pain, R., Aubourg, E.,
945: Balam, D., Basa, S., Carlberg, R. G., Fabbro, S., Fouchez, D., and 32
946: coauthors, 2006, A\&A, 447, 31
947:
948: \reference{} Bento, M. C., Bertolami, O., Santos, N. M. C., \& Sen, A. A. 2005,
949: astro-ph/0512076
950:
951: \reference{} Bento, M. C., Bertolami, O., \& Sen, A. A. 2002,
952: Phys. Rev. D, 66, 043507
953:
954: \reference{} Bilic, N., Tupper, G. B, \& Viollier, R. D. 2002,
955: Phys. Lett. B, 535, 17
956:
957: \reference{} Bonamente, M., Joy, M. K., LaRoque, S. J., Carlstrom, J. E.,
958: Reese, E. D., \& Dawson, K. S. 2006, ApJ, 647,25
959:
960: \reference{} Daly, R. A., \& Djorgovski, S. G. 2003, ApJ, 597, 9
961:
962: \reference{} Daly, R. A., \& Djorgovski, S. G. 2004, ApJ, 612, 652
963:
964: \reference{} Daly, R. A., Mory, M. P., O'Dea C. P., Kharb, P., Baum, S.,
965: Guerra, E. J., \& Djorgovski, S. G. 2007, in press (astro-ph 0710.5112)
966:
967: \reference{} Davis, T. M., Mortsell, E., Sollerman, J.,
968: Becker, A. C., Blondin, S., Challis, P., Clocchiatti, A.,
969: Filippenko, A. V., Foley, R. J., Garnavich, P. M., and 17
970: coauthors, submitted to ApJ, (astro-ph/0701510)
971:
972: \reference{} Freese, K., \& Lewis, M. 2002, Phys. Lett. B, 540, 1
973:
974: \reference{} Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., Maza, J.,
975: Suntzeff, N. B., Schommer, R. A., \& Aviles, R.
976: 1995, AJ, 109, 1
977:
978: \reference{} Kamenshchik, A. Y., Moschella, U., \& Pasquier, V. 2001,
979: Phys. Lett. B, 511, 265
980:
981: \reference{ } Kharb, P., O'Dea, C. P., Baum, S. A.,
982: Daly, R., Mory, M., Donahue,
983: M., \& Guerra, E., 2007, ApJ, in press
984:
985: \reference { } Melchiorri, A., Pagano, L., \& Pandolfi, S. 2007, astro-ph/07061314
986:
987: \reference {} Nesseris, S., \& Perivolaropoulos, L. 2006, astro-ph/0612653
988:
989: \reference{ } O'Dea, C. P., Daly, R., Kharb, P., Freeman, K. A., \&
990: Baum, S. A., 2007, ApJ, submitted
991:
992: \reference{} Perlmutter, S., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
993:
994: \reference{} Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJ, 413, L105
995:
996: \reference{} Riess, A. G., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
997:
998: \reference{} Riess, A. G., Strolger, L. G., Casertano, S., Ferguson, H. C.,
999: Mobasher, B., Gold, B., Challis, P. J., Filippenko, A. V., Jha, S., Li, W.,
1000: and 11 co-authors, 2007, ApJ, 659, 98
1001:
1002: \reference{S07} Schaefer, B. E., ApJ, 660, 16.
1003:
1004: \reference{W92} Weinberg, S. 1972, Gravitation and Cosmology,
1005: (New York: Wiley)
1006:
1007: \reference{} Wood-Vasey, W. M., Miknaitis, G., Stubbs, C. W.,
1008: Jha, S., Riess, A. G., Garnavich, P. M., Kirshner, R. P.,
1009: Aguilera, C., Becker, A. C., Blackman, J. W., and 27 co-authors,
1010: submitted (astro-ph/0701041)
1011:
1012: \end{references}
1013:
1014:
1015: \begin{deluxetable}{lllll}
1016: \tablewidth{0pt}
1017: \tablecaption{Distances 192 Supernovae, 30 Radio Galaxies, and 38 Galaxy Clusters}
1018: \tablehead{
1019: \colhead{Type} & \colhead{Source} & \colhead{$z$} & \colhead{$y$} & \colhead{$\sigma_y$}
1020: }
1021: \startdata
1022: SN & sn1994S & 0.016 & 0.0160 & 0.0016 \\
1023: SN & sn2001V & 0.016 & 0.0145 & 0.0015 \\
1024: SN & sn1996bo & 0.016 & 0.0135 & 0.0015 \\
1025: SN & sn2001cz & 0.016 & 0.0155 & 0.0017 \\
1026: SN & sn2000dk & 0.016 & 0.0161 & 0.0016 \\
1027: SN & sn1997Y & 0.017 & 0.0174 & 0.0018 \\
1028: SN & sn1998ef & 0.017 & 0.0146 & 0.0016 \\
1029: SN & sn1998V & 0.017 & 0.0160 & 0.0016 \\
1030: SN & sn1999ek & 0.018 & 0.0155 & 0.0016 \\
1031: SN & sn1992bo & 0.018 & 0.0190 & 0.0018 \\
1032: SN & sn1992bc & 0.020 & 0.0200 & 0.0017 \\
1033: SN & sn2000fa & 0.022 & 0.0205 & 0.0020 \\
1034: SN & sn1995ak & 0.022 & 0.0187 & 0.0018 \\
1035: SN & sn2000cn & 0.023 & 0.0226 & 0.0019 \\
1036: SN & sn1998eg & 0.024 & 0.0248 & 0.0023 \\
1037: SN & sn1994M & 0.024 & 0.0239 & 0.0022 \\
1038: SN & sn2000ca & 0.025 & 0.0239 & 0.0019 \\
1039: SN & sn1993H & 0.025 & 0.0224 & 0.0019 \\
1040: SN & sn1992ag & 0.026 & 0.0228 & 0.0023 \\
1041: SN & sn1999gp & 0.026 & 0.0284 & 0.0021 \\
1042: SN & sn1992P & 0.026 & 0.0281 & 0.0025 \\
1043: SN & sn1996C & 0.028 & 0.0329 & 0.0027 \\
1044: SN & sn1998ab & 0.028 & 0.0231 & 0.0019 \\
1045: SN & sn1997dg & 0.030 & 0.0361 & 0.0032 \\
1046: SN & sn2001ba & 0.031 & 0.0319 & 0.0023 \\
1047: SN & sn1990O & 0.031 & 0.0309 & 0.0024 \\
1048: SN & sn1999cc & 0.032 & 0.0310 & 0.0024 \\
1049: SN & sn1996bl & 0.035 & 0.0350 & 0.0029 \\
1050: SN & sn1994T & 0.036 & 0.0338 & 0.0026 \\
1051: SN & sn2000cf & 0.037 & 0.0395 & 0.0031 \\
1052: SN & sn1999aw & 0.039 & 0.0429 & 0.0026 \\
1053: SN & sn1992bl & 0.043 & 0.0417 & 0.0035 \\
1054: SN & sn1992bh & 0.045 & 0.0505 & 0.0044 \\
1055: SN & sn1995ac & 0.049 & 0.0431 & 0.0032 \\
1056: SN & sn1993ag & 0.050 & 0.0541 & 0.0045 \\
1057: SN & sn1990af & 0.050 & 0.0454 & 0.0042 \\
1058: SN & sn1993O & 0.052 & 0.0553 & 0.0038 \\
1059: SN & sn1998dx & 0.054 & 0.0503 & 0.0035 \\
1060: RG & 3C 405 & 0.056 & 0.0514 & 0.0105 \\
1061: SN & sn1992bs & 0.063 & 0.0695 & 0.0064 \\
1062: SN & sn1993B & 0.071 & 0.0736 & 0.0064 \\
1063: SN & sn1992ae & 0.075 & 0.0713 & 0.0069 \\
1064: SN & sn1992bp & 0.079 & 0.0731 & 0.0050 \\
1065: SN & sn1992br & 0.088 & 0.0718 & 0.0076 \\
1066: SN & sn1992aq & 0.101 & 0.1145 & 0.0079 \\
1067: SN & sn1996ab & 0.124 & 0.1174 & 0.0108 \\
1068: CL & Abell~1413 & 0.142 & 0.2283 & 0.0454 \\
1069: CL & Abell~2204 & 0.152 & 0.1801 & 0.0192 \\
1070: SN & e020 & 0.159 & 0.1716 & 0.0229 \\
1071: CL & Abell~2259 & 0.164 & 0.1731 & 0.0806 \\
1072: CL & Abell~586 & 0.171 & 0.1561 & 0.0405 \\
1073: CL & Abell~1914 & 0.171 & 0.1321 & 0.0135 \\
1074: CL & Abell~2218 & 0.176 & 0.1990 & 0.0377 \\
1075: SN & k429 & 0.181 & 0.1764 & 0.0138 \\
1076: CL & Abell~665 & 0.182 & 0.2000 & 0.0288 \\
1077: CL & Abell~1689 & 0.183 & 0.1971 & 0.0273 \\
1078: CL & Abell~2163 & 0.202 & 0.1602 & 0.0139 \\
1079: SN & d086 & 0.205 & 0.1887 & 0.0261 \\
1080: SN & h363 & 0.213 & 0.2103 & 0.0320 \\
1081: SN & n404 & 0.216 & 0.2364 & 0.0338 \\
1082: CL & Abell~773 & 0.217 & 0.3057 & 0.0484 \\
1083: SN & g005 & 0.218 & 0.2133 & 0.0255 \\
1084: CL & Abell~2261 & 0.224 & 0.2290 & 0.0518 \\
1085: CL & Abell~2111 & 0.229 & 0.2016 & 0.0583 \\
1086: CL & Abell~267 & 0.230 & 0.1892 & 0.0315 \\
1087: CL & RX~J2129.7+0005 & 0.235 & 0.1456 & 0.0301 \\
1088: SN & e132 & 0.239 & 0.2146 & 0.0287 \\
1089: CL & Abell~1835 & 0.252 & 0.3434 & 0.0160 \\
1090: CL & Abell~68 & 0.255 & 0.2027 & 0.0563 \\
1091: SN & 04D3ez & 0.263 & 0.2462 & 0.0238 \\
1092: SN & n326 & 0.268 & 0.2509 & 0.0300 \\
1093: SN & k425 & 0.274 & 0.2881 & 0.0371 \\
1094: CL & Abell~697 & 0.282 & 0.2892 & 0.0871 \\
1095: SN & p455 & 0.284 & 0.2832 & 0.0378 \\
1096: SN & 03D4ag & 0.285 & 0.2678 & 0.0160 \\
1097: SN & m027 & 0.286 & 0.3447 & 0.0508 \\
1098: CL & Abell~611 & 0.288 & 0.2575 & 0.0594 \\
1099: CL & ZW~3146 & 0.291 & 0.2747 & 0.0066 \\
1100: SN & 03D3ba & 0.291 & 0.2196 & 0.0324 \\
1101: SN & g055 & 0.302 & 0.3192 & 0.0544 \\
1102: SN & d117 & 0.309 & 0.3219 & 0.0400 \\
1103: SN & n278 & 0.309 & 0.2856 & 0.0276 \\
1104: CL & Abell~1995 & 0.322 & 0.4033 & 0.0491 \\
1105: CL & MS~1358.4+6245 & 0.327 & 0.3844 & 0.0323 \\
1106: SN & 03D1fc & 0.331 & 0.2996 & 0.0290 \\
1107: SN & e029 & 0.332 & 0.3297 & 0.0425 \\
1108: SN & d083 & 0.333 & 0.2279 & 0.0147 \\
1109: SN & 04D3kr & 0.337 & 0.3209 & 0.0251 \\
1110: SN & g097 & 0.340 & 0.3354 & 0.0479 \\
1111: SN & 04D3nh & 0.340 & 0.3463 & 0.0271 \\
1112: SN & m193 & 0.341 & 0.2960 & 0.0313 \\
1113: SN & d149 & 0.342 & 0.3459 & 0.0334 \\
1114: SN & h364 & 0.344 & 0.2994 & 0.0234 \\
1115: SN & 03D1bp & 0.346 & 0.3248 & 0.0374 \\
1116: SN & h359 & 0.348 & 0.3881 & 0.0483 \\
1117: SN & e136 & 0.352 & 0.3417 & 0.0425 \\
1118: SN & 04D2fs & 0.357 & 0.3452 & 0.0350 \\
1119: SN & 04D3fk & 0.358 & 0.3089 & 0.0299 \\
1120: SN & d093 & 0.363 & 0.3566 & 0.0230 \\
1121: SN & n263 & 0.368 & 0.3285 & 0.0257 \\
1122: SN & 03D3ay & 0.371 & 0.3662 & 0.0388 \\
1123: CL & Abell~370 & 0.375 & 0.3807 & 0.0687 \\
1124: SN & g052 & 0.383 & 0.3250 & 0.0329 \\
1125: SN & g142 & 0.399 & 0.3862 & 0.0765 \\
1126: SN & d085 & 0.401 & 0.3857 & 0.0391 \\
1127: SN & k448 & 0.401 & 0.4594 & 0.0846 \\
1128: RG & 3C142.1 & 0.406 & 0.3325 & 0.0607 \\
1129: CL & MACS~J2228.5+2036 & 0.412 & 0.4416 & 0.0851 \\
1130: SN & 04D2fp & 0.415 & 0.3999 & 0.0313 \\
1131: SN & k485 & 0.416 & 0.4184 & 0.0751 \\
1132: SN & g133 & 0.421 & 0.4286 & 0.0651 \\
1133: SN & h342 & 0.421 & 0.4208 & 0.0310 \\
1134: SN & f235 & 0.422 & 0.3498 & 0.0387 \\
1135: SN & b013 & 0.426 & 0.3824 & 0.0405 \\
1136: SN & e148 & 0.429 & 0.4321 & 0.0398 \\
1137: SN & 04D2gb & 0.430 & 0.3526 & 0.0292 \\
1138: RG & 3C 244.1 & 0.430 & 0.3631 & 0.0671 \\
1139: SN & d089 & 0.436 & 0.3922 & 0.0361 \\
1140: SN & d097 & 0.436 & 0.4013 & 0.0314 \\
1141: SN & 03D3aw & 0.449 & 0.3923 & 0.0434 \\
1142: CL & RX~J1347.5-1145 & 0.451 & 0.3571 & 0.0260 \\
1143: SN & 04D3gt & 0.451 & 0.2812 & 0.0298 \\
1144: SN & HST04Yow & 0.460 & 0.4114 & 0.0625 \\
1145: SN & 03D3cd & 0.461 & 0.3982 & 0.0330 \\
1146: SN & 03D3cc & 0.463 & 0.4222 & 0.0331 \\
1147: SN & m158 & 0.463 & 0.4914 & 0.0634 \\
1148: SN & e108 & 0.469 & 0.4262 & 0.0314 \\
1149: SN & 04D3df & 0.470 & 0.3796 & 0.0350 \\
1150: SN & sn2002dc & 0.475 & 0.4091 & 0.0396 \\
1151: CL & MACS~J2214.9-1359 & 0.483 & 0.5474 & 0.0950 \\
1152: CL & MACS~J1311.0-0310 & 0.490 & 0.5271 & 0.1604 \\
1153: SN & g160 & 0.493 & 0.4391 & 0.0526 \\
1154: SN & h319 & 0.495 & 0.4426 & 0.0428 \\
1155: SN & 03D1ax & 0.496 & 0.4283 & 0.0394 \\
1156: SN & e149 & 0.497 & 0.4087 & 0.0489 \\
1157: SN & h283 & 0.502 & 0.4592 & 0.0782 \\
1158: SN & 03D1au & 0.504 & 0.4713 & 0.0391 \\
1159: SN & p524 & 0.508 & 0.4449 & 0.0451 \\
1160: SN & g120 & 0.510 & 0.4185 & 0.0405 \\
1161: SN & d084 & 0.519 & 0.5612 & 0.0749 \\
1162: RG & 3C172 & 0.519 & 0.6635 & 0.1366 \\
1163: SN & 04D2gc & 0.521 & 0.4431 & 0.0673 \\
1164: SN & 04D1ak & 0.526 & 0.4520 & 0.0604 \\
1165: SN & n285 & 0.528 & 0.4814 & 0.0576 \\
1166: SN & d033 & 0.531 & 0.5594 & 0.0438 \\
1167: SN & 03D3af & 0.532 & 0.5289 & 0.0706 \\
1168: SN & f011 & 0.539 & 0.4846 & 0.0558 \\
1169: SN & f244 & 0.540 & 0.4979 & 0.0596 \\
1170: CL & CL~0016+1609 & 0.541 & 0.5451 & 0.0869 \\
1171: CL & MACS~J1149.5+2223 & 0.544 & 0.3166 & 0.0693 \\
1172: CL & MACS~J1423.8+2404 & 0.545 & 0.5901 & 0.0178 \\
1173: RG & 3C 330 & 0.549 & 0.3424 & 0.0652 \\
1174: CL & MS~0451.6-0305 & 0.550 & 0.5642 & 0.0973 \\
1175: SN & 04D4bq & 0.550 & 0.5016 & 0.0670 \\
1176: SN & 04D3hn & 0.552 & 0.4035 & 0.0762 \\
1177: SN & f041 & 0.561 & 0.4912 & 0.0385 \\
1178: CL & MACS~J2129.4-0741 & 0.570 & 0.5352 & 0.1308 \\
1179: SN & 03D4gf & 0.581 & 0.5149 & 0.0427 \\
1180: SN & 03D1aw & 0.582 & 0.5828 & 0.0564 \\
1181: CL & MS~2053.7-0449 & 0.583 & 1.0063 & 0.1725 \\
1182: CL & MACS~J0647.7+7015 & 0.584 & 0.3126 & 0.0792 \\
1183: SN & 03D4gg & 0.592 & 0.5161 & 0.0594 \\
1184: SN & h323 & 0.603 & 0.5467 & 0.0554 \\
1185: SN & 03D4dy & 0.604 & 0.4937 & 0.0728 \\
1186: SN & 04D3do & 0.610 & 0.4987 & 0.0666 \\
1187: SN & e138 & 0.612 & 0.5386 & 0.0446 \\
1188: SN & 04D4an & 0.613 & 0.5611 & 0.1008 \\
1189: SN & f231 & 0.619 & 0.5513 & 0.0432 \\
1190: SN & 04D3co & 0.620 & 0.5904 & 0.0707 \\
1191: SN & 03D4dh & 0.627 & 0.5216 & 0.0552 \\
1192: RG & 3C 337 & 0.630 & 0.5064 & 0.0704 \\
1193: SN & e140 & 0.631 & 0.5084 & 0.0421 \\
1194: SN & n256 & 0.631 & 0.5575 & 0.0385 \\
1195: SN & g050 & 0.633 & 0.4805 & 0.0398 \\
1196: SN & 03D4at & 0.633 & 0.6021 & 0.0693 \\
1197: RG & 3C169.1 & 0.633 & 0.6222 & 0.0708 \\
1198: SN & sn2003be & 0.640 & 0.5246 & 0.0628 \\
1199: SN & 04D3cy & 0.643 & 0.6209 & 0.0629 \\
1200: SN & e147 & 0.645 & 0.5327 & 0.0442 \\
1201: RG & 3C44 & 0.660 & 0.7621 & 0.0848 \\
1202: SN & sn2003bd & 0.670 & 0.5597 & 0.0644 \\
1203: SN & 03D1co & 0.679 & 0.6817 & 0.0848 \\
1204: CL & MACS~J0744.8+3927 & 0.686 & 0.7261 & 0.1858 \\
1205: SN & g240 & 0.687 & 0.5267 & 0.0485 \\
1206: SN & h300 & 0.687 & 0.5390 & 0.0422 \\
1207: SN & 03D1fl & 0.688 & 0.5486 & 0.0581 \\
1208: RG & 3C34 & 0.690 & 0.5920 & 0.0644 \\
1209: SN & 04D2iu & 0.691 & 0.6259 & 0.1124 \\
1210: SN & p454 & 0.695 & 0.6569 & 0.0514 \\
1211: SN & 03D4cz & 0.695 & 0.5414 & 0.0848 \\
1212: RG & 3C441 & 0.707 & 0.5340 & 0.0667 \\
1213: SN & 04D3is & 0.710 & 0.7074 & 0.1108 \\
1214: RG & 3C 55 & 0.720 & 0.5852 & 0.0777 \\
1215: SN & 04D1aj & 0.721 & 0.6264 & 0.0664 \\
1216: SN & 04D3fq & 0.730 & 0.6556 & 0.0785 \\
1217: SN & sn2002kd & 0.735 & 0.5265 & 0.0485 \\
1218: SN & HST04Rak & 0.740 & 0.5863 & 0.0621 \\
1219: SN & 04D2ja & 0.741 & 0.6544 & 0.0723 \\
1220: RG & 3C 247 & 0.749 & 0.5430 & 0.0682 \\
1221: SN & 04D3ks & 0.752 & 0.5877 & 0.0622 \\
1222: CL & MS~1137.5+6625 & 0.784 & 1.3033 & 0.2629 \\
1223: SN & 03D4fd & 0.791 & 0.6880 & 0.0665 \\
1224: RG & 3C41 & 0.794 & 0.6315 & 0.0714 \\
1225: SN & 03D1fq & 0.800 & 0.7403 & 0.0920 \\
1226: RG & 3C 265 & 0.811 & 0.5901 & 0.0793 \\
1227: CL & RX~J1716.4+6708 & 0.813 & 0.4833 & 0.2184 \\
1228: RG & 3C114 & 0.815 & 0.6368 & 0.0695 \\
1229: SN & 04D3nc & 0.817 & 0.6688 & 0.0647 \\
1230: SN & 03D4cn & 0.818 & 0.8111 & 0.1009 \\
1231: SN & 04D3lu & 0.822 & 0.6795 & 0.0688 \\
1232: CL & MS~1054.5-0321 & 0.826 & 0.6225 & 0.1264 \\
1233: RG & 3C54 & 0.827 & 0.7573 & 0.0835 \\
1234: SN & 04D3cp & 0.830 & 0.6342 & 0.0496 \\
1235: SN & HST05Spo & 0.839 & 0.5729 & 0.0554 \\
1236: SN & 04D4bk & 0.840 & 0.7110 & 0.0557 \\
1237: SN & sn2003eq & 0.840 & 0.6336 & 0.0642 \\
1238: RG & 3C6.1 & 0.840 & 0.7402 & 0.0861 \\
1239: SN & HST04Man & 0.854 & 0.7187 & 0.0993 \\
1240: RG & 3C 325 & 0.860 & 0.7080 & 0.1292 \\
1241: SN & 03D1ew & 0.868 & 0.7233 & 0.0566 \\
1242: CL & CL~J1226.9+3332 & 0.890 & 0.5232 & 0.1696 \\
1243: SN & sn2003eb & 0.900 & 0.6052 & 0.0725 \\
1244: SN & 03D4di & 0.905 & 0.6742 & 0.0497 \\
1245: SN & 04D3gx & 0.910 & 0.7973 & 0.0661 \\
1246: SN & 04D3ki & 0.930 & 0.8732 & 0.0764 \\
1247: SN & sn2003XX & 0.935 & 0.6918 & 0.0956 \\
1248: SN & 03D4cx & 0.949 & 0.7996 & 0.0626 \\
1249: SN & 04D3ml & 0.950 & 0.7562 & 0.0522 \\
1250: SN & sn2002dd & 0.950 & 0.6897 & 0.1112 \\
1251: SN & sn2003es & 0.954 & 0.7975 & 0.1028 \\
1252: SN & HST04Tha & 0.954 & 0.6482 & 0.0836 \\
1253: RG & 3C 289 & 0.967 & 0.5950 & 0.1097 \\
1254: SN & HST04Pat & 0.970 & 0.9380 & 0.1598 \\
1255: RG & 3C 268.1 & 0.974 & 0.7458 & 0.1432 \\
1256: SN & HST04Omb & 0.975 & 0.7570 & 0.0941 \\
1257: RG & 3C 280 & 0.996 & 0.6477 & 0.1221 \\
1258: SN & 04D3dd & 1.010 & 0.9494 & 0.0743 \\
1259: SN & HST05Str & 1.010 & 0.9627 & 0.0887 \\
1260: SN & HST05Fer & 1.020 & 0.6688 & 0.0862 \\
1261: SN & HST04Eag & 1.020 & 0.8537 & 0.0786 \\
1262: RG & 3C 356 & 1.079 & 0.8735 & 0.1842 \\
1263: SN & HST05Gab & 1.120 & 0.8716 & 0.0763 \\
1264: SN & sn2002ki & 1.140 & 0.8795 & 0.1215 \\
1265: SN & HST04Gre & 1.140 & 0.7767 & 0.1145 \\
1266: RG & 3C 267 & 1.144 & 0.7136 & 0.1396 \\
1267: RG & 3C 194 & 1.190 & 1.0074 & 0.2047 \\
1268: RG & 3C 324 & 1.210 & 1.0208 & 0.3089 \\
1269: SN & HST05Koe & 1.230 & 1.0432 & 0.1153 \\
1270: SN & HST05Lan & 1.230 & 0.9514 & 0.0920 \\
1271: SN & sn2002fw & 1.300 & 0.9615 & 0.0930 \\
1272: SN & sn2002hp & 1.305 & 0.7447 & 0.1063 \\
1273: RG & 3C469.1 & 1.336 & 1.1364 & 0.3255 \\
1274: SN & sn2003dy & 1.340 & 0.8860 & 0.1306 \\
1275: SN & HST04Mcg & 1.370 & 1.0091 & 0.1208 \\
1276: SN & HST04Sas & 1.390 & 0.8595 & 0.0792 \\
1277: RG & 3C 437 & 1.480 & 0.9299 & 0.2697 \\
1278: RG & 3C 68.2 & 1.575 & 1.5748 & 0.4873 \\
1279: RG & 3C 322 & 1.681 & 1.3078 & 0.3400 \\
1280: SN & sn1977ff & 1.755 & 0.9174 & 0.1521 \\
1281: RG & 3C 239 & 1.790 & 1.3666 & 0.3382 \\
1282: \enddata
1283: \label{yTable}
1284: \end{deluxetable}
1285:
1286:
1287:
1288: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllllll}
1289: \tablewidth{0pt}
1290: \tablecaption{Fits in Independent Redshift Bins to 192 Supernovae and 30 Radio Galaxies}
1291: \tablehead{
1292: \colhead{Bin} &\colhead{N} & \colhead{$z_{med}$} & \colhead{$z_{min}$} &
1293: \colhead{$z_{max}$} &\colhead{$y^{\prime}(z_{med})$}
1294: & \colhead{$H(z_{med})/H_0$} &
1295: \colhead{$y^{\prime \prime}(z_{med})$} & \colhead{$q(z_{med})$} }
1296: \startdata
1297: 1/6&37 & 0.025 & 0.016 & 0.052 &$ 1.09 \pm 0.05 $&$ 0.92 \pm 0.05 $&$ -6.2 \pm 7.5 $&$ 4.8 \pm 6.9 $\\
1298: 2/6&37 & 0.275 & 0.054 & 0.348 &$ 0.74 \pm 0.07 $&$ 1.34 \pm 0.13 $&$ -1.6 \pm 0.8 $&$ 1.9 \pm 1.6 $\\
1299: 3/6&37 & 0.430 & 0.352 & 0.504 &$ 0.67 \pm 0.15 $&$ 1.48 \pm 0.32 $&$ 2.7 \pm 6.50 $&--- \\
1300: 4/6&37 & 0.600 & 0.508 & 0.670 &$ 0.72 \pm 0.28 $&$ 1.4 \pm 0.5 $&$ 1.2 \pm 11 $&--- \\
1301: 5/6&37 & 0.790 & 0.679 & 0.905 &$ 0.55 \pm 0.16 $&$ 1.8 \pm 0.5 $&$ -4.0 \pm 5.0 $&--- \\
1302: 6/6&37 & 1.100 & 0.910 & 1.790 &$ 0.40 \pm 0.13 $&$ 2.5 \pm 0.8 $&$ -0.4 \pm 0.8 $&$ 1.1 \pm 3.7 $\\
1303: \\
1304: 1/4&55 & 0.035 & 0.016 & 0.268 &$ 1.03 \pm 0.03 $&$ 0.97 \pm 0.03 $&$ -0.9 \pm 0.6 $&$ -0.1 \pm 0.6 $\\
1305: 2/4&55 & 0.400 & 0.274 & 0.502 &$ 0.79 \pm 0.08 $&$ 1.27 \pm 0.13 $&$ -0.4 \pm 2.5 $&$ -0.2 \pm 4.5 $\\
1306: 3/4&55 & 0.630 & 0.504 & 0.749 &$ 0.54 \pm 0.12 $&$ 1.85 \pm 0.40 $&$ -2.50 \pm 3.2 $&--- \\
1307: 4/4&57 & 0.965 & 0.752 & 1.790 &$ 0.64 \pm 0.10 $&$ 1.57 \pm 0.23 $&$ -0.9 \pm 0.5 $&$ 1.80 \pm 1.3 $\\
1308: \\
1309:
1310: 1/3&74 & 0.050 & 0.016 & 0.348 &$ 1.02 \pm 0.03 $&$ 0.98 \pm 0.03 $&$ -1.05 \pm 0.27 $&$ 0.08 \pm 0.26 $\\
1311: 2/3&74 & 0.505 & 0.352 & 0.670 &$ 0.80 \pm 0.06 $&$ 1.26 \pm 0.09 $&$ 0.9 \pm 1.4 $&$ -2.7 \pm 2.6 $\\
1312: 3/3&74 & 0.905 & 0.679 & 1.790 &$ 0.66 \pm 0.06 $&$ 1.52 \pm 0.15 $&$ -0.8 \pm 0.3 $&$ 1.2 \pm 0.9 $\\
1313: \\
1314: 1/2&111 & 0.275 & 0.016 & 0.504 &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $&$ 1.19 \pm 0.03 $&$ -0.73 \pm 0.16 $&$ 0.10 \pm 0.27 $\\
1315: 2/2&111 & 0.790 & 0.508 & 1.790 &$ 0.63 \pm 0.04 $&$ 1.59 \pm 0.10 $&$ -0.40 \pm 0.21 $&$ 0.13 \pm 0.57 $\\
1316:
1317: \enddata
1318: \label{binresults}
1319: \end{deluxetable}
1320:
1321: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllll}
1322: \tablewidth{0pt}
1323: \tablecaption{Fits in Independent Redshift Bins at the Median Redshift of the Bin}
1324: \tablehead{
1325: \colhead{Data}&
1326: \colhead{$P_{DE}/\rho_{0c}$} & \colhead{$\rho_{DE}/\rho_{0c}$} & \colhead{$w_{DE}$} & \colhead{$V_{DE}/\rho_{0c}$} &
1327: \colhead{$K_{DE}/\rho_{0c}$} & \colhead{$s $} }
1328: \startdata
1329: 1/2&$ -0.38 \pm 0.24 $&$ 0.79 \pm 0.07 $&$ -0.48 \pm 0.34 $&$ 0.58 \pm 0.10 $&$ 0.21 \pm 0.15 $&$-0.75 \pm 0.21$\\
1330: 2/2&$ -0.6 \pm 1.0 $&$ 0.8 \pm 0.3 $&$ -0.8 \pm 1.2 $&$ 0.7 \pm 0.6 $&$ 0.1 \pm 0.45 $&$ -0.50 \pm 0.25$\\
1331:
1332:
1333: \enddata
1334: \label{morebinresults}
1335: \end{deluxetable}
1336:
1337: \begin{figure}
1338: \plotone{f1.eps}
1339: \caption{The difference between the distance modulus to the source and
1340: that expected in a standard LCDM model with
1341: $\Omega_m = 0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$. Open circles represent
1342: the 192 supernovae of Davis et al. (2007), filled circles
1343: represent the 30 radio galaxies of Daly et al. (2007), and
1344: open triangles represent the 38 clusters of Bonamente et al. (2006). }
1345: \label{mudiffofz}
1346: \end{figure}
1347:
1348: \begin{figure}
1349: \plotone{f2.eps}
1350: \caption{The dimensionless coordinate distances to each source
1351: show along with the best fit y(z) and its one sigma error bar for
1352: the 182 gold supernovae from Riess et al. (2007), the 192 supernovae from
1353: Davis et al. (2007), the 115 supernovae of Astier et al. (2006), and the
1354: 30 radio galaxies from Daly et al. (2007).
1355: In this and in all subsequent figures,
1356: the solid curve illustrates the predicted value in a standard
1357: LCDM model with $\Omega_m = 0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$. }
1358: \label{yofz}
1359: \end{figure}
1360: \clearpage
1361:
1362:
1363: \begin{figure}
1364: \plotone{f3.eps}
1365: \caption{The first derivative of the coordinate distance with respect
1366: to redshift
1367: as a function of redshift for the samples described in Fig. \ref{yofz}.}
1368: \label{dydz}
1369: \end{figure}
1370: \clearpage
1371:
1372:
1373:
1374: \begin{figure}
1375: \plotone{f4.eps}
1376: \caption{The second derivative of the coordinate distance with respect
1377: to redshift
1378: as a function of redshift for the samples described in Fig. \ref{yofz}.}
1379: \label{d2ydz2}
1380: \end{figure}
1381: \clearpage
1382:
1383:
1384:
1385: \begin{figure}
1386: \plotone{f5.eps}
1387: \caption{The first derivative of the coordinate distance with
1388: respect to redshift as a function of
1389: redshift for the Davis et al. (2007) sample of 192 supernovae.
1390: Lines illustrating the predicted values of $y^{\prime} (z)$
1391: for the best fit parameters obtained fitting to
1392: a spatially flat quintessence model and
1393: a lambda model with space
1394: curvature, as well as a standard flat LCDM model, are shown. }
1395: \label{dydz192}
1396: \end{figure}
1397: \clearpage
1398:
1399:
1400: \begin{figure}
1401: \plotone{f6.eps}
1402: \caption{As in Figure \ref{dydz192} for the second derivative of the
1403: coordinate distance with respect to redshift. }
1404: \label{d2ydz2192}
1405: \end{figure}
1406: \clearpage
1407:
1408:
1409: \begin{figure}
1410: \plotone{f7.eps}
1411: \caption{Results obtained for the first derivative of the coordinate distance
1412: with respect to redshift for the combined sample of 192 supernovae
1413: and 30 radio galaxies using data split into three bins (top panel),
1414: four bins (middle panel), and six bins (bottom panel). The data
1415: point at the median redshift is shown, and the horizontal
1416: bars indicate the redshift range of the data points in the bin.
1417: The standard LCDM prediction for $\Omega_m = 0.3$ is indicated
1418: by the dotted line, and the curves predicted by the
1419: Cardassian model and the
1420: generalized Chaplygin gas model, which yield nearly identical
1421: results, are shown by the short and long dashed curves. }
1422: \label{yprimebin}
1423: \end{figure}
1424: \clearpage
1425:
1426: \begin{figure}
1427: \plotone{f8.eps}
1428: \caption{Results obtained
1429: for the second derivative of the coordinate distance
1430: with respect to redshift for the combined sample of 192 supernovae
1431: and 30 radio galaxies using data split into two bins (top panel)
1432: and three (bottom panel). The data
1433: point at the median redshift is shown, and the horizontal
1434: bars indicate the redshift range of the data points in the bin.
1435: The standard LCDM prediction for $\Omega_m = 0.3$ is indicated
1436: by the dotted line. }
1437: \label{yprimeprimebin}
1438: \end{figure}
1439: \clearpage
1440:
1441: \begin{figure}
1442: \plotone{f9.eps}
1443: \caption{The dimensionless coordinate distances to the 192
1444: supernovae of Davis et al. (2007) (open circles) and the
1445: 30 radio galaxies of Daly et al. (2007) (closed circles) are
1446: shown in the top panel. Our model-independent
1447: determination of H(z), obtained assuming only a FRW metric and
1448: zero space curvature, is shown for the combined sample of
1449: 192 supernovae and 30 radio galaxies in the second panel,
1450: while that for the 30 radio galaxies alone is shown in the bottom
1451: panel. }
1452: \label{yEsnprg}
1453: \end{figure}
1454: \clearpage
1455:
1456: \begin{figure}
1457: \plotone{f10.eps}
1458: \caption{Our model-independent
1459: determination of q(z), obtained assuming only a FRW metric and
1460: zero space curvature, is shown for the combined sample of
1461: 192 supernovae and 30 radio galaxies in the top panel and
1462: for the 30 radio galaxies alone in the bottom
1463: panel. }
1464: \label{qsnprg}
1465: \end{figure}
1466: \clearpage
1467:
1468: \begin{figure}
1469: \plotone{f11.eps}
1470: \caption{As in Figure \ref{yprimebin} but for $H(z_{med})/H_0$.}
1471: \label{binH}
1472: \end{figure}
1473: \clearpage
1474:
1475:
1476: \begin{figure}
1477: \plotone{f12.eps}
1478: \caption{As in Figure \ref{yprimeprimebin} but for $q(z_{med})$.}
1479: \label{binq}
1480: \end{figure}
1481: \clearpage
1482:
1483: \begin{figure}
1484: \plotone{f13.eps}
1485: \caption{The pressure, energy density, and equation of state of the dark
1486: energy obtained for the combined sample of 30 radio galaxies and
1487: 192 supernovae,
1488: obtained from $y^{\prime}$ and $y^{\prime \prime}$
1489: assumig zero space curvature.}
1490: \label{Pfw}
1491: \end{figure}
1492: \clearpage
1493:
1494: \begin{figure}
1495: \plotone{f14.eps}
1496: \caption{The potential and kinetic energy density of a dark energy
1497: scalar field as a function of redshift for the combined sample of
1498: 30 radio galaxies and 192 supernovae,
1499: obtained from $y^{\prime}$ and $y^{\prime \prime}$
1500: assuming zero space curvature.}
1501: \label{KV}
1502: \end{figure}
1503: \clearpage
1504:
1505: \begin{figure}
1506: \plotone{f15.eps}
1507: \caption{The
1508: dark energy indicator for the combined sample of 30 radio
1509: galaxies and 192 supernovae obtained from using
1510: equation \ref{s}. The behavior of $s$ predicted using
1511: equation \ref{sp} is shown for three simple models
1512: each assuming $\Omega_m = 0.3$, $\Omega_{DE}= 0.7$
1513: and $f(z) = 1$ over the redshift range shown,
1514: and $w = -1$ (solid line),
1515: $w = -0.8$ and remains constant over the redshift
1516: range shown (long dashed
1517: curve), and $w=-1.2$ and remains constant over the
1518: redshift range shown (short dashed curve).
1519: If $s$ remains constant, it suggests that $w=-1$,
1520: and the value of $s$ provides a new and indepedent
1521: measure of $\Omega_m$. }
1522: \label{S}
1523: \end{figure}
1524: \clearpage
1525:
1526:
1527:
1528:
1529: \begin{figure}
1530: \plotone{f16.eps}
1531: \caption{Model independent determination of H(z) for
1532: the Davis et al. (2007) sample of 192 supernovae.
1533: The top panel shows results obtained for $\Omega_k = 0$, and
1534: the bottom panel shows results obtained for $\Omega_k = 0.1$
1535: (upper curve) and $\Omega_k = -0.1$ (lower curve).
1536: For clarity, the uncertainties are not shown on the bottom panel,
1537: but are similar to those shown on the top panel.}
1538: \label{kEofz192}
1539: \end{figure}
1540: \clearpage
1541:
1542:
1543: \begin{figure}
1544: \plotone{f17.eps}
1545: \caption{Model independent determination of q(z) for
1546: the Davis et al. (2007) sample of 192 supernovae.
1547: The top panel shows results obtained for $\Omega_k = 0$, and
1548: the bottom panel shows results obtained for $\Omega_k = 0.1$
1549: (upper curve) and $\Omega_k = -0.1$ (lower curve).
1550: For clarity, the uncertainties are not shown on the bottom panel,
1551: but are similar to those shown on the top panel.}
1552: \label{kqofz192}
1553: \end{figure}
1554: \clearpage
1555:
1556:
1557: \begin{figure}
1558: \plotone{f18.eps}
1559: \caption{Results for $y^{\prime}(z)$,
1560: $y^{\prime \prime}(z)$, and $q(z)$ obtained with the
1561: combined sample of 30 radio galaxies (solid circles),
1562: 192 supernovae (open circles), and 38
1563: SZ clusters (stars), which is shown in Fig. \ref{mudiffofz}.
1564: The solid curve illustrates the predicted value in a standard
1565: LCDM model with $\Omega_m = 0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$.}
1566: \label{yetal260}
1567: \end{figure}
1568: \clearpage
1569:
1570:
1571: \begin{figure}
1572: \plotone{f19.eps}
1573: \caption{Results for $y(z)$, $y^{\prime}(z)$, and
1574: $y^{\prime \prime}(z)$ obtained with the 69 gamma ray burst
1575: data of Schaefer (2007).
1576: The solid curve illustrates the predicted value in a standard
1577: LCDM model with $\Omega_m = 0.4$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.6$,
1578: which are the best fit values to this model obtained by Schaefer (2007). }
1579: \label{GRB}
1580: \end{figure}
1581: \clearpage
1582:
1583:
1584:
1585: \end{document}
1586: