1: % ******************************************************************
2: % *********** start of ms.tex ***********
3: % ******************************************************************
4: %
5: % TITLE: Temperature Differences in the Cepheid Instability Strip
6: % from Galaxy-to-Galaxy Require Differences in their
7: % Period-Luminosity Relations in Slope and Zero Point
8: %
9: % AUTHOR: Allan Sandage, Obs. Carnegie Inst. Washington
10: % G.A. Tammann, Department of Physics and Astronomy Basel
11: %
12: % ******************************************************************
13: % DATE: 20.03.2007 *** Version 1.00 ***
14: % ******************************************************************
15: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
16: % ******************************************************************
17: % local defs
18: \newcommand{\kms}{{\,\rm km\,s}^{-1}}
19: \newcommand{\ksm}{{\,\rm km}\ {\rm~s}^{-1}\ {\rm~Mpc}^{-1}}
20: \newcommand{\nodatr}{\multicolumn{1}{r}{$\cdots$}~~}
21: \newcommand{\nodatl}{\multicolumn{1}{l}{~~~$\cdots$}}
22: \def\la{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
23: \def\sun{\hbox{$\odot$}}
24: \renewcommand{\mag}{\mbox{$\;$mag}}
25: \newcommand{\dex}{\mbox{$\;$dex}}
26: % ******************************************************************
27:
28:
29: \begin{document}
30: % ******************************************************************
31: \title{\uppercase{%
32: Temperature Differences in the Cepheid Instability Strip
33: Require Differences in the Period-Luminosity Relation in Slope
34: and \\ Zero Point}}
35:
36: \author{Allan Sandage}
37: \affil{The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,\\
38: 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101}
39: \and
40:
41: \author{G. A. Tammann}
42: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy,\\
43: Klingelbergstrasse 82, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland}
44: \email{g-a.tammann@unibas.ch}
45: %
46: % ******************************************************************
47: % Abstract
48: % ******************************************************************
49: \begin{abstract}
50: A graphical and an algebraic demonstration is made to show why the
51: slope and zero point of the Cepheid period-luminosity (P-L) relation
52: is rigidly coupled with the slope and zero point of the Cepheid
53: instability strip in the HR diagram. The graphical demonstration uses
54: an arbitrary (toy) ridge line in the instability strip, while the
55: algebraic demonstration uses the pulsation equation into which the
56: observed P-L relations for the Galaxy and the LMC are put to predict
57: the temperature zero points and slopes of the instability strips.
58: Agreement between the predicted and measured slopes in the
59: instability strips argue that the observed P-L differences between
60: the Galaxy and LMC are real. In another proof, the direct evidence
61: for different P-L slopes in different galaxies is shown by comparing
62: the Cepheid data in the Galaxy, the combined data in NGC\,3351 and
63: NGC\,4321, in M31, LMC, SMC, IC\,1613, NGC\,3109, and in Sextans A+B.
64: The P-L slopes for the Galaxy, NGC\,3351, NGC\,4321, and M31 are
65: nearly identical and are the steepest in the sample.
66: The P-L slopes decrease monotonically with metallicity in the
67: order listed, showing that the P-L relation is not the same in
68: different galaxies, complicating their use in calibrating the
69: extragalactic distance scale.
70: \end{abstract}
71: %
72: \keywords{stars: variables: Cepheids --- P-L relations --- distance scale}
73: % ******************************************************************
74:
75:
76:
77: % ******************************************************************
78: % 1. Introduction
79: % ******************************************************************
80: \section{INTRODUCTION}
81: \label{sec:01}
82: %
83: There is evidence that the Cepheid period-luminosity relation is not
84: universal but differs in slope and zero point from galaxy-to-galaxy at
85: a level of up to $\sim\!0.3\mag$ as a function of period
86: (cf.\
87: \citealt{Tammann:Reindl:02};
88: \citealt{Tammann:etal:02};
89: \citealt{TSR:03}, hereafter \citeauthor*{TSR:03};
90: \citealt{STR:04}, hereafter \citeauthor*{STR:04};
91: \citealt{ST:06} for a review).
92: Drastic as this conclusion is for studies of the extragalactic
93: distance scale, it has been strengthened in confirming studies by
94: \citet{Ngeow:etal:03},
95: \citet{Kanbur:Ngeow:04},
96: \citet{Ngeow:Kanbur:04,Ngeow:Kanbur:05,Ngeow:Kanbur:06},
97: \citet{Ngeow:etal:05},
98: \citet{Koen:etal:07},
99: and from theoretical models as a function of chemical composition by
100: many authors, starting perhaps with John
101: \citet{Cox:59,Cox:80}, and including
102: \citet{Christy:etal:66,Christy:etal:72},
103: \citet{Iben:Tuggle:75},
104: \citet{Chiosi:etal:92}, and more recently
105: \citet{Bono:etal:00},
106: \citet{Fiorentino:etal:02},
107: \citet{Marconi:etal:05},
108: and undoubtedly others.
109:
110: These studies show that the position of the borders of the the
111: $L$, $T_{e}$ instability strip in the HR diagram depends on chemical
112: composition. If the strip borders vary in position and slope, so must
113: the slope and zero point of the P-L relation, as worked through the
114: pulsation equation in the following sections.
115:
116: Despite this evidence, the conclusion that different P-L
117: relations apply in different galaxies has recently been challenged in
118: the literature. In these papers it is said that the slopes of the
119: Cepheid P-L relations in other galaxies satisfy the slope of the P-L
120: relation in the LMC and therefore that no slope differences with LMC
121: have been demonstrated conclusively
122: (cf. \citealt{Gieren:etal:05a,Gieren:etal:05b,Gieren:etal:06};
123: \citealt{Pietrzynski:etal:06};
124: \citealt{Benedict:etal:07};
125: \citealt{vanLeeuwen:etal:07} are examples).
126:
127: However, this claim sets aside the parallel evidence that the
128: slope and zero point of the ridge lines of the Cepheid instability
129: strips of the Galaxy, LMC and SMC themselves differ in temperature at
130: a given period (cf.\ Fig.~3 of \citeauthor*{STR:04}), and hence, in
131: luminosity.
132:
133: The purpose of this paper is to again remind us that the slope of
134: the P-L relation is rigidly coupled with the slope of the instability
135: strip via the \citet{Ritter:79} pulsation condition that
136: $P\sqrt{\rho}=\;$constant. Hence, if the instability strip slope
137: varies from galaxy-to-galaxy, so must the P-L slope.
138:
139: Differences in the instability strips of the Galaxy and SMC were
140: first set out by \citet{Gascoigne:Kron:65}.
141: They were made secure as temperature differences by
142: \citet{Laney:Stobie:86}, and have now been made definitive by the new
143: CCD data by \citet{Udalski:etal:99a,Udalski:etal:99b}
144: for LMC and SMC and by \citet{Berdnikov:etal:00} for the Galaxy, as
145: summarized for the Galaxy and LMC in Figure~20 of \citeauthor*{STR:04}.
146:
147: In the next section we show the pulsation equation graphically
148: and demonstrate from it the stated premise; a slope difference in the
149: ridge line of the instability strip leads to a slope difference in the
150: P-L relation. The graphical solution here is parallel to the algebraic
151: demonstration given elsewhere
152: (\citeauthor*{TSR:03}, \S~7.3; \citeauthor*{STR:04}, \S~8),
153: and made more explicit here in \S~\ref{sec:03}.
154:
155:
156:
157: % ******************************************************************
158: % 2. A Graphical Solution Based on the Lines of Constant Period
159: % ******************************************************************
160: \section{A GRAPHICAL SOLUTION BASED ON THE LINES OF CONSTANT PERIOD
161: IN THE HR DIAGRAM}
162: \label{sec:02}
163: %
164: In an obvious way the Ritter $P\sqrt{\rho}$ pulsation condition
165: can be put into the observable parameters of period, luminosity,
166: mass, and temperature by also using the Stefan-Boltzmann black
167: body radiation condition that $L\sim R^{2} T_{e}^{4}$. The Ritter plus
168: black body condition is improved by model calculations for real stars
169: by using details of the pulsating stellar atmosphere structure,
170: leading to the more precise pulsation equation of $P(L,M,T_{e})$.
171:
172: As in previous papers we again use the van Albada-Baker
173: \citeyearpar{vanAlbada:Baker:73} pulsation equation.
174: Although it was calculated by them to apply to the lower mass
175: RR Lyrae stars, comparisons show that their predicted P-L
176: relation is nearly identical with many other pulsation equations
177: calculated for higher mass Cepheids. Examples are the equations by
178: \citet[][their eq.~$\lbrack$3$\rbrack$]{Iben:Tuggle:75},
179: \citet[][their eq.~$\lbrack$5$\rbrack$]{Chiosi:etal:92},
180: \citet[][their eq.~$\lbrack$2$\rbrack$]{Simon:Clement:93}, and
181: \citet{Saio:Gautschy:98}.
182: The near identity among the equations is discussed in
183: \citet[][hereafter \citeauthor*{SBT:99}]{SBT:99}.
184:
185: The pulsation equation by \citeauthor{vanAlbada:Baker:73} is
186: \begin{equation}
187: \log P = 0.84 \log L_{\rm bol}-0.68\log\mbox{Mass}
188: -3.48\log T_{e}+11.502.
189: \label{eq:01}
190: \end{equation}
191: It can be made into an equation, $P(L,T_{e})$, for the lines of
192: constant period in the HR diagram once a mass-luminosity relation for
193: Cepheids is used to eliminate mass from equation~(\ref{eq:01}).
194:
195: Observational determinations of many Cepheid masses are not
196: available, and we must rely on theoretical mass values from calculated
197: evolution tracks that pass through the instability strip. A summary of
198: such tracks is given in Tables 1 to 5 of \citeauthor*{SBT:99} for
199: tracks calculated from the Geneva models, in Table~11 for the Padua
200: tracks, and Table~12 for the Saio-Gautschy tracks.
201: Detailed references for these models are in \citeauthor*{SBT:99}.
202: The models of \citet{Marconi:etal:05} for solar metallicity and by
203: \citet{Bono:etal:00} for lower metallicities were also studied.
204:
205: From all the models, normalized at $\log \mbox{Mass}=0.84$ at
206: $\log L=3.80$, we have adopted
207: \begin{equation}
208: \log\mbox{Mass} = 0.300\log L_{\rm bol} - 0.300
209: \label{eq:02}
210: \end{equation}
211: from the tracks. This is everywhere within
212: $\Delta\log\mbox{Mass}=0.03\dex$ of the Geneva and Padua tables in
213: \citeauthor*{SBT:99} for all metallicities.
214:
215: Putting equation~(\ref{eq:02}) into equation~(\ref{eq:01}) gives
216: the equation of the lines of constant period to be
217: \begin{equation}
218: \log L_{\rm bol} = 5.472 \log T_{e}+1.572\log P -18.406.
219: \label{eq:03}
220: \end{equation}
221: This produces a family of lines in the $\log L$, $\log T_{e}$ HR
222: diagram as $\log P$ is varied.
223:
224: Figure~\ref{fig:01} shows such a family for $\log~P$ values of
225: 0.4, 0.7, 1.0, 1.3, and 1.6. The ridge-line instability strip for the
226: Galaxy is shown, using its equation of
227: $\log T_{e}= -0.054\log L+3.922$ from \citeauthor*{STR:04}, Figure~20.
228: The blue and red strip borders are arbitrarily drawn parallel to the
229: Galaxy ridge line using a temperature width of $\Delta\log T_{e}=0.06$
230: from the Galaxy ridge line. This is slightly wider than is observed
231: (Fig.~20 of \citeauthor*{STR:04}), but is drawn to accommodate the
232: dashed strip line of a toy galaxy shown with the equation
233: $\log T_{e}=- 0.100\log L+4.103$, similar to the instability strip of
234: LMC (again Fig.~20 of \citeauthor*{STR:04}), but drawn here without
235: the break at 10 days. The toy galaxy strip (the dashed line) has been
236: made to intersect the Galaxy strip at $\log P=1.3$ to insure that the
237: separate P-L relations also cross at this period.
238:
239: % ***********************************************
240: % --> Figure 1: Model of a toy cluster
241: % ***********************************************
242:
243: The ridge-line P-L relations are obtained in an obvious way by
244: reading the $\log L$ (ordinate) values at the intersections of the
245: instability strip with the constant period lines for both the Galaxy
246: and the toy model. The fact that the resulting ridge-line P-L relation
247: obtained for the Galaxy in this way differs from that of the toy model
248: because of the different slopes of the instability strip ridge lines
249: is obvious from this construction.
250:
251: For $\log L<4.0$, the instability strip has higher temperatures
252: for the toy model than for the Galaxy at a given period. Hence, the
253: intersection of the ridge-line strip with the constant period lines
254: occurs at brigher lumimosities for the toy than for the Galaxy, giving
255: a P-L relation for the toy model that is brighter than for the Galaxy
256: for all periods smaller than $\log P=1.3$. The opposite is true for
257: $\log P>1.3$. Hence the P-L relations will have different slopes, as
258: was to be shown.
259:
260: The discussion here in words could complete the promised
261: demonstration that the slope of the P-L relation is rigidly coupled
262: with the slope of the instability strip ridge line in the HR
263: diagram. However, to make the point more explicit, even to the point
264: that the discussion becomes unnecessarily more elementary, bordering
265: on pedantry, Figure~\ref{fig:02} displays the two different P-L
266: relations obtained by reading Figure~\ref{fig:01} in this way.
267: The slope values for the Galaxy and the toy are marked in the Figure,
268: based on the adopted instability equations adopted for
269: Figure~\ref{fig:01}. These slopes are similar to the actual slope
270: values measured for the Galaxy and the SMC from
271: \citeauthor*{STR:04} (their eq.~[17]) and
272: \citet{TSR:08}, hereafter \citeauthor*{TSR:08} (their eq.~[5]), and
273: set out again in Table~\ref{tab:01} here later.
274:
275: % ***********************************************
276: % --> Figure 2: Calculated (m-M) of Toy Cluster
277: % ***********************************************
278:
279:
280:
281: % ******************************************************************
282: % 3. The Algebraic Solution Using Data from the Galaxy and the LMC
283: % ******************************************************************
284: \section{THE ALGEBRAIC SOLUTION USING DATA FROM THE GALAXY AND THE LMC}
285: \label{sec:03}
286: %
287: We can apply the pulsation equation directly to show the algebraic
288: solution for the same problem using real data, both for the equations
289: of the instability strips of the Galaxy and LMC and the observed P-L
290: relations. The demonstration made here uses the equations for observed
291: P-L relations from \citeauthor*{STR:04} in their equation~(17) for the
292: Galaxy and their equations~(12) and (13) for the LMC. These are put
293: into equation~(\ref{eq:01}), which, together with the adopted
294: mass-luminosity equation~(\ref{eq:02}), gives a predicted
295: $\log T_{e}$, $\log L$ instability ridge-line relation. This predicted
296: line is then compared with the observed instability strip equations
297: shown in Figure~20 of \citeauthor*{STR:04}.
298:
299: We have used an explicit bolometric correction to change the
300: $\log L_{V}$ values obtained from the observations into $\log L_{\rm bol}$
301: required in equations~(\ref{eq:01}) and (\ref{eq:02}), and back to
302: $\log L_{V}$ to compare the predictions from the pulsation equation
303: with the observations. The bolometric corrections are interpolated
304: from Table~6 of \citeauthor*{SBT:99} for the appropriate metallicities
305: and surface gravities of the Cepheids. The turbulent velocity was
306: assumed to be $1.7\kms$. The surface gravities vary with radius, mass,
307: and luminosity and therefore with period as a surrogate as
308: $\log g = -1.09 \log P +2.64$ (eq.~[49] of \citeauthor*{STR:04}). The
309: metallicities are assumed to be [A/H]$=0.00$ for the Galaxy and $-0.5$
310: for LMC. The mass is from equation~(\ref{eq:02}). The obvious
311: arithmetic is not shown.
312:
313: The resulting predictions of the instability strip ridge-line
314: equations are these:
315: \begin{equation}
316: \log T_{e}(\mbox{predicted}) = -0.040 \log L_{V} + 3.854
317: \label{eq:04}
318: \end{equation}
319: for the Galaxy at all periods, and,
320: \begin{equation}
321: \log T_{e}(\mbox{predicted}) = -0.056 \log L_{V} + 3.941
322: \label{eq:05}
323: \end{equation}
324: for $P<10\;$days for the LMC, and
325: \begin{equation}
326: \log T_{e}(\mbox{predicted}) = -0.081 \log L_{V} + 4.020
327: \label{eq:06}
328: \end{equation}
329: for $P>10\;$days, also for the LMC.
330:
331: Note that the break in the $T_{e}-L$ instability strip relation
332: at $P=10\;$days in equations~(\ref{eq:05}) and (\ref{eq:06}) is
333: mirrored in the break in the P-L LMC relations given in equations~(12)
334: and (13) of \citeauthor*{STR:04}, and shown as Figure~4 there.
335:
336: For comparison with the predictions in
337: equations~(\ref{eq:04})--(\ref{eq:06}) here, the {\em observed\/} ridge
338: lines of the strips in the Galaxy and the LMC, taken from the insert
339: equations shown in Figure~20 of \citeauthor*{STR:04}, are
340: \begin{equation}
341: \log T_{e}(\mbox{observed}) = -0.054 \log L_{V} + 3.922
342: \label{eq:07}
343: \end{equation}
344: for the Galaxy at all periods, and
345: \begin{equation}
346: \log T_{e}(\mbox{observed}) = -0.050 \log L_{V} + 3.936
347: \label{eq:08}
348: \end{equation}
349: for $P<10\;$days, and
350: \begin{equation}
351: \log T_{e}(\mbox{observed}) = -0.078 \log L_{V} + 4.029
352: \label{eq:09}
353: \end{equation}
354: for $P>10\;$days for the LMC.
355:
356: The near agreement of the predicted slopes of the instability
357: strips in equations (\ref{eq:04})--(\ref{eq:06}) with the observed
358: slopes in equations (\ref{eq:07})--(\ref{eq:09}) is the demonstration
359: we are seeking.
360:
361: The agreement is good, but there is a disagreement in the
362: temperature zero points between equations (\ref{eq:04})--(\ref{eq:06})
363: and equations (\ref{eq:07})--(\ref{eq:09}) by
364: $\Delta \log T_{e}=0.018\dex$. The predicted temperatures are cooler
365: than those observed. However, the difference is remarkably small,
366: given the approximations we have made in the bolometric corrections,
367: in the adopted temperature scale of \citeauthor*{SBT:99}, their Table~6,
368: and in the adopted van Albada-Baker theoretical zero point in
369: equation~(\ref{eq:01}).
370:
371: The temperature offset could be made zero if the zero point
372: of the mass in equation~(\ref{eq:02}) would be made smaller by
373: $0.09\dex$, but then the evolution mass would differ from the
374: pulsation mass by this amount. This is the expression of the previous
375: well known mass ``problem'' which is solved here by the temperature
376: shift.
377:
378: In this regard, it is useful to remark that many of the
379: temperature scales in the current literature, for example as
380: summarized by \citet{Sekiguchi:Fukugita:00} or by
381: \citet{Cacciari:etal:05}, and including the one in
382: \citeauthor*{SBT:99} that we have used here, differ among themselves
383: by as much as $0.025\dex$ in $\log T_{e}$ at fixed $B\!-\!V$. This,
384: then, is the temperature uncertainty in the temperature zero point in
385: Figure~20 of \citeauthor*{STR:04}. Our shifting of the predicted
386: temperature relative to the observed temperatures in
387: Figure~\ref{fig:03} by $0.018\dex$ is not excessive.
388:
389: % ***********************************************
390: % --> Figure 3: Apparent Magnitude Cut
391: % ***********************************************
392:
393: The observed (solid lines) and the predicted (dashed lines
394: shifted by $0.018\dex$ in $\log T_{e}$) instability strips for the
395: Galaxy and the LMC are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:03}. The agreement is
396: satisfactory, showing again that differences in the instability strip
397: loci causes differences in the slopes of the P-L relations. Hence
398: the claims in the current literature, cited in the Introduction,
399: that a universal slope exists for the Cepheid P-L relation are
400: inconsistent with Figures~\ref{fig:01}--\ref{fig:03} which show
401: different positions of the instability strip in different galaxies.
402:
403:
404:
405: % ******************************************************************
406: % 4. Summary of Observed P-L Slope Differences in Selected Galaxies
407: % ******************************************************************
408: \section{SUMMARY OF OBSERVED P-L SLOPE DIFFERENCES IN SELECTED GALAXIES}
409: \label{sec:04}
410: %
411: The arguments given in the previous sections rely on knowledge
412: of the temperatures of the instability strips. These can only be
413: measured using reddening corrected colors, and these are reliable only
414: if the reddening of the individual Cepheids can be determined by some
415: method other than by using a fiducial period-color (P-C)
416: relation. The reason is that if the temperatures of the instability
417: strips differ from galaxy-to-galaxy, presumably because of chemical
418: composition differences, the P-C relations will also differ. There
419: will be no correct fiducial P-C template from which to determine the
420: reddening if the chemical compositions vary greatly. The intrinsic P-C
421: relations will differ from galaxy-to-galaxy depending on the chemical
422: composition, and the reddenings are therefore indeterminate.
423:
424: Presently, it is only the Galaxy, LMC, and SMC that can be
425: subjected to the analysis given here because it is only for these
426: galaxies that the reddening of their Cepheids have been determined by
427: methods other than by comparing with some adopted fiducial P-C
428: relation.
429:
430: However, for some galaxies with enough Cepheids, and where the
431: differential reddening between the Cepheids is small enough to be
432: ignored, comparison of the P-L slopes can be made directly from the
433: data. The result for the Galaxy, NGC\,3351, NGC\,4321, LMC, SMC,
434: IC\,1613, NGC\,3109, and Sextans A and B is shown in
435: Figure~\ref{fig:04}. The adopted data for the P-L relations are in
436: Table~\ref{tab:01}. The equations for the apparent magnitude and
437: absolute magnitude P-L relations are $V^{0}= a\log P + b$, and
438: $M_{V}^{0} = a\log P + c$. Column~(2) is the $\log$ of the
439: oxygen-to-hydrogen ratio from Table~4 of \citeauthor*{TSR:08}.
440: Column~(3) shows the observed value of $a$, which is the slope of the
441: apparent magnitude P-L relation taken from the same sources (but
442: changed slightly in a few entries here) as were used for Table~4 of
443: \citeauthor*{TSR:08}. Column~(4) lists the apparent magnitude P-L
444: intercept, $b$, as observed. Column~(5) lists the $(m-M)^{0}$
445: distance modulus adopted in \citeauthor*{TSR:08}. The absolute
446: magnitude P-L relation is in column~(6), which is column~(4) minus
447: column~(5). The literature source is in column~(7). The
448: resulting P-L relations, calculated from the $a$ and $c$ values in
449: Table~\ref{tab:01}, are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:04}. The slopes for
450: the NGC\,3351/ NGC\,4321 combination and the Galaxy are the steepest
451: of those shown, and are similar. That of the LMC is next steepest.
452:
453: % ***********************************************
454: % --> Figure 4: P-L relations for 8 galaxies from Table 1
455: % ***********************************************
456: % ***********************************************
457: % --> Table 1: Observed P-L Relations for 10 galaxies
458: % ***********************************************
459:
460: The slope of the Galaxy P-L relation in \citeauthor*{TSR:03} and
461: \citeauthor*{STR:04} is based on averaging the results using the
462: moving atmosphere method (the Baade-Becker-Wesselink procedure) and
463: the independent main sequence fitting method. Nevertheless, the
464: resulting slope of the P-L slope has been questioned as being too steep
465: \citep[cf.][]{Gieren:etal:05b,vanLeeuwen:etal:07}.
466: However, the slopes of the NGC\,3351 and NGC\,4321 combined P-L
467: relation, and that of M31 by \citet{Vilardell:etal:07}
468: are equally steep as for the Galaxy. The M31 slope by
469: \citeauthor{Vilardell:etal:07} has been redetermined by
470: \citeauthor*{TSR:08}.
471: The original slope by Villardel and collaborators was based on
472: $E(B\!-\!V)$ values using the LMC P-C relation rather than the more
473: correct higher metallicity P-C relation for the Galaxy. The
474: resulting $E(B\!-\!V)$ values turns out to depend on period as a
475: further complication. But even discounting the M31 case, the
476: steep slope for NGC\,3351 and NGC\,4321 from \citeauthor*{TSR:08}
477: (their Fig.~2), supports the Galaxy slope that we derived in
478: \citeauthor*{STR:04} and its difference from the P-L slope in LMC.
479:
480: The strongest evidence for the difference as function of
481: metallicity is the data for NGC\,3109 \citep{Pietrzynski:etal:06}
482: which has the well determined P-L slope of $dM_{V} /d\log P = -2.13$.
483: This differs significantly from the slopes of either the Galaxy
484: or NGC\,3351/ NGC\,4321 at $-3.10$, or $-2.92$ for M31, and even for
485: the LMC at $-2.70$. The six longest period Cepheids in NGC\,3109 with
486: $\log P > 1.3$ are too faint by $\sim\!0.2\mag$
487: (Fig.~4 of \citealt{Pietrzynski:etal:06}) compared with either the
488: Galaxy or the LMC P-L relations.
489:
490: Figure~\ref{fig:04}, similar in principle to Figure~5 in
491: \citeauthor*{TSR:08}, together with Figure~\ref{fig:03} here, is our
492: chief case for non-unique P-L relations between galaxies of different
493: chemical compositions. The complications that this portends for
494: determining the scale of extragalactic distances from Cepheids to
495: within $\sim\!15\%$, unless special corrections for the difference
496: are applied, is discussed elsewhere
497: (cf. \citealt{STT:06}; \citealt{STS:06}; \citeauthor*{TSR:08}).
498:
499:
500: % ***********************************************
501: % Acknowledgments
502: % ***********************************************
503: \acknowledgments
504: It is a pleasure to thank Bernd Reindl for his skill in the
505: preparation of the diagrams and the text for publication. We
506: also thank John Grula, Carnegie editorial chief, for his
507: liaison with the press.
508:
509:
510:
511: % ******************************************************************
512: % Bibliography
513: % ******************************************************************
514: \begin{thebibliography}{}
515: %%%
516: \bibitem[Antonello et~al.(2006)]{Antonello:etal:06}
517: Antonello, E., Fossati, L., Fugazza, D., Mantegazza, L., \& Gieren, W. 2006,
518: % Variable stars in nearby galaxies. VII. P-L relation in the BVRI
519: % bands of Cepheids in IC 1613
520: A\&A, 445, 901
521: %%%
522: \bibitem[Benedict et~al.(2007)]{Benedict:etal:07} % + 8 coauthors
523: Benedict, G.~F., et~al. 2007,
524: % Hubble Space Telescope Fine Guidance Sensor Parallaxes of
525: % Galactic Cepheid Variable Stars: Period-Luminosity Relations
526: AJ, 133, 1810
527: %%%
528: \bibitem[Berdnikov et~al.(2000)]{Berdnikov:etal:00}
529: Berdnikov, L.~N., Dambis, A.~K., \& Voziakova, O.~V. 2000,
530: % Galactic Cepheids. Catalogue of light-curve parameters and
531: % distances
532: A\&AS, 143, 211
533: %%%
534: \bibitem[Bono et~al.(2000)]{Bono:etal:00}
535: Bono, G., Castellani, V., \& Marconi, M. 2000,
536: % Classical Cepheid Pulsation Models. III. The Predictable Scenario
537: ApJ, 529, 293
538: %%%
539: \bibitem[Cacciari et~al.(2005)]{Cacciari:etal:05}
540: Cacciari, C., Corwin, T.~M., \& Carney, B.~W. 2005,
541: % A Multicolor and Fourier Study of RR Lyrae Variables in the
542: % Globular Cluster NGC 5272 (M3)
543: AJ, 129, 267
544: %%%
545: \bibitem[Chiosi et~al.(1992)]{Chiosi:etal:92}
546: Chiosi, C., Wood, P., Bertelli, G., \& Bresson, A. 1992,
547: % On the instability strip of the Cepheid stars
548: ApJ, 387, 320
549: %%%
550: \bibitem[Christy et~al.(1966)]{Christy:etal:66}
551: Christy, R.~F. 1966,
552: % A Study of Pulsation in RR Lyrae Models
553: ApJ, 144, 108
554: %%%
555: \bibitem[Christy et~al.(1972)]{Christy:etal:72}
556: Christy, R.~F. 1972,
557: % Variable - Star Models
558: in Stellar Evolution, ed. H.-Y. Chiu \& A. Muriel
559: (Cambridge: MIT Press) Chapter 6, 173
560: %%%
561: \bibitem[Cox(1959)Cox]{Cox:59}
562: Cox, J.~P. 1959,
563: % Stellar Pulsation. V. a. Semitheoretical Period-Luminosity
564: % Relation for Cepheids with Radiative Envelopes.
565: ApJ, 130, 296
566: %%%
567: \bibitem[Cox(1980)]{Cox:80}
568: Cox, J.~P. 1980,
569: Theory of Stellar Pulsation
570: (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press), 146
571: %%%
572: \bibitem[Fiorentino et~al.(2002)]{Fiorentino:etal:02}
573: Fiorentino, G., Caputo, F., Marconi, M., \& Musella, I. 2002,
574: % Theoretical Models for Classical Cepheids. VIII. Effects of
575: % Helium and Heavy-Element Abundance on the Cepheid Distance Scale
576: ApJ, 576, 402
577: %%%
578: \bibitem[Gascoigne \& Kron(1965)]{Gascoigne:Kron:65}
579: Gascoigne, S.~C.~B., \& Kron, G.~E. 1965,
580: % Photoelectric observations of Magellanic Cloud cepheids
581: MNRAS, 130, 933
582: %%%
583: \bibitem[Gieren et~al.(2006)]{Gieren:etal:06}
584: Gieren, W., Pietrzynski, G., Nalewajko, K., Soszynski, I.,
585: Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.-P., Minniti, D., \& Romanowsky, A. 2006,
586: % The Araucaria Project: An Accurate Distance to the Local Group
587: % Galaxy NGC 6822 from Near-Infrared Photometry of Cepheid Variables
588: ApJ, 647, 1056
589: %%%
590: \bibitem[Gieren et~al.(2005a)]{Gieren:etal:05a}
591: Gieren, W., Pietrzynski, G., Soszynski, I., Bresolin, F.,
592: Kudritzki, R.-P., Minniti, D., \& Storm, J. 2005a,
593: % The Araucaria Project: Near-Infrared Photometry of Cepheid
594: % Variables in the Sculptor Galaxy NGC 300
595: ApJ, 628, 695
596: %%%
597: \bibitem[Gieren et~al.(2005b)]{Gieren:etal:05b}
598: Gieren, W., Storm, J., Barnes, T.~G., Fouqu{\'e}, P., Pietrzynski,
599: G., \& Kienzle, F. 2005b,
600: % Direct Distances to Cepheids in the Large Magellanic Cloud:
601: % Evidence for a Universal Slope of the Period-Luminosity Relation
602: % up to Solar Abundance
603: ApJ, 627, 224
604: %%%
605: \bibitem[Iben \& Tuggle(1975)]{Iben:Tuggle:75}
606: Iben, I., \& Tuggle, R.~S. 1975,
607: % On the intrinsic properties of cepheids in the galaxy, in
608: % Andromeda, and in the Magellanic Clouds
609: ApJ, 197, 39
610: %%%
611: \bibitem[Kanbur \& Ngeow(2004)]{Kanbur:Ngeow:04}
612: Kanbur, S.~M., \& Ngeow, C.-C. 2004,
613: % Period-colour and amplitude-colour relations in classical Cepheid
614: % variables
615: MNRAS, 350, 962
616: %%%
617: \bibitem[Koen et~al.(2007)]{Koen:etal:07}
618: Koen, C., Kanbur, S., \& Ngeow, C.-C. 2007,
619: % The detailed forms of the LMC Cepheid PL and PLC relations
620: MNRAS, 380, 1440
621: %%%
622: \bibitem[Laney \& Stobie(1986)]{Laney:Stobie:86}
623: Laney, C.~D., \& Stobie, R.~S. 1986,
624: % Infrared photometry of Magellanic Cloud Cepheids - Intrinsic
625: % properties of Cepheids and the spatial structure of Clouds
626: MNRAS, 222, 449
627: %%%
628: \bibitem[Marconi et~al.(2005)]{Marconi:etal:05}
629: Marconi, M., Musella, I., \& Fiorentino, G. 2005,
630: % Cepheid Pulsation Models at Varying Metallicity and DeltaY/DeltaZ
631: ApJ, 632, 590
632: %%%
633: \bibitem[Ngeow \& Kanbur(2004)]{Ngeow:Kanbur:04}
634: Ngeow, C.-C., \& Kanbur, S.~M. 2004,
635: % Period-luminosity relations for Galactic Cepheid variables with
636: % independent distance measurements
637: MNRAS, 349, 1130
638: %%%
639: \bibitem[Ngeow \& Kanbur(2005)]{Ngeow:Kanbur:05}
640: Ngeow, C.-C., \& Kanbur, S.~M. 2005,
641: % The linearity of the Wesenheit function for the Large Magellanic
642: % Cloud Cepheids
643: MNRAS, 360, 1033
644: %%%
645: \bibitem[Ngeow \& Kanbur(2006)]{Ngeow:Kanbur:06}
646: Ngeow, C.-C., \& Kanbur, S.~M. 2006,
647: % Nonlinear Period-Luminosity Relation for the Large Magellanic
648: % Cloud Cepheids: Myths and Truths
649: ApJ, 650, 180 % astro-ph/0607059
650: %%%
651: \bibitem[Ngeow et~al.(2005)]{Ngeow:etal:05}
652: Ngeow, C.-C., Kanbur, S.~M., Nikolaev, S., Buonaccorsi, J., Cook, K.~H.,
653: \& Welch, D.~L. 2005,
654: % Further empirical evidence for the non-linearity of the
655: % period-luminosity relations as seen in the Large Magellanic Cloud
656: % Cepheids
657: MNRAS, 363, 831
658: %%%
659: \bibitem[Ngeow et~al.(2003)]{Ngeow:etal:03}
660: Ngeow, C.-C., Kanbur, S.~M., Nikolaev, S., Tanvir, N.~R., \& Hendry, M.~A. 2003,
661: % Reconstructing a Cepheid Light Curve with Fourier Techniques. I.
662: % The Fourier Expansion and Interrelations
663: ApJ, 586, 959
664: %%%
665: \bibitem[Pietrzynski et~al.(2006)]{Pietrzynski:etal:06}
666: Pietrzynski, G., et~al. 2006, % + 9 coauthors
667: % The Araucaria Project: A Wide-field photometric survey for
668: % Cepheid variables in NGC 3109
669: ApJ, 648, 366 % (NGC\,3109)
670: %%%
671: \bibitem[Piotto et~al.(1994)]{Piotto:etal:94}
672: Piotto, G., Capaccioli, M., \& Pellegrini, C. 1994,
673: % On the Cepheid variables of nearby galaxies
674: A\&A, 287, 371 % (Sextans A+B)
675: %%%
676: \bibitem[Ritter(1879)]{Ritter:79}
677: Ritter, A. 1879,
678: Ann. Phys. Chem. Neue Folge, 8, 157
679: %%%
680: \bibitem[Saha et~al.(2006)STT\,06]{STT:06}
681: Saha, A., Thim, F., Tammann, G.~A., Reindl, B., \& Sandage, A. 2006,
682: % Cepheid Distances to SNeIa Host Galaxies based
683: % on a Revised Photometric Zero-Point 0f the HST-WFPC2
684: % and New P-L Relations and Metallicity Corrections
685: ApJS, 165, 108
686: %%%
687: \bibitem[Saio \& Gautschy(1998)]{Saio:Gautschy:98}
688: Saio, H., \& Gautschy, A. 1998,
689: % On the Theoretical Period-Luminosity Relation of Cepheids
690: ApJ, 498, 360
691: %%%
692: \bibitem[Sandage et~al.(1999)SBT\,99]{SBT:99}
693: Sandage, A., Bell, R.~A., \& Tripicco, M.~J. 1999,
694: % On the Sensitivity of the Cepheid Period-Luminosity Relation to
695: % Variations of Metallicity
696: ApJ, 522, 250 (SBT\,99)
697: %%%
698: \bibitem[Sandage \& Tammann(2006)ST\,06]{ST:06}
699: Sandage, A., \& Tammann, G.~A. 2006,
700: % Absolute Magnitude Calibrations of Population I and II Cepheids
701: % and Other Pulsating Variables in the Instability Strip of the
702: % Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram
703: ARA\&A, 44, 93 % (ST\,06)
704: %%%
705: \bibitem[Sandage et~al.(2004)STR\,04]{STR:04}
706: Sandage, A., Tammann, G.~A., \& Reindl, B. 2004,
707: % New Period-Luminosity and Period-Color relations of classical
708: % Cepheids: II. Cepheids in LMC
709: A\&A, 424, 43 (STR\,04)
710: %%%
711: \bibitem[Sandage et~al.(2006)STS\,06]{STS:06}
712: Sandage, A., Tammann, G.~A., Saha, A., Reindl, B., Macchetto,
713: F.~D., \& Panagia, N. 2006,
714: % The Hubble Constant, A Summary of the Hubble Space Telescope
715: % Program for the Luminosity Calibration of Type Ia Supernovae by
716: % Means of Cepheids
717: ApJ, 653, 843
718: %%%
719: \bibitem[Sekiguchi \& Fukugita(2000)]{Sekiguchi:Fukugita:00}
720: Sekiguchi, M., \& Fukugita, M. 2000,
721: % A Study of the B-V Color-Temperature Relation
722: AJ, 120, 1072
723: %%%
724: \bibitem[Simon \& Clement(1993)]{Simon:Clement:93}
725: Simon, N.~R., \& Clement, C.~M. 1993,
726: % A provisional RR Lyrae distance scale
727: ApJ, 410, 526
728: %%%
729: \bibitem[Tammann \& Reindl(2002)]{Tammann:Reindl:02}
730: Tammann, G.~A., \& Reindl, B. 2002,
731: % GAIA and the Extragalactic Distance Scale
732: Ap \& Space Sci., 280, 165
733: %%%
734: \bibitem[Tammann et~al.(2002)]{Tammann:etal:02}
735: Tammann, G.~A., Reindl, B., Thim, F., Saha, A., \& Sandage, A. 2002,
736: % Cepheids, Supernovae, Ho, and the Age of the Universe
737: in ASP Conf. Ser. 283, A New Era in Cosmology,
738: ed. T.~Shanks, \& N.~Metcalfe
739: (San Francisco: ASP), 258
740: %%%
741: \bibitem[Tammann et~al.(2003)TSR\,03]{TSR:03}
742: Tammann, G.~A., Sandage, A., \& Reindl, B. 2003,
743: % New Period-Luminosity and Period-Color relations of classical
744: % Cepheids: I. Cepheids in the Galaxy
745: A\&A, 404, 423 (TSR\,03)
746: %%%
747: \bibitem[Tammann et~al.(2008)TSR\,08]{TSR:08}
748: Tammann, G.~A., Sandage, A., \& Reindl, B. 2008,
749: % Comparison of distances from RR Lyrae stars, the tip
750: % of the red-giant branch and classical Cepheids
751: ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0712.2346 (TSR\,08)
752: %%%
753: \bibitem[Udalski et~al.(1999a)]{Udalski:etal:99a}
754: Udalski, A., Soszynski, I., Szymanski, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzynski,
755: G., Wozniak, P., \& Zebrun, K. 1999a,
756: % The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment. Cepheids in the
757: % Magellanic Clouds. IV. Catalog of Cepheids from the
758: % Large Magellanic Cloud
759: Acta Astron., 49, 223
760: %%%
761: \bibitem[Udalski et~al.(1999b)]{Udalski:etal:99b}
762: Udalski, A., Soszynski, I., Szymanski, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzynski,
763: G., Wozniak, P., \& Zebrun, K. 1999b,
764: % The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment. Cepheids in the
765: % Magellanic Clouds. V. Catalog of Cepheids from the
766: % Small Magellanic Cloud
767: Acta Astron., 49, 437
768: %%%
769: \bibitem[van~Albada \& Baker(1973)]{vanAlbada:Baker:73}
770: van~Albada, T.~S., \& Baker, N. 1973,
771: % On the Two Oosterhoff Groups of Globular Clusters
772: ApJ, 185, 477
773: %%%
774: \bibitem[van Leeuwen et~al.(2007)]{vanLeeuwen:etal:07}
775: van Leeuwen, F., Feast, M.~W., Whitelock, P.~A., \& Laney, C.~D. 2007,
776: % Cepheid Parallaxes and the Hubble Constant
777: MNRAS, 379, 723
778: %%%
779: \bibitem[Vilardell et~al.(2007)]{Vilardell:etal:07}
780: Vilardell, F., Jordi, C., \& Ribas, I. 2007,
781: % A comprehensive study of Cepheid variables in the Andromeda
782: % galaxy. Period distribution, blending, and distance determination
783: A\&A, 473, 847
784: %
785: % ******************************************************************
786: \end{thebibliography}
787: % ******************************************************************
788:
789: \clearpage
790:
791: % ******************************************************************
792: % *********** Tables ***********
793: % ******************************************************************
794:
795: % ***********************************************
796: % Table 1: Observed P-L Relations for 10 galaxies
797: % ***********************************************
798: \begin{deluxetable}{lclccccc}
799: \tablewidth{0pt}
800: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
801: \tablecaption{{\sc Observed (P-L)$_{V}$ Relations for Ten Galaxies with
802: Different Chemical Compositions}\label{tab:01}}
803: % ***********************************************
804: \tablehead{
805: % ***********************************************
806: \colhead{Name} &
807: \colhead{[O/H]} &
808: \colhead{$a$} &
809: \colhead{$b$} &
810: \colhead{$(m-M)^{0}$} &
811: \colhead{$c$} &
812: \colhead{Ref}
813: \\
814: \colhead{(1)} &
815: \colhead{(2)} &
816: \colhead{(3)} &
817: \colhead{(4)} &
818: \colhead{(5)} &
819: \colhead{(6)} &
820: \colhead{(7)}
821: }
822: % ***********************************************
823: \startdata
824: % ***********************************************
825: Galaxy & $8.60$ & $-3.087$ & \nodata & \nodata & $-0.91$ & 1 \\
826: NGC\,3351/4321 & $\langle8.80\rangle$ & $-3.108$ & mean & mean & $-0.90$ & 2 \\
827: M31 & $8.66$ & $-2.92$ & \nodata & $24.43$ & \nodata & 3 \\
828: LMC & $8.34$ & $-2.702$ & $17.05$ & $18.54$ & $-1.49$ & 4 \\
829: SMC & $7.98$ & $-2.588$ & $17.53$ & $18.93$ & $-1.40$ & 5 \\
830: IC\,1613 & $7.86$ & $-2.698$ & $23.08$ & $24.35$ & $-1.27$ & 6 \\
831: NGC\,3109 & $8.06$ & $-2.130$ & $23.73$ & $25.45$ & $-1.72$ & 7 \\
832: Sextans A/B & $7.52$ & $-1.628$ & $23.10$ & $25.80$ & $-2.40$ & 8 \\
833: % ***********************************************
834: \enddata
835: % ***********************************************
836: \tablerefs{
837: (1) \citeauthor*{STR:04}, eq.~[17];
838: (2) \citeauthor*{TSR:08}, Fig.~2;
839: (3) \citealt{Vilardell:etal:07};
840: (4) \citeauthor*{STR:04}, eq.~[8];
841: (5) \citeauthor*{TSR:08}, eq.~[5];
842: (6) \citealt{Antonello:etal:06};
843: (7) \citealt{Pietrzynski:etal:06}, Fig.~4;
844: (8) \citealt{Piotto:etal:94}.
845: }
846: % ***********************************************
847: \end{deluxetable}
848: % ***********************************************
849:
850: \clearpage
851:
852: % ******************************************************************
853: % *********** Figures ***********
854: % ******************************************************************
855:
856: \epsscale{0.8} % for all figures
857: % ***********************************************
858: % Figure 1: Model of a toy cluster
859: % ***********************************************
860: \begin{figure}[t]
861: \plotone{f1.eps}
862: \caption{Schematic HR diagram in the vicinity of the Cepheid
863: instability strip. The central line is the observed ridge line
864: for the Galaxy taken from Figure~20 of STR\,04
865: whose equation is $\log T_{e}=-0.054\log L_{V} + 3.922$. The
866: dashed line is for a toy galaxy whose ridge-line equation is
867: $\log T_{e}=-0.100\log L_{V} + 4.103$. The borders of the
868: instability strip are put parallel to the Galaxy ridge
869: line. Lines of constant period, calculated from
870: equation~(\ref{eq:03}), are marked with their $\log P$ values
871: (in days).}
872: \label{fig:01}
873: \end{figure}
874: % ***********************************************
875:
876: \clearpage
877:
878: % ***********************************************
879: % Figure 2: Calculated (m-M) of Toy Cluster
880: % ***********************************************
881: \begin{figure}[t]
882: \plotone{f2.eps}
883: \caption{The two P-L relations for the two ridge lines in
884: Figure~\ref{fig:01}, determined from the intersections of the
885: ridge lines of the Galaxy and the toy galaxy with the lines of
886: constant period in Figure~\ref{fig:01}. The absolute magnitudes
887: along the ordinate are transferred from Figure~\ref{fig:01} by
888: $M_{V}=-2.5\log L_{\rm bol}+4.75$ where the bolometric correction
889: in $V$ is adopted to be zero.}
890: \label{fig:02}
891: \end{figure}
892: % ***********************************************
893:
894: \clearpage
895:
896: % ***********************************************
897: % Figure 3: Apparent Magnitude Cut
898: % ***********************************************
899: \begin{figure}[t]
900: \plotone{f3.eps}
901: \caption{The algebraic demonstration of the rigid coupling between
902: the slopes of the instability strip and the slope of the P-L
903: relation required by the pulsation equation. Predicted (dashed
904: lines) slopes and zero points for these instability strip ridge
905: lines in the Galaxy and the LMC are compared with the observed
906: (solid) lines from Figure~20 of \citeauthor*{STR:04}. The
907: predictions are made by inserting the equations of the observed
908: P-L relations for the Galaxy and the LMC into the pulsation
909: equation~(\ref{eq:01}). The predicted zero points are moved by
910: 0.018 in $\log T_{e}$, hotter.}
911: \label{fig:03}
912: \end{figure}
913: % ***********************************************
914:
915: \clearpage
916:
917: % ***********************************************
918: % Figure 4: P-L relations for 8 galaxies from Table 1
919: % ***********************************************
920: \begin{figure}[t]
921: \plotone{f4.eps}
922: \caption{The observed ridge lines of the P-L relations for eight
923: galaxies listed in Table~\ref{tab:01}. The P-L relation for the
924: Galaxy (not shown) is nearly identical with the combined
925: NGC\,3351 and NGC\,4321 line, and has the steepest slope.
926: The agreement between the Galaxy and the combined NGC\,3351 and
927: NGC\,4321 slopes argues for the correctness of the steep slope
928: for the Galaxy P-L relation.}
929: \label{fig:04}
930: \end{figure}
931: % ***********************************************
932:
933: % ******************************************************************
934: \end{document}
935: % ******************************************************************
936: % *********** end of ms.tex ***********
937: % ******************************************************************
938:
939:
940:
941:
942:
943:
944: