1: \documentstyle[11pt,newpasp,twoside, epsfig]{article}

2: \markboth{J.P.\ Blakeslee}{Testing Distance Scales}

3: \pagestyle{myheadings}

4: \nofiles

5: 

6: \def\emphasize#1{{\sl#1\/}}

7: \def\arg#1{{\it#1\/}}

8: \let\prog=\arg

9: 

10: \def\kms{\ifmmode{\,\hbox{km}\,\hbox{s}^{-1}}\else{$\,$km$\,$s$^{-1}$}\fi}

11: \def\etal{et~al.}

12: \def\farcm{\hbox{$.\mkern-4mu^\prime$}}

13: \def\arcsec{\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}}

14: \def\farcs{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime\prime}$}}

15: \def\kmsM{km~s$^{-1}\,$Mpc$^{-1}$}

16: \def\Nbar{\ifmmode\overline{N}\else$\overline{N}$\fi}

17: \def\Mbar{$\overline M$}

18: \def\MVbar{$\overline M_V$}

19: \def\MIbar{$\overline M_I$}

20: \def\vbar{$\overline V$}

21: \def\ibar{$\overline I$}

22: \def\mbar{\ifmmode\overline m\else$\overline m$\fi}

23: \def\lbar{\ifmmode\overline{L}\else$\overline{L}$\fi}

24: 

25: \def\edcomment#1{\iffalse\marginpar{\raggedright\sl#1\/}\else\relax\fi}

26: \marginparwidth 1.25in

27: \marginparsep .125in

28: \marginparpush .25in

29: \reversemarginpar

30: 

31: \begin{document}

32: \title{Testing the Supernova, Cepheid, and Early-type Galaxy Distance Scales}

33: \author{J.\ P.\ Blakeslee}

34: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University}

35: %Baltimore, MD~ {\tt (jpb@pha.jhu.edu)}}

36: 

37: \begin{abstract}

38: I summarize recent work comparing relative distances measured to 

39: individual galaxies with independent methods.

40: The comparisons include: 

41: ground-based surface brightness fluctuation (SBF)

42:  and fundamental plane distances to 170 galaxies,

43: distances predicted from galaxy velocities and the inferred gravity

44: field, HST SBF

45: measurements to seven early-type hosts of Type Ia supernovae,

46: and ties of the Cepheid distance scale to early-type galaxies.

47: Independent calibrations for some methods provide interesting

48: constraints on the Cepheid zero point.

49: \end{abstract}

50: 

51: \vspace{-30pt}

52: \section{Early-type Galaxy Comparisons: SBF versus FP}

53: 

54: The two most frequently applied early-type galaxy distance indicators

55: are the fundamental plane (FP, and the related $D_n$-$\sigma$) and

56: surface brightness fluctuations (SBF) methods.  In a recent study

57: (Blakeslee \etal\ 2001,\,2002), we used $V$- and $I$-band data from the

58: ground-based SBF Survey (Tonry \etal\ 2001) to calculate FP photometric

59: parameters for 170 galaxies with velocity dispersions available in the

60: homogenized SMAC catalogue (Hudson \etal\ 2001).  To our

61: knowledge, this is the largest galaxy-by-galaxy comparison of different

62: standard candle/rod distance methods to date. Fig.\,1a shows the

63: comparison.~~ 

64: 

65: Overall the distance agreement was good, but several

66: low-luminosity, S0 galaxies had systematically 

67: low FP distances, probably due in part to younger ages and lower

68: mass-to-light ratios, although aperture effects may also contribute.

69: The SBF distances are tied to the Cepheids via measurements in

70: spiral bulges, while the FP distances are tied to the Hubble flow

71: via distant clusters; the Hubble constant that results from this 

72: comparison is $H_0=68$ \kmsM.  However, we also derived independent

73: distances for these galaxies based on their velocities and the

74: gravity field inferred from the redshift-space galaxy density;

75: the resulting comparison with SBF yields $H_0=74$ (Fig.\,1b),

76: formally discordant at the 2$\,\sigma$ level with the FP-SBF 

77: result, but within the range of the systematic uncertainties 

78: in the various ties.

79: 

80: Another interesting facet of this work relates to the ``fluctuation

81: number'' $\Nbar\equiv \mbar-m_{\rm tot}$, which measures the galaxy

82: luminosity in units of the weighted mean stellar luminosity.

83: \Nbar\ correlates tightly with stellar velocity dispersion;

84: it also correlates with galaxy color and

85: is independent of Galactic extinction.  Interestingly,

86: SBF distances calibrated using the properties of \Nbar,

87: such as those shown in Fig.\,1b,

88: can be viewed as a hybrid of SBF and FP distances, and may be 

89: more accurate than those calibrated from galaxy color alone.

90: We plan to investigate these issues in more detail.

91: 

92: 

93: \begin{figure}[t]

94: \plottwo{fpsbf68d.ps}{nbariras74d.ps}

95: \caption{\footnotesize{\bf (a)} Comparison of FP and SBF 

96: distance moduli for the 170 galaxies in the cross-matched 

97: SBF-SMAC survey samples (from Blakeslee \etal\ 2002). 

98: The lower panel shows distance residuals.

99: Filled circles represent true ellipticals, while open circles

100: represent S0s.  Six galaxies having systematically uncertain

101: FP or SBF distances are shown as crosses.

102: %

103: {\bf (b)}~Same as (a), but for the comparison of

104: \Nbar-calibrated SBF distances with those predicted from

105: the observed galaxy density field in redshift space

106: (Virgo core galaxies have been assigned the systemic velocity).

107: \vspace{-7pt}

108: }

109: \end{figure}

110: 

111: \vspace{-3pt}

112: \section{Cepheid Distances to Early-type Galaxies?}

113: \vspace{-2pt}

114: 

115: Cepheids occur only in spirals and other late-type, star-forming galaxies.

116: However, the most massive virialized structures in the nearby universe

117: (e.g., the Virgo, Fornax, and Centaurus clusters), are overwhelmingly

118: dominated by early-type galaxies.  Although some spirals appear

119: in projection against the Virgo core, the various secondary indicators

120: tied to the Cepheid scale indicate that these galaxies are not at

121: the same distance as the core ellipticals (e.g., Tonry \etal\ 2000;

122: Ferrarese \etal\ 2000; Kelson \etal\ 2000; Blakeslee \etal\ 2002).

123: Alternatively, it may be that the secondary indicators are yielding

124: systematically different results for the calibrating spirals and

125: the target ellipticals.

126: 

127: We have an ongoing Cycle~10 WFPC2 program to calibrate 

128: the early-type galaxy distance scale via Cepheid distances

129: to late-type galaxies that are physically associated with ellipticals.

130: The target galaxies are the NGC\,4647/NGC\,4649 pair (Fig.\,2a) and

131: NGC\,5128 (Cen\,A), an elliptical with a central dust lane and 

132: associated star formation, apparently resulting from the incursion

133: of a gas-rich dwarf.

134: The Cen\,A Cepheid observations have yielded more than 60 

135: superb Cepheids, making this one of largest 

136: high-quality HST Cepheid data sets.  At present, we are still

137: finalizing the analysis, but Fig.\,2b shows some example

138: light curves; differential extinction within Cen\,A is

139: a major issue for this program.  

140: 

141: \begin{figure}[t]

142: \plotone{ecephs.eps}

143: \caption{\footnotesize{\bf(a)}~NGC\,4649/4647: one of the 

144: early-/late-type pairs  targeted by our program to calibrate 

145: elliptical galaxy distances from Cepheids. {\bf(b)}~Some example light

146: curves for NGC\,5128 (Cen\,A), provided by L.~Ferrarese.

147: The magnitudes have not been corrected for internal extinction.

148: \vspace{-7pt}

149: }

150: \end{figure}

151: 

152: \vspace{-3pt}

153: \section{SNe\,Ia versus SBF}

154: \vspace{-2pt}

155: 

156: SBF and Type Ia supernovae (SNe\,Ia) studies have in the past disagreed on

157: $H_0$ at the $\sim\,$20\% level, which is surprising for two methods that

158: routinely achieve 5--10\% internal accuracy.  The excellent resolution of

159: HST provides an enormous advantage over ground-based data for SBF studies,

160: and we have recently used WFPC2 to measure high-quality HST/WFPC2 SBF

161: distances to seven early-type galaxies that have hosted well-observed

162: SNe\,Ia (Ajhar \etal\ 2001).

163: 

164: The results showed excellent agreement in the relative distances, 

165: but an offset of $\sim\,$0.25 mag in zero points, which we traced 

166: to the different, and indeed dissonant,

167: compilations of Cepheid distances used in the past for the respective

168: zero-point calibrations of the two methods.  

169: When calibrated consistently, SBF and SNe\,Ia also

170: agree in an absolute sense (Fig.\,3a) and give $H_0\approx73$.

171: This is the first time

172: the agreement has been demonstrated through a direct comparison of

173: statistically significant samples of SBF and SNe\,Ia galaxy distances.

174: 

175: 

176: \vspace{-3pt}

177: \section{The Zero Point Problem}

178: \vspace{-2pt}

179: 

180: The most pressing problem in the measurement of extragalactic

181: distances appears to be systematic uncertainties in the zero points.

182: We have seen that there is significant uncertainty in the zero-point

183: tie of the early-type galaxy distance scale to Cepheids, but perhaps

184: even greater is the uncertainty in the Cepheid zero point itself, 

185: in part due to the poorly-constrained LMC distance.

186: 

187: Stellar population models can be used

188: to predict SBF magnitudes and colors for a large range of metallicities and

189: ages (e.g., Blakeslee, Vazdekis, \& Ajhar 2001b).  These models reproduce the

190: observed SBF colors and behaviors very well,

191: but predict an SBF zero point fainter than the Cepheid-calibrated one by

192: $0.2{\,\pm\,}0.1\,$mag in $I$ (the only band in which SBF is directly

193: tied to the Cepheids via spiral bulges).  However, the model and empirical zero

194: points would come into close agreement if the Cepheid scale were revised

195: to agree with the dynamical distance to the NGC\,4258 water maser

196: (Herrnstein \etal\ 1999), for example, by changing the assumed LMC distance

197: modulus from 18.5 to 18.3 mag. Further refinements of the models

198: should provide more stringent tests of the distance scale and

199: guide future SBF programs (Fig.\,3b).

200: 

201: 

202: \begin{figure}[t]

203: \plotone{sbfsn_model.eps}

204: \caption{\footnotesize

205: {\bf(a)}~SNe\,Ia distance moduli from the multi-color light curve shape

206: method are plotted versus SBF distance moduli.

207: The two ``unused'' galaxies had SNe with

208: unusual light curves.  

209: % We have tied the zero points of both methods 

210: Both methods are tied 

211: to the ``final''  Key Project Cepheid distances (Freedman \etal\ 2001).

212: {\bf(b)}~Absolute SBF magnitude $\overline M$ in various bands

213: is plotted against $(g'{-}z')$ color index for

214: the composite stellar population models of Blakeslee \etal\ (2001b).

215: The models indicate that the Cepheid distance scale

216: should be revised down by 0.1--0.2 mag. Interestingly, they also

217: predict that $z'$ should be the best optical bandpass for SBF.

218: \vspace{-8pt}

219: }

220: \end{figure}

221: 

222: \acknowledgements

223: The projects reviewed in this paper have all been group

224: efforts, and I thank my many distance-scale collaborators.

225: \vspace{-9pt}

226: \begin{references}\vspace{-6pt}

227: {\addtolength{\parskip}{-1pt}

228: \footnotesize

229: \reference

230: Ajhar, E.A., Tonry, J.L., Blakeslee, J.P., Riess, A.G.,

231: Schmidt, B.P. 2001, \apj, 559, 584

232: % \reference Blakeslee, J.P., Davis, M.,

233: % Tonry, J.L., Dressler, A., Ajhar, E.A. 1999b, \apj, 527, L73

234: \reference

235: Blakeslee, J.P., Lucey, J.R., Barris, B.J., Tonry, J.L., 

236:     Hudson, M.J. 2001a, \mnras, 327, 1004

237: \reference

238: Blakeslee, J.P., \etal\ 2002, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0111183)

239: \reference

240: Blakeslee, J.P., Vazdekis, A., Ajhar, E.A. 2001b, \mnras, 320, 193

241: \reference

242: Ferrarese, L., \etal\ 2000, \apj, 529, 745

243: \reference

244: Freedman, W.L., \etal\ 2001, \apj, 553, 47

245: \reference

246: Herrnstein, J. R., \etal\ 1999, Nature, 400, 539

247: \reference

248: Hudson, M.J., Lucey, J.R., Smith, R.J., Schlegel, D.J., Davies, R.L. 2001, \mnras, 327, 265

249: \reference

250: Kelson, D.D., et al.\ 2000, \apj, 529, 768

251: \reference

252: Tonry, J.L., Blakeslee, J.P.,

253: Ajhar, E.A., Dressler, A. 2000, \apj, 530, 625

254: \reference

255: Tonry, J.L., \etal\ 

256: % Dressler, A., Blakeslee, J.P., Ajhar, E. A., 

257: % Fletcher, A., Luppino, G., Metzger, M. R., \& Moore, C. 

258: 2001, \apj, 546, 681

259: 

260: \addtolength{\parskip}{1pt}}

261: \end{references}

262: 

263: 

264: \end{document}

265: