1: \documentclass[preprint,10pt]{aastex}
2:
3: \def\gs{\mathrel{\raise0.27ex\hbox{$>$}\kern-0.70em % Greater/squiggles
4: \lower0.71ex\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}
5: \def\ls{\mathrel{\raise0.27ex\hbox{$<$}\kern-0.70em % Less than/squiggles
6: \lower0.71ex\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}
7: %\usepackage{epsfig}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10: \title{Photon vs Energy Magnitude Systems and the Measurement of
11: the Cosmological Parameters}
12:
13: \author{Alex G. Kim \& Peter E. Nugent}
14: \affil{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory}
15: \affil{1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720}
16: \email{agkim@lbl.gov \& penugent@lbl.gov}
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: The relative brightnesses of standard candles have long been known
20: to be potentially powerful probes of distance.
21: The distance modulus, the difference between observed and absolute
22: magnitudes, has been associated with the values of the cosmological
23: parameters: Hubble's constant $H_0$,
24: the mass density $\Omega_M$ and the cosmological constant
25: $\Omega_\Lambda$. In the literature the relationship between these
26: parameters and the distance modulus is calculated for
27: an energy magnitude system;
28: the Johnson-Cousins magnitude system used in observations is
29: in fact a photon-counting system.
30: In this paper, we present
31: the relation between observed and absolute photon magnitudes
32: in terms of the familiar energy distance modulus and derive
33: the correct form of the K-correction.
34: The differences between energy and photon systems are small relative
35: to the measurement errors of contemporary high-redshift supernova searches.
36: The distinction must be made, however,
37: for precision cosmological measurements such as those
38: planned for Type Ia supernovae.
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \keywords{Distance scale --- supernovae: general}
42:
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45: Measurements of the cosmological parameters using distance indicators
46: rely on the redshift-dependent evolution of the distance modulus $\mu$.
47: The distance modulus is measured as the difference between observed
48: and absolute magnitudes of a ``standard candle'' after K-correction
49: \citep{ok:kcorr} for
50: the redshifting of its spectrum.
51: The theoretical value for $\mu$ is related to the luminosity distance
52: $d_L(z)$ defined such that
53: a source with luminosity $L$ at redshift $z$ has observed
54: energy flux $f$ as if the energy has been diluted to the surface
55: of a sphere with radius $d_L$, i.e.
56: $L=4 \pi d_L^2 f$ (e.g. \citet{carrollpressturner}).
57: Cosmological parameters can then be measured from their functional
58: dependence on $d_L$;
59: this technique has been used by two groups with
60: Type Ia supernovae [the High-$z$ team
61: \citep{riess_acc_98} and the Supernova Cosmology Project (SCP)
62: \citep{42SNe_98}] and gives evidence for an accelerating
63: universe.
64:
65: Observations are in fact made with photon counters (CCD's, photo-multipliers)
66: and the luminosity distance is not the same as the
67: ``photon luminosity
68: distance'' $d_\gamma$; if N is the photon luminosity and n is the
69: observed photon flux, then $N = 4 \pi d_\gamma^2 n$ where
70: $d_L=d_\gamma (1+z)^{1/2}$. This has lead to some
71: confusion as to whether a ``photon'' distance
72: modulus should be used
73: to measure cosmological parameters, whether the magnitude system is
74: photon-based or energy-based, and which K-corrections should
75: be applied.
76: Such distinctions which previously have been unimportant are
77: significant as we move into an era of precision cosmology.
78: In this paper we rederive and expand upon the K-correction results of
79: \citet{1983ApJ...264..337S}.
80: We comment on the
81: magnitude system and the Johnson-Cousins system in particular
82: (\S~\ref{mag:sec}). We find that any ambiguity can be removed with
83: the proper definition of the K-correction for which we derive the
84: equations for both
85: photon and energy systems (\S~\ref{kcorr:sec}). We conclude that
86: although the differences between the two K-corrections are small,
87: the distinction between energy and photon systems is important
88: for planned future high-precision supernova experiments (\S~\ref{con:sec}).
89:
90: \section{Magnitude Systems}
91: \label{mag:sec}
92: The primary standards of a photometric system can have their magnitudes
93: measured either by their energy or photon flux ratios.
94: Unless a photon--energy conversion
95: correction is later applied, the flux system is determined by the detectors
96: used to measure the primaries.
97: The type of detector used in subsequent observations does not determine
98: whether the magnitude system is photon or energy based;
99: in principle the color and airmass corrections put observed magnitudes
100: into the primary system.
101:
102: The Johnson-Cousins magnitude system prevalent today
103: is a photon system, what \citet{Johnson:1953} describe as
104: ``a system of photoelectric photometry''. As described in
105: \citet{Johnson:1951}, their observational setup employed
106: a photomultiplier as a detector, with the counts
107: being the number of ``deflections'' recorded by a potentiometer.
108: After an airmass correction these counts were directly converted to
109: magnitudes.
110: The secondary stars of
111: \citet{la:1973,la:1983,la:1992}
112: (whose raw data also were obtained with photon
113: counters) are calibrated via Johnson and Cousins primary standards and thus
114: must be in the photon system. Observed magnitudes are therefore
115: photon-based and should be analyzed as such.
116:
117: An illustrative example of where there is a numerical
118: difference between the two magnitude systems is a star that has the same
119: integrated $B$-band energy flux as Vega (which for simplicity
120: we consider to be the zero point of the magnitude system)
121: but has a different photon flux since it has a different spectral
122: energy distribution (SED).
123: Relative magnitude measurements with a single filter
124: of a set of stars with similar spectral energy distributions are independent
125: of whether we are photon counting or measuring energy; two stars
126: with the same SED but differing brightness will have
127: $$\Delta m = m_2^\gamma - m_1^\gamma = m_2^\epsilon - m_1^\epsilon \nonumber$$
128: where $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the stars' magnitudes.
129: It follows that
130: since the zeropoint of magnitude system is based on Vega,
131: the energy and photon magnitudes of A0V stars are identical: $m_{A0V}^\gamma =
132: m_{A0V}^\epsilon$.
133:
134: As an aside, one
135: of the \citet{Johnson:1953} criteria for a photometric system
136: is
137: ``a determination of the zero point of the color indices in terms of
138: a certain kind of star which can be accurately defined spectroscopically.''
139: Such knowledge, along with the shapes of the pass-band transmission functions,
140: do allow for calculated transformation
141: between photon and energy magnitude systems. Indeed, much effort
142: has been placed in measuring and modeling the intrinsic SED of Vega
143: (\citet{dr:1980} and references therein).
144:
145:
146: \section{The K-correction}
147: \label{kcorr:sec}
148: We explicitly review the K-correction calculation of
149: \citet{kim_kcorr96} that has been used in SCP cosmological analysis.
150: to remove any ambiguity.
151: We define the K-correction $K_{xy}$ such that
152: \begin{equation}
153: m_y^\alpha=M_x^\alpha + \mu(z) +K_{xy}^\alpha
154: \label{definition}
155: \end{equation}
156: where $\alpha=\{\gamma,\epsilon\}$ for photon or energy magnitude systems.
157: The observed magnitude in passband $y$ is $m_y$ and the absolute
158: magnitude in passband $x$ is $M_x$.
159: We adopt the theoretical expression
160: for the distance modulus, $\mu$, based on luminosity distance.
161: In other words, the functional
162: form of $\mu(z;H_0,\Omega_M,\Omega_\Lambda)$ in
163: Equation~\ref{definition} is identical for
164: photon and energy systems.
165: Given $f_\lambda(\lambda)$ as the energy flux density of a supernova 10
166: parsecs away, we can compute the corresponding energy and photon
167: fluxes at high redshift.
168: \[
169: \begin{array}{lr}
170: f_\lambda(\lambda)d\lambda & \mbox{Energy flux density in d$\lambda$ bin of a supernova 10
171: parsecs away}\\
172: n_\lambda(\lambda)d\lambda = \frac{\lambda d\lambda}{hc}f_\lambda(\lambda) & \mbox{Photon flux in d$\lambda$ bin of a supernova 10 parsecs away}\\
173: f^z_\lambda(\lambda)d\lambda = \frac{d\lambda}{1+z}f_\lambda\left(\frac{\lambda}{1+z}\right)\left(\frac{10 pc}{d_L(z)}\right)^2 & \mbox{Energy flux density in d$\lambda$ bin of a supernova at $z$}\\
174: n^z_\lambda(\lambda)d\lambda = \frac{\lambda d\lambda}{hc(1+z)}f_\lambda\left(\frac{\lambda}
175: {1+z}\right)\left(\frac{10 pc}{d_L(z)}\right)^2 & \mbox{Photon flux density in d$\lambda$ bin of a supernova at $z$}
176: \end{array}
177: \]
178: The $(1+z)^{-1}$ terms in the redshifted flux densities are due to
179: wavelength dilution \citep{ok:kcorr}.
180: The ratio between high and low-redshift photon flux is a factor
181: $1+z$ greater than the corresponding ratio for energy flux which suffers
182: from redshifted energy loss. More precisely
183: \begin{equation}
184: \frac{n^z_\lambda(\lambda)}{n_\lambda(\lambda/(1+z))}=\frac{(1+z)f^z_\lambda(\lambda)}{f_\lambda(\lambda/(1+z))}.
185: \label{ratio}
186: \end{equation}
187: The fact that the relative photon fluxes of high-redshift supernovae are
188: $1+z$ ``brighter'' than energy fluxes can be interpreted as being due
189: to the latter's extra energy loss due to redshift.
190:
191: Using the fact that $\mu=-5\log{\left(\frac{10 pc}{d_L(z)}\right)}$ we can compute and
192: compare energy and photon K-corrections,
193: \begin{eqnarray}
194: K_{xy}^\epsilon & = & -2.5 \log
195: \left(
196: \frac
197: {\int {\cal Z}^\epsilon_x(\lambda)S_x(\lambda)d\lambda}
198: {\int {\cal Z}^\epsilon_y(\lambda)S_y(\lambda)d\lambda}
199: \right)
200: +2.5 \log(1+z)
201: +2.5 \log
202: \left(
203: \frac
204: {\int f_\lambda(\lambda)S_x(\lambda)d\lambda}
205: {\int f_\lambda(\lambda/(1+z))S_y(\lambda)d\lambda}
206: \right)
207: \label{ekcorr}
208: \end{eqnarray}
209: \begin{eqnarray}
210: K_{xy}^{\gamma} & = & -2.5 \log
211: \left(
212: \frac
213: {\int \lambda{\cal Z}^\gamma_x(\lambda)S_x(\lambda)d\lambda}
214: {\int \lambda{\cal Z}^\gamma_y(\lambda)S_y(\lambda)d\lambda}
215: \right)
216: +2.5 \log(1+z)
217: +2.5 \log
218: \left(
219: \frac
220: {\int \lambda f_\lambda(\lambda)S_x(\lambda)d\lambda}
221: {\int \lambda f_\lambda(\lambda/(1+z))S_y(\lambda)d\lambda}
222: \right).
223: \label{gkcorr}
224: \end{eqnarray}
225: The filter transmission functions are given as $S_i(\lambda)$ where
226: $S_x$ is the rest-frame filter and $S_y$ is the observer filter. (The
227: transmission functions give the fraction of photons transmitted at a
228: given wavelength where we assume no down-scattering.) For the standard
229: star (i.e. calibrator) SED ${\cal Z}(\lambda)$ we assume the existence
230: of a standard star with identical properties as the supernova,
231: i.e. with exactly the same color and observed through the same
232: airmass. Pragmatically, this assumption affirms perfect photometric
233: calibration to all orders of color and airmass. For convenience, we
234: choose these secondary standards to have 0 magnitude. In principle, a
235: different standard will be needed for each filter, choice of photon or
236: energy flux, and each source SED. Each standard is labeled ${\cal
237: Z}_X^\alpha$ where $X=\{U,B,V,R,I,\ldots\}$ and
238: $\alpha=\{\gamma,\epsilon\}$ for photon or energy flux as defined
239: earlier.
240:
241: Equations~\ref{ekcorr} and \ref{gkcorr} generalize the K-corrections
242: of \citet{1983ApJ...264..337S}\footnote{Note that in the
243: notation of \citet{1983ApJ...264..337S}, $f_\nu$ and $f_{\nu(1+z)}$
244: are the same function evaluated at different frequencies.}
245: and are precisely those given and
246: calculated in \citet{kim_kcorr96}. In that paper, it was found that
247: the differences between the two K-corrections are non-zero but small,
248: $|K_{xy}^\epsilon-K_{xy}^{\gamma}|<0.07$ magnitudes. They are a
249: function of redshift, filters, and supernova epoch and thus can cause
250: small systematic shifts in light-curve shapes and magnitude deviations
251: in the Hubble diagram. The use of the incorrect K-correction will
252: have a significant effect on experiments with small $\ls 0.1$ targeted
253: magnitude errors.
254:
255: To illustrate, in Figure~\ref{fig} we plot $K_{BZ}^\epsilon -
256: K_{BZ}^\gamma$ (where $Z$ refers to the passband and not redshift) for
257: a standard Type Ia supernova at $B$ maximum and 15 rest-frame days
258: after maximum out to $z=2$. The differences are close to zero at $z
259: \sim 1.1$ where $B(\lambda/(1+z)) \sim Z(\lambda)$. Beyond this
260: optimal redshift, the differences can be $>0.01$ magnitudes. The
261: redder color of the supernova at the later epoch gives relatively larger
262: photon K-corrections over almost all redshifts.
263:
264: \begin{figure}[h]
265: \plotone{fg1.eps}
266: \figcaption[fg1.eps]{$K_{BZ}^\epsilon - K_{BZ}^\gamma$ for a standard Type Ia
267: supernova at $B$ maximum and 15 days after maximum as a function of
268: redshift. Measurements in $I$ and bluer filters for $z<1$ supernovae
269: and $j$ and redder filters for $z>1.5$ would provide a better match of
270: observed spectral regions.\label{fig}}
271: \end{figure}
272:
273: The similarity in the two K-corrections is due to two competing terms
274: that nearly cancel. A photon K-correction is $1+z$ brighter because
275: the supernova does not suffer redshifting energy loss. However, the
276: zeropoint of the redder filter used to observe the redshifted
277: supernova is larger since an A0V photon spectrum is flatter than its
278: energy spectrum. This makes the observed supernova magnitude
279: numerically fainter. Consider the special case where
280: $S_y(\lambda)=S_x(\lambda/(1+z))$. With perfect filter-matching the
281: specifics of the supernova spectrum are unimportant and the
282: K-corrections depend on the zeropoints:
283: \begin{eqnarray}
284: K_{xy}^\epsilon & = & -2.5 \log
285: \left(
286: \frac
287: {\int {\cal Z}^\epsilon_x(\lambda)S_x(\lambda)d\lambda}
288: {\int {\cal Z}^\epsilon_y(\lambda)S_y(\lambda)d\lambda}
289: \right)\\
290: K_{xy}^{\gamma} & = & -2.5 \log
291: \left(
292: \frac
293: {(1+z)\int \lambda{\cal Z}^\gamma_x(\lambda)S_x(\lambda)d\lambda}
294: {\int \lambda{\cal Z}^\gamma_y(\lambda)S_y(\lambda)d\lambda}
295: \right)\\
296: &=& -2.5 \log
297: \left(
298: \frac
299: {(1+z) <\lambda_x>\int {\cal Z}^\gamma_x(\lambda)S_x(\lambda)d\lambda}
300: {<\lambda_y>\int {\cal Z}^\gamma_y(\lambda)S_y(\lambda)d\lambda}
301: \right)
302: \end{eqnarray}
303: where $<\lambda>$ is the effective wavelength of the standard through
304: the filter. As
305: long as the standard star is well behaved, we expect
306: the effective wavelength of the redshifted filter to be $1+z$ greater
307: then that of the restframe filter
308: $<\lambda_y> \sim (1+z)<\lambda_x>$ so that
309: \begin{equation}
310: K_{xy}^{\gamma} \sim -2.5 \log
311: \left(
312: \frac
313: {\int {\cal Z}^\epsilon_x(\lambda)S_x(\lambda)d\lambda}
314: {\int {\cal Z}^\epsilon_y(\lambda)S_y(\lambda)d\lambda}
315: \right) = K_{xy}^{\epsilon}.
316: \end{equation}
317: Choosing filters that accept the same spectral
318: region at both low and high redshifts not only reduce errors but
319: also reduces the difference between energy and photon K-corrections.
320:
321:
322: The effect of using
323: the ``energy'' distance modulus in defining the K-correction
324: in
325: Equations~\ref{definition}, \ref{ekcorr}, and \ref{gkcorr}
326: are seen in the open-filter K-corrections.
327: When $S_x=S_y=1$, the energy K-correction is unnecessary
328: and indeed $K_{xy}^\epsilon=0$.
329: For the photon K-correction we find
330: $K_{xy}^\gamma=-2.5\log{(1+z)}$,
331: the difference between ``energy'' and ``photon'' distance moduli.
332:
333: A simple measure for the difference between single-filter K-corrections
334: is the ratio in effective wavelength
335: of a redshifted and unredshifted source
336: through that filter. For example, sources with power-law SED's have
337: identical photon and energy K-corrections.
338: For low-redshift objects the difference in effective
339: wavelength should
340: be very small (unless they have pathological spectra) and thus make
341: little difference in distance determinations. For example, a Type
342: Ia supernova at maximum at $z=0.1$ observed through the $B$-band
343: would have a distance modulus error of 0.02 magnitudes if the wrong
344: K-correction were applied.
345:
346: \section{Conclusion}
347: \label{con:sec}
348: We have shown that the measurements $m_Y(z)-M_X$ do depend on whether the
349: magnitude system is based on energy or photon flux. Although the
350: ``photon luminosity distance''
351: is shorter than the standard luminosity distance, we can still use the
352: relation $m_Y(z)=M_X+\mu(z)+K_{XY}$ with the appropriate definitions
353: of the K-corrections; the ones of \citet{kim_kcorr96} are
354: appropriate. With this definition, the standard equations linking the
355: energy distance modulus to cosmology are
356: applicable.
357: The Johnson-Cousins magnitude system is in fact photon-based. Therefore,
358: the $K^\gamma_{XY}$ K-correction should and has been used
359: in the supernova cosmology analysis of the Supernova Cosmology Project.
360: Although application of the incorrect K-correction would contribute
361: negligibly to the error budget of the current supernova sample, the
362: distinction is important for precision
363: experiments that require 0.02 magnitude
364: accuracies, such as the Supernova Acceleration Probe.
365: With the choice
366: of well-matched filters, differences between energy and photon K-corrections
367: can be minimal.
368:
369: Using the ``count'' distance modulus
370: based on $d_\gamma$ in Equation~\ref{definition}
371: would provide a more physically satisfying definition of the count
372: K-correction. Recall that $\mu^\epsilon= \mu^\gamma + 2.5\log{(1+z)}$.
373: Then the extra $2.5\log{(1+z)}$ in the K-correction would give
374: \begin{equation}
375: K_{xy}^{\gamma} = -2.5 \log
376: \left(
377: \frac
378: {\int \lambda{\cal Z}^\gamma_x(\lambda)S_x(\lambda)d\lambda}
379: {\int \lambda{\cal Z}^\gamma_y(\lambda)S_y(\lambda)d\lambda}
380: \right)
381: +2.5 \log
382: \left(
383: \frac
384: {\int \lambda f_\lambda(\lambda)S_x(\lambda)d\lambda}
385: {\int \lambda' f_\lambda(\lambda')S_y((1+z)\lambda')d\lambda'}
386: \right).
387: \label{gkcorr2}
388: \end{equation}
389: In other words, the K-correction would depend simply on the
390: ratio of supernova photons in the rest-frame filter and a blue-shifted observer
391: filter, and the zeropoint.
392: This methodology would preserve the physical meanings that we
393: associate with both distance modulus and K-correction.
394: For simplicity, however, we here adopt the energy distance modulus
395: for both K-corrections to be consistent with the literature
396: and to ensure unambiguity when referring to
397: K-corrected magnitudes and distance moduli.
398:
399: We would like to thank Arlo Landolt and Saul Perlmutter
400: for reading our manuscript and for their
401: insightful questions and comments.
402: This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract No.
403: DE-AC03-76SF00098 and a NASA LTSA grant to PEN.
404:
405:
406: %\bibliographystyle{/home/astro10/akim/SNAP/proposal/natbib-apj}
407: %\bibliography{/home/astro10/akim/SNAP/proposal/bib/prop.bib}
408: \begin{thebibliography}{}
409:
410: \bibitem[Carroll, Press, \& Turner(1992)Carroll, Press, and
411: Turner]{carrollpressturner}
412: Carroll, S.~M., Press, W.~H., \& Turner, E.~L. 1992, Ann. Rev. Astro.
413: Astrophys., 30, 499
414:
415: \bibitem[Dreiling \& Bell(1980)Dreiling and Bell]{dr:1980}
416: Dreiling, L.~A., \& Bell, R.~A. 1980, AJ, 241, 736
417:
418: \bibitem[{Johnson} \& {Morgan}(1951){Johnson} and {Morgan}]{Johnson:1951}
419: {Johnson}, H.~L., \& {Morgan}, W.~W. 1951, \apj, 114, 522
420:
421: \bibitem[{Johnson} \& {Morgan}(1953){Johnson} and {Morgan}]{Johnson:1953}
422: {Johnson}, H.~L., \& {Morgan}, W.~W. 1953, \apj, 117, 313
423:
424: \bibitem[Kim, Goobar, \& Perlmutter(1996)Kim, Goobar, and
425: Perlmutter]{kim_kcorr96}
426: Kim, A., Goobar, A., \& Perlmutter, S. 1996, PASP, 108, 190
427:
428: \bibitem[Landolt(1973)Landolt]{la:1973}
429: Landolt, A.~U. 1973, AJ, 78, 959
430:
431: \bibitem[Landolt(1983)Landolt]{la:1983}
432: Landolt, A.~U. 1983, AJ, 88, 439
433:
434: \bibitem[Landolt(1992)Landolt]{la:1992}
435: Landolt, A.~U. 1992, AJ, 104, 340
436:
437: \bibitem[Oke \& Sandage(1968)Oke and Sandage]{ok:kcorr}
438: Oke, J.~B., \& Sandage, A. 1968, ApJ, 154, 21
439:
440: \bibitem[Perlmutter {et~al.}(1999)Perlmutter {\em et~al.}]{42SNe_98}
441: Perlmutter, S., et~al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
442:
443: \bibitem[Riess {et~al.}(1998)Riess {\em et~al.}]{riess_acc_98}
444: Riess, A., et~al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
445:
446: \bibitem[{Schneider}, {Gunn}, \& {Hoessel}(1983){Schneider}, {Gunn}, and
447: {Hoessel}]{1983ApJ...264..337S}
448: {Schneider}, D.~P., {Gunn}, J.~E., \& {Hoessel}, J.~G. 1983, ApJ, 264, 337--355
449:
450: \end{thebibliography}
451:
452: \end{document}
453: