1: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{psfig}
3:
4: \slugcomment{KSUPT-02/2 \hspace{0.5truecm} July 2002}
5: \newcommand{\omegal}{\Omega_{\Lambda}}
6: \newcommand{\kmsmpc}{{\rm \, km\, s}^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9: \title{Radio Galaxy Redshift-Angular Size Data Constraints on Dark Energy}
10: \author{Silviu Podariu\altaffilmark{1,2}, Ruth A. Daly\altaffilmark{3},
11: Matthew P. Mory\altaffilmark{3}, and Bharat Ratra\altaffilmark{1}}
12: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, Kansas State University,
13: 116 Cardwell Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506.}
14: \altaffiltext{2}{Current address: Department of Mechanical Engineering,
15: Northwestern University,
16: 2145 Sheridan Road, B224, Evanston, IL 60208}
17: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, Berks-Lehigh Valley College,
18: Pennsylvania State University,
19: Reading, PA 19610.}
20: \begin{abstract}
21: We use FRIIb radio galaxy redshift-angular size data to constrain
22: cosmological parameters in a dark energy scalar field model. The derived
23: constraints are consistent with but weaker than those determined using
24: Type Ia supernova redshift-magnitude data.
25: \end{abstract}
26: \keywords{cosmology: cosmological parameters---cosmology:
27: observation---large-scale structure of the universe}
28: \section{Introduction}
29:
30: The last half-a-dozen years have seen a remarkable increase in the quality
31: of some cosmological data. No less remarkable, but perhaps less heralded,
32: has been the continuing acquisition of new types of data. These have been
33: very useful developments in the on-going process of determining, through
34: the cosmological tests, how well current cosmological models approximate
35: reality: many independent and tight constraints on cosmological-model
36: parameters allow for consistency checks on the models (see, e.g., Maor
37: et al. 2002; Wasserman 2002).
38:
39: For example, there is now much more higher-quality Type Ia supernova
40: redshift-magnitude data. Recent applications of the redshift-magnitude
41: test based on this data (see, e.g., Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al.
42: 1999; Podariu \& Ratra 2000; Waga \& Frieman 2000; Leibundgut 2001)
43: indicate that the energy density of the current universe is dominated
44: by a cosmological constant, $\Lambda$, or by a term in the stress-energy
45: tensor that only varies slowly with time and space and so behaves like
46: $\Lambda$.\footnote{
47: See, e.g., Peebles (1984), Ratra \& Peebles (1988), Efstathiou, Sutherland,
48: \& Maddox (1990), Ratra et al. (1997, 1999), Steinhardt (1999),
49: Sahni \& Starobinsky (2000), Brax, Martin, \& Riazuelo (2000), and Carroll (2001) for discussions of such models.}
50: Supporting evidence for $\Lambda$ or a $\Lambda$-like term is provided
51: by a combination of low dynamical estimates for the non-relativistic
52: matter density parameter $\Omega_0$ (see, e.g., Peebles 1993) and
53: evidence for a vanishing curvature of spatial hypersurfaces from cosmic
54: microwave background anisotropy measurements (see, e.g., Podariu et al.
55: 2001; Baccigalupi et al. 2002; Scott et al. 2002; Mason et al. 2002).
56:
57: Evidence against the large value of the cosmological constant density
58: parameter $\omegal$ favored by the above tests comes from estimates of
59: the observed rate of multiple images of radio sources or quasars,
60: produced by gravitational lensing by foreground galaxies (see, e.g.,
61: Ratra \& Quillen 1992; Helbig et al. 1999; Waga \& Frieman 2000;
62: Ng \& Wiltshire 2001).
63:
64: An improvement in data quality, as well as data from other cosmological
65: tests, will be needed to resolve this situation. In the near future the
66: redshift-counts test appears to be promising (see, e.g., Newman \& Davis
67: 2000; Huterer \& Turner 2001; Podariu \& Ratra 2001; Levine, Schulz, \&
68: White 2002).
69:
70: Present redshift-angular size data provide a useful consistency check.
71: The redshift-angular size relation is measured by Buchalter et al. (1998)
72: for quasars, by Gurvits, Kellermann, \& Frey (1999) for compact radio
73: sources, and by Daly \& Guerra (2002) for FRIIb radio galaxies.
74: Vishwakarma (2001), Lima \& Alcaniz (2002), and Chen \& Ratra (2003)
75: use the Gurvits et al. (1999) data to set constraints on cosmological
76: parameters. Guerra, Daly, \& Wan (2000), Guerra \& Daly (1998),
77: Daly, Mory, \& Guerra (2002), and Daly \& Guerra (2002)
78: examine FRIIb radio galaxy redshift-angular
79: size cosmological constraints in various models using the modified
80: standard yardstick method proposed by Daly (1994).
81:
82: Here we use the FRIIb radio galaxy redshift-angular size data of
83: Guerra et al. (2000) to derive constraints on the parameters of
84: a spatially-flat model with a dark energy scalar field ($\phi$) with
85: scalar field potential energy density $V(\phi)$ that at low redshift
86: is $\propto \phi^{-\alpha}$, $\alpha > 0$ (Peebles \& Ratra 1988).
87: The energy density of such a scalar field
88: decreases with time, behaving like a time-variable $\Lambda$.
89:
90: We adopt the analysis technique of Guerra et al. (2000), marginalizing
91: over their parameter $\beta$ to account for the uncertainty in the
92: linear size of the ``standard rod" used in the redshift-angular size test,
93: to derive the likelihood (probability distribution) of the scalar
94: field model parameters, $L(\Omega_0, \alpha)$. This likelihood function
95: is used to determine confidence regions for the model parameters.
96: We compute $L(\Omega_0, \alpha)$ over the ranges $ 0.05 \leq \Omega_0
97: \leq 0.95$ and $ 0 \leq \alpha \leq 8$. The radio galaxy 3C 427.1 (of
98: the twenty used in the analysis) is a disproportionate contributor to
99: $\chi^2$, so we present results both including and excluding this radio
100: galaxy. When we exclude 3C 427.1 we renormalize the error bars to make
101: the best-fit reduced $\chi^2$ unity.
102:
103: \section{Results and Discussion}
104:
105: Figures 1 and 2 show the constraints on $\Omega_0$ and $\alpha$ in
106: the dark energy scalar field model with $V(\phi) \propto \phi^{-\alpha}$,
107: including and excluding 3C 427.1. In both cases the constraints shown
108: here are consistent with, but tighter than, those derived using the
109: Gurvits et al. (1999) compact radio source redshift-angular size data
110: (Chen \& Ratra 2003, Fig. 3). They are also consistent with, but not as
111: constraining as, those derived from the Riess et al. (1998) and Perlmutter
112: et al. (1999) Type Ia supernova redshift-magnitude data (Podariu \& Ratra
113: 2000; Waga \& Frieman 2000). Consistent with these analyses, the analysis
114: here also does not rule out large values of $\alpha$ when $\Omega_0$ is
115: small.
116:
117: The radio galaxy 3C 427.1 can easily be identified as an outlier.
118: This can be seen in Table 2 and Figures 2b, 8b, and 8c of
119: Guerra \& Daly (1998), and the effective Hubble diagrams
120: shown in Figure 7 of Guerra et al. (2000) and
121: Figure 8 of Daly \& Guerra (2001), for example. In
122: the fits presented in each of these papers and those
123: presented by Daly \& Guerra (2002), as well
124: as in the fits presented here, this one source
125: contributes about one-half of the total $\chi^2$,
126: and the total $\chi^2$ for the best fit parameters is always
127: about 16 (see Figure 1 of Daly \& Guerra 2002, for example).
128: Each fit has 16 degrees of freedom since there
129: are 20 radio galaxy points, the cosmological model has
130: 2 free parameters, and the radio galaxy modified
131: standard yardstick model has 2 free parameters.
132:
133: To date, this point has been included in all of the fits.
134: It is not clear whether it should be included in the fits,
135: or whether it should be flagged as an outlier and removed
136: from the data set, as was done for supernovae Type Ia by
137: Perlmutter et al. (1999). If it is flagged as an outlier
138: and removed from the data set, the low reduced $\chi^2$
139: of about one-half that would result for the best fitting
140: parameters in any of the cosmological models considered
141: would indicate that the error bars on
142: each radio galaxy data point have been over-estimated by a
143: factor of about 1.4. It is certainly possible for these
144: error bars to have been overestimated; the determination
145: of the error bars is discussed in detail in the Appendix
146: of Guerra et al. (2000). This decrease in the error bar
147: per point tightens the constraints on all parameters,
148: including cosmological parameters and radio galaxy model
149: parameters, as can be seen by comparing Figures 1 and 2.
150: However, the only empirical basis for removing 3C 427.1 from the
151: data set is it's position on the radio galaxy effective
152: Hubble diagram. It's radio structure is not unusual or
153: remarkable (see Leahy, Muxlow, \& Stephens 1989). The use
154: of this radio source to determine the ambient gas density
155: (Wellman et al. 1997a), the ambient gas temperature
156: (Wellman et al. 1998b), and the synchrotron aging independent
157: ambient gas pressure, the beam power, and the total
158: AGN-jet lifetime of this source (Wan, Guerra, \& Daly 2000)
159: are all unremarkable and
160: quite in line with sources with similar redshifts, sizes,
161: and radio powers. The determination of the source
162: redshift seems secure (Spinrad, Stauffer, \& Butcher 1985).
163: It does not appear to be an especially bright infrared source;
164: upper bounds on its infrared luminosity are presented by
165: Meisenheimer et al. (2001). Thus, it is unlikely to be an
166: especially highly obscured quasar that should have been removed from
167: this sample of radio galaxies. And, it's radio morphology and environmental
168: properties are not unusual (Harvanek \& Stocke 2002). Thus,
169: there does not seem to be any empirical basis to remove it
170: from the radio galaxy sample other than the small
171: value of its predicted average size
172: $D_*$ relative to the average size of the full population of
173: FRIIb radio galaxies $\langle D \rangle$ at similar redshifts.
174:
175: Additional radio data could substantially improve the constraints
176: presented here on the dark energy scalar field model, and on other
177: models. Of the 70 sources in the
178: parent population, 20 have values of $D_*$ determined. The radio
179: data for these 20 radio sources were available in the
180: published literature and in the VLA archive, and were originally obtained
181: for studies other than those presented here. Ten additional
182: sources will be observed at the VLA this year; these data are optimized to
183: deterime cosmological parameters and to test and constrain the
184: underlying radio galaxy model. The 40 remaining sources will
185: then be observed, which will improve the radio galaxy constraints
186: enormously. The improvement will come from the additional
187: number of data points and, with the very high quality data
188: expected, the error bar per point may be smaller than that
189: obtained using published data.
190:
191: It is encouraging that the FRIIb radio galaxy redshift-angular size data
192: constraints are consistent with and not much weaker than those derived
193: from Type Ia supernova redshift-magnitude data. Future higher-quality
194: redshift-angular size data is eagerly anticipated.
195:
196: \bigskip
197:
198: We acknowledge helpful discussions with Joel Carvalho,
199: Megan Donahue, Eddie Guerra, Philip Mannheim, Chris O'Dea,
200: Adam Reiss, and the referee Dave Helfand. We
201: acknowledge support from NSF CAREER grant AST-9875031, NSF NYI grant
202: AST-0096077, NSF grant AST-0206002, and Penn State University.
203:
204: %\clearpage
205:
206: \begin{thebibliography}{}
207: \bibitem[Baccigalupi et al. (2002)]{bacigalupi02}
208: Baccigalupi, C., Balbi, A., Matarrese, S., Perrotta, F., \& Vittorio, N.
209: 2002, \prd, 65, 063520
210: \bibitem[Brax, Martin, \& Riazuelo (2000)]{brax00b}
211: Brax, P., Martin, J., \& Riazuelo, A. 2000, \prd, 62, 103505
212: \bibitem[Buchalter et al. (1998)]{buchalter98}
213: Buchalter, A., Helfand, D. J., Becker, R. H., \& White, R. L. 1998,
214: \apj, 494, 503
215: \bibitem[Carroll (2001)]{carrolll01}
216: Carroll, S.M. 2001, Living Rev. Relativity, 4, 2001-1
217: \bibitem[Chen \& Ratra (2003)]{chen03}
218: Chen, G., \& Ratra, B. 2003, ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0207051
219: \bibitem[Daly (1994)]{d94}
220: Daly, R. A. 1994, ApJ, 426, 38
221: \bibitem[Daly \& Guerra (2002)]{daly02}
222: Daly, R. A., \& Guerra, E. J. 2002, AJ, 124, 1831
223: \bibitem[Daly et al. (2002)]{daly02a}
224: Daly, R. A., Mory, M. P., \& Guerra, E. J. 2002, astro-ph/0203113
225: \bibitem[Efstathiou et al. (1990)]{efstathiou90}
226: Efstathiou, G., Sutherland, W. J., \& Maddox, S. J. 1990, Nature, 348, 705
227: \bibitem[Guerra \& Daly (1998)]{gd98}
228: Guerra, E. J., \& Daly, R. A. 1998, ApJ, 493, 536
229: \bibitem[Guerra et al. (2000)]{guerra00}
230: Guerra, E. J., Daly, R. A., \& Wan, L. 2000, \apj, 544, 659
231: \bibitem[Gurvits et al. (1999)]{gurvits99}
232: Gurvits, L. I., Kellermann, K. I., \& Frey, S. 1999, A{\&}A, 342, 378
233: \bibitem[Harvanek \& Stocke (2002)]{hs02}
234: Harvanek, M., \& Stocke, J. T. 2002, AJ, 124, 1239
235: \bibitem[Helbig et al. (1999)]{helbig99}
236: Helbig, P., Marlow, D., Quast, R., Wilkinson, P. N., Browne, I. W. A.,
237: \& Koopmans, L. V. E. 1999, A{\&}AS, 136, 297
238: \bibitem[Huterer \& Turner (2001)]{huterer01}
239: Huterer, D., \& Turner, M.S. 2001, \prd, 64, 123527
240: \bibitem[Leahy et al. (1989)]{lms89}
241: Leahy, J. P., Muxlow, T. W., \& Stephens, P. W. 1989,
242: MNRAS, 239, 401
243: \bibitem[Leibundgut (2001)]{leibundgut01}
244: Leibundgut, B. 2001, ARAA, 39, 67
245: \bibitem[Levine et al. (2002)]{levine02}
246: Levine, E. S., Schulz, A. E., \& White, M. 2002, astro-ph/0204273
247: \bibitem[Lima \& Alcaniz (2002)]{lima02}
248: Lima, J. A. S., \& Alcaniz, J. S. 2002, \apj, 566, 15
249: \bibitem[Maor et al. (2002)]{maor02}
250: Maor, I., Brustein, R., McMahon, J., \& Steinhardt, P.J. 2002, \prd, 65,
251: 123003
252: \bibitem[Mason et al. (2002)]{mason02}
253: Mason, B. S., et al. 2002, astro-ph/0205384
254: \bibitem[Meisenheimer et al. (2001)]{M01}
255: Meisenheimer, K., Haas, M., Muller, S. A. H., Chini, R., Klaas, U.,
256: \& Lemke, D. 2001, A\&A, 372, 719
257: \bibitem[Newman \& Davis (2000)]{newman00}
258: Newman, J. A., \& Davis, M., 2000, \apj, 534, L11
259: \bibitem[Ng \& Wiltshire (2001)]{ng01}
260: Ng, S.C.C., \& Wiltshire, D.L. 2001, \prd, 63, 023503
261: \bibitem[Peebles (1984)]{peebles84}
262: Peebles, P.J.E. 1984, \apj, 284, 439
263: \bibitem[Peebles (1993)]{peebles93}
264: Peebles, P.J.E. 1993, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton:
265: Princeton University Press)
266: \bibitem[Peebles \& Ratra (1988)]{peebles88}
267: Peebles, P.J.E., \&\ Ratra, B. 1988, ApJ, 325, L17
268: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al. (1999)]{perlmutter99}
269: Perlmutter, S., et al. 1999, \apj, 517, 565
270: \bibitem[Podariu \& Ratra (2000)]{podariu00}
271: Podariu, S., \& Ratra, B. 2000, \apj, 532, 109
272: \bibitem[Podariu \& Ratra (2001)]{podariu01}
273: Podariu, S., \& Ratra, B. 2001, \apj, 563, 28
274: \bibitem[Podariu et al. (2001)]{podariu01a}
275: Podariu, S., Souradeep, T., Gott, J. R., Ratra, B., \& Vogeley, M. S.
276: 2001, \apj, 559, 9
277: \bibitem[Ratra \& Peebles (1988)]{ratra88}
278: Ratra, B., \& Peebles, P.J.E. 1988, \prd, 37, 3406
279: \bibitem[Ratra \& Quillen (1992)]{ratra92}
280: Ratra, B., \& Quillen, A. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 738
281: \bibitem[Ratra et al. (1999)]{ratra99}
282: Ratra, B., Stompor, R., Ganga, K., Rocha, G., Sugiyama, N., \&\
283: G\'orski, K.M. 1999, ApJ, 517, 549
284: \bibitem[Ratra et al. (1997)]{ratra97}
285: Ratra, B., Sugiyama, N., Banday, A. J., \&\ G\'orski, K.M. 1997, ApJ,
286: 481, 22
287: \bibitem[Riess et al. (1998)]{riess98}
288: Riess, A.G., et al. 1998, \aj, 116, 1009
289: \bibitem[Sahni \& Starobinsky (2000)]{sahni00}
290: Sahni, V., \& Starobinsky, A. 2000, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 9, 373
291: \bibitem[Scott et al. (2002)]{scott02}
292: Scott, P. F., et al. 2002, astro-ph/0205380
293: \bibitem[Spinrad et al. (1985)]{ssb85}
294: Spinrad, H., Stauffer, J., \& Butcher, H. 1985, ApJ, 296, 784
295: \bibitem[Steinhardt (1999)]{steinhardt99}
296: Steinhardt, P.J. 1999, in Proceedings of the Pritzker Symposium
297: on the Status of Inflationary Cosmology, in press
298: \bibitem[Vishwakarma (2001)]{vishwakarma01}
299: Vishwakarma, R.G. 2001, Class. Quant. Grav., 18, 1159
300: \bibitem[Waga \& Frieman (2000)]{waga00}
301: Waga, I., \& Frieman, J.A. 2000, \prd, 62, 043521
302: \bibitem[Wan et al. (2000)]{wdg00}
303: Wan, L., Daly, R. A., \& Guerra, E. J. 2000, ApJ, 544, 671
304: \bibitem[Wellman et al. (1997a)]{wdw97a}
305: Wellman, G. F., Daly, R. A., \& Wan, L. 1997a, ApJ, 480, 79
306: \bibitem[Wellman et al. (1997b)]{wdw97b}
307: Wellman, G. F., Daly, R. A., \& Wan, L. 1997b, ApJ, 480, 96
308: \bibitem[Wasserman (2002)]{wasserman02}
309: Wasserman, I. 2002, astro-ph/0203137
310:
311: \end{thebibliography}
312: \begin{figure}[p]
313: \psfig{file=f1.eps,height=7.0in,width=6.7in,angle=0}
314: \caption{Confidence contours for the dark energy scalar field model
315: with inverse power-law potential energy density $V(\phi) \propto
316: \phi^{-\alpha}$, derived using all twenty radio galaxies (i.e.,
317: including 3C 427.1).}
318: \end{figure}
319: \begin{figure}[p]
320: \psfig{file=f2.eps,height=7.0in,width=6.7in,angle=0}
321: \caption{Confidence contours for the dark energy scalar field model
322: with inverse power-law potential energy density $V(\phi) \propto
323: \phi^{-\alpha}$, derived using only nineteen radio galaxies (i.e.,
324: excluding 3C 427.1).}
325: \end{figure}
326: \end{document}
327: