1: %\documentclass[preprint1]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
3: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4,epsfig,psfig]{article}
4: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,apjfonts,psfig]{article}
5: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
6: %*****************APJ STYLE**********************
7: %\documentclass{article}
8: %\usepackage{emulateapj,psfig}
9: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
10: %\setlength{\topmargin}{0.5in}
11: %\renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0}
12: %\renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.0}
13: %\renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.00}
14: %\raggedbottom
15: %*****************APJ STYLE**********************
16:
17: \def \sax {{\it Beppo}SAX }
18: \def\gta{ \lower .75ex \hbox{$\sim$} \llap{\raise .27ex \hbox{$>$}} }
19: \def\lta{ \lower .75ex\hbox{$\sim$} \llap{\raise .27ex \hbox{$<$}} }
20: \def \Ol {$\Omega_\Lambda$}
21: \def \Om {$\Omega_{\rm M}$}
22:
23: \addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-0.99mm}
24:
25: %\shorttitle{Measuring the Universe with GRBs}
26: %\shortauthors{Ghirlanda, Ghisellini, Lazzati, Firmani}
27:
28: \begin{document}
29:
30: \title{Gamma Ray Bursts: new rulers to measure the Universe}
31:
32: \author{Giancarlo Ghirlanda\altaffilmark{1},
33: Gabriele Ghisellini\altaffilmark{1},
34: Davide Lazzati\altaffilmark{2} and
35: Claudio Firmani\altaffilmark{1}}
36: \affil{1 INAF -- Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, via Bianchi 46,
37: 23807 Merate, Italy}
38: \affil{2 Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road CB3 0HA, Cambrige UK}
39:
40: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43: The best measure of the Universe should be done using a standard
44: ``ruler" at any redshift. Type Ia Supernovae (SN Ia)
45: probe the universe up to z$\sim$1.5, while the
46: Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
47: % generated at $z\sim$1000, carries information on the intermediate
48: % redshift Universe only through integrated effects between
49: % $z\sim 1000$ and the observer.
50: primary anisotropies concern basically
51: $z\sim$1000.
52: Apparently, Gamma--Ray Bursts (GRBs) are all but standard candles.
53: However, their emission is
54: collimated and the collimation--corrected energy correlates tightly
55: with the frequency at which most of the radiation of the prompt is
56: emitted, as found by Ghirlanda et al. (2004).
57: Through this correlation we can infer the burst
58: energy accurately enough
59: to probe the intermediate redshift ($z<10$) Universe.
60: Using the best known 15 GRBs we find very encouraging results
61: that emphasize the cosmological GRB role.
62: A combined fit with SN Ia
63: yields $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.37\pm0.10$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.87\pm 0.23$.
64: Assuming in addition a flat Universe, the parameters are
65: constrained to be $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.29\pm0.04$ and
66: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.71\pm 0.05$.
67: GRBs accomplish the role of ``missing link" between SN Ia and CMB primary
68: anisotropies.
69: They can provide a new insight on the cosmic effects of dark
70: energy, complementary to the one supplied by CMB secondary anisotropies through
71: the Integrated Sachs Wolfe effect.
72: The unexpected Standard Candle cosmological
73: role of GRBs motivates the most optimistic hopes for what can be obtained
74: when the GRB-dedicated satellite, Swift, will be launched.
75:
76: %
77: % Furthermore, probing the Universe with high accuracy up to
78: % high redshifts, GRBs establish a new insight on the cosmic expanding
79: % acceleration history.
80: % GRB accomplish the role of ``missing link" between the CMB
81: % and SN Ia, motivating the most optimistic hopes for what can
82: % be obtained when the GRB-dedicated satellite, Swift, will be
83: % launched.
84: \end{abstract}
85:
86: \keywords{Gamma Rays: bursts --- Cosmology: observations}
87:
88:
89: \section{Introduction}
90:
91: Recently, Ghirlanda, Ghisellini and Lazzati (2004, GGL04 thereafter)
92: found a surprisingly tight correlation between the peak of the
93: $\gamma$--ray spectrum $E_{\rm peak}$ (in a $\nu F_\nu$ plot) and the
94: collimation corrected energy emitted in $\gamma$--rays $E_\gamma$
95: in long Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs). The latter is related to the
96: isotropically equivalent energy $E_{\gamma, iso}$ by the value of the
97: jet aperture angle $\theta$, by $E_\gamma = E_{\gamma, iso}
98: (1-\cos\theta)$. The scatter around this correlation is tight
99: enough to wonder if the correlation itself can be used for a reliable
100: estimate of $E_{\gamma, iso}$, making GRBs distance indicators,
101: and therefore probes for the determination of the cosmological \Om,
102: \Ol ~parameters, and for the exploration of the matter to vacuum
103: dominance transition.
104:
105: This issue is similar to the case of SN Ia: they are not perfect standard
106: candles (i.e. their luminosities are not all the same), nevertheless
107: the luminosity of a specific supernova can be found through the
108: correlation of their luminosity and the speed of the decay of their
109: light curve (i.e. the slower the brighter, Phillips 1993; Riess, Press \&
110: Kirshner 1995). It is the existence of this correlation among SN Ia
111: which made possible their cosmological use (Riess et al. 2004,
112: hereafter R04; Perlmutter et al. 1999; Schmidt et al. 1998).
113:
114: Very recently, this problem has been explored by Dai, Liang \& Xu
115: (2004), which found tight constraints on \Om ~and \Ol ~using the
116: correlation found by GGL04.
117: Their result is however based on a strong assumption:
118: they assume as universal the correlation
119: measured in a particular cosmology
120: (without errors on its slope),
121: and use it to derive the cosmology itself.
122: Actually, the best fit correlation depends on the cosmology
123: adopted to derive burst luminosities and the correlation
124: should be re--calibrated for each cosmology.
125:
126: In this letter we demonstrate that a correct approach leads to
127: less tight constraints on the cosmological parameters using GRBs
128: alone. On the other hand, a more interesting cosmological
129: result can be acheived if a combined fit with SN Ia is performed.
130:
131:
132: \section{The Hubble diagram of GRBs}
133:
134: As in the case of SN Ia, the use of a class of objects as cosmological
135: ``rulers'' requires them being standard candles. The luminosity of
136: GRBs, calculated assuming isotropy, spans $\sim 4$ orders of magnitude
137: (Frail et al. 2001), but strong observational evidence (i.e. the
138: achromatic break in the afterglow light--curve) indicates that the
139: burst emission is collimated into a cone/jet of some aperture angle
140: $\theta$ (Levinson \& Eichler 1993; Rhoads 1997; Sari, Piran \&
141: Halpern 1999; Fruchter et al. 1999).
142: The corresponding energy emitted in $\gamma$--rays,
143: corrected by the collimation factor $(1-\cos\theta)$, clusters around
144: $E_\gamma\sim 10^{51}$ erg, with a small dispersion (0.5 dex), yet not
145: small enough for a cosmological use (Bloom et al. 2003).
146:
147: GGL04 found a tight correlation between $E_\gamma$
148: and the (rest frame) peak energy $E_{\rm peak}$ of the $\nu F_\nu$ prompt
149: emission spectrum: $E_\gamma \propto E_{\rm peak}^x$. The exact value of
150: $x$ depends on the assumed cosmology.
151: Using \Om$=0.3$ and \Ol$=0.7$ we have
152: %
153: \begin{equation}
154: E_\gamma \, =\, (4.3\pm 0.9)\times 10^{50}
155: \left({E_{\rm peak}\over 267 ~~{\rm keV}}\right)^{1.416\pm 0.09}
156: \quad {\rm erg}
157: \label{corr}
158: \end{equation}
159: %
160: The scatter of the data points around the correlation is of the order
161: of 0.1 dex. This allows to reconstruct the value of $E_\gamma$ by
162: measuring $E_{\rm peak}$.
163:
164: This is analogous to SN Ia, for which there is a tight relation
165: between their peak luminosity and the stretching factor of their
166: optical light curve (Phillips 1993; Goldhaber et al. 2001), with less
167: luminous supernovae showing a faster post--maximum light curve decay
168: (Reiss et al. 1995). The proper modelling of this effect (Hamuy et
169: al. 1996; Perlmutter et al. 1999) improves the determination of the
170: SN Ia luminosity and consequently reduces the scatter in the Hubble
171: diagram, yielding constraints on the cosmological parameters (see R04
172: using SN Ia with redshift up to $z\sim$1.75).
173:
174: The $E_\gamma - E_{\rm peak}$ correlation for GRBs makes them a
175: new class of ``rulers'' for observational cosmology and combining GRBs
176: and SN Ia can further reduce the region of allowed values in the
177: cosmological parameter space. Furthermore, since GRBs are detectable
178: at larger $z$, they are a powerful tool to explore in more detail the
179: cosmic kinematics.
180:
181: The difference between the standard candle assumption and the use of
182: the intrinsic correlations, for both GRBs and SN Ia, is shown in Fig. 1
183: (top and bottom panel, respectively) through the Hubble diagram in the
184: form of luminosity--distance vs redshift. In the upper panel we
185: assume that GRBs and SN Ia are standard candles with a unique energy
186: ($E_\gamma=10^{51}$ erg) for GRBs and luminosity ($B$=-21.1) for SN.
187: The derivation of the luminosity distance $D_{\rm L}$ for SN follows
188: straightforwardly from their distance modulus (R04).
189: For GRBs we have
190: $D_{\rm L} \equiv (1+z)E_\gamma/[4\pi {\cal F_\gamma} (1-\cos\theta)]$, where
191: ${\cal F_\gamma}$ is the $\gamma$--ray fluence (i.e. the time
192: integrated $\gamma$--ray flux).
193: Note that the determination of
194: $\theta$ requires the knowledge of the isotropic energy (see e.g.
195: Eq. 1 in Frail et al. 2001),
196: in turn requiring specific values of (\Om, \Ol).
197: In the bottom panel we plot SN Ia and GRBs after correcting for the
198: stretching--luminosity and the $E_{\gamma}$--$E_{\rm peak}$ relations,
199: respectively.
200: In this case the isotropic energy $E_{\gamma, iso}$ of GRBs has
201: been estimated from their measured $E_{\rm peak}$ through the
202: $E_\gamma$--$E_{\rm peak}$ correlation and the error on the slope
203: of this correlation has been properly included in the $D_{\rm L}$
204: total uncertainty.
205: Also in this case we must fix a given (\Om, \Ol)
206: cosmology both for the derivation of $\theta$ and for finding the best
207: $E_{\gamma}$--$E_{\rm peak}$ relation.
208: As in the SN Ia case, the
209: luminosity distance of GRBs derived from their $E_\gamma$--$E_{\rm peak}$
210: correlation (bottom panel) highly reduces the scatter around possible
211: different cosmologies (solid, dashed and dotted lines).
212: Moreover, GRBs populate the $z>1$ region, where $D_{\rm L}(z)$ is rather
213: sensitive on (\Om, \Ol).
214:
215:
216: \section{Constraints on cosmological parameters}
217:
218: The correlation found by GGL04 {\it assumes} \Om=0.3 and \Ol=0.7, and
219: $h=0.7$. Changes on \Om ~and \Ol ~induce a change on the normalization
220: and slope of Eq. \ref{corr}, together with a {\it different scatter}
221: of the data points around the best fit line. We can then ask what is
222: the pair of cosmological values \Om, \Ol ~which produces the ``minimum
223: scatter'' around the fit, performed using the very same \Om, \Ol ~pair.
224: To this aim we use all the 15 bursts of known redshifts, $E_{\rm peak}$
225: and jet break time $t_{\rm break}$ listed in Tab. 1 and Tab. 2
226: of GGL04.
227:
228: The difference with the study of Dai, Liang \& Xu (2004) lies mainly
229: in this point: they assumed that the $E_\gamma$-$E_{\rm peak}$
230: correlation is exact and cosmology independent, while it is not
231: %
232: \footnote{
233: For instance, using \Om=0.4, \Ol=0.6 ~results in
234: $E_\gamma=(3.7\pm 0.9)\times 10^{50} (E_{\rm peak}/267 ~~{\rm keV})^{1.38\pm 0.09}$ erg
235: (i.e. a $\sim$2.6\% and $\sim$16\% change in slope and normalization
236: with respect to Eq. 1).
237: % Using \Om=0.6, \Ol=0.4 we have
238: % $E_\gamma=(3.4\pm 0.9)\times 10^{50} (E_{\rm peak}/267 ~~{\rm keV})^{1.34\pm 0.09}$ erg
239: % (i.e. a $\sim$5.7\% and $\sim$26\% change in slope and normalization
240: % with respect to Eq. 1.
241: With \Om=1, \Ol=1 we obtain
242: $E_\gamma=(3.0\pm 0.9)\times 10^{50} (E_{\rm peak}/267 ~~{\rm keV})^{1.29\pm 0.08}$ erg
243: (i.e. a $\sim$9\% and $\sim$30\% change in slope and normalization
244: with respect to Eq. 1).
245: }.
246:
247: Additional differences concern:
248: i) the estimate of the errors on the
249: density of the interstellar medium when it is unknown (they assume
250: $n=3\pm 0.33$ cm$^{-3}$ while we allow $n$ to cover the entire 1--10
251: cm$^{-3}$ range);
252: ii) we do not exclude GRB 990510 and GRB 030226 from
253: the analysis;
254: iii) we include GRB 030429, for which a jet break time
255: was recently found by Jakobsson et al. (2004);
256: iv) we always use $(1-\cos\theta)$ (instead of the $\theta^2/2$
257: approximation) as the collimation correction factor (also when
258: estimating the error on $E_\gamma$).
259:
260:
261: We also consider the 156 SN Ia of the ``Gold'' sample of R04, finding the
262: corresponding \Om, \Ol ~contours using the distance moduli and
263: corresponding errors listed in their Tab. 5.
264: Fig. 2 shows our results.
265: GRBs alone (red lines)
266: are almost insensitive to \Ol ~but limit \Om ~to lie within
267: $\sim$0.05 and 0.22 (68\% confidence level).
268:
269: We also show the region pinpointed by the WMAP experiment
270: (Spergel et al. 2003), which
271: is only marginally consistent with the allowed region from SN Ia alone
272: (blue lines in Fig. 2). The combined GRBs+SN Ia fit (filled regions in
273: Fig. 2) selects a region which is more consistent with the cosmic
274: microwave background (CMB) results.
275: The minimum (with a reduced $\chi_{red}^2$=1.146) is for
276: \Om=0.37$\pm0.15$ and \Ol=0.87$\pm0.23$ (1--$\sigma$).
277: Assuming a flat universe yields \Om=0.29$\pm0.04$ and
278: \Ol=0.71$\pm0.05$.
279:
280: If we use the ``classical" Hubble diagram method, we compare the $D_{\rm L}$
281: values given by estimating $E_\gamma$ through the actual correlation
282: found in each point of the \Om, \Ol ~plane with the luminosity distance
283: calculated through e.g. Eq. 11 of R04 (see also Carrol et al. 1992).
284: Then, by a $\chi^2$ statistics, we find the confidence regions in the
285: \Om, \Ol ~plane, which are plotted as dashed line on Fig. 2. This
286: classical method is very similar to the previous one, since it uses
287: the same available information. The small difference (contours
288: slightly larger) is due to the fact that with the ``minimum scatter"
289: method we calculate the distance of the data points from the
290: correlation (i.e. perpendicular to the fitting line), while, using the
291: ``classical" Hubble diagram method, we are using the distance between
292: the $E_\gamma$ data point and the corresponding $E_\gamma$ by the
293: correlation.
294:
295: We can further constrain, with the combined GRB and SN samples, the
296: dark energy component which is parametrized by its equation of state
297: $P=w\rho c^2$.
298: Furthermore, $w$ could be varying, and one possible
299: parametrization is $w=w_{0}+w^\prime z$ (see e.g. R04).
300: Adopting this law, we
301: compute the luminosity distance according to Eq. 14 of R04,
302: assuming a flat cosmology with \Om=0.27.
303: In this case the fit is performed in the $w_{0}$--$w^\prime$ plane
304: for GRBs, SN and for the combined samples.
305: As before, we recompute the $E_\gamma$--$E_{\rm peak}$
306: relation for each $w_0$, $w^\prime$ pair
307: %
308: \footnote{
309: As an example of how the correlation is sensitive to the change
310: of $w_0$, $w^\prime$, consider that, for $w_0=-0.7$ and $w^\prime=0.2$
311: the correlation becomes
312: $E_\gamma=(3.75\pm 0.90)\times 10^{50} (E_{\rm peak}/267 ~~{\rm keV})^{1.37\pm 0.09}$ erg
313: (i.e. a $\sim$3.4\% and $\sim$15\% change in slope and normalization
314: with respect to Eq. 1).
315: }.
316: %
317: Fig. 3 reports the corresponding confidence intervals.
318: Besides making the confidence region smaller than what derived for SN
319: alone, the effect of GRBs is to include within the 68\% contour
320: of the joint SN+GRB sample (filled region) the $w_0=-1$, $w^\prime=0$
321: point, corresponding to the classical cosmological constant.
322:
323:
324:
325: \section{Discussion}
326:
327: GRBs can now be used as cosmological ``rulers",
328: bridging the gap between the relatively nearby type Ia
329: supernovae and the cosmic microwave background. The SWIFT satellite
330: (Gehrels et al. 2004), designed for the fast localization of GRBs, is
331: expected to find about one hundred of GRBs per year: it can open up a
332: new era for the accurate measurements of the geometry and kinematics
333: of our Universe (for a more extended discussion see Firmani et al. 2004).
334: We stress that, besides finding high redshift
335: bursts, which are of course very important for finding tighter
336: constraints, it is crucial to find {\it low redshift} GRBs, to determine
337: the $E_\gamma$--$E_{\rm peak}$ correlation in a redshift range which is
338: not affected by the \Om, \Ol ~values. This would allow to use the
339: resulting correlation unchanged for all values of \Om, \Ol, strongly
340: reducing the associated errors.
341: In turns, this will allow to constrain cosmological
342: parameters independently from SN Ia.
343: This is important since GRBs are unaffected by dust extinction and
344: it is very unlikely that two completely different classes of objects
345: would have similar evolutions to mimic a consistent set of
346: cosmological parameters.
347:
348: In Fig. 4 we show an illustrative example of what can be done {\it if
349: a given correlation were known to be valid independently of the
350: cosmological parameters}. For this we have chosen the correlation
351: given by Eq. \ref{corr}. It can be seen that even the limited sample
352: of our bursts can strongly influence the GRB+SN confidence contours,
353: making them more in agreement with the WMAP results (not unexpectedly,
354: since we have used just the correlation appropriate for \Om=0.3 and
355: \Ol=0.7. A similar consideration concerns the Dai et al. 2004 result).
356:
357: We would like to stress that in order to use GRBs to find the
358: cosmological parameters, we need a set of well measured data, and
359: especially a well measured jet break time $t_{\rm break}$, necessary to
360: find the collimation angle $\theta$, and a good spectral determination
361: of the prompt emission.
362:
363:
364: \acknowledgments{We thank Annalisa Celotti for useful discussions. DL
365: thanks the Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera for the kind hospitality
366: during part of the preparation of this work. G. Ghirlanda thanks the
367: MIUR for COFIN grant 2003020775\_002.}
368:
369: \begin{thebibliography}{}
370:
371: \bibitem[]{} Bloom, J. S., Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., 2003, ApJ, 594, 674
372: \bibitem[]{} Carroll, S. M.; Press, W. H.; Turner, E. L., 1992, ARA\&A, 30, 499
373: \bibitem[]{} Dai, Z. G., Liang, E. W. \& Xu D., 2004, ApJ in press (astro-ph/0407497)
374: \bibitem[]{} Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., Sari, R. et al., 2001, ApJ, 562, L55
375: \bibitem[]{} Firmani, C. et al., 2004, in preparation
376: \bibitem[]{} Fruchter, A. et al. 1999, ApJ, 519, L13
377: \bibitem[]{} Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al., 2004, ApJ,
378: in press (astro--ph/0405233)
379: \bibitem[]{} Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G. \& Lazzati, D., 2004, ApJ, in press
380: (astro--ph/0405602) (GGL04)
381: \bibitem[]{} Goldhaber, G., Groom, D. E., Kim, A., Aldering, G.,
382: et al., 2001, ApJ, 558, 359
383: \bibitem[]{} Jakobsson, P., Hjorth, J., Fynbo, J. P. U., et al., subm. to A\&A
384: (astro--ph/0407439)
385: \bibitem[]{} Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., Suntzeff, N.B. et al., 1996, AJ, 112, 2398
386: \bibitem[]{} Levinson, A., Eichler, D., 1993, ApJ, 418, 386
387: \bibitem[]{} Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber G., et al., 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
388: \bibitem[]{} Phillips, M. M., 1993, ApJ, 413, L105
389: \bibitem[]{} Riess, A. G., Press, W.H. \& Kirshner R.P., 1995, ApJ, 438, L17
390: \bibitem[]{} Riess, A. G., Strolger, L--G., Tonry H., et al., 2004, ApJ, 607, 665 (R04)
391: \bibitem[]{} Rhoads, J. H., 1997, ApJ, 487L
392: \bibitem[]{} Sari R., Piran, T., Halpern, J., 1999, ApJ, 524, L43
393: \bibitem[]{} Schmidt, B. P., Suntzeff, N. B., Phillips, M. M., et al., 1998, ApJ, 507, 46
394: \bibitem[]{} Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 175
395: % \bibitem[]{} Schaefer, B. E., 2003, ApJ, 583, L67
396:
397: \end{thebibliography}
398:
399:
400: \clearpage
401: \newpage
402: \clearpage
403:
404:
405:
406: \begin{figure}
407: \begin{center}
408: \resizebox{!}{7in}
409: % {\vsize}
410: %\hskip{1.5cm}
411: {\includegraphics{F01.ps}}
412: \figcaption[]{
413: Classical Hubble diagram in the
414: form of luminosity--distance $D_{\rm L}$ vs redshift $z$ for Supernova Ia
415: (open green circles: Cal\`an/Tololo sample (Hamuy et al. 1996);
416: open blu circles: Perlmutter et al. 1999)
417: and GRBs (filled red circles: the 15 bursts in GGL04).
418: In the top panel the
419: SN Ia and GRBs are treated as standard candles (no corrections
420: applied); for GRBs $E_\gamma=10^{51}$ erg is assumed. In the
421: bottom panel we have applied the stretching--luminosity and the
422: $E_\gamma$--$E_{\rm peak}$ relations to SN Ia and GRBs, respectively, as
423: explained in the text. Note that, for GRBs, the applied correction
424: depends upon the specific assumed cosmology: here for simplicity we
425: assume the standard \Om=0.3, \Ol=0.7 ~cosmology. Both panels also show
426: different $D_{\rm L}(z)$ curves, as labelled.
427: \label{fig1}}
428: \end{center}
429: \end{figure}
430:
431: \clearpage
432:
433: %-----------------------------------------------
434: \newpage
435: \clearpage
436:
437:
438:
439: \begin{figure}
440: \begin{center}
441: \resizebox{17cm}{17cm}
442: % {\vsize}
443: {\includegraphics{F02.ps}}
444: \figcaption[]{
445: Constraints in the \Om--\Ol ~plane derived for
446: our GRB sample (15 objects, red contours);
447: the ``Gold" Supernova Ia sample of R04
448: (156 objects, blue contours, derived assuming a
449: fixed value of $H_0=65$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$,
450: making the contours slightly different from Fig. 8 of R04).
451: The WMAP satellite constraints (black contours,
452: Spergel et al. 2003) are also shown.
453: The three colored ellipsoids are the confidence
454: regions (dark green: 68\%; green: 90\%; light green: 99\%)
455: for the combined fit of SN Ia and our GRB sample.
456: For GRBs only, the miminum $\chi_{red}^2=1.04$, is at \Om=0.07, \Ol=1.2.
457: \label{fig2}}
458: \end{center}
459: \end{figure}
460:
461: \clearpage
462: %-----------------------------------------------
463: \newpage
464: \clearpage
465:
466:
467:
468: \begin{figure}
469: \begin{center}
470: \resizebox{17cm}{17cm}
471: % {\vsize=10 true cm}
472: {\includegraphics{F03.ps}}
473: \figcaption[]{Constraints on the $w_0$, $w^\prime$ parameters
474: entering the equation of state $p=(w_0+w^\prime z)\rho c^2$,
475: where $\rho$ is the dark energy density.
476: $w_0=-1$ and $w^\prime=0$ correspond to the
477: cosmological constant \Ol.
478: We assume a flat geometry and \Om=0.27 (see also R04).
479: Blue contours: constraints from type Ia SN (R04).
480: Red contours: constraints from our GRBs,
481: Colored regions: combined constraints (dark green, green and light green
482: for the 68\%, 90\% and 99\% confidence levels, respectively).
483: \label{fig3}}
484: \end{center}
485: \end{figure}
486:
487: \clearpage
488: %-----------------------------------------------
489: \newpage
490: \clearpage
491:
492: \begin{figure}
493: \begin{center}
494: \resizebox{16.5cm}{16.5cm}
495: % {\vsize}
496: {\includegraphics{F04.ps}}
497: \figcaption[]{
498: Example of how GRBs can contribute to the determination of the cosmological
499: parameters once the $E_\gamma - E_{\rm peak}$ correlation will be
500: found in a cosmology independent way (i.e. finding bursts
501: at small redshifts).
502: For this example we assume that the correlation of Eq. \ref{corr}
503: is valid for any cosmological parameter.
504: We show the contours in both the \Om, \Ol ~plane
505: (main figure) and in the $w_0-w^\prime$ plane (insert,
506: a flat cosmology with \Om=0.27 is assumed).
507: Lines and colors are as in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.
508: \label{fig4}}
509: \end{center}
510: \end{figure}
511:
512:
513:
514:
515: \end{document}
516:
517:
518:
519:
520:
521:
522:
523:
524:
525: