Non-Gaussian Error Distributions of LMC Distance Moduli Measurements

Crandall, Sara; Ratra, Bharat

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/2/87

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following a careful assessment of the statistical and systematic uncertainties associated with all reported post-1990 LMC distance measurements, our final recommendation for the LMC's distance modulus is (m − M) 0 = 18.49 ± 0.09 mag. This has since been confirmed on the basis of independent statistical analysis (Crandall & Ratra 2015). It is also fully consistent with the large body of Cepheid-based distance measurements to the LMC, which resulted in (m − M) 0 = 18.48 ± 0.08 mag .…”

Section: The Large Magellanic Cloudsupporting

confidence: 84%

An internally consistent distance framework in the Local Group

de Grijs,

Bono

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate and precise astronomical distance determinations are crucial for derivations of, among others, the masses and luminosities of a large variety of distant objects. Astronomical distance determination has traditionally relied on the concept of a 'distance ladder.' Here we review our recent attempts to establish a highly robust set of internally consistent distance determinations to Local Group galaxies, which we recommend as the statistical basis of an improved extragalactic distance ladder.

show abstract

Section: The Large Magellanic Cloudsupporting

confidence: 84%

An internally consistent distance framework in the Local Group

de Grijs,

Bono

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Next, we decided to take our analysis of possible publication bias in distance estimates to Local Group galaxies to the next level. We expanded our scope to include Messier 31 (M31) and a number of its larger and better-studied companion galaxies, i.e., M32, M33, NGC 147, NGC 185, NGC 205, IC 10, andIC 1613 (de Grijs &Bono 2014: Paper II), and the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC; de Grijs & Bono 2015: Paper III; see for independent confirmation based on the same data set, Crandall & Ratra 2015). The latter revealed significant difficulties related to the definition of 'the' SMC center, given the galaxy's irregular morphology, as well as important depth effects reflected differently by different distance tracers.…”

Section: Beyond the Local Group: Messier 87 And The Center Of The Vir...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clustering of Local Group Distances: Publication Bias or Correlated Measurements? VI. Extending to Virgo Cluster Distances

Grijs

Bono

2019

ApJS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have established an internally consistent Local Group distance framework, using the Galactic Center, the Large Magellanic Cloud, and Messier 31 (M31) as important stepping stones. At greater distances, few distance benchmarks are available. As a consequence, M87 and/or Virgo cluster distances are often invoked as the next rung on the ladder to more distant objects such as the Fornax and Coma clusters. Therefore, we extensively mined the published literature for independently derived distance estimates to either M87 or the center of the Virgo cluster. Based on our newly compiled, comprehensive database of 213 such distances, published between 1929 and 2017 July, we recommend an outward extension to our distance framework, (m − M ) M87 0 = 31.03 ± 0.14 mag (D = 16.07 ± 1.03 Mpc; where the uncertainty represents the Gaussian σ of the distribution), based on a subset of recent (post-1990) M87/Virgo cluster distance measurements. The most stable distance tracers employed here were derived from analysis of both primary and secondary distance indicators. Among the former, we preferentially rely on Cepheid period-luminosity relations and red-giant-branch terminal magnitudes; our preferred secondary distance tracers are surface brightness fluctuations. Our updated distance modulus to M87 implies a slightly reduced black hole mass of (5.9 ± 0.6) × 10 9 M with respect to that determined by the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration.

show abstract

“…https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ 4 A distance of ∼ 50 kpc to the LMC is currently preferred(Pietrzyński et al 2013;de Grijs et al 2014;Crandall & Ratra 2015), but we use 48 kpc here for consistency with theOrosz et al (2009) mass estimate of LMC X-1.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Crossing the Eddington Limit: Examining Disk Spectra at High Accretion Rates

Sutton

Swartz

Roberts

et al. 2017

ApJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The faintest ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs), those with 0.3-10 keV luminosities 1 < L X /10 39 < 3 erg s −1 , tend to have X-ray spectra that are disk-like but broader than expected for thin accretion disks. These 'broadened disk' spectra are thought to indicate near-or mildly super-Eddington accretion onto stellar remnant black holes. Here we report that a sample of bright thermal-dominant black hole binaries, which have Eddington ratios constrained to moderate values, also show broadened disk spectra in the 0.3-10 keV band at an order of magnitude lower luminosities. This broadening would be missed in studies that only look above ∼ 2 keV. While this may suggest that broadened disk ULXs could be powered by accretion onto massive stellar remnant black holes with close to maximal spin, we argue in favor of a scenario where they are at close to the Eddington luminosity, such that radiation pressure would be expected to result in geometrically slim, advective accretion disks. However, this implies that an additional physical mechanism is required to produce the observed broad spectra at low Eddington ratios. −0.005 0.934 +0.006 −0.010 −1 ± 1 < 7 × 10 −4 47 (759.0/562) Swift-2 0.48 +0.02 −0.01 0.92 +0.02 −0.01 1.1 +0.6 −0.9 < 0.1 44 602.9/517 Resampled BHBs GX 339−4 XMM-1 1.0 ± 0.1 0.90 ± 0.02 3.6 ± 0.4 1.8 +0.7 −0.5 41 579.3/557 XMM-2 0.80 +0.08 −0.09 0.85 ± 0.02 2.6 +0.3 −0.4 0.8 +0.5 −0.3 44 561.6/564 LMC X-3 XMM-1 0.5 ± 0.1 1.37 +0.04 −0.03 4.6 +0.4 −0.5 6 ± 2 42 480.1/500 Swift-1 < 9 × 10 −3 1.164 +0.017 −0.009 2.2 +0.2 −0.1 0.50 +0.06 −0.04 43 435.5/391 XMM-2 [0] 1.16 +0.02 −0.03 2.5 +0.2 −0.1 3 ± 1 41 527.5/479 LMC X-1 XMM-1 1.3 ± 0.2 0.90 +0.01 −0.02 4.4 +0.7 −0.6 5 ± 2 41 623.9/554 Swift-1 0.8 +0.1 −0.2 0.94 +0.02 −0.03 4.7 +0.8 −1.1 5 +5 −2 44 (503.4/389) Swift-2 0.36 +0.03 −0.02

show abstract

Non-Gaussian Error Distributions of LMC Distance Moduli Measurements

Cited by 24 publications

References 28 publications

An internally consistent distance framework in the Local Group

An internally consistent distance framework in the Local Group

Clustering of Local Group Distances: Publication Bias or Correlated Measurements? VI. Extending to Virgo Cluster Distances

Crossing the Eddington Limit: Examining Disk Spectra at High Accretion Rates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About