1998
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-5238-9_38
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Angular Size-Redshift Test for Compact Radio Sources in the Caltech-Jodrell Bank Surveys

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Miley 1971;Kapahi 1975;and recently several authors Kellermann 1993;Wilkinson et al 1998, have reported a redshift dependence of radio source angular sizes at 0.5 < z < 3, which is not easily reconciled with other recent measurements of the cosmological parameters (but see Daly & Djorgovski 2004, for results more consistent with the concordance model. )…”
Section: The Standard Rodmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Miley 1971;Kapahi 1975;and recently several authors Kellermann 1993;Wilkinson et al 1998, have reported a redshift dependence of radio source angular sizes at 0.5 < z < 3, which is not easily reconciled with other recent measurements of the cosmological parameters (but see Daly & Djorgovski 2004, for results more consistent with the concordance model. )…”
Section: The Standard Rodmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…In recent years many studies have been published on θ − z relation of milliarcsecond structures in AGN cores (Kellermann 1993;Gurvits 1994;Stelmach 1994;Stepanas & Saha 1995;Wilkinson et al 1997;Gurvits et al 1999). While the angular size of the compact radio sources seemed to show the expected turnover, there has been criticism of possible biases in these samples.…”
Section: Traditional Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In these studies the standard rod has been defined as the jet length from peak flux down to 2% (Kellermann 1993) or 1% (Wilkinson et al 1997) contour or as a size estimate from a single component modelfit to uv-data (Gurvits 1994). The fact that the jet length, observed using these methods, can change rapidly due to moving shocks in the jet does not necessarily cause a bias, only random errors if it is assumed that on average all sources produce similar moving shocks.…”
Section: Traditional Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%