Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:01:04.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Distance determination to six nearby galaxies using type IIP supernovae.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2014

Subhash Bose
Affiliation:
Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences, Nainital, India email: bose@aries.res.in; email@subhashbose.com
Brijesh Kumar
Affiliation:
Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences, Nainital, India email: bose@aries.res.in; email@subhashbose.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We use early optical photometric and spectroscopic data of six Type-IIP SNe to derive distances to their host galaxies using the expanding photosphere method (EPM). Our sample consists of luminous to sub-luminous SNe 1999gi, 2004et, 2005cs, 2008in, 2009md and 2012aw; having absolute V-magnitudes from -17 to -15 and host galaxy distances from 5 to 22 Mpc. The SN 2008in is peculiar in nature showing dual behavior of a luminous as well as sub-luminous event. The EPM distances for four of the events in our sample are derived for the first time. We take utmost care in minimizing the errors arising from photospheric velocity determination and the broadband filter responses, hence leaving out uncertainty in dilution factor models as the only major source of error. Our preliminary results indicate that EPM-derived distances using Dessart model is found to be consistent with the distances quoted in the literature. We find that EPM method is applicable only to the early (<50 d) photometric data of supernovae and dense spectroscopic data is necessary to estimate accurate distances.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2014 

References

Branch, D., Baron, E., & Jeffery, D. J. 2001, arXiv:astro-ph/0111573Google Scholar
Branch, D., Benetti, S., Kasen, D., et al. 2002, ApJ, 566, 1005Google Scholar
Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J. 2005, A&A, 439, 671Google Scholar
Eastman, R. G., Schmidt, B. P., & Kirshner, R. 1996, ApJ, 466, 911Google Scholar
Elmhamdi, A., Danziger, I. J., Branch, D., et al. 2006, A&A, 450, 305Google Scholar
Fraser, M., Ergon, M., Eldridge, J. J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1417Google Scholar
Hamuy, M., Pinto, P. A., Maza, J., et al. 2001, ApJ, 558, 615Google Scholar
Kirshner, R. P. & Kwan, J. 1974, ApJ, 193, 27Google Scholar
Leonard, D. C., Filippenko, A. V., Li, W., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 2490Google Scholar
Pastorello, A., Sauer, D., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1752Google Scholar
Pastorello, A., Valenti, S., Zampieri, L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 2266Google Scholar
Roy, R., Kumar, B., Benetti, S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 76Google Scholar
Sahu, D. K., Anupama, G. C., Srividya, S., & Muneer, S. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1315Google Scholar