cosmological applications of novel standardized candles · cosmological applications of novel...

CosmologicalCosmological

Applications of NovelApplications of Novel

Standardized CandlesStandardized Candles

Thesis Advisory Committee Meeting, Thesis Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2006June 26, 2006

Andrew FriedmanAndrew FriedmanThesis AdvisorThesis Advisor: Robert : Robert KirshnerKirshner

CommitteeCommittee: Lars : Lars HernquistHernquist, John , John HuchraHuchra,,

RameshRamesh NarayanNarayan, Chris Stubbs, Chris Stubbs

Outline

1. Graduate School Timeline – Milestones and Future Goals

2. PAIRITEL SN Project (Peters Automated Infrared Imaging Telescope)

– JHK Type Ia Light Curves – Standard Candles? – Data Collected, Light Curves, Data Analysis Issues – Future Work

3. GRB Cosmology Project (NASA Swift satellite)

– Long Duration GRBs as Standardizable Candles – Future Work: NASA GSRP Fellowship Project (Continuation of Research Exam Project)

4. ESSENCE Project – Cosmology Analysis, Self-Calibration

PAIRITEL Project

Joshua Bloom (UC Berkeley),Cullen Blake (Harvard)

GRB Cosmology With Swift

Joshua Bloom (UC Berkeley), Neil Gehrels(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center)

Research Collaborations

CfA Supernova Group

Robert Kirshner, PeteChallis, Malcolm Hicken,Andrew Friedman,Maryam Modjaz, W.Michael Wood-Vasey,Stephane Blondin

Graduate School Timeline

Entered Fall 2002. Now In 4th year.

Projected Graduation Date: Spring 2008 (or Fall 2009)

On Medical Leave Fall 2003.

Teaching Requirement Fulfilled, Spring 2004.

Research Exam Completed, January 31, 2005.

Thesis Advisor Chosen, April 2005.

Thesis Proposal Submitted, October 2005.

Courses Completed, February 2006.

1st TAC Meeting, June 26, 2006.

Publications & Presentations

Publications

•Friedman, A. S. and Bloom, J. S. 2005, “Towards a More Standardized Candle UsingGRB Energetics and Spectra” Astrophysical Journal, v627, Issue 1, pp. 1-25 (July 2005)

•Friedman A. S., and Bloom, J. S., 2005, "Present and Future Prospects for GRB StandardCandles", Il Nuovo Cimento C, v028, Issue 04-05, pp. 669-672, (19 October 2005)

•Friedman, A. “Using GRBs For Cosmology”, Sky & Telescope, August 2006 (withRobert Naeye, “Dissecting the Bursts of Doom”, Sky & Telescope, August 2006 pp 30-37) ,Volume 112, No. 2, pg. 35

Presentations

•“Selected PAIRITEL Data Analysis Issues”, A.S. Friedman, 2nd Annual PAIRITELWorkshop, Harvard-Smithsonian CfA, May 16, 2006

•“Infrared Light Curves of Nearby Supernovae with the Peters Automated InfraredImaging Telescope (PAIRITEL)”, A.S. Friedman, M. Modjaz, W.M. Wood-Vasey, C.H.Blake, R.P. Kirshner, et al., 207th Meeting of the AAS, Washington, DC, Jan. 8-12, 2006

•“The Present and Future of GRB Cosmology”, Friedman, A.S., Supernova AccelerationProbe (SNAP) Science Meeting, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, Berkeley, CA,July 15, 2005

•“The Present and Future of GRB Cosmography”, Friedman A.S., & Bloom, J.S., 205thMeeting of the AAS, San Diego, CA, Jan. 9-13, 2005

•“Towards a More Standardized Candle Using GRB Energetics and Spectra”, FriedmanA.S., & Bloom, J.S., 4th Workshop on Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era, Rome,Italy, October 18-22, 2004

Fellowships, Honors & Awards

•National Aeronautics & Space Administration GraduateStudent Research Program (NASA GSRP) Fellowship,2006-present (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,Greenbelt, Maryland)

•National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate ResearchFellowship, 2002-2006

•Certificate of Distinction in Teaching, Derek Bok Centerfor Teaching and Learning, Harvard University, Spring2004, Fall 2005

•Summer School in Astrostatistics, Penn State University, June 6-10, 2006.

PAIRITEL SupernovaPAIRITEL Supernova

ProjectProject

Andrew Friedman (Harvard-Andrew Friedman (Harvard-CfACfA))

[email protected]@cfa.harvard.edu

www.pairitel.orgwww.pairitel.org

Outline : PAIRITEL SN Project

• 1. JHK Type Ia Light Curves – Standard

Candles? Science Motivations and Goals

• 2. Data Collected, Sample Light Curves

• 3. Data Analysis Issues

• 4. Future Work

Maryam Modjaz : working on SNe Ib/c JHK

data w/ PAIRITEL, GRB/SN connection

Michael Wood-Vasey : also interested in SNe

Ia in JHK

Advantages of Type Ia in JHK vs. UBVRI

•Type Ia SNe are standardizable candles at the ~0.18 mag level

(MLCS2k2 method; Jha et. al 2005)

•JHK SNe Ia appear to be standard candles at the 0.15-0.2 mag

level or better (7-9% in distance), depending on the filter

(Krisciunas et. al 2004, 2005)

•JHK LC’s show no decline rate relations in the NIR

(From < 20 JHK SNe Ia) (Krisciunas et. al 2004, 2005)

•JHK v.s. UBVRI mags have less

systematic uncertainty due to dust

extinction (AJHK < AV)

•UBVRI + JHK = better

determination of reddening Av

(Krisciunas et. al 2006 in prep.)

Reddening v.s. Wavelength

Other Groups Observing SNe in JHK

•The Carnegie Supernova Project Represents the main southern

hemisphere competition to the nothern hemisphere PAIRITEL

Supernova Project / CfA Supernova Program

•Largely complementary set of nearby supernovae in

UBVRIJHK with a few overlapping SNe

•They have kindly published SNe Light Curves w/o galaxy

templates on their website (We can compare overlapping SNe

LC’s and global properties of low-z sample)

http://csp1.lco.cl/~cspuser1/CSP.html

Standard Candles in the NIR?

Krisciunas et. al 2005 Krisciunas et. al 2005

Absolute mags of Type Ia SNe at max. light vs. the decline rate

parameter m15 (B) show a lack of decline rate relations and

intrinsic scatter ~ 0.15-0.2 mag in JHK. (Hubble diagram right)

JHK Utility for Reddening

For moderate amounts of extinction (~0.5 mag) we

need rest frame optical and IR data to do a good job

measuring the extinction Av and Rv [Av/Rv=E(B-V)]

•SN2004S

BVRIJHK LC’s

similar to LC’s of

SN2001el

•Measure Av,

can learn about

dust in highly

extincted galaxy

of 2001el

Krisciunas et. al 2006 in prep.

Av for SN2001el

Theoretical Models of NIR SNe Ia

Kasen astro-ph/0606449

•Theoretical

models predict

secondary

maximum in

JHK.

•Effect is seen

in observations

for 2001el

shown here

(filled circles)



Intrinsically

brighter SNe

Ia have a

later and

more

prominent

secondary

maximum in

IJHK due to

more 56Ni

mass

produced.


•Peak H band

mag is the best

Type Ia standard

candle.

•Dots mark

variation in 56Ni

mass produced

(0.4-0.9 M_sun).

NIR SNe Ia should be standard candles at

< ~0.2 mag level, despite varying 56Ni mass.







• 4. Future Work

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/oir/pairitel/ptel_sn.shtml

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/oir/pairitel/ptel_sn_04-05.shtml

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/oir/pairitel/ptel_templates.shtml

PAIRITEL SN Data Census (2004-06)

PAIRITEL SN Data Census (2004-2006)

Sample Light Curves

Sample Light Curves

Michael Wood-Vasey






• 4. Future Work

J K (J H) Transformation, Mosaics

J Band Mosaics: best quality – Most images included in mosaic

H Band Mosaics: good quality – Most images included in mosaic – Better than K, but worse than J

K Band Mosaics: poorest quality – In the past, sometimes fewer thanhalf of images included in mosaic

Why not use the J positions, relative imageoffsets to determine those for K (and H?)


•Relative Image to Image Transformation Equations

Rotation Matrices

J H Offset Rotation Angle

vs. Zenith Angle

•J K offsets independent of zenith angle•J H offsets depend on zenith angle (flexure)•Consistent with findings from 2MASS

J K Transformation, Mosaics

J K Offset Rotation Angle

vs. Zenith Angle

Detecting Dither Problems

Normal Dither Pattern Straying Dither Pattern

•PTEL Dither pattern problematic ~Feb 10-14, 2006•Multiple telescope control daemons conflicting

New Bad Pixel Masks

0.2% 1.2% 2.2% 2.5% 1.8% 2.3%

Priority Reduction Requests Web Page






• 4. Future Work

Future Work

• Obtain Remaining Template Images

• Reduce 2004-05 Data at Berkeley (Josh Bloom)

• Generate Light Curves

• First 2 Papers Plan (3-6 month timescale)

•(data paper + science paper)-Friedman, A., Wood-Vasey, W.M., Modjaz, M. ,

Kirshner, R.P., Blake, C., Bloom, J.S. et al. “Infrared

Light Curves of Nearby Type Ia Supernovae with the Peters

Automated Infrared Imaging Telescope (PAIRITEL)”

-Wood-Vasey, W.M., Friedman, A.S., Modjaz, M.

Kirshner, R.P., Blake, C., Bloom, J.S. et al. “The Absolute

Brightness of Type Ia Supernovae in the Near Infrared”

GRB CosmologyGRB Cosmology

in the in the SwiftSwift Era Era

Andrew Friedman (Harvard-Andrew Friedman (Harvard-CfACfA))

[email protected]@cfa.harvard.edu

www.cosmicbooms.netwww.cosmicbooms.net

GRB Redshifts Before and After Swift

Motivations: GRBs + SNe Ia

GRBs: very bright; detectable out to z >2; both

prompt-emission & afterglow (z~10-20?)

-rays penetrate dust

More tractable k-corrections

Different evolution

Different systematics

Swift in space, JDEM: zmax~1.7 (Ia vs. Ib/c)

GRB standard candles could serve asindependent probes of cosmic expansionhistory, complementary to SNe Ia

z > 1.7 is M-dominated

No training set of nearby GRBs

Few low-z GRBs

Immediate Concerns

GRB coverage in 1<z<2 comparable to high-z SNeIa from HST, 28 GRBs, ~28 High-z SNe(Knop et al. 2003, Riess et al. 2004, Riess et al. in prep)

SNe Ia survey up to at least z ~ 2 crucial to pindown dark energy systematics (Linder & Huterer 2003)

GRBs could constrain M, complementary toBAO, Galaxy Cluster constraints (best M prior?)

Is high-z cosmology interesting?

High-z GRBs complement lower-z SNe Ia

Amati et al. 2002

Smooth brokenpower Law

(Band et al. 1993)

“Band” Spectrumfits most brightBATSE GRBs

(Preece et al. 2000)

4/12 GRB Spectra w/ z

GRB Spectra: “Band Model”

Ep =Peakenergy of Fspectrum

Eiso distribution – spans several ordersof mag. – Eiso is a bad standard candle

Data from: Friedman & Bloom 2005

Fluence in observed bandpass

Cosmological k-correction

Luminosity Distance (theory)

Hubble constant /70 kms-1Mpc-1

Redshift

GRB Energetics (Isotropic Equivalent)

Beaming fraction fb inferredfrom achromatic break inafterglow light curve (t~tjet)

GRB Jets & Beaming

Stanek et. al 1999

“Top Hat”

Jet Model

15 GRBs (fb), 17 GRBs (z)

Frail et al. 2001

24 GRBs (fb), 29 GRBs (z)

Bloom et al. 2003

Beaming Corrected Energy (E )

E distribution is much narrower than Eiso

(Frail et al. 2001, Piran et al. 2001, Bloom et al. 2003)

the “Frail Relation”: E ~ constant

The Ep-E relation

Friedman & Bloom 2005

•The Ep-E relation

plotted for a

standard cosmology.

•Relation must be

re-fit for each

cosmology.

•Inset shows

cosmology

dependence of the

slope of the relation.

•Note outliers and

scatter.

GRB Hubble Diagram

Friedman & Bloom 2005

•GRB Hubble

diagram for a

standard

cosmology before

(right) and after

(left) Ep-E

correction. Note

reduction in

scatter.

•This plot must

be re-calculated

for every

cosmology.

Global 2

determines

favored

cosmology.

(Ep-E method - 19 GRBs)

Goodness of

fit sensitive to:

1. n

2. n/n

3. Data set

4. References

for individual

GRBs

5. k-cor band

(small # stats)

Sensitivity to Input Assumptions

Friedman & Bloom 2005b

2 = 3.71: upper left; triangle (Friedman & Bloom 2005)2 = 1.27: lower right; diamond (Ghirlanda et al. 2004c)

n~1-2 cm-3

optimizes 2

UNKNOWNUNKNOWN-ray conversion efficiency ( =20%)6

VERY HARDVERY HARDAmbient Density (n=10 cm-3 ?)5

HARDHARDTime of afterglow jet-break (tjet)4

HIT & MISSHIT & MISSPeak of prompt-burst spectrum (Ep)3

STANDARDSTANDARDSpectroscopic redshift (z)2

EASYEASYFluence in observed bandpass (S )1

Measuring the Necessary Observables

To place a GRB on the Ep-E relation, one needs to

assume a cosmology, a k-cor bandpass, pick a

model for the jet structure (i.e. E ), and “measure”

the following (must at least have S , z, Ep, & tjet) :

Avoiding Sensitivity to Density, Efficiency

Recent Work with Empirical Standard Candle

with no Jet Model Assumptions: Eiso ~ Ep tjet

(Liang & Zhang 2005, Xu 2005 ~ 2, ~ -1)

UNKNOWNUNKNOWN-ray conversion efficiency ( =20%)6

VERY HARDVERY HARDAmbient Density (n=10 cm-3 ?)5

HARDHARDTime of afterglow jet-break (tjet)4

HIT & MISSHIT & MISSPeak of prompt-burst spectrum (Ep)3

STANDARDSTANDARDSpectroscopic redshift (z)2

EASYEASYFluence in observed bandpass (S )1

Other GRB Standardization Methods

Previous GRB redshift indicators used prompt–ray properties alone, using correlations found

between isotropic luminosity (Liso) and

Variability: Fenimore & Ramirez Ruiz 2000,Reichardt et. al 2001, Lloyd-Ronning &Ramirez-Ruiz, Firmani et. al 2006

Spectral Lags: Norris et. al 2000, Noriss 2002,Schaefer et. al 2001

Renewed enthusiasm for cosmographic utility ofGRBs: Schaefer 2003, 2006, Takahashi 2003

GRB Hubble Diagram

Schaefer 2006 AAS

(5 methods combined – 52 GRBs) •Plot presentation is

misleading. It ignores

data dependence on

the cosmology by only

showing data points

computed for Best Fit

cosmology.

•Correct plot would

also show data

computed for

Cosmological Constant

cosmology.

•Only comparison of

relative 2 can

determine favored

cosmology.

Dark Energy 2 Contours

(5 methods combined – 52 GRBs) •Combining methods

allows more GRBs to be

placed on Hubble

diagram, but obscures

potential systematics.

•Most likely this is not

evidence against but

indirect evidence of GRB

luminosity evolution with

redshift.

•High z GRBs are higher

luminosity due to lower

metallicity progenitor stars

and environments.

Sky & Telescope, August 2006 Issue

Simulations of Swift Data

Bromm & Loeb 2002

Redshift distribution

Flatness prior

Bad NewsWithout low-z sample (unlikely w/ Swift)

GRBs alone sensitive to M, not

GRBs insensitive to (w=wo) or w(t)

Good NewsLSS priors on M help SNe Ia, but similarly

might be achieved w/ only standard candle

techniques (GRB prior on M)

Mörtsell & Sollerman

2005 simulate sample

of 200 Swift GRBs

(Friedman & Bloom 2005)

~650 SNe Ia (Gold + SN

Factory + ESSENCE) using

SNOC package

(Goobar et al. 2002)

163 GRBs localized since November 2004 launch

42 ground based follow up redshifts

But z, Ep, tjet not reliably measured by BAT, UVOT

Less than 5 post-Swift bursts can even be placed on the

Ep-E relation (w/o upper or lower limits), and these were

co-observed by other satellites (HETE-2, Integral).

050408, 050525a consistent w/ relation, for example

In order for Swift to be a GRB cosmology

satellite, new standardized candle relations in

the data must be discovered

New Swift Bursts

www.cosmicbooms.netwww.cosmicbooms.net

Conclusions

No training set can’t do , w, w(t)

Lack of low-z coverage loitering problem

Systematics, selection effects

Lack of basis from physics

Sample may only double in ~2 years

Need Swift + HETE-2 + Integral + ???

Even w/ training set, evolution degenerate w/ w(t)

GoodGRBs may constrain M best in future

Complementary redshift distribution to SNe Ia

Empirical approach avoids sensitivity to n,

Bad

Future Work: Systematic Errors

Cosmological k-correction bandpass choice

Neglecting Covariance

Gravitational Lensing

WIND vs. ISM

Assuming the same density for all bursts

Assuming the same efficiency for all bursts

Selection EffectsNakar & Piran 2004, Band & Preece 2005

Future Work: NASA GSRP

Compute Energetics, Jet Beaming Angles for

Swift Bursts, compare pre & post Swift samples

Search For Standardized Candle Correlations

in Swift XRT X-Ray Afterglow Data

GRB k-correction template spectra method

Infer Spectral information for GRBs w/o

measured spectra – test Ep-Eiso, Ep-E relations

Constrain Ultra High z GRB population with

limits from Swift data

Outreach

Public Talks•“The Coolest Things In Astronomy: Take II”, Guest Lecture, The Math Circle,Northeastern University, December 10 2005

•“Your Place in the Cosmos: From Planets to Stars to Galaxies and Beyond”, DudleyHouse Crosstalk, Harvard University, December 8 2005 (With Mr. Ryan Hickox,Harvard-Smithsonian Center For Astrophysics)

•“White Dwarfs, Neutron Stars, Black Holes, Supernova Explosions, and the Origins ofHumanity”, Guest Lecture, Science A-47: Cosmic Connections, Harvard University,November 7 2005

•“The Coolest Things In Astronomy”, Guest Lecture, The Math Circle, NortheasternUniversity, May 22 2005

Interviews

•Astronomy Q & A Podcast, “Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs): A discussion with RobertNaeye & Andrew Friedman”, Harvard-Smithsonian CfA Science Media Group, Interviewwith Robert Naeye, Senior Editor, Sky & Telescope Magazine, May 10 2006

•Professor Robert Kirshner and I were interviewed at the 207th AAS Conference inWashington DC, Jan 11 2006 by Robert Irion of Science magazine.

Irion, R., "Astronomers Push and Pull Over Dark Energy’s Role in Cosmos", Science, 20Jan. 2006, Vol. 311, pg. 316, (pdf)

•Professor Joshua Bloom and I were interviewed by Robert Irion of Science Magazine.Irion, R., "Astronomer's Eager for a Swift New Vision of the Universe", Science, 8 Oct.2004, Vol. 306, pg. 214-215

PAIRITEL Observations Statistics

PAIRITEL Project Statistics

Suggested Web Tools

•Web page with thumbnails of mosaic JPEGS.

•List of reduced/unreduced data

•Statistics for individual/all PAIRITEL projects

•Automated e-mails sent to users with URL of such apage, notifications that data is ready

•Suggestions?

PAIRITEL SN Data Census (SN 2004-06)

Master Table of GRB ObservablesRED = missing data

Pre-SwiftPre-Swift

Post-SwiftPost-Swift

cosmological applications of novel standardized candles · cosmological applications of novel...

Documents