1. The Astrophysical Distance Scale. III. Distance to the Local Group Galaxy WLM Using Multiwavelength Observations of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch, Cepheids, and JAGB Stars
- Author
-
Barry F. Madore, Taylor J. Hoyt, Abigail J. Lee, Kayla A. Owens, Andrew J. Monson, and Wendy L. Freedman
- Subjects
Physics ,Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO) ,Cepheid variable ,FOS: Physical sciences ,Local Group ,Astronomy and Astrophysics ,Astrophysics ,Astrophysics - Astrophysics of Galaxies ,Galaxy ,Carbon star ,Red-giant branch ,Stars ,Space and Planetary Science ,Astrophysics of Galaxies (astro-ph.GA) ,Observational cosmology ,Asymptotic giant branch ,Astrophysics - Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics - Abstract
The local determination of the Hubble Constant sits at a crossroad. Current estimates of the local expansion rate of the Universe differ by about 1.7-sigma, derived from the Cepheid and TRGB based calibrations, applied to type Ia supernovae. To help elucidate possible sources of systematic error causing the tension, we show in this study the recently developed distance indicator, the J-region Asymptotic Giant Branch (JAGB) method (arXiv:2005.10792), can serve as an independent cross-check and comparison with other local distance indicators. Furthermore, we make the case that the JAGB method has substantial potential as an independent, precise and accurate calibrator of type Ia supernovae for the determination of H0. Using the Local Group galaxy, WLM we present distance comparisons between the JAGB method, a TRGB measurement at near-infrared (JHK) wavelengths, a TRGB measurement in the optical I band, and a multi-wavelength Cepheid period-luminosity relation determination. We find: $\mu_0$ (JAGB) = 24.97 +/- 0.02 (stat) +/- 0.04 (sys) mag, $\mu_0$ (TRGB NIR) = 24.98 +/- 0.04 stat) +/- 0.07 (sys) mag, $\mu_0$ (TRGB F814W) = 24.93 +/- 0.02 (stat) +/- 0.06 (sys) mag, $\mu_0$ (Cepheids) = 24.98 +/- 0.03 (stat) +/- 0.04 (sys) mag. All four methods are in good agreement, confirming the local self-consistency of the four distance scales at the 3% level, and adding confidence that the JAGB method is as accurate and as precise a distance indicator as either of the other three astrophysically-based methods., Comment: Accepted for publication in ApJ, 21 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF