Advertisement

Astrophysics and Space Science

, Volume 152, Issue 1, pp 141–170 | Cite as

The proper motion VS redshift relation for superluminal radio sources

  • Bert W. Rust
  • Stephen G. Nash
  • Barry J. Geldzahler
Article

Abstract

Two models for superluminal radio sources predict sharp lower bounds for the apparent velocities of separation. The light echo model predicts a minimum velocityvmin=2c, and the dipole field model predictsvmin=4.446c. Yahil (1979) has suggested that, if either of these models is correct, thenvmin provides a ‘standard velocity’ which can be used to determine the cosmological parametersH andq0. This is accomplished by estimating a lower envelope for the proper motion vs redshift relation. Yahil also argued that the procedure could easily be generalized to include a nonzero cosmical constant Λ. We derive the formulas relating the proper motion\(\dot \theta\) to the redshiftz in a Friedmann universe with a nonzero Λ. We show that the determination of a lower envelope for a given sample of measured points\((z_i ,\dot \theta _i )\) yields an estimate of the angle of inclinationφ i for each source in the sample. We formulate the estimation of the lower envelope as a constrained maximum likelihood problem with the constraints specified by the expected value of the largest order statistic for the estimatedφ i . We solve this problem numerically using an off-the-shelf nonlinearly constrained nonlinear optimization program from the NAg library. Assuming Λ=0, we apply the estimation procedure to a sample of 27 sources with measured values\((z_i ,\dot \theta _i )\), using both the light echo and the dipole field models. The fits giveH=103 km s−1 Mpc−1 for the light echo model andH=46 km s−1 Mpc−1 for the dipole field model. In both cases the fits giveq0=0.4, but the uncertainty in this result is too large to rule out the possibility thatq0>0.5. When Λ is allowed to be a free parameter, we obtainH=105 km s−1 Mpc−1 for the light echo model andH=47 km s−1 Mpc−1 for the dipole field model. In both cases the fits giveq0=−1 and Λ/H 0 2 =6.7, but no significance can be attached to these results because of the paucity of measured data at hight redshifts. For all of the fits, we compute the corresponding estimates of theφ i and compare the cumulative distribution of these values with that expected from a sample of randomly oriented sources. In all cases we find a large excess of sources at low-inclination angles (high apparent velocities). The expected selection effect would produce such an excess, but the excess is large enough to suggest a strong contamination of the sample by relativistic beam sources which would only be seen at low inclination angles.

Keywords

Proper Motion Lower Envelope Apparent Velocity Motion Versus Expected Selection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bååth, L. B.: 1984, ‘VLBI and Compact Radio Sources’, in R. Fanti, K. Kellerman, and G. Setti (eds.),IAU Symp. 110, 127.Google Scholar
  2. Bahcall, J. N. and Milgrom, M.: 1980,Astrophys. J. 236, 24.Google Scholar
  3. Bard, Yonathan: 1974,Nonlinear Parameter Estimation, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Boisvert, R. F., Howe, S. E., and Kahaner, D. K.: 1984,The Guide to Available Mathematical Software (GAMS), PB 84-171305, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.Google Scholar
  5. Brent, R. P.: 1971,The Computer J. 14(4), 422.Google Scholar
  6. De Waard, G. J.: 1986, ‘Thermal-Nonthermal Relationships in Active Galactic Nuclei’, Ph.D. thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
  7. Felten, J. E. and Isaacman, R.: 1986,Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 689.Google Scholar
  8. Gill, P. E. and Murray, W. (ed.): 1974,Numerical Methods for Constrained Minimization, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Hogg, R. V. and Craig, A. T.: 1965,Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  10. IMSL User's Manual: 1984,The IMSL Library: FORTRAN Subroutines for Mathematics and Statistics, International Mathematical and Statistical Libraries, Inc., Houston.Google Scholar
  11. Kahaner, D. K., Moler, C. B., and Nash, S. G.: 1989,Numerical Methods and Software, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  12. Lynden-Bell, D.: 1977,Nature 270, 396.Google Scholar
  13. Lyness, J. N. and Moler, C. B.: 1966,Numer. Math. 8, 458.Google Scholar
  14. Lyness, J. N. and Moler, C. B.: 1969,Numer. Math. 14, 1.Google Scholar
  15. McVittie, G. C.: 1965,General Relativity and Cosmology, Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  16. Milgrom, M. and Bahcall, J. N.: 1978,Nature 274, 349.Google Scholar
  17. Murray, W.: 1976, ‘Methods for Constrained Optimization’, in L. C. W. Dixon (ed.),Optimization in Action, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Numerical Algorithms Group 1984,NAg FORTRAN Library Manual Mark 11, Numerical Algorithms Group, Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. Rees, M. J.: 1966,Nature 211, 468.Google Scholar
  20. Romney, J. D., Schilizzi, R. T., Fejas, I., and Spencer, R. E.: 1987,Astrophys. J. 321, 822.Google Scholar
  21. Sanders, R. H.: 1974,Nature 248, 390.Google Scholar
  22. Scheuer, P. A. G.: 1976,Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 177, 1P.Google Scholar
  23. Scheuer, P. A. G.: 1984, ‘VLBI and Compact Radio Sources’, in R. Fanti, K. Kellermann, and G. Setti (eds.),IAU Symp. 110, 197.Google Scholar
  24. Segal, I. E.: 1979,Astrophys. J. 227, 15.Google Scholar
  25. Weinberg, S.: 1972,Gravitation and Cosmology, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Yahil, A.: 1979,Astrophys. J. 233, 775.Google Scholar
  27. Zensus, J. A. and Pearson, T. J.: 1988, ‘Superluminal Radio Sources’, in J. Moiran and M. Reid (eds.),Proc. IAU Symp. 129.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bert W. Rust
    • 1
  • Stephen G. Nash
    • 2
  • Barry J. Geldzahler
    • 2
  1. 1.National Bureau of StandardsGaithersburgU.S.A.
  2. 2.George Mason UniversityVirginiaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations