Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Precision spectrophotometry for PNLF distances: the case of NGC 300

Azlizan A. Soemitro, Martin M. Roth, Peter M. Weilbacher, Robin Ciardullo, George H. Jacoby, Ana Monreal-Ibero, Norberto Castro, Genoveva Micheva

TL;DR

This paper interrogates how photometric precision affects PNLF-based distances, using NGC 300 as a test case. It leverages MUSE’s integral field spectroscopy and the DELF approach to achieve high-precision $m_{5007}$ measurements, and it contrasts this with slit-based photometry to quantify slit-loss biases caused by atmospheric dispersion. The authors show that a maximum-likelihood framework, rather than least-squares binning, is essential when the PNLF cut-off is populated by a small number of PNe, revealing a PNLF dip and bringing the PNLF distance into agreement with Cepheid and TRGB scales. Collectively, the work supports extending PNLF distances to ~40 Mpc with IFS, reinforcing PNLF as a robust secondary distance indicator and contributing to the SN Ia calibration and Hubble tension discourse.

Abstract

The Multi-Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE) has enabled a renaissance of the planetary nebula luminosity function (PNLF) as a standard candle. In the case of NGC 300, we learned that the precise spectrophotometry of MUSE was crucial to obtain an accurate PNLF distance. We present the advantage of the integral field spectrograph compared to the slit spectrograph in delivering precise spectrophotometry by simulating a slit observation on integral field spectroscopy data. We also discuss the possible systematic shift in measuring the PNLF distance using the least-square method, especially when the PNLF cutoff is affected by small number statistics.

Precision spectrophotometry for PNLF distances: the case of NGC 300

TL;DR

This paper interrogates how photometric precision affects PNLF-based distances, using NGC 300 as a test case. It leverages MUSE’s integral field spectroscopy and the DELF approach to achieve high-precision measurements, and it contrasts this with slit-based photometry to quantify slit-loss biases caused by atmospheric dispersion. The authors show that a maximum-likelihood framework, rather than least-squares binning, is essential when the PNLF cut-off is populated by a small number of PNe, revealing a PNLF dip and bringing the PNLF distance into agreement with Cepheid and TRGB scales. Collectively, the work supports extending PNLF distances to ~40 Mpc with IFS, reinforcing PNLF as a robust secondary distance indicator and contributing to the SN Ia calibration and Hubble tension discourse.

Abstract

The Multi-Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE) has enabled a renaissance of the planetary nebula luminosity function (PNLF) as a standard candle. In the case of NGC 300, we learned that the precise spectrophotometry of MUSE was crucial to obtain an accurate PNLF distance. We present the advantage of the integral field spectrograph compared to the slit spectrograph in delivering precise spectrophotometry by simulating a slit observation on integral field spectroscopy data. We also discuss the possible systematic shift in measuring the PNLF distance using the least-square method, especially when the PNLF cutoff is affected by small number statistics.
Paper Structure (5 sections, 2 equations, 4 figures)

This paper contains 5 sections, 2 equations, 4 figures.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Planetary nebulae in NGC 300
  3. Precision spectrophotometry: integral field spectrograph vs. slit spectrograph
  4. The PNLF of NGC 300
  5. Summary

Figures (4)

  • Figure 1: Comparison of the $m_{5007}$ for different PN surveys in NGC 300. The magnitudes from 2012AA...547A..78P is 0.71 mag fainter than the other surveys. The plot is adapted from 2023AA...671A.142S.
  • Figure 2: Simulated apertures for testing the light loss effect of atmospheric dispersion for a standard star. The dot-dashed green line represents measurements using IFS. The solid red line represent measurements using a slit spectrograph. This effect can be minimised by aligning the slit with the parallactic angle continuously during observations 1982PASP...94..715F1993ApJ...417..209J.
  • Figure 3: The PNLF for MUSE data 2023AA...671A.142S in blue and FORS2 data 2012AA...547A..78P in green. The plot is adapted from 2023AA...671A.142S.
  • Figure 4: The MUSE-PNLF distance and its uncertainty is presented as a solid green line and the green shaded range, respectively. As a comparison with distances from literature, Cepheids (blue triangles), tip of the red giant branch (red squares), and previous PNLF distance estimates (the two green circles) are shown. A full reference list of literature distances can found in 2023AA...671A.142S.