# 0.1 1) Gravitational Lenses

### 0.1  1) Gravitational Lenses

Refsdael (1964, 1966) noted that the arrival times for the light from two gravitationally lensed images of a background point source are dependent on the path lengths and the gravitational potential traversed in each case. Hence, a measurement of the time delay and the angular separation for different images of a variable quasar can be used to provide a measurement of $`\mathrm{H}_0`$. This method offers tremendous potential because it can be applied at great distances and it is based on very solid physical principles (Blandford & Kundić 1997).

There are of course difficulties with this method as there are with any other. Astronomical lenses are galaxies whose underlying (luminous or dark) mass distributions are not independently known, and furthermore they may be sitting in more complicated group or cluster potentials. A degeneracy exists between the mass distribution of the lens and the value of H<sub>0</sub> (e.g., Keeton and Kochanek 1997; Schechter et al. 1997). Ideally velocity dispersion measurements as a function of position are needed (to constrain the mass distribution of the lens). Such measurements are very difficult (and generally have not been available). Perhaps worse yet, the distribution of the dark matter in these systems is unknown.

Unfortunately, to date, there are very few systems known which have both a favorable geometry (for providing constraints on the lens mass distribution) and a variable background source (so that a time delay can be measured). The two systems to date that have been well-studied yield values of H<sub>0</sub> in the approximate range of 40-70 km/sec/Mpc (Schechter et al. 1997; Impey et al. 1998) with an uncertainty of $``$20-30%. These values assume a value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ = 1, and rise by 10% for low $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Tonry & Franx (1998) have recently reported an accurate new velocity dispersion of $`\sigma `$ = 288 $`\pm `$ 9 km/sec for the lensing galaxy in 0957+561, based on data obtained at the Keck 10m telescope. Adopting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ = 0.25 and the model of Grogin & Narayan (1996) for the mass distribution of the lens yields a value of H<sub>0</sub> = 72 $`\pm `$ 7 (1-$`\sigma `$ statistical) $`\pm `$ 15% (systematic).

As the number of favorable lens systems increases (as further lenses are discovered that have measurable time delays), the prospects for measuring H<sub>0</sub> and its uncertainty using this technique are excellent. Schechter (private communication) reports that there are now 6 lenses with measured time delays, but perhaps only half of these will be useful for H<sub>0</sub> determinations due to the difficulty of modelling the galaxies.

### 0.2  Sunyaev Zel’dovich Effect and X-Ray Measurements

The inverse-Compton scattering of photons from the cosmic microwave background off of hot electrons in the X-ray gas of rich clusters results in a measurable decrement in the microwave background spectrum known as the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect (Sunyaev & Zel’dovich 1969). Given a spatial distribution of the SZ effect and a high-resolution X-ray map, the density and temperature distributions of the hot gas can be obtained; the mean electron temperature can be obtained from an X-ray spectrum. The method makes use of the fact that the X-ray flux is distance-dependent, whereas the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich decrement in the temperature is not.

Once again, the advantages of this method are that it can be applied at large distances and, in principle, it has a straightforward physical basis. Some of the main uncertainties result from potential clumpiness of the gas (which would result in reducing $`\mathrm{H}_0`$), projection effects (if the clusters observed are prolate, $`\mathrm{H}_0`$ could be larger), the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium, details of the models for the gas and electron densities, and potential contamination from point sources.

To date, a range of values of $`\mathrm{H}_0`$ have been published based on this method ranging from $``$40 - 80 km/sec/Mpc (e.g., Birkinshaw 1998). The uncertainties are still large, but as more and more clusters are observed, higher-resolution (2D) maps of the decrement, and X-ray maps and spectra become available, the prospects for this method are improving enormously.

Carlstrom, (this meeting) presented exquisite new measurements of the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich decrement, measured in two dimensions with an interferometer, for a number of nearby clusters. He also highlighted the imminent advances on the horizon for X-ray imaging using NASA’s soon-to-be launched Chandra X-ray Observatory (the satellite formerly known as AXAF). There is promise of a significant increase in accuracy for this method in the near future.

### 0.3 The Extragalactic Distance Scale

The launch of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in 1990 has provided the opportunity to undertake a major program to calibrate the extragalactic distance scale. The resolution of HST is an order of magnitude higher than can be generally obtained through the Earth’s atmosphere, and moreover it is stable; as a result, the volume of space made accessible by HST increased by 3 orders of magnitude. The HST Key Project on the extragalactic distance scale was designed to measure the Hubble constant to an accuracy of $`\pm `$10% $`rms`$ (Freedman et al. 1994; Mould et al. 1995; Kennicutt et al. 1995). Since the dominant sources of error are systematic in nature, the approach we have taken in the Key Project is to measure H<sub>0</sub> by intercomparing several different methods. This approach allows us to assess and quantify explicitly the systematic errors. The HST Key Project will be completed in 1999; since new results will be available shortly, this discussion will be kept very brief. Results based on half of the available data yield H<sub>0</sub> = 72 $`\pm `$ 5 $`\pm `$ (random) 7 (systematic) km/sec/Mpc (Madore et al. 1998, 1999; Freedman et al. 1998; Mould et al. 1997). In Figure 4, the results for various H<sub>0</sub> methods are combined using both a Frequentist and a Bayesian approach (from Madore et al.).

The largest remaining sources of uncertainty in the extragalactic distance route to H<sub>0</sub> can be traced to uncertainty in the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud (the galaxy which provides the fiducial comparison for more distant galaxies), and to the potential effects of differing amounts of elements heavier than helium (or metallicity). The importance of the latter effect has been difficult to establish. The recently-installed infrared (NICMOS) camera on HST is being used to address this, and may help to resolve the issue shortly.

A histogram of the distribution of distances to the LMC from the literature is shown in Figure 5. The distances in this histogram are based on Cepheids, RR Lyraes, SN 1987A, red giants, the “red clump”, and long-period variables. Values prior to 1996 come from the published compilation of Westerlund (1997), but only the latest revision published by a given author is plotted for a given data set. Despite decades of effort in measuring the distance to this nearby neighboring galaxy, and the number of independent methods available, the dispersion in measured distance modulus remains very high. Moreover, the distribution is not Gaussian. There has been much recent activity on the red clump which contributes many of the values around 18.3 mag, and gives rise to the bimodal nature of the distribution. There is as yet no understanding of why there is a systematic difference between the Cepheid and the red clump distance scale. This histogram illustrates that the uncertainty in the distance to the LMC is still large. Without assuming that the distribution is Gaussian, the 95% confidence limits are +/- 0.28 mag, and the 68% confidence limits amount to +/- 0.13 mag or 7distance. Unfortunately, the distance to the LMC remains as one of the largest systematic uncertainties in the current extragalactic distance scale. 

Determination of t<sub>0</sub>

Age-dating of the oldest known objects in the Universe has been carried out in a number of ways. The most reliable ages are generally believed to come from the application of theoretical models of stellar evolution to observations of the oldest clusters in the Milky Way, the globular clusters. For about 30 years, the ages of globular clusters have remained reasonably stable, at about 15 billion years (e.g., Demarque et al. 1990; Vandenberg et al. 1996); however, recently these ages have been revised downward, as described below. Ages can also be obtained from radioactive dating or nucleocosmochronology (e.g., Schramm 1989), and a further lower limit can be estimated from the cooling rates for white dwarfs (e.g., Oswalt et al. 1996). Generally, these ages have ranged from about 10 to 20 billion years; the largest sources of uncertainty in each of these estimates are again systematic in nature.

During the 1980’s and 1990’s, the globular cluster age estimates have improved as both new observations of globular clusters have been made with CCD’s, and as refinements to stellar evolution models, including updated opacities, consideration of mixing, and different chemical abundances, have been incorporated (e.g., Vandenberg et al. 1996; Chaboyer et al. 1996, 1998). The latter authors have undertaken an extensive analysis of the uncertainties in the determination of globular cluster ages. From the theory side, uncertainties in globular cluster ages result, for example, from uncertainties in how convection is treated, the opacities, and nuclear reaction rates. From the measurement side uncertainties arise due to corrections for dust and chemical composition; however, the dominant source of overall uncertainty in the globular cluster ages is the uncertainty in the cluster distances.

In fact, the impact of distance uncertainty on the ages of globular clusters is twice as large as its effect on the determination of H<sub>0</sub>. That is, a 0.2 mag difference in zero point corresponds to a 10% difference in the distance (or correspondingly, H<sub>0</sub>), but it results in a 20% difference in the age of a cluster (e.g., Renzini 1991).

The Hipparcos satellite has recently provided geometric parallax measurements for 118,000 nearby stars (Kovalevsky 1998). Relevant for the calibration of globular cluster distances, are the relatively nearby old stars of low metal composition, the so-called subdwarf stars, presumably the nearby analogs of the old, metal-poor stars in globular clusters. Accurate distances to these stars provide a fiducial calibration from which the absolute luminosities of equivalent stars in globular clusters can be determined and compared with those from stellar evolution models. The new Hipparcos calibration has led to a downward revision of the globular cluster ages from $``$15 billion years to 11-14 billion years (e.g., Reid 1997; Pont et al.  1998; Chaboyer et al. 1998).

However, as emphasized by Chaboyer et al., there are only 8 stars in the Hipparcos catalog having both small parallax errors, and low metal abundance, \[Fe/H\] $`<`$-1.1 (i.e., less than one tenth the iron-to-hydrogen abundance relative to the solar value). In fact, Gratton et al. (1998) note that there are no stars with parallax errors $`<`$10% with \[Fe/H\]$`<`$-2 corresponding to the oldest, metal poor globular clusters. Hence, the calibration of globular cluster ages based on parallax measurements of old, metal-poor stars remains an area where an increase in sample size will be critical to beat down the statistical uncertainties. A decade or so from now, new parallax satellites such as NASA’s SIM (the Space Interferometry Mission) and the European Space Agency’s mission (named GAIA) will be instrumental in improving these calibrations, not only for subdwarfs, but for many other classes of stars (for example, Cepheids and the lower-mass variable RR Lyrae stars). These interferometers will be capable of delivering 2–3 orders of magnitude more accurate parallaxes than Hipparcos, down to fainter magnitude limits for several orders of magnitude more stars. Until larger samples of accurate parallaxes are available, however, distance errors are likely to continue to contribute the largest source of systematic uncertainty to the globular cluster ages.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and Cosmological Parameters 

As discussed at this meeting by Silk, Wilkinson and Spergel, over the next few years, increasingly more accurate measurements will be made of the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. The underlying physics governing the shape of the CMB anisotropy spectrum can be described by the interaction of a very tightly coupled fluid composed of electrons and photons before recombination (e.g., Hu & White 1996; Sunyaev & Zel’dovich (1970). Figure 6 shows a plot of the predicted angular power spectrum for CMB anisotropies from Hu, Sugiyama & Silk (1997), computed under the assumption that the fluctuations are Gaussian and adiabatic. The position of the first angular peak is very sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ \+ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ \+ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$).

For information on cosmological parameters to be extracted from the CMB anisotropies, the following must be true: first, the physical source of these fluctuations must be understood, and second, the sources of systematic error must be eliminated or minimized so that they do not dominate the uncertainties.

Recently it has become clear that almost exact degeneracies exist between various cosmological parameters (e.g., Efstathiou & Bond 1998; Eisenstein, Hu & Tegmark 1998) such that, for example, cosmological models with the same matter density can have the same CMB anisotropies, while having very different geometries. As a result, measurement of CMB anisotropies will, in principle, be able to yield strong constraints on the products $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$h<sup>2</sup> and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$h<sup>2</sup>, but not on the individual values of h (= H<sub>0</sub>/100) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ directly. Hence, earlier suggestions that such cosmological parameters could be measured from CMB anisotropies to precisions of 1% or better (e.g., Bond, Efstathiou & Tegmark 1997) will unfortunately not be realized. However, breaking these degeneracies can be accomplished by using the CMB data in combination with other data, for example, the Sloan survey and type Ia supernovae (e.g. White 1998).

Currently the estimates of the precisions for which cosmological parameters can be extracted from measurements of anisotropies in the CMB are based on models in which the primordial fluctuations are Gaussian and adiabatic, and for which there is no preferred scale. Very detailed predictions can be made for this model, more so than for competing models such as isocurvature baryons or cosmic strings or textures. In the next few years, as the data improve, all of these models will be scrutinized in greater detail.

Important additional constraints may eventually come from polarization measurements (e.g., Zaldarriaga, Spergel & Seljak 1997; Kamionkowski et al. 1997), but these may require the next generation of experiments beyond MAP and Planck. The polarization data may provide a means of breaking some of the degeneracies amongst the cosmological parameters that are present in the temperature data alone. Furthermore, they are sensitive to the presence of a tensor (gravity wave) contribution, and hence can allow a very sensitive test of competing models.

Although it is not yet certain how accurately the cosmological parameters can be extracted from measurements of CMB anisotropies, what is clear is that upcoming, scheduled balloon and space experiments offer an opportunity to probe detailed physics of the early Universe. If current models are correct, the first acoustic peak will be confirmed very shortly and its position accurately measured by balloon experiments even before the launch of MAP. These balloon experiments will soon be followed with the total sky and multi-frequency coverage provided by MAP and Planck. This new era now being entered, of precision CMB anisotropy experiments, is extremely exciting.

Discussion and Summary 

In the past year, a radical shift has begun to occur. Until recently, a majority of the theoretical community viewed the (standard) Einstein- de Sitter model ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ = 1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 0) as the most likely case (with h= 0.5, t = 13 Gyr). With accumulating evidence for a low matter density, difficulty in fitting the galaxy power spectrum with the standard model, the conflict in ages for the Einstein-de Sitter case, and now, most recently, the evidence from type Ia supernovae for an accelerating universe, a new “standard” model is emerging, a model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ 0.3, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ 0.7, h = 0.65, and t = 13 Gyr. This model preserves a flat universe and is still consistent with inflation.

In Figure 7, the bounds on several cosmological parameters are summarized in a plot of the matter density as a function of the Hubble constant. What do these current limits on cosmological parameters imply about the contribution of non-baryonic dark matter to the total matter density? As can be seen from the figure, for H<sub>0</sub> = 70 km/sec/Mpc, current limits to the deuterium abundance (Burles & Tytler 1998; Hogan 1998) yield baryon densities in the range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ = 0.02 to 0.04, or 2-4% of the critical density. Given current estimates of the matter density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$0.3), non-baryonic matter would thus contribute just over 25% of the total energy density needed for a flat, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ = 1 universe.

One might ask, is non-baryonic dark matter still required if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is non-zero? Allowance for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $``$ 0 does not provide the missing energy to simultaneously yield $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ = 1, while doing away with the necessity of non-baryonic dark matter, at least for the current limits from Big Bang nucleosynthesis. As can be seen from Figure 7, for the current deuterium limits, having all baryonic mass plus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ would require both H<sub>0</sub> $``$ 30 km/sec/Mpc and an age for the Universe of $``$ 30 Gyr. These H<sub>0</sub> and age values are outside the range of currently measured values for both of these parameters. Although it might be appealing to do away simultaneously with one type of unknown (non-baryonic dark matter) while introducing another parameter ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), a non-zero value for the cosmological parameter does not remove the requirement for non-baryonic dark matter.

The question of the nature of dark matter (or energy) remains with us. In this sense, the situation has not changed very much over the past few decades, although the motivation for requiring a critical-density universe has evolved from considerations of fine-tuning and causal arguments to the development of inflation. But searches for dark matter since the 1970’s have not uncovered sufficient matter to result in a critical-density universe. This year has offered exciting new (and therefore still tentative) results that a non-zero value of the cosmological constant, or perhaps an evolving scalar field like quintessence (Steinhardt, this volume; Steinhardt & Caldwell 1998) could provide the missing energy to result in a critical-density universe. Still, the nature of the dark matter, whether it contributes 25% or 95% of the total energy density, is unknown, and remains as one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in cosmology.

The progress in measuring cosmological parameters has been impressive; still, however, the accurate measurement of cosmological parameters remains a challenging task. It is therefore encouraging to note the wealth of new data that will appear over the next few years, covering very diverse areas of parameter space. For example, measurement of CMB anisotropies, (from balloons and space with MAP, and Planck), the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra X-ray Observatory, radio interferometry, gravitational lensing studies, weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) cryogenic detectors, neutrino experiments, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), and a host of others, inspire optimism that the noose on cosmological parameters is indeed tightening. At the very least, the next few years should continue to be interesting!

## Acknowledgments

It is a great pleasure to thank the organizers of this Nobel Symposium for a particularly enjoyable and stimulating conference, and for their immense hospitality. I also thank Brad Gibson for his help with the LMC distance literature search.

References

W. Baade, IAU Trans. 8, 397, 1954.

N. A. Bahcall, L. M. Lubin & V. Dorman, Astrophys. J. Lett., 447, 81, 1995.

N. A. Bahcall & Fan, Publ. Nat. Acad. Sci., 95, 5956, 1998.

M. Birkinshaw Phys. Rep., 1999, in press.

R. Blandford & T. Kundić, in The Extragalactic Distance Scale eds. M. Donahue &

M. Livio (Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 60–75.

A. Bosma, Astron. J.,86, 1791, 1981.

S. Burles & D. Tytler, Astrophys. J., 507, 732, 1998.

Carlberg, R. G., et al., Astrophys. J., 462, 32, 1996.

Carroll, Press, & Turner, Astron. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.,30, 499, 1992.

B. Chaboyer, P. Demarque, P. J. Kernan & L. M. Krauss, Science, 271, 957, 1996.

B. Chaboyer, P. Demarque, P. J. Kernan & L. M. Krauss, Astrophys. J., 494, 96, 1998.

Y.-C. N. Cheng & L. M. Krauss Mon. Not. Royal Astr. Soc., 1999. astro-ph 9810393, in press.

A. Dekel et al., Astrophys. J., 412, 1, 1993.

A. Dekel, D. Burstein & S. D. M. White in Critical Dialogs in Cosmology, ed. N. Turok

(World Scientific, 1997).

P. Demarque, C. P. Deliyannis & A. Sarajedini, in Observational Tests of Inflation,

ed. T. Shanks et al. (Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1991).

M. Donahue & M. Livio, eds. The Extragalactic Distance Scale

(Cambridge University Press, 1997).

G. Efstathiou & J. R. Bond, Mon. Not. Royal Astr. Soc., 1998,astro-ph/9807103.

A. Einstein, Sitz. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. Phys.-Math, 142, (1917).

D. Eisenstein, W. Hu & M. Tegmark, Astrophys. J., 504, L57, 1998.

W. L. Freedman in Proceedings of the 18th Texas Symposium,

eds. A. Olinto, J. Frieman, & D. Schramm, (World Scientific Press, 1997a).

W. L. Freedman in Critical Dialogs in Cosmology, ed. N. Turok

(World Scientific, 1997b), p. 92.

W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore & R. C. Kennicutt, in The Extragalactic Distance

Scale eds. M. Donahue & M. Livio, (Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 171-185.

W. L. Freedman, J. R. Mould, R. C. Kennicutt & B.F. Madore, in IAU Symposium No. 183,

Cosmological Parameters and the Evolution of the Universe, in press, 1998, astro-ph/9801080.

A. Friedmann, Z. Phys., 10, 377, (1922).

M. Fukugita, T. Tutamase & M. Kasai, Mon. Not. Royal Astr. Soc.,246, 24p, 1990.

M. Fukugita & E. Turner, Mon. Not. Royal Astr. Soc.,253, 99, 1991.

P. Garnavich et al., Astrophys. J., 493, L3, 1998.

A. Goobar & S. Perlmutter, Astrophys. J., 450, 14, 1995.

N. A. Grogin & R. Narayan, Astrophys. J., 464, 92, 1996.

A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev., 23, 347, 1981.

C. Hogan, Space Sci. Review, 84, 127 (1998).

W. Hu & M. White Astrophys. J., 441, 30, 1996.

E. Hubble, Publ. Nat. Acad. Sci., 15, 168, 1929.

E. Hubble & M. L. Humason Astrophys. J., 74, 43, 1931.

C. Impey, Astrophys. J., 509, 551, 1998.

N. Kaiser & G. Squires, Astrophys. J., 404, 441, 1993.

N. Kaiser et al., Astrophys. J., 1999, astro-ph 9809269, in press.

M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky & A. Stebbins, astro-ph/9609132.

R. C. Kennicutt, W. L. Freedman & J. R. Mould, Astron. J., 110, 1476, 1995.

C. S. Kochanek, Astrophys. J., 466, 638, 1996.

J. Kovalevsky, Astron. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 36, 99, 1998.

L. Krauss & M. S. Turner, Gen. Rel. Grav., 27, 1137, 1995.

C.-P. Ma, T. Small & W. Sargent 1998, astro-ph/9808034.

B. F. Madore et al., Nature, 395, 47, 1998.

B. F. Madore et al., Astrophys. J., 1999, in press, Apr. 10 issue, astro-ph/9812157.

J. R. Mould, S. Sakai & S. Hughes, in The Extragalactic Distance Scale

eds. M. Donahue & M. Livio (Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 158–170.

J. P. Ostriker & P. Steinhardt, Nature, 377, 600, 1995.

J. P. Ostriker, P. J. E. Peebles & A. Yahil Astrophys. J. Lett., 193, L1, 1974.

T. D. Oswalt, J. A. Smith, M. A. Wood & P. Hintzen, Nature, 382, 692, 1996.

S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophys. J., 483, 565, 1997.

S. Perlmutter et al., Nature, 391, 51, 1998a.

S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophys. J., 1999, astro-ph/9812133.

V. Petrosian, E. Salpeter & P. Szekeres, Astrophys. J., 147, 1222, 1967.

F. Pont, M. Mayor, C. Turon & D. A. Vandenberg it Astron. Astrophys., 1999, in press. 

S. Refsdael, Mon. Not. Royal Astr. Soc., 128, 295, 1964.

S. Refsdael, Mon. Not. Royal Astr. Soc., 132, 101, 1966.

N. Reid, Astron. J., 114, 161, 1997.

A. Reiss, W. Press & R. Kirshner Astrophys. J., 473, 88, 1996.

A. Reiss et al. Astron. J., 116, 1009, 1998.

A. Renzini, in Observational Tests of Inflation, ed. T. Shanks et al.

(Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1991), pp. 131-146.

D. H. Rogstad & G. S. Shostak, Astrophys. J., 176, 315, 1972.

M. Rowan-Robinson, The Cosmological Distance Ladder, (New York, Freeman, 1985).

V. C. Rubin, N. Thonnard & W. K. Ford, Astrophys. J. Lett., 225, L107, 1978.

A. Sandage et al., Astrophys. J. Lett., 460, 15, 1996.

A. Sandage, Astrophys. J., 127, 513, 1958.

P. Schechter et al., Astrophys. J. Lett., 475, 85, 1997.

D. N. Schramm, in Astrophysical Ages and Dating Methods,

eds. E. Vangioni-Flam et al. (Edition Frontieres: Paris, 1989).

I. Smail, R. S. Ellis, M. J. Fitchett & A. C. Edge, Mon. Not. Royal Astr. Soc., 273, 277, 1995.

P. Steinhardt & J. Caldwell, in The Cosmic Microwave Background and Large Scale Structure

in the Universe eds. Y.. I. Byan & K. W. Ng (ASP Conf. Series 151, 1998), p. 13.

P. Stetson Publ. Astr. Soc. Pac., 110, 1448, 1998.

R. A. Sunyaev & Y. B. Zel’dovich, Astrophys. & SS, 4, 301, 1969.

R. A. Sunyaev & Y. B. Zel’dovich, Astrophys. & SS, 7, 3, 1970.

J. Tonry & M. Franx, astro-ph 9809064.

V. Trimble, Astron. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 25, 425, 1987.

S. van den Bergh, in The Extragalactic Distance Scale eds. M. Donahue

& M. Livio (Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 1–5.

D. A. Vandenberg, M. Bolte, & P. B. Stetson, Astron. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 34, 461, 1996.

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys., 61, 1, 1989.

B. E. Westerlund, The Magellanic Clouds, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, (1997).

S. D. M. White, J. F. Navarro, A. E. Evrard & C. S. Frenk, Nature, 366, 429, 1993.

M. White, Astrophys. J., 1999.

M. Zaldarriaga, D. N. Spergel & U. Seljak, Astrophys. J., 488, 1, 1997.

F. Zwicky, Helv. Phys. Acta, 6, 110, 1933.

Figure Captions 

Figures 1a-b: The trend with time for measurements of H<sub>0</sub> and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. See text for details.

Figures 2a-b: The trend with time for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and t<sub>0</sub>. Note the arbitrary units for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. See text for details.

Figure 3 (top panel): The Hubble diagram for type Ia supernovae from Hamuy et al. (1996) and Reiss et al. (1998). Plotted is the distance modulus in magnitudes versus the logarithm of the redshift. Curves for various cosmological models are indicated. (bottom panel): Following Reiss et al. (1998), the difference in magnitude between the observed data points compared to an open ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ = 0.2) model is shown. The distant supernovae are fainter by 0.25 magnitudes, on average, than the nearby supernovae.

Figure 4: Plot of various H<sub>0</sub> determinations and the adopted values from Madore et al. (1998). In the left panel, each value of $`H_0`$ and its statistical uncertainty is represented by a Gaussian of unit area (linked dotted line) centered on its determined value and having a dispersion equal to the quoted random error. Superposed immediately above each Gaussian is a horizontal bar representing the one sigma limits of the calculated systematic errors derived for that determination. The adopted average value and its probability distribution function (continuous solid line) is the arithmetic sum of the individual Gaussians. This Frequentist representation treats each determination as independent, and assumes no a priori reason to prefer one solution over another. A Bayesian representation of the products of the various probability density distributions is shown in the right panel. Because of the close proximity and strong overlap in the various independent solutions the Bayesian estimator is very similar to, while more sharply defined than, the Frequentist solution.

Figure 5: A histogram of distance moduli determinations for the Large Magellanic cloud. Values prior to 1996 are from a published compilation by Westerlund (1997).

Figure 6: The angular power spectrum of cosmic microwave background anisotropies assuming adiabatic, nearly scale-invariant models for a range of values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (Hu, Sugiyama, and Silk 1997; their Figure 4). The C<sub>l</sub> values correspond to the squares of the spherical harmonics coefficients. Low $`l`$ values correspond to large angular scales ($`l\frac{200\mathrm{deg}}{\theta }`$). The position of the first acoustic peak is predicted to be at $`l`$220$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{TOT}^{1/2}`$, and hence, shifts to smaller angular scales for open universes.

Figure 7: Plot of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ versus $`\mathrm{H}_0`$ showing current observational limits on cosmological parameters. The shaded box is defined by values of H<sub>0</sub> in the range of 40 to 90 km/sec/Mpc and 0.15 $`<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}<`$ 0.4. The thick solid lines denote expansion ages for an open ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 0) Universe for 10, 15, and 20 Gyr and the thick dashed lines denote expansion ages in the case of a flat ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ =1) Universe. The light dashed lines denote current limits for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ based on low and high values for the deuterium to-hydrogen ratio.