5.3 Calibration
The calibration can be effected in two ways: (1) using Galactic novae (in which case the use of the MMRD relation is a primary distance indicator, calibrated using geometrical techniques); or (2) using novae in M31 (in which case the distance scale is tied to the distance of M31).
The Cohen (1985) MMRD relation for Galactic novae is given by:
where mdot is the mean rate of decline (in mag d-1)
over the first 2 magnitudes.
The mean scatter around this relation is ± 0.52 mag (1 )
for the high quality subset of Cohen's data. The data and fit are shown
in Figure 9. A slightly different result is
obtained if the Galactic
data are corrected for the constancy of MB 15 days
after maximum light
(Buscombe and de
Vaucouleurs 1955).
In principle such a
correction removes systematic errors in the absolute magnitudes, and
results in a tighter MMRD correlation ( 0.47 mag for
all objects).
An alternate calibration of the MMRD relation is obtained by studying
novae in the nearby spiral galaxy M31. The properties of the nova
system in M31 have been reviewed by
Ciardullo et al. (1987)
and by
Capaccioli et
al. (1989).
Only about 1/3 of the known novae in
M31 have
sufficient information in their light curves to be useful in
determining the MMRD relation, and only about 1/4 of these possess good
quality light curves with a well-observed maximum and rate of decay.
The M31 MMRD relation is shown in
Figure 10. The 1 scatter
around the mean relation depends on the subset of data chosen, and is
in the range 0.20 - 0.28 mag (cf.
Capaccioli et al. 1989,
van den Bergh and
Pritchet 1986).
To compare the M31 MMRD data with the mean Galactic MMRD, we assume
(m - M)B
24.6 for M31 (e.g.,
Pritchet and van den
Bergh 1987b
and references therein), (B - V)max 0.23
(van den Bergh and
Younger 1987),
and (mpg - B) -0.17
(Arp 1956).
With these
assumptions, it can be seen from Figure 10 that
the agreement between the Galactic and M31 MMRD relations is not good: the flattening
observed in the M31 MMRD relation for bright and faint novae is not
seen for Galactic novae. In addition, there appears to be a systematic
offset of about 0.3 mag between the two MMRD relations, in the sense
that Galactic novae are fainter than M31 novae. (This offset
would increase to ~ 0.5 mag if the mean internal absorption
for M31 novae were 0.2 mag
[van den Bergh 1977,
Capaccioli et
al. 1989].
However, we note that
Ford and Ciardullo
[1988]
have failed to find any
systematic difference in the MMRD relation for novae close to and far
from obvious dust patches in the bulge of M31.)
What could cause these differences between the Galactic and M31 MMRD
relations? The flattening at faint magnitudes in the M31 MMRD relation
may be due to Malmquist bias: in the presence of a magnitude limit, only
the brightest novae will be detected. Whether or not this flattening is real
has little effect on distance determinations outside the Local Group,
because it is predominantly the most luminous novae that are detected
at large distances. The flattening of the M31 MMRD relation for
luminous novae is a more difficult problem. If one aligns the MMRD
relations for Galactic and M31 novae in the ``linear'' (-1.3
log mdot -0.7)
regime, then the luminous (log mdot
-0.6) Galactic novae lie an average of ~ 0.8 mag above the M31
MMRD relation. One possible explanation for this is that maximum light
for M31 novae is not as well sampled as it is for
Galactic novae; this
is particularly apparent in the light curves of
Arp 1 and
Arp 2
(Arp 1956).
The shift of the Galactic and M31 MMRD relations relative to each other
seems to imply that the true distance modulus of M31 is 0.3 mag less
than the value obtained with ``quality'' distance indicators (e.g., RR
Lyrae stars, IR observations of Cepheids). However,
Capaccioli et
al. (1989)
have demonstrated that this discrepancy vanishes if a different sample
of objects is chosen to define the Galactic MMRD, and if uncorrected
MVmax values are used for the Galactic nova
sample (instead of MV values corrected for the
Buscombe - de Vaucouleurs effect). It
is also worth noting that the theoretical MMRD
(Shara 1981b)
possesses a flatter slope than that observed for
Cohen's (1985)
data on
Galactic novae, and hence provides a better overall fit to the S-shaped
MMRD relation observed for M31 novae.
Finally, it should be noted that the Galactic MMRD relation is defined
with far fewer objects than is the case for M31; furthermore, the
overall quality of the Galactic data (as demonstrated by the scatter in
the MMRD relation) is considerably lower than for M31, probably due to
such effects as uncertain Galactic absorption, and due to the
assumption of spherical symmetry that is inherent in Cohen's
application of the expansion parallax technique
(Ford and Ciardullo
1988).
In fact, the offset between the Galactic and M31 MMRD relations
is almost exactly what would be expected if the prolate geometry of
nova shells is not taken into account when applying the expansion
parallax technique
(Ford and Ciardullo
1988).
In view of all of the above, it seems somewhat safer to employ the M31
MMRD relation as the calibrator for the extragalactic distance scale.
This makes the distance scale dependent on an assumed distance to M31.
However,
Pritchet and van den
Bergh (1987b) and
van den Bergh (1989)
show that there is concordance in most distance estimates for M31
(except those derived using novae!); using the M31 calibration is
therefore a more prudent approach at the present time.
Figure 9. Maximum magnitude-rate of decline relation for Galactic
novae observed by
Cohen (1985).
Closed symbols represent the novae
designated ``high quality'' by Cohen; the solid line [Eq. (7)] is a
least-squares fit to the high-quality data.
Figure 10. Maximum magnitude-rate of decline relation for novae
in M31. The data (from several sources) have been taken
from Table VI of
Capacioli et
al. (1989).
Solid squares: high-quality data;
open squares: medium-quality data; dots: low-quality
data. The solid line represents the Galactic calibration
(Fig.9),
shifted by (m - M)B = 24.6, and transformed to the
mpg system as described in the text. The dashed line
represents the Capacioli et al. analytical fit to the M31 data.