The Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distances to Type Ia Supernova Host Galaxies. II. M66 and M96 in the Leo I Group
aa r X i v : . [ a s t r o - ph . C O ] J un Draft version September 18, 2018
Preprint typeset using L A TEX style emulateapj v. 5/2/11
THE TIP OF THE RED GIANT BRANCH DISTANCES TO TYPE IA SUPERNOVA HOST GALAXIES. II. M66AND M96 IN THE LEO I GROUP
Myung Gyoon Lee and In Sung Jang
Astronomy Program, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Seoul National University, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-742, Korea
Draft version September 18, 2018
ABSTRACTM66 and M96 in the Leo I Group are nearby spiral galaxies hosting Type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia).We estimate the distances to these galaxies from the luminosity of the tip of the red giant branch(TRGB). We obtain
V I photometry of resolved stars in these galaxies from F W and F W images in the Hubble Space Telescope archive. From the luminosity function of these red giants wefind the TRGB I -band magnitude to be I TRGB = 26 . ± .
03 for M66 and 26 . ± .
03 for M96.These values yield distance modulus ( m − M ) = 30 . ± . ± . m − M ) = 30 . ± . ± . V -band magnitudes of these SNe Ia are ∼ H = 67 . ± . ± . − Mpc − .This value is similar to the values derived from recent WMAP9 results, H = 69 . ± .
80 km s − Mpc − . and from Planck results, H = 67 . ± . − Mpc − , but smaller than other recentdeterminations based on Cepheid calibration for SNe Ia luminosity, H = 74 ± − Mpc − . Subject headings: galaxies: distances and redshifts — galaxies: individual (M66, M96) — galaxies:stellar content — supernovae: general — supernovae: individual (SN 1989B, SN1998bu) INTRODUCTIONType Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia) are a powerful tool to in-vestigate the expansion history of the universe, becausetheir peak luminosity is as bright as a galaxy and isknown as an excellent standard candle. Since the discov-ery of the acceleration of the universe based on the obser-vations of SNe Ia, higher than ever accuracy of their peakluminosity is needed to investigate various problems incosmology (Freedman & Madore 2010; Riess et al. 2011;Lee & Jang 2012; Tammann & Reindl 2013).We started a project to improve the accuracy of thecalibration of the peak luminosity of SNe Ia by measuringaccurate distances to nearby resolved galaxies that hostSNe Ia. We derive accurate distances to the SN Ia hostgalaxies using the method to measure the luminosity ofthe tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) (Lee et al. 1993).We presented the result of the first target, M101, a well-known spiral galaxy hosting SN 2011fe that is the nearestSN Ia since 1972 (Lee & Jang 2012 (Paper I)). This paperis the second of the series, presenting the results for M66and M96 in the Leo I Group.M66 (NGC 3627, SAB(s)b) and M96 (NGC 3368,SAB(rs)ab) are nearby bright spiral galaxies host-ing SNe Ia: SN 1989B in M66 (Evans & McNaught1989; Wells et al. 1994) and SN 1998bu in M96(Villi et al. 1998; Suntzeff et al. 1999; Jha et al. 1999;Hernandez et al. 2000; Spyromilio et al. 2004). M66has been host to other three SNe as well: SNII 1973R (Ciatti & Rosino 1977), SN imposter SN1997bs (Van Dyk et al. 2000), and SN II-L 2009hd [email protected], [email protected] (Elias-Rosa et al. 2011).They are considered to be the members of the com-pact Leo I Group that includes three subgroups: theLeo Triplet (M66, M65, and NGC 3628), the M96Group (including M96 (NGC 3368), M95 (NGC 3351),and M105 (NGC 3379)), and the NGC 3607 Group(de Vaucouleurs 1975; Saha et al. 1999). The Leo IGroup has played an important role as a stepping stonefor calibration of the secondary distance indicators, be-cause it includes both early and late type galaxies atthe distance closer than the Virgo cluster and because ithosts SNe Ia. In particular M66 and M96 have been usedas important calibrators for the absolute magnitudes ofSNe Ia and the Tully-Fisher relation (Saha et al. 1999;Suntzeff et al. 1999; Saha et al. 2006; Jha et al. 2007;Hislop et al. 2011; Tammann & Reindl 2013).Harris et al. (2007a) derived a value for the distance tothe Leo I Group, ( m − M ) ≈ . ± .
05 ( ≈ . F W and F W images obtained with the HubbleSpace Telescope (HST) /Wide Field Planetary Camera 2(WFPC2) and derived a distance modulus of ( m − M ) = Lee and Jang30 . ± .
12 from the photometry of 25 good Cepheids.Later Cepheid estimates range from ( m − M ) = 29 . ± .
07 (Willick & Batra 2001) to 30 . ± .
09 (Saha et al.2006), showing as much as 0.8 mag differences. On theother hand, Mould & Sakai (2009a) presented a distancemodulus ( m − M ) = 29 . ± .
10 using the TRGBmethod from F W and F W images obtained withthe HST /Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) . Fur-thermore Tully et al. (2009) presented an even smallerTRGB distance estimate, ( m − M ) = 29 . ± .
09. Thusthere is a significant difference between the Cepheid dis-tances and TRGB distances as well as among the esti-mates of each method.In the case of M96, Tanvir et al. (1995) found 7Cepheids from
HST /WFPC2 F W and F W im-ages and derived a distance modulus of ( m − M ) =30 . ± .
16. Later Cepheid estimates showed a signif-icant spread, ranging from ( m − M ) = 29 . ± . . ± .
15 (Kochanek 1997).Surprisingly Mould & Sakai (2009b) presented a muchsmaller TRGB distance estimate ( m − M ) = 29 . ± . HST images. Thus the difference be-tween the Cepheid distances and TRGB distance is asmuch as 0.3 to 0.7 mag and the range of the Cepheiddistances is about 0.4.In this study we use the well-known TRGB methodto estimate the distances to M66 and M96 from the im-ages available in the
HST archive. The TRGB methodis an efficient and precise primary distance indicator forresolved galaxies so that it is an excellent tool for calibra-tion of more powerful distance indicators such as SN Iaand Tully-Fisher relations (Lee et al. 1993; Sakai et al.1996; Jang et al. 2012; Tammann & Reindl 2013). Sec-tion 2 describes how we derive photometry of the pointsources in the images and § §
4, and summarizesprimary results in the final section. DATA REDUCTIONTable 1 lists the information of the
HST /ACSimages we used for the TRGB analysis in this study: F W and F W F W and F W are,respectively, 2224 s and 8872 s for M66, and 2280 s and9112 s for M96. In Figure 1 we illustrate the locations ofthe HST fields in the gray scale maps of i -band SloanDigital Sky Survey images of M66 and M96. The HST fields cover the west region of each galaxy off from thegalaxy center. Two known SNe Ia (SN 1989B and SN1998bu) are located close to the center of each galaxyand are not covered by these images, as marked inFigure 1.Instrumental magnitudes of point sources in the imageswere obtained using the DAOPHOT package in IRAF(Stetson 1994), as done for M101 in Lee & Jang (2012). Details are described in Lee & Jang (2012). Mean valuesfor the aperture correction errors are 0.02 mag for bothfilters. The instrumental magnitudes were converted intothe standard Johnson-Cousins
V I magnitudes, using theinformation in Sirianni et al. (2005). The average errorsfor this transformation are 0.02 mag. We adopted thestandard Johnson-Cousins
V I magnitudes for transfor-mation to compare our results with others in the litera-ture and combine our results with those for other galaxiessometimes based on F606W images. RESULTS3.1.
Photometry of Resolved Stars
The
HST /ACS fields cover disk regions with spiralarms in each galaxy. We need to select resolved old redgiants for the analysis of the TRGB method. Thereforewe selected an outer region avoiding arms in each field,as marked by the hatched region in Figure 1. Thus cho-sen regions have the lowest sky background level in theimages.Color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) of the resolvedstars in the selected regions in M66 and M96 are plottedin Figure 2. It shows that most of the resolved stars ineach galaxy are red giants belonging to the thick slantedfeature, which is a red giant branch (RGB). The bright-est part of the RGB is seen at I ≈ . E ( B − V ) = 0 . A I =0 .
049 and E ( V − I ) = 0 .
040 for M66 and A I = 0 .
038 and E ( V − I ) = 0 .
031 for M96. We assumed that internalreddening for the old red giants is zero.3.2.
TRGB Distance Measurement
We estimated the distances to M66 and M96 fromthe photometry of the resolved stars using the TRGBmethod, as described in Lee & Jang (2012). Figure 3(a)and (c) plot the I -band luminosity functions of the red gi-ants obtained counting the stars inside the box as markedin Figure 2. In Figure 3 an abrupt discontinuity is seenat I ≈ . I -band luminosity function of the starsis given by N ( I ) and σ I is the mean photometric error,the edge-detection response function is given by E ( I )(= N ( I + σ I ) − N ( I − σ I )). The values of the TRGBmagnitudes were determined from the peak values of theedge-detection response function. Figure 3(b) and (d)illustrate the edge-detection response functions for M66and M96, respectively. The edge-detection responsefunction for each galaxy shows a strong peak at theposition corresponding to the TRGB. We estimatedthe measurement errors for the TRGB magnitudesusing bootstrap resampling method as described inLee & Jang (2012). Thus estimated TRGB magnitudesare I TRGB = 26 . ± .
03 for M66 and 26 . ± .
03 forM96, both of which are almost the same. We obtaineda median color value of the TRGB from the color of thebrightest part of the RGB: ( V − I ) TRGB = 1 . ± .
05 for66 and M96 distances 3
TABLE 1A Summary of
HST
Observations for M66 and M96
Target R.A. Dec Instrument Exposure time Prop. ID.(J2000.0) (J2000.0) F W F W M66 11 20 00.00 12 59 28.0 ACS/WFC 2224 s 8872 s 10433M96 10 46 32.89 11 48 16.0 ACS/WFC 2280 s 9112 s 10433
SN 1998bu(b) M96 δ ( )
10h 47m 10s 46m 50s 30s α (2000)11o 42’44464850525456 SN 1989B(a) M66 δ ( )
11h 20m 40s 20s 00s α (2000)12o 54’565813o 00’020406 Fig. 1.—
Finding charts for the
HST fields of M66 (a) and M96 (b) (boxes). Gray scale maps represent i -band Sloan digital sky surveyimages. The hatched regions represent the regions used in the analysis for distance determination. Positions of SN 1989B and SN 1998buare marked by circles. I (a) M66 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5V-I27.527.026.526.025.525.0 I (b) M96 Fig. 2.— I − ( V − I ) color-magnitude diagrams of the detected stars in the selected regions of M66 (a) and M96 (b). Boxes denote theboundary of the red giants used for distance determination. Arrows indicate the magnitudes of the TRGB. Mean photometric errors forgiven magnitude bins are plotted by error bars. Lee and JangM66 and 1 . ± .
04 for M96. For calculating distancemoduli from apparent TRGB magnitudes we adopteda relation Rizzi et al. (2007) derived: M I , TRGB = − . ± .
02) + 0 . ± . V − I ) ,T RGB − . m − M ) = 30 . ± .
03 for M66 and( m − M ) = 30 . ± .
03 for M96 (where 0.03 is a mea-surement error). We derived a value of the systematic er-ror to be 0.12, from the combination of the TRGB magni-tude error, aperture correction error, and standard trans-formation error, as described in Lee & Jang (2012). Thusderived distance to these galaxies are 10 . ± . ± . . ± . ± .
59 Mpc for M96. Ourdistance estimates for M66 and M96 are summarized inTable 2. DISCUSSION4.1.
Comparison with Previous Distance Estimates
There are numerous previous estimates for the dis-tances to M66 and M96 based on various methods(TRGB, Cepheids, Tully-Fisher relations, surface bright-ness fluctuation (SBF), planetary nebula luminosityfunctions (PNLFs), and SNe Ia), as listed in Tables 3and 4. We compare our estimates for the distances toM66 and M96 with these previous estimates. Figure 4shows a comparison of distance measurements for eachgalaxy in this study and previous studies. We deriveda probability density curve for each measurement witha normalized Gaussian function centered at the distancemodulus value with a width equal to the measurementerror.Comparison of the TRGB distances derived in thisstudy and previous studies (Mould & Sakai 2009a;Tully et al. 2009) shows significant differences. Our dis-tance estimate for M66 is 0.3 mag larger than that ofMould & Sakai (2009a) (( m − M ) = 29 . ± .
10) and 0.5mag larger than that of Tully et al. (2009) (( m − M ) =29 . ± . m − M ) = 29 . ± . I TRGB = 25 . I TRGB = 25 . The Membership of the Leo I Group
The distance estimates derived in this study show thatM66 and M96 are at the same distance and that theyare located at the same distance as the mean distanceto the Leo I Group (Harris et al. 2007a). These confirmthat M66 and M96 are indeed the members of the Leo IGroup.M96 is the brightest member of the Leo I Group.However it is not located at the center of the M96Group. An E1 galaxy M105 resides at the center ofthe M96 Group, and M96 is 48 ′ at the south-westof the group center. M96 has a large pseudo bulge(Nowak et al. 2010), and appears to be connected to atidal feature extended out from the well-known giant HIring surrounding a pair of M105 and NGC 3384 (SB0)(Schneider et al. 1983; Schneider 1989). Whether thisgiant gas ring around M105/NGC 3384 is primordial orformed via collision of disk galaxies (M105/NGC 3384and M96) has been controversial (Thilker et al. 2009;Michel-Dansac et al. 2010). Precise distance estimatesof M96 and M105/NGC 3384 will be useful to investi-gate the origin of this giant ring, because the relativedistances (as well as velocities) are critical constraintsfor simulation models (Michel-Dansac et al. 2010).Here we compare the distance to M96 with that ofM105. Harris et al. (2007b) estimated the I -band mag-nitude of the TRGB for M105 to be I T RGB = 26 . ± . HST /ACS F W and F W images ofa field 630 ′′ west and 173 ′′ north of the galaxy cen-ter, and derived a distance modulus ( m − M ) =30 . ± .
16 adopting the foreground reddening of A I =0 . ± .
02 and the absolute TRGB magnitude given inBellazzini et al. (2004), M I,T RGB = − . ± .
12. Thisvalue is nearly the same as the TRGB distance to M96derived in this study, showing that M105 and M96 areat the same distance. The radial velocities of M96 andM105 are also very similar ( 897 ± − and 911 ± − , respectively), while they are ∼
200 km s − largerthan that of NGC 3384, 704 ± − . These resultsindicate that the three galaxies (M96, M105, and NGC3384) are close enough to interact with each other. Thissupports the collisional scenario that the giant gas ringwas formed when M96 collided with NGC 3384/M105(Michel-Dansac et al. 2010).4.3. The Calibration of the Absolute Magnitudes ofSNe Ia and the Hubble Constant
The distances to M66 and M96 derived in this studycan be used to improve the calibration of the abso-lute magnitudes of SNe Ia. Tables 5 and 6 list, re-spectively, the V -band maximum magnitudes of SN1989B and SN 1998bu derived in this study and pre-vious studies (Gibson et al. 2000; Sandage et al. 2006;Tammann & Reindl 2013).Recently Tammann & Reindl (2013) derived M V, max = − . ± .
15 for SN 1989B and M V, max = − . ± .
16 for SN 1998bu from thephotometry in the literature (Suntzeff et al. 1999;Jha et al. 1999; Hernandez et al. 2000; Wells et al.1994), adopting a mean TRGB distance of the Leo IGroup, ( m − M ) = 30 . ± .
10. These values wereobtained after correcting for the Galactic extinction,host galaxy extinction, and decline rates (∆ m ). Thesevalues will become fainter by 0.27 and 0.24 mag if the66 and M96 distances 5 TABLE 2A Summary of TRGB Distance Measurements for M66 and M96
Parameter M66 M96TRGB magnitude, I TRGB . ± .
03 26 . ± . V − I ) TRGB . ± .
05 1 . ± . V , A V .
089 0 . I , A I .
049 0 . E ( V − I ) 0 .
040 0 . I ,TRGB . ± .
03 26 . ± . V − I ) ,TRGB . ± .
05 1 . ± . M I,TRGB − . ± . − . ± . m − M ) . ± . ± .
12 30 . ± . ± . . ± . ± .
58 10 . ± . ± . TABLE 3A List of Distance Measurements for M66
ID Reference Method Distance Modulus Remarks1 Pierce (1994) Tully-Fisher 29.40 ± ± ± a Tully-Fisher 29.67 ± b ± ± ± H = 60 . − Mpc − ± H = 65 . − Mpc − ± H = 70 . − Mpc −
10 Saha et al. (1999) Cepheids (LMC) 30.22 ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± ± ± ± ± ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . a TRGB 29.60 ± I TRGB = 25 . , M I , TRGB = − . ± I TRGB = 25 . , M I , TRGB = − . ± I TRGB = 26 . , M I , TRGB = − . a The Extragalactic Distance Database (EDD) (Tully et al. 2009). b The Planetary Nebula Luminosity Function (PNLF).
Lee and Jang N (a) M6625.5 26.0 26.5 27.0I02468 E . D . r e s pon s e (b) M66 I TRGB =26.20 ± N (c) M9625.5 26.0 26.5 27.0I02468 E . D . r e s pon s e (d) M96 I TRGB =26.21 ± Fig. 3.— (a) and (c) denote I -band luminosity functions of the red giants in the selected regions of M66 and M96, respectively. (b) and(d) plot corresponding edge-detection responses ( E ( I )) for M66 and M96, respectively. Note that (b) and (d) show clearly a dominantsingle peak for each galaxy at the magnitude corresponding to the TRGB position (dotted lines). P r ob a b ilit y D e n s it y (a) M66 This study 29.5 30.0 30.5Distance Modulus02468101214 P r ob a b ilit y D e n s it y TRGBCepheidTFSBFSN IaPNLF (b) M96This study
Fig. 4.—
Comparison of the distance measurements for M66 (a) and M96 (b) derived in this study and previous studies based on theTRGB (thick solid lines), Cepheids (thin solid lines), Tully-Fisher relations (dashed lines), SBF (dot-dashed lines), SN Ia (dotted lines)and PNLF (long-dashed lines). A probability density curve for each measurement was derived from a Gaussian function centered at thedistance modulus value with a width equal to the measurement error.
66 and M96 distances 7
TABLE 4A List of Distance Measurements for M96
ID Reference Method Distance Modulus Remarks1 Russell (2002) Tully-Fisher 30.32 ± ± ± ± a Tully-Fisher 30.46 ± b ± b ± ± H = 60 . − Mpc − ± H = 65 . − Mpc −
10 Takanashi et al. (2008) SN Ia (Opt) 31.20 ± H = 70 . − Mpc −
11 Wood-Vasey et al. (2008) SN Ia (NIR) 29.76 ± H = 72 . − Mpc −
12 Mandel et al. (2009) SN Ia (NIR) 29.85 ± H = 72 . − Mpc −
13 Ajhar et al. (2001) SBF c ± c ± c ± ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± ± ± m − M ) , LMC = 18 . ± I TRGB = 25 . , M I , TRGB = − . ± I TRGB = 26 . , M I , TRGB = − . a The Extragalactic Distance Database (EDD) (Tully et al. 2009). b The Planetary Nebula Luminosity Function (PNLF). c The Surface Brightness Fluxuation (SBF).
TRGB distances to M66 and M96 derived in this studyare used: M V, max = − . ± .
11 for SN 1989B and − . ± .
12 for SN 1998bu. Other previous estimates(Gibson et al. 2000; Sandage et al. 2006) are affected inthe similar way, yielding M V, max = − . ± .
17 for SN1989B and − . ± .
11 for SN 1998bu in Gibson et al.(2000), and M V, max = − . ± .
06 for SN 1989B and − . ± .
06 for SN 1998bu in Sandage et al. (2006).SN 2011fe in M101 is the nearest recent SN Ia withmodern photometry so that it is an excellent object forcalibration of SNe Ia. Lee & Jang (2012) derived max-imum magnitudes of SN 2011fe from the photometryin the literature, adopting a new TRGB distance de-rived from the weighted mean of nine fields in M101, M V, max = − . ± . ± . V -band magnitudes of SN 1989B and SN 1998buare ∼ . A V = 0 .
04 (Patat et al. 2011), whilethose for SN 1989B and 1998bu are not, as listed in Ta-bles 7 and 8, respectively. The values for A V derived inthe previous studies range from 0 . ± .
08 to 1 . ± . . ± .
11 to 1 . ± .
11 for SN1998bu (Reindl et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2006; Jha et al.2007; Tammann & Reindl 2013). Therefore the errorsdue to internal extinction for SN 1989B and SN 1998buare expected to be larger than that for SN 2011fe. Fur-ther studies to derive better estimates for internal ex-tinction for both SNe are needed in the future.Near-infrared (NIR) photometry of SN 1998bu in M96is available in the literature so that SN 1998bu playsas one of the important calibrators for NIR magnitudesof SNe Ia. Tammann & Reindl (2013) derived
JHK s maximum magnitudes at each band of SN 1998bu from Lee and Jangthe previous photometry (Jha et al. 1999; Suntzeff et al.1999; Hernandez et al. 2000; Wood-Vasey et al. 2008) : J = 11 . ± . H = 11 . ± .
03, and K s = 11 . ± . A V =0 . ± .
11. Corresponding extinctions in NIR bands are A J = 0 . ± . A H = 0 . ± .
02, and A K S = 0 . ± .
01. If we apply internal extinctions presented aboveand adopt our new TRGB distance, we obtain NIR abso-lute magnitudes of SN 1998bu : M J, max = − . ± . M H, max = − . ± .
05, and M K s , max = − . ± . JHK s magnitudes of SN2011fe in M101 from the photometry in Matheson et al.(2012), adopting a new TRGB distance they derived: M J, max = − . ± . ± . M H, max = − . ± . ± . M K s , max = − . ± . ± . J magnitude of SN 1998bu is the sameas that of SN 2011fe, while H, K s magnitudes of SN1998bu are ∼ .
14 mag brighter than those of SN2011fe. We derive weighted mean values of SN 1989buand SN 2011fe from these: M J, max = − . ± . M H, max = − . ± .
03, and M K s , max = − . ± .
03. It is noted that these values are 0 . ∼ . ∼ . H =0 . M V,max + 5 + (0 . ± . H = 69 . ± . − Mpc − for SN 1989B, H = 71 . ± . − Mpc − for SN 1998bu,and H = 65 . ± . − Mpc − for SN2011fe. A weighted mean of these three measurementis H = 67 . ± . ± . − Mpc − . Note that this value for the Hubble constantis similar to the recent estimates based on the cos-mic microwave background radiation maps in WMAP9data, H = 69 . ± .
80 km s − Mpc − (Bennett et al. 2012) and Planck data H = 67 . ± . − Mpc − (Planck Collaboration et al. 2013), but smallerthan other recent determinations based on Cepheid cali-bration for SNe Ia luminosity, H = 74 ± − Mpc − (Riess et al. 2011; Freedman et al. 2012) . SUMMARYWe present
V I photometry of the resolved stars in twospiral galaxies M66 and M96 that host SNe Ia in the LeoI Group, derived from
HST /ACS F W and F W images. Then we estimate the distances to these twogalaxies applying the TRGB method to this photometry.We summarize main results in the following. • Most of the resolved stars in the selected regions ofM66 and M96 are red giants, allowing us to deter-mine the distances to these galaxies. • The I -band magnitudes of the TRGB are found tobe I TRGB = 26 . ± .
03 for M66 and 26 . ± . m − M ) = 30 . ± . ± . m − M ) = 30 . ± . ± . • The absolute maximum magnitudes of the SNe Iaare derived from the previous photometry and thedistance measurement in this study, as listed in Ta-bles 5 and 6. Similarly we derive NIR magnitudesfor SN 1998bu: M J, max = − . ± . M H, max = − . ± .
05, and M K s , max = − . ± . • Combining the results for SN 1989B and SN 1998buwith those for SN 2011fe in M101 based on the samemethod given in Lee & Jang (2012), we obtain anestimate of the Hubble constant, H = 67 . ± . ± . − Mpc − .This paper is based on image data obtained from theMultimission Archive at the Space Telescope Science In-stitute (MAST). The authors would like to thank Won-Kee Park for technical support in image processing. Thiswork was supported by the National Research Founda-tion of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea Govern-ment (MEST) (No. 2012R1A4A1028713). REFERENCESAjhar, E. A., Tonry, J. L., Blakeslee, J. P., Riess, A. G., &Schmidt, B. P. 2001, ApJ, 559, 584Barone-Nugent, R. L., Lidman, C., Wyithe, J. S. B., et al. 2012,MNRAS, 425, 1007 9Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F. R., Sollima, A., Pancino, E., & Origlia,L. 2004, A&A, 424, 199Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., et al. 2012,arXiv:1212.5225Burns, C. R., Stritzinger, M., Phillips, M. M., et al. 2011, AJ,141, 19Ciardullo, R., Feldmeier, J. J., Jacoby, G. H., et al. 2002, ApJ,577, 31Ciatti, F., & Rosino, L. 1977, A&A, 56, 59de Vaucouleurs, G. 1975, in Stars and Stellar Systems 9 :Galaxies and the Universe, ed. A. Sandage, M. Sandage, & J.Kristian (Chicago : Univ. Chicago Press), 557Dolphin, A. E., & Kennicutt, R. C., Jr. 2002, AJ, 123, 207Elias-Rosa, N., Van Dyk, S. D., Li, W., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, Evans, R. O., & McNaught, R. H. 1989, IAU Circ., 4726, 1Feldmeier, J. J., Ciardullo, R., & Jacoby, G. H. 1997, ApJ, 479,231Folatelli, G., Phillips, M. M., Burns, C. R., et al. 2010, AJ, 139,120Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2001, ApJ,553, 47Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 673Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Scowcroft, V., et al. 2012, ApJ,758, 24Gibson, B. K., Stetson, P. B., Freedman, W. L., et al. 2000, ApJ,529, 723Gibson, B. K., & Stetson, P. B. 2001, ApJ, 547, L103R. L., Freedman, W. L., et al. 1997, ApJ, 477, 535Harris, W. E., Harris, G. L. H., Layden, A. C., & Stetson, P. B.2007, AJ, 134, 43Harris, W. E., Harris, G. L. H., Layden, A. C., & Wehner,E. M. H. 2007, ApJ, 666, 903
66 and M96 distances 9
TABLE 5A Summary of Optical Luminosity Calibrations for SN 1989B in M66
ID References ( m − M ) V corra M V a H [ km/s/Mpc ](1) Tammann & Reindl (2013) 30 . ± .
10 10 . ± . − . ± .
15 62 . ± . . ± .
17 10 . ± . b − . ± . b . ± . . ± .
10 10 . ± . − . ± .
11 60 . ± . . ± .
03 Tammann & Reindl (2013) − . ± .
11 71 . ± . . ± .
03 Gibson et al. (2000) − . ± . b . ± . . ± .
03 Sandage et al. (2006) − . ± .
06 71 . ± . . ± .
03 Straight mean of (4) and (5) 69 . ± . . ± .
03 Weighted mean of (4) and (5) 69 . ± . a Corrected for the Galactic extinction, host galaxy extinction and decline rate (∆ m ). b We applied decline rate (∆ m ) correction using equation (21) of Phillips et al. (1999). TABLE 6A Summary of Optical Luminosity Calibrations for SN 1998bu in M96
ID References ( m − M ) V corra M V a H [ km/s/Mpc ](1) Tammann & Reindl (2013) 30 . ± .
10 11 . ± . − . ± .
16 64 . ± . . ± .
10 10 . ± . b − . ± . b . ± . . ± .
11 11 . ± . − . ± .
12 67 . ± . . ± .
03 Tammann & Reindl (2013) − . ± .
12 72 . ± . . ± .
03 Gibson et al. (2000) − . ± . b . ± . . ± .
03 Sandage et al. (2006) − . ± .
06 73 . ± . . ± .
03 Straight mean of (4) and (5) 71 . ± . . ± .
03 Weighted mean of (4) and (5) 70 . ± . a Same as Table 5. b Same as Table 5.
TABLE 7A Summary of Internal Extinction Values for SN 1989B in M66
References E ( B − V ) A V R V RemarksSuntzeff et al. (1999) 0 . ± .
03 1 . ± .
09 3 . BV I
Jha et al. (2007) 0 . ± .
07 1 . ± .
14 2 . ± . UBV RI
Wang et al. (2006) 0 . ± .
06 0 . ± .
14 2 . ± . UBV I
Reindl et al. (2005) & 0 . ± .
03 0 . ± .
08 2 . ± . BV I
Tammann & Reindl (2013)
TABLE 8A Summary of Internal Extinction Values for SN 1998bu in M96
References E ( B − V ) A V R V RemarksSuntzeff et al. (1999) 0 . ± .
03 1 . ± .
09 3 . BV I
Jha et al. (2007) 0 . ± .
05 1 . ± .
11 3 . ± . UBV RI
Wang et al. (2006) 0 . ± .
04 0 . ± .
10 2 . ± . UBV I
Reindl et al. (2005) & 0 . ± .
04 0 . ± .
11 2 . ± . BV I
Tammann & Reindl (2013)
Hernandez, M., Meikle, W. P. S., Aparicio, A., et al. 2000,MNRAS, 319, 223Hislop, L., Mould, J., Schmidt, B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 75Jang, I. S., Lim, S., Park, H. S., & Lee, M. G. 2012, ApJ, 751, L19Jensen, J. B., Tonry, J. L., Barris, B. J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 583, 712Jha, S., Garnavich, P. M., Kirshner, R. P., et al. 1999, ApJS, 125,73Jha, S., Riess, A. G., & Kirshner, R. P. 2007, ApJ, 659, 122Kanbur, S. M., Ngeow, C., Nikolaev, S., Tanvir, N. R., & Hendry,M. A. 2003, A&A, 411, 361Kattner, S., Leonard, D. C., Burns, C. R., et al. 2012, PASP, 124,114Kelson, D. D., Illingworth, G. D., Tonry, J. L., et al. 2000, ApJ,529, 768Kochanek, C. S. 1997, ApJ, 491, 13Krisciunas, K., Phillips, M. M., & Suntzeff, N. B. 2004, ApJ, 602,L81Lee, M. G., Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 1993, ApJ, 417,553Lee, M. G., & Jang, I. S. 2012, ApJ, 760, L14 (Paper I) Mandel, K. S., Wood-Vasey, W. M., Friedman, A. S., & Kirshner,R. P. 2009, ApJ, 704, 629Mandel, K. S., Narayan, G., & Kirshner, R. P. 2011, ApJ, 731,120Matheson, T., Joyce, R. R., Allen, L. E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 19M´endez, B., Davis, M., Moustakas, J., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 213Michel-Dansac, L., Duc, P.-A., Bournaud, F., et al. 2010, ApJ,717, L143Mouhcine, M., Harris, W. E., Ibata, R., & Rejkuba, M. 2010,MNRAS, 404, 1157Mould, J., & Sakai, S. 2009a, ApJ, 694, 1331Mould, J., & Sakai, S. 2009b, ApJ, 697, 996Mueller, E., & Hoeflich, P. 1994, A&A, 281, 51Nowak, N., Thomas, J., Erwin, P., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 646Patat, F., Cordiner, M. A., Cox, N. L. J., et al. 2011,arXiv:1112.0247Paturel, G., Teerikorpi, P., Theureau, G., et al. 2002, A&A, 389,19Phillips, M. M., Lira, P., Suntzeff, N. B., et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 1766Pierce, M. J. 1994, ApJ, 430, 530 Lee and Jang