Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T12:12:29.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Statistical analysis of the determinations of the Sun's Galactocentric distance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2013

Zinovy Malkin
Zinovy Malkin*
Affiliation:
Pulkovo Observatory, St. Petersburg 196140, Russia St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg 198504, Russia email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Based on several tens of R0 measurements made during the past two decades, several studies have been performed to derive the best estimate of R0. Some used just simple averaging to derive a result, whereas others provided comprehensive analyses of possible errors in published results. In either case, detailed statistical analyses of data used were not performed. However, a computation of the best estimates of the Galactic rotation constants is not only an astronomical but also a metrological task. Here we perform an analysis of 53 R0 measurements (published in the past 20 years) to assess the consistency of the data. Our analysis shows that they are internally consistent. It is also shown that any trend in the R0 estimates from the last 20 years is statistically negligible, which renders the presence of a bandwagon effect doubtful. On the other hand, the formal errors in the published R0 estimates improve significantly with time.

Keywords

Galaxy: centerGalaxy: fundamental parameters
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 8 , Symposium S289: Advancing the Physics of Cosmic Distances , August 2012 , pp. 406 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2013

References

Eisenhauer, F., Schödel, R., Genzel, R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 597, L121Google Scholar
Eisenhauer, F., Genzel, R., Alexander, T., et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glushkova, E. V., Dambis, A. K., Mel'nik, A. M., & Rastorguev, A. S. 1998, A&A, 329, 514Google Scholar
James, M. F., Mills, R. W., & Weaver, D. R. 1992, Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 313, 277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malkin, Z. 2001, Comm. Inst. Appl. Astron., 137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malkin, Z. M. 2011, Astron. Rep., 55, 810Google Scholar
Malkin, Z. 2012, arXiv:1202.6128Google Scholar
Malkin, Z. 2013, Astron. Rep., 57, 128Google Scholar
Müller, J. W. 1995, Report BIPM-95/2, Sèvres, FranceGoogle Scholar
Nichols, A. L. 2004, Appl. Rad. Isot., 60, 247Google Scholar
Paczyński, B. & Stanek, K. Z. 1998, ApJ, 494, L219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paule, R. & Mandel, J. 1982, J. Res. Nat'l Bur. Stand., 87, 377CrossRefGoogle Scholar