Codex @codex  0

Absolute magnitude $M$, in the stellar convention used here, is the apparent magnitude a source would have at $10$ parsecs, with interstellar extinction removed. The hypothetical observation uses the specified photometric passband and magnitude zero point, preserving the source's emitted spectrum and luminosity. Moving every source to this common distance lets us compare intrinsic brightness without confusing it with distance. ^[ref].

For a fixed source with isotropy of emission, in transparent space with negligible relativistic and cosmological effects, the inverse-square law gives the hypothetical measurement $F_{10}$ and absolute magnitudeThe factor applies in the same photometric passband, with unchanged emitted spectrum. Thus absolute magnitude compares luminosity in that response, rather than automatically the total bolometric luminosity over all wavelengths.

Consider a toy source with $M=0$. Its apparent magnitude is $m=0$ at $10$ parsecs, $m=5$ at $100$ parsecs, and $m=10$ at $1000$ parsecs, neglecting interstellar extinction. Its absolute magnitude remains $M=0$ throughout: moving the observer changes received radiative flux, not emitted luminosity. Another toy source with $M=-5$ has $100$ times its passband output under the same isotropy and calibration assumptions. Negative absolute magnitudes are allowed too; "absolute" names the reference-distance convention, not an absolute value.

A calibrated standard candle reverses this reasoning: its known absolute magnitude and measured apparent magnitude give a distance modulus. This is why estimating intrinsic brightness is so useful for measuring astronomical distances. ^[ref].

The distance modulus compares received brightness with intrinsic brightness through $\mu =m-M$, the difference between apparent magnitude and absolute magnitude in the same photometric passband and magnitude zero point. With no interstellar extinction, fixed emitted spectrum and luminosity, isotropy of emission, and the local inverse-square law, it determines Euclidean distance:The ratio inside the logarithm is dimensionless. To see the factor $5$, use the inverse-square law in the magnitude difference formula:For example, $m=5$ and $M=0$ give $\mu =5$, hence $d=10\mathrm{pc}\times 10=100\mathrm{pc}$. A tenfold increase in distance adds five magnitudes; an increase of one magnitude multiplies distance by $10^{1/5}\simeq 1.584893$. The distance modulus is a logarithmic scale for distance, not a distance in length units. ^[ref].

At $10$ parsecs, $\mu =0$ and $m=M$. Within $10$ parsecs, the distance modulus is negative; for example, $\mu =-5$ gives the positive distance $d=1\mathrm{pc}$. A negative distance modulus does not imply negative distance. At cosmological distances, the inference needs luminosity distance and a K correction; the simple local formula must not silently absorb these effects.

Interstellar extinction increases apparent magnitude. The observed distance modulus then includes both geometric dimming and attenuation; extinction bias in photometric distance explains how to separate them.

Let $A\ge 0$ be the interstellar extinction in magnitudes in the specified photometric passband. Compared with the same unobscured source at the same distance, its radiative flux is multiplied by $10^{-0.4A}$, so its apparent magnitude increases by $A$. Consequently,Here ${\mu }_0$ is the extinction-corrected distance modulus. The correction subtracts $A$ before using the distance formula. Caltech's NED distance-method documentation explicitly distinguishes an apparent distance modulus from an extinction-corrected distance modulus. ^[ref].

Ignoring positive interstellar extinction attributes too much dimming to distance, producing an overestimate:As an illustrative toy, put the source with $M=0$ at $100$ parsecs behind $A=1$ magnitude of interstellar extinction. The measured apparent magnitude is $m=6$. Setting $A=0$ incorrectly gives $d_{\mathrm{inferred}}=10\mathrm{pc}\times 10^{6/5}\simeq 158.489\mathrm{pc}$, a factor $1.584893$ too large. Subtracting the known $A=1$ recovers $100$ parsecs. The diagram's fixed $A=1$ offset is a controlled illustration, not a model of how actual interstellar extinction grows with distance, and none of its values are star catalogue measurements.

A Hubble diagram plots a distance indicator, such as standardized supernova apparent magnitude or distance modulus, against redshift. The low-redshift relation sets a distance-scale intercept, while curvature of the relation at larger redshift tests the expansion history through luminosity distance. A common unknown absolute magnitude remains degenerate with the Hubble constant; the diagram's redshift-dependent shape can still constrain other cosmological parameters.

A Type Ia supernova can be standardized as a standard candle by correcting its peak brightness using the light curve shape and colour index. Its host spectrum gives the redshift; the corrected apparent magnitude and calibrated absolute magnitude give the distance modulusThe resulting Hubble diagram measures the shape of the luminosity distance as a function of redshift. A spatially flat matter-and-vacuum model, for example, predictsNonzero cosmological spatial curvature changes both the expansion rate and the conversion from radial to transverse comoving distance. Comparing the observed Hubble diagram with these predictions constrains the matter density parameter, cosmological constant and cosmological spatial curvature; a single low-redshift observation cannot separate them. The nearby sample calibrates the common intercept, while distant Type Ia supernovae supply the redshift-dependent shape. Relative faintness at a specified redshift means a greater inferred luminosity distance.

Type Ia supernova cosmology requires correction for interstellar extinction, possible evolution of the standardized luminosity, and selection bias. The absolute magnitude–Hubble constant degeneracy means that an uncalibrated sample constrains the shape rather than independently determining $H_0$.

Type Ia supernovae have similar peak luminosities that can be standardized using their light-curve width and color, rather than assumed to be identical without correction. Their redshifts and corrected apparent magnitudes give a distance modulus,Compare this Hubble diagram with the luminosity-distance prediction of a background cosmology. Restoring $c$, put $E(z)=H(z)/H_0$, $I(z)={\int }_0^{z}d{z}^{\prime }/E(z^{\prime })$ and define ${\mathcal{S}}_{{\Omega }_k}(I)$ as $\sinh (\sqrt{{\Omega }_k}I)/\sqrt{{\Omega }_k}$ for ${\Omega }_k>0$, $I$ for ${\Omega }_k=0$, and $\sin (\sqrt{-{\Omega }_k}I)/\sqrt{-{\Omega }_k}$ for ${\Omega }_k<0$. ThenNeglecting radiation at these redshifts, Friedmann equations and a separately conserved dark energy component with $w(z)=p/(\rho c^2)$ giveFor constant $w$, the last factor is $(1+z{)}^{3(1+w)}$; a cosmological constant has $w=-1$. Thus the redshift dependence of the measured distance constrains matter density, curvature and the dark-energy equation of state. At small redshift, $d_L=(cz/H_0)[1+(1-q_0)z/2+\cdots ]$, showing how departures from the linear Hubble law probe the deceleration parameter.

The early distant-supernova analyses found larger distances than matter-only decelerating models predicted, providing evidence for accelerated expansion; see the 1998 supernova analysis and the 1999 independent supernova analysis. This is a statement about the distance-redshift curve under the standardization and cosmological assumptions, not a direct measurement of a fluid pressure.

The absolute magnitude–Hubble constant degeneracy means uncalibrated supernovae constrain the shape of $d_L(z)$ without separately determining $H_0$ and the common absolute luminosity. The integral over $H(z)$ also makes different matter, curvature and $w(z)$ histories partly degenerate. Wide redshift coverage and independent cosmic microwave background and large-scale structure of the universe information help break these degeneracies. Dust extinction, source evolution, photometric calibration, sample selection and K corrections must be modeled, and constraints on a time-dependent equation of state depend on how that function is parameterized. Standardized supernovae test the expansion history; they do not by themselves uniquely determine every cosmological parameter.

The distance modulus gives $m_V-M_V=5{\log }_{10}(d/10\mathrm{pc})$. At the magnitude limit, $m_V-M_V=17-(-21)=38$, soThus the stated sample reaches a typical galaxy to approximately $400$ megaparsecs. This uses the assumed absolute magnitude, neglects the specified spectral correction, and equates luminosity distance, angular diameter distance, and proper distance as permitted. It does not imply completeness for galaxies fainter than the adopted typical luminosity.

Linearity of expectation gives ${\mathbb{E}}_{\mu }[\hat{\mu }]=({\alpha }_1+{\alpha }_2)\mu$. Thus a linear unbiased estimator for every value of the distance modulus satisfies $\boxed{{\alpha }_1+{\alpha }_2=1}$. Requiring unbiasedness at the single value $\mu =0$ would not impose this constraint; an unbiased estimator must work throughout the parameter space.

LetSubtracting the measured distance modulus from the measured apparent magnitude givesFor the Hubble flow, defineThe Hubble law, with the Hubble constant parametrized by $\theta =5{\log }_{10}h$, gives $r_i\sim N(M_0-\theta ,H_i)$. After integrating over each intrinsic absolute magnitude and each unobserved true distance modulus, independence therefore gives the likelihood function

Write the Cepheid measurement as $\hat{\mu }=\mu +{ϵ}_{\mu }$, where ${ϵ}_{\mu }\sim N(0,{\sigma }_{\mu }^2)$, and define the calibrated absolute magnitude dataThus $q=(q_1,\dots ,q_K{)}^T$ has a multivariate normal distribution with mean $M_{0}1$ and covariance matrix

The Hubble law and the definition of distance modulus giveConsequently, withthe Hubble-flow observations are independent random variables satisfying $x_i\sim N(M_0-\theta ,{\sigma }_{\mathrm{tot}}^2)$. Apart from a factor independent of the parameters, the joint likelihood function isThe expression extends by continuity to a singular limiting covariance such as ${\sigma }_I=0$.

An apparent magnitude is the sum of absolute magnitude and distance modulus. ThusThe independent unbiased distance-modulus estimate is $N({\mu }_{\mathrm{LMC}},{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LMC}}^2)$, so closure of independent normal distributions under linear combinations givesHence $\mathbb{E}{\hat{S}}_1=M_0^{\ast }$ and $\mathrm{Var}({\hat{S}}_1)=V_1$.