From: Andy Howell (DAHowell@lbl.gov)
Date: Fri May 17 2002 - 10:49:39 PDT
Ahh, I see -- sorry I misinterpreted Saul's comments. If we really can
make the case that this is a low metallicity host galaxy then I would
argue that we should get very good coverage of this SN at the expense of
any other SN, even z=1 SNe. The reason is that with this one SN we can
test a hypothesis and potentially learn something about how they work.
If the SN is different then that is very exciting, and something we
need to know. If it is the same as any other SN, then we have verified
the use of Ia's across a wide range of environments. Either way, it
would make an interesting paper by itself. Compare that to one z=1 SN
which just slightly changes a contour on our omega-lambda, omega-m plot,
and doesn't tell us anything about systematics.
Of course, all of this depends on how sure we are that this really is a
low metallicity host.
-Andy
Greg Aldering wrote:
>Since I'm traveling I don't have access to all the relavent
>information, but I do know that the host of one of the z ~ 0.5 SN Ia's
>from this run add low luminosity (about that of the LMC) and strong
>OIII. Both are indicative of low metallicity. Unfortunately the spectrum
>has very little UV coverage, so the correspondence between SN UV brightness
>and host metallicity cannot be established. This was an arguement for
>obtaining a bluer spectrum. NIR follow-up might also be worth consdering,
>but not at the expense of our z ~ 1+ SN Ia's.
>
>This object is what Saul was referring to as low-metallicity z ~ 0.49 SN.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Greg
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 17 2002 - 10:50:00 PDT