From: Don Groom (deg@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 13:10:05 PST
I'll go with Rob on this one. Magnitude is a concept not without its
charms, but when we're thinking about errors and statistics and stuff, we
stick with intensities.
D
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 11:15:15AM -0800, Lifan Wang wrote:
> > Would not this error floor introduce unreasonably large errors at the
> > late time light curves ? At day 40, the supernova is about 3 magnitude
> > fainter, i.e. the flux is about 0.063 times that of the peak. The error
> > floor then implies late time errors are around above 0.1 mag and increases
> > at later epoch. I don't think this is the correct way of treating the
> > data, as the measurement can definitely be better than the error floor.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Unless you integrate a WHOLE Lot longer, the late time data *is* going
> to have larger *magnitude* error bars than the early time data!
> Measurements are really flux, and comparable *flux* error bars is what
> I'd expect... unless you really do integrate an awful lot longer for the
> late time points.
>
> -Rob
>
> --
> --Prof. Robert Knop
> Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University
> robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
>
|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|-+|
Don Groom (Particle Data Group, Supernova Cosmology Project)
DEGroom(at)lbl.gov www-ccd.lbl.gov Voice: 510/486-6788 FAX: 510/486-4799
Analog: 50-308//Berkeley Lab//Berkeley, CA 94720
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 13:10:30 PST