From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 12:41:45 PST
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 12:37:38PM -0800, Greg Aldering wrote:
> 2) Since P99, in particular in AKN00, we generally agreed that stretch
> begins to fail and our knowledge of SN lightcurve variety is poor
> starting 25-40 days after max. This argues for the concept of an
> uncertainty on the TEMPLATE (as Saul has suggested).
This isn't going to happen in this paper... clearly!
The best way to simulate it is to stick uncertainties on the later
points, perhaps correlated.
> Putting this altogether, I suggest that we cut points after 60
> rest-frame days (but not final refs of course) as in P99, and add in an
> error floor, with the error floor to be interpreted as accounting BOTH
> for uncertainty in the template shape and stretchability at late epochs
> and for some uncertainty in the final-reference subtraction for nearby
> SNe. We can cite this a combining the treatments presented in P99 and G01.
I like this approach and am happy with it, if everybody else accepts
it. (I'll use an 0.007 error floor unless I hear otherwise.)
To avoid cutting final refs, I probably will just cut everything after
60(1+z) days but before 200 days after B-max.
-Rob
-- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 12:42:05 PST