From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 10:03:19 PDT
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 10:00:03AM -0700, Greg Aldering wrote:
> Note that the lack of redshift simulation could have other effects in my
> simulation in the sense that our error bars may be systematically smaller
> at low redshift than at high redshift. If so, the noisier high-redshift
> error bars might be letting in extincted SNe which are in fact never
> allowed into our sample due to the flux limit.
This is definitely the case-- as you noted for the HST supernovae, and I
think it is the case for P99 SNe.
There's also the fact that at different redshifts, changes in supernova
brightnesses push the confidence intervals in different directions. The
0.01 mag <-> 0.01 in Omega_M applies, I believe, at around z=0.5.
> To investigate further, we would have to couple our selection criteria to
> a more complete extinction/flux-limit simulation, like those that Gene has
> done. This should be possible, but could take a little time.
Doing the flux limits right would also be hard for the same reasons that
you wrote about the true Malmquist correction being hard.
-Rob
-- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 23 2003 - 10:03:40 PDT