From: Pilar Ruiz-Lapuente (pilar@MPA-Garching.MPG.DE)
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 19:20:12 PST
Hi Rob,
I just summarize here my impressions (other things have already been
mentioned by people on the web page). Congratulations for your work!
Pilar
___________
I would say that this paper is (and should be) the paper
where everybody will see the most up to date results on
Omega(M), Omega (Lambda) and w by the SCP (sort of what the P99 paper
has been up to now using the previous 42 high-z SN Ia).
I just would like to mention a few general things along that line.
1/One of them is the abstract. I would go more directly to the results
and mention as well Omega (Lambda) with errorbars in a similar way as in
P99 (for flat case). People want to go quickly to the numbers from
SNe Ia, and get them from the abstract (if possible).
I think the second sentence "When ...dark energy" on the abstract
should be removed.
2/Along the same lines I would add in Table 8 Omega (Lambda) (for the
reason that SNeIa are relevant probes for Lambda). I'm thinking in
something closer to Table 3 in P99, best fit column.
3/ You end the paper with a quotation to Bahcall et al.
(2003) paper and its determination of Omega(M) from the SDSS
cluster result. This is made in the context of using their value
for Omega(M) to get limits on the index of the equation of state.
It seems to give a lot of weigth to such particular method (the last
sentence of any paper is a very noticeable one). Would not just
be better to quote the limits for the flat Universe? (or flat
Universe plus an upper limit on Omega(M)?).
Everybody is confident on the flatness results from the various
CMB experiments, but the SDSS results are less well established.
Equal weight seems to be given in the paper to the CMB results as to
the cluster ones (abstract, introduction, conclusions). I would say
that the CMB results are sound since they come from many independent
measurements. Nothing gives the same soundness to the cluster
method, as far as I know. There are discrepancies using this method.
4/ More references to the previous SCP articles (the last ones) updating
the questions that have been addressed. Perhaps adding a small
section on recent tests on the SNIa method (?).
5/ Should one mention as well WMAP? (Introduction)
6/ If tables with the data are included, I would place them in
an appendix. And just a figure with all lightcurves (in the
appendix as well) to avoid disrupting the logical flow of the
article.
I stop here these short comments. I like very much the paper and
you have done a lot of work (and perhaps still do some, best luck!).
Cheers!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Feb 25 2003 - 19:20:26 PST