From: Saul Perlmutter (saul@LBL.gov)
Date: Thu Feb 27 2003 - 13:36:48 PST
Andy et al,
Before you start doing this next bit of work, we probably have to think
carefully about what supernovae we might decide to cut out at this stage of
the SCP work. I don't think that this is the time to cut out every
supernova that we cannot definitively prove is a Type Ia -- if we use
strict enough cuts, we could then be talking about a sample of a dozen
supernovae out of the 42+11 = 53 total. What I was suggesting in the
meeting today is that we cut out ones that we are pretty sure are _not_ Type
Ia. Obviously 94H is in this category (if I'm remembering the name
correctly), but I was wondering if there are any others at this point that
we think there is good reason to consider highly suspicious. (For this
purpose, we should probably not count as suspicious a SN with an outlier
magnitude -- that is what our outlier cut is for.)
Does this sound right to everybody? --Saul
Andy Howell wrote:
> Rob,
> Peter is supposed to sit down with me today and we will do this.
> We already did this for the SNe in Reynald's paper, so we have some idea
> of how it
> will go, but there are many SNe in the 42 paper that were not in
> Reynald's. This
> means looking at the set A and D specta, notes, and circulars. So we
> don't have the answers
> yet, but can probably get them to you later in the day.
>
> From that analysis, there weren't any SNe that were obviously not Ia's
> from the spectra,
> but there were many that we had essentially no information from the
> spectrum.
>
> We'll let you know.
> -Andy
>
> Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
>
> >One of the things we decided we needed during the meeting was the
> >*definitive* list of supernovae from the 42SNe paper which should be
> >*omitted* from further analysis. I may omit some additionally myself
> >based on stretch and color cuts, but I need to know which "suspect"
> >supernovae just shouldn't be used.
> >
> >I would be happy if by tomorrow you guys could develop a consensus on
> >this matter and send the consensus to me. I will then omit those
> >supernovae from all subsequent cosmological fits.
> >
> >-Rob
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 27 2003 - 13:34:00 PST