From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Sun May 04 2003 - 09:17:51 PDT
On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 09:08:18AM -0700, Greg Aldering wrote:
> Is ours the best w measurement to date? If you haven't look at Tonry et
> al you might not have seen that we might be slightly better. If you
> don't want to look at Tonry et al, but can calculate the 95% confidence
> limits on w for our data after marginalizing over OM (after application
> of 2dFGRS and WMAP priors), then I could tell you whether we should
> highlight this in our paper. We could also compare that value to the
> WMAP+HST constraint on w from Spergel if you can give the 95% CL using
> w >= -1.
I've got 1-sigma limits right now; I could also quote 95% limits.
(Where should I do that? All three, i.e. abstract, W section,
conclusions?) I've put w in the title, so hopefully that's a bit more
highlighted.
I will try to do the "w>-1 prior" confidence limit, and stick that in
somewhere reasonable.
My plan: I'm just finishing up Saul's last comments right now. After
that's done, I'll put in these w limits (using our current 2dFGRS and
WMAP stuff; it will take longer to do the rest).
I will spit out "submission candidate 2". After that, I'm going to try
to do some "star lightcurves" from HST and ground based data. I expect
getting that done will take most of the rest of the day (even if I don't
mow that shaggy thing out front I call a lawn).
Time and energy permitting, I'll then try to put in the better 2dFGRS
limits-- but since that involve redoing a bunch of fits and figures, I
have to admit that I suspect I won't be able to do that before this
draft is submitted. I can do it after submission, and if the change
isn't *too* huge it should be OK to slip it into the paper then.
-Rob
-- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun May 04 2003 - 09:17:52 PDT