From: Greg Aldering (aldering@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Thu May 15 2003 - 15:17:21 PDT
Hi Rob,
This is still the redshift space distortion constraint. You don't need
to change any of the discussion except when we describe exactly how the
measurements were used. There, we should now cite the values of Beta
and b, and say that these give f, and that we then used the Wang and
Steinhardt paper to determine OM given f (at redshift 0.15). Did you
look at the Hawkins paper so we have a common vocabulary to discuss
this?
Basically the OM(z=0.15) that we were using came from a calculation
relating OM with f, where f comes from the logrithimic derivative of
the growth of structure in the universe. Hawkins et al used an
approximation (their eq 22) which does not account for w. Eric and I
fixed that.
The table I sent is the value of f for any given OM in a flat
universe. In the context of the Hawkins et al result, in relates f
measured at z=0.15 with OM at redshift 0.15. So, you still need to
correct from OM at z=0.15 to OM at z=0.
- Greg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 15 2003 - 15:17:22 PDT