From: Greg Aldering (aldering@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Sat May 17 2003 - 11:33:09 PDT
On Sat, 17 May 2003, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 11:05:05AM -0700, Greg Aldering wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > Please add the following to the bibliography:
> >
> > E.V. Linder & A. Jenkins, submitted to MNRAS, astro-ph/0305286
>
> What is this? Where should it be cited?
I have included a citation to linder03 below, which should be refered
to Linder and Jenkins.
> > Also, perhaps you want to send me the TeX for the paragraph starting
> > with "Other methods provide ..." on page 27 so that I can put in the
> > proper description of what we did with the 2dFGRS measurements.
>
> See below.
>
Here is the modified text. Note that we no longer using equation 4.
Other methods provide measurements of $\om$ and $w$ which are
complementary to the supernova results. Two of these measurements are
plotted in the middle row of Figure~\ref{fig:omw}, compared with the
supernova measurements (in solid contours). In filled contours are
results from the redshift-distortion parameter and bias-factor measurement
of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS) \citep{haw02,verde02}. These
provide a measurement of the the growth parameter, $f=0.43\pm0.11$, at the
survey redshift $z=0.15$. We have used the method of \citet{linder03} to
directly solve for $f(\om,w,z)$ rather than convert $f$ to $\om$, as the
conversion formula given in \citet{haw02} is valid only for $w=-1$.
Comparison of the 2dFGRS value of $f$ with the calculated values of
$f(\om,w,z)$ yields the joint confidence region for $\om$ and $w$.
@ARTICLE{2002MNRAS.335..432V,
author = {{Verde}, L. and {Heavens}, A.~F. and {Percival}, W.~J. and
{Matarrese}, S. and {Baugh}, C.~M. and {Bland-Hawthorn}, J. and {Bridges}, T. and
{Cannon}, R. and {Cole}, S. and {Colless}, M. and {Collins},
C. and {Couch}, W. and {Dalton}, G. and {De Propris}, R. and {Driver},
S.~P. and {Efstathiou}, G. and {Ellis}, R.~S. and {Frenk}, C.~S. and
{Glazebrook}, K. and {Jackson}, C. and {Lahav}, O. and {Lewis}, I. and {Lumsden},
S. and {Maddox}, S. and {Madgwick}, D. and {Norberg}, P. and {Peacock},
J.~A. and {Peterson}, B.~A. and {Sutherland}, W. and {Taylor}, K.},
title = "{The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: the bias of galaxies and the
density of the Universe}",
journal = {\mnras},
year = 2002,
month = sep,
volume = 335,
pages = {432-440},
}
> In solid lines on the middle row of Figure~\ref{fig:omw} are contours
> representing confidence regions based on the distance to the surface of
> last scattering at $z=1089$ from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
> Probe (WMAP) \citep{ben03,spe03}. For a given \om\ and $w$, this
> distance reduced distance to the surface of last scattering, $I$, is
> given by:
> \begin{eqnarray}
> I=\int_0^{1089} [((1-\om)/\om) (1+z)^{3(1+w)} + \nonumber \\
> (1+z)^3]^{-1/2}\ dz
> \end{eqnarray}
> The plotted CMB constraints come from the ``WMAPext'' sample, which
> includes other CMB experiments in addition to WMAP; for $w=-1$, they
> yield a measurement of $I_0=1.76\pm0.058$, corresponding to $\om=0.29$.
> Confidence intervals are generated by calculating a $\chi^2 =
> \left[(I-I_0)/\sigma_{I_0}\right]^2$, where $I$ is calculated for each
> $\om,w$.
>
> As both of these measurements show correlations between $\om$ and $w$ in
> a different sense from that of the supernova measurement, the combined
> measurements provide much tighter overall constraints on both
> parameters. The confidence regions which combine these three
> measurements are shown on the bottom row of Figure~\ref{fig:omw}. When
> the resulting probability distribution is marginalized over \om, we
> obtain a measurement of $w=-1.06^{+0.14}_{-0.18}$ (for the
> low-extinction subset), or $w=-0.98^{+0.19}_{-0.22}$\checkit\ (for the
> full primary subset with host-galaxy extinction corrections applied).
> The 95\% confidence limits on $w$ when our data is combined with WMAP
> and 2dFGRS are \mbox{$-1.53<w<-0.79$} for the low-extinction primary
> subset, or \mbox{$-1.51<w<-0.67$}\checkit\ for the full
> extinction-corrected primary subset. If we add an additional prior that
> $w\geq-1$, we obtain a 95\% upper confidence limit of \mbox{$w<-0.80$}
> for the low-extinction primary subset, or \mbox{$w<-0.67$}\checkit\ for
> the extinction-corrected full primary subset. This confidence may be
> compared with the limit in \citet{spe03} which combines the CMB, 2dFGRS
> power spectrum, and HST key project $H_0$ measurements to yield a $95\%$
> upper limit of \mbox{$w<-0.78$}. Although both our measurement and that
> of \citet{spe03} include CMB data, they are complementary in that our
> limit does not include the $H_0$ prior, nor does it include any of the
> same external constraints, such as those from large scale structure.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 17 2003 - 11:33:11 PDT