From: Saul Perlmutter (saul@lbl.gov)
Date: Sun May 23 2004 - 21:30:29 PDT
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about those candidates with less
than 20% increase. In Priority 1 there is only -002 worth rechecking.
And I guess we could at least revisit the higher percent increase
Priority 0's to be sure they are junk (perhaps by seeing if they also
showed up in the I band image?)
Ariel's scatter plot of expected discovery magnitudes does make -011
quite consistent with anything below reshift 1.2, while his color
scatter plot suggests that it is consistent with something between
redshift 1.05 and 1.2. I wonder how much to believe the photo-z on
this.
Let's see where we stand tomorrow morning.
Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
>On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 08:25:15PM -0700, Saul Perlmutter wrote:
>
>
>>Hmm... As we suspected from the magnitudes, this looks like a rather
>>low-redshift bunch! I'm disappointed that -011 didn't turn out to be
>>higher redshift (at least z ~ 1.2), although I guess the photo-z is
>>uncertain enough that it's just possible that it is.
>>
>>
>
>Supernova colors and magnitudes are much more consistent with z=1.2 for
>acs04b-011 than they are for anything at z=0.9. (Even a Ia at -8 days
>rest frame at z=0.9, which would have the right z, would be bluer than
>that.)
>
>
>
>>And it looks like we only have two more tiles left to search. If this
>>is all we have, then perhaps we should at least request the photo-z's
>>for a couple of the unlikely ones, like -002, just for completeness.
>>That way, if we by any chance resuscitate them, we won't have to ask
>>Bahram for photo-z's in a big rush. Any other examples in this
>>category? (No rush, since we probably want to wait for the last few
>>tiles to be completed first, in any case.)
>>
>>
>
>Rachel and I are in the middle of cleaning up a couple of those that had
>I-band problems. If we can do this tomorrow morning (I predict that
>Mobasher isn't going to do stuff over night anyway), we will have a
>better sense of what is what.
>
>Most everything down in the priority=1 list has a really low %INC, and
>isn't something we're going to want to follow. We might do better by
>asking for more detailed work on some of the prio 3's?
>
>-Rob
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun May 23 2004 - 21:31:11 PDT