From: Carl Pennypacker (Pennypacker@lbl.gov)
Date: Wed Jan 14 2004 - 11:41:11 PST
Hello Serena,
I had to leave the meeting early. But I think this is a very good
paper, and
the few comments I had about clarifying things follow:
0) From Cardelli, 1989 I think, I get the ration of A_B/A_I is something
more like 3 or so, for a number of extinction curves. I think saying
this rartio is 2 to 3 is a safer and more accurate statement. See
Commins notes on
extinction on our web page.
1) the mathematical functional basis of the
B-template and not as physical basis. Although somehow,
the time-scales in rise and fall times must be related to something
about the supernova atmospheres and diffusion of energy.
2) As noted in the meeting, I think emphasizing that for now the
same stretch works for both the first peak and the second peak is
a substantial discovery,and should be emphasized.
3) I would appreciate a mention of some models of why
you get a secondary peak at all. It seems very peculiar --
the wavelengths are not that different than the R-Band, but this
looks a fair bit more weird. There must be a couple of models you
could mention in the discussion as to where and why this might
come from.
4) I think the fact you have the same stretch makes the coupling
and uniqueness of the solution better. Maybe you can try to let
stretch of the second one float, and I bet the solution set becomes
much bigger -- these are NOT orthogonal functions in general, but
if you constrain things, mathematically it becomes much better.
5) Figure 15: (and possibly the cosmological implications): I feel
that we
are way overstating the cosmological implications of our three data points.
Basically, to me, it looks like by eye that the OmegaM=1 with dust is a
better
fit. We essentially are averaging all of the three points, and the one
with the
biggest error bars pulls it up to concordance parameters. I would much
prefer
if we say this is weak evidence against dust, but here we demonstrate
the method.
The problem is I see that this is a somewhat weak result, and I do not
want it
to distract from your great result on the standardizing the curves!!
Otherwise, very good!
Carl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jan 14 2004 - 12:34:54 PST