From: Vitaliy Fadeyev (VAFadeyev@lbl.gov)
Date: Fri Jan 16 2004 - 19:39:23 PST
Dear Serena,
when we had our phone meeting on Thursday,
somebody noted that the lightcurve figure in Riess 2000
looks different from your fit of 1999Q. If I remember
this right, the difference in magnitudes was attributed
to k-corrections.
It also appears that the rest-frame observation times
(relative to B maximum) reported in Table 1 and Figure 1
in that paper are inconsistent. I "measured" the times
on the plot with a ruler, this is only good to about 0.5 day.
However, the effect is clearly visible by eye if you look
at the distance between two points at about 30 days,
and at the position of the last point on the plot.
Table Figure Difference
(column 2)
6.2 5.0 1.2
14.5 12.0 2.5
30.2 26.0 4.2
32.9 30.0 2.9
45.3 43.0 2.3
Column 1 of the Table is consistent with column 2, so
perhaps the table is correct, and it looks like this is
what you used for your analysis. But the "time perturbation"
may be contributing to the different appearence, especially
since your fit gives the 2nd maximum at about 20 days,
and from Riess's plot one could conclude something
like 30-35 days after B max.
Cheers,
vitaliy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 16 2004 - 19:39:28 PST