From: Serena Nobili (serena@physto.se)
Date: Mon Jan 26 2004 - 06:36:05 PST
Dear Greg, Vitaliy and scpexec,
looking at the plots sent by Vitaliy of the lightcurve fitting, I have
convinced myself that we have to trust the date of maximum given in the
paper by Riess, as it is clear that the HST data alone are not enough to
constrain the rise part of the lightcurve. Moreover, Riess claims in the
paper to have also pre-max data and up to 60 days after maximum. As I
don't see any reason not to trust this information, we have to assume
their date of maximum to be the correct one.
As for the stretch factor, in all cases fitted by Vitaliy it turns out
greater than 1. We could then consider including this information in our
paper. However, since this value would not improve the presentation ( e.g.
this SN would be even more deviant in the Hubble diagram after correction
for the stretch) and given that they could publish the lightcurve at any
moment and "perhaps" prove us wrong, I would choose not to modify the
analysis presented in the paper, avoiding taking un-necessary risks. I
hope you agree with me and find this a sensible decision.
Anyhow, any further thoughts and discussion are very welcome.
Cheers
Serena
----------------------------------------------------------------------
www.physto.se/~serena
Tel +46 8 55378661
Give free food at:
http://www.porloschicos.com/
http://www.thehungersite.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 26 2004 - 10:45:32 PST