Re: notes on the Iband phone conference

From: Serena Nobili (serena@physto.se)
Date: Fri Jan 30 2004 - 07:11:38 PST

  • Next message: Vitaliy Fadeyev: "Re: SN 1999Q info from John Tonry"

    Hi Lifan,

    did you have any chances of doing this check? If you don't have time now,
    I could do the checks myself if you send me the Imax you fit on the
    data. Thank you.
    Cheers

         Serena

    On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Serena Nobili wrote:

    >
    >Dear Lifan,
    >
    >one problem could be in the stretch-Dm15 relation. If I am not wrong, both
    >Phillips and you use Dm15, instead I use sB. One way to go, since we are
    >using the "same" data set is to compare the fitted Imax. If you send me
    >the values you fitted for the Imax, I can do the comparison, or you could
    >compare them yourself if you prefer. Thus we will know if the problem is
    >in the fitted Imax of in the intrinsic difference between stretch and
    >Dm15, or something else.
    >Cheers
    >
    > Serena
    >
    >
    >
    >On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Lifan Wang wrote:
    >
    >>Dear Serena,
    >>
    >> I think you wrote an excellent paper. I have yet to find some time
    >>to check the I-band dispersions, although I feel strongly that 0.19m is
    >>too large.
    >>
    >> Please note that Phillips has published dispersion of 0.13m for a
    >>sample of 15 supernovae when he set a Bmax-Vmax < 0.2 cut.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >>
    >> Lifan
    >>
    >>
    >>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Serena Nobili wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Dear SCPers,
    >>>
    >>> I would like to thank you for the discussion on the I-band paper. Though
    >>> at the end of the two and half hour phone conference I was too tired to
    >>> make sense of it, I think it was very useful.
    >>>
    >>> I wrote a short note to summarize what it was said. For brevity sake I
    >>> only wrote what I think were the most important points about science. The
    >>> observations made on the presentation are not reported here (but I will
    >>> eventually consider them in the paper). I also tried to remember all the
    >>> must-do and who was appointed to them. Moreover I gathered some quick
    >>> answers to a couple of points. If you see I forgot something important,
    >>> please feel free to point it out.
    >>> Cheers
    >>>
    >>> Serena
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Notes on the phone conference (Jan 14, 2003)
    >>> by Serena Nobili
    >>>
    >>> --------------------------------------------------------
    >>>
    >>> 1) Discussion about what is the minimum redshift to be put in the
    >>> Hubble diagram (HD) as I originally put z > 0.01. Did we agree on z >
    >>> 0.015 as in Knop papers? This choice would cut 6 out of 28 SNe.
    >>>
    >>> 2) The dispersion measured as r.m.s. by me in the I-band HD after stretch
    >>> correction is 0.19. Lifan gets 0.11- 0.12 as weighted standard deviation
    >>> when using Dm15 for calibration. I have computed the weighted standard
    >>> deviation in my case, but I get the same answer, since the errors are very
    >>> small. Note that the r.m.s. in the full Calan/Tololo sample, for dm15
    >>> correction, published by Hamuy et al. is about 0.13 mag. This is
    >>> consistent with my result, obtained using a sub-sample of the
    >>> Calan/Tololo, within error bars (0.15 +-0.02).
    >>>
    >>> 3) On the extinction correction of 1998es and 1999dq and their being
    >>> intrinsically redder, there a couple of things to check, a) uncertainty in
    >>> velocity =600 km/s instead of 300 km/s, b) k-corrections, since Rollin
    >>> suggested that 98es has a broad double Ca IR feature. Note that the cut in
    >>> redshift at 0.015 would exclude these two SNe anyway, in which case it is
    >>> not relevant for this paper. Can we have the spectrum of 98es to check the
    >>> k-correction?
    >>>
    >>> 4) sb vs si plot. I believe we decided not to show it, or if we do,
    >>> then we refer to Wang et al (2004) for further discussion. To see the
    >>> plot:
    >>> (seventh plot, or page 13 of the ps file)
    >>>
    >>> http://www.physto.se/~snova/internal/papers/iband/figs/select.comp_ib.ps
    >>>
    >>> 5) Spectral templates: Nobili vs Knop templates. Differences in
    >>> K-corrections from J-band to rest frame I-band are about 0.05 mag. This
    >>> is very small and it is not limiting the analysis presented in this
    >>> paper.
    >>>
    >>> 6) Definition of J band photometric system: 0.05 mag systematic
    >>> uncertainty estimated by Chris Lidman by comparing the Person J to
    >>> Bessel and Brett J. See document linked Chris'web page for discussion
    >>> (usual SCP username and passwd):
    >>>
    >>> http://www.sc.eso.org/~clidman/kcorr.ps
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> 7) Stretch or Dm15 unknown for 1999Q (Riess' supernova). It has been
    >>> suggested (by Saul) that Vitaly looks at the HST data which are
    >>> public, and fit its rest frame B-band light curve. This should take a
    >>> couple of days only (plus time for problems which will naturally
    >>> occur).
    >>>
    >>> 8) Estimate of systematic uncertainty on the high-z light curve fit. Greg
    >>> Aldering expressed his worry for over-estimating the one on 1999Q (which
    >>> is about 0.18 mag). I pointed out than the case of 99Q is the only
    >>> one in which 2 templates give a similar chisq for the fit and the fitted
    >>> Imax differs by about 0.2 mag. We discussed this by looking at the plot in
    >>> the paper web page, which shows the Imax fitted versus chisq of the fit,
    >>> for the 42 templates:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.physto.se/~snova/internal/papers/iband/figs/read_fitlog.ps
    >>>
    >>> I now made available in the web page a plot to show the best fit and
    >>> second best fit templates with the data of SN 1999Q:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.physto.se/~snova/internal/papers/iband/#hizsys
    >>>
    >>> 9) Greg Aldering expressed his worry again for the case of 1999Q in
    >>> the analysis of Section 6 (colors and grey dust). We discussed the
    >>> reasons why we get different results than Riess for the test on grey
    >>> dust based on B-I colors. These are the correlation between the data
    >>> of the same SN, the different B-I versus time used in our analysis,
    >>> the different K-corrections, and the fact we assume stretch=1 for
    >>> it. Knowing the stretch of this SN would help in feeling more
    >>> confident (see point 7 above). Greg also worries about the correlation
    >>> between colors at different epochs, calculated in Nobili et al
    >>> 2003. It has been proposed for people to read the paper. Also, Greg
    >>> needs to think about it and perhaps suggest tests or plots which would
    >>> make him more confident in the analysis. Ariel pointed out that Riess
    >>> claims this SN to be too blue, but we don't see that in Figure 16 of
    >>> the paper.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>> www.physto.se/~serena
    >>> Tel +46 8 55378661
    >>>
    >>> Give free food at:
    >>> http://www.porloschicos.com/
    >>> http://www.thehungersite.com/
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >

    -- 
    

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 : Fri Jan 30 2004 - 07:11:45 PST