Re: Notes on Iband phone conference 12 Feb.

From: Chris Lidman (clidman@eso.org)
Date: Wed Mar 03 2004 - 15:45:06 PST

  • Next message: Serena Nobili: "K-corrections"

    Hi Serena,
      Thanks for the reply. I am replying to this without having had a
    chance to look at your new plots (by the way, I think that you do a
    great job in making these plots available).

      I have a few follow-up comments.

    > >Note that these plots are quite flat, which would argue that the
    > >light curve shape is not all that important in determining the peak
    > >magnitude.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > I must disagree with this point. The flatness of these plots is only
    > telling us that the I-band light curve shape is not correlated with the
    > B-band stretch factor, and not that the Imax is not correlated with the
    > I-band light curve shape. I would rather say, that there is some light
    > curve shape parametrization that we did not find yet. Do you see what I
    > mean?
    >

    Yes, I do. Good point.

    >
    > >In relation to the numbered items.
    > >
    > >1) There was concern for the way the dispersion in the Hubble diagram
    > > is computed. Serena should compute the weighted r.m.s.
    > >
    > >Serena's reply ...
    > >
    > >I have done this. The weighted r.m.s. gives about the same values as
    > >the non-weighted r.m.s. due to the uncertainties, which are about the same
    > >for all the points. However, Table 4 now includes the weighted r.m.s. as
    > >well as the weighted average for each of the samples. I have also added a
    > >discussion in section 3 about the differences between the data sets.
    > >
    > >Chris' comment ...
    > >
    > >I think that we were also interested in seeing the RMS scatter about
    > >the individual Hubble lines and not the scatter about the Hubble line
    > >that is derived from the entire data set. Was the RMS calculated in
    > >this way? It is not 100% clear in the paper.
    > >
    >
    > I think the mean value of the residuals for each data set (column 4 of
    > Table 4) should be taken as an indication that differences are not
    > important. Although I could run the fit on each data set separately, I
    > don't think this is really relevant, given the low statistics of each of
    > them separately, e.g. only 6 SNe are in the CfA sample. For the same
    > reason I think any claims on differences between the data sets
    > (which I don't clearly see anyway), should be done very carefully.
    >

    Nevertheless, I think it should be done. I understand that the sample
    size is small, but I expect that you'll find that the RMS for the
    Calan/Tololo sample will show a significant decrease. I do not
    expect there to be much of a change for the CfA and CfA2 samples.

    > >10) Serena will try to add the restframe B,V-band for 1999Q, reduced by
    > > Vitaliy, in the analysis presented in Section 6.
    > >
    > >Serena's reply ...
    > >
    > >This is interesting! It turned out that the fit obtained by SNMINUIT
    > >fixing the time of B-maximum to Tonry value, would give a color excess
    > >E(B-V) = 0.2 mag (see email by Vitaliy in the archive on Feb 12). Given
    > >that this SN is host-less, this value is very surprising. I have been
    > >playing with numbers and plots. If the B-band stretch factor was sB=0.82
    > >the colors would make perfectly sense (even in I-band). Unfortunately the
    > >stretch fitted by SNMINUIT is 1.061 instead. Check plots and discussion
    > >in:
    > >
    > >http://www.physto.se/~snova/internal/papers/iband/index.new.html#99q
    > >
    > >Giving all of this, I do not think we should add the B-V colors of SN1999Q
    > >in the analysis of section 6.
    > >
    > >Chris's comments

    > >Would the colour of 99Q be normal if the date of maximum derived by
    > >Vitaliy was used instead?
    > >
    >
    > I have added one plot about that in the web page (Figure B)
    >
    > http://www.physto.se/~snova/internal/papers/iband/#99q
    >
    > The situation does not look much better, unfortunately.
    >
    > Please, let me know if you have more doubts or comments.
    > Cheers
    >

    I think that we should include the B-V colour of SN99Q in the analysis.
    If the analysis tells us that E(B-V) is 0.2, then so be it. Unless, we
    think that there is something wrong or suspect with this SNe, then
    we should show the full data set.

    The stretch that Vitaliy finds, s~1.1 is certainly consistent with the
    idea that this SNe is hostless. What are the errors on the B-V colour.
    If it similar to the other two, then I do not see an inconsistency.

    Cheers, Chris.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 03 2004 - 15:45:45 PST