From: Serena Nobili (serena@lpnhep.in2p3.fr)
Date: Wed Aug 25 2004 - 07:05:42 PDT
Dear Vitaliy,
I have been considering all the differences you just pointed out, before
choosing which one to use in the paper. I came up with the following
reasoning: none of the optical fits makes completely sense. This SN seems
to be under-luminous, but has a stretch value greater than 1. Note also
that the only information I am actually using is the stretch factor, both
in the Hubble diagram and in the dust analysis. I am starting to suspect
it is not even a type Ia, although I haven't seen a spectrum of it. I am
afraid, none of the stretch factors fitted would really help to make sense
of this SN in I-band. SN1999Q is my worst nightmare, whatever optical
lightcurve fit you want to choose ;)
Thus, the difference between the various fits, is not relevant to the
paper. In this sense I chose the simpler to explain. Moreover, I am still
not completely convinced that they did not have more data than we have,
given what Riess says in the paper of 1999Q.
Cheers
Serena
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Vitaliy Fadeyev wrote:
>
> Dear Serena,
>
> I have a question regarding sn1999q. In the current version
> of the paper you are reporting the results from the lightcurve
> fit with tmax fixed to Tonry's value. Is there a reason why
> you preferred this version? I would've thought that results
> are much better without Tonry's tmax:
> -- the chi^2 is better (and the lightcurve residuals do not
> show an abnormal trend at the late times),
> -- it would be more self-consistent, since "tmax" definition
> depends on the assumed lightcurve shape.
>
> Also, assuming tmax, one arrives at a sizable extinction.
> (Not an argument, but rather a feature to account for.)
>
> Cheers,
> vitaliy
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
www.physto.se/~serena
Tel +33 1 44 27 75 82
Give free food at:
http://www.porloschicos.com/
http://www.thehungersite.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 25 2004 - 07:05:54 PDT