All the mass estimates for the clusters are now in basic agreement. The photoz fix brought up the lensing masses and they now agree with the dynamical and other masses. What I like is that we didn't try to make them agree, but bugs were found along the way that changed the answer; we would have fixed the bugs even if they lowered the masses.
Analysis on the ICL stuff is beginning in earnest now; Tim is looking at the outputs and I expect he will generate some science soon. If I get a chance I'll also look into it. I'm interested in getting the total optical light in the system for comparison with the total mass from lensing, both in the relative amount and relative distribution within the clusters.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Draft finished
Finished the near-final draft of the lensing paper. Now it's time to turn attention to running simulated data through the galaxy cross-correlation code for comparison with the clusters. I don't know yet what we will learn from this, but it is certain to be useful. I'm hoping to use the new computing cluster of our west coast friend which will kick some serious butt.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Cluster lensing finished
The final lensing measurements for the maxbcg clusters are finished. If there are any other issues that arise I will not address them in this paper. This is non-negotiable. For example the photozs are now fixed; other photoz methods may give different results. This just comes from choosing a method. I would not be surprised if we re-calibrated these results in the future as our knowledge of the source redshift distribution improves, but it won't happen before publication of these results.
The results after fixing the photoz bug have higher amplitude by about 15%.
I've finished making the new plots, now I'm re-working the text. This will take a little work because I need to write up how I have used our estimates of the photoz error distribution in the measurement itself rather than as a correction after the fact. This is the same formalism we used in the 2004 paper but now we actually have a good idea what the error distributions are.
Dave Johnston and I are still planning to release this paper and his analysis paper at the same time. I want this to happen before June.
The results after fixing the photoz bug have higher amplitude by about 15%.
I've finished making the new plots, now I'm re-working the text. This will take a little work because I need to write up how I have used our estimates of the photoz error distribution in the measurement itself rather than as a correction after the fact. This is the same formalism we used in the 2004 paper but now we actually have a good idea what the error distributions are.
Dave Johnston and I are still planning to release this paper and his analysis paper at the same time. I want this to happen before June.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)