Hi everyone, I think this is once again an example where I am slow or uneager to follow Gary's advice, but it turns out to that his idea is brilliant...
Apart from the question of using the Hoyle et al P(k), which is more a test of self-consistency between two different, but roughly equivalent, methods of analysing the same data set, and which seems to be OK in the smoothed plot of Gary's second message, I think that the first plot, based on the BBKS 1984 CDM-like P(k) is definitely very exciting: I think it makes it clear that for standard acoustic wave theory, we should *expect* to have peaks at these sorts of length scales in the correlation function, and that the correlation function can be *expected* to function as a better standard ruler than the power spectrum. :) :) :)
So the question gets back to: what is the best way of calculating the correlation function from the data to best constrain the local cosmological parameters...
I'll try to get the next version of DE out soon...
Best wishes to Gary for your talk tomorrow if I don't write anything sooner - and Micha� F, hope you learn a lot and meet a lot of people during this week. Maybe you could give us an informal talk about it mid-July (e.g. 15-19 July), since a few people may be here in Piwnice (e.g. Marcin, me).
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Gary Mamon wrote:
I finally computed the correlation function extpected from Hoyle etal.'s P(k) obtained from their analysis of the 2QZ-10k quasar sample.
...
Even though Hoyle's peak is at 2 pi h / 89 Mpc, the 1st plot shows xi(r) with peaks at 67, 127 and 255 h-1 Mpc, close to what we (Boud really) gave in RMB02. This gives us some confidence that Boud's calculations are not completely wrong :-) and that there is no simple relation such as peak in xi at 2 pi / k_peak, where k_peak is the peak in P(k).
Cze�� Boud