Cze�� wszystkim, I've done a bit more documentation. Now you should be able to download, compile and run DE-V0.04:
http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/~boud/DE/
and get some nice correlation function plots averaged from all six high completeness 2QZ fields, very similar to the ones in RMB2002. They're not exactly the same, because (i) the random number seeds are almost certainly different and (ii) there are probably small changes like different numerical accuracy on different computers, and small changes made to the programs since the time the results of the paper were obtained.
Guess what? I couldn't wait to work on the next step, even when the documentation for the earlier steps is not finished...
So I wrote DEdNdzfull (in DEscramble.f) which instead of using (scrambling) the z distribution of just the individual field being analysed, uses the full z distribution of the 2QZ-10K catalogue.
It seems to me that this is a better way of producing the "true" redshift selection effects for this particular catalogue than the idea I had before of passing a "typical" QSO spectrum through the optical u, b_J and r filters.
The z-scrambling technique means that some *real* signal may have been cancelled out, so the results were conservative.
Now, with a more "neutral" z distribution for the "randoms", the signal should in principle be stronger - if it is real.
Well, the resulting signal is spectacular! :) :) :) :)
We still have a lot of work to do (I have to get plot_cf working), but it seems clear that (0.3,0.7,-1.0) gives a bad fit, and that (0.3,0.7,w_Q) with
w_Q \approx -1.5
is likely to give a better fit and signal, which would greatly upset all the theorists!
Anyway... during today's session you should hopefully be able to calculate these functions and see for yourself...
Na popo�udnie o 14:00 godz, boud
Cze�� wszystkim,
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Boud Roukema wrote: ...
Now, with a more "neutral" z distribution for the "randoms", the signal should in principle be stronger - if it is real.
Well, the resulting signal is spectacular! :) :) :) :)
We still have a lot of work to do (I have to get plot_cf working), but it seems clear that (0.3,0.7,-1.0) gives a bad fit, and that (0.3,0.7,w_Q) with
w_Q \approx -1.5
is likely to give a better fit and signal, which would greatly upset all the theorists!
Well, after the initial excitement, it looks like it's going to be less trivial than I thought to get an analysis which is totally clear and as little dependent on "arbitrary" decisions as possible...
Gary, as far as your talks are concerned, my feeling right at the moment (after having spent Friday night and the whole of Saturday working on this :( ) is that it would be better *not* to show the new plots to your seminar audiences, as they are "hot-off-the-press" results which have not yet been carefully enough thought through and checked, and they would distract from the careful, detailed analysis/discussion in RMB02.
You can certainly say that we're continuing to work on this and that we got some exciting stuff last week. Anyone who seriously would like to contribute to the project is welcome to subscribe to the mailing list (info below) and to help develop the software package DE.
People in Toru�: the people at Piwnice yesterday decided to have another meeting next Friday (14:00 as usual), even though officially the academic year is over. So it's an unofficial wyk�ad :). But I'm no longer sure that we can have a paper ready by the end of June - at least my guess right now is that it's less easy than I thought...
Na ra�e Boud
Hi Boud,
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Boud Roukema wrote: ...
Now, with a more "neutral" z distribution for the "randoms", the signal should in principle be stronger - if it is real.
Well, the resulting signal is spectacular! :) :) :) :)
We still have a lot of work to do (I have to get plot_cf working), but it seems clear that (0.3,0.7,-1.0) gives a bad fit, and that (0.3,0.7,w_Q) with
w_Q \approx -1.5
is likely to give a better fit and signal, which would greatly upset all the theorists!
Wow!
Well, after the initial excitement, it looks like it's going to be less trivial than I thought to get an analysis which is totally clear and as little dependent on "arbitrary" decisions as possible...
Gary, as far as your talks are concerned, my feeling right at the moment (after having spent Friday night and the whole of Saturday working on this :( ) is that it would be better *not* to show the new plots to your seminar audiences, as they are "hot-off-the-press" results which have not yet been carefully enough thought through and checked, and they would distract from the careful, detailed analysis/discussion in RMB02.
Thank you for working on this. I will stick to my old guns and mention that new more discriminating statistical analyses are in progress.
You can certainly say that we're continuing to work on this and that we got some exciting stuff last week. Anyone who seriously would like to contribute to the project is welcome to subscribe to the mailing list (info below) and to help develop the software package DE.
Will do.
Do let me know how things come along. Since the signal was weak in RMB02, you could also be bold and use all 10k quasars. Will query today (I am partly at the AAO today), about the next data release from 2dF-2QZ.
best regards and do ckorovo (does that work in Polish?)
Gary
-
Boud Roukema -
Gary Mamon