A glitch in Jorrie’s Cosmo-Calculator?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JimJCW
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Jorrie’s LightCone7-2017-02-08 Cosmo-Calculator exhibits persistent inconsistencies in calculating Dnow and Dthen compared to Gnedin’s and Wright’s calculators, particularly at low redshift (z) values. The discrepancies suggest potential glitches in Jorrie’s calculator, possibly due to numerical integration issues or fixed delta-z approximations. Users are encouraged to verify these results and report findings to Jorrie. The 2021 version of the calculator addresses some discrepancies, but further investigation and adjustments are necessary to fully resolve the issues.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the ΛCDM model in cosmology
  • Familiarity with numerical integration techniques
  • Experience with JavaScript, particularly in modifying calculation scripts
  • Knowledge of redshift and its implications in cosmological calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Investigate the numerical integration methods used in Jorrie’s calculator
  • Learn about the differences between the 2017 and 2021 versions of Jorrie’s calculator
  • Explore the implications of fixed delta-z in cosmological calculations
  • Review best practices for debugging JavaScript calculations in scientific applications
USEFUL FOR

Cosmologists, astrophysicists, and developers working on cosmological calculators or simulations, as well as anyone interested in understanding discrepancies in cosmological distance calculations.

  • #151
Let’s summarize the situation:

(1) The glitch associated with Dnow(z) discussed in Post #1 is eliminated in LightCone8 (see Post #102).

(2) The error associated with Ω’s in Jorrie’s calculator discussed in Post #109 is fixed in LightCone8 (see Post #148).

(3) The difference in calculated Dnow(z) using LightCone8 and ICRAR still needs to be resolved (see Post #102). I believe I can do that, but first, I need @pbuk and @Jorrie to change the following conversion,

1 pc = 3.262 ly​

in LightCone8 to,

1 pc = 3.261563777 ly​

This will make direct comparison of results from the two calculators possible.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #152
JimJCW said:
(3) The difference in calculated Dnow(z) using LightCone8 and ICRAR still needs to be resolved (see Post #102). I believe I can do that, but first, I need @pbuk and @Jorrie to change the following conversion,

1 pc = 3.262 ly​

in LightCone8 to,

1 pc = 3.261563777 ly​

This will make direct comparison of results from the two calculators possible.
This could surely improve accuracy for comparison purposes, but take note that Lightcone8 does not allow ##\Omega_r## to be identically zero, but only a minimum value through setting ##z_{eq} = 999999##.

(This with reference to your Post #102, where you compared calculators for ##\Omega_r = 0##)

At low redshift a tiny radiation density makes negligible difference, but not so for high redshift work.
 
Last edited:
  • #153
Jorrie said:
This could surely improve accuracy for comparison purposes, . . .

My goal is to be able to say,

Calculation results from Lightcone8 and ICRAR are consistent.​

This is true for the following quantities,

LightCone8
ICRAR
z0.020.02
Scale (a)9.803921569E-019.803921569E-01
H(z)6.837765717E+016.837765717E+01
OmegaM3.217304253E-013.217304253E-01
OmegaL6.781722253E-016.781722253E-01
OmegaR9.734946123E-059.734946125E-05
OmegaT1.000000000E+001.000000000E+00

but not for Dnow and Dthen:

LightCone8ICRAR
z0.020.02
T Gyr1.351246087E+011.351276116E+01
Dnow Gpc8.808897954E-028.810076113E+01
Dthen Gpc8.636174465E-028.637329523E+01
rho kg/m38.782193743E-278.782799071E-27

I believe changing the conversion to ‘1 pc = 3.261563777 ly’ in LightCone8 will resolve this discrepancy.
@pbuk
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
7K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K