I Curve fitting the luminosity distance and redshift data

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on finding papers that curve-fit redshift as a function of luminosity distance for type Ia supernovae and gamma-ray bursts without relying on assumed models like the FLRW metric. The inquiry emphasizes the need for a function f that accurately represents the relationship between redshift (z) and luminosity distance (d_l) without predefined physical assumptions. Participants note that while mathematical fitting is possible, the quality of such fits is often insufficient for publication. Recommendations include using data from the Supernova Cosmology Project, which provides a summary table of distance/redshift relations, extending to redshifts around 1.4. The conversation highlights the challenge of deriving a realistic function from the available data.
redtree
Messages
335
Reaction score
15
Can anyone recommend papers that directly curve-fit redshift as a function of luminosity distance for type Ia supernova and gamma ray bursts? I am looking for papers that do not curve-fit the data via an assumed model, even one as simple as Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric. I am really just curious to see what the following function ##f## might look like, where ##z## denotes redshift and ##d_l## denotes luminosity distance:

##z = f(d_l) ##
 
Space news on Phys.org
You need some assumptions for f to do curve fitting. The "best fit" is a function that attains the best estimate for z at the best estimate for dl for every single measurement exactly, but that won't give a realistic function.
 
Sure, but the assumptions for ##f## can be about the relationship between the variables (linear? exponential? trigonometric? etc.) without assuming a particular physical model.

Has anyone published the "best fit" function for ##z## as a function of ##d_l## WITHOUT first assuming a particular physical model?
 
Linear, exponential, trigonometric etc. all don't fit. Mathematically you can do it but the fit quality is just too bad to publish it.
 
Is there an online repository of the data out to high ##z## that is downloadable for analysis?
 
redtree said:
Is there an online repository of the data out to high ##z## that is downloadable for analysis?
Depends upon what you mean by high-z. Easiest to work with is probably supernova data. One relatively recent compilation is here, at the Supernova Cosmology Project:
http://supernova.lbl.gov/union/

They have published a summary table of the per-supernova distance/redshift relation:
http://supernova.lbl.gov/union/figures/SCPUnion2.1_mu_vs_z.txt

You'd have to read their papers to understand what the various columns of that table are, to apply them to your own fit. Looks like they go out to a redshift of about 1.4 or so.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?

Similar threads

Back
Top