The following two graphics are supposed to be the same, but they are not (there is something I am not getting right). After the calculation of m ( z ) (magnitude as a function of redshift) I get the plot of the first link:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

-Plot at the bottom (NOT the last one) of

http://www.rqgravity.net/Supernova [Broken] m (z) = constant + 5*log ( 1 + z - (1 + z)^(1/2) )

-Page 7 of http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9812473

Here the plot is linear; does not diverge in z = 0.

Maybe the answer is that in the second case, the definition of the magnitude includes a filter transmission function (as hinted in Bergstrom, Goobar, Cosmology and particle astrophysics)? I have to hand in this yesterday : P.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Magnitude vs Redshift Supernova 1a

Loading...

Similar Threads - Magnitude Redshift Supernova | Date |
---|---|

B What is the highest redshift (Z number) a galaxy can have? | Jan 11, 2018 |

Insights Coordinate Dependent Statements in an Expanding Universe - Comments | Jan 6, 2018 |

I Absolute magnitude in cosmology | Jul 21, 2016 |

Convert from Magnitude Density to Mass | Sep 15, 2015 |

Quantum Jitter and 120 Magnitude Prediction | Mar 27, 2011 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**