Astronomy and Astrophysics – Astronomy
Scientific paper
Aug 1996
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1996aj....112..723j&link_type=abstract
Astronomical Journal v.112, p.723
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Astronomy
6
Supernovae: Individual: 1937C
Scientific paper
We address Schaefer's [AJ, 111, 1668(1996)] criticisms of the photometry of the Type Ia supernova, SN 1937C, presented by Pierce & Jacoby [AJ, 110,2885 (1995)] in which they reanalyzed the photographic films of Baade & Zwicky [ApJ, 88,411(1938)]. Most of Schaefer's arguments were addressed by Pierce & Jacoby and shown to be either irrelevant or insignificant. Schaefer's principal argument centers on whether Beyer [AN, 268, 341(1939)] used day vision or night vision in his visual observations, and states that this issue affects Pierce & Jacoby' s photographically derived magnitudes so as to create errors up to 0.5 mag. However, Pierce & Jacoby's photographic analysis has no dependence on Beyer's data, and so Schaefer's point is immaterial. Nevertheless, in reviewing the Pierce & Jacoby analysis, we have identified a small potential Systematic error in the Pierce & Jacoby V magnitudes that may be as large as 0.15 mag 30 days after peak, approaching 0.0 mag close to peak. These deviations arise from the differences between the standard star and SNIa spectral energy distributions, and are far smaller than the 0.5 mag error near peak that Schaefer claims. Schaefer also claimed that Pierce & Jacoby used only a subset of the available data in fitting their light curve to templates. We demonstrate that restricting the fits to the data region near maximum light is essential or the derived peak magnitude will be systematically too bright because the templates overshoot the peak to compensate for undershooting at later times. Using all the data out to late times, as Schaefer proposes, introduces errors up to 0.2 mag. None of Schaefer's arguments affects the conclusions of Pierce & Jacoby more than ~2%. Thus, the best estimates for the peak B and V mags for SN 1937C remain 8.94+/-0.03 and 9.00+/-0.03. These values lead to H_0_ = 68+/-5 or 74+/-6 km/s/Mpc if the slopes of the decline rate relationship are 1.0 or 1.6, respectively, or H_0_ = 66+/-5 if the more recent slope of 0.78 [Hamuy et al. 1996, AJ (submitted)] is adopted.
Jacoby George H.
Pierce Michael J.
No associations
LandOfFree
Response to Schaefer's Comments on Pierce & Jacoby (1995) Regarding the Type 1A Supernova 1937C does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with Response to Schaefer's Comments on Pierce & Jacoby (1995) Regarding the Type 1A Supernova 1937C, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Response to Schaefer's Comments on Pierce & Jacoby (1995) Regarding the Type 1A Supernova 1937C will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1447902