In Section 3 we already mentioned briefly the
physics of supernovæ. The SN Ia observations by the High-z Supernova
Search Team (HSST)
[10]
and the Supernova Cosmology Project (SCP)
[11]
are well enough known not to require a detailed
presentation here. The importance of these observations lies in
that they determine approximately the linear combination
-
m which
is orthogonal to
0 =
m +
, see
Figure 1.
![]() |
Figure 1. The best fit confidence regions
in ( |
HSST use two quite distinct methods of light-curve fitting to
determine the distance moduli of their 16 SNe Ia studied. Their
luminosity distances are used to place constraints on six
cosmological parameters: h,
m,
,
q0, and the dynamical
age of the Universe, t0. The MLCS method involves
statistical methods at a more refined level than the empirical template
model. The distance moduli are found from a
2 analysis using an
empirical model containing four free parameters. The MLCS method
and the template method give moduli which differ by about
1
. Once the distance
moduli are known, the parameters h,
m,
are
determined by a maximum likelihood fit, and
finally the Hubble parameter is integrated out. (The results are
really independent of h.) One may perhaps be somewhat concerned
about the assumption that each modulus is normally
distributed. We have no reason to doubt that, but if the iterative
2 analysis has
yielded systematically skewed pdf's, then
the maximum likelihood fit will amplify the skewness.
The authors state that "the dominant source of statistical uncertainty is the extinction measurement". The main doubt raised about the SN Ia observations is the risk that (part of) the reddening of the SNe Ia could be caused by intervening dust rather than by the cosmological expansion, as we already noted after Eq. (15). Among the possible systematic errors investigated is also that associated with extinction. No systematic error is found to be important here, but for such a small sample of SNe Ia one can expect that the selection bias might be the largest problem.
The authors do not express any view about which method should be
considered more reliable, thus noting that "we must consider the
difference between the cosmological constraints reached from the
two fitting methods to be a systematic uncertainty". We shall come
back to this question later. Here we would like to point out that
if one corrects for the unphysical region
m < 0
using the method of Feldman & Cousins
[46],
the best value and the
confidence contours will be shifted slightly towards higher values
of
0.
This shift will be more important for the MLCS
method than for the template method, because the former extends deeper
into the unphysical
m region.
Let us now turn to SCP, which studied 42 SNe Ia. The MLCS method
described above is basically repeated, but modified in many details
for which we refer the reader to the source
[11].
The distance moduli are again found from a
2 analysis using
an empirical
model containing four free parameters, but this model is slightly
different from the HSST treatment. The parameters
m and
are
then determined by a maximum likelihood fit to four
parameters, of which the parameters
B (an absolute
magnitude) and
(the
slope of the width-luminosity
relation) are just ancillary variables which are integrated out (h
does not enter at all). The likelihood contours in
(
m -
) plane
of both supernovæ projects (SCP and HSST) are shown in
Figure 1. The authors then correct the resulting
likelihood contours for the unphysical region
m < 0
using the method of Feldman & Cousins
[46].
Since the number of SNe
Ia is here so much larger than in HSST, the effects of selection
and of possible systematic errors can be investigated more
thoroughly. SCP quotes a total possible systematic uncertainty to
mflat and
flat of 0.05.
If we compare the observations along the line defining a flat
Universe, SCP finds
-
m = 0.44
± 0.085 ± 0.05, whereas HSST finds
-
m = 0.36
± 0.10 for the MLCS method and
-
m = 0.68
± 0.09 for the template method.
Treating this difference as a systematic error of size ± 0.16
the combined SCP result is 0.52 ± 0.10 ± 0.16. SCP and HSST
then agree within their statistical errors - how well they agree
cannot be established since they are not completely independent.
We choose to quote a combined HSST and SCP value
![]() |
(24) |
which excludes a flat de Sitter universe with
-
m = 1 by
5
, and excludes a flat
Einstein - de Sitter universe with
-
m = -1 by
10
.