back on the blog-wagon after an especially busy week.
During skype meeting with supervisor Patrick Hall, hashed out a list of things to get done in the near future.
1) Incorporating the relative size probability into the EW_b simulations. A cloud of gas that is bigger on the sky, will have a higher chance of producing the some EW than does a smaller cloud. This is d simply due to the fact that a large halo will have a larger region that this EW measurement exists at (i.e. the ring of impact parameters that produces that EW is larger). Therefore a cloud 4 times bigger in surface area will produce the simulated EW more often than a smaller cloud would produce its simulated EW.
We have already accounted for this in a different set of analysis – this is the P^\prime value. Code/text is already present, just learning how to incorporate into current coding.
This is a real physical affect, making its analysis high priority.
2) Distinguishing between a detection and an upper limit for LOSB when determining the fractional probability. Currently, the code treats an EWB upper limit the same as a detection, and therefore treats them both as a step function. In actuality, a detected EWB is a Gaussian distribution determined by its observational uncertainty, and an upper limit EWB is an error function also determined by the observational noise in the spectra that led to its determination. It is important to account for this in the code, because an upper limit is not the same physical thing as a detection.
3) where has Fig 3.1 gone wrong? why is there a cut-off in the regime where the shock shows up? Check @ Rsh=0.01Rg and @ Rsh=0.99Rg
1) figures for talks should begin soon – it can take time to generate a good image for a talk. for instance, a step-by-step image/animation would be a good way to show exactly how we expect these clouds to appear on the sky from the point of view of the quasar asterism. I need to show how the simulations were run, visually.
2) Missing appendix on quasars not included. Crotts can be added without difficulty. Waiting to hear back from Churchill and Djorgovski. don’t bother including Smette in new simulations – might be good to mention it somewhere in the text
3)more resolution on the contour plot. f_c=0.75,0.85,0.95 and \ell_c=0.2, 0.7
emailing prof. DeRobertis right now with copy of ‘SUBMIT’