tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10448119.post1956044718776939492..comments2024-03-23T06:42:53.608-04:00Comments on Hogg's Research: false positives, galaxy mergingHogghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18398397408280534592noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10448119.post-34810403087065652092007-03-28T08:09:00.000-04:002007-03-28T08:09:00.000-04:00In answer to your first question, a lot of the dif...In answer to your first question, a lot of the difference between how Bell's paper reads and how I describe it comes from the fact that Bell and I have measured different rates: I measure the rate at which LRGs <I>will</I> merge, so I divide the density of LRG–LRG pairs by the density of LRGs. Bell measures the rate at which LRGs <I>have</I> merged, so he divides the density of sub-LRG–sub-LRG pairs by the density of LRGs. Because the luminosity function is steep, Bell gets a much higher rate. But the evolution in the observable is not as strong.Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18398397408280534592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10448119.post-17724298083999028472007-03-28T01:41:00.000-04:002007-03-28T01:41:00.000-04:00Bummer I missed this session, though I enjoyed you...Bummer I missed this session, though I enjoyed your talk.<BR/><BR/>First, a question. Garth and I came away with the impression that Erik Bell got a similar answer to you with regard to the number of mergers among massive galaxies. Instead, according to him, a huge fraction of z~0.7 galaxies will merge. Apparently this all happens between z~0.7 and z~0.3? Do you have any other thoughts?<BR/><BR/>Second, I wonder how much ICL/IGL is made as a function of halo mass. Clusters have large amount of light, but they are big. It seems like that the theorists are never going to tell us an answer and that measuring this could make a big impact. So, is there enough uncertainty in the ICL computation to explain away your result? Could one sweep under the ICL all of your missing second galaxies?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com