Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:54:46.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Challenges in Cosmology Posed by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2015

Adrija Banerjee  and
Arnab Kumar Pal
Adrija Banerjee
Affiliation:
Dept.: Physics and Mathematics Unit, Indian Statistical Institute 203, Barrackpore Trunk Road, Kolkata, West Bengal- 700108, India email: [email protected], [email protected]
Arnab Kumar Pal
Affiliation:
Dept.: Physics and Mathematics Unit, Indian Statistical Institute 203, Barrackpore Trunk Road, Kolkata, West Bengal- 700108, India email: [email protected], [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

For SDSS quasar data (2005) we have truncated data structure whereas for the survey of 2007 the data is no longer truncated. This calls for development or use of completely different statistical methodology to study the data for the evolution of the same objects like quasars. These different methodologies suggest different interpretation for a particular phenomenon in nature. This leads to the issue of validation of the data. More intriguing and challenging issue crops up as, given all of the data, what can be said about the laws of physics that have been operating over the universe? Over here we have used the concept of Neural Network to model the relationship between redshift and apparent magnitude.

Keywords

galaxies: distances and redshifts
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 10 , Symposium S306: Statistical Challenges in 21st Century Cosmology , May 2014 , pp. 343 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2015 

References

Abell, G. O. (1958) Astrophys. J.Suppl. 3, 211–288Google Scholar
Coles, P. & Lucchin, F., (2002) Cosmology : The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure. 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. p.77Google Scholar
Datta, S., Roy, S., Roy, M., & Moles, M. (1998), Phys. Rev. A, 58, 720Google Scholar
Efron, B. & Petrosian, V. (1992) Astrophys. J. 399 345–352Google Scholar
Hoessel, J. G., Gunn, J. E. & Thuan, T.X. (1980) Astrophys., 241, 486–492Google Scholar
Korany, D. M. & Strauss, M. A. (1996) Testing the Hubble Law with the IRAS 1.2 Jy redshift Survey. http://xxx.lanl.gov/astro-ph/9610034Google Scholar
McLaren, C., Wagstaff, M., Brittegram, G., & Jacobs, A. (1991) Biometrics 47, 607–708Google Scholar
Roy, S., Datta, S., Roy, M., & Kafatos, M. (2006) Statistical Analysis of Quasar Data and Hubble Law, arXiv:astro-ph/0605356v1Google Scholar
Roy, S., Kafatos, M., & Datta, S. (1999), Phys. Rev. A, 60, 273Google Scholar
Segal, I. E. & Nicoll, J. F. (1992) Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (USA) 89, 11669–11672Google Scholar
Veron-Cetty, M. P. & Veron, P. (2001) A&A, 374, 92Google Scholar
Wolf, E. & James, D. F. V. (1996), Rep. Prog. Phys., 59, 771Google Scholar