非常感谢！

作为做理论的人，希望出现不寻常的观测结果，然后大家可以玩些花样。我在理论上是有严重倾向的人，希望能将landscape否定了。

国内缺乏能够同时分析不同实验的人，只能仰仗你们的结果。

I read what Shaefer posted on your blog — what he said sounds perfectly reasonable. The use of GRBs provide a promising new method for probing dark energy, but it will be some time before it matures to the same level as the use of supernovae. I wouldn’t put too much weight on the first results –
Shaefer doesn’t seem to either. An interesting thing about the dark energy data at present is that unexpected results go away when better data or more robust analysis techniques are used. In my paper Wang & Mukherjee (2004), using the Tonry & Barris supernova sample, we found that dark energy density deviates from constant at about 1.5 sigma. Then in my paper with Tegmark later in 2004, using the Riess sample (which contains more z>1 supernovae), we found that dark energy density is consistent with a constant. In both of these papers, we included constraints from CMB and galaxy surveys in a self-consistent manner, which is a practice I highly recommend but not always practiced. Anyway, I think it will take a space mission for dark energy to really tell us what dark energy is. Just like the Hubble constant controversy was settled by the HST Key Project on H_0.

欢迎！

应该说你的诗使得我的博客更加有内容，希望看到你的更多的诗。我只写中文诗，而且很少写，将2000年以后写的收集在一起大概也只有十来首。

希望你常来。最近Schaefer关于GRB的结果不知你怎么看？我们在等他的数据出来。

Now that my poems have made it to your blog, I am truly famous
I am delighted to find out that you are a fellow poet, in addition to being
a fellow cosmologist. We should chat more next time we meet.

My poetry book “The Book of Jade” contains poems I wrote from the late
1980s to 2001 — I don’t write that much poetry. Dark energy is still what
I spend most of my time on, so have no fear I hope that we’ll find out
what dark energy really is within the next twenty years.

“Perils of Modern Living”
(published in 1956 by the New Yorker magazine. excerpt from ‘Fusion - search for endless energy’ by Robin Herman)

Well up beyond the tropostrata
There is a region stark and stellar
Where, on a treak of anti-matter,
Lived Dr. Edward Anti-Teller.

Remove from Fusion’s origin,
He lived unguessed and unawares
With all his anti-kith and kin,
And kept macassars on his chairs.

One morning, idling by the sea,
He spied a tin of monstrous girth
That bore three letters:A.E.C.
Out stepped a visitor from Earth.

Then, shouting gladly o’er the sands,
Met two who in their alien ways
Were like as lentils. Their right hands
Clasped, and the rest was gamma rays.

还没有机会仔细拜读，
肯定把板凳搬过来是绝对不会吃亏的。

王云直接用能量密度，大概是因为在红移－亮度关系中状态方程因子w的进入比较间接。

他们的那本书的内容我早忘了：）

我顺带着看了王云的网页，她做的物态方程方面是用密度rou对z做展开的，并且说这样的方法比用W对z做展开的要好，好像能给出来更强的限制。这个方法的可信度真的就提高了吗？ 再说了，她上面说要用SNe Ia做标准烛光，需要红移大于1，而高红移方面的数据现在的可靠性应该是比较差吧？

另外，今天下午看你的导师方先生和鲁菲尼写的那个科普的最前面几页，讲电子和质子的带电量的例子，好像就用了最朴素的人择原理吧，不知道你注意过没有。^_^

对z做展开来拟合实验当然不太可信。

说到暗能量的物态方程，七月份CCAST的会上，北大的范老师讲了到把W对z做展开的方法，并且给了Princeton的Seljak等人的数据。你觉得这个对z展开的方法可靠吗？我一直很怀疑，但又说不出来具体的理由（先假定W是个常数就难以服众）。

没有想到你们还都有欣赏诗的雅兴，PF，PF。