-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improvements to utils/neutrino_astronomy.py
#236
Comments
After a mail exchange with @robertdstein , probably the most convenient option is to remove the "flux from nearest source" calculation. This in light of the fact that:
We can leave luminosity calculation as an "exercise to the reader" and simplify the results dictionary. |
Hi sorry for the long wait! I went through it and I think you are right. In that case, your and Robert's suggestion sounds good! |
Thanks for the feedback @JannisNe and @robertdstein . I drafted PR #242 with the idea of cleaning up the code and removing the controversial calculations. Unfortunately, it seems that the field
so I am not sure it is wise to discontinue it right away. Please advise! |
In my opinion, we do not have to require past analyses to run with the most recent version of the code. They all mention their respective flarestack version with which we can reproduce them. So I'm in favour of getting rid of it. |
Alright! Will do the last cleanups and proceed with the merge. |
The removed functionality touches the It seems though that |
The outputs based on "Mean Luminosity (erg/s)" have been removed from |
Some time ago, I had started a review of this module, in particular I would like to tidy up the "Total Flux" and "Flux from the nearest source" calculations.
In the following snippet:
flarestack/flarestack/utils/neutrino_astronomy.py
Lines 81 to 84 in 56810cf
the energy-integrated flux at Earth is multiplied by
1+z
as a consequence of the energy range on which the integral takes place being redshifted w.r.t. the rest frame of the source.From my calculations this should be
(1+z)^(1-gamma)
that forgamma = 2
should give1/(1+z)
. Note that the comment mentions a1/(1+z)
factor while code multiplies by(1+z)
. For sure this should depend onEnergyPDF
andgamma
.Probably my calculations should be double-checked as well, I am attaching here the file that @JannisNe and @robertdstein have already received by mail: nu_astro.pdf
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: