I've read through both your papers again; as far as I can see both points made in my previous reply stand:Bruce Bassett wrote:the d_A data actually prefer slightly more acceleration than the SNIa do
1) You are fitting to continuous dimming models; the dimming I talk of is discrete. Therefore, your current fits are not relevant. I also rather doubt that your approach could be made to work for the small number of domain boundaries in the supernova data (two layers, < 100 total?). An MC approach would be useful (indispensable?) for the CMB analysis, when the number of domain boundaries grows to maybe 10^5 or more, but that's another story.
2) You are basing your conclusions on a discrepancy between the d_A/d_L relation for SNe Ia and radio source data, respectively. But as I already explained, that discrepancy is a natural consequence of the fact that the domain boundaries are transparent to radio waves. Fig. 1, and the way your radio galaxy data starts deviating from the SNe Ia data around z = 0.3, actually looks like a nice confirmation of the domain boundary picture. (Thanks!)
I do not use domain walls. (Sigh. What do I have to do to get this through people's skulls?)Bruce Bassett wrote:Have you seen hep-ph/0507020? It also uses domain walls and also doesnt work!
That paper is based on a speculative idea about photons mixing with some other photon-like particle. Much like the models which you have considered, it has no energy threshold; all photons mix the same, independently of wavelength.
This is not the case for the standard model domain boundaries which I am concerned with, and this is one of the two reasons why your analysis doesn't apply to them.