So you want to learn about current astrophysics research? You’re in luck! Not only are there many excellent blogs, pretty much all of the peer reviewed literature is out there accessible for free. In many areas of science, the actual papers are behind paywalls and very expensive to access. Astrophysics, like a few other areas of physics and mathematics, puts most papers on the arxiv.org preprint server where they are all available for download form anywhere. In addition, we have a very powerful search tool in the form of the NASA Astrophysics Data System which allows you to perform complex searches and queries across the literature.
ADS, like any search engine, will now scour the literature for papers with the words “green peas”, “green” and “peas” in it, and return the results:
As you can see, the discovery paper of the peas, “Cardamone et al. (2009)” is not the first hit. That’s because in the meantime there has been another paper with “green peas” in the title. You can click on Cardamone et al. and find out more about the paper:
This is just the top of the page but it already contains a ton of information. Most importantly, the page has a link to the arxiv (or astro-ph) e-print (highlighted). Clicking there will get you to the arxiv page of the paper where you can get the full paper PDF.
Also there is a list of paper which are referencing Cardamone et all, at the moment 23 papers do so. By clicking on this link you can get a list of these papers. Similarly, just below, you can get a list of paper that Cardamone et al. is referencing.
Lower still are links to NED and SIMBAD, two databases of astronomy data. The numbers in the brackets indicate that SIMBAD knows 90 objects mentioned in the paper, and NED knows 88. By clicking on them, you can go find out what those databases know about the objects in Cardamone et al. (i.e. the peas).
Obviously there’s a lot more, but just with the arxiv and NASA ADS you can search and scour the astrophysics literature with pretty much no limits. Happy resarching!
I think Chris said it best – any session which is ended by a guy in a bowtie went well. And for our AAS Galaxy Zoo session, that guy in a bowtie was Alfredo Carpineti from UCL, who talked about his work on the properties of spheroidal post-merger systems selected with the help of the Galaxy Zoo merger classifications, and using a control sample of non-merging spheroidals (or ellipticals) also selected from Galaxy Zoo.
Alfredo provided me with the below description, and his slides are available to download at Carpineti_AAS218talk.pdf.
In this talk we discuss the properties subset of galaxies from the GZ mergers catalogue that are spheroidal ‘post-mergers’, where a single remnant is in the final stages of relaxation after the collision and shows evidence for a dominant bulge, making them plausible progenitors of early-type galaxies.
What is a Galaxy?
“Any of the numerous large groups of stars and other matter that exist in space as independent systems.” (OED)
“A galaxy is a massive, gravitationally bound system that consists of stars and stellar remnants, an interstellar medium of gas and dust, and an important but poorly understood component tentatively dubbed dark matter.” (Wikipedia)
“I’ll know one when I see one” (Prof. Simon White, Unveiling the Mass of Galaxies, Canada, June 2009)
The question of “What is a galaxy” is being debated online at the moment, after it was posed by two astronomers – Duncan Forbes and Pavel Kroup in a paper posted on the arXiv last week. It’s an article written for professional astronomers, so doesn’t shirk the technical language in the suggestions for definitions, but in a very “zoo like” fashion (and following the model of the IAU vote on the definition of a planet which took place in 2006) invites the readers of the paper to vote on the definition of a galaxy. This has been reported in a few places (for example Science, New Scientist) and everyone is invited to get involved in the debate.
In fact Galaxy Zoo is cited in the press release about the work as one of the inspirations to bring this debate to a vote.
So what’s all the fuss about? Well it all started because of some very tiny galaxies which have been found in the last few years. There has been a debate raging in the scientific literature over whether or not they differ from star clusters, and where the line between large star clusters and small galaxies should be drawn. It used to be there was quite a separation between the properties of globular clusters (which are spherical collections of stars found orbiting galaxies – the Milky Way has a collection of about 150-160 of them) and the smallest known galaxies.
For example globular clusters all have sizes of a few parsecs (remember 1 parsec is about 3 light years), and the smallest known galaxies used to all have sizes of 100pc or larger. Then these things called ‘ultra compact dwarfs’ were found (in 1999), which as you might guess are dwarf galaxies which are very compact. They have sizes in the 10s of parsec range, getting pretty close to globular cluster scales.
Such objects begin to blur the line between star clusters and galaxies.
And there are things which have been called ‘ultra-faint dwarf spheroidal (dSph) galaxies’. These look nothing like the kind of galaxies you’re used to in SDSS images, although they were found in SDSS data – but perhaps not how you might expect. Researchers colour coded the stars in SDSS by their distance, and looked for overdensities or clumps of stars. So far several concentrations of stars at the same distance have been found. Some were new star clusters, but some look a bit like galaxies. If these are galaxies they are the smallest know, with only 100s of stars. Some are so faint that they would be outshone by a single massive bright star.
The paper suggests as a minimum that a galaxy ought to be gravitationally bound, and contain stars. They point out that this definition includes star clusters as well as all galaxies, so suggest some additional criteria might be needed. They make a list of suggestions, which we are invited to vote on. For full details (and if you are technically minded) I refer you to the paper. It’s a lesson in gravitational physics in itself (although as I said it is aimed at professional astronomers). Here is my potted summary of the suggestions they make:
1. Relaxation time is longer than the age of the universe. Basically this means that the system ought to be in a state where the velocity of a star in orbit in it will not change due to the gravitational perturbations from the other stars in a “Hubble time” (astronomer speak for a time roughly as long as the age of the universe). This will exclude star clusters which are compact enough to have shorter relaxation times, but makes UCDs and faint dSph be galaxies.
2. Size > 100 pc (300 light years). Pretty self explanatory. Sets a minimum limit on the size. This makes the UCDs not be galaxies.
3. Should have stars of different ages. (a “complex stellar population”). The stars in most star clusters are observed to have formed all in one go from one massive cloud of gas. But in more massive systems not all the gas can be turned into stars at one time, so the star formation is more spread out resulting in stars of different ages being present. However there are some (massive) globular clusters which are know to have stars of different ages, so they would become galaxies in this definition.
4. Has dark matter. Globular clusters show no evidence for dark matter (ie. their measured mass from watching how the stars move is the same as the mass estimated by counting stars), while all massive galaxies have clear evidence for dark matter. The problem here is that this is a tricky measurement to make for UCDs and many dSph, so will leave a lot of question marks, and may not be the most practical definition.
5. Hosts satellites. This suggests that all galaxies should have satellite systems. In the case of massive galaxies these are dwarf galaxies (for example the Magellanic clouds around the Milky Way), and many dwarf galaxies have globular clusters in them. But there are some dwarf galaxies with no known globular clusters, and UCDs and dSph do not have any.
The paper finished by describing some of the most uncertain objects and provides the below table to show which would be a galaxy under a given definition. I’ve tried to explain what some of these all are along the way, and here is a short summary:
Omega Cen (first image above) is traditionally thought to be a globular cluster (ie. not a galaxy). Segue 1 is one of the ultra faint dSphs found by counting stars in SDSS images (3rd image). Coma Berenices is a bit brighter than a typical ultra faint dSph, and a bit bigger than a typical UCD. VUCD7 is (the 7th) UCD in the Virgo cluster (not the most imaginative name there!), so simular to the Fornax cluster UCDs shown in the second image. M59cO is a big UCD – almost a normal dwarf galaxy but not quite. BooII (short for Bootes III) and VCC2062 are objects which may possibly be material which has been tidally stripped off another galaxy. Or they might be galaxies.
Anyway if you’re interested you can join in the debate here. And if you read the paper you can vote. I voted, but I think in the interest of letting you make up your own mind I’m not going to tell you what my decision was.
Oh and I just started a forum topic on it in case you want to debate inside the Zoo before voting.
Today’s post is from forum member Waveney who is embarking on his own science project:
Three years ago I stumbled upon the Zoo, started clicking, wandered into the forum and made friends. Then there was a request by Chris on the forum for people to check images for mergers, for which I wrote a website in 4 hours (including leaning SQL). This software with modifications has been used for all three Pea hunts, the Voorwerpje hunting, a few private hunts and for the Irregulars Project.
A couple of years ago Kevin asked for ideas for a student project. Several ideas were made, including the irregulars. After the student went on to do something else (Peas), Jules and I carried on talking. As the Zoo was quiet (between Mergers finishing and Zoo2 starting), we launched our own project to categorise the irregular galaxies in the forum topic. This was endorsed by Chris, who initially acted as the project’s supervisor.
There has been a lot of work on the big impressive ellipticals and spirals, on mergers and detailed studies on a few nearby irregulars. However there has not been a large scale quantitative study of them. The project aims to fill that gap. We are using data originally collected by the Forum, not used by any of the Zookeepers so are not treading on anybody’s toes.
What are irregulars?
These are the galaxies that don’t fit into any other category. They are not elliptical, they are not spiral, they are not involved in a merger. In general they are small, numerous and most are blue with star forming regions. Are they one homogenous group or is their more than one type? Are their old irregulars? Where are they? How do they compare with other galaxies? These are just a few of the questions the project is looking at.
How I started the project:
We started with the galaxies reported in the irregular topic on the forum, added those from a few related topics and started. Alice joined us in a supporting role and Aida came on board finding lots of other candidates, others have contributed lists and now the potential list is nearly 20,000 strong. I have managed the clicking on this in three data sets, the first 3,000 was the early reported – bright ones, then next 2,500 continued with the list in order of reported. However in the third set (nearing completion) I brought forward all those with spectra, so it contains 1500 ordinary candidates and another 2000 with spectra.
The website was setup (Note this has an independent login from the rest of the Zooniverse). It asks 10 questions about each image: is it an irregular, the clarity of the image, bright blue blobs, apparent proximity to other galaxies, appearance of any core, bar, arms or spiral structure.
What has been done so far:
Jules has looked at their 2D distribution across the sky and estimated the number that are too faint for SDSS to have taken their spectra. I have already studied the colour properties of irregular galaxies, their metallicity, masses and star-forming rates, hunted for AGNs (none found so far in irregulars), the equivalent width of the [OIII] 5007Å line in the same way that the Peas were analysed and the non-applicability of Photo Z algorithms for estimating Z without spectra to irregulars. I am currently studying galaxy density around irregulars (in 3D) and am looking for clusters of irregulars. I have not yet used the sub classification of the irregulars, just the “is it an irregular property” – this will come.
The project went rather quiet last year – I was terribly over worked and ended up with no spare time, this has changed recently and I have gone back and started looking again at the work we have done and thinking how to take it further. What is being found should be published – how does one do it? When the project had Chris as a supervisor the route was clear, I need to work with somebody in academia so I can present results, bounce ideas off, get ideas from and work with. Relying on the spare time of Zookeepers is not a satisfactory option – why not pay for the time. Then I thought back to a throwaway comment of Chris a year or so ago that “I had done half a PhD” – I recognise this means I have done 10%, but it got me thinking – why not do it properly. I don’t want to do this full time, I have a very full time job – but could I do it part time. Does the Open University do part time PhDs – a quick web search yes it does…
So I have signed up to take a part time PhD at the Open University on the irregulars. This will take several years, I will fund it myself. I am not totally new to doing formal research, in my professional life I had a lot to do with telecoms research: Proposing, taking part in, managing and cancelling many projects both company and EU funded at research houses and Universities, covering everything from social science through home networks to optical switching. I have even been on the other side of the table reviewing a couple of PhDs.
At this point I have applied, have a supervisor, met them once. Chris and Bill are my referees. The formal interview is in March and the formal start of the PhD is in September. However I am working hard looking at your results, reading, analysing, thinking and writing this.
I have created a blog on the forum to report day to day progress.
P.S. I could use a few more clicks.
Every decade, the US astronomy community gets its leaders together to write up a report on the state of the field and to recommend and rank major projects that should be supported by the government over the next decade. It’s a blue print, a wish list and often also a sober exercise in what to fund (a little) and what to cut (a lot). The current Decadal Survey was finally released by the US National Academies last Friday and every astronomer is poring over it to see if their project or telescope is ranked highly.
Galaxy Zoo isn’t competing for hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to launch a space observatory, but it did get not just one but two mentions in the 2010 Decadal Survey, one in the text and a figure. For those of you who are keen to read the whole thing for themselves, you can get the report at the National Academies website here (you have to click on download and give them your details to get the free PDF download). Here on the blog we only show you the highlights, i.e. the Galaxy Zoo mentions. From the text in the section on “Benefits of Astronomy to the Nation” where they discuss how “Astronomy Engages the Public in Science”:
Astronomy on television has come a long way since the 1980 PBS premier of Carl Sagan’s ground-breaking multipart documentary Cosmos. Many cable channels offer copious programming on a large variety of astronomical topics, and the big three networks occasionally offer specials on the universe too. Another barometer of the public’s cosmic curiosity comes from the popularity of IMAX-format films on space science, and the number of big-budget Hollywood movies that derive their plotlines directly or indirectly from space themes (including five of the top ten grossing movies of all time in America). The internet plays a pervasive role for public astronomy, attracting world-wide audiences on websites such as Galaxy Zoo (www.galaxyzoo.org, last accessed July 6, 2010) and on others that feature astronomical events, such as NASA missions. Astronomy applications are available for most mobile devices. Social networking technology even plays a role, e.g., tweets from the Spitzer NASA IPAC (http://twitter.com/cool_cosmos, last accessed July 6, 2010).
They also have a lovely figure, which has a small blooper in it (see if you can spot it!). Word is that this is going to be corrected in the final version:
Thank you all for making Galaxy Zoo such a success!