Category: Astronomy: Techniques

Sussing Out The Unseeable

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Techniques, Cosmology, UncategorizedLeave a comment

<chirp, chirp> “Moire here.”

“Hello, Mr Moire.”

“Afternoon, Walt. Pizza time again?”

“No, too public. Poor craft to be seen too often in the same place. There’s a park bench by the lake.”

“I know the spot.”

“Fifteen minutes.”

“Twenty.”

“Afternoon, Walt. What are your people curious about this time?”

“Word is that astronomers uncovered a huge amount of matter they’d been searching for. We’re interested in concealment techniques, so we want to know how it was hidden and how was it found.”

“Forty percent of all baryonic matter—”

“Baryonic?”

“Made out of atoms. Baryons are multi-quark particles like protons and—”

“Leave the weeds and get back to the topic. Where was that 40% hiding?”

“In plain sight, all over the sky, in strands forming a network that connects galaxies and galaxy clusters. They’re calling it the Cosmic Web.”

“Something that big … how was hidden?”

“Some techniques I’m sure you’ll recognize. First, the material in the strands is diffuse — just an atom or two per cubic meter. An Earth laboratory would be proud to pump down a vacuum ten million times more dense.”

<taking notes> “Spread your forces so there’s no prime target for counter‑attack, mm‑hm. But if the material’s that thin, surely it doesn’t mass much.”

“Remember how big space is. These filaments span the widths of multiple galaxies. Do the math. A thread could be on the order of 100 million lightyears long by 1000 lightyears in diameter. A lightyear is 1016 meters. The thread has a volume of about 1062 cubic meters. At 10-26 kilogram per cubic meter that’s 1036 kilograms which is comparable to the mass of a small galaxy. That’s just one thread. Add them up and you get roughly half the baryons in the Universe, all hiding in the Web.”

“Concealment by dispersal, got it. What’s another technique?”

“Camouflage. No, not tiny uniforms in a woodland pattern. These atoms fade into the background because oncoming light waves pass right by them unless the wave has exactly the right wavelength for an absorption.”

“So how did astronomers detect these scattered and camouflaged atoms?”

“A couple of different ways. X‑rays, for one.”

“But these atoms are camouflaged against passing light. X‑rays are light waves.”

“X‑rays the atoms emit. Everybody thinks that space is cold, but those lonely atoms bounce around with a kinetic energy equivalent to million‑degree temperatures. When two of them collide some of that kinetic energy escapes as high‑frequency light, X‑ray range. Not a whole lot, because the atoms are sparse, but enough that European and Japanese space telescopes were able to tweeze it out of the background.”

“Use sensitive mics to pick up whispered convo in the opposing line.”

<pause> “Right, more or less. What do you know about refraction?”

“Mmm… Newton and his prism, splitting white light into different colors. I’ve no idea how that works.”

“The short answer is that the speed of light depends on its wavelength and the medium it’s traversing. In a perfect vacuum, light always goes at top speed just like Einstein said, but charged particles in its path slow it down.”

“Even those atoms in space that you said can’t absorb light?”

“Yup. It’s called virtual coupling; quantum’s involved. One inaccurate way to describe the interaction is that atoms occasionally absorb wrong‑wavelength photons but spit them right back out again after a brief delay. Short wavelengths see more of that effect than long wavelengths do. With me?”

<pause> “Go on.”

“Does the phrase ‘Fast Radio Burst’ sound familiar?”

“Of course, but probably not the way you mean.”

“Ah. Right. For this context, Fast Radio Bursts are isolated pulses of radio‑frequency light from incredibly bright extra-galactic sources we don’t understand. They’re all over the sky. A pulse lasts only a millisecond or so. What’s important here is that refraction skews each pulse’s wavelength profile as it travels through the intergalactic medium. Researchers analyze the distortions to detect and characterize Web filaments in the direction each pulse came from.”

“Intercept the oppo’s communications to the front.”

“That’s about the size of it.”

“Bye.”

“Don’t mention it.”

The Cosmic Web
Visualization: Frank Summers (STScI); Simulation: Martin White and Lars Hernquist, Harvard University

~ Rich Olcott

The Beaming Beacon

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Techniques, Physics: Black Holes and Relativity, Physics: Light and Relativity, UncategorizedLeave a comment

“So, Vinnie, that first article’s bogus. Blobs in M87’s supermassive black hole’s jet don’t travel faster than light. Your second article — is it also about M87*?”

M87* image – Credit EHT Collaboration

“Yeah, Cathleen. It’s got this picture which a while ago Sy explained looks like a wrung‑out towel because that’s the way the thing’s magnetic field forces electrons to line up and give off polarized light.”

“As always, Vinnie, your memory impresses.”

“Thanks, I work at it. Anyhow, this one‑paragraph article says they figured out from the picture that everything’s spinning around as fast as it’s possible to spin. How fast is that, and how’d they get the spin speed if they only used one frequency so redshift/blueshift doesn’t apply?”

Cathleen’s been poking at her tablet. “HAH! Found the real paper behind your pop‑sci article, Vinnie. Give me a minute…” <pause, with mumbling> “Wow, not much there in the disk. They estimate even at the crowded innermost orbit, they call it ISCO, the density’s about 10-14 kg/m3 which would be one nanopascal of pressure. Most labs consider that ultrahigh vacuum. They get angular momentum from something called ‘Doppler beaming’, which I’m not familiar with.” <passes tablet to me> “Your turn, Sy.”

“ISCO’s the Innermost Stable Circular Orbit. ISCO’s radius depends on the black hole’s mass and spin.” <pause, with mumbling> “Doppler beaming’s a velocity‑dependent brightness shift from outbound to inbound sides of ISCO. They connected brightness range within the images to ISCO velocity, multiplied that by ISCO radius and the black hole’s mass to get the disk’s angular momentum, J. The lightspeed rotation angular momentum Jmax comes from theory. The paper puts a number to M87*’s J/Jmax.“

“My article says it’s near 100%.”

“That’s not what the paper says, Vinnie. ‘…our value of 0.8 would appear to be a lower limit,’ in other words, something above 80% but definitely not 100%. Like I said, pop‑sci journalism. So what’s Doppler beaming, Sy?”

“Classical Doppler shifts happen when a wave source moves relative to us. Motion toward us crams successive wave peaks into decreasing distance. Motion away increases wavelength. The same principle applies to light waves, sound waves, even ocean waves.”

“Blueshifting.”

“Mm‑hm. By contrast, beaming is about how a source’s motion affects the photon count we receive per second. Imagine a beacon steadily sending us photons as it whips at near‑lightspeed around M87*. When the beacon screams towards us its motion crams more photons into one of our seconds than when it dashes away.”

“More blueshifting.”

“Not quite. Photon‑count compression sort‑of resembles the blueshifting process but wavelength isn’t relevant. It combines with the other part of beaming, Special Relativity space compression, which concentrates a moving beacon’s photons in the direction of motion. It’s like focusing a fancy flashlight, narrowing the beam to concentrate it. The faster the beacon travels in our direction, the greater proportion of its photons are sent towards us.”

Vinnie looks up and to the left. “If ISCO’s going near lightspeed, won’t the disk’s inertia drag on the black hole?”

“Sure, within limits. M87* and Sagittarius-A* both have magnetic fields; most black holes probably do. Accretion disk plasma must be frozen into the field. The whole structure would rotate like a spongy wheel with a fuzzy boundary. The lightspeed limit could cut in at the wheel’s rim, much farther out than the Event Horizon’s sphere.”

Count on Vinnie to jump on vagueness. “Spongy? Fuzzy?”

“Because nothing about a black hole’s extended architecture is rigid. It’s a messy mix of gravitational, electric and magnetic fields, all randomly agitated by transients from inbound chunks of matter and feeding outbursts from inside ISCO. The disk’s outer boundary is the raggedy region where the forces finally give way as centrifugal force works to fling particles out into the Universe. I don’t know how to calculate where the boundary is, but this image suggests it’s out about 10 times the Horizon’s radius. The question is, how does the boundary’s speed limit affect spin?” <tapping rapidly on Old Reliable’s screen>

“And the answer is…?”

“Disk particles driven close to lightspeed do push back. They lightly scramble those mushy fields but much too feebly to slow the central spin.”

~ Rich Olcott

Sharpening The Image

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Stellar Science, Astronomy: Techniques, UncategorizedLeave a comment

“One coffee, one latte and two scones, Cal. Next time is Cathleen’s turn. Hey, you’ve got a new poster behind the cash register. What are we looking at?”

“You like it, Sy? Built the file myself from pics in my astronomy magazines, used the Library’s large‑format printer for the frameable copy. Came out pretty well, didn’t it, Cathleen?”

“Mm‑hm. Sy, you should recognize the pebbly-looking one. It’s granules at the bottom of the Sun’s atmosphere. The image came from the Inouye Solar Telescope at Haleakala Observatory on Maui, probably Earth’s best ground‑based facility for studying the Sun. I showed the image to your niece in that phone call. For scale, those granules of super‑heated rising gas are each about the size of Texas.”

“My magazine article didn’t mention Texas but it said there’s about ten million granules. What it was mostly about was the IST and its resolution. Those edges in the picture are as narrow as 18 miles across. It’s that good ’cause the beast has a 4‑meter mirror, which used to be amazing, but they made it even better with active and adaptive optics.”

“Hmm. It’s obvious that the bigger the mirror, the better it is for catching photons. If someone’s going to build a big mirror they’re going to put it behind a big aperture, which is important for resolving points that are close together. But what are ‘active and adaptive optics’ and why did you say that like they’re two different things?”

” ‘Cause they are two different things, Sy. Different jobs, different time‑scales. Gravity here on Earth can make a big mirror sag, and the sag changes depending on where the machine is pointed and maybe part of it gets the wrong temperature. Active optics is about keeping the whole mirror in the right shape to focus the photons where they’re supposed to go. There’s a bunch of actuators rigged up to give adjustable support at different points behind the mirror. The astronomer tells the system to watch a certain guide point and there’s a computer that directs each actuator’s pushing to sharpen the point’s image.”

“And adaptive optics?”

“That’s about solving a different problem. Stars twinkle, right, and the reason they twinkle is because of the atmosphere. One part refracts light one way, another part maybe warmer or with different humidity sends the light another way. Everything moves second to second. By the time a light‑wave gets down to us it’s been jiggled a lot. Adaptive optics is a small mirror, also with a lot of actuators, placed up in the light path after the primary mirror. Again with a guide point and a computer, the little mirror’s job is to cancel the jiggles so the scope’s sensors see a smooth wave. Adaptive works a lot faster than active, which sounds backwards, but I guess active came first.”

“The granules must be in the Sun’s disk somewhere. The other two images look like they’re on the edge.”

“That’s right, Sy. The bottom one is from the Solar Dynamic Observatory satellite a few years ago. That’s not visible light, it’s EUV—”

“EUV?”

“Extreme UltraViolet, light‑waves too short even for hydrogen so it’s mostly from iron atoms heated to millions of degrees. SDO had to be a satellite to catch that part of the spectrum because the atmosphere absorbs it. Of course, up there there’s no need for active or adaptive optics but imaging EUV has its own problems.”

“How tall is that photogenic tree?”

“It’s a prominence. The article said it’s about twenty times Earth’s diameter.”

“What about the pink one?”

“That’s new, Cathleen, from another Maui telescope. Adaptive optics were in play but there’s a problem. If you’re probing inside the corona there’s no fixed guide point. The team focused their adjustment system on corona features where they were a few seconds ago. The article said the process was ‘tricky,’ but look at the results. The loop is about the size of Earth, and those fine lines are about the width of Vancouver Island. They discovered details no‑one’s ever seen before.”

Top left: Schmidt et al./NJIT/NSO/AURA/NSF;
Top right: NSO/AURA/NSF under CC A4.0 Intl license;
Bottom: NASA/SDO

~ Rich Olcott

The Oldest Clock Ticks Slowest

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Techniques, Chemistry, UncategorizedLeave a comment

<Cliff‑hanger Cathleen strikes again> “How can you even measure a 2‑million year half‑life?”

Kareem’s right back at her. “What’s a half‑life?”

“Start a clock, weigh a sample, wait around for a while and then weigh it again to see how much is still there. When half of it’s gone, stop the clock and you’ve measured a half‑life. Simple.”

“Simple but not that simple or maybe a bit simpler. For one thing, you don’t have to wait for a full half‑life. For spontaneous radioactivity, all you have to know is the interval and whatever fraction disappeared. There’s a nice equation that ties those two to the half‑life.”

“Spontaneous? Like there’s another kind?”

“Stimulated radioactivity. That’s what nuclear reactors do — spew neutrons at uranium‑235 atoms, for instance, transmuting them to uranium‑236 so they’ll split into krypton and barium atoms and release energy and more neutrons. How often that happens depends on neutron concentration. Without that provoking push, the uranium nuclei would just split when they felt like it and that’s the natural half‑life.”

“Wait. I know that curve, it’s an exponential. Why isn’t e in the equation?”

“It could be. Would you prefer e-0.69315*t/half‑life? Works just as well but it’s clumsier. Base‑2 makes more sense when you’re talking halves. Usually when you say ‘exponential’ people visualize an increase. Here we’re looking at a decrease by a constant percentage rate but yeah, that’s an exponential, too. You get a falling curve like that from a Geiger counter and you’re watching counts per minute from someone’s thyroid that’s been treated with iodine‑131. Its 8‑day half‑life is slow enough to track that way. Really short half‑lives I don’t know much about; I care about the slow disintegraters that are either primordial or generated by some process.”

“Primordial — that means ‘back to the beginning’, which in your specialty would mean the beginning of the Solar System. We’re pretty sure the Sun’s pre‑planetary disk was built from dust broadcast by stars that went nova. Isotopes in the dust must be the primordial isotopes, right? Which ones are the other kind?”

“Mmm, aluminum‑26 is a good example. The half‑life equation still applies even for million‑year intervals. Half‑life of aluminum‑26 is about 0.7 million years and it decays to magnesium‑26. Whatever amount got here from the stars would have burnt down to a trillionth of that within the first 30 million years or so after arrival. Any aluminum‑26 we find today couldn’t be primordial. On the other hand, cosmic rays can smack a proton and neutron out of a silicon‑28 nucleus and voila! a new aluminum‑26. There’s a steady rain of cosmic rays out in space so there’s a steady production of aluminum‑26 out there. Not here on Earth, though, because our atmosphere blocks out most of the rays. Very nice for us geologists who can compare measured aluminum‑26 to excess magnesium‑26 to determine when a meteorite fell.”

“Excess?”

“Background magnesium is about 10% magnesium‑26 so we have subtract that to get the increment which came from aluminum‑26. A lot of the arguments in our field hinge on how much of which isotope is background or was background when a given rock formed. That’s one reason you see so much press about tiny but rugged zircons. They’re key to uranium‑lead dating. Crystallizing zirconium silicate doesn’t allow lead ions into its structure but it happily incorporates uranium ions. Uranium‑235 and uranium‑238 both decay to crystal‑trapped lead, but each isotope goes to a different lead isotope and with a different half‑life. The arithmetic’s simpler and the results are more definitive when you know that the initial lead content was zero.”

“So that aluminum‑magnesium trick’s not your only tool?”

“Hardly. The nuclear chemists have given us a long list of isotope chains, what decays to what with what half‑life and how much energy the radiating particle gets. Nuclei flit between quantum energy levels just like atoms and molecules do, except a spectrum of alpha or beta particles is a different game from the light‑wave spectrum. Tell me a radiated particle’s energy and I can probably tell you which isotope spat it out and disappeared.”

“Your ladder rungs are Cheshire Cat grins.”

~~ Rich Olcott

The Not-so-dangerous Banana

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Techniques, Physics: Quantum Mechanics, UncategorizedLeave a comment

“Y’know, Cathleen, both our ladders boil down to time. Your Astronomy ladder connects objects at different times in the history of the Universe. My Geology ladder looks back into the Solar System’s history.”

“As an astronomer I normally think of parsecs or lightyear distances but you have a point, Kareem. Edwin Hubble linked astronomical space with time. Come to think of it, my cosmologist colleagues work almost exclusively in the time domain, like ‘T=0 plus a few lumptiseconds.’ Billions of years down to that teeny time interval — how does your time ladder compare?”

“Lumptiseconds out to a hundred trillion times the age of the Universe. I win.”

“C’mon, Kareem.”

“No, really, Sy. My ladder uses isotopes. Every carbon atom has 6 protons in the nucleus, right? Carbon‑12 adds 6 neutrons and it’s stable but another isotope, carbon‑14, has 8 neutrons. It’s radioactive — spits out an electron and becomes stable nitrogen‑14 with 7 and 7. Really heavy isotopes like uranium‑238 spit out alpha particles.”

“Wait, if carbon‑14 spits out an electron doesn’t that make it a carbon ion?”

“Uh‑uh, Cathleen, the electron comes out of the nucleus, not the electron cloud. It’s got a hundred thousand times more energy than a chemical kick could give it. Sy could explain—”

“Nice try, Kareem, this is your geologic time story. Let’s stay with that.”

“If I must. So, the stable isotopes last forever, pretty much, but the radioactive ones are ticking bombs with random detonation times.”

“What’s doing the ticking? Surely there’s no springs or pendulums in there.”

“Quantum, Cathleen. Sy’s trying to stay out of this so I’ll give you my outsider answer. I picture every kind of subatomic particle constantly trying to leave every nucleus, butting their little heads bazillions of times a second against walls set up by the weak and strong nuclear forces. Nearly every try is a bounce‑back, but one success is enough to break the nucleus. Every isotope has its own personal set of parameters for each kind of particle — wall height, wall thickness, something like an internal temperature ruling how hard the particles hit the walls. The ticking is those head‑butts; the randomness comes from quantum’s goofy rules somehow. How’s that, Sy?”

Chart by Sjlegg, licensed under CC S-A 3.0 unported

“Good enough for jazz, Kareem. Carry on.”

“Right. So every kind of radioisotope is characterized by what kinds of particle it emits, how much energy each kind has after busting through a wall, and how often that happens in a given sample size. And the isotope’s chemistry, of course, which is the same as every other isotope that has the same number of protons. The general rule is that the stable isotopes have maybe a few more neutrons than protons but nearly every element has some unstable isotopes. The ones with too many neutrons, like carbon‑14, emit electrons as beta particles. They go up a square in the Periodic Table. Too few and they drop down by emitting a positron.”

“All those radioactive stand‑ins for normal atoms. Sounds ghastly. Why are we still here and not all burnt up?”

“First, when one of these atoms decays by itself it’s a lot of energy for that one atom, but the energy spreads out as heat across many atoms. Unless a bunch of atoms crumble at about the same time, there’s only a tiny bit of general heating. The major biological danger from radioactivity comes from spit‑out particles breaking protein or DNA molecules.”

“Mutated, not burnt.”

“Mm‑hm. Second, the radioactives are generally rare relative to their stable siblings. In many cases that’s because the bad guys, like aluminum‑26, have had time to decay to near‑zero. That banana you’re eating has about half a gram of potassium atoms but only 0.012% are unstable potassium‑40. Third, an isotope with a long half‑life doesn’t lose many atoms per unit time. A kilogram of tellurium‑128, for instance, loses 2000 atoms per year. The potassium‑40 in your banana has a half‑life of nearly 2 million years. Overall, it releases only about 1300 beta particles per second producing less than a nanowatt of heat‑you‑up power. Not to worry.”

“Two million years? How do you measure something that slow?”

~~ Rich Olcott

EROs Atop A Ladder

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Techniques, UncategorizedLeave a comment

“‘That’s where the argument started‘? That’s right up there with ‘Then the murders began.’ Cathleen Cliff‑hanger strikes again.”

<giggling> “Gotcha, Sy, just like always. Sorry, Kareem, we’ve had this thing since we were kids.”

“Don’t mind me, but do tell him what’s awry with the top of your galactic distance ladder.”

“I need to fill you in first about the ladder’s framework. We know the distances to special ‘standard candles’ scattered across the Universe, but there’s oodles of other objects that aren’t special that way. We can’t know their distances unless we can tie them to the candles somehow. Distance was Edwin Hubble’s big thing. Twenty years after Henrietta Swan Leavitt identified one kind of candle, Hubble studied the light from them. The farthest spectra were stretched more than the closest ones. Better yet, there was a strict relationship between the amount of stretch, we call it the z factor, and the candle’s distance. Turns out that everything at the intergalactic scale is getting farther from everything else. He didn’t call that expansion the Hubble Flow but we do. It comes to about 7% per billion lightyears distance. z connects candle spectrum, object spectrum and object distance. That lets us calibrate successive overlapping steps on the distance ladder, one candle type to the next one.”

“A constant growth rate — that’s exponential, by definition. Like compound interest. The higher it gets, it gets even higher faster.”

“Right, Kareem, except that in the past quarter-century we’ve realized that Hubble was an optimist. The latest data suggests the expansion he discovered is accelerating. We don’t know why but dark energy might have something to do with it. But that’s another story.”

“Cathleen, you said the distance ladder’s top rung had something to do with surface brightness. Surface of what?”

“Galaxies. Stars come at all levels of brightness. You can confirm that visually, at least if you’re in a good dark‑sky area. But a galaxy has billions of stars. When we assess brightness for a galaxy as a whole, the brightest stars make up for the dimmest ones. On the average it’ll look like a bunch of average stars. The idea is that the apparent brightness of some galaxy tells you roughly how many average stars it holds. In turn, that gives you a rough estimate of the galaxy’s mass — our final step up the mass ladder. Well, except for gravitational lensing, but that’s another story.”

“So what’s wrong with that candle?”

“We didn’t think anything was wrong until recently. Do you remember that spate of popular science news stories a year ago about giant galaxies near the beginning of time when they had no business to exist yet?”

“Yeah, there was a lot of noise about we’ll have to revise our theories about how the Universe evolved from the Big Bang, but the articles I saw didn’t have much detail. From what you’ve said so far, let me guess. These were new galaxy sightings, so probably from James Webb Space Telescope data. JWST is good at infra‑red so they must have been looking at severely stretched starlight—”

“z-factor near 8″

“— so near 13 billion lightyears old, but the ‘surface brightness’ standard candle led the researchers to claim their galaxies held some ridiculous number of stars for that era, at least according to current theory. How’d I do?”

“Good guess, Sy. That’s where things stood for almost a year until scientists did what scientists do. A different research group looking at even more data as part of a larger project came up with a simpler explanation. Using additional data from JWST and several other sources, the group concentrated on the most massive galaxies, starting with low‑z recent ones and working back to z=9. Along the way they found some EROs — Extremely Red Objects where a blast of infra‑red boosts their normal starlight brightness. The researchers attribute the blast to hot dust associated with a super‑massive black hole at each ERO’s center. The blast makes an ERO appear more massive than it really is. Guess what? The first report’s ‘ridiculously massive’ early galaxies were EROs. Can’t have them in that top rung.”

“Kareem, how about the rungs on your ladder?”

~~ Rich Olcott

One Step After Another

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Techniques, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Mid-afternoon, time for a coffee break. As I enter Cal’s shop, I see Cathleen and Kareem chuckling together behind a jumble of Cal’s distinctive graph‑lined paper napkins. “What’s the topic of conversation, guys?”

“Hi, Sy. Kareem and I are comparing ladders.”

I look around, don’t see anything that looks like construction equipment.

“Not that kind, Sy. What’s your definition of a ladder?”

“Getting down to definitions, eh, Kareem? Okay, it’s a framework with steps you can climb up towards something you can’t reach.”

“Well, there you go.”

“Not much help, Cathleen. What are you really bantering about?”

“Each of our fields of study has a framework with steps that let us measure something that’d be way out of reach without it.”

“You’ll appreciate this, Sy — our ladders even use different math. The steps on Cathleen’s ladder are mostly linear, mine are mostly exponential.”

“And they’re both finicky — you have to be really careful when using them.”

“And they’ve both recently had adjustments at the top end.”

“I can see the fun, I think. How about some specifics?”

They exchange a look, Kareem gestures ‘after you‘ and Cathleen opens. “Mine’s in astrometry, Sy, the precise recording of relative positions. Tycho Brahe’s numbers were good to a few dozen arcseconds—”

“Arcsecond?”

“1/60 of an arcminute which is 1/60 of a degree which is 1/360 of a full circle around the sky. Good enough in Newton’s day for him to explain planetary orbits, but we’ve come <ahem> a long way since then. The Gaia telescope mission can resolve certain objects down to a few microarcseconds but that’s only half the problem.”

“Let me guess — you have angles but you don’t have distances.”

“Bingo. Distance is astrometry’s biggest challenge.”

“Wait, Newton’s Law of Gravity includes r as the distance between objects. For that matter, Kepler’s Laws use r² and r³. Couldn’t you juggle them around to evaluate r?”

“Nope. Kepler did ratios, not absolute values. Newton’s Law has r² but you can rewrite it as F ² = GMm/r² = G(M/r)(m/r), G times the product of two mass‑to‑distance ratios. Newton’s G is our least‑accurate physical constant and we don’t have good handles on either of those numerators. Before space flight we just had mass ratios like M/m. We only discovered the Moon’s absolute mass when we orbited it with spacecraft of known mass. That’s the lowest rung on our mass ladder. Inside the Solar System we go step by step with orbit ratios. Outside the system everything’s measured relative to Solar mass.”

“I’m getting the ladder idea. So how do you distances?”

“Lowest rung is parallax, like binocular vision. You look at something from two different points a known distance apart. Measure the angle between the sight‑lines. Figure the triangles to get the something’s distance. The earliest example I know of was in the mid‑1700s when astrometers thousands of miles apart on Earth watched Venus cross the Sun’s disk. Each recorded the precise time they saw Venus touch the Sun’s disk. Given the time shift and the on‑Earth distance, some trigonometry gave them the Earth‑Venus distance. That put a scale to Newtonian orbital diagrams. Parallax across the width of Earth’s orbit yielded stellar distances out to thousands of lightyears with Hubble. We expect ten times better from Gaia.”

“That gets you maybe across the Milky Way. What about farther out?”

“Several ingenious variations on the parallax idea, but mostly standard candles.”

“Candles?”

“Suppose you measure the brightness of a candle that’s a known distance away and there’s an equally luminous candle some unknown distance away. Measured brightness falls as the square of the distance, so if the second candle appears half as bright it’s four times the distance and so on. Climbing the cosmic distance ladder is going from one kind of uniformly‑luminous candle to another kind farther away.”

“Such as?”

“We know how brightness relates to bright‑dim‑bright cycle time for several types of variable stars. That gets us out to 30 million lightyears or so. Type I‑a supernovas act as useful candles out to a billion lightyears. Beyond that we can use galaxy surface brightness. That’s where the recent argument started.”

~ Rich Olcott

  • Thanks to Ken Burke for mentioning tellurium‑128’s septillion‑year half‑life.

A Virial Homework Problem

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Techniques, Physics: Entropy and Thermodynamics, Uncategorized1 Comment

“Uh, Mr Moire? Would you mind if we used Old Reliable to do the calculations on this problem about the galaxy cluster’s Virial?”

Data extracted and re-scaled from Fig 2 of Smith (1936), The Mass of the Virgo Cluster

“Mm, only if you direct the computation, Jeremy. I want to be able to face Professor Hanneken with a clear conscience if your name ever comes up in the conversation. Where do we start?”

“With the data he printed here on the other side of the problem sheet. Old Reliable can scan it in, right?”

“Certainly. What are the columns?”

“The first one’s clear. The second column is the distance between the galaxy and the center of the cluster. Professor Hanneken said the published data was in degrees but he converted that to kiloparsecs to get past a complication of some sort. The third column is, umm, ‘the relative line‑of‑sight velocity.’ I understand the line‑of‑sight part, but the numbers don’t look relativistic.”

“You’re right, they’re much smaller than lightspeed’s 300,000 km/s. I’m sure the author was referring to each galaxy’s motion relative to the other ones. That’s what the Virial’s about, after all. I’ll bet John also subtracted the cluster’s average velocity from each of the measured values because we don’t care about how the galaxies move relative to us. Okay, we’ve scanned your data. What do we do next?”

“Chart it, please, in a scatter plot. That’s always the first thing I do.”

“Wise choice. Here you go. What do we learn from this?”

“On the whole it looks pretty flat. Both fast and slow speeds are spread across the whole cluster. If the whole cluster’s rotating we’d see faster galaxies near the center but we don’t. They’re all moving randomly so the Virial idea should apply, right?”

“Mm-hm. Does it bother you that we’re only looking at motion towards or away from us?”

“Uhh, I hadn’t thought about that. You’re right, galaxy movements across the sky would be way too slow for us to detect. I guess the slowest ones here could actually be moving as fast as the others but they’re going crosswise. How do we correct for that?”

“Won’t need much adjustment. The measured numbers probably skew low but the average should be correct within a factor of 2. What’s next?”

“Let’s do the kinetic energy piece T. That’d be the average of galaxy mass m times v²/2 for each galaxy. But we don’t know the masses. For that matter, the potential energy piece, V=G·M·m/R, also needs galaxy mass.”

“If you divide each piece by m you get specific energy, joules/kilogram of galaxy. That’s the same as (km/s)². Does that help?”

“Cool. So have Old Reliable calculate v²/2 for each galaxy, then take the average.”

“We get 208,448 J/kg, which is too many significant figures but never mind. Now what?”

“Twice T would be 416,896 which the Virial Theorem says equals the specific potential energy. That’d be Newton’s G times the cluster mass M divided by the average distance R. Wait, we don’t know M but we do know everything else so we can find M. And dividing that by the galaxy count would be average mass per galaxy. So take the average of all the R distances, times the 416,896 number, and divide that by G.”

“What units do you want G in?”

“Mmm… To cancel the units right we need J/kg times parsecs over … can we do solar masses? That’d be easier to think about than kilograms.”

“Old Reliable says G = 4.3×10-3 (J/kg)·pc/Mʘ. Also, the average R is … 890,751 parsecs. Calculating M=v²·R/G … says M is about 90 trillion solar masses. With 29 galaxies the average is around 3 trillion solar masses give or take a couple of factors of 2 or so.”

“But that’s a crazy number, Mr Moire. The Milky Way only has 100 billion stars.”

“Sometimes when the numbers are crazy, we’ve done something wrong. Sometimes the numbers tell us something. These numbers mutter ‘dark matter‘ but in the 1930s only Fritz Zwicky was listening.”

~~ Rich Olcott

  • Thanks again to Dr KaChun Yu for pointing out Sinclair Smith’s 1936 paper. Naturally, any errors in this post are my own.

Cal’s Gallery

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Techniques, Physics: Black Holes and Relativity, UncategorizedLeave a comment

“Goodness, Cal, you’ve redone your interior decorations.”

“I got tired of looking at the blank wall opposite the cash register, Sy. Check out the gallery. Way at the end here’s the earliest one I’ve got, goes back to 2005.”

“Yeah, ray-marching each background pixel as it passed through the distorting gravity field. That was heavy-duty computer graphics back then.”

“A Black Hole of ten solar masses as seen from a distance of 600km with the Milky Way in the background” — by Ute Kraus, Universität Hildesheim.
Under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Germany license

“Here’s another one from a year later. I like it better because you can pair up stars and stuff that show up on both sides of the Einstein ring.”

“Simulated view of a black hole in front of the Large Magellanic Cloud… Of note is the gravitational lensing effect known as an Einstein ring, which produces a set of two fairly bright and large but highly distorted images of the Cloud as compared to its actual angular size.”
— by R. Alain, Paris Astrophysics Institute
under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license

“This one’s famous, comin’ from the Interstellar movie. Funny, I can’t think of any black hole pictures before Interstellar that paid much attention to the accretion disk.”

“There certainly was a lot of that in the specialist literature, but you’re probably right for what leaked out to the pop‑sci press. Most of the published imagery was about how the gravity field distorts the figures behind it. That perpendicular handle was certainly a surprise.”

“Gargantua, the extreme stellar black hole in the movie Interstellar”
Grey disk is the Event Horizon; circle is the Photon Sphere.
Adapted from work by Thorne, James, et al., CalTech and DNEG

“This one’s famous, too. It shows what made the first good evidence that black holes are a thing, back in 1965. That ball to the right is a blue supergiant. See how its solar wind is feeding into X-1’s accretion disk? NASA’s picture is from 2017 so it’s not really historical or anything.”

“Cygnus X-1 Illustration“
Credit: NASA, CXC, Melissa Weiss (CXC)

“Now this one is historical, Cal. That image was released in 2019 from data collected in 2017.”

“I knew you’d recognize it, Sy. You’ve written about it enough.”

Initial image of Messier 87* — by the ESO EHT team
licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license

<sly grin> “Whaddya think of this one, Sy, the gravitational waves from those two black holes that LIGO told us about?”

“You knew I wouldn’t like it.”

“The final waltz of two black holes” – click for video
Credit: R. Hurt – Caltech / JPL

“It’s just another trampoline picture, right?”

“No, it’s worse than that. Gravitational waves travel at lightspeed. Massive objects like people and 30‑solar‑mass black holes can’t get up to a fraction of a percent of lightspeed without expending an enormous amount of energy. The waves travel outward much faster than objects can orbit each other, even up to the end. Those waves winding outward should be nearly straight.”

“Whoa, Cal, this one isn’t a poster, it’s a monitor screen.”

“I bought a new bigger flat‑screen for home so I brought the old small one here for videos. I like how this movie shows the complicated shape flattening out when you get above the disk. The Interstellar movie made everyone think the disk is some weird double‑handled ring but the handle’s aren’t really there.”

“Mm‑hm, very nice gravity‑lens demonstration. Notice how the ring’s bright in whichever side’s coming toward us whether we’re above or below it?”

“Circling over a black hole structure” — Click for video
Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Jeremy Schnittman

“No, I hadn’t. Cool. How come?”

“It’s called relativistic Doppler beaming. Time distortion is significant in the close‑in parts of the ring. That affects how we see the flow. In the hole’s frame of reference the brightness and rotation speed are the same all around. In our frame the moving‑closer particles look brighter because they emit more photons per unit of our time. Another one of those unexpected phenomena where physicists say, ‘Of course!’ as soon as they see it but not before.”

~~ Rich Olcott

The Ultimate Pinhole Camera

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Techniques, Physics: Black Holes and Relativity, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Neither Kareem nor I are much for starting conversations. We’re more the responder type so the poker hands we dealt went pretty quickly. Cathleen had a topic, though. “Speaking of black holes and polarized radio waves, I just read a paper claiming to have developed a 3‑dimensional movie of an event wider than Mercury’s orbit, all from the flickering of a single pixel.”

Eddie bets big, for him. Ten chips. “That’s a lot to ask from just a dot. And what’s polarization got to do with it?”

Cal folds but pipes up anyway. “What was the event?”

“You know Sagittarius A*, the supermassive black hole in the middle of our galaxy?”

“Yeah, one of those orange‑ring pictures.”

“Mm‑hm. Based on radio‑wave emissions from its accretion disk. That image came from a 2‑day Event Horizon Telescope study in 2017. Well, four days after that data was taken, the Chandra satellite observatory saw an X‑ray flare from the same region. The ALMA radio telescope team immediately checked the location. ALMA has excellent signal‑to‑noise and time‑resolution capabilities but it’s only one observatory, not world‑wide like the EHT. The EHT can resolve objects a hundred thousand times closer together than ALMA’s limit. But the team did a lot with what they had.”

Vinnie tends to bet big, maybe because he’s always skeptical. Fifteen chips. “You said ‘claiming‘ like there’s doubt. People don’t trust the data?”

“In science there’s always doubt. In this case, no‑one doubts the data — ALMA’s been providing good observations for over a decade. The doubt’s in the completely new AI‑driven data reduction technique the team used. Is what they did valid? Could their results have been affected by a ‘hallucination’ bug?”

Vinnie doesn’t let go. “What did they do, what have people been doing, and what’s hallucination?”

Susan reluctantly shoves fifteen chips into the pot. “Hallucination is an AI making up stuff. I just encountered that in a paper I’m reviewing. There’s a long paragraph that starts off okay but midway it goes off on a tangent quoting numbers that aren’t in the data. I don’t believe the submitting authors even read what they sent in.”

Kareem drops out of the betting but stays in the conversation. “For a lot of science, curve‑fitting’s a standard practice. You optimize a model’s parameters against measured data. X‑ray crystallography, for example. The atoms in a good crystal are arranged in a regular lattice, right? We send a narrow beam of X‑rays at the crystal and record the intensity reflected at hundreds of angles by the atoms in different lattice planes. Inside the computer we build a parameterized model of the crystal where the parameters are the x‑, y‑ and z‑coordinates of each atom. We have computer routines that convert a given set of configuration parameters into predicted reflection intensity at each observation angle. Curve‑fitting programs cycle through the routines, adjusting parameters until the predictions match the experimental data. The final parameter values give us the atomic structure of the crystal.”

“There’s a lot of that in astrophysics and cosmology, too. This new AI technique stands that strategy on its head. The researchers started with well‑understood physics outside of the event horizon — hot rotating accretion disk, strong magnetic field mostly perpendicular to that, spacetime distortion thanks to General Relativity — and built 50,000 in‑computer examples of what that would look like from a distance.”

“Why so many?”

“The examples had to cover one or two supposed flares of different sizes and brightness at different points in their orbits, plus noise from the accretion disk’s radiation, all from a range of viewpoint angles. Mind you, each example’s only output was a single signal intensity and polarization angle (that’s two dimensions) for that specific set of disk and flare configuration parameters. The team used the example suite to train an AI specialized for assembling 2‑dimensional visual data into a 3‑dimensional model. The AI identified significant patterns in those 50,000 simulated signals. Then the team confronted the trained AI with 100 minutes of real single‑pixel data. It generated this…”

Click through to video, from Levis, et al.

“Curve‑fitting but we don’t know the curves!”

“True, Sy, but the AI does.”

“Maybe.”

~ Rich Olcott