You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘astronomy’ category.

A little astro art for today: as part of my analysis of stellar orbits of ultracool subdwarfs (presented at the 214th American Astronomical Society meeting in Pasadena, CA), I decided to try computing and visualizing the orbits of nearly 500 L-type dwarfs from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) based on kinematic data produced by Sarah Schmidt – you know, just for fun.

The orbits were generated by assuming that the gravitational potential of our Galaxy can be described by smooth, azimuthally symmetric functions (so-called “Plummer spheres“) that describe the thin disk, thick disk, halo and bulge populations of our Galaxy (see this link for good technical discussion of such models).  I then use a simple numerical integrator (Runge-Kutta model) and the initial position and velocity vectors from Sarah’s work, to pre- and post-dict the orbits of these stars 500 million years into the past and future.

Each individual orbit is really a rough estimate of the star’s true path; uncertainties in the current distance and motion of the star, and the simplistic model used for the Galaxy, means that errors can creep up within a single Galactic orbit (about 200 million years for the Sun).  However, a statistical picture of the entire population can be realized from this exercise.  Stars are born from massive molecular clouds that typically have circular orbits in the plane of the Galactic disk.  As stellar populations age, random encounters and secular disturbances can “puff” up their orbits to higher eccentricities and inclinations.  This is visually apparent in an orbital plot.


This first figure shows the orbits as viewed from above. Note that the bulk of the stars fill an annulus, the outer edge of which is near the radius of the Sun’s Galactic orbit (our local neighborhood).  Most of the stars in our area are coming from regions interior to this radius, rather than from the outer Galaxy, although a few L dwarfs do have pretty wide orbits (some off the projected area). At least one L dwarf gets within 1 kpc (3000 light years) of the center of the Galaxy.


This next image shows the same orbits, but now seen from the side along the edge of the Galactic plane.  Again, we see that most of the orbits are bunched up into a band about 200 pc (600 light-years) in thickness – this is the “thin disk”.  There is a loose skin of more inclined orbits that looks like a “thick” disk, and then a few L dwarfs that have crazy inclined orbits taking them thousands of light-years above or below the Galactic plane.  A being standing on a planet around one of these stars 100 million years ago would have had a tremendous view of the Milky Way Galaxy!


This last image is my favorite, showing the same orbits but in a cylindrical projection: radial distance from the center of the Galaxy (at left) versus vertical distance below or above the plane.  Families of orbits become quickly evident, occupying “boxes” in this diagram, the result of the symmetry of the gravitational potential used.  The outer borders are defined by the total mechanical energy of the star, which is primarily set by the star’s local speed; the inner borders are defined by the angular momentum of the star.  Thus, these two parameters – energy and angular momentum – are the two most important when working with symmetric potentials.  These are the two quantities that best define planetary orbits around the Sun.

I found this to be a beautiful way of visualizing a fairly complex dataset, while illustrating the underlying orbital physics (as well as the assumptions made in the calculation).  It’s also just beautiful, appearing as a dragonfly with meaty body and gossamer wings, a remarkably synergy between biological and astronomical systems.

This image was awarded 2nd prize in the 2011 Art in Science competition conducted by the UCSD Library (some of the other winners can be seen here).  Who knew celestial mechanics can be both interesting and pleasing!


Early this month, we had our first commissioning run of the Folded Port Infrared Echellette, or FIRE, a near-infrared spectrograph designed for the Magellan Telescopes.  After a two-week installation period in late February/early March led by the instrument PI Rob Simcoe, FIRE team members John Bochanski and Matt Smith from MIT and Craig McMurtry from U. Rochester, and Magellan engineers (I missed all the action, teaching 250 students Physics 1), FIRE was ready to view the sky for a week-long commissioning run starting March 28th.

Early results have been spectacular.  A few of the image frames from the first week are shown below.  The high quantum efficiency and low readnoise of the Teledyne Hawaii 2RG detectors, and the excellent image quality of the Baade Telescope, has resulted in higher sensitivity than originally planned.   In the echelle mode, Rob has estimated roughly 20-25% efficiency, including telescope and slit losses, and a nearly-flat zero point of 16-17 AB magnitudes (1 count/sec/pixel) across the 0.85-2.4 micron range.  In plain language, this means we can observe very faint sources – such as a the coldest brown dwarfs and highest redshift quasars – with the echelle mode’s moderate resolution (λ/Δλ ≈ 6000).  The prism-dispersed mode has also proven very sensitive, and we’ve been able to follow-up several J ≈ 19-20 cold brown dwarf candidates from WISE with relative ease.  Look for first science results in the literature soon!

Read the rest of this entry »

Demographic breakdown of our survey sample

We have finally finished writing up the results for our survey on perceptions of appropriate behavior between students and advisors for the 2009 Women in Astronomy and Space Science Meeting.  It was quite an effort – 10 scenarios, 579 respondents and over 2000 comments have been merged into a poster (presented at the conference) and a four-page write-up for the conference proceedings.  All the details can be found at:

A short summary of our results:

  1. Perceptions of appropriateness vary considerably in the astronomical community at all levels, even for situations that might be deemed “obvious”.
  2. Perceptions of appropriateness vary with age and professional status, with younger astronomers and those at earlier stages in their careers (students, postdocs) typically viewing behaviors as more appropriate.  In particular, there were frequently differences in perceptions of appropriateness between students and advisors.
  3. On average, scenarios were seen as more inappropriate for student/advisor pairs with different genders than pairs with the same genders. Given that female students are less likely to have a same-gender advisor than male students (see my last blog post on this), this trend may have a negative affect on young women’s student/advisor relationships.
  4. Our survey attracted a small fraction (8%) of highly negative and fearful criticism, overwhelmingly from men.  There unfortunately appears to be continued resistance to open discussion of appropriate behaviors between students and advisors.

Comments are welcome!


Genders of advisors and their students in our survey. These numbers are based on the 2959 students that 252 respondents reported they had advised over the past 5 years. The students are separated by education level (high school through postdoctoral) and gender (green for female, yellow for male), while the bar graphs indicate the fraction of students in each subgroup advised by a male or female (total numbers of students in each subgroup are listed outside each bar). The fraction of female students advised by female advisors decreases with later educational levels, as low as 26% at the postdoctoral level. Male students, on the other hand, are advised by male advisors 65-74% of the time.

I’m currently completing the write-up for a study Jacqueline Faherty and I did for the Women in Astronomy 2009 conference this past October, looking at perceptions of inappropriate behavior between students and advisors in astronomy (see the next blog post).  We polled 579 students, researchers, teachers, staff and other astronomy affiliates as part of an online survey to examine how perceptions of behavior change according to gender, age, professional status, etc.  Our results (when we’re finished writing them up!) will eventually be posted here.

In the course of analyzing the mounds of biographical data we collected from our respondents, there was one thing I realized we could look at: who is advising our female students? One of the issues that continually comes up in addressing the disparity in gender representation in professional astronomy is the problem that female students are less likely to have a female advisor.  I realized that with our survey data we could actually measure this, as we explicitly asked respondents who indicated that they were advisors how many students they had advised over the past five years, and what the genders of those students are.  By matching these statistics with the gender of the respondents, we get a measure of the gender match between students and advisors in astronomy overall.

Read the rest of this entry »

The FIRE spectrograph

The FIRE spectrograph in the MIT lab, cooling down for testing

Today we obtained our first lab images with the Folded Port Infrared Echellette, or FIRE, spectrograph.  This instrument is being built by Rob Simcoe, myself, Paul Schechter, John Bochanski, Jason Fishner and Matt Smith at MIT; Criag McMurtry, Judy Pipher and Bill Forrest at U. Rochester; and Rebecca Bernstein and Bruce Bigelow at UC Santa Cruz.  FIRE is a near-infrared spectrograph that will be installed at the Magellan Telescopes, Las Campanas Observatory, hopefully in January 2010.

Read the rest of this entry »

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 11 other followers


Blog Stats

  • 152,372 hits