Get Regular Updates!
Search
|Why are astronomers deleting galaxies from their data?

Space

image|

Rockwell McGellin / ESO

Why are astronomers deleting galaxies from their data?

Why are astronomers deleting galaxies from their data?

And how could it help with the hunt for the oldest stars in the universe?

Why are astronomers deleting galaxies from their data?

Galaxies are bright. Some astronomers, in fact, would say they’re too bright.

There’s a signal hiding at the back of the sky which could hold the clue to to the very first stars in the universe.

But to see it properly, we’ve got to get rid of what’s in front – and that means scrubbing out some stars.

Hey now, you’re an old star

The signal they’re hunting for is from one of the earliest eras in the universe’s history: the epoch of re-ionisation.

“It’s a huge chunk of our cosmological model that we’ve not been able to observe,” says Dr Jack Line, a researcher at Curtin University working with ICRAR and ASTRO3D.

“We don’t know exactly when it started. We don’t know how long it took. And it was the seed for all of the galaxies and all the interesting stuff that we see in the universe.

About 13 billion years ago, just a billion years after the Big Bang, the universe was a big soup of hydrogen gas. That gas emitted a glow, but it wasn’t spread out evenly. Some clumps were denser than others. Slowly, under the force of gravity, the dense parts snowballed into the very first stars.

View Larger
Image|ASTRO3D
The further out astronomers look into the universe, the further back in time they see – and if they look back far enough, they expect to see the bubbles around the first stars.

The stars themselves are too old and too faint to spot, but they did leave traces behind.

Akin to the way that supernovas carve out gaps in the gas around our own galaxy, those early stars blew bubbles in the gas around them by pumping out UV radiation and X-rays.

You’ll never shine if you don’t glow

So that’s what astronomers are looking for: gaps in the glow of first gas in the universe.

“If we had a perfect instrument that was extremely sensitive, we could map it,” says Jack.

“It would kind of look like slices of Swiss cheese on the sky.”

View Larger
Image|NASA / Hubble Space Telescope
Meet Fornax A, a radio wave-emitting galaxy, and our victim for today.

But the signal is faint, and there’s an entire universe of modern day galaxies in front of it. And, just to make things harder, those galaxies happen to emit the exact same frequencies through different processes.

“They’re totally in the way. It’s like trying to listen to a really, really quiet sound with someone with a foghorn in your face,” says Jack.

Judging by the hole in the telescope picture

So to spot the bubbles, astronomers have to strip out everything else, leaving the glow of the hydrogen. That’s harder than it sounds, because – as you may be aware – there are a lot of galaxies out there.

View Larger
Image|Rockwell McGellin  / ESO
Sadly, it’s not as easy as just firing up Photoshop and hitting delete – Jack needs the ‘layers’ behind the galaxies intact.

If you leave a galaxy you should have deleted, it leaves a bright spot in your data. That could be covering up some quality bubbles.

“But if you do the subtraction incorrectly,” says Jack,” you’ve sort of artificially blown a hole in the sky.”

That, annoyingly, could also end up hiding the bubbles.

Before processing, the galaxy Fornax A dominates the data. . Credit: Dr Jack Line / ASTRO3D View Larger
Image |

Dr Jack Line / ASTRO3D

Before processing, the galaxy Fornax A dominates the data.
After processing, the faint pattern behind the galaxy is visible. . Credit: Dr Jack Line / ASTRO3D View Larger
Image |

Dr Jack Line / ASTRO3D

After processing, the faint pattern behind the galaxy is visible.

What’s the sharpest tool in the shed?

Jack’s job is to figure out the best tool to use to delete galaxies out of images.

One method, called peeling, involves taking a map of the sky and having a computer carefully match everything up before deleting it. That produces a great result, but takes far more computing power.

“You have to let the machine sit there and spin its wheels and try and work all of the stuff out. So you can’t do as many subtractions, which means you don’t remove as much of the power that’s in the way of the signal,” says Jack.

Astronomers have been doing peeling for years. Typically, it removes around a thousand of the brightest objects from the data.

Carefully peeling each object doesn’t remove as many galaxies … . Credit: Dr Jack Line / ASTRO3D View Larger
Image |

Dr Jack Line / ASTRO3D

Carefully peeling each object doesn’t remove as many galaxies …
… but is also less likely to ‘blow a hole in the sky’ if the model isn’t quite right. . Credit: Dr Jack Line / ASTRO3D View Larger
Image |

Dr Jack Line / ASTRO3D

… but is also less likely to ‘blow a hole in the sky’ if the model isn’t quite right.

“The other method is to give the computer a map, and it just removes it,” says Jack.

Rather than carefully lining everything up one object at a time, the computer removes the whole sky at once without checking.

“It knows something should be this bright, it should be exactly here …

“And bang, it’s just going to destroy it.”

To do that, the computer needs a really accurate model of the sky, like the ones built by Jack’s colleagues working on the MWA.

Image|

ICRAR

If you want to find the oldest stars in the universe, you’re going to need a bigger map.

If you want to find the oldest stars in the universe, you’re going to need a bigger map.

“Building a sky model to work out what to subtract is very difficult because the instruments that we use don’t just take a picture. We actually have to do a ton of maths to make a picture.”

“So how well you can make that image, and how much you trust it, it is a massive first step.”

So much to do, so much to see

So far it’s not clear which method is best.

“I know my gut tells me that at least for the next couple of months, the peeling is definitely going to be winning,” says Jack.

“In saying that, if we can make our sky model accurate enough, I think the fact that we’re going to be subtracting 200,000 sources instead of 1000 … if we can do it well enough, I reckon it will be better.

“But that’s the fun thing about research, you don’t know until you try it.”

Particle Puns

Republish

Creative Commons Logo

Republishing our content

We want our stories to be shared and seen by as many people as possible.

Therefore, unless it says otherwise, copyright on the stories on Particle belongs to Scitech and they are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This allows you to republish our articles online or in print for free. You just need to credit us and link to us, and you can’t edit our material or sell it separately.

Using the ‘republish’ button on our website is the easiest way to meet our guidelines.

Guidelines

You cannot edit the article.

When republishing, you have to credit our authors, ideally in the byline. You have to credit Particle with a link back to the original publication on Particle.

If you’re republishing online, you must use our pageview counter, link to us and include links from our story. Our page view counter is a small pixel-ping (invisible to the eye) that allows us to know when our content is republished. It’s a condition of our guidelines that you include our counter. If you use the ‘republish’ then you’ll capture our page counter.

If you’re republishing in print, please email us to let us so we know about it (we get very proud to see our work republished) and you must include the Particle logo next to the credits. Download logo here.

If you wish to republish all our stories, please contact us directly to discuss this opportunity.

Images

Most of the images used on Particle are copyright of the photographer who made them.

It is your responsibility to confirm that you’re licensed to republish images in our articles.

Video

All Particle videos can be accessed through YouTube under the Standard YouTube Licence.

The Standard YouTube licence

  1. This licence is ‘All Rights Reserved’, granting provisions for YouTube to display the content, and YouTube’s visitors to stream the content. This means that the content may be streamed from YouTube but specifically forbids downloading, adaptation, and redistribution, except where otherwise licensed. When uploading your content to YouTube it will automatically use the Standard YouTube licence. You can check this by clicking on Advanced Settings and looking at the dropdown box ‘License and rights ownership’.
  2. When a user is uploading a video he has license options that he can choose from. The first option is “standard YouTube License” which means that you grant the broadcasting rights to YouTube. This essentially means that your video can only be accessed from YouTube for watching purpose and cannot be reproduced or distributed in any other form without your consent.

Contact

For more information about using our content, email us: particle@scitech.org.au

Copy this HTML into your CMS
Press Ctrl+C to copy

We've got chemistry. Want something physical?