CephC-LABS Question log - Revision history

Rebull at 22:56, 14 March 2017

2017-03-14T22:56:57Z

Rebull at 22:53, 14 March 2017

2017-03-14T22:53:56Z

Rebull at 22:53, 14 March 2017

2017-03-14T22:53:43Z

Rebull: /* (Questions for march 15) */

2017-03-14T22:53:25Z

(Questions for march 15)

Rebull at 22:52, 14 March 2017

2017-03-14T22:52:23Z

Rebull at 15:40, 8 March 2017

2017-03-08T15:40:54Z

Rebull at 15:40, 8 March 2017

2017-03-08T15:40:43Z

Rebull at 15:30, 8 March 2017

2017-03-08T15:30:20Z

Rebull at 00:07, 8 March 2017

2017-03-08T00:07:39Z

Rebull: /* Questions for March 8 */

2017-03-08T00:07:24Z

Questions for March 8

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 #Using the same syntax I would for a journal article: Orr, L., et al., 2017, AAS, 229, 241.10 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AAS...22924110O)
 #While the proposal is being reviewed, we'll get started on Resolution issues - we'll talk more about this tomorrow. When the proposal comes back, we'll spend a telecon talking about the comments we got back and what edits we should use, then we can return to Resolution stuff or whatever else we've decided to work on at that point.
 =Questions for March 8=

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 I've added a bunch of videos on these and other topics to this playlist, called Ceph-C-LABS Useful Movies: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjCjDYabTFm__Fuztj285MWlU8shak1WI
 Hopefully at least some of them are useful.
-#Not really. Only sort of. Lots of Excel functionality is missing. One year when I had a team whose kids were using Google Sheets instead of Excel, that was one of the top lessons learned that they mentioned - don't use Sheets for the Summer visit. Since everyone is already using different versions of Excel, there are already going to be differences in where buttons are, but not basic syntax. Sheets is going to have different syntax as well as different buttons. I suspect that the capabilities are there, but when you're already struggling with the content of what we're doing, unless you are already an expert in Sheets, that just adds another layer of frustration.
+#Not really. Only sort of. Lots of Excel functionality is missing. One year when I had a team whose kids were using Google Sheets instead of Excel, that was one of the top lessons learned that they mentioned - don't use Sheets for the Summer visit. Since everyone is already using different versions of Excel, there are already going to be differences in where buttons are, but not basic syntax. Sheets is going to have different syntax as well as different buttons. I suspect that the capabilities are there, but when you're already struggling with the content of what we're doing, unless you are already an expert in Sheets, that just adds another layer of frustration. My preference is no we shouldn't all use the same Google Doc, because I've had too many people overwrite other people?s work in a shared document in Google. You can work on the same doc within your team (you & your students) if you want, of course. But I prefer that we trade Excel sheets back and forth.
 # No, all galaxies won't have the same colors/magnitudes, but if we pick a region semi-randomly from one of the extragalactic surveys, we will most likely have a range of galaxies - AGN, nearby galaxies, ellipticals/spirals/barred spirals... The ones that are most likely to look like YSOs are the ones that aren't resolved, that is, not nearby galaxies, but AGN. But, there are AGN everywhere, so any region we pick will probably have plenty. Honestly, the most important quality is that it already has the photometry done for us. :)

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 I've added a bunch of videos on these and other topics to this playlist, called Ceph-C-LABS Useful Movies: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjCjDYabTFm__Fuztj285MWlU8shak1WI
 Hopefully at least some of them are useful.
-#Not really. Only sort of. Lots of Excel functionality is missing. One year when I had a team whose kids were using Google Sheets instead of Excel, that was one of the top lessons learned that they mentioned - don't use Sheets for the Summer visit. Since everyone is already using different versions of Excel, there are already going to be differences in where buttons are, but not basic syntax. Sheets is going to have different syntax as well as different buttons. I suspect that the
+#Not really. Only sort of. Lots of Excel functionality is missing. One year when I had a team whose kids were using Google Sheets instead of Excel, that was one of the top lessons learned that they mentioned - don't use Sheets for the Summer visit. Since everyone is already using different versions of Excel, there are already going to be differences in where buttons are, but not basic syntax. Sheets is going to have different syntax as well as different buttons. I suspect that the capabilities are there, but when you're already struggling with the content of what we're doing, unless you are already an expert in Sheets, that just adds another layer of frustration.
 My preference is no we shouldn't all use the same Google Doc, because I've had too many people overwrite other people?s work in a shared document in Google. You can work on the same doc within your team (you & your students) if you want, of course. But I prefer that we trade Excel sheets back and forth.
 # No, all galaxies won't have the same colors/magnitudes, but if we pick a region semi-randomly from one of the extragalactic surveys, we will most likely have a range of galaxies - AGN, nearby galaxies, ellipticals/spirals/barred spirals... The ones that are most likely to look like YSOs are the ones that aren't resolved, that is, not nearby galaxies, but AGN. But, there are AGN everywhere, so any region we pick will probably have plenty. Honestly, the most important quality is that it already has the photometry done for us. :)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 '''From Olivia:'''
-. For Tom - now that I have a good idea of who and how to select students, what do I do with them once we start meeting? I have several that are chomping at the bit to get started. Do you recommend going through the proposal (before we have approval)?
+#For Tom - now that I have a good idea of who and how to select students, what do I do with them once we start meeting? I have several that are chomping at the bit to get started. Do you recommend going through the proposal (before we have approval)?
-. Does Google "sheets" function the same way as Excel? Will we be sharing a Google sheets document?
+#Does Google "sheets" function the same way as Excel? Will we be sharing a Google sheets document?
-. On our analysis, we said that we are using comparing the c-c and c-m Herschel data of an  extragalactic region." What extragalactic region? Are all galaxies are going to have similar c-c and c-m "signatures" (not the right word).
+#On our analysis, we said that we are using comparing the c-c and c-m Herschel data of an  extragalactic region." What extragalactic region? Are all galaxies are going to have similar c-c and c-m "signatures" (not the right word).
 ''Answers from Tom:''
-.  If you already know who you want to bring, you can go ahead and start working with them.  They aren't ready to interact with the group yet, but you can start getting them up to speed on what we are going to be doing.
+#If you already know who you want to bring, you can go ahead and start working with them.  They aren't ready to interact with the group yet, but you can start getting them up to speed on what we are going to be doing.
-.  My preference is to use Excel-- everyone will have it and most things are set up with it in mind.  We can keep our files on Google, but I would prefer to use Excel.  Also, a word about anyone who uses a Mac-- in my past groups, it was the Mac user who had issues with things not working out properly.  Even though its supposed to be the same software-- things just don't work on a Mac the way they do on a PC.
+#My preference is to use Excel-- everyone will have it and most things are set up with it in mind.  We can keep our files on Google, but I would prefer to use Excel.  Also, a word about anyone who uses a Mac-- in my past groups, it was the Mac user who had issues with things not working out properly.  Even though its supposed to be the same software-- things just don't work on a Mac the way they do on a PC.
-.  Good question-- I don't think that they are all the same-- as galaxies age, the ratio of young stars to old stars changes and that affects the color.  The presence of an AGN in the center will also affect the color.
+#Good question-- I don't think that they are all the same-- as galaxies age, the ratio of young stars to old stars changes and that affects the color.  The presence of an AGN in the center will also affect the color.
 ''Alternate Answers from Luisa:''
-. You could start talking to them about any of these :
+#You could start talking to them about any of these :
 *light beyond the visible
 *space telescopes (Herschel, WISE, Spitzer)
@@ Line 19: / Line 21: @@
 I've added a bunch of videos on these and other topics to this playlist, called Ceph-C-LABS Useful Movies: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjCjDYabTFm__Fuztj285MWlU8shak1WI
 Hopefully at least some of them are useful.
-. Not really. Only sort of. Lots of Excel functionality is missing. One year when I had a team whose kids were using Google Sheets instead of Excel, that was one of the top lessons learned that they mentioned - don't use Sheets for the Summer visit. Since everyone is already using different versions of Excel, there are already going to be differences in where buttons are, but not basic syntax. Sheets is going to have different syntax as well as different buttons. I suspect that the
+#Not really. Only sort of. Lots of Excel functionality is missing. One year when I had a team whose kids were using Google Sheets instead of Excel, that was one of the top lessons learned that they mentioned - don't use Sheets for the Summer visit. Since everyone is already using different versions of Excel, there are already going to be differences in where buttons are, but not basic syntax. Sheets is going to have different syntax as well as different buttons. I suspect that the
 capabilities are there, but when you're already struggling with the content of what we're doing, unless you are already an expert in Sheets, that just adds another layer of frustration.
-My preference is no, because I've had too many people overwrite other people?s work in a shared document in Google. You can work on the same doc within your team (you & your students) if you want, of course. But I prefer that we trade Excel sheets back and forth.
+My preference is no we shouldn't all use the same Google Doc, because I've had too many people overwrite other people?s work in a shared document in Google. You can work on the same doc within your team (you & your students) if you want, of course. But I prefer that we trade Excel sheets back and forth.
-. No, all galaxies won't have the same colors/magnitudes, but if we pick a region semi-randomly from one of the extragalactic surveys, we will most likely have a range of galaxies - AGN, nearby galaxies, ellipticals/spirals/barred spirals... The ones that are most likely to look like YSOs are the ones that aren't resolved, that is, not nearby galaxies, but AGN. But, there are AGN everywhere, so any region we pick will probably have plenty. Honestly, the most important quality is that it already has the photometry done for us. :)
+# No, all galaxies won't have the same colors/magnitudes, but if we pick a region semi-randomly from one of the extragalactic surveys, we will most likely have a range of galaxies - AGN, nearby galaxies, ellipticals/spirals/barred spirals... The ones that are most likely to look like YSOs are the ones that aren't resolved, that is, not nearby galaxies, but AGN. But, there are AGN everywhere, so any region we pick will probably have plenty. Honestly, the most important quality is that it already has the photometry done for us. :)
 '''From Sam:'''
-I wrote one of my questions on the proposal draft ...How do we cite Orr et al. from last year?
+#I wrote one of my questions on the proposal draft ...How do we cite Orr et al. from last year?
-I also second Olivia's question about the extragalactic regions.
+#I also second Olivia's question about the extragalactic regions.
-What are our next steps after the proposal is reviewed / accepted?
+#What are our next steps after the proposal is reviewed / accepted?
-I have more questions about how light arrives at detectors but can wait on some of these until we start looking at data or if we have remaining time during the meeting.
+#I have more questions about how light arrives at detectors but can wait on some of these until we start looking at data or if we have remaining time during the meeting.
 ''Answers from Luisa:''
-Using the same syntax I would for a journal article: Orr, L., et al., 2017, AAS, 229, 241.10 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AAS...22924110O)
+#Using the same syntax I would for a journal article: Orr, L., et al., 2017, AAS, 229, 241.10 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AAS...22924110O)
-While the proposal is being reviewed, we'll get started on Resolution issues - we'll talk more about this tomorrow. When the proposal comes back, we'll spend a telecon talking about the comments we got back and what edits we should use, then we can return to Resolution stuff or whatever else we've decided to work on at that point.
+#While the proposal is being reviewed, we'll get started on Resolution issues - we'll talk more about this tomorrow. When the proposal comes back, we'll spend a telecon talking about the comments we got back and what edits we should use, then we can return to Resolution stuff or whatever else we've decided to work on at that point.
 =Questions for March 8=

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 =(Questions for march 15)=
-(the next week should always be on top)
 =Questions for March 8=

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:40, 8 March 2017
Line 57:		Line 57:
	For 'flux density'... why not divide J/s/m^2 by the photon energy rather than the frequency? Like this J/s/m^2/(J/photon) = photons/s/m^2 . This would tell you how many photons were hitting an area each second...right? aka..how "densely packed" in the photons were! I guess frequency and energy are proportional so it probably doesn't matter.		For 'flux density'... why not divide J/s/m^2 by the photon energy rather than the frequency? Like this J/s/m^2/(J/photon) = photons/s/m^2 . This would tell you how many photons were hitting an area each second...right? aka..how "densely packed" in the photons were! I guess frequency and energy are proportional so it probably doesn't matter.

−	''Response from Luisa: Just in explicit answer to your questions (but really, we will go over the complicated units in detail in July, so don’t stress if none of this makes sense). The sequence is (and I think you’re missing the ones with the ) : light hits detector, detector records information, pipeline runs to convert the raw data into something physically reasonable and gives it to you as a FITS file, make quantitative measures of the flux (e.g., do photometry), convert mags to flux densities (and flux densities to mags) as needed, add measurement to SEDs and color-color/color-mag diagrams. For "why lambda", look a bit down the page for "notes on plotting." For the derivation of this, with all the gory math, I can scan for you pages out of Rybicki & Lightman, “Radiative Processes in Astrophysics” but be aware this is a graduate textbook… I’m not expecting you to derive this. The "per Hertz" or "per length" in the energy density is really "per photon frequency" or "per photon wavelength." So it’s tightly tied to the photons. Flux is energy per unit area per unit time (flux per sec per square meter). Flux density is energy per unit area per unit time per photon. You need energy density to plot for a spectral energy distribution (otherwise it wouldn’t be an sE*d). Energy density is lambdaFlambda or nuFnu	+	''Response from Luisa: Just in explicit answer to your questions (but really, we will go over the complicated units in detail in July, so don’t stress if none of this makes sense). The sequence is (and I think you’re missing the ones with the ) : light hits detector, detector records information, pipeline runs to convert the raw data into something physically reasonable and gives it to you as a FITS file, make quantitative measures of the flux (e.g., do photometry), convert mags to flux densities (and flux densities to mags) as needed, add measurement to SEDs and color-color/color-mag diagrams. For "why lambda", look a bit down the page for "notes on plotting." For the derivation of this, with all the gory math, I can scan for you pages out of Rybicki & Lightman, “Radiative Processes in Astrophysics” but be aware this is a graduate textbook… I’m not expecting you to derive this. The "per Hertz" or "per length" in the energy density is really "per photon frequency" or "per photon wavelength." So it’s tightly tied to the photons. Flux is energy per unit area per unit time (flux per sec per square meter). Flux density is energy per unit area per unit time per photon. You need energy density to plot for a spectral energy distribution (otherwise it wouldn’t be an sE*d). Energy density is lambdaFlambda or nuFnu''

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:40, 8 March 2017
Line 56:		Line 56:
	In what situations is flux density is preferable to simply flux?		In what situations is flux density is preferable to simply flux?
	For 'flux density'... why not divide J/s/m^2 by the photon energy rather than the frequency? Like this J/s/m^2/(J/photon) = photons/s/m^2 . This would tell you how many photons were hitting an area each second...right? aka..how "densely packed" in the photons were! I guess frequency and energy are proportional so it probably doesn't matter.		For 'flux density'... why not divide J/s/m^2 by the photon energy rather than the frequency? Like this J/s/m^2/(J/photon) = photons/s/m^2 . This would tell you how many photons were hitting an area each second...right? aka..how "densely packed" in the photons were! I guess frequency and energy are proportional so it probably doesn't matter.
		+
		+	''Response from Luisa: Just in explicit answer to your questions (but really, we will go over the complicated units in detail in July, so don’t stress if none of this makes sense). The sequence is (and I think you’re missing the ones with the ) : light hits detector, detector records information, pipeline runs to convert the raw data into something physically reasonable and gives it to you as a FITS file, make quantitative measures of the flux (e.g., do photometry), convert mags to flux densities (and flux densities to mags) as needed, add measurement to SEDs and color-color/color-mag diagrams. For "why lambda", look a bit down the page for "notes on plotting." For the derivation of this, with all the gory math, I can scan for you pages out of Rybicki & Lightman, “Radiative Processes in Astrophysics” but be aware this is a graduate textbook… I’m not expecting you to derive this. The "per Hertz" or "per length" in the energy density is really "per photon frequency" or "per photon wavelength." So it’s tightly tied to the photons. Flux is energy per unit area per unit time (flux per sec per square meter). Flux density is energy per unit area per unit time per photon. You need energy density to plot for a spectral energy distribution (otherwise it wouldn’t be an sE*d). Energy density is lambdaFlambda or nuFnu

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:30, 8 March 2017
Line 48:		Line 48:
	(design, etc) differently than for FIR detector. This is why light detected		(design, etc) differently than for FIR detector. This is why light detected
	very differently across EM spectrum. ''		very differently across EM spectrum. ''
		+
		+
		+	'''From Sam:'''
		+	I guess one of the next steps once I figure out what the pixels output and how they collect the photons is to be able to take that info and convert it into different units so that we can construct SEDs and other diagrams. I've worked on trying to understand some of the "Units" page on the wiki...http://coolwiki.ipac.caltech.edu/index.php/Units
		+	I got a little stumped about halfway down in the SEDs section...Could you elaborate on the equations in the big gray box that say "dF/dlambda = dF/dlambda*(dv/dv)...etc." and why you had to do that to do the conversion from Fv to Flambda?
		+	Others:
		+	In what situations is flux density is preferable to simply flux?
		+	For 'flux density'... why not divide J/s/m^2 by the photon energy rather than the frequency? Like this J/s/m^2/(J/photon) = photons/s/m^2 . This would tell you how many photons were hitting an area each second...right? aka..how "densely packed" in the photons were! I guess frequency and energy are proportional so it probably doesn't matter.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:07, 8 March 2017
Line 31:		Line 31:

	''Response from Luisa (still stuck on iPhone): What the numebrs mean depends on how you detected the light and how you process the data before you display it. Spitzer and some Herschel data in MJy/sr. Yes, multiple sources can send photons to the same pixel, and the only way we can distinguish them is to bring information from elsewhere into the thought process. re: raw data -- what I mean by raw data may not be what you mean. We aren't working with raw data. What the numbers mean depends on which instrument from what telescope, and what processing the image has undergone. WISE data still in counts (close to raw) but calibration stuff in FITS header. Spitzer definitely not raw; it's calibrated (processed such that absolute flux density in FITS image). That is in MJy/sr. Herschel data also definitely not raw. From what I have read, some in MJy/sr, some in MJy/pix. I think. More when I get back to the office. The FITS files numbers all correspond to brightness in some units. Sometimes it is in counts (electrons), sometimes someone has converted those counts into absolute brightness in some other units. Exactly what it means (and how to convert it into units that we can use in SEDs and color-color/color-mag diagrams) depends on the instrument/telescope/processing. Tom is exactly right that filters impose a limit on what photons make it to the detector, AND the detector physics itself also cuts off some photons - some detectors aren't sensitive to any incident light beyond a certain frequency.''		''Response from Luisa (still stuck on iPhone): What the numebrs mean depends on how you detected the light and how you process the data before you display it. Spitzer and some Herschel data in MJy/sr. Yes, multiple sources can send photons to the same pixel, and the only way we can distinguish them is to bring information from elsewhere into the thought process. re: raw data -- what I mean by raw data may not be what you mean. We aren't working with raw data. What the numbers mean depends on which instrument from what telescope, and what processing the image has undergone. WISE data still in counts (close to raw) but calibration stuff in FITS header. Spitzer definitely not raw; it's calibrated (processed such that absolute flux density in FITS image). That is in MJy/sr. Herschel data also definitely not raw. From what I have read, some in MJy/sr, some in MJy/pix. I think. More when I get back to the office. The FITS files numbers all correspond to brightness in some units. Sometimes it is in counts (electrons), sometimes someone has converted those counts into absolute brightness in some other units. Exactly what it means (and how to convert it into units that we can use in SEDs and color-color/color-mag diagrams) depends on the instrument/telescope/processing. Tom is exactly right that filters impose a limit on what photons make it to the detector, AND the detector physics itself also cuts off some photons - some detectors aren't sensitive to any incident light beyond a certain frequency.''
−
−
−
−

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:07, 8 March 2017
Line 30:		Line 30:
	''Response from Tom: The photons that are being collected have passed through a filter so they are of approximately the same energy-- the ones with too little or too much energy (they are the wrong "color") don't make it through the filter and so aren't detected. This filter may be a physical filter in front of the detector or it could be a limit of the detector itself.''		''Response from Tom: The photons that are being collected have passed through a filter so they are of approximately the same energy-- the ones with too little or too much energy (they are the wrong "color") don't make it through the filter and so aren't detected. This filter may be a physical filter in front of the detector or it could be a limit of the detector itself.''

−	''Response from Luisa (still stuck on iPhone): What the numebrs mean depends on how you detected the light and how you process the data before you display it. Spitzer and some Herschel data in MJy/sr. Yes, multiple sources can send photons to the same pixel, and the only way we can distinguish them is to bring information from elsewhere into the thought process. re: raw data -- what I mean by raw data may not be what you mean. We aren't working with raw data. What the numbers mean depends on which instrument from what telescope, and what processing the	+	''Response from Luisa (still stuck on iPhone): What the numebrs mean depends on how you detected the light and how you process the data before you display it. Spitzer and some Herschel data in MJy/sr. Yes, multiple sources can send photons to the same pixel, and the only way we can distinguish them is to bring information from elsewhere into the thought process. re: raw data -- what I mean by raw data may not be what you mean. We aren't working with raw data. What the numbers mean depends on which instrument from what telescope, and what processing the image has undergone. WISE data still in counts (close to raw) but calibration stuff in FITS header. Spitzer definitely not raw; it's calibrated (processed such that absolute flux density in FITS image). That is in MJy/sr. Herschel data also definitely not raw. From what I have read, some in MJy/sr, some in MJy/pix. I think. More when I get back to the office. The FITS files numbers all correspond to brightness in some units. Sometimes it is in counts (electrons), sometimes someone has converted those counts into absolute brightness in some other units. Exactly what it means (and how to convert it into units that we can use in SEDs and color-color/color-mag diagrams) depends on the instrument/telescope/processing. Tom is exactly right that filters impose a limit on what photons make it to the detector, AND the detector physics itself also cuts off some photons - some detectors aren't sensitive to any incident light beyond a certain frequency.''
−	image has undergone. WISE data still in counts (close to raw) but calibration stuff in FITS header. Spitzer definitely not raw; it's calibrated (processed such that absolute flux density in FITS image). That is in MJy/sr. Herschel data also definitely not raw. From what I have read, some in MJy/sr, some in MJy/pix. I think. More when I get back to the office. The FITS files numbers all correspond to brightness in some units. Sometimes it is in counts (electrons), sometimes someone has converted those counts into absolute brightness in some other units. Exactly what it means (and how to convert it into units that we can use in SEDs and color-color/color-mag diagrams) depends on the instrument/telescope/processing. Tom is exactly right that filters impose a limit on what photons make it to the detector, AND the detector physics itself also cuts off some photons - some detectors aren't sensitive to any incident light beyond a certain frequency.''