Author Topic: Thursday, 6 February 2014: SDSS1133, the Galaxy Zoo discovery that wasn't  (Read 9182 times)

PeterD

  • OotD posters
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
    • View Profile
Re: Thursday, 6 February 2014: SDSS1133, the Galaxy Zoo discovery that wasn't
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2014, 05:35:18 pm »
I should have written

Absolute Magnitude = apparent magnitude - distance modulus - Kcorrection


PeterD

  • OotD posters
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
    • View Profile
Re: Thursday, 6 February 2014: SDSS1133, the Galaxy Zoo discovery that wasn't
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2014, 12:00:23 pm »
JeanTate has pointed out that that should be units of pc, not kpc.

JeanTate

  • OotD posters
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2976
    • View Profile
Re: Thursday, 6 February 2014: SDSS1133, the Galaxy Zoo discovery that wasn't
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2014, 01:55:40 pm »
There are a couple of aspects of this object which hasn't been much covered in this thread so far, but deserve to be.

In Koss+ 2014, the intro Section 4 ("Discussion") begins like this:

Quote from: Koss+ 2014
Given its long observed lifetime, luminosity, and highly variable behavior, SDSS1133 is unusual among AGNs, as well as among SNe, tidal
disruption flares, ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs), and other stellar phenomena. In the following sections, we discuss possible source scenarios for SDSS1133 in more detail. An LBV followed by a SN, or a recoiling SMBH, are the most likely scenarios, while a ULX, tidal flare, or tidally stripped AGN are disfavored by the observations

Cool, eh?  ;)  8)

While the "luminous blue variable followed by a supernova" explanation comes first - and is the one which has received the most coverage - the "recoiling super-massive black hole" explanation seems to be just as consistent with the observational data (to date). Measured by an 'unusualness' ruler, both score right up there with Hanny's Voorwerp; however, personally I really like the recoiling SMBH  ;D

Why did one big fish, SDSS1133, get away, but a different big fish, Hanny's Voorwerp, didn't?

I started a thread, in the Science Questions section, to look into this: The unbearable arbitrariness of serendipitous Galaxy Zoo discoveries? Partly I was intrigued by what Michael Nielsen had to say about "designed serendipity", and the possibility that Galaxy Zoo and related Zooniverse projects could design some more serendipity into how we work (there is a thread on this book, here in the GZ forum: We're in a book! "Reinventing Discovery" by Michael Nielsen).

And the two OOTDs I wrote since this one - Tuesday, 11 February, 2014: Is This the Next Serendipitous Galaxy Zoo Discovery? and Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery - explore some facets of this question (as well as presenting some very nice eye-candy, of course).

Grant Miller, the Zooniverse Community Manager, has recently joined in that discussion, which shows how seriously this topic is regarded by the Zooniverse team.  8) Yay!  ;D

mkoss

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Thursday, 6 February 2014: SDSS1133, the Galaxy Zoo discovery that wasn't
« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2014, 03:01:20 pm »
Hi Zooites,
You guys do such a great job of identifying objects that are interesting scientifically.  I should stay that the actual identity of SDSS1133 is still up for debate, it is either the most unusual hypernova or a recoiling BH.  I favor a recoiling BH, but they have never been observed before so the bar for detection is incredibly high.  As I mention in the conclusion, you really need HST or Chandra to solve this, which we will apply for in the coming months.  Also, there is another Swift satellite observation coming up in the next month, but SDSS1133 may be too intrinsically faint in the X-rays to differentiate between a Supenova and AGN.

As to why this object didn't wasn't caught by zooites as potentially interesting, I had access to recent PS1 data, so I could see that the object was still around in 2013, so it wasn't likely a SNe, while you only have access to the SDSS images in 2001-2002.  The adaptive optics images, to check if it has a stellar nucleus, was also a key piece of evidence, which I could get to confirm it isn't a typical AGN nucleus at the center of a merging galaxy pair.  Finally, while you could have found it was in the DSS images, the worse resolution/faintness makes it difficult to see SDSS1133, so I used an unsharp mask on the highest resolution DSS images.

Take care,
Mike Koss

JeanTate

  • OotD posters
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2976
    • View Profile
Re: Thursday, 6 February 2014: SDSS1133, the Galaxy Zoo discovery that wasn't
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2014, 08:37:51 pm »
Welcome to the Galaxy Zoo forum, Mike Koss!  ;D

Quote
As to why this object wasn't caught by zooites as potentially interesting,

Well, as I think I showed, quite a few zooites thought it was interesting. It's just that no one - not even the zookeepers and Astronomers here, apparently - imagined just how interesting it was  :(

Quote
I had access to recent PS1 data, so I could see that the object was still around in 2013, so it wasn't likely a SNe

That's probably worth stressing: ordinary GZ zooites have shown that they can be extremely persistent and resourceful; however, if a key dataset is not public, no amount of persistence and resourcefulness will help.  :(

Quote
Finally, while you could have found it was in the DSS images, the worse resolution/faintness makes it difficult to see SDSS1133, so I used an unsharp mask on the highest resolution DSS images.

One thing about zooites which must surely continue to amaze you professional astronomers is that there are some who are more than capable of doing quite similar image processing.  8)

Which leads me to a question I've often thought about: if a group of professional astronomers can invite a handful of zooites to join a science team - I'm talking about what is now called Space Warps - why doesn't it happen more often?

In public and private, GZ (and related project) Science Team members are constantly saying how extraordinarily busy they are, with no time to join (forum or Talk) discussions, etc. Yet, with just a tiny handful of exceptions, it seems none of them even thinks of approaching any ordinary zooite, to ask for help, etc.

Why?

Is it because only grad students are considered qualified enough to do the work? Because ordinary zooites do not have PhDs in astronomy or astrophysics?

Budgieye

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3860
    • View Profile
SDSS1133, would I have known that couldn't have been a "pea"
« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2014, 03:38:35 pm »
The images looks like a pea.
The spectral chart looks like an quasar.

But that was five years ago, and we were all still learning.
It is blue like a pea. That chart is not a "pea" chart.
Blue quasars are distant z=0.1 or so and the blueness is from a steep rise in the blue, not from a big bump
eg http://cas.sdss.org/dr7/en/tools/explore/obj.asp?id=588013382734381143
Would I see that something was unusual if it was posted today?
Would I bother to click to see if there was a spectrum.
Or would I have said "star-forming" ?
Cheers for dthomas02   8)

Colours of Galaxies in SDSS : Redshift chart is a useful tool for matching redshifts.

This SDSS image appeared in the Wanted galaxies pair!One blue,red the other one. thread (here in the GZ forum), stardate November 20, 2008, 05:18:25 am, posted by sayonave08:



Other than the pair of IDs ("id=587731870169301121,id=587733081347063839"), sayonave08 wrote nothing.

A few minutes later, at 05:32:14 am, sayonave08 posted something a bit meatier, in the Quasi-Stellar radio sources. Find a Quasar? Post it here! thread:

QSO z=0.008,id=587733081347063838,My best friend,Galaxy Part of UGCA 239,id=587733081347063839


Later that same day (at 11:24:48 am), dthomas02 responded:

QSO z=0.008,id=587733081347063838,My best friend,Galaxy Part of UGCA 239,id=587733081347063839

Hi sayonave08. You might want to recheck this one. It doesn't much look like one and the z is 0.0085 with a high confidence - the nearest recorded to date is 3C273 which is at z=0.158


« Last Edit: June 11, 2014, 03:48:33 pm by Budgieye »