#1
|
|||
|
|||
"z=0" galaxies
For a class I'm in, our team is supposed to "Characterize the
star formation history of z=0 satellite and central galaxies." However, I'm not sure what the term "z=0 galaxy" means. To me, "z=0" means "zero redshift", or "right here". Since the only galaxy that's "right here" is the Milky Way, this obviously demonstrates some mis-understanding on my part. Some searching has revealed stuff such as this Arxiv paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.07747.pdf, which discusses some attributes of "z=0 galaxies". However, it appears to be aimed (as one would expect) at people who are already familiar with some aspects of "z=0 galaxies". Any suggestions on where I could find out what they are? Or, if it's trivial to explain, would somebody please tell me? Thanks, -- Michael F. Stemper Always use apostrophe's and "quotation marks" properly. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"z=0" galaxies
Dear Michael F. Stemper:
On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 3:08:19 PM UTC-7, Michael F. Stemper wrote: For a class I'm in, our team is supposed to "Characterize the star formation history of z=0 satellite and central galaxies." However, I'm not sure what the term "z=0 galaxy" means. To me, "z=0" means "zero redshift", or "right here". Not a bad assumption. Since the only galaxy that's "right here" is the Milky Way, this obviously demonstrates some mis-understanding on my part. .... Any suggestions on where I could find out what they are? Or, if it's trivial to explain, would somebody please tell me? I'd recommend confining yourself to the Virgo supercluster, which is gravitationally bound (not yet expanding with the rest of the Universe). You should find a published list of contents of this supercluster. Any red or blue shifting (not quite z=0) is due to peculiar motion, rather than expansion recession. David A. Smith |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"z=0" galaxies
On 2018-02-21 16:58, dlzc wrote:
On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 3:08:19 PM UTC-7, Michael F. Stemper wrote: For a class I'm in, our team is supposed to "Characterize the star formation history of z=0 satellite and central galaxies." However, I'm not sure what the term "z=0 galaxy" means. To me, "z=0" means "zero redshift", or "right here". Not a bad assumption. Nice to know that I'm not totally unhinged. Since the only galaxy that's "right here" is the Milky Way, this obviously demonstrates some mis-understanding on my part. ... Any suggestions on where I could find out what they are? Or, if it's trivial to explain, would somebody please tell me? I'd recommend confining yourself to the Virgo supercluster, which is gravitationally bound (not yet expanding with the rest of the Universe). You should find a published list of contents of this supercluster. Any red or blue shifting (not quite z=0) is due to peculiar motion, rather than expansion recession. That makes sense. Thanks! -- Michael F. Stemper Deuteronomy 24:17 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"z=0" galaxies
In article ,
"Michael F. Stemper" writes: However, I'm not sure what the term "z=0 galaxy" means. To me, "z=0" means "zero redshift", or "right here". Right. Specifically, it means galaxies so nearby that their redshifts don't matter. That means the observed and emitted wavelengths are effectively equal, and the lookback time is small compared to any evolutionary timescale. Depending on what you are trying to do, that could mean less than a few tens of megaparsecs to z0.1 or even larger. It probably wasn't an ideal term for an instructor to use without clarification, but for the exercise "Characterize the star formation history of z=0 satellite and central galaxies," you should be safe out to Coma and maybe farther if the relevant data exist. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"z=0" galaxies
On 2018-02-23 11:20, Steve Willner wrote:
In article , "Michael F. Stemper" writes: However, I'm not sure what the term "z=0 galaxy" means. To me, "z=0" means "zero redshift", or "right here". Right. Specifically, it means galaxies so nearby that their redshifts don't matter. That means the observed and emitted wavelengths are effectively equal, and the lookback time is small compared to any evolutionary timescale. Depending on what you are trying to do, that could mean less than a few tens of megaparsecs to z0.1 or even larger. Why would the characteristics of z=0 galaxies be different from those of other galaxies? After all, there's no special place in the universe (other than the brewpub around the corner from my house). It probably wasn't an ideal term for an instructor to use without clarification, but for the exercise "Characterize the star formation history of z=0 satellite and central galaxies," you should be safe out to Coma and maybe farther if the relevant data exist. Actually (and I should probably have mentioned this in my OP), we're working with an Illustris model. As I understand it, nothing in Illustris corresponds to any place in our universe. Of course, this causes me to wonder how the folks who coded up the Illustris simulation decided to label some point (for exceeding large values of "point") as the place where z=0. -- Michael F. Stemper Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"z=0" galaxies
Specifically, it means galaxies so nearby that their
redshifts don't matter. That means the observed and emitted wavelengths are effectively equal, and the lookback time is small compared to any evolutionary timescale. In article , "Michael F. Stemper" writes: Why would the characteristics of z=0 galaxies be different from those of other galaxies? I gave you two reasons in the quote above. Specifically: 1. if you observe a z=0 galaxy at, say, 550 nm, the light was emitted at that wavelength. For a z=0.1 galaxy, though, the light was emitted at 500 nm. Depending on what you are doing, the difference may or may not be significant. If it is, you have to make what is known as a "K correction." For a z=1 galaxy, the light was emitted at 275 nm and represents an entirely different stellar population (or perhaps an active nucleus and not stars at all). 2. if you observe a z=1 galaxy, you are observing it as it was when the age of the universe was 5.9 Gyr as opposed to 13.7 Gyr for a z=0 galaxy. Galaxies change a lot in 7.8 Gyr! Even z=0.1 corresponds to a lookback time of 1.3 Gyr, and for some purposes even that much evolution can be important. After all, there's no special place in the universe It's not "where," it's "when." Galaxies change as they get older, and the galaxy population is a lot different now than it was when the universe was younger. we're working with an Illustris model. As I understand it, nothing in Illustris corresponds to any place in our universe. The model will show enormous changes over time. Try looking at the median mass or luminosity of galaxies as a function of time, for example. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
might Odissey-Moon be the Google's expected, preferred, designed,"chosen" and (maybe) "funded" GLXP team to WIN the prize? with ALL otherteams that just play the "sparring partners" role? | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 27th 08 06:47 PM |
just THREE YEARS AFTER my "CREWLESS Space Shuttle" article, theNSF """experts""" discover the idea of an unmanned Shuttle to fill the2010-2016 cargo-to-ISS (six+ years) GAP | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 15th 08 04:47 PM |
and now, Ladies and Gentlemen, the NSF "slow motion experts" have(finally) "invented" MY "Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle"... just 20 | gaetanomarano | Policy | 9 | August 30th 08 12:05 AM |