Fun Papers In Arxiv

[antoniseb]

Also for 4 Januray 2012

I'm planning on switching between IsaacKuo, Tensor, and Jerry ... but as IsaacKuo pointed out, we don't know whose turn it is yet.
I think we'll plan for IsaacKuo to get the Tuesday night -> for Wednesday batch. Jerry will get the Thursday night -> for Friday batch. Tensor can tell me which night he wants of the remaining three, and I'll take the other two.

Since this wasn't worked out ahead of time, I did a batch of them last night too, which I show below. He picked one of mine, and a few I considered ... plus a few life sciences papers. Very cool. Me posting on the same day as the others is not the plan, it is just a quirk of getting organized too slowly.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0010 is about detecting GRBs using the IACT air-shower telescope. Last week I pointed to a couple of papers showing dim hopes of seeing them with IceCube, but this paper looks at the Gamma count near 100GeV using Fermi-LAT, and determines that with new equipment sensitive to lower energy air showers, they could potentially see one or two GRBs per year. The science of very high energy gamma sources is still sparsely known.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0072 speaking of very high energy observations, this paper is about making a much larger part of the antarctic ice into a high energy neutrino detector. In this case, the believe that neutrinos produce acoustic signals when they interact with rigid materials like ice, with a characteristic frequency of about 10kHz. Sound transmission characteristics of ice mean that they can plant a very sparse set of detectors and detect some aspects of high energy neutrinos in a much larger volume of ice, and hopefully get some better statistical sampling at higher energies than we get now.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0370 Is a paper that works to answer a question I hear relatively often... how much has the Sun moved toward or away from the center of the galaxy? Now that we believe (know) that the Milky Way is a barred spiral, perhaps the variation is wider than we thought. This paper basically puts those ideas to rest. In 4.6 billion years, the Sun has been only a few hundred parsecs closer or further than it is now.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0551 I was hoping for more pictures, but the paper is still cool. They used Chandra (xray telescope) to look at 53 edge on spiral galaxies to study their coronae. These galaxies were in various stages of starburst (or not), and could be divided into five maningful categories. This is a useful alternate look at the nature of spiral galaxies. I don't think that the conclusions will rock any boats.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0639 <are we there yet?> This paper is about H.E.S.S. observations of the LMC. The one image is kind of sad. The LMC is such a rich source at almost every part of the spectrum, but at the very high energy gamma ray part, it has one source (N 157B) a pulsar wind nebula. "But Wait!" you must be thinking... what about SN1987A (24 year old supernova remnant)? That should be a hot source. But it isn't. This paper shows the efforts made to observe it, and to try and sift through the photons from N157B to see if any could be from SN1987A. Someday we'll have the instruments to know what happened to that collapsar.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0163 The fly-by anomoly is an observation that probes zipping past the Earth (and other planets) trying to get a gravity assist often get slightly different (one part in a hundred million) assist than expected. This paper is a proposal for a cheap way to get more and better data for testing this possibly existent effect.

[Tensor]

I'll be doing tonight for tomorrow, if that's ok with you.

[antoniseb]

I'll be doing tonight for tomorrow, if that's ok with you.

Excellent!

[Tensor]

For January 5th, 2012.

Since this is my first attempt at this, let me know if how you think it went. I’m open to suggestions or criticisms to improve the process here.

There were several papers on different observations of supernova 2011dh type IIb. Which was first noticed on 31 May, 2011 in M51, by an amateur. There were also several papers on Cepheids. Since I wasn’t sure which one anyone in particular would be interested in, I thought I would mention it and let you look them up and decide for yourselves.


The first two papers I found interesting, simply because how they relate. The paper on reionization requires the constraints on the UV luminosity function. The author of the reionization paper used a previous paper from the author of the UV luminosity paper. However, there are now new constraints on UV luminosity, which may change the results of the reionization paper.
*
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0755 The Bright End of the UV Luminosity Function at z~8: New Constraints from CANDELS Data

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0757 Concordance models of reionization: implications for faint galaxies and escape fraction evolution

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0908 Acoustic detection of ultra-high energetic neutrinos - a snap shot Gives a description and history of dectecting neutrinos by listening for acoustic waves produced by neutrino interactions with leptons and hadrons. I thought of trinitree when I saw this.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0752 The Hunt for Exomoons with Kepler (HEK): I. Description of a New Observational Project. Well, we all know about the search for exoplanets, these guys are looking for the moons of those planets. Seeing if other planets also have moon hoaxes.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0766 First Detection of Near-Infrared Line Emission from Organics in Young Circumstellar Disks in a narrow region in the inner disk (R < 1 AU). I found this one interesting as the finding of organic molecules in the disks of still forming stars seems to indicate that any planets forming out of those disks would have organic components.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0787 The 6-GHz methanol multibeam maser catalogue IV: Galactic longitudes 186 to 330 including the Orion-Monoceros region This last one discusses the search and detection of methanol masers. These are important as we know that they come from star forming areas.

[Jerry]

Like Tensor, this is my first cut at a public condensation of astrophysical pre-pub archives. Comments are welcome, public and private. Every day I find more interesting papers than time-will-allow me to pull apart in detail; but I hope you like today’s sampler.
Disclaimer: Jerry is a pathalogical skeptic of many fundamental physical assumptions – So a misplaced spectral line or two always perks his interest.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0993
New Evidence Supporting Cluster Membership for the Keystone Calibrator Delta Cephei
Daniel J. Majaess, David G. Turner, Wolfgang Gieren

I think we should always note papers tied to the bottom rungs of the distance ladder. This one should help nail down the delta cephei distance with revised Hipparcos parallax distances. As always, my hat is off to those who specialize in astrometrics –

A precise distance may be established since two of four principal parameters associated with isochrone fitting were constrained by the UBV JHKs color-color and spectroscopic analyses, namely the reddening and age (spectral type at the turnoff). _ Cep exhibits solar abundances, and hence the remaining parameter is the shift required in magnitude space to overlay the intrinsic relation upon the data. The resulting distance is d = 277± 15 pc.

This is just one step, but an important one, in nailing down the fairly broad uncertainty in the value of the Ho, the Hubble constant.

***
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0994
EVLA Observations Constrain the Environment and Progenitor System of Type Ia Supernova 2011feLaura Chomiuk, Alicia M. Soderberg, Maxwell Moe, Roger A. Chevalier, Michael P. Rupen, Carles Badenes, Raffaella Margutti, Claes Fransson, Wen-fai Fong, Jason A. Dittmann

I would have titled this: Another Nail in the Single Degenerate Coffin?
Because in the conclusion:

Therefore, we rule out the most popular single degenerate progenitor models for SN 2011fe, leaving a limited phase space inhabited by some double degenerate systems and exotic progenitor scenarios.

I worry a little about some of the assumptions necessary to close-in on such a conclusion: Are we seeing a new bandwagon? That said; if ‘exotic or double degenerate’ events are necessary to create supernova type Ia events; there is a gap of unknown proportions in the final step of the distance ladder that leads to a DARK ENERGY conclusion: the most distant events are more enigmatic than many of us hoped they would be.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1004
A new candidate for probing Population III nucleosynthesis with carbon-enhanced damped Lyman-alpha systemsRyan Cooke Max Pettini Michael Murphy
Population III stars are a hypothetical ‘bridge’ between the early universe synthesis and current stellar populations. Cooke et al looks at the carbon enhanced-branch of damped Lyman systems and concludes it is too early to tell if these are tale-a-tale traces of the Pop III stars, but that refined studies with the next generation of telescopes could use similar approaches to –hopefully – identify the pop III generation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4512
Keck constraints on a varying fine-structure constant: wavelength calibration errorsMichael T. Murphy, John K. Webb, Victor V. Flambaum
Michael Murphy is always a good read; and this preprint is no exception. It is natural to assume any astrophysical quirk found in atomic spectra is an artifact of our limited knowledge of the light-path…but what if it isn’t? It is easy to see why Murphy is miffed that others have not published studies that refute, confirm or explain the quirky Keck data. KECK is finding fine-line differentials that shouldn’t be. Maybe it is not just the speed of neutrinos we should be scratching our collective heads about!
See also
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4080
New limit on a varying proton-to-electron mass ratio from high-resolution optical quasar spectra
Authors: Adrian L. Malec (1), Ruth Buning (2), Michael T. Murphy (1), Nikola Milutinovic (3), S. L. Ellison (3), J. Xavier Prochaska (4), Lex Kaper (2,5), Jason Tumlinson (6), Robert F. Carswell (7), Wim Ubachs
and
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4078

Keck telescope constraint on cosmological variation of the
proton-to-electron mass ratio
A. L. Malec,1? R. Buning,2 M. T. Murphy,1 N. Milutinovic,3 S. L. Ellison,3
J. X. Prochaska,4 L. Kaper,2,5 J. Tumlinson,6 R. F. Carswell,7 W. Ubachs2

With statistical errors from previous literature of _0.1 kms−1 they find velocity offsets between the NH3 inversion
and rotational molecular emission of up to |_v| _ 0.5 kms−1 in individual systems. This might indicate spatial variations in μ
throughout our Galaxy, although intrinsic shifts between emission lines of different molecules are to be expected.

Ok, that is just weird. When is ammonia not ammonia?

Finally, another Supernova type Ia paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1279

Studying Supernovae in the Near-Ultraviolet with the NASA Swift UVOT InstrumentThere have always been concerns that there may be more than one branch of the supernova type Ia family, and this may be one of the strongest evidences yet:

Observations in the near- and mid-ultraviolet (NUV: 2000--3500$\AA$) performed with the NASA Swift UVOT instrument have revealed that optically-normal SNe Ia feature NUV-optical color evolution that can be divided into NUV-blue and NUV-red groups, with roughly one-third of the observed events exhibiting NUV-blue color curves. Combined with an apparent correlation between NUV-blue events and the detection of unburned carbon in the optical spectra, the grouping might point to a fundamental difference within the normal SN Ia classfication…The NUV-blue events appear to follow an evolution that is similar to the larger collection of NUV-red events, but for being offset by _0.4 magnitudes.

Again, the ability to correctly extend the Hubble ladder to cosmological distances is directly tied to how tight the supernova type Ia magnitudes can be determined.

[IsaacKuo]

Since this is my first attempt at this, let me know if how you think it went. I’m open to suggestions or criticisms to improve the process here.

First a caveat--I'm not a scientist and I don't really grok most astronomy (which you might have guessed from my selection of papers). So, the only paper you selected which I even "get" is the Hunt for Exomoons paper. And thank you very much for that link!

My only suggestion, since you asked: I would like a little bit more commentary on your personal take. Even if you don't feel comfortable making any judgement on a paper given a cursory first reading, you could still let us know your personal level of excitement over the paper's subject matter. Maybe you could sometimes say something about why you found a paper intersting (or potentially interesting).

[StupendousMan]

For Friday, Jan 6:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0993 provides evidence that the nearest classical Cepheid variable, delta Cephei, is part of a cluster of stars. The paper collects proper motions and photometry of stars in the area around delta Cephei to identify cluster members, and to estimate the distance to the cluster. That distance is consistent with other estimates of the distance to delta Cephei and improves the precision. The authors hope to perform a similar analysis for other relatively nearby Cepheids in the future. Since a lot of cosmology depends on having good distance indicators, this current paper (and future work in this area) makes the foundations of a lot of science a little stronger.

Two notes on SN 2011fe in M101.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1279 presents measurements in the near-UV from the SWIFT satellite, which indicate that this SN suffered little extinction and was relatively blue in the near-UV; this may indicate that the thermonuclear reactions didn't convert every last bit of the white dwarf into iron-group elements. You can get just about everything out of this paper by looking at the nice color graphs.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0994, on the other hand, which describes the lack of any radio emission from the SN at early times in very deep EVLA images, is worth spending some time reading. It places pretty strong limits on the amount of circumstellar material which could have surrounded the SN when it exploded --- which in turn makes it difficult to find a single-degenerate progenitor system for this SN. The radio evidence suggests a double-degenerate system is more likely; that is, two white dwarfs which merge and exceed the Chandrasekhar limit, rather than a single white dwarf accreting material from an ordinary companion.

[Tensor]

First a caveat--I'm not a scientist and I don't really grok most astronomy (which you might have guessed from my selection of papers). So, the only paper you selected which I even "get" is the Hunt for Exomoons paper. And thank you very much for that link!

One of the problems for a lot of these papers, is that the math can be intimidating. That, unfortunately can't be helped, as the field is math intensive in many cases. I firmly believe that a read through, even if you are skipping the math, may lead to some understanding. And, if you run into a term you don't understand, googling some of the terms you find obscure, may help. While this won't make you a expert on the subject, it may allow you a better understanding of some of the ideas behind the papers.

My only suggestion, since you asked: I would like a little bit more commentary on your personal take. Even if you don't feel comfortable making any judgement on a paper given a cursory first reading, you could still let us know your personal level of excitement over the paper's subject matter. Maybe you could sometimes say something about why you found a paper intersting (or potentially interesting).

That's actually quite a good suggestion. I'll incorporate that next week.

[SagittariusAStar]

Polaris is closer to Earth than Delta Cephei is. In fact, Polaris is the closest and brightest Cepheid of all.

[antoniseb]

From 9 January 2012

There were papers on four days last week, and three were covered by my colleagues. Today there are about sixty percent as many papers as usual, and only three really grabbed me. There were quite a few papers about galaxy clusters, including several on the brightest members, and quite a few about the role of dwarf galaxies. Aside from that I didn't see much outside the normal mix of papers about details being discovered about the nature of big things in the universe.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1304 is a paper about looking at the number and size of galaxy clusters in different eras using the SZ effect. Now, to be clear, this is about modelling what we should see, and should be able to tell, and is NOT an analysis of real data to get a real census, but the fact is that this IS a method that promises to give concrete values about the growth and development of clusters going back through the history of the universe, with fewer and different biases than we normally have to contend with.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1402 What goes on in a dark cloud before the stars form? We kinda know... a little. This paper used radio emission lines of Ammonia to observe the kinematics and local temperatures of several pre-starforming clouds, using VLTI and Jodrell Bank. This is a cool project and a very readable paper with lots of images.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1414 Do you remember that small cloud of gas that is falling into Sgr A*? It was all over the news a few weeks ago. It is in a tight elliptical orbit, and will make its closest approach in 2013. This paper looks at the mystery of how such a small cloud could have formed in that space. A few models are given that, so far, meet the constraints... but observations over the next few years will eliminate most options. Note that even these models leave a lot of loose ends. This cloud will tell us a lot about galactic center physics.

[antoniseb]

From 11 January 2012

There were a fairly normal number of papers today, covering diverse topics, but perhaps there were a few more than usual about jets and disks. There was a paper I almost went for about "Green Fuzzies" in Spitzer images. There were a few about factors in star formation rates. I am expecting that by the end of this week, we'll be seeing a deluge of cool papers timed to be released for the big meeting in Austin this week. I picked five today:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1504 Did you ever notice that really hard things (rocks) are made with oxygen and softer things (octopi) are made with Carbon (ignoring diamonds for the moment)... This paper is about the Carbon/Oxygen ratios in nearby Sun-like stars, and the implications for the types of planets that might form around them. Realistic not-very-alarming conclusions.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1549 There are short GRBs, and there are long GRBs, and we think maybe the short ones are merging compact objects, and that the long ones are exploding giant stars. This paper looks at the statistics about the GRBs observed since FERMI started operations, to see what we can tell about the distributions, and energy production of these events. This paper sums observations up pretty nicely, without providing much in the way of opinion about the cause of any of them. This is good stuff to know.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1680 How big are neutron stars? One way to measure them is to look at the energy output and the blackbody spectrum, and calculate the surface area ... of course that give an uncertainty equal to the uncertainty in the distance (which can be substantial). This paper is about observing thermonuclear bursts, which happen from time to time on some neutron stars as a way to determine the diameter more closely. This will be a good thing for helping to refine our knowledge of how the particles in the middle of these things are holding up. Are they strange or charming? or are neutrons rigid even under high pressure? The paper doesn't explore that aspect, but it gives data that will help others do that.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1692 This paper's title includes the phrase *precision measurements* and it is about the distribution of dark matter in a galaxy that is acting as a lens for a more distant galaxy. So I read it, hoping to see more detail than usual about the distribution of dark matter in a galaxy... this is a recurring topic these days. There is a cool popular press story about hints of distribution in the Whirlpool galaxy (M51). The net result in this paper is nice progress, by combining stellar velocity (kinematics) data observed by Keck II with information gleaned from lensing a background galaxy. This is not a big break through in precision knowledge of dark matter distribution, but it is nice to see the process they used to make this improvement layed out in detail.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1757 Metal poor stars are usually fairly old. The trace heavy elements that we see in them had to be made a long time ago. This paper looks at the isotope ratios of Barium (which has a lot of stable isotopes) in five nearby metal poor stars to help determine what process made these isotopes... and hence get a different view point into the early days of our galaxy. Generally, we assume either of two processes (rapid or slow ... see B2FH-1957) for how they got made, and this paper shows that for these stars (in the early days), the slow process seems to have dominated (which is an unexpected result).

[IsaacKuo]

From 11 Jan 2012

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2038 Analytical and numerical study of the ground-track resonances of Dawn orbiting Vesta - If you're like me, you find asteroids interesting as potentially useful for ISRU. This paper presents a model to use to navigate around them. This is of particular interest for simulating a mission, or providing a physics model for a hard-sf game.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1930 Asteroid rotation periods from the Palomar Transient Factory survey - This paper delivers a lot more than the title suggests, describing the PTF survey method and showing it to be very promising for asteroid detection/tracking as well as for characterizing previously known asteroids. It also promises to detect binary asteroids.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2080 Degeneracy in the characterization of non-transiting planets from transit timing variations - A mathematical derivation of transit timing variations that would result from non-transiting exoplanets on transiting exoplanets. The interesting conclusion is that while TTVs could be used to detect a non-transiting planet, it won't determine the mass of the detected planet. (Without this mathematical analysis, you'd probably think that the mass should be determined.) The authors conclude that radial measurements should be used to determine the mass of the non-transiting exoplanet. This is unfortunate because plenty of systems suitable for the transit method aren't suitable for the radial method.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2009 Abundance trends in the inner and outer Galactic disk
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2011 Chemical evolution of the Galactic disk(s) - These two papers present data on elemental abundances of stars of different ages in different regions of the galaxy. This data is, of course, of interest to anyone pondering galactic habitability zone hypotheses.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2085 Superluminal self-interacting neutrino - This paper by Ernst Trojan claims to present a model for superluminal neutrinos consistent with the infamous OPERA observations. I'm no theoretical physicist, so I don't grok this topic. But it's a no-brainer that plenty of readers will be interested in any paper with the words "superluminal" and "neutrino" in the title.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2108 Instabilities and stickiness in a 3D rotating galactic potential - A long, detailed investigation of galactic orbits. Lots of pretty pictures, and far too much for me to dive into tonight. These galactic orbits are interesting for those of us who ponder where hypothetical alien probe equivalents of Voyager/Pioneer may end up.

[Tensor]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2177 First Science with SHARDS: emission line galaxies (Survey for High-z Absorption Red & Dead Sources)
Antonio Cava, Pablo G. Pérez González, the SHARDS Team
First science run for the SHARDS. Interesting as it is looking at some high redshift, but narrow spectra galaxies and trying to find more.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2175 Planet-Planet Scattering Alone Cannot Explain the Free-Floating Planet Population.
Dimitri Veras, Sean N. Raymond
Paper claiming that, based on microlensing, there are up to twice as many free planets (not circling stars) than there are stars in the galaxy. Fun, nearly math-free read.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2182 On the Spin-Down of Intermittent Pulsars.
Jason Li, Anatoly Spitkovsky, Alexander Tchekhovskoy
This paper describes the changes in spin-down when the pulsar is “on” or “off”. Along with providing possible explanations for other phenomena. As many of you know, I spend a lot of time in ATM. We have gotten some Plasma and Electric Universe people, in the past, prior to the rules concerning those subjects, that claim that mainstream science doesn’t take plasma effects into account. There are also a lot of web pages that make the same claim. This paper pretty much destroys those claims.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2195 The center of the Type Ia supernova remnant SNR 0509-67.5 is empty of any ex-companion star to M_V=+8.4
Bradley E. Schaefer, Ashley Pagnotta
Paper trying to determine if there is a former companion at the location of a type Ia supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Trying to determine whether the supernova was of a single or double degenerate origin. I’ve become interested in supernovae the last few years, and this is a fairly good method of determination.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2252 Morphology of galaxies
Yogesh Wadadekar
A survey of the morphology of galaxies. It gives some idea of the work that goes into determining what specific type the galaxy someone is looking at on the screen or photo. And how the digital surveys, such as Sloan are speeding up classification. This is a short work (9 pages). For a very in depth work, check here . Be advised, it’s 94 pages, but, as I said, it’s very in depth.



http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2244 Neutrino Transfer in Three Dimensions for Core-Collapse Supernovae. I. Static Configurations
Kohsuke Sumiyoshi, Shoichi Yamada
This is not an easy paper, and is very math intensive, but as I said earlier, I’ve become enamored of supernovae as of late. This paper goes through the calculations for neutrino energy transfer and escape during a core collapse supernova. This was a test of this groups three dimensional code. They are planning a full test of neutrino radiation soon. This is one of several modules that have to be completed. Other modules will include electron-neutrino scattering, Lorentz transformations in rest and comoving frames, Neutrino doppler shifts, aberration of neutrino paths, and it all has to be put into a General Relativistic framework. They don’t believe they will be able to run the completed program until the next generation of supercomputers (them mention exaflop), but want to get a start on it.

[Jerry]

Friday the 13th of January, a good day to get a tatoo of your favorite stellar object.

Not much in archives today, but these three caught my eye:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2419 Constraints on cosmic string tension imposed by the limit on the stochastic gravitational wave background from the European Pulsar Timing Array

'Constraints' means they looked high and low for gravitational waves and could not find them. This is a very frustrated field!

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2459 The Oddly Quiet Universe: How the CMB challenges cosmology's standard model

The WMAP anguler power spectrum is one of the strongest evidences of alpha cosmology, except for a nagging tail wag that will not go away.


Finally, What is Friday without a Supernova paper?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2406 How the merger of two white dwarfs depends on their mass ratio: orbital stability and detonations at contact

Dan & co conclude there is a fairly broad range of merger masses that could achieve a supernova type Ia signiture.

[antoniseb]

From 16 January 2012

Today there are a few more papers about alternative cosmologies (or theories of gravity) than usual, but generally an otherwise typical distribution of the papers about the specifics of certain stars, clusters, active nuclei, galaxies or galaxy clusters. The total paper count was a bit on the low side. I selected six papers today, but one of them was for a strictly goofy reason.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2685 is a paper modeling the convective Babcock-Leighton Dynamo in 3D... which is looking at convection in a star, and taking magentism into account. This sort of thing has been done in 2D previously, but the computation needed to get a good 3D model has been prohibitive until very recently. For their model star, the 22 year solar magnetic cycle that we obseve in the Sun seems to have happened as an artifact of the model... but in this simu-star the duration was about two years. Still not bad for a first model.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2687 How many things smaller than stars are out there orbiting in the galaxy, but not bound to a specific star? I wonder about this from time to time. This paper estimates that there could be 100,000 such objects greater than about a quarter the mass of our Moon in the galaxy for every star in the galaxy. The paper makes predictions of how many such objects will be observed by Gaia (basically only Jupiter mass and greater), and suggests a dedicated orbiting mission for the next decade to stare at a patch of the Southern Sky and make more precise and shorter time interval gravitational lensing measurements than we have done so far... to look for these things and get more concrete numbers.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2790 Some people just don't like the idea of Dark Energy. Some cosmologists have proposed various models suggesting that a sufficiently inhomogenous universe could explain some of the observatons that have led us to suggesting Dark Energy as an explanation. This math-heavy paper make a probe of the geometry of such models and rules out a significant fraction of the inhomogenous models, with the possibility that upcoming SZ and ISW data will be able to rule out (or support) the others. It is this latter aspect that really drew me to this paper. I like knowing more about why we are trying to observe certain things.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2849 Just briefly: Hipparcos ran from 1989-1993, and made some great measurements of stellar parallaxes and proper motions. In 2020, the Gaia catalog will be released with hugely better measurements of these things and more... but in the mean time, JAXA will be launching Nano-JASMINE, this will produce similar measurements to Hipparcos BUT they will be made 20+ years later, so in 2014, we should have much more accurate proper motion measurements for many stars than we had from Hipparcos alone. This paper looks at how to combine the data from the two missions, and the expected quality of the result.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2866 I looked at this paper becasue of the VLTI/AMBER observations of a Giant Binary Be star... which turned out to be sort of interesting, but not worth highlighting... however the PDF of this paper comes with a different unadvertised paper attached up front about "The Hydrodynamics of Giant Planet Formation"... which also wouldn't have grabbed me except that one of the authors is C. Ptolemy from the University of Alexandria's Department of Geography. ... I'd have thought this was a reference to the author of the Almagest, except that an email address is provided for him.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2400 finally, this paper is about haw many dark matter particles neutron stars might sweep out (absorb) in their trip through the galaxy. Interesting idea, which I've also pondered, but unlike these authors, never worked out.

[Selfsim]

which also wouldn't have grabbed me except that one of the authors is C. Ptolemy from the University of Alexandria's Department of Geography. ... I'd have thought this was a reference to the author of the Almagest, except that an email address is provided for him.

Hi antoniseb (and the other folk contributing to this great exercise);

I'd like to thank you guys for what you're doing here .. I'm finding it a very useful and helpful idea .. many thanks for putting in the effort.

I can't resist comparing the above author's name to one I found the other day ... the paper was Super-Eccentric Migrating Jupiters ... his name is 'Aristotle Socrates' ..!!...

(He's authored or co-authored, about 23 papers so far in arXiv. His explanation for his name on his website here .. and is quite an interesting read, in itself).

Regards

[antoniseb]

From 17 January 2012

Today's batch includes several papers about alternative models for gravity, including a few F(R) models, and one about Black-hole entropy in Lanczos-Lovelock gravity, and another on Noether models... Lots of gravity, and the usual trace quantities of levity today. Aside from that there were also a few more papers about cosmic rays and AGNs than usual. I picked four today:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2942 Love the antennae galaxy, Love ALMA, Love VLTI/SINFONI... Gotta love this paper taking a close (H2 and CO) look at the Super Giant Molecular Complexes in which clouds are forming, and it looks like opposite sides of the clouds are rushing toward each other at 150 km/sec. In the middle of it all, massive star forming regions and one very hot spot. The paper is fairly easy to read, and has some interesting diagrams.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2967 Is it silly to look for antiHelium (or more accurately anti-Alpha particles)? Where could they possibly form in enough quantity that they would make it all the way to our atmosphere in detectable quantities? What if it was there, and we didn't look? This paper is a nice description of BESS, and balloon born antarctic detector that has flown looking at cosmic rays, and so far after 24.5 days integrated collecting time, seen nothing looking like antiHelium. Cool paper, because it describes the instrument, and what it DID detect... and because silly or not, antiHelium is cool to think about.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3130 ASKAP (Australian SKA Pathfinder) is a proposed and funded (I think) huge array of radio telescopes, and it will be able to do a lot of science that we otherwise can't do yet. THIS paper is about its capabilities in terms of serching for short transient sources, and the data systems required to combine and store all that data. The paper is short, not overly technical, and to the point.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3209 When you see *SS433* in bold print, does it bolt you into attention? It does for me... but perhaps that's telling too much about my age. SS433 was a mystery object which was eventually identified as a "microquasar". It is a massive binary, with one Giant star and a compact object (probably black hole, maybe neutron star) shooting jets out its axis. Total brightness (all wavelengths combined) is about 3 million times brighter than the Sun. This paper takes a refined look at the mechanisms that cool the jets as they move outward. Technical, but interesting because the object is interesting.

[loglo]

ASKAP is not only funded but construction is well on the way. Latest progress report is here. I am amazed at the data this array is going to produce, only one of the 10 major projects putting out 8GB every 5 seconds. To paraphrase Chief Brody "We are going to need a bigger chip!"

[IsaacKuo]

From 18 January 2012

I'll be posting a larger list later today. Here are just a few out of the many interesting looking papers which really popped out as first priority for me:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3484 - Astrometry and Exoplanet Characterization: Gaia and Its Pandora’s Box

This paper describes what we can expect from Gaia. I'm excited about this since astrometry has so far failed to deliver the goods but it has the potential to be at least as important as the doppler and transit methods. Gaia could do for astrometry what Kepler did for transits.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3403 - Large Amplitude Variations of an L/T Transition Brown Dwarf: Multi-Wavelength Observations of Patchy, High-Contrast Cloud Features

A detailed study of a brown dwarf (the T1.5 dwarf 2MASS J21392676+0220226 (2M2139)). I have to highlight this paper, since I think brown dwarfs deserve as much attention as gas giant planets--if not more...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3537 - Direct Imaging of Extra-solar Planets - Homogeneous Comparison of Detected Planets and Candidates

...and here is a paper highlighting the anti-brown dwarf bias in astronomy. Actually, this paper is a very nice survey and study of the directly imaged exoplanets (so far). It also demonstrates the importance of brown dwarf science, since it uses brown dwarf data for model confirmation.

[Tensor]

Whew! There were a total of 83 new papers announce in astro-ph today. 61 of them brand new. So I beg forgiveness if you know of a paper I missed.

The first two are attempts to get to the same answer, by different routes. Interestingly, both have the same co-author.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3758 Quark-cluster Stars: the structure
Xiaoyu Lai (PKU), Renxin Xu (PKU)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3759 Quark-cluster Stars: hints from the surface
Shi Dai (PKU), Renxin Xu (PKU)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3621 eLISA: Astrophysics and cosmology in the millihertz regime
Pau Amaro-Seoane et al,
A survey of the proposed eLisa European New Gravitational Observatory mission. A pretty much mathless read on the proposed science, expected constraints and tests of gravitational theories. Just because I have a large interest in Gravitational Theories.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3630 Molecular hydrogen in Lyman Alpha Emitters
Livia Vallini, Pratika Dayal, Andrea Ferrara

There was a discussion a while back concerning the amount of molecular hydrogen in different galaxies. This paper compares calculations of molecular hydrogen, based on constraints on the effects of emission of UV in Lyman-Alpha emitters.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3796 Environmental effects on the bright end of the galaxy luminosity function in galaxy clusters R. Barrena, M. Girardi, W. Boschin, F. Mardirossian “We conclude that Big Galaxies grow in luminosity and decrease in number as the parent clusters grow... “ Gee, ya think? Anyway, this paper talks about the evolution of galaxies and galactic clusters.

There were quite a few papers on Gamma Rays and GRBs, plasmas and magnetism, and a couple on attempts to detect dark objects at cosmological distances

[StupendousMan]

The paper VLBI Astrometry of the Semiregular Variable RX Bootis is a nice example of the power of radio interferometry. Astronomers in Japan have used an array of radio telescopes called VERA to measure very precisely the positions of a maser associated with the star RX Bootis and a nearby quasar. The changes in the relative positions yield a precise distance to the star.

The VERA group is doing a lot of excellent work to find distances to star-forming regions in the Milky Way. They ought to get more press!

[Tensor]

The paper VLBI Astrometry of the Semiregular Variable RX Bootis is a nice example of the power of radio interferometry. Astronomers in Japan have used an array of radio telescopes called VERA to measure very precisely the positions of a maser associated with the star RX Bootis and a nearby quasar. The changes in the relative positions yield a precise distance to the star.

The VERA group is doing a lot of excellent work to find distances to star-forming regions in the Milky Way. They ought to get more press!

Thank you very much StupendousMan. This is exactly what I meant when I talked about missing a paper.

I'm not sure about how the others work on putting up the papers here, But I read the abstracts to see if something catches my fancy, then I skim the actual papers, to get an idea. If it's really interesting, I may read the whole thing. This usually gives me all the data I need, and I pick out the papers, copy and paste the arXiv number, title,and author(s) to a word processor. Clean up the formatting, make a few comments and notes and then paste it into a post. But when there is a big release (much like yesterday), that limits the about of time I can spend on each article and it's more like read the titles and skim the abstracts, with only a quick look at the article. This is less than satisfactory to me, but time limits force my hand in this.

Which is why I wanted to thank you and invite anyone else who sees a paper that I did not have in my posts on Thursday to bring it to our attention. After all, and to be honest, there may be some papers that really hold no interest for me. I've been trying to include a variety, but I may not be posting the papers that interest you, so present your papers will bring your interests to light.

[antoniseb]

... I'm not sure about how the others work on putting up the papers here ...

My procedure is:
1. Read the titles.
2a. If the title doesn't grab me scan the abstract looking for keywords that might otherwise grab me ... if not: reject, else: 2b
2b. Read the whole abstract. If it seems like yet more of something recently covered well, or otherwise doesn't grab me: reject, else: 3
3. Read the first paragraph or two, and the results/conclusions/discussion at the end, and graph and image captions. If duller than expected: reject, else: 4
4. Add write up to the post, explaining why this is interesting
5. When the post is complete, go back and completely read the papers that really intrigue me if time permits.

This means that sometimes I mis-characterize the contents of a paper, which I later regret, but at least I get it done.

[Nereid]

Thanks Tensor. I never know if the 2-3 hours a day on this helps anyone... at least I know it causes trouble

Great thread!

I must say, though, that the thing I'd most to learn from you, antoniseb, is how to read ~seven papers, and write your summaries, in only "2-3 hours"!

In another Astronomy thread I cited a 2012 astro-ph preprint, Astrophysically Motivated Bulge-Disk Decompositions of SDSS Galaxies, by C. N. Lackner and J. E. Gunn. It does not feature in anyone's summary, yet I'm sure at least one of the contributors to this thread at least glanced at it. I'd say it took me well over 2-3 hours to read that paper. And that's just one example.

So, what's your secret?

ETA: I see that you kindly answered my question, even before I asked it! Thank you.

Ah, the delights of participating in this forum, with my uncertain access and posts prepared offline, in advance ...

[Tensor]

My procedure is:
1. Read the titles.
2a. If the title doesn't grab me scan the abstract looking for keywords that might otherwise grab me ... if not: reject, else: 2b
2b. Read the whole abstract. If it seems like yet more of something recently covered well, or otherwise doesn't grab me: reject, else: 3
3. Read the first paragraph or two, and the results/conclusions/discussion at the end, and graph and image captions. If duller than expected: reject, else: 4
4. Add write up to the post, explaining why this is interesting
5. When the post is complete, go back and completely read the papers that really intrigue me if time permits.

This means that sometimes I mis-characterize the contents of a paper, which I later regret, but at least I get it done.

My skim the actual papers is essentially your #3, sometimes more, sometime less. With the number of papers released last night, it was, as I said, more of a skimming of the abstracts.

[Jerry]

When I read archives nightly, I got to where I mostly focused on authors: The ones I liked, the ones I didn't, and the ones I didn't know. There are a lot of new names out there, and a lot of new papers for Friday:

There are a couple of reviews worth reviewing, starting with dark matter:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3942 Dark Matter: A Brief Review

I rarely like a paper (in this case, a transcript of a lecture) where the abstract starts with an assumed fact I don't agree with; but I likethis brief oral review because the speaker focuses on how current research may narrow the field. I would prefer the title: Dark Matter: A Talk about Nothing We can put a thumb on, yet.

As always, I like papers that confound theory:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3919 A Survey of MgII Absorption at 2 < z < 6 with Magellan / FIRE: I: Sample and Evolution of the MgII Frequency

MgII adsorbers should evolve over time in an evolving universe, but how much? Very little evolution detected here; either crying for an expanded era of population III stars, or another new theory.

Astrometrics:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4011 Solar diameter with 2012 Venus transit
The June of 2012 Venus transit is one of those fun, rare events; and a good time to be in China. Also http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4012 Solar astrometry: the status of art in 2011

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4115 Spectroscopy of lensing galaxies in the GTC era
I wish this paper had more detail; because I think it is important. Perhaps they rushed to get the news out, or there is a much more extensive treatment in another language. This is something I have suspected, but never seen in writing. The observed lensing in ‘gravitationally’ lensed galaxies is much too great to be the result of gravitational lensing…unless more than one lensing mass is involved. More than one, simple lens seems messy - It would be difficult to resolve an image that appears to be a galaxy with more than one focusing source. Is this yet another failure to detect a predicted relativistic gravitational effect? Too much deflection is just as bad as too little.

And finally, what is a Friday, without a Supernova paper?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3989 THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE* CLUSTER SUPERNOVA SURVEY: III. CORRELATED PROPERTIES OF TYPE IA SUPERNOVAE AND THEIR HOSTS AT 0:9 < z < 1:46

The authors show modest evidence that the generally shorter light curves found in more distant events correlate with the increase in the number of supernova found in early-type galaxies with increasing redshift.

[antoniseb]

For 23 January 2012


Today's batch is fairly small, and didn't really include a concentration on one topic of any sort, but it did include a few odd ones, and I must have been in the mood for odd, because those are the ones I picked:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4171 This paper looks at the location and redshift of the globular clusters around giant elliptical galaxy NGC4261. This is a longish, but easy to read paper that observes and discusses the anisotropy of the distribution of the GCs, and suggests that this feature is a result of a long past mergers.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4190 This is a very short paper that discusses outliers in a statistical survey of stars with very low Iron/Hydrogen ratios. In all of these cases, the Iron abundance is less than 1/1000 that of the Sun, but these few dozen stars have strangely high abundances of other nuclei, such as Carbon, Nitrogen (in a few cases), and even Calcium, Magnesium, and Strontium. The paper doesn't really address the why's of all this, but points to these stars as being worthy of future examination.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4238 Years ago I was really thrilled an impressed with the use of parallax on water masers to accurately determine distances to things much further away than was previously possible. This paper reexamines the original work with new observations of Sharpless 269, and finds that the locations of the maser spots are not constant, and that while maser parallax IS possible, it requires some care that the original effort didn't make.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4353 Wind blown dust and dune features that we have observed on Earth, Mars, Titan, and perhaps Venus are something that are mildly understood. This paper is actually more like a textbook (90 pages + appendicies) on this topic. I skimmed the beginning end end, and will revisit it later. It covers the topic of windblown dust and sand in detail... and has nice images.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4371 Are there really giant scale magnetic fields in the universe? This paper shows that with what we know about streams of ultra high energy cosmic rays coming from galactic nuclei, there can be magnetic fields on the scale of one picogauss in the voids between the walls of galaxies... and this is with no assumption of a primordial magnetic field to seed things. There are probably a lot of potential observable (with future methods) consequences to such fields existing. This paper doesn't really discuss them except to some degree about the paths of UHECRs.

[antoniseb]

From 24 January 2012

Small batch yesterday, big batch today. We used to call that binning jitter. Todays batch is heavy on black hole related topics, with a side of magnetism, and x-rays for dessert. Lots of good astronomy papers, adn it was hard to choose just a few.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4385 answers a question I've wondered about. If a black hole is spinning in the opposite direction from the orbit of its accretion disk, will it jet more energy away than if it is spinning with the disk? The authors did a 3D simulation, producing beautiful graphs, and got an answser [spoiler alert!] No, prograde is better for making jets.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4388 There were SO many claims of "first direct image of an extra-solar planet", but I think the one that excited me most was Fomalhaut b... probably because we'd already gotten such brilliant images of the debris disk around Fomalhaut, and because Fomalhaut is such a nearby star, I really wanted it to be true... This paper is a deep infrared study showing that Fomalhaut b was an illusion. Sad but true.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4455 This paper from a team in Iran and Azarbaijan is about magnetism and how it may impact the Chandrashakar limit for White Dwarfs... which (while not specifically mentioned in the paper) impacts some type 1a Supernovae.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4491 is about the Fermi Bubbles ... well, the Northern Fermi Bubble, which is a big shell coming out of the core of our galaxy. In this case a structure in the same place, and with the same shape (so, we assume it is the same structure) has been observed in the polarizartion of the microwaves observed by WMAP. What are these mysterious shells? The surprising answer is not revealed in this paper, but an urge for more observing power is made plain.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4684 Magnetars, High resolution imaging, High proper motion... what is not to love about this paper? Someone once suggested that Magnetars could only be formed in asymmetric explosions that give a huge kick, so these authors got some VLBI time and measured the proper motion of PSR J1550-5418... and given its probable distance determined that its motion in the galaxy was too small to agree with the above hypothesis. One counterexample kills the theory.

[IsaacKuo]

From 18 January 2012, 19 January 2012

Better late than never! First off, here's one from the 19th that popped out to me, since Tensor invited extras:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4000 - Prediction of Astrometric Microlensing Events during the Gaia Mission

This describes a technique which is new to me, astrometric microlensing. Unlike microlensing events for detecting planets, astrometric microlensing can be predicted in advance. The idea is to track the apparent center of a background star as a fast moving lensing star passes in front of it. This centroid will follow an elliptical path, which is then used to calculate the mass of the lensing star with good precision.

And a couple more from the 18th:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3622 - Debris disks as signposts of terrestrial planet formation. II Dependence of exoplanet architectures on giant planet and disk properties

This is an extensive study predicting what sort of exoplanets should go with what sort of debris disks. The authors suggest that sun-like stars with bright cold debris disks and no gas giants should be searched for Earth-like planets.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3577 - Shadows, gaps, and ring-like structures in protoplanetary disks

The authors model protoplanetary disks, and find that gaps and ring-like structures are possible in hydrostatic equilibrium--without any companion or planet, the usual assumed suspect.

[IsaacKuo]

From 25 January 2012

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4964 - The surface detector array of the Telescope Array experiment to explore the highest energy cosmic rays

This paper has 138 authors, or 4.3 authors per page. That alone was enough to catch my eye. The paper itself describes an array of scintillation detectors used to study ultra high energy cosmic rays. It's more for those who are interested in the technology rather than the science.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4995 - Gaming is a hard job, but someone has to do it!

This is an extremely fun paper with easy mathematical proofs about the computational complexity of various classic videogames. For example, Pacman is NP-hard, while Prince of Persia is PSPACE-complete.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.5029 - PyCOOL - a Cosmological Object-Oriented Lattice code written in Python

This is a math heavy paper about a software tool for simulating the early universe, accelerated by GPUs (graphics processors, which on modern computers can be much faster than the main CPU). I don't grok the mathematics of cosmological models, but I see this paper as useful for those who do and would be interested in using this tool for performing their own cosmological simulations. PyCOOL is publicly available under the open source GPL license, and it runs on common desktop computers with regular graphics cards, as opposed to fancy supercomputers.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4873 - Magnetically-levitating disks around supermassive black holes

The authors simulated magnetic levitation of supermassive black hole accretion discs, and discuss implications on SMBH growth. This paper includes a lot of pretty pictures.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2186 - Consensus in networks of mobile communicating agents

This paper simulates communication and consensus building of mobile sensors or robots or animals or people, with limited communication range compared to mobility. They include graphs of convergence behavior, and note the significance of this issue for robotics and telecommunications.