Galaxy Zoo Talk

Dustlane

  • bluemagi by bluemagi

    How can both of these galaxies be sharing a dustlane? Sorry I put this in the wrong category under help. So can anyone explain this?

    Posted

  • ElisabethB by ElisabethB moderator

    If a galaxy with a dustlane is interacting/merging with another galaxy, I don't see why the dustlane cannot get smeared out and appear in the other galaxy.

    Hope this helps !

    Posted

  • CSA00 by CSA00

    enter image description here

    1237668272976035952 23.17" z = 0.077

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237662224615604409 1237662224615604396 37.4” z = 0.100

    enter image description here
    1237668348675817507 45.11” z = 0.028 credit turelli
    https://www.galaxyzoo.org/#/examine/AGZ000btgs

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237668298739155087 3.604” z = 0.074
    1237667292120350841 25.07” z = 0.025

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237678621699735570 40.95” z = 0.007
    1237662306730967270 23.98” z = 0.045

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237669680648224845 10.9”

    1237646587165933675 13.39” z = 0.033

    enter image description here
    1237648703529353575 9.72” z = 0.059

    Posted

  • CSA00 by CSA00

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237673807580823615

    1237673807580824029 41.28” z = 0.058

    Posted

  • CSA00 by CSA00

    enter image description here
    1237661387065786478 36.64” z = 0.025

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237662530070380596

    1237662530070446243 5.867’ z = 0.030

    Posted

  • CSA00 by CSA00

    enter image description here
    1237664291548823600 16.19” z = 0.041
    enter image description here
    1237664291548889126 18.56” z = 0.040
    enter image description here
    1237664291011887113 1.23’ z = 0.023

    Posted

  • CSA00 by CSA00

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237667550883086399
    1237667550883086400 43.12” z = 0.020

    Posted

  • ElisabethB by ElisabethB moderator

    @CSA00

    Thanks for all the gorgeous images of mostly merging galaxies and dustlanes !

    Posted

  • bluemagi by bluemagi

    Do you mean emergence? Its not right to criticize New ideas. Since science is all about new hypothesis and theory. You might not like it but that is what science is all about! History shows a trend of outcasting people who don't conform to the norm. I guess that you get paid by the merger. Goodbye, Bluemagi

    Posted

  • CSA00 by CSA00

    @MODERATOR Please remove your off-topic remarks. The discussion is for classifiers who are tired of your one dimensional interpretation of astronomy. These remarks appear as hostile, crude spamming.

    "If a galaxy with a dustlane is interacting/merging with another galaxy, I don't see why the dustlane cannot get smeared out and appear in the other galaxy."
    "Thanks for all the gorgeous images of mostly merging galaxies and dustlanes !"

    Please flaunt your hypothesis in another discussion.

    ==========================================

    These object pairs have a foundation based upon natural INTERNAL events of ALL paired-object systems and these examples show that LTG type objects move from inside a dust ring to beyond the ring and take dust from the ring with that emergent LTGs - LTG cannot for their own dust.

    Attack these authors. Some are Zoo staff. Good luck with that.

    @Lintott, please advise your moderators that you have specific guidelines to follow when using the term
    "merger." Also, will you be simulating emergent systems from this collection?

    From the recent MaNGA studies another note, “Recent studies argue that local galaxies must migrate rapidly (within a Gyr) from the ‘blue cloud’ to the ‘red sequence’ due to the scarcity of galaxies within the intervening parameter space (occasionally dubbed the ‘green valley’; (e.g. Schawinski et al. 2007.) Therefore, valuable insights into galaxy evolution can be obtained by studying galaxies that appear to have intermediate properties and may be in the act of transitioning between the two main galaxy populations (Wong 2011.)”
    “This reconstruction demonstrates that elliptical galaxies cannot have formed through the merging of other galaxies, simply because there wasn't enough time to accumulate the large quantity of stars seen in these galaxies through these processes … This means that the formation of elliptical galaxies occurs through internal, in situ processes of star formation (Mancuso 2016.)”

    enter image description here
    1237654881814118468 22.39” z = 0.028

    enter image description here
    1237662636904022099 z = 0.030

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237662269141483633 10.43” z = 0.025
    1237665443125067849 36.29” .022 after emergence, an ARP "fission"

    enter image description here
    1237667211574969044 7.747”

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237663543681417591 10.2” z = 0.074

    1237658300056338796 12.24" z = 0.138 - 0.139 credit elsie22 14/10/2016

    https://www.galaxyzoo.org/#/examine/AGZ000cf2a

    enter image description here
    1237648704581665091
    4.537” z = 0.105 NLAGN

    Posted

  • Budgieye by Budgieye moderator in response to bluemagi's comment.

    I don't understand how this post fits into the topic. I agree with ElisabethB and I like the collection of images of merging galaxies. I don't know what this New Ideas is about. Moderators don't get paid, we donate our time out love of science.

    Posted

  • Budgieye by Budgieye moderator in response to CSA00's comment.

    I don't understand how this post fits into the topic. I agree with ElisabethB and I like the collection of images of merging galaxies. Is your comment aimed at bluemagi or moderator?

    Posted

  • ElisabethB by ElisabethB moderator

    @bluemagi and @CSA00

    My posts will not be deleted as they are accurate. And let's not go down that (no merger) road again ! It really does lead to nowhere !

    Thank you.

    Posted

  • CSA00 by CSA00

    enter image description here
    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237655742410260645 7.34” z = 0.036

    1237680251099414877 10.88” z = 0.050

    1237671932283322446
    17.42” z = 0.036

    Posted

  • CSA00 by CSA00

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237652615669022745 9.116” z = 0.043
    1237646588243738832

    enter image description here
    1237668297675374793 10.82” z = 0.090 credit dorion

    enter image description here
    1237668271899476098 19.42” z = 0.090

    enter image description here
    1237667781236687000 18.14” z = 0.079

    Posted

  • vrooje by vrooje admin, scientist in response to CSA00's comment.

    Hi @CSA00,

    Interesting quotes from papers, though note the quote from Mancuso et al. (2016) is not actually from the paper but is from some kind of press related to the article. The paper itself never mentions either elliptical or spiral galaxies directly. It refers to the formation of new stars in galaxies, not to whether galaxy mergers occur at all (which they obviously do and I agree with @ElisabethB's recommendation above). In that context it seems at first glance like it may be consistent with the Wong et al. and Schawinski et al. papers, which argue that star formation must occur in situ in at least some ellipticals.

    Those are some really lovely examples of dust lanes, disturbed and not. Have you considered adding them to a collection here when you come across them in classification? It might make it easier for you to organize and keep notes on your identifications of interesting galaxies.

    Cheers,

    -Brooke

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian

    I created following "hashtag collection" of images, which are tagged #merger and #dustlane .:

    https://talk.galaxyzoo.org/#/collections/CGZL00007n

    Posted

  • CSA00 by CSA00

    These qualify as emergent fission types. Thank you.

    https://talk.galaxyzoo.org/#/subjects/AGZ00014sr .033 .034
    https://www.galaxyzoo.org/#/examine/AGZ0001fz3 .024 .026
    https://www.galaxyzoo.org/#/examine/AGZ0001guc .065 .064
    https://www.galaxyzoo.org/#/examine/AGZ0001m53 3 .013s 2 .006s north
    https://www.galaxyzoo.org/#/examine/AGZ0001i6v td gv .027s
    https://www.galaxyzoo.org/#/examine/AGZ0001hw0 td .053 .052 gv
    https://www.galaxyzoo.org/#/examine/AGZ0001l5d td gv .016s

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237648705135771961
    1237648705135837483 9.561’ z = 0.039

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237661085348331730
    1237661085348331716 1.385’ z = 0.85

    This is a quote from a Zoo catalog publication, "Future analyses of mergers and interacting
    galaxies may find a combination of Galaxy Zoo and CANDELS team classifications useful
    for

    eliminating the effects of distraction bias

    and distinguishing between interacting and
    non-interacting companions" - anonymous
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1610.03070 (submitted on 10 Oct 2016)

    Always classify the source in the middle of the image... it looks disturbed and like it may be

    merging

    with the other galaxy. The

    merger

    (c) by vrooje ADMIN, SCIENTIST
    (c) question is always the last question, so ignore the off-center galaxy until you get to that question. Happy classifying, and thanks!
    by vrooje ADMIN, SCIENTIST (Submitted on 15 Oct 2016)

    ===== one option is NOT a choice and no one inherently understands the term =======

    And it may be a #fission system sharing a common dustlane.
    Update the morphology classifications to include emergent and fission options. Remove the bias.
    Hire a statistical consultant to explain your classification biases.

    enter image description here

    1237662641732059176 18.8” z = 0.024

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237655468597182863
    1237651735776460868

    Posted

  • vrooje by vrooje admin, scientist in response to CSA00's comment.

    This is a quote from a Zoo catalog publication, "Future analyses of mergers and interacting galaxies may find a combination of Galaxy Zoo and CANDELS team classifications useful for

    eliminating the effects of distraction bias

    and distinguishing between interacting and non-interacting companions" - anonymous http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1610.03070 (submitted on 10 Oct 2016)

    That is from Simmons et al. (2016), the Galaxy Zoo CANDELS data release paper that was recently accepted by MNRAS. Distraction bias is unrelated to discussion of the physics of mergers.

    I have never seen a reference to an "emergent fission type" in a journal article or talk, but the name sounds like it is meant to evoke the concept of nuclear fission. Nuclear fission is of course a well-studied phenomenon, but the force that dominates galaxy interactions, gravity, is completely different. A single galaxy does not spontaneously split into two galaxies; that's just not how gravity works. Simulations using gravity alone (e.g. Springel et al. 2005) are remarkably effective at reproducing the overall properties (masses, distribution on the sky) of galaxies that we see today, and the addition of more physical forces and more complex processes (e.g. Vogelsberger et al. 2014a, b) makes this more accurate. Explaining the images posted above of disturbed galaxies and galaxy pairs does not require a complete inversion of gravity of the sort you seem to be suggesting. Simulations reproduce mergers of exactly that sort extremely well. The collection @zutopian started has some really nice examples as well.

    Cheers,
    -Brooke

    Posted

  • mlpeck by mlpeck in response to vrooje's comment.

    Tidal dwarf galaxies are generally acknowledged to be real things and no version of the Galaxy Zoo decision tree would be of much help in identifying candidates. You'd basically have to wade through the high vote fraction "odds".

    Posted

  • ElisabethB by ElisabethB moderator

    Hi mlpeck,

    Not sure what your comment has to do with this thread !

    And why wouldn't tidal dwarf galaxies be marked as mergers in GZ ?

    Posted

  • CSA00 by CSA00

    enter image description here
    1237662224078471196 26.42” z = 0.012-0.013

    and an appropriate comparison

    enter image description here
    1237649919509594231 10.9” z = 0.024-0.026

    polar dustlane? target agn broadline

    Posted

  • CSA00 by CSA00

    by ElisabethB MODERATOR 4 years ago
    Always classify the object in the center of the image. Even if it is the most boring one!

    The "boring" objects are what we classify. The staff etal claim that bored classifiers
    cause "bias" so perhaps the moderators need to be a little more upbeat about their tasks.

    Btw, you weren't a "moderator" 4 years ago.

    Posted

  • CSA00 by CSA00

    Simulations reproduce mergers of exactly that sort extremely well.

    Yes, so please use the simulator to show that all these objects are not "mergers."

    Also Lintott has a set of 3,850 merger rejects from a multi-object paper. May we
    have those systems for our analysis. Please format them as these 30 are formatted.

    Please also confirm that these 30 systems are not "mergers" too. Thank you.
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2uDn4f7ph9IYURpQzczRUFHbm8

    Posted

  • CSA00 by CSA00

    If a moderator posts scientific fraud is the starff responsible?
    Who is directly responsible for the moderators? Who gave
    the moderators their titles?

    Posted

  • vrooje by vrooje admin, scientist in response to mlpeck's comment.

    @mlpeck wrote:

    Tidal dwarf galaxies are generally acknowledged to be real things and no version of the Galaxy Zoo decision tree would be of much help in identifying candidates. You'd basically have to wade through the high vote fraction "odds".

    I agree that the GZ decision tree can't readily identify all known types of galaxies. Rarer types are not all captured even in the "odd" choices, and it's always been a challenge to select a clean and complete sample of S0s, for example.

    One of the benefits of the new Zooniverse project builder is that it's easy to create new projects and new workflows that are targeted to a specific science case or set of science cases. With Galaxy Zoo Bar Lengths, for example, we used the original GZH and GZ CANDELS classifications to pick a set of galaxies that needed more information on galaxy bars than the original question trees could provide. If you wanted to look for tidal dwarf galaxies with the help of the Zoo community, and you know what data you want to start from, you can now create a project to do it!

    But I also agree with @ElisabethB above that your example is very different from the other example above, in that there is a set of scientific literature to provide observational and theoretical backing and context to the study of tidal dwarf galaxies.

    Cheers,
    -Brooke

    Posted

  • mlpeck by mlpeck in response to vrooje's comment.

    But I also agree with @ElisabethB above that your example is very
    different from the other example above, in that there is a set of
    scientific literature to provide observational and theoretical backing
    and context to the study of tidal dwarf galaxies

    Well yes, and I probably should have avoided commenting in this topic altogether. One point I was hinting at was that since tidal dwarfs are more or less by definition stellar systems that form out of tidal debris from interacting galaxies calling them mergers isn't quite the right term. No one knows the ultimate fate of tidal dwarfs -- they might dissipate into the intergalactic medium, they might merge back into their parent systems, or they might survive as distinct systems. That's one of the things that makes them of great astrophysical interest as all papers say in the intro.

    So, if you developed a research interest in tidal dwarfs and wanted to use Galaxy Zoo data what would you do? I think a new targeted project would probably be needed. I'd probably pick as candidates just about everything with a significant merger vote fraction in GZ1 or with a significant fraction of "odd" votes in GZ2 or the current round of decals classifications. I'd also probably pick neighbors out to some fairly large angular radius regardless of any previous classifications.

    I'll leave off with a famous example -- this is Arp 105 (among other catalog designations). The irregular blob attached to the long tidal tail is considered a tidal dwarf, as is the blue condensation south of the elliptical (NGC 3561) near the bottom. Only about 23% of GZ1 classifiers saw the irregular as a merger. In GZ2 65% of classifiers saw something "odd" about the elliptical with votes split between "merger " and "other."

    enter image description here

    Posted

  • CSA00 by CSA00

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237668298757701744
    1237668298757701951 9.53’ z = 0.037 credit c_cld

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    1237659146706026543
    1237659146705961172 6.656’ z = 0.006-0.007 credit c_cld

    enter image description here

    href="http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/explore/Summary.aspx?id=1237662301903192106">1237662301903192106 6.606” z = 0.040 credit Lin

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian

    c_cld posted the HST images of these GPairs (from above post) in below GZ Talk topic.:

    enter image description here
    enter image description here

    https://talk.galaxyzoo.org/#/boards/BGZ0000001/discussions/DGZ0001cz5

    Posted

  • bluemagi by bluemagi

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269

    Posted

  • bluemagi by bluemagi

    The article above is on emergent gravity. Any comments ?

    Posted

  • vrooje by vrooje admin, scientist

    Hi bluemagi, I wonder if you may have posted that paper in the wrong thread, as the paper doesn't relate to dust lanes or mergers.

    Posted

  • bluemagi by bluemagi

    No, Its in the right thread. It depends on how one looks at things, isn't it. Emergence is a new way of looking at things. You should know that science needs new ideas to advance. We can't keep being stuck in the past we need to advance and with all the new technology you would think that science has to start looking at new hypothesis and theory. Halton Arp was an amazing scientist who was shunned by the astronomy community because of his ideas. Instead of debate and really looking at ideas, they get kicked to the curb because it doesn't fit the norm. I have a deep love of science and what I see really shocks me at times. We are all on the same page we all want the truth and we shall only find it when we really start listening to one another and stop being critical of one another and listen to new ideas. If you want to discuss this more email me. Magi

    Posted

  • Ghost_Sheep_SWR by Ghost_Sheep_SWR

    AFAIK GalaxyZoo is meant for citizen science (or whatever it is called now) eg. classifications of galaxies and if necessary feedback on individual galaxies or features. Why not keep it that way and discuss mainstream theories, controversial theories and personal pet theories at more appropriate places?

    I can heartily recommend the CosmoQuest forum for these among others.
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org

    GZ moderators are volunteers who dedicate years of their own time helping out with questions and/or help with identifying flagged objects and features.

    Posted

  • Budgieye by Budgieye moderator in response to bluemagi's comment.

    This thread is on the topic of dustlanes.

    Posted

  • bluemagi by bluemagi

    Ghostsheep stay out of this! Your a yes man and teachers pet type. Fission theory and emergence are the answers and not mergers. I looked up quasars and you know how they came to being by merger! But how can that be, where did the first one come from? CSA got banned by a moderator who thinks she can rule the world and abuse anyone she pleases who comes here. Thats what is wrong here. Wheres the Zookeeper? Tell him the animals have revolted.

    Posted

  • Budgieye by Budgieye moderator in response to bluemagi's comment.

    Galaxy Zoo Talk is for volunteers to discuss the galaxies and share our knowledge. Divergent opinions may be discussed politely as long as there is attention given to scientific accuracy. Name-calling is not nice, and will not be tolerated. I suggest that you apologise.

    Posted

  • Ghost_Sheep_SWR by Ghost_Sheep_SWR in response to Budgieye's comment.

    Ok thanks for clearing that up, I am personally not offended just mildly amused since elsewhere I am considered against the mainstream 😃, but maybe it concerns another comment. I am wondering though, is this truly the same bluemagi i've had pleasant contact with just under 10 months ago, what happenend?

    Ok so anyways, since this is about dustlanes and apparently some fission (?) theory which isn't explained here can anyone;

    • explain this theory in detail and how it's different from mainstream theory?

    • show why it is so certain this fission theory explains object AGZ000brw0 better than 'simply' a merger of two galaxies, and what this has to do with the dustlane(s), please provide clear details and references.

    Maybe there exists a thread where this is done already, then please provide a link.

    Many thanks in advance, clear skies

    Posted

  • bluemagi by bluemagi

    Budgieye, I apologise to the team and classifiers. Perhaps the moderator can apologise for banning CSA00 and deleting his post, also. We have a theory of fission and we wanted to discuss it politely, but we weren't offered the chance. We are all here for the same reason, our love of science. So lets get on with it. Magi
    P.S. Let CSA00 do his post. Thank you.

    Posted

  • Budgieye by Budgieye moderator in response to bluemagi's comment.

    Apology accepted. I cannot comment further upon the rest of your post. Please see next post for science discussion.

    Posted

  • Budgieye by Budgieye moderator in response to bluemagi's comment.

    This is an difficult paper that requires a detailed knowledge of astrophysics, which I don't have. Also, it has not yet been accepted for publication, so it has not been subjected to peer review (translation: the other experts haven't agreed that it has merit)

    I can't see how this fits into a thread about dustlanes. You may wish to create a thread about galaxy fission. But please, support your theories with facts. If your theory has no basis in science, it will confuse newbies and waste time.

    Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe

    Erik P. Verlinde (Submitted on 7 Nov 2016 (v1), last revised 8 Nov
    2016 (this version, v2)) Recent theoretical progress indicates that
    spacetime and gravity emerge together from the entanglement structure
    of an underlying microscopic theory. These ideas are best understood
    in Anti-de Sitter space, where they rely on the area law for
    entanglement entropy. The extension to de Sitter space requires taking
    into account the entropy and temperature associated with the
    cosmological horizon. Using insights from string theory, black hole
    physics and quantum information theory we argue that the positive dark
    energy leads to a thermal volume law contribution to the entropy that
    overtakes the area law precisely at the cosmological horizon. Due to
    the competition between area and volume law entanglement the
    microscopic de Sitter states do not thermalise at sub-Hubble scales:
    they exhibit memory effects in the form of an entropy displacement
    caused by matter. The emergent laws of gravity contain an additional
    dark' gravitational force describing the elastic' response due to
    the entropy displacement. We derive an estimate of the strength of
    this extra force in terms of the baryonic mass, Newton's constant and
    the Hubble acceleration scale a_0 =cH_0, and provide evidence for the
    fact that this additional `dark gravity~force' explains the observed
    phenomena in galaxies and clusters currently attributed to dark
    matter. Comments: 5 figures Subjects: High Energy Physics - Theory
    (hep-th); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc) Cite
    as: arXiv:1611.02269 [hep-th] (or arXiv:1611.02269v2 [hep-th] for
    this version) Submission history From: Erik Verlinde P [view email]
    [v1] Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:59:16 GMT (4304kb,D) [v2] Tue, 8 Nov 2016
    20:58:41 GMT (4305kb,D)

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269

    Posted

  • Budgieye by Budgieye moderator in response to bluemagi's comment.

    The rest of this thread will be about dustlanes.

    Posted