Galaxy Zoo Talk

Can anyone explain these faint galaxies in more details? There not the pea galaxies are they?

  • Freethesouls by Freethesouls

    Can anyone explain these faint galaxies in more details? There not the pea galaxies are they? Is this what the most distance ones look like due to Hubble's infrared imaging?

    Posted

  • vrooje by vrooje admin, scientist

    Yes, there are a lot of these very faint "blobby" galaxies in Hubble, but they are unlikely to be the same as the pea galaxies. A very distant pea might look red or green in these images, depending on the redshift.

    Posted

  • ElisabethB by ElisabethB moderator

    I'm assuming these have to be classified as star or artifact ?

    Posted

  • echo-lily-mai by echo-lily-mai

    Hi Els, I was wondering that too

    Posted

  • Kevin by Kevin scientist, admin

    I would call these "smooth"...

    Posted

  • klmasters by klmasters scientist, admin

    Definitely not a star or artifact since it's clearly a resolved extended object, and not a point source, or something wierd.

    Posted

  • ElisabethB by ElisabethB moderator

    so : this would be smooth - round - nothing special ?
    What to do when there are just a few pixels ?

    Posted

  • Peter_Dzwig by Peter_Dzwig in response to ElisabethB's comment.

    ElisabethB
    so : this would be smooth - round - nothing special ?
    What to do when there are just a few pixels ?

    Some of these are really just a jumble of pixels with few resolvable boundaries. The only thing that ocurred to me was to look at the inverted image. Helps a bit on one or two.

    Posted

  • Peter_Dzwig by Peter_Dzwig

    or this one which is even more indistinct, but there is something there.

    Posted

  • Kevin by Kevin scientist, admin

    One thing to remember is that the WFC3 camera's pixels are larger, so even though a galaxy may look "pixellated", it can still be resolved.

    Posted

  • vrooje by vrooje admin, scientist

    I think most people would consider this example smooth, but other examples will look like they have features and that's okay too. Myself, if I can't see a feature within the noise I assume it's smooth, but so long as it's a real galaxy there's not really a "right" answer.

    The variety of individual classification helps us characterize the confidence level of the overall classification. Peter's example is very faint indeed and I'd guess we'll get roughly even numbers of people giving different answers, which is one way of telling us that the overall classification is very uncertain.

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate

    One of the first galaxies I got to classify looked a bit like this. I agree that this one looks more 'smooth' than 'features', and that it's definitely NOT 'star/artifact'!

    I really wish there were a way to display it with different stretch and level settings (the only thing we can change, it seems, is to invert the image); I'm not at all confident this particular rendering is best for bringing out any details ('features') which may be present ...

    Posted

  • Freethesouls by Freethesouls

    These Hubble galaxies need a better name than just blog. How about "Faint Hubble Blobs" or FHB for short?

    Or something. If you like this suggestion plz, pass it by the science team.

    Tom Zolotor

    Posted

  • Kevin by Kevin scientist, admin in response to Freethesouls's comment.

    FREETHESOULS
    These Hubble galaxies need a better name than just blog. How about "Faint Hubble Blobs" or FHB for short?
    Or something. If you like this suggestion plz, pass it by the science team.
    Tom Zolotor

    You can always start the #FHB tag ; )

    Posted

  • Freethesouls by Freethesouls

    Kevin (science team) in response to FREETHESOULS
    FREETHESOULS:
    These Hubble galaxies need a better name than just blog. How about "Faint Hubble Blobs" or FHB for short?
    Or something. If you like this suggestion plz, pass it by the science team.
    Tom Zolotor
    You can always start the #FHB tag

    Oh my, excess my email to you LOL did not know you would reply. Sorry. Yeah, FHB is a good name. Maybe you can refer to them as such in a future blog? If you want if not no biggie.

    Posted

  • Freethesouls by Freethesouls

    #FHB I believe those galaxies need a name. The Hubble galaxies need something and I believe we can call them FHB and astronomer Kevin said it would be OK to refer to them as such. FHB stands for "Faint Hubble Blob."

    Thx,

    Tom Zolotor

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian

    Other suggestion for the classification of AGZ00004kg:
    clumpy (1 clump)

    Posted

  • Freethesouls by Freethesouls

    We can not use clumpy (1 clump) because this galaxy is smooth but others are clumpy that belong to the Hubble class of blobs we see. Some are clumpy while others are smooth. There all not clumpy 😃

    Tom Zolotor

    Posted

  • Freethesouls by Freethesouls

    Kevin, can you use the term FHB "Faint Hubble Blog" in you're future blogs, posts and in the news area of the main, message forum?

    Thanks so much,

    Tom Zolotor

    Posted

  • Kevin by Kevin scientist, admin

    Relevant blog post: http://blog.galaxyzoo.org/2012/09/14/what-to-do-with-faint-galaxies/

    Posted

  • Freethesouls by Freethesouls

    Thanks for the link Kevin and explaining more about them. #fainthubbleblob #FHB

    Posted

  • Freethesouls by Freethesouls

    Kevin or anyone of the science team. Have these galaxies been published before outside the Zoo community or blogs. I am unable to find FHBs on the web searching thur distance galaxies? #fainthubbleblob #FHB

    Posted

  • klmasters by klmasters scientist, admin

    @Freethesouls I'm really glad you're enjoying the new Galaxy Zoo and new images. However these galaxies are just faint and a bit far to really see any morphology. That doesn't make them a coherent class of galaxies interesting to study from a scientific perspective. Seen closer they might have all sorts of properties.

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian

    @scienceteam #questions
    Why don't you improve the image quality?
    It seems to be possible. Here is an altered version.:
    altered
    http://www.galaxyzooforum.org/index.php?topic=280427.msg617437#new

    Posted

  • Mjtbarrett by Mjtbarrett

    Interestingly, the enhanced version still retains the discrete green regions; they just seem smoother. If the original image is representative of a class of stars that we can't classify (if you see what I mean) then why are they included in the data set for GZ? Would it not be better to remove them prior to release?? Or if not, include a definitive advisory in the tutorial?? The moderators must be getting tired of posting on these...?

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian in response to Mjtbarrett's comment.

    mjtbarrett
    Interestingly, the enhanced version still retains the discrete green regions; they just seem smoother. If the original image is representative of a class of stars that we can't classify (if you see what I mean) then why are they included in the data set for GZ? Would it not be better to remove them prior to release?? Or if not, include a definitive advisory in the tutorial?? The moderators must be getting tired of posting on these...?

    After your post, it is displayed again as a featured image on the start page! I think, that it should stay there! Maybe we should do a post here evey day! 😃
    There is still no tutorial, though it was suggested.
    A GZ astronomer said in this discussion, that this object is not a star, but a smooth galaxy.
    There is a GZ blog post about it.: the link was posted in this discussion

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian

    #FAQ One of the Frequently Asked #Questions

    Posted