A null-result

A little while back, I asked for SINFONI data on a suspected high-redshift QSO. If we were lucky, we would get the Lyman Alpha emission (and maybe a few other emission lines) redshift right into the J-band. ESO awarded 3 hours of observing time.

That left me with SINFONI data and I don't know how to reduce it and since no more is likely forthcoming (I have no other program doing this) I was wondering if someone else could help. Enter Tiffany and Marissa. Marissa is a SINFONI expert and Tiffany wanted to learn how to run her pipeline. So they got to work. The result was a perfectly clean data-cube.

I extracted the spectrum where I hoped the QSO (of T-dwarf that's cool too) would be.

Here's the result:
A more experienced spectroscopist will recognize this as just sky lines all over...

ho hum.

BUt not to worry! There was a secondary target we could extract. A z~2 galaxy for which some kinematics could be determined. That would be neat too.

Below is where SINFONI ended up pointing. See the blob just outside the FOV. Yeah that's the z~2 galaxy. 
 

Sorry ESO. This run was a complete bust.

Do I now write this up and post it on astro-ph? What does one do if there is no result to report? Astronomy does not deal well with null result. They don't get reported.

A break from tradition

A (small) issue in astro these days is when tp put the preprint up on astro-ph. Let's not quibble on whether one should post it on there. If it ain't on astro-ph, it does not exist. But there seem to be two schools of thought on when to post: when accepted to the Journal (after all the referee's comments etc are incorporated) or when submitted to the Journal. It can make quite a difference. Option A is the safe bet. The manuscript has been vetted and this is how it's going to appear in print. Option B is riskier and generally thought to be associated with a more cut-throat approach (first!). So I generally was not a fan of option B until I heard the following argument: referee rapports will not catch everything and a preprint on astro-ph is a way to get feedback from people before the paper is fully official and in print.

This latter vulnerable approach (here is my work, please comment) is one that I could get behind. So as of coming Monday, my first submitted paper will be on astro-ph. My co-authors have already thoroughly vetted it so it should be ok. But I welcome anyone's feedback (ducks behind couch).

Questions from the Lorentz Workshop "The Passage of Light through Spiral Disks"

While the Lorentz Center workshop was going on, we identified some outstanding issues with the modelling of edge-on spirals. There are the questions that ended up on the board:

1. What is the morphology of the dusty clumps?
2. How are the cold and hot dust related to each other?
3. What is the minimum physical scale we need?
4. How to integrate MW constraints into Radiative Transfer?
5. What other extinction curves can we get?
6. What other data would we like?
7. Does the IRSF harden with radius?
8. What is our Southern NC 891? - NGC 5746 appears to be a great candidate.

1. What is the morphology of the dusty clumps?

Richard Tuffs already picked on this one. So far, too many of the models have to assume "spherical cows" for the already horribly computationally costly radiative transfer model.
But we all know they are not spherical. Far from it. So what is better? Ilse's talk on Friday already points to a better model: many many little spheres that are also allowed to overlap. Still not there I feel. I like "headlights", where a heating source is off-center from the GMC. And of course filamentary structure. Kenny Wood's talk also points to how much ISM structure dicatates the results from RT. Much will happen here. 

2. How are the cold and hot dust related to each other?

In a very complicated way. FIR colors may point to as to how (George Bendo's second talk).

 3. What is the minimum physical scale we need?

 This went back & forth quite a bit. Waad Safty's and the DART-RAY talk for example were all about extremely high resolution simulations (e.g. EAGLES) that took it down to supparsec resolution. In reality, good data can be obtained (with effort) to below the kpc scale. That kpc scale seems to be important. Then individual GMCs are affecting the RT, not just whole spiral arms etc.

4. How to integrate MW constraints into Radiative Transfer?

This is going to be tricky and may need its own workshop. There are plenty of things we know from MW RT models but how well to these translate into global RT models? 

5. What other extinction curves can we get?

This is easier. For one thing, the occulting galaxy technique (my talk!) promises to measure these statistically and specifically with IFU observations. The new generation of IFUs will certainly be able to resolve GMCs in nearby disks. That is likely to give us actual extinction curves.

6. What other data would we like?

IFUs and ALMA! These are obvious next choices. ALMA mosaicing is going to be tough. As is MUSE IFU observations. 

7. Does the IRSF harden with radius?

yes. George canvassed everyone and this was unanimous.

8. What is our Southern NC 891?

NGC 5746 appears to be a great candidate.

I'm sure we will come up with many more soon.

We had a count which galaxies was mentioned most. Edge-on favorites are NGC 891, NGC 4244, the Sombrero, and NGC 4565. Of these four, obviously NGC 891 won. By a landslide.

Random Useful thoughts on organizing a Lorentz Center Workshop

Now that I've finished my workshop "The Passage of Light through Spiral Disks" at the Lorentz center (well still need to wrap some small things up...), it's time to collate the random little things I learned for workshop organization:

1. Go over your participants list several times. With your co-organizers. I had to because the gender balance was considered off by the Lorentz center. It paid off. Several more names will come up. Not that is really did wonders for the gender balance (sometimes this cannot be helped...) but it may improve the junior/senior researcher ratio (also important).

2. If there are people that you really want to come, calling them rather than just email works surprisingly well (I do not like cold-calling people).

3. Start with a clear idea but be willing to change it. Workshops are a little organic...

4. Ask the Lorentz Center people early about additional finances. It would have been nice if I could have offered travel assistance to more people.

5. Save the date. My dates were ok but I learned from the PHISCC 2014 organization that it is even better to be close to a BIG conference. This is a bit of a two-edged sword. On the one hand, people from e.g., Australia or America can come more easily (one big trip) but on the other hand, some people would be reluctant to go on a 2 week trip...

6. plan for 30min talks in the morning in a strickt schedule with a discussion session in the afternoon. Everyone will therefore prepare 30 min talks. Allow discussion to stretch the time for each talk, running into the alloted discussion session. This way there is a clear length to each talk, people keep discussion short and on point BUT there is no stress that we'll run over so much we'll miss dinner.
The discussion time in the afternoon is eminently sacrificible. I rarely found that once someone says "let's have a discussion" a clear discussion happens. But you get much better back&forth when there is a topic introduced with a talk or two. I did this semi-intentionally and it made for a good informal workshop.

7. you cannot make junior people join in.

8. be agressive about getting people's talks (ppt, keynote, pdf). They will not give them after the workshop easily.

9. live-tweeting the workshop is a great way to make people wish they were there...

10. keep a list of follow-up todos. There will be many (can I have a look at that paper, send ppl an email about data etc etc).

11. As the organizer, conserve your energy. You'll be expected to pay attention, moderate and react to any new development. So no zoning out during talks.

The Lorentz Center only organizes workshops but PhD comics said it best:

"What to call your event":
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1704

The Lorentz Centre workshop experience

Leiden University hosts the Lorentz Center. In fact, it is (partly) one floor below the astronomy departement. The idea behind the Lorentz center is simple: rather than having researches re-invent the wheel for the logistics of a workshop, a dedicated institution will run the whole thing for you. Your idea is judged on merit and off you go. The LC will provide a cool meeting space, generate and host the website, provide some funds for travel, free lunch for all participants, prints posters, nametags, organizes a conference dinner (ours was on a boat trip!!), has free bikes on hand and helps with every other logistical aspect.

They do, so the workshop organizer does not have to. I cannot overemphasize how stupendously awesome this is. It means professional workshops, no dropped logistical balls, and a workshop organization that can focus on the topic and science, not whether there are enough seats at the conference dinner or if the Hotel still has space.

I have been trying to organize a workshop for a while now. In South Africa this was stymied because I had no idea where to even begin to ask for money. Or what a half-decent venue was. At ESA, it died in bureaucratic BS about the actual rooms it had to be held in. At the Lorentz center, it was a breeze...

So. I will be doing this again in the remaining time I'm at Leiden. Or perhaps afterwards.

False Crisis

I reacted to a post in the Astronomer section on work/life balance (to paraphrase Ghandi on Western Civilization "that would be nice"). The term I coined was "false crisis" and it has been something I noticed at UCT and Leiden: there is a continuous sense of crisis working at a University. Not only are you trying to keep up with any given deadline (ESO, HST, ALMA, funding!) but also any and all little crises thrown your way. Most people seem to be working in permanent crisis mode. But it is a false crisis: inevitably is it because someone (possibly you yourself) have started too late. In real life one would simply hear "that is too little time to do it well, sorry, better luck next time" but not in the macho world of academia where an all-nighter is a badge of honor. And 60+ hour workweeks de rigeur.

and another flip phrase I thought of:

"Not working 60 hours a week. I did it right the first time. And mulched the paperwork".

But I am opting out of the false crisis. Or trying to. Then I submitted the paper on Saturday while Mister M was taking a nap...