|
Hi all,
I have followed this thread with some interest, and a lot of dismay. I wasn’t going to offer a response, as it will take me at least 30 minutes to knock one up and it will be 30 minutes wasted of my life that I’ll never get back, but here goes anyway. Please keep in mind that my comments aren’t limited only to my experience on the BOSS team, but come more from an historical perspective.
Also, I hope this reply below shows just what can be achieved by amateurs working in close collaboration with professionals.
I have started this reply with a couple of extracts from two science papers that BOSS has contributed to in the last 6 months. In fact, 4 of us are listed as co-authors on the science paper regarding the discovery in NGC6925, SN2011ie, which is helping to re-write current theories of supernova explosion evolution. Now, how's that for a bit of fluff at the edges?
I hope readers will find the results of the professional work here interesting. You don’t have to read them in detail, but simply understand that the little hammers of the BOSS team are working very well as a collaboration with a much wider professional community who are actually very appreciative of our efforts to locate interesting targets for their bigger hammers.
Extract 1.
"NGC1404 - THE FIRST MAXIMUM-LIGHT ULTRAVIOLET THROUGH NEAR-INFRARED SPECTRUM OF A TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA1,2
We presented a UVOIR spectrum of SN 2011iv, a relatively normal SN Ia. These data were obtained 0.6 days after B-band maximum light with HST/STIS and Magellan/ FIRE. This spectrum is the first contemporaneous and continuous UVOIR spectrum of a SN Ia. It is also the first published high-S/N, near-maximum, true-UV SN Ia spectrum since that of SN 1992A (K93) and the earliest high-S/N UV SN Ia spectrum yet published.
HST(STIS), Magellan:Baade(FIRE),PROMPT
This research was supported by a Clay Fellowship (R.J.F.), an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship (E.R.N.), the TABASGO Foundation (A.V.F.), and NASA/HST grant GO-12592."
Extract 2.
"NGC6925- NGC6925
We have presented X-ray, UV/optical, and radio observations of the He-rich, stripped-enveloped, core-collapse SN 2011ei beginning within » 1 day of explosion. The key findings of our analyses can be summarized as follows:
SN 2011ei was caught early enough to observe a rapid evolution from Type II to Type Ib features in its pre-maximum light spectra. While SNe IIb have traditionally been understood to undergo this transformation on the timescale of Multi-wavelength Observations of SN 2011ei 17 months, examples such as SN 2011ei establish that the metamorphosis can occur on the timescale of a few days. Consequently, how close an observation is made relative to the time of explosion is a significant factor in a Type IIb vs. Ib classification, and this has implications in determining precise rates.
Some of the observations reported in this paper were obtained with the Southern African Large Telescope (SALT), as well as the 6.5 meter Magellan Telescopes located at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile.
Facilities: SALT (RSS), Magellan:Baade (IMACS), Magellan:Clay (LDSS3) SWIFT (UVOT,XRT), CXO, SOAR (Goodman), NTT (EFOSC2), CTIO: PROMPT:
So now, in the light of those 2 papers only, and there are more examples i could use, I'll address PeterW's comments below:
“Sorry, if my response seems rude, “
Well, let’s face it, it is. Why?
Not only does it fail to recognise that there are many amateurs who freely contribute their time, energy, creativity and resources, to contribute to the science in many more
ways than just 'fluff', it also devalues their efforts at the same time. It may be a glib response to you PeterW, but I, along with many others here who have posted pm's back, found it offensive.
And yes, it is toxic as PeterM points out. Why? It's poisoning the IIS environment because it's only a textual note which is out there in the public domain for anyone to read on IIS without the benefit of a face to face conversation. Without body language and voice tone to provide more contextual information regarding intent, your glib remark could easily be misunderstood by readers who now think that there is no point involving oneself in any research of any kind as it's only 'fluff', and not worth the time, nor the effort. This, is course, is far from the truth.
In my experience, being involved in collaborative research with professionals is very rewarding indeed.
“but amateurs rarely have Ph.d's and budgets to run 10+meter class optical telescopes, square kilometer arrays and cover the spectrum from radio to gamma rays, put sublime optics into orbit etc. etc.”
Fair enough, not everyone can have brains as big as planets, nor can they afford big and shiny hammers, that's why they are amateurs. However, as shown bythe 2 extracts above, our efforts do involve 10m class instruments and we do cover the optical, UV, and IR spectrums.
Experience has shown many times that little and inexpensive hammers that are well managed can also contribute more than fluff.
“Sure amateurs do fluff & stuff at the edges,”
This is the core of my problem with your post, and where you have upset alot of other readers, not just PeterM and I. Just what is your criteria for 'serious' stuff, as opposed to 'fluff'?
“but when you can send me an (amateur) spectra of a 27th magnitude galaxy, or say, a home-built martian rover”
If that's your criteria, then everyone except for a handful of people on the entire planet are actually involved in serious stuff...sheeesh! Give us a break. Clearly, this is just another glib response, or is it?
“but you'd be deluded if you think tiny telescopes in backyards will do much for the cutting edge of research.”
Sorry, then I must be deluded, or perhaps you have missed the point of this thread altogether?
You see, the future of astronomy hasn't changed over the centuries. It has always, and hopefully will continue, to be a collaboration of different
skill sets and resources between the professionals, and, gasp...the amateurs. Like the electromagnetic spectrum, there is a broad range continuum of
knowledge, training, money, ingenuity, creativity, and technical capability that can be provided by professionals and amateurs who work together,
and they can actually expand the edges of knowledge and understanding, not just 'fluff' around at them.
I hope this helps.
|
