This paper claims there could be a huge population of as-yet undiscovered very faint galaxies. The idea is that they have been previously missed in existing surveys because of problems with identification techniques and survey sensitivity limits.
I know (to varying degrees) all three of the authors so I was privy to an earlier draft of this last year. I already sent the first author some detailed comments many months ago, but the only response I had was, "thanks for your thoughtful contribution". As far as I can tell, my comments haven't been included in this updated version. I'm not sure whether it's worth the effort of sending a second email or not.
There are two serious problems here I want to point out :
1) The idea that neutral hydrogen (HI) surveys have missed a huge number of dark galaxies because of poor identification procedures
This can be falsified using the author's own numbers. Firstly, they claim that, for instance, the ALFALFA HI survey identify optical galaxies as much as 2 arcminutes away from the coordinates from the HI measurements. While true, the median offset is just 23 arcseconds ! So most of the time the identifications are reliable.
Secondly, the authors state the minimum physical separation between the HI and optical coordinates should be < 13 kpc for a secure identification. I looked at the numbers on this, and for the ALFALFA survey within 50 Mpc of the Milky Way just 0.6% of their detections have larger separations. So it cannot possibly have missed a large number of dark galaxies in the nearby universe.
2) Optical surveys have missed a huge population of very faint galaxies
They even give reasons why CCDs can't detect them. It's a little agonising to read because a year or so ago this might have been interesting. The trouble is that these ultra-diffuse galaxies are a hot topic at the moment with papers coming out regularly. We know they exist, and in large numbers.
What's particularly baffling is that the first author was the PhD supervisor of my PhD supervisor (thus making him my grand-supervisor), who's done a lot of work on this himself. They work in the same building. Yet apparently the one is not aware of the other. Oh deary deary me...
So, large optically faint galaxies do exist. They are definitely a thing, with certainty. But large gas-rich optically dark galaxies do not exist, with an extremely high degree of confidence. However, smaller gas-rich dark galaxies may well exist. But that's another story, aka a 26 page paper with > 200 simulations, currently in preparation. :)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.02590
Sister blog of Physicists of the Caribbean. Shorter, more focused posts specialising in astronomy and data visualisation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Giants in the deep
Here's a fun little paper about hunting the gassiest galaxies in the Universe. I have to admit that FAST is delivering some very impres...
-
Of course you can prove a negative. In one sense this can be the easiest thing in the world : your theory predicts something which doesn...
-
Why Philosophy Matters for Science : A Worked Example "Fox News host Chris Wallace pushed Republican presidential candidate to expand...
-
In the last batch of simulations, we dropped a long gas stream into the gravitational potential of a cluster to see if it would get torn...
I have no doubt in my mind that there are still "undiscovered" galaxies and possibly galaxies upon galaxies that have yet to be discovered. After all, our own technology can only go back 13-15 billion yrs. And that is looking back in time, which is how things work; because we can not look forward in time, at the moment. I'd like to see what I'd look like in 45 yrs... My guess is that amount of time, things might have changed.
ReplyDelete