EAS 2024 : The Other Highlights

What's this ? A second post on the highlights of the EAS conference ? Yes ! This year I've been unusually diligent in actually watching the online talks I didn't get to see in person. Thankfully these are available for three months after the conference, long enough to actually manage to watch them but also, crucially, short enough to provide an incentive to bother. And I remembered a couple of interesting things from the plenaries that I didn't mention last time but which may be of interest to a wider audience.

Aliens ? There are hardly any talks which dare mention the A-word at astronomical conferences, but one of the plenaries on interstellar asteroids dared to go there. The famous interstellar visitor with the unpronounceable name of ʻOumuamua (which is nearly as bad as that Icelandic volcano that shut down European airspace a few years ago) got a lot of attention because Avi Loeb insists it must be an alien probe. He's wrong, and his claims to have found bits of it under the ocean have been utterly discredited. Still, our first-recorded visitor on a hyperbolic trajectory did do some interesting things. After accounting for the known gravitational forces, its rotation varies in a way that's inconsistent with gravity at the 10-sigma level. The speaker said that the only other asteroids and comets known to do this have experienced obvious collisions or have obvious signs of outgassing, neither of which happened here. He took the "alien" idea quite seriously.

Ho hum. No comment.

Time-travelling explosions. The prize lecture was by best-PhD student Lorenzo Gavassino, who figured out that our equations for hydrodynamics break down at relativistic velocities. Normally I would find this stuff incomprehensible but he really was a very good speaker indeed. And the main results is that they break down in a spectacular way. You might be familiar with simultaneity breaking, where events look different to observers at different speeds. Well, says Lorenzo, this happens to fluids moving at relativistic speeds in dramatic fashion : one observer should see a small amount of heat propagating at faster than the speed of light while another would see some energy travelling backwards through time. The result should be massive (actually, infinite) instabilities and the spontaneous formation of singularities. Accretion discs in simulations ought by rights to explode, and God knows what should happen to neutron stars.

The reason that this doesn't happen appears to be a numerical artifact which effectively smooths over this (admittedly small) amount of leakage. But what we need to do to make the equations rigorously correct, and how that would affect our understanding of these systems, isn't yet known.

Ultra Diffuse Galaxies may be tidal dwarfs in disguise. Another really interesting PhD talk was on how UDGs might form in clusters. When galaxies interact in low density environments, they can tear off enough gas and stars to form so-called tidal dwarfs. The key features of these mini-galaxies is that they don't have any dark matter (which is too diffuse to be captured in an interaction like this) and short-lived, usually re-merging with one of their parents in, let's say, 1 Gyr or so. But what if the interaction happens near the edge of a cluster ? Well, then the group can disperse and its members separated as they fall in, so the TDG won't merge with anything. Ram pressure will initially increase its star formation, increasing the stellar content in its centre and making it more compact, before eventually quenching it due to simple lack of gas. So there should be a detectable trend in these galaxies, from more compact to more diffuse going outwards from the cluster centre, all lacking in dark matter.

Of course this doesn't explain UDGs in isolated environments, but there's every reason to think that UDGs might be formed by multiple different mechanisms. A bigger concern was that the simulations didn't seem to include the other galaxies in the cluster, so the potentially very destructive effects of the tidal encounters weren't included. But survivorship bias was very much acknowledged : all galaxies, she said, get more compact closer to the centre, but not all survive at all. It's a really intriguing idea and definitely one to watch.

Even more about UDGs ! These were a really hot topic this year and whoever decided to schedule the session to be in one of the smaller rooms was very foolish, because it was overflowing. A few hardy souls stood at the back, but most gave up due to the poor air conditioning. Anyway, a couple of extra points. You might remember that I wasn't impressed by early claims than NGC 1052-DF4, one of the archetypes of galaxies without dark matter, had tidal tails. Well, I was wrong about that. New, deeper data clearly shows that it does have extended features beyond its main stellar disc. Whether that really indicates tidal disruption... well, I'll read the paper on that. And its neighbour DF2 remains stubbornly tail-less.

The other point is a new method for measuring distances to UDGs by looking at the stellar velocity dispersion of their globular clusters. This was the work of a PhD student who found that there's a relationship between this dispersion and the absolute brightness of the parent galaxy. Getting dispersion of the clusters is still challenging, requiring something like 20 hours on the VLT... but this is a far cry from the 100 HST orbits needed for the dispersion of the main stellar component of the galaxy itself. Apparently this work on the dispersion within individual clusters, so even one would be enough. They tested this on DF2 and DF4 and found a distance of....16 Mpc, right bang in the middle of the 13 and 20 Mpc claims that have been plagued with so much controversey.

Ho hum. No comment.

Fountains of youth and death. Some galaxies which today are red and dead appear to have halted their star formation very early on, but why ? One answer presented here quite decisively was due to AGN – i.e. material expelled from the enormous energies of a supermassive black hole in the centre of the galaxy. Rather unexpectedly it seems that most of this gas is neutral with only a small fraction being ionised, and detections of these neutral outflows are now common. In fact this may even be the main mechanism for quenching at so-called "cosmic noon" (redshifts of 1-2) when star formation peaked. Well, we'll see.

The other big talking point about fountains of ejected material was how galaxies replenish their gas. Here I learned two things I wish someone had told me years ago because they're very basic and I should probably have known them anyway. First, by comparing star formation rates with the mass of gas, one can estimate the gas depletion time, which is just a crude measure of how long the gas should last. And at low redshift this is suspiciously low, about a billion years. Does this mean we're in the final stages of star formation ? This is still about 10% or so of the lifetime of the Universe so it's never seemed all that suspicious to me.

The problem is that this depletion time has remained low at all redshifts. It's not that galaxies are suspiciously close to the end, it's that they should have already stopped forming stars and run out of gas long ago. Star formation can be estimated in different ways with no real constraint on distance, though gas content is a bit harder – we can't do neutral hydrogen in the distant Universe, but we can absolutely do molecular and ionised gas. Despite the many caveats of detail there's a very strong consensus that galaxies simply must be refuelling from somewhere.

One of those models has been the so-called galactic fountain. Galaxies expel gas due to stellar winds and supernovae, some of which escapes but most of which falls back to the disc. Now this is obvious as to how it explains why star formation keeps going in individual, local parts of the disc where the depletion time is too short, but how this explains the galaxy overall has never been clear to me. What might be going on is that the cold clouds of ejected gas (which look like writhing tendrils in the simulations) act as condensation sites as they move through the hot corona and fall back. Here gas in the hot, low density corona of the galaxy can cool, with the simulations saying that this mass of gas can be very significant. So the galaxy tops up its fuel tank from its own wider reservoir. It will of course eventually run out completely, but not anytime soon.

This is a compelling idea but there are two major difficulties, one theoretical and one observational. The theoretical problem is that the details of simulations really matter, especially resolution. If this is too low, clouds might appear to last much longer than they do in reality. One speaker presented simulations showing that this mechanism worked very well indeed while another showed that actually the clouds should tend to evaporate before they ever make it back to the disc, so this wouldn't be a viable mechanism at all. On the other hand, neither used a realistic corona : if it's actually not the smooth and homogenous structure they assume it to be, this could totally change the results.

The observational difficulty is that these cold gas clouds are just not seen anywhere. This is harder to explain but may depend on the very detailed atomic physics : maybe the clouds are actually warmer and more ionised than the predictions, or maybe colder and molecular. Certainly we know there can be molecular gas which is very hard to detect because it doesn't contain any of the tracer molecules we usually use; H2 is hard to detect directly so we usually use something like CO. 

And with that, I really end my summaries of EAS 2024, and return to regular science.

ChatGPT Is Not A Source Extractor

When ChatGPT-4o came along I was pretty keen to try out its shiny new features, especially since some of the shine has rubbed off the chatbots of late. Oh, ignore the hype trains completely : those who are saying it's going to cause the apocalypse or usher in the Utopian end of history are equally deluded. I'm talking about actual use cases for LLMs. This situation remains pretty much as it has been since they were first unleashed. That is...

• Decent enough if you want free-form discussions (especially if you need new ideas and don't care too much about factual accuracy)
• Genuinely actually very useful indeed for coding (brilliant at doing boiler-plate work, a serious time-saver !)
• Largely crap if you need facts, and even worse if you need those facts to be reliably accurate

Pretending that those first two are unimportant is in my view quite silly, legitimate concerns about energy expenditure notwithstanding. But that third one... nothing much seems to have shifted on that at all. They're still plagued with frequent hallucinations, since they're not grounded in anything so that they have no internal distinction between a verifiable, observable truth and the CPU-equivalent of a random brain-fart firing of the neurons.

Unfortunately GPT-4o just seems to extend this into a multi-modal world, giving results basically consistent with my earlier tests of chatbots. But I was intrigued by its apparent accuracy when supplying image files. It seemed to be, albeit from limited testing, noticeably more accurate when asked questions about image files than, say, PDFs. So I had a passing thought : could I use ChatGPT-4o to find sources in my data ?

Spoiler : no. It doesn't work.

It's not possible to share the chat itself because it contains images, but basically what I did was this. I uploaded an image of a typical data set I would customarily trawl look looking for galaxies. The very short version is that the HI detections of galaxies typically look like elongated blobs, sometimes appearing saturated and sometimes as mere enhancements in the noise. You can find a much more thorough explanation on my website, but that's the absolute basics. For example, in the image below, there are seven very obvious detections and one which is a bit fainter. 

I began by giving ChatGPT a detailed description of the image and the task at hand. This is the kind of thing that takes a few minutes to explain to a new observer; the actual training of data inspection can take a few days, but the explanations need be only very short indeed. And finding the bright sources is trivial : almost anyone can do that almost immediately. The bright galaxies are inherently obvious in the data when presented like this. Even if you have no idea what the axes labels refer to, it's clear that some parts of the image are very different to the others.

I asked ChatGPT to mark the location of the sources or otherwise describe their position. It didn't mark them but instead gave descriptions. Its world coordinates weren't precise enough to verify what it had identified, however, being limited to only values directly readable in the image and not doing any interpolation. I also gave it a broad alpha-numeric grid (A-J along the x-axis and 1-6 along the y-axis), but this was too coarse to properly confirm what it thought it had found. 

Its results were ambiguous at best. Even with this coarse grid it was clear some of its results were simply wrong. So I did what I'd do with new observers. I marked the sources with red outlines and numbers, uploaded the new image and described what I'd done, so it would have some kind of reference image. I also described the sources in more detail, e.g. which ones were bright and which were faint, and whether they extended into adjacent cells.

Next I gave it a new image with a finer grid (A-O and 1-14). This time, two sources (out of the ten or so visible) were reported correctly while the rest were wrong.  By mistake, I missed out the "D" cell in the coordinate labels, but ChatGPT reported a source at D4 ! Its revised claims were still wrong though, with once again getting only two correct.

This wasn't going well. I decided to dial it back and try something simpler. Maybe ChatGPT was able to "see" the features but not was accurately reading the coordinates, or perhaps hallucinating its answers and so mangling its results. So now I uploaded an image devoid of any coordinates and asked it for a simple count of the number of bright blobs. It got the answer right ! Okay, better... I asked it if it could mark the locations directly on the image, but it said it couldn't edit images. Instead it suggested giving the coordinates of the sources as a percentage of the axis length from the top left. Fair enough, but when comparing its reported coordinates it had again two near-misses and got all the rest simply wrong.

Finally I decided to check if at least the reported number count wasn't just a fluke. I uploaded three images in one file (thus circumventing OpenAI's painfully-limited restrictions on the free plan), each labelled with a number, and asked for the number of sources in each. It got one right and the rest wrong. It also gave descriptions of where it thought the sources were (i.e. upper left, middle, that sort of thing) and these were all wrong. Then, rather surprisingly and quite unprompted, it decided that it actually could edit images to mark the positions after all. The result came back :

Well... it's less than stellar. 

The upshot is that nothing much has changed about chatbot use cases at all. Good for discussions,  useless for facts. Whether it is "seeing" the images in some sense I don't know : possibly at some level it does recognise the sources but hallucinates both when trying to mark them and describe their positions, or possibly it's just making stuff up and nothing else. The latter seems rather unlikely though. Too often in other tests it was capable of giving results from figures in PDFs and image files which could not have been obtained from reading any of the text, that required actually "looking" at the images. 

Regardless of what it's actually doing, in terms of using ChatGPT as a source extractor, it's a non-starter. It doesn't matter why it gets things wrong, for practical application it only matters that it does. Maybe there's something capable under there, maybe there isn't. For now it's just an energy-intensive way of getting the wrong answers. Well, I could have done that anyway !

EAS 2024 : The Highlights

For the last major conference I went to, I combined the science and travel reports together. This was easy because Cardiff to me is not an exotic destination so it hardly needs much description. But this year's EAS conference was in Padova, and my explorations of the city itself and neighbouring Venice easily required their own dedicated post over on Physicists of the Caribbean. That, however, is a sideshow. Here I should say something about the main reason I was there, i.e. the SCIENCE !

This will only be brief. I have a number of things I want to look up in detail, but for now, here's what I leaned from the conference itself.

Euclid Is Mega Awesome. Like, seriously awesome. I have this chronic bad habit of not paying attention to new telescopes when they're being proposed or even during construction : who know when they'll launch or whether they'll reach their design spec ? Worst of all, and perhaps a better reason, is that their marketing is often terrible. It's all public outreach about their main target mission. For example as far as I knew Euclid was some specialist thing for probing dark energy presumably by measuring something very specific and niche, which just goes to show how little attention I ever give new instruments.

Actually it's more like Hubble on steroids. It's got comparable resolution (though not quite Hubble level) but with a vastly larger field of view and exquisite optics that gives a uniformly high quality image across the whole field. This makes it a fantastic, game-changing instrument for the low surface brightness universe. Want to find faint stellar streams, tiny dwarf galaxies and other exotic phenomena ? Euclid to the rescue ! If they'd sold it as more of a survey instrument and not this dark energy thing... well, quite possibly they did and I just wasn't listening. 

Whoops ! Luckily for me, its main survey will be almost all-sky and openly available, so I won't have to do anything except look at the data when it's available.

Cosmology Isn't Dead Yet. There are lots of press releases about the discovery of disc-like and massive galaxies in the early Universe, only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang, which is supposedly not long enough for them to have formed. The picture according to the experts is a bit more subtle than this popular description though. Some of these objects might be a problem - they really might, and not in a "but probably not" way : there's every chance there's something going on here that we don't understand. Whether that's the cosmology itself, i.e. the structure and nature of the universe, or just the detailed physics of the gas and star formation... that's where things get more suspect.

For example, it's not, it turns out, that simulations don't predict such objects. They do. It's just that it appears that they predict fewer than the numbers observed. In the Illustris simulations apparently about 10% of the relevant comparison sample are discy in the early simulated Universe, which isn't a lot but isn't insignificant either. The problem is that it's unclear if this is in conflict with the observations because the numbers are still small, and we aren't sure about the observational biases. For mass the situation is much worse : when deriving the mass using synthetic observational procedures (that is, transforming the simulations into the kind of data observers would process, and then using their methods to guestimate the stellar mass), results vary by up to three orders of magnitude away from the true value. So claims that there are too many massive galaxies in the early Universe can be safely ignored.

Except, there's a major caveat. Mass is a derived parameter with many uncertainties, but straightforward luminosity (i.e. brightness) is a direct observable. And here there does appear to be a conflict (sorry, tension) with observations.  There are potential solutions here as well though. For example a more "bursty" mode of star formation, rather than the more continuous process generally assumed, as well as accounting for nebular continuum emission and a top-heavy IMF (that is, forming more big stars in proportion to small ones than in the nearby universe, which could happen because their chemistry would be completely different), might be enough to solve all this. As some wise old sage commented, complicated problems often have complex, multi-parameter solutions rather than one big single "change this and all will be well" moment. Which unfortunately means that figuring this out is going to take time.

EDIT : I almost forgot. Back in 2017 there was a paper claiming that galaxies in the early Universe show declining rotation curves, indicating they were far less dark matter dominated than today. I was skeptical of this, as reported here with some follow-up here. And from conference results it seems that these results are heavily dependent on observation time : too short and indeed the result is declining curves, but observed for longer than they flatten considerable. Exactly why this should be I don't know, but it appears the original authors rowed back on their initial claims somewhat in a 2020 paper. It seems that the original results were something of an oversimplification, if not just simply wrong.

There Are No Dark Galaxies. New HI surveys are reaching lower column (or surface) densities, that is, how much gas they detect per unit area, than I was aware. In fact they're comparable to Arecibo but with the added benefit of much higher resolution. The penalty is that this takes enormous amounts of observing time but this is largely compensated for by large fields of view.

The results so far I think are still mainly "watch this space" except for individual objects. But one interesting finding is that there's a distinct lack of optically dark galaxies which have gas but no stars. This is something I've been working on for many years with Arecibo data, but MHONGOOSE's much improved resolution combined with its sensitivity means we would already have expected to see something if they exist in numbers of any significance. Thousands of detections of normal galaxies already (over 6,000 in fact - compare this to the 31,000 from ALFALFA which took many years to achieve !) but no hint of anything dark that isn't explicable by another mechanism... though of course, this has some caveats, but a significant population there appears none.

Gas Accretion Definitely Happens. But we still don't know when or how ! Obviously galaxies acquire gas at some point or they'd never form any stars, but while there's much indirect evidence for this, direct observations remain hugely unconvincing. Mergers have been ruled out as a significant source of the gas, there just aren't enough objects to do this. Cold accretion, where cold atomic HI falls into galaxies along streams, remains a distinct possibility but unobserved, even with the newest and most sensitive instruments.

Hot accretion (from the hot gas large-scale cosmic web) also remains a possibility but while large-scale bridges of X-ray gas have been detected, everyone was much more circumspect about claiming these as detections of the web itself than they have been in the past. And quite properly too, because any individual detection can always be challenged as an interaction. To claim a detection of the web, we'd really need to see it ubiquitously, with multiple strands connecting multiple clusters. Interestingly, HI intensity mapping has thus far got a statistical detection, but not to the point of being able to do actual imaging yet.

Radio Halos Do Funny Things. Not only does the X-ray gas trace giant, megaparsec-scale structures linking entire galaxy clusters, but so does the much lower-energy radio emission. There are different kinds of radio halos, with Mpc-scale giants to ~100 kpc scale "minihalos". And these aren't the same component, with the density profiles of the two showing a distinct change of slope. Then there are radio relics, the result apparently of shocks in the intracluster medium producing giant arcs of radio emission.

In one particularly noteworthy case, one of these giant radio lobes appears to be interacting with a galaxy. This shows a tail which is distinctly different from most. Where galaxies lose gas by ram pressure, the tails tend to be well-collimated and decrease in brightness at greater distances. This one instead gets both wider and brighter, indicating a different physical processes is at work. Like classical ram pressure, however, it seems to have caused an initial increase in the star formation rate of the galaxy. This is interesting to me because I've always assumed these features were of too low a density level to have an impact on anything, being an interesting way to trace the dynamics of an environment but being themselves no more than tracers, not interactors.

Ultra Diffuse Galaxies Are Still A Thing. There seems now to be a quite firm consensus : UDGs are two populations, one of "puffy" dwarves of low total mass that have become somehow extended, and the other of "failed", much more massive galaxies not predicted by any simulations. Several people made that last point and nobody raised any arguments, though exactly how massive they are (and how numerous this population is) wasn't clearly stated. Even so, to my mind if you want a serious challenge to cosmology, forget the attention-hogging results from JWST and look at these much nearer objects !

Likewise, the view seems to be that UDGs are indeed (following results from a few years ago) not actually all that large - but they are flatter : their light profiles are basically constant and then suddenly truncated at their edges, whereas normal galaxies have more complicated and varied profiles. There still seems to be some disagreement, however, as to whether UDGs therefore represent extreme examples of regular dwarf galaxies or are genuine outliers which are qualitatively different from the main galactic population. 

The dynamics of the more massive objects to me suggests the latter, but there's still not a clear answer to this. Their globular cluster populations are also highly diverse, with some having none at all and others having far more than expected. One very interesting set of observations by Pierre-Alain Duc shows stellar tails from globular clusters in the inner regions of the UDGs, likely merging with the main body of the galaxy - that's how good our observations have become ! Considering their whole set of properties, it remains understandably difficult to decide what the hell UDGs actually are.

To me the most interesting individual object presented in the whole conference was a UDG by Pavel Mancera Piña, he of the "UDGs have no dark matter" fame. Regular readers will know I was at first enthusiastic about this result, then became a bit more skeptical, but finally I've settled (?) back to my original stance : the results seem secure enough that they can't be attributed to observational errors or improper corrections. Now Pavel has found an object which is especially weird. Like the others, it's isolated. Its HI map shows very neatly circular contours, and its kinematics are consistent with no dark matter at all. The only way it can have a dark halo is if the concentration is very low - much lower than standard cold dark matter predicts, but explicable with self-interacting dark matter... 

And because it's isolated, explaining it with modified gravity is hard. If gravity rather than matter governs dynamics, then all isolated objects of the same mass and radius should show the same kinematic properties. That they don't might well argue that such notions are simply wrong, even as objects like this one indicate that the standard model of dark matter itself has flaws.

Well, of course much remains to be done in all those categories, especially the last. My own talk I'm pleased to say went down very well, I got lots of questions about the AGES dark clouds and had some nice discussions afterwards. My poster (should be accessible for a few months, I think) may have sunk without trace, but no matter. And the conference slogan "Where Astronomers Meet" may be the most blandest thing that ever did bland, but the sessions themselves were full of interesting stuff.

I'm old enough to remember conferences of a different era of more, shall we say, "robust conversations". I've not seen any actual arguments (except in some much smaller events) in many years now. Disagreements still arise but they're altogether gentler. Sometimes I miss the spectacle of hearing a good row from a safe distance, but perhaps, as long as we still do interesting science and still have fruitful discussions, this new way is better.