Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Generator

The photon-budget generator

What the error bar is made of, on a 1 m in 60 s
What the error bar is made of, on a 1 m in 60 s. The four contributions to a photometric error, against the brightness of the star, for a 1-metre aperture, a 60-second exposure and a sky of 21 magnitudes per square arcsecond. The star's own photons give a line of slope exactly 0.2 — σ ∝ N^−1/2 and N ∝ 10^−0.4m, so a magnitude of extra faintness costs a fifth of a magnitude of precision, and no instrument changes that. The sky and the read noise are fixed counts, so their lines have slope 0.4, twice as steep, and they overtake the star at V = 18.25 — that crossing is the faint limit of the night, and it moves when the Moon rises rather than when the telescope changes. Scintillation is flat, because the atmosphere modulates a bright star and a faint one by the same fraction: at 4.09e-4 relative it is 0.44 millimagnitudes here and it is what caps the bright end, up to about V = 10.8. Below all of them is the systematic floor at 0.3 millimagnitudes, which is flat-fielding and colour terms and does not integrate down at all.

The four contributions to a photometric error, against the brightness of the star, for a 1-metre aperture, a 60-second exposure and a sky of 21 magnitudes per square arcsecond. The star's own photons give a line of slope exactly *0.2* — σ ∝ N^−1/2 and N ∝ 10^−0.4m, so a magnitude of extra faintness costs a fifth of a magnitude of precision, and no instrument changes that. The sky and the read noise are fixed counts, so their lines have slope *0.4*, twice as steep, and they overtake the star at V = 18.25 — that crossing is the faint limit of the night, and it moves when the Moon rises rather than when the telescope changes. Scintillation is flat, because the atmosphere modulates a bright star and a faint one by the same fraction: at 4.09e-4 relative it is 0.44 millimagnitudes here and it is what caps the bright end, up to about V = 10.8. Below all of them is the systematic floor at 0.3 millimagnitudes, which is flat-fielding and colour terms and does not integrate down at all.

8 essays call photon-budget. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Every figure listed here is the same construction drawn at different numbers, so a correction to one is a correction to all of them.

What the error bar is made of, on a 1 m in 60 s. The four contributions to a photometric error, against the brightness of the star, for a 1-metre aperture, a 60-second exposure and a sky of 21 magnitudes per square arcsecond. The star's own photons give a line of slope exactly 0.2 — σ ∝ N^−1/2 and N ∝ 10^−0.4m, so a magnitude of extra faintness costs a fifth of a magnitude of precision, and no instrument changes that. The sky and the read noise are fixed counts, so their lines have slope 0.4, twice as steep, and they overtake the star at V = 18.25 — that crossing is the faint limit of the night, and it moves when the Moon rises rather than when the telescope changes. Scintillation is flat, because the atmosphere modulates a bright star and a faint one by the same fraction: at 4.09e-4 relative it is 0.44 millimagnitudes here and it is what caps the bright end, up to about V = 10.8. Below all of them is the systematic floor at 0.3 millimagnitudes, which is flat-fielding and colour terms and does not integrate down at all. Starlight

The error bar that comes from counting

A brightness is a number of photons, so the precision of the measurement is fixed before any instrument is chosen. What follows is a slope of exactly 0.2 magnitudes of error per magnitude of star, a slope of 0.4 once the sky wins, and a floor that neither of them explains.

 What the error bar is made of, on a 1 m in 60 s. The four contributions to a photometric error, against the brightness of the star, for a 1-metre aperture, a 60-second exposure and a sky of 21 magnitudes per square arcsecond. The star's own photons give a line of slope exactly 0.2 — σ ∝ N^−1/2 and N ∝ 10^−0.4m, so a magnitude of extra faintness costs a fifth of a magnitude of precision, and no instrument changes that. The sky and the read noise are fixed counts, so their lines have slope 0.4, twice as steep, and they overtake the star at V = 18.25 — that crossing is the faint limit of the night, and it moves when the Moon rises rather than when the telescope changes. Scintillation is flat, because the atmosphere modulates a bright star and a faint one by the same fraction: at 4.09e-4 relative it is 0.44 millimagnitudes here and it is what caps the bright end, up to about V = 10.8. Below all of them is the systematic floor at 0.3 millimagnitudes, which is flat-fielding and colour terms and does not integrate down at all. Starlight

The faint star is measured against a brighter sky

For anything at the edge of detection the dominant source of noise is not the object. It is the sky in the same aperture, which is brighter than the star and is subtracted rather than measured — and once that is true, every rule of thumb about apertures, exposure times and image quality changes.

 Two objects, the same 1.055 per cent, and only one of them a planet. A planet of 0.1027 stellar radii transiting at impact parameter 0.3, and a background eclipsing binary of radius ratio 0.62 whose 38 per cent eclipse is diluted by the target's light to 1.055 per cent — the same depth to nine decimal places, because the dilution was chosen to make it so. A blend contributing 2.7 per cent of the light in the aperture can manufacture any planetary depth at all, so the depth is not evidence about what produced it. Two things in the same photometry are. The ingress occupies 20.4 per cent of the planet's transit and 80.3 per cent of the blend's, a factor of 3.9: the shape of the shoulders is set by the radius ratio of whatever is actually eclipsing, and dilution scales a curve without changing its shape. And the duration with the period gives the mean density of the star being crossed — 1.41 g/cm³ here against 0.15, a factor of 9 — so a blend usually implies a host of a completely different kind from the one the spectrum shows. Neither test needs an observation the survey did not already make, and neither of them proves a planet: they reject specific alternatives, and what is left is a probability. Exoplanets

A planet that is never confirmed, only validated

A background eclipsing binary diluted by the target's light reproduces a planetary transit depth exactly, and no amount of better photometry separates the two. Most known planets are therefore the output of a probability calculation rather than a detection, and the honest statement about them is a statement about a false-positive rate.

 Mass at the top, area at the bottom, 10 decades apart. Two moments of a collisional cascade's size distribution, per logarithmic interval of diameter, over 10 decades from a ten-micron grain to a hundred-kilometre parent body. Both axes are logarithmic and the vertical scale is arbitrary; only the slopes carry the argument. A population in which every collision makes fragments that go on to collide reaches a steady state where the same mass flows through every size per unit time, and that fixes the differential number distribution at an index of 3.5. The two consequences pull opposite ways. Mass per decade goes as the diameter to the power 0.5, so it climbs and almost all the mass is in the largest few bodies. Cross-sectional area per decade goes as the diameter to the power -0.5, so it falls, and almost all the area — which is what scatters light, what is detected, and what anything passing through gets hit by — is in the smallest. Over the range drawn the small end carries 10⁵ times the area of the large end and 10⁻⁵ times its mass. A disc's brightness therefore measures a population whose mass it says nothing whatever about, and the two numbers are connected only through the index of this line. Orbits

Where the mass is and where the light is

A population that grinds itself up settles into a size distribution with a fixed slope, and that slope puts almost all the mass in the largest bodies and almost all the cross-section in the smallest. So a debris disc's brightness measures a population whose mass it says nothing about, and the two are connected only by the exponent.

 A dome flat that is 3.5 per cent wrong leaves 0.042 magnitudes across the field. Two things called the flat field. The left panel is the true illumination of the focal plane, falling by 12 per cent from centre to corner because of vignetting and the filter's own radial transmission. The middle panel is what a dome flat measures, which is the illumination produced by a screen at a finite distance lit by lamps — a different angular distribution, and therefore a different fall-off by a few per cent. The right-hand plot is what survives dividing one by the other: a smooth radial gradient of 0.042 magnitudes from centre to edge. Pixel-to-pixel response scatter, which is what most people mean by a flat field, is 1.8 per cent per pixel and averages down to 0.255 per cent inside a photometric aperture. The term everybody removes is the one that does not matter, and the term that matters is smooth, is different for every flat-fielding method, and looks exactly like a real gradient in the sky. Starlight

A response measured pixel by pixel

Two completely different quantities are called the flat field. One is the detector's pixel-to-pixel response, which everybody removes and which averages away anyway. The other is the illumination pattern of the optics, which is smooth, is different for every method of measuring it, and survives into every magnitude the instrument produces.

 An instrument 1.4 times as polarised as the sky it is measuring. The Stokes plane, with the two linear polarisation parameters as axes. The tight cluster near the centre is a set of stars known to be unpolarised, observed through the same instrument: they should sit at the origin and do not, and their mean is the instrumental polarisation — 0.77 per cent here, which is 1.4 times the real polarisation of the field. The other cluster is the field stars, whose measured values are the sum of their own polarisation and the same instrumental offset. Subtracting one mean from the other recovers 0.59 per cent at the right angle. Two things make this worth doing carefully. The offset is a vector, so leaving it in rotates the measured position angle as well as changing its magnitude — by 31 degrees here — and a calibration that only fixes the scale does not touch that. And the offset depends on where the telescope was pointing, because the reflection angles do, so the standards have to be observed at the same place in the sky and at the same instrument rotation. Starlight

An instrument more polarised than the sky

Every oblique reflection polarises. A telescope is a stack of oblique reflections, so it adds a fraction of a per cent of polarisation to everything it looks at — which for most astronomical sources is more than they have themselves, and which is a vector rather than a scale error, so it rotates the answer as well as changing its size.

 A bright star wants a wide aperture and a faint one wants 0.68 of the seeing. Signal-to-noise of simple aperture photometry against the aperture radius, in units of the seeing's full width at half maximum (1″), each divided by what optimal pixel weighting achieves for the same star, for stars of V = 12, 17, 20, 23 observed for 60 s through a 1 m telescope under a sky of 21 mag/arcsec². A small aperture loses starlight; a large one admits sky, and the balance depends on which dominates. For a bright star its own photons are most of the noise, so a wider aperture keeps gaining light almost for free and the best radius is large — 1.63 FWHM at V = 12, reaching 100.0 per cent of the optimum. For a star fainter than its sky the best radius shrinks to 0.680 FWHM and the best aperture reaches only 90.5 per cent of what weighting each pixel by its share of starlight divided by its variance achieves. That residual is exact in the background-limited limit: the best aperture captures 71.5 per cent of the light and 0.902 of the optimal signal-to-noise, so optimal weighting is worth 11 per cent in signal-to-noise, or 23 per cent in exposure time, and no more. The image is taken to be Gaussian; a real point-spread function has broader wings, which makes a fixed aperture a little worse and the optimal weights harder to know. Starlight

The best aperture throws away a tenth

Aperture photometry counts every pixel inside a circle equally and every pixel outside it not at all. For a faint star against its sky the best circle is two-thirds of the seeing wide, catches 71.5 per cent of the light, and reaches 90.2 per cent of the signal-to-noise that weighting each pixel by what it is worth achieves — a loss of 23 per cent in exposure time that no algorithm can beat by more.

 Ten comparison stars as bright as the target cost 5 per cent in precision; ten 2 magnitudes fainter cost 23. The precision of a V = 12 target measured relative to an ensemble of comparison stars on the same 60-second frames, against the number of comparison stars, on a logarithmic precision axis, for comparisons 1 mag brighter, as bright as the target, 1 mag fainter, 2 mag fainter. A change in the atmosphere's transparency of 2.0 per cent — which would put the target's raw brightness out by 20.0 mmag — multiplies every star by the same factor and vanishes from the ratio. What is left is the target's own noise, 0.89 mmag, plus the ensemble's, which falls as the inverse square root of the number of stars in it. With comparisons as bright as the target the result is σ√(1 + 1/N): one comparison costs 41 per cent, ten cost 5. Fainter comparisons are noisier and need many more to reach the same point; brighter ones help, but the target's own noise is a floor the ensemble can only approach. Scintillation is treated as independent from star to star, which is right for stars more than a few arcseconds apart on a large telescope and makes it part of the noise that does not cancel. The figure also cannot show the defining weakness: every comparison star is assumed constant, and a variable among them injects its variability into every measurement made against the ensemble. Starlight

The comparison stars are part of the measurement

Measuring a star against others on the same frame cancels everything the atmosphere and the instrument do to all of them at once — a two per cent change in transparency vanishes completely. What does not vanish is the comparison stars' own noise, which the target inherits, and the variability of any comparison that is not constant, which the target reports as its own.

The whole library · All essays