Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Generator

The polarisation-curve generator

A peak at 0.55 µm, and therefore a grain size
A peak at 0.55 µm, and therefore a grain size. Interstellar polarisation against wavelength — the Serkowski law, p(λ) = p_max exp[−K ln²(λ_max/λ)] with K = 1.66 λ_max. The heavy curve peaks at 0.550 µm, measured off the drawing rather than read back from the parameter, and falls to half its peak at 1.314 µm on the red side, against the closed form λ_max exp√(ln2/K) = 1.315. That peak wavelength is the measurement. It is set by the size of the grains doing the aligning — bigger grains, longer λ_max — and it is tied to the shape of the extinction curve along the same sight line by R_V ≈ 5.5 λ_max, which gives 3.03 here against the diffuse-medium value of 3.1. The two faint curves are populations peaking at 0.35 µm and 0.75 µm: the same amount of polarisation, distributed differently, and a different dust. Nothing in a photometric measurement of the same star distinguishes them.

Interstellar polarisation against wavelength — the Serkowski law, p(λ) = p_max exp[−K ln²(λ_max/λ)] with K = 1.66 λ_max. The heavy curve peaks at 0.550 µm, measured off the drawing rather than read back from the parameter, and falls to half its peak at 1.314 µm on the red side, against the closed form λ_max exp√(ln2/K) = 1.315. *That peak wavelength is the measurement.* It is set by the size of the grains doing the aligning — bigger grains, longer λ_max — and it is tied to the shape of the extinction curve along the same sight line by R_V ≈ 5.5 λ_max, which gives 3.03 here against the diffuse-medium value of 3.1. The two faint curves are populations peaking at 0.35 µm and 0.75 µm: *the same amount of polarisation, distributed differently, and a different dust*. Nothing in a photometric measurement of the same star distinguishes them.

6 essays call polarisation-curve. 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.

A peak at 0.55 µm, and therefore a grain size. Interstellar polarisation against wavelength — the Serkowski law, p(λ) = p_max exp[−K ln²(λ_max/λ)] with K = 1.66 λ_max. The heavy curve peaks at 0.550 µm, measured off the drawing rather than read back from the parameter, and falls to half its peak at 1.314 µm on the red side, against the closed form λ_max exp√(ln2/K) = 1.315. That peak wavelength is the measurement. It is set by the size of the grains doing the aligning — bigger grains, longer λ_max — and it is tied to the shape of the extinction curve along the same sight line by R_V ≈ 5.5 λ_max, which gives 3.03 here against the diffuse-medium value of 3.1. The two faint curves are populations peaking at 0.35 µm and 0.75 µm: the same amount of polarisation, distributed differently, and a different dust. Nothing in a photometric measurement of the same star distinguishes them. Starlight

The direction a photon count throws away

A photometer records how many photons arrived. It discards a two-component quantity that survives every attenuation on the way, and that quantity carries a magnetic field direction, a grain size, and the shape of an exploding star nobody can resolve.

 A 3-gauss field moves the line by 0.33% of its width and is measured anyway. Above: the Fe I 6173 Å line, Landé factor 2.5, at a Doppler width of 0.041 Å. The solid curve is the unmagnetised profile; the dashed curve is the same line in a longitudinal field of 3 gauss, which splits it by 1.3·10⁻⁴ Å — 0.33 per cent of its own width — and is drawn on top of it because the two are not distinguishable. The double-lobed curve underneath them is the Stokes V profile of that same field, magnified 100 times: the two σ components are circularly polarised with opposite handedness, so what is lost in the sum survives in the difference, and the difference of two profiles a hair apart is the derivative of one of them. Below: what that buys. The V amplitude is linear in the field, because it is a first derivative; every signature of the same field in the intensity is quadratic, because a symmetric splitting can only broaden. At a polarimetric precision of 10⁻⁴ the first reaches 0.1 gauss; at a line-width accuracy of 0.001 the second reaches 38, a factor of 420 worse. A quantity far too small to resolve is measured because it is the only thing in the signal that carries a sign — and the same argument run the other way says what polarimetry cannot do: a field of mixed polarity inside the resolution element cancels in V and does not cancel in I, so the 3000-gauss field of a sunspot, which does resolve, is measured the other way round. Starlight

A field strength read off a line that will not split

A few hundred gauss splits a spectral line by a ten-thousandth of its own Doppler width, which no spectrograph will ever resolve. The two components are circularly polarised with opposite handedness, so the split survives in the difference of two polarisations — where it is linear in the field rather than quadratic.

 A slope, not an angle. Above: the polarisation angle of a background source against the square of the observing wavelength, at the five wavelengths a radio survey actually uses. The plane rotates as it passes through magnetised plasma, by an amount proportional to the integral of the electron density times the field along the path — and to λ². The intercept is the angle the source emitted at, which nobody knows, so a measurement at one wavelength contains no information whatever; the slope is the rotation measure, here 42 radians per square metre, and it needs no knowledge of the source at all. Below: the fractional polarisation that survives. A telescope beam covers many lines of sight with slightly different rotation measures, their angles disagree by more at longer wavelengths, and the vector sum collapses — which is why the useful band has a long-wavelength edge that has nothing to do with sensitivity. Divide the rotation measure by the dispersion measure of the same path, 26.8 in the usual units, and the electron density cancels: the mean line-of-sight field is 1.93 µG, obtained without knowing the distance, the density, or where along the path the field was. Starlight

A slope that needs no source

Polarised light passing through magnetised plasma has its plane rotated, by an amount proportional to the square of the wavelength. A single measurement of the angle is worthless, because nobody knows the angle the source emitted at. A measurement of the slope against wavelength squared does not need to know.

 A field strength read off the scatter of directions. The Davis–Chandrasekhar–Fermi estimate: field strength against the dispersion of polarisation angles across a cloud, at a density of 10⁴ molecules per cubic centimetre and a turbulent velocity of 0.9 kilometres a second. The polarisation directions themselves contain no field strength — an aligned grain reports which way the field points and nothing about how hard it is pulling. The strength is in the disorder. Turbulence of a given energy bends a stiff field less than a weak one, so the angular scatter is the ratio of the turbulent velocity to the Alfvén speed, and inverting it gives the field: 220 µG at a 9-degree dispersion. The relation is exactly inverse, so the estimate is most trustworthy where the field is most ordered and worst where it matters most. The factor of 0.5 in front is not theory — it is what simulations of a known field, analysed this way, turn out to need, and the honest statement is that this method is calibrated rather than derived. Galaxies

A direction measured by something with no strength in it

An interstellar grain spins with its long axis across the magnetic field, so starlight through a cloud is polarised along the field and the cloud's own emission across it. The observable contains no field strength whatever — and the strength is recovered anyway, from how much the directions disagree.

 Two effects that are blind in opposite directions. The sensitivity of two magnetic diagnostics against field strength, on a logarithmic axis spanning five decades. The Zeeman effect measures the line-of-sight component and adds it up along the path, so a field tangled into 100 independent cells inside one resolution element averages down by a factor of 10 and reports almost nothing — which is exactly the situation in a chromosphere or a turbulent cloud. The Hanle effect is a different device altogether: a field precesses the atom between absorption and re-emission, so a scattering line's polarisation is rotated and reduced, and the amount depends on how far the precession gets in one radiative lifetime. That makes it sensitive around 1 gauss for a 100-nanosecond level, and — the useful part — it does not care about sign, so a tangled field does not cancel. Above the crossing at 27.7 gauss the Hanle signal has saturated and carries no strength information, and the Zeeman effect is the instrument. Neither is a measurement of the field; each is a measurement of what the field did to something else. Starlight

Two instruments blind in opposite directions

The Zeeman effect measures the component of a field along the line of sight and adds it up, so a field tangled into a hundred cells reports a tenth of one cell's strength. The Hanle effect measures how far an atom precesses between absorbing and re-emitting, does not care about sign, and saturates just where the Zeeman effect becomes useful.

 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.

The whole library · All essays