Separating Observer from Observed

One of the most difficult things to do in observational science is to separate the observer from the observed.  For example, in CCD astronomy, we apply bias, dark, and flat-field corrections as well as utilize median combines of shifted images to yield an image that is, ideally, free of any CCD chip defects including differences in pixel sensitivity and zero-point.

We as observers are constrained by other limitations.  For example, when we look at a particular galaxy, we observe it from a single vantage point in space and time, a vantage point we cannot change due to our great distance from the object and our existence within an exceedingly short interval of time.

Yet another limitation is a phenomenon that astronomers often call “observational selection”.  Put simply, we are most likely to see what is easiest to see.  For example, many of the exoplanets we have discovered thus far are “hot Jupiters”.  Is this because massive planets that orbit very close to a star are common?  Not necessarily.  The radial velocity technique we use to detect many exoplanets is biased towards finding massive planets with short-period orbits because such planets cause the biggest radial velocity fluctuations in their parent star over the shortest period of time.  Planets like the Earth with its relatively small mass and long orbital period (1 year) are much more difficult to detect using the radial velocity technique.  The same holds true for the transit method.  Planets orbiting close to a star will transit more often—and are more likely to transit—than comparable planets further out.  Larger planets will exhibit a larger Δm than smaller planets, regardless of their location.  It may be that Earthlike planets are much more prevalent than hot Jupiters, but we can’t really conclude that looking at the data collected so far (though Kepler has helped recently to make a stronger case for abundant terrestrial planets).

Here’s another important observational selection effect to consider in astronomy: the farther away a celestial object is the brighter that object must be for us to even see it.  In other words, many far-away objects cannot be observed because they are too dim.  This means that when we look at a given volume of space, intrinsically bright objects are over-represented.  The average luminosity of objects seems to increase with increasing distance.  This is called the Malmquist bias, named after the Swedish astronomer Gunnar Malmquist (1893-1982).

3 thoughts on “Separating Observer from Observed”

  1. Brilliant science. The ‘observational selection’ mentioned also affects consumers in diet, daily drugging with animal DNA : seeing the universe as predators, instead of meritocratic herbivores. The coming merging of 197 seperate nations into one Global Village at the dawning of the Space Age, and the environmental crises, can also be solved by a new frame of reference, showing that interpreting the cosmic dance depends on the angle. Humans depend on a healthy biosphere. With total population now at 8 billion we either change diet or face extinction. In past we could live of ‘natural regeneration’. Evolution tells us to adjust: User Pays Footprints
    David writes: ‘Put simply, we are most likely to see what is easiest to see.’

    1. Thanks, Pieter. And we also do what is easiest to do, not what is best—or survivable. Whatever inconveniences we must endure due to a declining birth rate (which is most often decried!), this is infinitely better than the amount of human suffering and displacement that will soon occur if global population continues to increase. It is the most important problem we are facing right now, but we are only feebly addressing it. The only humane way to reduce the human population is to have fewer children!

      1. Yes, population pressures reach critical mass. Worrying indeed: 8 billion people. But there are other solutions: reduce resource use. Tax footprint! Pass consumption laws: How, why? Read .
        There are too many people to stay with Troglodyte habits. Evolve or as David explains: perish. Plant-based diets reduce land and water use by 1/3. 24 billion of us? Some say ‘but we’re apex predators’. Many human herbivore cultures disprove this. It is nurture, not nature. Past norm when nature was plenty and often needed dominion. There can be trillions in the Milky Way. Life is interrelated. DNA differences tiny. NASA wants vegan protein for Mars program. It cost 3,5 billion for bio-repair. Humans needs healthy environments: User Pay. Charge true costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *