►
From YouTube: SJAA SIG Adaptive Optics Elinor Gates
Description
San Jose Astronomical Association. Dr. Elinor Gates on Adaptive Optics.
A
A
C
It
is
the
highest
peak
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area,
which
is
what
makes
it
just
a
wonderful
place
to
have
telescopes
and
we
have
nine
telescopes
on
the
site
in
their
own
housings,
domes
of
which
I
will
just
be
talking
about
the
one
here
in
the
foreground.
The
Shan
three
metre
telescope,
most
of
the
telescopes,
are
still
used
for
research
summer
will
use
for
public
outreach
and
some
are
completely
retired,
but
the
three
meter
is
our
largest
telescope
and
the
one
which
has
adaptive
optics
on
it.
C
C
The
problem
with
imaging
from
a
ground-based
telescope
is
that
there's
turbulence
the
atmosphere
and
my
friend
REM
stone,
who
used
to
be
the
mountain
superintendent,
said
observing
stars
through
the
Earth's
atmosphere
is
like
bird
watching
from
the
bottom
of
a
swimming
pool,
not
a
very
good
choice,
but
unfortunately
we
need
air
to
breathe.
This
is
where
we
are,
so
we
have
to
look
through
the
Earth's
atmosphere,
but
it
does
distort
our
view
of
the
stars
and
so
well.
You
can
see
my
picture
here.
C
C
Robert
Hooke
suggested
the
stars
twinkle
because
there
are
small
moving
regions.
Living
I
was
here
having
different
perfecting
powers
which
act
like
lenses
back
in
the
1600s,
and
he
was
very,
very
smart
man.
He
was
right.
That
is
how
the
atmosphere
behaves
and
when
light
passes
through
those
different
lenses,
it
gets
bent
and
distorted.
Isaac
Newton
also
wrote
that
the
air
through
which
we
look
is
in
perpetual
try.
The
only
remedy
is
a
most
serene
and
quiet
air
as
such,
as
may
perhaps
be
found
on
tops
of
the
highest
mountains
above
the
grosser
flat.
C
He
was
also
a
very
smart
fella.
Lick
Observatory
was
the
first
year-round
accessible
mountaintop
observatory
in
the
world,
because
astronomers
by
the
late
1800s
had
learned
that
yes,
you're
seeing
is
better
when
you're
looking
through
less
atmosphere
and
above
most
of
the
clouds,
and
today
all
modern
telescopes
tend
to
be
sitting
on
tops
of
mountains
for,
for
the
best
possible
views
of
the
sky.
C
Now
in
1953,
an
astronomer
named
Horace
Babcock
actually
said
you
know
we
could
correct
for
this
using
an
optical
element
at
a
formal
Bothell
element
to
essentially
put
equal
but
opposite
turbulence.
On
the
light
we
see
and
a
wavefront
sensor
a
way
of
detecting
the
blurring
that
the
atmosphere
is
doing
so
we
know
what
signal
to
send
this
optical
element.
Now
it
wasn't
until
about
20
years
ago
that
the
technologies
had
been
developed
and
the
computers
developed
that
naturally
made
it
possible
to
implement
this.
So
he
was
fortunate.
C
He
died
a
few
years
ago,
but
he
was
fortunate
to
see
his
idea
actually
applied
and
used
in
astronomy.
So
where
does
the
turbulence
arise?
Well,
then,
he
would
have
a
little
observatory
on
top
of
a
mountaintop
and
one
of
the
sources
turbulence
heat
inside
the
dome-
and
this
is
the
only
one
of
these
sources
of
turbulence,
so
we
can
actually
control.
So
you
know
you
have
big
telescopes,
a
big
motors
to
move
them.
C
You
have
instruments,
you
have
you
no
moving
parts
motors
to
move
things
around
generates
heat,
so
most
modern,
telescopes
use
air-conditioning
and
things
like
that
so
that
they
can,
you
know,
control
the
temperature
and
have
all
the
materials
inside
the
telescope
dome
and
the
telescope
itself
at
the
same
temperature
is
the
nighttime
air.
So
there's
no
heat
waves
and
no
what
we
call
domes
seeing
that
would
control.
Unfortunately,
the
other
things
that
cause
turbulence.
We
don't
have
much
control
over
wind
flow
over
the
dome
most
of
the
best
observatories
in
the
world.
C
The
best
sites
tend
to
be
on
top
of
very
high
mountains,
think
of
Mauna
Kea
in
Hawaii
and
the
Andes
Mountains
in
Chile,
but
they
also
tend
to
be
near
large
bodies
of
water
so
that
the
wind
is
a
nice
laminar
flow
over
the
water
over
the
top
of
the
mountain.
So
there
are
a
few
places
where
in
the
world
where
geography
works
to
our
advantage
to
minimize
the
wind
flow
over
the
dome
and
that
turbulence
so
proper
siting
of
your
telescope
is
very
important.
Lick
Observatory
is
not
bad,
but
we're
kind
of
low
altitude.
C
It
only
4,200
feet
elevation
and
you
know,
but
we
are
still
you
know
the
life
laminar
flow
of
the
over
the
Pacific
over
the
California
mountains,
which
is
why
you
have
multiple
great
observatories
in
California,
Lick,
Observatory,
Palomar,
Observatory
and
Mount
Wilson.
So
again,
geography
working
in
our
favor,
no,
not
as
good
as
say,
Chile
or
Hawaii,
there's.
Unfortunately,
this
boundary
layer
where
the
the
sort
of
warm
ground
and
the
air
interacting
with
the
ground
structures
you
know,
hits
the
higher
levels
of
the
air
moving
at
different
speeds
or
faster.
C
Many
of
you
felt
the
top
of
this
boundary
layer.
It's
about
a
kilometer
up
when
you're
say
coming
into
land
at
the
airport
and
when
you
get
kind
of
close
to
the
ground,
you
have
some
turbulence:
that's
usually
the
top
of
the
boundary
layer,
you're
feeling
and
then,
of
course,
there
are
different
layers
in
our
atmosphere
where
their
air
is
going
different
directions.
So,
for
example,
the
tropopause
their
stratosphere
about
10
kilometres
up
also
a
great
source
of
turbulence,
there's
also
the
jet
stream
and
other
things.
C
C
We've
all
seen
the
Hubble
Space
Telescope
images
they're
gorgeous
they're,
not
looking
through
the
atmosphere,
don't
have
to
worry
about
that
blurring
they
did
have
to
worry
about
a
misconfigured
mirror
initially,
and
that
was
rather
embarrassing
for
the
engineers
who
designed
the
telescope,
but
luckily
sandy
favorite,
Lick,
Observatory
and
some
other
prominent
astronomers
helped
to
figure
out
what
that
aberration
was
to
correct
it
with
some
corrective
optics
later
on.
It
gave
the
Hubble
and
glasses.
But
you
know,
telescopes
in
space
are
great.
C
The
problem
is,
they
tend
to
be
small
and
very
expensive
and
they're
very
limited.
There
are
lots
and
lots
of
astronomers,
as
always,
there
are
more
astronomers
and
telescopes,
so
it's
very
competitive
to
get
time
on
those
space
telescopes.
So
it's
not
the
answer.
There's
also
a
technique
called
speckle
imaging
where,
if
you
take
very
short
exposures,
all
the
different
little
lens,
like
parts
of
the
atmosphere,
focus
the
spot
of
what
you're
looking
at
in
different
places.
C
So
if
you
take
very
short
exposures
on
the
order
of
a
few
milliseconds,
you
get
these
little
multiple
images
that
you
can
sort
of
use
a
computer
and
stack
them
all
on
top
of
each
other
and
get
a
high-resolution
image.
It
only
works
for
really
really
bright
objects
because
it
gotta
get
enough
light
in
a
few
milliseconds
for
this
to
work,
but
it
works
very
well,
but
computationally
intensive
and
then
there's
adaptive
optics
where
we
correct
for
the
turbulence
using
hardware.
C
We
use,
what's
called
a
wavefront
sensor,
to
measure
the
blurring
and
then
that
figures
out
what
the
blurring
is.
We
put
sort
of
opposite
turbulence
on
the
deformable
mirror,
and
this
myth
happens
on
the
order
of
a
thousand
times
a
second,
the
new
systems.
We
have
built
work
1,500
to
2,000
times
a
second
to
do
corrections.
So,
as
computers
have
gotten
faster,
we've
been
able
to
do
corrections
factor.
C
The
problem
is
with
adaptive
optics.
You
need
to
have
a
reference
star
nearby,
because
you
need
something:
that's
a
known
point
source,
that's
sort
of
featureless
to
make
the
measurements,
and
so
that,
because
you
know
without
turbulence
exactly
what
that.
Quartz
source
looks
like
with
turbulence
you
see
how
it
blurs
it's
blurred
on
the
order
of
a
thousand
times
a
second
and
correct
it
so
very
complicated
technique.
C
So
just
for
comparison,
space
versus
ground-based
telescopes,
we
have
the
hubble
space
telescope,
it's
mirror
diameter.
Its
fourth
is
2.4
meters,
so
our
shady
telescope
is
bigger.
It's
got
a
three
meter
diameter.
So,
for
example,
resolution
is
2.2
microns,
which
is
a
near
infrared
wavelength.
Our
eyes,
don't
see
that
light,
but
you
could
see
structures
of
the
hubble
space
telescope
at
that
wavelength
down
to
0.23
arc
seconds,
and
if
you
don't
have
a
good,
intuitive
sense
of
how
big
an
architect's
is.
Take
a
dime
pretend
I'm
holding
a
dime.
C
Have
your
friend
walk
2
miles
away?
The
width
of
that
dime
for
about
2
miles
away
is
about
one
arc.
Second,
so
we
could
see
something:
that's
roughly
a
quarter
of
an
arc
second
in
size
for
the
Hubble
Space
Telescope
from
2
miles
away.
That's
that
that's
the
smallest
structure.
You
can
see
now
the
shame
telescope
with
a
bigger
mirror.
The
laws
of
diffractive,
optics
and
I'll
show.
C
D
C
Anyway,
so
so
you
can
see
that
the
advantage
of
using
adaptive
optics
on
a
telescope
is
that
you
could
actually
theoretically
see
smaller
structures.
Then
you
could
with
the
hubble
space
telescope
and
of
course
it
gets
better.
When
you
get
a
bigger
telescope,
say
the
Keck
10-meter
telescope.
You
can
see
structures
that
are
roughly
three
times
smaller
than
with
the
3
meter
telescope,
so
that
the
scales
up
you
do
even
better
with
bigger
telescopes
using
this
technology,
and
it
just
makes
all
the
Space
Telescope
resolution
look
not
so
good.
C
So
in
practice
you
know
this
is
this:
is
a
pretty
rare?
It's
our
adaptive.
Optics
system
sits
there
at
the
bottom,
so
the
light
goes
and
I
should
be
certainly
support
for
this.
So
the
light
comes
down
the
telescope.
It's
a
primary
results
of
the
secondary
through
the
hole
in
the
primary
to
the
instrument
here
at
the
bottom-
and
this
has
you
know,
deformable
mirrors
to
change
the
shape,
correct
the
turbulence
wavefront
sensor.
That
blue
thing
is
our
infrared
camera.
C
So
so
that's
what
it
actually
looks
like
so
I
keep
using
this
term.
Wavefront
I
should
probably
describe
a
little
better
what
it
is
so
here
you
have
all
the
incoming
starlight
coming
in
and
all
the
Rays
coming
from
the
star.
The
stars
is
officially
far
away
that
all
the
Rays
are
essentially
parallel.
C
So
if
you
look
at
all
the
light
that
came
out
at
the
star
at
the
same
time,
all
hits
the
top
of
our
atmosphere
at
the
same
time
in
this
plane
wave
as
we
call
that's
this
line
here
and
then
you
have
the
turbulent
atmosphere
on
all
these
little
pockets
of
different
temperature
air.
You
know
acting
like
lenses
and
distorts
it,
so
the
radios
start
going
in
different
directions.
If
we
look
at
where
the
Rays
that
the
light
points
are
going,
you
end
up
with
this
distorted
wavefront.
C
Now,
if
you
have
a
small
telescope,
the
overall
tilt
is
sort
of
the
dominant
factor
compared
to
what
your
resolution
is,
so
that
when
you
image
you
can
get
a
large
displacement,
this
the
star
appears
to
move
around
a
lot.
So
if
you
have
a
small
telescope,
you
might
not
need
full
adaptive
optics.
You
might
only
need
just
image
stabilization,
a
little
fast-moving,
tip
tilt
mirror
to
make
sure
your
object,
stays
centered
when
you
get
to
a
bigger
telescope.
C
The
overall
tilt
caused
by
distorted
wavefront
tends
to
sort
of
average
out
over
a
long
large
telescope.
So
you
get
small
angular
displacement
when
you
image,
but
the
blurring
tends
to
be
more
high
order
aberrations
all
these
little
bumps
and
Wiggles
actually
have
a
predominant
X.
So
you
need
the
full
adaptive
optics
to
correct
all
those
little
bumps
and
wheels
better
to
get
the
full
resolution
out
of
your
telescope.
I.
C
E
C
Like
I'm,
not
necessarily
explaining
this
very
well
anyway,
but
a
schematic
of
how
the
eye
adaptive
optics
system
actually
works,
is
you
have
this
distorted
wavefront
coming
in
from
the
telescope?
And
then
you
have
your
adaptive
mirror
here
you
put
sort
of
equal
but
opposite
or
actually
half
the
turbulence,
because
it
bounces
off
I
need
to
follow.
C
So
here's
a
little
movie
hope
this
runs.
No,
no,
it
did
not
run.
Let's
try
again.
There
we
go.
So
this
is
a
nice
animation.
It's
a
rather
old
amening
animation
made
by
the
Gemini
telescope,
but
you
can
see
the
light
coming
and
the
telescope
coming
around
to
the
back
end.
They
have
a
nice
system
where
you
have
multiple
instruments
on
the
telescope
at
a
given
time.
So
you
just
pick
which
one
you
want
to
use.
We're
gonna
pick
the
AO
system
here
and
get
a
little
cutaway
of
you.
C
My
colleagues
and
I
do
call
this
the
potato
chip
movie.
You
will
see
why
in
a
moment,
but
this
will
cut
away
and
see
it
you'll
see
the
light
comes
in,
for
the
telescope
will
come
in
hit.
The
deform
wing
mirror
hit
beam
splitter
so
that
redder
light
goes
to
your
science.
Camera
here
and
you'll
see
an
image
pop
up
on
the
screen
right
here
and
then
the
bluer
light
goes
to
the
wavefront
sensor.
So
you
can
see
a
nice
blurry
image
coming
through
bouncing
around
every
few
milliseconds.
This
times
change.
C
So
here,
you're
gonna,
see
in
a
moment
the
distorted
wave
fronts
or
pan
tato
chips
fly
through
the
system,
the
bounce
off
the
mirror.
Now
the
mirrors
are
doing
anything
right
here.
You
can
see
the
loop
is
open,
but
now
the
wavefront
sensor
their
measure,
something
that's
good,
close
the
control
loop
and
now
they're
gonna
change
the
shape
in
a
mirror.
Now
this
is
hugely
exaggerated,
so
that
you
can
see
what's
going
on
when
you
look
at
the
deferral
mirror
when
it's
moving,
it
looks
flat
to
our
eyes,
but
you
can
see
that
the
potato.
C
Off
the
full
mirror
they
get
flattened
out
when
I
store
tias
now
flat,
tortilla
is
going
to
the
science
camera
and
you
can
see
that
the
light
once
it
gets
the
side
camera
nice
closed
loop.
You
have
a
nice
point
like
image.
It's
like
a
star
should
look
including
a
little
Airy
ring
around
it.
So
I
hope
that
gives
you
an
intuitive
idea
of
what's
going
on.
So
this
is
the
original
adaptive
optics
system
at
Lick
observe
turi
that
I
was
hired
back
in
1998
to
redesign
when
I
first
got
there.
C
It
looked
very
different
from
this,
but
I
worked
with
their
optical
engineer,
Brian
Baumann,
to
redesign
it
to
make
it
into
something
that
one
person,
namely
me,
could
align
and
maintain.
So
this
went
into
sort
of
regular
use
in
the
year
2000,
but
the
light
comes
down
from
the
telescope
bounces
off
some
optics.
This
thing
here
in
the
middle
is
a
tip
tilt
mirrors
just
flat,
mirror
image
stabilization
just
make
sure
that
the
spot
stay
centered.
C
If
you
buy
a
device
called
like
the
ao7
from
santa
barbara
instrument
group,
it's
a
tip
tilt,
mirror
it
just
stabilizes
the
image.
So
that
was
the
first
stage.
Then
the
lights
collimated
comes
here
to
a
deformable
mirror,
so
our
deform
mirror
was
six
inches
in
diameter,
had
127
actuators
to
correct
the
way
front,
and
then
the
light
was
refocused.
Infrared
light
bounced
off
into
our
infrared
camera
over
here.
C
The
optical
light
bounced
off
a
number
of
our
optics
into
our
wavefront
sensor
here
and
I'm,
not
going
to
scribe
how
the
wavefront
sensor
works,
because
I
don't
have
time
with
everything
else.
I
want
to
tell
you,
but
if
you're
interested
after
the
talk
I
will
give
you
some
more
details
anyway,
the
standard
deformable
mirror
back
in
the
day
and
we
started
doing.
This
was
essentially
a
piece
of
thin
glass.
There's
a
bunch
of
little
Pistons
behind
it.
C
You
Bo
see
these
were
piezo
electric
crystals
glued
to
the
back
of
a
glass
thin
glass
is
actually
flexible
and
so
are
deformable
mirror
in
our
original
IO
system.
Could
change
shape
plus
or
minus
8
microns,
so
16
microns
total
motion,
which
is
quite
a
lot
and
had
a
reflective,
coda
aluminum
our
new
system
uses
a
silver
coating
on
one
of
its
deformable
mirrors.
Anyway,
this
is
pretty
standard.
What
was
used,
but
with
only
127
actuaries.
C
We
were
only
actively
controlling
60
of
them
in
the
center
and
the
ones
around
the
edges
in
the
center
was
sort
of
passively
controlled
to
make
sure
they
didn't
wander
off
too
far,
but
you
know
so
we
weren't
actually
using
every
single
actuator
in
the
old
system
anyway.
But
when
you
have
a
perfect
system,
you
know
saying
you're
in
space.
You
know
you
don't
worry
about
the
equation.
C
The
typical
pattern
you
get
if
everything's
perfect,
is
what's
called
a
diffraction
parrot
pattern
or
airy
pattern
where
the
center
looked
as
those
around
it
where
most
of
light
is,
and
then
you
end
up
with
little
rings,
and
this
is
sort
of
like
a
slice
through
it
around
it.
Airy
rings
every
1.2
to
lambda
over
D
lambdas
away
from
you're
looking
at
D
is
the
diameter
of
your
telescope.
So
it's
a
very
simple
equation.
C
Tells
you
how
far
out
the
first
area
ring
is
so,
and
that
tells
you
what
the
resolution
of
your
system
is,
that
you
could
essentially
see
stuff.
That's
separated
by.
That
is
two
separate
objects
in
that
distance.
But
that's
perfect
now,
when
you
use
an
adaptive
optics
system,
you
never
quite
get
to
perfect.
Unfortunately,
because
you
don't
have
an
infinite
number
of
actuators
to
control
your
measurements
aren't
100%
perfect.
The
atmosphere
is
a
permission
thing
different
things
are
going
on
at
different
altitudes,
so
it's
really
impossible
to
measure
things
completely
accurately.
C
So
in
practice
you
end
up
with
this
nice
diffraction
limited
core
which
is
great,
and
then
this
kind
of
uncorrect
and
halo,
that's
the
same
size
as
you're,
seeing
disc,
if
you
were
using
adaptive
optics,
so
that
seemed
is,
you
can
see,
is
way
broader
than
the
central
core,
so
we
have
a
terminology
in
adaptive:
optics
called
stroud.
That
is
the
peak
that
you
actually
measure
versus
the
peak
if
everything
was
perfect
like
in
the
previous
slide.
C
So
if
you
get
astral
above
point,
one
or
point
two,
which
means
you're
twenty
percent
of
the
way
to
perfectly
correct
it,
you
have
nice
very
cores
like
that
that
you
can
make
great
measurements
over,
which
is
great
and
that's
relatively
easily
correct,
achievable
with
relatively
primitive
adaptive
optic
systems.
So
so
this
just
tells
you
what,
if
you
have
more
actuators
on
your
DM,
how
much
you
get?
So
if
you
have
no
adaptive
optics,
that's
the
dotted
line!
So
that's
an
uncorrected
seeing
disc!
So
that's
not
very
good.
C
If
you
have
just
a
tip
tilt
me
or
two
degrees
of
freedom
that
actually
gives
you
close
to
an
airy
core
and
you
know,
gets
rid
of
some
of
the
halo
12
degrees
of
freedom.
Anyway,
you
getting
up
to
218
actuators
degrees
of
freedom.
You
get
first
area
secondary
main
third
area
ring
for
three:
that's
really
pretty
darn
good.
C
Now
our
system
with
the
old
lick
system
was
here
around
50
degrees
of
freedom,
which
meant
we
got
a
real
nice
first
area
ring
and
hints
of
the
next
ones,
but
that
was
an
old
system
that
was
redesigned
in
the
year
2000
and
was
used
for
over
a
decade.
We've
built
a
next
generation
adaptive
optics
system
called
che.
Te'o
is
opposed
to
lik
al.
C
C
The
next
pictures,
so
here
with
the
nice
silver
coating,
so
it's
comparable
to
the
old
deform
mirror
in
the
original
lacayo
system.
So
we
can
do
all
of
the
same
Corrections
that
one
did
and
this
one
also
does
tilt
correction
as
well.
So
it's
got
a
lot
of
motion
instead
of
using
piezo
electric
actuators
on
its
back.
It
uses
voice
coil
technology,
and
this
thing
is
not
six
inches
in
diameter.
It's
one
inch
in
diameter,
so
we've
reduced
the
size
of
the
thing.
C
Things
have
gotten
more
compact,
as
technology
has
advanced
and
then
our
tweeter
is
a
32
by
32
MEMS
device
with
a
gold
coating.
So
this
is
a
micro
electromechanical
device.
That's
is
with
32
by
32
actuators,
that's
a
lot
of
degrees
of
freedom,
that's
like
a
thousand
actuator,
so
we
can
make
amazing
Corrections
with
this.
C
If
we
measure
the
wave
front
well
enough,
that's
the
other
complication,
but
anyway
we
usually
see
the
tweeter
is
really
great
for
the
high
frequency
changes
that
are
subtle
but
changing
frequently
and
that's
most
of
what
we
see
with
the
I/o
system
anyway.
So
our
new
system,
somewhat
more
compact,
we're
using
the
same
housing
for
infrared
camera,
though
we
have
a
new
detector
in
it.
Well
that
has
many
more
pixels
and
smaller
pixels.
C
So
we
get
much
higher
resolution
with
the
camera,
but
it
light
comes
with
telescope
bounces
around
a
bunch
of
optics
comes
to
a
woofer
up
here.
The
woofer
DM
down
here
is
the
tweeter.
Then
we
also
have
our
wavefront
sensor
there
and
our
science
camera.
As
I
said,
we
have
a
new
detector
in
there
anyway,
much
more
compact
than
our
original
system
says
this.
The
camera
here
is
the
same
size.
The
housing
is
the
same
size,
but
if
you
look
at
the
go
back
a
number
of
slides
oops,
what
too
far
there
we
go?
F
C
Is
downstream,
it
is
downstream,
so
it
actually,
when
you
turn
on
the
deferral,
mirror
it's
actually
measuring
more
the
errors
in
the
previous
correction
cycle,
rather
than
the
whole
wave
front,
so
we're
actually
working
on
some
new
algorithms
in
which
we
do
predictive
control,
where,
if
we
know
the
wind
speed,
we
assume
that
the
turbulence
is
a
frozen
flow
over
the
telescope.
So
if
we
know
the
wind
speed
and
direction,
we
could
actually
calculate.
We
have
this
turbulence
here.
C
Oh
and
this
many
milliseconds
will
be
there
and
we
can
actually
predict,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
things
we
have
a
graduate
student
working
on
right
now
anyway,
but
though
I
said
we
have
lots
and
lots
of
actuators,
so
RDM
with
lots
of
degrees
of
freedom
is
capable
of
correcting
turbulence
incredibly
well,
but
only
if
we
can
measure
it
well.
So
here
is
a
little
bit
about
how
our
wavefront
sensing
works.
We've
sort
of
mapped
our
primary
mirror.
That's
this
pink
circle
here
to
an
array.
C
With
this
new
system,
the
old
system
was
optimized
for
the
near-infrared,
so
you
may
not
realize
that
the
turbines
in
the
Earth's
atmosphere
affects
different
colors
of
light
differently
when
you're
really
long
way
of
like
light
like
radio
waves.
Atmospheric
turbulence
is
nothing
just
goes
right
through
it
doesn't
see
it
so.
C
Objects
like
the
Very,
Large
Array
for
doing
interferometry,
don't
need
adaptive
optics
so,
but
as
wavelength
gets
shorter,
they
get
affected
more
and
more
by
the
Earth's
atmosphere,
so
by
the
infrared
it's
affected,
but
not
as
severely
as
say,
blue
light,
which
really
needs
very
fast
correction:
lots
of
sampling
across
the
primary
mirror
to
make
the
measurements
to
see
how
the
light
is
being
bent
at
different
places
across
the
mirror.
So
one
of
the
advantages
of
this
is
it's
so
sampling
more
and
we
actually
have
plans
to
until
we've
actually
installed
it.
C
We
haven't
tested
it
yet
is
to
have
another
set
of
wavefront
sensor
that
has
30
apertures
across,
so
that
we're
measuring
in
nearly
a
thousand
places
across
the
deform
here
across
the
primary
mirror.
What
the
turbulence
is
doing
so
that
we
could
measure
it
better.
We
can
correct
it
better.
We
have
a
deformable
mirror
that
can
handle
this
now.
Computer
is
still
having
a
little
trouble
with
it,
and
our
optimal
alignment
still
needs
a
little
work.
C
As
I
said,
this
is
very
new
stuff,
but
our
new
detector
in
our
science
camera
is,
what's
called
a
Hawaii
to
our
G
array,
they're
commonly
used
now
and
they're
sensitive.
To
light
from
you
know
our
band
red
wavelengths
down
through
the
near-infrared
so
from
you
know
around
seven
thousand
angstroms
down
to
two
and
a
half
micron
with
wavelengths.
C
So
we
haven't
worked
yet
in
our
and
eye
bands
with
this
camera,
yet
with
our
new
AO
system,
but
it's
coming
so,
which
is
pretty
exciting,
so
so
we're
going
to
do
optical
Astronomy,
finally,
with
adaptive
optics
and
hopefully
in
a
routine
way.
So
this
is
our
new
detector.
We
actually
managed
to
get
an
engineering
and
quality
array,
which
means
a
quarter
if
it
doesn't
work,
but
we
didn't
need
that
bit
anyway,
so
yeah,
the
old
detector
in
our
infrared
camera
was
a
picnic
or
a
256
by
256
pixels.
C
This
is
a
2
K
by
2
2k
device
of
which
we're
only
actually
using
the
600
pixels
that
fill
the
same
area
as
the
old
array
so
and
we're
hoping
to
install
some
new
Grisons
and
stuff
that
can
disperse
light
further
and
take
advantage
of
the
wider
detector
that
works,
we're
just
not
using
it
right
now,
but
these
are
smaller
pixels.
We
know
600
pixels,
covering
something
that
used
to
be
only
256
pixels
across
so
there's
smaller
pixels.
We
get
higher
resolution
perfectly
at
jabe
and
our
diffraction
lift
limit
is
less
than
0.1
arcseconds.
C
So
you
know
we
have
33
milliseconds
per
pixel,
I'm,
actually
remastered
it.
It's
not
34
milliseconds
were
better
than
that's
33
milliseconds,
so
anyway,
all
sorts
of
new
developments.
So
what
does
this
mean
in
terms
of
actual
data
and
what
images
actually
look
like
now
that
I've
gone
over
the
hardware?
Well,
this
is
an
image
from
our
original
adaptive,
optics
system
showing
two
stars,
one
of
which
is
a
single
star,
new
Ursa
Majoris
and
then
a
second
star,
Hipparchus
5
9,
3
6
6.
C
Now,
with
a
single
exposure
with
no
adaptive
optics
at
all,
you'd
be
hard-pressed
to
say
which
one
was
a
single
star,
which
was
a
double
star.
You
might
have
a
guess,
but
it's
hard
to
tell
with
just
tilt
correction.
You
can
see
that
that
one's,
probably
a
single
star
and
that
one's
most
likely
to
and
then
of
the
full
adaptive
optics,
you
see,
oh
very
clearly,
single
star,
there's
actually
a
first
area
rainbow.
C
It's
not
showing
up
very
well
on
this
display
and
2
stars,
and
these
two
actually,
you
could
see,
are
moving
with
respect
to
each
other.
If
you
look
at
them
after
epoch,
so
you
can
actually
see
changes
and
make
real
measurements
pretty
easily.
Anyway,
when
you
put
the
same
technology
and
Lick
Observatory,
once
we
proved
adaptive,
optics
worked
for
routine
science
at
Lick
Observatory.
We
built
a
system
for
the
Keck
telescope
in
Hawaii
and
diameter
largest
optical
telescopes
in
the
world.
C
Right
now
we're
without
adaptive
optics
you
had
this,
you
know,
indistinct
blob
with
is
still
less
than
an
arc.
Second,
less
than
half
an
arc.
Second,
this
was
a
very
good
seeing
night
on
Monica.
Monica
is
typical,
seeing
is
about
a
half
arc.
Second,
whereas
Lick
Observatory
I
took
the
seeing
is
about
one
arcsecond,
we're
a
lot
lower
altitude,
not
too
surprising,
but
you
turn
on
adaptive
optics
and
the
resolution
increases
by
about
a
factor
of
10,
and
you
have
this
right.
Spiky
thing,
that's
easy
to
measure.
C
Most
of
the
light
is
squeezed
into
the
core
where
it
belongs.
You
can
see
there
very
ring
anyway,
so
this
is
great.
So
let's
look
at
some
actual
real
data,
rather
than
just
single
stars,
like
Uranus
beautiful
object.
This
was
observed
in
2003
with
our
original
adaptive
optics
system
at
liquid.
You
can
see
here
on
your
this.
Some
cloud
bands
a
storm
a
couple
of
its
moons
one
of
the
nice
things
about
Uranus
is
it
has
a
ring
whoops
wrong
button?
Try
that
one
there
we
go.
C
Now
so
this
is
pretty
cool,
you
know
who
knew
universe
had
a
ring,
but
with
our
new
adaptive
optics
system
we
do
so
much
better.
Here's
Uranus
again,
you
can
now
see
individual
stores
and
the
ring
shows
up.
Okay,
it's
nice
Airy
rings,
and
so
this
was
very
early
data.
We
put
the
system
on
the
telescope
in
April
of
2014.
It
wasn't
really
ready.
So
it
took
us
a
couple
months
to
get
everything
working,
but
this
image
of
Uranus
is
really
nice.
C
Of
course,
if
you
go
to
some
place
like
Keck,
you
do
even
better
so
Ken
here's
the
ring.
We
were
seeing.
It
live,
but
tech,
ops,
but
but
the
Uranus
actually
has
a
ring.
That's
further
out
and
cap
Observatory
can
see
it.
It
was
actually
discovered
with
the
Hubble
Space
Telescope,
but
with
Tech's
adaptive
optics
system.
C
So
this
is
looking
at
one
point,
two
nine
one
point:
five
eight
and
one
point:
six:
five
microns,
so
the
goldish
color
is
sort
of
the
tops
of
clouds,
and
then
the
blue
is
haze.
Anyway.
If
you
look
at
longer
wavelength,
I've,
my
krons,
you
can
see
that
the
great
storm
here
the
Great
Red
Spot,
is
actually
cool
enough.
The
cloud
tops
are
cool
enough.
It
blocks
a
5
micron
light
anyway,
so
it's
lots
of
science
to
be
seen
there.
So
this
is
the
power
of
adaptive
optics.
You
don't
need
to
go
to
space.
C
You
don't
need
to
send
a
space
probe
right
out
to
Jupiter
to
get
truly
amazing
images
where
you
can
actually
monitor
how
things
are
changing.
On
the
planet's
surface
over
time,
some
other
research
I've
worked
on
with
Lick
observatories,
original
adaptive.
Optics
system
was
this
with
Marshall
Perrin
and
James
Graham.
Looking
at
her
big,
a
DBE
stars,
her
big,
a
EBV
stars
are
young
stellar
systems
still
forming.
They
still
have
a
lot
of
dust
around
them.
C
Often
they
have
protoplanetary
discs
around
them.
So
we
were
studying
these.
A
few
of
these.
Her
big
eb
starts
to
see.
Is
the
dust
here
associated
with
both
these
stars.
Only
one
of
these
stars.
You
could
do
this
using
polarimetry,
so
our
infrared
camera
is
also
a
polarimeter.
Can
look
at
the
polarized
light
coming
from
things
and
with
lice
bounces
off
dust.
It
gets
polarized
sort
of
the
same
way
when
light
bounces
off
asphalt.
It
gets
polarized
and
while
you're
polarized
sunglasses
work
so
well
to
block
the
light
anyway.
C
So
here's
just
what
the
image
looks
like
you
know.
Without
it,
you
know
a
polarization
mapping,
but
if
we
look
at
the
polarization
we
could
see
the
star
here,
all
these
little
lines
are
showing
the
direction
of
the
polarization,
and,
if
you
had
a
ring
that
would
say:
okay,
that's
associated
that
star
there
that
it,
the
that
star's
light
is
illuminating.
C
The
dust
and
the
light
is
getting
reflected
towards
us
same
is
true
up
here,
so
you
can
see
sort
of
circles
up
here
circles
up
here
so
yeah
the
dust
does
seem
to
be
one
system
depending
on
which
of
us
is
closer
to
which
star
you
can
see
very
naturally
how
it
progresses.
We
have
a
couple
more
of
these
again
here
we
can
see
the
dust
around
the
star
I,
actually
particularly
like
this
one,
because
we
were
wondering
is
this
little
dust
tail
associated
with
this
star,
where
it's
associated
with
that
little
star?
C
Well,
you
look
at
the
polarization
map
you
can
see
how
clearly
this
this
is
all
associated
that,
but
this
one
clearly
the
way
the
polarization
indicates
that
the
light
is
coming
from
that
star.
So
two
separate
systems
just
happen
to
be
coincident
and
direction
in
the
sky.
I,
don't
actually
know
the
distance
either
the
star,
so
I
don't
know
if
the
distances
are
fairly
the
same
or
not
I
shouldn't
someday
figure
that
out,
but
anyway.
We
can
also
monitor
this
because
there
are
a
protoplanetary
disks
and
that's
blocking
the
light
here.
C
So
why
do
you
not
see
any
light
there
there's
so
much
dust?
The
light
is
blocked
completely
and
we've
modelled
that
to
come
up
with
okay,
the
direction
of
that
this
is
this
and
relative
thickness
and
such,
and
that
was
all
published
in
a
science
magazine
article
many
years
ago
now.
So
this
isn't
exactly
the
freshest
data,
but
I've
shown
you
all
data
so
far,
taking
a
natural
guide
star
mode,
meaning
that
we're
looking
at
a
star,
that's
close
in
direction
or
in
the
same
direction
as
we're
looking.
C
So
some
of
these
objects,
like
the
Herbig
AUB
stars,
are
pretty
bright.
They're
young
stars
are
bright,
they're
relatively
close
to
us
at
the
galaxies,
so
you
can
actually
look
at
that
fans
target
and
measure
the
turbulence
using
your
science
target
directly.
That's
perfect,
but
my
research
usually
involves
faint
little
quasars,
not
enough
light
coming
from
that
for
us
to
make
measurements
a
thousand
times
a
second.
C
So
we
use
a
nearby
bright
star,
a
reference
star
to
actually
measure
the
turbulence,
but
you
can
see
ideally
they'd
be
in
the
same
direction,
so
you
measure
all
the
same
turbulence,
but
it
gets
off
axis
like
this
you're
looking
over
here.
The
turbulence
isn't
the
same
there
as
it
is
there
so
you're
measuring
the
wrong
turbulence.
If
it
gets
too
far
away,
it's
completely
wrong
turbulence.
You
might
actually
make
your
image
worse
instead
of
improving
it
because
you're
measuring
the
wrong
stuff
and
correcting
the
wrong
stuff.
C
So
this
is
a
problem
because
for
a
typical
adaptive
optics
system
to
work,
you
need
a
star.
That's
on
the
order
of
12th
magnitude.
Now
that's
about
600
times
fainter
than
your
eye
can
see.
So
you
might
look
over
the
size.
Oh
they're
stars
everywhere
turns
out
that
you
really
need
to
star
that's
within
about
30
arc
seconds
of
your
target
to
have
this
technique.
Work
well
within
about
60
arc
seconds
or
one
arc
minute
of
your
target
is
sufficient,
but
it's
not
great.
My
targets
I'm
always
unfortunate.
A
C
Is
not
ideal,
but
it's
the
best
you
can
do,
but
this
is
a
problem,
because
a
lot
of
my
quasars
have
no
star
within
60
arc
seconds
bright
enough
for
this
technique
to
work.
Luckily,
astronomers
are
clever.
We
can
use
a
laser
to
put
a
reference
star
exactly
where
we've
put
the
laser
right
at
the
galaxies
you're.
Looking
at
great,
the
laser
is
yellow
because
you
can
see
in
this
picture
here,
but
we
can
plant
it
wherever
you
will
want
it,
and
how
does
this
work?
C
Well,
fortunately,
about
90,
kilometers
or
60
miles
above
our
heads
is
a
layer
in
the
mesosphere
that
is
where
meteors
burn
up
and
when
the
murder
is
when
the
atmosphere
gets
dense
enough
that
really,
the
the
you
know,
disintegration
of
meteors,
happens
in
a
hurry
and
that
deposits
all
sorts
of
metals
up
there.
Things
like
potassium
and
nickel
and
sodium
and
sodium
is
the
one
we
care
about
you've,
probably
seen
around
San
Jose,
our
sodium
streetlamps,
the
yellow
ones.
C
Unfortunately,
they're
replacing
them
with
these
LED
lamps,
which
are
not
so
good
for
astronomy,
but
back
in
the
day
and
the
80s
when
San
Jose
started
using
the
low
pressure
sodium
lamp.
So
it
wasn't
concealed
the
behest
of
Lick
Observatory
to
control
light
pollution
and
Lick
Observatory
named
an
asteroid.
San
Jose
after
the
city
for
doing
such
good
things
for
helping
keeping
Lick,
Observatory
competitive,
doesn't
work
that
way
and
but
anyway,
so
you've
all
seen
that
yellow
color
at
those
lamps.
C
Our
laser,
is
exactly
that
color
anyway,
the
light
goes
up
excites
those
sodium
atoms.
They
D
excite
very
quickly
re-emitting
the
light
creating
a
star
right
where
we
want
it,
which
is
really
pretty
cool,
but
there
are
some
complications.
Here's
another
beautiful
picture
of
our
laser
coming
out
our
laser
his
rather
powerful.
It
is
like
a
big
light:
saber
coming
out
of
the
telescope,
it's
about
12
inches
in
diameter,
25
centimeters
across
and
it's
10
watts
of
laser
power
for
running
a
high-power.
C
More
typically,
we
only
run
between
3
and
5
watts
and
that's
partly
because
of
the
old
technology
we're
trying
to
keep
running
until
we
get
our
new
laser,
which
should
happen
in
the
next
year.
Another
new,
exciting
thing
in
adaptive
optics
for
look
Observatory,
but
it
is
a
powerful
laser.
It
is
not
a
safe.
You
know,
I'm
sure
we
have
blinded
all
sorts
of
insects
over
the
years
because
they
aren't
smart
enough
to
avoid
the
beam
owls
bats.
Probably
look
at
that
and
go
I,
don't
know
what
it
is
stay
away
from
it.
C
But
the
FAA
requires
safety
measures
to
make
sure
we
do
not
blind
any
pilots
or
air
crews
or
do
anything
bad
because
the
last
thing
you
want
just
coming
in
to
land
a
set
and
Jose
Airport
and
then
suddenly
have
your
pilot.
Be
blind
very
bad.
Don't
want
that
to
happen,
so
we
have
plant
spotters.
So
you
might
see
this
person
here,
one
of
our
plane
spotters.
We
have
another
one
on
the
other
side
of
the
dome.
We
have
two
they
have
headsets
and
radios,
so
they
can
talk
to
our
laser
operator
inside
the
dome.
C
Let
them
know
if
an
airplane
is
coming.
If
an
airplane
is
coming
too
quickly
that
you
know
trying
to
communicate
is
too
difficult
won't
be
fast
enough.
They
have
a
big
red
pill
button
with
glowing
red
light.
They
can
just
push
the
button
shuts
off
the
laser,
so
everything's
safe.
We
also
have
a
backup
system
mounted
right
next
to
the
laser
is
a
radar
system
and
the
radar
system
will
also
detect
any
airplanes
and
within
100
milliseconds
shutter
the
laser
and
make
sure
that
the
airplane
is
safe.
C
So
it's
pretty
good
for
pretty
much
any
airplane,
we're
likely
to
see
above
Mount
Hamilton
unless
it's
a
fighter
jet
going
faster
than
Mach
9,
which
is
unlike
anything.
No.
We
only
use
the
laser
on
the
order
of
three
to
ten
nights
a
month,
not
all
instruments.
Not
all
science
requires
the
high
resolution
of
adaptive
optics
and
it's
expensive,
both
in
terms
of
people
and
actual
dollars
of
equipment
to
to
run
it.
So
we
try
and
use
it
when
needed,
of
course,
but.
C
Unfortunately,
most
of
the
light
from
the
laser
actually
goes
right
through
the
Earth's
atmosphere
into
space
and
it
is
sufficiently
powerful,
laser
and
well
collimated
that
it
poses
a
hazard
to
astronauts
and
any
downward
looking
satellite
cameras,
so
I
have
to
work
with
space
battle
manager.
And
yes,
that
really
is
this
job
title
at
Air,
Force,
Space
Command,
to
tell
them
what
we
want
to
look
at
in
advance,
I
submit
a
form
and
they
send
us
back
information.
C
If,
when
we
need
to
shut
down
our
laser,
if
we're
looking
in
that
direction
to
make
sure
we
don't
eliminate
anything,
we
shouldn't
in
space.
So
it's
a
lot
of
paperwork
going
back
and
forth
that
I
have
to
manage.
But
it's
worth
it
because
we
have
this
cool
laser.
Here's
the
Rayleigh
scattering
so
that
Rayleigh
that
laser
beam
you
see
is
actually
not
what
we're
interested
in
and
that
goes
up
to
about
35
kilometers
altitude
and
then
the
atmosphere
gets
pretty
sparse.
C
So
we
don't
see
a
lot
of
reflected
light
coming
back,
scab
it
back
towards
us
and
then
at
90
kilometers.
We
have
our
nice
laser
spot
right
where
we
need
it
and
here's
a
little
short
history
of
laser
guides.
Smart
adaptive,
optics
back
in
the
1980s,
is
when
adaptive
optics
was
first
being
implemented
and
designed
as
part
of
the
military,
Star,
Wars,
Defense,
Initiative
or
SDI.
As
far
as
I
know,
adaptive
optics
may
be
the
only
really
useful
thing
that
ever
came
out
of
that
large
military
program.
C
There
may
be
other
things,
but
I'm
not
familiar
with
them.
Anyway.
In
the
year
1991
right
as
I
was
starting
graduate
school,
they
Declassified
a
great
deal
of
information
because
essentially
the
Astronomy
community
was
starting
to
catch
up
and
that's
when
the
military
and
the
Astronomy
community
really
started,
collaborating
and
sharing
technologies
and
information,
and
then
in
92
to
94
sodium
laser
guide.
Star
experiment
started
at
Lawrence,
Livermore
labs
and
then
in
1994
was
the
first
time
they
installed
it.
Lick
in
1994
was
also
the
year.
C
I
started
working
for
the
Air
Force
on
some
adaptive
optics
technologies,
not
particularly
on
laser
technologies
but
related
projects,
and
then
it
took
a
couple
years
to
get
our
first
image.
You
know
with
the
adaptive
optics
system
actually
working
with
the
laser
and
then
in
2002
after
I
helped
redesign
the
adaptive
optics
system.
We
start
having
routine
science
done
with
the
laser
guide
star
at
Lick
Observatory.
So
it's
now
been.
C
You
know
nearly
15
years
that
we've
been
doing
routine
laser
guide
star
science
at
Lick
Observatory,
and
we
were
the
first
Observatory
to
do
this
in
a
routine
way.
We
were
not
the
first
Observatory
to
do
laser
guide,
star
work,
but
we
were
the
first
ones
to
make
it
routine
and
robust
and
really
start
spreading
the
technology
to
other
observatories
such
as
Tech,
which
started
doing
regular
routine
science
there.
It
is
in
2005
and
then
into
the
same
year.
C
Gemini
North
in
Hawaii
also
got
theirs
running
2007
Subaru
telescope,
and
why
did
it
2008
we
had
later
to
the
second
Keck
telescope
and
technic
generation?
Ao
is
in
the
works
and,
of
course,
all
the
30-meter
and
giant
telescopes
plan
to
have
adaptive
optics
with
lasers
as
well
so
hugely
useful
technology.
That
really
was
was
pushed
through
and
made
to
work
by
Lick
Observatory.
So
how
well
does
the
laser
work
with
our
new
system?
C
Well,
here's
a
cute
little
planetary,
nebula
called
IC
2003
in
the
constellation
Perseus
without
adaptive,
optics
big
fat
blob,
some
other
background
scars
there
with
adaptive
optics,
you
know
see
the
planetary.
Oh,
no!
It's
sorry
planetary,
nebula,
the
white
dwarf
at
the
center,
and
this
is
only
10
minutes
exposure
in
each
color.
So
it's
very
short
exposure
time.
So
that's
why
it
looks
kind
of
noisy
but
lovely
image
shows
the
power
of
this.
When
you
use
the
laser
guide
star
with
a
bigger
telescope
such
as
Keck,
you
get
great
results.
C
Unfortunately,
I
don't
know
the
angular
scale
here,
but
these
images
are
correct
it
to
be.
You
know,
0.04
arcseconds
or
something
like
that
across
so
with
natural
guide,
sorry
out
the
natural
guide
stars,
often
some
corner
got
forgotten
exactly
where
the
the
natural
guide.
Sorry,
it's
just
us
off
access.
The
correction
is
not
so
great
with
the
laser,
because
you
quit
the
laser
right
at
the
center
the
field.
All
of
a
sudden,
you
see
a
lot
more
detail
in
the
stars.
C
This
is
hard
research
to
do
from
Lick
Observatory,
because
the
galactic
center
is
really
very
close
to
the
horizon
here,
but
a
cat
gets
much
higher
up
in
the
sky,
so
they
use
cat
plus
it's
a
bigger
telescope
anyway,
then,
actually
measured
between
1995
and
2014.
The
motions
of
many
stars
in
the
core
of
our
galaxy
and
they've
actually
successfully
plotted
these
orbits
measured
them.
Measured
the
mass
of
the
central
black
hole
in
our
galaxy,
which
is
about
4
million
times
the
mass
of
our
Sun.
C
So
in
terms
of
supermassive
black
holes,
it's
actually
kind
of
a
smallish
one,
at
least
compared
to
the
ones
I
usually
measure,
and
let's
see,
if
I
can
get
this
movie
going.
This
is
just
an
animation
that
I
think
is
absolutely
beautiful
of
the
data
that
Andrea
Ghez
has
and
her
colleagues
have
come
up
with
from
cats
that
just
show
sort
of
a
3d
model
of
all
these
stars.
They
actually
measured
now.
C
But
it's
pretty
amazing
that
we've
been
able
to
measure
the
motions
of
so
many
stars
in
the
center
of
a
galaxy
which
just
wouldn't
be
possible
without
adaptive
optics
to
make
these
measurements
this
frequently
for
this
long,
pretty
pretty
cool
anyway.
So
I'm
gonna
talk
now
about
some
of
my
own
research
and
I
study
quasars
and
their
host
galaxies
and
I
use
our
adaptive
optics
system
to
image
them
to
try
and
find
out
more
about
the
host
galaxies
and
the
masses
of
the
black
holes
at
their
centers.
C
So
a
quasar,
the
term
originates
from
back
when
they
were
first
discovered
when
it
stands
for
quasi
stellar
object.
So
quasars
when
they're
first
discovered
looked
like
stars,
but
they
didn't
have
the
same
colors
as
normal
stars.
They
tended
to
be
bluer,
and
so
they
called
them
quasi
stellar
object,
so
they
didn't
really
know
what
they
were
now.
C
We've
discovered
that
they're
galaxies
and
at
the
center
of
the
galaxy
is
a
supermassive
black
hole
with
an
accretion
disk
around
it
and
as
things
go
into
the
chrétien
disk
is
a
spiral
in
towards
the
black
hole,
gets
very
hot,
emits
a
lot
of
radiation.
Some
of
the
stuff
gets
close
to
the
black
hole.
Sweeps
loosely
shots.
C
So
what
I've
done
with
our
adaptive
optics
system
is
I've
imaged
and
it's
usually
a
couple
hours
of
time
on
each
galaxy
and
they're
faked.
You
know
I
mean
these
are
not
they
don't
look
like
bright
stars,
so
so
some
of
these
are
NGS
data.
Some
of
them
are
with
the
laser
I,
don't
necessarily
discriminate
between
the
two
in
most
cases
anyway,
but
this
one
is
a
redshift
of
0.76
which
puts
it
about
on
the
order.
C
So
so
we've
discovered
a
number
of
new
galaxies
in
terms
of
this
research,
but
there's
a
correlation
between
the
size
of
the
host
galaxy
and
the
central
black
hole.
Mass
that's
been
discovered,
and
so
now
that
we
can,
we
can
we've
detected
the
host
galaxy,
which
is
a
feat
in
and
of
itself
we've
gotten
enough
light
from
it
that
we
can
actually
model
it.
Is
it
in
elliptical
galaxies
or
is
it
a
spiral?
Galaxy.
A
C
Most
of
the
ones
we've
discovered
are
elliptical
galaxies,
not
so
surprising,
and
then
we
can
make
an
estimate
of
black
hole
mass.
So
this
one
we
sort
of
have
an
upper
limit
of
a
black
hole
mass
of
290
million
times
the
mass
of
the
Sun.
Now
compared
to
our
Milky
Way
galaxy
that
has
a
supermassive
black
hole.
C
That's
only
four
million
times
the
mass
our
Sun,
so
we're
talking
much
more
massive
black
holes
in
these
distant
quasars,
they're,
more
active
they're,
younger
galaxies
and
we're
trying
to
understand
the
evolution
of
this
and
I'll
get
more
into
that
in
a
bit
anyway.
Here's
another
one
again
I
subtracted
out
the
quasar
core,
so
you
can
see
that
the
main
galaxy
it
also
has
a
couple
companions
over
here
comes
a
little
further
away
again.
It
also
has
an
upper
limit
on
the
mass
of
the
black
hole
of
1.3
billion
times,
the
mass
or
Sun.
C
That's
a
pretty
big
black
hole,
it's
one
of
the
biggest
ones.
We've
we've
discovered,
thus
far,
at
least
that
we've
measured,
then
here's
another
sample,
this
one's
a
much
less
exciting
galaxy.
But
this
one
is
one
of
the
few
that
actually
turns
out
to
have
a
spiral
galaxy
profile
rather
than
elliptical
galaxies
foreground
star
there
for
comparison
of
what
a
star
looks
like
versus
the
galaxy.
C
What's
that,
anyway,
we
have
a
large
sample
of
these
I'm,
not
going
to
borrow
ball.
Excuse
me
bore
you
with
all
that,
but
you
pay
way
a
Chinese
student
was
working
with
my
collaborator.
Mark
lacy
had
a
whole
lot
more
of
these.
He
analyzed-
and
you
know,
we've
got
pages
of
charts
like
this,
but
you're
showing
the
original
data.
We
subtract
the
PSF
that
central
black
hole
region
that
looks
like
a
point
source
to
see
the
rest
of
the
galaxy
model.
C
The
galaxy
we're
not
but
three
of
these
galaxies
have
companions
or
interactions
this
one,
this
one
and
this
one-
and
it
also
seems
like
those
at
least
two
of
them.
If
we
do
model
fits
to
see,
is
it
a
elliptical
galaxy
or
a
spiral?
Galaxy
two
of
the
ones
with
interactions
appear
to
be
spiral
galaxies.
C
We're
also
expanding
our
sample,
not
looking
at
just
more
distant
quasars,
but
some
active
galaxies
and
active
galaxies
are
a
lot
of
different
kinds.
They
all
have
the
same
core
things
going
on.
However,
they
all
have
the
black
hole.
The
accretion
disk
around
it
broad
line
region
is
stuff
here
around
the
black
hole.
Very
close
in
that
is,
you
know,
light
from
the
accretion
disk
excites
the
gas
and
it's
a
broad
line,
because
it's
moving
pretty
fast
around
the
center.
C
There
are
thinner
clouds,
gas
clouds
that
have
narrow
lines,
as
we
call
them
very,
very
narrow
emission
lines
from
oxygen
and
hydrogen
and
and
then,
but
sometimes
there's
this
big,
dense
torus
of
gas,
so
that,
if
you're
going
to
say
a
type,
2
C
fruit
galaxy,
you
can
see
narrow
lines.
But
you
see
no
broad
lines.
That's
because
it's
dense,
torsa
dust
is
blocking
your
view
and
the
light
just
doesn't
get
there
now
c41
galaxies.
C
You
see
both
broad
lines
and
narrow
lines
in
the
spectrum,
and
so
we
think
it's
all
mostly
viewing
that
angle.
That
determines
whether
something
is
a
C
for
1
or
C.
For
two
galaxies,
though,
we
have
seen
curious
things
where
some
secret
galaxies
that
become
c4
twos
and
vice-versa,
if
you
look
at
them
over
time,
so
not
quite
sure.
What's
going
on
there
with
the
dense
regions
of
dust
that
may
be
blocking
things,
but
when
you
have,
you
know
lots
of
very
dusty
galaxies.
C
You
know
you
can
also
have
what's
called
obscured
quasar,
where
the
quasar
is
not
the
typical
bluish
color
but
more
red,
because
there's
lots
of
dust
absorbing
light.
So
there
is,
it
can
get
very
complicated,
but
one
of
the
things
as
theorists
say
that
well,
these
supermassive
black
holes
formed
in
the
center
of
galaxies
through
mergers
of
galaxies.
C
Well,
that's
great,
except
when
we
look
with
Hubble
Space
Telescope,
you
see
that
actually,
if
you
have
a
sample
of
galaxies
like
a
GN
host,
galaxies
are
here
and
ain't
active
galaxies
over
here
that
you
really
don't
see
any
difference
in
the
statistics
of
which
ones
have
active
cores
versus
inactive
galaxies,
where
you
don't
see
any
of
these
spectral
lines
and
interactions,
because
the
black
hole
isn't
actively
sucking
anything
in
at
the
moment
at
the
center
of
the
black
hole
for
these
inactive
galaxies.
So
what
is
going
on?
C
Well,
some
people
are
trying
to
merge
these.
These
facts
that
we've
measured,
you
know
with
the
theorists,
say
versus
what
our
observations
are
say.
Well,
maybe
it's
only
the
most
massive
black
holes
that
have
formed
through
these
big
mergers
of
galaxies
and
maybe
the
less
active,
less
luminous
AGN.
You
know
they're
they're,
maybe
just
sucking
in
the
occasional
dwarf
galaxies
or
something
it's
much
more
minor
interactions.
C
I,
don't
know
it's
a
lot
of
these
things
that
we
just
don't
know
what
quite
what
the
answer
is,
but
my
colleague
Varda
better--it,
also
in
the
UC
system,
yeah,
has
observed
with
very
deep
exposures
with
the
Hubble
Space
Telescope
elliptical
galaxies,
and
it
turns
out
that
in
these
elliptical
galaxies,
if
you
look
long
enough-
and
these
are-
you
know
like
11,000
second
long-
exposures
of
these
elliptical
galaxies
to
the
Hubble
and
they
modeled
the
galaxies
and
subtracted
that
off.
So
you
can
all
see,
there's
interaction.
C
You
know,
you
know
you
could
see
of
tidal
tails
and
stuff
in
all
these
images.
So
if
you
look
hard
and
long
enough,
you
can
actually
see
evidence
of
old
mergers
in
these
old
elliptical
galaxies,
so
that
might
explain
some
of
the
supermassive
black
holes
that
we
see
often
in
elliptical
galaxies,
but
there's
a
problem.
C
If
you
look,
if
there
was
starting
off
two
galaxies
merged,
there
should
be
star
formation,
but
you
look
at
the
youngest
stars
in
the
galaxy
and
they
tend
to
be
on
the
order
of
500
to
500
to
a
thousand
million
years
old,
whereas
the
activity
of
a
adn,
we
think
it's
on
the
order
of
50
to
100
million
years.
So
there's
this
time
difference
that
doesn't
match.
So
how
do
we
resolve
this
problem?
There's
lots
of
contrary
information
what's
going
on?
C
Well,
we
think
part
of
it
is
just
that
woops
is
a
selection
effect
that
we
need
to
study
the
whole
quasar
population.
We
think
we're
missing
some,
and
so
there
are
gaps
in
our
knowledge
that
don't
you
know.
So
we
don't
know
everything.
So
it
turns
out
that
the
mid-infrared
luminosity
is
a
very
good
process,
proxy
for
the
total
or
Bolla
metric
magnitude
or
luminosity
of
an
object
and
the
wise
telescope
and
here's
a
nice
artist
rendition
of
it.
C
In
the
background,
image
looks
at
the
mid-infrared
wavelengths,
so
we've
actually
used
the
wise
data,
correlating
it
with
the
Sloan
Digital
Sky
Survey
to
hopefully
get
some
spectra
to
go
with
some
of
these
quasars
anyway,
but
losing
that
to
find
really
bright.
Quasars
that
might
be
obscured
by
dust.
But
dust
is
pretty
transparent
in
the
mid
infrared
so
that
we
can
see
that
the
quasar
brightness,
even
if
the
rest
of
the
galaxy,
gets
in
the
way
and
obscures
it
with
the
dust.
C
C
Only
eight
had
suitable
guide
stars
near
the
natural
guide
stars
that
we
could
use
for
tip
tilt
corrections,
because
one
of
the
problems
with
laser
guide
star
that
I
glossed
over
didn't
mention
all
is
that
even
though
we
put
the
laser
anywhere,
we
want
the
tip
Phillip.
The
Grouse
motion
of
the
light
getting
bent
through
the
atmosphere
has
to
be
measured
with
the
natural
start.
C
Now
that
natural
star
could
be
pretty
faint
down
to
18th
magnitude
with
our
current
system
and
pretty
much
most
objects
in
the
sky
have
something
that's
18th
magnitude
or
brightener
within
an
arc
minute,
but
all
only
80
of
them
were
in
this
redshift
ray
with
guide
stars
that
were
good
enough
for
the
AO
system,
with
our
old
AO
system.
When
we
picked
up
the
sample
our
new
AO
system,
we
probably
have
more.
So
we
need
to
go
look
at
our
sample,
but
so
far
we've
only
observed
four.
C
So
these
are
the
four
so
and
there
are
distances
between
about
3.7
to
4.6
billion
light
years
away.
So,
in
terms
of
what
I
usually
look
like
they're,
pretty
at
they're,
pretty
close
in
terms
of
the
rest
of
universes
are
they're,
not
really
that
close,
but
three
of
them
show
faint
hints
of
interaction.
You
can
see
that
there's,
maybe
a
companion,
galaxy
and
tidal
tail
here.
This
one
has
another
object
of
maybe
a
little
tile
tail
there.
C
This
one
has
a
big
honking
title
tail
that,
but
we
don't
see
evidence
of
any
other
galaxies,
so
we
want
to
reabsorb
ease
this.
One
looks
very
plain:
doesn't
look
like
it
has
any
other
interactions
going
on
at
all,
so
either
we
need
to
observe
longer
but
anyway,
but
but
this
is
what's
going
on,
so
we're
gonna
analyze
these.
We
haven't
yet
made
any
estimates
of
the
mass
of
the
central
black
holes
on
these.
C
Yet
right
now
we're
still
trying
to
get
basic
data
and
are
they
interacting
or
not,
and
try
and
figure
out
how
do
these
supermassive
black
holes
form,
and
is
it
really
all
mergers
of
galaxies
or
are
there
more
processes
going
on
that
we
have
to
fit
into
the
models
with
the
theorists
anyway,
due
to
the
time
I
think
I'll
stop
here
and
just
give
you
a
taste
of
adaptive.
Optics
is
really
doing
some
great
science,
it's
being
used
at
telescopes
all
the
world
and
with
dances
and
technology.
G
C
It's
it's
it's
a
good
question.
It
depends
partly
on
what
wavelength
you
want
to
detect
light
at.
Certainly,
we
always
want
to
go
faster.
There
are
days
personally
when
the
Jets
team
is
going
really
fast
over
us.
Our
system
can't
keep
up,
and
so
the
individual
conditions
of
any
nights
determine.
You
know
that,
but
yeah.
Currently,
we
would
like
to
go
faster.
C
When
you
have
a
0th
magnitude
guide,
star
you're,
looking
at
Vega,
it
can
be
done
yeah,
you
can
run
at
1500,
Hertz,
2,000
Hertz,
maybe
even
you
know,
probably
even
faster,
so
there
are
inherent
limits
like
that.
So
adaptive
optics
is
great
technology.
If
we
can
get
detectors
that
have
no
noise,
that
would
be
a
huge
improvement
for
adaptive
optics
as
well
as
many
other
programs.
C
Those
detectors
don't
exist,
but
they're
getting
lower
noise
all
the
time
so
yeah,
it's
it's
mostly
adaptive
optics
these
days,
it's
not
limited
by
computing
power,
but
by
the
brightness
of
the
source,
you're
measuring
and
the
noise
of
the
camera,
so
that
your
measurements
of
what
the
blurring
is
is
the
major
limitation.
These
days.
C
Well,
if
the,
if
the
beam
splitter
was
perfect,
which
they
never
are,
but
if
they
were
perfect,
a
hundred
percent
of
the
m4
allowed
light
would
go
to
the
science
camera
and
a
hundred
percent
of
the
optical
light
that
we're
using
to
measure
the
wave
fronts
would
go
to
the
wavefront
sensor.
Not
quite
perfect,
usually
you
know
we
lose
a
few
percent
at
each
optical
interface,
but
it's
it's
pretty
close.
It's
it's
it's!
It's
very
good.
F
C
We
changed
the
beam
splitter
as
we
change
light
so
right
now
we
have
a
beam
splitter
that
splits
at
about
900
nanometers
9,000
angstrom.
So
it's
infrared
so
we're
using
light
shorter
than
that
to
measure
that
if
we
want
to
do
work
in
the
eye
band
and
down
at
you
know,
nine
thousand
angstrom
or
8000
angstrom
wave
like
we
would
have
to
put
in
a
different
beam
splitter
and
that's
in
our
plans.
We
actually
have
a
beam
splitter
slide
that
has
poles
ready
for
the
new.
You
know
beam
splitter,
so
we
can
do
optical
work.
C
H
E
E
C
What
we,
what
we
see
from
the
ground
that
causes
this
problem,
is
the
light
scattered
back
towards
us
as
it
goes
up,
because,
unfortunately,
the
Rayleigh
scattering
is
caused
by
molecules
and
dusts
and
stuff
in
the
atmosphere.
It's
very
directional.
If
it
goes
up,
does
it
reflect
right
back
towards
you?
C
So
luckily,
because
our
laser
is
mounted
on
the
side
of
our
telescope
rather
than
in
the
center,
it
goes
up,
there's
a
little
bit
of
parallax,
so
the
top
of
the
Rayleigh
scattering
off
axis
from
where
our
star
actually
is,
and
that
actually
helps
us
Keck
telescope
is
the
same
way.
Some
other
telescopes
have
it
mounted
in
the
center
of
obscure
Asian.
So
they
hoped
that
the
secondary
mirror
itself
will
block
that
Rayleigh
scattered
light.
So.
C
C
If
you
want
to
correct
a
larger
field
of
view,
there
are,
there
are
techniques
to
do.
This
is
called
multi,
conjugate,
adaptive
optics
and
also
a
constellation
of
laser
guide
stars.
So
there's
what
called
cone
and
ISO
planets
ISM
you
put
your
laser
there
and
because
the
light
is
a
diverging
beam,
you
only
measure
the
turbulence
you
know
from
ninety
kilometers
up
in
it
and
it
sort
of
cone,
which
means
that
there's
turbulence
up
there
that
the
Starlight
is
going
through
that
you're
not
measuring
with
the
laser.
C
You
can
fix
this
by
having
more
lasers
and
have
a
little
constellation
up
there
and
have
a
you
know,
combine
all
that
information
and
do
tomography,
as
it's
called
to
figure
out.
You
know
what
the
turbulence
is
at
each
laser
at
each
layer
the
atmosphere
have
a
different
deformable
mirror
corresponding
to
each
layer
of
the
atmosphere.
Now
they're
doing
this
on
some
telescopes.
That
is
not
an
experiment
that
we
are
doing
here
at
look
Observatory.
F
C
That
is
one
of
the
advantages
at
the
Hubble
Space
Telescope
is
wide
field.
It's
still
expensive,
I
mean
you
know.
Either
way
you
do
it
ground-based
astronomy
is
still
cheaper
than
space
telescopes
and
you
can
have
more
of
them,
but
it's
still
complicated
expensive
technology
and
very
computationally
heavy.
I
C
This
really
took
tilt
will
do
most
of
the
correction.
I
mean
you
know.
If
you
had
a
more
sophisticated
system,
you
might
eat
a
little
bit
more
out
of
it,
but
small
telescopes
have
a
pretty
broad
area
disk.
Their
resolution
inherent
you
know,
resolution
based
on
just
the
optics
themselves
is,
is
not
so
great.
C
So
a
lot
of
that
operation
ends
up
inside
that
area
disk
and
you
don't
really
notice
it
so
much
yeah
could
small
telescopes,
certainly
on
a
bad
seeing
night
could
benefit
from
more
sophisticated
active
optics,
but
the
cost-benefit
ratio
is
pretty
small.
You
know,
tip
tilt
system
is
actually
relatively
easy
to
build,
but
it
depends.
I
mean
the
the
commercial
ones
out
there
run
on
the
order
of
40
or
50
Hertz
more.
C
F
C
That's
the
promise
is
speed
and
the
sensitivity
of
the
detector,
and
do
you
have
a
bright
enough
star
nearby
or
object
bright
enough?
It's
the
same
problems.
We
have
with
us
the
bigger
systems,
and
it's
as
we
have
exactly
this.
Let
me
tell
you
it's
so
frustrating
when
you
have
this
dive,
this
I've,
this
sample
I've
all
these
places
I
want
to
observe
and
they
don't
have
any
guide
stars
bright
enough.
As
I
said,
our
new
system
is
more
sensitive.
F
C
People
have
discussed
it,
I
won't
say
I'm
very
knowledgeable
on
it.
You
know
part
of
me,
you
know
it
can
be
done,
but
is
it
any
more
effective
than
what
we're
doing
in
first
place,
because
the
problem
is?
Is
that
still
since
you're
doing
the
corrections
later,
you
spread
the
light
out
over
a
lot
and
there's
all
the
noise
of
each
pixel,
whereas
we're
taking
care
of
things.
So
we
get
the
high
signal-to-noise
where
we
need
it
and
then
the
rest.
It's
like
no
there's
no
light
out
there
anywhere.
C
I
C
This
is
you
know
it's
just
designed
that
way,
so
that
that
actually
does
you
know,
does
all
the
high
frequency
Corrections
and
really
it
gives
you,
the
high
fidelity
high
contrast,
images,
high
resolution
images
that
you
want,
so
so
our
DM
working,
our
sorry,
our
woofer
DM
working
all
by
itself,
is
very
comparable
to
the
original
adaptive
optics
system
at
Lick
Observatory.
But
it's
that
MEMS
device
that
yo
it's
just
you
know
it's
about
an
inch
square.
C
F
D
F
I
C
No,
no!
No!
No!
No!
It's
just
this!
It's
just
it's
just
the
woofer,
the
woofer
tweeter.
It
is
this!
It's
it's
just
moving
bite!
It's
it's
just
it's
talking
about
the
frequency
of
how
frequently
the
corrections
are.
You
know
that
they
change
shape,
so
the
woofer
changes
shape.
If
our
woofer
only
goes
at
200
Hertz,
it
always
goes
at
200
speed,
it's
the
tweeter
that
can
go
up
to
1,500
Hertz.
So
it's
a
high
frequency
and
speakers
woofers.
Do
the
low
frequency
sound
versus
tweeters?
C
I
A
C
Wavefront
sensor,
our
wavefront
sensor
is
what's
called
a
shark
Hatun
hack-a-shaq
hartman
wavefront
sensor,
which
is
a
camera.
It
is
a
high
speed,
low
noise
camera
that
can
read
out
up
to
2,000
times
a
second.
We
only
run
it
at
one
point:
five
kilohertz,
because
our
computer
can't
quite
keep
up
if
we
run
it
faster.
So
yep
we've
got
a
lot
of
hardware.
It's
like
oh
we're,
pushing
our
if
our
computers
as
hard
as
it
can
go
to
get
that.
C
C
So
essentially
the
Shack
Hartmann
whoops
display
it.
So
you
can
see
it
there
we
go
so
so
this
is
like.
So
here
we
have
our
camera
and
then
we
have
a
little
set
of
lens
lights
in
front
of
the
camera.
So
we
take
the
light
from
the
telescope
incoming
light
if
it's
a
plane
way
with
this
essentially
acts
like
many
little
telescopes
arrayed
along
around
the
on
the
primary
mirror,
and
we
look
at
each
little
section
each
little
tiny
telescope
and
see
where
the
spot
land
is
on
the
camera
on
our
wavefront
sensor.
C
So
if
there's
no
aberrations,
the
spots
are
absolutely
evenly
spaced,
it's
all
perfect,
there's
no
Corrections
needed.
Unfortunately,
your
aberrated
wavelength,
you
know,
hits
this
little
lens
the
spots
offset
here.
It's
offset
differently.
You
can
actually
work
backwards
and
measure
how
each
little
spot
is
offset
and
computationally
figure
out
what
that
wavefront
shape
was
to
put
the
spots
where
we
measured
them
so
and
then
you
put
that
shape.
Well,
half
that
shape
opposite
on
your
double
mirror
to
correct
the
turbulence.
C
So
it's
so
the
quick
explanation
of
how
the
wavefront
sensor
works.
So
there
are
many
different
types
of
wavefront
sensors.
We
happen
to
use
shaq
Hartmann
on
there,
phase,
diversity
and
curvature,
sensors
and
all
sorts
of
other
complicated
cons,
but
this
one's
conceptually,
probably
the
easiest
one
to
understand.
H
C
C
The
advantages
of
adaptive
secondary
mirrors
is
great,
because
adaptive
optics
adds
a
lot
of
optics
into
the
system
and
every
time
light
hits
an
optical
interface.
You
lose
some
light
so
having
an
adaptive
secondary
is
great
because
you,
you
you're,
not
having
a
bunch
of
other
optics
in
the
light
path.
However,
they're
big
and
they're
expensive
and
the
bigger
things
are
the
harder
they
are
to
move
quickly,
so
that
the
adaptive
secondaries
tend
to
use
voice
coil
technologies,
then
that
moves
pretty
quickly.
C
But
it's
still
it's
a
lot
of
mass,
so
they
don't
tend
to
move
quite
as
quickly,
but
you
gain
an
overall
light
through
the
system.
You
don't
lose
as
much
light,
so
there
are
trade-offs.
Both
systems
work.
Well,
you
know
it's
just
choosing
what
you
do.
I
mean
we're
not
gonna.
Have
we're
not
going
to
put
an
adaptive
a
secondary
on
the
shame,
telescope
and
look
observatory.
It's
just
not
in
the
plans.
I
C
I
I
C
Think
they
used
it
to
track
an
individual
light
pulse
or
something
I
remember
seeing
that
yeah
that
camera
I
have
no
idea
what
its
properties
are.
Certainly
very
fast.
Cameras
that
are
very
sensitive
could
definitely
be
useful.
First
right
pretended
for
a
wavefront
sensing,
I'm,
not
sure
how
sensitive
that
camera
is
wise.
Noise
properties
or
anything
else,
are
so
I
can't.
At
this
time,
judge
I'll
have
to
look
that
all
up.
If
it's
even
available
online.