4.6 Article

PRECISION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY AT THE LEVEL OF 0.1%

Journal

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
Volume 142, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/5/153

Keywords

galaxies: evolution; methods: data analysis; quasars: absorption lines; quasars: emission lines; techniques: spectroscopic

Funding

  1. NSF [AST-0908354]
  2. NASA [08-ADP08-0019]
  3. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  4. U.S. Department of Energy
  5. Japanese Monbukagakusho
  6. Max Planck Society
  7. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  8. University of Chicago
  9. Fermilab
  10. Institute for Advanced Study
  11. Japan Participation Group
  12. Johns Hopkins University
  13. Los Alamos National Laboratory
  14. Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA)
  15. Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA)
  16. New Mexico State University
  17. University of Pittsburgh
  18. Princeton University
  19. United States Naval Observatory
  20. University of Washington

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accurate relative spectrophotometry is critical for many science applications. Small wavelength-scale residuals in the flux calibration can significantly impact the measurements of weak emission and absorption features in the spectra. Using Sloan Digital Sky Survey data, we demonstrate that the average spectra of carefully selected red-sequence galaxies can be used as a spectroscopic standard to improve the relative spectrophotometry precision to 0.1% on small wavelength scales (from a few to hundreds of Angstroms). We achieve this precision by comparing stacked spectra across tiny redshift intervals. The redshift intervals must be small enough that any systematic stellar population evolution is minimized and is less than the spectrophotometric uncertainty. This purely empirical technique does not require any theoretical knowledge of true galaxy spectra. It can be applied to all large spectroscopic galaxy redshift surveys that sample a large number of galaxies in a uniform population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available