Reference wavelengths missmatch with NIST #41
Comments
|
Thank you @Knusper very much for your comment. Currently there are two important wavelength values in LiMe.
For the former (label wavelengths) , I would like to use the default wavelength values that are used by astronomical packages which could use LiMe fluxes (for example Cloudy or PyNeb). However, so far these packages do not have a standard way to define these labels (Cloudy people are working on that for the next release). Currently, I am using round ups of the default database wavelengths (see next) For the database wavelength I had picked values from NIST. However, most line fluxes are the result of multiple transitions contributing to the observed fluxes. These values are in vacuum and I convert them to air with Greisen et al. (2006) (astropy also uses this reference). This procedure is not very robust though... I would like to use FIASCO library to get a weighted wavelength... or use Cloudy default values... Have you seen any standarised line wavelength in another package or survey? |
Yes - this is clear.
The labelling part is very clever constructed. It will be interesting to see what the cloudy people come up with, the lead authors have
Yes - this is clear.
The labelling part is very clever constructed. It will be interesting to see what the cloudy people come up with, as the lead authors have a very long history in spectroscopic analysis. Nevertheless, I think what is used here is a good start.
By default the NIST values are not in vacuum, rather lines below 200nm and above 2000nm are given in vacuum, the rest is in air. Of course, the default values can be overriden. The conversion of vacuum to air is explained in the NIST documentation, and they refer to this paper. I don't know how the Greisen et al. formalism compares to the NIST formalism, but perhaps the [OIII] example above indicates that there are non-neglible differences.
NIST, as per their mission, should always be the standard. CHIANTI (as queried with FIASCO) gets its input values from NIST. I think its advantage is that it contains quantites of astrophysical interest (collisional- and recombination rate coefficents) that are not available in NIST. For the wavelengths it should not matter. Of course, the problems with the multiplets (fine- and hyper-fine structure) remains. CHIANTI calculates relative Honestly, the topic seems quite messy, and each astrophysicist seems to have it's own line list somehow (it depends also on the spectral resolution they work with and the sub-field). I always rely on PvH's line list. See also his short paper: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4434/6/2/63 He is also responsive to questions via email. |
|
Another line that clearly is different than what is usually used throughout the literature is Balmer Alpha: Lime provides: 6562.7192 PvH list gives: 6562.8 Almost off by 1/10 of an Angstrom. The PvH value is the common value in the literature (sometimes also 6562.79). |
|
Thank you @Knusper very much for following up on this. I have posted on the fiasco github regarding this and they have given me some ideas. I think, however, that your approach, using the Peter van Hoff's Line List might be the best standard. I am going to send him an email to check how the Cloudy group are favouring this. I think, however, that for LiMe we don't neet a comprehensive atomic list... but rather provide a table (and the script compiling the sources) for the lines of interest. I am using these papers compiling lines and I wonder if you have additional suggestions (specially for the infrared): Ultraviolet: Optical: IR: |
I noticed that the file https://github.com/Vital-Fernandez/lime/blob/master/src/lime/resources/parent_bands.txt (and thus also the output of
lime.lime_bands) contains reference wavelengths that differ significantly from the reference wavelengths provided by NIST and Peter van Hoff's Line List.For example, [OIII] 4995,5007:
Now, a common mistake is too query the databases for vacuum wavelengths, and then to convert back to air wavelengths.
This approach is, however, only correct if the same formalism is used. In principle there does not exist an inversion for going from air to vacuum, only the other way around.
Only the approach in VALD3 database seems to be "roundtrip" compatible: https://www.astro.uu.se/valdwiki/Air-to-vacuum%20conversion -- however, that doesn't mean that you get the "correct" air wavelengths as defined in the databases (needs to be checked),
The way adopted by atomic spectroscopists is to measure everything above 200 nm and below 10000 nm in air (standard atmosphere) and everything outside this boundary in vacuum.
A classical UV line is Lya, but also here you have strange vacuum reference values:
Best,
ECH
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: