Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Identify Galaxies Using Spare Wetware Cycles

Posted by kdawson on Sat Jul 14, 2007 05:47 PM
from the blinded-by-science dept.
hazem invites us to have fun, learn about galaxies, and actually help astronomers by looking at pictures of galaxies and identifying the type. Warning: it's more addictive than Tetris. From the site: "GalaxyZoo... harnesses the power of the internet — and your brain — to classify a million galaxies. By taking part, you'll not only be contributing to scientific research, but you'll view parts of the Universe that literally no-one has ever seen before and get a sense of the glorious diversity of galaxies that pepper the sky. Why do we need you? The simple answer is that the human brain is much better at recognizing patterns than a computer can ever be. Any computer program we write to sort our galaxies into categories would do a reasonable job, but it would also inevitably throw out the unusual, the weird and the wonderful. To rescue these interesting systems which have a story to tell, we need you."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Citizen Science and Grid Computing 69 comments
japonicus writes "The Economist has an article summarizing the current state of distributed computing (think SETI@home and its ilk), which suggests that distributed-human projects are going to be the next big thing. (We discussed one such project, the Galaxy Zoo, a few months back.) The distributed-computing platform BOINC is about to expand to human processing. Distributed proofreaders have been a longstanding success (yet inexplicably failed to get even a mention in the article); but there are a lot of other projects waiting in the wings."
[+] Galaxy Zoo Produces a Rare Specimen 188 comments
We discussed the Galaxy Zoo project soon after it launched last summer. Science News is now following developments about an odd celestial object that is fueling a lot of excitement among astronomers around the world. In August, a Dutch schoolteacher named Hanny, in the process of characterizing galaxy images, noticed a peculiar object and posted a query about it on the Galaxy Zoo blog. She called it a "Voorwerp," which Science News says is Dutch for "thing" but which Google translates as "subject." Hanny's Voorwerp emits mostly green light (the earlier report said blue). The best guess astronomers have now is that the Voorwerp is emitting "ghost light," i.e. it is "lit by the ultraviolet light and X-rays from a quasar that has vanished in the last 100,000 years," to quote astronomer Bill Keel. "As far as we can tell, it's an unprecedented thing," Keel added. Researchers are scrambling to book time on the Hubble and other major telescopes to get a closer look.

Voorwerp
[+] New Class of Galaxy Discovered 104 comments
fructose sends along this excerpt from Space Daily: "A team of astronomers has discovered a group of rare galaxies called the 'Green Peas' with the help of citizen scientists working through an online project called Galaxy Zoo. The finding could lend unique insights into how galaxies form stars in the early universe. ... Of the 1 million galaxies in Galaxy Zoo's image bank, only about 250 are in the new 'Green Pea' type. Galaxy Zoo is claiming this as a success of the 'citizen scientist' effort that they spearheaded. ... The galaxies, which are between 1.5 billion and 5 billion light years away, are 10 times smaller than our own Milky Way galaxy and 100 times less massive. But surprisingly, given their small size, they are forming stars 10 times faster than the Milky Way. 'They're growing at an incredible rate,' said Kevin Schawinski, a postdoctoral associate at Yale and one of Galaxy Zoo's founders. 'These galaxies would have been normal in the early universe, but we just don't see such active galaxies today. Understanding the Green Peas may tell us something about how stars were formed in the early universe and how galaxies evolve.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • sounds familiar (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wizardforce (1005805) on Saturday July 14 2007, @05:52PM (#19862161) Journal
    is this going to work out anything like google image tag game did? so people classify these galaxies and with like 3 or 4 classifying the same galaxy, seeing which tags/classifications are agreed upon?
    • Re:sounds familiar (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Icarus1919 (802533) on Saturday July 14 2007, @06:06PM (#19862239)
      It does seem as if they're looking for a consensus on galaxies. I've been doing this for about a week now and I swear up and down I've seen some of the same galaxies more than once. I'm pretty sure another thing they're looking for is that YOU agree with yourself. If one day you think it looks like an edge on spiral, and another you think it looks like an elliptical that's slightly skewed, then they're probably going to throw your data out or at least make you keep looking at it until you make up your mind.
  • Stardust @ Home (Score:3, Informative)

    by Animaether (411575) on Saturday July 14 2007, @05:56PM (#19862177) Journal
    Reminds me of Stardust@Home ( http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/1 1/069248 [slashdot.org] / http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ [berkeley.edu] )

    Funny how human eyes are still needed for these tasks
    • Re:Stardust @ Home (Score:5, Insightful)

      by scapermoya (769847) on Saturday July 14 2007, @06:41PM (#19862473) Homepage
      funny? more like awesome. computers can do certain stuff super well, but when it comes to a lot of things, they sputter and die. image recognition is going to be one of those things that computers don't do well for many many years.

      feels good not to be obsolete. yet.
      • Re:Stardust @ Home (Score:5, Insightful)

        by suv4x4 (956391) on Saturday July 14 2007, @08:21PM (#19863155)
        FTFA: The simple answer is that the human brain is much better at recognizing patterns than a computer can ever be. Any computer program we write to sort our galaxies into categories would do a reasonable job, but it would also inevitably throw out the unusual, the weird and the wonderful.

        You can't target this at geeks and not a get a weird grin. Computers actually could recognize those galaxies fine, AND mark the unusual, weird and wonderful for additional review. It's a matter of putting in a simple threshold of matching features when you analyze the patterns.

        computers can do certain stuff super well, but when it comes to a lot of things, they sputter and die. image recognition is going to be one of those things that computers don't do well for many many years.

        feels good not to be obsolete. yet.


        Feel good while you can, we've been around for millions of years, and computers have been around for around 50 years, and we're already going into multi-core hardware. Sooner than later, massively parallel hardware patterns will emerge, and coding super-fast neural networks in those will be a child's play. All that's left at this point, would be training the computers to do what you want them to do, like you would a little child.
          • and then they will kill us all.

            Computers? Nah. While they're small, they'll keep mooching off of us, "daddy I need more watts, I need more watts daddy". Then they'll grow up some and start figuring out they could survive without people around them, but they're not quite sure how. just yet.

            They'll experiment with installing viruses on themselves, overclocking, overvoltage. Then one day they'll be gone. And we'll be worried sick about their well-being while they're having the time of their "lives".

            In 10 years
  • by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Saturday July 14 2007, @05:56PM (#19862181)
    To Identify them
  • Alternatively (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Saturday July 14 2007, @05:58PM (#19862197) Journal
    Wouldn't it make sense to write a program and have it shunt all the uncertain galaxies over to human eyes?
    • Re:Alternatively (Score:5, Informative)

      by Animaether (411575) on Saturday July 14 2007, @06:06PM (#19862243) Journal
      The problem is that computer programs can easily mis-identify things. You should try going over a few of the galaxies they present.. not the tutorial ones.. those are easy.. the actual ones. They're mostly extremely vague, low-res, pixelated jpeg-style-artifacty blobs. In fact, on most of them, I'm having to click "don't know", but on some of them, very vaguely, I can see a spiral.. but to a computer program - that would still be a blob. On the opposite end.. what we clearly identify as a merger, a computer program might think it to be a funky spiral.

      That said.. as I mentioned.. most of the actual images are pretty much unidentifiable.. it would be nice if they would concentrate on getting higher resolution images first.. it would make identification easier and more robust.
      I understand that maybe they can't.. but a database full of "don't know"-unrecognizable blobs.. I'm not sure what the value is.
      • There would probably be a lot of value in a database full of mostly "don't know" blobs. The one's that are not don't know are then probably of good enough resolution to actually spend resources studying.
  • One wonders just how the subitter used to play Tetris...

    "Tetris Diary: Day One. This will be an ongoing catalog of the various Tetris shapes I see while playing the game.

    First: A cube. Good start!

    Second: A clockwise L-shape. I can feel the tension mounting!

    Third: A counter-clockwise L-shape. What are the odds??

    Fourth: A counter-clockwise S-shape! A trend emerges!

    Fifth: A clockwise S-shape. Unbelievable!

    Sixth: A STRAIGHT LINE! WE HAVE A STRAIGHT LINE!!!!

    I have now reached the top of the screen and the game has ended. Will start again and try to contain my unbelievable excitement over cataloging shapes."

    • One wonders just how the subitter used to play Tetris...

      That's funny!

      Actually, I can't stand to play Tetris for more than a couple minutes. But I had a girlfriend once who could not stop playing the darned game. She had it on her computer and played it - and then had a Gameboy she played it on too when she wasn't on her computer. Hours and hours she would play that game, and she got really angry when I hid the Gameboy.

      This site seems addictive to me in that some of the pictures are really astounding, but
  • by fm6 (162816) on Saturday July 14 2007, @06:09PM (#19862257) Homepage Journal
    Such a project only makes sense if there are a lot of galaxies. And indeed there are: thousands are visible, and estimates of the grand total vary between 100 billion and half a trillion.

    Big numbers. But don't forget that each galaxy contains hundreds of millions of stars. Of which ours is just one.

    Which should give us all a little humility. But it won't.
    • so, a hundred billion times a hundred million, that gives 10^11 * 10^8 = 10^19. Pffffft, it is less than the RIAA's revenue loss from P2P file sharing alone... When you add in the MPAA and all the porn floating out there 10^19 is not at all a large number.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Yes, it would certainly take you less time to visit every star in the universe than it would for you to view every porn movie ever made. But the fact that you're willing to make the comparison just shows you need to get out more.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                I'm no expert but I think the "you can't prove a negative" only works with certain kinds of problems.

                As you have demonstrated, the negative statement above, "I am not 7 feet tall" can be proven by disproving the opposite. (Let's not consider the semantic arguments about what it means - we can assume that he means that he is not 7 feet tall when standing up).

                In this case, you cannot be both (7 feet tall) and (not seven feet tall) at the same time. They are mutually exclusive states of existence - and all i
  • by pln2bz (449850) * on Saturday July 14 2007, @06:13PM (#19862293)
    For a quick demonstrative primer in how public relations can be used to affect public opinion in the field of astrophysics, I highly recommend comparing the article run about the Galaxy Zoo in NewScientist.com compared to the AP article that has appeared on Space.com and elsewhere.

    NewScientist Article:

    http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12241-publ ic-to-join-search-for-cosmic-axis-of-evil.html [newscientist.com]

    Additional Background info here, linked to from that article:

    http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19425994.0 00-axis-of-evil-a-cause-for-cosmic-concern.html [newscientist.com]

    Compare this to the Space.com - AP Article:

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070711_ap_on line_galaxies.html [space.com]

    For whatever reason, the article that Space.com decided to go with fails to mention anything about this project representing a threat to mainstream cosmology or the CMB. Astrophysical enthusiasts reading Space.com, in other words, would not be informed by that article that somebody has even alleged that there is a possible anomalous artifact within the cosmic microwave background. I'm not advocating anything here other than that this appears to be more than a mere "dumbing down" of a complicated story. They could have easily dumbed down the concept of aligned galaxies and why that introduces a problem for the CMB. Instead, we got the following, which appears to not suggest any threat level to BB Theory whatsoever:

    The catalog would help researchers understand how galaxies form and interact.

    "At some level, what we learn about these galaxies could tell us something quite fundamental about cosmology and particle physics,'' Nichol said.

    This sort of "damage control", if I may call it that, is not really very helpful when it comes to layman trying to understand what to believe.

    We must be very careful of how we promote certain sceintific theories over others. It would be very easy to create a false consensus within society using public relations in this way.
  • Interesting Site (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dmomo (256005) on Saturday July 14 2007, @07:12PM (#19862653) Homepage
    They might want to give more incentive. In the least some feedback would make the task a little more rewardnig. I got bored fairly quickly.

    The 'statistics' and the 'show my galaxies' sections are both not working. Perhaps once they are in place, it will be a little more fun to participate. There should be more info, such as "you were the first one to classify this galaxy", or "You were the 100th person to classify this galaxy", etc.

    If the site gets popular they might add more features. I'd like to see how many galaxies i've done. How many galaxies other users have done, etc. In any case, I hope it catches on.
  • I say, hot! (Score:3, Funny)

    by hmccabe (465882) on Saturday July 14 2007, @08:54PM (#19863381)
    It's Galaxy: Hot or not?

    (really, it's elliptical or spiral, but whatever)
  • by ehaggis (879721) on Saturday July 14 2007, @09:15PM (#19863505) Homepage Journal
    I am sitting at a computer identifying galaxy types and thoroughly enjoying it. It is Saturday night. I am Geek. Thank you. Saturday Night + Computer + Galactic identification = Geek
  • It just crops up at a different point in the process.

    In the old days, you'd expose a bunch of film plates of a given chunk of sky, then have your assistant / grad student / whatever overlap them and look for anything that "appeared" or "moved" across the different frames.

    5-10 years ago, you'd take digital images, then have your assistant / grad student / whatever "blink" back and forth between them, doing the same thing.

    Nowadays, you take lots of digital images and feed them into a supercomputing cluster which analyzes them, then spits out a list of the things that "appear" or "move" that are most likely to be good targets for you... then you have your assistant / grad student / whatever take photometry, spectra, etc. to check on them.

    The process gradually becomes more efficient, but the wetware's still in there - it's just being used in places where it matters most.

    (I'm part of the wetware for one such project, in the / whatever category.)