Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Estimating Solar Luminosity

Ay 20 – Stellar Properties From Afar
Problem 2
Primary author:  Joanna Robaszewski
Secondary author:  Cassi Lochhaas


Abstract

This problem attempts to estimate the luminosity of the sun based on the temperature of a light bulb.


Introduction

Luminosity is a measure of how much energy a star emits per time.  It is a conserved quantity and does not depend on how far away the observer is from a particular star.


Questions and Results

We had a 100 watt light bulb with efficiency:



Remembering that there are about 1*107 ergs/s for every watt, we can convert our light bulb power output to cgs units. 100 watts = 1*109 ergs/s.  Our skin is a good thermometer so as we move our hand closer to the light bulb, we should be able to tell when it feels as if we are sitting in direct sunlight.  For me, this distance was about 4 centimeters.  We can then set up a proportionality of power over surface area, keeping in mind that luminosity is equivalent to power, and the distance between the sun and the Earth is 1 AU = 1.5 * 1013 cm:







The official value for the luminosity of the sun, as given by Wolfram Alpha, is 3.8 * 1033 ergs/s.  So our value has a percent error of 63%, but at least it is the correct order of magnitude.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Observing at Palomar

Since I was too sick to go on the Palomar field trip with the Ay 20 class, I thought I would write about the time I got to observe at Palomar.  Hopefully this will help make up for my lack of Palomar related activities in the past week.

In the summer of 2011, I was working on an astrophysics project at Caltech dealing mostly with flare stars.  (I wrote more about this in one of my earlier posts.)  Near the end of the project, the astrophysics department sent out a notice that they would be accepting proposals from undergraduates to observe at Palomar, provided the data the the undergrads wanted to obtain would be used for some sort of classification or characterization.  Well I was working on characterizing flare stars, and my co-mentor and I realized we could use some spectra to help confirm the nature of some of our flare star targets.  My co-mentor helped me develop a list of targets and told me how finding charts worked, and then I sent in my proposal.  A couple days later, I got an email from the person in charge of organizing the whole thing saying my proposal had been accepted!  I was really excited, since the only telescope I had ever used had been a 6 inch refracting telescope.  It was a decent enough telescope to track asteroids, but now I was going to go to Palomar and use the double spectrograph on the 200 inch Hale telescope!  I was also excited because I had spent the summer of 2010 extracting spectra from images a grad student had taken at Palomar, so now I was getting a chance to see how those images had been obtained.  I was also rather nervous.  What if I messed up the equipment?  Or what if my co-mentor and I had miscalculated and my targets weren't actually visible?  I only had a couple hours with the telescope and I didn't want to waste them.   I guess this is a common worry among astronomers.

I drove up to Palomar with a few other undergraduates and a couple grad students who were there to make sure we didn't screw anything up too badly.  We dropped our stuff off at the residential building.  The observers at Palomar stay in this house called the Monastery.  It is run by a couple who make the place feel very cozy.  There are refrigerators filled with food and a living room full of games and hard candy.  The bedrooms are small, but large enough to have a bed and a desk.  There is usually a Jack-and-Jill style bathroom between every two bedrooms.  I got a thrill thinking of all the famous astrophysicists who might have slept in the same bed I was sleeping in, eaten at the same table I was eating.  The best part of staying at the Monastery was dinner.  The woman who helped run the house was a magnificent cook.  All the hidden astronomers would come out of their rooms and gather around the table around 6:00 pm.  Then we'd all eat and introduce ourselves. After learning somebody's name, the first question everybody asked was "physics or astronomy?"  I'm not sure why this amused me, but it did.  The conversation would almost always then move on to the newest observing techniques for various wavelengths and stay there for the rest of dinner.

Everyday before dinner, we would have to go up to the telescope to calibrate it.  There were two instruments we would could use:  the double spectrograph and the large format camera.  We would have to calibrate whatever instrument we would be using later that night.  We also had to calibrate for different settings, like if we were changing the binning.  If we had time before dinner, we would also start taking flats, biases, and lamp exposures.  These are images of the blank dome, images of zero second exposure time, and images of arc lamps for later wavelength calibration, respectively.  Astronomers use these images to reduce noise and provide a reference for wavelengths for spectra.  If we didn't have time, taking these images would be the first thing we would do after we got back from dinner.

After dinner, it would be time to get right back to telescope to start observing.  One of the things that made observing a little less scary was the idea of "night lunch."  The woman that helped run the Monastery would pack you whatever you wanted in a brown paper bag, provided you filled out the night lunch form in time.  Then she'd put our names on all the bags and we'd carry our night lunches up with us to the telescope.  Just the name "night lunch" made me feel better.  Another aspect of observing that made me less worried about ruining the telescope was the people working with us at Palomar.  They would stay up with us the whole night, helping test the telescope at the beginning and making sure the computers never went down until the sun came up.  Somebody else was in charge of putting in our coordinates and slewing the telescope to our target.  All these people were really easy-going and helpful.  And they knew how to do their jobs very well.  If the person in charge of slewing wasn't sure if she was on target, she knew exactly which guide stars to use to figure out how the telescope was positioned.  They were also good company throughout the night.  Finally, the interface also made me fairly reassured that I wasn't going to break the telescope.  I was rather surprised when I first saw it, because it reminded me of the interfaces I had used in my sophomore physics laboratory classes.  The interface for the double spectrograph was color-coded for the red side and the blue side and there were big buttons at the bottom saying "Go Expose."  All you had to do was enter in the exposure time and how many images you wanted and after the person slewing the telescope told you everything was in place, you just had to press the "Go Expose" buttons and wait for the images to expose.  The most difficult part was remembering to change the file name before you saved an image.

Most of the night I was just sitting in the data room working on my research progress reports and waiting for my targets to come up.  Then I'd spend a couple hours pressing "Go Expose" and waiting for my images to develop and the telescope to slew.  Then I'd leave the controls to somebody else and go back to my progress reports.  Once those of us not observing got bored of waiting and we had extracted all the entertainment we could out of eating our night lunches, we decided to explore the observatory.  We weren't allowed to open the door to the dome when an exposure was being taken, but we got to slip out in between exposures.  And it was awe-inspiring.  The dome the houses the Hale telescope is huge.  It's hard to imagine unless you've been inside it.  The telescope is also enormous.  We had a lot of fun standing on the edge of the room and rotating with the dome when a different part of the sky needed to be exposed.  Then we decided to climb up to the outdoor catwalk surrounding the dome.

The sky was incredible when we stepped outside.  It was so clear.  We could see traces of the Milky Way and the occasional meteor.  Off to the east, I believe, there was a small glow from a nearby forest fire.  Luckily, the smoke wasn't blowing toward us, or our observations could have been interrupted.  It was quite peaceful, although somewhat surreal, to hear only the sound of crickets and the slewing of the telescope.  After staring off into the horizon for a while, I finally asked if the catwalk rotated along with the dome.  As if on cue, the trees and hills in the distance started moving.  Being on the catwalk while it rotated gave us a nice 360 degree view of the surrounding area and then we headed back inside to warm up.

It was finally 5:30 am when we had taken enough morning flats to satisfy the grad student who was observing with us and he gave us permission to go back to the Monastery and go to bed.  Since the sun was not all of the way up yet, as I walked back down the hill from the observatory I convinced myself that it was actually sunset, not sunrise, and I was about to sleep through the night.  I walked into my room and lowered the astronomer black-out shades.  These are by far the coolest window coverings I have seen.  They were a little worn, but they still worked splendidly and blocked out so much light that I was able to continue to delude myself that it was, in fact, not daytime, but nighttime, and therefore entirely appropriate to sleep.  In the early afternoon, it was not the sun that woke me, but birds chirping.  And so the cycle of calibrations, dinner, observing, and sleep started again.

Every once in a while, we would have some free time and get to explore the observatory.  We got to climb up into the cage where the double spectrograph CCD is held and look around.  We also got to take a ride up to the primary focus.  All the light coming from a target is goes through the primary focus, and back when astronomers used photographic plates, they used to sit up there all night long.  There is a ton of equipment in the center of the primary focus cage and then an itty-bitty uncomfortable-looking wooden chair smashed in on the side, in which people like Hubble would have to stay and manage the plates and the telescope.  It was also so cold up there on winter nights that the astronomers had to wear a special outfit that could pump warm water throughout the cloth and around the person.  We also discovered the billiard room.  On nights when it the conditions were too poor to observe, the astronomers would spend their time in the billiard room until the sky cleared up.  We played a couple games while waiting for some of the flats to be taken.  The room still looks like it's from the 1960s or 1970s (not that I would know, since I was born in the 1990s, but stereotypically speaking) with bright orange and brown wall patterns and floors.

After two nights of observing and 9 out of 10 targets (the last one had been too close to the moon and was imaged later when there was a little extra time), I headed down Mount Palomar back to Caltech with the other undergraduate students.  As the conversation in the car turned back to observation techniques and adaptive optics, I daydreamed about the weight I had felt on my finger as I flipped the switch to open the mirror cover on the largest telescope I had ever, and probably will ever, use.  I may not end up being an astronomer and spend my life observing, but I doubt I will ever forget that feeling.  I am very much grateful to the Caltech astrophysics department, as well as to Palomar, for giving me the chance to experience it in the first place.

The Astronomical Unit

Ay 20 – Lab 2:  The Distance from the Earth to the Sun
By:  Joanna Robaszewski

Purpose of Experiment:  Using images of the transit of Mercury across the sun from the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE) and some prior knowledge of the solar system, determine the value of the Astronomical Unit, the distance from the Earth to the Sun, in centimeters.  Additionally, find values for the semi-major axis of Mercury’s orbit, the mass of the sun, and the mass of Earth.


Procedure:  We were given the following image of the transit of Mercury across the sun:


The image is from:  http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/Mercury2003_combo.gif

We were also given the following information:

  •     The angular width of the sun as see from Earth is 0.5 degrees.
  •         The period of Mercury is PM = 87 days
  •     The period of Earth is P = 365 days.
  •        TRACE is in a polar orbit around Earth
  •        Kepler’s third law is P2 = (4*pi2 *a2) / G (M1 + M2), where a is the semi-major axis of a planet’s orbit.
We know the radius of the Earth from our previous lab, though we can use a more accurate value than the one we calculated.

Looking at the solar system from a side view we get the following set-up:



Where delta_a is the distance between Earth and Mercury.
We know that the oscillations seen in the image of Mercury’s transit are caused by the change of position of TRACE.

Using Kepler’s third law we can get a ratio of Mercury’s period and semi-major axis to Earth’s period and semi-major axis:


We can substitute a - delta_a for aM which gives us:



We know the periods of Mercury and Earth and we want a so all we need to find is Δa.  To find Δa we needed to find theta.

We did this by estimating the amplitude of the wave seen in the transit image and then finding how many of these amplitudes could fit into the diameter of the sun.  We had to finish drawing the circular cross-section of the sun and then divided the diameter into segments that were as long as the amplitude.  We found approximately 50 amplitude-long segments fit into the diameter.  Since the sun has an angular width of 0.5 degrees we could find the angular width of the amplitude of the transit and that would be equal to theta.


From the diagram depicting the partial solar system from the side we know:


Theta is small enough that we can apply the small angle approximation:


We can now put this into the ratio from Kepler’s third law:




We can now find aM:


Using Kepler’s third law we can find the mass of the sun:


We can neglect the mass of Mercury because it is so small in comparison to the sun.


Now we can find the mass of the Earth by using Kepler’s third law and the mass of the sun:


Inserting values and evaluating gives the result:


Error Analysis and Results

We want to compare our calculated values for the semi-major axes of Earth and Mercury and the mass of the Earth and the sun with accepted values.

We found the semi-major axis of Earth, and therefore the Astronomical Unit, to be


Using NASA’s planetary facts sheet, available at http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/, the accepted value for the AU is 1.5 * 1013 cm.  So our percentage error for the AU is:


We found Mercury’s semi-major axis to be:


The accepted value is 5.8 * 1012 cm.  The percentage error for Mercury’s semi-major axis is:


We found the mass of the sun to be 5*1031 g.  The accepted value is 2*1033 g.
Our percent error for the mass of the sun is:



We found the mass of the Earth to be 9.5 * 1031 g.  The accepted value is 6 *1027 g. Our percent error for the mass of the Earth is:


The values we found for the semi-major axes are reasonable, considering the approximations we used.  The values we found for the masses are not accurate.  This is most likely due to error propagation, as we used the experimental values of the semi-major axes to calculate the masses.




Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Galaxy Zoo

I would like spend a little time promoting the website known as Galaxy Zoo.  You can find it at www.galaxyzoo.org

Galaxy Zoo is this really neat way to get people to do science from their computers at home.  The idea is that Hubble and other telescopes produce too many images of galaxies for researchers to look at, and computers aren't very good at image recognition, so the researchers allow whoever wants to work on the project access to various images.  The researchers then have these people answer some simple questions that help define the characteristics of the galaxies.  The researchers can get thousands of answers for the same galaxy and then figure out which answer is the most likely to be accurate.  The people collecting data from Galaxy Zoo this are particularly interested in merging galaxies and sometimes you manage to find an image that contains two colliding galaxies!

When you first register for Galaxy Zoo, they'll put you through a straightforward tutorial and lure you in with awesome pictures like this spiral galaxy:


or this elliptical galaxy:


Once you log-in and start classifying galaxies, though, many of them will end up looking rather lumpy, kind of like this:

In spite of this initial false advertising, Galaxy Zoo is still a lot of fun and dangerously addicting.  I've already been distracted by it twice while writing this blog post.  If you feel guilty about procrastinating, this is a great way to put off your work without feeling bad, because it's still helping science progress.  It's probably even helping more than your latest physics set.  (Not that you needed any more motivation to procrastinate.)  Anyway, you occasionally do come across some really cool pictures.  They let you save any images that particularly grab your attention.  A few of my favorite galaxy images are below:





These are all images that I happened to find while classifying galaxies.  How does this whole classifying procedure work, I hear you asking?

The first thing you do is classify the galaxy as a smooth/elliptical galaxy, a spiral galaxy, or a star/artifact.  Galaxy Zoo then asks you about the shape if it's an elliptical galaxy and about tightness and number of spirals if it is a spiral galaxy.  They also ask about the presence of a bar and the prominence of the center bulge for spiral galaxies.  The last thing they ask about both types of galaxies is the most interesting:  Is there anything odd in the image?  If you pick yes for this question, then you get to specify what is so strange about this image.  Are there two merging galaxies?  Dust trails?  Is the galaxy irregular?  Perhaps most exciting is that you can specify lensing!  That's right, you can sometimes get images that show how galaxies can act as a gravitational lens!  It's quite rare, but if you see a star or another galaxy on one side of the main galaxy and then it appears again on the other side, the light coming from that object may be bending around the main galaxy and therefore the object looks like it's in multiple places!  Did I mention that I find this really cool?!  Unfortunately, I haven't come across any images of obvious gravitational lensing in any of the galaxies I've classified, but here is an example of an image in which somebody else on Galaxy Zoo found lensing:


The yellow blob is the galaxy and grey arc is the bent light from whatever object is behind the galaxy.  Isn't general relativity awesome?!  Perhaps I am getting overly excited...

If galaxies and their strange features aren't making you as excited as they are making me, then there are many other projects like Galaxy Zoo that have been created by Zooniverse. These projects all center on allowing the public try out a little science at home and letting humans pick up the slack where computers fall short.  So far, Zooniverse has projects for deciphering ancient Greek texts, examining the ice composition on Pluto and other objects on the edge of our solar system, looking for patterns that would indicate exoplanets in images from Kepler, looking for stellar nurseries in the Milky Way, examining features on the moon in images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, and monitoring solar storms.  So before computers become good at pattern recognition in images, go to zooniverse.org and pick a project that catches your interest.  You never know when something really strange will pop up.  It might even lead to new science!

Black Body Radiation

Ay 20 – Set 4:  Black Body Radiation
Problem 2a
Primary author:  Joanna Robaszewski
Secondary author:  Cassi Lochhaas

Abstract

This problem demonstrates the relationship between the black body intensity 


and the black body intensity


by examining the units of each.


Introduction

A black body is something that emits radiation perfectly so that the properties of the emitted light are solely dependent on the temperature of the body.  The intensity of a black body is a measurement of energy per time, per frequency, per area.  We can use either the frequency ν or the wavelength λ to look at the intensity at some particular frequency.  So we get the equations:




Where h is 6.6 x 10-27 erg*s and k is 1.4 x 10-16 ergs K-1 , T is the temperature of the black body, and c is the speed of light.


Questions and Results

2.a  We want to convert the units of the black body intensity from 
to


Let’s start by asking what are the units on B_nu?

Which simplifies to:



So to go from the units of B_nu to the units of B_lambda, what do we have to multiply B_nu  by?

We need to get another unit of centimeters in the denominator, along with seconds squared.

We know that frequency has units of s-1 so we should try multiplying by the frequency squared.  If we do this we get the following units:


This is slightly closer to what we are looking for, but we still need centimeters cubed to end up in the denominator.

Let’s consider the relationship:


We want λ in terms of ν so if we solve for λ we get:




which has units of cm.  We want another factor of cm in the denominator, so if we take the reciprocal, we will get:
with units of cm-1.




So if we multiply B_nu by:

which has units of:

we get:
which are the units of B_lambda!

And all we had to do was multiply 

 Here is a picture of a physicist's representation of a cow in space as a spherical black body.  Please note that the jet packs do not emit any radiation in this particular situation and there are no stars in the background because the exposure time was not very long.




Sunday, October 9, 2011

Celestial Music vs. Sickly Orange Barf Glow

The other day we watched this time lapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk6_hdRtJOE in class.  I've been watching it many times over since then and it's simply incredible.  I love watching the meteors go against the stars, I love how I gain the fleeting feeling that the Earth is a sphere, I love watching the clouds look like water.  I love watching the trees blow in the wind and watching the stars rise and set and knowing that this will continue for a long, long time.  And I love how it makes me marvel at the incomprehensibility of the size of the universe.  I know many people are not comfortable with the idea of being insignificant in the universe.  But can you imagine if our actions actually did have an impact on the universe as a whole?  How would we manage the courage to do anything at all?  As T. S. Eliot would ask in "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock",  "Do I dare / Disturb the universe?"  I manage to find comfort in the fact that I can still help the people around me and make an impact in their lives, ideally a positive one, and in the fact that it is still possible to have an impact on a global scale, if you're lucky.  No, this is still not significant in the universe as a whole, but why shouldn't it be significant to us?

I sometimes feel guilty in my choice to go into science.  I know that without basic research we would not advance in technology and engineering and I know that complacency shouldn't be rewarded.  But sometimes I still feel like I should be doing something more practical, something that will help improve people's lives more directly.  Yet when I watch this time lapse, I feel a little better and I remember why I came to science in the first place.  How could I not wonder at our place in the universe after watching something like that?  How could I not be entranced and lured by science's beauty?  Seeing those images makes me want to understand nature so I can appreciate it better.  And I have not encountered anything better than science to accomplish that.  Maybe if we start to learn about the world around us, we will all appreciate it more and come to peace with our place in it.  I still haven't been able to completely shake the feeling that I should work on making other people's lives better, but I also know that science is a noble and worthwhile pursuit, one that I will not give up on very easily.

Not everything in the video was uplifting, though.  In the final time lapse in the video, it is hard not to focus on how much of the night sky is being taken over by light from the ground.  I was once walking under the orange clouds that are the Los Angles night sky and remembered a quote from The Simpsons.  In this particular episode, Lisa has become interested in astronomy and despairs at the fact that she can't see anything through her telescope due to light pollution.  She remarks that "nobody ever wrote a poem about sickly orange barf glow" and she'd rather see the stars.  I took that as a challenge and wrote a poem about the sickly orange barf glow of the L.A. sky.  (Well, it's actually more of a song.  You can sing it to the tune of the Winnie the Pooh Little Black Rain Cloud song, if you desire.)  Here are the lyrics:

I'm just sickly orange barf glow
Hanging over L.A.,
Taking your night sky away.
Everybody knows that smog clouds
Send acid rain down.
I'm just hovering around,
Over the ground,
Making astronomers frown.

So there's a poem about sickly orange barf glow.  But I'd still rather have stars.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Hot Flares from Cool Stars

The Catalina Sky Survey (CSS) is a synoptic survey that scans the entire sky repeatedly and gathers information on various objects.  CSS focuses on near-Earth asteroids, which leaves a lot of other data for other researchers to take a look at.  The Catalina Real-Time Transient Survey (CRTS) is a survey that uses some of the left over CSS data.  What CRTS is mapping and studying are transient objects, these are objects that vary in brightness over time.  Transient objects include supernovae, blazars, and flare stars.

Through Caltech's summer undergraduate research fellowship (SURF) program, I spent the last summer studying the flare stars in CRTS data.  Flare stars are a particularly interesting type of star because they are often younger, smaller, and cooler than the sun, but they produce enormous stellar flares that are much larger than solar flares.  It is thought that the stellar flares are caused by the same mechanism that causes solar flares.  This mechanism involves the magnetic fields around a star shifting until they align in such a way that the star's plasma is suddenly accelerated in a large plume or arc.  You can imagine something like the solar flare seen in this image from NASA:


The stellar flares only last for a few minutes, but can increase the star's brightness by an order of magnitude!  Below, I have some images from CRTS that captured a flare star while it was flaring:


In the image on the left the star is not flaring, whereas in the image on the right, the increase in magnitude implies the star is undergoing a stellar flare.  These images are from the Catalina Real-Time Transient Survey database.

CRTS has tens of thousands of light curves just for flare stars alone.  When you add that to the other thousands of objects it has observed it becomes difficult to classify the light curves by hand.  The goal of my project was to come up with an efficient way of sorting out the flare star light curves from the non-flare star light curves.  Later, we wanted to examine the flare star light curves to define common characteristics of flare stars and look for correlations with spectral type to help classify flare stars for future synoptic surveys.  If we could do that then we would understand the nature of flare stars better and other surveys could be more efficient in their searches.  If the surveys were interested in flare stars then they would know what to look for, and if they were interested in a different phenomenon then they could stop spending time on objects that were likely to be flare stars.

The sort of light curves we were dealing with looked like this:


If you don't have an astronomy background, the way light curves work is time is on the x-axis, as measured by the Modified Julian date (MJD is just a calendar astronomers use, it counts the days since a particular time) and magnitude is on the y-axis.  The magnitude axis looks like it is upside down, but the way magnitude is measured means that a larger number indicates a dimmer star.  So brighter stars go closer to the top of the plot.  In this plot, there is only one star and each point is a different observation of that star.  We can see that there are three points that are much higher than all the rest.  These are from the observations that were made when the star was flaring.  The flares are typically a few minutes long, so we would expect to see the flaring observations all stacked on top of each other, plotted on the same night.  This light curve is also from the Catalina Real-Time Transient Survey database.

Light curves from other objects would look different.  For example, a supernova would get bright very quickly and then slowly decay over the course of a few days, depending on the type of supernova.  We wouldn't expect to see such a drastic decrease in magnitude in a supernova light curve.  Since different transient objects produce different patterns in their light curves, we can exploit this to write a program to notice these differences and classify the light curves.

One requirement we might pick for the program to classify the light curve as a flare star is that the light curves shows at least one point that is significantly higher in magnitude than the average magnitude.  We can set a value for what qualifies as "significantly higher" but this may need to be changed later if we find out that many flare stars produce short flares, flares with smaller amplitudes than expected, and we have been discarding them since they didn't meet our requirement.  We may also need to change this value if it is too small and we have been acquiring many false positives.  To figure out if we need to change this value, we can test the program on light curves that have already been classified and see if it is giving reasonable results.  But even if the program is doing well, we still may need to change it if new science comes in about the short flares that I previously mentioned.

We should also probably specify how many of these observations should have high magnitudes.  We don't want too much of the light curve to be high.  I ended up putting the limit at 10% of the observations.  We also don't want too few of the points to be high, because then the program may classify a light curve based on an outlier.  So let's specify that there have to be at least four observations on any given night and at least three of the four observations need to be above the average magnitude by at least the value that we picked earlier.

Flare stars are also not periodic.  This means that if we spot multiple observations that are high enough to qualify as flares, but on different nights, the light curve we are looking at probably does not belong to a flare star.  If the high magnitude observations were spread out over multiple nights, the likelihood that the object in question is something like a supernova increases.

Once we can code all these criteria in to a program, we can run the program on the light curves that have not been classified.  If the program finds a light curve that meets all the specified requirements, it will write the name of the object associated with the light curve in a list and label it a flare star.  Otherwise the object is labeled as a non-flare star.  How to classify those remaining objects is up to the next person to work on this project.

After we get a list of our objects with the classifications back, we should check if the results are reasonable.  We can do this by plotting some the light curves that were classified as flare stars.  If there is some reason why the program classified light curves as flare stars when they obviously do not meet the criteria, there may be something wrong with the code or our assumptions about what qualifies as a flare star.  If there is no consistent reason why light curves were incorrectly classified, we can look in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey database to see if there are any optical artifacts or nearby stars that may be interfering with the observations.  Finally, we can also check the spectra associated with the object to see if it matches that of a typical young, red flare star.  Or we could get our own spectra for interesting candidates!  But that's a story for another day.

Once we check the accuracy of the program, and it is doing well, we can start extracting data from the light curves that will help us classify flare stars for CRTS and other surveys.  Unfortunately, I ran out of time before I could get to that part of the project.  So if anybody is interested in working on something like that, you should talk to Professor Djorgovski.  He was a really good mentor to work with over the summer.  Good luck!