3
$\begingroup$

We have these electromagnetic tags

The gamma-rays tag has no usage guidance, can you help us create it?

Questions regarding the second-shortest wavelength of light.

Questions regarding a wavelength of light ranging from 380 to 700 nm. This is the spectrum that we can see.

Questions about infrared astronomy, both observations (in the broadest sense) and instruments. The infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum has a longer wavelength than visible light, but shorter than sub-mm or radio waves.

Questions about the part of the electromagnetic spectrum with wave lengths longer than those of infrared radiation.

along with some electromagnetically honorable mentions:

Questions about is the electromagnetic radiation remnant from the early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation".

Gamma ray bursts are flashes of gamma rays, produced by extremely powerful explosions in distant galaxies. They are among the most powerful events in the universe

Questions about observations performed in the radio frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Questions related to the instruments used to perform observations in the radio frequency range.

Use for questions about fast radio burst (FRB) or blitzars. Related tags: "pulsar", "magnetar", "radio-astronomy".

But nothing in the ultra-violet.

After I asked Can we see atomic positronium lines in space? What could be learned from it and what are current challenges to doing so? and added the I noticed there was no tag for ultraviolet to go with it.

So I'd like to ask:

Question: Should we have an [ultraviolet] tag to go with our [gamma-rays], [x-ray], [visible-light], [infrared] and [radio] tags?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
-2
$\begingroup$

It seems like we could benefit from a tag to capture observations beyond the visible spectrum of light. I propose leaving , , and separate since these are significant areas of interest, but the rest (, , and the proposed ) should be made synonyms of .

I think should have already been made a synonym of .

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In all my years in Space and Astronomy I've never seen you make a call I didn't agree with or at least go with. But throwing three different fields of observational astronomy into a bin who's name doesn't even make sense seems like a bad idea to me. It seems arbitrary; why not put radio and infrared in there as well? And the name makes no sense for all the questions have no "multi" aspect. I also don't understand why questions about gamma rays, X-rays or ultraviolet should no longer be searchable by using a tag. How are these tags causing harm? Where is the benefit from "multi"? $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Sep 9, 2022 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ There was also a discussion, I think between someone else and I, years ago about [radio], though it could have been with someone else, and at that time I questioned it and the other person said there was a distinction between it and the other "radios". I'm all for getting rid of [radio]. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Sep 9, 2022 at 15:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh My rationale here has to do with the low usage of these tags. I think they're likely to gain more attention collectively. Others are of course welcome to express their disagreement. I got the "multiwavelength" suggestion from academic papers which used this as a technical way to express observations that included the beyond-visible spectrum, but I would also be ok with a beyond-visible tag if people thought that would be more comprehensible. $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    Sep 9, 2022 at 18:09
  • $\begingroup$ Beyond is certainly better than multi. It's not something one would start typing, but if - by using synonymization - the autocomplete would still show the catch-all tag when someone started typing ult.. or xra... or gam... at least the tagging part works. But if I understand correctly, one would no longer be able to search for gamma-ray or x-ray or ultra-violet by using their tags. As for a trend for lower usage increasing energy above visible, I think it has to do with the Earth's atmosphere and instrumentation; these are relegated (mostly) to space telescopes, planes and suborbital flights. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Sep 10, 2022 at 0:07
  • $\begingroup$ and by the increasing difficulty in imaging with payloads of limited size and cost. This could change in the future! It's not that these bands are ultimately of any less consequence than the lower energies, it's just that (in my opinion) to date they have had lower quality (resolution, total hours of observation). Some might see all processes and observations above visible being relegated to a single tag as a slight or a bias. Even Gilligan's Island went the other way - converting "and the rest" to "the professor and Marry Anne" in the second season. :-) $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Sep 10, 2022 at 0:15
  • $\begingroup$ Anyway, I worry that loosing specific searchability by these three tags (ultra, x-ray, gamma) permanently in this specific case should be considered carefully, especially if these fields grow in the future. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Sep 10, 2022 at 0:18
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh Those are all good points, and I'd be happy to see another answer make a good case based on those. I just want to make sure we're creating something that is actually going to be maintained. $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    Sep 12, 2022 at 15:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .