Interview
with
Professor
Mike
Shull


Duane
Physics
&
Astrophysics

University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder

October
13,
2010







Vanessa:
To
start
out,
can
you
just
tell
me
a
bit
in
your
own
words
about
what
exactly
was

done
by
the
team?



Prof.
Mike
Shull:
Okay,
well
what
was
done
specifically
was,
we
took
a
spectrum
of
a
high‐
redshift
quasar,
which
is
at
about
redshift
2.9,
which
means
it’s
about
11
and
a
half
billion

light
years
away
–
a
long
ways.
We
observed
its
ultraviolet
spectrum
as
the
quasar
light

shone
through
the
intergalactic
medium
(the
gas
between
galaxies)
and
what
we
detected

was
absorption
from
ionized
helium,
a
helium
nucleus
with
one
electron
bound
to
it.
And
it

has
a
very
strong
absorption
line
called
Lyman‐alpha,
which
is
at
1216
angstroms,
a
very

short
wavelength.
But
the
redshift
means
that
we
see
it
absorbing
in
the
regular
ultraviolet

which
Hubble
can
study.
So
the
spectrograph
on
Hubble,
called
Cosmic
Origins

Spectrograph,
observed
absorption
in
a
very
opaque
intergalactic
medium
and
then

suddenly,
a
transparent
epoch
when
the
quasar
light
beamed
through.
It
wasn’t
getting

absorbed.
So
we
interpret
that
as
the
epoch
of
reionization.
So
helium
lost
that
last
electron,

it
got
stripped
off.
And
that
was
around
redshift
2.7,
11.2
billion
years
ago.
Why
is
this

important?
Well,
we
think
that
the
only
thing
that
has
enough
energy
and
enough

luminosity
to
strip
off
the
electron
is
another
quasar.
So
this
epoch
of
helium
reionization

coincides
with
the
epoch
when
quasars
ruled
the
universe.
And
they
are
really
bright,
very

luminous.
So
we
think
we’ve
detected
the
quasar
epoch.
And
then
the
final
point
to
make
is

that
when
you
strip
off
this
electron,
when
the
quasar
light
strips
it
off,
it
comes
flying
off
at

high
speeds
and
then
slows
down.
As
it
slows
down
in
the
intergalactic
gas,
that
dumps
in

heat.
So
in
addition
to
reionization,
it
reheats
–
the
intergalactic
medium.
So
one
of
the

interesting
little
sidelines
that
all
of
the
reporters
wanted
to
talk
about
was,
what
are
the

implications
of
this
reheating?
And
we
think
that
it
may
stunt
the
growth
of
galaxies
‐
dwarf

galaxies.
Because
when
you
heat
the
gas
in
the
dwarf
galaxies
above
escape
velocity,
that

gas
blows
out
and
gets
lost.
No
gas,
no
stars.
So
this
stunts
the
growth
of
the
dwarf
galaxies.




V:
Now,
normally
helium
has
two
electrons,
correct?



MS:
Correct.



V:
So
you’re
saying
that
the
helium
we’re
talking
about
started
out
with
one
electron?



MS:
Yes…
and
most
reporters
didn’t
ask
me
to
get
into
that,
so
that’s
an
important
point.
The

hydrogen,
which
is
the
most
abundant
element
in
the
universe,
was
reionized
much
earlier.

Two
billion
years
earlier.
So
about
13
billion
years
ago,
hydrogen
lost
its
electron.
And

probably
helium
lost
its
first
electron
then
too.
And
that’s
not
done
by
quasars.
That’s
done

by
ordinary
hot
stars.
So
at
redshift
7,
8
–
a
long
time
ago,
13
billion
years
ago
–
hydrogen

and
helium
were
ionized.
The
helium
only
lost
one
[electron].
That
second
electron
is
bound

very
tightly.
And
that
takes
four
times
as
much
energy
as
hydrogen.
And
that
can
only
be

done
by
quasars.




V:
That
makes
more
sense.
Now,
when
I
was
reading
the
release,
it
talked
about
the
Lyman‐
alpha
transition
that
occurred.
I
was
a
little
bit
confused
in
terms
of
the
absorption
lines

that
you
saw
in
the
IGM.
How
were
you
able
to
tell
that
it
was
ionized?
Because
if
the

electron
fully
escaped,
there
wouldn’t
be
a
transition.



MS:
Basically
–
I’ll
show
you
the
spectrum
–
the
spectrum
shows
you
the
black
is
really

strong
in
certain
spots.
No
light
getting
through
at
all.
And
then
a
few
places
where
the

quasar
light
starts
to
poke
through.
And
then
at
shorter
wavelengths,
it
recovers.
So
here’s

the
absorption
page,
and
now
you
start
to
see
the
recovery
of
light.
So
what
we’re
seeing
is

not
ionized
helium,
completely
ionized
helium,
we’re
seeing
absorption
by
singly
ionized

helium.
So
when
the
absorption
goes
away,
we’re
assuming
that
it’s
because
now,
helium
is

fully
ionized.
Once
it’s
a
bare
helium
nucleus
with
no
electrons,
there’s
no
absorption.




V:
So
you’re
only
seeing
these
absorption
lines
say,
11
and
a
half
billion
years
ago
and
closer

to
us,
after
that
epoch.




MS:
So
between
about
11.7
billion
and
11.2
billion
is
about
a
500
million‐year
interval
over

this
range
of
redshifts,
coming
closer
to
us
from
when
absorption
is
there,
and
it’s
slowly

getting
stripped
away
and
becoming
transparent.
And
certainly
by
10
and
a
half
or
11

billion
years
it’s
gone,
and
the
quasar
is
now
beaming
through.
It’s
transparent.
So
I’ll
say
it

again.
It’s
an
inference
on
our
part
that
the
reason
it’s
transparent
is
the
helium
is
now

stripped.
Ionized
all
of
its
electrons.




V:
How
about
before
11.7
billion
years
ago?



MS:
It’s
opaque.
We
have
some
previous
work
done
with
other
satellites
that
show
that
at

redshifts
3
and
3.2,
it’s
quite
opaque
at
higher
redshifts.
And
in
fact,
my
postdoc
across
the

hall
just
got
some
new
data
since
the
press
release
–
some
new
data
from
Hubble
that
also

shows
the
same
thing.
So
we’re
starting
to
accumulate
more
sightlines
than
just
this
one.

This
is
the
best.
This
is
the
brightest
quasar.
It’s
a
16th
magnitude,
very
bright
quasar.
These

other
objects
are
much
fainter.




V:
So,
the
opaque
gas
that
you’re
seeing
–
what
implications
does
that
have
for
helium?



MS:
When
it’s
opaque,
that
means
that
there’s
still
a
lot
of
helium
with
one
electron
there
to

absorb
the
light.
And
I
think
the
main
implication
is,
that’s
when
the
heat’s
getting
dumped

in.
Just
when
it
goes
from
being
opaque
to
transparent.
So
if
you
have
something
there

ready
to
absorb
that
light
from
quasars,
those
electrons
are
going
to
fly
off
and
heat
the
gas.

It’s
during
that
epoch
that
I
think
the
reheating
takes
place.
The
person
at
the
Space

Telescope
Institute
came
up
with
the
words
“universal
warming.”
Like
global
warming,
but

this
is
on
beyond
that.
Universal
warming.
But
this
is
when
the
universe
reheated,
as
well
as

reionized.




V:
So
how
is
it
that
you
were
able
to
tell
that
this
particular
epoch
started
at
11.7
billion

years
ago,
versus
11.8
or
11.9?



MS:
We
don’t
know
the
exact
units
that
well,
but
we
have
a
quasar
at
redshift
2.9
and
it’s

opaque
there,
and
it
starts
to
recover
a
little
bit
by
2.8
and
2.7.
There’s
little
intermittent

places
where
the
quasar
peeks
through,
but
below
redshift
2.9,
it’s
clearly
getting

transparent.
We
know
from
other
sightlines
and
previous
satellites
that
that
epoch
probably

goes
up
to
3.1
or
3.2
redshift.
So
I’m
guessing
from
z
of
3.2
down
to
2.7
–
that’s
where
the

period
is
when
this
is
happening,
in
different
times
and
different
places
in
the
universe.

Probably
not
a
single
time
everywhere.




V:
What
was
new
about
this
discovery
as
opposed
to
what
we
knew
previously
from

Hubble?



MS:
Hubble,
and
FUSE
–
Far
Ultraviolet
Spectroscopic
Explorer,
which
we
also
worked
on
in

2004.
There
were
some
papers
that
were
published.
The
problem
was
that
FUSE
is
a
very

small
satellite
with
not
much
collecting
area,
so
the
data
weren’t
that
great.
And
Hubble
is

also
a
fairly
small
satellite,
but
the
previous
work
was
done
with
the
old
spectrograph,

which
was
not
that
efficient.
The
COS,
Cosmic
Origins
Spectograph,
is
10
or
20
times
more

powerful,
meaning
the
throughput,
the
efficiency.
So
our
data
has
great
signal‐to‐noise.

There’s
just
no
data
about
these
absorption
troughs,
they’re
completely
black.
No
light’s

getting
through.
And
then
the
little
transmission
windows,
we
didn’t
see
those
before,
but

now
we
can
see
them.
So
we
can
really
map
out,
redshift
by
redshift,
from
the
quasar

toward
us,
where
[the
gas]
is
opaque,
where
it’s
semi‐transparent,
where
it’s
completely

transparent.
And
the
next
step
is
to
go
and
look
for
the
smoking
guns
of
quasars
that
ionized

it.
Not
the
background
quasar,
but
quasars
nearer
to
it,
off
the
line
of
sight
a
little
bit.

They’ve
all
carved
out
little
bubbles
in
space
of
ionized
regions,
and
we’re
going
to
try
to
go

look
for
those.




V:
So
that’s
what
you’re
planning
on
doing
in
the
future?



MS:
Yeah,
that’s
future
work.
We’re
also
going
to
get
at
least
two
more
spectra,
two
more

quasars
in
different
directions.
They
were
going
to
get
one
of
them
in
December
–
I
don’t

know
if
the
data
will
come
or
not,
you
never
know
until
it
arrives
–
and
then
another
one

sometime
in
2011.
And
then
as
I
said,
my
postdoc
David
Syphers,
he
wrote
his
own
proposal

before
he
came
here,
and
he’s
got
data
on
two
quasars.
So
this
field
is
really
taking
off.

There’s
people
all
around
the
country
who
are
doing
this
work.
We
got
there
first
because

we
had
guaranteed
time
on
the
Hubble,
because
we
built
the
spectrograph.




V:
So
what
do
you
know
now
that
you
didn’t
know,
say,
a
couple
of
months
ago
or
a
year

ago,
before
you
completed
this
particular
project?
Was
this
known,
that
the
universe
went

through
a
period
of
reionization?



MS:
Yes,
it
was
known.
I
think
what
we
know
now
is
when
it
happened.
People
used
to
say
it

happened
at
redshift
3.2.
They
were
sure
of
it.
I
won’t
go
into
the
details,
but
there
was
a
lot

of
indirect
evidence.
3.2
and
redshift
2.7
are
a
long
ways
apart
–
half
a
billion
years
apart.

And
in
cosmic
time,
back
then,
that’s
a
long,
long
time.
A
lot
happened
in
the
universe.
So

we’ve
really
nailed
that
down.




V:
How
long
did
this
particular
project
take
in
total,
timewise?



MS:
You
mean
from
start
to
finish?



V:
From
start
to
finish.
When
did
you
start
this
research?



MS:
Well,
I
started
this
research
in
theoretical
work
back
in
1995.
I
had
a
grad
student
do

his
PhD
with
me
–
Mark
Fardal
–
and
we
made
a
lot
of
predictions,
and
we
wrote
some

papers
in
the
late
90s.
In
1997,
we
won
the
award
from
NASA
to
build
the
Cosmic
Origins

Spectograph.
We
thought
we
were
going
to
fly
in
2004,
but
it
got
postponed
and
cancelled

and
set
back,
and
was
launched
in
May
2009,
and
the
data
was
taken
in
2010.
So,
15
years,

from
start
to
finish?



V:
What
has
been
your
part
in
building
the
Cosmic
Origins
Spectrograph?



MS:
(laughter)
I
didn’t
build
anything.
I’m
on
the
science
team.
I
came
up
with
the
science

reasons
to
use
it,
and
I
advised
on
the
design
in
the
sense
of,
‘here
are
the
kinds
of

specifications
we
need,
here’s
how
much
efficiency,
here’s
the
spectral
resolution,
how

finely
do
you
have
to
chop
the
colors
into
the
components
to
find
these
fingerprints
of

helium
and
hydrogen
that
we
want.’
But
I’m
not
an
instrumentalist.
That
was
James
Green

and
many
other
people
here
at
Colorado
and
at
Ball
Aerospace.




V:
Can
you
tell
me
a
bit
about
the
work
that
COS
did,
on
Hubble?



MS:
Well,
right
now
there’s
a
conference
in
Venice
that
I’m
missing.
I’m
here,
talking
to
you.



V:
Which
is
much
better!



MS:
(laughter)
No,
I
couldn’t
go
for
other
reasons.
But
there’s
a
conference
talking
about
all

the
things
it’s
doing.
One
of
the
big
things
it’s
doing
that
might
interest
you
is
that
it
has

found
ultraviolet
spectra
of
quasars
far
better
–
these
are
the
background
targets
we
used,

but
they’re
interesting
in
their
own
way
–
far
better
ultraviolet
spectra
of
quasars

characterizing
their
continuum
and
their
emission
lines
in
their
spectra.
So
this
is
going
to

be
a
real
breakthrough
in
understanding
supermassive
black
holes
and
their
accretion.

There
has
been
a
lot
of
study
of
intergalactic
gas
and
what
it’s
made
of
–
our
group
is
doing

that
–
in
particular,
the
heavy
elements.
And
missing
matter
–
not
missing
dark
matter,
but

missing
gas.
It
used
to
be
that
we
didn’t
know
where
90%
of
these
baryons,
they’re
called
–

90%
of
the
heavy
elements
were
missing.
We’ve
found
about
half
of
them,
so
the
glass
is

half‐full.
We’re
still
looking
for
more,
but
it’s
a
very
technical
field,
to
try
to
detect
them

through
absorption
out
in
intergalactic
space.
But
the
basic
answer
is,
it
appears
that
only

about
10%
of
the
gas
has
collapsed
into
galaxies
and
stars
and
the
other
90%
is
probably

out
in
between
the
galaxies.
And
then
there’s
a
group
that’s
looking
at
extrasolar
planets,

kind
of
an
exciting
area.
It’s
not
my
area,
but
they’re
looking
at
ultraviolet
emission
and

absorption
from
a
system
where
you
have
a
star
and
one
or
more
orbiting
extrasolar

planets.
So
the
ultraviolet
is
kind
of
an
important
way
for
them.
There’s
a
group
that
looks
at

interstellar
gas,
the
gas
in
our
galaxy
but
between
the
stars.
There’s
a
group
that
looks
at

accretion
around
white
dwarfs.
Just
about
anything
that’s
hot,
from
a
quasar
to
a
black
hole

to
a
neutron
star
to
a
white
dwarf,
gets
looked
at
in
the
ultraviolet.




V:
So
Cosmic
Origins
essentially
observes
only
ultraviolet
wavelengths.




MS:
It’s
entirely
the
ultraviolet
wavelengths,
which
you
can’t
see
on
Earth.
You
have
to
get

into
space
and
get
above
the
Earth’s
atmosphere
to
see
them.




V:
Okay,
let’s
talk
about
quasars.
Now,
quasars
were
originally
detected
as
quasi‐stellar

radio
sources,
correct?



MS:
Yes,
the
R
in
“quasar”
is
for
“radio.”



V:
However,
in
this
instance,
you’re
detecting
ultraviolet
radiation.
So
how
does
that

transition
occur,
from
radio
wavelengths
all
the
way
up
to
ultraviolet?



MS:
Well,
two
answers.
One
is
that
quasars,
as
you
say,
were
first
found
because
a
subset
of

them
are
very
bright
in
the
radio.
So
“quasar”
is
a
contraction
of
“quasi‐stellar
radio
source.”

It
turns
out
today
that
only
about
10%
are
actually
radio
bright,
and
the
rest
of
them
–
I

mean,
they
do
have
radio
–
but
the
rest
of
them
are
mostly
emitting
in
the
optical,

ultraviolet
and
x‐ray
range.
So
you
can
find
them
that
way
too.
So
the
ones
we
find
and
look

at
are
very
powerful
x‐ray
and
ultraviolet
emitters,
but
they
basically
emit
at
all
frequencies.

Because
the
mechanism
that
emits
the
light
is
what
we
call
non‐thermal
radiation,
which
is

probably
very,
very
fast
electrons
spiraling
around
magnetic
fields
and
emitting

synchrotron
radiation.
Or
it’s
very,
very
hot
gas
in
the
inner
regions
of
an
accretion
disk

swirling
around
before
it
enters
the
black
hole,
heating
up
to
temperatures
of
millions
of

degrees,
even
108
degrees,
emitting
usually
in
x‐ray.
So,
quasars
today
–
or
“quasi‐stellar

objects”
is
maybe
a
better
word
–
are
manifestations
of
a
phenomenon
that
is
a
very

powerful
non‐thermal
source
of
radiation.
It’s
not
starlight.
And
for
us
in
this
field
of

intergalactic
studies,
they’re
just
lighthouses.
They’re
very
distant,
bright
sources
that
shine

through
the
intervening
haze.



V:
Can
you
take
a
moment
and
explain
in
your
own
words
what
a
quasar
is?



MS:
A
quasar,
or
a
quasi‐stellar
object,
is
a
generic
active
galactic
nucleus
–
people

abbreviate
that
“AGN.”
Something
in
the
center
of
a
galaxy
goes
haywire.
And
that

something
we
think
is
powered
by
a
very
massive
black
hole
that
formed
there
early
in
the

evolution
of
the
universe
and
kind
of
evolved
along
with
the
galaxy.
And
any
time
gas
comes

into
the
galaxy
and
gets
directed
into
the
nucleus,
it
goes
into
orbit
–
it’s
got
angular

momentum
–
it
goes
into
orbit
around
the
black
hole,
it
makes
an
accretion
disk,
maybe

makes
a
jet,
makes
a
very
powerful
non‐thermal
source
of
emission
that
varies
and

fluctuates
in
time,
probably
gets
fed
at
about
a
solar
mass
per
year,
some
of
which
shoots

out
into
space
as
jets,
and
some
just
goes
down
and
feeds
the
black
hole.
So
that’s
a
quasar.

They
don’t
live
that
long.
They
may
only
live
10
million
years.
So
it’s
a
transient

phenomenon
and
almost
all
galaxies
seem
to
have
this
at
some
point
in
their
life.




V:
When
you
say
that
quasars
are
extremely
bright
sources
of
radiation,
how
much
of
this

radiation
is
actually
visible
light?



MS:
Not
that
much.
I
would
say
that
if
you
were
to
ask
where
most
of
it
is
coming
out,
it’s

coming
out
at
very
high
energies:
ultraviolet,
x‐ray,
even
into
the
gamma
ray
range.
But
they

emit
at
all
wavelengths
–
you
know,
radio
through
the
optical,
infrared,
into
the
x‐ray
and

gamma
ray.




V:
So
back
during
the
epoch
when
quasars
were
abundant
in
the
universe
–
can
you
talk
a

little
bit
about
what
the
universe
would
have
looked
like
when
all
these
dwarf
galaxies
were

stunted?
I
mean,
what
are
we
talking
about
when
you
say,
“low
mass”?



MS:
Well,
our
Milky
Way,
if
you
add
all
the
dark
matter
and
everything,
is
approaching
a

trillion
solar
masses
–
and
in
the
disk,
the
luminous
part
of
it,
maybe
1011
solar
masses.
But

adding
in
the
dark
matter
and
the
halo,
a
trillion.
These
dwarf
galaxies
are
100,000
or
even

a
million
times
less
massive.
So,
106‐107
solar
masses.
And
that’s
how
we
think
galaxies

formed.
They
formed
bottom‐up,
from
lots
of
small
lumps
of
dark
matter,
collecting
gas,

forming
stars.
So
the
dwarf
galaxies
were
forming
in
great
numbers,
and
then
they
merged

together.
Gravity
pulls
them
together
into
big
galaxies.
So,
probably
what
it
was
looking
like

is
there
were
some
big
galaxies
and
very
large
ones
forming
with
quasars
in
them,
and
the

quasars
were
turning
on,
they
were
being
fed,
so
they
were
very
bright.
So
their
light,
their

ultraviolet
light
that’s
reionizing
helium,
is
also
heating
the
gas
in
these
dwarf
galaxies
and

driving
it
out
of
the
dwarf
galaxies,
back
out
into
intergalactic
space.
So
it
would
be
a
pretty

active
period
–
a
lot
of
bright
things
in
the
sky,
everything
much
closer
together.
At
redshift

3,
the
universe
was
four
times
smaller
–
1+z
is
the
scale
factor
–
so
everything
was
four

times
closer
together.
There
were
probably
a
lot
of
galactic
winds
blowing
the
gas
out,
so
a

lot
of
winds
blowing
around
in
intergalactic
space
with
a
lot
of
gas
flows.
And
the
epoch
of

quasars,
just
for
reference,
is
between
about
redshift
2
and
3.
That’s
when
they
reach
their

peak
activity.
So
that’s,
not
coincidentally,
when
this
helium
is
being
reionized.




V:
So
let’s
say,
for
whatever
reason,
quasars
had
not
been
so
abundant.
What
if
this
epoch
of

quasars
and
reheating
had
not
happened?
How
do
you
think
the
universe
would
look

differently
today?



MS:
I
actually
said
that
to
one
of
the
reporters,
and
I
think
it
appeared.
Today
our
Milky
Way

and
Andromeda,
our
Local
Group,
has
a
small
number,
a
handful
of
dwarf
galaxies.
There’s

the
Large
and
Small
Magellanic
Cloud
around
the
Milky
Way,
and
there’s
two
small
galaxies

around
Andromeda,
and
we’ve
found
maybe
15
or
20
other
dwarf
galaxies
–
it’s
in
the
tens.

I
think
probably
we
would
have
1000
dwarfs
if
this
had
not
occurred.
And
it
may
be
that
the

dwarf
galaxy
halos
are
still
there.
The
dark
matter
is
still
there,
it’s
just
that
they’ve
lost

their
gas.
And
so
I
made
the
analogy
with
the
inner
planets.
Mercury,
Venus,
Earth,
Mars
–

we
are
small,
rocky
planets
with
not
much
gravity.
So
the
escape
velocity
is
not
that
high.
So

we’ve
lost
most
of
our
hydrogen
and
helium
because
gravity
isn’t
strong
enough
to
hold

onto
it.
It’s
only
the
really
big
planets,
like
Jupiter,
Saturn,
Uranus,
Neptune,
that
have
held

onto
their
hydrogen.
So
it’s
gravity
and
escape
velocity
that
matters.
So
the
dwarf
galaxies

have
also
lost
their
hydrogen
and
only
the
big
galaxies
have
held
onto
their
mass.



V:
So
a
galaxy
like
the
Milky
Way
probably
wouldn’t
look
a
whole
lot
different.



MS:
Probably
not.
Except
for
the
extent
that
the
dwarf
galaxies
that
have
spiraled
into
the

Milky
Way
would
have
brought
more
gas
in.
So
if
the
dwarf
galaxies
lost
all
of
their
gas
a

long
time
ago,
out
into
intergalactic
space,
when
they
spiral
in,
all
they’re
bringing
in
then
is

dark
matter,
not
gas.
But
we
do
see
a
different
phenomenon.
We
do
see
some
gas
clouds
still

reining
into
the
Milky
Way,
and
that’s
something
else
that
COS
is
also
going
to
see.
But

probably
those
aren’t
galaxies,
those
are
just
gas
clouds.
But
that’s
a
different
topic.
We

won’t
start
down
that
road.



V:
(laughter)
Okay.
So
in
terms
of
future
work,
I
know
that
you
mentioned
before
that
you

were
seeking
out
different
sightlines.
What
is
the
method
that
you
use?
Does
this
just

happen
to
be
the
direction
that
you
looked
in?



MS:
Well,
we
proposed
four.
When
our
team
put
forward
our
proposal
for
observing,
we

had
to
tell
what
targets
we
were
going
to
use.
So
we
looked
down
the
list
of
the
brightest

targets
at
redshift
3
or
3.1,
and
I
picked
four
of
them.
They
were
the
four
brightest
known
at

the
time.
So
that’s
what
we
used.
Since
then,
there
have
been
a
few
more
that
have
been

discovered
–
none
as
bright,
but
they’ve
been
proposed
and
they
were
selected.
That’s
what

my
postdoc
David
Syphers
is
doing.
He
did
his
thesis
on
finding
more
of
these
fairly
bright

quasars.
They’re
not
16th
magnitude.
They’re
more
like
18th
or
19th
magnitude,
which
is

fainter.
So
it
will
be
harder
work
to
get
a
good
spectrum.
So
we
obviously
started
with
the

brightest.
You
want
to
start
with
the
easiest
task.




V:
So
you’re
going
to
be
observing
in
a
different
spatial
direction,
right?
Not
futher
away
or

closer?



MS:
One
is
a
little
closer,
the
other
is
a
little
further
away,
at
a
higher
redshift.
But
they’re
in

different
parts
of
the
sky.
And
I’ve
got
some
colleagues
that
will
follow
up
on
the
ground,

surveying
for
galaxies
and
quasars
closer
to
us,
near
the
line
of
sight,
that
may
be

responsible
for
the
reionization.
I
won’t
be
doing
that.
I’m
not
a
ground‐based
observer.
A

lot
of
people
are
going
to
be
doing
this
work.
They’ll
have
to
go
to
the
south,
to
telescopes
in

Chile
or
Australia,
because
this
object
that
we
looked
at
is
very
far
south.
You
can’t
see
it

from
the
Northern
Hemisphere.
In
space
it
doesn’t
matter.
In
low‐Earth
orbit
you
can
look

out
anywhere,
but
on
the
ground
it
matters
whether
you’re
in
the
north
or
in
the
south.




V:
Right.
Excellent.
Well,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
time.



MS:
Sure.