PDA

View Full Version : A Tour of the Neighborhood


The Lone Ranger
12-03-2004, 05:04 AM
Inspired by the “Bowl World” thread, I’ve been thinking about cosmic scales of distance. It simply blows the mind to contemplate such vast scales, or at least it blows mine anyway! So, for those who’re interested, I thought we might take a brief tour of our local environment. We’ll start here on Earth.

The Earth is a ball of rock afloat in a vast sea of emptiness. Well, okay, that sounds somewhat poetic, but it’s not especially accurate. The Earth’s inner core is solid nickel and iron; its outer core is liquid nickel and iron. The inner and outer core make up most of Earth’s mass, so it’s perhaps most accurate to say that Earth is a big ball of nickel and iron. The core is covered by the mantle, made up of semi-molten rock. Floating on the mantle is the crust of solid rock. How thick is the crust compared to the rest of the Earth? Well, if you take a standard classroom globe to represent the Earth, the crust would be about as thick as the paint on the globe’s surface.

The earth is almost 8,000 miles in diameter, a pretty big rock, no? Our nearest celestial neighbor, the moon, is a somewhat smaller ball of rock about 238,000 miles away. It’s amazing, when you think about it, that we’ve actually sent people there and brought them safely home again.

Think about the sun and you start dealing with somewhat larger numbers. Some 93 million miles away, our sun is a gigantic nuclear fusion reaction some 865,000 miles across. The sun consists almost entirely of hydrogen and helium; because of the tremendous weight of the overlying layers, hydrogen in the sun’s core is compressed until its denser than lead. At such a high pressure and temperature (about a [I]million degrees), the hydrogen fuses into helium, releasing energy as it does. A million Earth-sized planets could fit inside the sun, yet it is only a run-of-the-mill star, classified by astronomers as a “yellow dwarf” – a galactic lightweight.

If you were to start from the sun and travel outward some 36 million miles, you would encounter the planet Mercury. Named after the fleet-footed Roman messenger god, Mercury looks very much like a slightly larger version of our moon. (Mercury takes only 88 days to complete an orbit of the sun.) Like our moon, it is a cratered, essentially airless, and very hostile world. Because of Mercury’s proximity to the sun, temperatures on the day side reach 800 degrees Fahrenheit, so you probably wouldn’t want to stick around for a visit.

The next planet out from the sun is cloud-shrouded Venus, named for the Roman goddess of love and beauty. Venus orbits the sun at an average distance of about 67 million miles, and is often referred to as Earth’s “sister planet,” because it’s about the same size and density as the Earth. The similarities pretty-much end there though. Venus is covered by a dense atmosphere made up mostly of carbon dioxide. Because its atmosphere traps heat from the sun instead of allowing it to radiate away to space, Venus’ surface temperature is about 900 degrees Fahrenheit – hotter than Mercury’s, and hot enough to melt lead. As if that’s not bad enough, the clouds that shroud the planet are made of sulfuric acid. Were it ever to cool enough for rain to fall, Venus would have oceans of sulfuric acid. Definitely, Venus is not a place you’d want to visit.

As you continue your journey outward, you pass Earth, and then come to Mars, some 142 million miles out from the sun. Mars was named for the Roman god of war, because of its distinctly reddish color. That’s because of all the oxidized iron compounds on Mars’ surface – in effect, the planet is covered in rust.

On the way out from Mars, you’ll pass through the Asteroid Belt. You probably wouldn’t notice anything though. If you’ve seen The Empire Strikes Back and think that’s what an asteroid belt would look like, I can assure you that the reality is quite a lot less impressive. The Voyager space probes passed right through the densest part of the asteroid belt without ever coming close-enough to an asteroid to see it as anything other than a point of light.

Some 480 million miles out from the sun, you would encounter Jupiter, largest of the planets in our Solar System. At over 89,000 miles in diameter, the Earth would fit inside it 1,000 times over. Jupiter is made up mostly of hydrogen and helium, the same elements that make up most of the sun. Basically, a “gas giant” planet like Jupiter is a star that didn’t quite make it, and if Jupiter were only a little bigger (on a stellar scale), then the pressure at its core would be sufficient to ignite its nuclear fires and the Solar System would have not one but two suns.

The next planet you’d encounter is lovely, ringed Saturn. Saturn is some 887 million miles from the sun, and with a diameter of about 74,000 miles, is only a little smaller than Jupiter. Like Jupiter, Saturn is a “gas giant,” made up mostly of hydrogen and helium. Saturn has the distinction of being the only planet that’s less dense than water, and if a suitably large ocean could be found, Saturn would float. Saturn’s famous rings may be the remains of moons that were shattered by impacts with comets and asteroids, and/or moons that drifted too close to the planet and were torn apart by tidal forces.

Beyond Saturn, orbiting the sun at an average distance of almost 1.8 billion miles is the planet Uranus. Uranus is another gas giant, though it is “only” about 32,000 miles in diameter, and so much smaller than Jupiter or Saturn. Like Saturn, Uranus has rings, though they’re much less prominent than are Saturn’s. Compared to the other planets, Uranus has the distinction that it is lying on its side. This seems to be the result of a collision between Uranus and a massive, planet-sized object early in the history of the Solar System.

Normally, the next planet out from Uranus is Neptune. Neptune is a near twin of Uranus, some 31,000 miles in diameter and about 2.8 billion miles from the sun. Neptune, too, has rings, though they’re even less prominent than are those of Uranus.

Right now, the most distant of the planets is tiny, icy Pluto. It orbits at an average distance of some 3.7 billion miles from the sun, and is only some 1,400 miles in diameter – smaller than our moon. Pluto’s orbit is highly elliptical – so elliptical, in fact, that for part of each orbit Pluto is actually closer to the sun than is Neptune. Pluto crossed Neptune’s orbit in January of 1979 and remained within Neptune’s orbit until February of 1999, when it re-crossed Neptune’s orbit and resumed its position as the most distant planet. Pluto won’t cross Neptune’s orbit again until September of 2226. Because of it’s unusual nature – its small size, the fact that it appears to be made up largely of ice, and its strange orbit – many astronomers don’t consider Pluto to be a “true” planet. Indeed, Pluto may be a moon of Neptune’s that somehow “escaped” and began orbiting the sun independently.

Unimaginably vast as it is, our solar system is but a tiny speck, lost in the immensity of the galaxy, and the galaxy itself is but one among hundreds of billions scattered throughout the universe. To measure distances beyond the limits of the solar system, such earthly units as miles quickly become far too cumbersome – for example, the nearest star to our sun is over 25,000,000,000,000 miles away. Consider it this way: if the sun were only one foot in diameter, Proxima Centauri, the next-nearest star, would still be over 1,200 miles distant.

To express such distances, astronomers use the speed of light as the most convenient measuring device. Light, the fastest thing known, travels at the goodly clip of 186,282 miles per second – more than 670 million miles per hour. At this speed, a beam of light could circle the earth seven times in less than a second, or travel from the earth to the moon in less than two seconds. Traveling at the speed of light, the sun is a little over eight minutes distant, and Pluto is a little over five hours away. To get to Proxima Centauri would take over four years at the speed of light. Since the light from each of the stars you can see took years to reach us, when you look into the night sky you are looking back into time. That is, when you look at a star, you’re seeing it as it was when the light you’re just-now seeing left it, not as it is right now.

Logically enough, the distance that light travels in a year – about six trillion miles – is called a “light year,” and this is the unit most commonly used to measure interstellar distances. To take some examples, Barnard’s Star, the next-nearest star to our sun after the Centauri cluster is only about 6 light years away. Sirius, the brightest star in the nighttime sky is about 8.7 light years way. Aldebaran, the brightest star in the constellation Taurus is 68 light years away – from that distance, our sun wouldn’t even be visible without a telescope. Polaris, the North Star, is about 700 light years away, and giant Rigel, the brightest star in the constellation Orion is over 900 light years distant. When you look up at Rigel, you’re looking at light that left the star around the time of the Norman conquest of England.

All of these stars are our galactic neighbors, part of the Milky Way galaxy, an immense collection of stars about 100,000 light years across. The Milky Way contains over 100 billion stars, probably more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the world. Within this vast assemblage, our sun is only a minor star in the outer reaches of the galaxy. Traveling at 600,000 miles per hour, it takes the sun over 200 million years to complete just one orbit of the galactic center.

There are more galaxies scattered through the cosmos than there are stars in the Milky Way, and the Milky Way itself is only an average-sized galaxy amongst all the others. As far as we can tell, there is absolutely nothing unusual about it.

The nearest major galaxy to our own is the Andromeda galaxy, over 2 million light years away. If you live in the Northern Hemisphere, you can just see the Andromeda galaxy as a fuzzy patch of light near the northeastern horizon. This makes it the most distant object visible to the naked eye. Light reaching us today from Andromeda predates the human race, which has existed for much less time than it took the light to make that journey. A good telescope can pick up light from galaxies billions of light years away. In fact, the light we see from many of those galaxies began its journey before the earth had even formed, since the earth is “only” about 4.5 billion years old.

So the universe is unimaginably huge, and we humans and all our creations – all our hopes, dreams, wars, arts, sciences, et cetera – constitute only an unimaginably tiny portion of it. No king, no emperor, no president, has ever controlled a significant portion of the universe, nor has any empire ever existed for a significant portion of time, when measured on a cosmic scale. Some find that to be a depressing – or even frightening – thought, but personally, I find it rather enheartening. A universe so vast provides us with frontiers that we and our descendants can’t even hope to fully explore. But it will be fun to try.


Cheers,

Michael

Godless Wonder
12-03-2004, 05:53 AM
I like this site: An Atlas of the Universe (http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/)

The Lone Ranger
12-03-2004, 06:13 AM
I like this site: An Atlas of the Universe (http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/)

Cooool!

Desert Dweller
12-03-2004, 07:06 AM
From the guys at Monty Python:-

"Remember that you're standing on a planet thats evolving and revolving
at 900 miles an hour,
It's orbiting at 90 miles a second so it's reckoned,
The sun that is the source of all its power.
etc :wave:

Hey I can see your house from here!

Skep
12-03-2004, 08:10 AM
I like this site: An Atlas of the Universe (http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/)

Cooool!
What he said

viscousmemories
12-03-2004, 07:13 PM
Excellent post, Michael. I had no idea about the scale of the Universe...

Pardon my utter ignorance, but I wonder: How do we know this stuff? For example how do we know what pluto is composed of? Voyager or the like hasn't travelled 800+ million miles away and sent back a signal, has it? That seems impossible... :?

And if we can just barely pick up the faintest indication of Andromeda, on what basis can we conclude that there are any other galaxies, much less many? :?

wade-w
12-03-2004, 07:23 PM
Pardon my utter ignorance, but I wonder: How do we know this stuff? For example how do we know what pluto is composed of? Voyager or the like hasn't travelled 800+ million miles away and sent back a signal, has it? That seems impossible... :?


I know we can use spectography to analyse the composition of stars. I imagine that similar techniques can be used for planets.


And if we can just barely pick up the faintest indication of Andromeda, on what basis can we conclude that there are any other galaxies, much less many? :?

That's with the naked eye. Telescopes do much better, especially Hubble and the new generation of earth based telescopes that are actually a grid of individual 'scopes.

Dingfod
12-03-2004, 08:36 PM
Even relatively small telescopes can present one with a view that will just astound you, globular clusters, galaxies, some beautiful stuff. Hubble has been fantastic, but even the earth based telescopes see quite a show (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0412/Izw18_hst_1c88.jpg).

Intriguing to me are the radar images of Titan, there isn't any more evidence of craters on it than on earth. In fact, looks like rivers and/or canyons (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041124.html). Fascinating.

godfry n. glad
12-03-2004, 09:22 PM
Intriguing to me are the radar images of Titan, there isn't any more evidence of craters on it than on earth. In fact, looks like rivers and/or canyons (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041124.html). Fascinating.

Um...any sirens, ya think?

godfry

Desert Dweller
12-03-2004, 10:02 PM
Years ago Nat.Geographic produced a wonderful image of how each sector goies into the next highest, eg sun and near neighbour into milky way...
It's quite stunning to look and see how far flung we are in our little corner of the milky way...it boggles the mind and makes the conclusion that there is other life out there difficult to refuse. Unfortunately if it is there it's so far away that the green men will not arrive here as everyone on board would either be dead of old age or it would be a fourth or fifth generation and they'd have run out of fuel etc.
In the bush here away from town lights the milky way is soooo close, even better views in the desert.
Ah starry starry night!

The Lone Ranger
12-04-2004, 05:20 AM
Excellent post, Michael. I had no idea about the scale of the Universe...

Pardon my utter ignorance, but I wonder: How do we know this stuff? For example how do we know what pluto is composed of? Voyager or the like hasn't travelled 800+ million miles away and sent back a signal, has it? That seems impossible... :?



Excellent questions! I think we’re sometimes so used to talking about things that we forget that most people have no idea at all how we can know such things. So, here’s how we know some of this.


How We Know What Celestial Objects Are Made Of:

Spectra:

As “everyone knows,” when a dense gas, a liquid, or a solid is heated to a sufficiently high temperature, it emits light. If the substance in question is emitting light in all visible wavelengths (more or less), then our eyes interpret this as “white light.”

For instance, if you turn on the burner of your electric stove, as it heats up, it starts to “glow” in low-energy infrared (heat). As it continues to heat, it emits higher-energy light in the “red” portion of the spectrum (plus even more infrared, of course). As it continues to heat, it begins to emit even higher-energy photons in the “orange” portion of the spectrum. Continued heating causes it to emit photons in the “yellow” portion of the spectrum. If you can put enough energy into it, it’ll start to emit photons in the green, blue, and violet portions of the spectrum, at which point it will look white. If you could put enough energy into it, it would be producing so much high-energy blue and violet light that it would begin to look bluish.

Okay, all well and good. A dense gas, liquid, or solid produces a continuous spectrum like this when it’s heated. This is true even though the individual atoms, molecules, or ions that make it up emit light only in specific wavelengths. The reason that the light comes out in many wavelengths instead of only one or a few is because the density of the substance means that any photon that’s emitted is likely to bump into an atom and lose some of its energy before it escapes from the substance. So, the light that’s ultimately emitted is “smeared out” over the whole spectrum (or at least a portion of it), rather than consisting of only one or a few wavelengths.

A thin gas, when heated, produces an emission spectrum, because the photons that are emitted don’t bump into lots of atoms before escaping. Because different atoms, ions, and molecules emit light of very characteristic wavelengths, you can tell what the substance in question is by the wavelength(s) of light that it emits. Sodium vapor, for instance, emits a distinctive yellow-orange light when heated, which is why sodium-vapor streetlights are yellow-orange. Mercury vapor produces a bluish glow, so the bluish streetlights are mercury-vapor lamps. The streetlamps that produce white light work on a different principle – they work by heating a solid instead of a thin gas, so produce continuous spectra.

You can see this effect in fireworks too, by the way. Most copper compounds produce blue light when they’re burned (they’re vaporized when they’re burned), so makers of fireworks put copper compounds in to give blue bursts. Sulfur produces a bright yellow light when burned. Strontium and lithium compounds burn with a red light. Titanium, magnesium and aluminum burn with white light. Most chlorine compounds produce a bright green light. And so forth.

Certain types of nebulae (called “emission nebulae,” logically enough) emit light. Because the gas in a nebula is much less dense than the gases that make up the Earth’s atmosphere (despite what you’ve seen in Star Trek), you can tell precisely what gases make up an emission nebula from the colors.


Finally, when light from a continuous spectrum passes through a cold gas or, in some cases, when it’s reflected from a surface, that gas absorbs characteristic wavelengths of light. So, if you look at a continuous spectrum of light that has passed through a (relatively) cold gas, you’ll see dark lines in the spectrum called “absorption lines” or “Fraunhofer lines.” These lines correspond exactly with the colors emitted by a heated gas, since a cold gas absorbs the same wavelengths of light that the heated gas emits.

Since each element produces unique absorption lines, you can tell what elements are present in any gas by looking at the absorption lines. That’s how we know the sun is made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, for instance, because it has very strong absorption lines for hydrogen and helium when you look at its spectrum. This is true of the spectra of other stars too, unsurprisingly. You can also look at the absorption lines in light that has passed through a planet’s atmosphere to tell what gases make up its atmosphere.

Speaking of which, soon after astronomers learned this trick, they noted strong absorption lines in the sun’s spectrum for a totally-unknown element. They decided to name this mysterious element after the Greek sun-god “Helios,” and so called it “helium.” Helium thus has the distinction of having been discovered on the sun before it was known to exist on Earth.


Mass:

Consider any two objects in orbit about one another. First of all, no object ever actually orbits another. Rather, any two objects in mutual orbit actually orbit their common center of gravity. Exactly where their common center of gravity is depends upon how massive the two objects are, and how far apart they are. For example, if the moon were as massive as is the Earth, they would orbit a point exactly midway between them (barring gravitational interference from other objects). But since the Earth is about 81 times more massive than the moon, the point that they orbit is 81 times closer to the Earth’s center of mass than to the moon’s center of mass. That puts the point that the Earth/Moon system orbits at about 1,000 miles beneath the Earth’s crust (but still some 3,000 miles from the Earth’s center).

A careful alien observer would be able to calculate that the Earth is some 81 times more massive than is the moon by carefully observing their orbital paths and figuring out where their common center of gravity is located.

That’s pretty good, but you can do even better. Since the gravitational field produced by an object is a function of its mass, by observing any two objects in mutual orbit, you can figure out how much gravity each produces, and so work out their masses. If you know the masses of the objects in question, and their sizes, you can work out their densities, which will give you a very good idea of their composition.

For example, since we know its size and how much gravity it produces, we can work out the sun’s mass. Given its size and its mass, we can work out its average density. The standard unit of density is water, which is defined as having a density of 1.0. The sun’s average density is about 1.4. Given the sun’s immense size compared to the Earth, its center must be millions of times denser than its surface, so if its average density is only 1.4, it must be made up almost entirely of hydrogen, the lightest element. We could infer this even if we didn’t know that already from the absorption lines in its spectrum.

The planet Mercury has an average density of 5.43, which is much too dense for it to be made mostly of rock. So, we can infer that it’s made mostly of iron and nickel. Our moon isn’t all that much smaller than is Mercury, but its average density is only 3.34, so it must be made up much-more of rock and much less of iron and nickel than is Mercury. The Earth’s density by the way, is 5.5, exactly what you’d expect of a planet that’s made up mostly of iron and nickel, with a relatively thin layer of rock surrounding that. (The Earth is the densest-known object in the Solar System.)

Even if light reflected from them didn’t show strong absorption lines for hydrogen and helium (plus methane, water vapor, ammonia, and other such substances), we could safely assume that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are made up mostly of compressed gases instead of rock and metal like Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars because of their low densities. Jupiter’s density is only 1.3, making it only a little more dense than water, on average. This could be true only if the planet consists almost entirely of hydrogen and helium (though it probably has a relatively small core of rock and/or metal). Saturn is actually less dense than water (its density is 0.7), which means that it must be made mostly of hydrogen and helium.

Pluto is something of an anomaly, no matter how you look at it. It has a moon, Charon, so with modern telescopes, we can get a very good idea of its size, and we can study its orbital relationship with Charon. So, we can figure out its mass and thus its density. Charon’s average density is about 1.2 or 1.3, and Pluto’s average density is about 2.0. If either were made mostly of gas, their densities would be much lower, and if either were made mostly of rock, much less metal, their densities would be considerably higher. This allows us to conclude that Charon appears to be made mostly of ices (frozen water, methane, and ammonia), and that Pluto appears to be made of mixed rock and ices.


Absorption lines in their spectra tell us that stars are made up mostly of hydrogen and helium, though their exact composition varies, of course. Each star has a unique spectrum, due to its unique chemical composition, and astronomers are fond of saying that a star’s spectrum is its “fingerprint.” Since the laws of orbital mechanics don’t seem to vary, we can use them to calculate the masses of distant stars, star clusters, and even whole galaxies.




How We Know How Distant Celestial Objects Are:

Radar:

For “nearby” objects, you can measure their distances directly, with radar signals. Since light travels at a known speed, you direct a radar beam at the object and calculate how long it takes to receive the “echo.” In this way, we’ve been able to precisely measure the distance between the Earth and Venus, and to measure the distance to the moon within inches. That’s not practical for many other objects, though.

Trigonometry:

Most of us learned in high-school trigonometry that if you know the length of the base of a triangle and two of its angles, you can calculate the lengths of all three sides. The same technique can be used to measure the distance to “nearby” stars.

This takes advantage of the phenomenon called “parallax” – the apparent shift in an object’s position when viewed from different angles. Because we have two eyes that look forward but are separated by several inches, we see any given object from a slightly different angle from each eye. Our brains automatically use this fact to estimate the distance to the object in question. For example, if you hold your finger right in front of your face and close first one eye, then the other, there’s a large apparent shift in the finger’s position with reference to the background. Hold the finger at arm’s length, and the apparent shift is much smaller.

Astronomers working on opposite sides of the planet are separated by a base of approximately 8,000 miles. If they take simultaneous measurements of a given object’s apparent position in the sky against the “fixed” background stars, they can use the apparent shift to calculate the object’s distance. You can measure distances to the planets this way.

The Earth orbits the sun at an average distance of 93,000,000 miles, so if you measure a star’s apparent position at time “X” and measure it again exactly 6 months later, you have a base of 186,000,000 miles to work with. With the most sensitive modern instruments, you can directly measure the distances of stars out to about 300 light years. That’s pretty darned good, and we can directly measure the distances to some 10,000 stars this way. But our galaxy is over 100,000 light-years across, and the next-nearest major galaxy is some 2 million light years away, so trigonometry doesn’t get you out of the galactic neighborhood.

By the way, if you’ve ever wondered what a “parsec” is (and why it’s so uproariously funny that Han Solo used it as an indication of the Millenium Falcon’s speed), it’s the distance at which an object would have a parallax of one arc second, using the Earth’s orbit as a base. This works out to 3.26 light years. Thus, one “parsec” is one PARallax SECond.


Cepheid Variables:

Early in the 20th century, it was discovered that certain bright stars vary in their brightness, and that the variation in their brightness is such that the longer the period of variation, the brighter the star. This class of stars became known as a “Cepheid Variable.” The neat thing about a Cepheid variable is that once you know its period of variation, you know how bright it is.

Since light propagates by the “inverse-square law,” if you know how bright something actually is, and how bright something appears to be, you can calculate its distance. For example, if you’re standing one mile away from a lighthouse on a dark night, the light will appear a certain brightness. Double your distance from it, and the light’s apparent intensity will be the inverse square of the distance – that is, 1/4 of its original intensity. Triple the distance, and the light’s apparent intensity will be 1/9, and so forth. So, if you know how bright the light actually is and how bright it appears to be, you can calculate how far away it is. The same principle works for Cepheid variables.

Cepheids are bright stars, so bright that individual Cepheids can be seen in nearby galaxies. So, using Cepheids as convenient “yardsticks,” we can calculate the distance to other parts of our own galaxy, and even to several of the relatively nearby galaxies.


Type Ia Supernovae:

When a massive star exhausts its fuel, it explodes, and this explosion is called a supernova. For a brief period of time, a supernova explosion produces so much energy that it can out-shine an entire galaxy of 100 billion or so stars. As it turns out, certain supernovae (called Tyle Ia Supernovae) appear to always have the same peak brightness, so they can be used to measure galactic distances in the same way that Cepheids are. Since a supernova is literally billions of times brighter than a Cepheid, Type Ia supernovae can be used to measure the distances to galaxies that are much further away than can be measured with Cepheids. (This also serves as an independent way to measure the distance to relatively nearby galaxies.)


Redshifts and Hubble’s Law:

Remember the absorption lines in spectra? If the object that produced the absorption lines in the spectrum you’re looking at is not in motion relative to you, the absorption lines will be at a particular place in the spectrum. If the object is in motion relative to you, the position of the absorption lines will be shifted, according to how fast it’s moving and whether it’s moving toward or away from you. If the object is moving toward you, the absorption lines will be shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum, and we say that the light it emits (or reflects) is “blue-shifted.” If the object is moving away from you, the absorption lines are shifted toward the red end of the spectrum, and we say that the light is “red-shifted.” So, the position of the absorption lines allows you to calculate how fast the object in question is moving, relative to you.

In the 1920s, the astronomer Edwin Hubble noted that the light of virtually all galaxies is “red-shifted,” indicating that they’re moving away from us, and so the Universe is expanding. In particular, he noted that for those galaxies we could measure the distances to, the further away they were, the faster they were receding. So, you can measure the distance to a galaxy by the degree to which its light is red-shifted. By extending “Hubble’s Law” to apply to more distant galaxies, we can (roughly) estimate the distances of galaxies that are literally billions of light-years distant.


Pretty heady stuff!


Cheers,

Michael

ceptimus
12-04-2004, 10:17 AM
Can you explain how we know that the inverse square law for the dimming of light is the only effect that makes distant objects dimmer. Also that the red shifting isn't explainable by mere distance, rather than recession.

How can we be sure that there isn't a 'tired light' effect that makes light go dimmer and redder after it has been travelling for, say, a few thousand years? If there were such an effect, then the universe might be a lot smaller than we think. Of course it would still be unimaginably huge, even then.

Dingfod
12-04-2004, 02:28 PM
In the bush here away from town lights the milky way is soooo close, even better views in the desert.
Ah starry starry night!I miss the night sky views I had at 7000 feet elevation (2000+ meters) in Colorado. Even with a streetlight a half block away, the Milky Way dominated the sky. It was so beautiful. Gawd, I miss that.

wade-w
12-04-2004, 08:16 PM
Can you explain how we know that the inverse square law for the dimming of light is the only effect that makes distant objects dimmer. Also that the red shifting isn't explainable by mere distance, rather than recession.

How can we be sure that there isn't a 'tired light' effect that makes light go dimmer and redder after it has been travelling for, say, a few thousand years? If there were such an effect, then the universe might be a lot smaller than we think. Of course it would still be unimaginably huge, even then.

Well, at the very least, we do know that both efects do happen. The inverse-square law has been verified with radio waves and other electro-magnetic waves. Light appears dimmer at larger distances due to spreading; the toital number of photons being emitted from a particular light source has to fill a larger volume at longer distances, so the density of photons becomes less. Each individual photon will retain the same momentum and velocity unless it is affected by something else because of inertia (the value of c given in TLR's OP is for the speed of light in a vacuum; light does travel more slowly in other mediums such as an atmosphere or water). So for some sort of additional slowing effect to occur would require an additional outside influence rather than an inherent property of light.

The red-shift/blue-shift phenomenon is due to what is called the Doppler Effect. This is exactly the same thing you experience when traveling in a car and you pass another car headed the other way and the pitch of the other car's engine noise abruptly goes down. The magnitude of this effect is dependent on the relative velocities involved, so if there was some sort of "tired light" phenomenon involved, we'd expect to see objects that are further away have an increased shift. As far as I know, the observed shift is fairly uniform with respect to both distance and direction.

Desert Dweller
12-06-2004, 12:04 AM
Here's another view...see the Klingons (http://http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/superc.html)

Johnny Pneumatic
12-06-2004, 06:44 PM
Neutron stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star)

Clutch Munny
12-06-2004, 08:30 PM
Michael, wade, and link-contributors: Thank you! Wonderful stuff.

viscousmemories
12-07-2004, 05:26 PM
Ditto what Clutch said. I've been out of town for a few days, but just got a chance to read the responses. Fascinating stuff. :yup:

Godless Dave
12-07-2004, 05:49 PM
I like this site: An Atlas of the Universe (http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/)

I'm disappointed there's no little sign saying "You are here."

Godless Dave
12-07-2004, 05:50 PM
From the atlas:

Number of stars in the visible universe = 30 billion trillion

That will come in handy next time a creationist asks "Do you know the odds of everything on earth being just right for life to evolve?" I'll say, I don't know, but are they greater than 1 in 30 billion trillion?"

Godless Dave
12-07-2004, 05:58 PM
Despite being a hard scifi buff, I just learned that Alpha Centauri A is a G2 star, like our sun. Too bad there's no chance of building a probe and getting it there in my lifetime. *sigh*

Desert Dweller
12-07-2004, 10:00 PM
Too bad there's no chance of building a probe and getting it there in my lifetime. *sigh*
well in good sci fi style we'll just have to come up with the right form of propulsion...something like "hyper drive" . Me, I've always wanted a Scotty machine...a transporter...now that is kewl!

Godless Dave
12-08-2004, 04:24 PM
Here's a photo of a whole bunch of galaxies. It's from the Hubble Deep Field project, which aims the Hubble telescope at a tiny section of sky and looks as far as it can.

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/1996/01/images/a/formats/web.jpg

larger image (http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/1996/01/images/a/formats/web_print.jpg)

Several hundred never before seen galaxies are visible in this "deepest-ever" view of the universe, called the Hubble Deep Field (HDF), made with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. Besides the classical spiral and elliptical shaped galaxies, there is a bewildering variety of other galaxy shapes and colors that are important clues to understanding the evolution of the universe. Some of the galaxies may have formed less that one billion years after the Big Bang.

Representing a narrow "keyhole" view all the way to the visible horizon of the universe, the HDF image covers a speck of sky 1/30th the diameter of the full Moon (about 25% of the entire HDF is shown here). This is so narrow, just a few foreground stars in our Milky Way galaxy are visible and are vastly outnumbered by the menagerie of far more distant galaxies, some nearly as faint as 30th magnitude, or nearly four billion times fainter than the limits of human vision. (The relatively bright object with diffraction spikes just left of center may be a 20th magnitude star.) Though the field is a very small sample of sky area it is considered representative of the typical distribution of galaxies in space because the universe, statistically, looks the same in all directions.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1996/01/image/a