But the Milky Way as a vast system of stars and other galaxies as some sort of common astro-bodies and then as other "Milky Ways" had to be discovered.
In section The History of the Discovery of the Milky Way and section The Discovery of Galaxies: An Example of the Process of the Scientific Method, we give the story of that discoveries after brief introductions to relationship of distance and lookback time, the local universe concept, galaxies in general, and the Milky Way (which is OUR galaxy or the Galaxy).
The figure above (local link / general link: galaxy_hcg_87.html) and figure below (local link / general link: galaxy_hcg_87.html) of a Hickson Compact Group of galaxies is a preview for galaxies in general.
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/galaxy_hcg_87_2.html");?>
Recall that the observable universe and the local observable universe are spheres surrounding us---see the figure below (local link / general link: cosmos_artist_conception.html).
An aspect of cosmology is where and when of astronomical objects in cosmological spacetime: e.g., the where and when of galaxies, quasars, and the source of the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
First, we note that electromagnetic radiation (EMR) has a finite speed: the vacuum light speed---which is 2.99792458*10**8 m/s exactly by the definition of the meter---approximately it's 3*10**8 m/s.
So when we look out into space, we always look back in time and see things as the were in the past.
So the amount of time in the past for an observed astronomical object is a function of distance from us.
This amount of time in the past is called lookback time.
For relatively nearby objects,
lookback time
is a very simple function of distance.
Divide distance in light-years by
vacuum light speed
in light-years per year
(which is 1 ly/yr) and that is the
lookback time:
If an object is about 100 ly away at this instant in
cosmic time,
the object is observed
as it was 100 years ago usually in place NOT far from where it is today.
So everything is simple and
lookback time
is hardly worth mentioning.
For an example of nearby objects, let's consider those
within the Milky Way.
The
Milky Way galactic disk
is ∼ 30 kpc in diameter (i.e., 100 kly, where a
kilo-light-years (kly)
is 1000 light-years).
So lookback times
for inside the
Milky Way
are at most of order 10**5 years.
The time scale of the example is long in terms of
human history,
but in
cosmic time,
it is an instant.
On average, little cosmic evolution occurs on this time scale
and most objects barely move relatively speaking.
To illustrate this point, note that
the fastest Milky Way relative
motions are only of order 200 km/s
(see Milky Way: Galactic Rotation)
which is much less than the
vacuum light speed.
In 10**5 years at 200 km/s, an object moves
which is tiny compared to 100 kly.
So relative motions in the
Milky Way
during lookback times
are negligible for most purposes.
To reiterate, everything is simple for nearby
astronomical objects and
lookback time
is hardly worth mentioning.
When the
mass media
or some smart aleck
makes an issue of an astronomical event as actually happening
100,000 years ago or a million years ago
in cosmic time,
it is like making an issue
of something having happened a second ago or a minute ago in
everyday life time.
Astronomers speak of such astronomical events as if they have just happened---they
have just happened.
As you look progressively farther out,
lookback times
become progressively bigger, and so more important since the
universe has evolved more
since the light signals started out.
In particular, because of the
universal expansion
(which we take up
in IAL 30: Cosmology),
the objects farther out at this instant in
cosmic time
have moved significantly since light signals started out that
are reaching us now.
The objects were closer when those light signals started out.
The universal expansion
is illustrated in multiple ways in the figure below
(local link /
general link: expanding_universe.html).
Because of universal expansion,
the relationship between
distance at once instant in
cosmic time---which
is called cosmological physical distance
or just physical distance
for short---and lookback time
becomes complex.
For relatively short physical distances r
(e.g., r ⪅ 1 Gpc), the simple rule t_lookback = r/c is still approximately valid (e.g.,
for r = 1 Gpc, accurate to ∼ 10 %).
But still progressively fails as r increases and progressively improves as r decreases becoming
exactly accurate as r goes to zero.
In fact, the exact relationship between
physical distance
and lookback time
becomes dependent on the
cosmological model of the
universe one adopts.
In the NOT-so-distant past (e.g., before 1998
and the discovery of the
acceleration of the universe),
the question of the right cosmological model to adopt (and therefore
of the relationship
between
physical distance
and lookback time)
was rather open within
the paradigm
of the expanding universe.
Fortunately, now we have the
Λ-CDM model (AKA concordance model)
which at present passes all tests (except for one
tension to be discussed
in IAL 30: Cosmology)
and which describes the
observable universe
very well as far as it goes.
We will take up the
Λ-CDM model
in general and its limitations in IAL 30: Cosmology.
Here we are just interested in the fact that the
Λ-CDM model
allows us to make PRECISE specifications for
the expression observable universe
which are probably reasonably accurate even if the
Λ-CDM model needs revision
(which it probably does).
But as a preview, see the insert
Big Bang Cosmology and Λ-CDM Model Limitations
below
(local link /
general link: big_bang_cosmology_limitations.html):
t_lookback=r/c , where
c is the vacuum light speed
and line-of-sight distance.
The calculation is elementary:
100 kly divided the vacuum light speed
in light-years per years
=10**5 ly/(1 ly/yr)
=10**5 years.
Δr ≅ 200 km/s * 10**5 yr = 200 km/s * (1 ly/yr)/(3*10**5 km/s) * 10**5 yr
≅ 70 ly = 0.07 kly
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/cosmol/expanding_universe.html");?>
So for the most part, here we will only discuss galaxies as they are at present in cosmic time or nearly at present.
But remember whenever you look out, you also look back.
So the nearly present is also the nearby.
So we should a have specification for the expression local universe (meaning nearby or nearly present or modern universe).
We will need the local universe concept when we take up cosmology in IAL 30: Cosmology.
In fact, the expression local universe is often used vaguely or in a context-dependent sense. The reader/listener is supposed to know what how local the local universe is meant to be.
We will often use local universe is in a vague or context-dependent sense.
However, yours truly also has a favorite meaning for local universe which we introduce below in subsection Specifying the Local Universe Vaguely and Precisely.
But before this introduction we need to disgress on cosmological redshift z in subsection Cosmological Redshift z and the Λ-CDM model and cosmological distance measures in subsection The Λ-CDM Model and Cosmological Distance Measures.
Cosmological redshift z is a direct observable obtained from line spectra of galaxies and other extragalactic objects.
In general, cosmological physical distance and lookback time must be obtained from the cosmological redshift z and a cosmological model which at present is nearly always the Λ-CDM model.
Astronomers conventionally use cosmological redshift z to express cosmological distance in space and time from Earth at our instant in cosmic time.
The expansion of the universe causes space to grow under a light signal as it propagates to us from a cosmologically remote object. This growth causes the wavelength of the light signal to increase. The growth literally stretches the light signal, but it's NOT a forced stretching---the wavelength just grows as space grows.
The space growth is the cosmological redshift with its mathematical specification symbolized by z.
The cosmological redshift is further explicated in the figure below (local link / general link: cosmological_redshift.html).
As mentioned above, given a cosmological model,
cosmological redshift z
can be used to calculate
the distance to where the object is at the present instant in
cosmic time
(i.e.,
the physical distance)
and the
lookback time.
The Λ-CDM model
is the model of choice at present for the reasons given above
in section
Cosmology, Distance, and Lookback Time.
There are several
cosmological distance measures.
Here we only need to consider
cosmological redshift z
(the direct observable) and
the model-dependent
physical distance
and lookback time.
The figure below
(local link /
general link: cosmos_distance_z_10000.html)
shows
physical distance,
and lookback time,
and other
cosmological distance measures)
as functions of
cosmological redshift z
for the Λ-CDM model.
The expression local universe is often
used vaguely or in a context-dependent sense.
The reader/listener is supposed to know what how local
the local universe is meant to be.
That is the vague specification.
For the precise specification, we will say the
z ≤ z_specified local universe, where
z_specified is a specified value suitable for the occasion.
Yours truly considers the
z ≤ 0.5 local universe often very
useful for the following reasons:
The time period 5 Gyr may seem long to considered nearly present given that the
age of the observable universe = 13.797(23) Gyr (Planck 2018)
since the
Big Bang
according to Λ-CDM model
(see Λ-CDM model parameters).
However, the rate of cosmic evolution in many respects
(e.g., changing properties of stars
and galaxies)
slows down as
cosmic time passes since
the Big Bang
and by Big Bang about 9 Gyr
(which is lookback time about 5 Gyr)
the evolution is sufficiently slow that
5 Gyr ago does NOT seem to be too different from the present.
So crudely speaking we can regard
z ≤ 0.5 local universe defined as we have defined
as nearly present for many purposes.
So it is certainly convenient if we can also regard these objects
as typical of the nearly present phase of cosmic evolution.
And we can with our choice of the
z ≤ 0.5 local universe
with its lookback time
of about 5 Gyr
since
Sun and
Solar System
formed 4.6 Gyr ago
(see Wikipedia:
Formation and evolution of the Solar System: Timeline of Solar System evolution).
As z
increases from 0 (which is essentially the neighborhood of the
Milky Way
and Local Group of galaxies: see below),
the deviation between t_lookback and r/c grows.
However at
z = 0.5,
the Λ-CDM model
shows the
lookback time is 5 Gyr
and the physical distance
(at the present instant, NOT at the
lookback time epoch)
is about 6.2 Gly = 2 Mpc
(see the
cosmological distance measure
figure above local link /
general link: cosmos_distance_z_10000.html
and
Cosmic Calculator
with
Hubble constant
equal to 70 (km/s)/Mpc).
So out to z = 0.5
the deviation from the simple relationship has only grown to ∼ 20 %.
For crude purposes, this deviation can be neglected.
And the deviation gets smaller as z
decreases as is
illustrated in the
cosmological distance measure
plots at local link /
general link: cosmos_distance_z_10000.html,
where physical distance
is labeled "LOS comoving".
This means that with the vacuum light speed
is measured in Gly/Gyr and has value 1 Gly/Gyr, the
simple approximate relationship it t_lookback=r/(1 Gly/Gyr).
Thus, the plot shows deviations directly since insofar as the simple approximate relationship
holds, the curves for lookback time
and physical distance should be identical.
As the simple approximate relationship with increasing
z, the curves increasingly
deviate.
At z = 0.1,
the deviation between the two quantities is only a few percent and is negligible for
many purposes.
The approximation gets better as
z goes to zero
and becomes exact for z = 0.
The
naive Hubble distance
is illustrated in the
cosmological distance measure
plots at local link /
general link: cosmos_distance_z_10000.html,
where it is labeled "naive Hubble".
As one can see---with a some mental extrapolation for the first graph---the
naive Hubble distance
is NOT so bad an approximation out to
z = 0.5.
Beyond z = 0.5
deviation of the
naive Hubble distance
from the lookback time
and physical distance continues
to grow and, depending on one's purposes,
the naive Hubble distance
sooner or later becomes useless as an approximation
to
physical distance
and lookback time.
By choosing z = 0.5
as the boundary for the local universe, we
have guaranteed that the
naive Hubble distance
will NOT be a bad approximation for the
z ≤ 0.5 local universe.
To recapitulate,
z ≤ 0.5 local universe
corresponds to
physical distance ⪅ 6 Gly ≅ 2 Gpc
and lookback time ⪅ 5 Gyr.
But after all that elaboration, remember
z ≤ 0.5 local universe
is just one choice for a specification for
the local universe.
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/cosmol/cosmological_redshift.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/cosmol/cosmos_distance_z_10000.shtml");?>
So those are the reasons for
thinking the z ≤ 0.5 local universe
is a useful version of the
local universe.
The graphs measure lookback time
in gigayears and physical distance
in giga-light-years
with gigayears (Gyr) and giga-light-years (Gly)
scaled to be the same size.
At z = 0.3,
lookback time is ∼ 3.3 Gyr
and the physical distance
is ∼ 3.9 Gly = 1.3 Mpc
(see
Cosmic Calculator
with
Hubble constant
equal
to 70 (km/s)/Mpc).
This is only about a 13 % deviation.
Cimatti (2022, p. 28)
choose z ≤ 0.1 corresponding to
physical distance ⪅ 1.2 Glr &cong 0.4 Gpc
and lookback time ⪅ 1.5 Gyr
where the physical distance
and lookback time values
come from the look-up table of
Sergey V. Pilipenko, 2021,
Paper-and-pencil cosmological calculator, arXiv:1303.5961.
It has good features, and so it's NOT an arbitrary
Procrustean bed---see
figure below
(local link /
general link: procrustean_bed.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/art/art_p/procrustean_bed.html");?>
Galaxies are large, relatively dense, gravitationally-bound systems of baryonic matter (i.e., ordinary matter consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons in the form of stars and interstellar medium (ISM): dust and gas) and dark matter (see figure below: local link / general link: dark_halo.html).
Galaxies usually are considered to have multiple generations of stars and this sets the them apart from star clusters which usually have only one main burst of star formation: the one that formed them out of a star formation region. However, the smallest galaxies and largest star clusters (all globular clusters) overlap in size scale: globular clusters are usually higher density in stars. Note also that star clusters do NOT sit in concentrations of dark matter.
In the modern/local observable universe, many galaxies continue to have star formation, but many also have ceased to have significant star formation and are called quenched galaxies.
We will NOT refer much more to dark matter in this lecture. But we preview it in the figure below (local link / general link: dark_halo.html).
Galaxies
are a fairly diverse lot, but there does NOT seem to be much
difficulty identifying in what objects are galaxies.
Of course,
galaxy mergers are probably
sometimes ambiguous as to when two galaxies
have become one
and one's person's
galaxy fragment left from a
galaxy interaction
may be another's irregular galaxy.
But people do NOT seem to worry about these ambiguities.
They acknowledge that to one degree or another all
galaxies are unique.
See the galaxy interaction
in the figure below
(local link /
general link: galaxy_mice.html).
There are 3 main types of
galaxies: each
type itself being reasonably well specified.
The types were set empirically and make up the
Hubble sequence (of galaxy types).
See the cartoon
illustrating the 3 main types
in the figure below
(local link /
general link: galaxy_types_main.html).
The figure below
(local link /
general link: galaxy_hubble_sequence.html)
illustrates the subtypes of
the Hubble sequence
but it unaccountably omits the irregulars.
A fuller discussion of
galaxy morphological classification
is given in
IAL 28: Galaxies: Types of Galaxies.
Galaxies
range in mass
(counting both dark matter
and baryonic matter)
from ∼ 10**5 M_☉
for dwarf ellipticals
to ∼ 10**13 M_☉
for
cD galaxy (AKA supergiant elliptical galaxy)
(see Wikipedia:
Elliptical galaxy: Sizes and shapes).
Actually, this all-at-one time rule was thought to hold for all kinds of
star clusters.
But circa 2018
there is evidence for some continuing
star formation
in open clusters????.
We will consider how
galaxies are
distributed in space (i.e., the
large-scale structure of the universe)
in IAL 29: The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe.
Here one can say that they seem be distributed on
filaments or cell walls
surrounding voids.
A more trivial question is how are galaxies
oriented in space.
Answer: randomly and we can only see them from one direction.
In images, yours truly always thinks
galaxies
are hanging in space like
mobiles over
a baby's crib---as illustrated by the figure below (local link /
general link: galaxy_hcg_87.html).
But unlike terrestrial mobiles,
we can only ever see galaxies in one orientation.
There is a big distinction between thinking about
stars
and thinking about galaxies.
Stars are pinpricks compared to the distances between
nearest neighbors, unless they are in a
close binary system
or other close multiple star system.
Galaxies
are typically NOT pinpricks compared to the distances
between nearest neighbors.
Since galaxies range
in size scale in
stellar matter
(i.e., baryonic matter
which is NOT
baryonic dark matter)
from about 1 kpc to 250 kps
(FK-582),
the ratio of typical intergalactic spacing
(which is of order a megaparsecs)
to galaxy size scale
is typically of order 1000/1 to 1/1.
Galaxies
are NOT like stars where the ratio of size scale
to spacing (except in multiple star systems) is typically
of order
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/cosmol/dark_halo.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/galaxy_mice.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/galaxy_types_main.html");?>
There are actually subtypes and types NOT included in the
Hubble sequence.
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/galaxy_hubble_sequence.html");?>
That the baryon fraction
is ⪅ 1/30 in
galaxies and ∼ 1/6
on average in the
observable universe
is part of what is called the
missing baryon problem
(AKA missing mass problem)
(Ci-174--175,191--192,404--405).
There are possible solutions, but the details are beyond our scope
(Ci-404--405).
Somehow it seems
galaxies are efficient
at expelling baryonic matter.
The maximum baryon fraction
∼ 1/30 ≅ 3 % occurs for
galaxies
of about the golden mass = 10**12 M_☉
and the fraction decreases going to smaller and larger
masses
(Ci-404;
Dekel et al. 2019, Figure 1).
For the
Milky Way,
the baryon fraction
seems to be of order 5 % with considerable uncertainty
(Wikipedia: Milky Way: Mass:
Milky Way mass:
total/dark matter ∼ 10**12 M_☉, stars/gas/dust ∼ 5*10**10 M_☉
thus baryon fraction 5 % of total).
This is a bit higher than 3 %, but the two values are consistent within
uncertainty
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/m87_virgo.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/galaxy_hcg_87_2b.html");?>
We can put some numbers on these comparisons.
1 pc/R_☉
≅ 3*10**16/(7*10**8)
≅ 10**8 to within factor of 10**3 or so.
Form groups of 2 or 3---NOT more---and tackle Homework 26 problems 2--5 on galaxies.
Discuss each problem and come to a group answer.
Let's work for 5 or so minutes.
The winners get chocolates.
See Solutions 26.
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/videos/ial_0000_standards.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/videos/ial_026_discovery_galaxies.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/art/art_c/chocolate_hot_2.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/milky_way_death_valley_3.html");?>
The Milky Way as a naked-eye object has always been with us: known since prehistory.
Galaxy is derived from the ancient Greek name for the Milky Way, galaxias kyklos (milky circle): gala is ancient Greek/Greek for milk and kyklos is ancient Greek/Greek for cirle.
In Latin, the name is via lactea of which Milky Way is a straight translation.
After or maybe sometime before???? other galaxies were proven to exist, the term galaxy was made generic for star systems like the Milky Way.
The Milky Way is quite visible in dark skys, but even in the city under very clear conditions its faint luminous band can sometimes be seen---maybe with a bit of imagination. For the Milky Way seen in a dark sky, see the figure above/below (local link / general link: galaxies/milky_way_death_valley.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/milky_way_death_valley_2.html");?>
In the winter sky (see the figure below
(local link /
general link: sky_map_winter.html),
the Milky Way passes
over the north-east shoulder of
Orion
(where one finds
Betelgeuse)
and
through the constellation
Cassiopeia
in the northern sky (which can easily be recognized: it's the big W).
Cassiopeia is
circumpolar at mid-northern latitudes, and so can be found
pretty much at any time of the year.
Orion
can be easily located in the winter sky: it's a very obvious constellation.
In the summer sky, it passes through the Summer Triangle formed by the bright stars Vega, Altair, and Deneb (FK-S-8, S-13).
The Galactic center is in the direction of Sagittarius which is low in the southern sky in summer (Shu-257; HI-405; ???).
The Milky Way is a
spiral
with a disk
diameter of ∼ 30 kpc
(CK-379)
or ∼ 50 kpc
(FK-559)
depending on how one delimits the
Milky Way disk.
The Milky Way mass ∼ 1.3*10**12 M_☉
(i.e.,
total mass which is mostly the mass of
dark matter halo)
and its
baryonic matter mass
(i.e., mostly stellar matter
mass)
is ∼ 5*10**10 M_☉
(see Wikipedia: Milky Way: Mass).
In fact, the total mass is of order the
golden mass ≅ 10**12 M_☉
which suggests that the
Milky Way is in the process of becoming
a quenched galaxy:
i.e., one in which star formation has turned off.
However,
galaxy quenching
takes 1 or more gigayears, and so it will probably be awhile before the
Milky Way quenches.
We have trouble seeing the structure of the
Milky Way:
we are EMBEDDED in the
Milky Way disk
and that is laced with obscuring
interstellar dust.
It's a classic "can't see the forest for the trees" situation.
Before about 1650, no one had thought of a
universe of
galaxies
(No-405)
and before
1924, when solid evidence appeared for it
(see Wikipedia:
Edwin Hubble: Universe goes beyond the Milky Way galaxy;
No-510),
relatively few believed in it---or so it seems---it's hard to tell without a
poll from the past.
The spiral arms
are in the
Milky Way disk.
A map of the Milky Way is shown
in the figure below
(local link /
general link: milky_way_map.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/sky_map/sky_map_winter.html");?>
Other galaxies didn't help us understand
the Milky Way in the old days.
The figure below
(local link /
general link: milky_way_cartoon.html)
gives the basic structure of the
Milky Way and
the Solar System
location and orientation in it.
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/milky_way_cartoon.html");?>
The Milky Way is a
barred spiral galaxy
although the existence
of the bar has only been established since circa 1990.
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/milky_way_map.html");?>
All the
bright naked-eye stars
we are familiar with are actually just in our
neighborhood in the Milky Way
is illustrated in the figure below
(local link /
general link: milky_way_local.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/milky_way_local.html");?>
Form groups of 2 or 3---NOT more---and tackle Homework 26 problems 2--5 on galaxies.
Discuss each problem and come to a group answer.
Let's work for 5 or so minutes.
The winners get chocolates.
See Solutions 26.
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/videos/ial_0000_standards.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/videos/ial_026_discovery_galaxies.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/art/art_c/chocolate_easter_bunny_2.html");?>
The Milky Way as a milky band on the sky has been known forever, of course, as we discussed above in subsection The Milk Way on the Sky.
The speculative hypothesis that the Milky Way was a mass of stars unresolved to the naked eye goes back at least to the Presocratic philosopher Democritus (c.460--c.370 BCE) (No-401).
As with many ancient ideas, we only know the first person to have left a permanent historical record of the idea. Others, in many cases many others, may have had the idea earlier, but no record survives of their thinking. This usually goes without saying.
Democritus, however, apparently thought of the stars pasted on a celestial sphere of the stars that enclosed the Earth: a physically real celestial sphere (Fu-136--146, esp. 140).
See the imaginative portrait of Democritus (c.460--c.370 BCE) in the figure below (local link / general link: democritus.html).
Galileo (1564--1642)
(see figure above:
local link /
general link: galileo_ottavio_leoni.html)
and probably other early telescopic observers (just
after 1608
when the telescope was invented) discovered that
much of the
Milky Way is
indeed resolvable into stars
(No-401).
It probably occurred to many people in the decades after
1608 that
the Milky Way
is something like an
a very oblate spheroid
or maybe a
torus
of stars
around the Solar System.
However, interest in and discussion of the overall structure of the
Milky Way was
slow in developing it seems until the mid 18th century.
The obscure surveyor, antiquarian, amateur theologian, and architect
Thomas Wright (1711--1786)
of Durham from 1742,
the NOT-so-obscure philosopher
Immanuel Kant (1724--1804)
shortly thereafter and following
Wright's lead,
and the mathematician
Heinrich Lambert (1728--1777)
by his own account
in 1749 all speculated on structure of the
Milky Way
(No-404--407).
I believe that they were all thinking of the
Milky Way
as a very oblate spheroid
or a least a flattened structure in which
the Solar System
was embedded.????
Wright
even proposed that the
Milky Way
was supported against gravitational collapse by
orbital motion about the center (the "divine center") of the
Milky Way
(No-405).
An example of
Thomas Wright's (1711--1786)
architecture
is shown in the figure below.
Caption:
"Wright's Observatory/Folly:
Westerton,
Spennymoor,
Durham,
Great Britain.
The Tower is a circular structure,
in a Gothick revival
style of the 18th century.
Built as an observatory
by Thomas Wright (1711--1786)
of nearby Byres Green.
He was a mathematician,
astronomer,
(famous for his explanation of the Milky Way),
architect,
and garden designer.
The observatory appears in a document of
1744, but does NOT appear to have
been completed until after
Wright's
death in 1796.
A plaque dated 1950 was erected to
commemorate the 200th anniversary of his publication
The Original Theory of the Universe of
1750."
Perhaps, this is
Wright's version of the
Tower of Babel.
Credit/Permission: ©
Hugh Mortimer,
2007 /
Creative Commons
CC BY-SA 2.0.
This is essentially true: rotational kinetic energy
holds up the
Milky Way
from collapse to its center.
But this idea was NOT completely accepted
until the 1920s???.
The stars moved
around a bit with their own peculiar motions, but somehow on average the
Milky Way (which
they may have been still thinking of as the whole universe)
was static on average.
Albert Einstein (1879--1955) thought this
and constructed his
Einstein universe
in 1917
to be consistent with it.
We'll take up the subject of the
Einstein universe
in
IAL 30: Cosmology:
Einstein, General Relativity, and the Einstein Universe.
The greatest observational astronomer of the
18th century
and early 19th century
was
William Herschel (1738--1822).
For some details of
William Herschel's (1738--1822) life,
see the figure below
(local link /
general link: william_herschel.html).
The project and its results are explicated in the figure below
(local link /
general link: milky_way_william_herschel.html)
and this completes our discussion of
William Herschel (1738--1822).
Observations and statistical methods continued to develop through
the 19th century
and early 20th century---or, as in the old movies, one could
say time passed.
In 1901,
Jacobus Kapteyn (1851--1922)
relying on statistical methods
(descended from the star gage method of
William Herschel (1738--1822)
Herschel)
proposed a model of the
Milky Way
that put the
Sun, more or
less, in the center of disk-shaped structure of stars
that was 10 kpc in diameter and ∼ 2 kpc thick at
its thick point
(No-453,490).
By 1922,
Kapteyn
had revised his model and gave it
diameter 17 kpc and thickness 3 kpc with the
Sun at ∼ 0.65 kpc
from the center in the central plane of the disk
(No-491).
For a diagram of his model,
see the figure below
(local link /
general link: milky_way_jacobus_kapteyn.html).
Kapteyn
and other early modelers were fooled by
their ignorance of extinction caused by
interstellar dust---just
as Herschel was.
Interstellar dust
was only conclusively demonstrated exist in the 1930s
(No-491).
Interstellar dust
limits the distance we can see in the
Milky Way disk
to ⪅ 3 kpc in most directions
in the
Milky Way disk
(FK-563).
Harlow Shapley (1885--1972)
took a different approach to determining the structure of the
Milky Way
than Kapteyn.
He measured the distances to
globular clusters
in the
Milky Way halo (AKA Galactic halo)
using
Cepheids.
The figure below
(local link /
general link: galaxy_sombrero.html)
illustrates a swarm of
globular clusters
in the galactic halo
of the Sombrero Galaxy (M104, NGC 4594).
Interstellar dust
is much less significant away from the
Milky Way disk.
Yours truly think Shapley
probably had the idea that
globular clusters and
the Milky Way stars
were in orbit around the
Galactic center
as suggested the figure below:
(local link /
general link: milky_way_cartoon.html).
But I need to check this detail in the
history of astronomy.
Although
Shapley's
determinations had their own errors, he was on the
more correct path than
Kapteyn
and other early Milky Way modelers.
But this was NOT clear to everyone circa 1920.
After the nature of
galaxies was
effectively discovered in the
1920s
(see the following sections),
the nature of the Milky Way
was clarified: it was
very probably a spiral galaxy
like the other spiral galaxies
that were then discovered.
So the discovery of
galaxies
really completes the discovery of the
Milky Way as
a spiral galaxy.
Of course, the exact structure of the
Milky Way
was hardly known in the 1920s.
The folks then still couldn't see in the
visible
beyond ∼ 3 kpc in most directions in the
Milky Way disk
because of
interstellar dust
(FK-563)
which they did NOT yet know.
Yes, they knew about obvious dark patches and they could
see
dust lanes
in other spiral galaxies,
but they did NOT yet know how severe the opaqueness problem was in the
Milky Way disk.
Only in the
1930s
mostly through the work
of Robert Julius Trumpler (1886-1956)
did the severity of the opaqueness of
interstellar dust
inside the
Milky Way disk
become clear.
After
World War II,
radio astronomy
provided a way around the
interstellar dust problem.
The interstellar dust is largely
transparent in the radio band.
In the
1940s
and
1950s,
radio observations of the
hydrogen 21-centimeter line
emission from
neutral atomic hydrogen gas
allowed a beginning to made in determining the structure of the
Milky Way
(see Wikipedia:
21 centimeter radiation: In radio astronomy).
A lot is now known about the structure both
from the radio band
and other electromagnetic radiation
bands, but there is still lots more to discover.
The current understanding of the
Milky Way
is summarized in the figure below
(local link /
general link: milky_way_map.html).
Instead, we leave off this thread to pick up another one: the
discovery of other galaxies
in the following sections.
However, if you like you may peruse
Milky way videos
below
(local link /
general link: milky_way_videos.html):
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/ancient_astronomy/democritus.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galileo/galileo_ottavio_leoni.html");?>
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:WrightsObservatoryWesterton(HughMortimer)Jan2007.jpg.
It seems some people anyway, until circa 1920,
thought that the
Milky Way
was essentially held up from collapse by some means NOT known in
terrestrial physics.
The most accepted idea that emerged from the various speculations of
Wright,
Kant,
and
Lambert
was it seems that the Milky Way
was something like a very oblate spheroid
and the Solar System was
embedded in it, and hence it
looked like a broad ring
straddling a great circle
on the celestial sphere.
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/astronomer/william_herschel.html");?>
William Herschel's (1738--1822)
and
his 20-foot telescope
(reflector, primary diameter 18.5 inches ≅ 47 cm)
are shown in the figure below
(local link /
general link: telescope_william_herschel.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/telescope/telescope_william_herschel.html");?>
In his own day, Herschel's
discovery of Uranus
was probably the achievement that was most recognized---it was the first
planet discovered in historical times.
See a modern image of Uranus
in the figure below
(local link /
general link: uranus_rings.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/uranus/uranus_rings.html");?>
In regard to the Milky Way,
Herschel
attempted to map it---from his own yard---using
star counts (star gages he called them)
and statistics
(No-407--408).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/milky_way_william_herschel.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/milky_way_jacobus_kapteyn.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/galaxy_sombrero.html");?>
Cepheids
are very luminous post-main-sequence stars
that are used as distance indicators.
Cepheids are
explicated in the figure below
(local link /
general link: star_hr_cepheids.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/star/star_hr_cepheids.html");?>
The period-luminosity
relation of Cepheids
was discovered by
Henrietta Swan Leavitt (1868--1921).
For Herself, see the figure below
(local link /
general link: henrietta_swan_leavitt.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/astronomer/iohn_a_wheeler.html");?>
We will NOT go into
Shapley's
method in detail, but we can mention a couple of points.
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/milky_way_cartoon.html");?>
By 1916,
Shapley
had estimated that the diameter of the system of
globular clusters
of the
Milky Way disk
was of order 100 kpc (which is ∼ 3 times too large)
and that the Sun
was far from the
Galactic center.
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/milky_way_map.html");?>
A real image of a galaxy
that resembles the
Milky Way
(i.e., the Milky Way
twin)
is shown in the figure below
(local link /
general link: milky_way_ngc_6744.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/milky_way_ngc_6744.html");?>
We will NOT detail the post-WW II
history of exploration
of the Milky Way: it's long, elaborate, and
rather tedious for non-specialists.
EOF
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/milky_way_videos.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/galaxy_discovery.html");?>
Form groups of 2 or 3---NOT more---and tackle
Homework 26
problems 6--13 on the
discovery of the Milky Way and
the discovery of galaxies.
Discuss each problem and come to a group answer.
Let's work for 5 or so minutes.
The winners get chocolates.
See Solutions 26.
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/art/art_c/chocolate_swiss_3.html");?>
Group Activity:
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/videos/ial_0000_standards.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/videos/ial_026_discovery_galaxies.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/art/art_c/chocolate_swiss_2.html");?>
Simon Marius (1573--1625) independently (but NOT firstly) and telescopically (firstly) discovered Andromeda nebula (i.e., the Andromeda Galaxy (M31,NGC 224)) on 1612 Dec15 (Wikipedia: Simon Marius: Discoveries; Wikipedia: Andromeda Galaxy: Observation history; SEDS: Simon Marius (January 20, 1573 - December 26, 1624); No-402). His discovery was, of course, for a long time the effective discovery relative to Europe.
For more on Simon Marius (1573--1625), see the figure below local link / general link: simon_marius.html.
Recall the first persons in the
18th century
to speculate that
nebulae (historical usage)
were other galaxies
(after Emanuel Swedenborg (1688--1772))
were
Thomas Wright (1711--1786)
Immanuel Kant (1724--1804), and
Heinrich Lambert (1728--1777).
For a cartoon of them, see the figure below
(local link /
general link: alien_galaxooges.html).
For more on
William Herschel (1738--1822),
see the figure below
(local link /
general link: william_herschel.html).
For William Parsons, Lord Rosse,
formally 3rd Earl of Rosse (1800-1867)
see the figure below
(local link /
general link: lord_rosse.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/astronomer/simon_marius.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/alien_images/alien_galaxooges.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/astronomer/william_herschel.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/astronomer/lord_rosse.html");?>
Lord Rosse
made sketches of some spiral nebulae.
We showed one of the
Whirlpool Galaxy (AKA M51a/NGC 5194 and M51b/NGC 5195)
above in subsection
The Spiral Nebulae.
See the figure below
(local link /
general link: galaxy_whirlpool.html)
for two modern images of M51---which shows
Lord Rosse
did NOT do too badly.
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/galaxy_whirlpool.html");?>
Edwin Hubble (1889--1953) came from Missouri---but nevertheless took a law degree from Oxford and practiced law in Kentucky before leaving all that to do a Ph.D. in astronomy (1917) (No-508). See images of Edwin Hubble in the figure below (local link / general link: edwin_hubble.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/astronomer/edwin_hubble.html");?>
Hubble
was also an athlete
and is the only known astronomer to have
boxed a world light heavyweight champion:
Georges Carpentier (1894--1975)---a non-title
bout one assumes (No-508).
After serving in the infantry in WWI, he joined the staff of Mount Wilson Observatory in southern California in 1919 (No-509).
Ah, California: see the figure below (local link / general link: pfeiffer_beach.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/art/art_p/pfeiffer_beach.html");?>
Hubble, remarkably
for an astronomer, became a
well known person in Hollywood
during its golden age and he
possibly turns up in small parts in Hollywood
novels
under different names: e.g., maybe in
James Hilton's (1900--1954)
Morning Journey (1951).
The great discoveries
Hubble
was to make at
Mount Wilson Observatory
in California
(see also Mount Wilson Observatory page )
were predicated on the facts that
Mount Wilson Observatory
in those days
(the 1920s) was one of the best observing sites in the world---this
was before the smog and the light pollution of
Los Angeles
mostly ruined things---and on having the largest telescope to
date at his disposal: the
Hooker telescope
(reflector, primary diameter 2.54 m = 100 in, operational 1917--present):
see figure below
(local link /
general link: telescope_hooker.html).
Hubble
from his Ph.D.
student days had been interested those
nebulae (historical usage)
that we now classify as
galaxies:
i.e., the
spiral nebulae
and
elliptical nebulae
(No-508).
He had developed what we now call the
Hubble sequence galaxy types
by 1923
(No-508--509) which is illustrated in
the Hubble tuning-fork diagram:
the figure below
(local link /
general link: galaxy_hubble_sequence.html).
Recall, we discussed
galaxy types
above in subsection Types of Galaxies
and a fuller discussion of
galaxy morphological classification
is given in
IAL 28: Galaxies: Types of Galaxies.
In the early 1920s
using the 100-inch Hooker telescope,
Hubble was able to resolve
stars
in the outer regions of the
Andromeda nebula (M31)
(which is now known as the Andromeda Galaxy)
and the Triangulum nebula (M33)
(which is now known as the Triagulum Galaxy)
by 1923
(No-509).
These galaxies
are in Local Group of Galaxies
which is shown in the figure below
(local link /
general link: local_group.html).
The fact that Hubble could resolve
stars in the
Andromeda nebula (M31)
and the Triangulum nebula (M33),
just in itself, proved that
spiral nebulae
were NOT just whirlpools
of gas
in space---though they
could still have some gas, of course---as
indeed they do.
By 1924
using the approximately known luminosities of
Cepheids
and
period-luminosity
relation,
he was able to put the
Andromeda nebula
at 285 kpc No-510
well beyond the confines of the
Milky Way
(size scale ∼100 kpc
as established by
Harlow Shapley (1885--1972)
in 1916
by determining the distances
to Milky Way
globular clusters
also using Cepheids
(see Wikipedia:
Edwin Hubble: Universe goes beyond the Milky Way galaxy;
No-493,510).
This is NOT a very accurate result.
Hubble had various
systematic errors
in his measurements and calibrations that are entirely understandable given his time.
The modern distance to the
Andromeda Galaxy (M31)
is 765 kpc (Wikipedia: Andromeda Galaxy):
this
∼ 2.7 times Hubble's value.
But even if
Hubble's contemporaries
suspected large errors---and they may have---they did concede fairly soon ??? that
the Andromeda Galaxy (M31)
had to be a remote large system of stars comparable
in size to Milky Way.
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/telescope/telescope_hooker.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/galaxy_hubble_sequence.html");?>
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/local_group.html");?>
The Andromeda Galaxy
is shown up close in the figure below
(local link /
general link: galaxy_andromeda_m31.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/galaxy_andromeda_m31.html");?>
In the Andromeda nebula,
Hubble found that
34 stars
were Cepheids
by identifying their the known
period-luminosity
relation
(No-510).
Incidentally,
Hubble and
Shapley
didn't get along all that well---perhaps because
they were both from Missouri
(No-496).
Recall, Cepheids
are very luminous post-main-sequence stars
that are used as distance indicators.
Cepheids are
explicated in the figure below
(local link /
general link: star_hr_cepheids.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/star/star_hr_cepheids.html");?>
From his observations of
Cepheids in
the Andromeda nebula,
Hubble had discovered that
said Andromeda nebula
was, in fact, the
Andromeda Galaxy (M31),
a giant system well outside of
the Milky Way---see
the figure below
(local link /
general link: alien_hubble.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/alien_images/alien_hubble.html");?>
By the 1924,
Hubble had established the
distance to the
Andromeda Galaxy (M31)
to be 285 kpc
(No-510).
Now if
Andromeda Galaxy (M31)
is another galaxy
comparable in size to Milky Way, then:
For an elliptical nebulae that must be a galaxiy since it is found in the Virgo Cluster (of galaxies), see M87 in the figure below (local link / general link: m87_virgo_old_image.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/galaxies/m87_virgo_old_image.html");?>
For more on Edwin Hubble (1889--1953),
see Edwin Hubble (1889--1953) videos below
(local link /
general link: edwin_hubble_videos.html).
php require("/home/jeffery/public_html/astro/astronomer/edwin_hubble_videos.html");?>
EOF