|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What did I do wrong?
I'm trying to get an expression for how many stars below a certain
magnitude 'm' I will see in the entire field of view of a telescope. First, consider only one spectral type with absolute magnitude 'M'. The distance 'r' to a star of apparent magnitude 'm' is given by, 'r=10^{(m-M+5)/5}' ;Taken from 'Introduction to Modern Astrophysics' by Carroll and Ostlie. 'N=n * V' 'N' is the number of stars observed that are brighter than magnitude m 'n' is the space density of stars (number of stars per cubic parsec) 'V' is the volume of the spherical cone out to distance 'r', which is the view cone of the telescope. But, 'V= ({4 pi}/{3}) r^{3} {Omega}/{4 pi} = {Omega r^{3}}/{3}' Where, 'Omega' is the solid angle subtended by the view cone of the telescope. Therefore, 'N= {Omega}/{3} * n * 10^{3(m-M+5)/5}' Now, in order to account for more than one spectral type, let 'N_{i}' be the number of stars of spectral type 'i' visible below magnitude 'm', let 'n_{i}' be the space density of stars of spectral type 'i' and 'M_{i}' be the absolute magnitude of stars of spectral type 'i'. Then, 'N_{i}= {Omega}/{3} * n_{i} * 10^{3(m-M_{i}+5)/5}' For all the spectral types (Let Sum_{i} denote summation over all i), 'Sum_{i} N_{i} = Sum_{i} {Omega}/{3} * n_{i} * 10^{3(m-M_{i}+5)/5}' 'Sum_{i} N_{i} = 10^{3m/5} ( Sum_{i} {Omega}/{3} * n_{i} * 10^{3(-M_{i} +5)/5} )' Let 'const = Sum_{i} {Omega}/{3} * n_{i} * 10^{3(-M_{i}+5)/5}', which is a constant w.r.t. 'm'. So, 'Sum_{i} N_{i}= const * 10^{3m/5}' Did I make a mistake here? The problem is that when I count the number of stars below a magnitude 'm' in some astronomical images that I have of orion, and fit a curve to it, what I get is 'Sum_{i} N_{i}= c * 10^{0.3m}'. According to this analysis it should be 0.6 instead of 0.3. Why is this? The instrument I'm using has a sensitivity limit of relative magnitude of about 16. So I was told to ignore the effects of extinction. If there is nothing wrong with my math, is there something wrong with my physics? I also took the point sources from 1 degree radius view cones 2MASS star catalog in 6 different directions (through VizieR). If my original direction was +x, I also took -x, +y, -y, +z and -z directions. I still get a curve that has an exponent of 0.3 instead of one that has an exponent of 0.6. What is the reason for this? Is it because I'm taking J magnitudes instead of bolometric magnitudes? Is it some relativistic effect? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What did I do wrong?
On Mar 25, 6:17*pm, Terry Wrist wrote:
I'm trying to get an expression for how many stars below a certain magnitude 'm' I will see in the entire field of view of a telescope. First, consider only one spectral type with absolute magnitude 'M'. The distance 'r' to a star of apparent magnitude 'm' is given by, 'r=10^{(m-M+5)/5}' * * *;Taken from 'Introduction to Modern Astrophysics' by Carroll and Ostlie. 'N=n * V' 'N' is the number of stars observed that are brighter than magnitude m 'n' is the space density of stars (number of stars per cubic parsec) 'V' is the volume of the spherical cone out to distance 'r', which is the view cone of the telescope. But, 'V= ({4 pi}/{3}) r^{3} {Omega}/{4 pi} = {Omega r^{3}}/{3}' Where, 'Omega' is the solid angle subtended by the view cone of the telescope. Therefore, 'N= {Omega}/{3} * n * 10^{3(m-M+5)/5}' Now, in order to account for more than one spectral type, let 'N_{i}' be the number of stars of spectral type 'i' visible below magnitude 'm', let 'n_{i}' be the space density of stars of spectral type 'i' and 'M_{i}' be the absolute magnitude of stars of spectral type 'i'. Then, 'N_{i}= {Omega}/{3} * n_{i} * 10^{3(m-M_{i}+5)/5}' For all the spectral types (Let Sum_{i} denote summation over all i), 'Sum_{i} N_{i} = Sum_{i} {Omega}/{3} * n_{i} * 10^{3(m-M_{i}+5)/5}' 'Sum_{i} N_{i} = 10^{3m/5} ( Sum_{i} {Omega}/{3} * n_{i} * 10^{3(-M_{i} +5)/5} )' Let 'const = Sum_{i} {Omega}/{3} * n_{i} * 10^{3(-M_{i}+5)/5}', which is a constant w.r.t. 'm'. So, 'Sum_{i} N_{i}= const * 10^{3m/5}' Did I make a mistake here? The problem is that when I count the number of stars below a magnitude 'm' in some astronomical images that I have of orion, and fit a curve to it, what I get is 'Sum_{i} N_{i}= c * 10^{0.3m}'. According to this analysis it should be 0.6 instead of 0.3. Why is this? The instrument I'm using has a sensitivity limit of relative magnitude of about 16. So I was told to ignore the effects of extinction. If there is nothing wrong with my math, is there something wrong with my physics? I also took the point sources from 1 degree radius view cones 2MASS star catalog in 6 different directions (through VizieR). If my original direction was +x, I also took -x, +y, -y, +z and -z directions. I still get a curve that has an exponent of 0.3 instead of one that has an exponent of 0.6. What is the reason for this? Is it because I'm taking J magnitudes instead of bolometric magnitudes? Is it some relativistic effect? This is the same guy who posted the original. I just changed my name (you can check that the email is the same) I posted this same question several ago in this same mailing list, and posted this one again without checking for answers. Sorry. Steve Willner answered that and suggested it's because of the dust. Thanks Steve. I also googled 'Star Count Models' as you suggested and got some results. Looking in to those now. If it IS because of the dust, then it isn't particular to the direction of Orion. I tried other directions and got the same results. But if I check other wavelengths (this one was IR), I should observe a difference if it was in fact due to dust, right? Because different wavelengths are affected by different sized particles? Checking VizieR in radio, Optical, UV, X-ray and Gamma ray now. Thanks. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What did I do wrong?
In article ,
Jacare Omoplata writes: If it IS because of the dust, then it isn't particular to the direction of Orion. I tried other directions and got the same results. Dust absorption varies with the specific direction and also with Galactic latitude. As I mentioned previously, at high latitude there is little dust, but the finite height of the Galactic plane is important. The power law index probably won't vary all that much in different directions, but the star density at a giving limiting magnitude will. But if I check other wavelengths (this one was IR), I should observe a difference if it was in fact due to dust, right? It's hard to say. Longer wavelengths will penetrate the dust better, but the mix of stars you are seeing will differ. If you observe at long enough wavelengths, you will see all the way through the Galaxy (except perhaps on the most obscured lines of sight), and then the increase is nowhere near the Euclidean value. I would not expect the Euclidean value to hold except for relatively bright magnitudes, where one is effectively sampling only quite small distances. At faint magnitudes, especially at high latitudes, "star counts" are dominated by galaxies, not stars. Looking to larger distances, one has both cosmological and evolutionary corrections from the simple Euclidean model. Arendt et al. (1998 ApJ 508, 74) described an infrared star count model that was used to correct the COBE data. I think there used to be an online calculator for it, but I'm not sure it still exists. There are many SDSS and 2MASS papers reporting star counts from those surveys. Fazio et al. (2004 ApJS 154, 39) reported infrared "star counts" from Spitzer, but the counts are dominated by galaxies at the faint end. The authors made an effort to separate stars from galaxies in the brighter range, though, so you could ignore the galaxies to some limit. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Valev right or wrong? - this is the wrong venue for this debate | ukastronomy | Astronomy Misc | 1 | January 29th 09 02:17 PM |
Now what's wrong here? | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 14 | August 23rd 06 04:34 PM |
could Min have it wrong | Fleetie | UK Astronomy | 0 | September 2nd 04 07:07 PM |
What's wrong with L4? | Roy Stogner | Policy | 22 | May 10th 04 03:46 PM |