A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Ahad's constant" - Part (i): magnitude of Milky Way



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 1st 05, 03:03 PM
Jav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Ahad's constant" - Part (i): magnitude of Milky Way

In this paper:
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagen...erstellar.html

The net, _one number_ solution for the universe's total integrated
starlight in visual wavelengths (provisionally dubbed "Ahad's
constant") which Abdul Ahad calculated as:

Ahad's constant = (magnitude of milky way) + (magnitude of stars)

= (-5.0) + (-6.0) = -6.5 mags net (1/300th full moons).

Part (i) (magnitude of Milky Way), he estimated at -5.0 using these
assumptions:

"The Milky Way galaxy's absolute magnitude, accepted in most official
journals as an astronomical constant, is -20.5. That figure is based on
the assumption that the *entire* galaxy is viewed face on, as one
integrated object, from a standard distance of 10 parsecs (32.6 light
years). Now, since we are located in one of the spiral arms of the
Milky Way not far from the galactic plane and only get an "edge-on
view" looking inwards towards the centre of the Milky Way, we see only
50% of the galaxy's total brightness stretching across the night sky
(since the remaining 50% is on the *other side* of the dense galactic
core, and not directly in view to us).

Now, the standard formula for evaluating the brightness ratio, R,
between any two objects of magnitudes M1 and M2 is given by:-

R = 10^[0.4*(M1-M2)]

Hence, this formula can be used to "reduce" the Milky Way galaxy's
total absolute magnitude of -20.5 by 50% to give a figure of -19.7,
representing the "portion" that we see stretching across our night sky.
Since we are located at a distance, d, of about 8,200 parsecs from the
galactic centre [Source: Handbook of the British Astronomical
Association], the apparent magnitude, m, of the bulk of this "portion"
can be calculated from:-

m = M - [5 - 5 * log10(d)] = -19.7 - [5 - 5 * log10 (8200)] = - 5.1
Hence, the net integrated magnitude of the "visible" Milky Way
stretching across our night skies ought to be about -5.1.

However, there are various dark, intervening clouds of interstellar gas
and dust, such as the "Cygnus Rift", the "Coal Sack" near Crux, many
dark clouds in Sagittarius looking towards the centre of the galaxy,
etc. which contribute to dimming the overall light reaching Earth from
the broader Milky Way. Hence, if one makes a 10% (0.1-magnitude)
allowance for light extinctions owing to such obscuring interstellar
media, one will arrive at a net magnitude of -5.0.

This would be one way that I would *analytically* estimate the Milky
Way's total integrated brightness as -5.0 magnitudes.

This figure of course relates to a full 360-degree view of the whole
Milky Way. In actual practice, from a particular location on the
Earth's surface, only a fraction of this total brightness will be
experienced by an observer depending on various factors such as how low
the horizons are, which particular quadrant of the galaxy is on view
(e.g. the Cygnus region is much brighter than the Auriga region),
airglow and light extinctions due to the Earth's own atmosphere which
depends on the observer's elevation above mean sea level, etc..." -
Abdul Ahad.

Now Robert Rowland on uk.sci.astronomy writes:

It's reasonable overall but I have an issue with this ---

if one makes a 10% (0.1-magnitude)
allowance for light extinctions owing to such obscuring interstellar
media, one will arrive at a net magnitude of -5.0.


Why only 10% light-blotting? Why not 20%? Its far too arbitrary in my
view, unless someone else has another thought? I expect Abdul Ahad is
pursuing journal entries, so they should put him right. As an
_approximation_ it's fine.

Is there any views here in the moderated forum? Is -5.0 and the method
he uses _reasonable_ as an approximation in Ahad's constant
calculation?

Uncle Jav
  #2  
Old January 5th 05, 11:37 AM
Starlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jav wrote:
In this paper:
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagen...erstellar.html

The net, _one number_ solution for the universe's total integrated
starlight in visual wavelengths (provisionally dubbed "Ahad's
constant") which Abdul Ahad calculated as:

Ahad's constant = (magnitude of milky way) + (magnitude of stars)

= (-5.0) + (-6.0) = -6.5 mags net (1/300th full moons).

Part (i) (magnitude of Milky Way), he estimated at -5.0 using these
assumptions:

[snip]

Ahad's constant = (magnitude of milky way) + (magnitude of stars)




= (-5.0) + (-6.0) = -6.5 mags net (1/300th full moons).
It's reasonable overall but I have an issue with this ---


Robert wrote:

if one makes a 10% (0.1-magnitude)
allowance for light extinctions owing to such obscuring interstellar
media, one will arrive at a net magnitude of -5.0.


Why only 10% light-blotting? Why not 20%? Its far too arbitrary in my
view, unless someone else has another thought? I expect Abdul Ahad is
pursuing journal entries, so they should put him right. As an
_approximation_ it's fine.



So if AC is defining one number for total light from all corners of all
galaxies, and Ahad constant = - 6.5 is "right", then was Olbers
paradox "wrong"? This link has a few poss. solutions:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...GR/olbers.html

If Olbers paradox is right, then Ahad's constant should be equal to
"infinity" not -6.5. So why is Ahad's constant a limiting magnitude?
Anyone else have any thought on this,please. Its rather intriguing!
cheres!!!

S-S
  #3  
Old January 7th 05, 05:43 PM
robert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Is there any views here in the moderated forum? Is -5.0 and the
method
he uses _reasonable_ as an approximation in Ahad's constant
calculation?


I did point out it's fine for an approximation. AC will not be a hard
scientific constant unless you get it exposed to a photometric device
drifting in the oort cloud - way way outside Sol's light domination.
Rob
  #4  
Old January 7th 05, 05:44 PM
robert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You're confusing the issue. Olbers paradox is not about_right_ or
_wrong_ and you already have some answers in your own thread//

http://tinyurl.com/3s4th

Ahad's constant has a _finite_ value because the increase in light from
fainter stars will tail off as you go lower and lower in magnitude. So
below a threshold of 15th or 20th magnitude, the nature of Logarathims
means the contribution becomes negligible, so AC equates toward a
bottom value of around -6.5 (1/300th full moon).

Robert
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Quasar Studies Keep Fundamental Physical Constant Constant (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 April 28th 04 07:46 PM
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 Ron Baalke History 2 November 28th 03 10:21 AM
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 1 November 28th 03 10:21 AM
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 Ron Baalke History 0 October 24th 03 04:38 PM
Milky Way Magnitude? ypauls Amateur Astronomy 20 August 26th 03 08:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.