Milky Way spins faster, has more mass than thought

In summary, the new estimate of the sun's mass is 270 billion solar masses, which is similar to the estimates 200-400 billion that I have seen for some time. However, until I see some more technical report I don't know what to think. The orbit period is 200 million years.
  • #1
Redbelly98
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
12,175
182
Saw this on Yahoo! News; the title pretty much sums it up.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090105/ts_afp/usastronomy_090105234256 [Broken]

My question for the regular astro PFers: what would be the sun's revolution period around the galaxy based on this new information?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Redbelly98 said:
Saw this on Yahoo! News; the title pretty much sums it up.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090105/ts_afp/usastronomy_090105234256 [Broken]

My question for the regular astro PFers: what would be the sun's revolution period around the galaxy based on this new information?

Redbelly, these results were under embargo until 5 Jan, yesterday. I searched yesterday and today for something more technical than the press-release material and couldn't find.

According to this report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/05/galaxy-collision-space-milky-way
the new estimate of the mass (including DM) is 270 billion solar mass. But this is similar to the estimates 200-400 billion that I have seen for some time!

So until I see some more technical report I don't know what to think. Maybe the real news is that they have narrowed down the uncertainty. And that the new more precise estimate is higher than yesterday's LOW estimates. However it turns out, we can address your question about the orbital period. The Harvard-Smithsonian press release is here
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/press/2009/pr200903.html
and it implies the orbit radius is 28,000 LY, so assuming circular the circumf is 176,000 LY
and the estimated speed is 600,000 mph
So we just type into google something like
(176 000 lightyear) / (600 000 mph)
and google will say
(176 000 lightyear)/(600 000 mph) = 196 714 211 years
So we can quickly say the orbit period is 200 million years.

Indeed this is a tad shorter than what I remember from earlier. Back in 1970s I believe a common estimate was around 240 million years.
A good question would be if this 270 billion solar is right, then does that refer just to the mass inside the sun's orbit? Because their methodology seems to be good for finding the sun's orbital speed and that would just give a handle on what's inside our orbit. If they are trying to include an estimate of the outer part of the disc, then how are they doing that? Maybe someone else here will clarify.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
marcus said:
... The Harvard-Smithsonian press release is here
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/press/2009/pr200903.html
and it implies the orbit radius is 28,000 LY, so assuming circular the circumf is 176,000 LY
and the estimated speed is 600,000 mph
Doh! That info is also in the Yahoo article I linked...somehow I had glazed over it before.

Indeed this is a tad shorter than what I remember from earlier. Back in 1970s I believe a common estimate was around 240 million years.
My notes have 250 Myr, based on google searches a year or 2 ago. I keep a list of time scales found in nature, from the Planck time on up to the age of the universe. The sun's orbital period is on my list, so when I read this article I realized I needed to update it.

Thanks marcus!

Mark
 
  • #4
Thanks for starting the thread!
I found another estimate 914,000 kph (a.k.a. km/h)
(this time in a BBC article)
176000 lightyear/914000 kph
Google says:
"(176 000 lightyear) / (914 000 kph) = 207 821 117 years"
so 208 million years.
 
  • #5
Thanks for starting the thread!
And thanks for joining it.

I'm interested in what numbers are given in the technical reports, with error bars. I imagine you'll see what those are eventually. The Yahoo article appears to make the all-too-common journalist error of too many sig figs after converting units:

500,000 mi/hr becomes 804,672 km/hr
600,000 mi/hr becomes 965,600 km/hr

It's likely the BBC's 914,000 kph is believable, since they probably didn't need to convert units.

And yes, I'm familiar with the Google calculator. It even recognizes "pi", so it can do the entire calculation:

(2*pi*28 lightyear) / (914000 kph) = 207 737.503 years
 
  • #6
They talked about this on NPR radio today:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200901093 [Broken]
Click the play bar under the word "Listen" to the left. I haven't heard it myself yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What does it mean that the Milky Way spins faster?

This means that the Milky Way is rotating at a higher speed than previously estimated. The speed at which a galaxy rotates is an important factor in understanding its structure and formation.

2. How was the new mass of the Milky Way determined?

Scientists used a new technique called the "radial acceleration relation" to measure the mass of the Milky Way. This method looks at the relationship between the gravitational pull of a galaxy and its visible matter, allowing for a more accurate estimation of its total mass.

3. How does this new discovery affect our understanding of the Milky Way?

This discovery challenges previous assumptions about the structure and composition of the Milky Way. It suggests that there may be more dark matter in our galaxy than previously thought, which could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe.

4. What is the significance of the Milky Way's mass and spin?

The mass and spin of the Milky Way are important factors in determining its stability and evolution. A more massive galaxy may have a stronger gravitational pull, affecting the movement of stars and other celestial bodies within it. The speed at which a galaxy spins can also impact its overall structure and formation.

5. How will this discovery impact future studies of the Milky Way?

This discovery opens up new avenues for research on the Milky Way and other galaxies. Scientists may now need to reconsider their models and theories about the formation and evolution of galaxies, taking into account the new understanding of the Milky Way's mass and spin.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
27K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
0
Views
682
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top