Confusion re Laniakea Super Cluster

  • Thread starter Thread starter Buzz Bloom
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confusion
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on confusion regarding the definitions of "mass" and "binding mass" in relation to the Laniakea supercluster. The original sources provide differing information, with one source stating the supercluster's mass as approximately 10^17 solar masses and another using the term "binding mass," which is linked to gravitational binding energy concepts. The participant expresses frustration over the lack of clarity on the calculation methods for Laniakea's mass, noting that common methods involve estimating total star mass from visible light and adjusting for dark matter. They intend to edit the Wikipedia entry to replace "binding mass" with "mass" and have not received responses to their request for further clarification. A follow-up thread titled "The Dark Sky Ahead" is planned for additional questions.
Buzz Bloom
Gold Member
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
465
I have been trying to understand some facts about the Laniakea supercluster. I found information at three sites which when compared with each other creates some confusion.

a. http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/Laniakea/
b. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laniakea_Supercluster
c. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_binding_energy

(a) says
The orange contour encloses the outer limits of these streams, a diameter of about 160 Mpc. This region contains the mass of about 1017 suns: 100 million billion suns.​

(b) says
The Laniakea Supercluster encompasses 100,000 galaxies stretched out over 160 megaparsecs (520 million light-years). It has the approximate binding mass of 1017 solar masses.​
(b) has a link for "binding mass" the leads to (c).

(c) says
A gravitational binding energy is the energy that must be exported from a system for the system to enter a gravitationally bound state at a negative level of energy.
. . .
For a spherical mass of uniform density, the gravitational binding energy U is given by the formula
BindingEnergy.png

It is clear that "mass" and "binding mass" are not the same thing. At first, it seemed likely that the news article (a) was careless and used the more common term "mass" while Wikipedia's (b) used a more accurate but less familiar term "binding mass". But, then again, maybe not.

From (b)'s link to (c), is seems that a calculated value for "binding mass" would be
Mbind = U/c2.​
Then the ratio
r = Mbind / M​
would be a dimensionless ratio for the fraction of the mass M that would have to be removed from the system (in the form of kinetic energy or lost mass, or what?) if the systerm was to be gravitationally bound together. This concept seems a bit strange.

So, based on the above, I conclude that (b) was wrong, and (a) was right.

Unfortunately neither (a) nor (b) nor any of their references discusses the method used to calculate the mass of the supercluster. The method I am familiar with first calculates the total star mass from the amount of visible light (corrected for redshift). This result is then multiplied by a "standard" ratio (which takes into account baryonic dark matter, e.g, unilluminated gas and dust, to get to get a value for the total baryonic mass. This result is then multiplied by another ratio to include the non-baryonic dark matter.

Can anyone help me find a source that shows the calulation of Laniakea's mass?
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I have decided after much thought to edit the Wikipedia page about the Laniakea supercluster, changing "binding mass" to "mass". An explanation for making this change is on the Talk page.

I have also reached the conlcusion that after 61 views and no responses that no one is likely to help me find a source that shows the calculation of Laniakea's mass.

I have one further related question that I hope someone will respond to. I will soon create a new thread, "The Dark Sky Ahead", in which I will post this question.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top