Estimating the effective grammage of the galaxy

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pastro
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Galaxy
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The effective grammage of the galaxy is estimated to be around 10^-3 g/cm^2, as mentioned in a referenced text. However, calculations presented in the discussion suggest a grammage of approximately 10^-1 g/cm^2 based on a density of 1 proton/cm^3 and a galactic radius of 15 kpc. This discrepancy indicates that the accepted value may rely on different assumptions, such as the thickness of the galactic disk rather than its radius. Understanding the proper model of galactic density is essential to resolve this inconsistency.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of galactic density models
  • Familiarity with path integrals in astrophysics
  • Knowledge of interstellar medium (ISM) properties
  • Basic concepts of astrophysical measurements (e.g., kpc, g/cm^2)
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of the interstellar medium (ISM) in different galaxies
  • Study the mathematical formulation of path integrals in astrophysics
  • Explore models of galactic density distribution
  • Investigate the implications of using galactic disk thickness versus radius in calculations
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, and students studying galactic structures and density models will benefit from this discussion.

pastro
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I was reading a text which gives (without derivation/reference) the effective grammage along the line of sight through the disk of the galaxy as about 10^-3 g/cm^2. Is this the proper order of magnitude for the accepted value?

By my calculation, I claim the galaxy has 1 proton/cm^3 ~ 2 x 10^-24 g/cm^3 , and a radius of 15 kpc ~ 5 x 10^22 cm. I get a grammage (=density x galactic radius) of only 10^-1 g/cm^2--100 times greater than the estimate of the text. Of course, I'm assuming the line of sight only passes through ISM.

I suppose my crude estimate just isn't good enough. Technically, grammage will be the path integral of galactic density along the line of sight, but what is the proper model of galactic density? Could someone provide insight on the cause of this inconsistency? I would have though my estimate should be closer than it is.

Thanks!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I suppose the author might have used the thickness of the galactic disk instead of the radius...that gets things about right...but the context where I read this number needs an upper limit, and using the thickness of the galactic disk gives a lower limit.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K