Finding the mass of our Galaxy and the number of stars in it.

  • Thread starter Thread starter seizureboi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Galaxy Mass Stars
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on estimating the mass of the Milky Way Galaxy and the number of stars it contains. The original calculation yielded a mass of approximately 3.44425x10^41 kg and an estimated star count of 1.72213x10^11, which was questioned for accuracy. While the method used was correct, it was noted that the assumption of a uniform spherical mass distribution is flawed, as the galaxy is more disk-shaped. This miscalculation affects the estimated number of stars, which is closer to 172 billion. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the galaxy's structure in mass estimations.
seizureboi
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The sun rotates around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy at a distance of about 30,000 light-years from the center (1 light year=9.5x10^15 meters). If it takes about 200 million years to make one rotation, estimate the mass of our Galaxy. Assume that the mass distribution of our Galaxy is concentrated mostly in a central uniform sphere. If all the stars had about the mass of our sun (2x10^30 kg), how many stars would there be in our Galaxy?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



For the mass of the Galaxy I got 3.44425x10^41 and I got a total of 1.72213x10^11 stars. I don't think these answers are correct. HELP!?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
172 billion stars looks pretty close. How did you get those answers, and why do you think they're wrong?
 
Turns out I am right. What I did was first convert 200,000,000 years to seconds which gave me 6.3072x10^15 seconds/revolution around the center of the galaxy. Then I plugged the given items into the formula (4pi^2r^3)/(GxT^2), where "r" stands for radius (2.85x10^20), "G" standing for the gravitational constant (6.67x10^-11), and "T" standing for the period (6.3072x10^15). This gave me the mass of the galaxy (3.44425x10^41) and then I took that number and divided it by the mass of the sun since the question says to assume the mass of all other stars to be the same as the sun's, thus giving me the amount of stars in the galaxy (1.72213x10^11).
 
Exactly correct method - however if you count the number of stars in the galaxy it's <10% of this.
We are trying to work out what the rest of the dark mass is.
 
Actually, 172 billion is pretty close to the number of stars in the galaxy. The reason the OP didn't get 10 times this value is because the question assumes the mass of the galaxy is uniformly distributed in a spherical fashion. That's dead wrong: the galaxy is more like a disk than a sphere, and a disk doesn't behave as if all its mass is concentrated at its geometrical center.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top