How do I determine the uncertainty value of the star's absolute magnitude?

AI Thread Summary
To determine the uncertainty of a star's absolute magnitude, the user initially calculated the uncertainty in distance but questioned the validity of their approach. After refining their calculations, they established that the uncertainty in distance (Δd) should be 500 parsecs, leading to a revised absolute magnitude uncertainty of 0.21. They utilized the formula for combining uncertainties, which incorporates both the apparent magnitude uncertainty and the derived distance uncertainty. The discussion also highlighted a technical issue with a LaTeX link, prompting a correction. Overall, the final calculations were confirmed to be accurate.
Thomas Smith
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I have a star that has an apparent magnitude of 13.73 with uncertainty of 0.03303

It's distance Modulus is 13.9967 so it's absolute magnitude is -0.26

The distance is 6300 parsecs

Homework Equations


[/B]
The uncertainty on log10(d) is given by
Δ(log10)≈0.4343 Δd/d

ΔQ) = √(Δx)^2 + (Δy)^2 errors of sums or differences

The Attempt at a Solution



My guess is working out the uncertainty of d first

0.4343 x Δ/6300

d= 0.4343/6300

d=0.00007

and then the uncertainty of the absolute magnitude given by:

∆M= 0.4343 × √(0.03303)^2+(0.00007)^2) =0.0143

I'm not quite sure if this is right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is Δd? You seem to assume 1 pc, that is unrealistic in an astronomy context.
Thomas Smith said:
and then the uncertainty of the absolute magnitude given by:

∆M= 0.4343 × √(0.03303)^2+(0.00007)^2) =0.0143
Why did you multiply by 0.4343?
Thomas Smith said:
I'm not quite sure if this is right.
Your uncertainty on the derived absolute magnitude is smaller than the uncertainty on the measured apparent magnitude. Can that be right?
 
mfb said:
What is Δd? You seem to assume 1 pc, that is unrealistic in an astronomy context.
Why did you multiply by 0.4343?Your uncertainty on the derived absolute magnitude is smaller than the uncertainty on the measured apparent magnitude. Can that be right?
∆d is 500 parsec sorry
 
I've did my calculations again and got the absolute magnitude uncertainty of 0.21.

I did 0.4343 x 500/6300
∆log(d) = 0.0345
∆5log(d) = 0.0345 × 5 = 0.1725

∆M = sqaureroot of (0.033030)^2 + (0.1725)^2

∆M = 0.20553 rounded up to 0.21
 
That looks good.

This forum supports LaTeX, by the way: ##\Delta M = \sqrt{0.033030^2+0.1725^2} = 0.2055##

How I wrote it: ##[/color]\Delta M = \sqrt{0.033030^2+0.1725^2} = 0.2055##

Edit: Fixed link
 
Last edited:
mfb said:
This forum supports LaTeX,
Hi mfb:

The LaTeX link does not open. I get the message:
Server error
404 - File or directory not found.
The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

I imagine you may want to correct this.

Regards,
Buzz
 
Buzz Bloom said:
Hi mfb:

The LaTeX link does not open. I get the message:
Server error
404 - File or directory not found.
The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

I imagine you may want to correct this.

Regards,
Buzz
Missing initial h. Should read https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/
 
Back
Top