Unveiling the Mysteries of Cepheids and Hubble's Work

  • Thread starter Thread starter SUDOnym
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
AI Thread Summary
Hubble's work with Cepheid variables demonstrated that the "nebulae" were too distant to be part of our galaxy, confirming they were separate galaxies. The 100-inch telescope at Mt. Wilson was crucial in resolving these nebulae into individual stars, allowing for the identification of Cepheid variables. Prior to this telescope, there was significant debate about whether these spiral nebulae were separate galaxies or part of our own. Hubble and Humason's observations of Andromeda using the 100-inch telescope provided definitive evidence that these were indeed separate galaxies. This groundbreaking work fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.
SUDOnym
Messages
88
Reaction score
1
hello

Can someone please clarify a point about Hubble's work?:

By using cepheids Hubble showed that the so called "nebulae" were too distant to be contained within our galaxy. My question is the following: is it only with the buidling of the 100-inch telescope that they were able to resolve the "nebulae" into individual stars and so then focus on the cepheids?
ie. before the 100-inch telescope, the other galaxies were too far away to resolve into individual stars which is why they were mistaken for nebulae.

And to drive the point home - Was there any instance before the use of the 100-inch that individual stars could be resolved in other galaxies?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you are correct. Before the Mt. Wilson 100 inch telescope, there was debate as to whether the "spiral nebulae" were so-called "island universes" (which we today call galaxies), or whether they were nebulae within our own galaxy. Hubble and Humason used the 100" to resolve Andromeda into stars and identify Cepheid variables within it, thereby measuring its distance. This showed that the spiral nebulae were in fact separate galaxies.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top