What I see in sky - Milky Way, other stars

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the visibility of the Milky Way and individual stars. The Milky Way appears as a cloud-like streak due to the vast distance of its stars, making them indistinguishable, while nearby stars within our galaxy can be seen clearly. Participants note that the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) is visible to the naked eye under dark skies, contrasting with the muddled appearance of the Milky Way. Light pollution significantly affects visibility, with suggestions for finding darker locations to enhance star-gazing experiences. Overall, understanding night vision and the effects of light pollution are crucial for observing celestial bodies effectively.
Homer Simpson
Messages
184
Reaction score
1
I've wondered about this for a while:

-the Milky Way which we are part of appears to be a white cloudish streak in the sky. I guess this is because the stars are so far away that it appears as a cloud of light?

-But I would assume that all the stars in the Milky Way, our own galazy, must be closer to us than stars in other galaxies?

So,

1- why is it that I can see individual stars in the sky, but not individual stars in the milky way?

2- And conversely, Why can I see individual stars (that must be part of other galaxies?), without the same 'cloud' effect from their home galaxy? I mean, these stars must be so much further away, so why would they appear alone and clear, when the stars in our own galaxy appear so muddled?

Thanks,
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The stars that you can see as individuals are all part of our own galaxy and many of them are relatively nearby. The Milky Way that you see as a "streak" is actually the galactic plane of our spiral galaxy (the densest concentration of stars) and many of the stars on our line-of sight are not distinguishable as individuals.
 
The stars that you can see as individuals are all part of our own galaxy

Well that clears a lot up then... about 29 years of the wrong mental model on this one. I didn't realize that. Thanks.



Seems pretty boring now though... just kidding... kind of. I'm going to have to go buy one of those Hubble dillies to check out all those galaxies now.
 
If you have moderately dark skies, you should be able to see M31 with the unaided eye :)
 
Nabeshin said:
If you have moderately dark skies, you should be able to see M31 with the unaided eye :)
Very true. In the southern hemisphere, you can see the Magellanic clouds which are companions of our own galaxy. The nearest galaxy of comparable mass to the Milky Way is M31 (seen through the constellation Andromeda) and it is visible to the naked eye in reasonably dark skies in the northern hemisphere.
 
berkeman said:
Speaking of the Milky Way, did you folks see the APOD today? Amazing...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090127.html

.
Thanks for linking that, berkeman! I am a member of the Our Dark Skies forum, and other long-time members routinely get APOD nods. In particular Diets, a surgeon, does fantastic work, and Greg and Noel (a Brit imager and a Floridian image processor) have a fantastic picture-book in the works. I know, because ODS members routinely get to see their images as works-in-progress. If anyone here is interested in astrophotography, I highly recommend that they join ODS. Noel Carboni has developed a powerful suite of actions for Adobe Photoshop and CS packages to greatly streamline image processing, and he will give a free set of these actions to any ODS member.

http://forum.ourdarkskies.com/
 
turbo-1 said:
The nearest galaxy of comparable mass to the Milky Way is M31 (seen through the constellation Andromeda) and it is visible to the naked eye in reasonably dark skies ...
...and with reasonably young eyes.


A qualifier you don't know is applicable until it's too late...
 
Wow, yes that is quite the APOD photo... beautiful. While googling the milky way before posting I ran across the photo below, which is pretty striking as well.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deathvalleysky_nps_big.jpg


I'll keep an eye out for this M31... pretty clever name, its got to be good.
 
  • #10
Homer Simpson said:
I'll keep an eye out for this M31... pretty clever name, its got to be good.
It is called M31 because it was the 31st object cataloged by Messier. Messier was a French astronomer who wanted to compile a list of objects that might be confused with comets. Comet-hunting was all the rage then, and his catalog was intended to reduce the number of false-sightings.

BTW, when you see images in which the galactic plane of our MW is curved, it is an artifact of wide-angle photography. The MW's galactic plane is quite flat, with a bulge in the direction of the constellation Saggitarius.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
BTW, when you see images in with the galactic plane of our MW is curved, it is an artifact of wide-angle photography. The MW's galactic plane is quite flat, with a bulge in the direction of the constellation Saggitarius.


Hey get out of my head! You're reading my mind now :smile:

I was just wondering that very thing while looking at the two pictures... I was picturing looking out from one of the MW spiral arms towards the center, and it wasn't adding up that it would be seen as curved. Thanks again!
 
  • #12
Homer Simpson said:
Hey get out of my head! You're reading my mind now :smile:
Mmmmmm! Donuts!
 
  • #13
turbo-1 said:
Mmmmmm! Donuts!

No, no, no. Mmmmmmm Beeer!
 
  • #14
berkeman said:
No, no, no. Mmmmmmm Beeer!
Not at work, berkeman! When you're an operator in a nuclear power plant, you can only have beer before and after work and maybe on breaks. Donuts at work-stations? Perfectly acceptable.
 
  • #15
Not at work, berkeman!

Well that's right for sure, if I got drunk at the panel then how would I drive home?
 
  • #16
Homer Simpson said:
Well that's right for sure, if I got drunk at the panel then how would I drive home?
More to the point, how you find your way to Moe's so you could have "just one more"?
 
  • #17
This is a somewhat related question, so I figured I'd add it here instead of just starting a new thread.

I'm 26 years old, and I've never seen the Milky Way (meaning the galactic plane) before. I live on the outskirts of Baltimore, so it's just too bright around here. If I drive about 20 miles from the city lights, I can see maybe a few dozen stars out. At my house (2 miles from the city line,) I struggle to see 20-30. From my house, the Pleiades, for example, looks like a fuzzy patch of very pale light that looks like it may not be real at first.

How far away from the city lights do I need to travel to see the Milky Way? Think there would be anywhere within an hour of Baltimore, MD where I could actually see the galactic plane?
 
  • #18
This might have more to do with your night vision. I live in the burbs of Toronto, a city of 4 million people, and my 44 year old eyes can see hundreds or even thousands of stars if I go to a dark park.

Also, if the Plaeides are a fuzzy patch, that would definitely point to a vision thing. If it's dark enough to see it at all, you should be able to be able to make out at least 5 distinct stars visible in the shape of a "tiny dipper".
 
  • #19
It is stunning from a dark site, especially in the southern hemisphere.
The first time I saw the milky way from our observatory in Chile I thought it was a cloud.
You can't see it on Hawaii, the low oxygen at altitude wrecks your night vision.
 
  • #20
mgb_phys said:
...the low oxygen at altitude wrecks your night vision.
I did not know this.

Waitaminnit; I still don't. Hawaii is at sea level. I presume you mean from the observatory...
 
  • #21
DaveC426913 said:
This might have more to do with your night vision. I live in the burbs of Toronto, a city of 4 million people, and my 44 year old eyes can see hundreds or even thousands of stars if I go to a dark park.

Also, if the Plaeides are a fuzzy patch, that would definitely point to a vision thing. If it's dark enough to see it at all, you should be able to be able to make out at least 5 distinct stars visible in the shape of a "tiny dipper".

It's possible. I've read that the more you use your night vision, the stronger it becomes. Maybe I just need to go somewhere more dark, and give my eyes time to adjust, instead of looking up after driving on the highway, staring into oncoming headlights.
 
  • #22
Jack21222 said:
It's possible. I've read that the more you use your night vision, the stronger it becomes. Maybe I just need to go somewhere more dark, and give my eyes time to adjust, instead of looking up after driving on the highway, staring into oncoming headlights.
You need to be patient - it can easily take you 1/2 hour or more to be dark-adapted enough to see faint stuff.
 
  • #23
DaveC426913 said:
Waitaminnit; I still don't. Hawaii is at sea level. I presume you mean from the observatory...
Yes, sorry - Mauna Kea Observatory is about 14,500ft.
 
  • #24
Jack21222 said:
It's possible. I've read that the more you use your night vision, the stronger it becomes. Maybe I just need to go somewhere more dark, and give my eyes time to adjust, instead of looking up after driving on the highway, staring into oncoming headlights.

Once your eyes become acclimated to the dark, you can also try using averted vision to glimpse some things you ordinarily wouldn't be able to make out.
 
  • #25
Nabeshin said:
you can also try using averted vision to glimpse some things you ordinarily wouldn't be able to make out.

In other words - you have much better vision out of the corner of your eye than straight ahead.
It's a trick in amateur astronomy to train yourself to look at a different object in order to see a much fainter one off to the side.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
mgb_phys said:
In other words - you have much better vision out of the corner of your eye than straight ahead.
It's a trick in amateur astronomy to train yourself to look at a different object in order to see a much fainter one off to the side.
Of course, this is moot when looking at the sky-spanning Milky Way...
 
  • #27
You could also try a pair of wide angle binoculars...
 
  • #28
  • #29
It's the milky way - as somebody said the curve is an effect of the wide angle lens.
 
  • #30
mgb_phys said:
It's the milky way - as somebody said the curve is an effect of the wide angle lens.

So the individual circles of stars is all so the wide angle lens?
 
  • #31
There are a couple of small circular/semicircular asterisms in the photo. Those are chance alignments of foreground stars.
 
  • #32
turbo-1 said:
There are a couple of small circular/semicircular asterisms in the photo. Those are chance alignments of foreground stars.
I hadn't seen those until I stared at it.
 
  • #33
Jack21222 said:
This is a somewhat related question, so I figured I'd add it here instead of just starting a new thread.

I'm 26 years old, and I've never seen the Milky Way (meaning the galactic plane) before. I live on the outskirts of Baltimore, so it's just too bright around here. If I drive about 20 miles from the city lights, I can see maybe a few dozen stars out. At my house (2 miles from the city line,) I struggle to see 20-30. From my house, the Pleiades, for example, looks like a fuzzy patch of very pale light that looks like it may not be real at first.

How far away from the city lights do I need to travel to see the Milky Way? Think there would be anywhere within an hour of Baltimore, MD where I could actually see the galactic plane?

Just for your info you live about 4 and half hours away from one of the darkest areas on the east coast, in WV:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sou...ejxsr9vk0rCylA&cbp=11,302.71133717992535,,0,5

I've found this light pollution map quite useful.
http://www.jshine.net/astronomy/dark_sky/index.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Awesome stuff. I wish I could figure out how Google works.

How did you get that split screen? How can I tell if my street has been Google-Street-viewed?
 
  • #36
I feel your pain on light pollution, I live in South Jersey, it's a 4 hour drive to any green or blue on that map (Catskills). I'll agree with the binocular suggestion. I got some super cheap 7x50 ones for about $10, and I was amazed what I could see from my back yard (normally about 20 stars max). The second number is the more important for star gazing, it's the width of the lens, so it's how much light they'll collect. Magnification isn't as important, the Andromeda Galaxy appears about the same size as the Moon, it's just very dim.

As for Google Maps the street view was actually an accident, I was double clicking on the point to just center it there and it brought up the street view, the split view was the default. You can tell if there is a street view because there is a little person in the upper left (atop the zoom bar). If it's yellow there are street view streets currently displayed, if it's white then no. If it's yellow then drag it onto the map and any streets with street view will get highlighted blue, then just drop it on one. It seems to be pretty hit or miss if your area will be included, I was amazed that rural street in the middle of no where in WV was, yet the major 2 lane state highway by my house isn't. Google seems to change their UI often, I think I remember they used to just have a button in the upper right that let you turn on the street view highlights.
 
  • #37
I took my kids out a few months ago and had them look through some binoculars at the moon. They were stunned as the one started to fall backwards. (13 and 9 years old) LOL Now isn't that cool. Love the pic of the milkyway, explain to a child that that is our galaxy that we are in that they are looking at and wow talk about questions questions questions. That is why I'm here.
 
  • #38
dj1972 said:
I took my kids out a few months ago and had them look through some binoculars at the moon. They were stunned as the one started to fall backwards. (13 and 9 years old) LOL Now isn't that cool.
Show em Jupiter and the Galilean moons with the binocs. That's what blew my socks off at a star party. Binocs don't magnify that much yet the moons are quite easily visible and their orbital breadth practically fills the viewing area.

It was at that point I realized that it is not how small the moons are that makes them invisible to the naked eye, it's merely how dim they are. To the naked eye, the breadth of the orbits of the Galilean Moons is easily measurable.

The solar system shrank significantly in that moment, and came much closer than I'd ever thought. So I went out and bought my first scope.
 
  • #39
Isn't it just amazing. I just thought it was neat. I'LL have to do that DAVE. Thanks for the tip. I guess I never bothered with those cause when I was in grade school we looked at Saturn through a descent size scope, wasn't real big but enough to see the rings and I don't think they can hold still long enough. But I will try.
 
  • #40
dj1972 said:
I don't think they can hold still long enough. But I will try.
Now that I think about it, the binocs were mounted on a tripod.
 
  • #41
berkeman said:
Speaking of the Milky Way, did you folks see the APOD today? Amazing...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090127.html

.


I live in a horrid area of sky-gazing, so forgive the potential naivety of this, but; someone please tell me that is not "naked eye" quality. It has been enhanced with digital wizardry and potions?

Should i be wrong i may consider suicide at the comparatively atrocious skies i have.
 
  • #42
Noo said:
please tell me that is not "naked eye" quality. It has been enhanced with digital wizardry and potions?
It is a long exposure so collects more signal than you eye and your dark adapted eye doesn't see color very well.
It also covers a wider field than you eyes (you could only see about 1/2 of that arc at a time)

But in the southern hemisphere on a very dark site the galaxy is bright enough that you would think it was a moonlit cloud.
 
  • #43
Noo said:
I live in a horrid area of sky-gazing, so forgive the potential naivety of this, but; someone please tell me that is not "naked eye" quality. It has been enhanced with digital wizardry and potions?

Should i be wrong i may consider suicide at the comparatively atrocious skies i have.

The picture likely has been doctored in one way or another, simply because this is common practice with astrophotography in order to bring out certain wavelengths of light and such. However, the main difference between this and what you would see outside is that this is a picture taken over the course of hours, allowing all the light to accumulate. You certainly would be able to see the milky way from that location, but in nowhere near as much detail as that.

So, it's not as bad as it might seem =)
 
  • #44
That picutre certianly does not contain hours of exposure. A minute, tops, is all it takes to get something like that if the sky conditions are right. Either way, yes, that's quite a bit brighter than can be seen with the naked eye.
 
  • #45
russ_watters said:
That picutre certianly does not contain hours of exposure. A minute, tops, is all it takes to get something like that if the sky conditions are right. Either way, yes, that's quite a bit brighter than can be seen with the naked eye.

You're right, my mistake. Certainly not hours, but depending on the image stacking and specific type of camera, they could be anywhere from a few minutes to thirty plus minute exposures.

http://www.takayuki-astro.com/film_milkyway.html 35 minutes
http://www.pbase.com/terrylovejoy/image/32742454 30 minutes
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/D_SUM_S/MILKYWAY.HTM 15 minutes
 

Similar threads

B Are the stars that we see in constellations within the Milky Way galaxy?
Replies
31
Views
5K
B Questions about Supermassive stars in the Milky Way Galaxy
Replies
6
Views
3K
Stargazing Dark matter and its effect on the orbit of stars
Replies
13
Views
3K
I Where Are the Missing Black Holes in the Milky Way?
2
Replies
87
Views
9K
A Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?
Replies
29
Views
276
I Lines of stars that we see in the sky
Replies
26
Views
5K
I Collision between the Milky Way and Andromeda and Redshift
Replies
6
Views
2K
B Are There Any Kardeshev 2.0 Civilizations in the Milky Way?
Replies
19
Views
3K
I Actual number of stars in the Milky Way
Replies
5
Views
2K
B Neutron star 4U 1820-30 spins at 716 revolutions per second
Replies
0
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top