Why is an inverse logarithmic scale chosen for the magnitudes of stars?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The star magnitude scale employs an inverse logarithmic system, originally defined by Hipparchus around 150 BC, where the brightest stars are classified as first magnitude and the faintest visible stars as sixth magnitude. This scale was established to reflect human perception of brightness, which follows a logarithmic pattern, with a difference of one magnitude corresponding to a factor of 10^(0.4). The historical inertia of this classification system prevents any redefinition, despite its inherent confusion. The use of janskys for measuring radiative flux is also mentioned as an alternative for more precise measurements.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of logarithmic scales in scientific measurements
  • Familiarity with the historical context of astronomical classification
  • Knowledge of radiative flux and its measurement in astronomy
  • Basic concepts of stellar brightness and visibility
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the historical development of the magnitude scale in astronomy
  • Learn about the mathematical principles of logarithmic scales in scientific contexts
  • Explore the use of janskys in astrophysics for measuring star brightness
  • Investigate modern alternatives to the magnitude scale for astronomical measurements
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysics students, educators in astronomy, and anyone interested in the historical and mathematical foundations of star classification systems.

TheCelt
Messages
24
Reaction score
5
Star magnitudes of brightness seem to use inverse logarithmic scales, is there a benefit to this? Why was this chosen, i can understand logarithmic might make it easier to interpret data in same way we do similar for earthquakes etc.

But why inverse ? When i look at a HR diagram for example ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification ), the magnitude decreases up the Y-axis and it just seems unusual to me for that to be the standard convention.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Astronomers never change anything once it's defined. The magnitude scale traces back to Hipparchus in about 150 BC. he defined the brightest stars as first magnitude, the next brightest as second magnitude, etc. with the faintest ones he could see being of sixth magntitude. Many centuries later, we learned how to quantitatively measure the brightness of stars, and realized that our perception of brightness follows a logarithmic scale. It was also found that the difference between a first magnitude star and a sixth magnitude star (5 magnitudes) was about a factor of 100 in radiative flux. So the magnitude scale was defined so that a difference of 1 magnitude was a factor of 10^(0.4). Then five magnitudes gives a factor of 10^(0.4*5) = 100. Yes, it's confusing that it is an inverse scale, but there is too much inertia to redefine it now. On the one hand, it might be nice to redefine it, but on the other hand, I enjoy the fact that astronomers treasure the long history of the subject.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: lomidrevo, ohwilleke, anorlunda and 2 others
phyzguy said:
Yes, it's confusing that it is an inverse scale, but there is too much inertia to redefine it now.

Further, if it's important, you could always use janskys. (Janskys? Janskies? ) This seems to happen mostly when taking derivaties: d(something)/d(magnitude) is kind of a mess.
 
TheCelt said:
But why inverse ?
It has to be down to history, I think. The Greeks (other civilisations are available) needed a scale for brightness that was 'open ended' and described https://www.astro.indiana.edu/novasearch/magnitude.html. I suggest that negative numbers and even zero were not too familiar at the time so positive values would relate to 'how hard it is to see stars' or even 'how many you might see under given conditions'.

The sign used in the logarithmic formula would have to follow the original rule, which divided visible stars into values from just 1 to 6 Magnitude. The present system allows for extremely dim targets.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
25K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K