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

In summary, astronomers use an inverse logarithmic scale for magnitudes because it follows the original rule that divided stars into values from just 1 to 6 Magnitude.
  • #1
TheCelt
24
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
  • #2
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 lomidrevo, ohwilleke, anorlunda and 2 others
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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.
 

1. Why is an inverse logarithmic scale used for the magnitudes of stars?

An inverse logarithmic scale is used for the magnitudes of stars because it allows for a more manageable and intuitive representation of the vast range of brightness levels of stars. The magnitude scale is based on the human perception of brightness, with each step representing a factor of 2.5 in brightness. This means that a star with a magnitude of 2 is 2.5 times brighter than a star with a magnitude of 3, and so on. However, the brightness of stars can vary greatly, with some being thousands of times brighter than others. An inverse logarithmic scale allows for a more compact representation of this range, making it easier to compare and understand the brightness of different stars.

2. How does an inverse logarithmic scale work for the magnitudes of stars?

An inverse logarithmic scale is based on the mathematical concept of logarithms, which are the inverse of exponentials. In this scale, each magnitude step represents a change in brightness by a factor of 2.5. This means that a star with a magnitude of 1 is 2.5 times brighter than a star with a magnitude of 2, and a star with a magnitude of 0 is 2.5 times brighter than a star with a magnitude of 1. This continues on, with each step representing a decrease in brightness by a factor of 2.5. This allows for a more manageable and intuitive representation of the vast range of brightness levels of stars.

3. Why is a logarithmic scale more useful than a linear scale for the magnitudes of stars?

A logarithmic scale is more useful than a linear scale for the magnitudes of stars because it allows for a more compact representation of the vast range of brightness levels of stars. In a linear scale, each step represents an equal change in brightness, which can quickly become overwhelming when dealing with the wide range of brightness levels of stars. A logarithmic scale, on the other hand, allows for a more intuitive representation of this range, making it easier to compare and understand the brightness of different stars.

4. How is an inverse logarithmic scale used in astronomy?

An inverse logarithmic scale is commonly used in astronomy to represent the brightness of stars, galaxies, and other celestial objects. It is also used to measure other physical properties, such as the size and mass of objects, as well as the distance between objects. In addition, an inverse logarithmic scale is used to plot data on graphs and charts, making it easier to visualize and analyze large sets of data in a more manageable way.

5. Are there any limitations to using an inverse logarithmic scale for the magnitudes of stars?

While an inverse logarithmic scale is a useful tool for representing the range of brightness levels of stars, it does have its limitations. For example, it does not take into account the color or temperature of stars, which can also affect their perceived brightness. Additionally, the scale can become less accurate at extreme magnitudes, as the human perception of brightness may not follow a strict logarithmic pattern. However, for most practical purposes in astronomy, an inverse logarithmic scale is a useful and widely accepted method for representing the magnitudes of stars.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
6
Views
22K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
43
Views
10K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
955
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top