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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the choice of an inverse logarithmic scale for measuring the magnitudes of stars, exploring its historical context and implications for interpretation in astronomy. Participants examine the reasoning behind this convention and its effects on data representation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Historical
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the benefit of using an inverse logarithmic scale for star magnitudes, noting the unusual nature of this convention when compared to other logarithmic scales.
  • Another participant explains that the magnitude scale dates back to Hipparchus in 150 BC, where brighter stars were assigned lower magnitude numbers, establishing a historical precedent for the inverse scale.
  • It is mentioned that the logarithmic nature of brightness perception was later understood, leading to the definition of the scale where a difference of 1 magnitude corresponds to a factor of 10^(0.4).
  • One participant suggests that the historical context likely influenced the choice of an open-ended scale that avoided negative numbers, aligning with the original classification of stars from 1 to 6 magnitudes.
  • Another participant notes that while the inverse nature of the scale is confusing, there is a reluctance to redefine it due to historical inertia.
  • There is also a mention of using janskys as an alternative measurement, highlighting the complexities involved in derivatives related to magnitudes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a general agreement on the historical reasons for the inverse logarithmic scale, but there is no consensus on whether it should be redefined or if alternative measurements like janskys should be adopted.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of the current scale, including its historical roots and the challenges posed by its inverse nature, but do not resolve these issues.

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
7K
  • · 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
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
455