snorkack said:
If we looked at night sky from a planet a few thousand lightyears out of the Milky Way disc, without the obscuring glare of Milky Way (on the hemisphere opposite the Milky Way) and without the skyglow of Earth atmosphere, would naked eye see distant galaxy clusters like Virgo as hazy patches of light even if the individual galaxies (M49, M87) were too dim to resolve?
Trying to find some numbers:
The total brightness of galaxy clusters is something which is
not quoted commonly, let alone consistently. With some searching, I found:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AJ...90.1759S/abstract
The total luminosity of all supposed member galaxies in the central 6° core is 2.4 X 1012 blue solar luminosities.
The Virgo cluster center is around 55 million lightyears from Sun. Back of the envelope, Virgo Cluster would have about the same luminosity as 1 solar luminosity from distance of 35 ly... in the blue. Visible left unspecified.
1 solar luminosity from 35 ly would be about 5,05. Not too dim for naked eye... for a point star.
The brightest single galaxy in Virgo cluster is M49, at 8,4. Which IS too dim for naked eye. All the Virgo Cluster galaxies combined have over 20 times the luminosity of M49. Virgo cluster is described as 1300 or 2000 galaxies total and 160 bright ones, so makes sense to be 22 times as bright as the brightest single galaxy.
And yet - 5,05 spread across 6° radius, that is 12° diametre...
Large Magellanic Cloud is about the size of Virgo Cluster at 11°x9°... but it is magnitude +0,1. 100 times brighter than Virgo Cluster.
Triangulum Galaxy is about magnitude +5,7, which is half the brightness of Virgo Cluster. And some people report seeing Triangulum Galaxy in dark skies.
But yet... Triangulum Galaxy is reported as 1,2°x0,7°. Which means that it has 80 times the average surface brightness of Virgo Cluster.
So Virgo Cluster, at least on average, is a low surface brightness object compared to such naked eye objects as LMC or M33. (And Virgo cluster is an easy, long discovered object. The giant arc would be harder again!)
Now, I asked about eye sensitivity vs. airglow of the ordinary dark nights of Earth.
On ordinary dark nights, the total brightness of airglow is actually quoted as comparable to the total starlight...
If we could look at skies through an atmosphere which is far darker and clearer than the best dark skies on Earth, how much more dim/diffuse deep sky objects would we see by ordinary good naked eye vision? Is the answer more like "a lot more", or more "only slightly more, we would run into inherent sensitivity limits of eye"?