Now on ScienceBlogs: Oldest Human-Made Object in Space

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Greg Laden's Blog

Evolution, Life Sciences, Science Education, Human Evolution, and Stuff

Darwing_Face.jpg Learn more about Charles Darwin and his work.

Hornbill170.jpg Looking for stuff about birds?

Lion_mane170.jpg Lean more about lions

Congo_sidebar.jpg An archaeological expedition to the Congo


The Skeptical Search Engine


Nature Blog Network
Climate Defense Fund


The contents of Greg Laden's Blog are copyrighted by Greg Laden.

Recent Comments

Search

Profile


Click on "About" for the big picture, and "Archives" for the details.


Recent Posts

Blogroll

If you don't see yourself on my blogroll, just drop me a line and let me know. I'll add you.*
*Assuming that I'm on your blogroll, of course!

Archives

« Teaching Creationism in Social Studies: The Wedge Strategy, Plan B | Main | Cabinet of Curiosities #4 »

Our Galaxy is Fatter Than Previously Thought

Category: Cosmos
Posted on: February 21, 2008 2:03 PM, by Greg Laden

"We were tossing around ideas about the size of the Galaxy, and thought we had better check the standard numbers that everyone uses. It took us just a few hours to calculate this for ourselves. We thought we had to be wrong, so we checked and rechecked and couldn't find any mistakes."

A team of Australian astrophysicists pulled some readily available data off the internet, ran it through a spreadsheet model, and re-estimated the thickness of the 100,000 light year wide Milky Way Galaxy. The previously widely used estimate was that the Galaxy was 6,000 light years thick, but this new estimate suggests that it is twice that thickness.


The University of Sydney team's analysis differs from previous calculations because they were more discerning with their data selection. "We used data from pulsars: stars that flash with a regular pulse," Professor Gaensler explains. "As light from these pulsars travels to us, it interacts with electrons scattered between the stars (the Warm Ionised Medium, or WIM), which slows the light down.

"In particular, the longer (redder) wavelengths of the pulse slow down more than the shorter (bluer) wavelengths, so by seeing how far the red lags behind the blue we can calculate how much WIM the pulse has travelled through.

"If you know the distance to the pulsar accurately, then you can work out how dense the WIM is and where it stops - in other words where the Galaxy's edge is.

"Of the thousands of pulsars known in and around our Galaxy, only about 60 have really well known distances. But to measure the thickness of the Milky Way we need to focus only on those that are sitting above or below the main part of the Galaxy; it turns out that pulsars embedded in the main disk of the Milky Way don't give us useful information."

Choosing only the pulsars well above or below us cuts the number of measurements by a factor of three, but it is precisely this rejection of data points that makes The University of Sydney's analysis different from previous work.

My favorite part of this report is...


"Some colleagues have come up to me and have said 'That wrecks everything!'" says Professor Gaensler. "And others have said 'Ah! Now everything fits together!'"

And thus, science marches on.

The press report is here. The original results were presented last month at the Austin meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook
Find more posts in: Physical Science

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/64715

Comments

1

Right around a factor of two, eh? Could it be as simple as a radius vs. diameter difference?

Posted by: Virgil Samms | February 21, 2008 4:41 PM

2

The real, exact size of our galaxy is not measurable, I think. An approximate value is good enough in this case.

There could also be some sort of variation of the galaxy's size over time.

Posted by: Analiza Short | February 21, 2008 5:03 PM

3
There could also be some sort of variation of the galaxy's size over time.
Over time yes, over the time interval between this estimate and the previous estimates? No.
The galaxy is not putting on weight, it's just that those jeans make it look fat.

Posted by: Virgil Samms | February 21, 2008 5:37 PM

4

To the Milky Way: The rings around Uranus make you look fat.

Posted by: wrpd | February 21, 2008 9:08 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.