Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
The collection

Every essay — page 17

One idea per essay, ordered so that the earlier ones set up the later ones — but nothing here depends on being read in sequence. Essays 321–340 of 514.

Gravitation

Two bodies pulling on each other, and everything that goes wrong at three.

Where the disc stops, and the spin that follows from it. Two radii against accretion rate, for a neutron star with a 10⁸-gauss field. The falling curve is the magnetospheric radius, where the field's stress on the disc matches the rate at which the flow carries angular momentum inward; it goes as the accretion rate to the minus two sevenths, which is a weak enough dependence that the factor of 1000 in supply drawn here moves the boundary by a factor of 7.2. The horizontal lines are corotation radii for three spin periods — the radius at which the disc orbits as fast as the star turns. Above corotation the field is spinning the gas faster than it wants to go and flings it out; below, the gas is faster and spins the star up. So the crossing is an attractor, and a star accreting steadily walks to the period where the two coincide. That period goes as the field to the six sevenths and the rate to the minus three sevenths — which is why a neutron star that has swallowed a tenth of a solar mass from a companion comes out at a few milliseconds, and why the millisecond pulsars have fields ten thousand times weaker than the young ones.

The period a star is pulled towards

A magnetised neutron star does not let a disc reach it. The disc stops where the field's stress wins, and if that radius lies inside the corotation radius the star is spun up while outside it the star is spun down — so there is one period at which nothing changes, and an accreting star walks to it.

9 figures · Accretion

Galaxies

Where the unknown stops being a number and becomes a profile — and most of it is not light.

A layer several times thicker than its heat can explain. The vertical density profile of the neutral gas layer, drawn twice. The narrow curve is what thermal pressure alone supports: an 8-kilometre-a-second sound speed against the vertical gravity of the stellar disc gives a scale height of 47 parsecs. The broad curve adds the three pressures that are not heat — turbulent motion, the magnetic field and the cosmic rays — which together roughly triple the total and, because the scale height goes as the square of the effective dispersion, thicken the layer by a factor of 3.1 to 145 parsecs. The observed half-thickness of the H I layer is about 150. The narrow curve is a real prediction and it is wrong, and what is missing from it is precisely the two terms that emit nothing: a field measured by Zeeman splitting and Faraday rotation, and a particle population measured by what it does to a detector on a mountain. A galaxy's gas disc is inflated by things that cannot be photographed, and the thickness is how the inflation is measured.

A disc held open by what cannot be photographed

Solve hydrostatic equilibrium for the galaxy's gas layer using its temperature and the disc's gravity, and the answer is a layer several times thinner than the one that is there. What is missing from the calculation is turbulence, a magnetic field and a population of cosmic rays — three pressures of comparable size, two of which emit nothing.

10 figures · Interstellar medium

Exoplanets

Planets nobody has seen, weighed and measured from a dip, a wobble and a delay.

The shield that does not shield. Above: measured ion escape rates for three planets against their surface magnetic field. Venus and Mars have no dynamo at all and Earth has one, and the three rates lie within a factor of 9 — with the magnetised planet losing the most. The intuition that a magnetosphere protects an atmosphere is not a small correction away from being right; the measurement does not support it. Below: why. A dipole's field lines are not all closed. Those emerging within a polar cap reconnect with the wind's own field and lead straight to space, and the cap's area is set by how far the magnetosphere reaches — a boundary at ten planetary radii still leaves 5.1 per cent of the surface open. So a magnetosphere is both a shield and a funnel: it deflects the wind from most of the planet and collects ions from the whole ionosphere into the polar wind, which is exactly what an instrument above the poles measures leaving. Whether the net is protection depends on quantities nobody can compute from the field strength alone, and the three points above are the state of the evidence.

The shield that is also a funnel

A magnetic field is supposed to protect an atmosphere from the stellar wind. Venus and Mars have no dynamo and Earth has one, and their measured ion escape rates lie within a factor of a few — with the magnetised planet losing the most, because a dipole's polar field lines are open and lead straight to space.

10 figures · Atmospheric escape

Orbits

Kepler's three laws, and the family of curves a single force allows.

A resonance with the planet's rotation, and it sorts by size. Above: the radii at which a charged grain's orbital frequency is commensurate with the planet's spin, in planetary radii, with the measured edges of Jupiter's halo ring drawn over them. The synchronous radius is 2.24; the 3:2 resonance falls at 1.71 and the 2:1 at 1.41. The halo's outer boundary is at 1.71 and its inner extent near 1.4 — the ring ends where the resonances are, and both numbers were measured by a spacecraft camera with no reference to this arithmetic. Below: which grains care. The charge on a grain is proportional to its radius and the mass to the cube, so the force per unit mass goes exactly as the inverse square of the size, and the resonance grips sub-micron dust while leaving anything larger on a Keplerian orbit. That is why the halo is a cloud of fine dust puffed a thousand kilometres out of the ring plane while the coarse material stays flat: the same field acting on the same orbit sorts the material by size, which no gravitational resonance can do.

A resonance with the planet itself

Every other resonance in celestial mechanics is a commensurability between two orbits. A charged dust grain has a third clock available — the planet's rotation, which sweeps its magnetic field past the grain — and the commensurability with that selects by charge-to-mass ratio, which means by grain size.

10 figures · Planetary rings

Galaxies

Where the unknown stops being a number and becomes a profile — and most of it is not light.

Two geometries, one bit of data, and the bit decides. Rotation measure against galactic longitude for two field geometries that look identical in every image ever taken. An axisymmetric field runs the same way round the disc at every azimuth, so the component along the line of sight changes sign exactly 2 times as the longitude goes round — once where the field turns toward the observer and once where it turns away. A bisymmetric field reverses its own direction from one side of the galaxy to the other, and that doubles the count to 4. Nothing about the brightness, the arms or the colour distinguishes the two; the sign of a rotation measure does, and a sign is one bit. The measurement is made against several hundred background sources, each contributing one rotation measure through the whole disc — the sources are not the object of study, they are the illumination. The Milky Way's own answer is untidy: broadly axisymmetric with at least one reversal inside the solar circle, which is neither clean case, and is why the field's origin is still argued about.

Two geometries and one bit to choose between them

A galaxy's large-scale magnetic field either runs the same way round the disc everywhere or reverses from one side to the other. No image distinguishes the two. The sign of a rotation measure does — two reversals around the sky for one geometry and four for the other — and a sign is one bit of information.

10 figures · Galactic structure

Stars

The diagram that sorted them, and the one quantity that decides a star's whole life.

One dimensionless number decides whether a cloud may collapse. Field strength against hydrogen column density, with three loci of constant mass-to-flux ratio. The ratio of mass to magnetic flux is conserved under flux freezing, so it cannot be changed by anything that happens during a collapse — which is what makes it a criterion rather than a description. Its critical value is the pure constant 1/(2π√G), and dividing by that gives the dimensionless λ drawn here: below λ = 1 the field can hold the cloud up for ever, however cold it gets, because gravity and the magnetic force scale the same way with radius; above it no field strength suffices. Each locus is a straight line of slope exactly one, because at fixed λ the required field is exactly proportional to the column. Zeeman measurements of dense cores put them a little above the line and their envelopes a little below it, which is the arrangement a slow leak of flux out of the centre would produce and is the observational case for ambipolar diffusion.

A threshold with no free parameter in it

Divide a cloud's mass by the magnetic flux threading it. Gravity and the magnetic force both fall as the inverse square of the radius, so the ratio cannot change during a collapse — and the critical value that separates a cloud which must collapse from one that never can is one over two pi root G, a pure constant.

10 figures · Star formation

Orbits

Kepler's three laws, and the family of curves a single force allows.

The two halves of what is left over. The disturbing potential of a perturber on a test particle, against the difference in longitude between them, at a semi-major axis ratio of 0.62. The upper curve is the direct term — the perturber's own attraction, which peaks at conjunction where the separation is smallest and falls to 1/(1+α) half a turn later. The lower one is the indirect term, which exists only because the coordinates are centred on a primary that is itself being accelerated, and which is a pure cosine of the longitude difference. The indirect term is the larger of the two over 3 per cent of the circle, and it averages to exactly zero while the direct term averages to something positive. Everything that happens slowly in a planetary system comes from that asymmetry: the part that survives averaging is not the part that dominates the instantaneous force.

The series that is subtracted

The two-body problem is solved, so nobody solves it twice. Every planetary theory since Newton begins by taking that solution away and asking what is left — and what is left is an infinite series whose terms are stacked in a hierarchy that makes the first half-dozen of them enough.

8 figures · Perturbations The best-fitting eccentricity of a circular orbit. What a fitted eccentricity comes out at when the orbit's true eccentricity is 0 and each component of the eccentricity vector carries an error of 0.03. The distribution is not centred on the truth and cannot be: an eccentricity is the length of the vector (e cos ϖ, e sin ϖ), lengths are not negative, and a quantity bounded below by zero whose components scatter symmetrically has a distribution pushed away from the bound. For a circular orbit the most likely fitted value is exactly one error bar, 0.0300 here, and the mean is 0.0376 — 1.2533 error bars, which is √(π/2) and comes from geometry rather than from any property of the data. The practical consequence is a catalogue of small eccentricities that are all measurements of their own error bars, and the fix is not a better fit but a different question: an upper limit rather than a value.

An eccentricity that cannot be zero

Fit an orbit to noisy data and the eccentricity that comes back is never zero, not even when the orbit is a perfect circle. The reason has nothing to do with the data and everything to do with the fact that a length cannot be negative.

8 figures · Orbit determination Three passes, and the fourth is below the noise. How far the position is still wrong after each pass of the light-time iteration, for five targets, on a logarithmic scale of kilometres. The first pass uses the body's position now and is wrong by exactly the distance the body travels while its light is in transit — 6254 kilometres for Mars near opposition, which is about twenty-five arcseconds and larger than any residual in an ephemeris fit. Each further pass multiplies the error by the body's speed divided by the speed of light, so the lines are straight and their slopes are that ratio and nothing else. Three passes take every one of these below a metre, which is why the loop in an ephemeris code has a fixed trip count rather than a convergence test. The same argument run backwards is why the correction cannot be applied to the observation instead: the direction light arrived from is what the observation is, and the position it corresponds to is not known until the body's orbit is.

Where a planet is and where it is seen

An ephemeris is fitted to observations, and no observation is of a position. It is of a direction light arrived from, at a time that is not the time the light left, bent by a Sun that is nowhere near the line of sight. Three corrections stand between the two, and all three are larger than the residuals.

8 figures · Ephemerides A branch that adds nothing above 1 km and everything below it. Cumulative crater counts on a 3.5-billion-year-old surface, with the population split into the craters made by objects arriving from outside and the craters made by blocks thrown out of larger ones on the same surface. The two are indistinguishable in a photograph and completely different as a statistic. Secondaries stop at about 1 kilometre, because that is the largest crater a block leaving at a few hundred metres a second can excavate, so the upper half of the plot is unaffected. Below it they are steeper — slope -3.2 against the primaries' -2 — and by the smallest diameter drawn they outnumber the primaries 292 to one. A count taken at 100 metres and read through the primary production curve returns an age of 4.34 billion years for ground that is 3.5, and it returns it with a small formal error, because the counting statistics are excellent. The error is not in the counting.

The craters that were not primary

Counting craters dates a surface, and the method works because impacts from space arrive at a known rate. Some of the holes were not made from space. They were made by rock thrown out of the larger holes on the same surface, and they are far more numerous than anything that arrived.

8 figures · Surface chronology Four known pieces of hardware, and the anomaly is the sum of them. The reported anomalous acceleration of a deep-space probe, in units of 10⁻¹⁰ metres per second squared, built up from the heat the spacecraft was known to be radiating. The generators put out about two and a half kilowatts of waste heat and sit on booms beside a large dish that reflects a share of it backwards, which is 62 per cent of the total on its own; the instrument compartment radiates through louvres on one face; the radio transmitter beams eight watts at the Earth, which is a torch pointing the wrong way. Sunlight is negligible this far out and is drawn to show that it is. The four sum to 8.65 against a measured 8.74 ± 1.33, and the agreement is the answer. What makes the episode worth keeping is that none of these numbers was discovered later: every one was in the spacecraft's own thermal documentation from before launch, and the model that produced the anomaly was a model of a point mass.

An acceleration that was the spacecraft's own heat

Two probes leaving the solar system were tracked for thirty years and both drifted from their predicted paths by a tenth of a nanometre per second squared. The residual was real, it was constant, and it was the same on both. It was also the waste heat of the reactors that powered them, radiating slightly more one way than the other.

7 figures · Non-gravitational forces Below 0.46 microns a grain is not in orbit at all. The ratio of the radiation force to the gravitational force on a dust grain, against the grain's radius, for three densities. Every line has slope exactly −1 because gravity acts on the mass and radiation on the cross-section, and the ratio of a volume to an area is a length. Two horizontal lines matter and they are different statements. At β = 1 the star does not attract the grain at all. At β = 1/2 a grain released at rest from a circular orbit is already unbound, because it keeps the speed appropriate to the full stellar mass while feeling only half of it — and since dust is made by breaking up larger bodies that were on circular orbits, the lower line is the one that applies. For rock at 2500 kilograms a cubic metre that is 0.46 microns; for ice it is 1.15, and for iron 0.15. A collisional cascade that grinds material finer runs into this floor and stops, and the material that would have been finer leaves the system on a hyperbola.

The drag that sorts a disc by size

Starlight does three different things to a dust grain depending on how big it is — blows it out of the system, drags it inward over millennia, or ignores it entirely. Which one happens is decided by a single length, and whether it happens at all is decided by how crowded the disc is.

8 figures · Collisional cascade

Gravitation

Two bodies pulling on each other, and everything that goes wrong at three.

A moment of inertia that is a shape plus an assumption. The Darwin–Radau relation: the polar moment of inertia a body would have, given the ratio of its rotation parameter to its flattening, if it were a hydrostatic fluid. The curve passes through exactly 0.4 at q/f = 0.8, which is the uniform sphere and the one point that needs no interior model, and falls as the body becomes more centrally condensed. Four of the five worlds drawn sit on it within a few per cent of their independently measured moments, which is what makes the relation usable at all. The world that does not appear on the plot is the Moon, whose q/f is 0.025 — far outside the window in which the relation has a real solution, because its shape is a fossil frozen in when it was much closer to its primary and has nothing to do with its present rotation. That failure is the useful one. A relation that returns a wrong answer quietly is dangerous; this one returns no answer at all.

The part of a shape the spin cannot explain

A rotating planet bulges by a predictable amount. Subtract that amount from the shape actually observed and something is usually left over — a few parts in a hundred thousand for the Earth, and ninety-seven per cent of the whole bulge for the Moon. The residue is not an error. It is the only remote measurement of what a planet's interior is doing that does not average over the whole body.

7 figures · Moment of inertia One amplitude, and every point on this curve fits it. The set of distances and inclinations that produce the same measured amplitude in one detector. A binary seen face-on radiates most strongly along its spin axis, so it can be twice as far away as an edge-on binary and still arrive with the same strain — the curve is (1 + cos²ι)/2 and the factor between its ends is exactly two. Nothing in a single detector's data distinguishes the two ends. What makes this worse rather than merely awkward is that the prior pulls the other way: an isotropically oriented population has half its members beyond 60 degrees, so most binaries really are closer to edge-on, and a posterior that combines a flat likelihood along this curve with that prior returns a distance biased low with an error bar that understates the range. The whole business of standard-siren cosmology is the business of cutting across this curve.

A distance tangled with an angle

A gravitational wave carries its own distance, with no ladder underneath it and nothing to calibrate. What it also carries, inseparably, is the orientation of the orbit that made it — and one detector cannot tell a nearby binary seen edge-on from one twice as far away seen face-on.

7 figures · Gravitational waves Four defensible choices, and a factor of 2.9 between them. The Coulomb logarithm against the ratio of the two impact parameters it is cut off at. The curve is a logarithm, so it is flat — a factor of ten in the ratio buys 2.3 — and that is usually offered as the reason not to worry. The four marked conventions are all in current use and all defensible, and they give ln Λ from 3.4 to 9.9. Since the drag force is proportional to ln Λ and not to its logarithm, that is a factor of 2.9 in every sinking time computed from it. The flatness protects the answer from a wrong guess about the ratio; it does not protect it from there being no correct guess, which is the actual situation.

A drag computed with a logarithm nobody can pin down

Chandrasekhar's drag formula is exact, derived from first principles, and contains a logarithm of a ratio of two lengths that the derivation does not supply. Every sinking time in astronomy is proportional to that logarithm, and the four conventions in current use differ by a factor of three.

7 figures · Dynamical friction A step size below which a smaller step is worse. The error left in a long integration against the step size, for methods of three different orders, with both contributions drawn. The falling lines are truncation error, whose slope on these axes is exactly the order of the method. The rising line is round-off, identical for all three because it is a property of the arithmetic and not of the algorithm: every operation loses a few bits, the losses are independent, and they accumulate as the square root of the number of steps — which is why its slope is −1/2 and why it rises as the step shrinks. Each method's total has a minimum, at a step of 1.0e-6, 5.0e-6, 9.7e-4 for orders 1, 2, 4. Below that minimum every halving of the step costs time and makes the answer worse. That is the practical reason a solar-system integration is not run at an arbitrarily fine step, and it is a reason with nothing to do with computer time.

An error that grows like a random walk

A long integration accumulates two errors with opposite habits. One falls when the step is made smaller and grows in proportion to the time; the other grows when the step is made smaller and accumulates as a square root. Which of the two dominates decides whether a billion-year integration means anything.

8 figures · Numerical integration One measurement, one line, and every point on it is an interior. The Love number against the quality factor, both logarithmic. An orbital measurement — a moon observed to be receding, a spin observed to be slowing — determines only the ratio of the two, so it picks out a diagonal band rather than a point, and every interior along that band reproduces the observation exactly. A body that deforms twice as easily and dissipates half as efficiently is indistinguishable from one that does the opposite. What breaks it is a measurement of the deformation on its own: a spacecraft tracking the body's gravity field through a tidal cycle measures k₂ directly, which is a vertical line here, and the intersection gives Q = 5.36·10⁴. The uncertainty on that answer is the two fractional errors added in quadrature, 20 per cent, and it is dominated by whichever of the two was worse — which for every body in the solar system is the orbital rate rather than the Love number.

A heat flow that depends on a number nobody can compute

Every tidal rate in astronomy — a moon receding, a spin slowing, an orbit circularising, a satellite melting — is proportional to one combination of two quantities that no orbital measurement can separate. One of them describes how much a body deforms and the other how badly it leaks, and only a spacecraft can tell them apart.

8 figures · Tidal heating

The observed sky

Coordinates, seasons, phases and shadows — geometry seen from inside it.

A star drawn out into 3.0 arcseconds of spectrum. Atmospheric refraction relative to its value at 550 nanometres, against wavelength, at four zenith angles. The air's refractive index rises towards the blue, so the blue image of a star sits above the red one and the object is smeared into a short vertical spectrum. At 60 degrees from the zenith the separation across an optical band is 2.96 arcseconds — several times the size of the image at a good site, and comparable to the width of a spectrograph slit. Every curve here is the same curve multiplied by the tangent of the zenith angle, which is why one corrector with an adjustable strength works at every airmass. The practical consequences are three: a slit aligned other than vertically loses blue light or red light depending on where it was centred, a photometric aperture contains a different fraction of the light in each band, and an astrometric position depends on the colour of the star it is measured from.

The atmosphere is a prism as well as a lens

Refraction lifts a star towards the zenith, and everybody corrects for that. It lifts blue light further than red, and the difference is a short vertical spectrum a few arcseconds long — larger than the image, larger than a spectrograph's slit, and quietly present in every ground-based measurement not taken straight overhead.

7 figures · Refraction TCB has gained 23.5 seconds on TT since 1977. How far four of the solar system's time scales have drifted apart, against years since they were set equal. TT is the time a clock on the Earth's geoid keeps, and it is flat here by definition. TCG is the time a clock at rest just outside the Earth's gravitational well would keep, and it runs faster by seven parts in ten thousand million — 0.0220 seconds a year. TCB is the time a clock at rest outside the Sun's well would keep, and it runs faster by fifteen parts in a thousand million, or 0.4893 seconds a year. TDB is TCB with that rate divided out so that it stays within milliseconds of TT, which is what makes it usable as an ephemeris argument and what makes it a coordinate rather than a proper time. The differences are constants and they are not corrections: an ephemeris tabulated against one of these and evaluated against another is wrong by the whole of this plot.

A second that depends on where the clock is

A clock in orbit runs fast, a clock at the bottom of a gravity well runs slow, and a clock at rest far from the Sun runs faster than anything on Earth by fifteen parts in a thousand million. Astronomy therefore has four different seconds, two of them longer than the others, and an ephemeris has to declare which one it is tabulated against.

7 figures · Timescales A frame whose precision stops improving because its sources move. The uncertainty in the orientation of a celestial reference frame, in microarcseconds, against the number of extragalactic sources it is built from. The falling line is what averaging alone would give: each source's position is measured to about 200 microarcseconds and combining N of them improves the frame as one over the square root of N. The upper curve adds the part that does not average down in the same way — the wander of a quasar's radio centroid as new components are ejected along its jet, which is a real motion of the thing being used as a fixed point. Three catalogue generations are marked. The frame gained an order of magnitude in a quarter of a century, and it gained it by observing more sources rather than by observing any of them better, which is the signature of a limit that is in the objects rather than in the instrument.

A frame made of things that are not points

Every position in astronomy is measured against a set of objects declared to be fixed. The objects chosen are quasars, because they are the most distant things there are — and each of them is a jet whose radio brightness centre wanders by tens of microarcseconds as new material is ejected from the core.

7 figures · Celestial sphere

Every sequence · Every named object · Search