Take the 2-minute tour ×
Astronomy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for astronomers and astrophysicists. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Most stars which are visible to the naked eye are within 1,000 light years. The Sun is inside the Orion arm which has a diameter of about 3,500 light years. Thus, all stars (with very few exceptions) we can see unaided are inside the Orion arm and should be equally distributed in all directions. The structure of the galaxy is too large to affect the distribution of visible stars.

Still, we do see the Milky Way disk. What is it we see? The dim light of stars we can't make out individually? Or star light reflected by gas clouds? And is the density of stars to the unaided eye really not higher in the plane of the Milky Way? (Since I'm living in a light polluted city I can't easily check it out myself)

share|improve this question
    
Please provide references for your claims. I think first we need to address some misunderstandings –  Jeremy Aug 1 at 20:51
    
Here are some claims about the Sun's place in the Milky Way atlasoftheuniverse.com/5000lys.html –  LocalFluff Aug 2 at 6:54
    
I couldn't see anything there claiming there is 1000ly of visible stars in all directions of our position. Actually, while the Orion Arm is 3500ly across, the galaxy is only about 1000ly thick, and probably less where we are, so your initial assumption is incorrect. –  Jeremy Aug 2 at 20:29
    
@Jeremy, I assumed the Orion arm was cylindrical with 3,500 ly diameter. If we are near the outer edge of the galaxy (top or bottom), then there are much fewer near and hence visible stars in one direction, the one outwards from the Milky Way, right? Is it the northern or southern side of the galactic disk we are at? –  LocalFluff Aug 3 at 3:56
1  
Thanks, @LocalFluff. As the solar system orbits the center of the galaxy, it oscillates up and down in the galactic plane (Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way) says this happens 2.7 times during each galactic year, but I don't know the amplitude of the oscillations, or our current position within the oscillations. –  HDE 226868 Aug 5 at 19:06

2 Answers 2

Firstly, the galaxy is only about 1000ly thick. We are fairly close to the galactic plane, maybe around 65 ly 'above' it if we call the direction we are moving away from 'down'. So on your assumption that visible objects are all within about 1000ly, we can suppose that we should see more stars in the plane than above and below the plane, as there is only about 500ly of stars in the galaxy above and below.

We are perhaps 25kly from the galactic centre. Therefore there are about 25kly of stars outwards, and 75kly of stars inwards. If we could see all of them with the naked eye, we would see more stars to one side than the other. While many of the stars that we see are within 1000ly, that doesn't mean that the stars within this region of visibility are evenly distributed. Stars are packed closer together nearer the centre, which implies that we will see more towards one side than the other.

I don't know where you get the idea you seek confirmation for that the density of stars is not higher in the galactic plane, because it isn't true. Density is greater toward the centre of the galaxy; and orthogonal to the galactic plane, density decreases as you move away from it.

Plus, we see far more than merely dots of light from other stars. We see other objects that are aggregations of stars - clusters, and galaxies like Andromeda, the LMC and the SMC. We see nebulae, clouds of gas and dust. In fact, dust even obscures what we might otherwise see toward the galactic centre.

So when you ask 'what is it we see?' the answer is: lots of things. Because there is more of that 'stuff' in the plane of the galaxy, we see the majority of that stuff as a ring around us. Because there is more of that stuff towards the centre of the galaxy, we see that the ring is brighter, fuller, more complex, and dominant on one side.

share|improve this answer
    
I guess, you meant $25 kly = 8 kpc$. –  Py-ser Aug 6 at 3:42
    
Eeeek yup - I'll update, and perhaps to can remove comment. –  Jeremy Aug 6 at 11:04
    
Almost all stars visible to the naked eyes are within 1000 light years. Most of them in turn within a fraction of that distance. Is that disputed? Any density differences on the sky is a function of the internal shape of the Orion arm and our location inside it. I doubt that the Orion arm is denser towards the galactic center. The structure of the Milky Way hardly affects the density of visible stars which are all located between 24 and 26 kly from the center. "Local" effects certainly dominate. And some other claims online say that the Orion arm has a diameter of 3500 ly, not 1000. –  LocalFluff Aug 6 at 12:47
    
It is 3500ly across, not in diameter. Furthermore, I don't get you. Are you seriously disputing the reality of easily made observations, are you seriously claiming that stars should all appear evenly distributed across the sky, because in your mind you've decided that it ought to be this way, based on a couple of things you have read and misunderstood? –  Jeremy Aug 7 at 1:28

This is known as Olbers' paradox. An (in my opinion) better explanation can be found here.

Note that these links answer the question why the universe (not the milky way alone) isn't blazing our night sky. Now if the universe (including the milky way) can't do it, the milky way can't do it on its own...

There are just not enough stars giving enough light. Brightness is reduced quadratically by distance. That counts up very quickly with astronomical distances. Even for stars that are our neighbors.

share|improve this answer
    
My impression is that Olbers' paradox is about diffuse light from far far away. Like that which reaches us from the Milky way. Which it indeed does and it glows. But beyond the ability of human unaided eyes to resolve individual stars. My question is about such stars of about 6 magnitude or more visible. Are naked eye visible stars more plentiful towards to Milky Way, or not? I presume, based on their distance and the structure of the MW, that they should not. But I'm open to be wrong about this. That's why I ask. –  LocalFluff Aug 5 at 18:08
    
Olber's Paradox is usually used in regard to the infinite universe model. I suppose, though, that this is a related question. I don't know if it's a paradox, though. –  HDE 226868 Aug 5 at 19:08
    
Hi @agtoever and welcome to the site! As a site we would benefit more if you could summarise, in your own words, what external sites have to say on the topic, the problem with linking outwards and not explaining further in the answer is that if the external page changes, or dissipears then the answer is no longer useful! Hope you understand, Rhys –  RhysW Aug 5 at 20:55

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.