5
$\begingroup$

The number density of stars (e.g. the number of stars per cubic parsec) is given by $$N(z) = N(0) e^{-|z|/h}$$ where $z$ is the height above the Galactic plane, $h$ is the scale height for a specific component of the Galaxy, and $N(z)$ is the number density at different heights above the plane.

The scale heights for the thin disk and thick disks are:

  • Halo stars: $h=3\textrm{kpc}$
  • Thick disk: $h=1.5\textrm{kpc}$
  • Thin disk stars: $h=300\textrm{pc}$
  • Thin disk gas: $h=100\textrm{pc}$

Unfortunately I cannot find the values for the number density at the galactic plane: $N(0)$

Do you have any references in which I can find these numbers?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Where did you get this formula, and didn't it provide a value for N(0)? Possibly helpful URLs: ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Bothun2/Bothun4_2_2.html astro.virginia.edu/class/whittle/astr553/Topic05/Lecture_5.html $\endgroup$ – user21 Nov 8 '14 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ @barrycarter I got it from a course on the Milky Way I did a few years back, it's not available online. Thanks for the link, I should have realised that the values for $N(z)$ depend on the radial distance from the Milky Way's core as your reference mentions. $\endgroup$ – Dieudonné Nov 9 '14 at 9:33
  • $\begingroup$ I meant $N(0)$ of course. $\endgroup$ – Dieudonné Nov 9 '14 at 10:50
  • $\begingroup$ The stellar halo is definitely not appropriately described by a vertically exponential, but by a (galactocentric) radial power-law. Also, for most disc populations, $\mathrm{sech}^2(z/h)$ gives a better description than the exponential, but these are details. $\endgroup$ – Walter Nov 9 '14 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ @barrycarter the UVA link is dead; try the Wayback Machine $\endgroup$ – David Moles Jan 31 '19 at 3:48
2
$\begingroup$

The number density of stars is not well constrained, because it hinges critically on the behaviour of the stellar mass function at low stellar masses. Low-mass stars tend to be dim and hard to detect. What is reasonably well constrained, instead is the mass density of stars, where low-mass objects contribute little, even if their number is large.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I can't argue with the content of this, but it's not helpful for the question. The value of $N_0$ is of course defined for a particular mass range (as is the scale height). $\endgroup$ – ProfRob Dec 13 '14 at 9:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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