644
645

Why do we see the milky way as having a black strip running through it? (self.askscience)

submitted ago* by NiniMihaila

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I saw this image on r/pics and couldn't help but wonder: why does the milky way appear to have a black stripe across it?

I mean, shouldn't we see the center as a glowing ball? Is there something in front of it (a gass cloud, something else) or does it have a peculiar shape that is not easy to spot at first?

edit: This is how i see it now: the galaxy shaped like a sombrero, with the center being the bright ball in the middle, and the outlined blue part is the "black strip"

edit2: thank you all for all the replies! I appreciate all your insightful answers and discussions; for anyone looking for a tl;dr, here it is:

TL;DR

For more beautiful pictures and a little background info on the photo, check the original thread

Last but not least, thanks again for the info, and for those of you who I left out - I'm sorry. I can only recommend to anyone who wants more info to read all the coments in this thread. I love this community!

Edit3: There are so many answers and discussions, I couldn't possibly fit all of them in the TL;DR, but I'll do my best. Details on some of the things in the list can be found in the comments of the respective thread

top 200 commentsshow all 228
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]CountNoAccount 326 points327 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Milky Way's spiral arms are filled with dust. Our solar system is in a spiral arm. As we look toward the center of the galaxy, our view is obscured by this dust.

[–]dashdanw 49 points50 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

its true, if you look at other "side on" galaxies you see a similar effect since your looking at them at the same orientation with which you look at our galaxy.

side on lenticular galaxy my favorite: the sombrero galaxy

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Those are actual pictures.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Are they edited? Many photos of space are in different spectrum's, and are edited for our viewing.

[–]navjam 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The pictures are actually black and white and color is added. link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thank you. That's even more interesting.

[–]albatrossnecklassftw 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The explanation in the link seems to suggest it is just a normal color RGB image... "A typical Hubble image is made from a combination of black-and-white images representing different colors of light" This is just the standard for RGB digital images. The "black and white" images are in fact just intensity maps representing the red, green, and blue color spectrum. If they are viewed on their own they will indeed appear to be black and white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB#History_of_RGB_color_model_theory_and_usage

[–]MoJoe1 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As I understand it, it's all done in black and white since the CCD camera only detects light/no-light. So, what they do is take 3 (or more pictures), one through a red filter, one through a green filter, one through a blue filter, then determine the color based on which pixels were on for which filters. IR/UV are also other filters that are commonly applied. Microwave emissions are not something the CCD can pick up so you need a seperate receiver for that and often times you do not see those results merged into optical photos.

Think that's right, I heard a guy who worked on the wide-field planetary camera on the hubble talk about it.

[–]kenlubin 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is essentially what Prokudin-Gorskii did to take color pictures in his survey of Russia in the early 1900s. At the time, the photos could only be viewed in color by holding three negatives up to a light, but now we've been able to merge them. The Library of Congress has a big collection of his photos online here.

[–]SincerelyMeToo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, and this is what the hubble site goes into in some detail.

[–]albatrossnecklassftw -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well yeah, that's essentially all a normal RGB digital camera does, only instead of using red filters, green filters, and blue filters the CCD in modern cameras are able to detect directly the red light, blue light, and the green light and saves them as 3 separate intensity maps which is interpreted as a mesh of the three intensity maps. The only difference is with the Hubble the images are colorized via means that are analogue whereas modern cameras colorize the images digitally.

[–]IkkathMathematical Biology|Machine Learning|Pattern Recognition 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not quite. Colour imaging sensors have what is called a Bayer matrix - which essentially is a grid or red, green and blue filters. So each sensor element only sees one colour intensity. Interpolation is then used to generate the full resolution, full colour image.

When you see an image that is captured by explicitly using RGB filters there is just a mono imaging sensor - so no interpolation, and each colour channel can then be the true resolution of the sensor.

The analogue bit made no sense whatsoever. Each imaging sensor quantises the intensity of light falling onto it into a digital representation. That isn't a feature of Hubble...

[–]MoJoe1 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Source? I was not aware of a CCD chip that can directly measure the wavelength of the photon hitting a pixel, just that a photon has hit it.

[–]SincerelyMeToo 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

not really. The sensor is a bnw sensor, and they use several different filters. The galaxy pics ( like sombrero) we see from hubble are almost always natural colors.

[–]grossestgroceries 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is there a way to tell whether they're actual photos or not? I always wonder this when looking at pictures like these.

load more comments (3 replies)

    [–]SincerelyMeToo 4 points5 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    there are -lots- more surprisingly high detail pics like this at the astronomy picture of the day (just search for apod)

    [–]Hara-Kiri 4 points5 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    It's crazy how far away they can view while still being high detail. I have a book that has photos that go through the solar system, further and further out until it reaches a wall of gamma radiation where it can see no further (a ridiculous amount of light years away) and it's incredible how many of the images at such a distance are that clear.

    [–]DukeSpraynard 1 point2 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Send me that book. For science.

    [–]evanz 1 point2 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    The really interesting thing is the images appear so detailed because other galaxies are so large, the Andromeda galaxy appears in the night sky at a size comparable to the apparent size of the moon. So, we can image galaxies many many lightyears away easier than we can image say, Pluto.

    [–]wotuwant 1 point2 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    They're from the Hubble Space Telescope

    [–]dashdanw 1 point2 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    those are hubble photographs,

    [–]PhilibusterAndo 0 points1 point ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Google Earth also has a star viewing feature, which is nice because it shows you relative sizes and maps it all out there (laced with high-res images from Hubble).

    [–]OpRaider 3 points4 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Why are galaxies flat? Why don't things orbit in a 3d space?

    [–]MoJoe1 7 points8 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    They are 3-d, but the width far far far outweighs the thickness. That's why we can still see galaxies that are edge-on to us.

    Better answer: think of swinging a rope around your head. Why doesn't it hit you in the balls while you've got it going like a helicopter? Same idea.

    [–]toosas 0 points1 point ago*

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    It's to do with conservation of angular momentum. Stuff in the initial gas cloud is not static, no matter how fast or slow clumps of gas/matter move past each other, due to mass/gravity they slowly start to rotate around one another. And so it happens that the shape with the least required energy to maintain its state is a disk. Without CoAM galaxies would end up as spheres. I'm sorry if my wording is funny, english isn't my first language

    [–]albatrossnecklassftw 0 points1 point ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Centripetal force tends to pull objects into the center of the axis of the object it is orbiting if I remember correctly

    [–]kenlubin 2 points3 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Gravity pulls things in, centripetal force pushes things out. Since there is no centripetal force pushing things out along the axis, the top and bottom of a sphere of gas will be pulled toward the middle. Orthogonal to the axis of rotation, however, the centripetal force is greatest and material is pushed out in a circle.

    As a result, things tend to become disks.

    [–]albatrossnecklassftw 5 points6 points ago*

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    You're thinking of Centrifugal force (which is an apparent force and not an actual force) Centripetal force actually draws objects towards the center of rotation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

    To distinguish the two forces: when you turn your car around a corner the car is pulled into the center of the corner's curve, this is Centripetal force, however you the passenger are thrown away from the center of the curve because you were initially moving in that direction and yet the car changed directions, your body wants to continue to head away from the center of the curve because your actual direction is not changed until you again resynchronize with the car (by again going in a relatively straight line)

    A better analogy would be a centrifuge. The tube that is spinning is pulled into the center of rotation, however the free-floating liquid inside the tube is thrown out away from the center of rotation. The force on the tube is Centripetal and is measurable, the apparent force on the liquid is Centrifugal and is not measurable and is only dependent on the law of inertia.

    -Edited for spelling-

    P.S. upon rereading, you have the right concept, just backwards a bit.

    [–]kenlubin 0 points1 point ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Thank you. I was aware that I was being a bit awkward with the terminology, but I didn't notice that I had the term backwards!

    [–]albatrossnecklassftw -1 points0 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    No problem, pretty easy to get the two terms mixed up. It's kinda like stalagmites and stalactites... I still don't know which one is which

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    At the risk of substantially lowering the tone, an old relative of mine told me that 'mites go up, 'tites come down...haven't forgotten which is which since haha. On a more topical note, thank you for your post, well explained!

    [–]albatrossnecklassftw -1 points0 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Just thought of something (granted your old relative is correct) mighty thor is on the floor :D

    Sorry, couldn't keep it in.

    [–]DukeSpraynard 0 points1 point ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Stalactites are on top. They have to hold "tight" to keep from falling. -tite tight

    Stalagmites are on the bottom. If they keep growing, they "might" rear the ceiling. -mite might

    [–]i_poop_mcdonalds 0 points1 point ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    but if that makes sense...centripetal force would cause the galaxies to be skewed out and distorted no?

    [–]albatrossnecklassftw 0 points1 point ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Well they do to some degree but not very much. At first things are chaotic and don't really rotate uniformly aligned with the rotational axis, however as Centripetal force draws more and more objects towards the center of the rotational axis, more gravity is accumulated in the disk. This gravity helps to draw in more and more objects to this central disc aiding in the formation of the relatively flat disc formation.

    (Minus the gravity part) this concept can be demonstrated inversely with a spherical ball filled with water and glitter. When spun you can observe the glitter forming perfectly perpendicular to the rotational axis. This is due to Centrifugal force however but the concept works exactly the same as Centripetal force, only the force is actually directed towards the center of the rotation instead of apparently away from the center.

    [–]Maveric1984 0 points1 point ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Those pictures are beautiful. Telescope purchase forthcoming...

    [–]Thelurkerisnomore 0 points1 point ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Sorry for replying i just want the OP to see this info.Ok the giant ball in the middle of our galaxy is a supermassive blackhole.

    [–]felpz123 111 points112 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Just imagine how sexy it would be to be able to see the center of our galaxy without all that garbage.

    [–]AstrokiwiNumerical Simulations|Galaxies|Molecular Cloud Formation 122 points123 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    JWST will do exactly that. Unfortunately, it probably won't actually be that pretty - most of the cool pictures of galaxies are cool because of all the gas and dust lanes have interesting structure. If you can look through the gas and dust to only see the stars, you'll generally just see a smooth distribution of starlight...

    [–]mendelratStellar Astrophysics|Spectroscopy|Cataclysmic Variables 49 points50 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Unfortunately, it probably won't actually be that pretty - most of the cool pictures of galaxies are cool because of all the gas and dust lanes have interesting structure. If you can look through the gas and dust to only see the stars, you'll generally just see a smooth distribution of starlight...

    No. JWST won't see through all dust, it's bands are quite comparable to what Spitzer has already done. JWST's MIRI operates from wavelength wavelengths of 5-28 microns, compared to Spitzer's 3.8 to 24 microns (IRAC + MIPS). Herschel is quite further out there in the sub-mm, and still sees plenty of structure (it's still too early for a Milky Way mosaic from them).

    See the GLIMPSE and MIPSGAL composites from Spitzer, for example. Most decidedly not just a boring distribution of, well, anything, and structure abounds at all wavelengths.

    [–]AstrokiwiNumerical Simulations|Galaxies|Molecular Cloud Formation 21 points22 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    hmm, I had been given the impression that JWST was much more near-infrared than Spitzer. Seeing as it isn't, it might even make the dust much easier to see, because instead of the black crap, we'd actually see the reprocessed infrared radiation. Sweet.

    [–]nickwilmes 2 points3 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Is 4 microns going to make that much of a difference that it is worth building a whole new telescope?

    [–]mendelratStellar Astrophysics|Spectroscopy|Cataclysmic Variables 16 points17 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    It's not the wavelength coverage, it's the size of the mirror and the available instrumentation on the spacecraft.

    Diameter of the primary mirror:

    Spitzer: 0.85 m

    JWST: ~6.5 m

    That gives roughly a factor of 7.5 improvement in terms of resolution, and a whole lot more light collecting power overall to push towards observations of fainter targets.

    Additionally, JWST will have much much much much better spectroscopic capabilities for the near infrared (1-5 microns), something that has been sorely lacking in space for a long time now.

    [–]Huwami 0 points1 point ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Does infrastructure like this include things like Hydrogen filters and such?

    [–]mendelratStellar Astrophysics|Spectroscopy|Cataclysmic Variables 1 point2 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I just looked at the filter list for two of the instruments, and there are a mix of wide, medium, and narrow band filters that do include some of the higher level hydrogen transitions, though I'm not exactly sure if that was the main science driver. You can see for yourself for the main imaging camera, NIRCAM, here.

    [–]Huwami 2 points3 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Ah, very cool. Thanks for the link.

    I was curious because for my own telescopes (16" dobsonian and a 10" schmidt cassegrain ) the only accessories I've bought for them has been Hydrogen and Sun filters. Expensive as hell, but the only added extra Ive ever wanted for my scopes. I like natural light globular star clusters and nebulae (I'm in the southern hemisphere, there's so many GSC's around a. and b. Cent that it feels like my own little private piece of heaven), but viewing and photographing them through a filter is amazing. It really gets my nephews and nieces excitement up as well because they're more familiar with composite or false color imagery and you can get that contrast with filters.

    I love what they bring to the table and was very curious on how these guys approached filters. Wether it was just a top-notch bit of kit that did what I was familiar with. I really can't wait to see some of the imagery it's capable of. My humble equipment allows me to blow my and my families minds, so this infrastructure is going to... I don't know, blow my mind, reanimate me, then blow me away again.

    [–]BoomBoomYeah 2 points3 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Have any pictures you wanna share? Sounds really cool.

    [–][deleted] ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    [deleted]

    [–][deleted] ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    [deleted]

    [–][deleted] ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    [deleted]

    load more comments (1 reply)

      [–][deleted] ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      [deleted]

      [–]econleech 0 points1 point ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      When I read "smooth distribution of starlight" I imagine a sky where stars are equally distributed with no concentrated clusters. That's not what you mean is it?

      [–]AstrokiwiNumerical Simulations|Galaxies|Molecular Cloud Formation 1 point2 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Well, I think I was wrong - you'll be able to see the dust lanes in emission rather than in absorption - but what I was meaning was the milky way would not have a dark line down the middle, and other galaxies like this wouldn't have had all those cool dark cloudy bits - they'd look more like elliptical galaxies do, but, well, not an ellipse :)

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago*

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I thought most of the stuff we saw in those galaxy porn pictures like this one http://thegodguy.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/space-gas-public-domain-p.jpg aren't actually visible, and are instead CGI'd based on data collected by infra-red, X-ray, and other sensors, and then color coded accordingly.

      Edit: Downvoter obviously hasn't studied astronomy. http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/393/what-do-the-colors-in-false-color-images-represent

      Just like that nebula picture, other pictures have false colors from ultra violet, infra red, and other electromagnetic spectrums that we can't see with our own eyes.

      [–]AstrokiwiNumerical Simulations|Galaxies|Molecular Cloud Formation 1 point2 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Most images aren't false colour - infrared, UV, and radio images have to be of course, but usually they take various visual bands and combine them to make an image, though they tweak the colour balance quite often. But I'm pretty sure that's what any digital camera does really.

      [–]ZSinemus 5 points6 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Look at the galaxy in the infrared. Longer wavelengths/lower energy "see" through the dust/don't get absorbed. See here

      [–]PizzaGood 3 points4 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      The dust lanes are actually quite pretty. they're subtle and it takes a larger telescope (10" and up) and a fairly dark sky to appreciate them.

      [–]snoogans235 10 points11 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Garbage! Really! That garbage is where the transformation of atomic to molecular hydrogen occurs, shields molecules from photodissociation so we can have thinks like I don't know, amino acids. If it wasn't for dust, we would have nothing. I suggest you think wisely before you refer to something as garbage.

      [–]MoJoe1 1 point2 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Well said.

      load more comments (3 replies)

        [–]PhilibusterAndo 2 points3 points ago

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Just imagine how it would be if the eagle nebula was close enough to see with the naked eye. ...and if our eyes could see in the composite waves to view it like this.

        [–]TheCuntDestroyer 1 point2 points ago

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Wow that looks almost terrifying the more I look at it. Truly amazing picture.

        [–]jsdillonAstrophyics|Cosmology 1 point2 points ago

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        We can, by looking in the infrared (and other frequencies). We can see, for example, the orbits of stars around the supermassive (~1 million solar masses) black hole at the center of our galaxy.

        [–]MoJoe1 0 points1 point ago

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        We can see, just not in the visible spectrum. We have images and a plot of some of the central stars moving past/around the central black hole. Check old episodes of Nova on PBS's web site, really cool shit.

        [–][deleted] ago

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        [deleted]

        [–][deleted] ago

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        [deleted]

        load more comments (1 reply)

          [–]Benthos 2 points3 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          So, is the dust in the arm or around the center? Are the individual stars we can see "in front" of the rest of the galaxy we can see, i.e. part of our spiral arm?

          [–]CountNoAccount 10 points11 points ago*

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          The dust is mostly in the arms of the galaxy. We are about halfway out the plane of the ecliptic, about 26,000-28,000 light years from galactic center. The stars we can see are in out local system. We can see about 2500 stars with the naked eye. There's an estimated 200-400 million billion stars in the galaxy.

          [–]Akem 3 points4 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          200-400 BILLION stars in our galaxy. Very big difference! :) But both numbers are huge enough to inhibit our ability to imagine it properly..

          [–]CountNoAccount 1 point2 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Yes, that should be billions. Good catch!

          [–]molo1134 1 point2 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Wait, halfway out of the plane of the galaxy eliptic? Like 45 degress from the eliptic? That doesn't sound right.

          [–]DoubleSidedTape 9 points10 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          r/2 from the center.

          [–]molo1134 0 points1 point ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Ah, thank you.

          [–]CountNoAccount 1 point2 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Maybe my wording was wrong. We're about halfway between the edge of the galaxy and the center.

          [–]garyman99 2 points3 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Michio Kaku talked about the dust in the milky way recently: video

          [–][deleted] ago*

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          [deleted]

          [–][deleted] ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          [deleted]

          [–][deleted] ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          [deleted]

          [–][deleted] ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          [deleted]

          [–][deleted] ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          [deleted]

          [–][deleted] ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          [deleted]

          [–][deleted] ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          [deleted]

          [–][deleted] ago*

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          [deleted]

          [–]outlyre 0 points1 point ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Why doesn't light reflect off the dust? I thought that was what gave nebulae their color

          [–]CountNoAccount 9 points10 points ago*

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Emission nebulae are clouds of gas ionized by photons from nearby stars. A nebula's color is determined by its chemical makeup and the degree to which it is ionized. The dark, unlit parts of nebulae is the dust that traps and obscures light.

          *Some nebulae are lit by the light of stars. These are reflection nebulae. Others absorb ambient light and are called dark nebulae.

          [–]myballstastenice 2 points3 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          You're right, but not as much light gets out in the case of dark nebula because of their relatively high density of particles. The Coalsack Nebula is a good example of this, and has only 1/10 of the brightness of the surrounding Milky Way.

          [–]Zwergner 1 point2 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Light is reflecting off the dust, otherwise it would be pitch black. Colors ranging from dark orange to white, with some bluish hues in there too.

          load more comments (9 replies)

            [–]adpsih 31 points32 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            The Milky Way is a spiral galaxy and has a lot of dust in between the nucleus and it's outlying edges. You can see similar dust in pictures of other spiral galaxies.

            Imagine seeing this, but edge on.

            Basically, all those layers of dust at different distances from the center all come together from the vantage point of "edge on", thus making the "black strip" you're referring to.

            [–]NiniMihaila[S] 4 points5 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            really nice comparison, thanks!

            [–]YellowBoneFever 5 points6 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            What is the bright object in the center of the first picture you linked? Sorry if that is a stupid question.

            [–]glialComputational Neuroscience|Cognitive Science 10 points11 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Black holes don't emit visible light (hence the black), but may emit Hawking radiation. While there might well be a black hole there, the light is coming from the higher density of stars at the center.

            load more comments (1 reply)

              [–]Mr_Bad_Example 36 points37 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Here you go

              [–]fahqredd 32 points33 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              This is true? "All the stars that can be seen in the night sky are part of the Milky Way galaxy."

              So no stars seen with the naked eye is from any of the billions of other galaxies? That is insane.

              [–]cybrbeast 43 points44 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Of course, we can only see stars within a few thousand light years depending on their brightness. The Milky Way alone is 100,000 ly across. Other galaxies are millions of light years away. Only a few galaxies are visible to the naked eye, and only visible in extremely dark (remote) places as a tiny smudge.

              [–]AstrokiwiNumerical Simulations|Galaxies|Molecular Cloud Formation 38 points39 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              You can see three other galaxies with the naked eye, depending on your latitude, but they appear as faint fuzzy blobs - you can't see the individual stars in them.

              [–]adpsih 3 points4 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Check out Celestia.

              After getting the hand of the controls, and figuring out how to make things "brighter" (keystroke "]") fly outside of the milky way (mouse scroll wheel out). You will fly past all the stars that we have cataloged. You will notice that they make a nice sphere around our sun, and do not even make up a quarter of the total amount of stars in the Milky Way.

              [–]TruculentMC 1 point2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              You can however rarely see objects that used to be stars - supernova SN1987a for example was visible to the naked eye, or the gamma-ray burst from 2008.

              [–]MoJoe1 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              As I understand it, 1987a was in our galaxy. Is this not true?

              ed: nevermind, it was in the large megallanic cloud, one of the closest galaxies to us.

              [–]Mr_Bad_Example 2 points3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              as faqr as i understand, yes, we can only see stars outside of our own galaxy with specialized telescopes that measure different wavelengths of light, for more inf try going here

              someone please let me know if i am mistaken here.....

              edit this would actually be better

              [–]gm2 13 points14 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              The Andromeda galaxy is visible as a faint patch of white light. Some others in our local cluster are visible as well, although some like the Magellanic Clouds are only visible from the southern hemisphere due to their orientation with respect to the earth's orbit around the sun.

              Some of the other billions of galaxies are visible, but very faintly. They are far enough away that they just look like stars (ie, points of light with no detail) unless you have a professional grade telescope.

              [–]Mr_Bad_Example 1 point2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              i stand corrected, however, i was talking about stars

              [–]gm2 2 points3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I don't read very goodly, you're right.

              [–]Knowltey 2 points3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Well technically when you see those galaxies you are seeing all of their stars, just not with any sort of detail.

              [–]Mr_Bad_Example 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              but don't you have to use specialized telescopes to see those stars?

              [–]Knowltey 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I more or less was saying that you are seeing the stars, just unable to detect them. That make more sense?

              [–]Mr_Bad_Example 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              not really please explain like i'm 5

              [–]Knowltey 2 points3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              It's a joke more or less. When you see the galaxy you aren't seeing the galaxy you are seeing all of the individual stars, but the detail is so low it just looks like 1 big star more or less.

              [–]tensegritydan 3 points4 points ago*

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              One exception may be Globular Cluster M54, thought to be part of SagDEG (neighboring dwarf galaxy). It can be resolved in large amateur scopes, though not visually.

              EDIT-Sorry, I didn't realize the original comment was related to naked-eye observation only. I just wanted to note one instance where we can "see" stars outside our own galaxy with ordinary telescopes.

              [–]Mr_Bad_Example 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              eh upvotes anyways for science!

              [–]MoJoe1 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              We can make out some of the stars in andromeda individually.

              And supernova, quasars, pulsars, etc., but not usually visually.

              [–]HungrySamurai 2 points3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Hubble proved the Andromeda was another galaxy back in the 1920s by resolving individual stars in M31 with a 2.5 metre optical telescope.

              [–]Mr_Bad_Example 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              TIL thank you, i had no idea, sources please?

              [–]HungrySamurai 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              http://burro.cwru.edu/stu/20th_people_hubble.html

              [–]Volpethrope 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              The other galaxies (past the local group) would appear smaller than stars near us. How would we see the light from individual stars from galaxies millions of light years away, when the stars in those galaxies are mere light years apart?

              This is a question people ask all the time, but when you actually think about it, you see why it doesn't make sense.

              [–]tensegritydan 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              It does make sense. The answer is angular resolution. There is no upper theoretical limit to resolving power.

              Of course, seeing stars in other galaxies goes into SciFi territory, but our technology is getting better all the time. The VLT in Chile has milliarcsecond angular resolution, which was crazy until now. Maybe some day we will have a telescope the size of our solar system.

              [–]Volpethrope 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              The question was "with the naked eye" however. More people than you might think are amazed that all the stars you see in the night sky are relatively close. If you could clearly make out an individual star in a distant galaxy, you would be able to make out all of the stars in that galaxy, because the difference in position between those stars is orders of magnitude smaller than the distance between you and the galaxy.

              [–]tensegritydan 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              You're absolutely right. I kept forgetting original comment was about naked eye.

              [–]caboosemoose 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              The estimates of stars in the milky way are in the hundreds of billions and everything else in the universe is millions of lightyears away. Of course the stars you can see with the naked eye are in the Milky Way. The nearest one that isn't is something around 2.6 million lightyears away.

              [–]MoJoe1 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              The light you see from other galaxies is essentially the sum total of all the stars in it, but you can't make out individual stars with the naked eye, and not even with a telescope in most cases (except maybe really close galaxies like andromeda). Everything you see is in this galaxy, or is a galaxy itself.

              [–]lmxbftwAstronomy 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              That's close to true; the exception is the Andromeda galaxy which can be seen with the naked eye in a dark sky, but your eye cannot pick out individual stars there, it just looks like a fuzzy ball. So you don't really see any of the actual stars just the blurred aggregation of them. Same goes for the Magellanic Clouds in the southern hemisphere. You don't see the individual stars for 2 reasons: 1) they are super far away and so are very very faint and 2) they are next to lots of other stars so you can't separate them in your vision.

              [–]BrowsOfSteel 7 points8 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Abstract: the answer to the OP’s question is that interstellar clouds of dust (“dark nebulæ”) block out the stars behind them.

              [–]Mr_Bad_Example -4 points-3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Dark regions within the band, such as the Great Rift and the Coalsack, correspond to areas where light from distant stars is blocked by dark nebulae.

              and did it not answer that question?

              [–]BrowsOfSteel 1 point2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              It did.

              Do you like the term “tl;dr” more than “abstract”?

              [–]Mr_Bad_Example 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              ah, well excuse me, i forgot to "tl;dr"

              [–]rm999Computer Science|Machine Learning|AI 7 points8 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Tldr's on wiki links are nice for a couple reasons. One, it's not obvious that your link answered OP's question - is that the band he's referring to? (I really don't know) By tldr'ing, you make it clear what in the link you are referring to. Second, wikipedia changes all the time, at the least you should link to a static part of wikipedia (toolbox:permanent link on the left); better yet give a tldr or quote the relevant text.

              [–]Mr_Bad_Example 2 points3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              TIL thank you

              [–][deleted] ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              [deleted]

              [–]keepaustinugly 6 points7 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              My favorite Milky Way image, sorry its flash.

              http://www.astrosurf.com/sguisard/Pagim/GC.html

              [–]NiniMihaila[S] 1 point2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              gorgeous, thanks! I can only hope that one day a human being will see this sight up close :)

              [–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              To see this sight, you have to be far away.... :)

              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              So beautiful it evokes deep emotion. Really gives a good sense of space in our sci-fi imaginations, especially with the sense of depth from variable star sizes/brightnesses.

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Now to find 800 dollars...

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Thank you so very much for linking that.

              [–]keepaustinugly 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Yeah, when I first saw this I was like meh. Until I full screened it and zoomed in, then my head esploded when i realized all that white creamish expanse is really individual stars and stars and stars.

              [–]FappyGoRound -1 points0 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Thanks, it's awesome.

              Just please don't apologize to those that have paid for their Internet access at a premium to the one of the world's most lucrative marketing departments.

              [–]waffleking 6 points7 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              sixtysymbols did a video on this. I don't remember the answer but I do remember it was fascinating. http://www.sixtysymbols.com/videos/spiral_galaxies.htm Spiral Galaxies and Pattern Speed

              Professor Merrifield on what creates the spiral structure in many galaxies.

              [–]bitpeak 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              At around 2:20 on that vid, he says that waves (he gives an example of sound) is unaffected by air speed. But if you've ever been to a coast or beach, you'll know that on a windy day you can't hear clearly. There must be something I'm missing?

              [–]NinjaJediSaiyan1 2 points3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              wind noise in your ears?

              [–]captain_smartass 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              While fascinating, the video you linked to does not directly address the OP's question. I watched all 7:42 of it.

              [–]WeWaffleDroppin 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Great link Waffle

              [–]mandolin_geek 5 points6 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              In astronomical terms, what exactly is dust? Our we talking about the same kind of dust that gathers around my house? I've read these explanations before about clouds of gas and dust obscuring our view of the galaxy. If viewed up close, what would the dust clouds look like?

              [–]WhatamIwaitingfor 1 point2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I'm not 100% sure (sorry), but the contents of these clouds are typically gaseous in state such as Hydrogen and other fundamental elements. Sure, there are probably solid-state particles, but they make up a minor percentage of the overall mass.

              [–]Unenjoyed 8 points9 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              The black stripe of the Milky Way is indeed due to dust, and the fact that you look at it using the human visual spectrum. If you saw the Milky Way using the infrared part of the optical spectrum, then it would look like this.

              [–]Beeline374 11 points12 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              that would be the Great Rift in the Milky Way

              [–]RT1000 2 points3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              fix'd link

              [–]RosieMuffysticks 3 points4 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Those dark spots are stuff that is between us and the galactic core.

              [–]lmxbftwAstronomy 2 points3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Dust blocks out most of the light in the plane of the galaxy. If you look in longer wavelengths, then you can see through most of the dust. Here is an infrared image of the Milky Way compared to an optical image, so you can see how much difference the wavelength of light makes.

              [–]jnbarefield 1 point2 points ago*

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Not sure if this has been posted. But I love this site.

              Skysurvey 37,440 exposures, stitched together... Check! The Milky Way

              Oh yes, Can't forget the interactive one either! The Milky Way Interactive 360

              [–]NiniMihaila[S] 1 point2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              These are so cool! Thanks a lot!

              [–]xevian 1 point2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              When I look at that. I see exactly what I see in the 'big' picture of our solar system. Just a huge spiral. That lighter mass being the center, the other stuff is just dense dust, gas and planetary debris that obscure the light.

              What we see from earth is what you would see from looking at it from the side view to the center. Would be interesting if earth was near the middle but on top. Wonder what we would see.

              [–]DiaDeLosMuertos 1 point2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I thought it would be the Dark Rift or something.

              [–]inazuma 2 points3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              It is stellar dust. Lots of matter all floating around. :)

              [–]Reptillian97 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Keep in mind we are part of the milky way, and we are looking at it from the inside.

              [–]mnq713 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Very interesting. Commenting so I can read it later.

              [–]HeresABookForYou 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              The Milky Way (Early Bird Astronomy)

              [–]cacher371 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I just want to thank you for sticking around to answer your own question in such an organized and new-reader friendly fashion. =)

              [–]Archers_bane 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              The pictures in this post are amazing. I love astronomy

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              It has been theorized by many scientists that there is actually a black hole at the center of our galaxy. As a result, if one could see the center of the Milky Way it would actually appear to be nothingness! However, telescopes can see the event horizon, which is the light around the black hole that isn't getting sucked in. Anyone, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

              [–]lumpking69 -4 points-3 points ago*

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I would love to learn the type of magic required to take a picture of that amazing quality and sophistication!

              edit: wow, why the downvotes?

              [–]NiniMihaila[S] 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I can direct you to the original thread, which has more info and also more photos!

              In short, u8eR sums it up pretty well here

              [–]lumpking69 -1 points0 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Thank you sir.

              [–]asocialnetwork -1 points0 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Thanks for updating the post with the TLDR and everything so we don't have to sift through all the comments!

              [–]meliux -1 points0 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              no, not ALL visible stars are in the milky way... anyone heard of the LMC? SMC? Easily viewable on any given night, and they're separate galaxies.

              [–]NiniMihaila[S] 1 point2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              well, they are galaxies, and not stars ;)

              you can't see individual stars from them (with the naked eye), and you can't even see them that well

              [–]Joselito99 -1 points0 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              this is why i love reddit

              [–]Sbark -2 points-1 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Giant black hole we are slowly but surely being sucked into

              [–]czj420 -3 points-2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              There is a black hole in the center of our galaxy, and probably all galaxies.

              load more comments (7 replies)