Would a galaxy be visible from outside, but nearby?
$begingroup$
We all know the typical sci-fi image of a guy standing on the ship deck and able to see a full galaxy. If you somehow were able to stand a few lightyears away from a galaxy would you be able to see it in full, as in the image below?
visible-light astronomy estimation galaxies
edited Mar 29 at 9:52
Kyle Oman
15.4k955111
asked Mar 29 at 3:54
eli.rodriguezeli.rodriguez
14917
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
We all know the typical sci-fi image of a guy standing on the ship deck and able to see a full galaxy. If you somehow were able to stand a few lightyears away from a galaxy would you be able to see it in full, as in the image below?
visible-light astronomy estimation galaxies
edited Mar 29 at 9:52
Kyle Oman
15.4k955111
asked Mar 29 at 3:54
eli.rodriguezeli.rodriguez
14917
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
I always thought this was a protostar or early solar system.
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 11:20
1
$begingroup$
Do you mean whether the disk would be too faint to see because of the brightness of the center, or whether the size would fit in the field of view?
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
Mar 29 at 11:28
$begingroup$
@Burgi yes, until now I realize that is indeed a protostar, tbh I was a child when I watched that episode and looked a galaxy to me. But I have been wrong.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 15:26
$begingroup$
It might have been "tweaked" in the special editions
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 15:32
1
$begingroup$
@Burgi, the canon is inconsistent.
$endgroup$
– Harry Johnston
Mar 30 at 5:15
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
We all know the typical sci-fi image of a guy standing on the ship deck and able to see a full galaxy. If you somehow were able to stand a few lightyears away from a galaxy would you be able to see it in full, as in the image below?
visible-light astronomy estimation galaxies
edited Mar 29 at 9:52
Kyle Oman
15.4k955111
asked Mar 29 at 3:54
eli.rodriguezeli.rodriguez
14917
$endgroup$
We all know the typical sci-fi image of a guy standing on the ship deck and able to see a full galaxy. If you somehow were able to stand a few lightyears away from a galaxy would you be able to see it in full, as in the image below?
visible-light astronomy estimation galaxies
visible-light astronomy estimation galaxies
edited Mar 29 at 9:52
Kyle Oman
15.4k955111
asked Mar 29 at 3:54
eli.rodriguezeli.rodriguez
14917
edited Mar 29 at 9:52
Kyle Oman
15.4k955111
asked Mar 29 at 3:54
eli.rodriguezeli.rodriguez
14917
edited Mar 29 at 9:52
Kyle Oman
15.4k955111
edited Mar 29 at 9:52
Kyle Oman
15.4k955111
edited Mar 29 at 9:52
Kyle Oman
15.4k955111
15.4k955111
asked Mar 29 at 3:54
eli.rodriguezeli.rodriguez
14917
asked Mar 29 at 3:54
eli.rodriguezeli.rodriguez
14917
asked Mar 29 at 3:54
eli.rodriguezeli.rodriguez
14917
14917
4
$begingroup$
I always thought this was a protostar or early solar system.
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 11:20
1
$begingroup$
Do you mean whether the disk would be too faint to see because of the brightness of the center, or whether the size would fit in the field of view?
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
Mar 29 at 11:28
$begingroup$
@Burgi yes, until now I realize that is indeed a protostar, tbh I was a child when I watched that episode and looked a galaxy to me. But I have been wrong.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 15:26
$begingroup$
It might have been "tweaked" in the special editions
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 15:32
1
$begingroup$
@Burgi, the canon is inconsistent.
$endgroup$
– Harry Johnston
Mar 30 at 5:15
|
show 1 more comment
4
$begingroup$
I always thought this was a protostar or early solar system.
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 11:20
1
$begingroup$
Do you mean whether the disk would be too faint to see because of the brightness of the center, or whether the size would fit in the field of view?
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
Mar 29 at 11:28
$begingroup$
@Burgi yes, until now I realize that is indeed a protostar, tbh I was a child when I watched that episode and looked a galaxy to me. But I have been wrong.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 15:26
$begingroup$
It might have been "tweaked" in the special editions
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 15:32
1
$begingroup$
@Burgi, the canon is inconsistent.
$endgroup$
– Harry Johnston
Mar 30 at 5:15
4
4
$begingroup$
I always thought this was a protostar or early solar system.
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 11:20
$begingroup$
I always thought this was a protostar or early solar system.
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 11:20
1
1
$begingroup$
Do you mean whether the disk would be too faint to see because of the brightness of the center, or whether the size would fit in the field of view?
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
Mar 29 at 11:28
$begingroup$
Do you mean whether the disk would be too faint to see because of the brightness of the center, or whether the size would fit in the field of view?
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
Mar 29 at 11:28
$begingroup$
@Burgi yes, until now I realize that is indeed a protostar, tbh I was a child when I watched that episode and looked a galaxy to me. But I have been wrong.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 15:26
$begingroup$
@Burgi yes, until now I realize that is indeed a protostar, tbh I was a child when I watched that episode and looked a galaxy to me. But I have been wrong.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 15:26
$begingroup$
It might have been "tweaked" in the special editions
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 15:32
$begingroup$
It might have been "tweaked" in the special editions
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 15:32
1
1
$begingroup$
@Burgi, the canon is inconsistent.
$endgroup$
– Harry Johnston
Mar 30 at 5:15
$begingroup$
@Burgi, the canon is inconsistent.
$endgroup$
– Harry Johnston
Mar 30 at 5:15
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I am very deliberately not illustrating this answer with an image, because essentially any photographic image will misrepresent what you can see in the sky with the naked eye.
The surface brightness, that is the light per unit angular area, of extended objects is independent of distance$^1$. This is because the angle subtended by an object is proportional to the square of its distance, and so is the amount of light reaching an observer.
In other words, a galaxy looks about the same at any distance: it gets bigger or smaller, but its surface brightness (and therefore contrast with the background sky) doesn't change. This breaks down once you get close enough to pick out the individual stars, but with the naked eye you need to be just about inside the galaxy for that to happen$^2$.
Now the answer should be obvious: you would never see a galaxy looking like the one in your Star Wars screenshot. Rather, it would look like other galaxies you can see in the sky. If you've been to the Southern hemisphere and seen the Magellenic Clouds, you have a good idea of what another galaxy looks like with the naked eye. Likewise if you've managed to pick out Andromeda from somewhere dark. Actually, the fuzzy band of our own Milky Way also gives a decent idea of how bright on the sky a galaxy would look from outside$^3$.
$^1$ This isn't true for really distant objects when cosmological surface brightness dimming starts to kick in, but that isn't the case here.
$^2$ You could pick out some individual very bright stars from further away, but the majority that make up the smooth looking light of the galaxy start to blend together pretty quickly with distance.
$^3$ Because we're inside the galactic disc there's a lot of dust to get in the way of the view which causes some dimming, but it still gives a decent idea.
answered Mar 29 at 8:49
Kyle OmanKyle Oman
15.4k955111
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That said, the Milky Way is very bright on the sky if you're dark adapted and in a place with no light pollution. Obviously, it wouldn't be visible (without some visual enhancements) in a brightly lit room.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:04
4
$begingroup$
@Luaan Under good conditions, the Milky Way & Magellanic clouds are certainly bright enough to be impressive, but saying they're very bright is an exaggeration, IMHO. FWIW, I live in the southern hemisphere, and have lived in areas of low light pollution. A few years ago we had zero light pollution for a couple of days after a big storm knocked out the electricity distribution in our district. The Milky Way & Magellanic clouds looked better than ever. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
Mar 29 at 9:19
$begingroup$
Nice answer: Realistically, the characters in the movie should not be able to see any stars at all when they look out that window. At least, not unless their eyes work very differently from ours.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
Mar 29 at 19:21
$begingroup$
@SolomonSlow perhaps their AR TV is really dusty?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
Mar 30 at 10:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Standing one or two light-years would never do it. Length of out Galaxy is about 100,000 light years. In the shown picture, the visual angle would be about 15°. Do the math, they're about 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy.
answered Mar 29 at 4:20
Hack MasterHack Master
792
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Really like the math, but now what about the brightness? Would a photo from 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy. would look as bright as in Sci-Fi film (without long exposure)
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:34
$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez It would definitely be far brighter than the background stars you see in the picture; however, I'd definitely turn the lights off in the room :) Also, it should be noted that the Star Wars galaxy is much bigger and denser than the Milky Way or Andromeda, so I'd expect you'd need to be more like a million light years away.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 8:59
4
$begingroup$
Just noting that they're not looking at our galaxy, as their story takes place "in a galaxy far, far away".
$endgroup$
– Doug Warren
Mar 29 at 15:04
$begingroup$
then what about standing as far away from the galaxy as the galaxy is wide? Because that was seemingly the true intent of the question, even if the exact values were off.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 30 at 11:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From NASA:
Explanation: The Great Spiral Galaxy in Andromeda (aka M31), a mere 2.5 million light-years distant, is the closest large spiral to our own Milky Way. Andromeda is visible to the unaided eye as a small, faint, fuzzy patch, but because its surface brightness is so low, casual skygazers can't appreciate the galaxy's impressive extent in planet Earth's sky. This entertaining composite image compares the angular size of the nearby galaxy to a brighter, more familiar celestial sight. In it, a deep exposure of Andromeda, tracing beautiful blue star clusters in spiral arms far beyond the bright yellow core, is combined with a typical view of a nearly full Moon. Shown at the same angular scale, the Moon covers about 1/2 degree on the sky, while the galaxy is clearly several times that size. The deep Andromeda exposure also includes two bright satellite galaxies, M32 and M110 (bottom).
answered Mar 29 at 4:32
Keith McClaryKeith McClary
1,431411
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Don't upvote this - instead write a letter to your rep about NASA funding cuts.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 4:34
1
$begingroup$
So I deduce from the NASA explanation that indeed you would be able to watch the Galaxy as in the picture but not as bright as it appears in the films.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:31
1
$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez I can see Andromeda with binoculars - just the bright centre blob. Some can see it naked-eye. If you were ten times closer and turned off the lights in the control room and waited for your eyes to become dark-adapted, it would look about that size but not as bright. But still spectacular.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:03
9
$begingroup$
Andromeda has an apparent magnitude of 3.44 and the moon has -12.6, so the brightness of Andromeda is greatly exaggerated in the NASA image.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:44
2
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question at all, and in fact is grossly misleading with the image, where the surface brightness of Andromeda relative to the Moon is greatly exaggerated.
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
Mar 29 at 8:50
|
show 8 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469295%2fwould-a-galaxy-be-visible-from-outside-but-nearby%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I am very deliberately not illustrating this answer with an image, because essentially any photographic image will misrepresent what you can see in the sky with the naked eye.
The surface brightness, that is the light per unit angular area, of extended objects is independent of distance$^1$. This is because the angle subtended by an object is proportional to the square of its distance, and so is the amount of light reaching an observer.
In other words, a galaxy looks about the same at any distance: it gets bigger or smaller, but its surface brightness (and therefore contrast with the background sky) doesn't change. This breaks down once you get close enough to pick out the individual stars, but with the naked eye you need to be just about inside the galaxy for that to happen$^2$.
Now the answer should be obvious: you would never see a galaxy looking like the one in your Star Wars screenshot. Rather, it would look like other galaxies you can see in the sky. If you've been to the Southern hemisphere and seen the Magellenic Clouds, you have a good idea of what another galaxy looks like with the naked eye. Likewise if you've managed to pick out Andromeda from somewhere dark. Actually, the fuzzy band of our own Milky Way also gives a decent idea of how bright on the sky a galaxy would look from outside$^3$.
$^1$ This isn't true for really distant objects when cosmological surface brightness dimming starts to kick in, but that isn't the case here.
$^2$ You could pick out some individual very bright stars from further away, but the majority that make up the smooth looking light of the galaxy start to blend together pretty quickly with distance.
$^3$ Because we're inside the galactic disc there's a lot of dust to get in the way of the view which causes some dimming, but it still gives a decent idea.
answered Mar 29 at 8:49
Kyle OmanKyle Oman
15.4k955111
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That said, the Milky Way is very bright on the sky if you're dark adapted and in a place with no light pollution. Obviously, it wouldn't be visible (without some visual enhancements) in a brightly lit room.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:04
4
$begingroup$
@Luaan Under good conditions, the Milky Way & Magellanic clouds are certainly bright enough to be impressive, but saying they're very bright is an exaggeration, IMHO. FWIW, I live in the southern hemisphere, and have lived in areas of low light pollution. A few years ago we had zero light pollution for a couple of days after a big storm knocked out the electricity distribution in our district. The Milky Way & Magellanic clouds looked better than ever. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
Mar 29 at 9:19
$begingroup$
Nice answer: Realistically, the characters in the movie should not be able to see any stars at all when they look out that window. At least, not unless their eyes work very differently from ours.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
Mar 29 at 19:21
$begingroup$
@SolomonSlow perhaps their AR TV is really dusty?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
Mar 30 at 10:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am very deliberately not illustrating this answer with an image, because essentially any photographic image will misrepresent what you can see in the sky with the naked eye.
The surface brightness, that is the light per unit angular area, of extended objects is independent of distance$^1$. This is because the angle subtended by an object is proportional to the square of its distance, and so is the amount of light reaching an observer.
In other words, a galaxy looks about the same at any distance: it gets bigger or smaller, but its surface brightness (and therefore contrast with the background sky) doesn't change. This breaks down once you get close enough to pick out the individual stars, but with the naked eye you need to be just about inside the galaxy for that to happen$^2$.
Now the answer should be obvious: you would never see a galaxy looking like the one in your Star Wars screenshot. Rather, it would look like other galaxies you can see in the sky. If you've been to the Southern hemisphere and seen the Magellenic Clouds, you have a good idea of what another galaxy looks like with the naked eye. Likewise if you've managed to pick out Andromeda from somewhere dark. Actually, the fuzzy band of our own Milky Way also gives a decent idea of how bright on the sky a galaxy would look from outside$^3$.
$^1$ This isn't true for really distant objects when cosmological surface brightness dimming starts to kick in, but that isn't the case here.
$^2$ You could pick out some individual very bright stars from further away, but the majority that make up the smooth looking light of the galaxy start to blend together pretty quickly with distance.
$^3$ Because we're inside the galactic disc there's a lot of dust to get in the way of the view which causes some dimming, but it still gives a decent idea.
answered Mar 29 at 8:49
Kyle OmanKyle Oman
15.4k955111
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That said, the Milky Way is very bright on the sky if you're dark adapted and in a place with no light pollution. Obviously, it wouldn't be visible (without some visual enhancements) in a brightly lit room.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:04
4
$begingroup$
@Luaan Under good conditions, the Milky Way & Magellanic clouds are certainly bright enough to be impressive, but saying they're very bright is an exaggeration, IMHO. FWIW, I live in the southern hemisphere, and have lived in areas of low light pollution. A few years ago we had zero light pollution for a couple of days after a big storm knocked out the electricity distribution in our district. The Milky Way & Magellanic clouds looked better than ever. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
Mar 29 at 9:19
$begingroup$
Nice answer: Realistically, the characters in the movie should not be able to see any stars at all when they look out that window. At least, not unless their eyes work very differently from ours.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
Mar 29 at 19:21
$begingroup$
@SolomonSlow perhaps their AR TV is really dusty?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
Mar 30 at 10:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am very deliberately not illustrating this answer with an image, because essentially any photographic image will misrepresent what you can see in the sky with the naked eye.
The surface brightness, that is the light per unit angular area, of extended objects is independent of distance$^1$. This is because the angle subtended by an object is proportional to the square of its distance, and so is the amount of light reaching an observer.
In other words, a galaxy looks about the same at any distance: it gets bigger or smaller, but its surface brightness (and therefore contrast with the background sky) doesn't change. This breaks down once you get close enough to pick out the individual stars, but with the naked eye you need to be just about inside the galaxy for that to happen$^2$.
Now the answer should be obvious: you would never see a galaxy looking like the one in your Star Wars screenshot. Rather, it would look like other galaxies you can see in the sky. If you've been to the Southern hemisphere and seen the Magellenic Clouds, you have a good idea of what another galaxy looks like with the naked eye. Likewise if you've managed to pick out Andromeda from somewhere dark. Actually, the fuzzy band of our own Milky Way also gives a decent idea of how bright on the sky a galaxy would look from outside$^3$.
$^1$ This isn't true for really distant objects when cosmological surface brightness dimming starts to kick in, but that isn't the case here.
$^2$ You could pick out some individual very bright stars from further away, but the majority that make up the smooth looking light of the galaxy start to blend together pretty quickly with distance.
$^3$ Because we're inside the galactic disc there's a lot of dust to get in the way of the view which causes some dimming, but it still gives a decent idea.
answered Mar 29 at 8:49
Kyle OmanKyle Oman
15.4k955111
$endgroup$
I am very deliberately not illustrating this answer with an image, because essentially any photographic image will misrepresent what you can see in the sky with the naked eye.
The surface brightness, that is the light per unit angular area, of extended objects is independent of distance$^1$. This is because the angle subtended by an object is proportional to the square of its distance, and so is the amount of light reaching an observer.
In other words, a galaxy looks about the same at any distance: it gets bigger or smaller, but its surface brightness (and therefore contrast with the background sky) doesn't change. This breaks down once you get close enough to pick out the individual stars, but with the naked eye you need to be just about inside the galaxy for that to happen$^2$.
Now the answer should be obvious: you would never see a galaxy looking like the one in your Star Wars screenshot. Rather, it would look like other galaxies you can see in the sky. If you've been to the Southern hemisphere and seen the Magellenic Clouds, you have a good idea of what another galaxy looks like with the naked eye. Likewise if you've managed to pick out Andromeda from somewhere dark. Actually, the fuzzy band of our own Milky Way also gives a decent idea of how bright on the sky a galaxy would look from outside$^3$.
$^1$ This isn't true for really distant objects when cosmological surface brightness dimming starts to kick in, but that isn't the case here.
$^2$ You could pick out some individual very bright stars from further away, but the majority that make up the smooth looking light of the galaxy start to blend together pretty quickly with distance.
$^3$ Because we're inside the galactic disc there's a lot of dust to get in the way of the view which causes some dimming, but it still gives a decent idea.
answered Mar 29 at 8:49
Kyle OmanKyle Oman
15.4k955111
answered Mar 29 at 8:49
Kyle OmanKyle Oman
15.4k955111
answered Mar 29 at 8:49
Kyle OmanKyle Oman
15.4k955111
answered Mar 29 at 8:49
Kyle OmanKyle Oman
15.4k955111
15.4k955111
$begingroup$
That said, the Milky Way is very bright on the sky if you're dark adapted and in a place with no light pollution. Obviously, it wouldn't be visible (without some visual enhancements) in a brightly lit room.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:04
4
$begingroup$
@Luaan Under good conditions, the Milky Way & Magellanic clouds are certainly bright enough to be impressive, but saying they're very bright is an exaggeration, IMHO. FWIW, I live in the southern hemisphere, and have lived in areas of low light pollution. A few years ago we had zero light pollution for a couple of days after a big storm knocked out the electricity distribution in our district. The Milky Way & Magellanic clouds looked better than ever. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
Mar 29 at 9:19
$begingroup$
Nice answer: Realistically, the characters in the movie should not be able to see any stars at all when they look out that window. At least, not unless their eyes work very differently from ours.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
Mar 29 at 19:21
$begingroup$
@SolomonSlow perhaps their AR TV is really dusty?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
Mar 30 at 10:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
That said, the Milky Way is very bright on the sky if you're dark adapted and in a place with no light pollution. Obviously, it wouldn't be visible (without some visual enhancements) in a brightly lit room.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:04
4
$begingroup$
@Luaan Under good conditions, the Milky Way & Magellanic clouds are certainly bright enough to be impressive, but saying they're very bright is an exaggeration, IMHO. FWIW, I live in the southern hemisphere, and have lived in areas of low light pollution. A few years ago we had zero light pollution for a couple of days after a big storm knocked out the electricity distribution in our district. The Milky Way & Magellanic clouds looked better than ever. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
Mar 29 at 9:19
$begingroup$
Nice answer: Realistically, the characters in the movie should not be able to see any stars at all when they look out that window. At least, not unless their eyes work very differently from ours.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
Mar 29 at 19:21
$begingroup$
@SolomonSlow perhaps their AR TV is really dusty?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
Mar 30 at 10:45
$begingroup$
That said, the Milky Way is very bright on the sky if you're dark adapted and in a place with no light pollution. Obviously, it wouldn't be visible (without some visual enhancements) in a brightly lit room.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:04
$begingroup$
That said, the Milky Way is very bright on the sky if you're dark adapted and in a place with no light pollution. Obviously, it wouldn't be visible (without some visual enhancements) in a brightly lit room.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:04
4
4
$begingroup$
@Luaan Under good conditions, the Milky Way & Magellanic clouds are certainly bright enough to be impressive, but saying they're very bright is an exaggeration, IMHO. FWIW, I live in the southern hemisphere, and have lived in areas of low light pollution. A few years ago we had zero light pollution for a couple of days after a big storm knocked out the electricity distribution in our district. The Milky Way & Magellanic clouds looked better than ever. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
Mar 29 at 9:19
$begingroup$
@Luaan Under good conditions, the Milky Way & Magellanic clouds are certainly bright enough to be impressive, but saying they're very bright is an exaggeration, IMHO. FWIW, I live in the southern hemisphere, and have lived in areas of low light pollution. A few years ago we had zero light pollution for a couple of days after a big storm knocked out the electricity distribution in our district. The Milky Way & Magellanic clouds looked better than ever. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
Mar 29 at 9:19
$begingroup$
Nice answer: Realistically, the characters in the movie should not be able to see any stars at all when they look out that window. At least, not unless their eyes work very differently from ours.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
Mar 29 at 19:21
$begingroup$
Nice answer: Realistically, the characters in the movie should not be able to see any stars at all when they look out that window. At least, not unless their eyes work very differently from ours.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
Mar 29 at 19:21
$begingroup$
@SolomonSlow perhaps their AR TV is really dusty?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
Mar 30 at 10:45
$begingroup$
@SolomonSlow perhaps their AR TV is really dusty?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
Mar 30 at 10:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Standing one or two light-years would never do it. Length of out Galaxy is about 100,000 light years. In the shown picture, the visual angle would be about 15°. Do the math, they're about 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy.
answered Mar 29 at 4:20
Hack MasterHack Master
792
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Really like the math, but now what about the brightness? Would a photo from 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy. would look as bright as in Sci-Fi film (without long exposure)
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:34
$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez It would definitely be far brighter than the background stars you see in the picture; however, I'd definitely turn the lights off in the room :) Also, it should be noted that the Star Wars galaxy is much bigger and denser than the Milky Way or Andromeda, so I'd expect you'd need to be more like a million light years away.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 8:59
4
$begingroup$
Just noting that they're not looking at our galaxy, as their story takes place "in a galaxy far, far away".
$endgroup$
– Doug Warren
Mar 29 at 15:04
$begingroup$
then what about standing as far away from the galaxy as the galaxy is wide? Because that was seemingly the true intent of the question, even if the exact values were off.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 30 at 11:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Standing one or two light-years would never do it. Length of out Galaxy is about 100,000 light years. In the shown picture, the visual angle would be about 15°. Do the math, they're about 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy.
answered Mar 29 at 4:20
Hack MasterHack Master
792
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Really like the math, but now what about the brightness? Would a photo from 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy. would look as bright as in Sci-Fi film (without long exposure)
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:34
$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez It would definitely be far brighter than the background stars you see in the picture; however, I'd definitely turn the lights off in the room :) Also, it should be noted that the Star Wars galaxy is much bigger and denser than the Milky Way or Andromeda, so I'd expect you'd need to be more like a million light years away.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 8:59
4
$begingroup$
Just noting that they're not looking at our galaxy, as their story takes place "in a galaxy far, far away".
$endgroup$
– Doug Warren
Mar 29 at 15:04
$begingroup$
then what about standing as far away from the galaxy as the galaxy is wide? Because that was seemingly the true intent of the question, even if the exact values were off.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 30 at 11:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Standing one or two light-years would never do it. Length of out Galaxy is about 100,000 light years. In the shown picture, the visual angle would be about 15°. Do the math, they're about 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy.
answered Mar 29 at 4:20
Hack MasterHack Master
792
$endgroup$
Standing one or two light-years would never do it. Length of out Galaxy is about 100,000 light years. In the shown picture, the visual angle would be about 15°. Do the math, they're about 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy.
answered Mar 29 at 4:20
Hack MasterHack Master
792
answered Mar 29 at 4:20
Hack MasterHack Master
792
answered Mar 29 at 4:20
Hack MasterHack Master
792
answered Mar 29 at 4:20
Hack MasterHack Master
792
792
3
$begingroup$
Really like the math, but now what about the brightness? Would a photo from 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy. would look as bright as in Sci-Fi film (without long exposure)
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:34
$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez It would definitely be far brighter than the background stars you see in the picture; however, I'd definitely turn the lights off in the room :) Also, it should be noted that the Star Wars galaxy is much bigger and denser than the Milky Way or Andromeda, so I'd expect you'd need to be more like a million light years away.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 8:59
4
$begingroup$
Just noting that they're not looking at our galaxy, as their story takes place "in a galaxy far, far away".
$endgroup$
– Doug Warren
Mar 29 at 15:04
$begingroup$
then what about standing as far away from the galaxy as the galaxy is wide? Because that was seemingly the true intent of the question, even if the exact values were off.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 30 at 11:02
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Really like the math, but now what about the brightness? Would a photo from 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy. would look as bright as in Sci-Fi film (without long exposure)
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:34
$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez It would definitely be far brighter than the background stars you see in the picture; however, I'd definitely turn the lights off in the room :) Also, it should be noted that the Star Wars galaxy is much bigger and denser than the Milky Way or Andromeda, so I'd expect you'd need to be more like a million light years away.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 8:59
4
$begingroup$
Just noting that they're not looking at our galaxy, as their story takes place "in a galaxy far, far away".
$endgroup$
– Doug Warren
Mar 29 at 15:04
$begingroup$
then what about standing as far away from the galaxy as the galaxy is wide? Because that was seemingly the true intent of the question, even if the exact values were off.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 30 at 11:02
3
3
$begingroup$
Really like the math, but now what about the brightness? Would a photo from 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy. would look as bright as in Sci-Fi film (without long exposure)
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:34
$begingroup$
Really like the math, but now what about the brightness? Would a photo from 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy. would look as bright as in Sci-Fi film (without long exposure)
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:34
$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez It would definitely be far brighter than the background stars you see in the picture; however, I'd definitely turn the lights off in the room :) Also, it should be noted that the Star Wars galaxy is much bigger and denser than the Milky Way or Andromeda, so I'd expect you'd need to be more like a million light years away.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 8:59
$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez It would definitely be far brighter than the background stars you see in the picture; however, I'd definitely turn the lights off in the room :) Also, it should be noted that the Star Wars galaxy is much bigger and denser than the Milky Way or Andromeda, so I'd expect you'd need to be more like a million light years away.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 8:59
4
4
$begingroup$
Just noting that they're not looking at our galaxy, as their story takes place "in a galaxy far, far away".
$endgroup$
– Doug Warren
Mar 29 at 15:04
$begingroup$
Just noting that they're not looking at our galaxy, as their story takes place "in a galaxy far, far away".
$endgroup$
– Doug Warren
Mar 29 at 15:04
$begingroup$
then what about standing as far away from the galaxy as the galaxy is wide? Because that was seemingly the true intent of the question, even if the exact values were off.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 30 at 11:02
$begingroup$
then what about standing as far away from the galaxy as the galaxy is wide? Because that was seemingly the true intent of the question, even if the exact values were off.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 30 at 11:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From NASA:
Explanation: The Great Spiral Galaxy in Andromeda (aka M31), a mere 2.5 million light-years distant, is the closest large spiral to our own Milky Way. Andromeda is visible to the unaided eye as a small, faint, fuzzy patch, but because its surface brightness is so low, casual skygazers can't appreciate the galaxy's impressive extent in planet Earth's sky. This entertaining composite image compares the angular size of the nearby galaxy to a brighter, more familiar celestial sight. In it, a deep exposure of Andromeda, tracing beautiful blue star clusters in spiral arms far beyond the bright yellow core, is combined with a typical view of a nearly full Moon. Shown at the same angular scale, the Moon covers about 1/2 degree on the sky, while the galaxy is clearly several times that size. The deep Andromeda exposure also includes two bright satellite galaxies, M32 and M110 (bottom).
answered Mar 29 at 4:32
Keith McClaryKeith McClary
1,431411
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Don't upvote this - instead write a letter to your rep about NASA funding cuts.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 4:34
1
$begingroup$
So I deduce from the NASA explanation that indeed you would be able to watch the Galaxy as in the picture but not as bright as it appears in the films.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:31
1
$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez I can see Andromeda with binoculars - just the bright centre blob. Some can see it naked-eye. If you were ten times closer and turned off the lights in the control room and waited for your eyes to become dark-adapted, it would look about that size but not as bright. But still spectacular.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:03
9
$begingroup$
Andromeda has an apparent magnitude of 3.44 and the moon has -12.6, so the brightness of Andromeda is greatly exaggerated in the NASA image.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:44
2
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question at all, and in fact is grossly misleading with the image, where the surface brightness of Andromeda relative to the Moon is greatly exaggerated.
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
Mar 29 at 8:50
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
From NASA:
Explanation: The Great Spiral Galaxy in Andromeda (aka M31), a mere 2.5 million light-years distant, is the closest large spiral to our own Milky Way. Andromeda is visible to the unaided eye as a small, faint, fuzzy patch, but because its surface brightness is so low, casual skygazers can't appreciate the galaxy's impressive extent in planet Earth's sky. This entertaining composite image compares the angular size of the nearby galaxy to a brighter, more familiar celestial sight. In it, a deep exposure of Andromeda, tracing beautiful blue star clusters in spiral arms far beyond the bright yellow core, is combined with a typical view of a nearly full Moon. Shown at the same angular scale, the Moon covers about 1/2 degree on the sky, while the galaxy is clearly several times that size. The deep Andromeda exposure also includes two bright satellite galaxies, M32 and M110 (bottom).
answered Mar 29 at 4:32
Keith McClaryKeith McClary
1,431411
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Don't upvote this - instead write a letter to your rep about NASA funding cuts.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 4:34
1
$begingroup$
So I deduce from the NASA explanation that indeed you would be able to watch the Galaxy as in the picture but not as bright as it appears in the films.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:31
1
$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez I can see Andromeda with binoculars - just the bright centre blob. Some can see it naked-eye. If you were ten times closer and turned off the lights in the control room and waited for your eyes to become dark-adapted, it would look about that size but not as bright. But still spectacular.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:03
9
$begingroup$
Andromeda has an apparent magnitude of 3.44 and the moon has -12.6, so the brightness of Andromeda is greatly exaggerated in the NASA image.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:44
2
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question at all, and in fact is grossly misleading with the image, where the surface brightness of Andromeda relative to the Moon is greatly exaggerated.
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
Mar 29 at 8:50
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
From NASA:
Explanation: The Great Spiral Galaxy in Andromeda (aka M31), a mere 2.5 million light-years distant, is the closest large spiral to our own Milky Way. Andromeda is visible to the unaided eye as a small, faint, fuzzy patch, but because its surface brightness is so low, casual skygazers can't appreciate the galaxy's impressive extent in planet Earth's sky. This entertaining composite image compares the angular size of the nearby galaxy to a brighter, more familiar celestial sight. In it, a deep exposure of Andromeda, tracing beautiful blue star clusters in spiral arms far beyond the bright yellow core, is combined with a typical view of a nearly full Moon. Shown at the same angular scale, the Moon covers about 1/2 degree on the sky, while the galaxy is clearly several times that size. The deep Andromeda exposure also includes two bright satellite galaxies, M32 and M110 (bottom).
answered Mar 29 at 4:32
Keith McClaryKeith McClary
1,431411
$endgroup$
From NASA:
Explanation: The Great Spiral Galaxy in Andromeda (aka M31), a mere 2.5 million light-years distant, is the closest large spiral to our own Milky Way. Andromeda is visible to the unaided eye as a small, faint, fuzzy patch, but because its surface brightness is so low, casual skygazers can't appreciate the galaxy's impressive extent in planet Earth's sky. This entertaining composite image compares the angular size of the nearby galaxy to a brighter, more familiar celestial sight. In it, a deep exposure of Andromeda, tracing beautiful blue star clusters in spiral arms far beyond the bright yellow core, is combined with a typical view of a nearly full Moon. Shown at the same angular scale, the Moon covers about 1/2 degree on the sky, while the galaxy is clearly several times that size. The deep Andromeda exposure also includes two bright satellite galaxies, M32 and M110 (bottom).
answered Mar 29 at 4:32
Keith McClaryKeith McClary
1,431411
answered Mar 29 at 4:32
Keith McClaryKeith McClary
1,431411
answered Mar 29 at 4:32
Keith McClaryKeith McClary
1,431411
answered Mar 29 at 4:32
Keith McClaryKeith McClary
1,431411
1,431411
6
$begingroup$
Don't upvote this - instead write a letter to your rep about NASA funding cuts.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 4:34
1
$begingroup$
So I deduce from the NASA explanation that indeed you would be able to watch the Galaxy as in the picture but not as bright as it appears in the films.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:31
1
$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez I can see Andromeda with binoculars - just the bright centre blob. Some can see it naked-eye. If you were ten times closer and turned off the lights in the control room and waited for your eyes to become dark-adapted, it would look about that size but not as bright. But still spectacular.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:03
9
$begingroup$
Andromeda has an apparent magnitude of 3.44 and the moon has -12.6, so the brightness of Andromeda is greatly exaggerated in the NASA image.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:44
2
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question at all, and in fact is grossly misleading with the image, where the surface brightness of Andromeda relative to the Moon is greatly exaggerated.
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
Mar 29 at 8:50
|
show 8 more comments
6
$begingroup$
Don't upvote this - instead write a letter to your rep about NASA funding cuts.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 4:34
1
$begingroup$
So I deduce from the NASA explanation that indeed you would be able to watch the Galaxy as in the picture but not as bright as it appears in the films.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:31
1
$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez I can see Andromeda with binoculars - just the bright centre blob. Some can see it naked-eye. If you were ten times closer and turned off the lights in the control room and waited for your eyes to become dark-adapted, it would look about that size but not as bright. But still spectacular.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:03
9
$begingroup$
Andromeda has an apparent magnitude of 3.44 and the moon has -12.6, so the brightness of Andromeda is greatly exaggerated in the NASA image.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:44
2
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question at all, and in fact is grossly misleading with the image, where the surface brightness of Andromeda relative to the Moon is greatly exaggerated.
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
Mar 29 at 8:50
6
6
$begingroup$
Don't upvote this - instead write a letter to your rep about NASA funding cuts.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 4:34
$begingroup$
Don't upvote this - instead write a letter to your rep about NASA funding cuts.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 4:34
1
1
$begingroup$
So I deduce from the NASA explanation that indeed you would be able to watch the Galaxy as in the picture but not as bright as it appears in the films.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:31
$begingroup$
So I deduce from the NASA explanation that indeed you would be able to watch the Galaxy as in the picture but not as bright as it appears in the films.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:31
1
1
$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez I can see Andromeda with binoculars - just the bright centre blob. Some can see it naked-eye. If you were ten times closer and turned off the lights in the control room and waited for your eyes to become dark-adapted, it would look about that size but not as bright. But still spectacular.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:03
$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez I can see Andromeda with binoculars - just the bright centre blob. Some can see it naked-eye. If you were ten times closer and turned off the lights in the control room and waited for your eyes to become dark-adapted, it would look about that size but not as bright. But still spectacular.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:03
9
9
$begingroup$
Andromeda has an apparent magnitude of 3.44 and the moon has -12.6, so the brightness of Andromeda is greatly exaggerated in the NASA image.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:44
$begingroup$
Andromeda has an apparent magnitude of 3.44 and the moon has -12.6, so the brightness of Andromeda is greatly exaggerated in the NASA image.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:44
2
2
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question at all, and in fact is grossly misleading with the image, where the surface brightness of Andromeda relative to the Moon is greatly exaggerated.
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
Mar 29 at 8:50
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question at all, and in fact is grossly misleading with the image, where the surface brightness of Andromeda relative to the Moon is greatly exaggerated.
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
Mar 29 at 8:50
|
show 8 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469295%2fwould-a-galaxy-be-visible-from-outside-but-nearby%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
$begingroup$
I always thought this was a protostar or early solar system.
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 11:20
1
$begingroup$
Do you mean whether the disk would be too faint to see because of the brightness of the center, or whether the size would fit in the field of view?
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
Mar 29 at 11:28
$begingroup$
@Burgi yes, until now I realize that is indeed a protostar, tbh I was a child when I watched that episode and looked a galaxy to me. But I have been wrong.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 15:26
$begingroup$
It might have been "tweaked" in the special editions
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 15:32
1
$begingroup$
@Burgi, the canon is inconsistent.
$endgroup$
– Harry Johnston
Mar 30 at 5:15