# The Stars: A Celestial Census

## Thinking Ahead

How do stars form? How long do they live? And how do they die? Stop and think how hard it is to answer these questions.
Stars live such a long time that nothing much can be gained from staring at one for a human lifetime. To discover how stars evolve from birth to death, it was necessary to measure the characteristics of many stars (to take a celestial census, in effect) and then determine which characteristics help us understand the stars’ life stories. Astronomers tried a variety of hypotheses about stars until they came up with the right approach to understanding their development. But the key was first making a thorough census of the stars around us.


# The Stars: A Celestial Census

## A Stellar Census

### Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:
1. Explain why the stars visible to the unaided eye are not typical
2. Describe the distribution of stellar masses found close to the Sun
Before we can make our own survey, we need to agree on a unit of distance appropriate to the objects we are studying. The stars are all so far away that kilometers (and even astronomical units) would be very cumbersome to use; so—as discussed in Science and the Universe: A Brief Tour—astronomers use a much larger “measuring stick” called the light-year. A light-year is the distance that light (the fastest signal we know) travels in 1 year. Since light covers an astounding 300,000 kilometers per second, and since there are a lot of seconds in 1 year, a light-year is a very large quantity: 9.5 trillion  kilometers to be exact. (Bear in mind that the light-year is a unit of distance even though the term year appears in it.) If you drove at the legal US speed limit without stopping for food or rest, you would not arrive at the end of a light-year in space until roughly 12 million years had passed. And the closest star is more than 4 light-years away.
Notice that we have not yet said much about how such enormous distances can be measured. That is a complicated question, to which we will return in Celestial Distances. For now, let us assume that distances have been measured for stars in our cosmic vicinity so that we can proceed with our census.

### Small Is Beautiful—Or at Least More Common

When we do a census of people in the United States, we count the inhabitants by neighborhood. We can try the same approach for our stellar census and begin with our own immediate neighborhood. As we shall see, we run into two problems—just as we do with a census of human beings. First, it is hard to be sure we have counted all the inhabitants; second, our local neighborhood may not contain all possible types of people.
 shows an estimate of the number of stars of each spectral typeThe spectral types of stars were defined and discussed in  in our own local neighborhood—within 21 light-years of the Sun. (The Milky Way Galaxy, in which we live, is about 100,000 light-years in diameter, so this figure really applies to a very local neighborhood, one that contains a tiny fraction of all the billions of stars in the Milky Way.) You can see that there are many more low-luminosity (and hence low mass) stars than high-luminosity ones. Only three of the stars in our local neighborhood (one F type and two A types) are significantly more luminous and more massive than the Sun. This is truly a case where small triumphs over large—at least in terms of numbers. The Sun is more massive than the vast majority of stars in our vicinity.
This table is based on data published through 2015, and it is likely that more faint objects remain to be discovered (see ). Along with the L and T brown dwarfs already observed in our neighborhood, astronomers expect to find perhaps hundreds of additional T dwarfs and Y dwarfs. Many of these are likely to be even cooler than the coolest currently known T dwarf. The reason the lowest-mass dwarfs are so hard to find is that they put out very little light—ten thousand to a million times less light than the Sun. Only recently has our technology progressed to the point that we can detect these dim, cool objects.
To put all this in perspective, we note that even though the stars counted in the table are our closest neighbors, you can’t just look up at the night sky and see them without a telescope; stars fainter than the Sun cannot be seen with the unaided eye unless they are very nearby. For example, stars with luminosities ranging from 1/100 to 1/10,000 the luminosity of the Sun (LSun) are very common, but a star with a luminosity of 1/100 LSun would have to be within 5 light-years to be visible to the naked eye—and only three stars (all in one system) are this close to us. The nearest of these three stars, Proxima Centauri, still cannot be seen without a telescope because it has such a low luminosity.
Astronomers are working hard these days to complete the census of our local neighborhood by finding our faintest neighbors. Recent discoveries of nearby stars have relied heavily upon infrared telescopes that are able to find these many cool, low-mass stars. You should expect the number of known stars within 21 light-years of the Sun to keep increasing as more and better surveys are undertaken.

### Bright Does Not Necessarily Mean Close

If we confine our census to the local neighborhood, we will miss many of the most interesting kinds of stars. After all, the neighborhood in which you live does not contain all the types of people—distinguished according to age, education, income, race, and so on—that live in the entire country. For example, a few people do live to be over 100 years old, but there may be no such individual within several miles of where you live. In order to sample the full range of the human population, you would have to extend your census to a much larger area. Similarly, some types of stars simply are not found nearby.
A clue that we are missing something in our stellar census comes from the fact that only six of the 20 stars that appear brightest in our sky—Sirius, Vega, Altair, Alpha Centauri, Fomalhaut, and Procyon—are found within 26 light-years of the Sun (). Why are we missing most of the brightest stars when we take our census of the local neighborhood?
The answer, interestingly enough, is that the stars that appear brightest are not the ones closest to us. The brightest stars look the way they do because they emit a very large amount of energy—so much, in fact, that they do not have to be nearby to look brilliant. You can confirm this by looking at Appendix J, which gives distances for the 20 stars that appear brightest from Earth. The most distant of these stars is more than 1000 light-years from us. In fact, it turns out that most of the stars visible without a telescope are hundreds of light-years away and many times more luminous than the Sun. Among the 9000 stars visible to the unaided eye, only about 50 are intrinsically fainter than the Sun. Note also that several of the stars in Appendix J are spectral type B, a type that is completely missing from .
The most luminous of the bright stars listed in Appendix J emit more than 50,000 times more energy than does the Sun. These highly luminous stars are missing from the solar neighborhood because they are very rare. None of them happens to be in the tiny volume of space immediately surrounding the Sun, and only this small volume was surveyed to get the data shown in .
For example, let’s consider the most luminous stars—those 100 or more times as luminous as the Sun. Although such stars are rare, they are visible to the unaided eye, even when hundreds to thousands of light-years away. A star with a luminosity 10,000 times greater than that of the Sun can be seen without a telescope out to a distance of 5000 light-years. The volume of space included within a distance of 5000 light-years, however, is enormous; so even though highly luminous stars are intrinsically rare, many of them are readily visible to our unaided eye.
The contrast between these two samples of stars, those that are close to us and those that can be seen with the unaided eye, is an example of a selection effect. When a population of objects (stars in this example) includes a great variety of different types, we must be careful what conclusions we draw from an examination of any particular subgroup. Certainly we would be fooling ourselves if we assumed that the stars visible to the unaided eye are characteristic of the general stellar population; this subgroup is heavily weighted to the most luminous stars. It requires much more effort to assemble a complete data set for the nearest stars, since most are so faint that they can be observed only with a telescope. However, it is only by doing so that astronomers are able to know about the properties of the vast majority of the stars, which are actually much smaller and fainter than our own Sun. In the next section, we will look at how we measure some of these properties.

### Key Concepts and Summary

To understand the properties of stars, we must make wide-ranging surveys. We find the stars that appear brightest to our eyes are bright primarily because they are intrinsically very luminous, not because they are the closest to us. Most of the nearest stars are intrinsically so faint that they can be seen only with the aid of a telescope. Stars with low mass and low luminosity are much more common than stars with high mass and high luminosity. Most of the brown dwarfs in the local neighborhood have not yet been discovered.


# The Stars: A Celestial Census

## Measuring Stellar Masses

### Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:
1. Distinguish the different types of binary star systems
2. Understand how we can apply Newton’s version of Kepler’s third law to derive the sum of star masses in a binary star system
3. Apply the relationship between stellar mass and stellar luminosity to determine the physical characteristics of a star
The mass of a star—how much material it contains—is one of its most important characteristics. If we know a star’s mass, as we shall see, we can estimate how long it will shine and what its ultimate fate will be. Yet the mass of a star is very difficult to measure directly. Somehow, we need to put a star on the cosmic equivalent of a scale.
Luckily, not all stars live like the Sun, in isolation from other stars. About half the stars are binary stars—two stars that orbit each other, bound together by gravity. Masses of binary stars can be calculated from measurements of their orbits, just as the mass of the Sun can be derived by measuring the orbits of the planets around it (see Orbits and Gravity).

### Binary Stars

Before we discuss in more detail how mass can be measured, we will take a closer look at stars that come in pairs. The first binary star was discovered in 1650, less than half a century after Galileo began to observe the sky with a telescope. Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598–1671), an Italian astronomer, noted that the star Mizar, in the middle of the Big Dipper’s handle, appeared through his telescope as two stars. Since that discovery, thousands of binary stars have been cataloged. (Astronomers call any pair of stars that appear to be close to each other in the sky double stars, but not all of these form a true binary, that is, not all of them are physically associated. Some are just chance alignments of stars that are actually at different distances from us.) Although stars most commonly come in pairs, there are also triple and quadruple systems.
One well-known binary star is Castor, located in the constellation of Gemini. By 1804, astronomer William Herschel, who also discovered the planet Uranus, had noted that the fainter component of Castor had slightly changed its position relative to the brighter component. (We use the term “component” to mean a member of a star system.) Here was evidence that one star was moving around another. It was actually the first evidence that gravitational influences exist outside the solar system. The orbital motion of a binary star is shown in . A binary star system in which both of the stars can be seen with a telescope is called a visual binary.
Edward C. Pickering (1846–1919), at Harvard, discovered a second class of binary stars in 1889—a class in which only one of the stars is actually seen directly. He was examining the spectrum of Mizar and found that the dark absorption lines in the brighter star’s spectrum were usually double. Not only were there two lines where astronomers normally saw only one, but the spacing of the lines was constantly changing. At times, the lines even became single. Pickering correctly deduced that the brighter component of Mizar, called Mizar A, is itself really two stars that revolve about each other in a period of 104 days. A star like Mizar A, which appears as a single star when photographed or observed visually through the telescope, but which spectroscopy shows really to be a double star, is called a spectroscopic binary.
Mizar, by the way, is a good example of just how complex such star systems can be. Mizar has been known for centuries to have a faint companion called Alcor, which can be seen without a telescope. Mizar and Alcor form an optical double—a pair of stars that appear close together in the sky but do not orbit each other. Through a telescope, as Riccioli discovered in 1650, Mizar can be seen to have another, closer companion that does orbit it; Mizar is thus a visual binary. The two components that make up this visual binary, known as Mizar A and Mizar B, are both spectroscopic binaries. So, Mizar is really a quadruple system of stars.
Strictly speaking, it is not correct to describe the motion of a binary star system by saying that one star orbits the other. Gravity is a mutual attraction. Each star exerts a gravitational force on the other, with the result that both stars orbit a point between them called the center of mass. Imagine that the two stars are seated at either end of a seesaw. The point at which the fulcrum would have to be located in order for the seesaw to balance is the center of mass, and it is always closer to the more massive star ().
 shows two stars (A and B) moving around their center of mass, along with one line in the spectrum of each star that we observe from the system at different times. When one star is approaching us relative to the center of mass, the other star is receding from us. In the top left illustration, star A is moving toward us, so the line in its spectrum is Doppler-shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum. Star B is moving away from us, so its line shows a redshift. When we observe the composite spectrum of the two stars, the line appears double. When the two stars are both moving across our line of sight (neither away from nor toward us), they both have the same radial velocity (that of the pair’s center of mass); hence, the spectral lines of the two stars come together. This is shown in the two bottom illustrations in .
A plot showing how the velocities of the stars change with time is called a radial velocity curve; the curve for the binary system in  is shown in .

### Masses from the Orbits of Binary Stars

We can estimate the masses of binary star systems using Newton’s reformulation of Kepler’s third law (discussed in Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation). Kepler found that the time a planet takes to go around the Sun is related by a specific mathematical formula to its distance from the Sun. In our binary star situation, if two objects are in mutual revolution, then the period (P) with which they go around each other is related to the semimajor axis (D) of the orbit of one with respect to the other, according to this equation
where D is in astronomical units, P is measured in years, and M1 + M2 is the sum of the masses of the two stars in units of the Sun’s mass. This is a very useful formula for astronomers; it says that if we can observe the size of the orbit and the period of mutual revolution of the stars in a binary system, we can calculate the sum of their masses.
Most spectroscopic binaries have periods ranging from a few days to a few months, with separations of usually less than 1 AU between their member stars. Recall that an AU is the distance from Earth to the Sun, so this is a small separation and very hard to see at the distances of stars. This is why many of these systems are known to be double only through careful study of their spectra.
We can analyze a radial velocity curve (such as the one in ) to determine the masses of the stars in a spectroscopic binary. This is complex in practice but not hard in principle. We measure the speeds of the stars from the Doppler effect. We then determine the period—how long the stars take to go through an orbital cycle—from the velocity curve. Knowing how fast the stars are moving and how long they take to go around tells us the circumference of the orbit and, hence, the separation of the stars in kilometers or astronomical units. From Kepler’s law, the period and the separation allow us to calculate the sum of the stars’ masses.
Of course, knowing the sum of the masses is not as useful as knowing the mass of each star separately. But the relative orbital speeds of the two stars can tell us how much of the total mass each star has. As we saw in our seesaw analogy, the more massive star is closer to the center of mass and therefore has a smaller orbit. Therefore, it moves more slowly to get around in the same time compared to the more distant, lower-mass star. If we sort out the speeds relative to each other, we can sort out the masses relative to each other. In practice, we also need to know how the binary system is oriented in the sky to our line of sight, but if we do, and the just-described steps are carried out carefully, the result is a calculation of the masses of each of the two stars in the system.
To summarize, a good measurement of the motion of two stars around a common center of mass, combined with the laws of gravity, allows us to determine the masses of stars in such systems. These mass measurements are absolutely crucial to developing a theory of how stars evolve. One of the best things about this method is that it is independent of the location of the binary system. It works as well for stars 100 light-years away from us as for those in our immediate neighborhood.
To take a specific example, Sirius is one of the few binary stars in Appendix J for which we have enough information to apply Kepler’s third law:
In this case, the two stars, the one we usually call Sirius and its very faint companion, are separated by about 20 AU and have an orbital period of about 50 years. If we place these values in the formula we would have
This can be solved for the sum of the masses:
Therefore, the sum of masses of the two stars in the Sirius binary system is 3.2 times the Sun’s mass. In order to determine the individual mass of each star, we would need the velocities of the two stars and the orientation of the orbit relative to our line of sight.

### The Range of Stellar Masses

How large can the mass of a star be? Stars more massive than the Sun are rare. None of the stars within 30 light-years of the Sun has a mass greater than four times that of the Sun. Searches at large distances from the Sun have led to the discovery of a few stars with masses up to about 100 times that of the Sun, and a handful of stars (a few out of several billion) may have masses as large as 250 solar masses. However, most stars have less mass than the Sun.
According to theoretical calculations, the smallest mass that a true star can have is about 1/12 that of the Sun. By a “true” star, astronomers mean one that becomes hot enough to fuse protons to form helium (as discussed in The Sun: A Nuclear Powerhouse). Objects with masses between roughly 1/100 and 1/12 that of the Sun may produce energy for a brief time by means of nuclear reactions involving deuterium, but they do not become hot enough to fuse protons. Such objects are intermediate in mass between stars and planets and have been given the name brown dwarfs (). Brown dwarfs are similar to Jupiter in radius but have masses from approximately 13 to 80 times larger than the mass of Jupiter.Exactly where to put the dividing line between planets and brown dwarfs is a subject of some debate among astronomers as we write this book (as is, in fact, the exact definition of each of these objects). Even those who accept deuterium fusion (see
Still-smaller objects with masses less than about 1/100 the mass of the Sun (or 10 Jupiter masses) are called planets. They may radiate energy produced by the radioactive elements that they contain, and they may also radiate heat generated by slowly compressing under their own weight (a process called gravitational contraction). However, their interiors will never reach temperatures high enough for any nuclear reactions, to take place. Jupiter, whose mass is about 1/1000 the mass of the Sun, is unquestionably a planet, for example. Until the 1990s, we could only detect planets in our own solar system, but now we have thousands of them elsewhere as well. (We will discuss these exciting observations in The Birth of Stars and the Discovery of Planets outside the Solar System.)

### The Mass-Luminosity Relation

Now that we have measurements of the characteristics of many different types of stars, we can search for relationships among the characteristics. For example, we can ask whether the mass and luminosity of a star are related. It turns out that for most stars, they are: The more massive stars are generally also the more luminous. This relationship, known as the mass-luminosity relation, is shown graphically in . Each point represents a star whose mass and luminosity are both known. The horizontal position on the graph shows the star’s mass, given in units of the Sun’s mass, and the vertical position shows its luminosity in units of the Sun’s luminosity.
We can also say this in mathematical terms.
It’s a reasonably good approximation to say that luminosity (expressed in units of the Sun’s luminosity) varies as the fourth power of the mass (in units of the Sun’s mass). (The symbol ~ means the two quantities are proportional.) If two stars differ in mass by a factor of 2, then the more massive one will be 24, or about 16 times brighter; if one star is 1/3 the mass of another, it will be approximately 81 times less luminous.
Notice how good this mass-luminosity relationship is. Most stars (see ) fall along a line running from the lower-left (low mass, low luminosity) corner of the diagram to the upper-right (high mass, high luminosity) corner. About 90% of all stars obey the mass-luminosity relation. Later, we will explore why such a relationship exists and what we can learn from the roughly 10% of stars that “disobey” it.

### Key Concepts and Summary

The masses of stars can be determined by analysis of the orbit of binary stars—two stars that orbit a common center of mass. In visual binaries, the two stars can be seen separately in a telescope, whereas in a spectroscopic binary, only the spectrum reveals the presence of two stars. Stellar masses range from about 1/12 to more than 100 times the mass of the Sun (in rare cases, going to 250 times the Sun’s mass). Objects with masses between 1/12 and 1/100 that of the Sun are called brown dwarfs. Objects in which no nuclear reactions can take place are planets. The most massive stars are, in most cases, also the most luminous, and this correlation is known as the mass-luminosity relation.


# The Stars: A Celestial Census

## Diameters of Stars

### Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:
1. Describe the methods used to determine star diameters
2. Identify the parts of an eclipsing binary star light curve that correspond to the diameters of the individual components
It is easy to measure the diameter of the Sun. Its angular diameter—that is, its apparent size on the sky—is about 1/2°. If we know the angle the Sun takes up in the sky and how far away it is, we can calculate its true (linear) diameter, which is 1.39 million kilometers, or about 109 times the diameter of Earth.
Unfortunately, the Sun is the only star whose angular diameter is easily measured. All the other stars are so far away that they look like pinpoints of light through even the largest ground-based telescopes. (They often seem to be bigger, but that is merely distortion introduced by turbulence in Earth’s atmosphere.) Luckily, there are several techniques that astronomers can use to estimate the sizes of stars.

### Stars Blocked by the Moon

One technique, which gives very precise diameters but can be used for only a few stars, is to observe the dimming of light that occurs when the Moon passes in front of a star. What astronomers measure (with great precision) is the time required for the star’s brightness to drop to zero as the edge of the Moon moves across the star’s disk. Since we know how rapidly the Moon moves in its orbit around Earth, it is possible to calculate the angular diameter of the star. If the distance to the star is also known, we can calculate its diameter in kilometers. This method works only for fairly bright stars that happen to lie along the zodiac, where the Moon (or, much more rarely, a planet) can pass in front of them as seen from Earth.

### Eclipsing Binary Stars

Accurate sizes for a large number of stars come from measurements of eclipsing binary star systems, and so we must make a brief detour from our main story to examine this type of star system. Some binary stars are lined up in such a way that, when viewed from Earth, each star passes in front of the other during every revolution (). When one star blocks the light of the other, preventing it from reaching Earth, the brightness of the system decreases, and astronomers say that an eclipse has occurred.
The discovery of the first eclipsing binary helped solve a long-standing puzzle in astronomy. The star Algol, in the constellation of Perseus, changes its brightness in an odd but regular way. Normally, Algol is a fairly bright star, but at intervals of 2 days, 20 hours, 49 minutes, it fades to one-third of its regular brightness. After a few hours, it brightens to normal again. This effect is easily seen, even without a telescope, if you know what to look for.
In 1783, a young English astronomer named John Goodricke (1764–1786) made a careful study of Algol (see the feature on John Goodricke for a discussion of his life and work). Even though Goodricke could neither hear nor speak, he made a number of major discoveries in the 21 years of his brief life. He suggested that Algol’s unusual brightness variations might be due to an invisible companion that regularly passes in front of the brighter star and blocks its light. Unfortunately, Goodricke had no way to test this idea, since it was not until about a century later that equipment became good enough to measure Algol’s spectrum.
In 1889, the German astronomer Hermann Vogel (1841–1907) demonstrated that, like Mizar, Algol is a spectroscopic binary. The spectral lines of Algol were not observed to be double because the fainter star of the pair gives off too-little light compared with the brighter star for its lines to be conspicuous in the composite spectrum. Nevertheless, the periodic shifting back and forth of the brighter star’s lines gave evidence that it was revolving about an unseen companion. (The lines of both components need not be visible for a star to be recognized as a spectroscopic binary.)
The discovery that Algol is a spectroscopic binary verified Goodricke’s hypothesis. The plane in which the stars revolve is turned nearly edgewise to our line of sight, and each star passes in front of the other during every revolution. (The eclipse of the fainter star in the Algol system is not very noticeable because the part of it that is covered contributes little to the total light of the system. This second eclipse can, however, be detected by careful measurements.)
Any binary star produces eclipses if viewed from the proper direction, near the plane of its orbit, so that one star passes in front of the other (see ). But from our vantage point on Earth, only a small percentage of binary star systems are oriented in this way.

### Diameters of Eclipsing Binary Stars

We now turn back to the main thread of our story to discuss how all this can be used to measure the sizes of stars. The technique involves making a light curve of an eclipsing binary, a graph that plots how the brightness changes with time. Let us consider a hypothetical binary system in which the stars are very different in size, like those illustrated in . To make life easy, we will assume that the orbit is viewed exactly edge-on.
Even though we cannot see the two stars separately in such a system, the light curve can tell us what is happening. When the smaller star just starts to pass behind the larger star (a point we call first contact), the brightness begins to drop. The eclipse becomes total (the smaller star is completely hidden) at the point called second contact. At the end of the total eclipse (third contact), the smaller star begins to emerge. When the smaller star has reached last contact, the eclipse is completely over.
To see how this allows us to measure diameters, look carefully at . During the time interval between the first and second contacts, the smaller star has moved a distance equal to its own diameter. During the time interval from the first to third contacts, the smaller star has moved a distance equal to the diameter of the larger star. If the spectral lines of both stars are visible in the spectrum of the binary, then the speed of the smaller star with respect to the larger one can be measured from the Doppler shift. But knowing the speed with which the smaller star is moving and how long it took to cover some distance can tell the span of that distance—in this case, the diameters of the stars. The speed multiplied by the time interval from the first to second contact gives the diameter of the smaller star. We multiply the speed by the time between the first and third contacts to get the diameter of the larger star.
In actuality, the situation with eclipsing binaries is often a bit more complicated: orbits are generally not seen exactly edge-on, and the light from each star may be only partially blocked by the other. Furthermore, binary star orbits, just like the orbits of the planets, are ellipses, not circles. However, all these effects can be sorted out from very careful measurements of the light curve.

### Using the Radiation Law to Get the Diameter

Another method for measuring star diameters makes use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law for the relationship between energy radiated and temperature (see Radiation and Spectra). In this method, the energy flux (energy emitted per second per square meter by a blackbody, like the Sun) is given by
where σ is a constant and T is the temperature. The surface area of a sphere (like a star) is given by
The luminosity (L) of a star is then given by its surface area in square meters times the energy flux:
Previously, we determined the masses of the two stars in the Sirius binary system. Sirius gives off 8200 times more energy than its fainter companion star, although both stars have nearly identical temperatures. The extremely large difference in luminosity is due to the difference in radius, since the temperatures and hence the energy fluxes for the two stars are nearly the same. To determine the relative sizes of the two stars, we take the ratio of the corresponding luminosities:
Therefore, the relative sizes of the two stars can be found by taking the square root of the relative luminosity. Since , the radius of Sirius is 91 times larger than the radius of its faint companion.
The method for determining the radius shown here requires both stars be visible, which is not always the case.

### Stellar Diameters

The results of many stellar size measurements over the years have shown that most nearby stars are roughly the size of the Sun, with typical diameters of a million kilometers or so. Faint stars, as we might have expected, are generally smaller than more luminous stars. However, there are some dramatic exceptions to this simple generalization.
A few of the very luminous stars, those that are also red (indicating relatively low surface temperatures), turn out to be truly enormous. These stars are called, appropriately enough, giant stars or supergiant stars. An example is Betelgeuse (see ), the second brightest star in the constellation of Orion and one of the dozen brightest stars in our sky. Its diameter, remarkably, is greater than 10 AU (1.5 billion kilometers!), large enough to fill the entire inner solar system almost as far out as Jupiter. In Stars from Adolescence to Old Age, we will look in detail at the evolutionary process that leads to the formation of such giant and supergiant stars.

### Key Concepts and Summary

The diameters of stars can be determined by measuring the time it takes an object (the Moon, a planet, or a companion star) to pass in front of it and block its light. Diameters of members of eclipsing binary systems (where the stars pass in front of each other) can be determined through analysis of their orbital motions.


# The Stars: A Celestial Census

## The H–R Diagram

### Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:
1. Identify the physical characteristics of stars that are used to create an H–R diagram, and describe how those characteristics vary among groups of stars
2. Discuss the physical properties of most stars found at different locations on the H–R diagram, such as radius, and for main sequence stars, mass
In this chapter and Analyzing Starlight, we described some of the characteristics by which we might classify stars and how those are measured. These ideas are summarized in . We have also given an example of a relationship between two of these characteristics in the mass-luminosity relation. When the characteristics of large numbers of stars were measured at the beginning of the twentieth century, astronomers were able to begin a deeper search for patterns and relationships in these data.
To help understand what sorts of relationships might be found, let’s look briefly at a range of data about human beings. If you want to understand humans by comparing and contrasting their characteristics—without assuming any previous knowledge of these strange creatures—you could try to determine which characteristics lead you in a fruitful direction. For example, you might plot the heights of a large sample of humans against their weights (which is a measure of their mass). Such a plot is shown in  and it has some interesting features. In the way we have chosen to present our data, height increases upward, whereas weight increases to the left. Notice that humans are not randomly distributed in the graph. Most points fall along a sequence that goes from the upper left to the lower right.
We can conclude from this graph that human height and weight are related. Generally speaking, taller human beings weigh more, whereas shorter ones weigh less. This makes sense if you are familiar with the structure of human beings. Typically, if we have bigger bones, we have more flesh to fill out our larger frame. It’s not mathematically exact—there is a wide range of variation—but it’s not a bad overall rule. And, of course, there are some dramatic exceptions. You occasionally see a short human who is very overweight and would thus be more to the bottom left of our diagram than the average sequence of people. Or you might have a very tall, skinny fashion model with great height but relatively small weight, who would be found near the upper right.
A similar diagram has been found extremely useful for understanding the lives of stars. In 1913, American astronomer Henry Norris Russell plotted the luminosities of stars against their spectral classes (a way of denoting their surface temperatures). This investigation, and a similar independent study in 1911 by Danish astronomer Ejnar Hertzsprung, led to the extremely important discovery that the temperature and luminosity of stars are related ().

### Features of the H–R Diagram

Following Hertzsprung and Russell, let us plot the temperature (or spectral class) of a selected group of nearby stars against their luminosity and see what we find (). Such a plot is frequently called the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, abbreviated H–R diagram. It is one of the most important and widely used diagrams in astronomy, with applications that extend far beyond the purposes for which it was originally developed more than a century ago.
It is customary to plot H–R diagrams in such a way that temperature increases toward the left and luminosity toward the top. Notice the similarity to our plot of height and weight for people (). Stars, like people, are not distributed over the diagram at random, as they would be if they exhibited all combinations of luminosity and temperature. Instead, we see that the stars cluster into certain parts of the H–R diagram. The great majority are aligned along a narrow sequence running from the upper left (hot, highly luminous) to the lower right (cool, less luminous). This band of points is called the main sequence. It represents a relationship between temperature and luminosity that is followed by most stars. We can summarize this relationship by saying that hotter stars are more luminous than cooler ones.
A number of stars, however, lie above the main sequence on the H–R diagram, in the upper-right region, where stars have low temperature and high luminosity. How can a star be at once cool, meaning each square meter on the star does not put out all that much energy, and yet very luminous? The only way is for the star to be enormous—to have so many square meters on its surface that the total energy output is still large. These stars must be giants or supergiants, the stars of huge diameter we discussed earlier.
There are also some stars in the lower-left corner of the diagram, which have high temperature and low luminosity. If they have high surface temperatures, each square meter on that star puts out a lot of energy. How then can the overall star be dim? It must be that it has a very small total surface area; such stars are known as white dwarfs (white because, at these high temperatures, the colors of the electromagnetic radiation that they emit blend together to make them look bluish-white). We will say more about these puzzling objects in a moment.  is a schematic H–R diagram for a large sample of stars, drawn to make the different types more apparent.
Now, think back to our discussion of star surveys. It is difficult to plot an H–R diagram that is truly representative of all stars because most stars are so faint that we cannot see those outside our immediate neighborhood. The stars plotted in  were selected because their distances are known. This sample omits many intrinsically faint stars that are nearby but have not had their distances measured, so it shows fewer faint main-sequence stars than a “fair” diagram would. To be truly representative of the stellar population, an H–R diagram should be plotted for all stars within a certain distance. Unfortunately, our knowledge is reasonably complete only for stars within 10 to 20 light-years of the Sun, among which there are no giants or supergiants. Still, from many surveys (and more can now be done with new, more powerful telescopes), we estimate that about 90% of the true stars overall (excluding brown dwarfs) in our part of space are main-sequence stars, about 10% are white dwarfs, and fewer than 1% are giants or supergiants.
These estimates can be used directly to understand the lives of stars. Permit us another quick analogy with people. Suppose we survey people just like astronomers survey stars, but we want to focus our attention on the location of young people, ages 6 to 18 years. Survey teams fan out and take data about where such youngsters are found at all times during a 24-hour day. Some are found in the local pizza parlor, others are asleep at home, some are at the movies, and many are in school. After surveying a very large number of young people, one of the things that the teams determine is that, averaged over the course of the 24 hours, one-third of all youngsters are found in school.
How can they interpret this result? Does it mean that two-thirds of students are truants and the remaining one-third spend all their time in school? No, we must bear in mind that the survey teams counted youngsters throughout the full 24-hour day. Some survey teams worked at night, when most youngsters were at home asleep, and others worked in the late afternoon, when most youngsters were on their way home from school (and more likely to be enjoying a pizza). If the survey was truly representative, we can conclude, however, that if an average of one-third of all youngsters are found in school, then humans ages 6 to 18 years must spend about one-third of their time in school.
We can do something similar for stars. We find that, on average, 90% of all stars are located on the main sequence of the H–R diagram. If we can identify some activity or life stage with the main sequence, then it follows that stars must spend 90% of their lives in that activity or life stage.

### Understanding the Main Sequence

In The Sun: A Nuclear Powerhouse, we discussed the Sun as a representative star. We saw that what stars such as the Sun “do for a living” is to convert protons into helium deep in their interiors via the process of nuclear fusion, thus producing energy. The fusion of protons to helium is an excellent, long-lasting source of energy for a star because the bulk of every star consists of hydrogen atoms, whose nuclei are protons.
Our computer models of how stars evolve over time show us that a typical star will spend about 90% of its life fusing the abundant hydrogen in its core into helium. This then is a good explanation of why 90% of all stars are found on the main sequence in the H–R diagram. But if all the stars on the main sequence are doing the same thing (fusing hydrogen), why are they distributed along a sequence of points? That is, why do they differ in luminosity and surface temperature (which is what we are plotting on the H–R diagram)?
To help us understand how main-sequence stars differ, we can use one of the most important results from our studies of model stars. Astrophysicists have been able to show that the structure of stars that are in equilibrium and derive all their energy from nuclear fusion is completely and uniquely determined by just two quantities: the total mass and the composition of the star. This fact provides an interpretation of many features of the H–R diagram.
Imagine a cluster of stars forming from a cloud of interstellar “raw material” whose chemical composition is similar to the Sun’s. (We’ll describe this process in more detail in The Birth of Stars and Discovery of Planets outside the Solar System, but for now, the details will not concern us.) In such a cloud, all the clumps of gas and dust that become stars begin with the same chemical composition and differ from one another only in mass. Now suppose that we compute a model of each of these stars for the time at which it becomes stable and derives its energy from nuclear reactions, but before it has time to alter its composition appreciably as a result of these reactions.
The models calculated for these stars allow us to determine their luminosities, temperatures, and sizes. If we plot the results from the models—one point for each model star—on the H–R diagram, we get something that looks just like the main sequence we saw for real stars.
And here is what we find when we do this. The model stars with the largest masses are the hottest and most luminous, and they are located at the upper left of the diagram.
The least-massive model stars are the coolest and least luminous, and they are placed at the lower right of the plot. The other model stars all lie along a line running diagonally across the diagram. In other words, the main sequence turns out to be a sequence of stellar masses.
This makes sense if you think about it. The most massive stars have the most gravity and can thus compress their centers to the greatest degree. This means they are the hottest inside and the best at generating energy from nuclear reactions deep within. As a result, they shine with the greatest luminosity and have the hottest surface temperatures. The stars with lowest mass, in turn, are the coolest inside and least effective in generating energy. Thus, they are the least luminous and wind up being the coolest on the surface. Our Sun lies somewhere in the middle of these extremes (as you can see in ). The characteristics of representative main-sequence stars (excluding brown dwarfs, which are not true stars) are listed in .
Note that we’ve seen this 90% figure come up before. This is exactly what we found earlier when we examined the mass-luminosity relation (). We observed that 90% of all stars seem to follow the relationship; these are the 90% of all stars that lie on the main sequence in our H–R diagram. Our models and our observations agree.
What about the other stars on the H–R diagram—the giants and supergiants, and the white dwarfs? As we will see in the next few chapters, these are what main-sequence stars turn into as they age: They are the later stages in a star’s life. As a star consumes its nuclear fuel, its source of energy changes, as do its chemical composition and interior structure. These changes cause the star to alter its luminosity and surface temperature so that it no longer lies on the main sequence on our diagram. Because stars spend much less time in these later stages of their lives, we see fewer stars in those regions of the H–R diagram.

### Extremes of Stellar Luminosities, Diameters, and Densities

We can use the H–R diagram to explore the extremes in size, luminosity, and density found among the stars. Such extreme stars are not only interesting to fans of the Guinness Book of World Records; they can teach us a lot about how stars work. For example, we saw that the most massive main-sequence stars are the most luminous ones. We know of a few extreme stars that are a million times more luminous than the Sun, with masses that exceed 100 times the Sun’s mass. These superluminous stars, which are at the upper left of the H–R diagram, are exceedingly hot, very blue stars of spectral type O. These are the stars that would be the most conspicuous at vast distances in space.
The cool supergiants in the upper corner of the H–R diagram are as much as 10,000 times as luminous as the Sun. In addition, these stars have diameters very much larger than that of the Sun. As discussed above, some supergiants are so large that if the solar system could be centered in one, the star’s surface would lie beyond the orbit of Mars (see ). We will have to ask, in coming chapters, what process can make a star swell up to such an enormous size, and how long these “swollen” stars can last in their distended state.
In contrast, the very common red, cool, low-luminosity stars at the lower end of the main sequence are much smaller and more compact than the Sun. An example of such a red dwarf is Ross 614B, with a surface temperature of 2700 K and only 1/2000 of the Sun’s luminosity. We call such a star a dwarf because its diameter is only 1/10 that of the Sun. A star with such a low luminosity also has a low mass (about 1/12 that of the Sun). This combination of mass and diameter means that it is so compressed that the star has an average density about 80 times that of the Sun. Its density must be higher, in fact, than that of any known solid found on the surface of Earth. (Despite this, the star is made of gas throughout because its center is so hot.)
The faint, red, main-sequence stars are not the stars of the most extreme densities, however. The white dwarfs, at the lower-left corner of the H–R diagram, have densities many times greater still.

### The White Dwarfs

The first white dwarf star was detected in 1862. Called Sirius B, it forms a binary system with Sirius A, the brightest-appearing star in the sky. It eluded discovery and analysis for a long time because its faint light tends to be lost in the glare of nearby Sirius A (). (Since Sirius is often called the Dog Star—being the brightest star in the constellation of Canis Major, the big dog—Sirius B is sometimes nicknamed the Pup.)
We have now found thousands of white dwarfs.  shows that about 7% of the true stars (spectral types O–M) in our local neighborhood are white dwarfs. A good example of a typical white dwarf is the nearby star 40 Eridani B. Its surface temperature is a relatively hot 12,000 K, but its luminosity is only 1/275 LSun. Calculations show that its radius is only 1.4% of the Sun’s, or about the same as that of Earth, and its volume is 2.5 × 10–6 that of the Sun. Its mass, however, is 0.57 times the Sun’s mass, just a little more than half. To fit such a substantial mass into so tiny a volume, the star’s density must be about 210,000 times the density of the Sun, or more than 300,000 g/cm3. A teaspoonful of this material would have a mass of some 1.6 tons! At such enormous densities, matter cannot exist in its usual state; we will examine the particular behavior of this type of matter in The Death of Stars. For now, we just note that white dwarfs are dying stars, reaching the end of their productive lives and ready for their stories to be over.
The British astrophysicist (and science popularizer) Arthur Eddington (1882–1944) described the first known white dwarf this way:
Today, however, astronomers not only accept that stars as dense as white dwarfs exist but (as we will see) have found even denser and stranger objects in their quest to understand the evolution of different types of stars.

### Key Concepts and Summary

The Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, or H–R diagram, is a plot of stellar luminosity against surface temperature. Most stars lie on the main sequence, which extends diagonally across the H–R diagram from high temperature and high luminosity to low temperature and low luminosity. The position of a star along the main sequence is determined by its mass. High-mass stars emit more energy and are hotter than low-mass stars on the main sequence. Main-sequence stars derive their energy from the fusion of protons to helium. About 90% of the stars lie on the main sequence. Only about 10% of the stars are white dwarfs, and fewer than 1% are giants or supergiants.

### For Further Exploration

### Articles

Croswell, K. “The Periodic Table of the Cosmos.” Scientific American (July 2011):45–49. A brief introduction to the history and uses of the H–R diagram.
Davis, J. “Measuring the Stars.” Sky & Telescope (October 1991): 361. The article explains direct measurements of stellar diameters.
DeVorkin, D. “Henry Norris Russell.” Scientific American (May 1989): 126.
Kaler, J. “Journeys on the H–R Diagram.” Sky & Telescope (May 1988): 483.
McAllister, H. “Twenty Years of Seeing Double.” Sky & Telescope (November 1996): 28. An update on modern studies of binary stars.
Parker, B. “Those Amazing White Dwarfs.” Astronomy (July 1984): 15. The article focuses on the history of their discovery.
Pasachoff, J. “The H–R Diagram’s 100th Anniversary.” Sky & Telescope (June 2014): 32.
Roth, J., and Sinnott, R. “Our Studies of Celestial Neighbors.” Sky & Telescope (October 1996): 32. A discussion is provided on finding the nearest stars.

### Websites

Eclipsing Binary Stars: http://www.midnightkite.com/index.aspx?URL=Binary. Dan Bruton at Austin State University has created this collection of animations, articles, and links showing how astronomers use eclipsing binary light curves.
Henry Norris Russell: http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/brucemedalists/russell/RussellBio.pdf. A Bruce Medal profile of Russell.
Hertzsprung–Russell Diagram: http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/advanced/hr/. This site from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey introduces the H–R diagram and gives you information for making your own. You can go step by step by using the menu at the left. Note that in the project instructions, the word “here” is a link and takes you to the data you need.
Stars of the Week: http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/sowlist.html. Astronomer James Kaler does “biographical summaries” of famous stars—not the Hollywood type, but ones in the real sky.

### Videos

Constructing a Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram for a Globular Star Cluster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWQslu4S5eQ.
WISE Mission Surveys Nearby Stars: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/video/details.php?id=1089. Short video about the WISE telescope survey of brown dwarfs and M dwarfs in our immediate neighborhood (1:21).

### Collaborative Group Activities

1. Two stars are seen close together in the sky, and your group is given the task of determining whether they are a visual binary or whether they just happen to be seen in nearly the same direction. You have access to a good observatory. Make a list of the types of measurements you would make to determine whether they orbit each other.
2. Your group is given information about five main sequence stars that are among the brightest-appearing stars in the sky and yet are pretty far away. Where would these stars be on the H–R diagram and why? Next, your group is given information about five main-sequence stars that are typical of the stars closest to us. Where would these stars be on the H–R diagram and why?
3. A very wealthy (but eccentric) alumnus of your college donates a lot of money for a fund that will help in the search for more brown dwarfs. Your group is the committee in charge of this fund. How would you spend the money? (Be as specific as you can, listing instruments and observing programs.)
4. Use the internet to search for information about the stars with the largest known diameter. What star is considered the record holder (this changes as new measurements are made)? Read about some of the largest stars on the web. Can your group list some reasons why it might be hard to know which star is the largest?
5. Use the internet to search for information about stars with the largest mass. What star is the current “mass champion” among stars? Try to research how the mass of one or more of the most massive stars was measured, and report to the group or the whole class.

### Review Questions

### Thought Questions

### Figuring for Yourself


# Celestial Distances

## Thinking Ahead

How large is the universe? What is the most distant object we can see? These are among the most fundamental questions astronomers can ask. But just as babies must crawl before they can take their first halting steps, so too must we start with a more modest question: How far away are the stars? And even this question proves to be very hard to answer. After all, stars are mere points of light. Suppose you see a point of light in the darkness when you are driving on a country road late at night. How can you tell whether it is a nearby firefly, an oncoming motorcycle some distance away, or the porchlight of a house much farther down the road? It’s not so easy, is it? Astronomers faced an even more difficult problem when they tried to estimate how far away the stars are.
In this chapter, we begin with the fundamental definitions of distances on Earth and then extend our reach outward to the stars. We will also examine the newest satellites that are surveying the night sky and discuss the special types of stars that can be used as trail markers to distant galaxies.


# Celestial Distances

## Fundamental Units of Distance

### Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:
1. Understand the importance of defining a standard distance unit
2. Explain how the meter was originally defined and how it has changed over time
3. Discuss how radar is used to measure distances to the other members of the solar system
The first measures of distances were based on human dimensions—the inch as the distance between knuckles on the finger, or the yard as the span from the extended index finger to the nose of the British king. Later, the requirements of commerce led to some standardization of such units, but each nation tended to set up its own definitions. It was not until the middle of the eighteenth century that any real efforts were made to establish a uniform, international set of standards.

### The Metric System

One of the enduring legacies of the era of the French emperor Napoleon is the establishment of the metric system of units, officially adopted in France in 1799 and now used in most countries around the world. The fundamental metric unit of length is the meter, originally defined as one ten-millionth of the distance along Earth’s surface from the equator to the pole. French astronomers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were pioneers in determining the dimensions of Earth, so it was logical to use their information as the foundation of the new system.
Practical problems exist with a definition expressed in terms of the size of Earth, since anyone wishing to determine the distance from one place to another can hardly be expected to go out and re-measure the planet. Therefore, an intermediate standard meter consisting of a bar of platinum-iridium metal was set up in Paris. In 1889, by international agreement, this bar was defined to be exactly one meter in length, and precise copies of the original meter bar were made to serve as standards for other nations.
Other units of length are derived from the meter. Thus, 1 kilometer (km) equals 1000 meters, 1 centimeter (cm) equals 1/100 meter, and so on. Even the old British and American units, such as the inch and the mile, are now defined in terms of the metric system.

### Modern Redefinitions of the Meter

In 1960, the official definition of the meter was changed again. As a result of improved technology for generating spectral lines of precisely known wavelengths (see the chapter on Radiation and Spectra), the meter was redefined to equal 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of a particular atomic transition in the element krypton-86. The advantage of this redefinition is that anyone with a suitably equipped laboratory can reproduce a standard meter, without reference to any particular metal bar.
In 1983, the meter was defined once more, this time in terms of the velocity of light. Light in a vacuum can travel a distance of one meter in 1/299,792,458 second. Today, therefore, light travel time provides our basic unit of length. Put another way, a distance of one light-second (the amount of space light covers in one second) is defined to be 299,792,458 meters. That’s almost 300 million meters that light covers in just one second; light really is very fast! We could just as well use the light-second as the fundamental unit of length, but for practical reasons (and to respect tradition), we have defined the meter as a small fraction of the light-second.

### Distance within the Solar System

The work of Copernicus and Kepler established the relative distances of the planets—that is, how far from the Sun one planet is compared to another (see Observing the Sky: The Birth of Astronomy and Orbits and Gravity). But their work could not establish the absolute distances (in light-seconds or meters or other standard units of length). This is like knowing the height of all the students in your class only as compared to the height of your astronomy instructor, but not in inches or centimeters. Somebody’s height has to be measured directly.
Similarly, to establish absolute distances, astronomers had to measure one distance in the solar system directly. Generally, the closer to us the object is, the easier such a measurement would be. Estimates of the distance to Venus were made as Venus crossed the face of the Sun in 1761 and 1769, and an international campaign was organized to estimate the distance to the asteroid Eros in the early 1930s, when its orbit brought it close to Earth. More recently, Venus crossed (or transited) the surface of the Sun in 2004 and 2012, and allowed us to make a modern distance estimate, although, as we will see below, by then it wasn’t needed ().
The key to our modern determination of solar system dimensions is radar, a type of radio wave that can bounce off solid objects (). As discussed in several earlier chapters, by timing how long a radar beam (traveling at the speed of light) takes to reach another world and return, we can measure the distance involved very accurately. In 1961, radar signals were bounced off Venus for the first time, providing a direct measurement of the distance from Earth to Venus in terms of light-seconds (from the roundtrip travel time of the radar signal).
Subsequently, radar has been used to determine the distances to Mercury, Mars, the satellites of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, and several asteroids. Note, by the way, that it is not possible to use radar to measure the distance to the Sun directly because the Sun does not reflect radar very efficiently. But we can measure the distance to many other solar system objects and use Kepler’s laws to give us the distance to the Sun.
From the various (related) solar system distances, astronomers selected the average distance from Earth to the Sun as our standard “measuring stick” within the solar system. When Earth and the Sun are closest, they are about 147.1 million kilometers apart; when Earth and the Sun are farthest, they are about 152.1 million kilometers apart. The average of these two distances is called the astronomical unit (AU). We then express all the other distances in the solar system in terms of the AU. Years of painstaking analyses of radar measurements have led to a determination of the length of the AU to a precision of about one part in a billion. The length of 1 AU can be expressed in light travel time as 499.004854 light-seconds, or about 8.3 light-minutes. If we use the definition of the meter given previously, this is equivalent to 1 AU = 149,597,870,700 meters.
These distances are, of course, given here to a much higher level of precision than is normally needed. In this text, we are usually content to express numbers to a couple of significant places and leave it at that. For our purposes, it will be sufficient to round off these numbers:
We now know the absolute distance scale within our own solar system with fantastic accuracy. This is the first link in the chain of cosmic distances.

### Key Concepts and Summary

Early measurements of length were based on human dimensions, but today, we use worldwide standards that specify lengths in units such as the meter. Distances within the solar system are now determined by timing how long it takes radar signals to travel from Earth to the surface of a planet or other body and then return.


# Celestial Distances

## Surveying the Stars

### Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:
1. Understand the concept of triangulating distances to distant objects, including stars
2. Explain why space-based satellites deliver more precise distances than ground-based methods
3. Discuss astronomers’ efforts to determine the distance of the stars closest to the Sun
It is an enormous step to go from the planets to the stars. For example, our Voyager 1 probe, which was launched in 1977, has now traveled farther from Earth than any other spacecraft. As of 2021, Voyager 1 is 152 AU from the Sun.To have some basis for comparison, the dwarf planet Pluto orbits at an average distance of 40 AU from the Sun, and the dwarf planet Eris is currently roughly 96 AU from the Sun. The nearest star, however, is hundreds of thousands of AU from Earth. Even so, we can, in principle, survey distances to the stars using the same technique that a civil engineer employs to survey the distance to an inaccessible mountain or tree—the method of triangulation.

### Triangulation in Space

A practical example of triangulation is your own depth perception. As you are pleased to discover every morning when you look in the mirror, your two eyes are located some distance apart. You therefore view the world from two different vantage points, and it is this dual perspective that allows you to get a general sense of how far away objects are.
To see what we mean, take a pen and hold it a few inches in front of your face. Look at it first with one eye (closing the other) and then switch eyes. Note how the pen seems to shift relative to objects across the room. Now hold the pen at arm’s length: the shift is less. If you play with moving the pen for a while, you will notice that the farther away you hold it, the less it seems to shift. Your brain automatically performs such comparisons and gives you a pretty good sense of how far away things in your immediate neighborhood are.
If your arms were made of rubber, you could stretch the pen far enough away from your eyes that the shift would become imperceptible. This is because our depth perception fails for objects more than a few tens of meters away. In order to see the shift of an object a city block or more from you, your eyes would need to be spread apart a lot farther.
Let’s see how surveyors take advantage of the same idea. Suppose you are trying to measure the distance to a tree across a deep river (). You set up two observing stations some distance apart. That distance (line AB in ) is called the baseline. Now the direction to the tree (C in the figure) in relation to the baseline is observed from each station. Note that C appears in different directions from the two stations. This apparent change in direction of the remote object due to a change in vantage point of the observer is called parallax.
The parallax is also the angle that lines AC and BC make—in mathematical terms, the angle subtended by the baseline. A knowledge of the angles at A and B and the length of the baseline, AB, allows the triangle ABC to be solved for any of its dimensions—say, the distance AC or BC. The solution could be reached by constructing a scale drawing or by using trigonometry to make a numerical calculation. If the tree were farther away, the whole triangle would be longer and skinnier, and the parallax angle would be smaller. Thus, we have the general rule that the smaller the parallax, the more distant the object we are measuring must be.
In practice, the kinds of baselines surveyors use for measuring distances on Earth are completely useless when we try to gauge distances in space. The farther away an astronomical object lies, the longer the baseline has to be to give us a reasonable chance of making a measurement. Unfortunately, nearly all astronomical objects are very far away. To measure their distances requires a very large baseline and highly precise angular measurements. The Moon is the only object near enough that its distance can be found fairly accurately with measurements made without a telescope. Ptolemy determined the distance to the Moon correctly to within a few percent. He used the turning Earth itself as a baseline, measuring the position of the Moon relative to the stars at two different times of night.
With the aid of telescopes, later astronomers were able to measure the distances to the nearer planets and asteroids using Earth’s diameter as a baseline. This is how the AU was first established. To reach for the stars, however, requires a much longer baseline for triangulation and extremely sensitive measurements. Such a baseline is provided by Earth’s annual trip around the Sun.

### Distances to Stars

As Earth travels from one side of its orbit to the other, it graciously provides us with a baseline of 2 AU, or about 300 million kilometers. Although this is a much bigger baseline than the diameter of Earth, the stars are so far away that the resulting parallax shift is still not visible to the naked eye—not even for the closest stars.
In the chapter on Observing the Sky: The Birth of Astronomy, we discussed how this dilemma perplexed the ancient Greeks, some of whom had actually suggested that the Sun might be the center of the solar system, with Earth in motion around it. Aristotle and others argued, however, that Earth could not be revolving about the Sun. If it were, they said, we would surely observe the parallax of the nearer stars against the background of more distant objects as we viewed the sky from different parts of Earth’s orbit (). Tycho Brahe (1546–1601) advanced the same faulty argument nearly 2000 years later, when his careful measurements of stellar positions with the unaided eye revealed no such shift.
These early observers did not realize how truly distant the stars were and how small the change in their positions therefore was, even with the entire orbit of Earth as a baseline. The problem was that they did not have tools to measure parallax shifts too small to be seen with the human eye. By the eighteenth century, when there was no longer serious doubt about Earth’s revolution, it became clear that the stars must be extremely distant. Astronomers equipped with telescopes began to devise instruments capable of measuring the tiny shifts of nearby stars relative to the background of more distant (and thus unshifting) celestial objects.
This was a significant technical challenge, since, even for the nearest stars, parallax angles are usually only a fraction of a second of arc. Recall that one second of arc (arcsec) is an angle of only 1/3600 of a degree. A coin the size of a US quarter would appear to have a diameter of 1 arcsecond if you were viewing it from a distance of about 5 kilometers (3 miles). Think about how small an angle that is. No wonder it took astronomers a long time before they could measure such tiny shifts.
The first successful detections of stellar parallax were in the year 1838, when Friedrich Bessel in Germany (), Thomas Henderson, a Scottish astronomer working at the Cape of Good Hope, and Friedrich Struve in Russia independently measured the parallaxes of the stars 61 Cygni, Alpha Centauri, and Vega, respectively. Even the closest star, Alpha Centauri, showed a total displacement of only about 1.5 arcseconds during the course of a year.
 shows how such measurements work. Seen from opposite sides of Earth’s orbit, a nearby star shifts position when compared to a pattern of more distant stars. Astronomers actually define parallax to be one-half the angle that a star shifts when seen from opposite sides of Earth’s orbit (the angle labeled P in ). The reason for this definition is just that they prefer to deal with a baseline of 1 AU instead of 2 AU.

### Units of Stellar Distance

With a baseline of one AU, how far away would a star have to be to have a parallax of 1 arcsecond? The answer turns out to be 206,265 AU, or 3.26 light-years. This is equal to  kilometers (in other words, 31 trillion kilometers). We give this unit a special name, the parsec (pc)—derived from “the distance at which we have a parallax of one second.” The distance (D) of a star in parsecs is just the reciprocal of its parallax (p) in arcseconds; that is,
Thus, a star with a parallax of 0.1 arcsecond would be found at a distance of 10 parsecs, and one with a parallax of 0.05 arcsecond would be 20 parsecs away.
Back in the days when most of our distances came from parallax measurements, a parsec was a useful unit of distance, but it is not as intuitive as the light-year. One advantage of the light-year as a unit is that it emphasizes the fact that, as we look out into space, we are also looking back into time. The light that we see from a star 100 light-years away left that star 100 years ago. What we study is not the star as it is now, but rather as it was in the past. The light that reaches our telescopes today from distant galaxies left them before Earth even existed.
In this text, we will use light-years as our unit of distance, but many astronomers still use parsecs when they write technical papers or talk with each other at meetings. To convert between the two distance units, just bear in mind: 1 parsec = 3.26 light-year, and 1 light-year = 0.31 parsec.

### The Nearest Stars

No known star (other than the Sun) is within 1 light-year or even 1 parsec of Earth. The stellar neighbors nearest the Sun are three stars in the constellation of Centaurus. To the unaided eye, the brightest of these three stars is Alpha Centauri, which is only 30○ from the south celestial pole and hence not visible from the mainland United States. Alpha Centauri itself is a binary star—two stars in mutual revolution—too close together to be distinguished without a telescope. These two stars are 4.4 light-years from us. Nearby is a third faint star, known as Proxima Centauri. Proxima, with a distance of 4.3 light-years, is slightly closer to us than the other two stars. If Proxima Centauri is part of a triple star system with the binary Alpha Centauri, as seems likely, then its orbital period may be longer than 500,000 years.
Proxima Centauri is an example of the most common type of star, and our most common type of stellar neighbor (as we saw in Stars: A Celestial Census.) Low-mass red M dwarfs make up about 70% of all stars and dominate the census of stars within 10 parsecs (33 light-years) of the Sun. For example, a recent survey of the solar neighborhood counted 357 stars and brown dwarfs within 10 parsecs, and 248 of these are red dwarfs. Yet, if you wanted to see an M dwarf with your naked eye, you would be out of luck. These stars only produce a fraction of the Sun’s light, and nearly all of them require a telescope to be detected.
The nearest star visible without a telescope from most of the United States is the brightest appearing of all the stars, Sirius, which has a distance of a little more than 8 light-years. It too is a binary system, composed of a faint white dwarf orbiting a bluish-white, main-sequence star. It is an interesting coincidence of numbers that light reaches us from the Sun in about 8 minutes and from the next brightest star in the sky in about 8 years.

### Measuring Parallaxes in Space

The measurements of stellar parallax were revolutionized by the launch of the spacecraft Hipparcos in 1989, which measured distances for thousands of stars out to about 300 light-years with an accuracy of 10 to 20% (see  and the feature on Parallax and Space Astronomy). However, even 300 light-years are less than 1% the size of our Galaxy’s main disk.
In December 2013, the successor to Hipparcos, named Gaia, was launched by the European Space Agency. Gaia is measuring the position and distances to almost one billion stars with an accuracy of a few millionths of an arcsecond. Gaia’s distance limit extends well beyond Hipparcos, studying stars out to 30,000 light-years (100 times farther than Hipparcos, covering nearly 1/3 of the galactic disk). Gaia is also able to measure proper motionsProper motion (as discussed in  for thousands of stars in the halo of the Milky Way—something that can only be done for the brightest stars right now. At the end of Gaia’s mission, we will not only have a three-dimensional map of a large fraction of our own Milky Way Galaxy, but we will also have a strong link in the chain of cosmic distances that we are discussing in this chapter. Yet, to extend this chain beyond Gaia’s reach and explore distances to nearby galaxies, we need some completely new techniques.

### Key Concepts and Summary

For stars that are relatively nearby, we can “triangulate” the distances from a baseline created by Earth’s annual motion around the Sun. Half the shift in a nearby star’s position relative to very distant background stars, as viewed from opposite sides of Earth’s orbit, is called the parallax of that star and is a measure of its distance. The units used to measure stellar distance are the light-year, the distance light travels in 1 year, and the parsec (pc), the distance of a star with a parallax of 1 arcsecond (1 parsec = 3.26 light-years). The closest star, a red dwarf, is over 1 parsec away. The first successful measurements of stellar parallaxes were reported in 1838. Parallax measurements are a fundamental link in the chain of cosmic distances. The Hipparcos satellite has allowed us to measure accurate parallaxes for stars out to about 300 light-years, and the Gaia mission will result in parallaxes out to 30,000 light-years.


# Celestial Distances

## Variable Stars: One Key to Cosmic Distances

### Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:
1. Describe how some stars vary their light output and why such stars are important
2. Explain the importance of pulsating variable stars, such as cepheids and RR Lyrae-type stars, to our study of the universe
Let’s briefly review the key reasons that measuring distances to the stars is such a struggle. As discussed in The Brightness of Stars, our problem is that stars come in a bewildering variety of intrinsic luminosities. (If stars were light bulbs, we’d say they come in a wide range of wattages.) Suppose, instead, that all stars had the same “wattage” or luminosity. In that case, the more distant ones would always look dimmer, and we could tell how far away a star is simply by how dim it appeared. In the real universe, however, when we look at a star in our sky (with eye or telescope) and measure its apparent brightness, we cannot know whether it looks dim because it’s a low-wattage bulb or because it is far away, or perhaps some of each.
Astronomers need to discover something else about the star that allows us to “read off” its intrinsic luminosity—in effect, to know what the star’s true wattage is. With this information, we can then attribute how dim it looks from Earth to its distance. Recall that the apparent brightness of an object decreases with the square of the distance to that object. If two objects have the same luminosity but one is three times farther than the other, the more distant one will look nine times fainter. Therefore, if we know the luminosity of a star and its apparent brightness, we can calculate how far away it is. Astronomers have long searched for techniques that would somehow allow us to determine the luminosity of a star—and it is to these techniques that we turn next.

### Variable Stars

The breakthrough in measuring distances to remote parts of our Galaxy, and to other galaxies as well, came from the study of variable stars. Most stars are constant in their luminosity, at least to within a percent or two. Like the Sun, they generate a steady flow of energy from their interiors. However, some stars are seen to vary in brightness and, for this reason, are called variable stars. Many such stars vary on a regular cycle, like the flashing bulbs that decorate stores and homes during the winter holidays.
Let’s define some tools to help us keep track of how a star varies. A graph that shows how the brightness of a variable star changes with time is called a light curve (). The maximum is the point of the light curve where the star has its greatest brightness; the minimum is the point where it is faintest. If the light variations repeat themselves periodically, the interval between the two maxima is called the period of the star. (If this kind of graph looks familiar, it is because we introduced it in Diameters of Stars.)

### Pulsating Variables

There are two special types of variable stars for which—as we will see—measurements of the light curve give us accurate distances. These are called cepheid and RR Lyrae variables, both of which are pulsating variable stars. Such a star actually changes its diameter with time—periodically expanding and contracting, as your chest does when you breathe. We now understand that these stars are going through a brief unstable stage late in their lives.
The expansion and contraction of pulsating variables can be measured by using the Doppler effect. The lines in the spectrum shift toward the blue as the surface of the star moves toward us and then shift to the red as the surface shrinks back. As the star pulsates, it also changes its overall color, indicating that its temperature is also varying. And, most important for our purposes, the luminosity of the pulsating variable also changes in a regular way as it expands and contracts.

### Cepheid Variables

Cepheids are large, yellow, pulsating stars named for the first-known star of the group, Delta Cephei. This, by the way, is another example of how confusing naming conventions get in astronomy; here, a whole class of stars is named after the constellation in which the first one happened to be found. (We textbook authors can only apologize to our readers for the whole mess!)
The variability of Delta Cephei was discovered in 1784 by the young English astronomer John Goodricke (see John Goodricke). The star rises rather rapidly to maximum light and then falls more slowly to minimum light, taking a total of 5.4 days for one cycle. The curve in  represents a simplified version of the light curve of Delta Cephei.
Several hundred cepheid variables are known in our Galaxy. Most cepheids have periods in the range of 3 to 50 days and luminosities that are about 1000 to 10,000 times greater than that of the Sun. Their variations in luminosity range from a few percent to a factor of 10.
Polaris, the North Star, is a cepheid variable that, for a long time, varied by one tenth of a magnitude, or by about 10% in visual luminosity, in a period of just under 4 days. Recent measurements indicate that the amount by which the brightness of Polaris changes is decreasing and that, sometime in the future, this star will no longer be a pulsating variable. This is just one more piece of evidence that stars really do evolve and change in fundamental ways as they age, and that being a cepheid variable represents a stage in the life of the star.

### The Period-Luminosity Relation

The importance of cepheid variables lies in the fact that their periods and average luminosities turn out to be directly related. The longer the period (the longer the star takes to vary), the greater the luminosity. This period-luminosity relation was a remarkable discovery, one for which astronomers still (pardon the expression) thank their lucky stars. The period of such a star is easy to measure: a good telescope and a good clock are all you need. Once you have the period, the relationship (which can be put into precise mathematical terms) will give you the luminosity of the star.
Let’s be clear on what that means. The relation allows you to essentially “read off” how bright the star really is (how much energy it puts out). Astronomers can then compare this intrinsic brightness with the apparent brightness of the star. As we saw, the difference between the two allows them to calculate the distance.
The relation between period and luminosity was discovered in 1908 by Henrietta Leavitt (), a staff member at the Harvard College Observatory (and one of a number of women working for low wages assisting Edward Pickering, the observatory’s director; see Annie Cannon: Classifier of the Stars). Leavitt discovered hundreds of variable stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud, two great star systems that are actually neighboring galaxies (although they were not known to be galaxies then). A small fraction of these variables were cepheids ().
These systems presented a wonderful opportunity to study the behavior of variable stars independent of their distance. For all practical purposes, the Magellanic Clouds are so far away that astronomers can assume that all the stars in them are at roughly the same distance from us. (In the same way, all the suburbs of Los Angeles are roughly the same distance from New York City. Of course, if you are in Los Angeles, you will notice annoying distances between the suburbs, but compared to how far away New York City is, the differences seem small.) If all the variable stars in the Magellanic Clouds are at roughly the same distance, then any difference in their apparent brightnesses must be caused by differences in their intrinsic luminosities.
Leavitt found that the brighter-appearing cepheids always have the longer periods of light variation. Thus, she reasoned, the period must be related to the luminosity of the stars. When Leavitt did this work, the distance to the Magellanic Clouds was not known, so she was only able to show that luminosity was related to period. She could not determine exactly what the relationship is.
To define the period-luminosity relation with actual numbers (to calibrate it), astronomers first had to measure the actual distances to a few nearby cepheids in another way. (This was accomplished by finding cepheids associated in clusters with other stars whose distances could be estimated from their spectra, as discussed in the next section of this chapter.) But once the relation was thus defined, it could give us the distance to any cepheid, wherever it might be located ().
Here at last was the technique astronomers had been searching for to break the confines of distance that parallax imposed on them. Cepheids can be observed and monitored, it turns out, in many parts of our own Galaxy and in other nearby galaxies as well. Astronomers, including Ejnar Hertzsprung and Harvard’s Harlow Shapley, immediately saw the potential of the new technique; they and many others set to work exploring more distant reaches of space using cepheids as signposts. In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble made one of the most significant astronomical discoveries of all time using cepheids, when he observed them in nearby galaxies and discovered the expansion of the universe. As we will see, this work still continues, as the Hubble Space Telescope and other modern instruments try to identify and measure individual cepheids in galaxies farther and farther away. The most distant known variable stars are all cepheids, with some about 60 million light-years away.

### RR Lyrae Stars

A related group of stars, whose nature was understood somewhat later than that of the cepheids, are called RR Lyrae variables, named for the star RR Lyrae, the best-known member of the group. More common than the cepheids, but less luminous, thousands of these pulsating variables are known in our Galaxy. The periods of RR Lyrae stars are always less than 1 day, and their changes in brightness are typically less than about a factor of two.
Astronomers have observed that the RR Lyrae stars occurring in any particular cluster all have about the same apparent brightness. Since stars in a cluster are all at approximately the same distance, it follows that RR Lyrae variables must all have nearly the same intrinsic luminosity, which turns out to be about 50 LSun. In this sense, RR Lyrae stars are a little bit like standard light bulbs and can also be used to obtain distances, particularly within our Galaxy.  displays the ranges of periods and luminosities for both the cepheids and the RR Lyrae stars.

### Key Concepts and Summary

Cepheids and RR Lyrae stars are two types of pulsating variable stars. Light curves of these stars show that their luminosities vary with a regularly repeating period. RR Lyrae stars can be used as standard bulbs, and cepheid variables obey a period-luminosity relation, so measuring their periods can tell us their luminosities. Then, we can calculate their distances by comparing their luminosities with their apparent brightnesses, and this can allow us to measure distances to these stars out to over 60 million light-years.