CHAPTER VI.
CLUSTERS AND NEBULÆ.
Clusters of stars and nebulæ are frequently classed together in one group. But this is incorrect. The term nebulæ should be restricted to those objects which the spectroscope shows to consist of gaseous matter, while the term cluster should be applied to those groups of stars in which the components are individually visible as distinct star-like points. There may be, of course, intermediate forms, like the Great Nebula in Andromeda, which, although not resolvable into stars with powerful telescopes, the spectroscope shows to be not gaseous. We will begin with clusters of stars, many of which can be seen with telescopes of moderate power, and some, like the Pleiades, even with the naked eye.
The Pleiades form perhaps the most remarkable group of stars in the heavens, and are probably familiar to most people, even to those whose knowledge of the constellations is limited to a few of the brighter stars. The cluster is a very remarkable and brilliant one, and forms a striking object in a clear sky. There is no other group visible to the naked eye in either hemisphere similar to it in the brightness and closeness of the component stars. It seems to have attracted the attention of observers since the earliest ages. Job says: “Can’st thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?”
Hesiod, writing nearly 1,000 years B.C., speaks of the Pleiades in words thus translated by Cooke:—
“There is a time when forty days they lie, And forty nights conceal’d from human eye; But in the course of the revolving year, When the swain sharps the scythe, again appear.”
This passage refers to the disappearance of the group in the sun’s rays in summer, and their reappearance in the evening sky in the east at harvest time. Hesiod also speaks of them as the seven sisters, and in Cicero’s “Aratus,” they are represented as female heads, bearing the names Merope, Alcyone, Celæno, Electra, Taygeta, Asterope, and Maia, names by which they are still known to astronomers. The origin of the name Pleiades is somewhat doubtful. Some think that it is derived from the Greek word _pleia_, to sail. Others from the words _pleios_, full, a name perhaps suggested by the appearance of the cluster. Although seven stars are mentioned by Hipparchus and Aratus, Homer only speaks of six, and this is the number now visible to average eyesight. A larger number has, however, been seen with the naked eye by those gifted with exceptionally keen eyesight. Möstlin, Kepler’s tutor, is said to have seen fourteen, and he actually measured and recorded the position of eleven, with wonderful accuracy, without the aid of a telescope! In recent years, Miss Airy, daughter of the late astronomer-royal, has seen twelve, and Carrington and Denning fourteen. But to most eyes probably six only are visible with any certainty. There is a tradition that, although seven stars were originally visible, one disappeared at the taking of Troy. Professor Pickering has recently discovered that the spectrum of Pleione, which forms a wide pair with Atlas, bears a striking resemblance to that of P Cygni, the so-called “temporary star” of 1600. This similarity of spectra suggests the idea that Pleione may possibly—like the star in Cygnus—be subject to occasional fluctuations of light, which might perhaps account for its visibility to the naked eye in ancient times.
The grouping of even six stars visible to the naked eye in so small a space is very remarkable. Considering the total number of stars visible without optical aid, Mitchell—writing in 1767—calculated by the mathematical theory of probability that the chances are 500,000 to one against the close arrangement of six stars in the Pleiades being merely the result of accident. He therefore concludes “that this distribution was the result of design, or that there is reason or cause for such an assemblage.”
Although to a casual observer the component stars may appear of merely equal magnitude, there is considerable difference in their relative brilliancy. Measures with a photometer show that Alcyone—the brightest of the group—is of the third magnitude, Maia, Electra, and Atlas of the fourth, Merope about 4⅓, Taygeta 4½, Celæno about 5⅓, and Asterope about the sixth. Pleione is about 5½, according to the photometric measures made at Oxford, but it lies so close to Atlas that to most eyes the two will probably appear as one star. About thirty more range from the sixth to the ninth magnitude, and this is about the number visible with an opera-glass. Galileo counted thirty-six stars with his small telescopes, but with modern instruments the number is largely increased. Some years since, M. Wolf, the distinguished French astronomer, published a chart of the Pleiades, showing about 500 stars made from his own observations. Photography has further added to the number of stars visible in this interesting group. On a photograph taken at the Paris Observatory in 1887, with an exposure of three hours, no less than 2,326 stars can be distinctly counted on a space of about three square degrees. The fainter stars on this photograph are supposed to be of the seventeenth magnitude. Now, as Alcyone, the brightest star of the group, is of the third magnitude, we have a difference of fourteen magnitudes between the brightest and the faintest. This implies that Alcyone is 398,100 times brighter than the faintest stars visible on the photographic plate. If we could conclude that the fainter stars really belonged to the cluster, they would be at practically the same distance from the earth, and the great difference of brightness would be very remarkable, and would suggest that Alcyone is a vastly larger body than the smallest stars of the group. The difference of brilliancy given above would indicate that the diameter of Alcyone is 631 times greater than that of the faintest stars revealed by photography. This is of course on the assumption that all the stars of the cluster are, surface for surface, of the same intrinsic brilliancy, and that this apparent brightness to the eye depends simply on their diameter. As spheres vary in volume as the cubes of their diameters, we have the volume of Alcyone equal to the cube of 631, or over 250 million times the volume of the faintest stars of the group. This startling result was very difficult to explain, for either we must assume that Alcyone is an enormously vast body, or else that the faint stars of the group are exceedingly small. If we take the diameter of Alcyone as 1,400,000 miles, then the diameter of the faintest stars in the group would be only 2,200 miles, or about the size of our moon, and it seems highly improbable, if not impossible, that such small bodies should shine with inherent light of their own. They would indeed be “miniature suns.” On the other hand, if we assume that the faintest stars are of about the same size as the planet Jupiter, or about 87,000 miles, the diameter of Alcyone would be nearly 55 millions of miles, a result which is also highly improbable. The difficulty has, I think, been satisfactorily cleared up by some photographs recently taken by Professor Barnard at the Lick Observatory. A photograph taken with a lens of six inches aperture, and 31 inches focal length, and an exposure of 10 hours 15 minutes, shows that the sky surrounding the Pleiades is, on all sides, as thickly studded with small stars as the cluster itself. It seems clear, therefore, that the faint stars in the Pleiades are merely some of the “hosts of heaven” which happen to lie in that direction, and have probably no connexion with the cluster, which is merely projected on a starry background of faint and distant stars.
The brilliancy of the Pleiades cluster would naturally suggest a comparative proximity to the earth. Attempts to determine their distance have, however, hitherto proved unsuccessful. This would indicate that the distance is very great, and would, of course, lead to the conclusion that the group is of vast dimensions. An effort has been made to determine the distance indirectly by a consideration of the “proper motion” of the principal stars. Professor Newcomb finds a proper motion for Alcyone of about 5·8 seconds of arc per century. This motion is in a direction nearly opposite to that of the sun’s motion in space, and may possibly be due to that cause. If we assume that this apparent motion of Alcyone is wholly due to the effect of the sun’s real motion at the rate of, say, fourteen miles a second, the distance of Alcyone would correspond to a “light journey” of about 267 years! Our sun, placed at this vast distance, would, I find, be reduced in brilliancy to a star of about the ninth magnitude, or six magnitudes fainter than Alcyone. This would imply that Alcyone is about 250 times brighter than the sun! As, however, the spectrum of Alcyone is of the first or Sirian type, it cannot properly be compared with the sun.
There are six other small stars in the Pleiades having proper motions similar in amount and direction to that of Alcyone. As the other bright stars of the group have much smaller motions, it has been suggested that the seven stars with comparatively large, proper motions do not really belong to the group, but are only optically associated with it. This would imply that the real cluster lies much farther from us than Alcyone, and the comparative brilliancy of some of its component stars would still denote enormous size.
In the year 1859, the well-known astronomer, Tempel, announced his discovery of a faint nebulosity extending in a southerly direction from Merope, the nearest bright star to Alcyone. This interesting discovery was practically confirmed by other astronomers; but from its visibility to some observers with small telescopes, and the failure of others to detect it with much larger instruments, the variability of its light was strongly suspected. The question remained in doubt for many years, but has now been finally set at rest by photography, which shows not only a mass of nebulous light surrounding Merope, but other nebulous spots involving Alcyone, Maia, and Electra. Indeed, a photograph taken by Dr. Roberts in 1889 shows that all the brighter stars of the group are more or less surrounded by nebulosity. The nebula surrounding Maia is of a somewhat spiral form, and its existence was not even suspected until it was revealed by photography. It was afterwards seen with the great 30-inch refractor of the Pulkowa Observatory. Had, however, its existence been unknown, it would probably have escaped detection, even with this large telescope, as it is one thing to see a faint object known to exist and another to discover it independently. Maia is surrounded by several faint stars of the twelfth to the fourteenth magnitude; and the Russian observers believe that one of these is variable in light, as it was seen distinctly on February 5, 1886, when its magnitude was carefully determined with reference to the neighbouring stars; but on February 24 of the same year, it could not be seen with a telescope of 15 inches aperture. Some of the other stars in the group seem to be connected by nebulous rays with the principal nebulous centres, and in looking at this wonderful Paris chart it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the stars and nebulous masses are actually mixed up together, and not merely placed accidentally in the same direction. Indeed, Professor Barnard’s photograph referred to above shows the whole group involved in dense nebulosity.
Other well-known clusters or groups of stars are the Hyades, marked by the bright, reddish star, Aldebaran, the Præsepe, or Beehive, in Cancer, and Comæ Berenices, but these are larger and more scattered.
[Illustration:
FIG. 9.—_The Double Star Cluster in Perseus._
(From “Scenery of the Heavens.”) ]
Of other irregular clusters, somewhat similar to the Pleiades, but not so bright, may be mentioned the double cluster in Perseus, which is visible to the naked eye on a clear night as a hazy spot of light in the midst of the Milky Way. Admiral Smyth says they form “one of the most brilliant telescopic objects in the heavens.” They may be seen with a binocular field-glass, but, of course, a good telescope is necessary to see them well. They have been beautifully photographed at the Paris Observatory, the photograph showing no trace of nebulosity. They have also been photographed by Dr. Roberts, who says, “The photograph presents to the eye the stars in the two clusters, and in the surrounding parts of the sky, with a completeness and accuracy of detail never before seen. The stars are shown in their true relative positions and magnitudes to about the sixteenth, and among them are many apparent double, triple, and multiple stars. They also appear to be arranged in clusters, curves, festoons, and patterns that are suggestive of some physical connexion existing between the groups; but it is premature to assert that these appearances are not due to perspective effect by the eye arranging numerous close points of light into various patterns. Similar photographs to this, taken at intervals of several years between them, will determine the reality, or otherwise, of these remarkable groupings of the stars.”
[Illustration:
FIG. 10.—_Star Cluster in Gemini._
(From “Scenery of the Heavens.”) ]
A little north of the star Eta Geminorum is a pretty cluster of small stars known as 35 Messier, which is just visible to the naked eye. The component stars may be well seen with a telescope of moderate power. This cluster has been also photographed at the Paris Observatory, and shows a well-marked clustering tendency in the component stars. Admiral Smyth says: “It presents a gorgeous field of stars from the ninth to the sixteenth magnitude, but with the centre of the mass less rich than the rest. From the small stars being inclined to form curves of three or four, and often with a large one at the root of the curve, it somewhat reminds one of the bursting of a sky rocket.”
[Illustration:
FIG. 11.—_37 Messier._
(From “Worlds of Space.”) ]
About ten degrees to the north of the cluster just described is another fine cluster known as 37 Messier. The accompanying photograph will show its telescopic appearance.
In the Southern Hemisphere there is a magnificent cluster of small stars surrounding the star Kappa Crucis, a reddish star of the seventh magnitude. It was thus described by Sir John Herschel: “A most vivid and beautiful cluster of 50 to 100 stars. Among the larger there are one or two evidently greenish. South of the red star is one, 13 minutes, also red, and near it one, 12 minutes, bluish ... though neither a large nor a rich one, is yet an extremely brilliant and beautiful object when viewed through an instrument of sufficient aperture to show distinctly the very different colours of its constituent stars, which gives it the effect of a superb piece of fancy jewellery.” He gives the positions of 110 stars, from the seventh to the sixteenth magnitude. It lies near the northern edge of the well-known “coal sack,” and Dr. Gould says of it: “The exquisitely beautiful cluster, κ _Crucis_, contains a large number of stars of various tints and hues, contrasting wonderfully with each other, when viewed with a telescope of large aperture.” Mr. Russell’s drawing of this cluster, made at Sydney (N.S.W.) in 1872, shows several changes in the relative positions of the stars as laid down by Sir John Herschel, probably the result of proper motion.
About 2½° north of the star M Velorum, Sir John Herschel describes “an enormous cluster, of a degree and a half in diameter, very rich in stars of all magnitudes, from 8 minutes downwards, a sort of telescopic Præsepe.”
Another fine cluster is that known as 11 Messier. It lies a little to the west of the star Lambda Aquilæ, and is just visible to the naked eye on a clear night. It consists of stars of about the eleventh magnitude, and Admiral Smyth compared it to a “flight of wild ducks.” It has been beautifully photographed by Dr. Roberts, who says: “The negative shows the stars individually, though the print, owing to their closeness, does not separate them.... It is entirely free from nebulosity.”
There are many other similar objects in both hemispheres too numerous to mention here, but those described are interesting objects of their class.
[Illustration:
FIG. 12.—_Star Cluster in Hercules._
(From “Scenery of the Heavens.”) ]
We now come to the “globular clusters.” This term has been applied to those clusters of stars which evidently occupy a space of more or less spherical form. Some of these “balls of stars,” as they have been called, are truly wonderful, and are among the most interesting objects visible in the sidereal heavens. Good specimens of the class are, however, rather rare objects, and there are not many in the Northern Hemisphere. The most remarkable, perhaps, is that called “the Hercules cluster,” but known to astronomers as 13 Messier, it being No. 13 in the first catalogue of remarkable “nebulæ” formed by Messier, the famous discoverer of comets. It was discovered by Halley in 1714. This wonderful object lies between the stars Zeta and Eta in Hercules, nearer to the latter star. It may be seen with a binocular or good opera-glass as a hazy star of the sixth magnitude. Messier was certain that it contained no stars; but when examined with a good telescope it is at once resolved into a multitude of small stars, which can be individually seen, and even counted, with large telescopes. According to Admiral Smyth, “No plate can give a fitting representation of this magnificent cluster. It is indeed truly glorious, and enlarges on the eye by studious gazing.” And Dr. Nichol says: “Perhaps no one ever saw it for the first time through a telescope without uttering a shout of wonder.” The number of stars included in the cluster was estimated by Sir William Herschel at 14,000; but the real number is probably much smaller. Were the number so great as Herschel supposed, I find that the cluster would form a much brighter object than it does. Assuming the average magnitude of the component stars at 12½, I find that an aggregation of 14,000 stars would shine as a star of about the second magnitude. But the cluster is only as bright as a star of about the sixth magnitude, and, with this magnitude, I find that the total number would be about 400. Examining it with his giant telescope, Lord Rosse observed three dark rifts radiating from the centre. These were afterwards seen by Buffham with a 9-inch reflector, and also by Webb. They were also observed at Ann Arbor Observatory (U.S.A.), in April, 1887, by Professor Harrington and Mr. Schaeberle, using telescopes of six and twelve inches aperture. It has been well photographed at the Paris Observatory, and also by Dr. Roberts and Mr. Wilson. In some of these photographs the dark rifts are perceptible to some extent, but owing to the over exposure of the central portion of the cluster, they are not so distinct as in drawings made at the telescope. Dr. Huggins, examining it with the spectroscope, finds that the spectrum is not gaseous; but spectroscopic evidence is not necessary to prove that the cluster consists of small stars, as these are distinctly seen as points of light with telescopes of moderate power, and with the great Lick telescope the component stars are visible even in the central portion of the cluster. Its globular shape is evident at a glance, and we cannot doubt that the stars composing it form a gigantic system, probably isolated in space. Many people might think that this cluster was a mass of double and multiple stars; but this is not so. The components, close as they are, are too far apart to constitute true double stars. Mr. Burnham, the famous double star observer, finds _one_ close double star near the centre, and notes the remarkable absence of close double stars in bright and apparently compressed clusters.
In the same constellation, Hercules, between the stars Eta and Iota, but nearer the latter, will be found another object of the globular class, but not so bright or so easily resolvable into stars as the cluster described above. It is known as 92 Messier. Buffham, with a 9-inch mirror, thought the component stars brighter and more compressed than in 13 Messier. Sir William Herschel found it seven or eight minutes of arc in diameter. The brighter components are easily visible in telescopes of moderate power, but even Lord Rosse’s giant telescope failed to resolve the central blaze. This object was photographed by Dr. Roberts in May, 1891, with a 20-inch reflecting telescope, and an exposure of one hour. He says: “The photograph shows the cluster to be involved in dense nebulosity, which, on the negative, almost prevents the stars being seen through it, and on the print quite obscures the stars. The stars in this, as in all other globular clusters, are arranged in various patterns, and many of them appear to be nebulous.”
About three degrees north preceding the star 9 Boötis, is another fine globular cluster, known as 3 Messier. Smyth describes it as “a brilliant and beautiful globular congregation of not less than 1,000 stars, between the southern Hound and the knee of Boötis; it blazes splendidly towards the centre, and has outliers.... This mass is one of those balls of compact and wedged stars, whose laws of aggregation it is so impossible to assign.” The idea of the component stars being “compact and wedged” is, however, a mistake, as I have shown elsewhere.[130] Sir John Herschel described it as a remarkable object, exceedingly bright and very large, with stars of the eleventh magnitude. Buffham found it resolved even in the centre with a 9-inch mirror. It was photographed by Dr. Roberts in May, 1891, with an exposure of two hours, and the photograph confirms the general descriptions given of the cluster, though “the print fails to show the stars that on the negative crowd the space covered by the dense nebulosity.” Dr. Roberts remarks that “nebulosity seems invariably to be present in globular clusters.” From photographs of this cluster, taken at Arequipa in Peru, Professor Bailey finds 87 stars of the cluster to be variable in light, the variability amounting in some cases to two magnitudes, with usually short periods.
Another fine globular cluster is that known as 5 Messier. It lies closely north of the fifth magnitude star, 5 Serpentis. It was discovered by Kirch in 1702, and was observed in 1764 by Messier, who found he could see it with a telescope of one foot in length, but could not resolve it into stars. Smyth says: “This superb object is a noble mass, refreshing to the senses after searching for faint objects, with outliers in all directions, and a bright central blaze, which even exceeds 3 Messier in concentration.” Sir William Herschel, with his 40-foot telescope, could count about 200 stars, but could not distinguish the stars near the central blaze. Sir John Herschel describes it as an excessively compressed cluster of a globular form, with stars from the eleventh to the fifteenth magnitude, condensed into a blaze at the centre. Lord Rosse found it more than seven or eight minutes of arc in diameter, with a nebulous appearance in the centre. This cluster was photographed by Dr. Roberts in April, 1892. “The photograph shows the stars to about the fifteenth magnitude, and the cluster is involved in dense nebulosity about the centre. The nebulosity hides the stars even on the negative.” With reference to this latter remark, however, Dr. Common says[131] that, in photographs of this cluster taken with a larger instrument, “the stars are quite distinct, though the exposure was much longer, a result that might fairly be expected.” From photographs of this cluster taken at Arequipa, Peru, by Professor Bailey, he finds that the cluster contains about 750 stars, of which 46 are variable in light, or about 6 per cent. of the whole. This is remarkable, for, of the stars visible to the naked eye, less than 1 per cent. are variable, so far as is at present known. A further examination of the photographs made by Miss Leland shows that the periods of these variables are in general very short, not exceeding a few hours.[132] One star, situated about eight minutes of arc from the centre of the cluster, has a probable period of 11 hours, 7 minutes, 52 seconds, and varies from about magnitudes 13·50 to 14·73. The star remains at the minimum light for about half the period, and the maximum brightness is of comparatively short duration. The rate of increase is more rapid than the decrease—as in most short period variables—but in other respects the character of the light fluctuations does not seem to be similar to that of any other known variable star.
Another fine object of this class is that known as 15 Messier in Pegasus, discovered by Maraldi in 1745. Sir John Herschel describes it as a remarkable globular cluster, very bright and large, and blazing in the centre. Webb found it a glorious object with a nine and one-third inch mirror. It was photographed by Dr. Roberts in November, 1890, with an exposure of two hours. He says: “The photograph confirms the general descriptions, and the negative shows, separately, the stars of which the cluster is composed distinctly through the nebulosity in the centre. Many of the stars have a nebulous appearance, and they are arranged in curves, lines, and patterns of various forms, with lanes or spaces between them.”
We may also mention the globular cluster known as 2 Messier, which is situated about five degrees north of the star Beta Aquarii. It was discovered by Maraldi in 1746 while looking for Cheseaux’s comet. Sir William Herschel, with his forty-foot telescope, could “actually see and distinguish the stars even in the central blaze.” Sir John Herschel compared it to a mass of luminous sand, and estimated the stars to be of the fifteenth magnitude. It is about five or six minutes of arc in diameter, and Smyth says: “This magnificent ball of stars condenses to the centre, and presents so fine a spherical figure that imagination cannot but figure the inconceivable brilliancy of the visible heavens to its animated myriads.” Taking Sir John Herschel’s estimate of the component stars at fifteenth magnitude, and the total light of the cluster at sixth magnitude, I find that the total number of stars it contains would be about 4,000.
[Illustration:
FIG. 13.—_The Star Cluster, Omega Centauri._
(From “Worlds of Space.”) ]
In the Southern Hemisphere there are some magnificent examples of globular clusters, and indeed, this hemisphere seems to be richer in these objects than the northern sky. Among these southern clusters is the truly marvellous object known as Omega Centauri. Its apparent size is very large—about two-thirds of the moon’s diameter—and it is distinctly visible to the naked eye as a hazy star of the fourth magnitude, and I have often so seen it in the Punjab sky. Sir John Herschel, observing it with a large telescope at the Cape of Good Hope, describes it as “beyond all comparison, the richest and largest object of its kind in the heavens. The stars are literally innumerable.... All clearly resolved into stars of two sizes, _viz._, 13 and 15; the larger lying in lines and ridges over the smaller.... The larger form rings like lace-work on it. One of these rings, 1½″ diameter, is so marked as to give the appearance of comparative darkness, like a hole in the centre.... On further attention, the hole is double, or an oval space crossed by a bridge of stars.... Altogether, this object is truly astonishing.” This wonderful object has recently been photographed by Dr. Gill, at the Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope, and also at Arequipa, Peru, with a telescope of thirteen inches aperture. On the latter photograph, the individual stars can be distinctly seen and counted. The enumeration has been made by Professor and Mrs. Bailey, and a mean of their counts gives 6,389 for the number of stars in the cluster, but they consider that the real number is considerably greater.
Another wonderful object is that known as 41 Toucani, which lies near the smaller “Magellanic Cloud” in the Southern Hemisphere. Humboldt found it very visible to the naked eye in Peru, and mistook it for a comet.[133] Sir John Herschel describes it as “a most magnificent globular cluster. It fills the field with its outskirts; but within its more compressed part I can insulate a tolerably defined circular space of 90″ diameter, wherein the compression is much more decided, and the stars seem to run together, and this part has, I think, a pale pinkish or rose colour, ... which contrasts evidently with the white light of the rest.... The stars are equal, fourteen magnitude, immensely numerous, and compressed.... It is _completely insulated_. After it has passed, the ground of the sky is perfectly black throughout the whole breadth of the sweep. There is a double star of eleventh magnitude preceding the centre, ... condensation in three distinct stages.... A stupendous object.” Dr. Gould calls it one of the most impressive, and perhaps the grandest, of its kind in either hemisphere, and he estimated its apparent magnitude at 4½, as seen with the naked eye.
Another remarkable globular cluster is that known as 22 Messier, which lies about midway between Mu and Sigma Sagittarii. Sir John Herschel says: “The stars are of two sizes, _viz._, 15 ... 16 and 12m; and, what is very remarkable, the largest of these latter are visibly reddish, one in particular, the largest of all (12–11m) south following the middle, is decidedly a ruddy star, and so, I think, are all the other larger ones ... very rich, very much compressed, gradually much brighter in the middle, but not to a nucleus ... consists of stars of two sizes ... with none intermediate, as if consisting of two layers, or one shell over another. A noble object” I saw the larger stars well with a 3-inch refractor in the Punjab.
Sir John Herschel remarks “the frequent association of nebulæ in pairs forming double nebulæ,” and in his “Cape Observations” he figures several examples of this class. One of these is evidently a globular cluster, with two centres of condensation, one nucleus being much brighter than the other. Two others, much smaller, show two distinct nuclei. Another drawing shows apparently two globular clusters in contact. There are other examples in the Northern Hemisphere. Dr. See considers that some of these double nebulæ represent an early stage in the evolution of binary or revolving double stars, and certainly some of the drawings of these nebulæ are very remarkable and suggestive.
The actual dimensions of the globular clusters is an interesting question. Are they composed of stars comparable in size and mass with our sun? or are the component stars really small and comparatively close together? This is a difficult question to answer satisfactorily, as the distance of these objects from the earth has not yet been determined. They may, on the one hand, be collections of suns similar to ours in size and brightness, and situated at vast distances from the earth; or, on the other hand, the stars composing them may be comparatively small objects, lying at a distance from the earth not exceeding that of some stars visible to the naked eye. Perhaps the latter hypothesis may be considered the more probable of the two. But there is really no reason to suppose that these collections of suns are comparatively near our system. The probability seems to be in favour of their great distance from the earth. The question of the absolute size of the component stars is one which, I think, has not been hitherto sufficiently considered. Let us examine both alternatives, and let us take the cluster Omega Centauri as one in which the number of the component stars has been _actually counted_. Assuming that the real number of stars in this cluster is 10,000, and that they are individually equal, on an average, to our sun in mass and volume, we may estimate the probable distance and dimensions of the cluster. Taking the stellar magnitude of Omega Centauri as four (as estimated at the Cordoba Observatory), I find that, with the number 10,000, the average magnitude of the component stars would be fourteen. This agrees with Sir John Herschel’s estimate of thirteenth to fifteenth magnitude. Now, to reduce the sun to a star of the fourteenth magnitude, I find that, assuming the sun to be 28 magnitudes brighter than an average star of the first magnitude, it would be necessary to remove it to a distance of about 158,500,000 times the sun’s distance from the earth—a distance so great that light would take no less than 2,500 years to reach us from the cluster! Taking the apparent diameter of the cluster at twenty minutes of arc, I find that its real diameter would be 922,000 times the sun’s distance from the earth—a distance so great that light would take over 14 years to pass across the cluster. These results are certainly very startling, and might lead us to suspect that these globular clusters are external universes. Judging, however, from the average distance recently found for stars of the first and second magnitude (see p. 423), the distance of ordinary stars of the first magnitude—on the supposition that they are of the same size and brightness as the sun, and that their light is simply reduced by distance—would be about five times greater than that found above for Omega Centauri. If, then, we increase the distance of the cluster five times, it would be necessary to increase the diameters of the component stars to five times that of the sun. This would give them a volume 125 times that of our sun—a result which seems improbable. If, on the other hand, we do not like to admit that each of the faint points of light composing the cluster is equal in volume to our sun, let us diminish the distance ten times. If we do so, we must also diminish the diameter of the component stars ten times. This would make them about the size of the planet Jupiter, and it seems improbable that such comparatively small bodies could retain their solar heat for any great length of time. They would probably have cooled down, as Jupiter has done—at least to a great extent—ages ago, and would not now be visible as a cluster of stars. Even this reduction of the distance to one-tenth of the value first found would still leave the cluster at an immense distance from the earth, a distance represented by 250 years of light travel! A reduction of the distance to one-tenth of this again, or 25 years of light travel, would make the components about the size of the earth, and that bodies of this small size could shine with stellar light seems to be an untenable hypothesis. We seem, therefore, forced to conclude that these globular star clusters lie at an immense distance from the earth.
There is, however, another point to be considered with reference to the size of the bodies composing a globular cluster. This is the character of their light. I am not aware that the spectrum of a globular cluster has yet been thoroughly examined, but if that of Omega Centauri is of the first or Sirian type, it would modify the above conclusions to some extent. It now seems probable that stars having a spectrum of the Sirian type are intrinsically brighter than our sun, and I have shown already that Sirius is considerably brighter than the sun would be if placed at the same distance, although the mass of Sirius is but little more than twice the sun’s mass. The components of a star cluster, therefore—if of the Sirian type of stars—might be as bright as the sun, and at the same time have a smaller mass and volume. This, however, would not make a very great difference in the computed vast distance of the cluster, and the calculations given above seem to point to the conclusion that these globular clusters are probably composed of stars of average size and mass, and that the faintness of the component stars is simply due to their immense distance from the earth.
We will now consider the nebulæ, properly so-called, that is to say, objects which the spectroscope shows to consist of glowing gas. These are sometimes large and irregular in form, like the great nebula in the “Sword” of Orion, sometimes with spiral convolutions, and sometimes of a definite shape, like the planetary and annular nebulæ.
Of the large and irregular nebulæ, one of the most remarkable is that known as “the great nebula in Orion.” It surrounds the multiple star, Theta Orionis, which has been already referred to in a preceding chapter. It is a curious fact that it escaped the searching eye of Galileo, although he gave special attention to the constellation of Orion, for even with a good opera-glass a nebulous gleam is distinctly visible round the central star of the “Sword.” The nebula seems to have been discovered by Cysat, a Swiss astronomer, in the year 1618, and it was sketched by Huygens in 1656. Huygens says: “While I was observing with a refractor of twenty-five feet focal length, the variable belts of Jupiter, a dark central belt in Mars, and some phases of this planet, my attention was attracted by an appearance among the fixed stars, which, as far as I know, has not been observed by anyone else, and which, indeed, could not be recognised, except by such powerful instruments as I employ. Astronomers enumerate three stars in the Sword of Orion, lying very near one another. On one occasion when, in 1656, I was accidentally observing the middle one of these stars through my telescope, I saw twelve stars instead of a single one, which, indeed, not unfrequently happens in using the telescope. Three of this number were almost in contact with one another, and _four_ of them shone as if through a mist, so that the space around them, having the form drawn in the appended figure, appeared much brighter than the rest of the sky, which was perfectly clear, and looked almost black. This appearance looked, therefore, almost as if there were a _hiatus_ or interruption. I have frequently observed this phenomenon, and up to the present time, as always unchanged in form; whence it would appear that this marvellous object, be its nature what it may be, is very probably permanently situated at this spot. I never observed anything similar to this appearance in the other fixed stars.”[134] It has been called the “fish-mouth” nebula, from the fancied resemblance of the centre portion to the mouth of a fish. A number of small stars are visible over the surface of the nebula, and at one time, Lord Rosse thought it showed indications of resolution into stars when examined with his giant telescope; but this is now known to have been a mistake, for Dr. Huggins finds, with the spectroscope, that it consists of nothing but glowing gas, of which hydrogen is certainly one constituent, and he has succeeded in photographing the complete series of lines of this gas in the spectrum of the nebula.
Referring to his earlier observations, Dr. Huggins says:—“The light from the brightest parts of the nebula near the trapezium was resolved by the prisms into three bright lines, in all respects similar to those of the gaseous nebulæ. The whole of this great nebula, as far as lies within the power of my instrument, emits light which is identical in character. The light from one part differs from the light of another in intensity alone.” The brightest line in the nebular spectrum—the “chief nebular line,” as it is called—has not yet been identified with that of any terrestrial substance. It was at first supposed to be identical with a line of nitrogen, but this was afterwards disproved. It was then incorrectly identified with a line of lead, and more recently by Lockyer with the edge of a “fluting” in the magnesium spectrum. Dr. Huggins and Professor Keeler, however, have shown conclusively that the nebular line does not coincide with the magnesium fluting, although very close to it. Observations by Dr. Copeland in 1886 showed the existence of the yellow line, know as D_{3}, which is visible in the solar spectrum during total eclipses of the sun, and indicates the existence of a gas in the sun’s surroundings, to which the name “helium” has been given. Dr. Copeland says:—“The recurrence of this line in the spectrum of a nebula is of great interest, as affording another connecting link between gaseous nebula and the sun and stars with bright line spectra, especially with that remarkable class of stars of which the finest examples were detected by M. M. Wolf and Rayet in the constellation of Cygnus.”[135] As has been already mentioned in the chapter on variable and new stars, the bright lines of hydrogen and helium have also been observed in the spectra of these remarkable objects. The gas, giving the line D_{3} in its spectrum, has quite recently been discovered by Professor Ramsay in gases obtained by heating certain terrestrial minerals, so that the objective existence of the gaseous element “helium”—previously only suspected—is now definitely established. From recent spectroscopic observations of the Orion nebula, Dr. Huggins thinks that “the stars of the ‘trapezium’ are not merely optically connected with the nebula, but are physically bound up with it, and are very probably condensed out of the gaseous matter of the nebula.” With reference to this point, Professor Keeler, who has carefully examined the spectra of the nebula and the associated stars, says:—“The trapezium stars have spectra marked by strong absorption bands; they have not the direct connexion with the nebula that would be indicated by a bright line spectrum, but are, in fact, on precisely the same footing (spectroscopically) as other stars in the constellation of Orion. While their relation to the nebula is more certain than ever, they can no longer be regarded as necessarily situated _in_ the nebula, but within indefinite limits they may be placed anywhere in the line of sight.” These results were confirmed by Professor Campbell. He finds, “that of the twenty-five bright lines known to exist in the spectrum of the Orion nebula, at least nineteen are definitely matched by dark lines in the Orion stars, and at least fifteen by dark lines in the six faint stars situated in the dense parts of the nebula.”
Numerous drawings of this wonderful nebula have been made. Of these, the best are those by Sir John Herschel, made at the Cape of Good Hope in the years 1834–38, by Bond in America, and by Lassell at Malta. The difficulty of accurately delineating so difficult and delicate an object has given rise to discrepancies in the drawings, which have led to the idea that changes of form have occurred, but this seems improbable. The nebula has been very successfully photographed by Dr. Common and Dr. Roberts, and these photographs confirm the general accuracy of the later drawings.
From a consideration of the apparent size of the Orion nebula and its probable mass and distance from the earth, the late Mr. Ranyard came to the conclusion that its average density “cannot exceed one ten thousand millionth of the density of atmospheric air at the sea-level.”[136]
Mr. W. H. Pickering and Dr. Max Wolf have photographed another nebula surrounding the star Zeta Orionis—the southern star of the “Belt,” which seems to be connected with the nebula in the “Sword”; and, Prof. Barnard, using the “lens of a cheap oil lantern” of 1½ inch aperture, and 3½ inches focal length, has photographed “an enormous curved nebulosity” stretching over nearly the whole of the constellation of Orion, and involving the “great nebula.”
[Illustration:
FIG. 14.—_The Orion Nebulæ._
(From “Worlds of Space.”) ]
Prof. Keeler has recently found, with the spectroscope, that the Orion nebula is apparently receding from the earth at the rate of nearly eleven miles a second, but this motion may be, in part at least, due to the sun’s motion in space in the opposite direction. Prof. Pickering considers that the parallax of the nebula is probably not more than 0·″003, which corresponds to a thousand years’ journey for light!
In the southern constellation, Argo is a magnificent nebula, somewhat similar in appearance to the great nebula in Orion. It surrounds the famous variable star Eta Argûs, whose remarkable fluctuations in light have been already described in the chapter on variable stars. It is sometimes spoken of as the “key-hole” nebula, owing to a curious opening of that shape near its centre. It was carefully drawn by Sir John Herschel at the Cape of Good Hope in the years 1834–38. It lies in a very brilliant portion of the Milky Way, and Sir John Herschel thus describes it: “It is not easy for language to convey a full impression of the beauty and sublimity of the spectacle which the nebula offers as it enters the field of view of a telescope, fixed in right ascension, by the diurnal motion, ushered in as it is by so glorious and innumerable a procession of stars, to which it forms a sort of climax, and in a part of the heavens otherwise full of interest,” and he adds: “In no part of its extent does this nebula show any appearance of resolvability into stars, being, in this respect, analogous to the nebula of Orion. It has, therefore, nothing in common with the Milky Way, on the ground of which we see it projected, and may therefore be, and not improbably is, placed at an immeasurable distance behind that stratum.” Sir John Herschel’s conclusion as to its physical constitution has been fully confirmed by the spectroscope, which shows it to consist of luminous gas. As in the Orion nebula, there are numerous stars scattered over it. Some of these may possibly have a physical connexion with the nebula, while others may belong to the Milky Way. The nebula is of great extent, covering an apparent space about five times the area of the full moon, and its real dimensions must be enormous. It was photographed by Mr. Russell, director of the Sydney Observatory, in July, 1890, and the photograph shows that “one of the brightest and most conspicuous parts of the nebula”—the swan-shaped form near the centre of Herschel’s drawing—has “wholly disappeared,” and its place is now occupied by “a great, dark oval.” Mr. Russell first missed the vanished portion of the nebula in the year 1871, while examining it with a telescope of 11½ inches aperture, and the photograph now confirms the disappearance, which is very remarkable, and shows that changes are actually in progress in these wonderful nebulæ, changes which may be detected after a comparatively short interval of time.
[Illustration:
FIG. 15.—_Sir John Herschel’s drawing of the Nebula round Eta Argus._
(From Flammarion’s “Popular Astronomy.”) ]
Smaller than the nebula in Argo, but somewhat similar in general appearance, is that known as 30 Doradus, which forms one of the numerous and diverse objects which together constitute the greater Magellanic Cloud. Sir John Herschel drew it carefully at the Cape of Good Hope, and describes it as “one of the most singular and extraordinary objects which the heavens present,” and he says “it is unique even in the system to which it belongs, there being no other object in either nubecula to which it bears the least resemblance.” It is sometimes called the “looped nebula,” from the curious openings it contains. One of these is somewhat similar to the “key-hole” opening in the Argo nebula. Near its centre is a small cluster of stars, and scattered over the nebula are many faint stars, of which Sir John Herschel gives a catalogue of 105 ranging from the ninth to the seventeenth magnitude. I do not know whether this nebula has been examined with the spectroscope, but its appearance would suggest that it is gaseous. It is remarkable as being the only object of its class which is found outside the zone of the Milky Way.
Among the nebula of irregular shape, although its spectrum is said to be not gaseous, may be mentioned that known as the “trifid nebula,” or 20 Messier. It lies closely north of the star 4 Sagittarii in a magnificent region of the heavens. As will be seen in the drawing made by Sir John Herschel at the Cape of Good Hope, the principal portion consists of three masses of nebulous matter separated by dark “lanes” or “rifts.” Near the junction of the three “rifts” is a triple star. A beautiful drawing of this nebula has also been made by Trouvelot. It agrees fairly well with that of Sir John Herschel, but shows more detail.
[Illustration:
FIG. 16.—_The Trifid Nebula, Sagittarius._
(From “Scenery of the Heavens.”) ]
Among other gaseous nebula may be mentioned that called by Sir John Herschel the “dumb-bell” nebula. It lies a little south of the sixth magnitude star 14 Vulpeculæ, and was discovered by Messier in 1779, while observing Bode’s comet of that year. In small telescopes it has the appearance of a dumb-bell, or hour-glass, but in larger telescopes the outline is filled in with fainter nebulous light, giving to the whole an elliptical form. Several faint stars have been seen in it, but these probably belong to the Milky Way, as Dr. Huggins finds the spectrum gaseous. Dr. Roberts has photographed it, and he thinks that “the nebula is probably a globular mass of nebular matter, which is undergoing the process of condensation into stars, and the faint protrusions of nebulosity in the _south following_ and _north preceding_ ends are the projections of a broad ring of nebulosity which surrounds the globular mass. This ring, not being sufficiently dense to obscure the light of the central region of the globular mass, is dense enough to obscure those parts of it that are hidden by the increased thickness of the nebulosity, thus producing the ‘dumb-bell’ appearance. If these inferences are true, we may proceed yet a step, or a series of steps, farther, and predict that the consummation of the life-history of this nebula will be its reduction to a globular cluster of stars.”
Among the gaseous nebula may also be included those known as “annular nebulæ.” These are very rare objects, only a few being known in the whole heavens. The most remarkable is that known as 57 Messier, which lies between the stars Beta and Gamma Lyræ, south of the bright star Vega. It was discovered by Darquier, at Toulouse, in 1779, while following Bode’s comet of that year. Lord Rosse thought it resolvable into stars, and so did Chacornac and Secchi, but no stars are perceptible with the great American telescopes, and Dr. Huggins finds it to be gaseous. The central portion is not absolutely dark, but contains some faint nebulous light. Examined with the great telescope of the Lick Observatory, Professor Barnard finds that the opening of the ring is filled in with fainter light “about midway in brightness between the brightness of the ring and the darkness of the adjacent sky.”[137] “The aperture was more nearly circular than the outer boundary of the nebula, so that the ends of the ring were thicker than the sides.” The entire nebula was of a milky colour. A central star, noticed by some observers, was usually seen by Professor Barnard, but was never a conspicuous object. He found the extreme dimensions of the nebula about 81″ in length by about 59″ in width, or more than double the apparent area of Jupiter’s disc. It has been beautifully photographed by Dr. Roberts, and he says “the photograph shows the nebula and the interior of the ring more elliptical than the drawings and descriptions indicate; and the star of the _following_ side is nearer to the ring than the distance given. The nebulosity on the _preceding_ and _following_ ends of the ring protrudes a little, and is less dense than on the _north_ and _south_ sides. This probably suggested the filamentous appearance which Lord Rosse shows. Some photographs of the nebula have been taken between 1887 and 1891, and the central star is strongly shown on some of them, but on others it is scarcely visible, which points to the star being variable.” On a photograph taken by MM. Androyer and Montaugerand of the Toulouse Observatory, with an exposure of nine hours (in multiple exposures), about 4,800 stars are visible on and near the nebula in an area of three square degrees.
Another object of the annular class will be found a little to the south-west of the star Lambda Scorpii. It is thus described by Sir John Herschel: “A delicate, extremely faint, but perfectly well defined, annulus. The field crowded with stars, two of which are on the nebula. A beautiful, delicate ring, of a faint, ghost-like appearance, about 40″ in diameter in a field of about 150 stars, eleven and twelve magnitude and under.”
Near the stars 44 and 51 Ophiuchi is another object of the annular class, which Sir John Herschel describes as “exactly round, pretty faint, 12″ diameter, well terminated, but a little cottony at the edge, and with a decided darkness in the middle, equal to a tenth magnitude star at the most. Few stars in the field, a beautiful specimen of the planetary annular class of nebula.”
The Planetary Nebulæ form an interesting class. They were so named by Sir William Herschel from their resemblance to the discs of the planets, but, of course, much fainter. They are generally of uniform brightness, without any nucleus or brighter part in the centre. There are numerous examples of this class, one of the most remarkable being that known as 97 Messier, which is situated about two degrees south-east of Beta Ursæ Majoris—the southern of the two “pointers” in the Plough. It is of considerable apparent size, and even supposing its distance to be not greater than that of 61 Cygni, its real dimensions must be enormous. Lord Rosse observed two openings in the centre with a star in each opening, and from this appearance he called it the “owl nebula.” One of the stars seems to have disappeared since 1850, and a photograph recently taken by Dr. Roberts confirms the disappearance.
Another fine object of the planetary class is one which lies close to the pole of the ecliptic. Webb saw it “like a considerable star out of focus.” Smyth found it pale blue in colour. Dr. Huggins finds a gaseous spectrum, the first discovery of the kind made. Professor Holden, observing it with the great Lick telescope, finds its structure extraordinary. He says it “is apparently composed of rings overlying each other, and it is difficult to resist the conviction that these are arranged in space in the form of a true helix,” and he ranks it in a new class which he calls “helical nebulæ.”
A somewhat similar nebula lies a little to the west of the star Nu Aquarii. Secchi believed it to be in reality a cluster of small stars, but Dr. Huggins finds its spectrum gaseous. A small nebula on each side gives it an appearance somewhat similar to the planet Saturn, with the rings seen edgeways. The great Lick telescope shows it as a wonderful object—“a central ring lies upon an oval of much fainter nebulosity.” Professor Holden says “the colour is a pale blue,” and he compares the appearance of the central ring “to that of a footprint left in the wet sand on a sea beach.”
About two degrees south of the star Mu Hydræ is another planetary nebula, which Smyth describes as resembling the planet Jupiter in “size, equable light and colour.” Webb saw it of “a steady, pale blue light,” and Sir John Herschel, at the Cape of Good Hope, speaks of its colour as “a decided blue—at all events, a good sky-blue,” a colour which seems characteristic of these curious objects. Although Sir William Herschel, with his large telescopes, failed to resolve it into stars, Secchi thought he saw it breaking up into stars with a “sparkling ring.” Dr. Huggins, however, finds the spectrum to be gaseous, so that the luminous points seen by Secchi could not have been stellar.
Sir John Herschel, in his “Cape Observations,” describes a planetary nebula which lies between the stars Pi Centauri and Delta Crucis. He says it is “perfectly round, very planetary, colour fine blue ... very like Uranus, only about half as large again, and blue.... It is of the most decided independent blue colour when in the field by itself, and with no lamplight and no bright star. About 10′ north of it is an orange-coloured star, eighth magnitude. When this is brought into view, the blue colour of the nebula becomes intense ... colour, a beautiful rich blue, between Prussian blue and verditer green.”
There are some rare objects called “nebulous stars.” The star Epsilon Orionis—the centre star of Orion’s Belt—is involved in a great nebulous atmosphere. The triple star Iota Orionis is surrounded by a nebulous haze. The star Beta in Canes Venatici is a 4½ magnitude star surrounded by a nebulous atmosphere.
The term elliptical nebulæ has been applied to those of an elliptical or elongated shape. This form is probably due in many cases to the effect of perspective, their real shape being circular, or nearly so. Perhaps the most remarkable object of this class is the well-known “nebula in Andromeda,” known to astronomers as 31 Messier. It can be just seen with the naked eye, on a clear moonless night, as a hazy spot of light near the star Nu Andromedæ, and it is curious that it is not mentioned by the ancients, although it must have been very visible to their keen eyesight in the clear Eastern skies. It was, however, certainly seen so far back as 905 A.D., and it Is referred to as a familiar object by the Persian astronomer, Al-Sûfi, who wrote a description of the heavens about the middle of the tenth century. Tycho Brahé and Bayer failed to notice it, but Simon Marius saw it in December, 1612, and described it “as a light seen from a great distance through half-transparent horn plates.” It was also observed by Bullialdus, in 1664, while following the comet of that year. It has frequently been mistaken for a comet by amateur observers in recent years. Closely north-west of the great nebula is a smaller one discovered by Le Gentil in 1749, and another to the south, detected by Miss Caroline Herschel in 1783. The great nebula is of an elliptical shape and considerable apparent size. The American astronomer, Bond, using a telescope of 15 inches aperture, traced it to a length of about four degrees, and a width of two and a half degrees. A beautiful photograph taken by Dr. Roberts in December, 1888 (see p. 398), shows an extension of nearly two degrees in length, and about half a degree in width, or considerably larger than the apparent size of the full moon. Bond could not see any symptom of resolution into stars, but noticed two dark rifts or channels running nearly parallel to the length of the nebula. In Dr. Roberts’ photograph these rifts are seen to be really dark intervals between consecutive nebulous rings into which the nebula is divided. Dr. Roberts says: “A photograph which I took with the 20-inch reflector on October 10, 1887, revealed for the first time the true character of the great nebula, and one of the features exhibited was that the dark bands, referred to by Bond, formed parts of divisions between symmetrical rings of nebulous matter surrounding the large diffuse centre of the nebula. Other photographs were taken in 1887, November 15; 1888, October 1; 1888, October 2; 1888, December 29; besides several others taken since, upon all of which the rings of nebulosity are identically shown, and thus the photographs confirm the accuracy of each other, and the objective reality of the details shown of the structure of the nebula.” Dr. Roberts adds: “These photographs throw a strong light on the probable truth of the _Nebular Hypothesis_, for they show what appears to be the progressive evolution of a gigantic stellar system.”
The largest telescopes have hitherto completely failed to resolve this wonderful object into stars. Dr. Huggins, however, finds that the spectrum is _not_ gaseous, so that if the nebula really consists of stellar points, they must be of very small dimensions. Assuming a parallax of one-fiftieth of a second of arc—corresponding to 163 years of “light travel”—I find that our sun, placed at this distance, would be reduced in brightness to a star of about the eighth magnitude. If we assume the components to have only one-hundredth of the sun’s diameter, they would shine as stars of only the eighteenth magnitude, which no telescope yet constructed would show as separate points of light. A more probable explanation, however, seems to be that the nebula may consist of masses of nebulous matter partially condensed into the solid form, but not yet arrived at the stage in which our sun is at present. In other words, the whole nebulous mass may be in a fluid or viscous state, which might perhaps account for the continuous spectrum found by Dr. Huggins.
The question may be asked, What is the probable size and distance of this wonderful nebula? and could it be an external universe? Possibly its distance from the earth may be even greater than that indicated by the small parallax I have assumed above, but taking this parallax and the apparent dimensions of the nebula as shown by Dr. Huggins’ photograph, I find that its real distance would be no less than 330,000 times the sun’s diameter from the earth, a diameter so great that light would take over five years to pass from one side of the nebula to the other! This result might lead us to imagine that the nebula may be really an external universe. But let us consider the matter a little further. The diameter found above is not very much greater than the distance of the _nearest_ fixed star, Alpha Centauri, from the earth, and the limits of _our_ universe are certainly far beyond Alpha Centauri. If we diminish the parallax to, say ¹⁄₂₀₀th of a second, or a “light journey” of 652 years, the diameter of the nebula would be increased to 1,320,000 times the sun’s distance from the earth, or about five times the distance of Alpha Centauri, and there are probably many faint stars belonging to our system much farther from the earth than this.
The temporary star which appeared near the nucleus of the nebula in August, 1885—already referred to in the chapter on variable stars—was of the seventh magnitude. I find that our sun, if placed at the distance indicated by a parallax of ¹⁄₂₀₀th of a second, would be reduced to a star of about the eleventh magnitude, or four magnitudes fainter than the temporary star appeared to us. That is to say, the star would have been—with the assumed distance—about forty times brighter than the sun. With any greater distance, the star would have been proportionately brighter, compared with the sun. This seems improbable, and tends to the conclusion that the nebula is _not_ an external galaxy, but a member of our own sidereal system, a system which probably includes all the stars and nebulæ visible in our largest telescopes. Dr. Common, indeed, suggests that it may be comparatively near our system. He says: “It is difficult to imagine that such an enormous object, as the Andromeda nebula must be, is not very near to us; perhaps it may be found to be the nearest celestial object of all beyond the solar system. It is one that offers the best chance of the detection of parallax, as it seems to be projected on a crowd of stars, and there are well defined points that might be taken as fiducial points for measurement,” and he adds: “Apart from the great promise this nebula seems to give of determining parallax, there is a fair presumption that in the course of time, the rotation of the outer portion may perhaps be detected by observation of the positions of the two outer detached portions in relation to the neighbouring stars.”[138] Prof. Hall’s failure to detect any parallax in the temporary star, as mentioned in the last chapter, is, of course, against Dr. Common’s idea of its proximity to the earth. Referring to the latter portion of Dr. Common’s remarks, Mr. C. Easton points out[139] that a comparison of a drawing by Trouvelot, in 1874, with Dr. Roberts’ photograph, suggests that the small elongated nebula—_h_ 44—which lies to the north of the great nebula, “has turned about 15° from left to right. The globular nebula (M 32), to the other side of M 31, seems to have slightly shifted its position.”
[Illustration:
FIG. 17.—_Spiral Nebula, 51 Messier._
(From “The Visible Universe.”) ]
The spiral nebulæ are wonderful objects, and were discovered by the late Lord Rosse, with his great six-foot telescope. Their character has been fully confirmed by photographs taken by Dr. Roberts. One of the most remarkable of these extraordinary objects is that known as 51 Messier. It lies about three degrees south-west of the bright star Eta Ursæ Majoris—the star at the end of the Great Bear’s tail. It was discovered by Messier while comet-hunting on October 13, 1773. Telescopes of moderate power merely show two nebulæ nearly in contact, but Lord Rosse saw it as a wonderful spiral, and his drawing agrees fairly well with a photograph taken by Dr. Roberts in April, 1889. The nebula has also been photographed by Dr. Common. Dr. Roberts says: “The photograph shows both nuclei of the nebula to be stellar, surrounded by dense nebulosity, and the convolutions of the spiral in this as in other spiral nebulæ are broken up into star-like condensations with nebulosity around them. Those stars that do not conform to the trends of the spiral have nebulous trails attached to them, and seem as if they had broken away from the spirals.” A tendency to a spiral structure in the smaller nebula is also visible on the original negative. Dr. Huggins finds that the spectrum is _not_ gaseous.
The nebulæ known as 99 Messier is of the spiral form. It lies on the borders of Virgo and Coma Berenices, near the star 6 Comæ. In large telescopes it somewhat resembles a “Catherine wheel.” D’Arrest and Key thought it resolvable into stars. It has been photographed by M. Von Gothard.
Among the clusters and nebulæ, we may class the Magellanic Clouds, or Nubeculæ in the Southern Hemisphere, as they consist of stars, clusters, and nebulæ. These very remarkable objects form two bright spots of milky light, which, at first sight, look like luminous patches of the Milky Way, but are in no way connected with the Galaxy. Sir John Herschel, speaking of the larger cloud, says: “The immediate neighbourhood of the Nubecula Major is somewhat less barren of stars than that of the Minor, but it is by no means rich, nor does any branch of the Milky Way whatever form any certain or conspicuous junction with, or include, it,” and again he says, with reference to the smaller cloud: “Neither with the naked eye, nor with a telescope, is any connexion to be traced either with the greater Nubecula, or with the Milky Way.” The Nubeculæ are roughly circular in form, and, viewed with the naked eye, they very much resemble irresolvable nebulæ as seen in a telescope. The larger cloud, or Nubecula Major, as it is called, is of considerable extent, and covers about 42 square degrees, or over two hundred times the apparent size of the full moon. It was called by the Arabs _el-baker_, or “the White Ox,” and is referred to by Al-Sûfi in his “Description of the Heavens,” written in the tenth century. When examined with a good telescope, it is found to consist of about six hundred stars of the sixth to the tenth magnitude, with many fainter ones, and about three hundred clusters and nebulæ. Sir John Herschel, in his “Cape Observations,” says: “The Nubeculæ Major, like the Minor, consists partly of large tracts and ill-defined patches of irresolvable nebula, and of nebulosity in every stage of resolution, up to perfectly resolved stars like the Milky Way, as also of regular and irregular nebulæ properly so-called, of globular clusters in every stage of resolvability, and of clustering groups sufficiently insulated and condensed to come under the designation of ‘clusters of stars.’... It is evident, from the intermixture of stars and unresolved nebulosity, which probably might be resolved with a higher optical power, that the nubeculæ are to be regarded as systems _sui generis_, and which have no analogues in our hemisphere.”
The smaller Magellanic Cloud, or Nubecula Minor, is fainter to the eye, and not so rich in the telescope. It covers about 10 square degrees, or about fifty times the area of the full moon. Sir John Herschel, in his “Cape Observations,” describes it as “a fine large cluster of very small stars, 12 ... 18 magnitude, which fills more than many fields, and is broken into many knots, groups, and straggling branches, but _the whole_ (_i.e._, the whole of the clustering part) is clearly resolved.” It is surrounded by a barren region remarkably devoid of stars. Sir John Herschel says: “The access to the Nubecula Minor is on all sides through a desert.”... “It is preceded at a few minutes in R. A. by the magnificent globular cluster, 47 Toucani (Bode), but is completely cut off from all connexion with it; and with this exception, its situation is in one of the most barren regions in the heavens.” Herschel found the middle of the cloud clearly resolved into stars, while its edges remained irresolvable with his large reflector. He says: “The edge of the smaller _cloud_ comes on as a mere nebula.... We are now _in the cloud_. The field begins to be full of a faint light perfectly irresolvable.... I should consider about this place to be the body of the cloud which is here fairly resolved into excessively minute stars.... It is not like the stippled ground of the sky. The borders fade away, quite insensibly, and are less or not at all resolved.” Herschel gives a catalogue of 244 objects in the Nubecula Minor. Of these about 200 are stars, and the remainder nebula and clusters. From this it appears that the smaller nubecula contains a much larger proportion of stars than the larger cloud.
Judging from their roughly globular form, the dimensions of the Magellanic Clouds are probably small compared with their distance from the earth, so that in these remarkable objects—particularly in the larger cloud—we see stars of the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth magnitude, apparently mixed up with fainter stars, and “clusters of all degrees of resolvability,” and Sir John Herschel says: “It must therefore be taken as a demonstrated fact, that stars of the seventh or eighth magnitude, and irresolvable nebulæ, may co-exist within limits of distance not differing in proportion more than as 9 to 10.”[140] It should be remembered, however, that possibly some of the fainter stars may—as in the Pleiades—lie far out in space beyond the greater Magellanic Cloud.
The Magellanic Clouds have recently been photographed by Mr. Russell at the Sydney Observatory. He finds the larger cloud—the Nubecula Major—to be of a most complex form, with evidence of a spiral structure, a feature also traceable, but not so clearly, in a photograph of the Nubecula Minor, or smaller cloud.
Dr. Dreyer’s new index catalogue of recent discoveries of nebulæ, together with the general catalogue previously published, gives the position of 9,369 nebulæ.[141] A very small proportion of the new discoveries have been made by photography, and more than half of them were found by M. Javelle with the great refractor of the Nice Observatory. Most of the new objects are very small and faint, and form probably “only a small portion of the number visible in large telescopes.”
[Illustration:
FIG. 18.—_Magellanic Clouds._
(From “Worlds of Space.”) ]
Several nebulæ have been suspected of variation in light. One discovered by Dr. Hind in 1852 near the variable star T Tauri was found to be an easy object with the great Lick telescope in February, 1895, but in September of the same year it had “entirely vanished.” In the same instrument, “T Tauri was involved in a small hazy nebulosity, but the definite nebula in which it shone in 1890 did not exist in September, 1895.”[142]