Astrophysical constants

Reviews,Tables and Plots Constants, Units, Atomic and Nuclear Properties


Solar Cycle Cosmic Background Radiation Total Solar Irradiance Large Magellanic Cloud Flat Universe 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    P.J. Mohr and B.N. Taylor, “CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 1998,” J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data28, 1713–1852 (1999).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B.W. Petley, Nature303, 373 (1983).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The value ofGN [1] is the same as in Ref. 26, but the quoted error is 12 times larger. See Measurement, Science, and Technology10, No. 6 (June 1999), special section: “The gravitational constant: Theory and experiment 200 years after Cavendish.” In the context of the scale dependence of field theoretic quantities, it should be remarked that absolute lab measurements ofGN have been performed on scales of 0.01–1.0 m.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Astronomical Almanac for the year 2001, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, and Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London (1999).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    JPL Planetary Ephemerides, E. Myles Standish, Jr., private communication (1989).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    1 AU divided by 7r/648 000; quoted error is from the JPL Planetary Ephemerides value of the AU [5].Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Product of 2/c2 and the heliocentric gravitational constant [4]. The given 9-place accuracy seems consistent with uncertainties in defining the earth's orbital parameters.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Obtained from the heliocentric gravitational constant [4] andGN [3]. The error is the 1500 ppm standard deviation ofGN.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    1996 mean total solar irradiance (TSI) = 1367.5 ± 2.7 [27]; the solar luminosity is × (1 AU)2 times this quantity. This value increased by 0.036% between the minima of solar cycles 21 and 22. It was modulated with an amplitude of 0.039% during solar cycle 21 [28]. Sackmannet al. [29] use TSI = 1370 ± 2 W m-2, but conclude that the solar luminosity (L⊙ = 3.853 × 1026 J s-1) has an uncertainty of 1.5%. Their value comes from three 1977-83 papers, and they comment that the error is based on scatter among the reported values, which is substantially in excess of that expected from the individual quoted errors. The conclusion of the 1971 review by Thekaekara and Drummond [30] (1353 ± 1% W m-2) is often quoted [31], The conversion to luminosity is not given in the Thekaekara and Drummond paper, and we cannot exactly reproduce the solar luminosity given in Ref. 31. Finally, a value based on the 1954 spectral curve due to Johnson [32] (1395 ± 1% W m-2, orL⊙ = 3.92 × 1026 J s-1) has been used widely, and may be the basis for the higher value of the solar luminosity and the corresponding lower value of the solar absolute bolometric magnitude (4.72) still common in the literature [12].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Product of 2/c2, the heliocentric gravitational constant from Ref. 4, and the earth/sun mass ratio, also from Ref. 4. The given 9-place accuracy appears to be consistent with uncertainties in actually defining the earth's orbital parameters.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Obtained from the geocentric gravitational constant [4] andGN [3]. The error is the 1500 ppm standard deviation ofGN.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner,The Early Universe, Addison-Wesley (1990).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F.J. Kerr and D. Lynden-Bell, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc.221, 1023- 1038(1985). “On the basis of this review these [R o =8.5± 1.1 kpc and Θo = 220 ± 20 km s-1] were adopted by resolution of IAU Commission 33 on 1985 November 21 at Delhi“.ADSGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. J. Reid, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.31, 345–372 (1993). Note that Θo from the 1985 IAU Commission 33 recommendations is adopted in this review, although the new value forR o is smaller.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Conversion using length of tropical year.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Fukugita & C.J. Hogan, “Global Cosmological Parameters:Ho, ΩM and λ,” Sec. 17 of thisReview.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The final uncertainty arises from dichotomous estimates of the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Gilmore, R.F.G. Wyse, and K. Kuijken, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.27, 555 (1989).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    E.I. Gates, G. Gyuk, and M.S. Turner (Astrophys. J.449, L133 (1995)) find the local halo density to be 9.2-3.1/3.8 × 10-25 g cm-3, but also comment that previously published estimates are in the range 1-10 × 10-25 g cm-3. The value 0.3 GeV/c2 has been taken as “standard” in several papers setting limits on WIMP mass limits,e.g. in M. Moriet al., Phys. Lett.B289, 463 (1992).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fukugita & Hogan find a more restrictive limit, 0.2 ≲ ΩM <0.4, if the Universe is flat.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    In addition to the pressureless mass density ΩM and the scaled cosmological constant Ωλ, tot contains very small contributions from the cosmic background radiation, the primordial neutrino energy density, and perhaps other sources. 1 - Ωtot is the three-dimensional scalar curvature scaled by the squared inverse Hubble length, variously written askc2/inoR(t0))2 [12],Kc2/H0/2 [36], and Ωk [37]. Thus Ωtot = 1 indicates a flat universe.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    First results from both BOOMERANG [33] and MAXIMA-1 [34] indicate ΩM + Ωλ≈ 1with ≈ 10% uncertainties, providing the strongest evidence to date for a flat universe. See discussions elsewhere in thisReview concerning the remarkable consistency of ΩM and Ωλ measurements by different methods [16,24,35],Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Matheret al., Astrophys. J.512, 511 (1999). We quote a one standard deviation uncertainty.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    G.F. Smoot & D. Scott, “Cosmic Background Radiation, ” Sec. 19 of thisReview.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    C.H. Lineweaveret al., Astrophys. J.470, 28 (1996). Dipole velocity is in the direction(l, b) = (264°.31±0°.04±0°.16, +48°.05± 0°.02±0°.09), or (α, δ) = (11h11m57s±7°.22±0°.08) (JD2000).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    E.R. Cohen and B.N. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys.59, 1121 (1987).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    R.C. Willson, Science277, 1963 (1997); the 0.2% error estimate is from R.C. Willson, private correspondence (1998).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    R.C. Willson and H.S. Hudson, Nature332, 810 (1988).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    I.-J. Sackmann, A.I. Boothroyd, and K.E. Kraemer, Astrophys. J.418, 457 (1993).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    M.P. Thekaekara and A.J. Drummond, Nature Phys. Sci.229, 6 (1971).ADSGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    K.R. Lang,Astrophysical Formulae, Springer-Verlag (1974); K.R. Lang,Astrophysical Data: Planets and Stars, Springer- Verlag (1992).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    F.S. Johnson, J. Meterol.11, 431 (1954).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    P. de Bernardiset al., Nature404, 955 (2000).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    A. Balbiet al., astro-ph/0005124, submitted to Astrophys. J. Lett.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner, “Pocket Cosmology,” Sec. 15 of thisReview.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. Weinberg,Gravitation and Cosmology, John Wiley & Sons (1972).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    P.J.E. Peebles,Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton (1993).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2000

Personalised recommendations