This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Proper motion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Perhaps the information in http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/motion/proper.html can be blended in? Tenbaset 11:17 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)
It would be interesting to note if there are any patterns in the proper motions of nearby stars and galaxies (I see to remember there are, that it is not just a random bouncing around). -- Beland 04:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Assumptions gof observable proper motions of galaxies were based on old star catalogs which assumed that faint stars with extremely small or unobservable proper motions were the reference for zero proper motion. Newer observations assume exterior galaxies do not show any proper motion. They are simply too distant. Their lateral velocities cannot be more than a few hundred kilometers each second, which is only 10^5 * 31,557,600 kilometers each year. In a million years that is only around one light-year and they are all millions of light-years distant or more. With sin(y) = y approaching zero rapidly, the angle they might move is so small as to be unobservable with any current techniques. This is a relatively new assumption, which NASA uses.
From Lick Northern Proper Motion Program: NPM1 Reference Galaxies by Klemola A.R., Hanson R.B., Jones B.F. <Astron. J. 94, 501 (1987)>
"The NPM1 proper motions (of stars) were measured with respect to an absolute reference frame defined by some 50,000 faint galaxies (mostly 16 < B < 18 mag). " ( http://adc.gsfc.nasa.gov/adc-cgi/cat.pl?/catalogs/1/1200/) SyntheticET ( talk) 21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the α-component of the proper motion given in the Wiki tables of all celestial objects ("Proper motion (μ): RA=xxx mas/yr") is and not . This gives rise to some confusion: if this value is interpreted as , the valid formula for does not involve the cos(δ) term (namely, it is simply instead of as asserted in this article). The references given for this formula are certainly correct but based the other definition of . Some computations like footnote 58 in Vega's page seem to be based on this mistaken interpretation of the proper motion tables and are therefore unvalid. Accordingly, some clarification seems to be needed. Alpha carinae ( talk) 18:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
From the article:
But surely proper motion was meant to be distinguished specifically from the obvious motion shared by all the stars (caused by the movement of the celestial sphere or the rotating of the earth), which is indeed improper in the sense of not belonging (property rights are all about exclusiveness) to any star. Cesiumfrog ( talk) 05:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Macrobius is said to have spoken in 400 A.D. The article on him says he was born in 395 A.D. It seems unlikely that he was interested in astronomy at five years of age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.62.137 ( talk) 10:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The article says that Gamma Caeli will be the next star to move to another constellation. But Gamma Caeli isn't a star; the article says it's the designation for two stellar systems several hundred light years apart, Gamma¹ Caeli and Gamma² Caeli. Which one is it?-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 06:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone else beside me have problem understanding the explanations of two pictures in the article: Relation between proper motion and velocity components and Components of proper motion in celestial sphere) in relation to each other?
When the term is defined it clearly says that it is 'rate of angular change in position over time and that it's measured by arcsecond per year (i.e. it's the unit for proper motion), but then later on it says this:
The proper motion is a two-dimensional vector (because it excludes the component in the direction of the line of sight) and is thus defined by two quantities: its position angle and its magnitude.
I mean, how could a change of arcsec./year be (also) represented as a vector? This is not possible, the proper motion should be defined (as it says properly) by two other components: an angle (which in turn is "measured" and drawn by vectors) and magnitude, but not a vector! So to me the second picture in particular is confusing since in it there is nowhere to be found where is that change (of arcsec./year); instead though the proper motion is now shown as a vector.
-- Wayfarer ( talk) 01:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
To start, I think the introduction section should be reworked to start from the simple concept this really is. Formulas aren't really necessary for this, though they could stay as an added mathematical formulation, just as long as it is centered around explaining the concept, not the math. -- JorisvS ( talk) 08:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere do I see the cause of proper motion here. Surely somebody has a theory at least. Kortoso ( talk) 22:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Macrobius's remarks about possible proper motion of the stars seem to have been in the "Commentary". A quotation might be a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B300:C700:E0CF:70EA:52F3:1DB1 ( talk) 13:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the picture of star trails is not an example of proper motion. This picture is due to the spinning of the earth, not the relative position of stars from the Solar Systems centre of mass.
@ Eric Kvaalen:@ Headbomb: Thanks for these recent useful article edits that have simplified the text.
However, statement [1] : "No one measures proper motion in RA in terms of seconds of time (though RA itself is expressed in hours, minutes, and seconds). "Right ascension" and "declination" are not capitalized in Wikipedia's articles."
No true. RA is measured in time in transit telescope in seconds then converted to arcsec in calculations. Seconds are also convenient determining time by transit, where proper motions of the transit star are used as a correction in seconds RA. Many of the older star catalogues give this in seconds not arcsec. I have temporarily replaced the word 'measure' with 'given'.
"Right ascension" and "Declination" are usually capitalised, and I can find no evidence / reason that they are "...are not capitalized in Wikipedia's articles."
The 2nd paragraph should lead with "Two components for proper motion in the..." not "Components for proper motion in the..." This is more specific and avoids confusion with the traverse motion and true motion. e.g. Proper motion is a single vector made by the magnitude of two components. True motion is the single vector made by the magnitude of three components.
Do we require an WP:RfC here? Arianewiki1 ( talk) 21:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Arianewiki1, you originally added the bit about "seconds of time" on April 7, 2015, as a historical remark. It may be true that proper motions in RA were once given in seconds of the kind used routinely for RA (that is, 1/3600 of an hour), but I don't think anybody nowadays bothers with that when measuring or giving μα. Do you think Gaia at some point finds the value in 3600ths of an hour and then converts it? I don't. Anyway, as I say, you put it in as a historical remark, and someone along the line changed it into a normal statement as though it's the case now. That wasn't your intention or the intention of Birney whom you cite. I think it's just confusing, unless one talks about transit telescopes and all that.
As for the capitalization, I simply checked by typing Right ascension and looking at the article that I got.
On your next point, you had (simplified by taking out parentheses):
Two components for proper motion in the equatorial coordinate are measured for Right Ascension in seconds of time and in Declination seconds of arc or ″.
Now we have:
Components for proper motion in the equatorial coordinate system are given for right ascension and declination in seconds of arc.
I say it doesn't make sense to say "Two components are measured for RA in seconds of time and in Declination seconds of arc". The sentence as it stands now is better English. You're welcome to make a "Request for comment" if you want.
Headbomb, I put in that bit about the Starboxes. Because after reading the beginning of the article I was wondering whether I had misunderstood the Starbox numbers. Turns out I had not misunderstood. But I thought it would be good to make it clear. I had to go to Template:Starbox astrometry in order to find the answer.
Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 20:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Two components are measured for RA in seconds of time and in Declination seconds of arc." and "
Two components are expressed in RA and Declination in seconds of arc" are both technically correct. (That is why I removed 'measured'.)
the distance of a point east of the First Point of Aries, measured along the celestial equator and expressed in hours, minutes, and seconds." (RA is not an angle!!!) Declination: "
the angular distance of a point north or south of the celestial equator." Arianewiki1 ( talk) 23:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Arianewiki1, I do not understand your English. Do you have anybody who could check what you write? Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 07:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Analogous to terrestrial longitude, right ascension is usually measured in sidereal hours, minutes and seconds instead of degrees, a result of the method of measuring right ascensions by timing the passage of objects across the meridian as the Earth rotates." So reading your response above - is the Oxford English dictionary actually wrong, and an unreliable source?
right ascension angular distance on the celestial sphere measured eastward along the celestial equator from the equinox to the hour circle passing through the celestial object. Right ascension is usually given in combination with declination." yet on pg.418 it says twice: "
right ascension is given in units of time." Yet pg. 11 says: "
Right ascension, like hour angle, is usually expressed in time measure from 0h to 24h, and both right ascension and longitude are measured in the positive (or right-handed) sense. The complement of right ascension with respect to 24h is known as sidereal hour angle (SHA); in navigational publications it is usually expressed in degrees." Page 735 is contradicted by many other sources I've read. Here the reference differs even within this same source!! Arianewiki1 ( talk) 14:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Right ascension, like hour angle, is usually expressed in time measure...is NOT "Right ascension is an angle, not a time. Again. So reading your response above - is the Oxford English dictionary actually wrong, and an unreliable source? Worst Right ascension and Equatorial coordinate system are now contradictory. Is a RfC the only option here against such overwhelming evidence? Arianewiki1 ( talk) 23:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Analogous to terrestrial longitude, right ascension is usually measured in sidereal hours, minutes and seconds instead of degrees, a result of the method of measuring right ascensions by timing the passage of objects across the meridian as the Earth rotates." B/W "....measured in sidereal hours, minutes and seconds instead of degrees," We are talking about RA not Proper motion, which is converted. Cited references agree. You don't have consensus. RfC to follow. (Good luck.) Arianewiki1 ( talk) 07:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Two components for proper motion in the equatorial coordinate (of a given epoch, often as J2000.0), are measured for Right Ascension (RA or α) in seconds of time and in Declination (dec. or δ) seconds of arc or ″ (μδ). Right Ascension is then converted into seconds of arc (μα), whose combined value is computed as the total proper motion (μ), > which is usually expressed in arc seconds per year (arcsec/yr) or per century, where 3600 arc seconds equal one degree."
That you disagree with them for vague unknown reasons doesn't mean they don't have consensus. The current version is
The components for proper motion in the equatorial coordinate system (of a given epoch, often J2000.0) are given in the direction of right ascension (μα) and of declination (μδ). Their combined value is computed as the total proper motion (μ). It has dimensions of angle per time, typically arcseconds per year or milliarcseconds per year. Knowledge of the proper motion, distance, and radial velocity allows calculations of true stellar motion or velocity in space in respect to the Sun, and by coordinate transformation, the motion in respect to the Milky Way.
There is nothing wrong with this passage, even if you somehow insist on calling RA a time, rather than an angle. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Arianewiki1: I cannot comment on the technical aspects of this debate. However, what I can say is that 'right ascension' and 'declination' should definitely not be capitalised. The article Right ascension does this correctly, only capitalising at the start of a sentence. The reason is that 'right ascension' and 'declination' are not 'proper nouns'.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters describes when words should be capitalised. The first paragraph explains that words should not be capitalised unless they fall into one of the exceptions listed there. 'right ascension' and 'declination' should be capitalised in this article if and only if someone can explain why they fall into one of these exceptions. I hope that clears things up a little. — ♫CheChe♫ talk 11:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The article Chinese star maps seems to say that proper motion was mentioned in 683-727 A. D. This is before Halley's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.127.25 ( talk) 12:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
According to SIMBAD the proper motion of HIP 67593 is only 4.636 and -14.598 mas/yr in RA and Dec (from GAIA DR2). So this star should be removed from the table? Hobbema ( talk) 01:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm too new at this to make a direct edit, so I'll ask: isn't there a problem with the sentence in the Introduction section-
"Suppose in a year an object moves from coordinates (α1, δ1) to coordinates (α2, δ2) in a time Δt. "
Does this mean that Δt is always 1 year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9580:72F0:8045:9F66:D67:2245 ( talk) 19:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Currently the lede says: "Proper motion is not entirely intrinsic to the celestial body or star, because it includes a component due to the motion of the Solar System itself." I'm not sure of the value of this statement, given that velocities are always relative. Perhaps revise? Ordinary Person ( talk) 01:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence mentions the "abstract background" of the more distant stars. The word "abstract" has no meaning here.
There’s a paper asserting the contrary, and crediting Cassini. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0021828619877967 Lostlakehiker ( talk) 21:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)