Henrietta Swan Leavitt was one of many
women "computers" who worked at Harvard University, cataloging stars around the turn of the last century. Women could be paid less than men, and were generally seen as detail-oriented and suited for the often boring and rote work of data analysis. They were also barred from operating Harvard’s telescopes, limiting their other astronomical options. Leavitt’s particular assignment was
Cepheid variable stars. These stars change how bright they are from day to day or week to week. And she noticed that, in general, the brighter stars had longer periods – the brighter the star, the longer it took to cycle through its variability.
At first, this was nothing more than a curiosity. It didn’t mean anything to anyone. But Leavitt made it very meaningful with her follow-up work. She looked at a sample of variable stars that were all near the same location, in the Small Magellanic Cloud. This is a tiny dwarf galaxy very near to our own Milky Way. Here, with a smaller sample, her trend was even clearer. Brighter stars had longer periods.
It’s worth an aside here to remind readers of something you’ve certainly experienced in real life. If you shine a flashlight in a friend’s face from a foot away, they will likely ask what you’re thinking, because that flashlight is very bright. If you shine the same flashlight at their face from across a football field, they’ll be less cranky, because the flashlight will appear much less bright to them. The flashlight itself has not changed brightness, but distance has made its
apparent brightness much less. Back to our story.
Leavitt realized something very important here, though it’s not clear many others did at the time. Because the stars in her second study were all in the same place, they were all essentially the same distance from Earth. So her discovery was telling her something intrinsic to the stars themselves: the longer a star took to change brightness, the brighter it actually was. So, if another star took a long time to change brightness but
didn’t appear brighter, then she concluded it must be farther away, thus dimming its true brightness. With this simple relationship, Leavitt turned a two-dimensional picture of the sky into a 3D one.