Why Do Astronomical Telescopes Use Mirrors Over Lenses?

  • Thread starter Thread starter leehom
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lenses Mirrors
AI Thread Summary
Large astronomical telescopes predominantly use mirrors instead of lenses due to several advantages. Mirrors avoid light distortion and loss because light does not pass through them, unlike lenses. The manufacturing of large lenses is challenging and costly, leading to the prevalence of smaller refractors. Additionally, mirrors can be supported uniformly from behind, while lenses can only be supported at the edges, making them less stable. Chromatic aberration in lenses further complicates their use, as it requires complex solutions that are impractical for large sizes.
leehom
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Why do very large astronomical telescopes use a mirror rather than a lens for the objective optic?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Light must pass through the lens, this causes loss and distortion. A mirror does not have this problem. Large lens are very hard to make and the above problems are intensified with size. You will only find small refractors for this reason.
 
In addition, there is the "strength" issue. A large mirror can be supported all along its back while a lens can only be supported arround its perimeter.

Also, a refracting telescope has its lens at the "top", pointed toward the heavens, while a reflector has its mirror at the bottom. Since those are the heaviest parts of large telescopes, large refractors are "top heavy".

Finally, the reason Newton built the Newtonian reflector to begin with: chromatic aberation. One type of glass refracts different colors of light differently. Using a lens made of a single type of glass instead of a point of light, you see a series of circles of different colors. You can fix that by making the lens of different kinds of glass so that the chromatic aberation of one "corrects" that of the other but for large lenses that is difficult and expensive.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top