Can we see the moon through a microscope?

[reddevil2576]

I was wondering if there was a way to build something to see the surface of the moon easily like our satellites can zoom in on us... Is it possible to take a mirror and put it under a microscope that has say 10,000x magnification. Then take a second mirror and reflect the moon onto the mirror on the microscope and look at the moon through a microscope??

 

[dav2008]

Putting a mirror under a microscope is no different than pointing the microscope directly at the moon (and in both cases you won't see anything) A typical optical microscope's focal length is on the order of several millimeters or less meaning you can only focus on objects that far away. You also can't get anywhere close to 10,000x magnification with an optical microscope.

You should be thinking about using a telescope here, which can look at light that's coming from far away (i.e. the light rays are parallel). The question you should be asking is how much detail can you see on the moon with the telescopes that are available.

The angular resolution of a telescope is proportional to the wavelength of the light divided by the diameter of the lens. This means that the size of an object you can resolve is proportional to the distance to the object multiplied by the wavelength of the light and divided by the diameter of the lens.

To be able to see tiny details on the moon you'd need a really big telescope. The atmosphere also disrupts your ability to resolve, although I don't know at what scale that really becomes significant.

 

[reddevil2576]

your right you can only focus on objects that far away but if you put the mirror underneath of the microscope it would be within that millimeter range if you put a different mirror in the mix to project the moon onto it. It would be like taking a microscope to a picture except that mirror don't have pixels like that. You should be able to see the surface pretty clearly you can focus a microscope.

Of coarse it sounds like you know quite a bit about this stuff i could be way wrong. Its just an idea I'm throwing out there. I won't try this for a few years at least i have other ideas to build before putting a bunch of money into something like this. even if i can't get 10,000x magnification its still way more magnification than what i can get in a telescope that size for something i can afford to build.

 

[Unrest]

your right you can only focus on objects that far away but if you put the mirror underneath of the microscope it would be within that millimeter range if you

An image in a mirror isn't the same as an image on paper. The light's rays still behave as if the object is miles away - ie parallel as dav said.

However if you put a diffuse screen over the mirror (or just in front of the moon), so the moon's image is projected onto that, then it becomes like a paper image.

The problems with a diffuse screen are that the light gets scattered in all directions, so almost none of it will reach the microscope. It also mixes in stray light from all directions, and the randomness in the diffuser destroys the resolution. Basically that idea is really stupid but hey, just thinking out loud :P

 

[dav2008]

An image in a mirror isn't the same as an image on paper. The light's rays still behave as if the object is miles away - ie parallel as dav said.

However if you put a diffuse screen over the mirror (or just in front of the moon), so the moon's image is projected onto that, then it becomes like a paper image.

The problems with a diffuse screen are that the light gets scattered in all directions, so almost none of it will reach the microscope. It also mixes in stray light from all directions, and the randomness in the diffuser destroys the resolution. Basically that idea is really stupid but hey, just thinking out loud :P

To get an image on a piece of paper you would have to focus the rays onto it, at which point you're back to using a telescope to project the image onto the paper. (If you just put up a piece of paper that doesn't scatter then it's basically a mirror and we're back to the original issue)

But now even assuming you had a perfect image you still have the problem of resolution since you're back to using a telescope to form the image.

 

[reddevil2576]

Yeah I don't think this idea will work thanks for the tips

 

[Unrest]

To get an image on a piece of paper you would have to focus the rays onto it, at which point you're back to using a telescope to project the image onto

Oops, I wasn't thinking quite right was I :P

 

[reddevil2576]

wait a minute i wasn't thinking properly the other day. I want the mirror to appear as distant still. Even if i can't get 10,000x mag its ok i know i can get 5,000x which is about what the hubbel can do and still get a clear image. I can zoom in on it while its in the mirror i know it will still be far away that's what the 5,000x magnification is for but its handheld instead of the size of the hubbel telescope.

Do I got you thinking yet?

 

[dav2008]

wait a minute i wasn't thinking properly the other day. I want the mirror to appear as distant still. Even if i can't get 10,000x mag its ok i know i can get 5,000x which is about what the hubbel can do and still get a clear image. I can zoom in on it while its in the mirror i know it will still be far away that's what the 5,000x magnification is for but its handheld instead of the size of the hubbel telescope.

Do I got you thinking yet?

An optical microscope has a focal distance that is on the order of millimeters. Like I said before, it can't focus on things beyond that range. Imaging pointing a microscope up at the sky. Do you expect to see anything through the eyepiece?

That's why we have telescopes that are made to focus on distant things, but like I said before since you're focusing on distant things you need a very big lens to be able to see small details.

 

[reddevil2576]

oh yeah i wasn't thinking again lol my bad