Stargazing How do space telescopes detect non-visible light?

AI Thread Summary
Space telescopes detect non-visible light by using specialized detectors that convert various electromagnetic radiation (EMR) frequencies into data we can interpret. For instance, the Spitzer Space Telescope employs silicon semiconductors similar to those in digital cameras, while longer infrared wavelengths require cooled detectors to minimize background noise. X-ray telescopes like Chandra utilize CCDs designed to handle the unique challenges posed by X-ray photons. The resulting images often use false color to represent different energy levels or chemical compositions, enhancing visibility for analysis. Overall, these telescopes effectively transform invisible EMR into accessible scientific data, demonstrating that our inability to see certain wavelengths does not limit their detection.
modulus
Messages
127
Reaction score
3
How do space telescopes work?

How do all of these space telescopes work with frequencies other than visible light?
For example, the Spitzer Space Telescope launched by NASA works on the Infrared frequency...but how?
We can't see anything but visible light, so how does it convert infrared rediation into things we can see in weird neon colours? Does it actually refract or reflect infrared in the same way that normal telescopes do with light? And if that does happen, how does it happen...because I don't think it will behave like light or do they use special lenses?
If light travels to us from light years away, do all other EMRs do also? But I thought the EMR spectrum was unique to our sun. And as far as it goes with infrared radiation, (which are just heat radiations, right) they should be absorbed by surrounding dark matter before they reach us, right?
And these questions are not restricted to only the Spitzer telescope. It is about all the space telescopes, including the Chandra X-ray Observatory, Hubble,etc.
Any help will be appreciated.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org


Light is light, splitting up EMR into UV, visible, IR, XRay, Radio etc are just labels for convenience.

The Hubble and it's replacements use pretty much the same detector technology over the UV-IR wavelength = silicon semiconductor's, essentially the same as the CCD in your digital camera.
For longer IR you use slightly different chemicals and need to cool the detector to reduce the background.
The X-ray camera on chandra also uses CCDs. Normally an x-ray photon hitting a CCD is a problem because it generates a large background signal and so for astronomical cameras you have to be very careful not to use any material (glass) that is slightly radioactive - but for an x-ray telescope the effect is great.

The colour pictures produced are often 'false color', you make different brightnesses different colours to make them stand out more clearly. Or you show particular energies (ie. resulting from particular chemicals) in a different colour.

Scientific cameras are monochrome, you take a colored pictures by putting filters in front of them and taking a red, then blue then green picture one after the other - after all the object isn't going to move/change - combine to get a true colour image.
 
Last edited:


Got a digital camera? Turn it on and point your TV remote at it and push one of the buttons while watching the camera's viewscreen.

Same thing; we use a sensor to convert a form of EM we can't see into data we can either analyze directly or covert into an image we can see.
 


Why do you assume that just because the human eye can't see something, nothing can? The only reason the eye can see the visible spectrum is because we live around a star that emits the visible spectrum, and our eyes would not have evolved just so we can't see anything.
 


ideasrule said:
Why do you assume that just because the human eye can't see something, nothing can? The only reason the eye can see the visible spectrum is because we live around a star that emits the visible spectrum, and our eyes would not have evolved just so we can't see anything.

We're also lucky that the cis-trans transition energy of organic molecules is in the visual range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retinal
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Back
Top