Minimum angle required for resolution

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the minimum angle required for resolution using the formula θmin = (1.22λ)/D, where λ is the wavelength and D is the diameter of the telescope. The user attempts to apply the formula with a wavelength of 1.5 m and a diameter of 295 m, leading to confusion over an incorrect result from the system. Participants suggest the issue may relate to significant figures or unit conversions, emphasizing the need for careful calculation. The user expresses frustration but remains determined to resolve the problem. The conversation highlights the importance of precision in scientific calculations.
msk172
Messages
22
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The radio telescope at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, has a reflecting spherical bowl of 295 m diameter. Radio signals can be received and emitted at various frequencies with appropriate antennae at the focal point of the reflecting bowl. At a frequency of 200 MHz, what is the angle between two stars that can barely be resolved?

Homework Equations



θmin= (1.22λ)/D

θmin= minimum angle required for resolution (rad)
λ = wavelength
D = diameter of aperture

The Attempt at a Solution



Should be fairly straightforward but I'm getting hung up on what I am sure is something silly. The equation above should be all that is needed. Just do (1.22*1.5)/295 as specified by the problem for θmin (in radians). I know I must be overlooking something simple, so any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Don't worry, this one really is that simple :smile:
 
Heh. Figured as much. I'll keep looking at it, and I'm sure it will come to me eventually. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean "it will come to me eventually"?

(1.22*1.5)/295​

You are just a few calculator keystrokes from having the answer. (In radians)
 
Well, 1.22 times the wavelength (1.5m) divided by D (295m) should equal θmin in radians, no? That is how I'm interpreting it, at least.
 
Yes, exactly.
 
Redbelly98 said:
Yes, exactly.

That's what I thought. System says that's incorrect, though.
 
Weird. All I can think is it's either a significant figures or units problem. But with radians, expressing no units should be acceptable. I guess you have rechecked the calculation.

Can't think of anything else, but if I do I'll post here again.
 
Back
Top