Stargazing Size of Star Images: Electronic Effect, Feynman Paths, or Daft Question?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TerryW
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Images Star
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the enlargement of star images captured by telescopes, particularly addressing whether this effect is due to electronic interactions in camera pixels or the behavior of photons as described by Feynman paths. It is noted that all telescopes have inherent resolving power limits based on their aperture and the wavelength of light, leading to the formation of an "Airy disk" rather than a perfect point source. The thread also highlights that space telescopes like Hubble and James Webb are close to achieving diffraction limits, while Earth-based telescopes can improve resolution using adaptive optics. The consensus is that understanding this phenomenon can be approached through wave theory and basic physics rather than requiring complex quantum explanations. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the interplay of optical physics in determining star image sizes.
TerryW
Gold Member
Messages
222
Reaction score
20
TL;DR Summary
Is the size of a star image determined by pixels in the camera or by Feynman's paths
Images of stars taken by Earth based telescopes can be enlarged by atmospheric fluctuations, but images of bright stars taken by Hubble are also large. Is this the result of some electronic effect in the camera pixels whereby the intensity of light falling on a pixel can cause adjacent pixels to record light, or is the image enlarged by lots of photons traveling on nearby Feynman paths which result in them being spread out. Or is this a daft question?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • Like
Likes davenn, pinball1970 and TerryW
TerryW said:
Summary:: Is the size of a star image determined by pixels in the camera or by Feynman's paths

Images of stars taken by Earth based telescopes can be enlarged by atmospheric fluctuations, but images of bright stars taken by Hubble are also large. Is this the result of some electronic effect in the camera pixels whereby the intensity of light falling on a pixel can cause adjacent pixels to record light, or is the image enlarged by lots of photons traveling on nearby Feynman paths which result in them being spread out. Or is this a daft question?

All telescopes, even those in space, have limits to their resolving power based on the wavelength of light being observed and the aperture (a.k.a size of diameter) of the telescope.

Even an ideal telescope, perfect in every way although having a finite aperture, will not resolve far away stars to a point. The star (or any point source) will instead form an "Airy disk."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk

330px-Airy-pattern.svg.png


There are a couple of fourmulas and "limits" as to how to characterize the resolving power of a telescope: namely the Rayleigh criterion and the Dawes' limit, which both describe the same sort of thing.

This diffraction limit is the best it can get. Other imperfections (atmospheric aberrations, optical aberrations, sensor limitations, etc., only make it worse. But just know that space telescopes such as Hubble (HST) and James Webb (JWST) are pretty darned close to being diffraction limited. Larger, Earth based telescopes that employ adaptive optics can also get pretty close. Even my backyard telescope, when imaging brighter planets such as Venus, Mars and Jupiter, can get surprisingly close to its diffraction limit when employing lucky imaging techniques.

So, to your original question: Do you need Feynman's paths to show this? No. All you need is the wave theory of light (i.e., light is a wave), and some physics courses. You can sufficiently derive all of this with first year physics course that touches on diffraction theory. (Although if you wanted to derive the full shape of the Airy disk, it requires knowledge of Bessel functions, so there's some math involved.)

That said, you can use quantum electrodynamics (QED) explain diffraction, if you really wanted to. The classical solutions will match the quantum. I'm just saying that it's not necessary to use the quantum approach. It would be like trying to kill a mosquito with a rocket propelled grenade. It might work, but it's overkill.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes davenn, pinball1970, Oldman too and 1 other person
Thanks for your detailed response. I should have remembered some of it from my undergrad days - but that was a long time ago :smile:
 
And thank you Bandersnatch for the saturation/blooming explanation.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn and pinball1970
Today at about 4:30 am I saw the conjunction of Venus and Jupiter, where they were about the width of the full moon, or one half degree apart. Did anyone else see it? Edit: The moon is 2,200 miles in diameter and at a distance of 240,000 miles. Thereby it subtends an angle in radians of 2,200/240,000=.01 (approximately). With pi radians being 180 degrees, one radian is 57.3 degrees, so that .01 radians is about .50 degrees (angle subtended by the moon). (.57 to be more exact, but with...
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...
Back
Top