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
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...
Both have short pulses of emission and a wide spectral bandwidth, covering a wide variety of frequencies: "Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are detected over a wide range of radio frequencies, including frequencies around 1400 MHz, but have also been detected at lower frequencies, particularly in the 400–800 MHz range. Russian astronomers recently detected a powerful burst at 111 MHz, expanding our understanding of the FRB range. Frequency Ranges: 1400 MHz: Many of the known FRBs have been detected...
Back
Top