Stargazing Stellar abberation (water in telescope)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Buckethead
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stellar Telescope
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the phenomenon of stellar aberration, particularly an experiment involving telescopes, one filled with water, which showed both telescopes tracking a star at the same angle despite differing light speeds. This outcome challenges conventional logic and is linked to the concept of length contraction, though the explanation remains unclear to some participants. Historical references indicate that earlier theories, such as those by Young, failed to account for aberration in non-vacuum conditions, as demonstrated by François Arago's experiments in 1810. Subsequent confirmations by researchers like Airy in 1871 further established that the aberration angle remains consistent regardless of the medium in the telescope. The discussion seeks clarity on how length contraction reconciles these findings.
Buckethead
Gold Member
Messages
560
Reaction score
38
I've been reading about stellar aberration and was particularly drawn to the experiment where two telescopes are tracking a star but one is filled with water to slow the speed of light down. The results of the experiment show both telescopes to be tilted to exactly the same angle which contradicts logic. This is explained somewhat in wiki as a byproduct of length contraction. I don't understand how length contraction can fix this. Can someone help out? Thanks.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
have you got some references for that please ?

never heard of a telescope filled with water
 
From Wikipedia "Stellar Aberration"

"However, it soon became clear Young's theory could not account for aberration when materials with a non-vacuum index of refraction were present. An important example is of a telescope filled with water. The velocity of the light in such a telescope will be slower than in vacuum, and is given by
dc93a0c5ed672fbf1037df2d65a34952.png
rather than
4a8a08f09d37b73795649038408b5f33.png
where
7b8b965ad4bca0e41ab51de7b31363a1.png
is the index of refraction of the water. Thus, by Bradley and Young's reasoning the aberration angle is given by

[PLAIN]https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/5/3/453fb5ca1793c35cb0666e886fad9665.png.
which predicts a medium-dependent angle of aberration. When refraction at the telescope's objective is taken into account this result deviates even more from the vacuum result. In 1810 François Arago performed a similar experiment and found that the aberration was unaffected by the medium in the telescope, providing solid evidence against Young's theory. This experiment was subsequently verified by many others in the following decades, most accurately by Airy in 1871, with the same result.[14]"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top