Twinkle, twinkle, little star

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Andy Resnick
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Star
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the phenomenon of star twinkling and its relationship with atmospheric turbulence, specifically referencing the work of Roggemann and Welsh in "Imaging through turbulence." The user conducted photographic observations of the asteroid YU55, noting discrepancies in star visibility between two images taken with a 1.3-second exposure. The conversation highlights the need for a deeper understanding of correlation time in atmospheric effects on imaging, as well as the differences in twinkling between stars, planets, and artificial satellites.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of atmospheric turbulence and its effects on imaging
  • Familiarity with photographic techniques, particularly exposure times
  • Knowledge of star magnitude and celestial object classification
  • Basic comprehension of coherence time in wave optics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "coherence time" in the context of atmospheric optics
  • Explore the effects of exposure time on astrophotography
  • Study the differences in twinkling between celestial bodies, focusing on planets and satellites
  • Review "Imaging through turbulence" by Roggemann and Welsh for advanced insights
USEFUL FOR

Astronomy enthusiasts, astrophotographers, and researchers interested in atmospheric effects on celestial imaging will benefit from this discussion.

Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
7,719
Reaction score
3,860
Not sure if this is the best subforum, but here goes:

I tried to photograph YU55 when it flew by, and have been combing through a pair of photos, looking for a dot in one and a blank spot in the other. So far there have been at least 5 instances where something appeared in one photo only, but checking the locations with google sky and SIMBAD, each location indeed has a faint (magnitude 10+) star present.

Each photo was taken with a 1.3 second exposure time, which I had thought was sufficiently long to average out any atmospheric turbulence (the twinkle). My reference text, Roggemann and Welsh "Imaging through turbulence", has a long chapter devoted to atmospheric turbulence in this specific context, and while they have a detailed discussion about the spatial extent- the correlation length as compared to the entrance pupil- there does not appear to be a similar discussion about timescales: short-time imaging gives speckle, long-time imaging gives uniform blur, but I can't find a derivation about the correlation time (which divides the two regimes).

I'd appreciate any pointers, references, etc. on this, thanks.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
If atmospheric turbulance is why stars twinkle, why don't planets twinkle? Why don't artificial Earth satellites twinkle?
 
They aren't point sources. Plus, satellites move pretty fast (I've not looked for a geosynchronous satellite).
 
Here is an interesting re-examination of star twinkle. It discusses some photography aspects as well. He is not an official authoritative source, but his insights may give you some means to work on the photo problem... http://milesmathis.com/twink.html"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
14K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 152 ·
6
Replies
152
Views
11K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K