Twinkle, twinkle, little star

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andy Resnick
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Star
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around photographing the asteroid YU55 and analyzing the resulting images for anomalies. The photographer has identified several instances where objects appear in one photo but not in another, despite confirming faint stars at those locations. They express uncertainty about the effects of atmospheric turbulence on their images, referencing a text on imaging through turbulence but noting a lack of information on correlation times. Questions are raised about why stars twinkle while planets and artificial satellites do not, as well as the implications of exposure times on image clarity. The photographer ultimately finds a resource that may provide the needed information on coherence time related to starlight twinkling.
Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
7,685
Reaction score
3,757
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.
 
Physics 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:
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top