What *would* the night sky look like if we could see the entire EM spectrum?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the visualization of the night sky across the entire electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, emphasizing that while the visible spectrum peaks in the range detectable by human eyes, significant differences exist in other wavelengths such as infrared and x-rays. Participants referenced images of the Milky Way that combine visible, infrared, and x-ray data, illustrating how these different wavelengths reveal distinct features of celestial objects. The conversation highlights the necessity of specialized telescopes for observing various EM bands, reinforcing the idea that the night sky would appear dramatically different if all wavelengths were visible simultaneously.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum
  • Familiarity with astronomical imaging techniques
  • Knowledge of telescope types and their specific uses
  • Basic principles of color perception and human vision
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the capabilities of multi-spectral telescopes
  • Explore the principles of electromagnetic radiation and its interaction with matter
  • Learn about the process of converting non-visible wavelengths into visible images
  • Investigate the role of infrared and x-ray astronomy in modern astrophysics
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysics students, and anyone interested in the visualization of the universe beyond the visible spectrum will benefit from this discussion.

SeventhSigma
Messages
256
Reaction score
0
Assuming, of course, that we simply rescaled our color perspectives so that longest wavelengths = red, shortest wavelengths = violet. Are there any such pictures?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Not altogether unlike what we see in the visible spectrum. There is a bit more radiation at both ends, but, it does not make a dramatic difference.
 
You can no more conceive this than you can describe colour to a blind person. Any pictures we create of this would look the same to you as pictures that didn't include these wavelengths because you can't see them.

Any pictures that show wavelengths like x-ray can only do so if they are shifted into the visible spectrum.
 
Any pictures that show wavelengths like x-ray can only do so if they are shifted into the visible spectrum.

But that is what the OP suggested...
 
mr. vodka said:
But that is what the OP suggested...

My mistake. I read colour perception as meaning biologically changing rather than chaining the image.
 
I actually dug around for a night-sky-average spectrum in absolute units over many decades of wavelength, but couldn't find one so I don't know. But I would bet it would peak in the visible just like the spectrum that our eyes detect does, because most radiation comes from stars that have an effective blackbody spectrum that peaks in the visible. You would get a lot more "blue" from UV up through x-rays (variety of sources), and also a lot more "red" from warm dust down to the cosmic microwave background, but plotted in units like Ergs/s/eV/Sr I would bet it still peaks in the visible.
 
Chronos said:
Not altogether unlike what we see in the visible spectrum. There is a bit more radiation at both ends, but, it does not make a dramatic difference.
I beg to differ. That what we see in different frequency domains is dramatically different from what we see in the visible spectrum is the driving impetus behind the many different kinds of telescopes astronomers have developed. Astronomers use telescopes that range from long wave radio up to gammas. If what we saw was more or less the same across the EM spectrum there would be little justification for this plethora of devices, some of which are very expensive.
 
Whether it already exists or not: is there any reason to suspect the picture that the OP suggests can't actually be made? I think that would be a very interesting picture :)
 
  • #10
D H said:
I beg to differ. That what we see in different frequency domains is dramatically different from what we see in the visible spectrum is the driving impetus behind the many different kinds of telescopes astronomers have developed. Astronomers use telescopes that range from long wave radio up to gammas. If what we saw was more or less the same across the EM spectrum there would be little justification for this plethora of devices, some of which are very expensive.

I don't think that was the question, at least that's not how I interpret it. Obviously things can look dramatically different in different energy bands, but if the emission levels in those more-exotic bands is low then a detector with a flat response would hardly notice.
 
  • #11
Well, one example of how different things could look, if you could see magnetic fields, Jupiter would look something like this.
magneticFiled.jpg


Though I should note they have the wrong moonphase in that image, given the direction of the sun implied by the magnetic field and the moon are almost perpendicular to each other.
 
  • #12
Bd1Dd.png


I basically mean something like this -- going from the real-life, current visible spectrum slice and expanding it to where the bold lines are instead. Most of the matter that we are used to seeing with color, on our planet, would appear greenish, but we'd be able to see everything else, too, outside of the 390 to 750 nm range. I'm wondering what that would look like, or what the night sky would look like. I am just trying to understand what would look different and how.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K