Stargazing Why are Radio Telescopes less detailed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vorde
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radio Telescopes
AI Thread Summary
Radio telescopes provide less detailed images than optical telescopes primarily due to diffraction limits, where resolution is constrained by the wavelength of the radio waves and the size of the telescope. Radio waves are often emitted from more diffuse astronomical objects, further reducing clarity. However, Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) overcomes these limitations by using multiple radio telescopes across vast distances to simulate a telescope the size of the Earth, resulting in much higher resolution images. The principle behind VLBI works effectively for radio waves because it allows for precise tracking of wave peaks, which can be synchronized with atomic clocks for accurate reconstruction. In contrast, visible light cannot retain phase information in the same way, preventing the creation of similarly large artificial telescopes.
Vorde
Messages
786
Reaction score
0
In my experience pictures from radio antennae are far less accurate than pictures from other areas of the EMR spectrum, why is this?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Vorde said:
In my experience pictures from radio antennae are far less accurate than pictures from other areas of the EMR spectrum, why is this?

For single telescopes the issue is diffraction limits. The minimum resolution that you can see is on the order of (wavelength) / (telescope size), and since radio telescopes have long wavelengths, you get less resolution.

The other issue is that radio waves often come from objects that are more diffuse.

Now things are very different for VLBI. With VLBI you use the rotation of the Earth and computers to create an artificial telescope that can be the size of the earth. In that situation, you can get pictures that are much more detailed than you have in visible.
 
twofish-quant said:
Now things are very different for VLBI. With VLBI you use the rotation of the Earth and computers to create an artificial telescope that can be the size of the earth. In that situation, you can get pictures that are much more detailed than you have in visible.
Why does the principle behind VBLI work for radio but not for visible?

I'm thinking it has something to do with the "I"...
 
twofish is correct, it has to do with wavelength. A radio telescope 'lens' is need only be corrected to within a few millimeters. That is why they can be made so large.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Why does the principle behind VBLI work for radio but not for visible?

Because with radio waves you can see the actual shape of the "wave". You can track exactly when the peak of the wave hits the Earth which is going to be different for different parts of the earth. Once you synchronize these measurements with an atomic clock, you can work back and electronically reconstruct the wave as it hits the earth.

For light, you can't record phase information, so you have to physically combine light rays. This means that you can't build an artificial telescope the size of the earth.
 

Thread 'Does it make sense to build new radio telescopes?'

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...
View full post »
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Our Beautiful Universe - Photos and Videos'

This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
View full post »

Similar threads

I How big a lunar radio telescope to detect Earth-like signals?
Replies
19
Views
2K
Does it make sense to build new radio telescopes?
Replies
46
Views
489
Stargazing Has a Deep Field Picture of the Sky Been Captured with a Radio Telescope?
Replies
5
Views
2K
B Feasibility of Sending a Radio Signal Detectable from a Neighboring Star
Replies
5
Views
156
I Could fast radio bursts be alien radar signals?
Replies
9
Views
147
Stargazing How is noise removed in radio telescopes?
Replies
28
Views
6K
B Lunar Crater Radio Telescope (LCRT)
Replies
1
Views
2K
Stargazing Does a Radio Telescope Have Aberration and How Does it Affect Its Performance?
Replies
9
Views
3K
A Resolving power of a radio telescope array: Quantum or classical?
Replies
7
Views
3K
Stargazing Phase of radio waves received by a radio telescope dish
2
Replies
56
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top