Six Optical Telescopes Combined Into One 17
00Paddy writes: "Starstuff.org reports on how astronomers successfully combined the light from six independent telescopes to form a single, high-resolution image of a distant multiple-star system using interferometry techniques. The combined telescopes gives a effective mirror diameter of 430 meters, much bigger than any single mirror could be made. This technology will lead to images of sunspots of distant stars and maybe images Jupiter-sized planets orbiting distant stars."
Slightly dodgy link (Score:4, Informative)
Way to mess up their stats
It also links directly to the article, which will instantly reload you to the frameset. A better URL is http://www.starstuff.org/default.asp?cover=/artic
Re:Slightly dodgy link (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Slightly dodgy link (Score:1)
Whay can't this be done on a planet scale? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Whay can't this be done on a planet scale? (Score:5, Informative)
Because you need a direct optical link between the telescopes, and because you want the mirror setup you use for this to be as stable as possible (relative motion will change path lengths and muck up your image reconstruction).
You can get around this with radio telescopes because you can sample and timestamp the received signals with timing resolution much finer than the period of the radio waves. To do this with light, we'd need light sensors and electronics at least a million times faster than we have now, and atomic clocks based on mid-UV light instead of microwaves).
A giant interferometer could be built in space, of course.
Re:Whay can't this be done on a planet scale? (Score:1, Informative)
Measuring the wave collapses the wave function. Measuring then combining is not the same as combining THEN measuring. Those radio telescope arrays can't be called true interferometers.
Re:Whay can't this be done on a planet scale? (Score:2)
Measuring the wave collapses the wave function. Measuring then combining is not the same as combining THEN measuring. Those radio telescope arrays can't be called true interferometers.
Come again?
An interferometer is a classical device. I only have to worry about waveform collapses if I'm counting individual photons.
Re:Whay can't this be done on a planet scale? (Score:1)
Re:Whay can't this be done on a planet scale? (Score:2)
It's on the Mount Wilson [mtwilson.edu] webpage, but that appears to be down right now. Also, for some extra geek/slashdot points, they appear to be doing all of this with some sort of linux distro...
If I can find it, I'll post a reply to this message...
Re:Whay can't this be done on a planet scale? (Score:2)
See the CHARA site here [gsu.edu]
Re:Whay can't this be done on a planet scale? (Score:1)
Hm.. (Score:1)
50 Meters not 430. (Score:1)
combined telescopes gives a effective mirror diameter of 430 meters, much bigger than any single mirror could be made.
From the article:
This level of detail would require a single monolithic telescope mirror in excess of 50 meters in diameter.
and,
In the near future, NPOI will be commissioning all of the remaining stations onto which any of the six telescopes can be mounted for a maximum array size of 430 meters, the largest baseline of all current imaging interferometer projects.
Nevertheless this is an exciting technique.
Old News... +Moon Observatory (Score:1)
On a more constructive point, the best course of action now would probably be to make a similar system on the "dark" side of Luna, the planet Earth's moon because, as was noted several years ago, the further apart the telescopes are, the better resolution and clarity you would get, though you might need to introduce more for accuracy. It would be much better thant eh hubble telescope, most would admit, though it isn't stationary.