Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 35

Thread: New era of exoplanet imaging?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,511

    New era of exoplanet imaging?

    Are we finally entering this new era?
    https://phys.org/news/2019-03-gravit...t-imaging.html


    Regards,
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,724

    Wow !!

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Are we finally entering this new era?
    https://phys.org/news/2019-03-gravit...t-imaging.html


    Regards,
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Beautiful.

  3. #3
    In the infrared at the moment an​d probably can be used if the planets are fairly warm but really cool.
    From the wilderness to the cosmos.
    You can not be afraid of the wind, Enterprise: Broken Bow.
    https://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,511
    Wow! That indeed is going to be the next “astronomy boom”...!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    What would be really cool is when they can tell if there is shadow going across the planet being cast by a moon.
    From the wilderness to the cosmos.
    You can not be afraid of the wind, Enterprise: Broken Bow.
    https://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,816
    The picture in the linked article is an artist's rendition, not an actual image. The new instrument provided better spectra of the planet than a single telescope would, but made no pictures at all. The resolution of the 4 VLT is nowhere close to that needed to resolve extrasolar planets.

    So, I would vote "no."

  7. #7
    That is what my impression of this was they can see what planets atmosphere is made of but not an actual photo of the planet, the last point I made was just a wish.
    From the wilderness to the cosmos.
    You can not be afraid of the wind, Enterprise: Broken Bow.
    https://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,511
    Yeah but we’re just a step away from making it happen!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,758
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Yeah but we’re just a step away from making it happen!
    That would have to be an exceedingly big step, depending on what you mean by "it".
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,511

    New era of exoplanet imaging?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    That would have to be an exceedingly big step, depending on what you mean by "it".
    Just laying back, visualizing and dissecting exoplanets with the Internet. I’m sure astronomers will be delighted as well.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2019-Mar-27 at 05:56 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,724

    Weekly World News

    Quote Originally Posted by StupendousMan View Post
    The picture in the linked article is an artist's rendition, not an actual image. The new instrument provided better spectra of the planet than a single telescope would, but made no pictures at all. The resolution of the 4 VLT is nowhere close to that needed to resolve extrasolar planets.

    So, I would vote "no."
    In which case the shame is on Physis. Org for not plainnly stating that the image is artwork.

    I expect better than this from a legitimate physics publication.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,511
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Just laying back, visualizing and dissecting exoplanets with the Internet. I’m sure astronomers will be delighted as well.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    And running AI tools to detect extra-terrestrial lifeforms, etc.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,641
    Quote Originally Posted by StupendousMan View Post
    The picture in the linked article is an artist's rendition, not an actual image.
    Thanks, I kept looking for something to clarify but the banding in the "image" seemed to favor some sort of image rendering, which would be a fantastic accomplishment. So fantastic that I crunched the size aperture to see what would be required assuming each band on the disk was about 900 km and, interestingly for 129 lyrs, the effective aperture with maximum resolution would be about 900 km. [Well, I did start with 1000km but that didn't quite fit the bill, and someone might care to check the math.]
    Last edited by George; 2019-Mar-27 at 09:26 PM.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    80
    Very exciting.

    But my excitement is diminished slightly by remembering in the early 90's plans to have an orbital version built and deployed by now.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,483
    I agree that they were remiss in not making it clear that the image at the top is an artist's rendition of what the planet might look like. As I understand the article, the interferometer cleanly teased the planet's light out of the total and enabled getting a good spectrum. That spectrum yielded the bulk composition of the atmosphere. My guess is that the researchers developed a theory of what it would look like based on what we know about Jupiter.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    I agree that they were remiss in not making it clear that the image at the top is an artist's rendition of what the planet might look like. As I understand the article, the interferometer cleanly teased the planet's light out of the total and enabled getting a good spectrum. That spectrum yielded the bulk composition of the atmosphere. My guess is that the researchers developed a theory of what it would look like based on what we know about Jupiter.
    So that means we’re very close to get a good snapshot of the real planet, no?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,175
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    So that means we’re very close to get a good snapshot of the real planet, no?
    No. Just knowing what the atmosphere is mostly made of does not even come close to having a snapshot. Unless you have some other idea of what a snapshot is than I do.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,511
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    No. Just knowing what the atmosphere is mostly made of does not even come close to having a snapshot. Unless you have some other idea of what a snapshot is than I do.
    All we need to do is to zoom in by a factor of 10x and we’ll have a more precise image obviously.

    So if we don’t have a clear picture yet, my question is: how much efforts are required and how long will it take to accomplish this goal?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    670
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    All we need to do is to zoom in by a factor of 10x and we’ll have a more precise image obviously.
    The article is about a recording a spectrum of a planet. This has very little to do with imaging, a older spectra if HR8799e looks like this:

    HR8799e.JPG

    So if we don’t have a clear picture yet, my question is: how much efforts are required and how long will it take to accomplish this goal?
    For that you need to define what a clear picture means. Is 32x32 px (like the moon image attached) at 129 ly enough?

    wave32x32.png

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,511
    Quote Originally Posted by glappkaeft View Post
    The article is about a recording a spectrum of a planet. This has very little to do with imaging, a older spectra if HR8799e looks like this:

    HR8799e.JPG



    For that you need to define what a clear picture means. Is 32x32 px (like the moon image attached) at 129 ly enough?

    wave32x32.png
    Yes.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,546
    I was surprised to see that the planet was illuminated from within, by its superhot interior. The storm-shredded clouds are lit from below.
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,724

    They Didn't 'See' It

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    All we need to do is to zoom in by a factor of 10x and we’ll have a more precise image obviously.

    So if we don’t have a clear picture yet, my question is: how much efforts are required and how long will it take to accomplish this goal?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Phillipe, you are missing the point. That very nice and very misleading piece of artwork at the opening of the article has nothing to do with imaging the planet. The work being reported is spectroscopic, not imaging. It is very good work, but in my opinion the article does not report it properly.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    670
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Yes.
    If my math is correct that requires a telescope with a resolution of about 0.0000007 arc seconds (1 arc second = 1/3600th of a degree). As a comparison Hubble has a diffraction limit of 0.05 arc seconds. A planet imaging telescope with that spec would have to be about 0.05/0.0000007 (around 70'000) times larger than Hubble. That is a telescope with an opening of 2'400'000 meters.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,483
    The resolving power of the interferometer is enough to cleanly separate the planet and the star. That is a far cry from being able to resolve surface features on the planet.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,511
    Quote Originally Posted by glappkaeft View Post
    If my math is correct that requires a telescope with a resolution of about 0.0000007 arc seconds (1 arc second = 1/3600th of a degree). As a comparison Hubble has a diffraction limit of 0.05 arc seconds. A planet imaging telescope with that spec would have to be about 0.05/0.0000007 (around 70'000) times larger than Hubble. That is a telescope with an opening of 2'400'000 meters.
    Oh I see. Thanks for the estimate.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,698
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    All we need to do is to zoom in by a factor of 10x and we’ll have a more precise image obviously.

    So if we don’t have a clear picture yet, my question is: how much efforts are required and how long will it take to accomplish this goal?
    They've managed to separate the spectra of the planet from the spectra of its star. The two objects are separated by 14.5 AU. An additional factor of 10x would only give them less contamination in their spectral data.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,698
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    In which case the shame is on Physis. Org for not plainnly stating that the image is artwork.

    I expect better than this from a legitimate physics publication.
    Publication? phys.org is just a news aggregator.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,724

    Great Expectations

    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    Publication? phys.org is just a news aggregator.
    Then I expect better than this from a legitimate physics news site.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,511
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Then I expect better than this from a legitimate physics news site.
    Yeah it was misleading. Stuff like that just backfires so I don’t know why they did this.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,641
    Quote Originally Posted by glappkaeft View Post
    If my math is correct that requires a telescope with a resolution of about 0.0000007 arc seconds (1 arc second = 1/3600th of a degree). As a comparison Hubble has a diffraction limit of 0.05 arc seconds. A planet imaging telescope with that spec would have to be about 0.05/0.0000007 (around 70'000) times larger than Hubble. That is a telescope with an opening of 2'400'000 meters.
    If you had a magic wand that could make a perfect and large telescope in space and wanted to see that exoplanet as the human eye sees the Moon, then you would need an effective aperture of about 500km, using the diffraction limit equation of 1.22 x wavelength/ aperture dia. I used 550nm as the wavelength.

    [Added: I failed to mention that that is for a Uranus sized exoplanet]
    Last edited by George; 2019-Mar-29 at 12:15 AM.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •