Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: New era of exoplanet imaging?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,618
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Then I expect better than this from a legitimate physics news site.
    Just to be clear, phys.org simply publishes press releases with illustrations provided by the institution. So I am certain that your beef is with the European Southern Observatory that put out the press release.

    But to be perfectly honest, Iíve written press releases on astronomy that include artist images, and I donít think itís particularly uncommon. To be honest, the actual figures in the scientific papers are completely inaccessible to a non-specialist audience.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,618
    Just adding to my post now that I'm on my computer, here are two press releases on astronomy where we included illustrations that are just images of what things might look like based on data that is really not visually attractive at all.

    http://www.riken.jp/en/pr/press/2019/20190101_1/

    http://www.riken.jp/en/pr/press/2018/20181218_1/

    For the second paper, if you look on arxiv (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.10732.pdf), you can see how non-interesting the figures are to a non-specialist.

    I agree that it would be better to specify that the picture is just an artist's conception (as I did in the press releases), but in defense of phy.org, if you look at the press release on the ESO's own website (https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1905/), it doesn't make it clear that it is artwork. I think they assumed that people would be able to understand that even without the disclaimer...
    As above, so below

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    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]
    I was assuming Jupiter sized (a factor of 2.5) which explains the difference.
    Last edited by glappkaeft; 2019-Mar-29 at 03:07 AM. Reason: posting while sleepy

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    13
    It is so pretty, change is indeed inevitable.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,764
    Quote Originally Posted by glappkaeft View Post
    I was assuming Jupiter sized (a factor of 2.5) which explains the difference.
    I was limiting the size to the visual size of the Moon, which is about 31 arcminutes, so using one arcmin for visual resolution, a Jupiter at 129 lyrs would require approx. a 225km effective aperture. The artwork, however, suggests greater resolution so larger aperture would be required, as you calculated.
    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
  •