Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Interferometry — where it appears

Combining light collected at two or more separated apertures, so that the resolution is set by their separation rather than by any one of them. What each pair measures is one Fourier component of the sky, so an image comes from an incompletely sampled transform plane rather than from a focal plane.

Named by 3 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Resolution stops improving at 10 cm of aperture. Angular resolution against aperture at 500 nm, both logarithmic. The falling line is diffraction alone, 1.03 λ/D, which is what a telescope in vacuum delivers and has no floor. The curve is the same telescope under an atmosphere of Fried parameter r₀ = 10 cm, combining diffraction and seeing in quadrature: it follows the diffraction line while D < r₀ and then bends onto a plateau at 0.98 λ/r₀ = 1.01″. An amateur's 100 mm at 0.1 m would resolve 1.062″ above the air and delivers 1.47″ through it; a metre at 1 m would resolve 0.106″ above the air and delivers 1.02″ through it; the VLT at 8.2 m would resolve 0.013″ above the air and delivers 1.01″ through it; the ELT at 39 m would resolve 0.003″ above the air and delivers 1.01″ through it. At 39 m the atmosphere is costing a factor of 371: the aperture is 390 coherence lengths across and every one of the 152,100 patches it collects arrives with a phase of its own. What the extra aperture still buys is photons and speckles, and those two are what adaptive optics and speckle interferometry respectively spend to get the falling line back.

A ten-metre mirror that resolves like a ten-centimetre one

The atmosphere delivers a wavefront in patches about ten centimetres across, and an aperture larger than a patch collects patches rather than detail. Resolution stops improving at that size — and what the extra aperture keeps buying is photons and speckles, which is why there are two entirely different ways out.

sky · Seeing Fringe visibility for a 47 mas disc at 575 nm. Fringe visibility against the separation of the two apertures, for a disc 47 milliarcseconds across seen at 575 nm. The solid curve is a uniform disc, |2J₁(x)/x| with x = πθB/λ; it is exactly one at zero baseline, where both apertures see the same wavefront, and falls to zero at 3.08 m — read off the drawn samples, and equal to 1.21967 λ/θ to better than one part in a million. That is the measurement: not a brightness, a baseline. The dashed curve is the same disc with linear limb darkening u = 0.4, whose null is 4.9% further out at 3.23 m — so the same observed null implies 47 mas as a uniform disc and 49.3 mas limb-darkened, and a diameter quoted without its model is a number without a unit. At the 2.54 m aperture of the telescope this was done on, the visibility is still 0.17: one mirror cannot reach the null, which is the same statement as saying it cannot resolve the star.

An angle of five hundredths of an arcsecond

No telescope has ever resolved a star other than the Sun, and stellar diameters are measured anyway — by finding the separation of two apertures at which the star's interference fringes vanish. What that returns is an angle; the radius arrives only when a distance is brought in, and the distance is the worse-known half.

starlight · Angular diameter A star 1.24 times wider than it is tall, and 19 per cent brighter pole-on. Left, the meridional section of a star rotating at ω = 0.9257 of its critical angular velocity, computed from the Roche potential rather than sketched: the equator sits at 1.245 polar radii, and at the critical rate that ratio is exactly 1.5 whatever the star is made of. The same rotation expressed as a fraction of the critical equatorial speed is 0.768, and the two conventions differ by the distortion itself — a figure that prints one under the other's name is wrong by an amount that looks like rounding. Effective gravity at the equator is 0.329 of its polar value, so von Zeipel's flux law makes the pole hotter than the equator by a factor 1.320 at the theoretical exponent 0.25 and 1.232 at the 0.188 that interferometric imaging actually fits. Right, the apparent bolometric brightness against viewing inclination, integrated over the visible gravity-darkened surface: pole-on the star is 1.19 times brighter than edge-on, and the apparent temperature falls with it. The consequence is that a rapid rotator's place on the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram is partly a statement about the observer's position, which no spectrum taken alone can undo.

A temperature that depends on where the observer stands

A star turning near its break-up rate is half again as wide as it is tall, and its equator is thousands of degrees cooler than its poles. Neither of those is a small correction to a spectrum — the effective temperature and the luminosity such a star appears to have are partly statements about which way its axis happens to point.

starlight · Gravity darkening

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Diffraction limitEffective temperatureLimb darkeningStellar radiusAdaptive opticsAngular diameterAngular resolutionAtmospheric turbulenceClosure phaseCritical rotationEffective gravityFried parameter

All concepts