Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Generator

The visibility-curve generator

Fringe visibility for a 47 mas disc at 575 nm
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.

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.

4 essays call visibility-curve. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Every figure listed here is the same construction drawn at different numbers, so a correction to one is a correction to all of them.

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. Starlight

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.

 20 closure phases, unmoved by an atmosphere that ruins every baseline. Closure phase measured against closure phase true, for all 20 triangles of a 6-antenna array observing a binary 3.2 mas apart with a flux ratio of 0.35. Each antenna has been given an independent atmospheric phase of 65° rms, which corrupts the individual baseline phases by 102° rms — several times the 31.2° the source itself produces, so no single visibility phase in this simulation carries usable information. Every point here nonetheless sits exactly on the diagonal: the per-antenna terms cancel identically round any triangle, and the largest departure over all 20 is 2.5e-14 degrees, which is round-off. The price is in the counting. 6 antennas give 15 baseline phases of which 5 are consumed by the unknowns, so of the 20 triangles only 10 closures are independent — a fraction (N−2)/N = 0.667 of the phase information. For two antennas that fraction is zero and there is no closure at all; the Event Horizon Telescope's image rests on quantities of this kind and on no absolute phase whatever. Starlight

A phase that survives what corrupts it

An atmosphere over each antenna adds an unknown to the phase of every baseline that antenna takes part in. Sum the phases round a triangle and every one of those unknowns cancels identically — which is the reason an image can be made across ten thousand kilometres, and the reason it has no position on the sky.

 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. Starlight

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.

 A few per cent of diameter, hidden in the second lobe. Visibility against baseline in the natural variable πθB/λ, for stars with linear limb-darkening coefficients of 0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, each rescaled to the uniform disc that best fits its own first lobe. In the first lobe the four curves are within 0.72 per cent of one another; past the first null they differ by up to 4.2 per cent. That is the whole difficulty of measuring a stellar diameter. A limb-darkened star has a faint edge, so a uniform-disc fit returns a diameter 9.7 per cent too small at u = 0.9 and 2.5 per cent too small at u = 0.3 — and the information needed to tell which is in a region where the visibility is under five per cent and the calibration errors of a real interferometer are comparable to the signal. The correction from what is measured to what is wanted is taken from a model atmosphere, because the observation that would supply it is the hardest one there is. The fit here is done by least squares on the drawn curves rather than read from a conversion table, and the zero-coefficient case returns the uniform disc to 0.00 per cent, which is the fit checking itself. Starlight

A diameter that depends on a model atmosphere

An interferometer measures fringe visibilities and somebody fits a disc. A uniform disc and a limb-darkened one agree to within a per cent across the whole of the first lobe and differ by five in the second — where the visibility is under five per cent and the calibration errors are the same size.

The whole library · All essays