Astronomy - Ch. 6: Telescopes (7 of 25) Finding Resolutions of Craters on the Moon

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 14. 10. 2024
  • Visit ilectureonline.com for more math and science lectures!
    In this video I will calculate the telescope's resolutions of craters on the Moon.

Komentáře • 29

  • @puriap250
    @puriap250 Před 3 lety +4

    Such great videos. I had never received so much knowledge in my life in such short time before. I don't wanna sleep I just wanna keep watching.

  • @ΝικόλαςΓεωργίου-θ2θ

    Sir thank you for the very informative video....I would like to ask a question though....how is resolution calculated in realistic world where light is not a single wavelength.. thank you in advance

    • @MichelvanBiezen
      @MichelvanBiezen  Před 2 lety +3

      You are correct is assuming that light is made up of different wavelengths, such that the resolution is not going to be an exact number. We usually take the most common wavelength (the peak of the blackbody radiation curve) as an "average" wavelength.

  • @arijeetsen4718
    @arijeetsen4718 Před rokem +1

    Very nice explanation….

  • @jaydoubleli
    @jaydoubleli Před 6 měsíci +1

    can you explain how the 2.5e5 coefficient was derived?

    • @MichelvanBiezen
      @MichelvanBiezen  Před 5 měsíci +1

      It is actually 2.512^5 which is equal to 100 They wanted 5 magnitudes to be equated to an increase in intensity of 100

  • @noreaction1
    @noreaction1 Před 2 lety +1

    Why is the coefficient before lambda divided by diameter 250,000? How is this equation derived

    • @MichelvanBiezen
      @MichelvanBiezen  Před 2 lety +1

      The angle of resolution for a circular aperture is: theta = 1.22 lambda/ D but that gives the answer in radians. In astronomy it makes more sense to adapt the constant so we get the anwer in arc seconds.

  • @shrirangsapate
    @shrirangsapate Před 5 lety +1

    Sir, I was reading about resolving power and I found that the constant was 1.22 somewhere it was 1.1 and in this video you used 2.5*10^5 can you please guide me? Thank you in advance.

    • @Miztrable
      @Miztrable Před 4 lety +3

      The formula calculates the angle in arcseconds. I guess 1.22 is giving radians as answer (converting 2.5*10^5 arcseconds into radians gives 1,22 radians)

  • @turjjadatta
    @turjjadatta Před 9 lety

    Great Videos

  • @jordonfrancisco9270
    @jordonfrancisco9270 Před 7 lety +2

    Sir , when I calculate 2.5x10^5 ( 500x10^-9 / 0.1 ) I get 1.25 not 125 . What am I missing ? Thanks in advance !

    • @MichelvanBiezen
      @MichelvanBiezen  Před 7 lety +2

      you are correct. I probably missed the decimal point on my calculator. (eyes aren't what they used to be)

    • @jordonfrancisco9270
      @jordonfrancisco9270 Před 7 lety

      Michel van Biezen Haha . No worries . Thanks , professor !

    • @thinkitfirst8513
      @thinkitfirst8513 Před 3 lety

      @@MichelvanBiezen you are cool professor......I am your big fan from bangladesh

  • @Danielagostinho21
    @Danielagostinho21 Před 6 lety

    I don't understand what 2.5e5 means, is that a constant of the equation? something about the telescope? I would like to know what it is.

    • @MichelvanBiezen
      @MichelvanBiezen  Před 6 lety

      It is a constant particular to how lenses and reflecting mirrors work in telescopes. See this video for more information: Physics - Diffraction of Light (4 of 4) Circular Diffraction Patterns

    • @Danielagostinho21
      @Danielagostinho21 Před 6 lety +1

      thanks for the answer...
      And how fast you did it.

  • @svedas01
    @svedas01 Před 7 lety +3

    Very tiny D :DDD. Great video

  • @astavak
    @astavak Před 5 lety +2

    For 5 m diameter one won't it it 0.025 arc second

    • @Midnightwards666
      @Midnightwards666 Před 4 lety +1

      Yes it will. Someone else already pointed out the error in the first calculation. My guess is something similar happened in the second... I'm not sure. I realized that the second could not possibly be 2.5 arcseconds as that's a bigger resolution angle than the first calculation after it was corrected. At least now we have the equation though.

    • @MichelvanBiezen
      @MichelvanBiezen  Před 2 lety +1

      Note that in the first equation the wavelength is entered in meters and in the second equation the wavelength is entered in micro meters.

    • @astavak
      @astavak Před 2 lety

      @@MichelvanBiezen ahh ok thank you for clarity sir!

  • @harshannn
    @harshannn Před 3 lety +2

    6:13 sir iam getting 0.025 😟

    • @MichelvanBiezen
      @MichelvanBiezen  Před 3 lety +1

      Yes, you are correct. (I probably pushed the wrong buttons)

    • @harshannn
      @harshannn Před 3 lety +1

      @@MichelvanBiezen oh thank you sir 😊 and have a nice day

  • @Unidentifying
    @Unidentifying Před 10 lety

    you are awesome