|
Resolution Radio Vs Visual
My understanding of the topic:
Visual astronomy will produce a much more resolved understanding of the etheric mostly due to the wavelength/aperture of the 'acquiring system'. Visual astronomy captures wavelengths in the visual range, ie some 600 nanometres down to 400-ish nanometres. Radio utilises much longer wavelengths. I believe Ha has a radiation at about 1620 MegaHertz - which has a corresponding wavelength of about 18.5 cm.
For say a 100mm visual device, it is some 200,000 wavelengths across at 500 nM. For a radio antenna to equate at 1620 MHz, it would need to be 37 kM in diameter! Clearly, this is impractical. The result with smaller aperture radio antennas results in a less defined result. The beam widths of typical antennas are in the order of 30 degrees. Hence hot, (or warm) areas of the sky can be detected, but not with much resolution.
Also radio astronomy is effectively like looking through a 1 pixel camera. We can get a 'brightness' value for the pixel, but unless we methodically scan an area of the sky to produce a brightness map it wont relate to any visual observations.
However, unlike visual observations, the atmospheric turbulence will have little affect on the instantaneous 'brightness' of the radio signal.Hence an AM demodulated signal would be a trrue reflection of galactic (not atmospheric) noise.
VBR
|