Some time ago I wrote an article in which he explained that the extended magnitude surface of an object seen through a telescope is less than the magnitude of the surface with the naked eye. This fact, contrary to common sense, può essere facilmente dimostrato con dei semplici ragionamenti di tipo fisico e matematico, come nell'articolo citato.
Non sono solo io a dire che le cose stanno così e non sono nemmeno stato il primo. Fra chi, prima di me, ha riflettuto su questo cito Bill Ferris , Roger Clark , Mel Bartels e Nils Olof Carlin .
Sebbene la matematica e la fisica non lascino scampo, sembra però difficile accettare la realtà che le immagini al telescopio abbiano una intensità superficiale inferiore a quella ad occhio nudo. La parola "superficiale" è in grassetto non a caso, perché spesso chi obietta che le formule devono essere sbagliate, in really did not understand the concept of intensity surface and forms part of the integrated intensity. Objections such as "the moon to the naked eye and dazzle telescope no" or "M51 is seen through a telescope but not to the naked eye" should be the intent of those who object, clear evidence that there is something wrong with the formulas .
people literally believe what they see "and it is difficult to convince them that we do not see reality, but the result of a complex process of visual signal processing. The interpretation and attribution of meaning to what we "see" alters our perceptions. Colors, shapes, etc.. as it is not a transposition of what the human eye receives, but the result of an unconscious interpretation.
In this case, the impression we have of an object, or see it or not, depends on the surface inetnsità, but by contrast with the background and the apparent size. This "discovery" of the need to Richard Blackwell, who in his study " Contrast Threshold of the Human Eye " Half a century ago revealed (it's appropriate to say) as the recognition of an object depends more on the size and the apparent contrast of surface brightness. And fortunately, otherwise the telescope would be useless!
a telescope M51 is less bright to the naked eye, but much bigger to the point that the brain recognizes it, because it "believes" the information that comes from a large number of receptors (rods), whereas very few receptors to the naked eye and brain perceive it does not consider it significant.
Gia ... but ... Back objection: "dazzles the Moon through a telescope," "M42 is brighter, and so on. etc..
But is this really true? Surprisingly it is quite easy to verify that the accounts are correct. To do this simply rely on a digital camera, which does not "influence" from the processes of signal processing in the brain.
I took a photo of the Moon (click to see better) with the following settings: focal length 55 mm, F5, 6 (9.8 mm entrance pupil), ISO 100 and exposure time 1 / 60 second. It obviously has been captured in RAW. Then I photographed the image seen in the 15x70 binoculars. Of course the camera did not have the "conscience" of the fact that the new image was the binoculars, and saw the brilliance of the new image.
is not difficult to see the new image has an intensity lower surface. Just read the levels on the moon on the right and left. The relationship between the intensities of the two moons, estimated on RAW images, is about 4.4 (The Moon has a small intensity 4.4 times the Moon's surface large).
But it should be according to formula della "teoria"? Secondo la formula della "incredibile teoria" l'intensità al binocolo, senza contare le perdite di luce, dovrebbe essere il rapporto al quadrato fra la pupilla di ingresso della fotocamera (d nella formula) e la pupilla di uscita del binocolo (che è 70/15=4.66 mm). Fatto il calcolo risulta: (9.8/4.66)^2=... 4.4!!
Accidenti: la sperimentazione conferma la teoria!
E ora come si fa a sostenere che le immagini al telescopio sono più brillanti e che (una delle conseguenze) si possono vedere i colori con un diametro sufficiente?
0 comments:
Post a Comment