[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
[APML] Re: Science in Astrophotos?
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for your comments, but I think I described the present situation
rather accurately. I quote from my letter which was mainly an answer to
Chuck's one:
"(There is of course that exploration part: getting to know what there is)"
and
" It is very difficult to do science with chemical photography, as
quantitative results are extremely difficult to get
(except for positions of moving objects, almost exclusively in the solar
system).
The CCD has competely taken over, as the results are more easily
quantitative."
This answers a number of your comments before you made them.
Furthermore, remark the present tense in your quote of my letter. I was not
referring to the tremendous amount of chemical photography gone into
astronomical data bases: all very valuable, and of course science. But
nowadays, chemical photography in science is practically over. If only
because Kodak refuses to continue the emulsions used in earlier surveys,
with a fake environmetal argument. No more Palomar Sky Survey, therefore.
But not only for that argument. The time delays going into development and
scannning large plates are sometimes prohibitive, standardizing is made
almost impossible because all present day emulsions change properties
without notice, and so on.
Remark that I did not exclude CCD from astrophotography. There are beautiful
CCD pictures, but the science is not in the beauty. It is in the numbers.
And the numbers are not a picture. I use the beautiful detailed picture of
the Trifid made by Hubble as the background of my "desktop". But that
picture did not tell us anything we did not know about the creation of stars
and the dispersal of the remaining material. It only demonstrates admirably
to the public what was known long beforehand from studies on nearer subjects
like the Horse Head and from theoretical considerations.
Generally, in professional astronomy the complete picture is sacrificed to
get more information about small parts of it. Optical transmission fibres
are accurately located in advance to collect light in the focal plane to
catch exactly those parts of the picture the astronomers want the spectrum
of.
On the other side, the fibres are aligned to fit the entrance slit of a
spectrometer.
What the spectra tell us gives rise to a scientific result.
Is this Astrophotography?Yep, we register photons. No, there is no picture.
When you want to include any EM radiation into Astrophotography, the choice
is yours. There are beautiful pictures from the new X-ray satellite Chandra.
I am content with calling that Astrophotography, as well as the pictures
resulting from radioastronomy. Again, the beauty is in the picture, but
generally the science is in the numbers, the spectroscopic details, the time
dependence.
But why limit your choice to EM radiation?
There are a number of neutrino camera's around the world, mostly 1 cubic km
of water or ice surrounded by Photomultipliers. Neutrinos are as massless as
photons. But we will have to wait a very long time before they make
pictures.
The primary discussion Chuck started was: why is a beautiful picture art
and not science. I answered that question, I hope.
Art changes people, Science tells us how Nature works.
Clear skies.
Siebren Klein
s.s.klein@tue.nl
http://www.geocities.com/siebren2001/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Lodriguss" <jml@astropix.com>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [APML] Science in Astrophotos?
: Some quotes from different people:
:
: >pictures themselves are nice art. great to look at, but science comes
from
: >the numbercrunching and analysis.
:
: >So there are few pictures in scientific astronomy.
: I've been reading some of the messages on this thread with my jaw hanging
: open in disbelief.
:
: This is supposed to be a list about astrophotography, and very few people
: seem to know anything about the history of science, let alone the history
: of astrophotography.
:
: Photography (and astrophotography) has been one of the PRIMARY methods of
: scientific discovery because it allowed the recording of information
beyond
: the range of human vision, things we literally could not see.
:
: I will only mention a couple of things here, they might ring a bell:
:
: The Palomar Sky Survey. I think some things were discovered on those
: photographs.
:
: Voyager. Some details in the ring structure of Saturn maybe.
:
: Pluto and many planetary moons were discovered photographically.
:
: Asteroids.
:
: Comets.
:
: The Hubble Space Telescope takes some pictures I think.
:
: To say that a CCD image is not a photograph is disingenuous. In fact, I
: would go so far as to say that any type of recording of any
electromagnetic
: information is, in fact, a picture.
:
: I would highly recommend the book "Beyond Vision" by Jon Darius. It
: contains a concise history of scientific photography and one hundred
: scientific photographs and the stories that go with them and the
importance
: and context of the discoveries they revealed.
:
: It's $8 bucks used at amazon. And that's hardcover!
:
: Jerry
:
-- APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/> ---
Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>