Daren, Funny this would come up right now. I just read an article in July's Reader's Digest about a young female radio astronomy PhD student who moonlights as an amateur roller derby athlete (if that's the correct term). She specifically mentioned the same scene with Jodie Foster in Contact and called it "crap" (a direct quote). Most meaningful data from radio receivers for astronomical purposes come in the form of graphs and numbers, not sounds or images. As Patrick mentioned, the data can be transformed into sound and even pretty pictures using false-color techniques, but the altered data are then strictly cosmetic, so to speak. The very short range of visible EM data that humans can sense directly (the visible spectrum, and some UV radiation that we ultimately sense as a sunburn) shows only a tiny percentage of the total volume of EM data from which we can learn about the universe. Unfortunately, the data that we collect from the EM spectrum that we cannot directly sense such as radio waves, infrared radiation, cosmic rays and so forth must be converted to some kind of output that we can sense in order to interpret the data. The most common output is visual, but I suppose that it would be possible to create tactile images of a galaxy, or the "taste" of a star. What we see in Contact is Hollywood's naïve and simplistic interpretation of something they do not understand and didn't take the time to do so. Hollywood's rationale: Radio = sound broadcasts, so radio astronomy must also equal some kind of sound output. I hesitate to single out anyone, but one active participant in SLAS's public star parties often brings a radio receiver that is tuned to some cosmic wavelength (I don't recall which). The output that he has chosen is a circular array of flashing LED's - interesting to look at, but in my opinion, provides no meaningful information, especially for our general public who probably haven't a clue as to what is going on. I didn't mean to carry on. So much for my $0.92. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Wiggins Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 10:45 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Radio Astronomy Question I really liked Contact but I fear the scene of Ms. Foster listening gave a lot of people the wrong impression. Radio telescopes like the refractors and reflectors we use all pick up basically the same thing, namely electromagnetic radiation. The difference being the wavelength of that radiation. Ours pick up the part of the spectrum we can see (visible light) and record with film/ CCDs and then display on a monitor or as a print while radio telescopes pick up parts of the spectrum we can not see but which can still be recorded and displayed on a monitor or as a print. So yes, your assumption is correct. BTW, in either case it is possible to turn the data into sound but other than for fun or for movies it's really not necessary. patrick On 11 Jun 2008, at 10:53, Daren Campbell wrote:
I'm new to the world of astronomy and while studying the different forms of electromagnetic radiation (light) I've had a question in my mind that I know is a stupid question but I can't help but ask.... Why is radio astronomy associated with listening? Or is it? All I have ever learned about science comes from the movies and I remember watching "Contact" with Jodi Foster's character sitting with her eyes closed "listening to the stars". I suppose radio telescopes can pick up radio waves and convert them to sounds but is that really what they are used for. I would assume radio telescopes are mostly used to pick up radio waves and convert them to images, like the ones seen on the world wide telescope. Am I right in this assumtion?
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1497 - Release Date: 6/11/2008 8:32 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1499 - Release Date: 6/12/2008 7:13 AM