1 / 38

How does Optical-IR interferometry work?

How does Optical-IR interferometry work?. Gianluca Li Causi, INAF – OAR Simone Antoniucci, Univ. Tor Vergata. Contents:. Can a single telescope observe sources smaller than /D ?. How does interferometry go beyond this limit ?. What do we really measure with an interferometer ?.

bryony
Download Presentation

How does Optical-IR interferometry work?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. How does Optical-IR interferometry work? Gianluca Li Causi, INAF – OAR Simone Antoniucci, Univ. Tor Vergata

  2. Contents: • Can a single telescope observe sources smaller than /D ? • How does interferometry go beyond this limit ? • What do we really measure with an interferometer ? • How to get information on observed sources ? • How to realize the Young experiment with telescopes ? • What are the differences between LBT and VLTI ?

  3. The /D resolution limit: the Point Spread function • Pointlike source at infinity  Fraunhofer diffraction • Circular aperture Airy figure Pupil Function: Circular aperture 1.22 /D Focal plane Point Spread Function:

  4. Airy Binary The /D resolution limit: the Rayleigh criterion • Double pointlike star -> Rayleigh criterion: minimum resolvable feature ~ /D • Rayleigh criterion is empirical: it comes from visual observation 1.22 /D Single star Double star Image formation equation: Fourier deconvolution: • So, model fitting of the PSF or deconvolution should be able to resolve structures smaller than /D !

  5. The /D resolution limit: beyond /D ? • Theoretical limitations: • The PSF of any finite aperture is upper limited in spatial frequency Image decomposition in spatial frequencies: Power Spectrum of the PSF: OTF + = + low freq mid freq hi freq D/ spatial frequency Optical Transfer Function • So, a single telescope acts as a low-pass spatial filter.

  6. OTF OTF OTF D/ D/ D/ spatial frequency spatial frequency spatial frequency Same image The /D resolution limit: beyond /D ? • Theoretical limitations: • The PSF of any finite aperture is upper limited in spatial frequency • Sources with power spectra differing only at high frequencies (i.e. > D/) form identical images at the focal plane of a telescope! D/ • So, deconvolution and model fitting have no unique solutions • So /D is a limit in the sense that the information on smaller scales can beonly partially reconstructed.

  7. Baseline B Interferometry: the Young experiment • Pointlike source at infinity -> Fraunhofer diffraction • Two circular apertures -> Fringes on Airy figure Interferometric Pupil Aperture /B Focal plane Interferometric PSF, monochromatic • Fringes intensity:

  8. Baseline B Interferometry: the Young experiment • Pointlike source at infinity  Fraunhofer diffraction • Two circular apertures Fringes on Airy figure  one spatial frequency (B/l) added Interferometric Pupil OTF Aperture B1 B2 B3 D/ B/ (B+D)/ spatial frequency /B Interferometric OTF Focal plane Interferometric PSF, monochromatic • Interferometry gives access to higher frequencies: resolution limit is /(B+D) ~ /B • More baselines  more frequencies

  9. v BY B BX u Interferometry: the u,v plane • Observing with a baseline B  observing the B/l spatial frequency u,v plane: spatial frequencies plane OTF Aperture B D/ B/ spatial frequency Usually, spatial frequency in terms of baseline components: u = BX/l v = BY/l

  10. Baseline B Baseline B y y x x Interferometry: double star closer than /D • Wide band images of a pointlike double star Double star along baseline direction projected on sky Double star orthogonal to projected baseline d < /D u = BX/ v = BY/ D/ B/ D/ B/ spatial frequency spatial frequency • Interferometry increases resolution only along projected baseline

  11. Interferometric observables: the visibility • Pointlike source -> high contrast fringes • Resolved source -> low contrast fringes Point-like source (size < /B) Resolved source (size > /B) • Unresolved -> high SNR, resolved -> low SNR • The best we resolve the source, the worst we see the fringes !

  12. Interferometric observables: the visibility • Pointlike source high contrast fringes • Resolved source low contrast fringes Resolved source (size > /B) (incoherent light) spatialcoherence factor or visibility V fringe contrast Van Cittert – Zernike theorem: O(x,y): source brightness distribution on sky • The fringe contrast, i.e. visibility modulus, is dependent on the source shape • Hence, a measure of V(u,v) gives information on the source O(x,y)

  13. Image reconstruction: the u,v coverage • So, the Visibility is a Complex Function defined on the (u,v) plane The relation: is invertible v -1 • The source is the inverse Fouriertransform of the complex visibility. The Real Part of V is the FT of the symmetric component of the object, the Imaginary Part is the antysymmetric component. u …BUT this is possible only if V is known on the WHOLE u,v plane • So, the highest the u,v coverage the better the O(x,y) reconstruction

  14. Image reconstruction: how to fill the u,v plane? • Use many baselines: arrays of telescopes  VLTI, ALMA • Use large apertures D respect to baseline B  LBT • Use Earth rotation to scan the u,v plane  VLTI, LBT, all

  15. 22.4 m Image reconstruction with LBT Projected Baseline 8.4 m 8.4 m u,v coverage of LBT Projected Baseline reconstruction real source single images with two baselines psf

  16. 4 UTs (8m) v u u-v plane 4 ATs (2m) Interferometry with sparse u,v sampling - VLTI • Visibility modelling instead of image reconstruction Baselines: 47 – 130m VLTI @ Paranal Baselines: 8 – 200m

  17. Uniform disk Visibility curves • Visibility for a limited number of spatial frequencies  need of amodel for the source brightness distribution • Visibility curve = visibility amplitude vs spatial frequencies (baseline) • Model  Fourier Transform  expected visibility curve Let’s see some examples of visibility curves

  18. 1 mas uniform disk VLTI–VINCI on y Phe • Visibility amplitude V info on source size • Unresolved source (<< /B) V ~ 1 • Resolved source ( ~ /B) V ~ 0 100 mas Measurements fit visibility curve  get model parameters Visibility curves

  19. Uniform disk Limb darkened disk Gaussian disk UD + hot spot UD + hole UD + cold spot Binary (equal brightness) Binary (different brightness) Visibility curves • Visibility for a limited number of spatial frequencies  need amodel for the source brightness distribution • Visibility curve = visibility amplitude vs spatial frequencies (baseline) • Model  FT  expected visibility curve Let’s see some examples of visibility curves

  20. Instrumentation @ VLTI • VINCI • Combines the light from 2 telescopes in the K band •  ~ 4 mas (100m baseline) • lim. magnitude (mK < 11) • MIDI • Combines the light from 2 telescopes in the N band •  ~ 20 mas in N (100m baseline) • Light interferes, then is dispersed •  Visibility at different wavelengths • (“visibility spectrum”, up to R ~ 200) • lim. magnitude (mN < 4, UTs) • AMBER • Combines the light from 2 or 3 telescopes in the H, K bands •  ~ 4 mas in K (100m baseline) • Visibility spectrum (up to R ~ 1500) • lim. magnitude (mK < 4 – 7, UTs) Analyse “differential” visibilities: Vlinevs Vcontinuum get info on geometry of different emission zones VINCI measurements MIDI measurements AMBER measurements

  21. A scientific case – 1) modelling Observation of the young stellar source Z CMa with AMBER (ESO P76 - Nisini, Antoniucci, Li Causi, Lorenzetti, Paresce, Giannini) HI emission: discriminate between origin in accretion flows or wind • Investigate source central regions  tens of mas  use AMBER • Model for the source: • HI emission from an infalling/outflowing spherical ionized envelope • Optically thick face-on disk, T  R-1/2 • Central star, black body spectrum Model (Radiative Transfer software “RaT” - Li Causi, Antoniucci) brightness distribution • visibility (visibility computation software “IVC”– Li Causi) visibility curve  prepare observations…

  22. A scientific case – 2) planning observations Accretion Line Continuum Visibility Wind Baseline (m) UT1 + UT2 + UT4 AMBER: K band, R ~ 1500 • Compare: • visibility in the Brg line • (2.17 mm spectral channel) • visibility in the continuum • (in an adjacent spectral channel) UT1 + UT2 + UT4 VLT telescopes

  23. A scientific case – 3) data dark phot #1 interfer phot #2 phot #3 LAOG (Grenoble) software for AMBER data reduction AMBER 3 telescopes images Source Calibrator Data analysis in progress, but there seem to be no fringes! • Problems: • Light injection: poor adaptive optics performance • Source fainter than expected • Very low visibility?

  24. VLA 2’ x 1’ VLA Cygnus A @ 21 cm Young experiment realizations: radio vs. optical-IR • Radio -> light interferes in heterodyne mode correlator  tape recorder   laser reference atomic clock • Heterodyne: - waves interfere with a local reference - recorded and combined later - no physical connection between telescopes

  25. Young experiment realizations: radio vs. optical-IR • Optical-IR -> light interferes in homodyne mode  beam combiner • Heterodyne is not sensible for <10÷100m because uncertainty principle gives lower SNR respect to homodyne. • Homodyne: - waves are physically combined - telescopes are optically connected

  26. Optical-IR interference with two telescopes • Independent mount telescopes, e.g. VLTI • Single mount telescopes, e.g. LBT optical path difference OPD projected baseline short baseline B long baseline B adaptive optics beam combiner sideral motion delay line fringe tracker • Zero OPD -> no delay lines • Short (~20m) and fixed baseline • Medium resolution ~20mas • Variable OPD -> variable delay lines • Long and variable (30÷200m) proj. baseline • High resolution ~2mas

  27. Michelson and Fizeau beam combining • Light interferes on the focal plane -> Fizeau or “image plane” interferometry • Light interferes in collimated beams -> Michelson or “pupil plane” interferometry B D Michelson (VLTI) beam splitter b MIDI@VLTI d pupils homoteticity b/d = B/D Fizeau (LBT) OPD scan detector Intensity • Single point (~ 100 mas) interferogram OPD • Large interf. image (up to 2 arcmin)

  28. VLTI optical delay lines

  29. Fiber optic combiners for pupil-plane interferometers • Monomodal fibers and spectral dispersion integrated optics prism monomodal fibers detector Michelson (VLTI) 50mas

  30. Types of observations with Optical-IR interferometry • Modellable sources: visibility from two or more telescopes (stellar diameters, binary orbits, circumstellar envelopes and disks – MIDI_&_AMBER@VLTI) • Image reconstruction: aperture synthesis from high (u,v) coverage (sources morphology – LINC_NIRVANA@LBT) • Wide-angle astrometry: /B precision over degrees (VLTI) • Narrow-angle astrometry: ~ 10-2/B precision over isoplanatic angle (reflex motion of stars due to exoplanets – PRIMA@VLTI) • Nulling interferometry: ~ 10-4-10-9 attenuation of on-axis source (extrasolar planets direct observation – NIL@LBT) reference star Shao et al. 1990

  31. Nulling interferometry: the Bracewell concept • Co-axial beam combination with  phase shift in one arm (NIL@LBT, GENIE@VLTI) beam splitter  phase shifter Star plus 10-6 flux planet

  32. LBT versus VLTI ? Different instruments: complementarity, not competitiveness: • LBT: • resolution (K band): 25mas, Airy disk 100mas • FoV: 20 arcsec • limiting K magnitude (LINC): 25mag in 1h for K band filter • spectral channels: 1 channel at a time (broad or narrow filter) • mirrors before combining: 3 (primary, secondary, Nasmyth) • u-v coverage: quite uniform from zero to max freq. • imaging time: one night • adaptive optics (NIRVANA): Multi-FoV Layer-Oriented • VLTI: • resolution (K band): down to 2mas, Airy disk 56mas • FoV: 2 arcsec MIDI at 10m, 56mas AMBER (H,K band) • limiting K magnitude (AMBER): 17mag* in 15min for hi-res mode R=1000 • spectral channels (AMBER): 27 channels at hi-res mode R=1000 • mirrors before combining: ~20 (telescope plus delay line) • u-v coverage: narrow around baseline freq. (low freq. filtered out) • imaging time: many nights • adaptive optics: MACAO • * So far fringe tracking FINITO is not yet working, so current AMBER limit is 4.5mag

  33. LBT versus VLTI ? Different instruments: complementarity, not competitiveness. • Limiting magnitude of VLTI and LBT with fringe tracking is roughly comparable • LBT samples the shorter baselines which are inaccessible to VLTI • VLTI is best suited for high resolution on morphologically simple sources • LBT is best suited for complex objects sampled at lower but uniform resolution

  34. LBT and VLTI: example #1 Extrasolar planets direct observation via nulling interferometry • requires very low background at 10m, i.e. thermal infrared:NIL@LBT: all cryogenic, only 3 warm mirrors (primary, secondary, Nasmyth) • VLTI: at least 20 warm mirrors (telescope, delay lines, etc.) • requires high nulling, i.e. minimize nulling leakage from not-pointlike stars: • LBT: short baseline (22.4m) -> 10pc stars less resolved -> low leakage • VLTI: long baselines (30-200m) -> 10pc stars resolved -> high leakage • requires simultaneous imaging of exo zodiacal light: • LBT: true imaging for scales greater than 0.25” @ 10m • VLTI: no imaging • does not require high resolution: • LBT: good compromise between leackage and resolution • VLTI: greater resolution but also greater leackage • LBT is best tailored for such kind of observations, but: Extrasolar planets indirect observation via reflex motion of star • requires very high resolution: • PRIMA@VLTI: down to 10arcsec narrow angle astrometry with differential phase • VLTI is best tailored for such kind of observations

  35. LBT and VLTI: example #2 Investigating the inner regions of star forming disks • requires high resolution spectroscopy to get Br line and nearby continuum: • LBT: would need two observations in different narrow filters • AMBER@VLTI: spectral resolution Ry10000 with 27 channels simultaneously • requires high spatial resolution ~2-10mas: • LBT: structure not resolved by short baseline (22.4m) • VLTI: structure resolved by long baselines (30-200m) • VLTI is best tailored for such kind of observations, but: Investigating the transversal structure of the base of star forming jets • requires imaging in narrow band filters of H2 and [FeII] lines • requires arcsec resolution along the jetdirection • requires sub-arcsec resolution orthogonal to the jet: • LBT: satisfies the requirements for a field of 20 arcsec • LBT is best tailored for such kind of observations

  36. OAR technological contribution: LINC-NIRVANA@LBT (D’Alessio, Di Paola, Lorenzetti, Li Causi, Pedichini, Speziali, Vitali) “Patrol Camera” adaptive optics • Replied to ESO Call for second generation VLTI instrumentation: • “VLTI Spectro-Imager”: imaging with 6 telescopes @ JHK • “MATISSE”: dispersed fringes with 4 telescopes @ LMNQ

More Related