i dont know and ask me again
Not necessarily.
Yes, that's correct. The longer wavelengths of radio waves mean that radio telescopes have poorer angular resolution compared to optical telescopes. This is because resolving power is inversely proportional to the wavelength of the electromagnetic waves being observed.
No, they do not. The angular resolution of a telescope is determined by the wavelength of the radiation it is measuring and its diameter. Since optical telescopes detect shorter wavelengths than radio telescopes, they generally have better angular resolution for viewing fine details.
interferometers because charge-coupled devices are only used in optical telescopes
Radio telescopes collect radio waves. Optical telescopes capture visible light waves.
No they are not bigger then radio telescopes at all.
Radio telescopes are generally much larger than optical telescopes for two reasons: First, the amount of radio radiation reaching Earth from space is tiny compared with optical wavelengths, so a large collecting area is essential. Second, the long wavelengths of radio waves mean that diffraction severely limits the resolution unless large instruments are used.
They are optical telescopes.
Yes, that is correct.
Radio telescopes collect radio waves. Optical telescopes capture visible light waves.
Basically, the catadioptric telescope is just one of the 3 main types of the optical telescopes.The other 2 main types of optical telescopes are the refracting telescopes and the reflecting telescopes.
No. The gain of the antenna ... which translates directly into angular resolution ... depends on the wavelength (frequency) of operation.The 2.5 meter optical parabolic reflector (telescope) on Mt. Wilson is a titan. 2.5 meter parabolic radio antennas are routinely used in intercity microwave communication but would be quite useless for serious radio-astronomy, as they are such shrimps at radio wavelengths.