Mihai
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,621
Generally speaking it is about 100 times more powerful than Hubble telescope.For a dummy: What is so special about this?
Generally speaking it is about 100 times more powerful than Hubble telescope.For a dummy: What is so special about this?
It means it can see stars going back millions & millions of years ago that no longer exist.For a dummy: What is so special about this?
I assume he means 300 million light years. I think basically (it almost certainly doesn't work like this but pretend it does) imagine the telescope is capturing the image as a pixelated one. One typically sized star 300 million light years away would be approximately one pixel in size when it hits the receptor. If you're looking at something much smaller like a moon then it wouldn't be able to resolve it as "one pixel" at 300 million light years (perhaps it would only be tens of thousands of light years), and if you were looking at something much larger like a galaxy then you would be able to resolve it as "one pixel" at much further away than 300 million light years. And I could be really wrong on this one as it's pretty much just a guess, but I think you can change the focus on the telescope and look for different wavelengths to see e.g. a moon that's aligned with a planet behind which is aligned with a star behind which is aligned with a galaxy etc. If your telescope wasn't really sharp all you might be able to see would be the really bright galaxy or star but as it gets sharper and cleverer I think you can see more and more detail at different depths of field. Basically it's all a really complicated version of Father Ted saying "small....far away"!Can anyone explain what he means at 55:38 when he says "with a telescope like that, you can resolve everything in the universe to about 300 light years"?
More like it can see galaxies forming 13.4 billion years ago.It means it can see stars going back millions & millions of years ago that no longer exist.
For a dummy: What is so special about this?
Plus getting it in space is an absolutely amazing feat of engineering. Once fully deployed, the telescope will have a mirror with a diameter of 6.5m, with a sunshield behind it with a surface of 14m by 21m. All that went into space yesterday folded up in the tip of an Ariane-V rocket and will unfold automatically once the vessel has reached its destination point. It's mind-boggling how they managed that.Generally speaking it is about 100 times more powerful than Hubble telescope.
Not sure that's what that means, because other telescopes can already resolve stars much further away than 300 million light years. The Ultra Deep Field sees stars as they were 13.2 billion years ago. I think "resolve" must mean something much more than just a pixel.One typically sized star 300 million light years away would be approximately one pixel in size when it hits the receptor. I
Happy to take your word for it if that's true but it's definitely the case that you can see bigger stuff from further away than you can see smaller stuff. If Hubble has seen light from galaxy/star formation from 13.2 billion years ago that absolutely wouldn't surprise me but I'd be surprised if it's seen a clear image of the star itself. As I said "imagine it as one pixel" I really don't think it actually works like that. For one thing you can stitch all kinds of images together over time and from different bits of your orbit and whatnot and build composite images. I'm sure there's all kinds of insanely clever things they can do to process the images.Not sure that's what that means, because other telescopes can already resolve stars much further away than 300 million light years. The Ultra Deep Field sees stars as they were 13.2 billion years ago. I think "resolve" must mean something much more than just a pixel.
That's what I thought. In the context of what he's talking about, ie a 25m version of hubble giving far greater clarity, even compared to JW which has a different purpose... but I'm so far out of my comfort zone on this that I couldn't begin to correct someone else.Not sure that's what that means, because other telescopes can already resolve stars much further away than 300 million light years. The Ultra Deep Field sees stars as they were 13.2 billion years ago. I think "resolve" must mean something much more than just a pixel.
Well yes, I just wanted to keep it simpleMore like it can see galaxies forming 13.4 billion years ago.
As stated earlier in the thread - in about 6 months.When will we get pictures?
Oh I read really quick and thought it was about getting stuff ready and in place. Cool.As stated earlier in the thread - in about 6 months.
I know that you have a pretty good understanding of Cosmology. So would appreciate your comment.Not sure that's what that means, because other telescopes can already resolve stars much further away than 300 million light years. The Ultra Deep Field sees stars as they were 13.2 billion years ago. I think "resolve" must mean something much more than just a pixel.
Might be easier to understand its importance in comparison to the Hubble telescope:For a dummy: What is so special about this?
We might see some pictures during the calibration phase of the stars it's using to calibrate itself. But new stuff will only be after the calibration is done and that is six months.When will we get pictures?
The Cosmic Background Explorer and WMAP have already looked back at that super hot early period. There's not actually much to see, just a bunch of fairly uniform protons and neutrons. JWT is designed to look after that early period when the clouds of Hydrogen and Helium began to form stars to understand how and where it happened.I know that you have a pretty good understanding of Cosmology. So would appreciate your comment.
My understanding is that the early Universe was far too hot for atoms to have formed. The plasma meant that there was just free protons and free electrons because they were moving too fast for the Strong Force to take effect.
At about 186,000 years, it became cool enough for hydrogen and helium to form. And this is referred to as Recombination.
Some time after this, the first stars and galaxies were born.
So this early period is what it is hoped that the JW Space Telescope is going to reveal?
I don't think the jwst will be able to as it were lift the veil on that 380,000 year period. I posted a vid a page or so ago which made it live for me what it's going to discover. The infa red aspect is to peer through Gas clouds of Galaxies as well as being far more powerful than hubble.I know that you have a pretty good understanding of Cosmology. So would appreciate your comment.
My understanding is that the early Universe was far too hot for atoms to have formed. The plasma meant that there was just free protons and free electrons because they were moving too fast for the Strong Force to take effect.
At about 186,000 years, it became cool enough for hydrogen and helium to form. And this is referred to as Recombination.
Some time after this, the first stars and galaxies were born.
So this early period is what it is hoped that the JW Space Telescope is going to reveal?
This isn't that, but it's a thing:I want a kind of tracker app like I had with the iss. I want to know when the stages are happening so I can keep track. Is there one I couldn't find anything on play store
Yea was watching that earlier. We'll have to keep checking the nasa channel. What is it 2 weeks till lg2 point?This isn't that, but it's a thing:
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.htmlI want a kind of tracker app like I had with the iss. I want to know when the stages are happening so I can keep track. Is there one I couldn't find anything on play store
Looks like a crypto website, must be a load of meme coins already.
Thanks.The Cosmic Background Explorer and WMAP have already looked back at that super hot early period. There's not actually much to see, just a bunch of fairly uniform protons and neutrons. JWT is designed to look after that early period when the clouds of Hydrogen and Helium began to form stars to understand how and where it happened.
Secondary mirror done (the smaller one at the front), the big one to do still. Hope all those hexagons still fit together...75% of the work is done. Just the mirror unfolding to do now.
Hexagons? So not pentagons, right? Because if I made them pentagon shaped they wouldn't fit together properly would they?Secondary mirror done (the smaller one at the front), the big one to do still. Hope all those hexagons still fit together...
This isn't the right thread to troll in.Hexagons? So not pentagons, right? Because if I made them pentagon shaped they wouldn't fit together properly would they?
.......shit.
Remember that satellite that crashed because someone worked in imperial while everyone else worked in metric?Hexagons? So not pentagons, right? Because if I made them pentagon shaped they wouldn't fit together properly would they?
.......shit.
That was the Mars Orbiter.Remember that satellite that crashed because someone worked in imperial while everyone else worked in metric?
Not kidding!
That was crazy - especially that anyone working in this sort of area would use anything else than metric measurements!That was the Mars Orbiter.
Summary article in Science: https://www.science.org/content/article/stars-may-form-10-times-faster-thoughtNature Briefing said:Stars might form way faster than we thought
A gas cloud could coalesce into a baby star ten times quicker than previously thought. Astronomers observed that the feeble magnetic fields outside the core of Lynds 1544, the beginnings of a star that’s forming in the Taurus Molecular Cloud, are even weaker than predicted. That gives gravity free rein in that region to crush enough gas together to spark nuclear fusion. “The paper basically says that gravity wins in the cloud: that’s where stars start to form, not in the dense core,” says astrophysicist Paola Caselli. “If this is proven to be the case in other gas clouds, it will be revolutionary for the star formation community.”