I love these comparison pictures between the Hubble and JWST
Same here. But we are assuming alien life is like us and requires liquid water and warmth.As amazing as the images are, the one that got my attention the most of the "First Five" was the spectroscopic data from WASP-96b's atmosphere (from 1150 light years away!). With this technology, it won't be long till we identify exoplanets in their habitable zone with water in the atmosphere.
This is all just the start. Can't wait to see what's next.
WOW. Picking up the images of the heated dust definitely adds an amazing spin from prior images.SIAP. This is awesome, at first glance the most spectacular of the pictures released so far.
James Webb Space Telescope's stunning 'Phantom Galaxy' picture looks like a wormhole
The telescope is 'new, different, and exciting' for Judy Schmidt, who has been working with space images for a decade.www.space.com
That's a great article and many of the findings makes my head spin. I simply can't find a way to comprehend some of time, size, and distance measures.Two Weeks In, the Webb Space Telescope Is Reshaping Astronomy | Quanta Magazine
In the days after the mega-telescope started delivering data, astronomers reported new discoveries about galaxies, stars, exoplanets and even Jupiter.www.quantamagazine.org
Interesting. It's a bit of a way off, and it's going to be land based.
Average density of the universe is roughly 5.9 protons per cubic meter.That's a great article and many of the findings makes my head spin. I simply can't find a way to comprehend some of time, size, and distance measures.
For example:
thousands of galaxies in a pinprick-size portion of the sky
light emitted 400 million years after the Big Bang
1 billion times the mass of our sun
a galaxy 24 million light-years away ("what is 140,990,139,648,000,000,000 miles Alex")
There's no place like home.
View attachment 215318
Hmmm, doing some quick maths, the mass of an infinitely large universe is ... infinite. Did I do that right?Average density of the universe is roughly 5.9 protons per cubic meter.
Yes.Hmmm, doing some quick maths, the mass of an infinitely large universe is ... infinite. Did I do that right?
I had similar thoughts watching the DART mission. If we really needed the planetary defense, could NASA get the thing off the ground?Watching NASA stumble and bumble with the moon rocket drives home the point that it's a miracle nothing went wrong getting Webb out there.
I had similar thoughts watching the DART mission. If we really needed the planetary defense, could NASA get the thing off the ground?
But if the universe had a beginning (Big Bang) then it cannot be infinite. Right? (Unless it transcends logic)Hmmm, doing some quick maths, the mass of an infinitely large universe is ... infinite. Did I do that right?
Good stuff. I had thought, though, that all the intensity/brightness calibration stuff was being done in advance of the release of first public images in July. I wonder why it wasn't...Fascinating article about the science of interpreting the Webb data.
‘Bit of panic’: Astronomers forced to rethink early Webb telescope findings
Revised instrument calibrations are bedevilling work on the distant Universe.www.nature.com
Good stuff. I had thought, though, that all the intensity/brightness calibration stuff was being done in advance of the release of first public images in July. I wonder why it wasn't...